MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Doc Layering Is For The Fish

The phenomenon of Doc Layering is once again showing itself to be the wave of the moment in documentary film here at The 35th Annual Seattle International Film Festival. There are three films here about saving the sea and the animals it is inhabited by. The most professional is The Cove, the doc about one particular harbor in Tokyo where dolphins are herded and either sold into being show dolphins (a few hundred) or simply murdered to the tune of over 20,000 a year, even though dolphin meat is (for humans) toxically high in mercury.
The central theme in the film is the mass murder of these dolphins, though there is more than a passing discussion about the cruelty of keeping dolphins in showcase tanks at places like Sea World. In 2004, I watched at entire film at the Palm Beach Film Festival

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Responses to “Doc Layering Is For The Fish”

  1. I saw Pirate for the Sea at Santa Barbara this year. Tough film but a pretty solid portrait of the guy.
    Hearing great things about The Cove.

  2. Joe Leydon says:

    In a way, it’s like the continuing proliferation of docs about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. I would argue that Spike Lee’s When the Levees Broke is the quivalent of Shoah in this area — but there’s still room for lots of other stories, other docs.

  3. djk813 says:

    You can also add At the Edge of the World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286499/) to the “fish list.”

  4. EOTW says:

    SHOAH has been on my short list of the best films ever made for years now. I own it and try to find the the time to watch it once every couple of years. Endlessly fascinating and one of hte films for which no words are adequate to describe. This, a classic and everyone should see it.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon