Director: Daniel Gordon
Subject: Ben Johnson's steroid scandal in the Seoul Olympics.
Canadians who consume a lot of American culture and media, like myself, very quickly develop an inferiority complex. I am irrationally excited when I see the Blue Jays, the Raptors or hockey being discussed on ESPN. It doesn't matter why we are being discussed, I am just happy that we are being talked about. To some this may seem like a case of social-media manufactured generational narcissism, but I see the same reaction from fellow Canucks of all ages; even if the discussion is just thirty seconds on PTI about Jeff Frye hitting for the cycle. So even though I was in utero when Ben Johnson set the 100m dash world record and had it taken away during the Seoul Olympics of 1988, I have a strong connection to that race; it is literally a nascent moment for my sports fandom.
9.79* is an engaging, well researched, well shot documentary that also confirms every thought my reptilian sports brain has about this race, the use of PEDs in sports and Carl Lewis's assholery. Gordon biggest coup is interviewing all the participants in the gold medal heat and allowing them to paint a thorough picture of the track and field world in the 1980s. These men all provide a different perspective on the race: Desai Williams speaks about being Ben Johnson's teammate, Calvin Smith's effeminate drawl voices the strongest anti-PED sentiments and Robson De Silva's has a zen like view of the past as he hang glides over Rio De Janiero. The two stars of the race and the documentary are Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis and while Johnson's frankness is refreshing, Lewis's slipperiness makes him a much more intriguing character. Lewis's ambitions didn't stop at athletics and in interviews it is clear he is equal parts athlete, celebrity, politician and businessman. He is so interested in protecting himself and his brand that it seems like he is always hiding something. His Machiavellian nature makes him a charismatic heel for this documentary, especially when contrasted with Johnson's frankness, a frankness that is usually only present after someone has already been caught.
The results of the race in Seoul are common knowledge for most sports fans; Gordon recognizes this and doesn't bother hiding those results to construct dramatic tension. Instead he takes information that is public, but not common knowledge and parcels it out in such a way that he creates dramatic tension by obscuring his rhetorical point until the last act of the film when he drops the hammer in a satisfying way. Admittedly, his rhetorical point happens to defend someone who I still consider to be one of Canada's great athletes, vilifies a hated American athlete, plays into my general cynicism about how widespread PED use was and still is and vindicates all the beliefs I've held about Ben Johnson for my whole life. So while others may not share my belief that the final act of the film is brilliant payoff from the restraint shown earlier, Gordon's access and visual style, make the movie one of the most entertaining 30 for 30s and a must watch for fans of the series.
24 years later Ben Johnson's victory and scandal are both two of the biggest in Canadian sports history. It's one of the few stories in Canadian sports history that people around the world remember. Fans of dynastic teams have a wealth of experience to draw back on Yankees fans can root for the current team or be nostalgic about Bernie Williams, Reggie Jackson, Mickey Mantle, Joe Dimaggio and Babe Ruth. When you routinely root for mediocre non-public teams you must cherish the moments in the spotlight you get. In 1988 Ben Johnson had an iconic track and field performances and outperformed a legendary Olympic athlete from our biggest rival, then he tested positive for stanozolol. At least he was the lead story on ESPN for awhile.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Everyday - 2012 - 2 1/2 Stars
Director: Michael Winterbottom
Cast: Shirley Henderson, John Simm, Johnny Lynch
Michael Winterbottom's new film Everyday was commissioned by BBC Channel 4, who wanted Winterbottom to make a story about the prison system. It is the story of a mother of four and her husband who is in prison for reasons we don't know and never discover. It's shot entirely in digital, has a documentary aesethic and I assume is heavily improvised. The film has one large extra-textual conceit, it was filmed over 5 years so the children in the film could age properly throughout shooting. Bad aging makeup and multiple child actors playing the same character is something that irks me, so while I intellectually appreciated Winterbottom's choice and the producers for humouring his obsession, ultimately the payoff for this decision is nothing more than a "hey, that's kind of cool" and it only enriches the films on the margins.
The film itself is a low-key naturalistic British drama about a middle class family and a determined mother struggling to make ends meet. The title Everyday is appropriate because it tends to focus on minor day to day events for a family who's patriarch is temporarily incarcerated . Winterbottom and co-screenwriter Laurence Coriat avoid the melodramatic climaxes one would expect from a movie about a single mother with an imprisoned husband and instead focus on how one accepts and adapts to this major change on a daily basis. As with the children's aging in the film, I enjoyed Winterbottom's intimate-micro perspective of a family on a cerebral level, but no others. Shirley Henderson gives a great performance as an overworked mother, but the low stakes throughout the movie make everything feel inconsequential; as if we were watching a collection of the well shot and edited home videos. I commend Winterbottom for trying an interesting experiment, I just wish the results were more dynamic.
Cast: Shirley Henderson, John Simm, Johnny Lynch
Michael Winterbottom's new film Everyday was commissioned by BBC Channel 4, who wanted Winterbottom to make a story about the prison system. It is the story of a mother of four and her husband who is in prison for reasons we don't know and never discover. It's shot entirely in digital, has a documentary aesethic and I assume is heavily improvised. The film has one large extra-textual conceit, it was filmed over 5 years so the children in the film could age properly throughout shooting. Bad aging makeup and multiple child actors playing the same character is something that irks me, so while I intellectually appreciated Winterbottom's choice and the producers for humouring his obsession, ultimately the payoff for this decision is nothing more than a "hey, that's kind of cool" and it only enriches the films on the margins.
The film itself is a low-key naturalistic British drama about a middle class family and a determined mother struggling to make ends meet. The title Everyday is appropriate because it tends to focus on minor day to day events for a family who's patriarch is temporarily incarcerated . Winterbottom and co-screenwriter Laurence Coriat avoid the melodramatic climaxes one would expect from a movie about a single mother with an imprisoned husband and instead focus on how one accepts and adapts to this major change on a daily basis. As with the children's aging in the film, I enjoyed Winterbottom's intimate-micro perspective of a family on a cerebral level, but no others. Shirley Henderson gives a great performance as an overworked mother, but the low stakes throughout the movie make everything feel inconsequential; as if we were watching a collection of the well shot and edited home videos. I commend Winterbottom for trying an interesting experiment, I just wish the results were more dynamic.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Something in the Air (Après mai) - 2012 - 2 1/2 Stars
Director: Oliver Assayas
Cast: Clément Métayer, Lola Créton, Felix Armand, Carole Combes
Making autobiographical movies is a tricky proposition; the director must walk a thin line between using their experience to craft a detailed, naturalistic aesthetic and telling stories that no one else cares about. Something in the Air is a fictionalized adaption of Oliver Assayas's non-fiction essay A Post-May Adolescence. It follows Gilles, an Assayas surrogate, during the summer after his second to last year in high school as he bounces between different French socialist organizations, hippy communes and his father's work while he tries to find himself romantically, artistically and professionally.
The film has a loose, meandering structure, which is designed to mimic our hero's lack of focus as he travels from group to group. At times it's a successful series of focused vignettes, but as the revolutionary movements Gilles is associated with begin to splinter and lose power, so does the film. The film's first hour is dynamic and lively, but the second half loses that energy as the story shifts to one of what happens when youthful vivaciousness fades. The film's second half rings true thematically and historically, but it's a slog to watch the dissolution of revolutionary movement not via coup, but via waning interest and mild evolutions in maturity.
Assayas's strong authorial voice gives the film a strong sense of place, but also causes it to veer into self-indulgence. Assayas digs deep into his own record collection, which gives the film a sense of time and place beyond a generic "the 70's". The soundtrack replaces 70's staples from Sticky Fingers and Who' Next (which I doubt they could afford had they wanted to use them anyways) and replaces them with Captain Beefheart and other more eclectic musicians that Assayas has a connection with. Assayas indulging his musical taste is delightful, the conversations name checking his personal favorite political philosophers are less so. I appreciate that the high-schooler's in the film possess an intellectual surety that can only be held by teenagers. To them the choice between being Trotskyite or a Leninist is the equivalent to the choice between Communism and Fascism, but this specificity is draining during long conversations where Assayas references his favorite philosophers even as it gives the film the same detailed textures I liked about his soundtrack.
Roger Ebert ended his review of Midnight in Paris, by saying , "I'm wearying of movies that are for 'everybody' — which means, nobody in particular." I appreciate that Assayas made a movie that is for someone in particular, but as the movie dragged on it felt like I was watching friends tell a story that I wasn't present for and was littered with inside jokes I didn't get. There is someone in particular who will love this movie, but it's not me.
Cast: Clément Métayer, Lola Créton, Felix Armand, Carole Combes
Making autobiographical movies is a tricky proposition; the director must walk a thin line between using their experience to craft a detailed, naturalistic aesthetic and telling stories that no one else cares about. Something in the Air is a fictionalized adaption of Oliver Assayas's non-fiction essay A Post-May Adolescence. It follows Gilles, an Assayas surrogate, during the summer after his second to last year in high school as he bounces between different French socialist organizations, hippy communes and his father's work while he tries to find himself romantically, artistically and professionally.
The film has a loose, meandering structure, which is designed to mimic our hero's lack of focus as he travels from group to group. At times it's a successful series of focused vignettes, but as the revolutionary movements Gilles is associated with begin to splinter and lose power, so does the film. The film's first hour is dynamic and lively, but the second half loses that energy as the story shifts to one of what happens when youthful vivaciousness fades. The film's second half rings true thematically and historically, but it's a slog to watch the dissolution of revolutionary movement not via coup, but via waning interest and mild evolutions in maturity.
Assayas's strong authorial voice gives the film a strong sense of place, but also causes it to veer into self-indulgence. Assayas digs deep into his own record collection, which gives the film a sense of time and place beyond a generic "the 70's". The soundtrack replaces 70's staples from Sticky Fingers and Who' Next (which I doubt they could afford had they wanted to use them anyways) and replaces them with Captain Beefheart and other more eclectic musicians that Assayas has a connection with. Assayas indulging his musical taste is delightful, the conversations name checking his personal favorite political philosophers are less so. I appreciate that the high-schooler's in the film possess an intellectual surety that can only be held by teenagers. To them the choice between being Trotskyite or a Leninist is the equivalent to the choice between Communism and Fascism, but this specificity is draining during long conversations where Assayas references his favorite philosophers even as it gives the film the same detailed textures I liked about his soundtrack.
Roger Ebert ended his review of Midnight in Paris, by saying , "I'm wearying of movies that are for 'everybody' — which means, nobody in particular." I appreciate that Assayas made a movie that is for someone in particular, but as the movie dragged on it felt like I was watching friends tell a story that I wasn't present for and was littered with inside jokes I didn't get. There is someone in particular who will love this movie, but it's not me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)