Hollywood Abusers

I don't know if I am more surprised at the accusations of abuse by Hollywood stars or their responses to the accusations.

Obviously, the actions by individuals like Harvey Weinstein are disgusting and completely inappropriate, and abuse, despite its normalization in such a profession field, should be accepted anywhere at anytime. 

However, I feel like the media (and inherently us as consumers and individuals as well) makes a big deal of the story, but forget to act upon it.  Rather, we continue to inflate and saturate the media with such stories and accusations, but fail to truly teach the lesson that sexual, mental, physical, or emotional abuse is wrong.

Yet, despite all the advocacy against abuse and encouraging everyone to stand up against it, Hollywood will forever be tainted by the legacy and symbol of the white male.  Just as VanDerWerff points out, as long as Hollywood and the cinema are influenced by the powerful works and ideas of infamous filmmakers like Alfred Hitchcock, Hollywood will also be lined with makings of abuse and unhealthy sexual voyeurism, as seen with Hitchcock's obsession with actress Tippi Hedren.

VanDerWerff acknowledges that Hollywood is slowly improving, as more and more people are sticking to a "no asshole" rule of sorts.  However, I question if Hollywood will serve as a microcosm for our larger feature picture of life - I hope.

American Veteran reaction

Films like these always leave me speechless.

Regardless of the cause, individuals who have suffered some sort of bodily loss, whether that be physical or mental, and manage to carry on, seeming to be stronger than before, amaze me.

After watching this, I realized all of the small details of every day life that I take advantage of, such as simply getting dressed or eating under my own power.

Despite the macrocosmic, introspective message one can elicit from this film, I believe there's a different message not often discussed.  Nick, the young soldier who was paralyzed from the next down in 2011, specifically iterates that he's surprised that people call him a hero.  He had originally joined the army to get out of Missouri and away from the monotonous work of everyday life and away from his Mom.  He considers himself a wounded veteran, but not a hero by any means.

I think that this idea is a bold and mature one to have, and especially shocking to hear from someone so damaged from their sacrifice.  However, Nick's comments paint his time in the service in almost a selfish light, as if he was only doing this for himself and not his country.  This is an interesting take for the current political climate and hot, controversial opinions on police brutality against minorities and the protesting by notable figures and professional athletes.

Regardless of Nick's opinions of himself, one can watch this movie and understand that no matter what cause, sacrifices have been, and will continue to be made, for the freedom of this country.  It is important that we appreciate to walk through life each new day, because it just may be the last day you get to walk.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas

I first watched this film as a naive eight grader in 2012.

Now, over five years later, I watch the film again with a new set of lens.

The first time I watched attentively, captured in a knot of dramatic irony, as I knew of the fate that awaited Bruno through reading the novel beforehand.  I sank into my seat, absorbing the cinematic and literally elements, reading the story as a tragic incident, an isolated episode from the Nazi point of view.

I failed to see the larger social/political implications that the movie had.  Perhaps I feel differently in light of the recent extreme political discord and tension, but I do feel that the messages that this film communicates about propaganda and resistance to tyrannic power remains importantly timeless.

To me, a line that sticks out comes from Gretel trying to console Bruno, while also informing him about his father's, Hitler's, and Germany's decisions/actions.  She tells Bruno that they're just, "trying to make the country great again".  This line is infamously associated with political campaigns over the last two centuries, most recently headlining Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.  This line has received harsh criticism over its insinuation of moving the U.S in the wrong direction of equality, and in the direction of white, and more specifically, white male power.  The negative connotation of the Trump campaign's usage should not be shocking considering its near complete copying of this phrase.

However, despite an individual's journey to make the country "great again", his supporting cast includes followers who may be not so blind after all.

We see a wide spectrum of "followers" that includes Father, Mother, Gretel, and Bruno.  Father seems to be in accordance with all of the actions put forth by the Nazi party, but we slowly watch him develop from a soldier and into a father, eventually giving way to Mother's wishes of moving the children away from such awful actions.  Even a character like Gretel, a girl who is trying to grow up too fast physically and socially, halts her loyalty at the end of the film once she begins to see the darker side of the country's actions.

My point is to not become a revolutionary and stand up against all institutions, but to open one's eyes and understand the rules that define it, before following it blindly.

Hollywood Coddles Abusers

I think Todd Van Der Werff has a very good point in his article about Hollywood abuse of actors. I feel like he was very clear in claiming that abuse in Hollywood does not go as far as sexual abuse. There is physical and emotional abuse that takes place too. He talks about many famous directors that have made famous and great films, but did not have the best attitude or treatment of the actors.

I though it was interesting and daring for Van Der Werff to make these connections to other directors that were not the kindest because he goes on to say that they have made great and fabulous films, even ones that he loves, but it does not excuse their behavior. Additionally, I thought it was very important and crucial that he mention that there is little to no excuse for abuse in any form in Hollywood and that sometimes stars hide their true feelings from the press.

Overall, I thought this article was well written. It was open minded and looked at Hollywood from many different points of view to analyze abuse behind the silver screen. It was important for him to note the many types of abuse and that it isn't always so easy to spot, even to the press and those on the set.

Jesus Camp Thoughts

Jesus Camp Thoughts

Watching Jesus Camp was both an unintentionally comical and infuriating experience. This documentary sheds light on the ignorance of an overwhelming 25% of the American population that practices Evangelical Christianity.

Signs of deception and scare tactics are extremely clear, brainwashing children to the point where they are sobbing, speaking gibberish with their eyes rolling back. They think they are speaking in tongues. While the children and their families believe this is an enlightening moment for them, the reality is that they are being manipulated through embarrassment and shame.

Telling children that they are all sinners and they need to be reborn or else they will go to hell is not a type of faith practice. The only consistent idea I thought when watching this documentary was that Evangelical Christians were unknowingly a part of a cult. The rituals, beliefs, homeschooling, everything consistently sparked red flags in my mind.

The first half of the film I could not contain my laughter, with the ridiculous statements
and normalcies of the people being documented. When the sequence of the film revolving around
abortion was screened, however, I quickly became filled with disgust and anger. These children,
no older than 12-years-old, were being told what to think about a very controversial, sensitive,
and most importantly adult issue. The maturity needed to understand this topic is far beyond that
of a 12-year-old. Scaring the children away from the truth to push the Evangelical Christian
agenda is so disturbing.

We then realize that this Evangelical Christian movement truly has the intentions of pushing conservative votes, and keeping church and state united. This is validated when we see the leader of Jesus Camp dance around the subject during her radio interview. She is accused of raising a children army to push her own political agenda, and she gets caught in her lies.

I think that more people need to see documentaries like this; no one believes that groups like this have enough power to make serious change. But, then we look at our past election, and that 25% made all the difference. It is important to stay on top of topics like this and be an advocate for what you believe is right. Staying out of the conversation makes it so much easier for things like this to unravel.

Lee Atwater Response

Lee Atwater was a brilliant spin doctor. It was seen throughout the entire documentary that his entire life revolved around the way that he responded to the media and I think that is what made him such a big figure during his time. Although I did not agree with his beliefs I can respect his ability when it came to campaigns. He had techniques that always resulted in victory. 

I think that the documentary gave great insight into his personality and what his life was life. During the film, when they said that once he got sick it had to be very difficult for him that no one seemed to care or talk about him anymore. I think that shows the true color of politics. When he was in the medias face obviously everyone was talking about him, but once he became weaker and more quiet he was not the main topic of discussion. I don't think I would have thought of that if the documentary didn't bring that aspect up. 

The entire film came full circle, when at the end they state that they found Lee's bible after he had passed away still in the wrap when he had first bought it. This was so powerful because toward the end of his life he was telling people that he had turned to the Bible and was looking into different faiths and passages in order to help him create an understanding for an after life. When in reality he was just being a spin doctor up until his last breath. This documentary gave great insight into the story of Lee Atwater and was really well done. 

Hollywood Coddles Abusers Response

This article was definitely an interesting read between learning more about propaganda and taking a film class specifically based around Hitchcock's films and style of film production. It is no secret that Hitchcock was known for his twisted and mysterious films which is said to have made his films the most iconic films of all time.

This brings forth the question of whether or not his twisted mind played a part into his brilliant work. Hitchcock was known for hiring physically pleasing women as his leads in his film. A majority of his films focus on gender roles, and the male gaze toward women. Much of his films were extremely objectifying which is why his work reflected so greatly on his own personality.

Throughout history the film industry has had multiply incidents regarding men physically sexually or mentally abusing women within the industry. The latest has been concern Harvey Weinstein and unfortunately I don't think it will be the last.

What I liked about this article is how it spoke about how this industry is also full of journalist who have the power to positively address the issue. This industry is full of opinion leaders so if any industry can address this issue and make a positive impact its this one. It is completely possible to create amazing work without being an asshole.

Lee Atwater - The Disney Villain Story that you never heard

Wow.

This story has the potential to be a blockbuster drama.

After watching this documentary, it really opened my eyes to the extremist world of politics that runs our world.  Not by the extremist political policies, no, but the extremist attitudes, strategies, and individuals that will stop at nothing to get what he/she/they want and achieve his/her/their goals.

Perhaps, the poster child of this characteristic, is none other than infamous political consultant and strategist, Lee Atwater.

Atwater is one of the most conniving figures in political history, first gaining notoriety off of his work with the Reagan presidential campaign.  He became popular with both parties as his bluegrass and slander tactics ended off beneficial for Reagan.  Many republicans saw Atwater as a rising figure with star-like potential, but a few joined the Democrats in viewing his tactics as vile, even drawing some claims of racism and prejudice.

Atwater became infamous for his interactions with the media and his ability to skew the truth and essentially lie in order to paint himself, his party, and his presidential candidate in a more positively light.  In the moment this proved successful, but in due time, people began to see the type of person Atwater truly was.

Unfortunately, Atwater found out that karma may be more true than not after he was diagnosed with a brain tumor.  Even on his deathbed, Atwater lived his life in a facade as he pretended to change his ways and become a man of faith.

Although Atwater's story seems to be unfortunately fit for a man of such actions, a larger problem lies at hand.

While many believe Atwater's tactics paved the path for the politics and lies of today, the fact is that this type of propaganda is nothing new to society, and that this type of manipulation has been occurring for centuries.  Atwater's story is merely another instance of what can happen to an individual, party, and following when expose to such lies and actions.

The knowledge of Atwater's past and tactics shouldn't directly influence your opinion on the politics of today.  However, it should garner a change in how you view and evaluate such tactics and news.  Keep your eyes open wide, and make your own decisions, because there will always be someone like Atwater waiting to make the decision for you.

Lee Atwater: The Marketers of Political Falsehoods

Lee Atwater, it is fair to say, is one of the most influential and infamous individuals whoever set foot in Washington D.C. After watching the film, it was clear to me that his methods of campaigning, speaking, and his particular swagger, so to speak, was undeniably present during this most recent campaign.

Between the stating of untrue falsehood and negative ad campaign, it was all there; as if Donal Trump and his many campaign managers took notes and learned the strategy in which Atwater set into place during the end of the 20th century. In the film, Atwater was able to portray himself to the public as a man of the people, a fair player, and a lover of the blues. However, his political stance and actions within his campaign were vile, for that they targeted the pressure points of opponents, whether they were a reality of a fallacy, and used them in order to damage the public perception of his counterpart. Loyalty was to Atwater as a way in which he has to depend on others, though others cannot depend on him.

Power was a revolving theme of the film. Atwater strove for the peek of the ranks within the political world. Although, it is apparent that whoever got in his way would be steamrolled over and would be faced with public scrutiny--due to the leaking of information that would find its way tot he press.

One difference in which can be considered between Lee Atwater and Donald Trump is the public perception of Atwater versus Trump. The film made clear that Atwater was often questioned on his tactics and information in which he deemed true, though Atwater could easily worm out of the question through jokes, another question, and other voids. With Trump, it seems that he is a lot slower than Atwater--mentally--ergo he is unable to use the tactics Atwater invented. While the entire strategy of Atwater is sickening and dishonorable, we can not help but be impressed by how well he played the public. The film shines a light on his deplorable actions and ways of politics, but it also shows that he was the ultimate BS'er for he was able to back it up with a 'story' and maintain an earnest tone; all while manipulating the people and an informed public to believe complete fallacies.

How Jesus Camp is Still Relevant 10 Years Later

     It's understandable to see how frustrated and uncontrollably angry one could get watching the documentary film 'Jesus Camp.' When I first saw the film years ago with some high school friends because we heard the movie was funny: I was in for a nasty, too-honest truth about how divided America really is. Watching it again for class, I knew all of the 'roll your eyes' parts already and wanted to go into the film to see more than its face value. More than laughing at how Evangelical Christians live or the fact that Rachael had a shirt that said ' Jesus Died for Your sins' with hearts and purple stars around it.

     The most important, and clearly hilarious scene in the documentary was when all of the children were praying around a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush, a man who won his presidency with the thanks of Evangelical Christians. As the holy Ted Haggard mentioned in the film: the Evangelicals are one of the largest voting communities in the nation and they alone, can sway the presidential election.

      What makes this documentary so relevant: has to do with the past Presidential election, where like the 2000 election, the Republican nominee won thanks to the electoral college not to the popular vote. Donald Trump has become essentially, a newer updated George W Bush and from that he has gained the same voter base. Trump has gained popularity within the Evangelicals mostly due to his conservative values and his strong sense of 'family' and 'Christian Values.' Also, a lot is due to his hatred to former President Obama and his claim that he was not born in America and wanted to see his birth certificate.

     Even though Trump did not win the popular vote, a lot of his vote was thanks to the Evangelical Church and all of its followers. Even George Marshall stated at the beginning of class before Jesus Camp was shown that all of the kids who went to that camp were able to vote in the 2016 election, and that should scare a lot of people.

     The kids in Jesus Camp are much more important than the adults, they are raised by parents from one generation and are expected to have those same ideas and beliefs in a rapidly changing and very liberal time. What they learned in Jesus Camp is what they are spreading now to others, and when people wonder why Trump became president: you can refer to the film and see how even at young ages the Evangelical can spread out messages to all audiences. And those messages could of become political.

Jesus Camp Response

After watching Jesus Camp, I felt very frustrated at the fact that these children were brainwashed from such a young age to be so intensely committed to a belief that they weren't even able to understand for themselves in the first place. This also brings up the idea of when something is considered brainwashing, at what point. These children were never given a chance to think or use their young imaginations for themselves. The fact that they had to criticize themselves to the point where they would cry and feel upset is not healthy for a developing child. The difference between these children and other children who are brought up under a religion is that Jesus Camp only told one story and that was it. The children were not exposed to diversity or different types of people. Being contained through home schooling to only understand what their parents want them to believe is brainwashing.
This was very disturbing for me because it not only effects the lives of young children but it effects the future. The fact that all these children are taught from a young age to bow down to George Bush is raising them to be a republication without allowing the children to see all angles of political parties.   As human beings we should be teaching children to question everything and to learn about the different views in order to form their own.

Jesus Camp - Initial thoughts: Y'all Need Jesus

To be honest, I was expecting a lot worse from this film.  

Radical religion has been around since the dawn of man, but through the lethal jaws of social media or advanced film technology, consumers are able to see radical religion in a new light.  People often think of ISIS when the term "radical religion" is utilized, but they forget that this branch of evangelicalism occurs right in our own back yard.

It terrifies me to see people act, think, and behave like this.  No, I am not referring to their religious beliefs.  I am referring to their obnoxiously headstrong attitudes and arrogant, ignorant ways of life.  When brain-dead adults, who have no higher education than their parents home-schooled degree, rattle off ill-rational reasoning for easily explained scientific facts, I can't help but to become furious.  I couldn't imagine a world in which people like this, so firmly anchored in their erroneous beliefs, exist and actual function within a society.

However, these individuals say the same thing against the opposite side.  Are we the ones who are actually wrong.  I believe in climate change, and in Darwin's theory of evolution, but could barely rattle off more than a few commonly know facts.  This is what truly terrifies me.  My initial knee-jerk reaction is to indignantly laugh at these buffoons, but I'm just the same way.

Ok, maybe my (our) reasoning has a much stronger foundation than those featured in the documentary, but the following is large enough to strongly waver our country's major political decisions in their favor.  

So whether or not you believe these people are wrong or right, they have made me think about what "right" really is.

Bad Boy: The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater

 By John Brady

Chapter One: Defining Events
Knowledge of human nature is the beginning and end of political education.                
  --Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams

If Lee Atwater learned one thing during his brief but crowded lifetime, it was how to handle the media. He used the same manipulative skills to orchestrate press coverage as he had applied to developing as a musician over the years. The spin doctor was always in. Even when a reporter had done a little homework, which was surprisingly rare, and tried to get "up close and personal," Atwater knew how to change the topic or cut things short. Magazine writers could be a problem, of course. They usually wanted to hang out for a day or two, and it could be tough to avoid the personal stuff. Even then, if his brother Joe ever came up, Lee made light of the accident that had happened when he was a youngster, as though he barely remembered it. Hardly meant a thing at all. Then he'd put on that tough, bad-boy demeanor that the press gobbled up. "I think I learned pretty early that in the end it's only you," he once reflected stoically. "To an extent, you're all alone." But Joe never left Lee alone for long.

Lee liked to say that a winning campaign was marked by a series of defining events along the path to victory. Events that define who we are. If life is like a campaign, the defining event for Lee Atwater occurred in the kitchen of a little house in Aiken, South Carolina, on the Tuesday afternoon of October 5, 1956. Toddy Atwater had been struggling all week with a sinus infection, and that day she had inhaled a bunch of fumes as she stripped paint from an old iron bed. A splitting headache--and where was Harvey? In eight years of marriage, he had never been late for dinner. Not once. And now the kids were starting to bounce, especially Lee, so wiry and impatient. "Where's Daddy?" he asked.
Harvey Atwater, known for his punctuality, was listening to a late-arriving client drone on. Normally, Harvey left his office at the insurance company by five-thirty, and he'd be walking through the door to Toddy and the boys by now. But he didn't know the man well enough to cut him short, so he decided to wait him out. It was nearly six o'clock. A half hour late.

Toddy thought Harvey might have had trouble with his car, another in a line of junk heaps. "Let's make some donuts while we're waiting for Daddy," she said to the boys. Lee drifted into the living room to watch TV. Joe began to snoop around the stove.

How different the boys were, thought Toddy. Even though she often dressed them alike, they differed both physically and temperamentally. Lee, who would be six in February, was blond with a crewcut, all hard and wiry, tightly wound, impatience on wheels. Joe, at three, was more soft and cuddly, with brown curly hair, rounded cheeks, and a gentle disposition. The only thing the two had in common was striking blue eyes, and a brotherly bond that was starting to surface. "I've got me a playmate for the rest of my life!" Lee had announced to his parents a few weeks earlier. Lee worshipped his little brother. But Joe was star-crossed. Harvey and Toddy had already had a premonition that something was going to happen to the child. In the spring of that year he had nearly died after an awful bout with the measles. Then, during a spring storm, Joe had been sitting in front of a window fan that was struck by lightning. When that occurred, they were relieved.

"If the Lord were going to take him," Toddy told her husband, "he'd have let that lightning strike him today. I don't guess anything's going to happen now."

She found the deep-fat fryer that her father had given her the previous year. She set it atop the stove, filled it with oil, plugged in the cord, and waited for it to reach 340 degrees. Joe climbed up on the trash can to get a closer look. "Joe, get down!" said Toddy. "That grease is hot!"

As Joe started to get down, the trash can toppled. Instinctively, his hand reached out and grasped the cord. The fryer tipped. The boiling oil came down over Joe on the floor. In one horrifying instant, Toddy Atwater knew that her son was going to die. The screaming began.

Harvey Atwater came through the door. In a panic, he reached for a jar of rice and started throwing it wildly in the air. Lee ran into the kitchen and saw Joe lying there, his skin starting to peel. Toddy was hysterical. They wrapped Joe in sheets and got him to the hospital. Joe's burns covered 90 percent of his body, and he had lost his right eye to the scalding liquid. Toddy stayed that night and into the morning. "Mama, please don't cry," Joe kept saying. "Please don't cry."

Three days later, as Joe was being buried, a neighbor went into the house on Wildwood Road and removed his clothing, shifted some furniture around. Toddy wanted to move to another house, but Harvey insisted, "No, we've got to face it." But they didn't.

Silence fell on the family like an admission of careless neglect and complicity. Lee clung to his mother. "Repression is a terrible thing," their minister told Toddy one day. "Remember, you and Harvey can express your grief, but Lee can't." But there was no room for religious consolation now, or for a long time. If there was a God, how could he let that happen to a little kid? That was the reasoning. That was the anger. Neither Toddy nor Harvey could mention Joe without breaking into tears.

Lee would hear Joe's little voice lifted in pain for the rest of his life.

To read more, go to this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/badboy.htm

CONFRONTING THE UNTHINKABLE: Prisoners of Paradise

Mogul of Theresienstadt
Thursday, April 15, 2004 at 12 a.m

By Ella Taylor

(http://www.laweekly.com/film/mogul-of-theresienstadt-2138073)

 

Kurt Gerron was a Jew who began his career as a satirist of the Nazis and ended up as their stool pigeon; Kahn, an architect who kept three families on the boil without noticeable guilt or anguish. Yet despite the different times and circumstances in which they lived, some weird symmetries between Gerron and Kahn raise bracing questions about the extra-aesthetic responsibilities of the artist. Like Kahn, Gerron was a homely man whose enormous reserves of charm, charisma and talent took him far, and finally brought him low. He was a careerist so devoted to his art that he failed to pay attention to, or willfully ignored, what was going on around him. Gerron lived in more testing times than Kahn, and the consequences of his actions were broader and more catastrophic than Kahn’s, but his lapses stemmed from the same monomaniacal focus on creative work to the exclusion of all else.

A well-upholstered showboater with small, glittering black eyes, pouchy cheeks, a voracious appetite for work and an ego to match, Kurt Gerron rose to fame in the feverishly creative and cheeky world of prewar Berlin cabaret as a director and beloved stage actor, best known for his wicked rendering of “Mack the Knife” in Brecht’s Threepenny Opera. He later turned to film acting (notably opposite Marlene Dietrich in The Blue Angel) and then to directing. The high life he lived among the cultural cream of Berlin was brutally cut short in 1933 when the Nazis closed down one of his films in midproduction. Devastated more by the interruption than by its political ramifications, Gerron turned down repeated pleas from fellow artists Fritz Lang, Peter Lorre and Josef von Sternberg to flee with them to Hollywood — in part, characteristically, because he couldn’t travel first class. He tried with some success to retool his career in Paris and Amsterdam before being shipped off to Theresienstadt, a concentration camp that housed a disproportionate number of artists and intellectuals and maintained a lively cultural life until the end. It was there, in 1944, that Gerron made his final deal with the devil and became the creative force behind the infamous Nazi propaganda film The Führer Gives a City to the Jews, which hoodwinked Western observers into the belief that Theresienstadt was a cultural paradise and that Jews in concentration camps were well treated.

Malcolm Clarke and Stuart Sender, who made Prisoner of Paradise, also have plans to turn Gerron’s life into a feature film. There’s no need: This sympathetic but clear-eyed documentary, narrated by British actor Ian Holm, gives us a life riddled with more bitter dramatic ironies than any fiction could offer. Clarke and Sender both come from television bearing all the usual tools of the ubiquitous Holocaust documentary. Sparing in their use of dramatic re-enactments, they’ve dug up amazing archival footage and photos of Gerron at home, at work and even in the camp, as well as affecting commentary from former friends and colleagues, including survivors from the camps who testify to both his magnetism and his genius — and to the fact that he agreed to make the film not just in order to survive, but to be working and to achieve some of his lost stature. It didn’t help him. The Nazis humiliated him, the Jews hated him, and on October 28, 1944, the day before the gas chambers were closed for good, Gerron and his wife were shipped off to Auschwitz and murdered.

“The things Kurt Gerron did had no moral dimension, and no moral consequences,” declares one loyal fellow artist stoutly. Disagree all you like — what complicates all judgment on Gerron’s sins is that he would have met the same fate without committing them. Still, the question remains whether artists have special license to forgo their principles and their decency. For all its staidly conventional presentation, Prisoner of Paradise, along with other documentaries like Hitler’s Secretary and Paragraph 175, shifts the focus of Holocaust inquiry from the banal and rhetorical Isn’t it awful what the Nazis did? to the more difficult question for Germans and Jews alike: What would you have done in this person’s place? If we think we know the answer, we’re probably lying, at least to ourselves. If the question gives us the shakes, we’re about where we should be.

PRISONER OF PARADISE | Directed by MALCOLM CLARKE and STUART SENDER | Written by CLARKE | Produced by CLARKE and KARL- EBERHARD SCHAEFER | Released by Menemsha Films | At the Music Hall

TRIUMPH OF THE WILL - By Roger Ebert

...By general consent [one] of the best documentaries ever made.
 
So I wrote in 1994, in a review of what in fact is a better documentary, Ray Muller's "The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl." I was referring to Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" (1935), about the 1934 Nazi Party congress and rally in Nuremberg. Others would have agreed with me. We would all have been reflecting the received opinion that the film is great but evil, and that reviewing it raises the question of whether great art can be in service of evil. I referred to "Triumph" again in the struggle I had in reviewing the racist "Birth of a Nation."

But how fresh was my memory of "Triumph of the Will"? I believe I saw it as an undergraduate in college, and my memory would have been old and fuzzy even in 1994, overlaid by many assertions of the film's "greatness." Now I have just seen it again and am stunned that I praised it. It is one of the most historically important documentaries ever made, yes, but one of the best? It is a terrible film, paralyzingly dull, simpleminded, overlong and not even "manipulative," because it is too clumsy to manipulate anyone but a true believer. It is not a "great movie" in the sense that the other films in this group are great, but it is "great" in the reputation it has and the shadow it casts.

Have you seen it recently, or at all? It records the gathering together, in September 1934 in Nuremberg, of hundreds of thousands of Nazi Party members, troops and supporters, to be "reviewed" by Adolf Hitler. Reviewed is the operative word. Great long stretches of the film consist merely of massed formations of infantry, cavalry, artillery groups and even working men with their shovels held like rifles. They march in perfect, rigid formation past Hitler, giving him their upraised right arms in salute and having it returned. Opening sections of the film show Hitler addressing an outdoor formation, and the conclusion involves his speech in a vast hall at the closing of the congress.

Try to imagine another film where hundreds of thousands gathered. Where all focus was on one or a few figures on a distant stage. Where those figures were the object of adulation. The film, of course, is the rock documentary "Woodstock" (1970). But consider how Michael Wadleigh, that film's director, approached the formal challenge of his work. He begins with the preparations for this massive concert. He shows arrivals coming by car, bus, bicycle, foot. He show the arrangements to feed them. He makes the Port-O-San Man, serving the portable toilets, into a folk hero. He shows the crowd sleeping in tents or in the rough, bathing in streams, even making love. He shows them drenched with shadows and wading through mud. He shows medical problems. He shows the crowds gradually disappearing.

By contrast, Riefenstahl's camera is oblivious to one of the most fascinating aspects of the Nuremberg rally, which is how it was organized. Yes, there are overhead shots of vast fields of tents, laid out with mathematical precision. But how did the thousands eat, relieve themselves, prepare their uniforms and weapons and mass up to begin their march through town? We see overhead shots of tens of thousands of Nazis in rigid formation, not a single figure missing, not a single person walking to the sidelines. How long did they have to stand before their moment in the sun? Where did they go and what did they do after marching past Hitler? In a sense, Riefenstahl has told the least interesting part of the story.

There is a lesson, to be sure, in the zombie-like obedience of the marching troops, so rigidly in formation they deny their own physical feelings. One searches the ranks for a smile, a yawn. But all are stern and serious, and so is Hitler, except once when he smiles as the horses are marching past. But what else does the film contain, apart from the "march-pasts"? There is a long series of closeups near the beginning, of Nazi party officials mouthing official platitudes. There are two speeches by Hitler, both surprisingly short, both lacking all niceties, both stark in their language: The party must be "uncompromisingly the one and only power in Germany."

One searches for human touches. Riefenstahl had no eye for human interest. Individuality is crushed by the massed conformity. There are occasional cutaways to people smiling or nodding, but rarely ever speaking to one another. There is no attempt to "humanize" Hitler. In his closing speech, sweat trickles down his face, and we realize that there was no perspiration in earlier shots. Is it possible that he posed for some of the perfectly framed shots of him reviewing troops? A 35mm camera and crew would have been a distracting presence in the street next to his car; one filming him from a high pedestal would have had to be crane-mounted, and shot out of synchronicity with the event.

"If you see this film again today, you ascertain that it doesn't contain a single reconstructed scene." So says Riefenstahl in her film's defense in the Muller documentary. What does she mean by "reconstructed"? Certainly we would not think the massed "march-bys" would be reconstructed. But what of such scenes as the Workers' Brigade, where the men chant in unison, presumably to Hitler, that they labor in the swamps, in the fields, etc., and then, in response to the barked question, "Where are you from?" individuals answer with the names of their towns or districts. They could not have all heard the question; each answer would have been a separate set-up.

There are also questions of spontaneity. During one Hitler speech, he is interrupted bysieg heil!exactly six times, as if there were an applause sign to prompt them when to begin and end, and we note that throughout the film, there are no scatterings of individual voices at the start or finish ofsieg heil!Only a single massed voice, in unison. I found myself peering intently to observe other moments of the film revealing its mechanism. Although Riefenstahl used 30 cameras and a crew of 150, only one camera appears to be visible on screen; during the outdoor rally before three gigantic hanging swastika flags, you can see the camera on an elevator between the first and second, its shadow cast on the second. And in a shot of a man who has climbed up a pole to get a better view of a parade, she cuts back to him giving the right-arm salute; I reflected that he could not hold on without both hands, and realized that his left foot is out of frame in both shots -- standing on a support, undoubtedly. Among minor details: Everyone on screen seems to have a fresh haircut.

That "Triumph of the Will" is a great propaganda film, there is no doubt, and various surveys have named it so. But I doubt that anyone not already a Nazi could be swayed by it. Being a Nazi, to this film, means being a mindless pawn in thrall to the godlike Hitler. Yet it must have had a persuasive effect in Germany at the time; although Hitler clearly spells out that the Nazis will be Germany's only party, and its leader Germany's only leader for 1,000 years to come. At the end, there is a singing of the party anthem, the Horst Wessel Song; under Nazi law, the right-arm salute had to be given during the first and fourth verses. We see a lot of right-arm saluting in "Triumph of the Will," noticing how Hitler curls his fingers back to his palm before withdrawing the salute each time, with a certain satisfaction. What a horrible man. What insanity that so many Germans embraced him. A sobering thought: Most of the people on the screen were dead within a few years.

Note: See also "The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl" and "Downfall" (2005), with a haunting Bruno Ganz as Hitler during his last days.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-triumph-of-the-will-1935

Merchants of Doubt - What is Truth in Civil Discourse?

By A. O. SCOTT. • MARCH 5, 2015

(https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/movies/review-merchants-of-doubt-separating-science-from-spin.html)

TRAILER:

https://youtu.be/j8ii9zGFDtc

 

Late last month Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, brandished a snowball on the Senate floor, suggesting that the ugly winter weather afflicting the Eastern Seaboard was evidence that global warming is a hoax. This moment of political theater was widely ridiculed (by Jon Stewart and others), but “Merchants of Doubt,” Robert Kenner’s informative and infuriating new documentary, ought to remind us that the denial of climate change is hardly a joke.

And those who promote it — in the news media, in political discourse, in serious-looking reports published by dubious think tanks — are anything but fools. “Merchants of Doubt,” based on Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway’s book of the same title, examines the history of corporate-financed public relations efforts to sow confusion and skepticism about scientific research. The filmmakers interview scientists, activists and whistle-blowers who have tried to expose such activities, as well as some of its perpetrators, repentant and otherwise.

“If you can ‘do tobacco,’ ” one of the perpetrators is quoted as saying, “you can do just about anything in public relations.” The reference is to the long campaign to obfuscate and undermine attempts to make the public aware of the dangers of cigarettes. As early as the 1950s, tobacco companies were aware — thanks to their own research — that their products were hazardous and habit forming, but they waged a prolonged and frequently successful campaign to suppress and blur the facts. Their tactics included sending dubiously credentialed experts out into the world to disguise dishonesty as reasonable doubt. “We just don’t know.” “The science is complicated.” “We need more research.”

The pro-tobacco strategy also called for smearing critics and invoking noble ideals like personal freedom against inconvenient facts like nicotine addiction. Thanks to thousands of pages of documents leaked to Stanton A. Glantz, a doctor and anti-tobacco crusader, the scale and the details of the deception are well known. The image of tobacco company executives taking an oath at a congressional hearing and proceeding to lie about what they knew is part of the collective memory. It also opened the door to lawsuits that led, in 1998, to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.

“Merchants of Doubt” links cigarettes and climate — with a fascinating and troubling detour into an investigation by The Chicago Tribune of the flame-retardant industry — by noting that both the playbook and many of the players are the same. “I’m not a scientist,” a recently adopted catchphrase among Republican politicians, echoes earlier evocations of complication and confusion. In both cases the science could hardly be clearer, but pseudo-experts can be brought before the cameras to peddle the idea that no real consensus exists. False information need not be coherent to be effective, and the specters of vanished liberty and tyrannical government regulation are easy enough to conjure.

And science can be tricky to explain and to defend, especially in the shouting-heads cable news format. The scientists Mr. Kenner interviews — notably James E. Hansen, formerly of NASA, who was among the first to establish a link between carbon emissions and climate change — tend to be earnest and serious. The scientific method is also predicated on intellectual humility, on falsifiable hypotheses and endless revisions in the face of new data. Public relations, in contrast, is built on slickness, grandiosity and charm. These traits are exemplified by Marc Morano, a cheerful and unapologetic promoter of climate-change skepticism and currently the executive director of the website Climate Depot.

One of the film’s conceits is that the actions of Mr. Morano and his colleagues can be con games and magic tricks. A professional magician, Jamy Ian Swiss, is on hand to fool an audience with a deck of cards and to draw a distinction between his own “honest lies” and the shady doings of corporate shills and spinners. But his presence, and the animated playing cards that sometimes fly across the screen, feel like a glib and somewhat condescending gimmick, an attempt to wring some fun out of a grim and appalling story.

More than that, the analogy between climate-change denial and classic confidence schemes doesn’t really hold up. Since the ’80s and ’90s, when the tobacco industry was trying to slow down regulation and lawsuits, the political landscape has changed, and so have the techniques of the anti-science side. Some of the attorneys general who forced the 1998 settlement were Republicans, after all. By contrast, in 2010 Bob Inglis, a conservative Republican congressman from South Carolina, was defeated in the primary after publicly acknowledging the reality of climate change.

Climate-change denial has been raised to an ideological principle, a tenet of modern conservative and libertarian politics. Deceit and secrecy are hardly necessary when large portions of the public eagerly accept the message. If anti-environmentalist politics resemble a game of three-card monte, it’s one in which all the cards are face up and the marks place their bets on a nonexistent ace. Anyone who points out the error can be accused of liberal bias, and credulous journalists will give equal weight to both sides of the “debate.” 

The noticeable bias in “Merchants of Doubt” is toward optimism. The strongest convention in contemporary documentary filmmaking is to end on a note of hope, appealing for action on the part of an audience that is congratulated for awareness and good sense. Mr. Inglis, both a casualty of the war on truth and a warrior in its service, provides an upbeat message, accompanied by beautiful images of our abused planet. His words, and the film as a whole, express the faith that reason and facts can defeat propaganda and falsehoods. There is plenty of cause for skepticism on that matter, unfortunately.

“Merchants of Doubt” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Obscene displays of greed and dishonesty.

Merchants of Doubt

• Director Robert Kenner
  
• Writers Erik M. Conway, Robert Kenner, Naomi Oreskes, Kim Roberts
  
• Stars Frederick Singer, Naomi Oreskes, Jamy Ian Swiss, Sam Roe
  
• Rating PG-13
  
• Running Time 1h 36m
  
• Genre Documentary
  

Welcome to the Blog for the Fall 2017 Documentary Film Class at RWU.

Use this portal to post your review and to access new class materials.