Documentaries and an Oliver Stone Film
"Savages"
starring: Taylor Kitsch, Blake Lively, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Benicio Del Toro, Selma Hayek, John Travolta
directed by: Oliver Stone
I wanted to like and enjoy "Savages" because it seemed like Oliver Stone was attempting to get back to a style of filmmaking that made him famous and infamous in the 1990s, but ultimately the writing is not done well enough to really hold the film together. The voiceover of the girl, O (Blake Lively) becomes annoying pretty much right off the bat. I'm not a fan of voiceovers, to begin with, and here it seemed contrived and quite unnecessary. And then, there's the ending of the film, which I won't spoil here, but it's almost like Oliver Stone is being self-indulgent and just cannot seem to snip and cut pieces of his own film, like he wants us to see everything he films, but this particular ending just comes off rather insulting to the audience. But, I think the major fault in this film lies within Stone's chosen stars- three young actors who really haven't proven themselves worthy of carrying a film and then there's the characters' storyline, the idea that they are in an equal and loving threesome is just kind of ridiculous. It's Stone trying to be controversial. Blake Lively is better known for her run on "Gossip Girl" and Taylor Kitsch gained his following by playing that bad body Riggins on "Friday Night Lights." Both were perfect and fitting in their respectively roles, but on film here, they just fall short and disappoint.
Up against their counterparts, found in Benicio del Toro, Salma Hakey and John Travolta, the young actors just pale in comparison- and it's not really their fault. These veterans know how to act and seem born to play these roles. "Savages" is ultimately Oliver Stone's version of "Traffic" which was a worthy Academy Award winning film about the border wars with drugs.
I would probably skip this one, simply because of its length and disengaging story. Watch Stone's earlier films instead, like "Natural Born Killers."
..........................................................
"Brave Miss World"
starring: Linor Abargil
directed by: Cecilia Peck
.....................................................................
"Broadway Idiot"
starring: Billie Joe Armstrong
directed by: Doug Hamilton
......................................................................
"So Much, So Fast"
starring: Stephen Heywood, Jamie Heywood, John Heywood, Wendy Heywood, Melinda Heywood
written and directed by: Steven Ascher and Jeanne Jordan
It's interesting and perhaps no coincidence that this documentary about a man, Stephen Heywood, suffering from the effects of ALS landed itself, streaming, on Netflix right around the time of the craze known as the "ice bucket challenge" sweeping through our nation, dare I say, world. A challenge trying to expose people to horrors of the disease by challenging friends and family to donate money in order to generate more funds for research on a disease that's been around for decades known, having been named after seemingly the first "celebrity" to be diagnosed, Lou Gehrig.
The neuromuscular affliction ALS (commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease) sentences the sufferer to a Cronenbergian nightmare: the eventual loss of one's ability to walk, speak, or even breathe unassisted, while the mind remains sharp enough to watch helplessly, perhaps the worst part of the disease.
Since ALS is at present an "orphan disease"—i.e., there's too small a market to interest Big Pharma in pursuing new treatments—a happy ending seems out of the question for Steven Ascher andJeanne Jordan's wrenching documentary, which follows 29-year-old Stephen Heywood from vigorous youth to near incapacity in the five years after his diagnosis.
The film is no maudlin pity-fest: It's an absorbing account of fraternal love and obsession, as Stephen's brother assembles a "guerrilla science" foundation to find a cure when no one else will. Condensing years of filming down to 87 minutes makes every cut register with a pang of mortality: The temporal ellipses swipe away precious weeks and months in a flicker.
Under the gaze of documentary filmmakers, Ascher and Jordan, themselves the surviving family of an ALS patient, which opens the film, Stephen makes a brave and candid subject—sometimes hilariously so.
Asked what advice he'd give himself if he could go back in time before the diagnosis—the kind of question that begs a wet-eyed response—the nearly immobile Stephen murmurs, "Have more sex on film."
This is definitely a film that needs to be experienced, especially if you were part of the "ice bucket challenge" and/or donated money to the cause. You would do yourself quite the favor to use this film as research into the disease known as ALS. Watching even a stranger suffer years with the disease and watch its effects is heart-wrenching. This is definitely not an uplifted film. It's a heartbreaker, but it's worth the 90 minutes.
...........................................................................
"Dear Mr. Watterson"
directed by: Joel Allen Schroeder
As befitting their philosophically influenced names, the young Calvin and his tiger sidekick Hobbes grabbed readers by showing intelligence and awareness beyond their years while still being entrenched in a universe of boundless childhood imagination. Marked by their infectious personalities, Bill Watterson's Calvin and Hobbes has endeared to hordes of devoted fans, including Dear Mr. Watterson director Joel Allen Schroeder. The film is basically Schroeder's crafted love letter to the Howard Hughes-esque Bill Watterson. I count myself among the devoted fans and have been known to add in some of the comic strips to my classroom newsletters because let's face it, Calvin was a smart kid, almost too smart for his own good. And many of the topics covered are still absolutely relevant to kids today. Even if they were, I still appreciate it, and I want to pass my love for the comic and reading, in general, down generations.
Threatening to rest on subjective representation, the doc's second half shrewdly turns into an outline of the changing face of the syndicated comic strip. Gathering a host of current comic artists and writers, the film makes a compelling case by positing Calvin and Hobbes as the last strip to achieve a staggering level of public awareness, as its final year in 1995 came on the heels of a declining market in newspaper comics. Of course, the situation is only worsened by the diminishing newspaper industry in general, where comics sections have only gotten smaller.
The film convincingly argues Calvin and Hobbes's legacy is even emboldened by Watterson's reclusive nature, where he's achieved a Thomas Pynchon-level (having just read "Crying of Lot 49" i appreciate this reference) of spotlight avoidance, as well as his refusal to license his characters. This is something I can absolutely appreciate, even though it would have been nice to have had a Hobbes stuffed animal growing up. Instead, I think Watterson's decisions forced kids to indulge their imaginations. I know he did for me. I had a stuffed bunny whom I named and gave a voice to for several years. It was like an extension of myself. It allowed me to say things I otherwise might not have.
To the film's benefit, Schroeder doesn't subsequently turn the film into a hunt for the artist, because let's be honest a man who doesn't want to be found will not be found- kind of reminds me of "Finding Forrester" and really would his discovery been truly satisfying to the filmmaker/super fan or any of the viewers? I'm not sure I want the man behind such an awesome legend to be exposed. Let him alone. Instead, Schroeder spends time sitting with other cartoonists who have (regretfully, it seems) dealt with licensing issues to understand Watterson's reasoning.
............................................................................
"It's A Girl"
directed by: Evan Grae Davis
The three deadliest words perhaps in the Indian and Chinese cultures, "It's a Girl." That's what this documentary focuses on. More specifically, the infanticide/gendercide of females in the culture that believes girls are just a burden onto their families. So, yeah, this is not a very uplifting film/documentary if that's what you want/expect out of films. This is a film that exposes an awful truth about a culture that unfortunately has been well known for decades, and nothing has been done to halt it, really. It also kind of begs the question of can a western culture really attempt to change an eastern culture's "traditions" no matter how bizarre and wrong we see them? In effect, how can we judge that which we choose to not understand? Is gendercide at all understandable? I mean, there are a lot of questions and debates that arise from such cultural topics.
The background to the history and continued practices in India and China are told through stories from the mouths of some women who have lived through the experience firsthand. The fact that they are willing and able to have these discussions, nonetheless, on film is an amazing feat in and of itself; and then you listen to the ordeals they've gone through, and it breaks your heart and makes you angry.
The filmmaker interviews social workers, women in these rural communities, as well as activists fighting to change things. Their stories tell the truth of how centuries of cultural norms have led to practices of:
1) forced abortions
2) dowries and dowry deaths (as it relates to marriage)
3) the one child law (families fleeing in cases where they have multiple children and lack the all important heir to the family throne- a boy)
4) human trafficking- often related to sex trafficking
The film spends time exploring female suicide rates and the connection between that and the low value placed on girls in the Indian culture. Families just are not happy with girls, but you also wouldn't have the families without the women, so it seems rather obvious that something has to change as far as the cultural norms.
The filmmaker, of course, admitted to having a difficult time finding women who would agree to being on film. He did find one particularly sympathetic factory worker who had three children. She and her husband had to flee and give their children to her mother-in-law. Li Fang's story is most likely a very common story. Her daughter had been deemed "illegal" which would follow her throughout her life, making her unable to receive an education (can you imagine a child being legally denied an education in America), unable to get health care, or be able to work legally.
Other subject in the film is a pediatrician, Dr. Mitu Khurana, whose story includes an unwanted pregnancy of twin girls, a forced abortion she wouldn't accept, an abusive husband and many tears.
To understand, the filmmaker states there are an estimated 37 million more boys than girls.
starring: Taylor Kitsch, Blake Lively, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Benicio Del Toro, Selma Hayek, John Travolta
directed by: Oliver Stone
I wanted to like and enjoy "Savages" because it seemed like Oliver Stone was attempting to get back to a style of filmmaking that made him famous and infamous in the 1990s, but ultimately the writing is not done well enough to really hold the film together. The voiceover of the girl, O (Blake Lively) becomes annoying pretty much right off the bat. I'm not a fan of voiceovers, to begin with, and here it seemed contrived and quite unnecessary. And then, there's the ending of the film, which I won't spoil here, but it's almost like Oliver Stone is being self-indulgent and just cannot seem to snip and cut pieces of his own film, like he wants us to see everything he films, but this particular ending just comes off rather insulting to the audience. But, I think the major fault in this film lies within Stone's chosen stars- three young actors who really haven't proven themselves worthy of carrying a film and then there's the characters' storyline, the idea that they are in an equal and loving threesome is just kind of ridiculous. It's Stone trying to be controversial. Blake Lively is better known for her run on "Gossip Girl" and Taylor Kitsch gained his following by playing that bad body Riggins on "Friday Night Lights." Both were perfect and fitting in their respectively roles, but on film here, they just fall short and disappoint.
Up against their counterparts, found in Benicio del Toro, Salma Hakey and John Travolta, the young actors just pale in comparison- and it's not really their fault. These veterans know how to act and seem born to play these roles. "Savages" is ultimately Oliver Stone's version of "Traffic" which was a worthy Academy Award winning film about the border wars with drugs.
It’s the story of Chon (Kitsch) and Ben (Johnson), independent growers and sellers of the best marijuana around. Chon is an ex-Navy SEAL who brought back the seeds for the business from Afghanistan; Ben is the botanist who, in addition to growing pot with off-the-charts THC levels, is also a do-gooder who builds water wells in Africa and performs many other charitable deeds. O (Lively), short for her given name Ophelia, or maybe her orgasmic avatar, is the woman who loves them both and lives with them in hedonistic, copacetic bliss in a luxury home in Laguna Beach, Calif.
The Mexican drug wars follow their natural path north of the border inSavages when Chon and Ben’s operation becomes subject to takeover by a cartel helmed by Elena, a ruthless but not heartless leader in a Cleopatra wig, and her chief goon and henchman Lado (Del Toro), whose vicious depravity and loathsomeness are bottomless. O is kidnapped by Elena’s minions and held as a bargaining tool. Travolta complicates things as a crooked DEA official whose hairline is receding as rapidly as his morals. I would probably skip this one, simply because of its length and disengaging story. Watch Stone's earlier films instead, like "Natural Born Killers."
..........................................................
"Brave Miss World"
starring: Linor Abargil
directed by: Cecilia Peck
Director Cecilia Peck first travels back with Linor Abargil to her thrill at winning the competition as an 18-year-old, and her excitement at being sent on modeling gigs in Milan, a dream of so many (gullible) young women. But they also revisit her awful path back to the airport, where her travel agent violently attacked and raped her. She managed to get to a phone and call her mother who (this is key) sympathetically advised her to go to a hospital for a rape kit, tell the Italian and Israeli authorities to catch the culprit, and get back home to get herself together to win the international competition of Miss World a month later – all before the public found out what happened to her. Her determination to follow through at the trial the next year became a cause célèbre in Israel, and other women there drew on her strength to report this notoriously unreported crime, even as she struggled with her own recovery.
That story alone would be the usual, albeit horrifically unfortunate, celebrity tell-all, but Abargil goes much further in catapulting her unwelcome notoriety, to travel the world literally touching girls and women to publicly share their experiences- person-to-person, online, and in this film- and, just as importantly, to seek justice. Not only is Peck there to document her miles of hugs over many years, but also reveals Abargil’s inner journey as her protests against her attacker’s parole sets off a downward spiral of PTSD.
Even as she galvanizes a suspenseful search for his other victims to prove a serial pattern, this secular Jew finds solace through religion, and becomes ultra-Orthodox (and a law student specializing in abuse cases, interning for the prosecutor on her case). Her relationships with the men in her life, both as friends (one is a producer on the film) and romantic partners, are also frankly discussed, including that she convinces her fiancé, who is supportive through her crusade, to reluctantly follow her observance into marriage.
This is an excellent film. A film about justice through tears and hard-fought battles. Linor is definitely an inspiration to women who have been victims of abuse and rape. And I can only assume that women across the globe are happy to have her as an advocate......................................................................
"Broadway Idiot"
starring: Billie Joe Armstrong
directed by: Doug Hamilton
Broadway Idiot tells the somewhat simple and undramatic story of the adaptation of Green Day’s popular and critically acclaimed American Idiot album into a Broadway show, which went on to be a pretty good success in its own right. Interestingly, Green Day lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong is a presence on stage as St. Jimmy character acting as a counterpoint during the show’s New York run- the big surprise at the climatic end of the film. Having known all about this beforehand, I knew what was coming.
The musical itself seems like it would be a real treat to see live, and Broadway Idiot gives anyone interested a good bird’s eye backstage view of what goes into making a production like this come off properly. What is missing is any of the drama one would expect when translating a concept album into another art form. The band sits in rehearsals and seem way too nice to these Broadway folks, very respectful of each other's visions. It's a dream collaboration that doesn't have screaming matches or large heads trying to get their way. Perhaps that wasn't the filmmaker's intent, because I'm sure their were some unpleasant conversations. I mean, for Green Day, the band, this is their baby and arguably their most successful album getting a facelift.
Sure, some of the creators and coordinators fret about this or that, but Billy Armstrong — a very nice dude, it must be said — is always there to assuage any fears, telling the people behind the scenes things like “this [stage] arrangement sounds better than what’s on the album” and other soothing platitudes. While I certainly was fascinated with the doc, I never got the sense that they weren’t going to pull it off.
I wish I could see the play and it definitely made me appreciate Green Day as an entity even more. I've always loved these dudes and can still remember buying "Dookie" when it first came out, so many years ago now. I can also admit that I ended up listening to Green Day's music, exclusively, for a couple of days after watching this film.......................................................................
"So Much, So Fast"
starring: Stephen Heywood, Jamie Heywood, John Heywood, Wendy Heywood, Melinda Heywood
written and directed by: Steven Ascher and Jeanne Jordan
It's interesting and perhaps no coincidence that this documentary about a man, Stephen Heywood, suffering from the effects of ALS landed itself, streaming, on Netflix right around the time of the craze known as the "ice bucket challenge" sweeping through our nation, dare I say, world. A challenge trying to expose people to horrors of the disease by challenging friends and family to donate money in order to generate more funds for research on a disease that's been around for decades known, having been named after seemingly the first "celebrity" to be diagnosed, Lou Gehrig.
The neuromuscular affliction ALS (commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease) sentences the sufferer to a Cronenbergian nightmare: the eventual loss of one's ability to walk, speak, or even breathe unassisted, while the mind remains sharp enough to watch helplessly, perhaps the worst part of the disease.
Since ALS is at present an "orphan disease"—i.e., there's too small a market to interest Big Pharma in pursuing new treatments—a happy ending seems out of the question for Steven Ascher andJeanne Jordan's wrenching documentary, which follows 29-year-old Stephen Heywood from vigorous youth to near incapacity in the five years after his diagnosis.
The film is no maudlin pity-fest: It's an absorbing account of fraternal love and obsession, as Stephen's brother assembles a "guerrilla science" foundation to find a cure when no one else will. Condensing years of filming down to 87 minutes makes every cut register with a pang of mortality: The temporal ellipses swipe away precious weeks and months in a flicker.
Under the gaze of documentary filmmakers, Ascher and Jordan, themselves the surviving family of an ALS patient, which opens the film, Stephen makes a brave and candid subject—sometimes hilariously so.
Asked what advice he'd give himself if he could go back in time before the diagnosis—the kind of question that begs a wet-eyed response—the nearly immobile Stephen murmurs, "Have more sex on film."
This is definitely a film that needs to be experienced, especially if you were part of the "ice bucket challenge" and/or donated money to the cause. You would do yourself quite the favor to use this film as research into the disease known as ALS. Watching even a stranger suffer years with the disease and watch its effects is heart-wrenching. This is definitely not an uplifted film. It's a heartbreaker, but it's worth the 90 minutes.
...........................................................................
"Dear Mr. Watterson"
directed by: Joel Allen Schroeder
As befitting their philosophically influenced names, the young Calvin and his tiger sidekick Hobbes grabbed readers by showing intelligence and awareness beyond their years while still being entrenched in a universe of boundless childhood imagination. Marked by their infectious personalities, Bill Watterson's Calvin and Hobbes has endeared to hordes of devoted fans, including Dear Mr. Watterson director Joel Allen Schroeder. The film is basically Schroeder's crafted love letter to the Howard Hughes-esque Bill Watterson. I count myself among the devoted fans and have been known to add in some of the comic strips to my classroom newsletters because let's face it, Calvin was a smart kid, almost too smart for his own good. And many of the topics covered are still absolutely relevant to kids today. Even if they were, I still appreciate it, and I want to pass my love for the comic and reading, in general, down generations.
Threatening to rest on subjective representation, the doc's second half shrewdly turns into an outline of the changing face of the syndicated comic strip. Gathering a host of current comic artists and writers, the film makes a compelling case by positing Calvin and Hobbes as the last strip to achieve a staggering level of public awareness, as its final year in 1995 came on the heels of a declining market in newspaper comics. Of course, the situation is only worsened by the diminishing newspaper industry in general, where comics sections have only gotten smaller.
The film convincingly argues Calvin and Hobbes's legacy is even emboldened by Watterson's reclusive nature, where he's achieved a Thomas Pynchon-level (having just read "Crying of Lot 49" i appreciate this reference) of spotlight avoidance, as well as his refusal to license his characters. This is something I can absolutely appreciate, even though it would have been nice to have had a Hobbes stuffed animal growing up. Instead, I think Watterson's decisions forced kids to indulge their imaginations. I know he did for me. I had a stuffed bunny whom I named and gave a voice to for several years. It was like an extension of myself. It allowed me to say things I otherwise might not have.
To the film's benefit, Schroeder doesn't subsequently turn the film into a hunt for the artist, because let's be honest a man who doesn't want to be found will not be found- kind of reminds me of "Finding Forrester" and really would his discovery been truly satisfying to the filmmaker/super fan or any of the viewers? I'm not sure I want the man behind such an awesome legend to be exposed. Let him alone. Instead, Schroeder spends time sitting with other cartoonists who have (regretfully, it seems) dealt with licensing issues to understand Watterson's reasoning.
............................................................................
"It's A Girl"
directed by: Evan Grae Davis
The three deadliest words perhaps in the Indian and Chinese cultures, "It's a Girl." That's what this documentary focuses on. More specifically, the infanticide/gendercide of females in the culture that believes girls are just a burden onto their families. So, yeah, this is not a very uplifting film/documentary if that's what you want/expect out of films. This is a film that exposes an awful truth about a culture that unfortunately has been well known for decades, and nothing has been done to halt it, really. It also kind of begs the question of can a western culture really attempt to change an eastern culture's "traditions" no matter how bizarre and wrong we see them? In effect, how can we judge that which we choose to not understand? Is gendercide at all understandable? I mean, there are a lot of questions and debates that arise from such cultural topics.
The background to the history and continued practices in India and China are told through stories from the mouths of some women who have lived through the experience firsthand. The fact that they are willing and able to have these discussions, nonetheless, on film is an amazing feat in and of itself; and then you listen to the ordeals they've gone through, and it breaks your heart and makes you angry.
The filmmaker interviews social workers, women in these rural communities, as well as activists fighting to change things. Their stories tell the truth of how centuries of cultural norms have led to practices of:
1) forced abortions
2) dowries and dowry deaths (as it relates to marriage)
3) the one child law (families fleeing in cases where they have multiple children and lack the all important heir to the family throne- a boy)
4) human trafficking- often related to sex trafficking
The film spends time exploring female suicide rates and the connection between that and the low value placed on girls in the Indian culture. Families just are not happy with girls, but you also wouldn't have the families without the women, so it seems rather obvious that something has to change as far as the cultural norms.
The filmmaker, of course, admitted to having a difficult time finding women who would agree to being on film. He did find one particularly sympathetic factory worker who had three children. She and her husband had to flee and give their children to her mother-in-law. Li Fang's story is most likely a very common story. Her daughter had been deemed "illegal" which would follow her throughout her life, making her unable to receive an education (can you imagine a child being legally denied an education in America), unable to get health care, or be able to work legally.
Other subject in the film is a pediatrician, Dr. Mitu Khurana, whose story includes an unwanted pregnancy of twin girls, a forced abortion she wouldn't accept, an abusive husband and many tears.
To understand, the filmmaker states there are an estimated 37 million more boys than girls.
Comments
Post a Comment