Docutastic

Restrepo is amongst the documentaries that can be considered as much a historical record as a film to inform and entertain. Capturing a time and a place of real significance, which could otherwise have been entirely obscured, with candid interviews and what appears to be remarkably limited censorship. Filming at great personal risk, Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington spent a year embedded with the Second Platoon, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment (airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team of the U.S. Army in the Korangal Valley, Afghanistan. They are deep in enemy territory, though given the nature of the battle and the enemy, the idea of a frontline makes little sense. In fact, very little makes any sense. We travel with the platoon as they fly into the region, fight fierce gun battles, call in air strikes, have fun, live, die and negotiate with bemused villagers over dead cows.

Throughout there is a sense of conflict between what they are trying to achieve and how they go about achieving it. They want to win, but they aren't sure what winning is, except perhaps not dying. They want to persuade the locals but they also want to bully them. They want to kill bad guys, but they can't be entirely clear on who the bad guys are. They don't want to kill locals, but how can they be sure whether they were supporting the enemy or not; implicitly isn't it possible they are all the enemy by association (certainly now a key leg of US drone policy). They want to maintain the clarity of their purpose there, "hearts and minds", but they find it hard not to mock the concept. Most of all they want to be heroes and tough guys, even vigilantes, but fear of impending doom, trauma from constant attack and the pain of loss is etched across their faces. Invincibility seems to have been branded into them; their technical superiority, the quality of their training and their equipment, the evident contrast between the frail locals and their biceps and six packs, so when they lose men under attack some of them crumble. That they name their biggest achievement, an outpost built at a junction which had been used by the enemy to launch attacks, after a popular 20 year old medic who was killed seems evidence of their solidarity and determination, but also seems testament to their need to hold onto their humanity while unleashing destruction on a very human enemy they barely understand.

Foreign policy isn't touched on which I think is very valuable as viewers will bring their own opinions, but importantly for the soldiers it's irrelevant. Questioning the point of their presence isn't part of the job, their orders are clear even if very difficult to deliver. And once you start asking how Americas interests are supported by men from Alabama, Tennessee, Utah and Montana fighting with Chechens, Syrians and Somalians over a dusty cliff face barely able to support a handful of people per square kilometre, it all gets very messy. The rationale for initially invading Afghanistan is really a separate question, but the futility of a large component of the efforts of these men is evident. They are under no illusion that they are anywhere near Bin Laden or the Al Qaeda elite.

The commander leads negotiations with local elders. Sitting cross legged on the floor he bribes them with promised medical supplies and jobs; he is absolutely certain of his moral and physical superiority. When the bizarre promises are met with stoney silence, he reverts to telling them he doesn't give a f*ck. He isn't a diplomat. When the locals complain that they have killed innocent farmers, his attitude turns on a dime in a millisecond. Initially he berates himself for killing a civilian but immediately he implies they may well have been supporting the Taliban regardless. It's probably a coping mechanism, but its obvious he's never going to build the relationship with the Afghans that the "hearts and minds" doctrine requires.

The futility is exaggerated by the battle scenes themselves. Despite the remarkable bravery of the cameraman, we never see the enemy and as one soldiers strains to look through a massive camouflaged telescope while the other sprays heavy machine gun fire into the dusty mountains you get the strong impression they never do either. Air strikes devastate trees. Probable kills are met with high fives and a sense that justice has been done for the death of Restrepo the medic. But the feeling is fleeting as more American death prompts yet another quest for revenge. It's clear that if left to their own devices there is no end to the cycle of violence.

The threat is permanent, gunfire comes in from 360 degrees, Americans are killed and their supplies are stolen, reminding them how close they are to old school hand-to-hand combat with this invisible, faceless enemy. The terror breaks some of them, but even those who don't crumble in the war zone will never be able to leave the feeling of vulnerability and loss behind. Cameraderie compensates for it, but it is noted in the film that it hasn't been since Vietnam that so many soldiers have had to return to civilian life with this exposure to combat experience. Cameraderie only lasts until the return home. At that point these professional tough guys are only as strong as their ability to forget allows them to be.

This is a great film to begin to pull together strands from other documentaries on the topic of war. Fog Of War (2003) develops the theme of how war should be used as a tool within foreign policy. Empathise with the enemy, rationality will not save you. Afghanistan: Behind Enemy Lines (2010) gives a face to the insurgents, both the Afghan fighters and the foreign "enemy combatants". This presents the intense conflict between American perception of moral and physical superiority in theory and its tortured application in practice. Secondly it presents the development of the psychological trauma discussed in Gandolfini's Wartorn 1861 - 2010 (2010) from the consequences of living surrounded by death. Tim Hetherington himself was killed shortly after the film's release while covering the Libyan civil war. It's not at all surprising given how willing he was to put himself in harms way, and certainly adds to the mystique of the film, but incredibly sad that such a talented filmmaker cannot make more of these films. The objectivity I think is impressive and quite rare in the last decade or so in war documentaries with this kind of access to the frontline. The footage itself is almost as good as fictional films.

The moment in particular when one death results in a soldier emotionally collapsing during a firefight is pure propaganda for the enemy. His tears are contagious and rip away at the effectiveness of the entire fighting contingent. However, I was left with the impression that the soldiers would not feel betrayed by how their efforts are shown, and would most likely not see the deaths of their friends as presented as futile. Instead, the transparency provided and the ability of the soldiers to feel and express emotional pain in battle probably feels like evidence of the humanity and moral authority that they see as so lacking in the terrorists on the other side. In other words, their love and respect for their friends is something to be treasured, rather then something to be hidden as it is what separates them from their murderous enemy. The bigger danger is that they ever discover that many of the enemy are just like they are, the only difference being marching to the beat of a different ideological drum. A drum that to them is just as justifiable.

One of the best Afghan war documentaries, and one of the best documentaries on war around. The chaos and confusion, the loss and trauma as well as the scent of victory and the fierce bravery, loyalty and strength are on display. Objective enough for people to draw their own conclusions, subjective enough that the participants could present themselves as they wanted. Despite the destruction and futility, I can't help but admire the soldiers while wondering whether if they had been sent in from day 1 if Bin Laden would never have escaped from Afghanistan.

8 / 10

Note Mr Death, not Dr Death. This is Errol Morris' exposition of the life of Fred Leuchter, capital punishment engineer turned Holocaust denier. For the first half of the film, there's no mention of the controversy. Instead Fred is allowed to describe his background, and for those who don't know what he went on to do, its a great opportunity to get to know him before being tempted to hate him. He is a very matter of fact kind of guy, who comes across as smart, educated and well informed on the topics he discusses. His monotonous time doesn't make him particularly likable but aside from being somewhat smug, his judgmental discussion of other people's poorly informed decision making do make him seems like somewhat who's opinions can be trusted. He seems like someone who can recognise limitations in other people's skillsets, so can he recognise his own? After several years of designing and developing electric chairs for executions, Fred developed his business into lethal injection machines and later into execution by gas. During the trial of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, Fred was approached by the defence team to analyse Auschwitz. He surreptitiously collected samples and took measurements on site with a cameraman, apparently having almost free reign of the site, and smuggled the work out of Germany. His report, which concluded that these buildings were not mass execution devices, was then and is now the cornerstone of evidence for Holocaust deniers.

I imagine Zundel must have been absolutely shocked and delighted when the report appeared, as he couldn't possibly have believed his point would have been argued so completed and aggressively by someone he barely knew. The problem was that Fred didn't have the expertise to produce the report. He had none of the qualifications, skills or background to do the work he was doing. He knew a huge amount about applying the execution techniques that he was examining, though he had no formal education in them, but nothing about testing for them, particularly 50 years after the event in question. He also examined nothing other than what he saw in front of him. Thats not surprising since he knew he had to perform the entire task in secret. The majority of his work involved sampling the walls of the crematoria/gas chambers for traces of relevant gases, and examination of the ventilation equipment to determine if they were constructed in a way to protect the executioners, i.e. making them operational. He had no idea, for instance, that some of the sites themselves had been reconstructed. Nor did he know to what depth gas would penetrate, or how long it would remain in place. He had no idea what he was doing. Much has been made subsequently of the fact that his undergraduate degree was not in engineering or chemistry, but in history.

The testing itself was done at a laboratory in the Boston who crushed the samples before examining them. The expert witness who presented the test results had no idea what he was testing for or why. From the perspective of this defence this was valuable as it meant that prior education on the topic of the holocaust was not included in his chemical analysis, as it should not have been. But it also meant that the expert could not opine on the appropriateness of the test for the analysis at hand. Now, of course, this witness denies entirely the implied conclusions of the work. He describes it as trying to analyse paint by sampling the wood behind.

David Irving, celebrated Holocaust denier, and noted angry intellectual, is particularly scathing. "He came from nothing and went back to nothing. A mouse of a man, a simpleton. Taken abroad for the first time in his life, taken out of oblivion. No reputation to come from as he was a nobody." Yet he also stands behind the work, despite the evidence of its failings. The Jewish community is no less angry. "Anti semite, hate monger." Its remarkable that Fred managed to maintain his smug position despite facing a wall of hate.

But what is fascinating is that Fred has not retracted his views. In fact, following his testimony, his career was destroyed. Largely this is due to his poor qualifications for the work he was doing. But its also because nobody would associate themselves with him. His interpretation of this is that the worldwide Jewish conspiracy has attacked him due to his position. Thats not entirely false, most of his work was with government entities who, Im sure, would have been prevented from working with him for political reasons. But it has done nothing but make him more certain. Perhaps it is because at least within this world he is a celebrity, or maybe because he has simply gone too far to turn back. His wife soon left him and he reportedly now drives a bus. But he claims he did everything possible to substantiate and prove the existence of gas chambers, and he was unable to.

The documentary itself can be frustrating due to its use of odd recreated shots to provide atmosphere. A close of a nut, and far away shot of an electric chair. Faded recreations of a man walking down a corridor and opening a door, who is that guy and why are we looking at him? Presumably because the interview footage isn't long or interesting enough. But its a weakness as it acts as a constant reminder that the subjectivity of the filmmaker dominates.

My overriding sensation is sympathy for him. He seems to have overestimated his own skills (not his abilities though, I think with the proper education he would have been more than capable of doing the analysis) and then traveled too far down the rabbit hole to come back. Not that he seems to want to come back, he isn't given the opportunity in the documentary to directly address the criticism of his work, but he presumably has had the chance and has dismissed them. He appears to now be completed psycholoigcally committed to his conclusions, and perhaps the measure of fame within a certain community that he has achieved holds him there.

7 / 10

Quirky documentary revolving around the telling and retelling and retelling of one, frankly, not very funny joke which has apparently become a staple for comedians over the last 50 years or so, it may even have originated in the vaudeville era. The joke is not just an opportunity for, but demands absolutely outrageous filth; and when some of the funniest people alive compete over telling it, the consequences are brilliant. The film though is not so much about the joke. Its firstly about the fraternity of comedians, a very odd breed of people many of whom are walking contradictions. And secondly about the role that comedy can play, in particular challenging social convention and dealing with trauma.

Paul Provenza and Penn Julette (of Penn and Teller fame) interviewed around 100 comedians, including several truly legendary names, such as George Carlin, Eric Idle and Don Rickles, asking them to discuss the joke and if possible tell their own version of it. Notable by their absence are Johnny Carson who apparently had said this was his favourite joke, and Chevvy Chase, who reportedly hosted parties challenging comedians to tell the joke for an hour without repetition. As it is told now the bestiality, scatological and abortion humour, with occasional racial undertones, is as extreme as it gets. There are hints that this was bourne somewhat out of frustration on the limits imposed on comedians by media and venue owners who didn't want "blue" material to offend audiences or censors.

Current later generations of comedians, in particular South Park's Matt Stone and Trey Parker and Andy Dick who take shock value to a level not palatable 40-50 years ago really take over the extremes of the joke with bestiality, scatological and abortion humour thrown in. Sarah Silverman uses it for a deadpan rape accusation against Joe Franklin. Though the really talented guys don't need to be consistently offensive, its more about how they tell it than what they say. Kevin Pollack's Christopher Walken is brilliant, so is Mario Cantone's Liza Minelli.

By about 20 minutes you can't possibly believe that the joke can be told anymore ... but it carries on. Slowly it becomes about more than just the joke. What is fun is seeing these guys (and girls) in their natural habitat. They wear their performance persona briefly, but take it off when they relax. Comedians are bizarre animals. Often living contradictions, spending all their days thinking of ways to make others laugh but many suffer from deep depression. They have to give so much in their performances, as the audience demands everything from them. Complete disclosure and total submission is required, as they are constantly criticised and examined. Most of these guys are just desperately and constantly seeking approval. In these mini performances the way they get there is through pushing boundaries as far as they can, which is what many of them have made a career of.

But the documentary goes further in asking whether there is a broader role for that boundary-pushing behaviour. At the roast of Hugh Heffner a few days after September 11th, with an entire country suffering from extreme grief, Gilbert Gottfried made a joke about the terrorist incident. Some laughed but he was boo'd, which I don't think is a massive shock. Clearly nobody was ready for it, may people watching would have lost loved ones, and im pretty sure that the clip of that joke is nowhere to be found, having been erased from the record forever. Its his job to make jokes like that, and everyone in the industry, behind closed doors, was asking when it would be possible to make jokes about it. Many implicitly use the threshold that if people laugh it is appropriate, as they both verify its suitability and become complicit with your bad taste. Its a poor threshold, since its more than possible for something to be both hilarious and deeply inappropriate. However, only by laughing at painful events can we move on from them. But until thats possible, just laughing alone may be enough. So Gilbert launches into the aristocrats.

Its an insiders joke really, something for a room full of comedians, as the joke itself isnt great. Something which effectively says if we can't laugh at that yet, then lets laugh at absolutely everything else, no matter where the boundaries may lie. He destroys it, spilling extreme abuse, presumably very little of which was actually broadcast, and the room collapses in laughter.

Great movie with a lot of laughs, but only if you like a dirty joke. And i think with a serious point to make. One that Russell Brand likes to remind his audience of - its his job to make you laugh about the stuff you don't want to hear. Even though it means they will get it wrong sometimes. Perhaps if the timing of those 9/11 jokes had been better, the mass post traumatic street disorder that supported the Iraq War could have been satiated.

7 / 10

This documentary hints at something pretty credible and pretty disturbing. Its another film that attacks the concept of US exceptionalism in the context of foreign policy. Pat Tillman was a square-jawed, all American boy, who, despite not being particularly tall, became an NFL pro football player. Then, 6 months after 9/11, he left his multi-million dollar contract to enlist with his brother, himself on the verge of a pro baseball career. Pretty much immediately, they were both deployed to Afghanistan, where Pat was killed. The story was reported by the US army, and then by the US media, as one of idealised heroism claiming he was killed by an "enemy combatant", and in doing so he saved his platoon. His family was also told this, he was awarded the Silver Star which is the third highest decoration for valour in the US military, and he was given a televised military funeral featuring military and political grandees. Unfortunatley, it was all a lie. He was killed by US soldiers who were at best confused, at worst just happy to kill something. The soldiers there at the time were under no illusion whatsoever about what happened, they all knew it was friendly fire, or fratricide. But a smokescreen was laid down to confuse everyone and finish the picture perfect story.

What is incredible is that none of this would have come to light except for the determination of his mother and father, who could easily have just accepted the honours. The latter examined piles of largely redacted evidence provided by the military to confuse and overwhelm the grieving family and explained in a letter why the military's story could not possibly make sense; the letter ended, "F*ck you, and yours". The former appealed on TV in front of a Congress committee appointed to investigate that the order to create a fake hero from Tillman must have come from the very top. There is no particular accusation against those that killed him, though at stages there is a tense imbalance. Certain online sources seem to imply murder, but theres no evidence for that. His parents seem to consider the Bush administration to be the enemy, rather than the soldier. But its obvious that the story told was an invention from day 1 and those that started it must have believed that his parents, while perhaps doubting, would prefer the story of heroism.

It all comes to nothing. Rumsfeld and the five star generals are not just soldiers, they are accomplished political operators, and they destroy the questioning Congressmen. The response that "they cannot recall" is impervious to further interrogation, and anyway there is no real charge in place. The Tillman family showed remarkable resilience and determination to take it that far, but they are also mature enough to know when they are beaten, and there is no way to take their battle any further. Though appealing to the court of public opinion through this documentary is, I'm sure, also valuable to them.

Pat was almost a tailor made hero for the US military. His face looks like it has been carved out of granite, and his decision to spurn money to serve his country is astonishing. But the reason he did so isnt clear, in fact he appears to want it to be shrouded in mystery. It certainly wasn't that he didn't love football. He seemed to fundamentally believe in doing what is right, including remaining loyal to those around him, and those that had committed to him. But he didn't believe in God, and he wasn't a mindless patriot. He read left wing texts and sought education from other faiths. During his enlistment, he became disillusioned with the actions of the US government, in particular believing the war in Iraq to be illegal. He watched with horror as Baghdad was destroyed, though even though he had the opportunity to walk away at that point and return to football, he decided not to.

What it meant in the end was that he could be a posterboy for any side in the debate, which appears to be exactly what he didn't want to be. Probably the best that can be drawn from the information at least in this documentary is that he was someone who valued introspection and recognised complexity. Was it the President who authorised the lie? It may well have been, though I imagine it went through so many hands by then that he would have been barely-informed at best. Looking at the "Mission Accomplished" on an aircraft carrier post Iraq, which Bush later called a mistake, it appears that the keep-it-simple playbook was that administration's calling card. A fake hero would fit well within that. Very sad for the Tillman family, but a reminder that even the "good" governments will manipulate their way out of trouble if they can.

7 / 10

Total insanity, much like The Birth of Big Air (2010), these guys are breaking boundaries just to break boundaries. This is a made-for-cinema 3D documentary, narrated by Jared Leto, concerning the Isle of Man Tourist Trophy which is a time trial race on public roads run since 1907. Particularly focused on Guy Martin, an ultra charismatic, break-the-rules racer from Lincoln with throwback 1970s sideburns and unapologetic demanding attitude, we are introduced to the terror that this race represents and shown one year of it unfolding. He has never won the race, and he is reaching the peak of his capabilities. Riding for the "David" team against the various "Goliath"s, and constantly battling authority wherever it exists, there is no doubt that he would put his life on the line. The only question is will he win, or kill himself trying?

The exhilaration is partly shown by the front-mounted cameras as the bikes travel the course, partly by the terrible crashes. The 3D helps a great deal to convey how terrifying and disorientating this is. Of the four major 3D documentaries that spring to mind, the others being Herzog's awesome Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2010), the Tom Cruise narrated Space Station 3D (2002) and Cameron's Aliens of the Deep (2005), this for me is the best use of the technology. But even given that, the race is so much worse than can came across from these shots. The noise, the wind, the uneven surface, the huge physical stresses, the bike moving around underneath them and the quite ridiculous dangers right on the edge of the road. This is the most dangerous race in the world, a race with barely visible safety precautions, with riders balanced on these immensely powerful machines; leathers, a helmet and some supports their only protections against total oblivion. 240 rider deaths since 2009, including 6 in 1970, and including one in the year this was filmed. Bizarrely that death isn't even the most spectacular crash that we see. I suppose death doesn't necessarily have to be cinematic. The shot below is a rider who has lost control on a long straight. The helicopter overhead captures the whole thing as his limp body flies over the edge, directly towards the ragged brick walls beneath. Amazingly he both survives, and doesn't give up racing.

The film quality of the movie is different to most documentaries, and so is the quality of the sequences, many of which are staged more like fictional films. The presentation of Guy himself is enhanced dramatically through this process as he becomes the sympathetic protagonist hell bent on glory. He ever-so-charmingly lives out of his white van, waking up with the sunrise on the coast, no shirt despite the cold weather, to show his appallingly scarred torso. His focus is remarkable, as is his fearlessness.

More spectacular crashes and breathtaking race sequences follow, one bike flying to victory, another ending in a fireball. What really stands out though, is the stoicism of the survivors. The families are under no illusion of what they are getting themselves into. Their partners are quasi-suicidal, and once they die its just time to move on. Its evidence of remarkable strength since its one think to express these feelings and quite another to live by them. However, the wife explains he died doing something he loved, and the kids ride off on their mini motorised bicycles.

3D should be used more in documentaries, and less in computer game-like animations and live action films. What is the point of perspective if the people are 3x as big as normal and the trees 30 miles high? Its so much more compelling within reality. The costs are high, and the likely mix of 2D and 3D as different sources are combined reduces the impact as the audience is constantly reminded of the technology, but when its done effectively, its so powerful. This is a great topic for it too, and unlike the equally brilliant Senna, the story is yet to be written as the documentary unfolds.

I won't ruin the story of Guy Martin himself, but while having his rugged charm pull a plot along, the magical nature of the race itself is more than enough to entice the viewer.

8 / 10

Anonymous, the "hactivist" group, and Lulzsec, an elite hacking subsection of the group, were born from an online board called 4chan. Its an extremely basic bulletin board website with no fancy graphics or formatting, like any number of others from the past 20 years, but which probably only by virtue of bring the biggest became the home for a generation of online outsiders. The polar opposite of the Facebook side of the generation, the whole idea is to remain unidentified. They can, and usually do, post without a disclosed name and are shown as "Anonymous". The impact, highlighted in this film, is that it can appear that everything comes from one person. One beast, one multiheaded monster, or one tightknit community, depending on your perspective. The documentary amply shows both sides. Some of these guys are meek, self-effacing nice guys with well balanced ideas about how people should behave; and others are just angry and enjoy breaking stuff.

The initial enemy is Scientology which the community uses to bear its teeth, and test strength. It also brings about the altogether challenging question of whether physical meetings are capable of the same kind of expression. A mass protest is organised after Scientology attempts to shut down a hilarious Tom Cruise video that leaked online.To everyone's surprise, mass groups of Anonymous members congregate in public, many covering their faces with the V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes' mask, at Scientology locations around the world. What results is a fascinating battle between two outsider organisations with very different ideas of their own rights and expression of power. Scientology threatens and engages lawyers and police tactics. Anonymous uses physical protests and the ever effective denial of service attack ("DOS"). This is a method of bombarding a website with hits from multiple sources until the confused servers cannot take it any longer and shut down, needing to be rebooted. The problem is that for the vast majority of people, these attacks are far from anonymous. They are in fact easily traceable for anyone in the USA to a specific IP address. The only residual question is who in the house carried out the attack. Unfortunately for the gentleman below, he was ill informed and poorly positioned to defend himself after launching such attacks. When the FBI visited, he simply admitted his involvement, with no idea what the sentence would be. Now he is out of jail, however, he is still not able to touch the computer behind him without breaching his parole.

They do seem to win in the end. The Tom Cruise video is now I think permanently on youtube, though the link seems to change. I thoroughly recommend googling it, if only to see how dedication to an ideology can radically change your perspective and behaviour. After watching it checkout this spoof from Superhero Movie which is uncanny.

Its worth nothing also that wikileaks now hosts the complete scientology bible. The collected secrets of the most secret of all religions, which in a quite unfortunate twist had to admit to its authenticity in order to put together the legal claim to have it blocked. The bible would cost an individual around $300k and many, many years of study to obtain from official sources. Of course, the church would highlight that without going through official routes, you couldn't possibly understand it. I've flicked through it, and I'd have to agree with them, its completely indecipherable.

The power of the machine is perhaps best illustrated by their destruction of an individual. Someone with limited power who brings the beast on himself by blue-sky thinking methods to attack them which then become public. Aaron Barr, above, was CEO of an online security firm which made outlandish claims about their ability to defend people against Anonymous. In response, Anonymous take down the entire operation, the phone system, the emails, even wiping his personal ipad. By the time he is interviewed for this documentary, he is "taking some time out" and frankly looks exhausted.

But the major philosophical victories are the Arab Spring and Wikileaks. With the former, theres no doubt that online action helped support real life forces to act against authority. In this instance, those with authority locally had no authority internationally which meant that the DOS attacks were left untraced. Both the Tunisian and Egyptian governments were attacked, and only the most fervent anti-Anonymous forces would suggest their impact was trivial. The latter is an ongoing battle. Anonymous launched several DOS attacks on payment companies for withdrawing their services from Wikileaks. Its hilarious to see the kinds of sites that they continue to support while refusing to service the whistleblower.

Very entertaining doc revealing much of the nature of this odd character which has invaded the political sphere in the last 5 years or so. Its almost disappointing how simple it all becomes, but the lack of a central individual or an overriding conspiracy makes the impact so much more interesting. The Arab Spring impact of online communities and social media is the most attractive takeaway, though its understandable how Aaron Barr was deemed worthy of receiving so much wrath. As Stephen Colbert says, Anonymous is like a hornets' nest, and Barr said "I'm gonna put my penis in that thing".

6 / 10

Where is the end of the world? As far as America goes, this is at least one end of one road. An isolated community in Death Valley, California, composed of a variety of individuals ostracised by themselves or by others. They now find ways to coexist without much government, without a formal church, primarily without jobs and with very little in the way of young families. The town exists almost in total desolation with limited contact with the outside world and a "No Services Ahead" sign to ward off wandering travellers.

Theres something about the town which is uniquely American. The sense of natural revolution and independence is inherently Jeffersonian. The desire to express their own religion, even if it is Paganism, and not just the lack of, but the futility of local government oversight. But at the same time, the feeling of having given up, the lack of reinvention, is the opposite of the traditional American drive and productivity increases. Most of the population are proud of the past eras of mass civil unrest and murder which characterised the town decades before when it had a thriving mining industry. Now the town survives due to a freshwater stream from the mountains which runs perilously close to a local military testing ground.

But the residents themselves are far from hopeless. Artists, intellectuals (though the major one probably drank himself to death), and pre-hippy hippies are amongst the residents. Good humoured, articulate and engaging, charm and character flow easily from most of them. The emotional impact is driven by the slow acceptance of transsexual Ryal who is attempting to establish himself as a man within his family. Troubled pasts are forgotten and new selves are accepted, communities can be wherever you find them. Why not?

7 / 10

Conspiracies seem to exist everywhere, even, or perhaps especially, at the home of fun. But its really about contradictory interests and just enough hidden information that you can believe that may be more. This documentary follows the story of homicidal captive killer whale, Tilikum, and the deaths of three trainers. Captured as an infant and kept as a performer, often in poor conditions, the whale is filmed flipping from cuddly, smiling, attentive and loving stuffed toy to vicious, bloodthirty beast in a matter of seconds, in conditions guaranteed to send small children to despairing nightmares. The incidents are exceptionally rare is considered in the context of the huge number of hours the whales spend with their human trainers, but the consequences are so extreme that its hardly something to brush over. However, Seaworld themselves, when accused by the government agency responsible for employee safety (OSHA) duck and dive to avoid any liability, or any sense that these deaths could have been predicted or avoided. Mainly by blaming the trainers themselves, much to the chagrin of the former trainers interviewed for this film.

The PR impact on SeaWorld has been significant. The bands that have cancelled performances at Seaworld since release of the documentary include Barenaked Ladies, all round good guy hippy Willy Nelson and Heart. Recently the business was acquired by colossal American private equity business Blackstone who made a considerable profit recently IPO'ing Merlin Entertainments which owns European theme parks and resorts (including Madam Tussauds and Legoland). Its an interesting internal contradiction that Merlin's own aquarium business Sea Life actively campaigns against captivity of large sea creatures. But probably not something that keeps Blackstone execs up at night.

Theres an uneasy tension on the question of why the whale is so violent. Cowperthwaite, the director, would clearly prefer the conclusion that being ripped from his family at a young age and kept in very poor conditions sent the whale into some kind of psychosis. However theres also a suggestion that since the whale's sperm has been used to generate a long line of potentially tempramental offspring that all killer whales held by Seaworld are prone to this violent response, implying a genetic cause. In addition, the whale-on-whale violence is pretty consistent, including bullying directed at Tilikum from the smaller females.

All the talking heads, however, concur that the behaviour of trainers in the moment is not to blame. There is one shocking clip of a trainer being repeatedly dragged to the 5 metre deep pool floor for minutes at a time and calmly stroking his torturer on the surface until eventually behind let go. His pale, horrified face and rush for freedom are quite striking. However, this video is one that has been used by SeaWorld as evidence of the efforts that a trainer can go through to mitigate an attack. I'd say at best 50% skill, 50% luck. He certainly can't hold his breath as long as the whale can.Though theres no implication the trainer quit after that occurrence.

Seaworld have accused the filmmakers of bias and "lies" but their response focuses more on the ommitted facts about their conservation world, rather than disputing the information as provided. Keeping trainers illinformed about the history of certain whales, and maintaining their performance schedule despite evidence that something terrible could go wrong certain seems to be true. OSHA's prosecution resulted in the conclusion that all trainers must be separated from the whales by a physical divide (presumably perspex glass) though presumably that applies only in performances. Thats certainly a loss for the viewing public, though perhaps the only precaution that would work. The filmmakers however, and many talking heads, have a more significant conclusion. They want captive whales to be freed. I don't think thats likely from any company, but particularly not from Blackstone. The one remarkable piece of evidence that supports the view though ... no human fatalaties have ever been recorded cause by killer whales in the wild.

6 / 10

Is it a huge surprise that chaotic warzones breed monsters? Or perhaps more of a surprise that once bred they are so easily ignored? Winter Soldier is the film of the "investigations" into Vietnam war crimes in 1971-1972. It was a media event, not an investigation, featuring a number of veterans publicising what they saw as criminal activity perpetrated during the Vietnam War. Coverage at the time was trivial, and even this film when released was largely ignored, considered to be falsified or sensationalist. Even 30 years later it is not widely known in the US, though much of the content has been recycled in the increasingly hostile film recreations of the Vietnam conflict.

The black and white footage features numerous interviews and monologues from ex soliders, who now look much more like hippies, describing the most horrendous atrocities. Mass murder, rape and torture are stated to not just be frequent, but in fact to be Standard Operating Procedure. The question "how do you know he was Viet Cong?" is answered with "Because he's dead" which leads to a snigger and complicit understanding. The credibility of the participants is attacked head-on. "Don't you think there will be people looking at your long hair and beard and not believe you?". Sure comes the answer, once I was like that too, but my wife helped me change. But still not enough to penetrate US consciousness for several decades.

The more evident weakness in the testimony comes from the actual crimes committed by the participants. They aren't just witnesses, some of them are mass murderers themselves. One describes receiving a medal for killing 5 vietnamese who were running away having stumbled on the marines relaxing. Then when interogating a prisoner, and receiving an answer he didn't like, he killed the man ... with his knife. Now he regrets his behaviour, but he claims to have been brainwashed. He is quite clear about the process that he believes occurred: an embedded conviction that the US has moral authority, the years of marine training intended to deaden human responses and the performance pressure which linked success to the number of dead. However, to admit to comitting murder and point fingers at others is to abdicate responsibility in the worst way.

Limited editing and poor camera angles aside, the quality of this is very high, and the content is pure historical record, while retaining the appropriate questions on credibility. Confronted with the question of how people do terrible things, how they justify them at the time and how they come to terms with them once realising they are wrong, there is a blur of very human responses, rather than psychopathic numbness. These human responses would not have been recognised by the victims or witnesses of the crimes themselves who saw the monsters in these men first hand. Much like Josh Oppenheimer has argued in the Act of Killing, perhaps in fact all humans are capable of murder. Nobody was punished for these crimes, but how would you attribute blame properly?

7 / 10

Here is the trailer on youtube, there are some pretty good versions of the full movie available online too:

So there is already a great documentary on Mike Tyson from 2008, just called Tyson (2008), which i have already reviewed. I was shocked at how articulate and sympathetic a character he is in that film. Spike Lee must have been too. In this made-for-HBO documentary, Mike runs a one man stage play with a live audience in front of a huge slideshow. He speaks for an hour and a half, following a script but totally calm and natural. He jokes, does impressions, must ad-lib at least some of it and even picks people out of the crowd. The delivery is comfortably as good as Al Gore's more famous slideshow. Its a bit like a public therapy session, and the core concept of his weakness is the recurring theme, "low self esteem". In that context he is very communicative and highly articulate. The aggression is always seething under the surface, and no question that the audience is extremely sympathetic in the most American way (applause-heavy like Inside the Actor's Studio), but much like Tyson (2008) its hard not to see him as at least someone who wants to be good, and has had the rough end of many situations.

He hasn't had the best of luck in TV interviews; this is effectively an alternative to doing Oprah. Scripted, but natural. Full disclosure, but considered. A confessional, but to what end? Presumably partly because he has run out of money, Im sure there is some media coverage which can fill in the gaps. But it is hugely interesting. The epic growth and substantial decline of a life full of incident and challenge. He reached global superstardom with Cus D'Amato without ever really thinking about it. Then a painful divorce (his wife was cheating with Brad Pitt), rape conviction (bet you have never seen an audience clap a convicted rapist while discussing his conviction before), jailtime, drug addiction, ear-biting comeback, poor performances and bankruptcy. He may well have been the most complete fighter ever, a total natural, but he was never will balanced enough to maintain dominance in the sport like a Schumacher or a Federer.

Padding sweat away, he describes everything with animation and passion. Mimicking fighting is when he really comes into his own, particularly when he does impressions of those who were foolish enough to threaten him. But it seems that each time it happens he is the terrified fat kid all over again. Nowhere to turn, nothing to do but battle ... and bite. Of his time in the ring, its the losses and embarrassments that get the most coverage, because its a story of redemption, not of glory. He is friends now with Holyfield, but when the photo is on screen, he jokingly comments on himself, "I look like his fat grandmother".

There are more than a few parts that a less biased audience would have struggled with. Celebration of violence, his claim of innocence for the rape conviction, and suggestion that the victim had made it all up, even patchy homophobia and sexism, but all clapped and cheered. He does come across as an honest, self deprecating and humble guy now, a grown up - its hard to not believe him, and to sympathise with him. By the time he discusses the random, bizarre death of his daughter he has travelled through ridicule and hatred to the other side. His 4 year old daughter was strangled by the loop of a treadmill.

Overall its a lot of fun, and probably pretty educational to someone achieving global success too early, before they have any idea what kind of person they are and what they want. For a layperson its more about trying to experience some of the highs and lows of someone familiar but also alien. Someone who has done pretty much everything, someone worth $400m when they came out of jail, but who still had further to fall.

7 / 10

Here is the trailer:

Really cool film about the development, and ultimately the spirituality. of finding that "Giant Wave" to attack. Lives are dedicated, and occasionally lost, to pursuing bigger and bigger beasts, and technology and innovative methods radically change what is possible. Most of the real trailblazing is done by individuals just throwing things together, but once a few ideas get combined its amazing how quickly it all changed. From 20 feet waves in Waimea Bay in the 1960s, through a spot off the California coast which had 30 and even 40 foot waves (apparently always estimates!) to finally in the 1990s dragging surfers on a jetski (known as tow in surfing) at Peahi to get to the speed to ride 70 feet waves.

The film culminates in the exploits of Laird Hamilton, who's team led the development (though probably didn't entirely invent) tow in surfing, and widely regarded as the best big wave rider ever. A celebrated shot of him riding not the tallest but potentially the heaviest wave ever was featured on the cover of Surfer magazine with the caption "Oh my god...". This was a Teahupo's Reef in Tahiti.

This film is lovingly put together by Stacy Peralta, famous as a trailblazer in skateboarding in the 1970s, and within the documentary community famous for making Dogtown and Z-Boys (2001), which bizarrely I haven't written about yet. That film tracks the manipulation of land to allow surfing techniques to be applied through skating swimming pools and later building skatepark bowls and half-pipes. As an insider in leading a sport's innovation and borrowing much of that change from surfing, he's well placed to interview these guys which Im sure lends a lot to how much they share and discuss. This is particularly true with the death of Mark Foo, a renowned Hawaiian surfer, on a visit to the California's big wave site. He was dragged underwater and most likely trapped by the board that he was tied to. This predated both tow in surfing and quick release cords. The result was that he had no jetskier with him and nobody noticed when he didnt surface after a wave. In fact the next surfer felt him under the water but thought it was someone else... His body was washed up later in the day. But for these guys death is a daily risk.

The story bears remarkable similarities to ESPN's The Birth of Big Air (2010), the story of Matt Hoffman's massive BMX jumps at around 26 feet. The biggest air generated from being dragged by a motorbike in 2000. He was the first, though like with these guys, the record books don't hold anything specific for him to be measured against. Similarly, after these achievements, once the idea is there, suddenly it becomes achievable for a much larger group of people. The initial daredevil opens the door, then others stand on the shoulders of the giants. Greg Noll is widely regarded as the first big wave giant, riding 25-30 feet waves in Hawaii in 1964 when it was considered impossible.

Now all bets are off. Garrett McNamara has ridden 100 foot waves, and glacial tsunamis in Alaska. Even the sea isn't is the limit now.

Within the genre, I think is this a great film, but perhaps lacks the drama to be the best. But it is fascinating to see how one surfer pulls off something remarkable, and many others follow. Then at some stage a massive shift changes everything and over 10 years all kinds of new challenges are possible. Each new generation depends on the innovation of the last, and each generation needs someone a little crazy to make its own mark on the history of the sport.

7 / 10

"Love cannibalism"; consensual adult sexual behaviour may not get more bizarre than this. Since the ultimate self sacrifice is a part of it, the circumstances that lead to this as a possibility could only have been created by the internet: the temporary anonymity required for expression of extremely socially inappropriate thoughts amongst the handful of like-minded individuals that exist worldwide. For a psychologist its gold as both the victim and the killer have mother-based backstories to describe and explain their perversions. For the average viewer its very much voyeuristic. Though this film is mostly about sensationalising something gruesomely fascinating, with the appropriate music cues and and slow-zoom closeups on lips, teeth and newspaper headlines, it also captures via an interview, often in English, a complete description of the crime from the killer himself. He is open and articulate, doesn't stray into random rants or insane ramblings, doesn't shy away from what he did and why he wanted to do it and frankly comes across as perfectly rational, except for what he was able to do.

The story is simple. Armin Meiwes and Bernd Brandes had overlapping cannibalistic sexual fantasies and met in an online forum. The former wanted to eat someone, and the latter wanted to be eaten. Bernd travelled to Armin's home, and despite some false starts, had his penis cut off and fed to him. Armin then slit Bernd's throat (while he was already bleeding to death) and after treating his flesh, stored it all in cold storage to consume over the coming months. All of this was recorded on camera. Odd that it didn't come up in the context of Snuff (2008), but since the film was never made to be sold, it wouldn't qualify. Bernd had covered his tracks so well that while his disappearance was noted, nothing came of it. He just vanished. But Armin wasn't done, he wanted to kill and eat again. Unable to resist expressing his success, he boasted to another potential victim, who presumably was more of a fantacist, and his name was given to the police. Interestingly they actually followed up on this rather vague referral, and found the residual human flesh in his fridge.

The "why" is a little more complex. Armin had deep seated feelings of loneliness due to his relationship with his overbearing mother. Bernd's mother killed herself early in life and his father would not discuss it. Then Bernd came out as gay, much to his father's disapproval. The talking head psychologists explain that in the end both of them did not receive the emotional acceptance that they craved. Both were not loved the way that they were but the way their parents wanted them to be. The expression of the "cause" in that way is an odd device as it ties everything together nicely, draws parallels between the killer and victim, and seats "blame" comfortably with the parents. The question of whether these causes, which may well be right, are adequate on their own to explain this extreme outcome is not discussed. Presumably plenty of people have had these kinds of uncomfortable upbringings but didn't eat anyone. Though also, its always possible that there are been other deaths like this which have never come to light, or at least plenty of people who have developed these fascinations but never had the opportunity to act on them. Certainly the story of Issei Sagawa, the Japanese Cannibal, is very similar.

Perhaps surprisingly, the experience seems to have not been fulfilling for Bernd. While Armin talks now of the presence of Bernd with him at all times, the story of Bernd's experience (reported by Armin but verified by the police that have seen the film) is less satisfying. The pain from his castration was not as strong as he had hoped. His penis did not taste how he had wanted. And the death he hoped for, caused by extreme pain, was instead dull and listless. So while the death was consensual, was it also regretted?

Meaningfully creepy documentary, if you can see past the glamourising camera angles and mood music. The film made by Armin has mercifully been kept by the court. It hangs over the doc much like the video of Timothy Treadwell's death in Grizzly Man (2005). Its something that feels like a gap in the plot, but which you could never unwatch if you ever had the misfortune to get access to it. During a tour of Armin's now-derelict house, his lawyer shows us the hook onto which he hung Bernd's body. I'm sure the jury that saw his journey from living creature to lump of meat will never forget it.

6 / 10

"You see, if you don't take money, they can't tell you what to do, kid."

Eccentricity doesn't come much more prolific than this. Bill Cunningham has been one of the leading New York photographers for decades; obsessively and inventively observing and creating fashion trends from Manhattan streets. "On The Street," which is a collection of photos largely of the ordinary public features weekly in the New York Times. The documentary follows Bill as he rolls around the city streets on his ancient bicycle, stopping and snapping girls, dogs, occasionally men, and clothes, clothes, clothes. Not to mention shoes and bags.

His obsession is remarkable, but it's even more remarkable that he has never been paid for this work, and now he is an old man. He lives effectively in a closet in a commune with other artists. Piles of photos and huge filing cabinets dominate the room. Where does he sleep? Where is there space for a relationship, whether romantic or otherwise? Of course the answer is that there isn't. Like so many of these type-A personalities there seems to be no space in their life for anything else. Like Jiro or Billy Mitchell in the end he strikes quite an introverted and lonely figure, but he is extremely happy doing what he is doing.

There is a great review on this documentary on a fashion website here: Dressful. For a fashion aficionado this guy is the guru. Watching him in action is on its own a thrill. But he's also taking a social position that is the direct contrast of the wealth-obsessed industry that he covers. More than just commenting on it, he manages to live it.

"Money's the cheapest thing. Liberty and freedom is the most expensive."

7 / 10

Trailer:

There has been an idea within the Catholic church, rarely expressed, but often implied, that children are resilient and will inevitably recover from early trauma. For an organisation who's main business is moral authority, its an idea which if wrong is capable of resulting in an immense amount of pain. The lifelong battle waged by the men in this documentary, and the pain they still wear etched across their faces, is testament to how wrong an idea it is. Alex Gibney, one of the most prolific documentarians of the last decade or so, presents the story of abuse of deaf boys at a Catholic school in Milwaukee by a priest. Regular, repeated complaints against him achieved nothing for years, leaving him in place at the school. The vulnerable accusers were faced with disbelief, confusion and ineffective responses from the Church and the state. The film goes on to discuss the particular challenges of pursuing legal processes against the Vatican due to a quirk of history allowing it to retain a position as a nationstate answerable to nobody. Pressure on the Catholic church to open archives on abuse and come clean regarding the extent of the problem, and importantly their inability to deal with it, is being consistently obstructed.

Father Lawrence Murphy was for many years the only competent signer in these children's lives. Many of them were outcasts even in their own families, and intensely vulnerable. A common prejudice faced by the deaf community is a perception of low IQ due to their difficulty articulating themselves verbally, an issue made even worse for children in a special school. He was their main adult communicative outlet, as well as being a representative in their lives of the very highest authority. He was well known, charismatic and popular within his community. But he regularly and repeatedly sexually abused groups of boys. The impact on the boys, now men, is a life sentence of pain and anger. There can be no doubt that these experiences are not something they can just walk away from.

Wanting justice, but also scared for the children still until the influence of the prist, the men resorted to distributing vast quantities of fliers showing "Most Wanted". For a long period some of those in authority particuarly Archbishop Weakland knew that the claims were accurate and even wanted to pursue them, but found themselves unable to do so either due to the statute of limitations under the national and church law, or due to painfully slow responses from the Vatican level organisation which adjudicated such issues: Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict)'s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Murphy was eventually removed from the school, but he was not imprisoned and as such was always at risk of reoffending.

One of this documentary's particular strengths is in addressing some of the principals maintained by the church which have allowed the abuse to continue. For instance, Murphy managed to wrap an idea around his behaviour. He considered the boys to be "confused" about sex. That homosexuality was rampant amongst these boys in the boarding school. That he was able to take it upon himself to satisfy their sexual desires, and importantly, as a result, take these sins onto himself. He would then go to confession and absolve himself. "Noble cause corruption" is how psychologists describe the thought process. It is a remarkable explanation for how otherwise good people are able to commit terrible acts. Of course, for it to function, in particular over a long period, his religion is essential. "I fixed the problem", he explained to his therapist.

In 2008 Weakland was challenged with the question, "Pedophilia has been called a form of homicide as it takes away child's innocence and condemns them to a life of pain, do you agree?". He answered honestly that if he had been asked in 1979 he would have disagreed, now he agrees "in almost every case". Weakland was able to take the case to Ratzinger's office, but was told the case would not progress as at this point Murphy was ill. The prosecution, due to its delays, had gone as far as possible both within the church and within the state. Murphy in fact had written directly to Ratzinger claiming he had changed, that he had repented his sins and now "I want to live out the time i have left in the dignity of my priesthood". Gibney's assertion in this film is that this is exactly what Ratzinger himself agreed to.

Weakland was revealed, post retirement, to have paid $450k of church money to settle a sexual assault claim with a man. While its worth noting that the assault claim itself is unproven, Weakland revealed in his autobiography that he is gay, and has struggled with his sexuality for years, having had a consensual sexual relationship with a man who was in his 30s. The role of sexually confused professionally-celibate men in raising teenage children and adjudicating on sexual abuse could not be more obviously wrong. Though it is a shame that due to the Catholic church's position on homosexuality, Weakland's own secret was plagued with such guilt and controversy. In the eyes of the church it is at least as bad, and at times possibly even worse, than pedophilia. Since at its most extreme, the latter has been seen as a victim-less crime. Sexual contact happens in all boys schools, they grow out of it and move on, it has been claimed.

Weakland is clear he does not know how to analyse a person like Murphy, whom he only met once. The words he uses are "self delusional" and "childlike". Clearly, Weakland is not capable of understanding and controlling the man. And there is no reason to believe that his background would enable him to do so. Much like Deliver Us from Evil (2006), the Catholic methodology of reflection, repentance and self growth simply isn't applicable for series sexual predators. Some did try though, they even tried to buy an island to house repeat offenders to at least keep them away from children, but the project was halted to focus on rehabilitation and the worst evil of all...reassignment without informing anyone of the risks. A remarkably poorly placed application of the Christian concept of forgiveness. Reoffending is inevitable.

The victims groups involved in these crimes and in others globally are putting consistent pressure on the Vatican, most recently through the UN's Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), but since it is a state there are severe limitations on how they are be pursued. The victim's focus is on transparency on the past to come to terms with crimes and prevent new offences. The Church's focus is on comforting victims, and bringing them back to faith in God, which will do nothing to prevent the status quo from continuing. In reality, today, the Church views ongoing pressure as persecution, even "the petty gossip of the day", from aggressive enemies, rather than a noble effort to remove pedophilia. While there is an acknowledgement that local laws must be followed, the repeated disregard of accusations is remarkable, the latest being Jozef Wesolowski the Polish archbishop accused of sex offenses in Dominican Republic, along with another Polish priest. Both are "being investigated" but have been removed from the country where the allegations took place.

Gibney's argument is that Pope Benedict himself is directly behind the coverup of the extent of the abuse. In addition, he argues there is no evidence that the Church has adequately investigated the "how" and the "why" to prevent the problem recurring. The Church is so sure that its moral authority and ancient techniques are absolute that it could not be more poorly placed to deal with repeat sexual offenders. Its worth noting that there is no permanent solution to this problem outside the Church either. Louis Theroux's documentary A Place for Pedophiles explores one approach with some wins and some losses. But the difference is that secular society knows that it is flawed, the Catholic Church does not. Of all the remaining questions, one seems to keep coming back.

Why did Pope Benedict step down?

9 / 10

Amazingly, the whole film is available on youtube! No idea why since its a recent HBO release, but here it is:

In case it comes down the trailer is here...

This is a documentary which would grow in significance over time as post the 1977 release date, the main star's career was launched into the stratosphere. Schwarzenegger and Lou Ferrigno (later the star of the Incredible Hulk 80s TV show) compete for Mr. Olympia, the world bodybuilding championship. The film itself lifted Arnie to stardom, though when winning at the conclusion of the film he announces his retirement to launch his career in film. It also kick started a US fitness craze. An incredible impact for a relatively low budget documentary, and a reminder that any documentary can change the world ... even if perhaps it shouldn't. However the really engaging components of the film involve the psychological warfare waged between the competitors, and the odd realisation that these huge men are just as, or perhaps even more vulnerable, than the average.

Mike Katz is a hopeful in Mr Universe. He was bullied in his youth for being Jewish, and for his appearance, leaving to extensive focus on his physique and a career in pro football. When that came to and end he became bodybuilder, but the weakness of his youth never left him. Ken Waller steals his lucky shirt before the competition, and he loses... Taking the hit to his pride is a huge challenge leaving him visibly shaken and while he makes himself do the "right thing" and go to congratulate Waller, the "good guys finish last" motif is written on the wall. Waller has consistently been laughing at him behind his back, Katz looks broken.

The psychological warfare that Arnie uses against his main opponent Ferrigno is even more telling, undermining his confidence and poking at his obvious lack of self esteem at any point possible while posturing as a friendly competitor. At each stage, Ferrigno is aware of the risk, but totally under prepared to cope with these subtle attacks, which leave him bewildered and confused. Its odd to know that Ferrigno is actually bigger than Schwarzenegger, both in height and in terms of muscular structure. But he has no chance. Its not just the body size (to be fair Arnie might be smaller but probably has better structure and definition) but the aura that Arnie carries with him. When his win is announced is it with the phrasing "the one and only" Arnold Schwarzenegger, like this had been a foregone conclusion at all times. Afterwards, Arnie leads the singing of happy birthday to Lou, who placed 3rd.

There is a marked contrast between Lou and Arnie in their workout style. Arnie loves it, he even describes it as sexual satisfaction. Lou looks like hes in the most intense pain. In fact Arnie is the only one who seems to really love it, even the grimaces look like fun...

The film came back to bite Schwarzenegger years later as in his celebratory moments after the competition he smokes marijuana on camera. Though as it happens, this and the various sexual harassment cases he faced were not enough to prevent his election. Presumably at this point while he is already targeting marrying a Kennedy, he hasn't decided to target political office, so is less sensitive about controversial behaviour on camera. However, the one thing that is very much missing from the film is the massive steroid intake to build this level of muscle.

Remarkable documentary about a remarkable man. This was the film that kick started his career, though perhaps he would have made it into acting regardless. However, the psychological warfare, and the contrast between the competitor's physical size and mental strength is remarkable. Arnie doesn't come across as likeable at all, though its tough not to be impressed by how he controls the room in his broken English.

6 / 10

Full movie available on youtube!

With thanks to @ClariciaQ for the recommendation

This is the incredible story of an internet love triangle gone as wrong as possible, resulting in one dead, one imprisoned for 18 years, and one alienated from their family. The veil of anonymity online allows otherwise introverted people dissatisfied with their lot in life to attempt to recreate themselves in a form which they would have preferred. Its interesting that the recreation they pick isn't necessarily the complete opposite of themselves, usually just younger and more perfect. When that veil of anonymity is shattered the consequences can be humiliating and drive perhaps already unstable individuals to the edge. Some documentaries run much like fictional films with a developing, storyboarded, plotline. This is a great example, as a result there are inevitably "spoliers" when they are discussed ... which there are in this blogpost, be warned!

Thomas Montgomery, a 47 year old married father, calls himself marinesniper and mascarades as an 18 year old marine. He meets an 18 year old girl online called Jessi who goes by the name talhotblond. She sends him numerous photos of herself in various flirtatious and sexy poses and they engage in a remarkably intimate online romance as the young brave marine is sent into a warzone. A misplaced love letter blows up the whole charade as Thomas's wife finds out what is happening and tells Jessi that she has been lied to.

Bizarrely, one of Thomas's co-workers is a part of the same online community. He is a 22 year old called Brian Barrett going by the name beefcake. Jessi turns to him to humiliate Thomas by outing him at work. Brian falls for Jessi as she sends him the same sexy snaps and videos, and slowly begins to hate Thomas for the lies he has told her. This is more than enough for him to carry out what Jessi is looking for, and he happily reveals Thomas's secret.

Thomas is destroyed and furious. The documentarian works hard to ensure that enough of the text chats (which have been carefully preserved) are presented to demonstrate just how emotionally overcome he was at this stage. He clearly loved Jessi, through his state of confusion he perhaps even believed on some level he could become this 18 year old marine. As bizarre as the story is so far, it becomes weirder as Jessi returns to communicate with Thomas. She just won't leave him alone. She reconnects and re-establishes a friendship, but does so knowing how unsettled Thomas is. Thomas openly threatens Brian in their online communications, and repeatedly says he loves Jessi, but instead of walking away she carries on communicating with him. Thomas becomes obsessed with the idea of Jessi's magical gift, her virginity. It seems increasingly likely that Brian will be the person to take it and Thomas simply cannot bear that thought.

From this point the story is presented very carefully and clearly to bring out her influence. She dangles her virginity in front of both Brian and Thomas until Brian ceases contact, frustrated with her behaviour. Thomas is enthralled as the sexchat starts up again. He is overcome by the possibility that this love he has felt is deeper than the age gap and the evident impossibility of their relationship, but it appears to be. But the communication becomes odd, Jessi's flirtation becomes almost like a taunt. Until she seems to start speaking to Brian again over social media in a way that Thomas can see. Thomas flips. He threatens Jessi, telling her that he will kill both her and Brian.

A few days later he lets down Brian's truck's tire, waits until he is in the car, and shoots him in the head.

SPOILER

Then the huge revelation. Jessi is not an 18 year old girl. The photos are of her daughter. Jessi herself has no idea any of this has happened.

"Jessi" is Mary Sheiler, a bored housewife who is estranged from her daughter. She is married with children ... much life Thomas himself. She had sent hundreds of photos of her daughter and lingerie to both Brian and Thomas, and to other men. She even sent videos which appear to be long distance candid shots, up her skirt, flashing underwear... has she been stalking her own daughter? The story is reminiscent of Dear Zachary (2008), though in that instance the volatile, selfish woman is herself the killer. Mary appears to be just as cold and manipulative.

However, while Mary has acted in an appalling way, murder is the responsibility of the individual who committed it, not the victim or any other third party. It couldn't be more clear that Brian did nothing to provoke the response, in fact it is strange that Thomas would choose to exact his revenge on Brian as opposed to Jessi. Mary herself has done something wrong, but she didn't pull the trigger. Mary could easily have seen her daughter murdered rather than the former flirt. Thomas received 18 years in jail, Mary was guilty of nothing.

Mary refused to be included in the film, understandably. The only real quotes reportedly coming form her are that she "only wanted to be a good mother", and she was bored and lonely. She wanted to continue talking to Thomas only to "keep him away from real life teenagers". This seems much like "noble cause corruption" highlighted in Mea Culpa (2012), that she has pinpointed some moral justification for what she has done, but which evidently conflicts with her actual role. Mary informed her husband as vaguely as possible about the murder, but denied online sexual contact with Thomas or Brian. Realistically she had no chance of hiding everything, and over the next few weeks both her husband and the real Jessi found out the truth. Understandably they no longer have any contact with Mary. Now they remember her as someone who regularly faked crying, someone who compulsively lied and hid her behaviour from those around her. Someone who lacked guilt ... even lacked empathy?

Mary also asked not to have an updated photo shown in the film so Thomas would not be able to recognise her, the filmaker ignored the request.

However, for me there is an odd edge to the documentary. The narrator pretends to be the victim, Brian, and speaks as if in spirit form. Using phrases like "as far as I'm concerned" and "she was tall ... hot ... and blonde ... add deadly to that" the narrator tries to take on the person of someone who is dead and reach conclusions. Much like American Beauty or Sunset Boulevard, a voice from beyond the grave guides you through the plot. But in the context of a documentary its a falsehood, this isn't a fictional character who can be given a voice by a writer. Putting words into a dead man's mouth is an unnecessary technique. Its also difficult in my view to call talhotblonde deadly. She did something terrible and stupid, but Thomas needed to be particularly unstable to pull the trigger.

Aside from the narration problem this is a fascinating story and the documentary is really well made. The presentation of the complete online dialogues between talhotblonde and marinesniper are essential to understand how her manipulation figured in his behaviour. Without seeing how her communication flips so quickly from outrage to sexual flirtation and how easily she taunts and controls marinsniper despite his consistent warnings that he is close to the edge, it would be hard to believe that she was guilty of anything other than meeting an unstable man online. But he certainly deserves jail time; nothing warrants this kind of cold blooded killing. Access to Mary herself would have made this a better film, but the position that the filmmaker has taken implies that was always unlikely. To get coverage including the "other" side of the story, which is always more interesting, a more neutral hand was necessary. Films like The Act of Killing (2012) or Jesus Camp (2006) require the filmmaker to hold a real position of neutrality, and stomach some very difficult moments, to allow the issues to bring themselves to the fore.

7 / 10

Hopefully by now you have already seen the film, but if you need more incentive here is the trailer:

How well do you pick up on subtle pressure? Can you identify indirect implications? For decades characters in some films with subtly gay characteristics were identified as dangerous, ridiculed, abused and often righteously killed off. And for decades in OTHER films, gay themes were unknowingly and subtly incorporated positively into hugely successful films and plays without the audience, and even the actors, realizing. Through this film, it plays out like a battle in cinematic history between widespread negative views of homosexuality and the increasingly vocal impact of gay and sympathetic filmmakers.

The most poignant examples are Rebel without a Cause and Ben-Hur. In the former, the young Plato idolises the exciting and adventurous Jim (James Dean). His character is doomed to be shot by police, sabotaged by the empty gun that Jim has given him. His corpse then provides the foil for the heterosexual Jim to be reunited with his parents and to introduce his new girlfriend. The implication for a gay teenager watching is the boy gets the girl, and the gay character is doomed.

In the latter, Gore Vidal, a screenwriter for Ben Hur, created a backstory of a romantic relationship between the two male protagonists to exaggerate their falling out - a romantic relationship that one was keen to rekindle, and the other, Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) was not. However, due to his own sensitivities, Heston himself was not told. Once you are aware of this, the impact bleeds through the screen. Stephen Boyd, who plays the aspiring former lover plays it brilliantly. Heston is a perfect foil, aloof but receptive, and clearly didn't need to know of the subtext.

Having been told of this manipulation, Heston was furious, and fundamentally denied Vidal had the influence he claimed. A letter exchange began between him and Vidal via the LA Times. The whole exchange can be read here.

For me, the real value of this documentary is that it draws out how many levels are possible within very ordinary mainstream entertainment. Homosexuality has been so repressed within popular culture for such a long time that the potential for subtle portrayals, both positive and negative, are easy to miss. And the impact of these subtle implications can be extreme to those already in a vulnerable position and well placed to pick up on them. Young people growing up and discovering they are gay are regularly told by implication how abnormal and dangerous their sexuality is. Or alternatively, they are able to pickup on hints that they are not alone, and there may be places they can live as themselves. Over time cinema has become much welcoming to ordinary homosexual characters, but even films with leading men playing homosexuals commonly have tragic themes, such as Brokeback Mountain. TV perhaps finds the process easier, with Modern Family featuring gay married characters leading normal lives, while occasionally facing prejudice. In this instance the characters exhibiting prejudice are the ones ridiculed, and subsequently either "turned" or left in the cold.

Anti gay and lesbian themes are largely gone from mainstream TV and film, whether explicit or implicit. But it is still rare for a film to feature the girl getting the girl, or openly gay actors headlining in straight roles, especially in films targeted at children. Society is likely worse for it as sexual confusion can prevail and have all manner of other negative impacts. This is an eye opening documentary which will mean I won't be able to see many films in the same light again. Its like finally being let in on the joke!

7 / 10

Usually I post a trailer, but in this instance the whole documentary is on Youtube! Certainly worth watching:

Some of the best documentary films ever made are available online for free right now. Not on some illegal stream or on a virus ridden piracy site but on youtube or dailymotion. This is my pick of the best of the bunch! But remember, it is harder and harder to finance quality independent films, in particular documentaries which have limited marketability. So if you love something, buy it and keep it forever.

(6) Pumping Iron (1977)

Schwarzenegger's breakthrough film competing for his sixth successive Mr Olympia title. But its fascinating also for the mind games which reveal the vulnerability of some of the biggest and strongest men ever. Kick started a huge the fitness craze as well as our hero's career. Also features his comparison of weightlifting to sex, his cannabis smoking and his attitude towards women which almost derailed his bid for California Governor.

(5) Religulous (2008) [embedded links to this video don't seem to work, but it is there!]

Perhaps the classic case of preaching to the converted, and alienating those that you hope to persuade. But Bill Maher's ambitious attempt to spread his message of "New Atheism" as far as possible is entertaining and smart, as long as you are not easily offended. And his willingness to engage with as wide a range as possible including a former Satanist, a holocaust denying rabbi and celebrated Christian scientist and Presidential Medal of Freedom winner Francis Collins is highly commendable.

(4) Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1981)

Nobel physicist and co-nuclear bomb creator Richard Feynman shares his life experiences and his views on how much pleasure he gets from learning and teaching. Not the slickest documentary ever produced; for many its an introduction to fuzzy 1980s British television! But his articulate communication and careful introspection have been an inspiration for several generations.

(3) Fog of War (2003)

Errol Morris uses his interrotron interview device to extract a quasi-confessional from Robert McNamara, widely known as the architect of the Vietnam War. The amount he is willing to give up and the degree that he can relate to his audience now stands in stark contrast to Donald Rumsfeld's confusing and contradictory performance in Morris' non-sequel the Unknown Known (2013). Its an eye opening experience and will make it hard for you to see political decision makers or warfare in the same light again.

(2) When We Were Kings (1996)

Muhammad Ali, perhaps the greatest ever heavyweight, faces George Foreman in the Rumble in the Jungle in Zaire with the backdrop of racial and religious tension in USA. Ali at his poetic and fighting prime and Foreman playing the lumbering, silent villain perfectly. This is a absolute stone cold classic.

(1) Dear Zachary (2008)

In my opinion, one of the best documentaries ever. One that will chew you up and spit you out, leaving you with absolute admiration for the Bagbies. No spoilers! Go watch it!

Access is the key to a great documentary. Greg Whiteley followed Mitt and his family through the primary campaign in 2008, won my John McCain, and the presidential campaign in 2012. He is in the room for the successes and the failures and many of the strategy discussions and debate preparations. While ultimately doomed to fail, Mitt's focus and determination, as well as closeness to his family and genuine nice-guy personality comes across throughout. Also the intense pressures of the campaign trail, in particular on his wife, are very obvious. Its interesting that the main comparator, the excellent The War Room (2003) which follows Clinton's first campaign, has much less access to the candidate himself focusing more on the campaign staff. This is less a political study and more a biopic of a steely, if somewhat bland, competitor and his family going through the pain and judgement of a doomed Presidential run.

Much of the commentary on the film has focused on his lack of coverage of some of the big controversies. In particular Mitt's reluctance to admit the appallingly low rate of tax he pays as compared to the country average. Also some of his most quoted outtakes "Let Detroit go bankrupt" and " I like firing people". There is, however, considerable coverage of his win in the first debate, when Obama seemed disinterested and passive. Did Whiteley spend too much time with the candidate and find himself unable to express the political cleavages effectively? Or did he decide that this was more about the man and less about politics. To me, though, I think he simply decided that other issues were more interesting. He doesn't shy away from the 47% quote which was truly devastating, or from the weak debate execution of the Benghazi incident. The coverage of those incidents is entirely open, though without passing judgement on them directly.

For me the most interesting moment follows McCain's primary victory when Mitt is commiserating with his sons. They agree that this is, sadly, how the Republican party works. McCain had lost out to Bush last time, that's why he won this time ... it was his turn. Very sad for Mitt. But then his son points out *ting*, you know what that means? Dad, you are next! You can see the realisation dawning across Mitt's face. He doesn't smile, he just knows. For anyone out there wanting to know how the establishment works, this is it! No great conspiracy, just a large number of people with common aims coming to a fairly predictable conclusion. In some ways its surprising that it took them this long to realise. Most likely thats because this is the family, rather than the advisors who are discussing it. I don't think his chief of staff would be confused about the hierarchy of the Republican party.

For me access to the advisers, while less prestigious, is more interesting. Its also more risky for the candidate as its less about the niceties of moral support and more about getting their hands dirty. Perhaps that's why Clinton was featured so rarely in his film.

Romney himself describes how in American politics, losing a presidential election makes you a loser for like. He laughs at how Dukakis cannot get a job mowing lawns now. But living the downside is perhaps more real than he expected. He discusses how though he has already felt the pain of defeat, each new person he sees has not and tends to breakdown when they see him. They haven't had a chance to mourn until they meet him, and therefore each new friendly commiseration results in him re-living the loss.

War Room it is not, but its still a fascinating film and full of insight into how candidates lives through elections nowadays. Access to advisors and strategy would have made it much more interesting, though I wonder whether their depth is weaker than Clinton's staff anyway. Certainly the two major gaffes from this film were entirely avoidable. Could Mitt's staff's caliber simply have been inadequate to compete?

6 / 10

Alec Baldwin and James Toback (best known to me as the director of Tyson (2008) ) are talented, experienced filmmakers looking to make a new film. Not a piece of fluff, not an action blockbuster, but something special and unique, something artistic. They just need the money ... so how do they get it? The uninitiated may think this happens all the time. Oscar winner Baldwin just calls his buddies. But in reality fund raising is harder than making the film, much harder. Funding films is not a good way to make money, but the best way to do so is to take something that already made money and do it again. The name of the game is sequels or funding bankable stars who are only as good as their last box office take. Baldwin, and his suggested costar Neve Campbell, are not in that category. Baldwin's now a TV actor, no? And Neve is almost elderly at 40. This documentary follows the two protagonists as they trawl Cannes for cash and for the opportunity to make art.

The approach billionaires and millionaires on yachts. They approach more bankable stars, partly to interview them for the documentary and partly to ask if they want a role in the film to help attract financing. Ryan Gosling is probably the biggest of these stars, and its interesting how his name even features the most prominently on the poster above. They meet a young man who wants to be an actor, and comes form a rich family. Can he buy his way into stardom? Baldwin and Toback sell, sell, sell and discuss with various grandees (Scorsese, Coppola, Polanski) how bad the market is today for financing films. Piracy has had its take, but also TV shows (where the "serious acting" now takes place), and the inflation in the cost to make the films in the first place. There are the same number of people looking for roles, but now much fewer seats.

More than anything I think its a remarkably honest and humble view of what happens when talented people get squeezed by forces beyond their control. They have both been here before and know the system, they understand that rejection is part of the process. They also understand that given the type of film they envisage which is essentially an Iraq based remake of the sexually explicit Last Tango in Paris, they may also get laughed at, and will have to hold their noses as they are asked to compromise artistically. But since making films like this is who they are, and part of their life's work, there is no point stopping. More than that, they are happy to film their embarrassment and repeated reminders that they might not be the people that they wish they were. As a result, I don't think it is embarassing. Quite the opposite, it shows how well they know and understand themselves and the position they are in.

There is something noble about the cause of pursuing artwork for the sake of art and dealing with the moneymen to get there. Orson Welles is regularly quoted as someone who may have made 10 more incredible films if he had the money on tap, as perhaps stars from certain other generations did. On the other hand, their pitch-work to get access to the money they need is poorly focused and contains as its central theme the idea that this is something for which the funder "will be remembered". They may as well explicitly say that they will lose money.

As far as Im aware the film itself has not been funded. Sadly, Alec Baldwin himself recently used a gay slur to abuse a photographer, leading to his new MSNBC talkshow being cut after 4 shows. It will do very little for either his bankability or his box office pull, so the film may well never get made. But this is a great insight into how the process works. Its clear that films fail to get there for many reasons, but often nothing to do with the quality of the movie. Rather its a process of intense and widespread networking, and track record, track record, track record. Its still probably not as messy as making laws or sausages.

6 / 10

Restrepo (2010)

Mr. Death The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (1999)

The Aristocrats (2005)

The Tillman Story (2010)

TT3D Closer to the Edge (2011)

We Are Legion The Story of the Hacktivists (2012)

Darwin (2011)

Blackfish (2013)

Winter Soldier (1972)

Mike Tyson: Undisputed Truth (2013)

Riding Giants (2004)

Interview With A Cannibal (2007)

Bill Cunningham New York (2010)

Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in The House of God (2012)

Pumping Iron (1977)

Talhotblonde (2009)

The Celluloid Closet (1995)

The 6 Best Documentaries You Can Watch Online For Free!

Mitt (2014)

Seduced and Abandoned (2013)