New York Film Critics Circle
ADD, 12:45p: Ebiri reports the inside poop –
A brief silence. Then, the voice of Rex Reed.
“So that’s it.”
Pause.
“The best film of 2006.”
Pause.
“According to the New York Film Critics Circle.”
Pause.
“Is UNITED 93.”
Long, uncomfortable pause, plus some tittering.
“A film that no one in America wanted to see.”
Leah Rozen: “And how did you vote, Rex?”
This reminds us that critics are human too and not just hearts beating for the quality of film, no?
======================================
The ever enterprising Bilge Ebiri has someone Blackerrying him the awards to the moment… (updating as they come)
Best Picture
United 93
Runners-up: The Queen, The Departed
Best Director
Martin Scorsese, THE DEPARTED
(Runners-up: Stephen Frears, THE QUEEN, Clint Eastwood, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA)
Best First Film
Half Nelson
(Runners-up: Little Miss Sunshine, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints)
Best Actress
Helen Mirren, THE QUEEN
(Runners-up: Judi Dench, NOTES ON A SCANDAL, Meryl Streep, THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA)
Best Actor
Forest Whitaker, THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND
(Runners-up: Ryan Gosling, HALF NELSON, Sacha Baron Cohen, BORAT)
Best Foreign Film
Army of Shadows
(Runners-up: Volver, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu)
Best Documentary
Deliver Us From Evil
(Runners-up: 49 Up, Borat, An Inconvenient Truth)
Best Animated Film
Happy Feet
(Runners-up: A Scanner Darkly, Cars)
Best Supporting Actor
Jackie Earle Haley, LITTLE CHILDREN
(Runners-up: Eddie Murphy, DREAMGIRLS, Steve Carell, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE)
Best Supporting Actress
Jennifer Hudson, DREAMGIRLS
(Runners-up: Shareeka Epps, HALF NELSON, Catherine O’Hara, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION)
Best Screenplay
The Queen
(Runners-up: The Departed, Little Miss Sunshine)
Best Cinematography:
Pan’s Labyrinth
(Runners-up: Curse of the Golden Flower, Children of Men)
Borat for documentary? That’s… interesting.
Kazakhstan is going to be up in arms.
I’m surprised at the support for United 93, I think it is a great movie but I didn’t expect this many early wins.
i had always felt that U93 was the most powerful film i’d seen in years (and was always curious by MCN’s lack of support), i just thought it would fall through the cracks at award time. this is great news. i don’t think the foreign press guys will give it much thought, though.
It sure makes it seem like the hurdle with United 93 is that no one wants to see it. Critics have all seen it because they have to.
“no one wants to see it”
i have always found that attitude toward the film to be so bizzare. sometimes people echo media talking points more than their own feelings. the movie is amazingly intense, but undeniably inspiring. Stephen King in EW made a good point about the critics and entertainment writers that kept saying it was “too soon” or “unbearable to watch.” he concluded that those reviews infantilized the American public. i think he’s right. in an era when multi-millions of viewers watched Christ being beaten and mutilated for 2 hours and HOSTEL tops the box office, the “i can’t watch it” argument for U93 doesn’t hold up.
I don’t know if it’s “I can’t watch it” so much as “I don’t want to watch it.”
A lot of people go to the movies for escapism, even if that escapism involves people’s eyes being ripped out or whatever depravity Apocalypto inficts on the audience. They can handle that sort of stuff because it’s not real.
United 93 (which I loved) is perfectly and horribly REAL. It’s the opposite of escape. That’s why many people just don’t want to watch it.
I think it would be great if these early awards can turn into a Best Picture nod for U93. I wouldn’t bet on it though.
I can’t watch it because it’s boring and poorly made.
Army of Shadows. Is that the Melville film from 1969? I can’t wait for that to screen here in Toronto, but it seems like a few years too late for awards notice…
I, for one, am incredibly pleased to see United 93 getting the attention it deserves. And what better critics group to bestow their highest honor upon it than the prestigious NYFCC! I’m not sure it’s enough to guarantee a nod for Best Pic come Oscar time, but for now I’ll just take solace in the knowledge that some people still remember this fantastic film that came out so early in the year.
For the record, I love fun, escapist fare as well. Borat is probably still my current #1 film for the year, followed closely by United 93 and The Departed. Of course, I have yet to see some of the big, late-season heavyhitters.
Glad to see U93 getting noticed. It is, for all intents and purposes the best film of the year.
Although Borat as Best Documentary nomination should peraps at least make people understand that the definition of documentary has been so skewed in the past decade by radicals with agendas, that the term has been rendered meaningless.
Now to be clear, I do not say Borat is a radical film…but that it can be considered by a serious critics group as a documentary means the word has lost any respectable meaning.
I’m glad it was nominated. Perhaps we can start a discussion…what is a documentary?
One could argue that parts of Borat are a documentary about how people react to a racist, sexist and otherwise offensive foreigner in their midst.
However, other parts of the film are clearly pure fiction and it should not be considered a documentary.
The Queen makes use of a lot of TV footage from the week after Diana’s death, but the inclusion of some non-fiction material doesn’t make a movie a ducmentary.
I asked this once before, but nobody took me up on it.
I’d like somebody to make a serious case as to why they think United 93 is such a good movie.
My personal opinion has been that people aren’t reacting to the movie, so much as they’ve allowed it to manipulate pre-developed emotions.
So, aside from the “emotion,” please make the case for this as the great movie it’s been hailed as.
Back to Borat, the category is Best Non-Fiction Film. It’s beginning to make sense.
Nicol, every filmmaker, whether they are making a narrative feature or documentary, has an agenda. I would imagine that is what interests one enough to delve into a subject in the first place. The idea of a completely objective documentary is ludicrous.
What really should be discussed is “who (and what) is a radical?” Now clearly you’re including outspoken liberals like Michael Moore and Robert Greenwald , but would you extend that same label to someone like Errol Morris, who I thought portrayed Robert McNamara in a very balanced light? How about the people trying to expose pedophiles in the Catholic Church? Given your steadfast defense in the past of that questionably-respectable institution, do you think Amy Berg’s Deliver Us From Evil is just radical rabble-rousing?
What makes a documentary?
1. Is it the fact that it is shot on grainy video with low production values?
2. How much manipulation of subject matter through editing or other can one allow before one is no longer documenting but affecting the outcome?
3. Should a documentarian at least aspire to being neutral?
4. What is the fine, but definite line between a passionate documentarian who believes in a cause and a manipulative film-maker who churns out propaganda?
I’m not going to say Borat is not a documentary. Obviously plenty of people think it is. But what then does that say about the word documentary. I think it says a lot and true cinema fans should discuss it.
Lazarus,
I’m not going to take your bait. I have not mentioned any individuals or film titles.
I would just like to talk about the nuance between being passionate and producing propaganda. Being interested in a subject and wanting to manipulate its outcome. I think it is a worthwhile discussion that the inclusion of Borat has opened up.
This is a question about film genre, not politics. The fact that so many contemporay documentaries a political is incidental.
I think it says that you don’t understand what a documentary is, Nicol.
Is Borat ‘Non-Fiction’?
So Borat is a real news reporter?
Devin,
Then tell me.
United 93 took an incredibly tragic historical event and retold it without the manipulative techniques that often sap and bog down such fare. Greengrass is a masterful director, as he proved twice prior in Bloody Sunday and Bourne Supremacy (one of the decade’s finest action pics).
If people argue that audiences who love U93 are simply moved by the events themselves, then why was I far less enthusiastic about WTC? I rate all films based on how well they achieve their own goals (and I don’t mean agendas). In other words, the film Dazed and Confused might be about little more than Texas teengers in the mid01970s getting stoned and driving around town, but it’s still one of the best movies of the 1990s. Why? Because it realized its goals and limitations and played them out damn near perfectly. U93 took on a much larger, more controversial moment in American history, and it stripped away all the pretensions and conventions that should have made it just another Movie-of-the-Week.
I don’t know why I’m wasting my lunch break defending a film that’s already beginning to reap its fair share of accolades. But I just can’t stand it when people start assuming that people like serious films like this one simply because it’s expected. I actually loved this movie. As painful and unnerving as it was, I did more than merely admire it. It is a masterstroke of collaboration between unknown actors, smart editing, and subtly precise direction. One of the year’s few “great” films, in my opinion.
I don’t think Borat should be deemed non-fiction or a documentary, but it is a wonderful, hilarious movie.
However, I do think that all documentaries are manipulated at least somewhat by their makers. Unless you want to film a man in a chair for 100 minutes, you have to impose some edits on the footage at the very least. If we start claiming people like Michael Moore (or the vastly superior Errol Morris) are having too much impact on their subjects to be considered documentarians, then we need to abandon the category altogether. Because in this day and age, no studio is going to fund a 2-hour, single take of an Eskimo family snuggling.
Documentaries are just non-fiction films. Period. NANOOK OF THE NORTH, considered the first “important” documentary, is full of staged shots and situations. The Eskimos harpoon a walrus in the film when in reality they would have used a gun.
Further, documentaries have no implicit rule against editorializing – I dare you to find a doc that DOESN’T take a point of view. If you find one, I guarantee it’s a bad documentary, since the form is still based on narrative. Life doesn’t have narrative all by itself – the filmmaker must impose structure and meaning on what is captured by the camera.
Quite purely, anything unscripted with true reactions is documentary. CANDID CAMERA is documentary. BORAT has documentary elements ,although it could be argued that it has an equal amount of non-doc footage.
People treat documentaries like they’re some sort of holy form that must not be defiled; it’s ridiculous and short sighted. Errol Morris included re-enactments in THE THIN BLUE LINE, Barbara Kopple got personally involved in the strike in HARLAN COUNTY, USA. Hell, just the very act of filming someone doing something changes the very dynamics of what that person is doing. You seem to be arguing that the only real documentary would be an unedited torrent of footage from hidden cameras. I believe they have sites like that on the web, but I doubt you would call “Sorority Slut Webcam House” a documentary.
About UNITED 93, people here have said,
***”no one wants to see it”
***I don’t know if it’s “I can’t watch it” so much as “I don’t want to watch it.”
***It sure makes it seem like the hurdle with United 93 is that no one wants to see it. Critics have all seen it because they have to.***
As for AMPAS, that’s the reason Brokeback Mountain lost the bp award last year. Homophobia. Several academy members went on record saying they “refused” or “didn’t care to” watch it. I, myself, had an intense desire NOT to see Little Chiildren, but I “did” and think it one of the year’s best films. It’s a good thing there ARE film critics who HAVE to see films and bring ones to the attention of people who might have some problem with certain films and might see them and discover their true worth, not perceived worth.
You should have to defend it. For me, every reason you just gave is false. I found the movie completely manipulative. From the choice of handheld to the crazed performances of the terrorists to the myth-making of the passengers achieving a Pyrrhic victory by breaching the cabin.
I found Greengrass’ directorial strategy made the film monotonous and boring. And I think he’s become a hack director by directing each of his films with the same uninspired shaky-cam soundbytes. When I saw Sunday at the NYFF 4 years ago, I suggested this was the movie Black Hawk Down wished it could’ve been. Now, I think he’s made a movie just as bad as Blackhawk.
This movie wasn’t realistic. Handheld is not realistic. It’s as manipulative a strategy as using a killer’s POV in a horror film. I will still point to a movie like Dog Day Afternoon as being a pretty perfect reinactment — the camera is unobtrusive, it depicts the people as clumsy, and furthmore it understands that humor can be found through absurdity in any situation.
Devin nailed it. Film criticism 101.
I think handheld is pretty effective at making the viewer feel like part of the action, as opposed to an observer of it.
Also, what did you find “crazed” about the performance of the terrorists? First, let’s aside the fact that there were men willing to fly themselves into a building in the name of religion (which makes them crazed pretty much by definition). I found their depiction very human, considering the level of their villainy.
The whole point of their fanaticism is that they should have confidence — a sense of peace about fulfilling their destiny — not these jittery, sweaty jerks. They’re not crazy. They’re human beings who make decisions like everybody else.
mutinyco thought U93 had too few yuks!
Devin,
I have not set to define documentary at all. I just wanted to open a discussion as to what one was. I thank you for your response.
So let me understand…
You say a documentary:
1) Can have plenty of editorializing (ie. opinion not necessarily fact)
2) Can have plenty of staged shots and fabricated or scripted situations
3) Will have a narrative imposed on it by the film-maker him/herself. In other words, it might not be true in an empirical sense.
4) Allen Funt was a documentarian
Again, I do not want to put words in your mouth, but what you seem to be saying is that people should be aware that when they watch a film under the genre of ‘documentary’, it will most likely contain fabrications, opinions, scripted scenarios and sequences that might not in any way reflect reality or that elusive concept of ‘truth’.
Is this what I am to understand you are saying?
Do you personally differentiate from documentary or propaganda?
Nicely written, Devin, and mutinyco, I admire your thoughtful defense of a position that many around here are going to strongly disagree with. Personally, I don’t consider United 93 to be art, precisely because it tries so hard to be legitimately “real”. Where’s the creativity involved? Sure, be moved by it, give credit to the believablity of the acting (people mostly playing a bunch of anonymous nobodies), recognize Greengrass’ ability to create tension without being gimmicky, but I ask again–where is the vision?
The question you have to ask is that if 9/11 never happened, would people love this film at face value? Something tells me no.
As for Nicol D, you want to discuss the difference between a passionate documentary and propaganda, but you refuse to delineate where you personally feel that line is. I think it’s essential to have examples to gauge the location of that distinction. We all know where you stand politically, let’s hear how much your politics cloud your judgement of classification.
It’s difficult to keep politcs out of it, and though you say it’s incidental that many big docs these days are political, surely we don’t need to have a discussion about whether or not Winged Migration or Microcosmos or March of the Penguins are being made by radicals with agendas.
All of those things are true.
A documentarian will shoot hundreds, if not thousands of hours of footage. What he chooses to cut into his two hour movie, in what order, at what length, etc – these are ALL editorial choices. It is literally impossible to make a movie that includes editing without imposing a point of view. Even two hours of unedited footage have a point of view imposed in terms of when the camera was turned on and off.
Yes, Allen Funt was a documentarian. Yes, SURVIVOR is pretty much a documentary. There can low brow as well as high brow docs.
As for propaganda vs doc… TRIUMPH OF THE WILL is both.
Dear mutinyco:
Might I propose that the very thing that is great about UNITED 93 is that it is only incidentally a film about 9/11:
http://www.laweekly.com/film+tv/film/in-flight-movie/13303/
Lazarus,
Just tring to keep politics out of it actually. Everyone seems to agree with Devin that a documentary can be staged, fabricated and scripted.
If this is true, where is the line drawn between documentary and fiction.
Devin quite adamantly wrote
“Documentaries are just non-fiction films. Period.”
But…aren’t fabrications, staged situations and scripted encounters hallmarks of fiction?
When does a documentary become fiction. Is Borat the same level of documentary as Errol Morris?
Is Chris Guest a documentarian if his actors give ‘authentic reactions’ to scripted scenarios?
Devin,
If Trimph of the Will is propaganda, where is the line where one becomes the other for you?
“Is Chris Guest a documentarian if his actors give ‘authentic reactions’ to scripted scenarios?
Posted by: Nicol D”
Not if they’re giving reactions in character. If Christopher Guest threw a dart at Eugene Levy and just filmed his reaction, yes, that would be documentary footage.
As for a line between propaganda and doc? It’s like obscenity – I know it when I see it. But it generally comes down to a shameless twisting of truth. A good example is the Michael Moore “happy kite flying Iraqis” scene in F911.
If the purpose of your film is to advocate one position or argue against one position, and you don’t give any time or attention to the opposite argument, then you have propaganda.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda. Moore even admitted his goal with that film was to lose the election for Bush.
Capturing the Friedmans is not propaganda. You can come out of that film feeling a crime was or wasn’t committed, sympathizing or not sympathizing with the main character.
Loose Change (is that the title? the 9/11 conspiracy movie?) is propaganda. It presents none of the evidence disputing its claims.
The Fog of War is not propaganda. Morris certainly had opinions about MacNamara’s actions and about the war today, but he didn’t present them to the exclusion of all other ideas.
Personally, I am somewhere between the two extremes on U93. I don’t think it’s a great film, but I do think it is a very well made film. The bottom line, I think, is that it really is a critics
Is anyone suprised by the lack of love Children of Men has gotten whatsoever? It’s one of the best pictures of the year in my book…
wholovesya: it was the most tragic thing about my little underdog critic group awards meeting. I felt like most people hadn’t even seen it.
I don’t understand the characterization of “dry emotionlessness” in “93”. The film isn’t gratuitously manipulative, like WTC, but I can’t recall a film that produced such a galvanic response from an audience. I’ve shown the film twice to large crowds of (largely jaded)college students, and there wasn’t a dry eye in the house, something I haven’t seen in the last 8 years I’ve been screening films… though I agree that convincing folks (including Academy members) to see the film might be a problem.
Devin,
Your definition of ‘documentary’ is in fact the same as my own and it is why I put such little stock in the genre outside of entertainment.
The problem is, most people do not understand that ‘documentary’ does include large license, fabrications, scriptings and a heaping dosage of editorialization as opposed to fact.
I meant it when I said I do not want this thread to be political, but I do hope that more people reading this thread will keep this discussion in mind the next time they see a doc on political party/religion/environmental issue xyz before assuming all the information given to them is true or correct.
Docs are op/ed pieces. Too many people see them as much more. The most extreme of them are propaganda.
You were right when you said many documentarians shoot thousands of hours of footage and then frame the story. The type of person who would do this on any subject is usually not a moderate.
I also am glad Borat was nominated. I hope it gets nominated for Best Documentary Oscar also.
It so clearly is fabricated…so clearly not anything resembling truth, that it will force the public to reconsider the types of documentaries that they have been getting as of late since the genre has become more popularized.
Cohen seems to be blowing holes in a lot of sacred cows this fall…perhaps even unintentionally. It will be interesting to see what the affect of Borat is (if any) ten years down the line.
All hail Borat!
That really sucks for Linklater and A Scanner Darkly, huh? Was it that hard for Sarris to spit out a third choice?
I guess the critics’ love for Miller overwhelmed what would have been a very brave choice for Animated Film, and perhaps given ASD the boost it needed to contend for the Oscar.
I would imagine it’s a lost cause now.
I think we have a simple case of mixing modes.
Non-fiction and fiction are types of stories. Propaganda refers to the ways those stories are told. Just as there are propaganda documentaries, there are clearly propaganda fictional films. It is a thin line on both ends.
To add: since so much of our media today consists of propaganda (i.e. advertising), I think people are more willing to take stock in documentary/reality shows (visual imagery) as fact. They’ve been trained to do so.
Nicol, speaking as someone who has worked on documentaries: _Every_ documentary filmmaker shoots at least hundreds, if not thousands, of hour of footage. Every editor ‘frames the story’ because that is what editing is. And not all of those people are ‘radical’.
Meanwhile, back to the subject at the top of the page: As far as I’m concerned, if Rex Reed is upset about something I had voted for, that would be a huge vindication for me. As a critic, he’s a relic and a joke.
Mutinyco: it doesn’t sound like any defense of United 93 would satisfy you, even a well-written one. I’ll try again: it’s a realistic film filmed in an unadorned, unselfconscious manner that attempts to put the viewer ‘there’ and I believe, succeeds magnificently; and furthermore, achieves a kind of existential grace by capturing a sense of empathy for all involced.
I can understand if it doesn’t work for you. You can’t satisfy all the people all the time. But if it does work for other people, eventually you just kind of have to let it rest.
How and why is BORAT in the Docu category? That is just flat out dumb. Do these people think he’s actually real?
I’m assuming Richard Nash hasn’t bothered to read any of the other comments on this thread. His loss…this is the most interesting, civil discussion I’ve seen on here in a while.
Calling Borat a Documentary or Non-Fiction film is beyond ridiculous, when the main character if fictitiuos and the main character’s love interest is playing herself in a fictitious role. I mean, please…what a joke…
I love Borat, but it’s a comedy – a mocumentary at best – but calling it a documentary is just a slap in the face to real documentarians everywhere…again, what a joke.
It’s not surprising that UNITED 93 won a film award in NYC, but I’m with all those who think the film is tedious, manipulative, and truly boring. Easily the most overrated film of the year…
“And Borat really isn
Borat is a special case, because normally I’d say there’s a clear division between something meant as entertainment and a documentary, which is made to inform.
The question with Borat is, are we just supposed to laugh at everything, or are we supposed to learn something about the American public by the way they react to Borat’s antics? Because those reactions are real. And I think underneath the audience’s laughter there’s a whole lot of “I can’t believe people are actually like this” that’s unsettling and deeper than a simple gag reel.
Of course, all the wholly scripted stuff in the film (which is a bit unnecessary, as we don’t need any background on Borat to flesh out what isn’t meant to be a real person) is totally fictitious and nowhere near documentary. So the whole thing is really a hybrid.
If the critics loved the film so much, they could have easily given it best picture, where a label or category is unneeded. But clearly they didn’t have the balls to go there–what they preferred to do is spit in the face of the real documentarians just to stir things up a little. And yet, they voted still went safe with Happy Feet.
A critics group naming the corporate-funded cash cow Borat Best Documentary (with so many truly worthy docs out there struggling for a tiny slice of recognition) is the ultimate comment on the state of film criticism today. Enjoy your “awards”!
Question: is Medium Cool considered documentary? The first 2/3 of the movie is straight fiction, while the last 1/3 is Haskell Wexler filming real footage of the 1968 Democratic convention.
In my opinion, it’s clearly a fictional film, in much the same way that Borat is.
Guys, they named Borat a runner-up, not winner. They’re still supporting the very underseen Deliver Us From Evil.
Good point, JeffMCM. But still!!!!!
Gosh, I wish I’d liked United 93 as much as most people here seem to. But to me, it paled next to Greengrass’ Bloody Sunday, and the “respectful” sketch characterizations of the victims felt like a cop out.
They weren’t respectful of the allegedly cowardly German guy, and they’ve taken some licks for it.
I saw the movie when it first opened in April, and for the life of me I don’t remember a “cowardly German guy”.
I’m a little upset by this prediction, but I bet Jackie Earl haley gets the only nod for “Little Children”. which is a shame it’s such a good movie.
Helen Mirren, and Jennifer Hudson seem to be unstoppable (even though it is early).
my first prediction: Dreamgirls, Scorsese, Smith, Mirren, Hudson, Eddie Murphy.
(spoilers)
There’s one passenger on the plane who’s a German businessman who urges that everyone just do as the terrorists say and cooperate and when the uprising begins, he freaks out and the other passengers squelch him. The real-life guy’s family has taken offense at this portrayal.
The real-life guy’s family, if I recall, is among the survivors who did not cooperate in the research for the movie, which led bloggers, including Anthony Kaufman, to call ‘foul.’ A collection of links from folks angry about the treatment of the “German” character is here: The movie “United 93” shows how American heroes take on the hijackers
“They’re still supporting the very underseen Deliver Us From Evil.”
I was glad to see that. I loved that movie and I hoped it would get more support in our group, too (there were a lot of great runner ups including The War Tapes and The Ground Truth)… I was kind of surprised that Lionsgate didn’t send out more screeners of Deliver Us. In past years, they were really good about sending out their movies. I still remember the great box sets they sent in past years.
The Kaufman link above is broken; the “here” link is correct.
If United 93 does get nominated, the entire Academy will be forced to see it. And it will win. Watch.
Hudson, Hudson, Hudson. If she does ride this critical wave all the way and actually wins the S.A. award– hell, even if she’s just nominated– is there an actual, you know, chance she’ll ever do anything worthwhile again?
I’m sure she’s splendid and can certainly belt it out, and this role is tailor-made, but, but, but…. is she an ACTRESS, or just a singer who’s locked into the one thoroughly perfect role she’ll ever have?
Supporting Actress in particular is a category where the Academy and crix like to go with a nice success story, but does J-HUD really have a second movie in her? A second performance? That she should be in the esteemed company of actual, you know, ACTRESSES with a long and accomplished body of work? I seem to have this same issue every Oscar season, and usually in this category, when a Keisha Castle-Hughes or a Catalina Santino Moreno or an Anna Paquin or Haley Joel Osment somehow find themselves alongside esteemed competition like Cate Blanchett and Kate Winslet.
The guy is only cowardly in hindsight – the actions he advocated were, before 9/11, the textbook way to handle a hijacking. Context is everything.
LexG: why does that matter? It’s about who gave the best performance this year, isn’t it?
Devin might be shocked to learn tha documentaries are in fact scripted…it’s a different formatting, much like news telecasts, two columns, video on one side, audio on the other.
FYI.
In any case, Borat is far from a doc. If the guy were real, sure. But he’s a character. It isn’t rocket science.
Let’s take a step back…is documentary a filmmaking technique or does it actually in any way refer to the content? If it’s a technique (ie editing raw unscripted footage into a narrative), then I think Borat is one. If it’s a reference to content (ie must be dealing in non-fictional characters and situations), then Borat is not.
Any takers?
It has to refer to content. Editing unscripted content would bring Christopher Guest movies under that umbrella.
If Sacha Baron Cohen was travelling the country and asking people questions, it would be a documentary. But since Borat is the one doing it, it’s not, although it is in a grey area.
Tapley, I am not sure what you’re saying there. I don’t think a documentary is scripted like a feature is, ie, there’s a script at the beginning (except for LETHAL WEAPON 4). There may be an outline in advance of what the documentarian wants to show or discuss, but that’s not a script. When footage has been shot and is being assembled there may be a script to create a cohesive narrative out of the sheer amount of stuff. But they are not scripted. I have interviewed dozens of documentarians, and the same thing comes up again and again – how they found the story while shooting.
Keisha Castle-Hughes
Catalina Santino Moreno
Anna Paquin
Haley Joel Osment
All of these people (well, I can’t speak for Hughes, having not see Nativity) went on to do very good work in other films. So your theory seems to be unfounded based on the examples you gave.
And all of them were excellent in the films for which they were nominated, which is the only consideration when nominating a performance in a given year.
I more often have the opposite problem — the Academy rewarding somebody for a good-not-great performance because he/she has done so many great things in the past. Six words: Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman.
A Christopher Guest movie isn’t really unscripted – they’re actually plotted in advance. Within the scene there’s improv, but the movie has a story that has been worked out.
“It has to refer to content. Editing unscripted content would bring Christopher Guest movies under that umbrella.”
I think it’s a misnomer to equate improvised acting with unscripted footage. As far as I know, improvisation is often done with certain structural elements involved.
Just like how Borat goes into a scene knowing generally what he’s going to do, but all of his specific dialogue is improvised.
True, but the non-Borat elements are truly unscripted rather than improvised.
jeffmcm: a good documentary interviewer has a plan for his or her questioning as well. A good doc interviewer will have a persona that allows the subjects to react to them in a more relaxed way. In a real doc the subject probably has a better understanding of what will be asked of them than the people in BORAT did.
True, but I would say that since Borat himself is a fictional construction, any situation he is in prevents the scene from being truly non-fictional, as opposed to any given documentary interviewer.
Ultimately I would say it’s all a continuum, from a truly verite-style documentary like a Frederick Wiseman film on one end, to one where the filmmakers get more involved in the lives of their subjects like Grey Gardens, to a staged non-fiction spectacle show like Jackass, to an even more staged movie like Borat. I would say that Borat is on the fiction side of the line, however.
The two column script is a transcription of the final “show” and is a delivery item.
jeffmcm: yeah, in the end I wouldn’t seriously argue that BORAT is a doc, or even a non-fiction, but it is interestingly close to the line.
T Holly: I thought that was what Tapley was talking about, but after he gave me the “Oscar n00b” smackdown in another post, I worried he might know everything about movies.
lazarus:
“Personally, I don’t consider United 93 to be art, precisely because it tries so hard to be legitimately ‘real’. Where’s the creativity involved? Sure, be moved by it, give credit to the believablity of the acting (people mostly playing a bunch of anonymous nobodies), recognize Greengrass’ ability to create tension without being gimmicky, but I ask again–where is the vision?”
The vision lies in the creative decision to keep it real. Creativity isn’t merely about invention; it’s about choosing what to use out of a near-infinite palette of possible ways to frame a story. And Greengrass’s choice is as legitimate as any.
“The question you have to ask is that if 9/11 never happened, would people love this film at face value? Something tells me no.”
Why does that matter? 9/11 happened, and the film can be read in that context. The imagined lack of WWII does not invalidate the power of a WWII flick, because it can be compared to a universal idea of war; just as we can compare United 93 to the universal idea of terrorism.
“How and why is BORAT in the Docu category? That is just flat out dumb. Do these people think he’s actually real?”
Erm, so? If “Michael Moore” were a persona, rather than the real-life personality of Michael Moore, would that invalidate the non-scripted reactions of his interviewees, which are really the point of a documentary?
This is not to say that Borat has no fictional elements. It is a mixture of documentary and fiction; to deny either part would be dogmatic.
WWII films usually have things like screenplays, characters, performances, directorial decisions…
U93 won’t be anywhere 20 years from now. A generation removed from the immediacy of the event won’t leave it with anything — since it doesn’t feature any of those things that keep WWII films afloat.
ok, mutinyco, you hated UNITED 93. you’re getting tiresome.
For my money, I’d love to see the “United 93” version of the events of Pearl Harbor, as opposed to the Michael Bay version.
thank you, mutinyco. It’s hard to verbalize these criticisms without seeming like a cold, unfeeling jerk, but no film is critique-proof. Yes, the great WWII films have stories that require no backstory, or more importantly baggage. You could know nothing about the respective wars and still enjoy something like Bridge on the River Kwai, The Steel Helmet, The Big Red One, The Grand Illusion, All Quiet on the Western Front, The Thin Red Line, etc., because they are showing you something about humanity, and usually through (as mentioned above) character, plot, and/or the visual language of the director. U93 strives for an unfiltered realism, and as a result it’s ALL context. Of course people were crying. Of course the two critics groups that gave it Best Film were from New York and Washington. You think that’s a coincidence? It’s like being surprised that a hypothetical Jewish Film Critics Association was moved by Schindler’s List and gave it their top prize.
“If United 93 does get nominated, the entire Academy will be forced to see it. And it will win. Watch.” Crow T Robot
CTR–Many members of the academy publicly stated they would not watch Brokeback Mountain last year and “didn’t care to.” So don’t assume they will see it, even IF it’s nominated.
Lazarus and Mutinyco, you’re forgetting that the events in all those various WWII movies were not limited to the specific events that United 93 detailsl; hence, it can’t be separated from the true story of that one day. I’m sure that years from now, great movies will be made about the (pointless) Iraq war, but that doesnt’ mean that United 93 isn’t stil a great movie; yes, there is a context that can’t be removed, but that’s true for _every_ movie. And I insist that U93 is a great movie regardless of context because of the timeless way in which it was made. It’s insulting to say that ‘every critics group was from NYC or Washington’. I was in neither place and I think it’s the best movie made all year.
Mutinyco, it’s incredibly hard to have a discussion with you about United 93. Many have tried to tell you why we think the film is great (here and in other threads), but you simply think we’re lying. You don’t just disagree with us (which would be perfectly fine. I doubt we have any qualms about you not liking the film), but you’re not even giving our reasons for liking it a go. You have come to your decision (you hate it blah blah) and you think anybody who disagrees is flatout wrong and their reasons aren’t valid because you say so. So, I think from now, unless you’re willing to actually accept our views and discuss them then it seems silly for any of us to continue discussing United 93 with you.
As Martin was saying, only certain categories need voters to see all five nominees. Categories such as Foreign Language Film and such. But Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Screenplay… well, it’s up to the studio to make sure they see them.
The boundaries of documentary are getting stranger and stranger. I don’t agree with the placement of Borat as a documentary, but in saying that is has definite documentary features. I wrote a big long thing about it but then I realised that what Sasha Baron Cohen does in Borat is just what other documentaries do, it’s just that Cohen does it in a much different way.
The fact that there are many obviously scripted (in the traditional sense, not documentary scripting which is a different area) moments nulls it’s qualifying as a tradition documentary I think. But, as some have said, if Sasha Baron Cohen has merely set out dressed as himself what would we be saying? If he went to a pentecosta (sp?) church, or interviewed those frat boys or whatever else as himself without all the other stuff, then it very well would be classified as a documentary.
And then, to further messy things up, where to documentaries such as Weeping Camel fit into the definition of a documentary?
I don’t hate the movie. But as a member of a small minority, up against a wall of “masterpiece” declarations, you’d better believe my tone is going to be a bit more stringent.
I don’t take the “masterpiece” label lightly. And I don’t see this as standing alongside other masterpieces. There’s absolutely nothing controversial about this movie and what it’s offering the American public. The only controversy is whether it’s too soon for some people to watch.
As for its realistic approach, well, it forfeits that from the opening frames. We know from the very beginning that something bad is on it’s way — and it’s basing its agenda on the audience KNOWING what will come, just not when. And if that context wasn’t enough, the shaky-cam presentation covers the other bases. There’s never any definable everyday reality for the events to invade and take people off-guard.
What makes this fraudulent is that this approach bears no resemblance to how 9/11 actually went down. 9/11 was about a fat, wealthy nation that had become complacent and suddenly got its ass bitten. For half a dozen years before, every international expert on all the talk shows — from Charlie Rose to Meet the Press — was warning us that this was a question of when not if. And nobody paid attention.
The reason this movie’s motives are insincere is because it’s trying to exist within a context (our emotional memories of 9/11), but at the same time it wants to focus solely on this one narrow aspect aspect of the events simply to depict America’s heroism. In doing this, the film offers not reality but myth-making. The events on the plane are conjecture. And by doing this — by giving America what it wants — it’s really no more legitimate than the propagandistic WWII films this country bought into five decades ago. No more legitimate than people’s willing manipulation after these events that took us into Iraq — where more people die each day, day after day, than we lost on U93, and more people die each month, month after month, than we lost on 9/11.
The fact remains, that until a filmmaker has the courage to force America to confront itself there won’t be a great film about 9/11. For now, it’s too sacred.
I agree with mutinyco regarding context.
U93’s strategy is quite simple. It shows us our powerlessness in vivid detail and then shows us one moment perhaps where we exerted our power back. This is not done through character but situation, and without the extraordinary nature of the situation (and our familiarity with it) it loses some power.
All that said, I liked the movie enough despite reservations.
Awesome discussion…and hardly any name calling! The Holiday spirit has taken over MCN!
I have to say though…
Everyone arguing that “true documentaries” wouldn’t have a point of view or wouldn’t editorialize and manipulate images and viewers may be right, but there’s nothing out there that fits this “true documentary” ideal. I’m sure there’s some experimental films that fit this mold, but the stuff that reaches the masses is basically a variation on the manipulative or…storified documentary. I don’t think storified is a word…I mean that the doc is culled from tons of footage to present a cohesive story.
I mean, if there was an argument that some “true” docs were being overlooked we’d have something but it’s like arumentative blue balls trying to compare variations on a standard.
All that being said…BORAT is NOT a doc nor is ROAD TO GUANTANAMO which is nominated for best doc at the indie spirit awards.
Oh-I also liken U93 to CRASH in that it plays on ideals and emotions we already had in our mind and-almost like advertizing-makes us feel good for being so smart and knowing we were right to think what we think.
Although I didn’t hate U93 as much as I hated CRASH.
Martin, I think if they can sit through Schindler’s, they can surely manage U93. What made Brokeback so “uncomfortable” for many has nothing to do with the rough going in this one.
The catharsis that this film is providing to almost everyone who sees it (especially those with a broader sense of cinema like, yes The Academy dorks), is going to kick in in a big way. This is existential stuff we’re dealing with here.
And Mutiny, no amount of convincing will change your mind on this film (I was you three years ago with the Sofia Coppola film), but take a cue from DP and at least show some respect for it. It’s an honorable film.
“There’s absolutely nothing controversial about this movie and what it’s offering the American public.”
If the film depicted the hijackers as wild eyed, bloodthirsty, fanatics, I would agree with your statement. It does not. Until the men are caught up in the emotional frenzy of the hijacking, they are portrayed as serene. And in the case of Ziad Jarrah, he is shown having an internal struggle with carrying out his orders. In not stooping to caricature, I think the film certainly courts controversy by painting the humanity of the hijackers.
“We know from the very beginning that something bad is on it’s way — and it’s basing its agenda on the audience KNOWING what will come, just not when.”
How does this negate the power of the film? Is Schindler’s List cheapened because we know that the Jews are going to be herded to death camps? Was Does knowing 13 marchers will be dead by the end of Bloody Sunday make it less of a film. Not at all.
“What makes this fraudulent is that this approach bears no resemblance to how 9/11 actually went down…”
With the next two paragraphs, I think you show all of us that your critique of the film is based more upon your feelings about what you believe is the proper historical context for 9/11, and not the merits of the film.
I’ve already argued the technical merits of the film — of which I don’t believe there are any. It’s boring, like watching cardboard cut-outs for 2 hours. What I am arguing is that it’s not the technical merits that people point to in liking the film, but the emotion they felt — and that is because of the context the film offers and its reliance on previously developed feelings. Therefore, a second front of discussion opened regarding its context.
You know what other movies are ‘boring’? L’Avventura, Ordet, Ikiru, and 2001.
It’s a technically masterful film that is also the most emotional film of the year, as the argument between two walls continues.
mutinyco are you saying no film can be made on any historical incident without it addressing the totality of that incident from every point of view?
Not sure where you came up with that take. I think all of the arguing going on was pretty specific to United 93.
There have been lots of features that closely trail their real life inspirations. All the President’s Men is a good example. The difference between that and U93, from my standpoint, is that ATPM works regardless of the real events. It’s an entertaining thriller with great performances, dialogue, cinematography… It’s successful on its own merits as a movie, and would work even if it were fiction. I simply don’t feel that U93 offers enough to stand on its own outside the context of the real events, because its entire method is based upon the strategy of manipulating emotion. I don’t believe it has enough built into it that a generation removed the movie will be able to maintain its reputation.
So, you don’t like the movie because it’s not controversial (which is absolutely ridiculous mind you) and that people have emotional attachments to it’s subject matter. Seems flimsy for me, but I suppose it’s valid.
If the movie was made in 20 years people would be saying it’s a movie about a forgotten incident (that flight and what happened inside, not 9/11 in general). So as it stands now, it’s a film document of the event – or, that’s how I see it, anyway.
I was with United 93 right up until Greengrass chose to cross-cut the passenger Christians saying the Lord’s prayer hoping to survive with the terrorist Muslims praying in the cock-pit trying to destroy the Capitol building.
They’re probably not the same thing, but thanks for your liberal input that all prayer is a) futile, b) misguided, c) juvenile, or d) all of the above.
Actually, I hope the success of Borat will somehow encourage the long-delayed DVD release of a real documentary about a real Eastern European who goes on a tour of America. Of course, I’m talking about Road Scholar, with Andrei Codrescu.
Oh, and Milestogo: God answers all prayers. It’s just that, sometimes, His answer is no.
True enough, Mr Leydon. I guess no one on United 93 had a positive answer to their prayers.
I would have bought a similar scene in a movie like Munich or Kingdom of Heaven, but in United 93, it seemed like a cheap swipe at American Christians from an English film-maker. But I do think a non-American director gave an objective point of view that served the film well to that moment.
Seems that everything is anti-Christian these days, or that some people go out of their way to see things that way.
“I was with United 93 right up until Greengrass chose to cross-cut the passenger Christians saying the Lord’s prayer hoping to survive with the terrorist Muslims praying in the cock-pit trying to destroy the Capitol building.”
Is that because it was too objective or not objective enough?
Actually, I would not be too quick to categorize that scene as making fun of Christians or Muslims. I think it may have been intended to show that each group truly believed in a God of some sort. It’s rare to see a movie in which even that is acknowledged.
That interpretation is far more likely than what milestogo is suggesting.
To clarify: My objectivity question was two-fold.
1. Weren’t people on the plane objectively saying prayers? If were on this plane and were even remotely religious, wouldn’t you? Objectivity is only fine when it’s regarding non-religious subject matter?
2. Just because events unfolded the way they did why does that mean it’s a critique of religion?Jesus on the cross prayed to God to let the suffering end. Guess how that turned out?
It’s trite. That’s what it is.
I have no problem with showing both groups praying, but by immediately alternating the hijackers and passengers, Greengrass seemed to justify what the terrorists were doing and belittle what Christians believe simultaneously.
Maybe I a) am being too sensitive, b) should see the movie again, c) need to stop assuming film-makers’ intentions, or d) all of the above.
So by showing that both groups of people prayed, that somehow both justifies what the terrorists did and belittles Christians? Excuse me if I don’t follow that logic.
I agree, you could just as easily make the opposite argument.
Instead, I believe that Joe has offered the closest explanation: that in that moment of peak stress, everybody on the plane was praying to their own gods for their own goals. Greengrass offers the moment up not for condemnation of either side, but for more observation. It is in fact one of the movie’s most charitable and sensitively empathetic moments.
The scene is not ‘trite’, which means stale or hackneyed, because I can’t think of any similar moments in a film that isn’t the kind of obviously one-sided message-mongering that the scene is accused of.
Every true believer thinks he has God on his side. Which can be, depending on the circumstances, wonderful or horrible or both.
It’s about as profound as cross-cutting between somebody having sex and somebody dying.
It’s trite, stale and hackneyed by default, whether you’ve seen it before, simply because of its sophomoric obviousness.
Mutiny, the mere fact that we’ve been able to debate what the scene signifies, means that it is neither sophomoric or obvious.
And your above example comes from one of the best movies of last year, a rich and complex web of imagery as well.
What movie was that? I was speaking generically. But thanks for proving my point.
I was assuming Munich, because (a) it was another great movie that was widely misunderstood, and (b) I honestly can’t think of any other movies that cross-cut someone having sex with someone dying.
I don’t see how that proved your point. List some other titles, if it’s such a cliche.
OH, MUNICH… Probably the most misguided film Spielberg has ever directed.
Wrong, that would be Hook.
No. Hook didn’t have the ambition to be any type of great statement of humanity. This takes it.
I think I was initially recalling Henry Fool — that comes to mind among others.
Hook did have the ambition to ‘update Peter Pan for a new generation’ and alleviate rich white guys’ anxieties about not being good dads. Plus, it was unsuccessful while Munich was masterfully done.
But let’s stay on subject, shall we?
I Never saw Henry Fool. Two movies does not a cliche make.
Munich is a complete failure. It’s the only film Spielberg’s ever done where his emotions sabotaged his filmmaking sensibility.
It wasn’t a cliche we were talking about. I used the sex/death analogy as an example of obviousness.
You said ‘trite’ which does not mean ‘obvious’, it means overused or cliched, which is only applicable if you can come up with the ‘among others’ that have used the same idea.
And how could any artist’s emotions sabotage their filmmaking ability when film is emotion captured on celluloid (or video)?
Here’s my quote: “It’s about as profound as cross-cutting between somebody having sex and somebody dying.” Which is to imply obviousness.
Since when has film been emotions captured on celluloid (or video)? Presuming we’re discussing narrative filmmaking and not avant-garde (which one might argue is quite a bit about intellectualism), the definition is quite simple: a story told with pictures. Whether that elicits emoton in you is completely at the manipulative hands of the director, and you as a willing audience member.
Regarding Munich, his emotions betrayed him because he was so intent on displaying his rage about the “eye for an eye” situation, that he used a completely illogical story as his spine, and furthermore misdirected the material from the first image on. Like U93, he was so intent on creating intensity that he forgot to establish how terrorism takes place: by invading the mundane every day.
Okay, that was _one_ of your quotes. But you said ‘trite’ elsewhere. Regardless, if the scene in Munich was really obvious, what was the concise meaning of it? And why have so many thousands of words been spilled over it if it was such a simple statement?
My definition of art is emotion conveyed through a medium. Your definition may vary.
I can understand the idea that Spielberg’s allowed his personal instincts to get the better of his narrative instincts, but I would call the result a testament to how personal the film was for him, with the result being that the emotion overflows the conventional boundaries of the narrative. For me, this is makes the film a greater work of art. Again, your tastes may vary.
The opening shot of the film (which I remember you complaining about, repetitively, last year) is exactly what it should be; I believe your notion for how it ‘should have been’ would have made the film flatter, more conventional.
Finally, back to United 93, I would call the film as a whole a perfect example of the mundane being invaded. The first twenty-thirty minutes of the film are totally mundane, and then all hell breaks loose; just like that particular day felt for most people. I don’t follow your objection here.
Doesn’t matter whether it’s conventional. It’s correct.
The whole point was that the Palestinians were helped over the fence because the drunk athletes didn’t sense anything wrong with them. When you first establish to the audience through lighting, camera and performance that they’re up to something nefarious — THEN have the drunk athletes kindly help these shady fellows over, the entire point has been lost. The POV should have been from the athletes not the terrorists. Until they were over the fence.
These were the Olympics. In Germany. With Germany doing a massive PR effort to make up for 40 years earlier. They barely had any security at all — to show how friendly and demilitarized they were. It was a celebration. AND THEN THESE EVENTS INVADED THAT SCENE. “Munich” never established that scene. The movie had NO SET UP.
Furthermore, if you believe the Mossad would’ve used only one team to conduct that many assassinations, let alone a team that inept, let alone that same inept team spear-heading the Beirut operation — I’ve got a couple of bridges you might be interested in purchasing.
And as for art being solely about emotion, that’s silly. A great number of people would argue that the IDEAS being expressed weigh more heavily for them. Just look at the more high-brow critics and the types of movies they like. Is Godard considered a great filmmaker because his movies are overwhelmingly emotional? He’s been canonized because of his intellectualism.
U93 never establishes the mundane. It starts with shaky-cam. Ends with shaky-cam. Shaky-cam, or handheld, by its nature is used to create unease — an imbalance, if you will. The settings early on, and even later, are really rather boring, sterile locations: a hotel, a control room, an airplane. These are impersonal environments that I believe drain energy, not create it. The super-16 handheld aesthetic worked fine for Greengrass in Bloody Sunday — as it was about a street protest and street violence. It did not here because the approach was negated by the environments.
It’s not ‘correct’. Spielberg wasn’t making a documentary, he was making a narrative film. The audience already knew that this was a film about the Munich Olympic massacre – it’s the title of the movie. The set-up/context you’re talking about in terms of Germany/ etc. had nothing to do with the rhetorical goals or structures Spielberg was interested in; it was all beside the point.
I agree, there is a suspension of disbelief needed to accept that there would be only one team and they would be fairly inept/conflicted. Again, that was Spielberg’s point. He wasn’t making a documentary, he was constructing a cinematic argument.
I think ideas are important in a film as well – but if ‘ideas’ were all that mattered, you should just read a book. Ideas conveyed through emotional means – the look on someone’s face, a particular angle of light, a specific cut between two shots – are the basis of art. Otherwise it’s mere information. And yes, Godard’s movies are pretty emotional, if distanced. You must not have seen Notre Musique, to see how a filmmaker’s direct address to his audience can be intellectual and emotional at the same time.
I just can’t get over how wrong you are about United 93. The locations do indeed ‘drain energy’ – they’re mundane, which is the point you’re arguing against. Meanwhile I do not believe that handheld camerawork (which is really what they are, despite your insistence on ‘shaky-cam’) is inherently ‘uneasy’ or only used for action/suspense movies. Godard would not agree, and neither do you, based on your own heavy use of handheld camera in your video work that I’ve seen.
I haven’t seen much of your stuff, so I could be off about that last one. My point is, though, that handheld is not an automatic signifier of ‘be uneasy’. It’s also a signifier of ‘this is reality’ and has been for a much longer time in cinematic history. These days, ‘uneasy’ is also conveyed through carefully controlled steadicam movements a la The Shining.
Huh? I virtually NEVER use handheld!
HUH?
HUH?
I almost always use legs. Unless there’s a crazed moment like pararazzi storming the stage at the NYFF, where such a technique is justified. What most people like about my shooting is how CONTROLLED it is for improvised on-the-fly camerawork. You have absoutely no idea what you’re talking about with regard to my work.
And as for the audience already knowing the significance of the Munich massacre, I’ll tell you you’re flat-out wrong. Most people DO NOT know its significance. Most people I know were rather confused on that point. They just assumed this type of thing had always been going on. Not that this was considered the beginning of something.
Handheld is exactly an expression of unease. Compare in Kubrick’s films his use of handheld in relation to control. If you want to get into K. In Dr. Strangelove it’s handheld on the plane and during the combat, guess why? In 2001 it goes handheld when the moon siren is signaled and at the end when Bowman moves to terminate HAL9000. In A Clockwork Orange, when Alex is being attacked by the homeless. In Barry Lyndon, during his army fight and when he attacks Bullingdon. And on and on…
All I know about your work was one music video that seemed to be exclusively handheld about a couple of characters on a subway.
Handheld is _sometimes_ meant to suggest unease, but in each of your examples it’s meant to suggest ‘in the middle of action’ which is not the same thing. The scene in Strangelove where Ripper is explaining his plans to Mandrake is a pretty uneasy scene, shot with no camera movement at all, whereas the combat scenes are not intended to be ‘uneasy’, (there are no characters we care about engaged) but merely to show the action. You can have 2001, those examples both seem correct.
I don’t think either of us is convincing the other of anything except each other’s cinematic imbecility.
Oh, back to Munich. first of all, if people you knew had never heard of the Munich massacre before, then I would say it’s kind of their problem, not Spielberg’s. Second, the movie itself elaborates to indicate that this was _not_ the ‘beginning of something’, that the Munich terrorists were reacting to the 1967 war. The greater point is that Spielberg was not telling a story about ‘the origins of modern terrorism’. He was making a movie about our own modern history and ethical dilemmas and setting it in the past in order to allow himself rhetorical freedom.
You repeatedly shit-talk my work here and at Wells (and who knows where else) and the only thing you’re familiar with was that one Mutiny City News episode from a year and a half ago?
You’ve certainly convinced me of your imbecility.
And now, I sign off.
Well, I also saw your spec commercial and a couple of episodes of that series with the wacky Asian guy and the girl whose butt you liked.
But yeah. I think we’re done here. I welcome dialogue but I think I see where you are coming from by now.
PS: I think I was also assuming you had shot the “Lunch with David” episodes, but I guess maybe you didn’t.
Christ, I’m glad that’s over with. I was afraid they would start saying bad things about each other’s mothers.
I would only do that to Drew McWeeny.