Docutastic

Wartorn is a James Gandolfini-produced HBO documentary following armed forces sufferers of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) through American history. We are shown letters from soldiers in the American Civil War and World War I and interviews with soldiers from recent wars. There is a clear trajectory from a period in which sufferers were labelled yellow or cowardly through to a system which accepts and (sometimes) diagnoses the disease and attempts treatment. However, the lack of objectivity and consistency in the diagnosis, combined with the duration of suffering, means this is an ongoing problem which destroys lives for years after service is over. Furthermore, government services struggle to provide adequate support for it, despite the causes lying within service to their country.

The documentary bears on a issue which occasionally moves into focus in popular culture, but generally is misunderstood and poorly handled: mental health. Its a difficult issue for most people to relate to for a number of reasons, however the impact of the disease is much more widespread then might be expected, and probably only undiagnosed problems and secrecy mean that it remains hidden and the depth of it is not well known. Certain high profile people have disclosed their problems to aid education and shift the perception away from a marginalised minority of society into something that may happen to otherwise strong and intelligent people. Particular takeaway points are that these conditions are essentially incurable, they need to be consistently and actively managed, whether through lifestyle or through medication. And that they are generally a-rational, in the sense that they cannot be "logic'ed" away even if they do not make any sense to the individual. Catherine Zeta Jones disclosed her bipolar condition some years ago. More recently, Stephen Fry discussed a suicide attempt in 2013 on a podcast with Richard Herring in a particularly touching interview. He is President of Mind the mental health charity and as such sees it as his duty to be open about his problems to allow others to do likewise.

This documentary shows firsthand the impact of this mental disease on a number of people who might be said to have been as strong and resilient as anybody before the suffering took hold. People who have led large teams of soldiers in warzones, dealing with IEDs and insurgencies. Now they find it difficult to visit the supermarket and must have the strength of their families around them to cope. In one instance it is clear that while a man's wife is as supportive as she can be, the strife she is living through now is hard for her to cope with. While he is showing photographs of some of the terrible things he has seen on his computer, she is somewhat exasperated that he even has them. He indicates he has deleted the worst, but he is clearly still dwelling on those in front of him. Should he delete the photos and turn the computer off? Certainly, but telling him so isn't going to achieve what she wants it to.

The contrast between the strength of the individual before and after combined with the nature of the cause, i.e. that they were putting themselves in harm's way to help others, makes the stories particularly poignant. Also, the sheer number of sufferers who never had any treatment over the years and would simply have rotted away, homeless, until the inevitable suicide, is not lost on us. Very sad but informative documentary. Nothing in it is particularly original or new, however the central theme of widespread education on mental health in order to increase awareness and aid treatment is a very noble aim. Thanks Mr Gandofini.

7 / 10

Is it real, or is it art? Maybe its both. The anonymous Banksy (who has since effectively been unmasked as Robin Gunningham, or former public schoolboy Robin Gunningham as the Daily Mail would have it) presents a crazy hyperactive, obsessive French man called Thierry Guetta. He starts as a street art fan using his family connections, his videocamera and a purported documentary to get access to secretive artists during their illegal activities; and then eventually he becomes an artist in his own right. This is a crazy story where you can never be quite sure of what is real or otherwise.

Thierry meets and films artist after artist, largely based on initially his cousin Invader's work and later due to a close relationship with Shepard Fairey. But he has no intention, or ability, to actually compile his footage into a film. In fact he never even watches the footage. Eventually he works with Banksy himself, who sees this budding filmmaker as an opportunity to extend the lifespan of street art which is inherently temporary. Following some drama at Disneyland during which Thierry refuses to betray him under pressure from more than just Mickey Mouse, Banksy makes Thierry put his footage together into a movie. The consequence is 90 mins of unwatchable crap called Life Remote Control. An edited version down to 15 minutes is available online (I think the link is to an illegal hosting so I haven't included it but its a quick google).

Subsequently Banksy takes control of the film, and gives Thierry a job (as a distraction) of making his own art show. Mr Brainwash goes on to put together a huge art show in LA, to great acclaim, mainly copying work and techniques he has seen his subjects produce, in a state of complete chaos. He sells millions of dollars worth of art. This much, at least, did actually happen. Mr Brainwash became a recognised artist in his own right. But did he make the art himself? Does it even count as art, is it not derivative crap borne from copying his buddies? Its not street art either, given its all from a gallery, even if the style replicates Invader, Banksy, Shepard Fairey etc... But the hectic days prior to the gallery launch are lots of fun. And its a great example of grabbing hold of pop culture consciousness, a guy with a natural talent for publicity and infectious enthusiasm.

So thats the story, what to make of it? No idea really ... but I like the title.

7 / 10

It seems a bit ridiculous to write about this movie that is so awesome, so famous and so well covered by better people than me. But its even worse to leave it out of the list. This is Leon Gast's documentary on the "Rumble in the Jungle" heavyweight title fight between Muhamad Ali and George Forman in Zaire in 1974. The documentary came out 10 years after the fight but is filled with footage from the time of training camps, casual moments and interviews. It is unique but both awe inspiring and tragic, knowing Ali's subsequent destiny. This photo above on its own carries how profound a character he is, and this documentary is by far the best expression of it. George Forman's journey since from silent, mummy-like brick wall to giggling grill salesman is something that shouldn't be overlooked as well. Though some of his fashion choices in this film show he had a sense of humour even then.

Brilliantly entertaining with copius focus on the fight itself with Ali's rope-a-dope and eventual victory (spoiler alert). The talking heads are as good as in any documentary, Norman Mailer, "I think Ali was scared", Spike Lee, George Plimpton etc etc. And enough political insight to discuss the hosts of the fight, the dictatorship in power in Zaire, and the Vietnam War following which Ali had his belt removed.

I don't have much more to say except its a must see for anyone interested in boxing, documentaries, Ali or just life in general. AND its available on youtube.

9 / 10

This is big one. Several coincidences come together to make this a documentary with incredible events and unprecedented footage. But what it really represents is doubt. And its absolutely fascinating. Who did what and when? Who is lying? Who is lying to themselves? Can you pick fact from opinion? Or do you have a gut feeling that you think you can rely on? I've watched it a number of times and, while I have a strong view on a few points, each time I watch it, it throws up new ambiguity and complexity.

Arnold Friedman is a slight, middle aged, quiet man who is a respected member of the community, a school teacher and a piano teacher, and he is caught sending child pornography via the physical mail. The police get a search warrant, enter the house, and find a significant stack of homosexual pedophilic pornographic books and magazines behind the piano in high office. That much is certainly true. The police, having identified his occupation, then aggressively pursue the question of whether he has abused any children, and find copius allegations. From these allegations they build a case against Arnold, but also against his 18/19 year old son Jessie who had been involved in his computer classes. The community is shocked and scared and appears to become gripped by a form of hysteria as the accusations run wild. At one point it is suggested that parents even become competitive about the number of times their children were raped.

Some of the stories start to sound ridiculous, completely irrational. And the sole featured accuser, that is to say the sole featured victim willing to talk about accusations, exhibits bizarre behaviour even in this interview. He is lying back on a sofa, unlike all the other interviewees (by his choice?) speaking in a very languid almost sleepy tone, his face is obscured, as it is with some others. He seems drugged or or perhaps excessively arrogant, hard to put my finger on it. And at least part of his interview is contradictory. He states that no raping occurred in the computer room it all happened in the back room ... but then goes on to describe a game called Leapfrog which involved repeated anal penetration of the entire class in the computer room. Many of his memories are drawn from hypnosis. How could this Leapfrog game have occurred without physical evidence? Blood, semen, torn clothes. How could they have abused such a large group without any immediate complaints; none of children told their parents - or apparently even discussed it with each other.

However, the witness statements come thick and fast. More and more children make these accusations and the charges build up dramatically. The police officers and judge are certain of their guilt. No smoke without fire? Some of the police statements also seem wrong, or odd. One states that there was child pornography in stacks throughout the house, but the results of the initial search did not show that. Another states that in order to get the truth from children, you have to tell them you already know its true, they just need to admit it. This contrasts dramatically with Deliver Us From Evil in which the victims were desperate to get it off their chests once the door was open. Child psychologists describe how children, if led, will simply try and make the questioner happy. You have to decide who you can believe.

Amazingly, the documentary was only made because Andrew Jarecki wanted to make a film about clowns ... and David Friedman was a clown. David had all the home video footage of the descent of the family into hell as the case played out. The footage is both educational and confusing, endearing and terrifying. The family fall apart quickly as the sons and mother are in a constant state of war. There is extreme confusion and denial. The sons are convinced that Arnold did nothing wrong, even in the face of the child pornography found in the house. The mother even says that when the police showed her the magazine "my eyes were in the right direction, but my brain saw nothing." However, the mother thinks he is guilty, perhaps feeling betrayed enough by the child pornography to have lost any sentiment towards him.

Arnold is an enigma. He committed suicide in 1995 so cannot play the talking head role, but when he does appear on camera he is quiet, reserved and introverted. At times he seems like a man destroyed from the inside, at other times he seems like he is wearing a second skin, a malleable membrane that he can use to show whatever he needs. His relationship with his wife is repeatedly described as without substance, for which the children (in particular David) blame her. However, he is very close to his sons. He admits at various points and in various forms a number of specific crimes. He actually put it all in a document called "My Story" which is on the DVD version but I haven't been able to track down yet. His mother had sex in the same room as him and his younger brother as a young child. Soon after he began a sexual relationship with his younger brother (the most sympathetic character in the film by some distance, with no recollection of this sex as a child). In later life, he retained this compulsion for sex with young boys, and was well aware of it. The pornography was to help him control the desire and prevent abuse of his sons, which he struggled to do. And he did act on the desires. He admits abusing two children, friends of the family, on summer holiday. His son, David, refuses to accept it, to him the confession means nothing.

So he is a paedophile, and by his own admission he acted on it. Isn't that enough? The hysteria took hold and the accusations went too far, most likely. The police didn't understand how children's psychology worked, or perhaps they did and realised they could manipulate it to build their case. As a result a significant amount of the accusations are probably false, but does it matter? Arnold is a dangerous man and has committed heinous crimes. Its interesting how the sons manage to integrate the paedophilic tendancies into their moral outlook relatively easily. Its not dissimilar to Deliver Us From Evil in which the bishops sitting in judgement of O'Grady the serial abuser, find his acts an extension of a natural sexual curiosity which is to be managed but isn't necessarily an indication of serious danger. The sons similarly are able to accept Arnold's desires as wrong but not a sign of anything deeper, and if controlled by an appropriately strong character would not lead to abusive behaviour. They even seem to allow him the possibility of some abuse without that moving him from the category of "confused" to "monster". Similarly, his younger brother who is the original source of his affections cannot believe his brother is such a terrible person. Incidentally, the documentary makers reveal towards the end that he is gay and introduce his partner, I'm not certain what, if anything, to conclude from that in his sexual development.

Eventually he admits guilt, while privately denying it all, and is sentenced to significant jail time. But he does it under a misguided notion that it will help his son get off or get a reduced sentence. As a result Jessie also pleads guilty. This is the next level of complexity. Jessie's lawyer states that Jessie admits his guilt to him! He states also that Jessie had been abused by his father, leading to this perverse behaviour. Surely you can trust the lawyer? Jessie asserts that the lawyer is only attempting to establish acting under his professional responsibility to prevent a knowingly innocent client from pleading guilty. In fact, he says, it was the lawyer's idea to make up Arnold's abuse of Jessie. But it is very odd contradiction. In the community at large, Arnold's guilt heavily implies that Jessie is guilty too. Jessie pleads guilt, crying and blaming his abusive father, and has the book thrown at him. Immediately prior to this, Jessie is outside the courthouse laughing and joking around. The tears are fake, one way or the other. Since they are fake, what else is fake?

The strongest evidence though that nothing happened is two interviewees. One is a student from the class, interviewed without his face obscured. He is confident, controlled, unemotional and articulate. He states clearly that nothing ever happened, that there was no indication that anything ever happened. That its particularly ridiculous to think that Jessie could have abused a child. He describes being aggressively interviewed by the police and deciding to "give them something", so he made up something non sexual but violent from Jessie. Secondly there is the parent of a child who describes the interview of his son which moved from asking what happened to telling him. As far as he was concerned his son only made his accusations because the police told him to... Its pretty compelling, hysteria combined with overly aggressive police tactics.

Its a rollercoaster of fact and fiction. Arnold being jailed and committing suicide does not seem the worst outcome since his was, in fact, a child abuser. His suicide resulted in a substantial payout to Jessie. Jessie's life is ruined, and it is very hard to believe that he was guilty. Hard, but not impossible. Perhaps the accusations went much too far, but perhaps there is no smoke without fire. Certainly his behaviour in the courthouse raises serious questions. But this would have been unbelievably stressful period of his life, how would you handle yourself?

Fascinating film, each screening experience is a new battle of good versus evil. At times its possible to think that the strategy of using child porn to satiate his urges and protect the children was entirely rational, he even states that a psychiatrist told him to do so, and for the benefit of the community at large. But the urges are so heinous, and the acts where they occur so destructive, that there is no good in them.

Great film, confusing, challenging and complex.

9 / 10

Ok so this isn't exactly a documentary but it is absolutely awesome and entirely factual. This is a compilation of clips from football matches of Lionel Messi refusing to fall over while being repeatedly fouled. For those who don't know, Messi is widely regarded as the best footballer in the world, usually with the caveat that Ronaldo is also unbelievably good. Messi has a great all round game and scores headers, volleys, and world class free kicks. However, his real gift is dribbling. There have been a handful of players renowned for their dribbling. Stanley Matthews is a name that immediately springs to mind from the 40s and 50s, and Garrincha the Brazilian from the same era. They were world class from the time, but the limited grainy footage available from the era reveals more languid pace, more time on the ball, less pressure and a lack of a really clinical touch. Later came George Best in the 60s and 70s and Maradonna in the 80s. I'm missing some names for sure, but these were the pinnacle of the artform. Best displayed an uncanny ability to balance and to keep the ball as close as possible to his feet. He is probably best known for throwing away his talent, though his alcoholism paled in comparison to that of Garrincha, but actually played copius games in his prime and there is plenty of coverage of his most significant goals. Maradonna was short but built like a tank which incredible mobility and athleticism. Maradonna's dribble in 1986 to beat most of the England team and score in the World Cup Quarter Finals is regarded as one of the greatest goals ever, not just because of the skill, but because of the significance of the match it was played in. However, Messi eclipses all of them. He has Best's balance and he has Maradonna's stocky strength. The way he moves at pace with the ball at his feet, and the way he shifts the ball suddenly and aggressively but still moves with it is phenomenal.

All the way through he is being kicked, punched, elbowed, grabbed and stamped on by players around him, but he just keeps going. The point, of course, is that he could take some benefit from these fouls. Usually in order to do so, you need to go to ground. Often even if the referee notices that a foul has taken place, he will let the play go on if the player stays on his feet; there may be an advantage to be had for the attacking team. But it is more a representation of a Faustian pact between the referee and the player. If the player wants the free kick he has to go to ground to appeal for it. If not the referee would need to face the ire of the defending team claiming it couldn't have been a foul if he can still carry on running. If the player goes to ground, usually the wrath of the defending team and the crowd is reserved for the player, rather than the referee. Hence going to ground has become a form of appealing, similar to an LBW in cricket. Usually then it is used by the attacking player in order to pursue an advantage. In fact many players have built their game around playing for the freekick rather than attempting to win the ball - even Ronaldo the other best player in the world could be accused of that. Messi is not interested in the free kick, only in the possession and the advantage of having the ball at his feet. In a game plagued by professionalism and gamesmanshp, it is refreshing to see such a talent with only one thing on his mind.

The best is at 4:20 when he is being fouled by Kaka, the fourth most expensive footballer ever, and a devout Christian who has always been "one of the good guys". He knows Messi is getting away without his team behind the balls, so casually holds him back. It is a widely performed element of professionalism to give the freekick or even take a yellow card at the halfway line to prevent a likely goal. Messi refuses to go down and looks ridiculous attempting to continue to run while being held around the waist with both hands. Still, despite the sudden deceleration, the ball stays on his foot

Of course on some occasions, he has clearly made the wrong decision. At 2:20 for instance, he should have won a penalty but instead gives away the ball. For the team playing at that point, this could be the difference between progressing in the tournament or getting knocked out - between winning the league or not. Its a poor decision for his team mates, for the fans, for his manager, for the club's shareholders. You could argue that it is the referee's fault for needing the player to go to ground in order to give the decision. But its not really relevant. The morality of staying on your feet, even to your disadvantage, is an important part of the point behind the video. But it is not as fun as just watching him try and keep going while they try and foul him. Balancing on his right, moving the ball from the outside of his left to the inside. Knocking it ahead a couple of feet into the space and injecting the pace and the strength to barge past two players, maybe even using one defender's body position against the other's.

Its notable that throughout, he doesn't use a Ronaldo step over, or a Cruff turn, or even a Ronalidinho flipflop. He just moves the ball from foot to foot at pace with tremendous balance and just keeps going. Its also notable that some of these moment would really hurt. Being kicked by a 6 foot 6, 15 stone central defender is deeply unpleasant. For instance at 3:10 when he really gets a lump taken out of him but stays on his feet. I think in that instance its so obvious that the foul does get given. Or at 5:05 when I think Pepe from Real Madrid hits him around the head, but he stays on the feet. Even Jack Charlton couldn't take him down. Ok maybe.

8 / 10 * would have been a 9 but its just a youtube clip!

Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait (2006) takes the above to an interesting extreme. This is Real Madrid vs. Villarreal CF on April 23, 2005, filmed entirely from Zidane's perspective with 17 cameras. Its more conceptual art installation that documentary. Its based on Football As Never Before (1970) which uses 8 cameras to follow George Best against Coventry City. Both are incredible exponents of the game with a poise, control and movement that at times seems other worldly. To see Zidane point, move, control in one touch, shift beyond a player and lay the ball off is incredible. Of course you don't need to watch only him to achieve that, but the focus takes away the distractions and compels you to see only him. In case you are tempted to forget where our focus lies, occasionally the shot pans out to a TV view showing the wider angle and with dampened audio which exaggerates how close we are to the action when we are returned to our hero. In those wider shots you might even pick out some other galacticos; a rare moment of David Beckham being ignored by the camera.

What is interesting is that you get to see him warts and all. You see the slight professional fouls. You see him wandering at walking pace when his team are not in possession and presumably he should be tracking back and marking someone. You see him spit and scratch his groin. The obsessiveness of this becomes slightly unnerving. There is an additional edge with this level of focus, is it religious, is it obsession, could it be sexual? Whatever it is, either that sensation, or boredom, will make most people stop watching eventually. However, probably too soon as the final and most appropriate wart appears towards the end. Perhaps driven by the extreme pressure of the attention (surely he knew he was being filmed?), a challenge leads to a brawl, Zidane is nowhere near it but he piles into the fray, and he swings just too much of his arms. Red card.

This is the year before his inexplicable World Cup Final implosion. He is sent off for a headbutt on Materazzi in extra time after a comment about his sister. But by this point he had already scored the most bizarre World Cup Final penalty in history when he lazily clips the ball against the bar. As Petit said after, he's either crazy, or he doesn't care. France went on to lose on penalties with Zidane in the stand.

7 / 10

For me, watching the quality that these players bring to the game is incredible. Partly its because its something I aspire to myself but would never be able to achieve. Partly its a recognition of how close these capabilities come to what might be considered high art. The way Messi plays football is like competitive ballet, execptional balance, power and control. I imagine someone watching who had never played or watched football could dismiss it as ordinary, and the context in which its played is hardly and artform. But the pinnale of those with the greatest talent and dedication is remarkable. The Zidane documentary makes this point more explicitly by turning it into an art installation, and in fact the Best documentary beforehand makes the attempt but its not Best's most exciting game so doesn't really work as an example of his capabilities. The Messi compilation might seem to be a cheat as its a greatest hits and voids the reality. However since it focuses on something very specific, the fouls, and as a result rarely results in the goal that would end much of these youtube fan-films, its a great example of extreme skill under duress and including the failures following which he brushes himself off and starts again...

This is an absolute gem of a documentary with incredible (unique?) access to a world of real opacity. Najibullah Quraishi is an Afghan journalist who made Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death in 2002 with Jamie Doran covering alleged war crimes committed by the Northern Alliance under the supervision of the Americans on Taliban fighters in November 2001. It is alleged that after surrendering, hundreds died and that American military, preusmably CIA, were present and complicit. Perhaps due to the message and implied allegiances from making that film, he is allowed to travel, live and even go on attacks with a group of insurgents in the north of the country where a new front is developing targeting an American supply route. The subjects allow themselves to be filmed predominately without covering their faces and provide interviews and casual conversation to the camera. Surely even a year after this was filmed the awareness of the risk of drone strike would make filming this impossible.

The coverage of these groups that he achieves is remarkable, and quickly familiar personality types and recognisable behavioural patterns begin to materialise. It is fascinating how normal the interactions seem so quickly, once you suspend disagreement with their core principles. You have the 30 something religious leader keen to prove he is in a position of authority. You have the young but hardcore fighter, called crazy by his peers, who has no interest in the blathering of the religious leader. You have the 18 year old kid who doesn't really understand what is going on, and you suspect would have no problem if he was allowed to leave, move to New York, and get a job in a bar. However they all carefully express their core principles easily, succinctly and consistently, "We want the non-believers out of Afghanistan". Some of the elders are veterans of the USSR conflict and see the enemies as very much the same beasts. The ruins from that battle are still lying in fields as evidence of Afghan superiority over superpowers.

In the early hours, the team head to a road with their IED devices and shoulder mounted grenade launchers. The feeling is tense, not just because there is the frisson of danger, but also because the camera is watching and they don't want to be shown up. Quickly the element of farce builds as one by one clumsy errors are made, or they find themselves unable to adapt. The radio signal is poor and they cannot understand whether their target, an American convoy, has left or not. They have planted the roadside bomb, but does the remote control work? In fact, do they even have the right remote control? Its a foggy day so they cannot see the road anyway, how are they going to know if they get their target? Then the inevitable happens. The target drives past unaware, they have failed. But wait, there's another target, Afghan policemen, not quite as good but a failed mission is worse. Again the IED doesn't work, but this time there is enough time for an RPG attack ... but its not like in training, the vehicle approaches suddenly and quickly, the distance is unclear, and how can you hide from view and shoot? The RPG misses. The recriminations begin. The religious leader, checking to see if the camera is following him, blames the hardcore fighter who led the operation. The fighter doesn't care what he thinks, but the younger insurgents with the remote controls jump on the bandwagon. Its easier if they all agree who is to blame, who made the IED anyway? The fighter says it works, "just give it to me" ... it doesn't work, shake shake shake ... boom! In perfect comic timing the bomb goes off in the background ... "was that it?" ... "what do you think it was?!" ... The back and forth overshadows entirely the magnitude of what has just taken place. We do not even know who was on the road when the bomb exploded and whether an innocent passer by is dead. Its also very likely that now they are in serious danger, they have just shot an RPG at and exchanged gunfire with the police, and set off a bomb ... is an airstrike coming?

The incident is then seen through the eyes of both the local insurgent commander, and later the police unit. Both changing reality to suit their own agenda. The insurgent leader admits the IED missed its target, but states that the RPG hit and they killed five policemen ... a success. Is he lying or did his troops lie to him? Perhaps he knows the troops lied but the propaganda victory is more important than a handful of deaths among thousands anyway. Then separately the police claim that the road is entirely free of danger, in the control of the local govvernment and there has been no attack for a month. He has no idea that Najibullah joined an attack only days before. But why admit the truth, again he may not even know for sure that there was an attack. Its more important that the appearance of security is maintained. Honesty will get you nothing, propaganda is all important.

Going back to the story, Najbullah joins a larger group of Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders as they execute their secondary role as political and legal rulers, but his position there comes under question as the scrutiny he provides and video footage he creates make the subjects uncomfortable. Legal cases are argued, property rights are disputed, theft etc. The sentences can be severe, they convict one man and sentence him to die by beheading. What is clear however, is that they are running the local government. The national leadership and local police are irrelevant. At this stage Nabjubullah comes under pressure. One fighter approaches him from behind, "If I asked you to join the Jihad, would you come". "Didn't I come last night?". "With a camera, not as a fighter". "The camera is my gun". Good answer, but his days are numbered. When he attempts to interview the man sentenced to death he has pushed too far and is withdrawn by his contact.

This is "only" a Dispatches film, an hour long edited-for-TV film which as a result is quite hard to get hold of; though there are a few internet sources the youtube version is not very stable and seems to come up and down. As a result I think there is a tendency to overlook it, especially since the primary footage at the core of the film only lasts for 30-40 mins or so. Also there is only a limited overarching message, the narrator spends some time on the misinformation carried out on all fronts by all parties, but compared to many documentaries the desire of the production to convey an ideology is muted. I think the interpretation of this film is very much in the hands of viewer. Are you outright disgusted by the possible glorification of terrorists that this film provides? Is it possible to develop empathy with the insurgents, is it possible to shake your views on their cause and their guerilla tactics and attempt to see their human side? Is it possible to compare the way your view of the world is shaped by messages sent through media, religion and political leadership with the way that their's is? Its easy to dismiss their information set as distorted and limited, even medieval, but when it comes to a conflict like this where loose affiliations dominate and timelines are in decades, not days, so is ours. American/Western values and soft power are not "right" by default. Democracy in an American or British format may not work in a tribal society, and regardless they have no interest in it. Of course the fighters only represent one component of Afghan society, but their penetration in local communities and the cohesion that history and religion bring to their thinking make them a force which cannot effectively be dismantled by drone strike alone. For me, that is why this is an important documentary. Much like Omar Nasiri's "Inside the Jihad" which is a first-hand written account of the training camps, this kind of access is extremely rare. But without attempting to understand the enemy, in the field of modern warfare, I don't think you can "win". Partly because winning is still understood in a historical context, military and social domination. But that has been long abandoned as a tool for arms length battles where the loss of lives of troops has been determined as too high a price. The only win is a new set of consumers under something resembling freedom and democracy, but with these Afghan communities was that ever plausible? Very good all round, I would be surprised to see a documentary with this kind of jihadi access again.

8 / 10

What is it about mental illness in documentaries? Why would it provide such a solid platform for entertainment? The character at the centre of this documentary is Daniel Johnston, who is now a globally recognised talent. He is a singer/songwriter, performer and artist who drags himself from obscurity to huge success despite, or perhaps because of, extreme mental illness. His manic depression gives him both destructive, violent episodes causing him to attack his manager with a metal pipe, force an old lady to jump from a 2nd storey window and crash a plane (no deaths!) and wildly creative periods where his drawings, paintings and songwriting flow naturally and easily. The marriage of breathtaking creativity with horrendous self-destruction is a common documentary topic, though this is the most extreme I have seen to date (I'm looking to find others so let me know if you have recommendations). What is interesting is that Daniel sits further into the psychosis side than you would expect of someone with this degree of success. He isn't just a bit crazy like Anton Newcombe in Dig! (2004), he has a very serious mental condition, more like the mother in Tarnation (2003). He has bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and manic depression. Of course being unhinged but talented isn't that unusual but its great to get this kind of view of it, rather than just reading later about the inevitable suicide.

Daniel began life as a relatively normal kid with a penchant for home filmmaking and slowly seemed to degrade. From the outside you can see a depressive sheen pulled over his eyes, from the inside it must have been very traumatic. We are treated to copious grainly home video footage and lots of bewildered talking heads, in particular his poor parents as his behaviour becomes more erratic. However, his creativity seems to spike, initially mainly through drawing and painting, and later through composition. Now its worth pointing out at this stage that I'm not a fan of the artwork or the music. I can respect his capabilities but I find the art a bit cartoon-ish and repetitive, and his singing voice too nasal and whiny to enjoy. Also his guitar playing isnt exactly Clapton. But he can certainly write, his lyrics have a self reflective and insightful quality.

He makes his first album and struck by a remarkable certainty and self confidence pushes it on everyone he can. He receives two massive bumps, firstly coverage on MTV and later Kurt Cobain wears a T-Shirt with his album cover. With these occurrences and his infectiously enthusiastic personality he becomes something of a local icon and hero. Unlike all true tortured artists, he is comfortably recognised in his own lifetime. In fact Dylan comparisons start flying around. I find that somewhat sad as Rodriguez in Searching for Sugarman as a similarly damaged artist, though for entirely different reasons, is much more comparable to Dylan. But passing that accolade around undermines it somewhat.

Someone gives him LSD and it all goes disastrously downhill. Demonic possession, launched via a fervent Christian upbringing, becomes his focus and it takes a grip on him entirely. He terrifies his family as he becomes more violent and volatile, leading to the attacks mentioned above. More grainy footage shows him grinning widely while walking away from the light aircraft crash as the police take him away. He feels like he won something...his father, the pilot, despairs. In treatment, while drugged, his creativity disappears. As one of his friends points out, its easy to condemn those who would stifle Van Gogh, but how do you live with someone who has the potential to kill you and everyone you love?

This is the best exposition I have seen of genius and madness as two sides of the same coin. The poor quality home VHS footage is what really makes it work as otherwise the film would be entirely of the selfish lunatic. For that alone its brilliant entertainment. Feuerzeig does Daniel perfect justice in his balanced portrayal; as he gets older its clear that Daniel is so self obsessed that he is a deeply unpleasant person to be around with extreme narcissism. But the overall presentation allows him to be understood for the person he has been through his entire life and therefore to be somewhat sympathetic. Now he is a big lad (as Peter Bradshaw puts it, he has moved on from Sam Rockwell to Jon Lovitz) and while medicated is able to perform, though his writing has tapered off. He just finished a European tour. I missed him in London unfortunately, but since I'm not a huge fan I guess thats ok!

7 / 10

This is a superb documentary, rife with ambiguity and complexity. Errol Morris, a documentary grandee, interviews Robert McNamara with his direct-to-lens style filming technique (the"Interrotron") which exaggerates the confessional approach that McNamara himself brings to the discussion. This is McNamara's Frost/Nixon, its his opportunity to address history directly. Its not a confrontational debate, an interview with a biased counterparty, its almost a monologue (or at least is presented as such). It is McNamra's choice to digest his past, his decisions and his actions, and explain them for future generations. The spin is gone (well the political spin is gone, the personal spin is never going to disappear), this is as honest as someone with his background is likely to get. As the documentary progresses, it becomes an analysis of international security focused heavily on how a flow of ideas from different sources develops into action or inaction; and the questions of morality in the decisions taken. Bearing in mind he has been somewhat responsible for the deaths of thousands ... hundreds of thousands ... millions (?), that is an intense topic.

McNamara runs through his youth, his marriage, and his early roles at Harvard, WWII and at Ford Motor Company. He discusses his role during World War II in the Office of Statistical Control analysing bomber efficiency and effectiveness. Through doing so he and his team were able to identify that vast numbers of missions were cancelled due to cowardice. Reasons ranging from engine problems to unidentified noises were proposed as excuses, but their frequency did not correlate with the actual reliability of the machines. As a result the commanding officer was able to confront the problem with a threat of court martial to those who cancelled their missions. As a starting point its interesting as while in the broad scheme it all makes sense, what isn't noted is that he is in a safe room analysing statistics while those affected by his judgement are risking their lives. Their cowardice is in the face of death, and the probability of the other form of error has just spiked dramatically, i.e. a mission flown with an ACTUAL engine problem. Its this form of realism or pragmatism which dominates the remainder of the film through eleven lessons proposed by McNamara to be applied to warfare in general.

- Empathize with your enemy
- Rationality will not save us
- There's something beyond one's self
- Maximize efficiency
- Proportionality should be a guideline in war
- Get the data
- Belief and seeing are often both wrong
- Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning
- In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil
- Never say never
- You can't change human nature

Evil to do good is a core focal point. "In that single night we burned to death 100,000 civilians in Tokyo: men, women and children. I was part of a mechanism that, in a sense, recommended it." He makes the point that he would have been charged with warcrimes if they had lost the war. Not something that many chest beating Americans would agree with today. They may point to atrocities on the other side, but no American cities were ever firebombed. He stops short of proposing a mechanism for applying warcrimes legislation to the victors, but he goes far enough to imply that future generations should.

He was then Secretary of Defence under JFK and Lyndon Johnson and considered by many the architect of the Vietnam War. Empathize with the enemy is at the centre of the evasion of a nuclear conclusion to the Cold War. Interesting that he credits the idea that "solved" the Cuban Missile Crisis, that of accepting Khrushchev's first placating letter and ignoring the second aggressive letter not to Robert Kennedy but to ... actually I can't remember but will see if i can find it again! But empathize with the enemy disappears on Vietnam. Instead confusion reigns, the lines of good and evil are drawn and have to be applied since the veil of uncertainty created by distance and confusion means nobody knows what is happening. He describes a meeting years later with a former Prime Minister of Vietnam with whom he almost came to blows. "You are totally wrong we were fighting for our independence."

"You lost 3 million Vietnamese, what did you accomplish, you didn't get any more that we were willing to offer at the beginning of the war"

"Haven't you ever read a history book? You would know we weren't pawns of the Chinese. We have been fighting them for 1,000 years. We were determined to get independence. No amount of bombing would ever stop us"

Perhaps finally he did achieve empathy, though decades too late and only when inconsequential. He wonders, has the US a record of omniscience? He does not believe now that any power should be applied unilaterally - in those instances Vietnam couldn't have happened. "If we cannot persuade nations with comparable values of the validity of our cause we should re-examine our reasoning". Fascinating stuff, and permanently relevant. He refused to apply his thoughts to Iraq, on the basis that he should not judge his successor while governing, but that his principles are free to be applied by others. What would it mean for Syria? Foreign policy decisions aren't made in a bubble. They are linked to all prior decisions with a weighting to the most recent. Hence they are prone to cycles from excess interventionism or excess isolationism. One person can see through a cycle but decisions by committee are inherently short sighted.

He reflects briefly on some of the most extreme circumstances for someone in his position. Agent Orange, the herbicide used in Vietnam intended to target forestland used as cover and food for guerillas, is now blamed for some 400,000 deaths and 150,000 children born with birth defects, that is from the Red Cross, the Vietnamese government have a much higher number. Googling the photos is a harrowing experience. Just horrendous suffering with inestimable consequences. He has no recollection of whether he approved it. But he is certain that it was not illegal to do so ... Does it matter that it wasn't explicitly illegal?

In protest to the war a Quaker man, Norman Morrison, doused himself and his baby daughter with petrol outside the Pemdagon. He threw the child out of the fire and she survived. McNamara says he agreed with the man's philosophy of non violence, but that evil must sometimes be done. 50,000 protesters in Washington, 20,000 at the Pentagon. Was his thinking changing? No, it was the Cold War, and this was a Cold War activity. While he is now against the Vietnam war, its unclear at which stage that came about or what he would have done differently... and what that might have changed. Though he is clear that the ultimate decision making responsibility lies with the President.

In the end he has to restrict his commentary. He mentions that there are those that think hes a son-of-a-bitch. That's a pretty radical understatement. Morris asks him, when he won't comment further on Vietnam, "Is the feeling that you're damned if you do and if you don't?". "Yeah, that's right. And I'd rather be damned if I don't." And as such the disclosures end - he has shown as much of his hand as he feels comfortable with, which is frankly a great deal more than we have seen of others. There were some disagreements later which led to another 10 lessons which were included in the documentary DVD, these are also fascinating, though detract somewhat from the clarity of Morris' exposition, which I don't think is overly simplistic. There is a feeling that McNamara, despite his candid disclosures, still isn't comfortable with balancing his position as against the war and yet one of the individuals most identified with carrying it out. The tension is particularly clear when discussing the initial authorisation of the war by Congress which occurred after American warships had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964. In fact they had been firing at their own sonar shadows, but McNamara is certain that they were fired on later. In other words, despite eventually realising that the evidence presented to Congress was wrong, the relevant conditions were later fulfilled. Very Blairite.

His conclusion is that war is too disastrous and complex to be left to humans. This is probably the least helpful of the lessons that he provides through the remainder of the documentary, as there are instances when war is necessary. But the core thoughts and philosophies are essential watching and should be regularly screened in US High Schools in particular.

Also available on youtube!

8 / 10

Do you know who created Daffy Duck? Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner? Bugs Bunny? Porky Pig? This guy, he did the animation by hand, wrote the stories and directed the TV shows. Chuck Jones, how incredibly prolific. I thought I was getting a documentary on Chuck Norris, no joke.

This is a short created by two Oscar winning filmakers who interviewed Chuck to discuss how his childhood influenced his development into a creative genius with an absolutely massive impact on western culture. Its easy to forget that Walt Disney was more than just an animator, he was also a gifted entrepreneur, which has created a much more identifiable legacy. Though Chuck's creations have no less a recognisable and influential impact, from "What's up doc?" to "Meep, Mepp". Through combinations of interview footage and animated segments (which were spontaneously created by Jones himself while being interviewed) he introduces his life as a boy in LA, his relationships with his father and mother, the films he saw and the classes he struggled with. It's a brilliantly candid interview with someone with nothing to hide and plenty to share.

Positive and negative anecdotes flow depicting how his creative influences developed, how each of his characters represents some part of himself and how many of his childhood events eventually became part of the stories he was to write decades later. Daffy represents his selfish side. Wile E Coyote is based on reading Twain. Bugs evolved from his work with Tex Avery and Ben Hardaway, but Chuck first introduced him to Elmer Fudd in 1940.

This is one of the most fun one on one interviews that Ive seen, I think partly due to the modesty of the man himself, who really is just doing what he loves. Charming and elegant.

7 / 10

Some kind of 80s TV documentary gives us an inspiring interview with Nobel Laureate (though he is quite clear on how much he disregards this attribute) Richard Feynman. For an exceptional physicist, perhaps a genius, he is remarkably gifted communicator and educator. He describes his intellectual development as driven by the "Pleasure of Finding Things Out" which he also considers to be the "real prize" which the Nobel committee subsequently attempted to usurp.

He specifically highlights two issues with "knowing". Firstly he differentiates between knowing the name for something and knowing what is truly is. Secondly he exaggerates the need to understand what you don't know as opposed to what you do know. He describes the concept of inertia, that something not moving tends to remains as such, and something which is moving tends to carry on moving, until there is some impact from external forces. However, he is clear that knowing the name inertia, while valuable, means nothing about understanding what it is ... its only a label. And in addition, nobody really knows what inertia truly is. But that is not a bad thing, in fact if you enjoy the journey then its a great thing.

Not knowing things doesn't frighten him, being lost in a vast universe as an insignificant actor is not a problem. In particular he argues that this attitude defuses the need to cling to an answer to fill the gap, mysticism he calls it, though he chooses not to chase religion any further in this instance. However, he does discuss what he calls psuedo science, and the way he does it is fascinating. Those that make claims about, for instance, organic food and various qualities that the food possesses. Do they know that these qualities exist? Have they done the work to ensure that they do? Because he knows, due to his considerable experience as a physicist, how difficult it is to know something, "I mean really know something". And how easy it is to make mistakes. His hypercritical approach to knowledge and professional scepticism is extremely valuable. In fact he argues that he finds it hard to understand how a scientist could use mystical answers to these questions if he follows the scientific method he claims to. Dawkins later hammers this point as hard as he can arguing that the God hypothesis is just another hypothesis to be tested with no special characteristics, and if it remains unproven must be abandoned. But Feynman doesn't and prefers to leave it there. I think that is immensely valuable in this context as it opens the question to be considered rather than pushing an ideology. It is also then consistent with his argument that not knowing is the cornerstone of the philosophy, and as such proposing certainty that God doesn't exist, as Dawkins effectively does (though he puts himself at a 6.9 on a 7-sized scale and so really is an agnostic), would undermine the clarity of that message. Rather the better takeaway is not an irreligious positive but a scrutiny of pseudo science whether that is homeopathy or psychic readings.

The other major focus of the documentary is his role in the Manhattan Project, as one of the fathers of the nuclear bomb. The clash of physics and real world events is striking and incredibly powerful. His clarity of thought and purpose as a scientist is very strong and persuasive, but the focus with which he and his colleagues apply it in that instance is almost other worldly as the reality of its impact and use is simply not relevant while they are doing the work. As he says, "I just didn't think". Once the bombs are used the impact is celebratory. Their analysis, development and experimentation has led to that moment, so the party atmosphere is internally entirely appropriate. It is only afterwards that a sudden, colossal psychological impact hits him. Suddenly, to him, everything is doomed. With this power available, and with the world as it had progressed to that stage, it simply was not possible that the power would remain unused. Global destruction was inevitable simply by extrapolating the degree of destruction from prior wars and grossing up the destruction per bomb coefficient exponentially. Construction was laughable pointless as there was no chance that it would be used. Why build when it will all be destroyed anyway. We are left with the sense that science cannot be practiced in a bubble. Or perhaps once it could, but those days are behind us. What is interesting though it that the thought process didn't destroy him, in fact he achieved great success later as he overcame the thoughts.

These scientific communicators are rare, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Feynmann of course is significantly most illustrious than those names. As a result this film is essential viewing in particular for children or students with an inquisitive mindset. It is not dissimilar to the Fog of War in opening a window into a way of thinking and a context around what might otherwise be cold hard facts via a highly engaged mind looking to share. As an educator he is clear that different people have different stimuli, he would not be able to state a method that generically works. Instead each person needs their own route to learn. Again his major lesson is not knowing, rather than knowing. "I don't know the world very well, but that's what I think"

8 / 10

Available on youtube!

Documentaries are at their very best when they give you exposure to something you would otherwise never see, and this is a fantastic example of that. Chris Hegedus and Da Pennebaker get incredible access to the first Clinton presidential campaign, though the focus of the film is not Clinton himself but George Stephanopoulos and James Carville. I find myself calling these films "must see" for a certain specific audience, and I understand that it did have a considerable impact on how presidential campaigns are run so for professional political operators there are worse places to start, but its brilliantly entertaining regardless of your starting position. Its also an obvious inspiration for The West Wing but without either the West Wing itself or the Sokrin-speed talking that characterized many of the series. George Stephanopoulos as the model for Sam Seaborn has been widely covered.

Jim Carville is outspoken, agressive, plain speaking and emotional. Stephanopoulos is young, fresh faced, articulate, measured and smooth. Actually he is also almost as photogenic and Rob Lowe which is a start contrast to Carville who even when he had some hair looked like a lizard. Though Carville does manage a relationship with Mary Matalin who is chief strategist for the George Bush campaign.

The coverage runs through the Democratic primaries, through the Preseidential race, to Clinton's victory. We see speech writing, slogan designing, fundraising and campaigning, all from behind the scenes. The Gennifer Flowers scandal breaks midway, and it is truly remarkable how well Bill Clinton holds everything together despite, lets face it, being very guilt of repeated adultery. You really get a sense for how well he can play the press and even his own people to keep the focus straight ahead. Sure Roger Ailes and his attack cronies were laying into him, and sure if you are a Democrat, particularly in the divisive American political system, then if the man has the right politics his background doesn't matter. But he was clearly guilty and much later admitted as much under oath. A tape that is produced pretty much demonstrates that his relationship with her was more than platonic but he just seemed to keep on going, and his guys back him. This culminates in an incredible conversation which surely today would never had been filmed. Stephanopoulos, on the eve of victory, takes a call from a journalist with an extensive list of people Clinton has slept with. He says very clearly that if the list is published the journalist would never work in Democratic politics again (presumably they have previously done so, or might want to in the future!) and that at some stage in the future he can probably do some for them ... but can't promise it yet. Its exactly the backroom conversation you would expect to happen, but absolutely remarkable that you actually get to witness it.

The other fascintating element of the documentary is the framing and simplicity of the core message. Carvile writes it on a whiteboard:

1 Change vs more of the same (Obama wasn't the first, but then I suppose neither was Clinton)

2 The economy, stupid (now with the preferred phrasing "Its the economy, stupid")

3 Don't forget health care (eventually, of course, the Clintons did)

This is the structure that swept Clinton to power. That and his incredible easy charm, Bush's "watch my lips" and perhaps more importantly the first Iraq War. And through their jockeying, rebalancing, pushing and pulling, the mistresses get buried and the draft dodging pretty much disappears. This was before the days of Fox News versus MSNBC, or at least at a time when the news networks were somewhat less partisan. But its still remarkable to watch very skilled political operators, who very much come across as on the "good" side with out. Its also remarkable what isn't covered. The AIDS epidemic, for instance, which Reagan and then Bush handled spectacularly badly as shown in We Were Here (2011), does not come us. Its the touch of death for either campaign to bring gay rights into the picture.

Given the incredible focus on US Presidential Elections, and how mired in propaganda and opacity they are, its bizarre this film received relatively little attention and according to Wikipedia made only $20k at the box office, though it did get a nod for the Oscar. The behind the scenes coverage I'm sure will never be repeated in a US election.

8 / 10

Blurring lines between objective fact based filmaking and narrative is a classic challenge for documentary makers. But in some instances the possibility is fully embraced, and a quest for objectivity ignored. The King of Kong is a huge beneficiary of this style, gaining enormously from a compelling story of placid, determined underdog Steve Wiebe versus smarmy, manipulative supervillain Billy Mitchell which seems to just roll out in front of our eyes. Doubtless poor Billy can't be quite as bad as made out, and its a shame that for someone of his remarkable abilities that this film will be a significant component of his legacy, but then he does behave like a total pillock.

This is the story of the quest for world leadership in high-score for the 20-30 year old arcade game Donkey Kong. Its important to understand just how much better the best are than the rest. Type A personalities, OCD sufferers, obsessives, or perhaps brilliantly gifted practioners with the hand-eye coordination of the Red Baron, these players generate considerably higher scores over hours and hours of play than your average player. The elite then jealously guard their techniques and their tricks in order to maintain their greatest achievement, their record. Its all tabulated by Twin Galaxies and by Walter Day, not a recognised gamer himself, but the arbiter at the centre keeping it all to the letter of the law.

Billy Mitchell is the king of this universe. He has broken more records, won more tournaments and developed more techniques than anyone else. He has revealed cheats, developed proteges and built something of a cult around his undeniable skill, all while running his own business. Billy sports a preposterous mullet, wears cowboy boots and talks about himself in the third person. He is as arrogant as someone in the centre of a universe of nerds is likely to be. Into the mix comes an imposter, an outsider, someone who is ... well ... normal. And he has done the impossible, he has beaten Billy. What follows is a journey of intrigue and manipulation with Billy's disciples buzzing around playing mind games and distorting reality into whatever most benefits their cause, the church of Billy. And in the centre is Steve, married father of two, just doing his best to quietly play computer games. What a legend.

He travels to the headquarters of this world, Funspot, to refute accusations of cheating which had led to he video-taped scored being veto'd, and play under live scrutiny. Under pressure from one of Billy's underlings he nails a Kill Screen live. That is to say he progresses so far in the game that it runs out of memory and hangs, only ever previously achieved by Billy. He grabs a high score, but Billy has a trick up his sleeve. He has a video recording of a game with an even higher score, above 1 million. It is screened behind Steve's back to deflate him. Said underling even refuses to show Steve the video... and without questioning Walter Day includes the video in the world record lists, despite some very odd suspicious quirks in the video. But Steve's down to earth charm and quiet confidence slowly wins over the most well balanced of the participants, and his high scores just keep coming. Billy refuses to play live against him as he hasn't practiced, but more than that refuses to be in the same room, and looks more and more ridiculous. One friend turns on him to his face. When asked what he thinks of Steve he responds that he has no problem with him and considers him a nice guy, refusing Billy's stare. Billy responds he can't comment as he doesn't know him...still having refused the opportunity to meet. Eventually Walter Day recognises Steve publicly and even pronounces his name correctly. But the real prize, the topscore, eludes him ... until a few months after the filming when he finally nails it and Billy can't get close.

There would be no need to make a fictionalised version of this as the real one is so close to a narrative plotline it would be entirely unnecessary. And the story is incredible, the manipulation and posturing, the twists and turns, good versus evil. Its interesting too that the scores are no longer top. A new generation of players has stolen their limelight and taken over. However, it is worth remembering this is a "standing on the shoulders of giants" situation, as the new players used the tricks on youtube Billy and Steve had to learn from scratch.

8 / 10

I'm not certain whether this counts as a documentary. Or rather whether the circular point at the centre of it makes it a film that can't be watched without hypocrisy, so doesn't do what documentaries should, inform and entertain. Its interesting how the filmakers acknowledge the core issue. Snuff films are grotesquely fascinating, that part of you that wants to drive slowly past a train wreck, or to hear stories and watch movies about serial killers, and as a consequence the concept is widely used implicitly to achieve some agenda. Whether that is an anti-pornography lobby attempting to drum up disgust against the industry, or someone trying to sell, lets say, a documentary. One of the talking heads even references Bowling for Columbine as a film that uses the security camera footage from the massacre within the documentary itself. Michael Moore to some degree profiting from a video of mass murder. The fact that this footage is used again within this documentary as well as other much more shocking footage, isn't discussed explicitly. The trailer for this documentary is particularly guilty, implying that some possible snuff films will actually be shown in the movie. Still photos are shown while a possible snuff film is discussed. A woman says she has been sent one and then says, if you can, "enjoy".

The central debate in the film is whether snuff films actually exist. Snuff films are defined as murders committed on camera specifically and primarily for the purpose of generating profit. The discussion flows from ultra violent movies through to extremely violent newsclips (sometimes packaged for entertainment) through to serial killers. The basic conclusion is that there is plenty of evidence that they may well exist, where there is demand there is supply, but that the films that are generally known to exist don't quite match the definition. Plenty of graphic films have historically been accused of representing snuff films, such as Cannibal Holocaust or Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer. Charlie Sheen famously called the FBI after seeing one of the Guinea Pig series. Japanese police forced the filmmakers to prove that the scenes were faked. However, fake they were. Faces of Death shows executions, war scenes and various other brutal newsclips, but the films themselves were not produced for profit. Finally, and most extreme, Leonard Lake and Charles Ng made a number of videos of murders they performed. It is not unusually for serial killers to make audio recordings or videos, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley also did so for instance. But the specific and deliberate nature of these films is the "best" example. Extensive clips of these videos are amazingly available on youtube. The don't feature the deaths (its possible they didn't in fact film the deaths ... sources conflict), but do feature the confused victims asking what is happening to them which is pretty sickening on its own. They seem to not quite believe they are going to die. However, while the murders are real, they were not in this instance produced for profit.

Certain other circumstances are discussed, including a notorious Russia pedophile film producer who made extremely violent films and was eventually caught, but who had exchanged internet messages with potential buyers who asked for death. Evidence of demand, and of someone who most likely did have the resources, the will and the motive to produce more, but none were apparently found.

Following this journey, you are somewhat left with the question of why chasing this issue is so important. The climax of the documentary might be yes they do exist, and errrr here one is ... But I suppose the point is to ask the question of why it is so fascinating. While it is clear that those that would make and those that would enjoy these films are in the distinct minority, there are a remarkable amount of gore-slasher films (particularly in Japan for some reason?) which seek to represent something very close. The possibility somehow captures the imagination, but probably the fact that the answer is not a clear "yes one exists" ... and that it is in a police lockup somewhere but you might be able to find it if your google skills are up to it ... makes it all the more intriguing. Perhaps if there were a widely known film of a murder intentionally made for profit then you wouldn't be able to make and sell documentaries about it. Its the doubt that makes the question particularly fascinating.

Mark Rosen, producer of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then goes on to describe in graphic detail witnessing a film in the 1970s which in his mind could not have been faked, containing the strangulation and murder of a woman. He was being sold the film. Its an odd moment, which to be honest, im not sure I trust. It seems to wrap the film up nicely and using someone who, while I had never heard of, is tied to a genuinely significant film seems to be a good opportunity to mislead. You are left with the question of why he didn't report the guys, get their names etc... Its the climax of the film that they needed given they couldn't reveal an actual video.

As far as documentaries go, this is a rehash of material you can find on wikipedia and google and, while to some degree self aware, is clearly trying to generate success simply off a horrifically interesting topic. It doesn't really answer the question of whether snuff films exist, and doesn't go very far in investigating the possibility. There is an assertion that the FBI investigated the concept for some 20 years and found nothing but that isn't particularly well chased down. On the topic of whether the films exist, there has been a more recent event, the Dnepropretrovsk Maniacs in 2008. Three Ukrainian teenage boys went on a killing spree and filmed all of their murders, and there is evidence that they had the idea of selling the films, though no evidence they managed to do so. There is a question of causation here, did they make the films for profit or because they were sadistic killers. But with any intent to profit from them, I believe it would count. So there we have it, snuff films do exist. Probably don't need another documentary about them.

4 / 10

Dreams of a Life is an analysis of a quirk of life and an attempt to understand and explain it. A body is found in an apartment in London of a woman in her 30s. The body has been there for 3 years undiscovered, undisturbed, unloved. She was wrapping Christmas presents and watching TV, all of which were still in place, still running. Its interesting to me that it is not only the set of circumstances leading up to the discovery of Joyce's body but also the fact that the story was taken on by a journalist and documentary maker subsequently which make it unusual. There must be many of these occurences which even journalists ignore. Carol Morley tracks down her friends and coworkers to try and explain how this could happen. One by one her friends (her family are notably absent) attempt to relate their own backgrounds and lives to hers to try and explain how this implausible set of circumstances might have happened. A beautiful, charming, kind, intelligent woman who apparently died unnoticed...

To a degree it becomes a character assassination for poor Joyce. In search of some reason for this terribly sad ending, without a villain in the piece, something in her must be at fault. She was engaging, but never close. She sought a boyfriend who was inferior to her, perhaps because he wouldn't challenge her. She had no real education, no GCSEs, no A Levels, nobody seems to have been aware of this, even her peers at school. She said she had a good job, but was it true? At times it may have been, but not over long periods. Was she given elocution lessons so that she could fit in above her class? Perhaps since she was mixed race, she never really belonged? I think each of these things though are true of many people at various points in their lives. Life it as much about the swings and roundabouts, the ups and downs, about sometimes faking it, sometimes getting lucky, sometimes being unlucky, as anything else.

Or is it just a consequence of modern life. Do you know your neighbours? If you noticed sometime a little odd, but not devastatingly so, would you intrude? Funny smells were coming from her flat, but is there anywhere in London that doesn't smell funny? The real contradiction that seems to strike people is that she was wrapping Christmas presents. Did the recipients not find it odd they didn't get a gift. Perhaps others had presents for her, so why didn't they deliver them? Its also conjures the saddest image, that of a giving person who is ignored.

What is left is her family. There is something wrong there ... she lied about her father's death ... was he violent? Her sisters surely should have missed her ... they want no part of the documentary ... do they know something? Then there is the unknown new boyfriend, or perhaps boyfriends. A bully, perhaps someone who forced her to stop seeing friends and to close herself off to the outside world. Perhaps he hit her and persuaded her that is was her fault. As we hear about her last interactions with several of her older friends it seems her life did go wrong. She clearly lost her way, had money problems and seemed to have undermined her career. There is an air of desperation which is left tantalisingly unanswered. As people get close to her, she runs away.

This is a relatively unusual documentary film with use of recreated scenes with an actress. Its very common in TV documentaries and factual programming, and increasingly so in films, but has been frowned on from some quarters in more significant documentary films. The Thin Blue Line (1988) used recreations of both actual and hypothetical scenes to great effect and Man on Wire (2008) essentially recreated the event in question entirely through actors. The Imposter (2012) is almost a fully worked film with only sporadic interview clips interrupting the recreations. But with this film, the odd outcome is that it can be hard to differentiate between what is Joyce and what isn't. I don't think any of the videos are her... the long zoom on one video at the end certainly implies its a rare shot. Which of the photos is really her and which is an actress? There is an audio recording used to bomb the interviewees which must be her, and some singing recordings, but I suspect those are recreations. In a strange way it adds to the ethereal nature of her character. Now she only exists in people's memories, and even those seem confused and contradictory. Did she have a good voice? Some think so, some don't. Commentary on her is glowing from some quarters, but two ex-boyfriends identify her as a chameleon, someone who didn't have a past. Someone who mapped herself onto the person who she was with and became a part of them. Not having a past fits perfectly onto this woman who also has no future. She becomes someone that perhaps they all just made up.

I would be surprised if there wasn't a villain in this story. Possibly an abusive or absent father and/or a nasty partner. Someone who undermined her self esteem, her sense of herself, and led to her keep people at arms length. But I don't think thats uncommon. Quite the opposite, I think since modern living has allowed for independent lifestyles without social judgement that many people intentionally pursue solitude and not necessarily because of damaging relationships. She had people who loved her, but for whatever reason they were not quite right, or the timing was wrong. The nature of the decomposition was such that the cause of death is unclear. Suicide is not mentioned, foul play is considered more likely by some, some other physical abnormality is presumably just as likely. But I don't think the nature of her death is necessarily entirely caused by the villain, so much as just poor timing, a solitary lifestyle, and a great deal of bad luck.

Very sad story, but for me one without lessons or a morale, just one to consider. I don't think there is evidence of anything wrong with her, or anything particularly wrong with the urban lifestyle that tends to have reduced the integration of local neighbourhoods. That integration has simply been replaced with something different, something broader and sometimes less deep locally but no less valuable. Presumably she didn't have a facebook page? I think the filmmaker broadly speaking has the intention of leaving your conclusions open, though I wish they had done more to get something from her family, or to track her ex-boyfriends, as those gaping holes are very unsatisfying. Probably one to watch in a double feature with something uplifting with similar themes ... my recommendation Searching for Sugarman ... a solitary life which hasn't gone wrong.

7 / 10

Trailer...

Updated 1 October 2013. Original post 10 June 2013

It's not often that a made for tv documentary has this kind of impact, particularly one that falls into the category of "look at this weird person, but not while you are having dinner". We are introduced to a number of characters, mainly with direct interviews, relating their position in this subculture through the appropriate nickname or acronym. FGs ("Fat Girls") are pursued by FAs ("Fat Admirers"). FGs always outnumber FAs by around 5-1. And that's before the relative size is taken into account. The FAs range from guys who seem to vary from the normal only due to a quirk in their sexual attraction through enablers who support the often dangerous weight gain of their partner or partners through to feeders who can be extremely dangerous. The basic FAs come across as mildly pervy but almost lucky for being able to pursue a lifestyle of apparently easy sexual gratification due to the obese women's desperation for personal contact. The FGs are often brash but in many instances display a thinly veiled emotional vulnerability; following decades of hate and neglect the remarkable ability of the Internet to allow tiny minority groups with common desires to find each other has given them love or at least the sexual attraction that they crave. It's that weakness that creates the possibility of real danger when the sexual attraction not only does not equal love but also appears to override any humanity in the feeder.

The documentary's power is driven by the introduction of one couple, Gina and Mark, who, but for Gina's finally discovered strength of character and determination, would have been introduced via blurred images, friends who once knew them, and hazy video clips. Instead we get to see them in the real world they continue to inhabit with an uneasy balance and confused lifestyle. Mark met Gina online and left her so flattered by his admiration of her size that she was willing to do anything to make him happy. He immediately pursued a weight gain program and persuaded her to pose naked so he could record it. His aim was to make her as large as possible, her aim was to keep him happy. The interviews with him are unnerving as he describes what he finds attractive about her with a wide-eyed fixed grin - he clearly enjoys sharing and showing off his successes. He published the photos and videos to online admirers and managed to get the Guinness Book of Records to record her as the largest model in the world. Why someone photographed by her husband in her bed and published on the internet counts as a model is not clear to me. But if so our cat is a model of some repute.

This culminates in a video which characterises the destructive nature of Marks obsession and the extremely passive response of Gina. "A real FG's last stand" where we see a naked Gina barely able to pull her bulk which is covered in green sores to her feet. She narrates in a weak tone that this is the last time she will ever stand up. He describes with real excitement her folds resting on his legs and the impossibility of getting his arms around her. By this stage it is clear that he has no interest in her well being. It is not that his excitement offsets his fears for her health. The conflict between his desires and her needs barely registers with him. She finally has the strength to pursue surgery and to his disgust she starts to lose weight. She does so driven by the hope of a future with her extremely slim adopted daughter. However, he clearly has not given up and is keen to start the cycle again. He is building a house, the perfect house for a real FG. He films himself describing how the doorways have been sized to allow her to move around if she did ever get larger again. His tour finishes with him in the bedroom constructed to allow views across the city for her to look at while entirely immobile. It is a deathbed.

She is grateful for his support as her full time care giver. In interview as he describes her reason for losing the weight in relation to her inability to move around and the challenges for him caring for her fulltime. She squeezes his hand and reminds him that it was due to the danger to her health. He nods and agrees, "yes of course, that too". Theres something very familiar about it. The husband with a obsession with his hobby, the wife pulling him back to reality when it might go too far. But with the risks he is willing to take, this is not a normal couple with normal disagreements. And it is not his health he is risking. It is a dangerous partnership which she has survived only due to a very final reserve pool of strength. Here's hoping it doesn't run dry.

This documentary brought back memories of Deliver Us From Evil (2006) with its interviews of the extremely dangerous and still abusing Father Oliver O'Grady who was able to slip into a quiet, calm costume to great effect to allow him to move from town to town fooling those around him long enough to abuse children as young as 6 months old. It also reminded me of Crumb (1994) with its subjects plainly describing their extreme sexual appetites and how they cope with them. Its notable though that in the latter, the Crumb brothers are plagued with guilt when their desires cross the line, leading the eldest brother to suicide and the youngest into a hermit lifestyle. The lack of empathy makes both O'Grady and Mark truly dangerous.

7 / 10

Post script

Documentary films are rarely the last word, particularly when the subjects are still around and their lives ongoing. The portrayal of Mark in the film is certainly negative, though seems to come through from his own behaviour and his own statements. My interpretation of his impact on Gina were clear, and while I think they were what the documentary makers were looking for, I didn't think they had been entirely created by the filmmakers themselves. Gina, however, was appauled by the output of the film. Here is her response to it:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted By: Gina (68.0.165.125)
Date: April 9 2003, 21:35

I know I said I would never post here again, and I have not. However, I believe it is very important that I say some things about this.

We were led to believe that this was going to be a positive documentary, showing that fat women and FA's have a normal, loving relationship. They came and filmed us, for many days, and have hours and hours of video. The resulting documentary twists some truths and ignores others completely. It painted a totally false picture about who I am, who Teighlor is and mostly who Mark is. Like Teighlor has previously posted, we are totally devistated by this.

I will say this again. I have a medical condition called Lymphedema that causes my weight problem. I have neve made this a secret. My trip to the hospital for weight loss surgery in 1997 required a great deal of effort on my and Mark's behalf. He supported it completely, and I could not have gone through it without him. He never left my side, for the 8 days I was in hospital. The idea that he is a sinister feeder is rediculous and totally fabricated by Optomen Productions and has no basis in fact. Even today he encourages me to walk, to take my meds, and be healthy. Yes, we have moved to a new house, but it was built for my comfort, to allow me some independance in self care, and the notion that he wants me as I was, is a blatant lie. This is just one of several untruths told in this fable of a documentary.

Our portrayal in this documentary is totally false. As we watched it we asked ourselves why? Why did they do this? and the only thing we could come up with is the same reason shows like Jerry Springer are still on. Because it sells. Not because they want to tell the truth.

We would love to sue, but that takes funds we really do not have. As a warning to all, if you are ever contacted by Optomen Television remember what they did to us, and just say no. It is apparent they deal in shock TV and will do anything, and say anything, just like the National Enquirer, under the guise of the BBC. They told us they were making a Fat Positive documentary for the BBC and throught carefully worded questions, led us to say exactly what was necessary to edit together one of the most fat negative stories ever told.

Alastair Cooke and Rob Davis of Optomen TV practice a form of psychological leading questioning designed to get the interviewee to say the words they need to edit the content for a complete opposite meaning. What they have done to us is libelous and slanderous.

People who copy and distribute this video to others are perpetuating these lies and we wish they would consider who they might be hurting.

I am well. My family is well. Thank you for not believing everything you see.

Gina

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having someone she loved portrayed in the way he was in the film has led to an impassioned defence, and a stark warning. Certainly the film is sensationalist, though my interpretation of it was that I had not been manipulated into my views. As a sophisticated viewer, I think that I can see through the fabrications, notice the use of emotive soundtrack, or quotes which are out of place, to the primary footage and core materials. Actually in this, I didn't even see too much of these devices, perhaps X-factor has numbed me to them. But maybe I'm wrong and have badly misjudged their relationship. If so then what I've written above is a deeply personal attack. Selective editing and leading questions, comments taken out of context, with thousands of hours of footage, mean filmmakers can mislead. But can they present characters almost any way they want? Can they find a monster that isn't there?

Of course its possible that Gina is wrong here. That she views Mark as she wants to and selectively ignores what might cause her pain. Her internal director performing its own editing on the world she sees around her. Mark may be a mix of attentive husband and dangerous sexual predator, and she only sees the former. But her evidence set is substantially larger than ours, so to dismiss her would be extremely unfair, even arrogant. Certainly her statement that her weight gain is a medical condition was not represented in the documentary, or at least it was mentioned it was not focused on, I haven't been able yet to check. She obviously needed to eat a great deal to build on it, but nonetheless it is evidence that the filmmakers misled us.

Its difficult to come to a conclusion, and I'm not certain its possible as the only evidence is the potentially manipulative film and a solitary board post from Gina, who is better informed but also biased. In fact, if the lesson here is that the evidence you see is unreliable, then is the board post even reliable? From your perspective, I could even have invented it. I haven't though ... really...

No really, in fact I found it via the University of British Columbia Human Sexual Psychology course notes here:

http://ubcpsych350.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/fat-girls-and-feeders/

Its a university! That makes it more reliable ... no?

I understand there is considerable online dialogue between Gina and various other groups following the filming, some of which has been lost but some which still exists. This is a hugely controversial topic within the community and the debate is ongoing about whether feeders are dangerous, and whether or not gainers (those that derive sexual pleasure from putting on the weight) offset or explain the danger of feeders by making it consensual. Either way, this is a stark reminder of how vulnerable your opinions are to the way information is presented, and how important it is to retain an open mind when new evidence is presented. I'd like to pursue this more as the conclusion is pretty unsatisfying, perhaps someone needs to make a sequel...

Whenever I see documentaries like this I wonder how these people get to sustain their hobbies. Maybe he has a lucrative day job, or maybe even family money somewhere along the line ... but even a guy of his prowess surely can't make that much from BMX'ing or from sponsorship to support his hobby? Bearing in mind this is prior to x-games, and even post the 80s BMX wave of popularity. NOW hes a legend, but back in the day he was just a lunatic with a bike and a lot of wood. Matt Hoffman was the BMX trailblazer in massive jumps. He knocked huge ramps together in his backyard in Oklahoma with various bits of junk and planks and then used a motorcycle to drag himself up to the ramp at great speed. The mindset needed to do this, when you remember that nobody else was doing anything like it at the time, is remarkable.

He hosts a games event inviting BMX riders from all over the country, with a normal half-pipe, and in the background looms this monstrous ramp with a ramshackle run-up made of plywood and just sketchy grass underfoot. Its ridiculous to think that someone would put themselves through that, and the other attendees at the event agree. Its notable that after Matt completes the jump, some 20 feet over a 20 feet ramp, nobody even considers trying to repeat it. He has breached some line between BMX'er and daredevil. Unsurprisingly he becomes a buddy with Evil Kinevil.

Over time he pushes his jumps further and further and destroys his body, hundreds of broken bones, comas, etc. He needs to carry his own suture kit as the hospital visits are just too regular. When he can't get enough speed he adds a motor to his bicycle. Why not just ride a motorbike? He seems to have a particular brand of insanity. But he backs it up with real talent. However, the talent seems to be capped by film cameras. As soon as someone is making a film he chokes. While jumping on his own ramp during an MTV visit he crashes and unbeknownst to him, he bursts his spleen. Not something he can sew up with his own suture kit. He stops jumping but its only when he later collapses that he is taken to hospital ... and even then, given the expense of the treatment, he tries to skip out.

When someone achieves a new height and it is recognised by Guiness, but is beneath Matt's unrecorded leaps, he is dragged back into the limelight. But with the cameras he struggles and his broken body just won't quite let him do it. He tries again and again with horrendous crash after crash. Its insane how the crashes become easy to discuss because he just gets up and carries on. But he has probably broken numerous bones just in the handful of highlights. Then he finally breaks it ... onlookers yell "Matt, Matt, wakeup Matt". Wheres the ambulance? But the accumulated injuries, and perhaps the inevitable passage of time, mean that he doesn't have it left. Several years later, massive ramps have become a major feature of recognised global, and Matt is back for one last jump. The contrast between his Oklahoma backyard and the packed, floodlit arena is striking. Excellent, of course, that he is recognised for what he brought to the sport, even through he probably never held a world record for it.

This is one of ESPN's brilliant 30 documentaries for 30 years. They have a real US flavour so much of the content isn't that familiar, but then that's all part of the fun. Many of them are available online, including this one, I would encourage you to have a look through the list because while the focus is obviously sport, there is a real "something for everyone" feel to it. My favourites to date are June 19th 1994 and the Two Escobars... but the Internet tells me they aren't the best. This one is great, and for an obsessive guy who just can't stop, he's more interesting than Jiro and his sushi.

7 / 10

For a documentary film with a narrative to be ok, you need an interesting idea at its centre. For it to be good, you can do with a classic underdog story, or a triumph of will against something. For it to be great, you need a bad guy. This film is great. Murderball is similar-ish to rugby or ultimate frisby, but played on wheelchairs. It is aggressive, dangerous and the players love it. They are all wheelchair bound with varying abilities to use their limbs and numerous conditions, but each of them is grasping life and squeezing everything out of it.

The core story is about a guy with anger problems (which it is heavily implied are caused by his relationship to his abusive father) who was an extremely successful American player. He was dropped as he got older and resented it so much he coached the Canadians to beat up his new enemy, team America. Everyone seems to border on hating him, and the jibes about betraying his country clearly hurt, but he keeps going, driven by a desire to win, or as importantly for the other guy to lose. Poor Joe does beat the US but by then its too late, his anger and hatred have taken over and it doesn't seem that he takes too much pleasure from it. But its great to have a bad guy.

That narrative is somewhat of a sidestory from what is also a brilliant triumph of will against nature. The psychological device that is most appealing for those with recent injuries is that they have a "new body" and now need to find ways to use it. Sounds good in theory, but its empty until they meet Mark Zupan with his custom aluminium chair. He is happy to admit that frankly he achieved very little until he lost the use of his legs. Now he is a gold medal winning Olympian. He was thrown from the back of a drunk drivers truck (who wasn't even aware he was there) and had to cling onto a tree in a canal for 14 hours until he was rescued...amazing. The recently paralysed kids who meet him are struggling with something ridiculous, the loss of half of their bodies. But this tattooed nutjob who knocks other people from their wheelchairs as a hobby is their salvation; you can see their eyes light up.

The discussion of their sex lives is also brilliantly revealing. It's hardly a surprise that masturbation is one of the first physical skills they recover, but these guys are are nothing if not inventive in their approach to reclaiming their chest beating masculinity. Doggy style with ropes, brilliant. Giving oral seems to be a new favourite as well. They abhor pity and any implication they are "brave". For one, the idea of "special olympics" holds a particular stigma. But the major takeaway is how normal it all is once the specific physical problems are covered.

The 2012 London Paralympics did incredible things for the perception of Paralympic athletes, this film was a forerunner to that. "Differently abled" is a flawed concept, but after the initial devastation these are just normal people doing what they want to do, and doing it very well. No fear, no restraint. And it is easy to believe that while they have lost certain abilities, that hasn't reduced their general resilience and ability to take considerable punishment.

7 / 10

This is a particularly striking documentary. At its core is the "ball" scene which is a New York, predominately black, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender cultural phenomenon from the 1980s in which hundreds of people gathered in old, broken down theatres in Harlem and competed against each by walking the catwalk or dancing in particularly outrageous styles. The film is probably best known as a record of the source of "voguing", later taken global by Madonna. At this stage it is a competitive dance style involving ball-walkers rhythmically freezing in glamorous poses which mimic the cover of Vogue magazine, and is highly athletic. Later it directly featured (including clips of the movie) in the single Deep In Vogue, by Malcolm McLaren, before Vogue itself was released in 1990. Its a cracking example of the remarkably influential impact of black culture and gay culture. The passion on show in the displays is incredibly infectious, and the creativity is notably high. Also an example of how the dominant straight, white culture can take possession of the creative output of a minority, perhaps even losing the links entirely with the original (though Madonna did use some of these dancers).

The balls are much more than evening entertainment, they are the centre of the lives of this community. The men, transexuals, drag queens and transvestites prepare for days, weeks, months. Costumes, makeup, workouts, even surgery take place through scrounging, begging, borrowing, and occasionally through sold sexual favours. In effect they are always preparing for the balls (no pun), and some of them have been doing so for their whole lives. Much of the community live in "houses" - LaBeija, Ninja, Xtravaganza, Pendavis. These are communes which selectively welcome those who have nowhere else to go, giving them shelter and companionship. Gay children run away from home as they are rejected by their parents and are lost and vulnerable. They gravitate towards cities and the lucky ones find some stability and love in these homes. The unlucky ones presumably just disappear. The "houses" then draw battle lines and fight it out at the balls, dance-off style.

This is a persecuted subculture, to be both black and gay is a remarkable curse. It results in extreme pain, and consistent danger. It would be easier to pretend to be straight, though they could not also fake being white. Many of them have nothing, and come to the balls starving. In this safe environment they are able to let themselves go entirely and are judged on lines entirely different to those which usually condemn them. They have opportunity and from that are able to derive massive confidence where otherwise they only saw bleakness. But its not a haven of love, its competitive, and open to all the usual biases. The rules are strict and desire to win is fierce. One hilarious moment occures when a well built man with sculpted goatee wearing a well fitted suit and bow tie is accused of cheating for wearing an outrageous full length women's fur coat. He is supposed to be dressed as a man... Its hard to believe coats of that size are made for women. During the furore he squeals that the buttons are on the right size, proof that its a men's coat. Its not clear if he is disqualified or not. The joy and freedom that they experience seems like a triumph of the dispossessed. Outcasts reclaiming their right to enjoy life.

But its odd the direction that the imitation goes. The competitions are guided by the society that has ostracised them. They compete to be executives, to be college students, to be uniformed school children. There is a town and country category. The flair is there, but the challenge is to look as much as possible like their straight counterpart and suppress what makes them different. There is a bizarre moment when a transexual walks the catwalk nude in one shot, proud of her new body, and immediately afterwards is conservatively dressed competing in the uniformed schoolgirl category, flicking through an exercise book. While competing to be businessmen, they discuss how this is a world cut off from them. Without the background and the education they will never wear those suits and work in those board rooms. They are competing for the aspirational, but mundane.

Its bizarre, it appears they are not celebrating difference at all, but trying to fit into what they know they cannot. In doing so it is clear why the straight, white community would interpret this as grotesque mimickery. This is further exaggerated when transexuals attempt to compete in a mainstream modelling competition. For that segment in the LGBT community it is the height of achievement. Can they persuade the casual observer that they are female? This is something the balls have specifically prepared them for. Rejection is likely, and again danger isn't too far away. Though some do look very much like natural women. Octavia Saint Laurent, pictured below, is better looking than most of the women in the modelling competition.

As the story progresses though, I think a better interpretation of the aspirational side of the imitation comes through. They aspire to fame, to wealth, and that is what white culture represents to them. The American dream is so powerful that it permeates even those so thoroughly rejected by it. It is the consistent lure of money, but more than that its the possibility of defining their own destiny and controlling their environment, which only money, and possible fame, can bring.

The filming runs alongside the AIDS epidemic, but possibly due to the core focus of the film, the topic is passed over. Danger within the community already existed, so while this is a new possible cause of an early death, it is not unique. Venus Xtravaganza, of house Xtravaganza, is the clearest representation of that risk. Born Thomas Bellagatti, an extremely effeminate boy, she left her family and moved to New York as a 15 year old calling herself Venus. One of the few white people involved in the community, she looks very much like a young girl. Badly misguided, she occasionally works as a prostitute without disclosing her sex, and discusses in the film an occasion where it almost went wrong. Later her body is found under a bed in a New York hotel room, strangled, after lying undiscovered for 4 days (how that happens in a hotel isn't clear to me, but I suppose it wasn't the Ritz).

After the filming ends, into the 1990s, the AIDS epidemic rips through the community. Many died, including Octavia. However, Voguing lifted some out of poverty into international success, particularly in the Xtravaganza house who featured in Madonna's video, and some still dance and teach today.

The documentary itself focuses much more thoroughly on the happiness and inclusion brought by the balls, rather than the pain and torment out there for gay, black kids. While they couldn't hide their aspiration to be a part of the white community, the "ball" scene's own culture, had a dramatic global influence by infiltrating that same white community. Some of that influence is still present, and I'm sure every 10 years or so "Voguing" becomes fashionable again. It helps that its named after the leading iconic fashion-marketing machine. I'm not certain if the ballroom scene exists anymore in any real sense or if its just a relic or tribute to times past, sources differ. Despite recent swings in cultural views there are still considerable numbers of outcast gay teenagers lost in New York City, but Harlem presumably no longer prices well to accommodate them. As such, this is a record of a unique time and place of remarkable creativity and influence from society's rejects and therefore its pretty epic.

8 / 10

How do intelligent people become this obsessive? In my explanation for my interest in running this blog, I explained how futile I found scrutinising fictional movies due to their lack of substance. This film presents the polar opposite with people looking for something in a fictionalised film way beyond the point of reason. A woman describes how the film interested her so after watching Kubrick's The Shining in the cinema, she rented it in video. But of course rentals are only valid for three days, so she watched it again... and again...and again... And then rented it again. But clearly she could only REALLY focus when the DVD came out. This film presents several highly intelligent and engaging Kubrick fans who believe there is much more to The Shining than meets the eye, and allows them to present some of their interpretations. They range from the genuinely insightful to the clearly insane. But it's amazing that none of them even question the possibility that Kubrick could have been capable of planting such obscure and ranging content into a single film. The explanation appears to be that he had an IQ of 200... impressive certainly, but what is that evidence of on its own?

The most compelling point for me is the impossible window. Early in the film Jack Nicholson is interviewed in an office in the hotel with a large sunlit window. The interviewees tell us there is something wrong about the window. It's too bright, it feels out of place, its almost another character...is it? No, it's just a window. But wait, it isn't. Through other scenes, and through a map that one of them has helpful drawn out, it's clear that this window is NOT on an exterior wall... What the hell does that mean? I'm not a huge Kubrick fan, though have seen most of his major films, but I'm not a student of the techniques he uses so perhaps this is not unusual, but it is compelling and confusing. The window is not revealed as faked during the film, it is never even discussed. To know for sure its fake you need someone to draw a map. But fake it is. I imagine the actors and crew being perplexed by this. Someone went to the trouble of building a fake window, and for what? Nobody is given the opportunity to appreciate his handiwork. It just exists...it almost seems to be a continuity error but that's not possible. Once this can of worms is opened, when does it close. Suddenly every continuity error might mean something. In fact suddenly everything might mean something. And these people take a fair crack at that whip. Suddenly the film is about everything from the holocaust to the moon landings.

It reminds me of the Bible code stories. People who take every seventh digit from an arbitrary point to another arbitrary point and then generate rambling text that predicts the future and describes the past. The fact that an English translation from someone presumably not acting under divine inspiration is the basis of the text apparently does not matter. But regardless the question of statistical significance is ignored. With enough PhDs I'm sure with that methodological form of textual interpretation its possible to statistically demonstrate the lack of significance of the outcomes. However, those statistical minds are busy analysing more important things such as baseball stats or US presidential polling. Or more likely working at hedge funds. So the usual refutation comes in the form of counter examples. Apply the same analysis to Shakespeare or if would want to be particularly insulting, the dictionary. The same meandering outcomes reveal themselves. So does that apply here?

Could you take a Disney movie and analyse the backgrounds and the facial expressions enough to read similar hidden messages into them? At least in that instance given they are drawings you can be certain that what makes it into the shot is intentional. Bad example of course. The brain-freezing, anti-Semitic, idea-stealing bully/genius has more than enough of a cult status himself that the conclusions could be believed by one obsessed fan or other. That, I suppose, is the point. Kubrick's aura is what carries this obsession as far as it goes. His mystical capabilities allow these interpretations to flourish. And to be honest, the window thing kinda freaked me out enough to start believing. A second example comes with Danny playing with his toys in an upstairs corridor. A ball rolls towards him, he looks up, nothing, just an empty corridor stretching 50 feet in front of him, all doors closed. However, bizarrely, the carpet has changed between shots.

The carpet has reversed. Not a continuity error... in fact quite an epic continuity feat. But even while writing this I'm aware of how limited these revelations are in scratching the service of the head-trips that Kubrick has lying in wait in his films. I'm sure there are thousands of pages of screenshots created by obsessive fans detailing all of these bizarre set design changes in his films, debating whether the idea is that initially the brown stripe reflects Danny's open mind, but the fear as he looks up closes his mind to the possibility of a spiritual world. Or perhaps it has something to do with the honeycomb shape of the floor, representing a rigid society. Or maybe the Apollo sweater he is wearing represents how Kubrick faked the moon landing footage for the US government ... that's genuinely where this is going for some of these fans.

Or rather the purpose may well be more direct. If Kubrick puts enough of these into his films, then his exhilarated fan base will not stop looking until they hit exhaustion. If Kubrick's real intent was that certain people would watch his films over and over, then he has achieved something quite special here; that is real genius. Throwing the fans a bone or two keeps them coming back for more, until eventually they are trapped in that hotel forever, much like Jack.

The film tantalisingly refers to an online source known as the Master who appears to be a recognised expert in all things Kubrician. He refused to appear in the documentary, presumably because he doesn't want the filmmakers to take ownership of his ideas by presenting them in a documentary. Perhaps also because he doesn't want his mum or co-workers to know how obsessive he has become. But one of his suggestions, that the Shining is meant to be seem backwards as well as forwards, leads one of these fans to do exactly that, to superimpose the film running backwards onto the film running forwards. The result is actually really cool. The nature of the plot is somewhat disordered, with early hints of the terror and insanity that follows (that's hardly unusual in a horror film), and with Jack Nicholson at the end of the film being captured in the old photo from the opening of the hotel as he loses himself to the forces within it. What is also incredible is just how well placed Nicholson is to play a character like this, with his own brand of suppressed insanity and incredibly expressive face always hinting at something more. When his maniacal final self, trawling through the hotel and maze with ax in hand is superimposed on his smiling, calm face engaged in a early subtly threatening conversation, the effect is incredibly powerful. His beaming face barely constraining the beast within.

So did Kubrick mean any of this? Who knows. I can't believe that he meant ALL of it, I think the film as analogy to holocaust is the strongest argument. As analogy to the terrorisation of native Americans is probably the second. And the faked moon landings ... if it weren't for Danny's sweater I would dismiss it entirely. Perhaps it is a message to his fans that he could have faked the landings, or maybe he was even approached and wanted to leave hints... Loads of fun to be had here, going through online blogs and finding all those quasi-continuity errors, but be careful to not go too far, otherwise you will never get out.

6 / 10

This is a journey with two of the most open minded people that you could meet. People who are highly receptive to their environments and highly engaged with the possibilities that they present. One is Werner Herzog in his familiar role as the interviewer and narrator, the other is Dieter Dengler, the protagonist and wide-eyed optimist with an incredible backstory. It is like being included in a conversation between two great friends, both of whom want to experience anything and share everything. Dieter introduces his own story from his upbringing in post war Germany, a poor family in a broken nation, to US naval fighter pilot, to his horrific experience as a Vietnam POW. Herzog guides the conversation, but largely just lets him speak.

The title of the film is Dieter's own explanation of his condition. An Allied plane passed within feet of his top story window as a child, machine guns blazing, but instead of petrifying fear, he was inspired. Little Dieter doesn't just hope to fly, doesn't want to fly, its a yearning need. When he came of age, with no education to speak of, and no aviation in Germany, he broke away from his hometown to the lights of New York City to pursue his dream of flight. The air force recruiting officer lied to him to get his signature, he peeled vegetables and changed tyres for two years until he figure out what he needed, and then left to go to college. When he finally qualified and joined the navy, he found himself a pilot in a war.

The war was abstract until he crashed, then it was suddenly all too real. He was passed between captors, tortured, escaped and found himself lost, confused and on the verge of death and recaptured. He hallucinated, lost a significant amount of weight and spent months chained to a line other men with dysentery. The were fed the fetid leftovers and at one point used a snake to hunt for rats to feed themselves. But while he is conscious of behavioural changes caused by the things he was deprived of, he doesn't tell the stories with sadness or pain. He doesn't look for pity, he is just explaining what happened. There is footage of press interviewing him on his final escape and rescue, after he has convalesced enough to have regained his strength. He beams into the cameras in his pressed white uniform as he tells the American press in his German accent about the guards who would shoot at them for fun, and the bamboo sticks shoved under his skin. He doesn't seem to have detached himself from the experience so much as to have realised how much he stood to lose and as a consequence how much he has gained. If it weren't for the accent he would be a posterboy for American military resilience. Though in fact his status as a welcomed immigrant exaggerates that effect.

True to form, Herzog comes up with the crazy idea of asking Dieter to recreate his traumatic experience in Vietnam. Herzog went on to make a fictionalised film with Christian Bale, so perhaps this is all research. Dieter remarkably but consistently with his character, agrees, maybe happy to tell his story with a kindred spirit. In scenes not dissimilar to the Act of Killing (2012), Dieter walks us through his terrible trauma in the Vietnamese jungle with armed locals silently surrounding him, and he doesn't blink. His aching positivity shines through throughout as he talks about his multiple near death experiences. Finally, when he is handcuffed, it all goes too far. It becomes too real and the pain of the original experience forces him to stop. But its temporary, perhaps its just the handcuffs that are too much, and he carries on as if the story still needs to be told, and appears to excite him.

His escape is beyond heroic, and he tells it in vivid detail. He planned a breakout with his fellow captives, timed to coincide with the guards lunch break. He steals a weapon, kills a handful of guards, but escapes shoeless. With one partner he travels for weeks in the jungle, hallucinating and on the verge of death. He sees his father, who died when he was a child, guiding him to safety. He sees horses emerging from a door, but it is an angel leading them, not death. Death did not want him. They build a raft and narrowly avoid a waterfall. Disasterously, once they reach a village and seek help, his companion is killed by machete. Dieter escapes alone ... but finally and with extreme luck is spotted by aircraft and soon picked up.

He is the only person from his prison break to make it out alive. On returning to his aircraft carrier he is welcomed as a hero by 4,000 soliders. But he is clearly traumatised in the extreme. He needs to sleep in an aircraft to feel safe, he attacks his friends, but slowly he recovers. Lingering evidence of the trauma exists in the underground food store he has built, which Herzog insists of getting access to. He has pictures of open doors all over his really beautiful home, which is as high up as possible, mimicking the aircraft littering his house, to make him feel free. What is incredible is how open he still is and how well developed his personality seems to be. Grateful to be alive, not looking for pity, just wanting to squeeze what is still left.

It is a real pleasure to take the journey with him. Herzog presents it all magnificently and presses Dieter to go as far as he possibly can. What a life story, and what a strong character to have experienced it the way he has, and come out the other side with some degree of balance.

8 / 10

Wartorn 1861 - 2010 (2010)

Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

When We Were Kings (1996)

Capturing the Friedmans (2003)

Lionel Messi Never Dives (2012) and Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait(2006)

Afghanistan: Behind Enemy Lines (2010)

The Devil and Daniel Johnston (2005)

The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara(2003)

Chuck Jones Memories of Childhood (2009)

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1981)

The War Room (2003)

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

Snuff: A Documentary About Killing on Camera (2008)

Dreams of a Life (2011)

Fat Girls and Feeders (2003)

The Birth of Big Air (2010)

Murderball (2005)

Paris is Burning (1990)

Room 237 (2012)

Little Dieter Needs To Fly (1998)