Trophy Kids

Chris Bell, 2013

IMDB

3/5

We have all probably been the uncomfortable witnesses to that parent at the middle school sporting event. The one that is way too invested in whats really supposed to be an innocent exhibition match for young people to learn the fundamentals of athletic competition. But there is that very small percentage of parents that have way too much emotion invested. Trophy Kids is their story. Or at least the story of four different parents in four different sports. Golf, Basketball, Tennis and Football to be exact. Chris Bell, documentary filmmaker been known for 2008's Bigger Stronger Faster, directed this film that really puts you uncomfortably close to these overbearing parents. Bell eases his way into it as well. At first you might consider the parents to not be so bad, you can see the passion but nothing too outrageous yet. But the layers of the onion are unpeeled, and by the end of the film you don't really have any good feelings about any of them.

The documentary focuses on four parents in four different sports. Golf, basketball, tennis and football. Each parents has their own disciplinary style. 3/4 are very aggressive and verbally demanding, classic authoritarian. The fourth (tennis mom) is more new agey, spiritual, more subtle. But they are all striving for one singular goal: for their kids to become superstar athletes like Tiger Woods or the Williams sisters.

This is clearly an environment built on a foundation of unreasonable expectations. These poor kids are missing out on basic kid stuff; playing with their friends or having girlfriends or boyfriends. Instead, they are forced to train for long hours. You are undoubtedly witnessing child abuse. Long, calculated, child abuse. These parents are despicable. They are narcissistic. They should be ashamed. Hopefully they will be. Hopefully they will look back on this film years from now and completely regret all of the unreasonable things that they said to their poor children. Its another film where you are impressed with the access and the unfiltered nature of it. Why would they be okay with this film being released portraying them in this light? It's this factor that makes this film a success. That Bell managed to be present with his cameras, and was able to capture this behavior in a natural setting. With natural emotions laid out. 

Code Black

Ryan McGarry, 2014

IMDB

3/5

One of the doctors interviewed in this graphic documentary makes a very important statement. He said that “most people see us on the worst day of their lives”. Most trips to the hospital are not joyous occasions. And on top of that, most people realize that even in those times of emergency, there is going to be a long wait in the Emergency Room. Unfortunately at the L.A. County Hospital, it’s no different. Desperate, suffering and often impoverished, these people sometimes wait up to 18 hours to see a doctor.

The doctors who work in the unit are undoubtedly doing god’s work. They describe the traumatic events in their youth that led them to want to help the sick. They were drawn to the level of intimacy in the County Hospital’s C-Booth. The C-Booth itself looks like a complete clusterfuck. In one memorable scene in the film we witness a gunshot victim in the hands of many medical hands in C-Booth. The crowd of people surrounding him and cutting him open is almost something out of The Walking Dead, the only difference being that these people are trying to keep the poor man alive. We witness many more of these tense moments, where life and death is in the hands of the medical staff that are working in tandem to try and save the person.

A large part of the film is the medical staff venting about their frustrations with the evolution of their hospital. They are nostalgic for the days that they were shoulder to shoulder in C-Booth in the old building. But because of earthquake building standards, they were forced to vacate the old building and move into a modern one. The modern hospital, while aesthetically pleasing, is bigger and creates more distance between the doctor’s and the patients. There is also some figurative distance in the sense that the doctors are now flooded with paperwork. Because of the bureaucratic hurdles they have to cross to actually treat a patient, they lose a lot of the adrenaline and drive that they once had. There is also some macro-political venting about social classes and government funding of county hospitals like the one depicted. Many of the patients do not have health coverage for a variety of reasons. But the doctor’s do not judge anyone who comes through their door, and they express their wish for everyone to feel the same way. The indictment on the state of healthcare in our country does get a bit wearing, sometimes it feels like some of the time spent on the grumbling would have been better spent on the micro-level inside the hospital. The strength of the film is certainly in the machine elements of the staff and working as a team, the day in and day out grind. The weak point is definitely focusing too much on the political grievances. The truth is, the bureaucratic bottlenecking is present in so many aspects of our lives now. One of the more unfortunate parts of our sue-happy and over-litigated society.

It’s a sobering look inside a hospital, a part of the world that many of us wish we do not have to visit. But it’s inspiring and encouraging that we have people like the doctor’s in the film that want nothing more than to help those in need. It's important to remember that these places are part of life. There are ebbs and flows to everything in life. One day we are healthy, the next day it may be the complete opposite where an endless amount of things could happen that are completely out of our control. The idea of an objective place that exists, a place that doesn't judge us based on our economic status, is comforting. Some people may accuse that idea of being over-idealistic and naive, but they are the same creatures breathing in the same air and pumping the same blood. If you walk away from this film feeling even a little more compassionate, they have succeeded with their mission. 

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. 

The Overnighters

Jesse Moss, 2014

IMDB

4/5

Williston is a town of 20,000 that is at the center of the North Dakota oil boom. The area has been enjoying an enormous amount of economic growth due to the discovery of the Parshall oil field in 2006. The boom has given the state of North Dakota the largest unemployment rate in the United States and has also helped the state maintain a billion dollar budget surplus. And because of this, people are flocking to the state for job opportunities in the energy sector as they hear of people getting hired on the spot and some getting six figure salaries. People who have failed with other ventures in other states look to North Dakota as a second chance. Pastor Jay Reinke is one a harbinger of second chances. There aren't many people like him. He has an ability to look past people’s faults, their mistakes, past crimes. He is a pure Christian, willing to open the doors of his church to provide shelter to the homeless who have arrived in droves. 

The film is an honest look at a piece of the American experience. It’s a film that puts things in perspective, makes you grateful for the roof over your head. These people are not just running from their past. They are attempting to recreate a different future, and they struggle to do it without the Pastor’s help. Some of them are true bottom-dwellers of society. The gravel, litter-riddled parking lot providing space for them to sleep in their car is an upgrade from the status quo. 

The film is also very conflicting at times. Pastor Jay lets everyone into his Church and personal home. This includes sex offenders. Most people, including myself, would draw the line there. But he looks at sin on an objective, more universal scale. He makes statements along the lines of us all being sinners. He doesn't discriminate the differences of them. That is probably the most conflicting part of Pastor Jay. The townspeople, his long-time veteran congregation members, they are all against him opening his doors to the sex offenders. You get a sense that if he himself drew the line there, he would be able to maintain some type of compromise with the city and would be able to continue to provide shelter to the other people who are needy. But he can’t. He digs his heels in deeper when he encounters adversity. The community turns their back, the congregation dissolves. And what is he left with? Nothing but his principles. You have to wonder if that’s worth it. Because of him NOT drawing that particular line, not budging, everybody who was relying on his support ultimately suffers. Is it worth losing everyone because of the stubborn act of not turning away a few? Besides, Jay can't save them all anyway. You see some people work their way through the church system and come out the other side. You see them gain employment and attempt to move on to the next chapter. But then there are people like Alan who create a facade of a success story, only to completely unravel into the same old dirtbag as soon as he is challenged about his past. It's a really interesting look at a portion of the North Dakota population of the North Dakota during a rather unique period in American History. There are clearly a lot of success stories coming out of the state, but there are also a lot of failures as we see here.

Burt's Buzz

Jody Shapiro, 2014

IMDB

3/5

The image of Burt on the Burt's Bees product line is arguably as identifiable as Colonel Sanders, Mr. clean, or perhaps even Ronald McDonald. We see the bearded etched face when we check out at the grocery store, where the Burt's yellow circular lip balm container is placed below the latest gossip mag telling you about the most recent celebrity divorce or plastic surgery mishap. And while the innocent face of Burt contradicts the face of a Kardashian sister, the company itself is not without its own drama.

Burt Shavitz,  a reclusive Hippie from Maine, started his business on a very small scale by managing a handful of beehives upstate and selling honey by the gallon on the roadside. It wasn't until he met fellow hippie / earthchild Roxanne Quimby that the company branched out into the personal care realm. Burt exposed Roxanne to an old book about the many benefits of using honey and beeswax, and she took the ball and ran with it. Unfortunately as Roxanne took on more of a role in the company, things between her and Burt turned sour. Burt was pushed into selling his stake of the company in 1993. Burt wasn't able to benefit from the future purchase of the company by a private equity firm that made Roxanne a multimillionaire.

Burt's Buzz is similar to the 2010 documentary Candyman about Jelly Belly Jelly Bean creator David Klein. Klein, another quirky innovator, had a naivete when it came to business and was pushed out of his company and not rightfully compensated for it. In Candyman Klein doesn't come off as a completely bitter man, spending every waking second trying to get his revenge. Nor does Burt. Burt sought a lawyer after the purchase of the company, hoping to get a piece of the pie but was too late to the party. You get a sense this was more on principle rather than greed. Burt isn't a person very interested in money. He is not a man built for the 21st century corporate culture. He is more inclined to spend his time out in the field with his dog. And Shapiro doesn't set out to paint Roxanne as a calculating villainous figure set out to cheat Burt out of his business. It's just a part of the Burt's story that you kind of have to mention. A lot of business relationships are complicated and often don't end particularly well. Roxanne possessed the ambition that Burt just doesn't have, and basically admits to. You could easily see that if Roxanne never scaled the Burt's brand to the mega-company that it ultimately became, we wouldn't have the shampoo in our shower or the lip balm in our pockets. The movie doesn't have big moments and doesn't take many risks but it does paint an interesting portrait of the man on the package.

Restrepo

Sebastian Junger & Tim Hetherington, 2010

GoWatchIt

4/5

Filmmakers Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington follow the 2nd Platoon of Battle Company through the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan in 2010, at that time regarded as the deadliest place on Earth.

Restrepo, named after a fallen platoon medic, is basically the equivalent of strapping a GoPro camera to a filmmaker’s helmet and sending him into intense action with actual American soldiers in Afghanistan. The most surprising element is the sense of accessibility that you have with this movie. It doesn’t give you images of the conflict from a distance. You are literally crouched behind the sandbags. You are sitting in the plywood bunkers. You are running alongside the troops through the rough and uninviting terrain. You see what they see. Suspicious figures running out of the seemingly ancient dwellings. The bullets that land a little too close for comfort. There is a sense of relaxation with the 2nd Platoon of Battle company, as they appear to be quite loose in front of the camera. During their shifts in the field, they are locked in to their mission. But after, when are reflecting, they discuss the impact that the war has had on them quite openly. They are candid about the losses they have suffered. They discuss their upbringing. And they also bust on each other. During periods of downtime they take advantage of opportunities to listen or play to music. It’s always interesting to see bits of our Western culture seap into the battlefield, like when the soldiers put on a cheesy pop song and dance to it. There was some of this in HBO’s Generation Kill. Sort of like if Britney Spears was playing in the opening credits of Apocalypse Now. An odd contrasting effect. There is also something about it that feels identifiable. Probably because they are all young men and it humanizes them, portraying them more naturally instead of robotic mercenaries like some media outlets incorrectly portray them to be. You get a clear sense of the pride that they have in their work. They are undeniably doing hard work. When they manage to gain an advance and set up The Restrepo outpost in the highly contested zone, it’s a big accomplishment and they don’t hesitate to acknowledge it. Unfortunately death is a part of war, and is a part of this documentary. When it occurs it hits hard and you feel the weight of it. The loss of Doc Restrepo is felt by all, and his legacy lives on through the rest of the film and of course beyond. But one of the most inspiring elements is how they are able to acknowledge the loss, fight through the grief, and put one foot in front of the other and move on to the next mission. 

Print the Legend

Luis Lopez & J. Clay Tweel, 2014

Can I Stream it?

3/5

Anyone familiar with the emerging technology known as  "3D printing" has a sense of its impending impact on the world. What will we actually be able to print of use in our own homes? Footwear? Vinyl LP's? Home manufacturing material? The possibilities are quite endless, really. But right now it's in its infancy. At this point if you are an early adopter of a 3D printer, you are limited to something more along the lines of action figures or trinkets.

Print the Legend is kind of two films, really. In one sense it's an exploration into the world of 3D printing in it's early days. It focuses on the big guys with the bigger market share and the little guys desperate to get their piece of the pie in the sector. The big guys are companies Stratasys and 3D Systems. The little guys are MakerBot and FormLabs. The former have the operating capital to build cutting edge machines with a high price tag. The latter are cut from more of a hacker/engineering cloth, looking to disrupt the sector by making more reasonably-priced consumer-available machines. But the doc is also a study on the sharp minds of the tech startup world, as much of the film focuses on MakerBot CEO Bre Pettis, FormLabs creator Max Lobovsky and anarchist/controversial media figure Cody Wilson. The film effectively covers the evolution of Pettis, from ambitious genius to guy who sells his soul to the devil CEO. And everything about the film is geeky, interesting, crafty. It really provides some real excitement for what's yet to come in the world of technology.

Downloaded

Alex Winter, 2013

Can I Stream it?

3/5

This documentary focuses on the creation, rise and ultimate of music service Napster - which rose to rapid popularity in the days of the dot-com boom in the late 1990's.

Anyone in their early 30's is very familiar with the effect that Napster had on the music world. It came out of nowhere and then spread like wildfire. It disrupted the entire music industry, certainly kept the record executives awake at night. One of the first, surprising elements of Downloaded is you realize how small Napster actually was. At first it was really just a couple of guys, Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker, who had an idea. It wasn't that they were out to screw over the RIAA. They weren't out to make millions and millions of dollars overnight. They were just a couple of smart kids who had some foresight as to how things were eventually going to go in terms of technology and music. The origin of Napster wasn't in a dark conference room with a group of shifty figures. Instead, Shawn Fanning was an amateur coder/hacker who was in a small office space spending nights on the floor of his work-space in a sleeping bag.

The hero and the villain of the story are not so well-defined. There are a lot of gray areas with Napster in terms of ethics. But you could easily make the argument that Parker and Fanning are the heroes of the story, and that the RIAA is the villain. The RIAA wanted it to be business as usual. They went into panic mode when their revenue streams were threatened. Instead of looking into ways to evolve and work with the disruptors, they ended up going after the very customers who had been supporting them for so many years. They sued the young people who were spending all of their allowance money on $20 CD's so that they could have another addition on their house, or another gold watch on their wrist. The RIAA, Lars Ullrich, Dr. Dre... they all come off as the dinosaurs. Dr. Dre is particularly critical of Napster and in pure hypocritical fashion, years later we see the creation of The Beats streaming service headed by him. Downloaded certainly zeroes in on an interesting but rather short-lived period in American Culture. It's nostalgic, and also surprising to look back after not so many years and really see how radically different things are now in terms of how we get our music delivered to us. Napster was without a doubt the harbinger of such convenience and accessibility.

There's Something Wrong with Aunt Diane

Liz Garbus, 2011

Can I Stream It?

4/5

You probably heard the news story soon after it happened. One of those terrifying headlines about a wrong way driver that crashed on the highway, killing eight people total including herself. Basically anyone's worst nightmare. If you lived in the Northeast, it felt even more personal because those roads are so familiar. Soon after you probably caught the headline about the toxicology reports coming back stating that the female driver of the maroon minivan had alcohol in her system at the time of the crash. The equivalent of ten alcoholic drinks in her system, and also traces of THC. Perhaps you then judged her like the rest of America did. Assumed she was a bad mother that put her own kin in harms way, despite the fact that her husband came forward and with full conviction said that she would not have been drinking that day.

That woman was Diane Schuler, mother of three. On the morning of July 26, 2009 she said goodbye to her husband Daniel at a campsite that they frequented in the Hudson Valley. He assumed that he would see her soon at their home in Long Island. But hours later the family started receiving phone calls from the children in the car, saying that Aunt Diane was driving erratically and seemed disoriented. The fateful day tragically ended after she collided with an SUV on the Taconic State Parkway where she was driving in the wrong direction. She killed herself, her daughter and three nieces, and three men in the oncoming SUV. The toxicology tests confirmed that she was inebriated during the drive home, a fact that her husband Daniel has firmly denied being possible. And just like that, so many lives just stripped from the world. Utter tragedy.

This chilling (and at times difficult to watch) documentary thoroughly examines the events of that horrible day that tore multiple families apart. It attempts to retrace Diane's steps. There are interviews with family members on both sides. It revisits the scene of the accident. The pain is still present, unlikely to ever really go away. You feel it too. The shock. The sense of mystery. Daniel is resolute, completely denying the possibility that Diane would have drank alcohol and attempted to drive home with the girls in the van. And while there is substantial evidence that confirms that she was in fact intoxicated, it does seem hard to believe as the film really explores Diane the person. What's clear is that she was a caring mother. A hard worker. A loyal friend. A loving wife. Garbus effectively paints an elaborate picture of the good person that was Diane Schuler. It's the unanswered factors that make it so agonizing. The lack of closure. But you come away knowing more about Diane. You can't blame Daniel for fighting to defend her legacy. If the film's mission is to humanize a complicated woman who was quickly dismissed as a reckless killer, it certainly succeeds. 

Some additional thoughts on the film...(SPOILERish ALERT)

Tiny: A Story About Living Small

Christopher Smith & Merete Mueller, 2013

Can I Stream It?

3/5

Smith directs and stars in this documentary that examines a growing number of Americans looking to live in "smaller" living quarters. Described in the film as the "tiny house" movement, some people are deciding to live well within their own means by building smaller homes, much smaller actually - typically less than 100 square feet. These homes consist of the pure basics: a small sleeping area, kitchenette, minimal storage, and and a bathroom. Because of the issues with local building codes, most of these homes are built on trailers with wheels on them which allows them to sneak into the loophole of being a "temporary structure". The doc is also not without some comedic qualities. It's kind of comical to see two grown adults in a tiny doll-house like structure. With some of the interviewing done in the Portland area, you get a sense that at any given moment Fred Armison is going to walk through the door in a wig.

The doc centers on Christopher and his desire to build a tiny home for himself. Christopher is a hippie-ish tattooed long-haired guy with some ink on his arm. He has just turned 30, and very much wants his own version of the American Dream. He recognizes the high cost of purchasing an expensive home, with the obligatory thirty year mortgage, maintenance costs, etc. With the help of his more-reluctant but loyal girlfriend Merete, he decides to build his own tiny home. With limited costs and limited time he realizes that even though they are much smaller homes and less costly - it's more challenging of a project than he originally anticipates. He interviews fellow tiny home owners, all of which are happy with their decision to live more simply which inspires him to tread through. A year drags on. Christopher's wallet empties. Merete becomes unsure of whether or not she wants to be Christopher's cohabitant in such a small dwelling. She has her own dreams of moving to the Big Apple which is basically the complete opposite of Christopher's dream of living in rural Colorado. As you see Christopher labor through assembling the wood framing piece by piece, you continue to be served with images of proud tiny home owners happily sitting in tight dwellings.

The film has two appealing elements. One, it's great that a young filmmaker like Christopher can make an interesting documentary on a small budget. This type of thing should always be encouraged. Two, there should be more people like Christopher that are around 30 years old and don't want to immediately jump into a lifetime of debt. It's an interesting film that may be small but has a bigger message. There is an insatiable desire that a lot of Americans have. A constant hunger for more of something, something bigger. An appetite that is never fully satisfied. Instead of looking at what they have, people tend to focus on what they think they need. This mindset is of course reinforced by the widespread marketing that encourages it. Part of the Western Capitalist culture, really. But the film proposes the idea of possibly looking to live in something more minimal and more essential, on a smaller scale. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Leviathan

Lucien Castaing-Taylor & Verena Paravel, 2013

Can I Stream It?

4/5

Two artists associated with Harvard University's Sensory Ethnography Lab, Lucien Castaing-Taylor and Verena Paravel, create this experimental documentary that focuses on a North Atlantic fishing vessel using several portable waterproof cameras.

The absence of any narrative or any cuts to interviews with crew members really leave you to your own senses with this film. A harsh purity. You realize right away that you aren't simply watching an episode of The Deadliest Catch. The vessel drifting through the black night might as well be a Ghost Ship. The resonating sound of clanking steel. The sounds of chains being pulled up and down. Muffled voices reverberating across the deck. In between the crashing waves on the ships deck you may even see a ring of cigarette smoke appear and quickly fade into the black night. The constant presence of airborne creatures flapping through the air like winged demons. The camera cuts to dead fish sliding across the floor, their eerie eyes staring straight at the camera like they are stuck in a momentary purgatory before they are beheaded. Their discarded parts will soon wash out of the ship's sides, and of course a camera will be there to capture it. Quite often the camera hangs for extended periods of time, creating a certain entrancing feeling but keeping you alert. And yet, in the midst of all of the darkness there is something truly alluring to Leviathan. 

It's a Hell barge that punishes the open seas. A soul grabber of sorts. The nameless workers gruel through their long shifts, like orange-suited Angels of Death. There aren't any smiles being spread around. They don't need to utter any words to show that their job is demanding. Close shots of the Captain's face show the toll the sea has taken. The other cuts to the various cameras mounted throughout the ship also give you a chance to change perspective. At times you feel like one of the ill-fated fish laying on the metal surface, waiting for the doom-bringers to end it all. Then you become one of the many flapping seagulls desperately trying to get their piece of the pie. Soon after you become one of the ships crew, basically lending a hand to lowering buckets to the belly of the vessel where the catch will be stored. There's a lot of moving parts that feel like a collaborative supernatural flow is at work. In a sense it's just the food chain at work. But even the sea surrounding the men feels unforgiving, almost as if everyone on the boat is stuck in some kind of purgatory. It feels like a ship that may never return to harbor. When the periodic daylight strikes it feels perturbing. Even when it does strike it feels like the sun only shines for a couple of hours before quickly fading to pure black again. Leviathan is a spooky, hypnotic work of art that puts you in a trance, only to leave you with aural memories of metal hitting metal.

Muscle Shoals

Greg "Freddy" Camalier, 2013

Can I Stream It?

4/5

Nestled just south of the Tennessee River in Northwest Alabama lies the small city of Muscle Shoals. Population 12,000, it's a working class town decorated with green hills and sunflower fields. But there's something magical that exists there. Something inexplicable. The unassuming Muscle Shoals has been the recording home of some of the most influential music ever put on tape. Rolling Stones' Wild Horses. The Staple Singers I'll Take You There. Wilson Pickett's incredible rendition of Hey Jude (encouraged by Duane Allman). Tell Mama by Etta James. When a Man Loves a Woman by Percy Sledge. At first glance, Muscle Shoals surely wouldn't reveal itself to be such a recording mecca. But there is an ethereal quality to the area. Some would say it's an energy, a certain essence that remains from the days that the area was inhabited by Native Americans. Descendants of the original settlers say they still hear voices singing above the surface of the water.

Camalier's comprehensive doc does a great job of showing all of the various facets of the musical culture that was present in Muscle Shoals. People started hearing some of the music coming out of the area, and there was a certain buzz that was created where musicians from all over wanted to record with the soulful black studio musicians who were considered to the pioneers of the Muscle Shoal Sound. Much to everyone's surprise they turned out to be white men. This element certainly brought up the racial issues surrounding the area at that particular point in American history. The film is enlightening in pointing out the importance of music at that point in time, due to the fact that the artists pressed on the wax were without color. It appealed to everyone. It transcended the racial bigotry.

The doc is filled with interviews with the very people who experienced it all. But it also is filled with some amazing stock footage and photography. The first hand accounts from Keith Richards and Mick Jagger of their experiences are enticing enough, but then to go on to be treated with old footage of the late Ronnie Van Zandt singing Free Bird in the early days is just the cherry on top. There's a certain nostalgia in their eyes. When Richards admits to always wondering what their non-Shoals songs would have sounded like had they been recorded there reinforces the impact of the Alabama studio.

Muscle Shoals is like David Grohl's 2013 documentary Sound City but more meaningful, more sentimental. It's a piece containing stories of regret, longing, reflection, and importance. Maybe none of us were there to experience any of it directly, but at some point a piece of it has been in all of our ears. 

Let the Fire Burn

Jason Osder, 2013

Can I Stream It?

4/5

Let the Fire Burn documents the very much overlooked and forgotten 1985 standoff between members of the Philadelphia-based radical political group MOVE and the police. Entirely using archival footage, very much like 2010's Senna, the doc is a stream of mostly news footage and really puts you in the middle of the crisis. Those not familiar with the organization do not really learn a lot about the group's philosophies from this film (but thats why we have Wikipedia). What you do learn is that they are a Christian-oriented group focused on minimalist living standards, crying out against technology by not using electricity and heating their headquarters with wood-burning stoves. They are profoundly anti-establishment, at times antagonizing the city police to engage in some kind of a confrontation. When the film opens with footage of the deposition of child Michael Moses Ward as he recounts the traumatic night, he immediately draws sympathy just knowing that there were children involved in the incident. And there certainly were children involved in the organization, as you see them spouting off parts of the MOVE doctrine as the matriarchal figure stands beside them.

While the MOVE members appear to be educated (successfully representing themselves in court on more than one occasion), at times they come off as very adversarial and threatening to the neighbors around them. These neighbors must suffer with constant political banter over loudspeakers mounted outside the building. They have to endure the eyesore of a boarded up building that basically looked condemned. The tension builds to the day of May 13, 1985 when the Philadelphia police section off and station themselves outside the Osage Avenue row house where a dozen MOVE members are hiding and local government attempts to evict them from the premises. The outcome is a destructive gripping series of events that literally went up in flames, and how the film got its very fitting title.

It's such an interesting style in terms of documentary filmmaking. No cloudy interviews made years later. No reenactments. Just raw footage. It adds a certain purity to it, really puts you in the moment. By watching the look of shock on a news reporters face when they are surprised by sudden automatic rifle fire, you get a real sense of distress as if you are watching it live. There are clear inconsistencies when it comes to the Philadelphia Police Department's handling of the whole event, and the documentary does a terrific job of really laying out the facts. Although the MOVE members are not innocent by any stretch, the film still leaves you feeling troubled and disheartened.

The Elephant in the Living Room

Michael Webber, 2010

Can I Stream It?

2/5

This documentary focuses on the subculture of exotic animal collectors who recklessly attempt to obtain everything from Bengal Tigers to Gaboon Vipers.

Michael Webber directs a detailed documentary with a topic immediately interesting on paper. The fascination that some Americans have with exotic animals is quite cleverly explained when a doctor being interviewed in the film explains during his missionary trips to Africa he noticed that the residents kept their distance from the poisonous snakes. But some Americans try to get closer to them. They ignore the risks. They even put them in the hands of our children. Obviously its a small fraction of the American population, because most of us are quite happy having a golden retriever. These exotic animal collectors are looking for something more. There are voids to fill. Statements to make. There is a certain irony to it, because a dog has a lot more to offer than a reptile who is really only focused on it's next meal. It's not to say that all of the animals are completely shut off emotionally. The lions shown on Ohio hillbilly Terry Brumfield's property clearly have SOME kind of emotional connection to him. He feels it justifies possessing them. But there's much more to it. He seems to be a very lonely person. He seems to be quite isolated from the rest of society, and when he IS in public he is eager to show off the offspring of his carnivorous pets. There's a sense of entitlement that these people have that is frustrating, irresponsible, and also cruel.

The hero of the film is clearly Public Safety Officer Tim Harrison. He works tirelessly to find homes for the animals that constantly become too much to care for or unwanted, selflessly cleaning up everyone else's mess. Tim's work is like that of an inner-city police officer, no matter how many hours he puts in the problems will never go away. An existential grindstone.

While the film examines the subculture, it doesn't make emotional impression like animal-based documentaries tend to do (Grizzly Man, Blackfish, The Cove). It's difficult to come away from it with anything really memorable like the aforementioned docs. If only Webber could have dug a little deeper. What if he was able to spend more time at the Amish exotic pet auction? Go deeper into the underworld? It would have been worth the risk. The film takes the easy path of demonizing the animal collectors. It ultimately comes off as more of an extended episode of Animal Planet's Fatal Attractions.

The Other F Word

Andrea Blaugrund Nevins, 2011

Can I Stream It?

2/5

This documentary provides a look at middle-aged punk rockers as they explore their own fatherhood, struggling with maintaining their rebellious personas while trying to be good parents.

The film presents the irony of watching an eff-authority punk-rocker hit middle age, but doesn't pack a whole lot of calories doing so and ends up serving you a mixed message. Unorganized. Confused. Lacking. Crude at times without substance. Are we watching middle-aged rebels struggle with inevitability or are we watching a Pennywise reunion tour? The doc is swerving all over the road all-while playing the songs we've grown to hate. Some scenes are just downright irritating. Everclear's Art Alexakis, who has managed to get more mileage out of three top 20 hits than anyone in the 1990s, sits in a room playing "Father of Mine" with an aged voice that isn't anywhere near the quality it was twenty years ago. His involvement in the film is also puzzling in a sense (not to take away from any of the trauma he actually has experienced) because he is not really known as the rebellious punk type.

But to cut the film some slack, there are some redeeming qualities. Jim Lindberg (of Pennywise) provides some honesty, some insight to the struggle of aging, displaying an urge to put his touring life behind him and dedicate his life to his family. He probably opens up more than the other subjects of the film. Flea also really shows some true vulnerability when he tears up gushing about his daughter. This is what you want from the film, a real unprotected side. But you just get too much filler and not a whole lot of consistency. If you come looking for laughs, you will at least get a couple of those. Seeing a 40 year old Rob Chaos stand in his kitchen unwilling to let go of his spiky hair. Mark Hoppus (Blink 182) talk about his reluctance to purchase censored music for his kids. But the F Word is disappointing because its an enticing premise that is just not explored properly. All the makings of a mediocre documentary.

Sunset Strip

Hans Fjellestad, 2012

Can I Stream It?

2/5

Sunset Strip can be credited with being a rather full story. It has a beginning, middle and an end. And there are a plethora of faces to attempt to recount their experiences (Johnny Depp, Sharon Osbourne, Keanu Reeves, Sharon Stone, Mickey Rourke to name a few). The beginning is clearly the strip in its incarnation. Originally poinsettia farmland owned by a single landowner, it slowly became urbanized and ultimately became an entertainment destination due mostly to it's proximity to Hollywood. The Vegas Strip before there really was Las Vegas. An exclusive hot spot that everyone wanted to get in on. Sammy Davis Jr. Elizabeth Taylor. James Dean. And the popularity grew. The culture evolved, for better or for worse. The middle is the Strip in its gritty heyday. Sex, drugs and rock and roll. Very little interference by the law. A lot of pivotal moments. Jim Morrison at the Whiskey a Go Go. Sam Kinison screaming into the microphone at the Comedy Store. Richard Pryor performing his legendary set. And just like any party, it must come to an end at some point. The end is basically closer to the present-day. The Sunset Strip of Los Angeles has turned into a homogenized, corporate version of its former self. The lines of cocaine have morphed into heavily-caffeinated energy drinks, with their very advertisements plastered all over the walls in an effort to cross-promote. The busy streets have turned into promenades to increase the volume of foot traffic. Instead of a historical site it's basically become a novelty display.

The problem with the film is while it treats you to beautiful historical footage early on in the film, it becomes rather aimless and self-indulgent at the end. The camera sits down with a group of mob types and it feels wearisome. It shows some confusing footage of Paris Hilton in a police cruiser. Kelly Osbourne performing with the Pussycat Dolls. Instead of continuing on in some kind of rich historical context, it ends up just playing some live footage of Jane's Addiction and some other bands performing at the Roxy. And perhaps that's whats sad about the Sunset Strip. The inevitability of it all. The old die out and the young are born. Led Zeppelin is no longer renting the entire floor of the Chateau Marmot, because they haven't even performed together in years. You won't find Ozzy at any of the bars. In fact, his own children have undergone their own rites of passage on the Strip and look back on it with nostalgia. What's left are the ghosts of the past. It's turned into a rather unforgiving shell of it's former self. New thrills are now packaged. There are no surprise acts. Just contracted residencies. It's just too bad that Fjellestad wasn't able to maintain the momentum in the final third of the film. This film could learn a thing or two from more entertaining Sunset-Strip based documentary The Mayor of the Sunset Strip. 

Kumare

Vikram Gandhi, 2011

Netflix

4/5

Vikram Gandhi is a filmmaker who wants to study Americans' obsession with the concept of a Guru. As an experiment he attempts to impersonate a yoga guru hoping to generate some humor. What he ends up getting is something he did not expect; real followers. Loyal, committed followers. He's suddenly faced with the challenge of being honest with these people who suddenly look up to him for spiritual leadership. Can he come clean?

Kumare is the kind of documentary that sneaks up on you. Vikram Gandhi is quite honest about his intentions. He wants to out the false prophets of the world with a well-crafted social experiment. Snake oil salesmen. Smoke in mirrors. And he does this. But he gets more than he bargained for. When you start to hear the stories of the people that begin following him, your heart aches. These are real people. These are people with real issues, who struggle with real issues. People who have a certain pain that makes them particularly vulnerable. The fascinating thing is that they all have different flavors of vulnerability. But it's all very authentic. There's certainly a message here. People are insecure. People are desperate for guidance. Sometimes it's as simple as companionship. Sometimes it's validation. And because of that desperation, there is a certain accessibility that forms.

The cleverly constructed doc defies you to hold back the tears when you see the pictures on the wall of the family members who have moved away from their mother. When you hear about past drug abuse, and a new-found sense of purity. Broken promises to oneself, and the intention to finally fulfill them. Kumare accidentally becomes a real guru to them, a pseudo-father figure. The joke gets lost in the humanity. Without the humanity, the film would be a cheap laugh in the same vein as Borat. Without the humanity, the film would come off as deviously predatory as Punk'd. But that's the thing. The humanity is there. On both sides. Kumare's placebo effect has a lasting impact. The emotions are laid right out there. Brace yourself for the reveal.

Somm

Jason Wise, 2012

Netflix

4/5

The Master Sommelier examination is one of the most difficult tests to pass in the world. It has been running annually since 1969 and there are less than 200 Sommeliers in the world. It involves knowing virtually everything about wine. The geography of the wine. The history of the vineyards. But most importantly you have to be able to sit down in front of four current Master Sommeliers, drink six glasses of wine (3 red, 3 white) in twenty minutes and tell them everything about them including

This documentary follows a group of men with sophisticated palettes that are studying for the Master Sommelier examination. There is a nice opening segment as you are introduced to the characters, Ian Cauble, as he describes the importance of wine. Living in the moment. Drinking a glass of wine and attempting to experience the most of that twenty minutes. You get a sense early on that this is no hobby for them. It's very much like the Donkey Kong gamers in The King of Kong or the Scrabblers in Word Wars where it's an all-consuming obsession, but without the emulous bitterness toward each other. These men stay up all night, enduring long tasting sessions together while they attempt to pinpoint every attribute about what is in their mouth. When they aren't together, they are Skyping each other with flash cards for hours on end. At the end of the night they leave their exhausted but patient wives with a spit bowl to empty, only to be filled the next night when they do it all over again. The Master Sommelier's interviewed make it clear that the light at the end of the tunnel is a lot of open doors in the world of wine. Not only that but they hope that they can return to their normal lives again, return to normal sleep and hopefully spend time with their loved ones who have inadvertently been ignored.

The film is effective in getting you engaged in the characters. Wise provides multiple perspectives in the film which really helps to establish the challenge. To the wives' credit, they come off as sincere and supportive. When they send them off at the airport you get a sense that they are eagerly sitting by the telephone waiting to hear if they passed or not. The existing Sommeliers in a way come off as the men's trainers. They are attempting to prepare them the best they can. They see the potential, but they also make it clear that come game-day, they need to be ready. There is no real margin for error. While the Sommeliers are sage-like and at times demanding, there's more of a motivating tone giving you a sense that they want to see these men join their ranks. And perhaps that is the flaw in this doc. While the aforementioned King of Kong had a clear-cut villain in the story (in fact one of the worst villains ever), this film is for the most part devoid of one. Who is the enemy? Themselves? Their misleading tastebuds? Their determination is inspiring, and by the end of the film you are truly rooting for them. And while there are certainly some surprises come examination day, the film is guilty of wrapping things up a bit too nicely. Maybe it's a film where loose ends aren't the worst thing in the world. That being said, it's still an entertaining piece that might make you thirsty.

Seven Up

Michael Apted, 1964


4/5

Apted films a group of 7 year old's in Britain, who will ultimately be the subjects of his continued "Seven Up" series where he films the same group of people every seven years.

The grainy picture loads, and it immediately gets into gear. What's immediately evident is the intelligence of the group of seven year old Brits. Okay, so what's the difference with their parenting over there? Clearly there are differences. So we realize that the children of the 1950's and the 1960's were different, but there is a noticeable sense of respect for their elders and a strict discipline in place. They also seem so sophisticated with their pea-coats and scarves. They talk about the wishes of their parents and the future that they have laid out for them. Apted utilizes some film-making techniques that feel innovative for the time, such as the erratic point of view shot with the camera rushing through the play yard. The low budget feel of the film gives it a sense of raw infancy. It's nice to see Apted getting creative behind the camera, but one must wonder if it's even necessary. If you set the camera down motionless the film is still going to come alive. There is so much personality in front of it, so distinct, that Apted himself must have been surprised with the immediate result. The children seem so comfortable on camera. They also act naturally when the camera is set back from them, observing the play yard and the scene with the same-aged drill sergeant kicking their legs that may be out of line. The short-length film certainly leaves you wanting more, wanting to see which seven of the children are selected for the future films. What will they look like in seven years? Will they retain some of the personality they had when they were seven years old?

Blackfish

Gabriela Cowperthwaite, 2013

3/5

Seaworld continues to operate, even after trainers have been killed by killer whale Tilikum. This documentary interviews past trainers, past employees, and family and friends of the victims who detail their experience of their lives involved with working with the Orcas.

An interesting yet disturbing look at some of the most beautiful creatures on earth. Killer Whales that have been confined, exploited, and basically tortured for most of their lives in captivity. The film is quite deliberate, clearly trying to stir the pot of the Seaworld culture, hoping to draw attention to years of abuse to these intelligent creatures and to attempt to clear the air on some past incidents. There is clearly no positive effect to keeping these animals in captivity other than profiting from their elementary stunts that they are quite obviously underemployed to do. They are creatures that we hardly understand. The Seaworld corporation demonstrates one of the worst sides of the human race, throwing compassion out of the window for a buck. Their business ideals seem to match that of Monsantos, trying to drive profits and pay legal teams to cover their asses. And the Orcas are not the only ones to garner sympathy in the film. The trainers are also victimized by the Seaworld machine. Seaworld takes advantage of the trainers urge to work with animals and brainwashes them to believe the animals are enjoying their stay, and tries to sweep past incidents under the carpet.

Seaworld is not going to close their doors unless they start hating money, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Therefore, the market must dictate what happens. As long as people are sitting in the seats waiting for the obligatory splash from the tortured Orca, it wont end. At the very least, this film should at least make people think twice before visiting the park with their children. One of the subjects of the film mentions at one point: "In fifty years, we're probably going to look back on this chapter and see how barbaric we were". While the film succeeds in delivering its message, the resistance by Seaworld to be interviewed limits the perspective. Seeing the old school Seaworld commercials certainly provides a creepy tone. Listening to the ex-trainers recount is compelling. But overall it doesn't make a lasting impact, and feels like it could easily be more of a 60 Minutes special than a full documentary.