Four Fantastic Documentaries I've Seen This Summer

Gotta love documentaries. Well, then again, I guess you don’t gotta, but if you don’t, then there is probably something wrong with you. But that is neither here nor there, because if you don’t love documentaries, then you’re probably not reading this. And if you do like documentaries, then you’re probably getting irritated that I have not gone ahead and started the frickin’ post already. *sighs* Alright, on with the show.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, it’s a classic. The title is a Native American word from the Hopi language meaning "Life out of balance," and the film suggests that that is just what modern living is. When I first began my quest of film snobbery, I watched this film. My friend and fellow contributor said this was like taking the elevator while everyone else was taking the stairs. I mean, as soon as you see the film, you’re instantly cultured. It contains no “script” whatsoever, only a series of videos and pictures which contrast nature to our current lifestyle in the post-Industrial West. It is brilliant and beautiful, and many of the shots are breath-taking. My favorite shot was when they transposed the rows of hotdogs going down an assembly line with a multitude of people going through rows of escalators. It was really wonderful – you just have to see it to appreciate what I’m saying. So for that reason and many others, go watch the film and become disillusioned with our consumerist/industrialists lifestyles which are certainly contrary to Creation. 5/5

For the Bible Tells Me So

A specifically Christian documentary which deals with the issue of GLBT[1] inclusion in the Church. It follows several Christian families as they deal with this issue personally, some who become pro-inclusion and others that remain “conservative.” For the most part, although the documentary is certainly biased towards inclusion, it is fair, and does not misrepresent dissenting views. This is a serious issue in the Church, and I think if anyone wishes to have an opinion on it, they need to openly and honestly deal with the objections and arguments - from several areas – that this documentary raises. 4.3/5

Deliver Us from Evil

This truly upsetting documentary has for its subject Oliver O’Grady, the infamous priest who raped and molested over one hundred children in California while filling the role of priest in several Catholic Churches. It deals very brutally with the horror of O’Grady’s crime, but has in the background a more sinister culprit that worked very hard for the sake of politics and saving face to hide the crimes: the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I love the Church, and hold myself as part of her fold, and that includes without shame my Catholic brothers, from Pope to Priest to “lay” person. However, I was as indignant and sorrowful and ashamed as anyone (especially as a Christian) when this documentary exposed the horrible actions of this Diocese and this priest, then showed the systemic cycle of evil that was happening all over the churches. There are several awful, heart-wrenching scenes that will bring tears to the eyes. 4.9/5

The End of Suburbia

This film tackles the ever-rising issue of the coming energy crisis, centered around our own oil-based economy. It argues cogently that oil depletion is very real, and that the decline of oil production will force the American culture with its mega-consumerism and silly spending like there is no tomorrow to be altered drastically. As our economic changes out of pure necessity (probably bringing with it some dark times), communities (so the film prophesizes) will become localized, centralized (“walkable”), and more self-sufficient. As our oil-based economy all but collapses, prices of all things will skyrocket because of our reliance upon trucks and highways. The local community will become the new economy, and people will become local producers. This is all, of course, a very important issue. However, I came away from the film with a great deal of hope. I think in many ways these predictions sound like a greater humanity, and perhaps the crisis could bring a great deal of good with it. Time will only tell. But regardless, it was a really good film. 4/5

---

[1] That’s “Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered” for those less informed ;).

Decalogue Five: Thou Shall Not Kill

"The law should not imitate nature, the law should improve nature.

People invented the law to govern their relationships.

The law determined who we are and how we live. We either observe it, or we break it.

People are free. Their freedom is limited only by the freedom of others.

Punishment means revenge.

In particular when it aims to harm, but it does not prevent crime.

For whom does the law avenge?

In the name of the innocent? Do the innocent make the rules?"

So, I'm writing this review, but I don't want to. I told Alex I would, then I gave it back to him, took it back, gave it back, and finally somewhere along the way it was generally understood that I was writing this review. Here's why I don't want to: (1) it's about the death penalty, so it's a messy subject; (2) it's the most non-linear of the episodes thus far, which might go to the issue that this is a truly messy issue with no easy answers -- this was not an easy episode to watch; (3) with those 2 issues being said, this episode was my favorite so far by far. It's hard to review what you love (see my Wall-E review for confirmation of that).

I am against the death penalty. It's been quite a hard road to come to this position, but I've come to it because the death penalty essentially de-humanizes the criminal. It makes them a non-person, having forfeited all rights. I'm reminded of the ancient practice where the condemned, just before their execution, would have their name erased from the civic registry. It's like they never existed. I just can't see the redemptive aspect there. I know many will argue that being on death row increases the possibility that the criminal will seek redemption with the victim's family and with Christ, but that's simply not justification for denying someone their humanity.

The Krysztof's (Kieślowski and Piesiewicz) are in full agreement here. This is not a balanced look at the death penalty. This is not Dead Man Walking. The state machinery of death is given the same level of scrutiny and condemnation as the punk kid who kills the cabbie. The Watcher even looks on both with indignation (holding a "measuring rod" in one scene -- is this the image of the Law as the "Standard" to measure up to?)

I love that they didn't make the criminal "good at heart," like some contemporary version of Jean Valjean. He's not. He's a punk. He watches in amusement as some fellow hooligans run down and beat up some poor victim. He tosses rocks off of overpasses and watches the ensuing automobile accidents. And, in one bizarre (and downright disgusting) moment, he tosses a young man into a urinal because he came whistling into the restroom. He's one brief step from a sociopath. He doesn't have a reason to kill the cabbie, he does because he can.

He's not good. But he's human. And the state can't deny that. The way they kill is in diametric oppostion to how the kid kills, but that doesn't make it any more justifiable. The kid's strangling of the cabbie takes a long time, and after a number of attempts, and various instruments used, he finally finishes the job. The state's method is quick and clean -- a simple jerk of the neck in a small antiseptic room. They've done this enough to have the procedure down pat. But I'm left wondering at the end of the film if the motivation for the state's killing isn't too far different from the kid. The state kills because it can.

The hero of the film is the young idealistic lawyer. The film opens with his monologue quoted above. He's been asked the question before, and the answer seemed easier then (he doesn't, as I recall, mention if his answer hasn't changed -- as mine would have over the years). He's the hero of the film because he never loses the young man's humanity. What the state says is "justice," he rightly calls "revenge."

When we look at something like capital punishment from a distance, the answers seem clear, the problems look inconsequential. But ethics is not done in a vacuum. We deal with the lives of people, messed-up people who despite the evil that works in them and through them never quite forgo everything that makes them human. Theory is easy; people are hard. One of the key image/metaphors used throughout these series of films is glass. Kieślowski and his DP's (he used a variety of them) are masters of using refractions and reflections. We often look and judge the characters of these films through glass (a glass "darkly"?). Maybe that's the point -- we use our moralism as a way to maintain distance and separation from these people's actual lives. We base our judgment of people based purely on image rather than truth. The truth is: whatever the evil in them, they never cease being what God created.

After Alex and I finished the film, we went back to hear (and copy down) the monologue that begins the film. And after the line, "Do the innocent make the rules," Alex said something like, "Sounds like 'he who is without sin cast the first stone.'" Indeed it does.

The Clint Howard Honorary "That Guy" of the Month Award Goes To. . .

David Paymer.

Who? [That's what you're supposed to say with one of these -- it's what makes him a "That Guy"].

Here's where you probably know him: the V.U.P. in Ocean's 13. He's the one reviewing Al Pacino's hotel for the coveted Five Diamond Award, and who gets the bedbug treatment and the "Susan B. Anthony" (the huge slot machine jackpot gift) in the end.

[Ah! Now I know where I've seen him before -- that what you're supposed to say now.]

Saw him in David Mamet's Redbelt last night (good flick, interesting character story, little bit of a forced and bit-too-brief denouement -- give it a solid 4 out of 5). Paymer's becoming one of the Mamet Players, with roles also in Spartan and State and Main.

Here's also where you may have seen him: City Slickers, Quiz Show, Get Shorty (played the guy who swindled the airline company insurance when he didn't get on the plane that crashed), The American President, Amistad, and Payback (the one where Mel Gibson plays an anti-hero). So the guy works (there's 132 acting roles listed in his IMDb page). He even received a best supporting actor Oscar nomination for playing Billy Crystal's brother in Mr. Saturday Night (which almost disqualifies him for the "Clinty"). However, he did have a role in Howard the Duck, which I think evens everything out.

However, the true reason to award this month's Clinty to David Paymer is because he must be the only actor in the world to lose an acting gig to Howie Mandel (for "St. Elsewhere"). That must of stung. Here's hoping this month's Clinty will heal those deep and lasting wounds.

The Player: Now More than Ever

I just got done watching The Player. I had thought it was the first time, and maybe this has happened to you before, but I realized about half way through – “Hey! I’ve seen this movie before!” The first time was in High School, and I remember liking it, but I cannot imagine I understood it enough to appreciate it. A Robert Altman film, it simultaneously pays homage to and satirizes the long tradition of Hollywood movie-making. Just as we might expect from the guy who did Gosford Park, he was a master of laying conversations upon conversations.[1] He also makes use of several movies posters to undergird the storyline, which provide an almost witty commentary to the film’s plot moves.[2] Perhaps most impressively, there is a seven minute shot to open the movie – quite well done – and certainly paying homage to Touch of Evil (Orson Welles) and Rope (Alfred Hitchcock).[3]

The gist of the movie is a “dirt-bag studio exec” (Robbins) who starts getting harassed by a writer he apparently brushed. Postcards are coming, threatening his death. Growing steadily more uneasy by the continued threats as well as rumors that he is soon to lose his job, Robbins attempts to sought out the writer and get him to stop. This turns ugly, and he ends up killing the writer. The thriller ensues. If you want more, go watch the movie.

Now, I want this post to consider a major theme of the movie and then end with a question. As already stated, the film certainly critiques the business angle of Hollywood, making movies with stars and happy endings because that is what makes money, and not caring to represent reality – not caring for art. Over and over in the movie, the writers who wish to make art and commentate on reality are pitted against the studio execs who want to give the public the shallow entertainment they want. This is perfectly exemplified in the scene where Robbins accepts an honor at a party for donating a number of films to the LA museum. There he says something along the lines of: “The media is saying that films are not art, they are entertainment. But they are. Films are art, now more than ever.” But these stirring words are completely contradicted by the shabby shallow ending given to a movie that is developed throughout the film, first intending to end badly and represent reality, then given a blockbuster happy ending complete with witty, BS line. The film will of course, be a success.

My question is, has this changed? This has been a common critique of “Hollywood,”[4] and in the last decade or so (correct me if I’m wrong), we’ve seen the rise of the “Indie Film.” Often these films break the Hollywood conventions and have more gut-wrenching representations and critiques upon reality. Now I don’t mean to imply that it is some kind of shallow generality; Hollywood movies (whatever that even means) can and do represent reality, whereas some Indie films do have the very themes and misrepresentations Hollywood is critiqued for. However, it seems to me that perhaps the semi-recent popularity of the independent productions is because people are aching for the kind of things that are not glossed over, manipulated, or spiced up. They are looking for art that is real, that is almost unapologetic.

What do you think, oh Constant Reader? I invite, of course, any kind of corrections to my thinking – it really is an honest question. You might say, “Oh, Indie films have always been around and you’re wrong,” or “You’re speaking in false generalities,” or “It does not even make sense to talk in these broad categories of ‘Hollywood’ and ‘Indie,’” or all that other good stuff. But it seems like the Indie film has provided both artists and appreciators an arena to enjoy artistic manifestations that are a little more “real” than the common Hollywood pop-archetype. Does the critique of Hollywood in The Player stand true? Are the independent productions filling a void in the film audiences of the American world?

The Player – 3.92-4.6, depending on which aspect of the film we are talking about.

---

[1] Two things: 1) this is an anachronistic compliment, I know; 2) the scenes at the outside restaurants (the first with Cusack and Houston, the second with Burt Reynolds) are prime examples of this.

[2] My favorite was showing the poster for “M,” then dissolving to a table with a reservation upon it for Mr. “M” – Tim Robbins character is named Griffin Mill.

[3] And interestingly enough, both movies are mentioned during the scene.

[4] And other entertainment industries, such as music, where pop is disdained, and many connoisseurs listen to nothing but underground bands.

The Man Who Laughs (1928)

The Man Who Laughs is a silent film about the son of an English Lord, Gwynplaine, who is disfigured by a surgeon to punish his father in a political power struggle. The father is then “killed”[1] and the young boy banished. The boy does not make it to the boat, though, and is abandoned in a gallows near port. He finds a blind baby girl in the arms of her dead mother, and takes her with him as he searches for food and shelter from the cold. He is taken in by Ursus the philosopher, who raises him and the blind girl, Dea, and takes them on a circuit as the attraction “The Man Who Laughs.”

Gwynplaine, doomed to be disfigured, looking ever like a grinning clown, draws a great deal of crowd. As they grow up, Gwynplaine and Dea fall in love, but Gwynplaine will not marry Dea until another woman does not laugh at him. “It is not my right,” he says, referring to the fact that she has never seen his face. It is not long in the film before Gwynplaine’s heritage is discovered, and the Queen of England orders him made a peer and husband of a Duchess – a selfish, self-absorbed, and seductive woman. The love conflict ensues.

I had never watched a silent film before, and it was one of the more interesting experiences in my adventures in film. It was an engrossing flick. Much relies on the acting for the story to work without any dialogue, which it does in spades. The acting was without a doubt the most impressive part of the movie. It was only slightly overdone and mostly very believable. But for all the good acting, no one comes close in the film to the performance of Conrad Veidt, who plays Gwynplaine. You may or may not remember him from his role as Major Strasser in Casablanca. Throughout the film, he wears only a hideous grin, and yet despite the deformity, we are able to see an incredible array of emotions through his body language and especially his eyes: joy, sorrow, pain, terror, anger, and much more. He was simply amazing. Perhaps one of the greatest acting performances I have ever seen.

One scene I enjoyed in particular was when the Duchess, who both is attracted to and revolted by Gwynplaine, watches his show with a grimace on her face, and you are unable to understand what she is feeling until she sends her note to Gwynplaine: “I was the woman who did not laugh. Was it pity? Or was it love? My page will come for you at midnight.” We find out, it was both.

It is a good movie, no doubt. I don’t know how well the plot works, but it’s a good story and has its own culture, which comes through strongly in the telling. Based on a novel by Victor Hugo, it well portrays (at least, as far as I know) the differences in class as well as the political games played by the social elite of the 1700’s. There were several moments in the film where I actually laughed out loud. The love story of the film is told exquisitely – I mean perfectly. There is nothing like a tale of star-crossed lovers, and this is no exception. “God closed my eyes so I could see only the real Gwynplaine,” Dea says (whispers, as I imagine it in my mind)[2] to her man, and oh (*sighs*), you just believe her. And of course, as already stated, Veidt performance as the Man Who Laughs is haunting, piercing, and does not leave you quickly. Bob Kane and Bill Finger cited Veidt’s interpretation as the main inspiration for their infamous psychopathic killer the Joker, and it is not a stretch to see why.

[spoiler below - yeah, I don't know how to do Doug's nifty little "highlight to read spoiler" thing]

My one complaint for the film is that I wish it had incorporated Hugo’s original tragic ending, instead of the happy ending that is suddenly tacked on. I think it would have better captured the poignant spirit of the story, but it still works, and is well worth the watch. It is proper to rate such a classic film? I don’t know. Probably only a real jerk would. But since I’m just that kind of jerk, I’ll give a rating – aesthetic and mostly useless. The bottom line is, you should see the film regardless. But anywho…

4.98/5 (I’m still kinda pissed about that switcheroo on the ending)

---

[1] At least, they stick him in the “Iron Lady,” a metal shell shaped like a body with spikes on the inside, giving him a slow, incomprehensible death.

[2] That is the really interesting thing about silent film – much like a book, the freedom and limitations you are given to interpret the dialogue and acting. I mean, you hear the dialogue in your head; that’s your only option.

Prophetic Visage: Movie Advice of the Month

Or, "What NOT to Do When Given a Prophetic Message by a Strange, Usually Otherworldly Character concerning Impending Doom or Destruction of You and/or Your Loved Ones."

I've seen it a million times. Guy/Gal runs into some ethereal character or self-proclaimed oracle. Oracle tells him/her about at great tragedy that will befall them sometime in the future. In great anxiety, our character tries in vain to prevent the prophecy, and by their "preventative" actions, actually bring about the fulfillment of the prophecy itself. It's at least as old as Oedipus and Antigone.

So when given some message of negative destiny from some elusive doomsayer, we at Conversio suggest this: do nothing. Just continue on business as usual. Do your best to ignore the prophecy. Just get a cup of coffee, watch a movie, and try to forget the whole thing.

Some things to keep in mind:

1. Never try to kill the guy that is prophesied to destroy you, especially if he is your best friend. Chances are, your actions will begin the process that leads to your destruction.

2. Do not trust the advice of power-hungry, malicious, ambitious wives. This goes not only for prophetic instances, but life in general.

3. Do not trust old, mysterious men who shoot lightning out of their hands to have the ability to undo the prophetic pronouncement. This is a really, really bad idea (though it could lead to having a really cool voice).

If this does not work, and doing nothing does, no pun intended, absolutely nothing to prevent the prophecy, well, please do not blame us for this advice. I mean, it was a fateful prophecy. Hard to compete with that.


______________________________________

By the way, I apologize for the hiatus. School has begun again, and I have been very busy. I have seen several great movies, and hope to update you soon. Until then, peace.

Random Movie Question: Song for End Credits

At the risk of amplifying an aesthetic debate by combining music with film, here's this week's RMQ:

What is your favorite song for the end credits of a movie?

Lots of great options here. I've learned my lesson from the first RMQ and not suck the oxygen out of the discussion by only offering one opinion here (though there would be lots to choose from):

I love, love , love the use of "Shape of My Heart" by Sting at the end of Leon: The Professional. Great song, and I love the closing shot of Natalie Portman's Mathilda as she puts Leon's plant in the ground. [Highlight to read spoiler]