criterionforum.org

matrixschmatrix wrote:As for mockumentaries, they are explicitly works of fiction, without any of the mixed part and part that characterizes docufiction or ethnofiction or whatever, so I can't see them qualifying unless someone makes a case that I'm not seeing.

But obviously they take the form of a documentary, and occasionally even cross over into reality (e.g. Spinal Tap sort of being an actual band, touring, making videos, and the like). One might also draw a parallel to horror comedies that received votes during the horror list.

In any event, I really think the "vote for it" rule should be what decides whether a film fits within a particular genre or not. If someone wants to "throw away" votes on a mockumentary or two, there's no harm in there being a couple additional orphans as a result, and if enough people throw away their votes on the same film, then they weren't throwing them away after all. I know for the animation list I voted for a few films that several others plainly felt did not constitute animation, but I stand by my votes and am glad that I was able to make them.

Hmm, I see your point. Whatever I say about what qualifies and what doesn't, I'm going to count every vote that I receive and not disqualify any for being out of genre- but I also think that it benefits you to make a case for anything iffy that you plan to vote for.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Hmm, I see your point. Whatever I say about what qualifies and what doesn't, I'm going to count every vote that I receive and not disqualify any for being out of genre- but I also think that it benefits you to make a case for anything iffy that you plan to vote for.

I was also just going to bring up the example of concert films, which have already come up in this thread as something that some people feel constitute a documentary, while others don't.

But certainly, anything that isn't likely to garner many votes on its own (whether through obscurity or by being a borderline case genre-wise) should be brought up and defended in this thread if it's to have any shot at making the final list.

matrixschmatrix wrote:For my own use as much as that of others- I'd been wanting very badly to watch Mikhail Romm's Ordinary Fascism, and I've located it in two parts here and here.

I strongly suggest that you watch it as soon as possible. It was one of my two spotlights for the 60s project, but was sadly an orphan.

I'm also stoked to see the love for The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On. Both of the films will be easy top ten picks for me. I'd do my spotlights now, but my son is in meltdown mode after two days of house hunting a state away. Time to spot my wife and see if I can call hm down. It'll give me more time to make up my mind anyway.

I raised the issue of the mockumentary because there is also the issue of films which blur the boundary between fact & fiction and force the viewer to question what is "real." A mockumentary mightt clearly be fiction because that was the director's intent, however when This Is Spinal Tap was in its initial theatrical release (for which there wasn't a lot of press), many people thought they were watching an actual documentary of an actual band (and didn't like the movie at all). When I saw it (in a college town), I think I was the only person in the theater laughing. A couple people left during the film & made comments about how awful the music/film was. The reason This Is Spinal Tap was able to do this was because it accurately represented both the world of heavy metal & emulated the documentary form succuessfully, while at the same time making light of it. Social scientists do something similar when they fictionalize narratives of actual research subjects, though they don't do it for entertainment, simply to anonymize their research subjects.

re: Stop Making Sense, I really wanted to leave off live performances because I could probably make a list of 50 filmed performances/events, and having to include them along with films that try to illuminate facts about the world we live in will only make my task all the more difficult.

knives wrote:Due to a few conceits within the film there's a few pretty sizable differences between that show and The Lacey Rituals.

Yeah, The Lacey Rituals is pretty much completely unlike any film you could think to compare it to. It's not really a fly-on-the-wall / verite exercise; it's more like a family staging their everyday life as if it were a school pageant. But even more insane / terrific than that sounds.

swo17 wrote:

matrixschmatrix wrote:As for mockumentaries, they are explicitly works of fiction, without any of the mixed part and part that characterizes docufiction or ethnofiction or whatever, so I can't see them qualifying unless someone makes a case that I'm not seeing.

But obviously they take the form of a documentary, and occasionally even cross over into reality (e.g. Spinal Tap sort of being an actual band, touring, making videos, and the like). One might also draw a parallel to horror comedies that received votes during the horror list.

In any event, I really think the "vote for it" rule should be what decides whether a film fits within a particular genre or not. If someone wants to "throw away" votes on a mockumentary or two, there's no harm in there being a couple additional orphans as a result, and if enough people throw away their votes on the same film, then they weren't throwing them away after all. I know for the animation list I voted for a few films that several others plainly felt did not constitute animation, but I stand by my votes and am glad that I was able to make them.

I'd also strongly argue that mockumentaries are not documentaries. Just because something adopts the stylistic traits of a documentary, that doesn't make it a documentary. None of Community's 'documentary' episodes are actual documentaries, and nor is The Battle of Algiers or Punishment Park, The Gladiators or Edvard Munch. If we go down that route, then we'll also have to include Plan 9 from Outer Space on the strength of Criswell's earnest narration!

Lowry_Sam wrote: re: Stop Making Sense, I really wanted to leave off live performances because I could probably make a list of 50 filmed performances/events, and having to include them along with films that try to illuminate facts about the world we live in will only make my task all the more difficult.

I think that the highlighted portion is a misinterpretation of the form led about by the verite movement which never followed that ideology to begin with. At best many of the film essay of the past thirty years, as best exemplified by Marlon Riggs, does indeed do that, but for the most part the best films that fall under the broad umbrella of documentary function much like any other film in how it deals with ideas, stories, and the like. There really aren't any facts to As I was Moving Ahead Occasionally I Saw Brief Glimpses of Beauty, yet it is one of the best films ever without regard to genre because of how it pins down so many different mechanical and organic assemblages in an emotional mix of sorrow and optimism. This is the man with the movie camera. Likewise I don't think a document about the movement of tides is terribly interesting, but if one were to interpret Casting a Glance by your thesis rather than the beautiful chronicling of time it is that is all that is left. In fact I'd argue that your suggestion is antithetical to the best and most knowing of documentaries as 'verite' is ultimately a false concept and should instead be treated as 'director's verite'. Take a look at the masterful Allen King actuality dramas that Criterion have thankfully released. They deliberately take the form of dramatic stories as we typically accept them, but were shot in an actuality format. King would have probably hated to be seen as someone who illuminated facts since his films call forth the uncertainty principal constantly. The world of the documentary can be anything.

zedz wrote:None of Community's 'documentary' episodes are actual documentaries, and nor is The Battle of Algiers or Punishment Park, The Gladiators or Edvard Munch. If we go down that route, then we'll also have to include Plan 9 from Outer Space on the strength of Criswell's earnest narration!

Well, Community episodes are ineligible anyway, and Algiers is probably docudrama, which I generally wouldn't consider voting for. The Watkins films I might consider but, as always, my aim is not to twist the intent of the project to have my list entirely comprise fake documentaries, but rather to fill a few slots with perhaps borderline films that I feel expand the definition of the genre in interesting ways.

Actually speaking on that I know that Culloden and War Games are generally treated as docs, but something in my intestine is telling me that's not quite right which I suppose poses the question of if anyone has strong feelings one way or an other on them. I know that if I could be convinced Culloden would make my list.

[I'm prompting discussion of what constitutes a documentary, because I'd rather see the questions hashed out sooner rather than closer to the deadline.]

One could argue that Stop Making Sense and other concert films aren't really documentaries because they are actually a collection of clips collected from multiple concerts over the course of a concert tour that have been reforumulated & redubbed in order to recreate what an actual concert during the tour may have been like. But, to do this things like bad sound mixing, wardrobe malfunctions, audience noise & other mistakes are edited out to fit either the musical artist's or director's desire of what should be on film & what should be cut. They are in fact a product that was designed to sell copies & could be considered as much a fiction as a mockumentary. A film of a single concert (warts & all) would more clearly fit the bill, though that could have problems too ( ie. The Beastie Boys using their fans to document their performance with cell phones but then selecting themselves which of the clips to use).

Another one: Would a document of a 2 hour conversation between 2 actors, but "directed" (whatever that means in this case) by Louis Malle count? (My Dinner With Andre)

Can I assume Microcosmos, Qatsi Trilogy, Winged Migration, March Of The Penguins, Baraka, are all valid candidates?

I think any 'concert films aren't documentaries because they're edited to avoid stuff-ups and boring bits and might include shots that weren't all from exactly the same performance' is extremely shaky ground, since almost all documentaries do the same things. It's a document of an event, just as a documentary about a demonstration, a battle, a hunting expedition or a world-record-breaking attempt might be. Absence of reflective talking heads is irrelevant and more to the point, concert movies like Jazz on a Summer's Day, Monterey Pop, Gimme Shelter and - like it or lump it - Woodstock are absolutely central to the development of documentary as an artform. Excluding them from contention would be as bizarre as excluding Citizen Kane from consideration as a Hollywood narrative film because of the 'March of Time' sequence (which makes it a mockumentary and therefore a documentary, right?)

Lowry, My Dinner With Andre is scripted fiction. All the films you ask about are obv docs too, so I don't get what you're after? The only one questioning the inclusion of concert films is you-- the tabulator has already stated he will accept a vote for practically anything, so I don't get the urgency either

Lowry_Sam wrote:[I'm prompting discussion of what constitutes a documentary, because I'd rather see the questions hashed out sooner rather than closer to the deadline.]

One could argue that Stop Making Sense and other concert films aren't really documentaries because they are actually a collection of clips collected from multiple concerts over the course of a concert tour that have been reforumulated & redubbed in order to recreate what an actual concert during the tour may have been like. But, to do this things like bad sound mixing, wardrobe malfunctions, audience noise & other mistakes are edited out to fit either the musical artist's or director's desire of what should be on film & what should be cut. They are in fact a product that was designed to sell copies & could be considered as much a fiction as a mockumentary. A film of a single concert (warts & all) would more clearly fit the bill, though that could have problems too ( ie. The Beastie Boys using their fans to document their performance with cell phones but then selecting themselves which of the clips to use).

Another one: Would a document of a 2 hour conversation between 2 actors, but "directed" (whatever that means in this case) by Louis Malle count? (My Dinner With Andre)

Can I assume Microcosmos, Qatsi Trilogy, Winged Migration, March Of The Penguins, Baraka, are all valid candidates?

I don't get what you're saying to be honest. My Dinner with Andre was thoroughly scripted with multiple takes and voice over. That the actors have gone on the record of saying they were not playing themselves shouldn't have to be brought up at all. It is clearly not a document of anything and not a documentary. A concert film on the other hand which features all of the elements you have cited would still be a documentary since almost all documentaries are like that on some level (which goes on to show how The Lacey Rituals and Mekas' work are so unique). All docs I'm aware of go under a sound mixing stage and if the elements are bad those scenes are cut out. Sometimes they may even be retaken. Likewise almost no documentary is made in real time so of course 'scenes' will be cut out, reedited, or recontextualized. That's just moviemaking as is the selling of product. Now those elements of documentary can be criticized (I know Kieslowski left the form under similar protest) if you want to and certainly you are not obliged to vote for Gimme Shelter or some other film with staged moments, deleted scenes, made for a profit, redubbed, or any other complaints you have listed, but that would be a very small list indeed.

domino harvey wrote:Lowry, My Dinner With Andre is scripted fiction.

I haven't seen it since it was released, but I had thought it was an actual conversation in a single take, my bad.

Ok, I'll stop pestering you (for now) with what makes a documentary a documentary.

colinr0380 wrote: The second film is related, given that Mark Achbar is also the co-director of Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (out in a great edition from the BFI, although I also have the US Zeitgeist release from ten years ago or so and that is more than serviceable). While very obviously early 90s in look and feel, the messages in the film are still incredibly relevant: who creates the news, or decides what is 'newsworthy?'. How is that decision weighted? How does the media create a 'narrative' to events, even when it may contradict other information?

I saw Manufacturing Consent when it was released, and while I'm sympathetic with Chomsky's positions on most issues, I often find him to be too muddled, repetitive or winded to be a compelling watch. Despite not having the academic (particularly political & economic) analysis for the state of things today, Adam Curtis' documentaries for the BBC make for more compelling (almost addictive) viewing. Like Errol Morris, he has his own iconic style, which is often mesmerizing, but for which he is also criticized. I guess I will have to revisit them to decide which I would recommend most. The good news is that although Criterion hasn't yet released an Adam Curtis box set yet (his films contain lots of stock footage & music that could be a headache to gain clearance), they are readily available online.

The Century Of Self is an exegesis on how the science of human behavior (in the form of psychology & Freud) was then used by (first) corporations to turn people into passive consumers (via Bernays/marketing) and then by governments. It is available on Internet Archive.

The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear was a BBC series that was edited down into a film that screened at Cannes & garnished quite a bit of attention & then screened in select theaters in the US. The main thesis of this "filmed essay" (probably a better characterization than documentary) is that The West invented al Qaeda because it needed an enemy to fill up the void left by the collapse of the Soviet Union since The West is economically dependent on being in perpetual war. It can be viewed here.

All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace is about how the machines humans created in their image have (already) taken over. It can be watched on Vimeo.

The Trap: What Happened To Our Dream Of Freedom (tagline: Human beings will always betray you. You can only trust the numbers.) is an essay on how the anti-authoratian protest movements of the 60s turned into the greed-is-good of the 80s courtesy of the cult of Ayn Rand & is available on YouTube

It Felt Like A Kiss tells the story of the US' rise to power to the tune of American pop music and can be viewed on Vimeo

If and when Criterion does release any Adam Curtis, it would be remiss in not including The Loving Trap, an excellent parody of Curtis' which illustrates the criticisms that some have levelled at them. Another admirable, though not quite as effective, parody is All Watched Over By Hedgehogs of Cheese and Pineapple.

Adam Curtis fans in the UK can check out an event this weekend & next titled Massive Attack vs. Adam Curtis happening in Manchester, reviewed in The Financial Times and The Guardian.

knives wrote:Actually speaking on that I know that Culloden and War Games are generally treated as docs, but something in my intestine is telling me that's not quite right which I suppose poses the question of if anyone has strong feelings one way or an other on them. I know that if I could be convinced Culloden would make my list.

I think a definition of documentary that excluded Culloden would be excessively narrow. Yes, all of the footage may be staged, but (historical) re-enactment has been an important tool in the documentarist's arsenal since Flaherty. The film's purpose is relevant: if its primary goal seems to be to inform rather than to entertain, and it deliberately includes a narrator or presenter who breaks the narrative spell, then there's a good chance it's a documentary. (Not that documentaries need to have an educational mission, of course.)

My initial recommendation would be Nikolaus Geyrhalter's Our Daily Bread (Unser täglich Brot, 2005), which I actually put at No. 1 in my 2000s ballot in a fit of enthusiasm. Haven't watched it for a few years, and wouldn't necessarily place it so highly again, but it's an extraordinary piece of work: a serene, aesthetically meticulous portrait of industrial food production, presented without commentary. There are some potentially grim abattoir scenes, but Geyrhalter has no obvious animal rights agenda: these are simply scenes that meat eaters must confront. Some of the photography is worthy of Sacha Vierny.

Spotlight titles:

In the Family (Joanna Rudnick, 2008): I was reminded of this documentary when Angelina Jolie recently went public with the news that she suffers from a genetic mutation, BRCA, that dramatically increases a woman's likelihood of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The director of this documentary suffers from the same mutation, and the film spirals out from her attempts to cope with her diagnosis to examine the lives of other, similarly affected people and their families. The initial parts dealing with Joanna's attempt to hurry along a new relationship so she can have a child before undergoing surgery are a bit weak, but once it broadens out and starts to tell the stories of several other women and examine the sort of culture that has arisen from their shared hardships, the film becomes extraordinarily affecting and wrenching, as well as fascinating in how various people react to everything (from blunt practicality to survivor's guilt to crushing pain to good humour). It really is an illuminating documentary about (at least until recently) a pretty unknown subject. I highly recommend it. You can watch it online here.

Thin (Lauren Greenfield, 2006): I mentioned the movie earlier on the forum, but this is another another intensely affecting documentary about women trying to deal with an intense amount of suffering. It's hard to forget watching a rail-thin 14 year old girl plead, in all sincerity, that she just be allowed to die. This is not a happy documentary; you don't leave it with much confidence that anything's been solved, or even can be solved. But it is a very interesting documentary about women undergoing treatment for anorexia and bulimia at a treatment facility in Florida. I don't know if it's ever had an official DVD release (I originally saw it on tv), but you can find it on youtube.

Quoting this spotlight post, since it disappeared for a while and we've since changed pages.

barbarianeggplant wrote:Here's my spotlight: Cane Toads: An Unnatural History (Mark Lewis, 1988, 47 minutes)

This movie, detailing the rise of Australia’s out-of-control cane toad population, would be a brilliant work of farce if it weren’t for the fact that it is 100% factual. Much like one of the film’s vocal proponents, Werner Herzog, it moves beyond the basic nature documentary to reveal a morbid absurdity in the relationship between humans and the natural world. Unlike Herzog, though, it relies on comedy as its primary device and highlights how successful comedy can be in explaining challenging situations in a way few documentaries attempt.

The story of the production is not unlike that of the cane toads themselves: Australia’s Department of Agriculture clearly had no idea what they were signing themselves up for in either case. The film was originally commissioned by the Department as a simple informational short about the toad’s introduction as a predator for sugar cane beetles and subsequent population explosion when native predators proved no match for it. Lewis fulfills his assignment in telling this story, but spends more time looking at the ways in which Australian society has responded to their ubiquitous presence by interviewing people with strong, wide-ranging opinions about the toads. Many of these characters are the kind that character-driven sketch comedians would kill to write and both the variety and affect of the interviewees are what drive home the true absurdity of the situation, beyond what the facts initially requested can explain.

Sadly, Cane Toads is currently out of print and...not cheap. My local library has it; yours might, too. Netflix has it on disc, but not streaming. It's up on Youtube in chunks (playlist here), and is available on the site which shall not be named and streaming here.

zedz wrote:Absence of reflective talking heads is irrelevant

To be just, my spotlight concert film is chock full of them (particularly Byrne, the sweat makes him shiny)

Gropius wrote:[I think a definition of documentary that excluded Culloden would be excessively narrow. Yes, all of the footage may be staged, but (historical) re-enactment has been an important tool in the documentarist's arsenal since Flaherty. The film's purpose is relevant: if its primary goal seems to be to inform rather than to entertain, and it deliberately includes a narrator or presenter who breaks the narrative spell, then there's a good chance it's a documentary. (Not that documentaries need to have an educational mission, of course.)

I'd agree with this, and you could just about construct a similar case for The War Game, although I think Culloden has a stronger claim towards being a documentary proper.

Similarly, virtually everything that Ken Russell made for the BBC between 1959 and 1970 can legitimately be considered a documentary, even though he often uses actors, dramatic reconstructions etc. (and had huge rows with his boss Huw Wheldon in the process - Wheldon would often tetchily say "Can I remind you that this is not the drama department?" or "I see we're getting out the dressing-up box again"). By the time he reaches The Debussy Film in 1965 he's moving decisively in the direction of drama, and I suspect the best-known title from this period, Song of Summer, is also a little too close to drama for comfort (even though it's based on a true story and was scrupulously researched), but before then I reckon pretty much anything he made can be defended as a documentary.

barbarianeggplant wrote:

MichaelB wrote:

barbarianeggplant wrote:Here's my spotlight: Cane Toads: An Unnatural History (Mark Lewis, 1988, 47 minutes)

This movie, detailing the rise of Australia’s out-of-control cane toad population, would be a brilliant work of farce if it weren’t for the fact that it is 100% factual.

Embarrassingly, the Monthly Film Bulletin assumed that it wasn't, and reviewed it as though it was a mockumentary!

Haha, I can only assume that mockumentary makers are a little jealous - or at least in awe - of this movie. It really does have the same texture as one and the situation is truly absurd. Actually, it's more absurd than a lot of mockumentary topics, now that I think of it - they tend to stick to fairly mundane topics and highlight the absurdity of the people involved. This also does that, but the prompt is far odder.

It has been a while since I last saw it, but it might be on one of my recorded from television VHS tapes somewhere. Isn't this the documentary that has a section devoted to the chap who likes running the toads over in his truck, with him lovingly describing the popping sound they make under his tires?

I saw it a long time before that Bart Vs Australia Simpsons episode (the one that involves the Simpsons introducing alien wildlife into the country and features the stinger at the end of the Koala riding the plane back to the US!) but every time I see that Simpsons episode I think of Cane Toads: An Unnatural History!

Thanks for the write up on Adam Curtis Lowry_Sam - that was going to be my other spotlight and will feature high up on my list but I went with the Chomsky and Corporation documentaries instead as a more general recommendation. If anyone wants more on Adam Curtis after reading Lowry_Sam's links and watching the documentaries, Here is the Adam Curtis thread in the Filmmaker's section of the forum.

The Cane Toad doc is available on YouTube in 5 parts.

I can't imagine submitting a list without Shoah at number 1. I would have made it my spotlight, but with the new Criterion set, I think that it's got everyone's attention. Similarly, I've talked elsewhere about my love of The Animals Film. It should be required viewing for anyone working on this project, but I'll stick with three other films.

Since I do a lot of work in normative issues in human sexuality, I thought that I'd pick a few spotlights from this genre. I'll start with the extraordinary short sex education short Growing Up found on the BFI's The Birds and the Bees set (formerly known as The Joy of Sex Education). The film is the bravest and most frank look at human sexuality geared to young adults that I have ever seen. The maker, Dr. Martin Cole, sought to demystify the process for children by giving them a full and unashamed look at both pubescent development, arousal, masturbation, and sex. The film contains abundant nudity from both male and female models both young and old, but I think its most remarkable in its complete normalization of sexuality and its rejection of 2000 years of superstitious barriers to the enjoyment thereof. It presents you with the facts and never once attaches a value judgment to them. It's also notorious in Britain since it features a school teacher who lost her job for demonstrating masturbation on camera.

Although I'm generally not a fan of Kirby Dick's documentaries (though Sick is pretty good as well), his 1986 Private Practices: The Story of a Sex Surrogate is a wonderful look at this little discussed practice (although it did receive some attention last year with the release of The Sessions) of therapeutic sex surrogacy. The film tracks Maureen Sullivan with three of her clients as she guides them through the lovemaking process and helps them to overcome the psychological issues (surrogates do work with those who have physiological problems as well) that prevent them from having normal sex lives. During the entire film Sullivan comes off as an understanding and caring professional even as she grapples with problems of her own. Salon did a follow up on Sullivan a few years back. It's not the happiest read, but it was fascinating.

Finally, I'd like to recommend 2000's often silly, but important Live Nude Girls Unite!, a story about nude dancers at a famous feminist strip club as they fight to unionize. As both a labor advocate and a scholar of human sexuality, this was a fortuitous collision of interests that featured an eclectic group of women who defied all stereotypes about strippers. The dancers featured here make for a compelling story.

On a related note, when I was a DVD Beaver reviewer, I was fortunate enough to have worked with many outstanding sets of documentary shorts from the BFI. Their documentary film store should be one of the first places to turn to when looking for material for the project. The GPO sets are probably my favorites, but each one on there has something to recommend.

My spotlight title, inevitably, is Ross McElwee's American Odyssey Sherman's March, which I religiously pimp every time the 80s list rolls around (and that was a pretty formidable decade for documentaries, with lots of Les Blank, Shoah, and the world-changing Thin Blue Line). I must have seen this film more times than any other, and it never ceases to be hilarious, profound and weirdly moving - especially when you start layering it with McElwee's other autobiographical works. Charleen Swansea feels like a part of the family at this point. Be sure to follow up with Time Indefinite, at the very least. That film could also conceivably crash my top ten.