Documentary FIlmmaking=Frustration 101

Errol Morris and Michael Moore I salute you. Not only for being brilliant visionaries in the craft and art of filmmaking. But being thus in the most torturously tedious form of this art and craft.

Never again will I seek to do a documentary. Unless, I can afford to employ a crew. Filmmaking, in general, is not a simple task to undertake; but, I have been specifically educated as to the particular set backs and obstacles that await the eager, fledgling directors who are attempting to capture the art, the beauty, and the pain of reality.

Reality is a bitch.

The single most inportant, indiscriminate, hit-you-right-upside-the-fucking-skull difference between narrative film and documentary film: In both their is a narrative, but in narrative you are in complete authorial control of the narrative. In documentary the narrative has you by the short hairs and will relentlessly drag you about the editing suite.

The true talent of a documentary filmmaker is his or her ability to take the reality that they are given, compromise their original vision, and then take what they have and use their own foresight and intuition to create a product that exudes a newly discovered vision.

Discovery is the biggest part of the whole thing. When you hear discovery you think positive, I am sure. Columbus discovered the America, yippee, hooray. But, the Native Americans they also discovered Columbus and that discovery would cause them centuries of being bent over and given the old in-out. This is not meant to be metaphoric for me the Indian Filmmaker and my Portuguese Sailor of a film. No, I simply mean to point out that not all discoveries are like chocolate filled easter eggs.

For example the discovery that despite countless attempts to get a camera and one other camera operator into death row I was denied was not a Columbus-type-of-discovery. That was a not so happy discovery considering it meant that the subject of my documentary would never make even a cameo. But, hopefully, there will be something novel and intriguing about the story of man on death row told through his family's eyes.

Don't get me wrong. I love filmmaking and I love my movie. But it has been hard, I just hope that what I produce will be a positive discovery for anyone who happens upon it.

If not, back to the drawing board....


Go see Terrence Malick's The New World, don't listen to the reviews, and if you don't like it don't listen to yourself. It is beautiful.

This Holiday

A tribute

And these are my top 5 movies of 2005.

Jack Abramoff Offs Lobbying???

Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay have become the Monica Lewinski and Bill Clinton of 2005. It seems that this dynamic duo has recently found themselves up to their necks in bad press. I just wonder if Tom Delay will ever suffer any legal repercussions or is Abramoff going to have to get caught sucking him off.

I hope I am wrong. I hope that the demise of Newt Gengrich sets the perfect example for the imminent downfall of the House majority leader. I hope that DeLay will find himself in a career-ending contreversey. But, I am not so sure. With the President spying on any and every American who so much as breaks wind in his general direction he could very well succeed in burying the DeLay case in a sea of vanished dissenters.

But, I have a question that I hope someone could answer for me. Diane Ream, on NPR, was weezing. Then, in the middle of a few of her weezes she managed to have a piece that dealt with the possibility that the government put an end to lobbying.

The way some of the guests on the show described it sounded as if it was a similar tactic as campaign finance reform. They would prevent corruption by more striclty regulating the legislative process of which lobbying plays a primary role.

I'm not so sure I am comfortable with this. Although Campaign Finance Reform is a stroke of brilliance, and although I agree with many of the proponents of this theory I am afraid that there is something wrong with not allowing people to try to influence Congress toward their policies. Can that even be done?

I'm not sure. Perhaps, a rigorous examination of the involvement of lobbyists and special interest groups in the legislative process would be the most appropriate course of action. The establishment of a watch dog organization to ensure that special interest groups are not doing more than merely expressing their interests.

Boots

Boots are intriguing.

When one slips on a pair of boots the also slip on an invisible sense of indestructiblity. In your boots you can brave the deepest and groggiest of mud puddles without fear of soiling your socks. You can trudge through the thickest, meanest, ass-whippinest, briar patch in the woods and not get one scratch on your ankle.

Yep, boots are quite the friend for a rugged man.

But, now, in these, our fashionable times, a man need not be rugged to bestow a pair of boots upon his feet. What does this mean?

Something that was once a symbol of working class woe and blue collar drudgery is now a part of the popular culture image market.

Now, you must understand I am not criticizing. I, myself, wear boots and I do not hop horse turds in a pasture. I am just pondering (and am asking for you collaborative ponderance) if there is some significant social theory to be drawn from this phenomenon of proletariat image being adopted by bourgeois fashion.

In my mind, the boot is analagous to the long hair of Hippies being their freak flag symbol. The boot is not so much a freak flag but, at one time, it could be seen as the working class' banner of detriment. They would spend the rest of their days in those boots, at that job, drinking that same Bud Light six-pack after work. They would never leave the monotony that those boots subjected them too...they would never leave Casablanca.

The boots of today, however, they see the flashing lights of fashion exhibits and the hazy smoky air of the most expensive clubs. Oh, what a life these boots have seen.....

Kong and Brokeback

During my delightful trip to Michigan I, among other joyous things such as Euchre (A Yankee version of Rook) took in a few movies. One of the films was the highlty touted heavy-weight film by Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain. Then, just yesterday, back in the familiar tobacco scented city of Winston I saw Peter Jackson's no-surprise "epic," King Kong. I will only talk about Kong because I have more to say about it, and for Brokeback Iwill likely only regurgitate the well-deserved accolades you have already heard. But, you should go see it. It is a beautiful film and a beautiful love story, it makes no effort to politicize homosexuality, its not a movie about politics.

Right now, before I even commence, I would like to state that I enjoyed King Kong. Although what follows seems critical I did thoroughly enjoy myself (even though I had to get up to piss twice in the movie)>>>>>which brings me to the one thing that sticks in my crawl about Peter Jackson. Peter, give me a break, do you really have that much to say? Lord of the Rings I hated because it was so unnecessarily long that by the last third of the movie I already had cut and pasted two death threat letters, stamped and addressed it to that son of a bitch Jackson.

I say unnecessary because he has so many shots of people journeying, I mean when the cinema history books refer to Peter jackson the auteur they will have a section on how the staple of his films are his journey fetish. We get the point!!! These people are traveling a long distance, but the point of editing is to manipulate time and space so the audience doesn't feel like they themselves are traveling this great distance.

Paired with the infamous journey-shot is the Jackson's incessant need to include 5 billion action-reaction shots. He will have a shot of some action or some scene and he will directly precede it with a shot of the charatcer who is doing the looking in a prolonged and whimsical gaze. Enough of the fucking gazing, Pete!!! If I see Frodo gaze longingly one more time I am going to develop a severe and violent prejudice for little people.

Okay, okay so I am not even talking about Kong, sorry. I mentioned these aspects of LOR because the aspects are all still very prevalent in King Kong. I liked King Kong more though. Why? Not real sure, it would seem that my detest for Peter Jackson would not allow me to enjoy the movie. I think it is two things: First, King Kong is a truly captivating love story. It does hint at a somewhat politically incorrect subtext (more on that later) and could be unsavory for that reason, but it is a truly tragic movie. It is a love story about in which the two main parties can not communicate (very conducive to the Peter Jackson motif of the gaze) and this love on the part of Kong is ultimately doomed, he is destined to be lonely--I've always been a sucker for tragedy, ever since my Dear Mommy use to read me to sleep at night with Othello.

The second part of my adoration of the film is Naomi Watts. Watts shocks (punny?) me every time. She is amazingly beautiful and she is amazingly talented. It was hard for me to go to the bathroom once, not to mention twice, for fearing I would miss her on screen. She really does make the movie.

Now, on to the debate over King Kong. Since the 1930s version of Kong film historians have debated the politically incorrect undertones of the film. The stereotypical fragile, blonde, white woman who is possessed and adored by the savage, black, African ape. The historic white paranoia around black male white female relations does peak its head occasionally in this narrative, and the question must be asked should the choise to redo this film have been made. Certainly, the filmmakers were conscious of the racial implications of the film they moved the setting from Africa to an island in the South Pacific. Therefore, the natives were no longer Africans, thus the problem was solved? No. Africanness has never been the issue, blackness is what has led to discrimination and prejudice. And, I think perhaps, the Kong narrative does further the categorization or segregation of race. BUT

BUT. Even with this the film, in the end, does ask the question who is it that is really savage. It attempts to take on the Joseph Conrad issue of the savagery in man kind as a whole, but that is just in the end....what about in the beginning when we see hords of black people chanting, and killing, and foaming at the mouth...............I don't know I am sturggling with this one myself....

Merry Holidays and Stuff

Hunter S. Thompson reminded me today ( please note that I am not engaging in communication with those in the after-life; I am sure they have dealt with ass holes like me enough for one lifetime....no, I am reading Hey Rube the latest publication of Thompson's articles and letters) that the Holiday seasons accompany a rise in suicides and homicides. The conservative in me welcomes this trend; it influences of the thinning of the population so the elite can rise to their rightful place as masters of the universe, similar to He-Man. He-Man is the strongest so god damn it he deserves his prosperity.

But, the bleeding-heart liberal in me wishes to address the matter from an alternative perspective. When you, my wonderful audience member (the one or two of you), are enjoying your holiday cheer let's hark the woes of our fellow man who feel life to be a forlorn hope. Remember, that is all I ask. Remember that while you have that turkey leg in your mouth some unfortunate soles have a 357 barrel in their mouth.

On another note, I have illegally obtained The Strokes new album. I have had to argue vehemently with some, but I do think it illustrates a new and courageous attempt at a novel sound for the New York City rock and rollers. My biggest qualm with the band is that I have had to begrudgingly neglect the fact that they are a bunch of rich boys who had their daddies get them to the point of rock and roll stardom.

But politics be damned, I am going to set aside class ( I can't believe I just said that) and make a statement that I think The Strokes have a good sound; they are more popular in England than they are here, which always bodes well for any rock and roll group. And, they live a rock and roll lifestyle which I think is very important, especially in this times where youth, my peers, seems to increasingly champion conformity.

A new survey finds that only one half of all high schoolers think newspapers should be able to print without out government consent. Also, one in five said that it should be taboo for Americans to express unpopular opinions. Britney Speares, the spokeswoman of American youth, said that we should support President Bush's decisions, that we should have faith in our leaders ability to lead.

The fact that dissention is seen as unfathomable by today's youth is evidence that youth, today, lacks the drugs, sex, and rock and roll that inevitable accompany progress. I mean, if there is ever a time to disagree, if there is ever a time to dissent, if there is ever a time to rock and roll, god damn it the time is now, when we are young. So take off your polos and sweater vests and start thinking differently, start being a ludicrous idealist, and please, just go to a rock and roll show.....strawberry fields forever

Yule Tide Cheer for the Atheist

In the past week I have heard several speeches given at Christmas themed events. I have had the privilege of hearing the Wake Forest Chaplain speak. His message, both times, has piqued my interest, and both times his simplistic eloquence has enticed me along from word to word.

But, of particular interest to me is one staple that accompanied both speeches. At the lighting of the Quad and at Lovefeast he made an effort to include a variety of religious denominations and those who claim no denomination at all. He asserted that it is not just the Christian who can experience the joy of this season.

This season is not so joyful for all, I will be the first to recognize that. It is a time when we are forced to visit extended family who we must pretend, for at least an hour, to be interested in what they tell us they have been doing since last year when we humored them for an hour. And this extended family, it is almost certain, is just as crazy as you remembered them, many of them having fried their brains long ago in the sixties, and some, rare and special ones, who are still frying their brains now, along with their newly addicted children. But, my cynicism will stop now....

The Chaplain is exactly right; and it is rare that I agree with a Chaplain. Perhaps, it was his initial statements about the poor and destitute that captivated by liberal sentiments, but I agree that Christmas has a way of creating a social aura that is not present the other eleven months of the year...unless teorrorists attack.

In conceding this, however, I also recognize that not everyone who is affected by the holiday spirit is Christian or even religious. These people do not appreciate the "true" reason of Christmas; but, as the Chaplain claimed, this does not matter. It is precisley this blurring of religious boundaries that makes the season what it is.

The reason I am writing this is not to kiss Christmas's ass, however. We all know that we are going to be force fed enough Christmas to strangle a horse. No, the reason I am writing this is to pose a question; there is something that I can't quite put my finger on about this paradoxical nature of a religious holiday that is not exclusively religious.

Myself, I am one of those people who, as the Chaplain puts it, claims no faith in particular. But, I can not pretend to feel no welling of sentiment when the winter season arrives. But, why is this, why is it that a holiday founded on principles which not only do I not believe in, but which I also feel are responsible for intoxicating the masses, why is is that in this time of they year I am influenced by the spirit?

I think maybe it is the sprirt of giving and goodwill that persuades me. I do not denounce religion: when religion can teach people to take care of one another and not judge based on differences it is successful. When religion can give destitute people hope it is successful. But, when religion is treated as more than a metaphor, when it is treated as truth, people become divided and people fight each other rather than their common enemies.

Christmas, I think, recognizes religion as metaphor for humanity. I know I was won over the first time I saw Merry Christmas Charlie Brown (I don't know if that's the title). In it Charlie Brown champions a down and out, in the dumps, ragged, little Christmas tree. Despite jeering and dispute from those around him he stands by that which is thought of as inappropriate and unqualified, and eventually he influences all his friends to see the beauty in what they had once seen to be uncivilized.

Christmas not only breaks down the constricitng nature of organized religions, but it also breaks down the idea of social truths. It embraces meatphor and symbolism with no pretense of asserting that they are definitively the way things are. Charlie Brown proved that there was no such naturally occurring phenomenon of that which is inappropriate or appropriate, no such thing as that which is pure or un-pure, no such thing as that which is right or wrong. Humans are symbol-creating and a symbol-using animals. Christmas recognizes the power of symbols but it does not attempt to prescribe truth to symbols which are socially constructed; instead, it appreciates religious narrative as a story with a moral...and a good moral at that.