Religion + Ridiculous = Religulous.
Religulous is an entertaining documentary that explores Religion/s and Faith from the point of view of stand-up comedian Bill Maher -an agnostic and devil's advocate- who interviews different pastors, priests, and religious leaders to prove his point - Religions are ridiculous.
I share Maher's premises, thoughts and conclusions in many ways, but Maher's point gets lost in his intransigence, which is exactly what he criticises religious people for. In other words, if you want to criticise people who preach mumbo-jumbo and things that are not reasonable you have to do so using Reason, Respect, and Restrain, otherwise you put at the same level the people and beliefs you are criticising.
Maher is very good,
sharp, and witty at times, especially when he lets the nonsense express
itself in full and when he directs the conversation with the people he
interviews without superimposing his own views. I especially liked the
interview to the Arkansas Senator (who self-destroys his won credibility
as soon as he opens his mouth), the interviews to the re-incarnated
Latino Jesus, the interview to the black-rich pastor, and his visit and
interviews at the thematic park "Holy Land".
What annoyed me the most was that Maher doesn't show the same respect to his Christian, Jew and Muslim interviewees at all. For example, when interviewing some of the crazy Christian pastors he lets them speak, intercalating his funny comments to point out the bullshit and mixing it with super-funny visual montages. However, and despite he being half-Jew, he doesn't leave talk a Rabbi who criticises Israel, whose voice is barely heard. The same happens when he interviews some of the Dutch Muslim people. On the other hand, the only people who seem to make sense among the interviewees are Catholics, they seem to be the only ones to reconcile Science and Religion... really? (Maher is an ex-Catholic... ex?). If he had made the
documentary from a less personal dogmatic point of view, without trying
so hard to proof his point, he would have succeeded at doing that
more convincingly.
This is a very entertaining documentary, very funny at times, annoying at others. If you don't take it too seriously and forgive Maher for occasionally bullshitting the viewer, you will enjoy it. If you are deeply religious, abstain from watching. You've been warned.
This is the documentary, of the many I saw during the Perth Revelation Film Festival 2012, that has stuck to my memory, and the one that fascinated me the most.
The documentary revolves about the vanishing of a 13y.o boy, Nicholas Barclay, for his home in Texas in 1993, to be found in Spain with an apparent amnesia six years later. What happens after the young man call the Spanish Police is the core of the film.
The movie mixes interviews with the protagonist Frédéric Bourdin, Nicholas' family, American FBI and Consular officials, and has very atmospheric re-enactments done with Spanish actors and settings narrating the events occurred in Spain. The story is build up like in a thriller, and it will keep you glued to the screen, wanting to know what is going to happen next.
Layton has given the documentary the tone of a mystery movie in the re-enactments, but also in the interviews through the use of the chiaroscuro, camera positioning, hues of the film, and the tempo and way the events are presented - everything serves to build up suspense and mystery, and make you doubt and question yourself. Is this a real documentary or a mockumentary? Are we being fooled? The story is fascinating and amazing per se, but the way it is presented, is marvellous from a cinematic point of view as lets the viewer munch on a few philosophical themes: self-identity, reality and perception of reality, the connection between emotion and perception, and the use of cinematic narratives in documentaries based on real events, among other things.
One of the main downs of the movie is that Nicholas' family is somewhat ridiculed and vilified for the sake of the storyline. After all, we need of good, bad, stupid and clever characters in a story to create an interesting film. In the first place they are portrayed as ignoramuses; however, they are a suburban family living in a poor area of the USA, with little or none education; you cannot expect much of any person grown in this social environment anywhere in the world. In the second place, they are ridiculed for failing to detach themselves from their emotions and see something really obvious for the spectator; however its a characteristic of human nature and behaviour to attach emotion to our thoughts and to interpret what we see according to our own personal individual viewfinder. We do so, all of us, every single day, in our daily lives, so you cannot expect traumatised and emotional people to see things as clearly as we see them from our seat in the cinema. In the third place, the movie implicitly blames the family, by letting some of the characters doing so, for the vanishing of Nicholas, without providing any evidence for it.
Still, this is a terrific documentary. The less you know about the whole story at the beginning, the more you will enjoy it. This is a documentary that attracts people to the genre because reinvents it. A proof that a documentary can be amazing, intriguing, entertaining, and thought provoking.
Website of the Movie
Facebook
Mongolian Bling is an Australian documentary on the Hip-Hop scene in Mongolia directed by newcomer Benj Binks. I was lucky enough to be at the World Premiere in Perth during the Revelation Film Festival 2012.
Mongolia has always
been on my list of must-visit countries, still waiting for the right time for me to go there. I like Hip-Hop rhythms and, well, to me, Hip-Hop is to Music what graffiti is to painting. When I heard about the
documentary, I thought, Are you kidding? It did not cross my mind that
Mongolia -the land of Genghis Khan, the infinite horizons, cold winters, archery, horse racing, gers and fur hats- had a love
affair with something as Western as Hip-Hop.
Mongolian Bling is one of those documentaries that succeeds because it goes where nobody has gone before, has lots of passion and hard work behind it, and talks about its subject with rigour, humour, vigour and grace, still being entertaining and unpretentious. Most importantly, Mongolian Blink let Mongolians tell their story with their own voice.
Mongolian Bling does not do what you expect from a documentary of this sort to do - a straight forward narration from an outsider point of view of a given subject. Like serious boring history of Mongolia, Mongolian ways of life, or the Mongolian Hip-Hop.
Still, Benj Binks and his international crew provide us with a colourful tapestry of modern Mongolia images and we learn about the challenges of daily life in Ulaanbaatar, the aspirations and
frustrations of the youth, the religious differences that the country has, generation gaps, gender attitudes, marginality, and musical
creativity. Binks is able to explain in a simple way why Hip-Hop is so ingrained in modern Mongolia, and how ancestral musical traditions and attitudes served to anchor the genre in the country. We also see the multicolour facets of the Hip-Hop scene, which is far from being monochrome. All of this is told though the voice of three main
hip-hop singers: Guiza, Gee and Gennie (who could not be more different
among them at all levels), although hip-hop aficionados and wannabes, and even children are featured in the doco.
The editing by Davide Michielin and Bieks is great, as creates a tempo and mood that keeps you engaged and entertained. The cinematography by Nacho Pende is great, because goes beyond the obvious and is able to capture the beauty of the ugly districts, the lyricism of chaos, and the shining lights of the darkest places. The live sound by Steven Bond is also great, and the viewer feels is right there listening to these people rap just for you.
The film has been bought by ABC Australia to be shown on TV, but in a 56-minute format not in its original 86 minutes, which, however, will be complete in the DVD. I you have the opportunity, go and see it on the big screen. It is completely worth it.
Roman Polanski Wanted and Desired is a terrific documentary with important flaws, that does not give an answer to the core question of the case - Did Polanski rape minor Samantha Gilmer or was the sex consensual?
The documentary, firstly, offers an insight into the life and personality of Polanski, so very much marked by tragedy since his childhood and an insight into his creative genius, with which we all agree. Many of his famous friends offer give a glimpse of his charm and attractive personality, and of his personal highs and lows before and during his marriage to Sharon Tate, after her murder, and when the rape case burst out. We also see the way the American media has been treating Polanski since the death of Tate. Most of his friends, being so, always believed in Polanski's innocence. Love is always blind, and never an objective proof of anything, so their opinions are going to be subjective, and do not add anything to the question if he did in fact rape the girl or not. Talent does not make you a better or worse person, just talented.
The documentary, secondly, offers an insightful review of Polanski's trial in the USA, and of the many irregularities committed by judge Laurence J. Rittenband, who was more thrilled to become famous and punish Polanski a priory than to do Justice. The long interviews with the two lawyers, defendant and prosecutor, and the victim, Samantha, really help the viewer to understand that Polanski was legally mistreated, and that Rittenband abused his power and proceeded in improper unacceptable legal ways. We understand why Polanski flew the USA, and why he is right at mistrusting the American Press and judicial system. We also understand how silly and outrageous the latest detention of Polanski was.
Said this, the documentary somewhat forgets Samantha and does not try to provide enough information about what really happened that night. Did Polanski rape her? Was Samantha lying? Was Samantha used by her mother? The documentary seems to blame her mother for letting her go alone with womaniser Polanski; however, no mother wants her child abused or raped. The interventions of Samantha on camera are very limited and controlled by the director, and mostly serve to support that Polanski, an herself were used by the judge, and that the trial harmed them both. However, why does the director forget or avoid asking Samantha the main questions, directly, and letting the viewer hear what she has to say? After all, a rapist is never excused no matter how talented he is, even less if he is taking advantage of a teen, even if that girl has had sexual intercourse before. The transcript of the proceedings of the case, with the witnesses testimonials, is available online at This Place.
In fact, this transcript briefly appears in the documentary, just highlighting the questions made to Samantha, without displaying Samantha's replies in full. By reading Samantha's testimonial one immediately believes her. However, the testimonial of the doctor who examined her that night puts a big question mark onto Samantha's testimonial, as he denies she was forced or that sex took place. At the same time Polanski's semen was found in Samantha's panties. On the other hand, if I or my daughter were raped, I would like the rapist jailed, so he can't do the same to other girls. However, Samantha's family and herself publicly forgave Polanski long ago. If the sex was consensual, and Samantha was not a virgin, why the attorney's office did not charge the other offenders? Where is Polanski's narration of the events of the night? All of these elements are relevant to the case, and should have been directly explored in the documentary. If you want to present an objective documentary about Polanski's case, you have to be objective in the first place, and go all the way.
After watching the documentary and reading the transcripts of the trial, the case is still as mysterious as before regarding the main question. The documentary is sometimes a panegyric, and does not help to erase the black shadow pending on Polanski's head. However, the documentary does a great job a showcasing the irregularities of Polanski's trial, and making your head spin with questions.
The War you Don't see is a British documentary produced and directed by Australian journalist John Pilger that focus on the dangers of embedded journalism in war times.
If journalists do not do their job, we are misinformed and more easily manipulated, we don't see the suffering of innocent civilians and, therefore, we don't oppose the involvement of our governments and Army in those conflicts.
The documentary presents many cases in History to proof the point, specially focusing on the Iraq War but showing examples that go from the support of Cigarettes in the media in the 1920s, to the Vietnam War to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, to Wikileaks. It is not as much a critic to those who start and carry out unjust wars, but a warning call to the Journalists, who should be doing their job properly, asking the right questions, investigating things when needed, so we know the truth and act upon it.
I loved the documentary. I thought that the Libyan war –which erupted just when the doco was showed In Australia- was showing more of the same, another oil war masqueraded as a free-the-people war. Pilger makes the right questions, upfront, and does not allow his interviewees to bullshit the public. Pilger is not complacent with his colleagues, not even with the heavy weights of journalism. He does what he asks them to do, and that makes the documentary honest, thrilling, entertaining and informative. However, to be honest, we knew already much of what it is said in it. In fact, there were thousands of people demonstrating against the Iraq War in Australia (and the USA, EU, and the rest of the Western World) calling the arms of mass destruction "arms of mass distraction" despite those embedded journalists believing USA-UK's lies and contributing to their spread. People are sometimes wiser that one could think. The problem is that, once the war starts, and civilians are slaughtered every day, we need to know what we are fighting for. Pilger shows us the nitty-gritty of it, the details, the Monica Lewinski's sort of proof.
On the other hand, we do not want to see deceased chopped bodies in our news bulletins in certain countries (I'm just remembering the airbrushing of one of the iconic images of the Madrid Bombings showing severed limbs in most Australian media). I thought that not only the media is guilty of that, but we are guilty too, for not wanting to know the real human drama behind any war, especially if the deceased are not ours.
Too many people swallow the news (TV or newspapers) as if they were God's Gospel, without thinking that perhaps the channel they are watching is owned by a filthy-rich guy who is not interested in the truth, but in controlling its spread, so his corporation or businesses do better and he earns more millions. Lies make them richer. We have to be honest with ourselves. Lies in the news are easily spread because the level of education of the population is not high enough (in fact, money is more valued than education nowadays), and because independent thinking is not promoted in school, University, or anywhere. Quite the contrary. Everybody wants to be in tune with the social network in vogue. Everybody wants to belong to a flock. So, the problem is not just the sort of journalism we have nowadays, or that the news lie to us regularly, but also the sort of viewers we have nowadays - Viewers who don't question what they hear or see on the news when war is on, or when there isn't even a war. I missed a hint of this point in the documentary, which I consider very important. That would have been moving a step forward from the usual blaming of the Empire, as if our society wasn't to blame for letting others think for us, or swallow crap without any sort of resistance.
Said this, the documentary was great, as it proves that we are certainly being lied every day, intentionally or by default, in war times or not. We are told that we are fighting for the freedom of the people, but that is never the case.
A wish. I would like Pilger to focus on the crap of ours, the Australian one, and examine closely which sort of news are shown in our TV stations every day, or which sort of crappy newspapers we have in Australia regarding local issues. Why is so? Who are the responsible? What are the lies? Who are the liars?
Compulsory watching!
Although the documentary has been accused of being a mockumentary, or at least a staged story, the directors continue to deny it. To me, the important fact is that, disregarding whether this is a real doco, a re-enactment or a mocko, the film poses the viewer poignant questions on our modern culture, the Internet, our online persona, social networks and human communication. Catfish poses many interesting questions about self-perception and identity through the Internet: Is the image we present to our Internet buddies our real self? In which way? In which degree? Is our edited life profile a real representation of who really are deep down inside? Is it necessary to present our real self to the world through the Internet to communicate with others? Does the way we present in real life and the virtual life differ and in which degree? It also shows the need of modern society to hide to connect, and to connect using a enhanced beautified portrait of ourselves. It also portrays the ugly face of many online dating experiences, those that dating sites forget to mention, or the people involve forget forever.
This is is one of the best documentaries I have seen in the last 12 months. It is very entertaining, very real, in the sense that is a sort of visual video-diary, and the experiences and feelings that Nev shows are naive and raw, as flawed as ours could be, very human and believable. Moreover, the editing is fantastic as well as the tempo of the story. It is thanks to those, not just the story, that the viewer gets hooked on a film that is visually not very pretty looking or interesting a priori.
A very engaging, warm, fresh and intriguing documentary.
