Doc "Snubs": 2012 Oscars Version

Christopher Campbell of The Documentary Channel's blog said it. S.T. VanAirsdale of movieline said it. Adam Benzine of realscreen has said it; he said Asif Kapadia said it. Ben Kenigsberg for Time Out Chicago said it. Steve Pond for The Wrap said it. [Edit to add] And now Jay Cheel at The Documentary Blog has said it (even though he tries to say he doesn't care). Some of them said hundreds of others said it via Twitter, and I'm sure there are others out there who have said it - THE INTERRUPTERS was snubbed. (Some said others were snubbed, notably SENNA.)

What they didn't say is why or how it was snubbed.

Sure, Campbell tautologically called it a "great film", adding it has "a great message". Benzine cites THE INTERRUPTERS as "highly lauded" while "hold[ing] a 99% 'fresh' rating on review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes". Kenigsberg calls TI "an extraordinary achievement" and that none of the other films on the shortlist "are on the same level [as TI]", adding that TI "features personalities and stories more memorable than any you'd find in 2011's feature films". Pond echoes Benzine stating TI is "one of the most acclaimed docs of 2011 and a film that most observers put at the top of the list for films most likely to be honored by the academy this year".  All to say that writing for documentary is as sorry as documentary critics' opinion of the Documentary Branch Screening Committee, though that isn't my battle.

In addition to the lack of writing in reasoned defense of THE INTERRUPTERS and its kin, there is little to no writing on the process of selection these writers seem so up-in-arms about. A couple of sources cite the 124 films that were in consideration, though I haven't seen mention of what these films might be - aside this handful of "snubbed", "shafted", and otherwise "over-looked". At least one critic notes the Academy's shift in process post-HOOP DREAMS outrage, and another makes the suggestion that an Executive Committee ought to take over the process. From a handful of rudimentary searches online I couldn't find information on the process, so perhaps it is intentionally opaque, but I have to believe there are folks in the doc community that have (insider?) knowledge but just aren't talking. This, too, is not my concern.

I'd rather return us to the critical outrage regarding the snubbings. The claims of snubbing seem situated in two contexts. First, James' HOOP DREAMS was denied a "Best" (non-editing) Oscar in 1995 - he is owed. Second, THE INTERRUPTERS is something "the Academy tends to like". On being owed, it should be obvious that the idea of a Best Anything of the Year award runs entirely counter to "being owed". Of course, the conversation that engages this quantifying endeavor measuring bestness is a fool's game, leading us to the reality that these awards are about what we know they are about - politicized popularity contests. Who is voting, who do they know, what do they owe, what do they get, how hard are various film's teams lobbying, etc. The ugly underbelly of "Oscar-grade" film. If this was merely about some other kind of best, we would find some diversity of product. It's like that guy in that movie with the gambling, right? The question is why do so many want to put their blinders on and make this about what it isn't about? Which gets us to the second point, that THE INTERRUPTERS is the kind of film we expect to see do well at a place like the Oscars.

I'd rather elide that conversation for now and instead open the space to celebrate that even films like THE INTERRUPTERS, INTO THE ABYSS, TABLOID, maybe even NOSTALGIA FOR THE LIGHT (that I call a 2010 film), and (though probably never) THE ARBOR - among countless others - are "the type of films" that we might expect to find embraced by the Oscars, but for whatever reason are saved from that milquetoast abyss of commodified praise, instead praised as snubbed.

To all the films that didn't make the cut.

And to those of you that did, congratulations are, of course, still in order (BUCK, BILL CUNNINGHAM, and PROJECT NIM are three of my favorite films of the year, and I'm sure several that I haven't seen are also very good).

chicago doc screening highlights, week of June 24

quick (and incomplete) recap of some chicagoland doc highlights this week, several week-long runs:

- @ChiFilmmakers has Onion City Experimental throught the weekend.
- @filmcenter opens PIANOMANIA;
- @facetschicago has MAKE BELIEVE returning;
- @musicboxtheatre opens TROLLHUNTER, continues MY PERESTROIKA, and returns BILL CUNNINGHAM NEW YORK for the weekend only.
- Landmark opens 3: BUCK; THE LAST MOUNTAIN; CONAN O'BRIEN CAN'T STOP.

- many great one-offs, most noteworthy is the kick-off of Propeller Fund-ed Southside Projects' screening at South Side Community Arts Center (th), two chicago gang pics LORD THING (70) and THE CORNER (62), discussion follows.
- @docfilmschicago has ZORN'S LEMMA (th) and CLIMATE REFUGEES (wed).

plenty more

Black & White and Red All Over: the PAGE ONE Kerfuffle

 thompowers Thom Powers NYT assigns @pageonemovie to non-film critic. Most unbalanced neg review of the year. Surely paper could have found real critic.

17 Jun

Thick tweet. The New York Times makes a choice about who is to review a film about itself. The paper chooses a "non-film critic". The review is unbalanced. The review is negative. The "non-film critic" has, about 80 characters later, turned into a not-real critic. There is a lot unsettling Mr. Powers; the next day Mr. Powers again tweets on the topic:

thompowers Thom Powers Real film critics on @pageonemovie at NPR http://ow.ly/5kL9MVillage Voice http://ow.ly/5kLab Daily News http://ow.ly/5kLcA But not @nytimes18 Jun 

 Here, it would seem, the emphasis has focused onto the realness of the critics writing on PAGE ONE, except for the fact that all the reviews linked are positive, so the germ of negativity within the initial complaint remains active. And it isn't as if there are no "real film critics" to draw upon for a negative review, Christoper Campbell's January 26 Cinematical review:

Ultimately, the otherwise likable 'Page One' only really fails in its attempt to say something. Rossi spreads the film over too many areas, not knowing whether to simply observe with a direct cinema approach or to tie together a greater examination and contemplation of the times of the Times.

Or, more robustly critical, Armond White's June 15 New York Press piece:

It doesn't occur to Rossi that the Times has always absorbed technological changes and still remains the same institution fully conscious of exercising its power. Rossi doesn't examine the Times' own ethics. Rather than sticking to the distinct manner of print journalism, Rossi himself gets distracted by the fashion of technological transition, and clutters Page One with TV broadcast clips about trends in the journalism industry. These serve as further distraction from the fact that Rossi goes inside the Times' sanctum and looks right past it.

While Mr. Campbell or Mr. White's reviews don't meet Mr. Powers' "most unbalanced neg review of the year" level of complaint, they share opinion in final analysis.  On this point, it is worth noting that Mr. Kinsley's review appreciates the general thrust of PAGE ONE of "how dreadful it would be if The Times did not survive. True, of course, but" adding, and here I agree completely "boring to the point of irritation after five or six repetitions." In a multi-tweet response of my own, I write that I'd "love to read why this complaint is so important to Thom"; he graciously responds:

thompowers Thom Powers @

@doccritic well, yes, I'm against non-film critics taking the place of real film critics and doing such a botch job so prominently

23 hours ago

thompowers Thom Powers @

@doccritic btw, I'm hardly alone. @davidwnugent called it appalling and that's the unanimous tone of reader comments on @nytimessite

23 hours ago

thompowers Thom Powers @

@doccritic here's a list of over 50 critics more appropriate to review @pageonemovie than the @nytimes choice http://ow.ly/5kUfD23 hours ago 

Again, thickness. There is a weakened complaint against non-film critics, this time the issue is taking the place of "real film critics" (how would any criticism by a "non-film critic" not take the place of a "real critic"? I'm not sure). There is the added complaint that Michael Kinsley's review is "botched", and "so prominently [visible, I suspect, this is The Times, and not meaning 'so prominently botched']". Mr. Powers goes on to grow the chorus of discontent, citing not only the appalled David Nugent:

DavidWNugent David Nugent appalled @nytimes review of @a_rossi @pageonemovie. How on earth is Kingsley best person 2 #write review. Shoddy writing frm great company.

17 Jun

who, it should be noted, misattributes the "shoddy writing" to some "Kingsley". Beyond Mr. Nugent's dismissal we can visit the balance of the outraged masses in "reader comments" offering a "unanimous tone" of appalled. Here, the irony is difficult to miss. Mr. Powers is criticizing the critical abilities of a "non-film critic" and drawing upon seven (!) online commenters to bolster his position that the review in question is misguided. Unless he knows something about these commenters that I don't, I suspect they are also "non-film critics" (if they are "real film critics", I suggest the Critic Police be sent). Or, does this once again get to Mr. Powers' main issue, that he simply disagrees with Mr. Kinsley's "botched" review? Part of the difficulty in understanding Mr. Powers' complaint against "non-film critics" is not knowing how it is that Mr. Kinsley's review is inferior to the three linked pieces of Joe Neumaier, Bob Mondello, or J. Hoberman - and the seven commenters, for that matter. Mr. Neumaier's 150-word capsule provides only token plot points (150-words is no excuse for lack of content, see Kevin Lee capsules, for example), hardly an exemplary work of criticism. Mr. Mondello gives just as little in his 500ish-word piece, offering a couple of quotes as well as his personal connection to the film's "star", David Carr, the popular platform of NPR is no excuse, as we are all familiar with Ignatiy Vishnevetsky's work on Ebert Presents. Mr. Hoberman's piece is typical Hoberman - well written, firmly rooted in a sense of film, culturally connected - this is inarguably film criticism, right? As judged against one another, it would seem that Mr. Kinsley's piece is similarly observant to Mr. Hoberman's piece, not as rich, not as clearly film, but certainly more informative and better written than offerings from Mr. Mondello or Mr. Neumaier, and arguably more playfully written than Mr. Hoberman's polite offering.

This, of course, is the rub. What is the work of the critic? What makes the work of Mr. Powers' triumvirate more valuable than the work of Mr. Kinsley? The assumption is that those that have held the paid position of film critic have better film insight:

thompowers Thom Powers @doccritic here's a list of over 50 critics more appropriate to review @pageonemovie than the @nytimes choice http://ow.ly/5kUfD23 hours ago @

a list of film critics who have lost their paid positions. Why should this be a marker of "real film criticism"? If we assume that two of the three "real film critics" have indeed written inferior reviews to Mr. Kinsley, why should the inferior criticism be preferred as "real"? I am of course not wanting folks to lose their jobs, but just holding a title or job does not determine the quality of one's work. The richness of Mr. Powers' anxiety of the fading institutional relevance of film critics is, of course, perfectly matched to this PAGE ONE kerfuffle, as the film is about an institution in decline. As other non-adoring critics of PAGE ONE have noted, the film does not do a good job of making its case. Further, as other reviewers have noted in various degree, the film's NYT landscape is inescapably white and male. So just as this is a film about the decline of relevance of "the paper of record", it is also a film about the decline of "the subjectivity of record". Is some of this discomfort with the negative review about more than the institutional slide of print media and paid film critic? As David Bordwell has summarized lately, claims that film criticism is dying are simply overstated. 

This raises the question of these "50 critics more appropriate to review" PAGE ONE, or Mr. Nugent's query "how is Kingsley best person 2 #write review", the first point raised by Mr. Powers - and seemingly most understudied: how is it that The Times decided upon Mr. Kinsley to write this review? It seems venom is being passed to Mr. Kinsley for his "botch job" and "shoddy writing" and being both a "non-film critic" and more dismissively, a non-critic, aside my disagreement that he botched the job or wrote shoddily, what obligation does The Times have to use a "film critic" that either works for The Company the review is based on or a "film critic" that would likely jump at the chance to write for The Times? While the critic is clearly not reviewing the institution but the film, doesn't it still make some sense to have a very removed individual review the film?  Is it possible this is why folks at The Times went with Mr. Kinsley?

In returning to Mr. Nugent's tweet charging "sloppy writing", I echo the astute Chris "@tapestore" Boeckmann's sentiment:

tapestore Chris Boeckmann @MattDentler Pretty confident that the NY Times review is purposefully "lazy."

16 Jun

though not clear what exactly Mr. Boeckmann means here, it suggested to me that Mr. Kinsley was mimicking the mundane content of PAGE ONE in his review, not a bad way to review something, really.  Beyond this playful formal exercise, Mr. Kinsley's criticisms of PAGE ONE resonated with me as true and valid. Does the critic have any obligation to "balance"? Is it my obligation, or Mr. Kinsley's obligation, to dig for positive remarks to be made on a film if the fundamental response is not positive? I can't imagine such an obligation exists. A friend of mine wrote:

In as much as user-generated reviews on Amazon don't undermine the integrity of the critical endeavor, neither do the iPad or the ebook. Write for new platforms, yes, but remember that the pleasure, the value, and the relevance of reviewing remains vested in the exercise of our pre-modern minds.The sizzle shall always remain quite distinct from the steak, and one will always leave you hungry.

Perhaps an engagement with Mr. Kinsley's ideas and criticisms of PAGE ONE would be more beneficial than name-calling dismissals that villainize him for not being a card-carrying film critic. And, perhaps more to the point, if folks are so offended that a "non-film critic" got the assignment, it seems some questions should be addressed to The Times.

CHAIN, Jem Cohen, 2004

I bet you made it somewhere nice, with a real job. Maybe you live in a condominium like you always wanted to, with wall-to-wall carpeting, ice-maker in the fridge, big teevee.

Of course, this is an address to you, dear reader, just as it was addressed to me, as Cohen's audience for CHAIN.  How is your life, materially? What is your job? What do you make, or what services do you provide? Where did your job come from? How did you get it? What do you spend your earnings on? Do you actually need what you buy? (We doubt it.) What would you do with your time if you weren't working (or, were working less)? So goes Jem Cohen's 2004 CHAIN.

Through a stuttering landscape of diluted and bland, Cohen suggests we are trapped in a deadening cycle of consumerism via often stationary shots of chain storefronts, malls, and parking lots. When the camera actually moves, Cohen maintains the appearance of stagnation through the repetition of these bland chain-store landscapes. Again, again, again, again, again.  This deadened rhythm frighteningly brings to light daily horrors overlooked:

The dually noteworthy chid-in-grocery-cart, above [pardon the photo of screen, frame as parallelogram and assuredly inaccurate color] , suggests child/person as commodity as well as passive student with a front-row-seat to learning consumption. Another brutally resonating throw-away is one of homeless "protagonist" Amanda's (Mira Billotte) monologues paired with images from a Home Depot-esque parking lot:

there are these little sheds, sometimes I wish I could just drag one into the woods and live in it

The statement just lays there. Both characters - here Amanda, also Tamiko (Miho Nikaida) - share flat, expressionless, emotionless speaking tones. Here though, Amanda notes these tiny homes as potential shelters for people in such an off-handed way that perfectly resonates the social status these sheds play - their existence isn't even allowed to conjure the question of whether or not they could house people. They just don't. Her line comes and goes. The thought not completed. Delivery emotionless.

It's actually kinda spooky [chuckle]. But after a while I got used to it. I like it.

While not filmically referencing the sheds, this seeming throw-away line, again, suggests the stupor we live in. If we pause to think about the choices we make, the lives we lead, we should find it 'kinda spooky', but we get used to it. Think we like it.

As noted, two characters - Amanda and Tamiko - populate Cohen's narrative, though the film is speckled with the incidental "extras" caught on tape, everyone floats ghost-like through the sterile-y dingy landscape. Though we learn in the end credits the chain locations are taken from all over the world, the film is set in America, the language is English. Tamiko is from Japan, doing research in America on amusement parks; Amanda is American. The labor of these women is service-oriented. Amanda is first shown as a motel maid, then also working as a general shop employee, last seen sweeping a sidewalk; Tamiko, though business class, works the service industry of amusement parks. Importantly, the point is made that the company Tamiko works for is looking to build a park in an abandoned steel factory. Cohen here seems to posit the vapid landscape we see here is the result of lost industry, the lost real work of tangible value. Further, and perhaps dangerously, there might also be the implication that the cultural outsider, the Japanese developer, is part of the problem. Cohen cleverly writes Tamkio's stilted-English dialogue to suggest economic warfare

Someday we will bring an amusement park to America, just as they came to Japan with Disneyland.

Not only does this suggest the decline of America to the ascendence of Japan, but it slyly makes the audience aware of the circulation of junk-culture. How do you like that, America? (Yeah, unfortunately, you probably do like it.)

While this might not be a thorough explanation of the characters' racial identities, it seems an important component. Likewise, the fact that both characters are female seems an obvious acknowledgement of the common perception that service industry labor is feminine. The film's world is almost entirely within this consumer death-trap. One noteworthy break from the emotionless tone of the film comes from Amanda's visit to a piano store, in her penultimate scene, she sits at a piano and eases into an expressive composition. Cohen's camera leaves Amanda in the store to play with the two employees, filming now from the parking lot, we see one of the employees go to speak to Amanda. Though we had heard her playing, we do not hear the dialogue. She quits playing. The suggestion seems to be that she has been kicked out. That she has finally "found voice" and been put back into her place. The next time we see her she tells us, in voice-over, that she now has two jobs and no time to live her life.

Likewise, Tamiko spirals into quietude as she stops hearing from her company back in Japan, also reading US accounts in the papers that the company is having difficulties. We see Tamiko becoming lifeless and depressed sitting in her hotel room, eventually needing to switch payment onto what we are led to believe is her personal credit card away from a company card. In her penultimate scene, while sitting in the hotel chair she has been lethargically fixed to, she begins lifting up her skirt with one hand. Cut to her head tilting back, eyes closed. Possibly, she is finding momentary pleasure from her glumming world. After a few moments of the camera lingering on her seemingly escaped self, she returns to the lanscape Cohen has created for us, cutting her onto the rooftop of a parking ramp, hotel in background.

Depeople-ing the film, Cohen leaves Tamiko behind with a dolly shot across the parking lot, cutting to another, equivalent parking lot rooftop with a hotel background. And then another. And probably another. Re-entering the documentary chain landscapes to close out the final several minutes of the film.

Just as Cohen suggests moments of hope in the penultimate scenes of his two characters, he could be said to do the same thing with out expectations closing out the film. After the just mentioned return to chain landscapes, Cohen returns us to the "world-changing" moment of an airplane flying into a building. Except here, we see the airplane moving across the frame toward a shopping mall. Clearly, it seems, we are to conjure 9/11, we are to wonder if the plane is going to hit the shopping mall, thus punctuating the film's anti-consumer message

But, of course, like the disappointments of our two characters, the plane flies behind the horizon of the shopping mall. The shopping mall still stands. Cut to black. Credits.

Brief Thoughts on CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS

Interesting that Herzog proudly states the limitations he is working under - on this path, for limited time, etc. - wouldn't it be interesting if documentarians often spoke of their limitations - ethical, financial, etc. Here it seems rather meaningless.

Herzog states the paintings look as if they had been done yesterday though "they are not a forgery". Odd that he here defends their "truth"/facticity, when he seems otherwise unconcerned with the issue, as he later makes his typical 'names in a telephone book' analogy pointing to the belief that it is the stories behind the (alleged) facts that are of interest/importance.

A claim is made about a "powerful and deep" way of understanding the paintings - a different, more human?, way of understanding?

Herzog names the cave painters as "artists". Seemingly giving value to art-making as a human attribute, or a defining attribute? But also, interestingly, he asks if we "can ever understand the vision of the artists over such an expanse of time". I think he believes we can - go back to the "deep understanding" - but this does beg the question of whether or not we can ever understand the vision of the artist (over expanses of culture, place, etc.).

This popped for me during a conversation between the two female archeologists (I think they were archeologists), where one, who is otherwise hardly speaking, corrects the main speaker to state that they did not know the gender of these cave painters. The main speaker goes on with her masculine generics. After this point, it becomes painfully obvious that Herzog et alia are using masculine generics for all references to the painters, in fact, for all human existence. This becomes more painful and obvious when they begin their segment on the only human representation painted in the cave as a female one. So all the action/painting/being/"cultural creation" is male, even though only a female is present. There is also the odd moment in the film when two archeologist-types are talking about the flute discovery made by the woman, Maria, I believe, but Herzog allows the older male to do most of the speaking, and then introduces Maria, allowing her to give a basic recap of her discovery. Lastly, Herzog's imaginary of the "Eight year-old boy" with the wolf in "the forbidden part of the cave" - the story he wants to tell is clearly a very male one.

In the Postscript, Herzog tosses out some typically herzogian moments with the statement "nothing is real, nothing is certain" as he shows us the alligators. The albino alligator (of course attributed to the nearby nuclear power plant) "meets" another albino - "do they really meet or is this their imaginary reflection?" Moments later, Herzog closes the film on us with the same albino alligator staring at us in the audience, presumably we are being asked the same question - are we also this? Though an interesting question in itself, big-picture-wise, which I think Herzog loves to operate in, it is ridiculously out of place with the balance of the film. Herzog has spent the entire film caressing the cave walls, rhapsodizing about the artistic value of these paintings, the humanity on display. If Herzog wanted to reduce the importance of these cave paintings he merely would have suggested an equivalence (I guess there is an implied suggestion, but I mean that he would have made this explicit, which would have surprised no-one familiar with Herzog) to the alleged bear-claw markings on the same cave walls that laid underneath the paintings. What are the differences between such representations? he could have asked, just as he asks if we are that albino alligator. I think these seemingly more absurd questions are actually a bit more interesting, but here, their elision more telling.

Chicago Doc Screenings, Week of May 6 - May 12

Architecture and Design Film Festival, Siskel and The Wit, Th May 5 - Mon May 9

Week-long

NUREMBERG: ITS LESSON FOR TODAY, Music Box
WATTSTAX, Music Box, Fri & Sat midnight
CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS, continues River East 21, ICON
POM WONDERFUL PRESENTS: THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER SOLD, River East 21, Pipers Alley
I AM, Pipers Alley
AFRICAN CATS, continues multiple venues

I TRAVEL BECAUSE I HAVE TO, I COME BACK BECAUSE I LOVE YOU, Siskel

Multiple screenings
MILTON GLASER: TO INFORM AND DELIGHT w/ shorts STEFAN SAGMEISTER: ARTIST SERIES; PAULA SCHER: ARTIST SERIES, Siskel Fri 3:00; theWit Sun 7:30
EYE OVER PRAGUE w/ short WHITE BOX, Siskel: Fri 4:00 & Sat 5:00
MALLS R US w/ shorts BIG BROTHER BRITAIN, CASTRUM, theWit: Fri 5:15 & Sun 5:15
Enduring Icons program: VINCENT SCULLY: AN ART HISTORIAN AMONG ARCHITECTS; KIMBELL MUSEUM, WATER AND SKY; SAVING LIEB HOUSE, Siskel: Fri 5:00 & Sat 1:00
Amped & Revamped shorts program: MY PLAYGROUND, DUMPSTER POOLS, THE ART & SCIENCE OF RENZO PIANO, Siskel, Fri 7:00 & Sat 5:30
Oh Canada! program: CITIZEN LAMBERT: JOAN OF ARCHITECTURE; WILDERNESS UTOPIA; TWICE UPON A GARDEN, theWit Fri 7:15; Siskel Sun 1:00
SPACE, LAND AND TIME: UNDERGROUND ADVENTURES WITH ANT FARM w/ shorts LEFT BEHIND, SUBVERSIVE ARCHITECTS, Siskel: Fri 9:00 & Sun 5:30
VISUAL ACOUSTICS w/ shorts STARLIGHT; LE PETITE MAISON, AN ARCHITECTUAL SEDUCTION, theWit Fri 9:15; Siskel Sun 6:45
CONTEMPORARY DAYS: THE DESIGNS OF LUCIENNE AND ROBIN DAY w/ shorts ONION PINCH BAROQUE COUNTERPOISE; THE ALUMINIUM, Siskel Sat 3:00; theWit Sun 3:15
Down Under & Up program: 43 COLUMNS ON SCENE IN BILBAO; PETER STUTCHBURY, ARCHITECTURE OF PLACE; LE MONDE, CHRISTIAN DE PORTZAMPARC, theWit Sat 3:15; Siskel Sun 3:00
CITIZEN ARCHITECT: SAMUEL MOCKBEE AND THE SPIRIT OF THE RURAL STUDIO w/ short HEADSPACE 1, theWit Sat 7:30; Siskel Sun 8:45
Tower Power! program: THE DESERT CASTLE; FLOWER TOWER, EDOUARD FRANCOIS; STUDIO GANG ARCHITECTS: AQUA TOWER, Siseel: Sat 9:00 & Sun 4:45
Thinking Big program: THE MAKING OF THE BIENNALE WITH AARON BETSKY; MONUMENT TO A DREAM; ST. LOUIS CAN SOAR, Siskel: Sun 1:00 & Mon 6:00
STRONGMAN, facets, Wed 11 - Sun 15

Friday
SUMMER OF GOLIATH w/ short INTERVIEW WITH THE EARTH, Chicago Filmmakers, 8:00
Frames + Verities: Non-fiction Works by SAIC Students, Spring 2011, The Nightingale, 7:30
SOUTH OF THE BORDER, DePaul's Daley Building (Loop), 6:00, discussion w/ producer Sulichin follows

Saturday
Milan Redux [furniture slide show], Object Design League, 5:00
Andy Roche program, Roots & Culture, 7:00
Now It's Dark: Experimental Fim Society Edition, The Experimental Film Society, 7:00
Open House Party, Chicago Filmmakers, 8:00

Sunday
Jupiter program, Thalia Hall, 7:30

Monday
Visualize Change Film Forum, Links, Hall, 7:00
The Basic Materials of Film: Ernie Gehr, doc, 7:00
Uman Beings: Experimentations in Film & Video, UIC, 7:00
A JIHAD FOR LOVE, DePaul Student Center (Lincoln Park), 7:00

Tuesday
Sex +++ shorts program: SISTER WIFE; THE LOVE BUREAU; MUSLIMS IN LOVE, Jane Addams Hull House, 7:00 - monthly, year-long program
FORKS OVER KNIVES, Webster Place, panel discussion follows
THE TUBES: LIVE AT THE GREEK, Delilah's, 7:00
OBJECTIFIED, Transistor, 7:30

Wednesday


Thursday
DARK DAYS, doc. 9:00
"Discovering Black Film History: Tracing the Tyler Black Film Collection" talk by Jacqueline Stewart for Chicago Film Seminar, SAIC Flaxman Center, 6:30

A FILM UNFINISHED: notes from roundtable

“The Silence of the Archive: Roundtable Discussion of A FILM UNFINISHED"

Saturday, April 30, 8:30

Participants: Tom Gunning, Noa Steimatsky, Julia Adeney Thomas, and Johannes von Moltke

Director Yael Hersonski present

 The roundtable’s title comes from the Israeli release of the film’s title – The Silence of the Archive. An odd title, not touched on during the roundtable, that is worth further discussion at a later time.  Here, I’ll briefly summarize what I thought were the most interesting points from each participant, without explicit commentary. It should go without saying that this three day event is a model for rich discussion that the documentary community desperately needs: a Thursday night screening (attended by over 200, I’d guess), followed by a Friday morning workshop (that I did not attend), and a Saturday evening roundtable driven by four academics, representing three disciplines, as well as the director present (attended by about 40). I think my notes well-represent speaker perspectives:

Julia Adney Thomas

The question of how images serve or resist (intended) representation.

The question of the artfulness/craft of the film’s construction – what does this mean given its content?

What does it mean to witness cruelties?

Two primary organizing thoughts: (1) efficacy of images; (2) evidence of images

Interested in the politics of space in the film, or political distances, framed by Helmet Lethen’s text Cool Conduct: The Culture of Distance in Weimar Germany. Cites four layers:

1) initial footage;

2) uses of original footage (as propaganda);

3) witnesses (watching original footage);

4) us as audience, consuming edited culmination w/ effects

Primarily discussed closeness and lack of freedom/options suggested by initial film’s framing, representations effectively Taylorize subjects

But also raises question of how initial filmers “saw” subjects

Posits the film was left unfinished due to fluidity of images – “too fluid” to be used

Johannes von Moltke

Raised question of what film offers as historical material, the question of formal and aesthetic considerations.

Asks “what kind of documentary is it?” Offers three suggestions:

1) Essay film – reasons by associations, committed to topics (primarily relationship of memory to history)

2) Ethnographic film, esp. regarding the production culture of Nazi filmmaking

3) Archive film, interested in questions of deterioration, muteness/power to speak

What does it mean that the images we have to work with are from the perpetrators?

Know it was propaganda, but how was it to be used.

Opines that the unfinished nature is due to Nazi shift from denigrating Jews to championing The Master Race, thus project simply abandoned

Tom Gunning

Eases into a soft critique that a value of problematic films opens spaces to discuss the problematic.

Felt that film put him “in contact with Evil”.

Felt “a deep sense of shame”, as sutured to gaze as perpetrator and spectator, as well as film critic/historian, that ‘his medium’ is capable of such evil, and/or, raises question “is film capable of evil?” Cites 1915 court case that first denies First Amendment protection to film arguing that film is more powerful than the press, that it is capable of evil.

Questions how it is problematic to remove a volatile representation such as this from its specificity – does it render the power of the original dramatically lessened? Cites Lanzmann on representing the Shoah.

Elaborates on narration at FILM’s opening that describes Nazi relationship to photography as a desire to use photography’s power to truth-claiming for telling lies.

Image is not only of what is shot but more importantly the perspectival/machine gaze, thus we “are made to inhabit a Nazi gaze” and is very uncomfortable with this move

Wonders what the Nazi’s did not show

Also highly uncomfortable with the fictionalized interviews with original filmer Wist, not only in themselves, but also importantly because the film is primarily a criticism of the original footage as false for uses of propaganda, here being replicated ‘for the other side’

Also worried about the glamorization of the testimony from survivors, its glossiness

Noa Steimatsky

Introduced herself as modernist film scholar that has willfully avoided (for the most past) screening Holocaust films “for whatever reason” that she still does not completely understand. Suggests the Holocaust is still too recent/present

Uncomfortable with Hersonski’s choice to slow and freeze moments of original footage – feels it “gives it a kind of beauty which I find horrifying…which also gives Wist a benefit”

Wonders how the chronology of the original footage matches the chronology in current film

Questions the “cold geometry of the framing…the extreme close-ups of emotionless Wist" character. This coldness acts to tame “the hot wild material of the archive”

Also, like Gunning, uncomfortable with the framing and “high-stylized” representations of the witnesses, they are “casual and expressive”, they have a “retarding effect” on the archival material

Most powerful moment when the photo from the trash is picked up. Hersonski slows and pauses on the photo, but is more interested in the fact that the Nazi filmer actually captured this – what was the motivation in capturing this?

Yeal Hersonski

In response to Gunning’s questioning the appropriateness of the decision to fabricate the interview material, she emphatically says “Hell, yes”.

Stated she “never intended to confuse the viewer [that interviews were not real]…didn’t mean to indicate this is how it was…[if this is the case] I should go back to my drawing boards”. Though stated she was “aware of our own dangerous power as a manipulative filmmaker”

Made point that we are “living during a time when there are so many other documentaries of atrocities”