Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)
Director: Asif Kapadia
Written By: Manish Pandey
Synopsis: A documentary that deals with the life and tragic early death of Ayrton Senna
I've never had any real interest in Formula 1 racing. In the same way people moan about football being overpaid men on a field kicking leather around, F1 to me is rich people in very fast cars driving around a track. I guess my disinterest in the sport stems from a disinterest in cars. I have my drivers licence, even owned a car at one point, but the way people react and interact when in these massive hunks of metal has always been a turn off. Also as a man who reads the back pages first, I've always seen how the politics have affected the sport, but then again name me a popular sport these days that hasn't been infected by money men and the like.
Senna is the perfect film for people who don't have an interest in the sport. Why? Because the subject himself; Ayrton Senna, appears so wonderfully grounded. It also helps that director Asif Kapadia and editors Chris King and Gregers Sall compile a film, not as a typical assembly of talking heads but as a full bodied drama, playing out in front of you with all the tension of many high class Hollywood features. Senna creates a such a riveting portrayal of a man and the sport he loves, that I became more intrigued not only in the man but the sport itself. This is what a good documentary should do.
Taking the most prominent aspect of Senna's life; his privileged yet determined upbringing, his battles against Allan Prost and the FIA, to his tragic final moments. It's put together with laser sighted precision (out of 15,000 hours of footage) and provides poignant insight into a man whose fearlessness (observe his driving on wet surfaces) made him a champion, but his love for his country and faith seem to take him further. Kapadia assemblage of the footage gives Senna a humility that is sorely lacking in my chosen sport Football, although a quick glance at Messi and Kaka shows such personalities haven't completely died out.
There's no doubt that the way the film is put together makes Senna appear like he can do no wrong (it eschews an Eddie Irvine confrontation and a relationship with a 15 year old, which I found out after watching), such one sidedness stops us from seeing a Senna as a truly complete and flawed person. The Film makes Prost out to be a villain of sorts, but some his ominous comments about Senna help revel that the man's drive to compete could be as dangerous as it is inspiring. The film only touches on some of the political drama of the sport which provide some of the most revealing aspects of not only Senna as someone who wished for the safety of those who partake in the sport, but also the bullish and dogmatic talk that show up for the FIA. Being the person I am I would love to see what else was said within the offices and meeting rooms as opposed to some of the more fawning interviews.
This doesn't stop Senna from being the absorbing feature it is. Senna comes across as a man with strong morals and a caring personality. A wonderful moment during the credits involves a selfless Senna jumping out of his car to help another driver whose just crashed, while his talk about pure racing will touch anyone who remembers why they took up a sport when young. As a film Kapadia's wonderful usage of footage captures not only the tension of the boardrooms, but the high paced excitement of actually being in those races, while the home video and interviews show us a man with a warmth that I feel many wished the Hamltons, Messas and the like had. I for one; would particularly be chuffed if the England Football team took even half a page out of Senna's book. We still probably wouldn't win the world cup but they would definitely win more hearts within the nation.
Showing posts with label documentry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label documentry. Show all posts
Monday, 13 June 2011
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Review: Inside Job
Year: 2010 (U.K Release 2011)
Director: Charles Ferguson
Narration: Matt Damon
Many have considered Inside Job as scary. I however do not. This is not because I find the film to be a bad one, but because it once again reminded me that money talks, absolute power corrupts absolutely and for those not in the top 1% in terms of wealth we are royally screwed nearly always in some roundabout. I guess the knowledge in the fact that these people can't take their wealth with them after they die help subside any anger that could have come from watching the movie.
Inside Job tells the story of the economic crisis in a very typical way for a documentary. There is nothing out of the ordinary in it's set up. It wishes to use it's stats and facts to drive the movie home and for that unfortunately it's a little dry. In fact the set up of the crisis (despite some interesting insight) is the most difficult to get through. This is the worst and best thing about Inside Job in someway as it's not the most joyous thing to watch but it also speaks in volumes on how easily the trouble was allowed to start. To have us as the "bewildered herd" is best for these people as then only the "saviors" could help us by sorting it out. This is even though our best interests are about the size of a penny in the ocean in comparison to the money they wish to make.
The film illustrates the greedy ideals of these people efficiently enough with it's overheard shots of the Hamptons and as one commentator quotes "pissing contests" that these investors and bankers have. One of the most intriguing aspects I found in the film is the simple fact that for many decades after the great depression America appeared to be financially sound. So why is it that the powers that be decide to restructure and deregulate the banking sector? Don't answer that question. The film knows why and answers it well. Ferguson builds the unjust and greedy world these character inhibit well. He also does this with a damning attack on the U.S governments that have allowed this. Liberal or Conservative is crucially not the point here as it shows (particularly in the last third) that Ferguson wishes only for a fairer and just America over anything else.
What I enjoyed about the movie isn't so much how well it deals with the financial crisis, but the backtracking and bullshit that comes with these people. Greed isn't a sin that stirs me as much as pride and the talk of chemical reactions in the brain of the wall street types when risks are taken provide the most revealing. The lust for power and wealth is one thing, but the delusional thoughts of grander, self belief that they are above the law and the sheer amorality that bolsters this drive provide the most striking moments. The films final third in which the academics and consultants of top colleges stumble and fume over their words when questioned on conflict of interests are very entertaining. It's amusing to think that Jeff Gerstmann was fired for his integrity over a measly video game, while the bigwigs of Harvard and Columbia happily take huge pay offs to give positive financial advice on the very people who just paid them.
For me once you get past the babble and talk of it all (I hated economics at college and dropped it for film and media) Inside Jobs main argument is a sound one. It is a worrying thought that the financial bulk of greedy bankers and their lobbyists appear to have more control in the state of country than it's politicians, particularly when they only give a damn about profit by any means necessary. Throughout the films opening sequences, many shots are of skyscrapers pointing upwards to the sky, which help paint an interesting visual picture (consider the fact they are always trying to build higher ones). I'm surprised that Ferguson doesn't feature any shots of the Wall Street Bull at all. As obvious as the metaphor is it's still an immensely apt one.
Director: Charles Ferguson
Narration: Matt Damon
Many have considered Inside Job as scary. I however do not. This is not because I find the film to be a bad one, but because it once again reminded me that money talks, absolute power corrupts absolutely and for those not in the top 1% in terms of wealth we are royally screwed nearly always in some roundabout. I guess the knowledge in the fact that these people can't take their wealth with them after they die help subside any anger that could have come from watching the movie.
Inside Job tells the story of the economic crisis in a very typical way for a documentary. There is nothing out of the ordinary in it's set up. It wishes to use it's stats and facts to drive the movie home and for that unfortunately it's a little dry. In fact the set up of the crisis (despite some interesting insight) is the most difficult to get through. This is the worst and best thing about Inside Job in someway as it's not the most joyous thing to watch but it also speaks in volumes on how easily the trouble was allowed to start. To have us as the "bewildered herd" is best for these people as then only the "saviors" could help us by sorting it out. This is even though our best interests are about the size of a penny in the ocean in comparison to the money they wish to make.
The film illustrates the greedy ideals of these people efficiently enough with it's overheard shots of the Hamptons and as one commentator quotes "pissing contests" that these investors and bankers have. One of the most intriguing aspects I found in the film is the simple fact that for many decades after the great depression America appeared to be financially sound. So why is it that the powers that be decide to restructure and deregulate the banking sector? Don't answer that question. The film knows why and answers it well. Ferguson builds the unjust and greedy world these character inhibit well. He also does this with a damning attack on the U.S governments that have allowed this. Liberal or Conservative is crucially not the point here as it shows (particularly in the last third) that Ferguson wishes only for a fairer and just America over anything else.
What I enjoyed about the movie isn't so much how well it deals with the financial crisis, but the backtracking and bullshit that comes with these people. Greed isn't a sin that stirs me as much as pride and the talk of chemical reactions in the brain of the wall street types when risks are taken provide the most revealing. The lust for power and wealth is one thing, but the delusional thoughts of grander, self belief that they are above the law and the sheer amorality that bolsters this drive provide the most striking moments. The films final third in which the academics and consultants of top colleges stumble and fume over their words when questioned on conflict of interests are very entertaining. It's amusing to think that Jeff Gerstmann was fired for his integrity over a measly video game, while the bigwigs of Harvard and Columbia happily take huge pay offs to give positive financial advice on the very people who just paid them.
For me once you get past the babble and talk of it all (I hated economics at college and dropped it for film and media) Inside Jobs main argument is a sound one. It is a worrying thought that the financial bulk of greedy bankers and their lobbyists appear to have more control in the state of country than it's politicians, particularly when they only give a damn about profit by any means necessary. Throughout the films opening sequences, many shots are of skyscrapers pointing upwards to the sky, which help paint an interesting visual picture (consider the fact they are always trying to build higher ones). I'm surprised that Ferguson doesn't feature any shots of the Wall Street Bull at all. As obvious as the metaphor is it's still an immensely apt one.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Review: Catfish
Year: 2010
Director: Ariel Schulman, Henry Joost
Starring: Ariel Schulman, Henry Joost, Nev Schulman
WARNING: I don't mention explicit plot moments, however, my review may reveal more than one may like to know about the movie.
An old work colleague passed away last year, and a friend asked me and others who knew her to change our facebook profile picture to the last one she had in her memory. It's a small action, but an affectionate one and many of us obliged. A few days into this I received a facebook message from an American who lets just say, wanted to "get to know me better". It doesn't help that my first name is Leslie despite the masculine spelling and my middle name being Byron. A brief e-mail exchange soon had the horny youngster was back on his way. Possibly off to look for more "sexi gals" or whatever.
Now if my mindset was a more dubious one, I could have easily seen how deep the rabbit hole could have been. I mean, my privacy status on FB is high so I could have easily toyed with this guy by merely sending messages pretending to be a girl.
This leads me to the main aspect of Catfish, a film in which a privileged New York photographer (Nev) develops a correspondence with an 8 year old girl (Abby) on facebook. She likes one of his photos and asks if she can paint it. As odd as this sounds right now, it's ok because Nev is also contacted by Abby's mum Angela. Nev accepts and pretty soon he begins a pleasant and harmless internet relationship which evolves around their respected artforms. Nev is then introduced over facebook to Abby's older sister Megan and a more intimate relationship develops. However, they have yet to meet...
Catfish was the most talked about documentary at Sundance and it's misleading trailer hints that the films final 40 minutes are something much more sinister. The outcome however, is a much more heartfelt affair. The deceptive marketing actually works towards Catfish's advantage, as does all the "is it real" talk that some more disapproving critics have been landing at it. While I can accept certain moments have a certain "unauthentic" feel, and the frightening amount of tech that should reveal the truth much quicker than it takes, like my aforementioned story in the first paragraph it becomes clear that the dream over comes the reality. Like joining a cult, we believe we're far too intelligent to fall for anything like that and forget that we are actually more susceptible. I do wonder how many people will be quick to debunk this but not look at their favorite reality shows with the same amount of skepticism.
For me Catfish is all about the story itself and whether or not the film is "true" it manages to encompass the fears and worries that social media has brought, and tells us in an disturbing, funny and heart felt manner. The Social Network tells us that one of the most powerful tools to impact our social landscape since the telephone was conceived by someone deeply unsociable. Catfish expands on this showing us in it's low-fi approach how slippery our "second personalities" have now become. We can connect to people far easier than ever and these personas not only allow to do and say things we'd never dream of in reality but we do so with an alarming disconnect. The final scenes show us two people who would probably never speak to each other in other circumstances coming together and remind us of how important and powerful face to face talking can be.
Note: The screening I went had a Q&A session with Henry Joost. I asked the question on if he values human connections even more. He responded with "Definitely, this is what the film is all about". It's also important to know that while many who have been using the internet are aware of many elements within Catfish. The film clearly notes with it's constant zippy CGI imagery that now more people use the internet and with the tech growing rapidly and those still in the dark are not that likely to look as smugly as our net savvy counterparts. Think of it like all those mothers who are still sending people chain mail.
Director: Ariel Schulman, Henry Joost
Starring: Ariel Schulman, Henry Joost, Nev Schulman
WARNING: I don't mention explicit plot moments, however, my review may reveal more than one may like to know about the movie.
An old work colleague passed away last year, and a friend asked me and others who knew her to change our facebook profile picture to the last one she had in her memory. It's a small action, but an affectionate one and many of us obliged. A few days into this I received a facebook message from an American who lets just say, wanted to "get to know me better". It doesn't help that my first name is Leslie despite the masculine spelling and my middle name being Byron. A brief e-mail exchange soon had the horny youngster was back on his way. Possibly off to look for more "sexi gals" or whatever.
Now if my mindset was a more dubious one, I could have easily seen how deep the rabbit hole could have been. I mean, my privacy status on FB is high so I could have easily toyed with this guy by merely sending messages pretending to be a girl.
This leads me to the main aspect of Catfish, a film in which a privileged New York photographer (Nev) develops a correspondence with an 8 year old girl (Abby) on facebook. She likes one of his photos and asks if she can paint it. As odd as this sounds right now, it's ok because Nev is also contacted by Abby's mum Angela. Nev accepts and pretty soon he begins a pleasant and harmless internet relationship which evolves around their respected artforms. Nev is then introduced over facebook to Abby's older sister Megan and a more intimate relationship develops. However, they have yet to meet...
Catfish was the most talked about documentary at Sundance and it's misleading trailer hints that the films final 40 minutes are something much more sinister. The outcome however, is a much more heartfelt affair. The deceptive marketing actually works towards Catfish's advantage, as does all the "is it real" talk that some more disapproving critics have been landing at it. While I can accept certain moments have a certain "unauthentic" feel, and the frightening amount of tech that should reveal the truth much quicker than it takes, like my aforementioned story in the first paragraph it becomes clear that the dream over comes the reality. Like joining a cult, we believe we're far too intelligent to fall for anything like that and forget that we are actually more susceptible. I do wonder how many people will be quick to debunk this but not look at their favorite reality shows with the same amount of skepticism.
For me Catfish is all about the story itself and whether or not the film is "true" it manages to encompass the fears and worries that social media has brought, and tells us in an disturbing, funny and heart felt manner. The Social Network tells us that one of the most powerful tools to impact our social landscape since the telephone was conceived by someone deeply unsociable. Catfish expands on this showing us in it's low-fi approach how slippery our "second personalities" have now become. We can connect to people far easier than ever and these personas not only allow to do and say things we'd never dream of in reality but we do so with an alarming disconnect. The final scenes show us two people who would probably never speak to each other in other circumstances coming together and remind us of how important and powerful face to face talking can be.
Note: The screening I went had a Q&A session with Henry Joost. I asked the question on if he values human connections even more. He responded with "Definitely, this is what the film is all about". It's also important to know that while many who have been using the internet are aware of many elements within Catfish. The film clearly notes with it's constant zippy CGI imagery that now more people use the internet and with the tech growing rapidly and those still in the dark are not that likely to look as smugly as our net savvy counterparts. Think of it like all those mothers who are still sending people chain mail.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Review: Exit through the Gift Shop.
Year: 2010
Director: Banksy
Screenplay: ?
Starring: Banksy, Thierry Guetta
Synopsis is here
Is it real? Is it fake? Is it all a big joke? It doesn't matter in the slightest because Banksy's "documentary" was really quite wonderful to my eyes. So much of it feels a little too "complete" to feel like an accurate documentation. However, in hindsight, that's not really the point, because what Exit wishes do is show street art at humble beginnings. Constantly he runs the line between when art becomes nothing but commerce before teasing the idea that the director is not a sell out...or is he? The film likes to play around with so much of it's content it's at times difficult to pinpoint how far the message turns into ego massaging.
But this is where the fun lies, as a documentary; it's a consistently watchable feature, charting the rise and peak of not only a niche culture(Graffiti now under the guise of "street art"), but of it's wildly eccentric subject in French Shopkeeper Thierry Guetta. Banksy melds intriguing personality with interesting premise effectively and at face value, what you have is well put together account of a very passionate man. Scratch the surface (or watch a couple of films) and the film is as authentic as the ten pound notes you see halfway through the film. But suddenly we realize that in playing the film out as fiction the message becomes clear.
Bansky's film takes what some considers an artform (graffiti) and not only documents it's craft, it's hazards and controversy (consider an updated style wars maybe) but it shows how the message and reasons behind these images (politics, humour, or just being noticed) can suddenly become lost when the calling of fame and celebrity come calling. In one moment former street artist Shepard Fairey (behind the now iconic Obama "hope" image) states "The more you see of an image, the more power it brings" and Banksy toys with this interesting theme with a layered sequence involving his own L.A installations. As Hollywood's finest stroll amongst the imagery, Banksy is actually at Disneyland inflating a Guantanamo Bay Air model prisoner beside one of the kids rides. When you are told that the many news presenters are reporting about the fact that a real elephant (covered in pink kid's hand paint) is displayed in a bedroom at the installation. The full stop on these two seemingly unrelated oddball exercises is the date: The anniversary of 9/11.
But it's not all about proverbial/literal elephants in the room, the film is constantly humorous in it's small moments as well. The comment of the old lady who sees Bansky's "murdered telephone" piece is a deceptively obvious yet amusing one, while Guetta's street art video will feel familiar to those who've had to suffer art and experiment video production at university or at least a bad skate video. The juxtaposition of street artists being stopped by cops while an art collector mentions later on that she got everyone to buy a Banksy also provides a knowing smile.
But the most interesting thing about Banksy film is it's director using a different artform for the first time to demonstrate how when an artform becomes a commodity, it's in danger of losing subjectivity and danger. By the time we reach the unveiling of Guetta's own pet art project "Mr brainwash" He also demonstrates how not everyone can just become an artist. It's brilliant to use street art as the background for such a them with it's roots in hip-hop, but Banksy's film is so universal in it's telling that comparisons can be utilized not only to hip-hop, but paintings and films themselves.
I've been quite indifferent to Banksy for the most part but in watching this I feel that as an artist i don't think the man has "sold out". I think like many people who get thrust in a public eye for truly doing something that people find interesting is trying to push different messages out in different forms while trying to keep that personality. Exit Through the Gift Shop may be a film but it invokes the same reckless spirit that Banksy's street paintings have.
Director: Banksy
Screenplay: ?
Starring: Banksy, Thierry Guetta
Synopsis is here
Is it real? Is it fake? Is it all a big joke? It doesn't matter in the slightest because Banksy's "documentary" was really quite wonderful to my eyes. So much of it feels a little too "complete" to feel like an accurate documentation. However, in hindsight, that's not really the point, because what Exit wishes do is show street art at humble beginnings. Constantly he runs the line between when art becomes nothing but commerce before teasing the idea that the director is not a sell out...or is he? The film likes to play around with so much of it's content it's at times difficult to pinpoint how far the message turns into ego massaging.
But this is where the fun lies, as a documentary; it's a consistently watchable feature, charting the rise and peak of not only a niche culture(Graffiti now under the guise of "street art"), but of it's wildly eccentric subject in French Shopkeeper Thierry Guetta. Banksy melds intriguing personality with interesting premise effectively and at face value, what you have is well put together account of a very passionate man. Scratch the surface (or watch a couple of films) and the film is as authentic as the ten pound notes you see halfway through the film. But suddenly we realize that in playing the film out as fiction the message becomes clear.
Bansky's film takes what some considers an artform (graffiti) and not only documents it's craft, it's hazards and controversy (consider an updated style wars maybe) but it shows how the message and reasons behind these images (politics, humour, or just being noticed) can suddenly become lost when the calling of fame and celebrity come calling. In one moment former street artist Shepard Fairey (behind the now iconic Obama "hope" image) states "The more you see of an image, the more power it brings" and Banksy toys with this interesting theme with a layered sequence involving his own L.A installations. As Hollywood's finest stroll amongst the imagery, Banksy is actually at Disneyland inflating a Guantanamo Bay Air model prisoner beside one of the kids rides. When you are told that the many news presenters are reporting about the fact that a real elephant (covered in pink kid's hand paint) is displayed in a bedroom at the installation. The full stop on these two seemingly unrelated oddball exercises is the date: The anniversary of 9/11.
But it's not all about proverbial/literal elephants in the room, the film is constantly humorous in it's small moments as well. The comment of the old lady who sees Bansky's "murdered telephone" piece is a deceptively obvious yet amusing one, while Guetta's street art video will feel familiar to those who've had to suffer art and experiment video production at university or at least a bad skate video. The juxtaposition of street artists being stopped by cops while an art collector mentions later on that she got everyone to buy a Banksy also provides a knowing smile.
But the most interesting thing about Banksy film is it's director using a different artform for the first time to demonstrate how when an artform becomes a commodity, it's in danger of losing subjectivity and danger. By the time we reach the unveiling of Guetta's own pet art project "Mr brainwash" He also demonstrates how not everyone can just become an artist. It's brilliant to use street art as the background for such a them with it's roots in hip-hop, but Banksy's film is so universal in it's telling that comparisons can be utilized not only to hip-hop, but paintings and films themselves.
I've been quite indifferent to Banksy for the most part but in watching this I feel that as an artist i don't think the man has "sold out". I think like many people who get thrust in a public eye for truly doing something that people find interesting is trying to push different messages out in different forms while trying to keep that personality. Exit Through the Gift Shop may be a film but it invokes the same reckless spirit that Banksy's street paintings have.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Review: Starsuckers
Year: 2009
Director: Chris Akins
Screenplay: Chris Akins
My last excursion to the London Film festival was Chris Akins attack on media all consuming quest to entrap us in it's dazzling glare. The festival's organizer made a joke by mentioning that the some of the very newspapers that are being hit on are suddenly giving the film a quite a bit of column space. I do however worry that the joke may be on the filmmakers with it's lack of providing answers to clear us from the murky quagmire that is the media outlets have become.
The film is frustrating, frightening, troubling and yet constantly entertaining. It's annoyingly flawed but greatly important within our climate. It is essential viewing but will the right people see it? Like all good documentaries Starsuckers has stained my mind and has constantly had me questioning things since I've seen it. Akins' second documentary feature is not only good humored but well informative, hitting home with revealing information on such historic media events such as Live 8, or the disturbing moral ground that is creating fake celebrity stories for money. Such aspects of the film are not only funny but arouse important question about what we read and how our opinions is hijacked and reformed for consumption. Although much of this may not be new to a few people (read some Chomsky maybe) but I still found myself shocked by how deep the rabbit hole goes. So so twisted are the mechanics that I suddenly found myself feeling pretty helpless about how the media manipulates us.
But is this what Akins wants? For the viewer to like they can do nothing but succumb to global media domination? Akins taking liberties was a much more calculated attack on how Labour may have almost effectively stop Britain's right to free speech, which despite it's depressing outlook, still managed to have information on how to react to what you saw if one felt strong enough. Starsuckers lacks positive outcomes and by the end of the film, one may feel more than a little entrenched.
The film also attacks the Internet and bloggers such as myself which is fine, however when looking at the films difficulty in getting made by biting the hand that feeds, it's the honesty of certain bloggers and web writers that will allow this movie to thrive because it will be extremely difficult to go though more traditional outlets.
The film works best when it's kept simple. Akin employ high jinks that would have the likes of Bruno and Borat blushing while Micheal Moore nods in approval. In fact judging by the films reaction with the cinema, Akins effective (if slightly smug) methods not only garner great laughs but manage to get many of the films important points across, even if the film is slightly over reaching.
Starsuckers may have many liberals nodding and winking at the screen, hurriedly agreeing with the films views, but the films lack of positives and over reliance on humor had me worry that maybe we've gone beyond the point of no return when it comes to finding a way out. Where have our reliable sources gone for instance? While we are not in the days of Bernstein and Woodward any more, but isn't there anyone out there to save us? Starsuckers is funny, effective and scary but the question it should but doesn't ask is "what are we going to do?"
More Starsuckers talk at Geekplanetonline
Director: Chris Akins
Screenplay: Chris Akins
My last excursion to the London Film festival was Chris Akins attack on media all consuming quest to entrap us in it's dazzling glare. The festival's organizer made a joke by mentioning that the some of the very newspapers that are being hit on are suddenly giving the film a quite a bit of column space. I do however worry that the joke may be on the filmmakers with it's lack of providing answers to clear us from the murky quagmire that is the media outlets have become.
The film is frustrating, frightening, troubling and yet constantly entertaining. It's annoyingly flawed but greatly important within our climate. It is essential viewing but will the right people see it? Like all good documentaries Starsuckers has stained my mind and has constantly had me questioning things since I've seen it. Akins' second documentary feature is not only good humored but well informative, hitting home with revealing information on such historic media events such as Live 8, or the disturbing moral ground that is creating fake celebrity stories for money. Such aspects of the film are not only funny but arouse important question about what we read and how our opinions is hijacked and reformed for consumption. Although much of this may not be new to a few people (read some Chomsky maybe) but I still found myself shocked by how deep the rabbit hole goes. So so twisted are the mechanics that I suddenly found myself feeling pretty helpless about how the media manipulates us.
But is this what Akins wants? For the viewer to like they can do nothing but succumb to global media domination? Akins taking liberties was a much more calculated attack on how Labour may have almost effectively stop Britain's right to free speech, which despite it's depressing outlook, still managed to have information on how to react to what you saw if one felt strong enough. Starsuckers lacks positive outcomes and by the end of the film, one may feel more than a little entrenched.
The film also attacks the Internet and bloggers such as myself which is fine, however when looking at the films difficulty in getting made by biting the hand that feeds, it's the honesty of certain bloggers and web writers that will allow this movie to thrive because it will be extremely difficult to go though more traditional outlets.
The film works best when it's kept simple. Akin employ high jinks that would have the likes of Bruno and Borat blushing while Micheal Moore nods in approval. In fact judging by the films reaction with the cinema, Akins effective (if slightly smug) methods not only garner great laughs but manage to get many of the films important points across, even if the film is slightly over reaching.
Starsuckers may have many liberals nodding and winking at the screen, hurriedly agreeing with the films views, but the films lack of positives and over reliance on humor had me worry that maybe we've gone beyond the point of no return when it comes to finding a way out. Where have our reliable sources gone for instance? While we are not in the days of Bernstein and Woodward any more, but isn't there anyone out there to save us? Starsuckers is funny, effective and scary but the question it should but doesn't ask is "what are we going to do?"
More Starsuckers talk at Geekplanetonline
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Review: Tyson
Year: 2008 (U.K release 2009)
Director: James Toback
Starring: Mike Tyson
I have what I think is a healthy attraction to certain subjects in humanity that have gained taboo be it bullfighting or porn. I sometimes quite fascinated by peoples motivations and what drives them to do what they do. Boxing is another one of those odd endeavours that I have a passing interest in. It's a bizarre mentality to step into the ring with someone and engage in combat with someone. Despite what many people say about the sport, it's not as "humane" as they'd like to think. And despite boxing have a certain allure to it that I've only just discovered, the scars of the sport are still there with almost every fighter, only they're not only physical (just look at Ali now), but mental.
The last shot of Tyson is of Iron Mike himself (most of the film is one large talking head of him) and no matter how hearting his last monologue is, his darting eyes are the eyes of an unfocused child. He has a look of anguish and his tone of voice is still one of a broken man.
Tyson is a film that is hard to recommend to many people for a few reasons. One is the aforementioned style of the film, which despite some old footage and some pictures, Tyson is still a a 90 minute one on one with the man. Director James Toback says nothing and there is no interviewer just Tyson with the camera (you) as the confident.
The film allows Tyson to tell us about his life in great detail. Get past his bizarre speech pattens and almost effeminate tone (even more than when his was younger) and you may be surprised by the man's smarts. His description of how he become undisputed champion is almost poetic as he recounts his game plan and the eventual outcome of the match. His telling of his own story is a vivid one and despite most of the film being shots of him, he certainly know how to create a colourful narration.
The films most powerful moments are his tearful description of his old trainer Cus D'Amto and his dubious (for lack of a better word) observations of women. It's at this point you realise how fractured this man's mind is because he looks at women in the exact same way that he looks at his opponent. It's a terrifying revelation for the viewer but also an upsetting one. As Tyson tells the viewer of his life as a youth in what he calls a "promiscuous household" you release that the sins of his parents have left a mark stronger than any other fighter could given him. Like they say "they fuck you up your mum and dad".
Cus D'Amto give this man some focus, but with no nurturing side to speak of, his trainer may have unleashed a untamed beast one the world. A man focused on excess, power and dominance. Tyson trusted no one but his trainer (not even his own mother) and his trainer conditioned the man to overcome everything to get what he wants. Cus D'Amto dies when Mike Tyson is still young and with his only restraint gone, the darker aspects of his psyche take over.
It's amazing to see how honest Tyson is throughout this movie. It seems that he and Toback had an arrangement stating that Tyson had no say other the final cut. However it could have been easy to refuse and Toback's film doesn't hold back in any shape or form, crafting Tyson as more rounded character than any media outlet ever has.
Let's not be too hasty, this is not to say that Tyson is an angel. Not by any means. He is clearly misogynistic, with a hint of sociopath poking through the cracks, but with this said. it's clear that there's a man like any other within the beast that wants to do right. This film may not change your mind about the man or the myth, but try to look at it this way. You could say what ever you want to him, it means nothing to Tyson as his demons shout louder and will be with him forever.
Director: James Toback
Starring: Mike Tyson
I have what I think is a healthy attraction to certain subjects in humanity that have gained taboo be it bullfighting or porn. I sometimes quite fascinated by peoples motivations and what drives them to do what they do. Boxing is another one of those odd endeavours that I have a passing interest in. It's a bizarre mentality to step into the ring with someone and engage in combat with someone. Despite what many people say about the sport, it's not as "humane" as they'd like to think. And despite boxing have a certain allure to it that I've only just discovered, the scars of the sport are still there with almost every fighter, only they're not only physical (just look at Ali now), but mental.
The last shot of Tyson is of Iron Mike himself (most of the film is one large talking head of him) and no matter how hearting his last monologue is, his darting eyes are the eyes of an unfocused child. He has a look of anguish and his tone of voice is still one of a broken man.
Tyson is a film that is hard to recommend to many people for a few reasons. One is the aforementioned style of the film, which despite some old footage and some pictures, Tyson is still a a 90 minute one on one with the man. Director James Toback says nothing and there is no interviewer just Tyson with the camera (you) as the confident.
The film allows Tyson to tell us about his life in great detail. Get past his bizarre speech pattens and almost effeminate tone (even more than when his was younger) and you may be surprised by the man's smarts. His description of how he become undisputed champion is almost poetic as he recounts his game plan and the eventual outcome of the match. His telling of his own story is a vivid one and despite most of the film being shots of him, he certainly know how to create a colourful narration.
The films most powerful moments are his tearful description of his old trainer Cus D'Amto and his dubious (for lack of a better word) observations of women. It's at this point you realise how fractured this man's mind is because he looks at women in the exact same way that he looks at his opponent. It's a terrifying revelation for the viewer but also an upsetting one. As Tyson tells the viewer of his life as a youth in what he calls a "promiscuous household" you release that the sins of his parents have left a mark stronger than any other fighter could given him. Like they say "they fuck you up your mum and dad".
Cus D'Amto give this man some focus, but with no nurturing side to speak of, his trainer may have unleashed a untamed beast one the world. A man focused on excess, power and dominance. Tyson trusted no one but his trainer (not even his own mother) and his trainer conditioned the man to overcome everything to get what he wants. Cus D'Amto dies when Mike Tyson is still young and with his only restraint gone, the darker aspects of his psyche take over.
It's amazing to see how honest Tyson is throughout this movie. It seems that he and Toback had an arrangement stating that Tyson had no say other the final cut. However it could have been easy to refuse and Toback's film doesn't hold back in any shape or form, crafting Tyson as more rounded character than any media outlet ever has.
Let's not be too hasty, this is not to say that Tyson is an angel. Not by any means. He is clearly misogynistic, with a hint of sociopath poking through the cracks, but with this said. it's clear that there's a man like any other within the beast that wants to do right. This film may not change your mind about the man or the myth, but try to look at it this way. You could say what ever you want to him, it means nothing to Tyson as his demons shout louder and will be with him forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)