list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Born Into Brothels on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Born_Into_Brothels/238843/default.aspx Title: Born Into Brothels
Year: 2004
Director: Ross Kauffman, Zana Briski
Plot: Born Into Brothels is a documentary about the inspiring non-profit foundation Kids With Cameras, which teaches photography skills to children in marginalized communities. In 1998, New York-based photographer Zana Briski started photographing prostitutes in the red-light district of Calcutta. She eventually developed a relationship with their children, who were fascinated by her equipment. After several years of learning in workshops with Briski, the kids created their own photographs with point-and-shoot 35 mm cameras. Their images capture the intimacy and color of everyday life in the overpopulated sections of Calcutta. Proceeds from the sale of the children's photographs go to fund their future education. Directed by Briski and filmmaker Ross Kauffman, Born Into Brothels was shown at the Sundance Film Festival in 2004 as part of the documentary competition. ~ Andrea LeVasseur, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 58
Number of Lists: 34
Number of blog posts: 5
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:12:09 GMTBorn Into Brothels2004Ross Kauffman, Zana BriskiBorn Into Brothels is a documentary about the inspiring non-profit foundation Kids With Cameras, which teaches photography skills to children in marginalized communities. In 1998, New York-based photographer Zana Briski started photographing prostitutes in the red-light district of Calcutta. She eventually developed a relationship with their children, who were fascinated by her equipment. After several years of learning in workshops with Briski, the kids created their own photographs with point-and-shoot 35 mm cameras. Their images capture the intimacy and color of everyday life in the overpopulated sections of Calcutta. Proceeds from the sale of the children's photographs go to fund their future education. Directed by Briski and filmmaker Ross Kauffman, Born Into Brothels was shown at the Sundance Film Festival in 2004 as part of the documentary competition. ~ Andrea LeVasseur, All Movie Guide58Tag Target (>10)34514http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t67368qaaxb.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Born_Into_Brothels/238843/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_american_dream/archive/2009/1/25/39881.aspx Post By: The_American_Dream
Post To: The_American_Dream Blog
Post Date: 1/25/2009 11:12:09 AM
Body: This really was an incredible film. It is rare that film can truly balance everything that you want in a movie; there seems always to be a short coming, but "Slumdog Millionaire" does not have one. The plot of "Slumdog Millionaire" is really very simple, at least at its most basic. It is that story, even when you have seen it again and again, that when it is done right, really makes you believe that there is hope in the world against all adversity. So this kid lives in the slums of India, and he has battled all manor of terrible events, just to get back to the true love of his life. "Atonement" tried this last year (well, not the slums of India part, but that does not really matter) and "Atonement" was awful. "Atonement" and "Slumdog Millionaire" have a lot in common besides their stories, even despite the face that one was excellent and the other was atrocious. They are both stunningly beautiful, have this age old plot, are Oscar nominees, and do not really make you laugh that much. There are more similarities but they are less important. When "Atonement" tried to accomplish these things, even in the scope of the stage it used to present it; a war, about 70 years of a characters life, sex in a library, et cetera, it could not bring to the audience into the passion of the plight for these characters. "Slumdog Millionaire" has, in some cases, similar scope; we meet the characters three times in their lives, and they walk and hitch-hike on trains all over a subcontinent. The difference lies in the directors. It seems characteristic of Joe Wright to be somewhat disconnected from his subject; Wright sets you in their world but does not have the audacity to throw his characters in the audiences face, challenging their opinion of a world they do not know. Joe Wright's "Pride & Prejudice" was the same; while his concise, and beautiful telling was a nice departure from the 1995 version made for television, the actors in Wright's telling (all of them A-list in my opinion) did not bring the weight of 1995 version. Additionally, the performances in the 1995 version were spread over 5 hours of film. Wright's upcoming film, "The Soloist" looks good in trailers, but will be no different. Danny Boyle, on the other hand, is uncompromising when he tells a story. Even in his less moving work "Sunshine", Boyle forced the audience to see eye to eye and into the souls of his characters. "Sunshine" is not really a great movie, more a cool movie that is awesome to see in theaters, but when I compare it to other Sci-Fi epics like Soderbergh's "Solaris", one really feels close to the characters. Needless to say, this comes from Danny Boyle's characteristic close-ups and sharp as a razor light shows. Danny Boyle has found a way to bring a character to the audience in an unusual way that makes a story stick in a viewers mind. Further more, Boyle does not seem limited by the talent of the like Chris Evans. To speak specifically to this movie is difficult, it seems to me to be unique despite its reused parts. The screenplay by Simon Beaufoy has enough spins on the accepted story that this one is totally new. Some of these spins sent drops of dramatic blood into the veins of "Slumdog Millionaire"; scenes of hardships faced by the children in India made some in the audience gasp, but what else would you expect from a developing nation. The scenes of the slums in "Slumdog Millionaire" were far more moving than those in the documentary "Born into Brothels". Also, the spin that the game-show has in this movie provides a sort of backbone that other films do not have. There are three plots moving throughout most of this film, and when they harmoniously meet at the end, it really brings emotion off the screen. These gems of originality set "Slumdog Millionaire" apart from many other films I've seen. "Slumdog Millionaire" deserves all the honour it can get from the Hollywood crowd. This seems a year that one of the more independent films can finally take the big prize. Not only does "Slumdog Millionaire" have everything and more that one would want from any Best Picture film, "Slumdog Millionaire" has originality and depth that set it apart from many films this year or any year.
]]>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:12:09 GMTThe_American_DreamThe_American_Dream Blog1/25/2009 11:12:09 AMThis really was an incredible film. It is rare that film can truly balance everything that you want in a movie; there seems always to be a short coming, but "Slumdog Millionaire" does not have one. The plot of "Slumdog Millionaire" is really very simple, at least at its most basic. It is that story, even when you have seen it again and again, that when it is done right, really makes you believe that there is hope in the world against all adversity. So this kid lives in the slums of India, and he has battled all manor of terrible events, just to get back to the true love of his life. "Atonement" tried this last year (well, not the slums of India part, but that does not really matter) and "Atonement" was awful. "Atonement" and "Slumdog Millionaire" have a lot in common besides their stories, even despite the face that one was excellent and the other was atrocious. They are both stunningly beautiful, have this age old plot, are Oscar nominees, and do not really make you laugh that much. There are more similarities but they are less important. When "Atonement" tried to accomplish these things, even in the scope of the stage it used to present it; a war, about 70 years of a characters life, sex in a library, et cetera, it could not bring to the audience into the passion of the plight for these characters. "Slumdog Millionaire" has, in some cases, similar scope; we meet the characters three times in their lives, and they walk and hitch-hike on trains all over a subcontinent. The difference lies in the directors. It seems characteristic of Joe Wright to be somewhat disconnected from his subject; Wright sets you in their world but does not have the audacity to throw his characters in the audiences face, challenging their opinion of a world they do not know. Joe Wright's "Pride & Prejudice" was the same; while his concise, and beautiful telling was a nice departure from the 1995 version made for television, the actors in Wright's telling (all of them A-list in my opinion) did not bring the weight of 1995 version. Additionally, the performances in the 1995 version were spread over 5 hours of film. Wright's upcoming film, "The Soloist" looks good in trailers, but will be no different. Danny Boyle, on the other hand, is uncompromising when he tells a story. Even in his less moving work "Sunshine", Boyle forced the audience to see eye to eye and into the souls of his characters. "Sunshine" is not really a great movie, more a cool movie that is awesome to see in theaters, but when I compare it to other Sci-Fi epics like Soderbergh's "Solaris", one really feels close to the characters. Needless to say, this comes from Danny Boyle's characteristic close-ups and sharp as a razor light shows. Danny Boyle has found a way to bring a character to the audience in an unusual way that makes a story stick in a viewers mind. Further more, Boyle does not seem limited by the talent of the like Chris Evans. To speak specifically to this movie is difficult, it seems to me to be unique despite its reused parts. The screenplay by Simon Beaufoy has enough spins on the accepted story that this one is totally new. Some of these spins sent drops of dramatic blood into the veins of "Slumdog Millionaire"; scenes of hardships faced by the children in India made some in the audience gasp, but what else would you expect from a developing nation. The scenes of the slums in "Slumdog Millionaire" were far more moving than those in the documentary "Born into Brothels". Also, the spin that the game-show has in this movie provides a sort of backbone that other films do not have. There are three plots moving throughout most of this film, and when they harmoniously meet at the end, it really brings emotion off the screen. These gems of originality set "Slumdog Millionaire" apart from many other films I've seen. "Slumdog Millionaire" deserves all the honour it can get from the Hollywood crowd. This seems a year that one of the more independent films can finally take the big prize. Not only does "Slumdog Millionaire" have everything and more that one would want from any Best Picture film, "Slumdog Millionaire" has originality and depth that set it apart from many films this year or any year. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/13/39472.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/13/2009 5:01:36 PM
Body: Getting ready for the Sundance Film Festival can be very exciting. As we await the event’s Thursday opening, we can’t stop wondering what will be the next big thing. Will this year’s hit be the highly-anticipated Michael Cera project Paper Hearts, or will it be something that we as of yet know nothing about? It’s easy to forget, however, that oftentimes the next big thing is also the next lamest thing. Sundance sensations, those films that are much-buzzed-about, that sell for a lot of money, that go on to be marketed like crazy and ultimately receive Oscar recognition, tend to lend themselves most easily to backlashes. Usually such derision is deserved, as in the case of the following ten films, each of which made a big splash at Sundance despite being bad. 10. Brick (Rian Johnson; 2005 Sundance premiere) When Blade Runner was first released, critics attacked its novelty of combining film noir with science fiction. Yet when Brick arrived in Park City, its similar genre-bending mix of film noir and teen films was welcomed as the most original film in years. In both circumstances, critics were wrong, and while Blade Runner ultimately became a classic, Brick is retrospectively even sillier now than it was when it won a Special Jury Prize “for originality of vision” four years ago. Yes, the film is a fresh idea in theory, but it doesn’t really work on screen, no matter how much you want it to or think it does. It’s simply a novelty gag for film geeks who love noir — while not quite as enjoyable for fans of the teen genre. Is there really anyone who wouldn’t just rather watch a double feature of The Big Sleep and Heathers? 9. Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris; 2006 Sundance premiere) Never mind its impact on the culture of Sundance. The annoying “what will be the next Little Miss Sunshine?” idea was just a substitute for similar questions going back as far as 1990 (“what will be the next sex, lies, and videotape?”). The real problem with LMS is that it’s a decent dysfunctional family comedy that falls apart in the third act. On the positive side, it finally got Alan Arkin an Oscar. But on the more glaring negative side, it also got Abigail Breslin an Oscar nomination. Hardly worthy, also, of its Best Picture nod or its Best Original Screenplay win, the film’s success is the product of a terrific marketing team and moviegoers’ acceptance of cheesy endings — and has nothing to do with the quality of the film. 8. The Brothers McMullen (Edward Burns; 1995 Sundance premiere) While the name Fox Searchlight is now synonymous with marketing the hell out of “indie” sensations like Little Miss Sunshine, Juno and Slumdog Millionaire, the specialty division has been overdoing it with unworthy films since the very first Sundance hit they distributed. The Brothers McMullen is not necessarily a bad film, but it isn’t anything special either. Some say the 1995 fest was the downward turning point for Sundance, whether because it showed us a major “sellout” who wasn’t actually as good as he’d been celebrated as being (Kevin Smith, who disappointed with his sophomore effort, Mallrats) or because a lackluster picture like McMullen won the Grand Jury Prize. And like Smith, Edward Burns ultimately revealed himself to be something of an embarrassment, talent-wise, to the reputation of Sundance alums. 7. Garden State (Zach Braff; 2004 Sundance premiere) 2004 was the year that indie quirkiness got out of hand at Sundance (see #3). Sure, Garden State got us all into The Shins, but it also got filmmakers too into a genre I call “homecoming of age” movies, those banal stories about twenty- and thirty- somethings who revisit their homes due to a dying or dead parent and involve themselves with wacky townies in the process. Any idiot can write a script of this type and fill it with quirky scenery and an obnoxious yet adorable love interest. Sundance must still be getting countless submissions of this kind of film, but unfortunately for the rest of the world’s idiot filmmakers, they aren’t TV stars like Zach Braff. 6. SherryBaby (Laurie Collyer; 2006 Sundance premiere) Sundance has long been a haven for depressing films involving junkies and/or incest, but few have been as overrated as SherryBaby. Once again, it’s all about the star power, as the film might not have been so hyped had Maggie Gyllenhaal not been in the lead. Then again, it might have actually been a better film without her. Grandly over-praised for her performance as the easily played rehabilitating mom, the actress got undeserved kudos simply for being raw and despicable. Her Oscar snub was a relief, at least. 5. Born Into Brothels (Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman; 2004 Sundance premiere) It may have won the documentary Audience Award at Sundance and the documentary Oscar a year later, but that doesn’t excuse Born Into Brothels from being a disgrace to nonfiction filmmaking. One of the most self-satisfying docs ever made, the film will forever be marked by its footage of co-director Zana Briski figuratively patting herself on the back during a fundraiser, with which she sinfully seeks sainthood for involving herself in the lives of her film’s subjects. If documentary was synonymous with charity, Born Into Brothels would indeed be a great film, but documentaries like this should merely be an inspiration to charity, not charity itself. 4. Masked and Anonymous (Larry Charles; 2003 Sundance premiere) One of the most anticipated films of the 2003 festival due to a script co-written by Bob Dylan and an unbelievable cast including Dylan, Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Penelope Cruz, Ed Harris, Luke Wilson, Mickey Rourke, Angela Bassett, Jessica Lange and many other big names, the very messy Masked and Anonymous therefore ended up the biggest disappointment of that year. Its worth was later defended and praised by such critics as Jonathan Rosenbaum, who included it in his 2003 Top Ten list, and Salon.com’s Stephanie Zacharek. But most of us are in agreement that it’s one of the biggest wastes of talent in years. 3. Napoleon Dynamite (Jared Hess; 2004 Sundance premiere) Napoleon Dynamite’s inclusion on this list is likely to upset more people than Brick’s, but at least the Brick devotees can defend their fandom with more than just shouts of “It’s funny!” Because the thing is, Napoleon Dynamite is not comedy. It is merely quirky, which is not the same thing as funny. Jared Hess’ pop culture phenomenon does feature some highly original characters and situations, but his execution of these elements is obvious and uninteresting. “Gosh!” is neither a good punchline nor a good catchphrase. 2. The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez; 1999 Sundance premiere) It must be appreciated as much as attacked for its groundbreaking marketing campaign, and in many ways the film itself can be acknowledged for having a terrific premise with an almost perfect realization of that idea. But for the most part, The Blair Witch Project is a basic, amateur and poorly concluded effort that turned the appeal of indie simplicity on its head. Almost a decade earlier, when filmmakers saw Slacker and said “I can do that,” they were mostly mistaken. But The Blair Witch allowed every schmo with a digital camera to declare, “I can do that,” and be relatively correct in his or her statement. It’s okay for indie filmmaking to seem easy, but when it really is that easy, it degrades the truly talented. 1. Boxing Helena (Jennifer Lynch; 1993 Sundance premiere) Cult appeal notwithstanding, Boxing Helena was one of the first really awful movies to be up for Sundance’s Grand Jury Prize. And although in the 17 years since, the festival has been easily criticized for allowing bad films with lots of buzz and/or big name talent to be included in competition, no film has been as unworthy as this. Had it starred original choice Madonna in the part of the titular amputee, Boxing Helena might have really deserved to at least become a midnight movie. However, with its lesser-name casting, it’s barely even good enough for Skinamax programming. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:01:36 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/13/2009 5:01:36 PMGetting ready for the Sundance Film Festival can be very exciting. As we await the event’s Thursday opening, we can’t stop wondering what will be the next big thing. Will this year’s hit be the highly-anticipated Michael Cera project Paper Hearts, or will it be something that we as of yet know nothing about? It’s easy to forget, however, that oftentimes the next big thing is also the next lamest thing. Sundance sensations, those films that are much-buzzed-about, that sell for a lot of money, that go on to be marketed like crazy and ultimately receive Oscar recognition, tend to lend themselves most easily to backlashes. Usually such derision is deserved, as in the case of the following ten films, each of which made a big splash at Sundance despite being bad. 10. Brick (Rian Johnson; 2005 Sundance premiere) When Blade Runner was first released, critics attacked its novelty of combining film noir with science fiction. Yet when Brick arrived in Park City, its similar genre-bending mix of film noir and teen films was welcomed as the most original film in years. In both circumstances, critics were wrong, and while Blade Runner ultimately became a classic, Brick is retrospectively even sillier now than it was when it won a Special Jury Prize “for originality of vision” four years ago. Yes, the film is a fresh idea in theory, but it doesn’t really work on screen, no matter how much you want it to or think it does. It’s simply a novelty gag for film geeks who love noir — while not quite as enjoyable for fans of the teen genre. Is there really anyone who wouldn’t just rather watch a double feature of The Big Sleep and Heathers? 9. Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris; 2006 Sundance premiere) Never mind its impact on the culture of Sundance. The annoying “what will be the next Little Miss Sunshine?” idea was just a substitute for similar questions going back as far as 1990 (“what will be the next sex, lies, and videotape?”). The real problem with LMS is that it’s a decent dysfunctional family comedy that falls apart in the third act. On the positive side, it finally got Alan Arkin an Oscar. But on the more glaring negative side, it also got Abigail Breslin an Oscar nomination. Hardly worthy, also, of its Best Picture nod or its Best Original Screenplay win, the film’s success is the product of a terrific marketing team and moviegoers’ acceptance of cheesy endings — and has nothing to do with the quality of the film. 8. The Brothers McMullen (Edward Burns; 1995 Sundance premiere) While the name Fox Searchlight is now synonymous with marketing the hell out of “indie” sensations like Little Miss Sunshine, Juno and Slumdog Millionaire, the specialty division has been overdoing it with unworthy films since the very first Sundance hit they distributed. The Brothers McMullen is not necessarily a bad film, but it isn’t anything special either. Some say the 1995 fest was the downward turning point for Sundance, whether because it showed us a major “sellout” who wasn’t actually as good as he’d been celebrated as being (Kevin Smith, who disappointed with his sophomore effort, Mallrats) or because a lackluster picture like McMullen won the Grand Jury Prize. And like Smith, Edward Burns ultimately revealed himself to be something of an embarrassment, talent-wise, to the reputation of Sundance alums. 7. Garden State (Zach Braff; 2004 Sundance premiere) 2004 was the year that indie quirkiness got out of hand at Sundance (see #3). Sure, Garden State got us all into The Shins, but it also got filmmakers too into a genre I call “homecoming of age” movies, those banal stories about twenty- and thirty- somethings who revisit their homes due to a dying or dead parent and involve themselves with wacky townies in the process. Any idiot can write a script of this type and fill it with quirky scenery and an obnoxious yet adorable love interest. Sundance must still be getting countless submissions of this kind of film, but unfortunately for the rest of the world’s idiot filmmakers, they aren’t TV stars like Zach Braff. 6. SherryBaby (Laurie Collyer; 2006 Sundance premiere) Sundance has long been a haven for depressing films involving junkies and/or incest, but few have been as overrated as SherryBaby. Once again, it’s all about the star power, as the film might not have been so hyped had Maggie Gyllenhaal not been in the lead. Then again, it might have actually been a better film without her. Grandly over-praised for her performance as the easily played rehabilitating mom, the actress got undeserved kudos simply for being raw and despicable. Her Oscar snub was a relief, at least. 5. Born Into Brothels (Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman; 2004 Sundance premiere) It may have won the documentary Audience Award at Sundance and the documentary Oscar a year later, but that doesn’t excuse Born Into Brothels from being a disgrace to nonfiction filmmaking. One of the most self-satisfying docs ever made, the film will forever be marked by its footage of co-director Zana Briski figuratively patting herself on the back during a fundraiser, with which she sinfully seeks sainthood for involving herself in the lives of her film’s subjects. If documentary was synonymous with charity, Born Into Brothels would indeed be a great film, but documentaries like this should merely be an inspiration to charity, not charity itself. 4. Masked and Anonymous (Larry Charles; 2003 Sundance premiere) One of the most anticipated films of the 2003 festival due to a script co-written by Bob Dylan and an unbelievable cast including Dylan, Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Penelope Cruz, Ed Harris, Luke Wilson, Mickey Rourke, Angela Bassett, Jessica Lange and many other big names, the very messy Masked and Anonymous therefore ended up the biggest disappointment of that year. Its worth was later defended and praised by such critics as Jonathan Rosenbaum, who included it in his 2003 Top Ten list, and Salon.com’s Stephanie Zacharek. But most of us are in agreement that it’s one of the biggest wastes of talent in years. 3. Napoleon Dynamite (Jared Hess; 2004 Sundance premiere) Napoleon Dynamite’s inclusion on this list is likely to upset more people than Brick’s, but at least the Brick devotees can defend their fandom with more than just shouts of “It’s funny!” Because the thing is, Napoleon Dynamite is not comedy. It is merely quirky, which is not the same thing as funny. Jared Hess’ pop culture phenomenon does feature some highly original characters and situations, but his execution of these elements is obvious and uninteresting. “Gosh!” is neither a good punchline nor a good catchphrase. 2. The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez; 1999 Sundance premiere) It must be appreciated as much as attacked for its groundbreaking marketing campaign, and in many ways the film itself can be acknowledged for having a terrific premise with an almost perfect realization of that idea. But for the most part, The Blair Witch Project is a basic, amateur and poorly concluded effort that turned the appeal of indie simplicity on its head. Almost a decade earlier, when filmmakers saw Slacker and said “I can do that,” they were mostly mistaken. But The Blair Witch allowed every schmo with a digital camera to declare, “I can do that,” and be relatively correct in his or her statement. It’s okay for indie filmmaking to seem easy, but when it really is that easy, it degrades the truly talented. 1. Boxing Helena (Jennifer Lynch; 1993 Sundance premiere) Cult appeal notwithstanding, Boxing Helena was one of the first really awful movies to be up for Sundance’s Grand Jury Prize. And although in the 17 years since, the festival has been easily criticized for allowing bad films with lots of buzz and/or big name talent to be included in competition, no film has been as unworthy as this. Had it starred original choice Madonna in the part of the titular amputee, Boxing Helena might have really deserved to at least become a midnight movie. However, with its lesser-name casting, it’s barely even good enough for Skinamax programming. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/26/37687.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/26/2008 4:00:48 PM
Body: If you were a nature documentarian and you were filming a lion’s hunt, would you intervene and save a gazelle from being eaten? Probably not, but if you were making a documentary about poor children in the Red Light district of Calcutta, you’d probably want to help the kids out, maybe even film yourself doing good deeds in order to show just how much of a saint you are. Obviously there’s a big difference in the ethical obligation to human beings versus animals, but there has also always been a debate with documentary regarding just how much interaction and intervention is okay. Should a filmmaker remain completely detached from his or her subject? Should the line be drawn at life or death situations, or is it fine to become involved with the filmed people? If direct-cinema kings Albert and David Maysles can interact so much with the Beales of Grey Gardens, even potentially becoming romantically involved, then nobody should question a documentarian’s desire to be an angel with a handicam. Right? Let’s pretend that the penguin in today’s clip is not just a crafty bird with the good fortune of having a whale watching vessel with which to elude his predators. Let us instead think of him as a representation of the documentary subject. Already, just by being there for the penguin to jump aboard, the boat is an example of the “observer effect” (and related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle)  In such circumstances it is impossible to adequately document the reality of this subject’s choices, since the documenter has become inadvertently involved and added an otherwise unavailable possibility. Now, because of the unintended intervention, the documenters have two choices: they can save this penguin’s life by keeping him in the boat, though this upsets the truth and nature of the film; they can throw the penguin back into the water, though this would still be a directly active participation, and besides it then could actually implicate the documenter/observer in the murder of this subject — even if the peguin’s death was already guaranteed prior to this environmental disturbance. So, what should happen to the penguin? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:00:48 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/26/2008 4:00:48 PMIf you were a nature documentarian and you were filming a lion’s hunt, would you intervene and save a gazelle from being eaten? Probably not, but if you were making a documentary about poor children in the Red Light district of Calcutta, you’d probably want to help the kids out, maybe even film yourself doing good deeds in order to show just how much of a saint you are. Obviously there’s a big difference in the ethical obligation to human beings versus animals, but there has also always been a debate with documentary regarding just how much interaction and intervention is okay. Should a filmmaker remain completely detached from his or her subject? Should the line be drawn at life or death situations, or is it fine to become involved with the filmed people? If direct-cinema kings Albert and David Maysles can interact so much with the Beales of Grey Gardens, even potentially becoming romantically involved, then nobody should question a documentarian’s desire to be an angel with a handicam. Right? Let’s pretend that the penguin in today’s clip is not just a crafty bird with the good fortune of having a whale watching vessel with which to elude his predators. Let us instead think of him as a representation of the documentary subject. Already, just by being there for the penguin to jump aboard, the boat is an example of the “observer effect” (and related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle)  In such circumstances it is impossible to adequately document the reality of this subject’s choices, since the documenter has become inadvertently involved and added an otherwise unavailable possibility. Now, because of the unintended intervention, the documenters have two choices: they can save this penguin’s life by keeping him in the boat, though this upsets the truth and nature of the film; they can throw the penguin back into the water, though this would still be a directly active participation, and besides it then could actually implicate the documenter/observer in the murder of this subject — even if the peguin’s death was already guaranteed prior to this environmental disturbance. So, what should happen to the penguin? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/24/37595.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/24/2008 7:01:27 PM
Body: When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announces a shortlist for one of its Oscar categories, many critics immediately focus on what titles are missing. Religulous was snubbed! Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was punished for having a “secret” qualifying run! The Academy’s rules for eligibility must be amended! Such reactions were seen all over the web last week as awards season pundits looked at the narrowed-down list of 15 Feature Documentary hopefuls and criticized the Academy for its omissions. But the better response (which is the one SpoutBlog had) is to primarily address and celebrate the included films, not just for being contenders for the Feature Documentary Oscar but also for being showcased in general. The wonderful thing about shortlists is that they expand further the idea that it’s great just to be nominated. For feature documentaries, particularly those without a lot of media and major distributor attention, it is also great just to be shortlisted. Non-fiction film fans may now see this as an opportunity to take note of some documentaries that weren’t previously on their radar (unfortunately none of these films are actually allowed to advertise their recent achievement of being shortlisted). But the Academy Awards are, of course, still a competition. So, while we take notice of the 15 semi-finalists for the Feature Documentary Oscar, we shall also weigh their chances of being selected for the final five and predict which titles are likely to be announced as nominees on January 22. 1. Blessed Is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh It’s a constant joke that any film related to the Holocaust is guaranteed an Oscar nomination. Obviously this is a generalization based on common trend, and not every Holocaust doc has in fact been recognized by the Academy, but if such a film is good enough to reach the shortlist, there is a very good chance that it will also be nominated. And since there hasn’t been a feature doc on the subject nominated since 2002, it’s probably time for a new one to get the spotlight. Blessed is narrated by Oscar-nominee Joan Allen and details the courageous life of Hannah Senesh, who took part in a mission to rescue Hungary’s Jews. If Hollywood doesn’t nominate this doc, it will probably at least use it as a springboard from which to produce an Oscar-bait dramatization about Senesh in the near future. 2. Trouble the Water Never mind the fact that it’s one of the best-reviewed films of the year, this is the Academy’s first chance to get behind the Katrina issue. Though some mistakenly see the Feature Documentary Oscar as primarily a category with which to showcase its favored causes rather than recognizing the actual best documentary filmmaking of the year, there is a miniscule amount of truth in the matter. It’s part of the reason that the Holocaust-doc joke is so often made, and it’s also why the films Born Into Brothels and An Inconvenient Truth were named winners, despite their being subject-over-style kinds of documentaries. Trouble the Water is a tad bit sloppy, but it has the subject matter and enough inspirational substance to receive a nomination. 3. Encounters at the End of the World This may be the Academy’s chance to make up for their exclusion of Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man a few years back or simply honor a filmmaker who has been important to the non-fiction genre for decades. Also, with their snub of Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the Academy Documentary Branch could use this as more opportunity to distinguish and make an example out of the difference between a theatrical documentary and a television documentary (as David Poland recently pointed out, “if you are a TV doc, be a TV doc…if you are a theatrical doc, that is what the Oscars reward”). People who went to see Encounters recommended it on the basis that it needs to be seen on a big screen, which is not often said about documentaries. Other things it has going for it are a shared location with Oscar-winner March of the Penguins (even if Herzog starts the film addressing that this is not like that film) and a slight relevance to the global warming issue, which is one of the Academy’s currently favored issues. 4. Standard Operating Procedure The Academy Documentary Branch does seem to favor former nominees in their category, perhaps due to the number of documentarians who turn to fiction filmmaking after breaking out in non-fiction (maybe that explains their snub of Barbara Kopple recently after her attempt into fiction). So Morris, who was infamously rejected by the Academy with his monumental film The Thin Blue Line, and who later won the Oscar for The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons Learned from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, should be given another go. It also helps that Standard Operating Procedure is the sole Iraq War-relevant documentary in the bunch, an interesting fact given how many films dealing with this topic have been shortlisted in the past few years. Even though last year the Oscar was given to a similarly themed doc about torture and prisoner abuse, the issue is likely still one that the Academy feels strongly about. Of course, speaking of that film, Taxi to the Dark Side, its director’s latest film was not shortlisted. 5. Man on Wire This is the highest grossing (and best-reviewed) of the 15 shortlisted films, and that could mean a lot, even if it is only the fifth top grossing doc of the year. The Academy is hardly a sucker for popular documentaries, but most years since Michael Moore was honored in 2002 have seen at least one popular doc, such as Super Size Me, March of the Penguins and Moore’s Sicko. In fact, only four of the ten top grossing (non-IMAX, non-concert, non-compilation, non-reality TV-based) documentaries have not been nominated for an Oscar. The only drawback for Man on Wire could be that it features a very large percentage of re-enactment or dramatization, and even if the Academy’s rules have a greater permission for these kinds of documentaries than in the days of The Thin Blue Line’s snub, it’s very possible that members of the Academy Documentary Branch are more appreciable towards one of the films that aren’t so heavily dependent on re-enactments. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:01:27 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/24/2008 7:01:27 PMWhen the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announces a shortlist for one of its Oscar categories, many critics immediately focus on what titles are missing. Religulous was snubbed! Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was punished for having a “secret” qualifying run! The Academy’s rules for eligibility must be amended! Such reactions were seen all over the web last week as awards season pundits looked at the narrowed-down list of 15 Feature Documentary hopefuls and criticized the Academy for its omissions. But the better response (which is the one SpoutBlog had) is to primarily address and celebrate the included films, not just for being contenders for the Feature Documentary Oscar but also for being showcased in general. The wonderful thing about shortlists is that they expand further the idea that it’s great just to be nominated. For feature documentaries, particularly those without a lot of media and major distributor attention, it is also great just to be shortlisted. Non-fiction film fans may now see this as an opportunity to take note of some documentaries that weren’t previously on their radar (unfortunately none of these films are actually allowed to advertise their recent achievement of being shortlisted). But the Academy Awards are, of course, still a competition. So, while we take notice of the 15 semi-finalists for the Feature Documentary Oscar, we shall also weigh their chances of being selected for the final five and predict which titles are likely to be announced as nominees on January 22. 1. Blessed Is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh It’s a constant joke that any film related to the Holocaust is guaranteed an Oscar nomination. Obviously this is a generalization based on common trend, and not every Holocaust doc has in fact been recognized by the Academy, but if such a film is good enough to reach the shortlist, there is a very good chance that it will also be nominated. And since there hasn’t been a feature doc on the subject nominated since 2002, it’s probably time for a new one to get the spotlight. Blessed is narrated by Oscar-nominee Joan Allen and details the courageous life of Hannah Senesh, who took part in a mission to rescue Hungary’s Jews. If Hollywood doesn’t nominate this doc, it will probably at least use it as a springboard from which to produce an Oscar-bait dramatization about Senesh in the near future. 2. Trouble the Water Never mind the fact that it’s one of the best-reviewed films of the year, this is the Academy’s first chance to get behind the Katrina issue. Though some mistakenly see the Feature Documentary Oscar as primarily a category with which to showcase its favored causes rather than recognizing the actual best documentary filmmaking of the year, there is a miniscule amount of truth in the matter. It’s part of the reason that the Holocaust-doc joke is so often made, and it’s also why the films Born Into Brothels and An Inconvenient Truth were named winners, despite their being subject-over-style kinds of documentaries. Trouble the Water is a tad bit sloppy, but it has the subject matter and enough inspirational substance to receive a nomination. 3. Encounters at the End of the World This may be the Academy’s chance to make up for their exclusion of Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man a few years back or simply honor a filmmaker who has been important to the non-fiction genre for decades. Also, with their snub of Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the Academy Documentary Branch could use this as more opportunity to distinguish and make an example out of the difference between a theatrical documentary and a television documentary (as David Poland recently pointed out, “if you are a TV doc, be a TV doc…if you are a theatrical doc, that is what the Oscars reward”). People who went to see Encounters recommended it on the basis that it needs to be seen on a big screen, which is not often said about documentaries. Other things it has going for it are a shared location with Oscar-winner March of the Penguins (even if Herzog starts the film addressing that this is not like that film) and a slight relevance to the global warming issue, which is one of the Academy’s currently favored issues. 4. Standard Operating Procedure The Academy Documentary Branch does seem to favor former nominees in their category, perhaps due to the number of documentarians who turn to fiction filmmaking after breaking out in non-fiction (maybe that explains their snub of Barbara Kopple recently after her attempt into fiction). So Morris, who was infamously rejected by the Academy with his monumental film The Thin Blue Line, and who later won the Oscar for The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons Learned from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, should be given another go. It also helps that Standard Operating Procedure is the sole Iraq War-relevant documentary in the bunch, an interesting fact given how many films dealing with this topic have been shortlisted in the past few years. Even though last year the Oscar was given to a similarly themed doc about torture and prisoner abuse, the issue is likely still one that the Academy feels strongly about. Of course, speaking of that film, Taxi to the Dark Side, its director’s latest film was not shortlisted. 5. Man on Wire This is the highest grossing (and best-reviewed) of the 15 shortlisted films, and that could mean a lot, even if it is only the fifth top grossing doc of the year. The Academy is hardly a sucker for popular documentaries, but most years since Michael Moore was honored in 2002 have seen at least one popular doc, such as Super Size Me, March of the Penguins and Moore’s Sicko. In fact, only four of the ten top grossing (non-IMAX, non-concert, non-compilation, non-reality TV-based) documentaries have not been nominated for an Oscar. The only drawback for Man on Wire could be that it features a very large percentage of re-enactment or dramatization, and even if the Academy’s rules have a greater permission for these kinds of documentaries than in the days of The Thin Blue Line’s snub, it’s very possible that members of the Academy Documentary Branch are more appreciable towards one of the films that aren’t so heavily dependent on re-enactments. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_Pick_a_Pair/598/32779/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seven-ate-9
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 7/19/2008 9:02:00 PM
Body: For the feel-good movie night of the year: Super Size Me and follow it up with Born into Brothels
]]>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:02:00 GMTseven-ate-9Movie Games7/19/2008 9:02:00 PMFor the feel-good movie night of the year: Super Size Me and follow it up with Born into Brothels http://www.spout.com/blogs/jlgdrd/archive/2007/6/22/11754.aspx Post By: jlgdrd
Post To: Wicked Fun
Post Date: 6/22/2007 6:37:00 PM
Body: Zana Briski’s and Ross Kauffman’s Born into Brothels is, in my reckoning, a quiet miracle. A feature length documentary that follows and transforms the lives of seven children, growing up in the squalid red light district of Sonagchi, Calcutta. Carefully avoiding bathos and melodrama Briski and Kauffman pull us deeply into the everyday existence of these kids: the verbal abuse and beatings, the drug addiction and atrocities,the desperation and impoverishment, the rage and apathy that perpetuate their misery. And, strangely enough, interwoven throughout are the childish games, silent ordinary beauty and bubbling enthusiasm they share with other children. Corny as it sounds (and Born into Brothels is anything but corny) one of the film’s most powerful revelations is that for all their earthy-wisdom, these kids retain their youthful energy despite their harrowing circumstances. They toil and suffer; steadfast and philosophical when they must be, inured to their surroundings to a large degree (how else would they subsist?)but when given the chance, they revel in their capacity to love the world. One of the film’s most haunting images, a photograph of one of the girls posed provocatively in front of a car, is so unnerving, because, of course, it functions as a ghost of what the future may hold. We’ve all seen little girls playing dress-up, but even in comparison to the creepy creepy shots we’ve seen from infant beauty pageants this picture is disturbing. But not in a garish, lurid way. Zana Briski is far too professional and respectful for that.The documentary, in fact is predicated upon the loving relationship between Briski and her seven photographer proteges, including: Avigit, Gour, Puja, Shanti, Kochi and Manik. In a moment of serendipitous inspiration, Briski decides to invite the children to a photography class, handing out cameras to each and training them. She realises the kids will have access she cannot begin to tap, and being young have a certain amount of chutzpah that enables them to just walk up and photograph someone, not caring if it angers or offends them. Like so many aspects of the film, their nerve is a double-edged sword, facilitated by their low tier in the notorious caste system. We are horrified by so many details of their environment, but they persevere, cameras at the ready. And how astonishing they are, even if we take into account that some photos were probably sifted out, the radiance and audacity and clear-eyed authenticity of the shots they take are mind-boggling. The film is jammed with distinctive, poignant imagery. A boy flying a kite from the roof of a tenement, a girl gazing quietly out the window of a bus, the children egging on the driver in a spontaneous taxi race, grown men ogling a young girl. It’s very touching that a professional photographer would move to India for two years and be willing to share her task, in the process opening up the world for her subjects. Not only do thy love what they’re doing but they take it very seriously. Though it’s hard not to get a kick when she chides one of the boys (they all call her “Auntie Zana”) for wasting two rolls of film by shooting at night without a flash. He makes one of those faces only a youngster can and says something like, “I was so absolutely confused.” These moments of opulent humanity are a grace. Despite differing levels of resignation, the children know they must get education and away from their homes if they are to escape a demeaning future. One of the older girls is already getting nagged by her aunt to “join the line” an image all too easily attached to street-walkers in America, and probably everywhere else. Briski makes it her mission to get them into boarding schools, fighting the convoluted documentation system, ignorance, intolerance and blase’ attitude of parents, relatives, teachers, clerks, government officials and nuns (!?). You’d think the Brides of Christ capable of more altruism. One of Briski’s great strengths was her willingness (if I’m reading it right) to improvise and follow the path on which this project must have lead her. Eventually the photographs they took became part of an exhibition in which the children participated,traveling to New York and earning money to facilitate their own emancipation. It’s a privilege to witness the unfolding of this journey and watch them savoring excitement and engaging vistas as only children can. And Born into Brothels isn’t one of those pitches for children as cosmic shamans in small. We understand the devastation of their predicament but Briski doesn’t milk it. She embraces her subjects with sober, practical optimism, the kind that heals even if it doesn’t necessarily fix everything.
]]>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:37:00 GMTjlgdrdWicked Fun6/22/2007 6:37:00 PMZana Briski’s and Ross Kauffman’s Born into Brothels is, in my reckoning, a quiet miracle. A feature length documentary that follows and transforms the lives of seven children, growing up in the squalid red light district of Sonagchi, Calcutta. Carefully avoiding bathos and melodrama Briski and Kauffman pull us deeply into the everyday existence of these kids: the verbal abuse and beatings, the drug addiction and atrocities,the desperation and impoverishment, the rage and apathy that perpetuate their misery. And, strangely enough, interwoven throughout are the childish games, silent ordinary beauty and bubbling enthusiasm they share with other children. Corny as it sounds (and Born into Brothels is anything but corny) one of the film’s most powerful revelations is that for all their earthy-wisdom, these kids retain their youthful energy despite their harrowing circumstances. They toil and suffer; steadfast and philosophical when they must be, inured to their surroundings to a large degree (how else would they subsist?)but when given the chance, they revel in their capacity to love the world. One of the film’s most haunting images, a photograph of one of the girls posed provocatively in front of a car, is so unnerving, because, of course, it functions as a ghost of what the future may hold. We’ve all seen little girls playing dress-up, but even in comparison to the creepy creepy shots we’ve seen from infant beauty pageants this picture is disturbing. But not in a garish, lurid way. Zana Briski is far too professional and respectful for that.The documentary, in fact is predicated upon the loving relationship between Briski and her seven photographer proteges, including: Avigit, Gour, Puja, Shanti, Kochi and Manik. In a moment of serendipitous inspiration, Briski decides to invite the children to a photography class, handing out cameras to each and training them. She realises the kids will have access she cannot begin to tap, and being young have a certain amount of chutzpah that enables them to just walk up and photograph someone, not caring if it angers or offends them. Like so many aspects of the film, their nerve is a double-edged sword, facilitated by their low tier in the notorious caste system. We are horrified by so many details of their environment, but they persevere, cameras at the ready. And how astonishing they are, even if we take into account that some photos were probably sifted out, the radiance and audacity and clear-eyed authenticity of the shots they take are mind-boggling. The film is jammed with distinctive, poignant imagery. A boy flying a kite from the roof of a tenement, a girl gazing quietly out the window of a bus, the children egging on the driver in a spontaneous taxi race, grown men ogling a young girl. It’s very touching that a professional photographer would move to India for two years and be willing to share her task, in the process opening up the world for her subjects. Not only do thy love what they’re doing but they take it very seriously. Though it’s hard not to get a kick when she chides one of the boys (they all call her “Auntie Zana”) for wasting two rolls of film by shooting at night without a flash. He makes one of those faces only a youngster can and says something like, “I was so absolutely confused.” These moments of opulent humanity are a grace. Despite differing levels of resignation, the children know they must get education and away from their homes if they are to escape a demeaning future. One of the older girls is already getting nagged by her aunt to “join the line” an image all too easily attached to street-walkers in America, and probably everywhere else. Briski makes it her mission to get them into boarding schools, fighting the convoluted documentation system, ignorance, intolerance and blase’ attitude of parents, relatives, teachers, clerks, government officials and nuns (!?). You’d think the Brides of Christ capable of more altruism. One of Briski’s great strengths was her willingness (if I’m reading it right) to improvise and follow the path on which this project must have lead her. Eventually the photographs they took became part of an exhibition in which the children participated,traveling to New York and earning money to facilitate their own emancipation. It’s a privilege to witness the unfolding of this journey and watch them savoring excitement and engaging vistas as only children can. And Born into Brothels isn’t one of those pitches for children as cosmic shamans in small. We understand the devastation of their predicament but Briski doesn’t milk it. She embraces her subjects with sober, practical optimism, the kind that heals even if it doesn’t necessarily fix everything. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/documentary/MemberTagFilms.aspxdocumentary
Number of films tagged: 402

Number of people who tagged: 127

Number of times used: 496

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:11:06 GMT402127496Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/children/MemberTagFilms.aspxchildren
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 270

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:28:15 GMT21266270Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/kidnapping/MemberTagFilms.aspxkidnapping
Number of films tagged: 2851

Number of people who tagged: 49

Number of times used: 172

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:42 GMT285149172Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/poverty/MemberTagFilms.aspxpoverty
Number of films tagged: 1505

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 70

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:28:37 GMT15053870Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/truth/MemberTagFilms.aspxtruth
Number of films tagged: 359

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 63

]]>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:23:51 GMT3593663Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hope/MemberTagFilms.aspxhope
Number of films tagged: 278

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 78

]]>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:03:04 GMT2783578Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beauty/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeauty
Number of films tagged: 62

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 78

]]>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:05:37 GMT623278Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/child/MemberTagFilms.aspxchild
Number of films tagged: 2821

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 99

]]>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:19:37 GMT28213299Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/photography/MemberTagFilms.aspxphotography
Number of films tagged: 673

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 59

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT6733259Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/India/MemberTagFilms.aspxIndia
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 60

]]>Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:19:21 GMT463160Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Fascinating/MemberTagFilms.aspxFascinating
Number of films tagged: 24

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 32

]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:51:25 GMT242732Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Honest/MemberTagFilms.aspxHonest
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 31

]]>Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:21:11 GMT162631Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/colorful/MemberTagFilms.aspxcolorful
Number of films tagged: 15

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 30

]]>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:09:48 GMT152530Tag