The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst

Andrew Jarecki, 2015

IMDB

4/5

Andrew Jarecki is a filmmaker who isn’t afraid to venture into the darkness. He doesn't appear to be affected by the fact that you may be disturbed by his work, perhaps even put off. His 2003 documentary Capturing the Friedmans captures the unraveling of the Friedman family whose patriarch is charged with child molestation. He has a unique vision in the way that he approaches the Friedman family. He doesn't just lay out an indictment on a family accused of some of the worst acts you can be accused of. He lets you decide for yourself. With his HBO docu-series The Jinx, it’s not much different. Many of us, probably mostly Northeast Americans, are familiar with the Durst family. Most of us have at least heard of Robert Durst, wealthy eccentric man who is accused of slaying his wife and possibly others. We often convict public figures subconsciously, sometimes simply based on appearance. Sometimes people look guilty. Sometimes people look creepy. Durst is certainly a suspicious figure. He doesn't express emotion. He doesn't smile, he doesn't kid around. He doesn't appear to show a longing for his missing wife.

Jarecki has already explored the Durst family in his 2010 feature film All Good Things, starring Ryan Gosling and Kirsten Dunst. The film is very much based on the real life events surrounding the Durst family. That film, while okay, was clearly not the right vessel for Jarecki whose strengths are really apparent in the documentary realm. But the one thing the film did is land him his interview with the real life Durst who saw the film and felt it gave him fair treatment. This is probably the opportunity of Jarecki's career, and this documentary series will certainly be the most talked about piece of work of his for years to come.

The series explores the insulation of wealth. It examines class structure in our country. It's a study on our imperfect judicial system which sometimes doesn't get it right. Episode one grips you, episode 4 shocks you. Episode 6 has you on the edge of your seat with your jaw dropped. You have to sit there and spend some time with this enigma of a person. Jarecki took a controversial mystery and put his artistic touch on it. Recreation of crime scenes, interviews with frustrated friends and family members, ex-police officers and investigators. He does some true investigative work. He can be accused of being predatory and baiting, but he also needs to be credited with giving Robert more of a benefit of a doubt than most filmmakers would be willing to do. He also is in front of the camera quite a bit, at times very uncomfortably. Confronting Douglas Durst and asking for an interview on the night of a big dedication dinner is a ballsy move. It’s almost like walking into Trump Tower and interrupting the Donald’s dinner and asking for a job. Even the interviewing process with Robert must be an uncomfortable one. The tension spills off the screen. Even if you are already aware of the outcome of the series from what you have seen in the headlines, it’s still worth the complete viewing. Your jaw will drop. Your eyes will be open wide.

This series broke some new ground. Instead of someone like Michael Moore placing pieces in an order that fits his ideology, Jarecki does some real investigative work that spans several years. The headlines and the finale are a little conveniently timed, there must have been some behind-the-scenes orchestration and collusion. It’s hard to debate that Jarecki ambushes Durst in the end for some self-serving reasons, but he had to do it right? And when all is said and done, we need to remember that at the very foundation of all of this is a medium of entertainment. And the trade off is closure for some of the family and friends of the victims. So a cold case finally gets some real answers. And that is worth it, right?

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief

Alex Gibney, 2015

IMDB

4/5

Anyone familiar with The Church of Scientology likely has preconceived notions about it. It’s certainly been a force, at times a prominent one, in our modern American culture. Some don’t want to call it a religion, immediately dismissing it as a cult. Most people associate it with Tom Cruise, one of the more outspoken celebrity members. Some people may recall Isaac Hayes quitting his role as Chef on South Park after they decided to create an episode ripping it apart. With Cruise specifically, his involvement with the church has caused many to judge him differently, to question him. And would they be wrong to look at him differently? To question his judgement? After all, it is a “religion” created by the late L. Ron Hubbard, a controversial science fiction writer who spent a portion of his life hiding from the U.S. government because of tax debt. The religion discounts the field of psychology. It promotes the belief that we are all immortal beings, forced to carry the weight of past life trauma. 

We learn in this documentary, it’s an organization with a lot of secrets. A lot of secrets that were concealed quite well for a long period of time. That may be the surprising element with this documentary, the magnitude of dark shit that has gone on for so long without being exposed to the public. The film interviews past members. These past members, which include screenwriter Paul Haggis and Sylvia Taylor, are not just low people on the totem pole of the Church. The interviewees are former high ranking members. Some of them even worked alongside Hubbard before his passing and even worked alongside now-leader David Miscavige. Because of this, you assume much of this is the truth. Child abuse, neglect, abusive labor, tax dodging, threats, larceny, harassment, greed, the list goes on. Even if you go into this film having a low opinion of Scientology, it’s sure to sink even lower. Even if you have heard some horror stories in the past, you are going to discover something you hadn’t known already. What does this film say about us as humans? Are we weak? Are we vulnerable? At times, most definitely. History shows that that the cults of the world prey upon the weak. There is always a charismatic, idealistic leader that tells everyone things that they want to hear and through elaborate and well-orchestrated manipulation he is able to gain followers. It's very difficult to discern The Church of Scientology from a cult. If they weren't able to weasel their way into tax-exempt status, where would it be now? If they weren't clever enough to pick up a few of the high-profile celebrity pitch-men would it even be in the dialogue? Is the organization now filled with members who, sort of like Christians, don't subscribe to all of the ideology but choose to just trudge ahead and turn the skepticism off in their minds? 

It will be interesting to see if this film has the same damaging effect on the organization that Blackfish had to Seaworld. It wouldn’t be surprising. This is the power of documentary film-making, when an expose can show you unforgettable things. Much kudos to HBO, it was certainly a bold decision to get behind this film. They must have been flooded with phone calls and legal threats from the church. Instead of hiding under their desks, they decided to green light a doc under their name that says a lot of things that people had been afraid to talk about for a long time. 

Only God Forgives

Nicolas Winding Refn, 2013


3/5

Set in Bangkok, Refn's followup to Drive once again features Ryan Gosling in the lead. Gosling plays Julian, gangster & fight club owner. Julian gets news that his brother Billy has been killed. Julian's mother arrives in Thailand eager for revenge, while the renegade cop who was responsible for the death is on their heels the entire time.

First off, it's a wonderfully shot film. In fact, there's not one bad shot in the entire picture. The glowing of red through the beginning, the scenes with the very neon-like aesthetic. It paints Bangkok in a way that's very much like the way Gaspar Noe painted Tokyo in Enter the Void. The stunning look of the Karaoke bars are similar to the scenes in Hanna where the villain is whistling the catchy "The Devil is in the Details. There's a disconcerting element to the streetscape, but it's very easy on the eyes.

The film combines the sudden disturbing elements one would come to expect from Refn along with some of the abstract characteristics of a David Lynch picture.  Refn always has a clever use of sound. The score to this film is much more immersed than the electro-pop soundtrack in Drive. There's certainly no Kavinsky to be heard here. Refn certainly finds new ways to end human lives. Refn works his craft as the body count rises.

Gosling's character Julian is quiet, reserved (surprised?). The lack of dialogue is very much similar to his role in Drive, but there's certainly some distinction here. Any heart that his character had in Drive is absent in this piece. Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm), the blade-wielding retired cop, could go down as one of the more memorable villains in cinema. His renegade-like attitude is very similar to fellow cop Stansfield (Gary Oldman) in Leon: The Professional. Both are cold and lack hesitation to slaughter at will. Both lack the moral structure one would expect from a man of the law. When you first see Crystal (Kristin Scott Thomas), Julian's mother, it further constructs his past. And it ain't pretty. Her vitriolic tongue spits out whatever venom is on the surface and there's no hesitation. It's quite clear that the only affection she had was really spent on his brother Billy.

It's a controversial piece. Rumors of booing as Cannes started circulating, along with rumors of people vomiting during some of the scenes. Refn is a true auteur, unaffected by public opinion. He appeared to make a film here for himself, and you can come along for the ride but he doesn't care much if you enjoy it. There's something to this film. At times hard to watch, but for the right reasons. Some people may be hungry for more story, and it's a fair argument. While some of the moments are hard to watch, there's still a very adhesive quality to the film.

Battle Royale

Kinji Fukasaku, 2000

4/5

Part of an effort of controlling students during extensive social unrest, the Japanese government creates a program to counteract the rebellion. Every year, a single class of Japanese students are put on a remote island and forced to fight each other to the death.

This blood-splattered Japanese blockbuster by Fukasaku immediately draws comparisons to The Hunger Games. The comparison is fitting, however, this picture lacks all of the glitz and glamour of The Hunger Games and that's not a bad thing. In fact, the novel that this film was adapted from was actually published in 1996, 12 years before The Hunger Games novel was even published - making this the true original. This is a colder piece, much less forgiving and much more gory and violent. There's no Elizabeth Banks with white makeup caked on her face here, but a cold-hearted schoolteacher eager to see vengeance played out before him from past students who mistreated and disrespected him when they were under his schooling. 

The blood packets burst early in the film, with the plot laid out rather directly and efficiently. From there, it plays out in a video-game like formulation similar to The Raid Redemption or Kill Bill with progressive difficulty. The classical music playing in the background throughout the film is chilling but fitting. This is because while these students are killing each other off in brutal fashion, there is an artful touch to it. Each kill is unique, and while disturbing, there is something to appreciate about it. Sometimes the students are able to call back on past bullying, or jealousy... but sometimes it's just about having to kill their fellow student so that they them self can survive. It's not a perfect film, some of the gunfights are rather cartoonish in the sense that they are shooting each other at close-range and not hitting their targets. Some of the delayed killing is very much like a cheesy 80's film with the stretched dialogue (ie. "You know I should kill you right now, but I'm going to give you this long speech about how much I hate you first") which inevitably leads to some kind of reversal. In the end though, it's very well done and certainly makes an impression. And it really makes The Hunger Games look VERY derivative. Fukasaku was working on a sequel to the film but unfortunately died of cancer in 2003 after shooting one scene. His son completed the rest of the project and released Battle Royale II: Requiem shortly after.