Day 30: Infested Ep. 1

So after watching boring old mammals the other day, I felt like watching something creepy-crawly. I found it.

Infested is an Animal Planet series with a pretty straightforward premise: people's homes are infested with the kind of stuff that usual infests homes (hint- it's not puppies and kittens). Episode 1 focuses on snakes, spiders, and ants.

What I learned: Learned a good deal about the habitats of these animals. Snakes live in something called a hibernacula; basically a snake den. What a cool word, right? I also learned about the Argentine Ant, which is a special breed (guess where they're from?) that can't be deterred by traditional exterminator methods. They have multiple queens in their colonies so they can breed at an incredible rate. In regards to spiders, I already knew what I needed to know; they freak me out.

What I liked: I thought it'd be like most other TV nature documentaries; light on content, heavy on crappy re-enactments and commercial breaks. But this one was structured in a way that really built the tension. Instead of telling one story at a time, they told all three at once, allowing them to build up to an exciting climax and eventual resolution. I typically dislike the amount of foreshadowing shows like this do, but it worked well here; the ominous shots of spiders on their webs or the close ups of ants on the kitchen table did a lot to build excitement for whatever was coming next. You knew it was gonna get bad (it's called 'Infested' not 'a baker's dozen') so it was interesting to see how it'd get that bad.

What I didn't like: I was disappointed they didn't have any actual footage of infested homes. You could tell it was all doctored footage and stuff they filmed elsewhere of snakes and spiders. The guy with the snake infestation said he caught 40 snakes in his backyard in one afternoon; how awesome would it be to see that on film? I'm surprised the homeowners didn't document the pests more.

Overall, it was super creepy. There were some freaky shots of snakes sneaking into the house, spiders on the bed, and ants in a dude's mouth. On more than one occasion I might have yelped in momentary fear while watching it. I had no idea I was so averse to the creepy-crawly animals of nature, but something about the juxtaposition of seeing these wild animals in your home is too much for me.

The whole thing made me think of Arachnophobia, an underrated movie from my childhood that helped solidify feelings of awe and terror for the eight-leggers.

Well, this trailer doesn't capture the intensity of the movie at all. It portrays it as some kind of "Mouse Hunt"-esque family comedy. It's not. Wow, what a weird trailer. 

Anway, Infested is on netflix. The next episode is about raccoons! 

Day 29: Wamego

Happy Kansas Day! My first ever K-day away from Kansas and it's bittersweet. I love Chicago to death, but for its opportunities and not its people. Kansas really has the best people.

To celebrate KDay I really wanted to watch a doc. about Kansas/the Midwest. The obvious choice was "What's the Matter With Kansas" but I decided against it for two reasons: 1. I'd seen it before. 2. It really didn't paint KS in the best light. They picked a handful of nut jobs, on both sides of the political spectrum, and let them speak for an entire state.

So I continued my search. After some digging I came across this amazing, heartbreaking trailer. The film is called 'Manhattan, KS':

Though not directly about KS it's set there, and looks like it does so with respect. 

Well long story short I never found a place to watch it online, but while I was looking I came across 'Wamego'; another doc. made in KS by Kansans. Without watching the trailer I started it. It turned out to be the worst documentary I've watched all year, hands down. 

'Wamego' tells (or tries to tell) the story of a family working together to create a feature length film inspired by an actual crime committed in the area of Wamego, KS. The sister acts, the dad is the producer and the son is the brains behind the operation; writer, director, casting agent, and publicist.  The rest of the film is just glorified home movies and the wunderkind director tooting his own horn.

As a true Midwestern, I constantly worry about appearing boastful. Kansans are taught from any early age that pride is the ugliest color you could wear, so we've learned to take a good deal of joy in being humble. Kansans are competitively modest. 

Any worries that I was a blowhard were erased after watching this guy fly his own flags for 2 hours. He thinks he's God's gift to cinema. Really, it was like something out of a Ricky Gervais series: he went to Cal-Arts for film, dropped out after 'he felt he learned enough' and came back to KS where he produced his first film, a dark comedy about school shootings. He blames the film's poor reception on Columbine, which happened the following year. Yes- surely that was the saddest consequence of a national tragedy, and totally the reason your shitty movie didn't sell. 

The boasting reached an incredulous peak as he was casting his new movie. He looked into the camera and with a straight face told us he was debating between Kathy Bates or Jodie Foster for the lead role. Madonna was a 'maybe'. 

Here's the trailer for his last film:

This makes "The Room" look like 'Schindler's List', and he thought he was going to get the biggest names in Hollywood to be in his picture. (Ultimately, he decided to cast a bunch of unkowns instead, in order to stay true to his artistic vision. I'm sure Madonna was crushed.)

Honestly after that I checked out. I remember them worrying a lot about funding, and an unbelievably long scene about them painting wagons for props (seriously, like 6 minutes about painting wagons), but other than that I didn't pull anything from it. 

After the movie I scanned the web to see what scathing reviews I could find of his work. What I found instead, was a pleasant, even positive review from Roger Ebert, and a list of impressive awards the films had racked up at international film festivals. 

Which brings us back to the mindset of the average Midwesterner; the only thing I hate more than a boastful person is a person gaining undeserved attention. Maybe instead of working so hard of eradicating cockiness from our emotional vocabulary, Kansans like myself should focus on pettiness? 

You can watch Wamego online. Because I am not completely over being petty, I won't post the link. Consider it me doing you a favor. 

Day 28: Moog

Tried to watch the new Clash of the Titans today to continue my Greek mythology kick. Hooboy it's real bad. Not even Liam Neeson can save that sinking ship of a movie.

So my friend Cy got me a free ticket to Devotchka, who played the Metro this weekend.

Devotchka, "How It Ends"

You might know them from the Little Miss Sunshine soundtrack. I'd only heard a few of their songs, but I am always up for live shows. They pulled out all the stops; a violinist, a tuba player, keyboards galore, and a theremin. It was the first time I had ever seen a theremin played live, and it was pretty interesting. It has a haunting, other-worldly sound. Plus how often do you see instruments you don't even have to touch?

So my interest was peaked and I came home and wanted to watch something about alt. instruments. I picked 'Moog', a movie I'd heard about for a while but never saw. I was hoping to learn about the theremin and its history, but I found the film disappointing and without a clear purpose.

The film follows inventor Robert Moog, creator of the Moog Synthesizer. It's basically an extended interview with him as he slowly discusses the process of inventing, building, and selling the first ever electric synth, and how it's affected the music industry. He also talks a little on his views of the world, spirituality, and gardening.

What I learned: Well I had no idea how technical a film about music could be. I thought it was really interesting to see the intersection of music and technology. Moog doesn't seem to see himself as a musician or even a musical instrument-creator, but rather a scientifically minded individual who simply creates products that serve specific purposes.

What I liked:  Moog comes off a sweet old man. We follow him around his house, you meet his wife and family, and he talks a little about how he sees the world. His views aren't revolutionary but they are def. interesting. The rest of the film is just him being filmed as he talks to people who use his instruments. I got the feeling the movie was made as an excuse for this dude to travel around the world and hear people talk about how much they like Moogs. But because he's such a nice guy, you don't really mind all the back-patting that goes on.

What I didn't like: My initial reaction was disappointment: a 2 hour movie and barely any mention of the theremin? Moog earned his fame at an early age building theremins, so I thought they'd be a bigger part of the story. Instead we are treated to a lengthy, in depth discussion of the circuitry and technical details of the moog synth. It went over my head very quickly. I picked the doc because of my basic interest in theremins, but was left wanting.

Also, I had some structural disagreements with the film. We just jumped right into the film mid conversation without any introduction to who Moog was or what he had accomplished. I think it would have served the film better to proceed chronologically.

This movie is more for science nerds than music nerds. The most famous name interviewed is probably Stereolab and even that's a pretty short clip. Watch it if you like the science of synths but skip it if you want the theremin.

Here's an awesome theremin cover of Over The Rainbow:

And here's one of 'Crazy':

And: theremins are so easy to play, even a cat can do it!

Moog is on netflix instant.

Day 27: Life of Mammals (Opportunists)

I've never been a big fan of mammals. Or more specifically, learning about mammals. When I want to learn about nature I'm drawn to the exotic or the bizarre. Give me a deep-sea crab any day of the week.

But if anyone was going to teach me about mammals, let it be BBC and David Attenborough.

What I learned: This episode was about opportunists, specifically in regards to eating habits. We learn about how raccoons search for food with their hands; they use as much brain power to feel for food as humans do using their eyes. We followed a bear through the seasons as he prepared for hibernation, then came out and began refueling; a bear can lose up to a third of its weight during hibernation. Then we spent some time in the sewers watching rats; it was pretty gross. 

What I liked: Helped me develop an overall interest in mammals. With the exception of apes and gorillas, mammals seem too 'normal' a creature to warrant a documentary. These episodes are definitely changing that for me.  

What I didn't like: They showed a type of skunk that hangs out in bat caves and waits for baby bats to fall off the ceiling so they can find them and eat them. When it's a skunk versus a bat I really don't know who to root for. I think no matter who wins, it's still gonna be gross. The whole thing just bummed me out. (FYI- the skunk won and the baby bat was eaten alive.)

What you need to take away from this post is that raccoons stole the show. Here's a bunch of them in a hammock:

These episodes can be watched on Netflix. 

Day 26: Dear Zachary: A Letter to A Son About His Father

Whew boy. When my friend Dylan told me this movie was gonna hit me hard, he wasn't joking. Reading this will not even come close to capturing the intensity of this film, so just go watch it. Then read this, I guess.

I usually go out of my way to avoid sad films. I have no problem watching movies that make me mad, or make me uncomfortable, or even movies I don't understand. But I've never felt good about watching a movie I know will make me sad. The world is sad enough, I don't need to make myself any sadder.

But that's what this whole experiment is about; stepping out of my comfort zone, pointing myself in new directions, taking on new things. And in the case of this film, I'm glad I did.

The film tells the story of a young man, Andrew Bagby, who was killed by his ex-girlfriend, a troubled woman with a history of emotionally instability. The film is a tribute to Andrew, produced and filmed by his life long friend. Home movies and interviews with friends and family help paint a detailed picture of who Andrew was and how he impacted those around him.

The film is also about Andrew's killer, her murder trial, and her shocking reveal: she's pregnant with Andrew's baby. Thus the film becomes a video letter to that child, Zachary, about a man he would never meet; his father.

What I liked: Though the film is intended to be a loving tribute to Andrew, I instantly fell in love with his parents David and Kathleen. They were warm, loving, wonderful people, and throughout the film you develop a lot of respect for them, if for no other reason than the fact that they are still alive. In a shocking moment early in the film, David is asked what went through his mind after identifying his son's body at the morgue: "We thought we'd go get Andrew, bring him back to California, get everything organized or whatever, and then kill ourselves, because no point going on. That was the first plan."

So to really understand these parents I feel the need to sum up a bit more of the plot: Andrew was dating this woman, Shirley Turner, but broke up with her when she began calling him obsessively. She did not take the breakup well, drove across the country to find him, and shot him dead in a park. While undergoing her trial for his murder, she announced to his friends and family that she was pregnant with his son.

David and Kathleen are now in the most unbelievable, unthinkable situation imaginable; their son's killer is their only link to their only grandson. They sell their home and move to Canada, hoping to become regular fixtures in the child's life. They actually being coordinating with Turner for shared custody with Zachary. They talk and spend time together. How this is even possible is beyond me. I couldn't do it, that's for sure.

And then halfway through the movie, we are hit with another terrible twist. I won't spoil it but I'll just say; just when you think you don't have anything else to lose, you can still lose more.

Despite their loss, they remain good, strong people, and continue to try to make the best possible world they can.

What I didn't like: Nothing about the film, but damn, a lot about real life. Why do terrible things happen to good people? People who never did anything to anyone- why do they get so punished sometimes? This film really made me question traditional ideas about fate, destiny, a benevolent God, and more directly, the effectiveness of our legal system.

The film itself is unremarkable; made my a 2nd rate filmmaker on a very small budget. But the story and the questions it raises are so important to hear. Guys, just go watch this please. That's all I can say.

Here is the trailer:

It's on Netflix instant.

Day 25: Clash of the Gods

So one of the books I finished this week was about Greek Mythology and it sent me into a mini-obsession about mythology. I'm pretty sure it's going to be a reoccurring theme throughout the next few weeks.

I've always been a fan of Greek mythology. My dad was an amazing story teller, and would spend almost every night telling my siblings and me tales about Gods and men. My favorite movie growing up was Clash of the Titans, the epic story of Perseus and Medusa. While other 8 year-olds were worried about boogeymen in their closets, I was convinced that Medusa was going to sneak into my room and night and shoot me with one of her arrows. 

But as much as I liked mythology I never knew enough; I'd never studied it on my own. I have to say I'm very excited to start down that path. To start I simply googled "Greeky mythology documentaries" and found a HUGE doc. from History Channel, like 7 hours long. Today I watched the first section, about Zeus, and in true HC fashion there were reenactments galore. The guy played Zeus looked like Terrance Stamp. 

Kneel before General Zeus 

What I learned: I was already familiar with the story of Zeus's birth and rise to power. So we begin with Chronos, a Titan and ruler of the whole universe. He is warned that his children will one day rise up and usurp him from his power. Chronos, responding rationally, ate his children whole to prevent them from challenging him. All of his kids were eaten except Zeus, who was switched for a rock at the last moment by his mother, who naturally wasn't keen on her kids getting gobbled up. Zeus grew up and returned to challenge Chronos. A devastating war between Gods old and new (Zeus's siblings were released from their dad's stomach. They were fine).  In the end, Zeus and the Olympians won out, and he became the supreme god. 

What I liked: In addition to the basic history, the doc also documents how the mythology came to fruition and what events inspired it within Greek culture. Historians believe that the Greek Gods were created by a society searching for answers of the unexplained in life; death, war, natural disasters and the like. They created complex stories to explain historical and everyday events. The epic battle between the Titans and the Olympians might have been inspired by a gigantic volcano that erupted thousands of years before that totally altered the physical landscape. Zeus is later responsible for a giant-scale flood that wiped the world clean of evil when he caught humans partaking in cannibalism. His flood may coincide with other religions' "Great Flood" tales, which all might be based on the same natural occurrences.

I'm very interested in the idea that mythology came as a way to support an already existing history, especially when it's to someone's advantage. A lot of Greek and Roman leaders are believed to be the sons of Zeus or other powerful gods. Were they leaders because they were half-gods, or are they remembered as half-gods because they led? How easy would it have been back then, with literacy rates so low and minimal written history, to change history to suit those in power? Imagine if in 1,000 years people thought US Presidents were picked because they were descendants of Gods? What a trip man. 

What I didn't like: Nah, I don't think I disliked any of it.

I'm pumped to watch the rest of these. Hope they are just as good as the first segment.

They can be found on youtube:

Let's hope I can make it through the Medusa episode:

Day 24: Nature's Deadliest Brazil

Ugh, I hate to follow such an awesome doc as yesterday's with a dull episode of ND. But I didn't have time to watch a full length doc today so I had to pick something short.

I watched one of these eps last week and was less than impressed (still trying to figure out what being the 'driest place on Earth' really means), and thought the other episodes would be better. I was wrong; this one was even worse. The same cheesy graphics, overly dramatic narrator, and weird, unsettling re-enactments.  The scenes of people being bit and attacked were just a little too real for my taste. It felt less like a nature doc and more like a snuff film.

What I learned: Snakes are mean, watch out for bees, and don't trust sharks.

What I liked: Well no matter how bad a film is, it can't stop me from loving nature. Even when it's painted as a villain I'm still in awe over it's power and complexity.

What I didn't like: Man, the re-enactment scenes. I hate to harp on them, but I've never seen scenes that made me so uncomfortable. The people are just supposed to be stand-ins, props to be used at the animal's discretion to show off their might and power. But they purposefully picked the saddest most pitiful examples of people to be attacked. For the segment about Africanized killer bees, they picked a little kid, innocently walking through the woods. Sorry dude, I'm out. I'm not gonna sit here and watch a kid get stung to death by a swarm of killer bees. This is a nature documentary not an Eli Roth movie.

You could watch this on Netflix, or you could watch this 10 second clip about bees and probably learn about as much:

Prof. Cage on the perils of bees.

Day 23: RIP A Remix Manifesto

Whew. What a doc. It's films like this that remind me why I started this crazy experiment in the first place.

Lately the docs I've been watching have just been "meh". They weren't bad, but they weren't leaving me with much to think about. This is a film I know I'll be thinking about for a while.

The film is mainly about copyright laws and how they impede intellectual and creative freedoms. Sounds pretty bland, right? Well the way these points are made is what makes it so fun. Great interviews, a strong narrative, and a f*cking killer soundtrack make the movie flow from idea to idea, and trust me it covers a lot.

But it's more than all that too. It's a mixer's manifesto; a visual guideline to the life of anyone who creates using that which already exists. It's a love song to the DJ, the editor, and the remixer. The film has one central hero, GIRL TALK, DJ by night, bio-engineer by day. He's famous for his complex mixes of popular songs. He describes his music as "putting Elton John in a headlock", by that he means taking traditional, well loved songs and putting such a spin on them they become something brand new.

And finally it's a wake up call to how our arts are dominated by multinational corporations bent on increasing profits and decreasing our freedom of expression. This theme takes one even more significance in the wake of the recent SOPA PIPA legislation.

What I learned: The 'Happy Birthday' song is a trademarked tune owned by Warner-Chappell music. Everytime you sing it in public you are actually breaking the law!

If GIRL TALK paid the copyright fees for each music sample he used, he'd be paying an average 262,500 dollars per song.

When Napster was shut down there were 52 million users. Only 50 million citizens voted for each political party during the last election. (Really goes to show you if people rallied around a common cause, like prosecuting music 'pirates', we might see real change in our govt!).

The curious case of Dan O' Neil and the Mouse Liberation Front.

Dan was a merry prankster who created an underground comic collective called Air Pirates in the 70's. The comic was just Mickey Mouse as a blood-thirsty pirate who loved to break the law. Naturally Disney didn't appreciate this less than subtle imitation, and ordered Dan to stop his work. In response he created the Mouse Liberation Front, an semi-serious activist group that fought for creative freedom in pop culture.

What I liked: ALL OF IT! Seriously, it was all good. Specifically, I enjoyed the narrative. The filmmaker provided a lot of background into why he wanted to make the film, and was a central character throughout. This is the first doc I've watched that had a constant narrative, and it made everything flow smoothly and evenly.

I loved everything we learned about GIRL TALK. I've been a fan of his music for a long time, and I always pictured a slick, well dressed DJ and total babe magnet. Turns out the dude's a total nerd. Super nerd. It's easy to tell he never expected the kind of huge response he got from his music.

There's an amazing interview scene with GIRL TALK and his family. His parents are absolutely adorable. You can tell they really don't understand what he does musically, or why it's as popular as it is, but they support him through and through. Adorable.

Big Ole' Nerd. 

Favorite quote: "We think you're talented enough, why do you have to take your pants off?" GIRL TALK's dad, on his son's habit of getting naked on stage. 

What I didn't like: Nothing!

Not only was it a cool idea for a doc, it was well executed and well thought out. Best of all, it ends on a call to action- ideas about what the viewer can do if they feel so inclined to help the cause of protecting freedom of expression. This is really the most pivotal step of any documentary, and it's amazing how often it's left out.

Go watch this one, right now.

Here's the trailer:

This film can be viewed in multiple locations online. I watched it on Hulu, but found it ironically frustrating that a film about the perils of large corporations was frequently interrupted by commercial breaks.

Here are two comedic remixes featured in the film:

Darth Vader feels blue: 

George Bush sings 'Imagine'

Day 22: Death Star

Well it was bound to happen; I've watched a doc I didn't understand. I knew eventually I'd reach a film that was over my head or full of information I couldn't relate to. I just thought it'd take more than 3 weeks to reach it.

First off, I have to take issue with this film's name. It lured me in with its Star Wars reference and then did not deliver. It had nothing to do with it. At all. (I just want to stress how disappointed I was).

What it was about was stars and energy and space. Beyond that, I was lost. My scientific education stopped around sophomore year of high school, once I learned I was too tall to be an astronaut. After that science lost all importance to me.

What I liked: The parts I could follow were very interesting. In the 1950's American scientists believed that the Soviet Union was testing nuclear weapons on the moon. Why they were so worried I don't know. Anyway they started examining heat and energy sources in space and instead found readings that were way more powerful than any bomb could produce. The rest of the film explores the different theories about what's causing these power surges.

What I learned: "If you took all the stars in all the galaxies in all the quasars and everything in the universe and put them all together in one point at the distance of a gamma ray burst it would not be as bright as the gamma ray burst." A mind-blowing quote. If you took everything that is and put it together, it's still not enough?? 

What I didn't like: I didn't dislike any of it, it was just too advanced for me to follow. It assumed I knew more than I did about basic science, using words like 'gamma rays' and 'neutrons' freely.

All in all, not a bad film. I wish they hadn't got my hopes up about Star Wars, but you can't blame them for sensationalizing it a bit. If you are more scientifically minded than I, I bet you're get a kick out of it. In fact, I bet you'd make fun of me for my laughable lack of basic science-knowledge. Anyway you can watch it here:
http://freedocumentariesonline.org/the-death-star/

Till I get smarter about science, I'll just stick to They Might Be Giants Songs for all my science needs:

Day 21: Dark Ages

I recently saw this graph floating around Facebook:

I couldn't speak to the legitimacy of what it's theorizing, but it made me wonder: did Christianity cause the Dark Ages, or did the Dark Ages cause a surge in Christianity?

Luckily my friend Eli came over yesterday and whenever we get together questions get answered and things get learned. We watched a short documentary from the History Channel about the Dark Ages. In true HC fashion there were eccentric experts, flashy green-screened backdrops, and more re-enactments than Gettysburg on the 1st of July.

What I learned: A lot about leaders I had never even heard of.  Clovis, a French leader killed family members to ensure they wouldn't take over his thrown. He did it by complaining no one in his family supported him anymore, and then when people would speak up and say "Hey! I support you!", he'd kill them.
Clovis also mandated trials by water- a small pebble was placed in a pot of boiling water and the prisoner had to pull it out. If the hand did not heal within a certain amount of time they were found guilty of witchcraft/anti-religious mentality and were killed.
Alaric, a Visigoth mercenary for the Roman empire, was passed up for a military promotion, and as retribution began looting and sacking Rome. These riots were the final nail in the coffin for the declining Roman Empire, and helped usher in its eventual demise. All because of a missed promotion.

St. Benedict was asked by a group of eager monks to lead their monastery. But he was so strict and well...monk-like that within a few months they were plotting to kill him. They poisoned his tea, but the cup shattered before he could drink it. They poisoned his food, but a bird flew in and swooped it out of his hands before he could eat it. Eventually the dude peaced out.

What I liked:  A lot of parallels could be drawn from this time period. The most obvious of course is the decline of the Roman Empire to the current political/social/economic climate in America. Read books like 'Empire of Illusion' to really grasp the similarities between the two civilizations. The doc told stories about the Roman public being too poor to afford food and water, but still going to the Colosseum to watch prisoners fight to the death. After viewing the murderous spectacle, the crowd would demand the meat from the dead bodies. I think our own country's thirst for entertainment is seemingly unquenchable but I hope it never reaches this point.

Also interesting was the use of religion by leaders and politicians. Clovis openly admitted that his conversion to Christianity was totally pragmatic and not based in any emotion or passion. He knew he needed to unite his country and the best way to do that was under a unified religion. It also brought him brownie points with neighboring countries who were already Christian. It makes me think of current politicians that drape themselves in the flag and thump the Bible relentlessly: I don't know if they do it because it's their true nature, of it they know it's a good way to get votes.

What I didn't like: My usual problems with History Channel the last few years- so cheesy. The graphics and filming style leaves a lot to be desired.

They had scenes of people picking up dead bodies in the streets during the height of the Bubonic Plague.  How could I NOT think of this:

The film can be found on netflix. 

Day 20: The Life of Reilly

I continued my trend of comedian docs with a doc on Charles Nelson Reilly. It was actually pretty funny at parts, but it was super sad and kinda creepy in others, so I feel like it cancels it out.

Charles Nelson Reilly was one of those dudes I knew nothing about, but could instantly recognize. He existed in a era when celebs were walking caricatures, expected to crack wise and spout puns as often as they did on screen. He was known for his flamboyant nature: gaudy clothes, ridiculous over-reactions, and insanely large glasses.

 So this is an hour and half 1-man show that Reilly wrote to discuss his life, childhood and career. It's mostly him on stage, with some extra old clips and photos thrown in by the filmmakers.

What I learned: Basically everything. I knew nothing about this dude, so it was all new to me. Most of it was pretty sad: his aunt was one of the first women to ever get a lobotomy, and it went horribly wrong. When he was a teenager he witnessed a fire in a Barnum and Bailey Circus in 1944 that killed 168 people.
There were over 7,000 people in attendance
The flames got so hot they cremated people and left nothing behind
Back then bands would perform "Stars and Stripes Forever" in cases of emergency
One of the guys who was convicted of starting the fire later went on to serve in Congress for 24 years
(note to self- watch a doc about circuses soon- they sound pretty nuts).

What I liked: The dude is pretty funny. Even without his costumes or props Reilly is such an talented story teller he sucks you right in. The dude has had some shocking, terrible, unbelievable things happen to him; so much so it's amazing he can talk about them, even laugh about them. I appreciated how flawlessly he could switch from humor to the heart-felt.

What I didn't like: The film-making style took me a while to get used to. The rapid switching between multiple cameras, most of them close up, made it feel more like a Joe Rogan special than the life story of an 70 year old man. Also the added clips and video, though interesting, took away from the intended austerity of the one-person show. Reilly surely worked hard to recreate his entire world on stage using only his words, so taking us out of it with clips seemed to counteract that.

A couple of thoughts:
He, like so many actors, regales us with his first experience at a movie theater as a child, and the burning desire he felt to one day be a famous performer. Call me jaded, but why must we always hear about the burning passion actors seem to possess? Should it make us happier for them that they got what they wanted? Having that desire doesn't make you more talented.  What about all the millions of people who have that same passion but never get to experience it?
He never directly discusses his sexual orientation, but it's hinted at through several stories. In a society where celebs are rewarded for being open with their homosexuality, I can't imagine a time when you had to hide it, for fear of blacklisting or an even worse fate.
In a lot of ways he reminded me of Salieri, the character from the 1984 film Amadeus. Salieri spends the film reminiscing on his life, his unhappy childhood, his desire for fame and talent, and his need for self-acceptance. I saw a lot of parallels here.

I think it's a good film, and would probably be more satisfying for those who are familiar with him already. I saw it more as just an interesting older man who lived a pretty incredible life. The film can be watched on Netflix instant.

Here's the trailer:

Here's a link about the Fire, in case you want more info on that. 

The Hartford Circus Fire

And finally, here's how I know CNR; his work in All Dogs Go to Heaven:

Day 19: Goodnight, We Love You

I'm having a hard time finding funny documentaries.

Again I tried to watch a doc about a famous comedian, hoping it would be funny. It was cute and sweet and very polite, but it wasn't very funny. It wasn't sad, but it wasn't funny either.

Goodnight, We Love You is the biographical documentary of Phyllis Diller, a pioneering female comedian for over 40 years. The film was striking similar to A Piece of Work (which I watched a few days ago); a mixture of archival footage of Diller's long career on television and movies and a documentation of her day to day life. Specifically they followed her as she prepared and performed her final show before entering into retirement.

I have never heard any of her standup before so I was looking forward to hearing some jokes. I also didn't know anything about her life but I was less interested in that- it turned out to be pretty much what I expected. She grew up poor, worked hard, and is now obscenely rich. Has some kids and some famous friends.

What I learned: In addition to a strong comedic talent, she is musically and artistically inclined. She studied piano in school and when she started doing standup it was a mix of jokes and piano-playing. She's also a talented painter and has sold a handful of paintings. Also, when she used to travel doing shows she'd take 60 bags with her: make up, show supplies, food (she got sick of room service) and pharmaceutical needs.

What I liked: Unlike the Joan Rivers bio, I had no problem deciding how to feel about Diller. She seemed like a good hearted, hard working, sweet old lady. She would make an awesome grandma. At first I was a bit disappointed in the film, because it's basically a puff piece with little critiques or mentions of career low points. But now that I think about it, why would someone want to make a movie pointing out the flaws of a sweet funny old lady, and what kind of person would want to watch that?

What I didn't like: It wasn't that funny. They show some clips of her standup, both past and present, but it's hard to 'get into' because it's so brief. Granted, her style of humor relies mainly on one-liners, but I think I would have liked it more watching a whole set. This is just one of the many docs about comedians that isn't as funny as I was expecting. I guess if I want to laugh I should just go watch their standup hmm?

Anyway, she seems like a nice lady. You can watch it on netflix instant.

Here's a clip of her jamming out with Liberace back in 1969. He seems like quite a character himself:

And here's some of her art. Pretty awesome, in my opinion:

Exciting Addition to the Resolution!

I am almost 3 weeks into my NY resolution and already the effects are palpable. My sense of curiosity about the world around me is at an all time high. Not sinceI was a child have I felt so much wonder and awe regarding the Earth and its inhabitants.

It's in this vein that I'm excited to announce a third prong has been added to my overall To-Do list: in addition to watching a doc a day, and watching all the PBS Frontline docs, I will also read one book every week. Any book, fiction, nonfiction, short stories, graphic novels. The idea is that it will be started and completed within 7 days.

I will document my weekly readings with a post and review in the same way I do the docs. I look forward to sharing them with you!

-Harrison

Day 18: Dogs Decoded

One of the first topics I wanted to learn about when I started this documentary quest was dogs. I've been a dog-walker for 4 months now, and the more time I spend around the dogs the more questions I have. I didn't grow up with dogs, so this is the first time I've gotten to know dogs individually. I'm blown away by how strong their personalities can be. Some of my dogs are really smart, some seem quite dim, some are well mannered, some are quite rude. I quickly became interested in finding out what factors shape a dog's personality.

Trying to understand the brains of dog owners would be even more difficult...

Dogs Decoded is a well put together doc about the history of dog domestication and how it affected human's evolution from hunter gatherer to civilized culture. It also discusses what factors separate dogs from their more wild cousins, wolves and foxes.

What I learned: 2 cool pieces of knowledge. There are more pet dogs in the world than babies. What? Crazy, right? More dogs than babies. Also, there is a chemical that the brain releases when humans play with dogs (or pets in general) that is also released when humans engage in sex or mothers begin to breastfeed. It's called oxytocin, or the 'cuddle hormone', and it explains why we get so much enjoyment from playing or petting dogs. Likewise, dogs release certain chemicals of joy and pleasure when petted or given attention.

What I liked: So much puppy footage!! I loved all the widdle puppy dawgs.

What I didn't like: I found some of the findings a bit dubious. Discussions about how much of the current dog was shaped by nature or nurture is just too hard to finalize in an hour long documentary. Also, some of their findings were just hard to visualize on screen. They showed a dog that could understand over 200 words (the owner would say "get your bear" and the dog would grab the stuffed bear"). I bet if I saw this in real life I'd be much more impressed but on film it left out too many factors that could have influenced the dog's understanding. Plus how many takes did they have to do before it got all the right animals in order?

On the plus side I found my dream job: a science organization in Germany that strictly tests the intelligence of dogs to chimps. Sign. me. up.

Couple other observations:
Though it was an American-made film, everyone they interviewed in the doc was British. Why? I let this distract me way more than it should have.
They interviewed a handful  of faithful dog owners. I found that the ones that were interviewed by themselves seemed 50% more like the stereotypical overly obsessed pet owner than the ones filmed with friends or family. Moral is, don't gush about your pets when you're alone.
One dude they interviewed claimed that it was because we learned to domesticate dogs that we could properly handle cattle, which in turn allowed us to start living in one place and not be nomadic. Without domesticated dogs we wouldn't have modern society, he said. Strong statement dude.
A team of scientists in Europe are breeding foxes to see what traits they share with the common dog. They are breeding out aggressive genes to see what happens. Within 2 or 3 generations the foxes started acting, and even looking, like house dogs, all due to just selective breeding.
The same scientists then did the opposite, and only bred foxes with super-aggressive traits.Genetically altered super-angry foxes?  Sounds like the plot to a terrible horror movie, right?

Though it was a good doc, it didn't answer the specific questions I'm looking for. So the search continues for more dog docs.

The documentary can be found on netflix.

Totally unrelated but I can't stop watching this commercial. Doesn't even have a car in it.

Day 17: AKA Cassius Clay

Another day, another celebration of a inspirational black figure. In honor of Muhammad Ali's 70th birthday I watched a pretty goofy documentary detailing the events of his career during the 1960's.

I don't know why, I've always liked Ali. I don't like professional athletes and I really don't like overly bombastic, cocky personalities. So why I've always been drawn to Ali is a mystery to me. I guess I admire his confidence and his bravado. As someone who has always had little discernible confidence in my actions or views, I envy his ability to say "I'm gonna knock this dude out in 4 rounds", then make it happen.

The film documented his start in Kentucky, his earning an Olympic medal, and his rise to the Heavy Weight Champion. The latter half focused on his conversion to the Nation of Islam, his name change, and his opposition to the war in Viet Nam, which resulted in the stripping of his title.

What I learned: A whole bunch. Did you know he sang in a broadway musical? While disbarred from boxing he took any job he could find, one of them was lead in a musical about African Americans in America. I didn't know his views on Viet Nam and the draft were so passionate. I assumed  he just didn't want to go (completely understandable) but he really hated the idea of fighting against oppression in far-off lands when it was happening in America at the same time.

What I liked: Him. I could watch this dude talk and joke and jump around all day every day. The guy has a natural aura to him that draws people in. Even when discussing really heavy subjects like race and the war he was able to infuse humor to crack up the audience. I was inspired by his passion and intensity and his unwavering confidence. I don't know how much of his confidence was real and how much was a trick to amp himself up, but it obviously worked. Fake it till you make it, as they say.

What I didn't like: The style of the film was a bit distracting. Made in 1970, it feels so outdated, with it's improv. jazz score and ridiculously dressed narrator. But whatever, not that big a deal.

I also spent some time just thinking about boxing in general, and how I feel about it. It's amazing that it used to be seen as such a regal, gentlmen's sport, as it's just such basic violence; two men punching each other repeatedly. I also like to think about the role of the athlete-celebrity and how it's changed over the decades. What does Ali think about personas like Dennis Rodman/Lebron/Tebow/etc? Does he appreciate their larger than life style, or does he see it as overly narcissistic?

The documentary can be found on Netflix.

Here's an awesome, hilarious set of interviews with his one time manager Cus D'Amato. I could watch these two go back and forth all day. Ultimate odd couple:

And here's an awesome photo of Ali meeting The Beatles. Seems like they'd all share pretty similar sense of humor. Not sure what the story is on why they met. I'll have to look it up!

Day 16: Man of Peace in a Time of War

Man, the week has flown by. I've been so wrapped up in looking for second jobs I haven't had time to post. Why can't I get paid to just watch documentaries all day??

In honor of the recent holiday I watched a Martin Luther King Jr. documentary. This was an interesting holiday for me. I came into it with an unusual amount of enthusiasm; I really wanted to do something to honor MLK, which is not something I usually do. I spent most of the day watching youtube clips of his speeches and reading quotes. It felt good to actually use the day for its intended purpose and not just enjoying an extra day off. 

The doc I watched was pretty basic, providing a straightforward account of MLK's life and times. Though he's been a constant figure in all my history classes growing up, I can admit there was a lot I didn't know about his life. 

What I learned: An expanded understanding of his overall views. To call him an "black rights" advocate is really selling him short. King was fighting for rights of people everywhere, and black rights just happened to be how he gained national attention. He had pretty strong opinions on the Viet Nam war, and the American poor. 

What I liked: There's an awesome full length interview with King from the Mike Douglas show from 1967 where he really lays out his views on the Viet Nam war. Hearing him speak for a long period of time really showcases his intelligence and charisma. It's easy to get sucked into one of his grandiose speeches, but to hear him speak in normal conversation and still be moved is pretty impressive. 

What I didn't like: Not much not to dislike. I would have liked to see more of his relationship with Malcolm X, and how King responded to X's claims that King was an Uncle Tom figure who helped propagate the problems of African Americans by not outwardly defying dominant white culture. I'm sure there's a doc out there about that though. 

Watching 1 documentary about MLK is not enough. I think our country really needs to start taking this day more seriously as an opportunity to honor not only the man, but the ideas he pursued. 

Here's the documentary: 

Man of Peace

And here's the interview portion from the Mike Douglas show: 

And finally, here's a short joke from the good doctor: 

Day 15: Building Empire (A Star Wars documentary)

I didn't do anything today except eat chili and watch documentaries. Not too shabby. In the last 2 days I've eaten 10 bowls of chili. Is that too many?

Today I watched 'Building Empire', a fan made doc about The Empire Strikes Back. I'd heard about this a few years ago and never watched it. It was just as good as I expected.

Leave it to a documentary to ruin the magic

Part of a series (1 for each of the 6 films) this one focuses on the 2nd film, providing behind the scenes footage, early drafts of the script, and commentary from the director and actors. The film runs chronological to the film, adding info and trivia as the film progresses.

What I learned: A good deal, considering I'm a pretty big Star Wars nerd already. All the Hoth scenes were filmed in Norway, where the average temperature was 27 below. The Emperor was conceived as a cross between Nixon and The Wizard of Oz, which makes total sense to me. And the guy who played Darth Vader (David Prowse) didn't know Vader was Luke's dad till he watched the completed film in theaters.

What I liked: A great deal of it. I really liked that it was layered on top of the movie, kinda like pop-up video, so you learn this stuff as you go, and you still feel like you're watching the film. I appreciated hearing from the directors and technicians about how difficult a lot of the scenes were to construct; it makes me appreciate them more. This doc taught me how little I understand about filmaking. The fact that it's shot in multiple locations, and never in order, is still somehow mind blowing to me. Every movies shot that way so I don't know why I'm just thinking about it now- something I knew but never realized I guess. It just seems like it'd be so confusing to do it that way.

What I didn't like: If I had to pick something, I guess it'd be that most of the commentary and notes were too technical for my taste. They focused on how the special effects were done, and that's all over my head. Conversely, I was really hoping to hear more about the creation and evolution of the characters, and how they came to be. I think have never watched the official SW documentaries that come with the films so I imagine that's the kind of stuff those cover.

I'm excited to watch the other 5 films sometime, especially the new ones to see what they have to say about them. You can watch them on youtube.

And here's a well-edited video that always makes me laugh.

Day 14: Awesome, I F*cking Shot That

After the super-depressing movie yesterday, I decided I needed to take it easy today and watch something easy and fun. I turned to an old standby, the 2006 Beastie Boy's concert documentary 'Awesome, I F*cking Shot That'. This doc's a twofer for me: not only is it the first concert doc I've reviewed this year, it's also the first one I've already seen before.

The premise is simple: before their concert at Madison Square Garden, the Beastie Boys passed out camcorders to audience members and asked them to shoot the show. The tapes were edited, and this doc was released.

So it's 90% footage of them rapping, then every once in a while the cameras show a screaming fan or a dude throwing up a rock fist. One dude takes the camera to the urinal.

What I learned: Umm...I don't think I walked away with a single new piece of information.

What I liked: The Beastie Boys. I've been a fan for a long time, but this was what really helped me see how smart and talented they were. Beyond rapping they're talented musicians, and perform a few instrumental numbers. I've since bought their two instrumental albums and like them more than their usual stuff. I also appreciate the concept of the film, it's editing, and direction which was done/supervised by the 3 Boys.

What I didn't like: Though I loved the idea of seeing their show through the eyes of the crowd, I didn't get much out of it. A few shots of the crowd dancing, and some shallow commentary (one guy said "we're gonna be on a dvd!" like 6 times throughout the show), and that was it. Maybe they could have thrown in some audience interviews or something?

Then again, the few times we get to see the audience, they don't strike me as people who I'd want to hear elaborate on their world views. Not to generalize, but most of the people at the show seemed more like "Fight for Your Right" fans and less "Something's Gotta Give" fans.

Anyway, check it out if you like the Beasties and loud New Yorkers.

Watch it Here

Read How The Beasties Really Feel About 'Fight For Your Right'

And watch my favorite Beasties song/video

What's Friday the 13th All About?

Meet the world's unluckiest lady. 

Gonna start researching more holidays and days of historical importance. I've asked myself 100 times what Friday the 13 was all about, but I finally looked it up. Like most rituals, this one has multiple theories. Here's what I found:

13 is unlucky for two main reasons, both focused around dinner parties.  12 Norse Gods threw a big dinner up in Valhalla once and Loki, God of Mischief, crashed it, played some pranks and got one of the Gods killed in the aftermath. Loki was the 13th guest. Also, The Last Supper had 13 guests, Judas being the 13th. (What does that mean, he was the last to be invited? He arrived late? He didn't RSVP?) Ever since then 13's been bad news.

Friday is also based in Biblical subtext. Theologians believe Christ was crucified on a Friday, the Great Flood started on a Friday, and even Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit on a Friday.

That theory has been heavily contested. Some believe that it's part of a Church plot to suppress and undermine women's role in the church. Apparently Friday was originally devoted to Venus, the god of Love. It gets its name from the Norse god Frigg, god of Love and Sex. So to downplay this ode to strong hardworking lady-gods, the Church made all the bad stuff in history happen on Fridays.

Other interesting things I found out:

According to the Stress Management Center and Phobia Institute, an estimated 900 million dollars is lost to businesses on Friday the 13th because of people refusing to fly, shop, or do business due to superstition.

Triskaidekaphobia is the irrational fear of Friday the 13. Yes, it has it's own name, and it's estimated that 8% of the country suffers from it. Symptoms range from panic attacks to full blown breakdowns, causing people to reschedule or cancel their plans for the whole day.

Here's my favorite fact: A quatorzieme is a French term for a party guest for hire. If you're throwing a party and only have 13 guests, you can hire a quatorzieme to be your 14th and avoid all potential disasters.

So the real question is, how do I become a professional party guest?

Day 13: Cropsey

In honor of Friday the 13th (see above post), I wanted to watch a scary documentary; something that would chill me to my bones and leave me freaked out. What I found was a poorly put together doc that left me bummed out and in tears by the end.

I found Cropsey by googling "scary documentaries". Not surprisingly, there wasn't a lot of good options. Most were political documentaries, which aren't 'scary' as much as just 'true'. The description said Cropsey was about two filmmakers investigating an serial killer urban legend in their home of Staten Island. Being the only option I found, I thought I'd give it a shot. 

What the film is actually about is...well, harder to describe. Mainly because it was so all over the place. In an hour and a half the film covers a myriad of topics, from child abduction to ghosts to the mentally handicapped. A very thin narrative tries to tie it together. 

The narrative follow the legal trials of Andre Rand, a homeless man accused of the kidnapping/murder of young children over numerous decades. Tall and skinny with sunken cheeks, Rand is a poster-boy for sexual perverts. He became something of an urban legend around Staten Island, with lots of theories as to the grisly details of his crimes. 

We are introduced to the families of the victims; all young children with mental disabilities. Yeah, so if kidnapping kids wasn't evil enough this guy only targeted the handicapped. Through old news footage we follow the tense search parties for the kids, and eventually the discovery of one of the bodies. Rand is arrested and charged based on eye witness accounts, but no real evidence is ever found. He serves time, but never admits guilt or where the other bodies were hidden. 

What I learned: Okay so if that was the whole plot, it'd be a semi-decent crime doc. But the directors decided to add in a handful of other subplots. We also learn about:
An abandoned childrens' institution for the mentally retarded that was famous for its abuse of its patients. Children were abused and neglected, left naked and unsupervised. Geraldo Riveria gained national attention for first reporting on it in 1972.
The urban legend of Cropsey, a Boogeyman like character that haunts the Staten Island area. Basically the Boogeyman but with a thick accent I guess.
How Staten Island is kind of the whipping boy for that region. It takes in thousands of pounds of other place's garbage for profit, and has severe environmental problems because of it. 

What I liked: What I liked is actually what brought me to tears. The film theorizes that urban legends are created to disguise the real truths in human nature, specifically that humans are capable of committing terrible crimes. The film has some gut wrenching interviews with the victims' families, as they ask point blank, "what kind of human being could do these terrible things?" The movie forces you to confront the worst of humanity: a sexual deviant preying on the mentally handicapped. Doesn't get much worse than that. It called into question my faith in humanity, and any kind of 'higher power' that would allow this to happen. 

What I didn't like: This movie was all over the place. What were they trying to say? No concrete evidence was ever found against Rand. Was he a scapegoat, charged to put the community back at ease? That'd be a great theme for a doc. He has ties to the occult and the community is obsessed with the urban legends that surround him. Another good theme. The loss of a child and how a family deals with it. I could go on and on- they should have just picked one and ran with it for more than a minute.

The film hit its peak of ridiculousness when the filmmakers decided to enter the old children's institution. At night. By themselves. It was total Blair Witch, Ghost Hunters crap. You can't have suspenseful court room drama one minute then try to do terrifying ghost hunting the next. 

Anyway, I shouldn't have written this much about a movie that left so little an impression on me. To sum it up; missing kids make me cry, Staten Island is a modern day Twin Peaks, and this guy creeps me out. 

Note the drool.

You could watch this on Netlfix streaming. But don't.

Day 12: Stephen Fry in America

Gonna knock out a couple of posts today, to get caught up and post some additional stuff.

Today I watched Stephen Fry in America, a series of hour long travel documentaries of famed British actor and personality Stephen Fry.

I don't know much about Fry, except what clips can be found of him on youtube. He's apparently quite a big deal in Europe. So he decides to travel trhough American and see the sights, talk to people, and get a sense for what makes America so...Americany. In episode one he travels through the New England region, covering a handful of states in one hour.

What I learned: Having never been to New England, I felt like I learned a lot about the area. It's as beautiful as everyone says, that for sure. He spends time in Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and New York State and meets some local fisherman, some goodfellas, and some witches. Little bits of trivia are thrown in along the way.

What I liked: Fry is immensely charismatic; the guy could make talking to a signpost entertaining. His greatest strength lies in his curiosity. Every new activity, every new person is met with such fierce enthusiasm you are instantly drawn in. He's like a child, sometimes even squealing in excitement.

What I didn't like: Though charming, Fry offers little to no actual commentary on the events that take place. He presents them, recites a few lines of information, then moves on with little insight to his views or their place within a larger picture. I don't know if it's his personality, or just his overly polite British upbringing, but Fry doesn't make a disparaging comment, or even witty joke at anyone's expense, the entire episode. And it's not like there wasn't a host of opportunities for comedic commentary- it seems the show went out of its way to find odd members of the American community to take part in the show; people with thick accents and unusual hobbies fill the episode. While I'm sure his intention was to be polite by holding his tongue, he instead comes off as being 'above' all this American nonsense, too apathetic to even mock it. Again, I know that's not his intent at all. I just am having problems wrapping my mind around the idea that he must be the kindest, most open minded man in the world.

Overall, it was a pretty interesting episode. I found myself less interested in the people and places and more in just Fry himself, how he'd react to certain things, and what he'd want to see next. The whole thing felt like less of a travel documentary and more of a close friend's recent vacation.

You can watch all the episodes on Netflix streaming.

And here is Fry on his other show, Qi, discussing American prison facts. This is what confuses me about his travel show. He obviously has no problem speaking critically about America, so why not on his travel show?

Cats In Space

Someone sent me this clip and I had to share.

I don't know what documentary this is from, but I have to find it.

c

Day 11: Zelig

Falling behind on my posts! Amazing that I have time to watch a 2 hour documentary every day but not spend 20 minutes writing about it.

For Day 11 I watched Zelig, a mocumentary by Woody Allen. It's from the 80's, and was made in the true Woody Allen fashion. By that I mean the first half is awesome and the second half is boring.

I'd heard about this movie for years and was pumped to finally watch it. I watched the trailer, loved it, and got even more pumped. But then I watched it, and every ounce of pumped-ness left my body about 3/4 of the way through it. This is EVERY Woody Allen movie- love the first half, hate the second. I don't know why I thought this one would be any different. It's not even that the second half of his movies are bad, it's just that they feel like separate movies. It's like this: first half is an original, quirky idea with fast paced dialogue and great jokes (Woody's a robot, Woody's a bank robber, etc), the second half is about him in a relationship and there's a lot of fighting. The end. What I want to know is who is in charge of his trailers, and why did they only watch the first half of the movie? The trailers never seem to mention the depressing second acts. It'd be like telling me I was gonna eat a giant bowl of ice cream, then half-way through someone switches the ice cream for hot clam chowder.

Anyway, so the movie is supposed to be about Leo Zelig, the world-renowned 'human cameleon' who can change his appearance at will based on the people around him. Put him in a room with a Scotsman, he starts to speak with a Scottish accent. Put him next to a Chinese man, his complexion begins to change and he turns Asian. Stick him next to a fat guy and Zelig inexplicably gains 100 pounds. Set in the 1920's and in all black and white, the film documents this fictional character's life as he goes from obscurity to overnight celebrity. He is flanked by scientists and psychologists who try to determine what is behind his ability to  mimic his surroundings. What's really cool is the movie is comprised of actual footage from the time period, with Allen and the other actors digitally added.

In reality, the movie is a love letter to 1920's New York City. Woody's always had a city-wide hard on for NYC, and he recently put out another movie glorifying 20's culture (Midnight in Paris). This film seemed to me to be less about Zelig and more about America's reaction to him, which required a discussion about where America was culturally. The country was experiencing a financial boon unseen in decades, and because of that culture was thriving tremendously. We were eager for any fad we could get our hands on.

What I learned: While offering little information about the 1920's, the film did provide a decent idea of what the social night life was like at the time. Using Zelig as the latest fad, Allen could explore the subtle steps an overnight sensation takes, from anonymity to universal fame to waning popularity to utter disdain over the course of a few years. While his character remains consistently unattached and disconnected to the events that surround him, the rest of the world goes through a spectrum of emotions.

What I liked: The best part is the special effects, hands down. Now keep in mind the movie's almost 30 years old, so it doesn't really stand up to Avatar or Spy Kids or any other high tech movie of today. But considering that, it's pretty impressive. The ENTIRE film is old footage from the 1920's, with Allen super-imposed into shots and background scenes. Pretty mindblowing to think this could be done way back then.

What I didn't like: Like I've said, the second half fell victim to the usual curse of Woody Allen movies. He falls in love with a woman, then they fight and think about breaking up for 45 mins. The thing I like about Allen is his neurotic tendencies; it's fun to see him overreact about small, meaningless things. It's fun to think, "man, if he's this upset about stepping in mud, I'd hate to see how he acts in a committed relationship." It's not fun to actually see how he acts in a committed relationship. It's actually depressing and kind of redundant.

Here's the trailer, which is AWESOME. Seriously, one of the best ones I think I've ever seen. Shame the movie couldn't compete with it.

The whole film can be viewed in parts on youtube.

To show I'm not a Woody-hater, watch his old standup. He's my second favorite comic after Steve Martin.

Day 10: Prickin' and Trimmin'

So I was thinking today: wouldn't it be a trip if my blog got turned into a movie someday? Do you think Amy Adams could play me?

Anyway, today I watched a nice short happy documentary. Clocking in at 20 mins, I don't think I'll find one shorter than this. Filmed in Drexel, North Carolina, the film centers around a barber shop in the heart of town run by two elderly men, David and Lawrence. Beyond the haircuts and small talk that fill the front parlor, the building is frequently full of local musicians and singers, locals wanting to do nothing but sit around and play music.

The film's focus seems to be the unlikely pairing of live music in a barbershop setting, but what captivated me was the attitudes and tone of America's small towns. Not having spent a lot of time in small towns, I was astonished at the mood and mentality found throughout the men in the film; they were like something straight out of the Andy Griffith Show. I'd never seen a group of people more content with their lives as these guys. They could cut hair and play music for the next 100 years and never grow tired of it. I never had a relationship with my grandparents, so there's an attraction to a generation once removed from what I'm used to.

Maybe it's the result of spending the last 9 months in Chicago but this made me long for the simple slower life of a small town. 1 post office, no subways, where everyone knows your name and vice versa. My favorite part of the film was very subtle- as the old men sit outside and discuss things, as cars go by they all wave at the drivers. That simple act carries a lot of weight, and says a lot about them I think.

My only complaint might be that it was so short. I'd like to know more about these men, their lives, and their day to day routines. But the director chose to keep the film short, and maybe it's for the best-leaves me wanting more.

You can watch it online via Vimeo. The film won a handful of awards and was nominated for an Emmy.
Pickin' and Trimmin'

Here's the trailer

And finally here's a taste of the music they put forth for 3-6 hours every day. Check out the youtube page for more videos about the barbershop.