 The snow ain't the only thing that's white about this film Director: Taylor Sheridan Writer: Taylor Sheridan Cinematographer: Ben Richardson Producer: Matthew George, Basil Iwanyk, Peter Berg, Wayne L. Rogers, Elizabeth A. Bell by Jon Cvack Taylor Sheridan’s directorial debut took Best Director at Cannes, offering one of the earliest Oscar buzzed films of the year. Impressed with Hell and Higher Water (2016) and blown away by Sicario (2015), I was excited to check out the latest of Sheridan’s looK at the flyover states, which capped off his unofficial American trilogy. Unfortunately, the forfeiture of two great and veteran directors fell victim to the same results that ambitious actor/writers often experience. The film opens in the Wind River Indian Reservation with a US Fish and Wildlife Service hunter Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner) who’s investigating a calf that’s allegedly been mauled by a mountain lion. Lambert tracks down the animal on a snowmobile, wearing white fatigues and having a lot of cool guns. Miles into the middle of nowhere he comes across the body of a dead eighteen year old girl, Natalie Hanson (Kelsey Chow), who has asphyxiated on her own blood as her lungs froze while running for miles in -20 degree weather. Lambert heads back to tell the local Native American chief Ben (Graham Greene; no last name for some reason; important to note for later), who then wait for the FBI, where sure enough, a young white and attractive woman, James Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) shows up, flying in from Vegas and completely ill-prepared for Wyoming - somehow smart enough to become an FBI agent but not smart enough to check the weather in a place that seems fairly obvious to check the weather for. She also fails to comprehend or agree with Cory's theory; again making me question her FBI credentials. At the autopsy, we get our first taste of the poor direction, as although Natalie has clearly been raped, there is no definitive sign of a murder. This enrages Banner who can’t more field officers unless it’s a murder (which left me wondering how strict the FBI actually would be in this situation; if she called a colleague and explained the legality versus the reality of the situation it seems somebody, at least one person, would probably show up, or at the very least, keep tabs on the potential of a sexual assault; especially after the subsequent attempted murders). After the news, Banner storms out of the autopsy, and in a long wide shot we watch as she looks so heavily like she's acting pissed rather than seeming actually pissed; mostly because she moves in the way someone pretending to be upset would move (head down, hand on chin, staring down, etc.). I don’t blame Olsen who has done some incredible work, so much as Sheridan for refusing to see that it was more important to contain Banner’s rage; namely that maybe a lack of physical reaction would be the more powerful choice, especially given Olsen's powerful eyes. At this point, with her lack of foresight, insight, or self-control, she seems like a needlessly weak woman. This doesn’t mean I needed some badass Fed woman so much as a person that’s not entirely worthless to the investigation. Immediately I was thinking about Clarice Starling and Foster/Demme’s ability to create a character that had complex deficiencies and yet who was determined to do good, both for the sake of the families and to prove her own worth. Banner evolves to greater strength, yet in the end, she’ll rely on Lambert to save her life and kill the bad guy. Which brings me to Lambert, who’s divorced, has to take his kid for a few days amidst all the chaos; all while trying not to argue with his Native American ex-wife Wilma (Julia Jones) who we don’t really get to know anything about (which will also be important later). Lambert and Banner go off to solve the case, uncovering a complex rape-murder web that took place in an oil company’s onsite trailer housing site, all operating on the reservation. On the way, they meet some drug addict Native American kids, one being Natalie's brother, who’s living in a crumbling trailer and learns the news of his sister’s passing by piecing together a grammatical error on Lambert’s part, providing an exchange of what I’ve had to have heard a hundred times in Walker Texas Ranger. After Lambert uses the word "was" in describing Natalie, the brother cries out - “Was?...Was?!...What do you mean ‘was’?! [crying]...What do you mean ‘was’?!” and so he cries. These might seem like minor details, but in a film that should be exploring a significant issue; that is the plight of modern Native American communities, it instead falls into trope and melodrama, pulling you straight out of the movie. In the end we learn that Natalie had a boyfriend Ben (Jon Bernthal) who really loved and cared for her, though when post-coital in bed one night, his oil buddy friends came back from the fields, with one completely fucked up and crossing the bro line, trying to peek at a naked Natalie, causing a fight to break out where him and his buddies then take turns raping Natalie, in one of the most brutal rape scenes I’ve seen in a long time. There was a recent open letter about ending rape scenes in film and television, and counter to giving movies with characters who smoke an R rating, I completely support a mission to try and phase these moments out in favor of newer ideas. When I really think about it, with the exception of historical/biopic pieces, I can’t really see why we’d ever need to show a rape in a film ever again. It’s not that rape shouldn’t be included in the story, so much as I don’t think it ever needs to be explicitly shows. It’s a bold statement, and sure I can think of highbrow films that have done it appropriately, but all too often it’s done for shock effect, providing a plot device that has been explored all too often. Filmmakers need to return to the ways of implying rather than showing these horrific scenes, as after decades of watching them, I just don’t think there’s much more progress to be made in the ways of portraying sexual assault. After being raped, Natalie Hansen then escapes, running as far as she could in the freezing cold until she collapsed and died. This is all told in flashback, and even now I’m not sure if the characters knew this information, or just we, the audience, understood it. After the brutal scene, a fairly cool and completely implausible shootout takes place between the oil men and the State Police, local Officers, Ben and Banner. I could not buy that anyone would think that shooting a bunch of Federal and State police would possibly lead to anything more than a few weeks freedom, and again it seemed like there could have been more motivation than simply that the oil men didn’t want to get caught; something should have motivated such a tremendous risk. Why wouldn’t they just play it cool, wait for them to leave, and as their walking away, they mow them down? It was a classic case of plot serving. And yet ultimately, what’s most enraging about the film is the end title card, mentioning how Native American communities don’t keep track of missing person statistics and so no one knows how many Native American women are missing. It’s such an ambiguous fact that means nothing; a shallow gesture to the struggles of the Native American culture; especially because in the end, the only two Native American portrayed in the film was Lambert’s ex-wife Wilma and Ben (with no last name), who we learn close to nothing about, and Natalie, who we saw dead, then dressed in her underwear and then brutally raped. Why couldn’t Banner have been a Native American FBI officer, or any person of color; someone that would’ve been more intimately connected to the victim? The same applies to Lambert - given his job as protecting the Native land from lions, why couldn’t he have been a Native American? It played so heavily like the 90s Southern race-procedurals, Ghosts in the Mississippi (1996) or Mississippi Burning (1988), in which the white people come to town to save the black community. For a film that concludes by raising awareness about a highly underrepresented section of America, I'm not sure how much whiteness could be pressed into the story. BELOW: Here's the thing - this is a great scene; it just doesn't make any sense at all Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
0 Comments
 Perhaps more aptly titled The Algiers Motel rather than Detroit Director: Kathryn Bigelow Writer: Mark Boal Cinematographer: Barry Ackroyd Producer: Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Matthew Budman, Megan Ellison, Colin Wilson by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... As terrifying as Platoon’s Mai Lai portrayal was, it didn’t go on for the majority of the film; it was a scene within a larger film, which I think could have benefited Detroit. The more appropriate portrayal would have focused on the shocking trial, where even with nearly half a dozen witnesses, mostly black, testifying to what happened, the officers were found not-guilty and simply relieved of duty. In the end, we hear that the filmmakers don’t know what actually happened that night, relying solely on the surviving participants. Unfortunately, having sprinted through the trial and its proceeding, I couldn’t help but take this fact and wonder what else was left out. We see how the witnesses’ individual histories and unrelated character impacted the trial, but with the absence of hard facts, I was left wanting more from both sides. What was the officer’s defense? What was the strategy? How did the media respond? How did the community respond? Countless questions began popping up, leaving me to think that this story would have been much better served by abandoning the extended torture and murder of those involved and toward what happened with the trial and what it all meant. The movie might have been better and less effectively titled The Algiers Motel than Detroit, as I was hoping to see more of all the events that occurred; the injustices throughout the city and the way the politics played a role between the governor, mayor, community leaders, National Guard, and police; allowing us a well-rounded view into these tragic days. I was left depressed in the end; in a way that I don’t think is needed right now. The black community and those on the left don’t need to see such grotesque actions in a film in this era; they see them every month, if not more; with officers often excused with equally similar slaps on the wrist. To see that this has been going on since 1967 and essentially for all of time, often in much worse terms, doesn’t add much to the conversation. Seeing how the system worked and the ways in which it was used to favor officers against the black community is something that would have provided value. And thus the film seems relevant solely for conservatives, who refuse to see a problem, and yet would very likely take issue with the closing statement regarding the facts. And if not for a political audience, I’m not sure who this is for, as even someone removed from current affairs would likely have a hard time watching this. It’s a very well made film, telling a story that’s better to exist than left unexplored. All problems with focus aside, it contains some of the finest performances from an ensemble cast in years. One of the strongest performances from Will Poulter, who masterfully conveys the sheer hate, bigotry, and blatant disregard for the law in order to maintain his white supremacy, all without the slightest degree of empathy. He’s one of the most vile characters I’ve seen graze the screen this decade. To show the world what the dregs of humanity actually look like - that it stands to infect anyone from any race, should power and opportunity present itself - that is what’s most terrifying to see. Just as most have no clue what would possibly cause them to set fire to their own community, we also don’t know where or when evil will infect humanity. BELOW: Truly one of the most vile characters of the decade Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  I struggle to think of a character I despised more in 21st century cinema Director: Kathryn Bigelow Writer: Mark Boal Cinematographer: Barry Ackroyd Producer: Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Matthew Budman, Megan Ellison, Colin Wilson by Jon Cvack The film opens up at a party, shot in a handheld style that I truly wish could be retired for all big budget dramatic stories (military films excluded), containing bumpy camera work and tiny snap zooms that is ugly to watch and completely unnecessary; sacrificing creative camera work in order to achieve a realistic style that has been long played out. It was distracting enough for me to dread the near two and a half hour running, wondering what to expect. Well, I was completely wrong, and while the opening scene did little to capture the essence of 1967, the rest of the films looks and feels as though it was shot during the period, intercutting footage from the era, and often leaving you wondering what was Bigelow's footage and what was actual. Having no understanding of the history, we see that the state brought in tanks, with the black community destroying and looting property, setting much of the town on fire. I often hear ignorant criticism from white people who wonder why people would want to burn down their neighborhood. It’s an inherently racist statement, indicating that - as white people - they would never do it to their neighborhood. The refute, which I was glad to see included, is to reframe the question - in that how bad things must have to get for you to burn down and destroy your neighborhood? Things had become so desperate, particularly with relationship to the police and their responsibility to protect the neighborhood, that the community was willing to do whatever necessary, and then watch how much more extreme the animosity would become (Trump's presidency and his supporters could likely understand this point, metaphorically speaking). Days later, we meet the young and very punchable faced Detroit Officer Philip Krauss (Will Poulter) who while patrolling the shoots a black looter that’s running away, who crawls underneath a truck to hide. Krauss is interrogated by an aboveboard internal affairs detective - he’s going to file a case of murder against Krauss.* Nevertheless, until convicted, Krauss is free to continue roaming the streets. Rarely have I so hated a character based solely on their looks, which when combined with a devastating performance by Poulter, provides one of the most despicable characters since Anton Chigurh. He heads out with his other two partners and night begins to falls. We then turn to pop black boy band The Dramatics, who are about to play to at a packed music hall where record producers are checking out the talent. The group is led by Larry Reed (Algee Smith) and his friend Fred Temple (Jacob Latimore), convinced that the night will provide their big break. We remember that this is Motown’s heyday, where amidst all the incredible songs, there were riots outside the door - in this case literally, and the show is shut down. Larry and Fred decide to walk back to the hotel and we see a world that looks like the apocalypse, with police everywhere, lining up dozens of black citizens, and others throwing rocks through the bus windows. They manage to navigate through the riot police, getting back to their motel at The Algiers. Regardless of the riots, the place is bumping, with people drinking and hanging in the pool. We meet Julie Ann (Hannah Murray) and Karen (Kaitlyn Dever) as two white girls wearing dresses, and it’s here that Bigelow’s talents shined, as this would have been so easy to overlook the additional layer of sexism occurring during the period and yet she combines the two with taste and perfection. It’s tough for me to admit, but after seeing situations like this across hundreds year of cinema, I assumed the two girls were prostitutes and I’m comfortable assuming I’m not alone. And I believe that was the point. Bigelow wanted to play with our expectations, to unravel our assumptions and stereotypes and make us feel guilty in the process. Turns out they're friends with some of the other men in the house, and while open with their sexuality, they're portrayed as comfortable with their bodies and fully aware of who they are. The girls introduce Fred and Larry to Carl Cooper (Jason Mitchell) and Aubrey Pollard (Gbenga Akinnagbe; in a great role; hoping to see more from him) as they pass around a joint, with Julie making out with Larry, as Carl and Aubrey talk politics and what the situation means. In a brilliant scene we see Aubrey and Carl put on an act, culminating in Aubrey pulling out a pistol, pretending to shoot Carl who plays dead. Aubrey declares the best trick is to shoot out the window, scaring the police into thinking it’s a sniper. Against everyone’s recommendation, he fires away, discovering the gun loaded and alarming the police who return fire, soon discovering the source and entering into the house. I can’t remember the last film that offered such a realistic immersion into another time, as often period pieces will rely on far more extravagant photography and style. As much as I hated the handheld style, like subtitles, you quickly get use to it, and the story takes over. It felt as though Bigelow had time traveled with a production crew, and like journalists, snuck into the heart of the ‘67 Detroit riots. Unfortunately, not knowing that this was based on a very specific story, the film then went inside the Algiers house, and all of that was abandoned, focusing on a terrifying and almost unbearably uncomfortable scene from recent American history. I had seen many of the political blogs attack the film, and in an age where it’s nearly impossible to make a film without offending some group or individual (recently a co-worker said she was boycotting Get Out because she was in an interracial relationship; I didn’t want to start the debate). Without having read the details of these blogs, I do see where their overall point. The scene that follows involves Officer Krauss and his crew of crooked officers as they torture the black men and two white girls in order to find out where the gun is - refusing to accept that there is no gun. Similar to the opening scene, Krauss shoots and kills Aubrey point blank in the back, tossing a knife down next to him to make it seem like he was under threat. Amidst the chaos, the body’s discovered by security guard Melvin Demukes (John Boyega), who’s accused of being an Uncle Tom, willing to suck up to the white Guardsmen and Officers in order to avoid any mishaps, in addition to offering a little extra protection to the store he’s protecting. The action at Algiers causes him to abandon his post and check out the situation, discovering Aubrey’s body and being entrusted to accomodate the officer’s interrogation tactic of taking each suspect one by one into a private room and pretending to assassinate them; hoping one of the other suspects would eventually provide the information. The scene is full of yelling and crying and such abhorrent injustice, all dragging on for what has to be a least forty-five minutes, soon making me realize that this film is not about “Detroit” at all, but rather this specific event that would go on to make national headlines. Similar to Platoon’s and the Mai Lai massacre of the innocent and unarmed civilians, this film enrages you over the gross injustice taking place; especially as guardsmen and other officers (even one of the police Lieutenants who arrives and leaves) enter into the scene, saying nothing, not wanting to cause any problems for their fellow men in blue. It’s a terrible and tragic moment, and yet I couldn’t stop thinking about Haneke’s criticism over Schindler’s List in creating entertainment out of the holocaust. While I disagree with attacks against Spielberg, a film like this does float a similar question. I was watching this film in a high luxury AMC theater with reclining sofa chairs, and the fact that some people might make money off this film left me feeling uneasy. Later digging into the criticism from other sources, the writers too took issue with essentially showing black men be tortured and killed for two and a half hours. Personally, I thought that this situation was far too much and veered toward bad taste. *In writing this that I realize this was never raised in the court case, leaving me wondering what ever happened to this pending offense. Continued to Part 2... BELOW: Great scene of both politics and tension Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Not sure what it is, but some people just look like Neo-Nazis Director: Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker Writer: Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker Cinematographer: Michael Beach Nichols Producer: Joey Carey, Jenner Furst, Michael Beach Nichols, Christopher K. Walker, Joshua Woltermann by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... Welcome to Leith is documentary about a small North Dakota town with a population of about twenty-five people, where the legendary, geriatric Neo-Nazi Craig Cobb moves in order to start a small Nazi governed community. We’re introduced to Leith by its mayor Ryan Schock, who explains that the three mile wide town includes a single black man, Bobby Harper and his wife, along with couple Lee and Heather Cook, who had who had left Utah after Lee’s daughter was shot and killed. The documentary follows Craig Cobb as he tries and succeeds in attracting additional Neo-Nazis to the community. Craig and his Nazi cohorts then purchase property, with plans for an elaborate layout of the city that would feature memorials of famous Nazis. By attracting enough Nazis to gain a majority of the voting population, they could then seize control of the town, forcing Schock, Harper, and Cook, amongst others, to watch as their town is hijacked. This soon attracts the attention and support of the leading figures of the major present day Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist organizations. The combination of gorgeous photography and the situation’s absurdity create a story unlike anything I’ve ever seen. To watch this days after Charlottesville, with everyone thinking this was just some rare occurrence, and having watching PBS's Oklahoma City, The Battle of Bunkerville, and Ruby Ridge, I began to see that this is a very serious and frightening problem; where after a disgustingly timid and ambiguous response from the President - in a Presidency that has always been very specific when he wanted it to be - it is now helping to empower these individuals. I never thought I’d see a racist sympathizer again in my lifetime, as Ronald Reagan, for as much as I disagreed with him, epitomized the boy scout, Great American attitude that other Republicans would strive toward. I think of if I saw this film in 2015 when Obama was president. I’d probably think it was the fringe. Now it feels eerily close, and in an age where divisions already run high, we’re now seeing a lot of nasty ideas coming to light, as the amount of Republicans who agreed with Trump's response, including his remarks on there being good people on both sides, hovers at 67%. One person I came across on Facebook shared a video of ISIS pulling down statues along with the liberals pulling down the Confederate statues; equating the two. It’s truly one of the stupidest and most anti-factual things I’ve seen. Of course I had to ask how she’d feel if Jews were forced to live in a town with a statue of Hitler or other Nazis, and then decided to tear it down. She didn’t respond. But these ideas, with a president refusing to condemn them, are therefore now permissible to explore. And the thing is one day Trump will be gone, and a move toward decency will return, and those ideas will once again have to be contained, and yet there they were, for all of us to see for while. The film is shot beautifully, falling far from the traditional, more neutral style of traditional news documentaries (such as Frontline). It contains a cinematic quality, and while Wikipedia doesn’t cite the source, allegedly directors Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker wanted to shoot it like a horror/western, accomplishing both, and raising interesting questions about aesthetic’s role in capturing the truth. I found it an engaging style, subtle enough to remain objective, with enough style to enhance the excitement. I think of one scene at a local bar, where Shock is talking to the other patrons, shot in profile while a larger, 30-something man in a mustache lends his small town advice about the situation. All these people just wanted something simple for their lives, and listening to them try and make sense of it all is fascinating. What’s most inspiring is the people’s willingness to fight, with Lee and Heather, living right across from Cobb, later purchasing guns and rifles, later practicing with the weapons, refusing to be run out of town by Neo-Nazis in the year 2017. We see the fantastic use of the law that condemns the Nazis property, requiring them to spend tens of thousands of dollars to repair it, or have it torn down. The boiling conflict comes to blast when Cobb and his Nazi friends roam the street with loaded rifles, terrorizing the neighbors and finally attracting the police. If anyone in some way, some how needed additional evidence of racial bias in policing, look no further than this situation, in which although Cobb and his crew are declaring that they have loaded rifles, and after receiving numerous calls from ostensibly all of Leith’s residences, with the Nazis at one point threatening to shoot one man in particular, the police simply tell them to go home. Fortunately a few days later, an arrest warrant is issued. Unfortunately, due to some conflict with a key witness, Cobb is let go, under four years probation, finally accepting that he’s unwelcome in Leith and leaving (though still preserving his land). While the film’s ending tanks in comparison to its first two thirds, that’s simply the consequence of catching such a surreal event. The documentary leaves you uneasy, and given that it was made in 2015, makes you wonder how many other Neo-Nazis or White Supremacists will follow in Cobb’s footsteps, and what Cobb might try to accomplished in a couple years when his probation expires. Welcome to Leith is an incredible documentary; serving as a harbinger of things to come and a perfect film to accompany the present feud between these groups, Trump, and the rest of America. The hope resides in the fact that the rest of the townspeople were willing to fight and, while not the victory they were hoping for, came out on top by banding together and fighting against this evil. BELOW: A news report as the Neo-Nazis attempt to cease control of city hall Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  And then the Neo-Nazis start patrolling the town's streets with fully loaded assault rifles Director: Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker Writer: Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker Cinematographer: Michael Beach Nichols Producer: Joey Carey, Jenner Furst, Michael Beach Nichols, Christopher K. Walker, Joshua Woltermann by Jon Cvack I always know I’m in for a treat when my friend Tim text’s me about a movie. I’m writing this right after the Charlottesville Riots, where for the first time I think we’re seeing the true side of Trump and his supporters finally coming out, and it’s breaking my heart. I see people that I would consider friends defending Nazis, masking that defense behind the First Amendment, as though just because something is currently a particular right the law cannot evolve. I once considered myself a pretty vehement first amendment supporter, but I do not consider Nazis and White Supremacists right to free speech falling within the First Amendment purview, as the very nature and foundation of those ideologies is the mass disruption and often destruction of specific human lives. The defense that so long as an individual is not inciting violence that it is within the bounds of free speech is negated when the very purpose of that idea is to destroy life. I believe in free speech as it comes through constructive dialogue. The moment one side poses to murder human life, that is no longer a constructive conversation. This seems pretty straightforward. The first amendment doesn’t apply to yelling “Fire!” in a movie theater as it could hurt or kill people, and the Nazis are a far more extreme version of this idea. The amazing thing about the first amendment's evolution is that that we now live in a world where our ability to consume speech as changed. The same amendment that allows Nazis to go out and protest is now the same amendment that allows us to watch it and judge. The founders would never fathom us watching videos on computers and cell phones, captured by the people who were there and published for the world to see. In their time you’d have the news filtered, if you ever heard it. Think of how long it would take for someone to have heard of Charlottesville Riots in rural Nebraska in the early 19th century? It’s no longer that we are reading about someone’s thoughts and what they did with them, but that we are first hand seeing the actions based upon those ideas. Amongst a freer economy, free speech has allowed us to see the smallest moments. I think of all the police killing, and of these riots, and how much was filmed. We now get to watch it and pass judgment; that is as citizens - do we want this or not? I do not and I would support the law adjusting to designate Nazis and White Supremacists as terrorists who do not have the privilege to exercise their first amendment right. It’s dangerous and produces zero benefit. The law evolved to one day allow us to see the ugly side of America, and we now must ensure that that same law is used to properly protect people against things we might not known about. Charlottesville opened a lot of people’s eyes to the extreme right of America. Not too long ago I watched a PBS documentary Oklahoma City, which is about the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 men, women, and children, committed by White Nationalist Timothy McVeigh, and while I was figured it was going to examine the events about the bombing specifically, it actually was about the rise of White Nationalism from the 1980s onward, where with the early Reagan economy, when farms were hit hardest (a period seen in both great films American Fable and God’s Country, if you’re wondering), with many having to declare bankruptcy or seek work elsewhere, especially in Iowa. During the period, many White Nationalist groups started moving to upstate Idaho, hiding out in the woods, where in one terrifying shot we see a miniature Nazi compound, covered in Swastikas. The film examines the tale of Ruby Ridge, but for the sake of brevity just check those essays out, if you want to know more. Most recent was The Battle of Bunkerville, examining Cliven Bundy and the stand off between the cattle ranchers and the accompanying militias against the Federal Government, where the Federal officers retreated against Bundy and the others pointing their loaded rifles at the police, threatening to shoot. Later he went to the Oregon Reserve Building, taking it over for a few months, with the police simply waiting for him to surrender peacefully. There was a strange combination of anti-government extremists on one hand, willing to shoot the police who they love so much because of grazing laws and Nazis/White Nationalists further to the right. I was left wondering where all the militias were who could have brought their loaded AR15’s and stand to ensure the Nazis didn’t do anything stupid. The point being that a very intense division is occurring within modern politics today, a split that is unprecedented in recent times and unprecedented for such a media heavy age, and there is a man in power who is willing to go easy on White Nationalists and Nazis, or at the very least, to appease those who disagree, he didn’t go nearly hard enough, especially for a man who knows how threaten “fire and fury.” So what happens when these behaviors are more excusable? Continue to Part 2... BELOW: I was left wondering at what point a person decides to fully embrace Nazism, uproot himself to try and start a Neo-Nazi colony with any degree of confidence that it'll work out well Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Though an obvious point, while everyone focuses Ellar Coltrane's transformation, we forget that everyone aged 10 years, including Ethan Hawke who finished training day just a few years prior to this project Director: Richard Linklater Writer: Richard Linklater Cinematographer: Lee Daniel and Shane Kelly Producer: Richard Linklater, Cathleen Sutherland, Jonathan Sehring, and John Sloss by Jon Cvack Check out the first thoughts on Boyhood from January 4, 2016. There are many movies that use iconic songs that elicit a heavy dose of nostalgia - Stand by Me ('86), Now and Then ('95), Dirty Dancing ('87), My Girl ('91); essentially any coming of age story having taken place in the 1950s has that one track that elevates the story and impacts the culture. Yet while most of those films I watched as a kid, Boyhood was my first encounter with a coming of age story as an adult, portraying the era in which I grew up; realizing that for how fresh the film's opening song of Coldplay's “Yellow” feels in my memory, the song was released close to sixteen years ago, demonstrating how fast time moves, in which the period seems both close and distant, as with most of the things that’ve transpired since. For a three hour film, I was absolutely blown away by how quickly the story plays out, though I suppose it’s due to the ten different individual segments, creating an anticipation for what Mason Evans (Ellar Coltrane) will experience next. There would be best friends who come and go and fights with parents and first loves and subsequent heartbreaks and those first drinks and drug experimentsd. We watch as Mason encounters each problem, often assessing it all wrong and taking away the wrong lesson, all while his parents are doing the same. It’s a movie that allowed me to go back and re-experience all of my own ups and downs while growing up, with an amazing cast that brings such profound flavor to moments that seemed so banal or fleeting when first remembered. It allowed me to reconsider how certain events have affected latter ones, and that the small moments that seemed so large then and I laugh about now actually were strong and powerful and in no way insignificant, allowing me to no longer cringe at their memory, but instead embrace them as real and universal, serving as rite of passage. In the end, during one of the most powerful scenes between Mason and his mom Olivia (Patricia Arquette) we discover her adult view of life. Nothing goes as expected and the frustration is neverending. Just when things seem to calm a new event occurs. As Linklater explores, the challenges we all face in adulthood become increasingly more serious and consequential, and it’s only by pushing through the pains of adolescence that we could ever possibly be prepared for those later in life. Boyhood celebrates where one is at in any particular moment, no matter the age. The mom can’t find the right husband, or she’s a moment too late. The dad gives up on his dreams while his friend continues and reaches some success. Boyhood takes a look at those small moments that assemble and evolve us into becoming what we are. We cannot escape our choices or the way we respond to certain situations anymore than we control the actions of others and how we're impacted by them. I look at all the chapters in my life, the past year, the past eight years, and I consider how they’ve all affected me; realizing that aside from the spectrum of events - from heartbreaks to deaths to professional and personal frustrations - that the only consistent piece is the feeling they’ve all provided. Whether something goes well or terrible, the response is the same, except with a little more knowledge that time will heal, or that the sheer ecstasy of good news or a good day cannot last forever. Everything passes and all we’re left with are the memories of those moments, which Linklater has shown to be some of the most precious of human experience. BELOW: Not a perfect drunk step-father, but pretty dang close Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Still, an important story to tell Director: Theodore Melfi Writer: Allison Schroeder and Theodore Melfi Cinematographer: Mandy Walker Producer: Donna Gigliotti, Peter Chernin, Jenno Topping, Pharrell Williams, and Theodore Melfi by Jon Cvack My girlfriend and I had the privilege of seeing a preview of this film at the San Diego Film Festival where the director had a fifteen minute, uncolored, unmixed cut to preview. It was an incredible picture, full of fascinating characters and an incredible cast, showcasing the math and engineering prowess many of these women possessed. Unfortunately, we then missed the theatrical run due to conflicting schedules, though after finally getting the film on BluRay it provided one of the strangest movie experiences I’ve ever had, learning that the fifteen minute preview we saw was not at all the first fifteen minutes, but rather a compilation of scenes that extended across the first 90 minutes of the two hour and change running time. Keep in mind - the preview did not at all play like some sort of assembly of the best clips, but rather as a strong first act, leaving me excited for where the film would go, and if it could achieve Apollo 13 levels. The film involves three genius women of color, all working on the race that would eventually send John Glenn into space, including: math wunderkind Katherine Johnson (Taraji P. Henson) who was what was once referred to as a “computer” before the machine came out and stole the term; her supervisor that’s not paid or respected as a supervisor/computer programmer Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer); and soon-to-be engineer Mary Jackson (Janelle Monáe) as they attempt to navigate segregated and racist Hampton, Virginia at NASA. They battle against colored bathrooms over a quarter of a mile across campus (which, according to Fact Checks, was embellished and never happened; Katherine Johnson specifically was able to use the white bathroom with limited criticism from her colleagues); bigoted upper management such as Vivian Mitchell (Kirsten Dunst) who preserves the systemic racism (though never actually existed as a person); along with an education system that maintains segregation, preventing people of color - let alone women - from acquiring the necessary credentials to enter into the NASA engineering training program (which did actually happened; Mary Jackson helping to end the policy). We see them experience bigotry and hatred, and knowing that some facts were embellished for dramatic effect I couldn’t help resenting that in order to achieve some great speeches and monologues they had to distort the reality of the culture, making it more racist in order to highlight the courage these women had, which could have been more effective if they focused on the micro. For instance, when Katherine Johnson finally gets chewed out for having to take another 20 minute break by running across campus, returning to take her coffee from the “colored” pot (also didn’t happen) it leads her to give a borderline cringey speech where she yells and screams about how frustrating it is for her, leading her boss and Director of the Space Task Group, Al Harrison (Kevin Costner), to take a crowbar and beat down the colored bathroom sign in order to usher in integration (also didn’t happen). The issue is that NASA’s portrayed as a far more aggressive and bigoted enterprise from the era than it really was, making it seem like all the men in Space Task Group were horrible people at the expense of the story. While these women’s story is long overdue for an adaptation, I take issue with have the filmmakers revise history in order to provide a more dramatic effect; as even Katherine Johnson’s double checking of math didn’t take place during John Glenn’s reentry. I know it’s a common practice, but rarely is a film’s entire dramatic effect so heavily reliant on events that never happened. And to toss another trope onto the fire, we get to watch uninspired relationships manifest, featuring powerhouse player Mahershala Ali as veteran Jim Johnson in one of the most underwhelming roles I’ve ever seen. One the largest issues is presenting these women as benevolent; inviolable in their strength and character; never even attempting to show or hint at a negative trait. So while history is revised and painted with a much more somber tone, the opposite is done for the characters, who serve as paragons of virtue. It all goes back to that fifteen minute cut, which made many of the embellishments and tropes work, as it all seemed to be building toward something bigger and better than any first act could provide. To think that all of this fluff could have been removed and that it still worked just goes to show how unnecessary it all was and what could have been. BELOW: Great scene. Too bad it never happened Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Kind of a pyramid scheme? Director: Ted Braun Cinematographer: Buddy Squires Producer: Glen Zipper and Devin Adair by Jon Cvack I had first noticed Herbalife while hanging out at my favorite coffee shop over in Culver City as a representative pitched a handful of young woman, hardly out of high school; whose eyes were wide with dreams of wealth. I never knew anyone that had gotten involved, though my sister’s ex-high school boyfriend once fell victim to a similar scam involving steak knives (in which he had to buy a set to try and sell, though it was more about trying to get others to buy the set and try to sell; he didn’t last long). The film opens up with “Activist Investor” and hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman as he’s about to give a presentation in the long past stale Al Gore format where he stands on a stage and talks about the problem, which is then intercut with footage examining the rise and structure of Herbalife. For those not familiar, Herbalife is a health supplement company that recruits members to both 1) sell their product and 2) more lucratively (as they say), recruit additional members to sell their product. Similar to the steak knives, the individuals starting out are call "distributors" who have to buy about $3,000 worth of the supplements in order to start selling. They are restricted from setting up any of their shops with the name Herbalife or its logos on display anywhere outside or inside the store, also requiring that distributors who wish to set up shops to rent both the storefront and all the necessary materials. To earn above and beyond their supplement sales, the distributors are urged to recruit as many other people as possible. Naturally, most members they recruit fail, though not after they too had purchased thousands of dollars in supplies, with a small percentage then finding other to buy in. However, even if only two of a hundred distributors recruit two new members each, and those two recruit two more, at only two generations down at two people each, with 16 total members, the member pulls in $32000 worth of sales per month. The point is to find the right person to try and get those two yes’s out of a hundred. Many people have been hurt by this business; that much is evident, and yet by the very fact that its CEO was attracted from Disney, and that thousands of people gather at these rallies to celebrate the cause, and that the documentary even has one young man who was very successful with the business, bringing in a six figure salary (though they did not at all go into why or how; the pivotal questions), proves that some people do, in fact, find succeed. Where the ethics get complicated is when desperate new distributors target non-English speaking immigrants who're willing to pour their life savings into the business with dreams of wealth; taking advantage of the language barrier and failing to fully describe what the business is. Then again, you're left wondering if any of these immigrants might have succeeded and gained the life they sought. The doc left me thinking about Los Angeles and the thousands of people who arrive in pursuit of entertainment. Most people starting here compete for any entry level position they can get, whether it’s paid or not, and it'll continue - legal or not - so long as the hungry supply is so drastically higher than the demand. One of the things most of us quickly learn is how many people are pursuing their dreams with equal degrees of passion. At the end of the day, there are not simply enough jobs for everyone. I feel privileged to have even made a film, having found a job that allowed me to save and invest as much as I could back into my passion project, while supported by may friends, family members, and strangers. There are many people who have fantastic stories to tell and simply don’t have the resources to tell them. With a proliferation of media production college programs around the world and the low cost of decent equipment, there are thousands more now able to pursue the industry, and while with digital and social markets opening up new avenues, there are more people pursuing the few slots available in traditional television and film production than ever before. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of success in reaching the upper echelons of Hollywood are the same as Herbalife. I imagine people who are struggling to get ahead might see Herbalife as their way out from a financially unfulfilling life. To have someone come up to you and say that you could become a millionaire. A good salesman will seem like your best friend, making it seem that if she could do it then you could do it too. So they head out to recruit and, like pursuing filmmaking specifically and finding the entry level job, most will say no and a handful will say yes. In a way, Herbalife reflects any competitive industry - not just entertainment, but politics, law, Wall Street, architecture, art, music, you name it. Think of all those who invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in education, time, or equipment, hoping to get into a highly competitive position. 90% won’t pursue it at all, of the 10% that do maybe half of them find a job, of that 5% maybe a tenth of them are positioned on a solid professional track (often based on resources or connections), and while I'm pulling this last number out of my ass (though it seems reasonable), maybe 1% actually make it into the upper echelons of their industries. They are mythological creatures. They are versions of Herbalife's Millionaire Club and President’s Team, who make it seem like you can get there too; never acknowledging the sheer amount of luck required. At the end of the day, Herbalife remains a publicly traded company; people do make money off this business. It is a micro reflection of our general economy. Where it gets nasty is when they target those who don’t know any better; those who have no idea what type of scam this is. Bill Ackman is what I’ve now heard a few times on NPR described as an “activist investor” which wants to short stocks (selling them to make a profit by betting on their failure), in the hopes of swaying the market to bring down the company. The guy looks like an asshole, epitomizing Wall Street sleaze with his expensive suits, perfect haircut, and condescending way of speaking to others. What makes him such a fascinating character is the fact that we don’t know if his predictions are right. Combatted by another hedge fund billionaire Carl Icahn, who believes that the stock is stable, if not posing chances for great returns (agreed by many other investors by the very nature of their preserving the stock), throughout the film I was left wondering who was right. The primary issue is that the Herbalife’s model is well known at this point, and in an economy that runs on information, it seems difficult to assume that so many investors would be so fooled by the modest trading prices. Given the discussion above, it seems that aside from the exploited, many have at least a novice understanding of what they’re getting into and act accordingly, with most quitting and few pursuing, and a fraction of those able to make a living, and a fraction of those achieving the advertised wealth. The immediate criticism is that Ackman simply wants to make himself and his clients rich through the short sell is rejected by Ackman in that he plans to donate all his profits. But that’s also a very specific set of words - he still has his client’s interest to consider (who do want to make money), along with wanting to avoid losing the billions he invested should the company continue its successful trajectory. Up to the very end I found myself arguing back and forth. In the end, the SEC ruled in favor of numerous lawsuits and ordered that Herbalife was to restructure its model that I could accept Ackman’s cause. And yet, through further research, according to Fortune magazine, regardless of the controversy and the documentary, as of November 2018 the company saw a $700 million stock surge, with share price now at about $55, beyond the peak it reached in the film when Icahn was arguing in favor of Herbalife. It again leaves me on a cliff. The documentary is not made all that well, excluding more favorable arguments and details that might provide a more balanced approach to the business model. As much as I was left wondering which side to fall on, my interpretation was based more on taking the information they provided and letting it bake for a few days, rather than because the filmmakers enlightened me. Surprisingly it was produced by the Academy Award winning producers of Undefeated (2011), so it wasn’t like this all came from nothing. It fails by trying to mask itself as objective, providing a center-anti-Herbalife slant when it could have been more interesting if they shifted straight to the middle. BELOW: Ackman explains short selling and gives you a taste of his personality Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  A champion for practical effects Director: Christopher Nolan Writer: Christopher Nolan Cinematographer: Hoyte van Hoytema Producer: Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan by Jon Cvack After the success of watching Interstellar ('14) without seeing a single trailer, looking at a single screenshot, reading a single synopsis, and only accidentally seeing a tagline on a bus station billboard, not having a single clue what to expect, I was excited to see Dunkirk with the same strategy in mind (this time making sure I didn’t look at any bus stops); however, unfortunately having one person spoiling the triptych structure in an article title on Reddit. There was once a movement of epic war films that we haven’t seen since Saving Private Ryan (1998) and The Thin Red Line (1998), first brought about by The Longest Day (1962)and reaching its zenith with films like A Bridge Too Far, The Guns of Navarone (1961), and Where Eagles Dare (1968). Inglourious Basterds (2009) returned to the genre, offering the action over drama and yet bringing the high brow art of Tarantino and, as with all his films, standing tangentially to the genre than within it. Dunkirk isn’t exactly the epic war film I was expecting to see, and yet it provided the greatest iMax experience I’ve yet had, serving as one of Nolan’s best films. Similar to Nolan’s other explorations of time as, seen in Inception (2010) and Memento (2000), this film follows three separate storylines; all taking place at the infamous retreat at Dunkirk. One thing I kind of wish I read was a brief synopsis of Dunkirk, as having recently read about it in "Atonement" and its devastating history, and seeing the effects in the film (which left out much of the action from McEwan’s book), I realize how little we Americans know about the event. In an interview, Nolan reveals how it was a story that he grew up with; ingrained in English culture the ways D-Day is in American. Logline being that, in 1940, before America was even in the war and after an unsuccessful invasion across the English channel and into France, the German slaughtered the British forces, forcing them to retreat to Dunkirk. With the channel filled with German U-Boats, numerous Luftwaffe flying through the sky, and the German forces closing in, the United Kingdom was humiliated, refusing to risk anymore carriers to take the men off the beach, instead opting for a bunch of small fishing boats to make the long journey and retrieve the men. In the end Churchill would make his famous “We shall fight on the beaches” speed, of Iron Maiden Live After Death Fame. Not knowing about the great retreat or the method involved, it made me assume that this was much more about an immense battle per the likes of The Battle of the Bulge or Stalingrad. On the other hand, it’s a testament to Nolan’s prowess that - after gaining a more base understanding of where I was and what I was watching - he made me excited to start piecing together the story. It involves three narratives - one follows an ace spitfire pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy) and his partner Collins (Jack Lowden), taking place over a single hour; the second follows fisherman Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance; in a brilliant role) who’s taking his boat across the channel with his son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and George (Barry Keoghan; who will go on to do great things), taking place over a day; and the third follows British army pilot (Fionn Whitehead) who for once looks his character's age at only eighteen years old, determined to do whatever it takes to get off the beach as quickly as possible, taking place over a week. It takes a second to fully grasp how this structure plays out. One of the first criticisms I heard coming out of the film was an older man’s inability to follow the events by even midway through. It makes me where Christopher Nolan is simply interested in the idea of time within narrative, or how time is observed by particular characters within certain situations. A plane that’s only got an hour left of fuel left while trying to save as many men as possible is more pressing than hiding away in a boat for half a day, waiting for the tide to come in. I’d have to watch it again to see the way this might operate, though I suspect I might not find much. Instead I’d argue Nolan’s more interested in how time provides new forms of narrative, rather than any grand philosophic examinations. While I was expecting an epic battle sequence, instead Nolan focused on the more minute elements of the larger tragedy; using his hyper realistic style (with the vast majority of the effects being practical and it's wonderful) to, as he said in his interview with Peter Travers, “...capture what it’s like to be there.” Everything looks so real and so large on the iMax screen, with the ocean and beaches extending as far as the eye can see, that Nolan somehow takes what seems a straightforward story and weaves it into a challenging and yet accessible narrative unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Like most of his movies, and the reason I think he’s one of the best contemporary filmmaker, is his commitment to film language while being at the pinnacle of popular entertainment - he’s a High Art filmmaker, who while occasionally wandering into melodrama, is able to make you believe, or even certain, that what you are watching has actually or could actually happen. Dunkirk accomplishes the rare feat of ushering in a new style of Hollywood action filmmaking; especially in an age where the vast majority of these films abandon everything Nolan promotes - an over reliance on VFX and a strange homogenous language, looking as though the same voice extends throughout the majority of these films. Dunkirk has been criticized for celebrating war with others saying it celebrates valor. I think both are silly questions to ponder. It is action movie that celebrates the civilians who dedicated their lives to rescuing the soldiers at Dunkirk, capturing the fear, worry, and events which surrounded the day. Nolan’s brilliance comes by abandoning any commitment to actual events, instead opting to try and position the audience as close as possible the experience. I resent those who refuse to accept anything beyond an anti-war message when positioning viewers as close as possible to the fear as possible might be a far greater way to demonstrate the horror and dangers. No one should ever want to feel that way, or wish that any of their younger citizens would have to. Few filmmakers have provided such a visceral experience, some pro-war, some anti, some celebrating veterans, and Nolan has joined their ranks. He created a war film that will be watched for the rest of cinematic time, living in the same ranks as any of the greats. BELOW: Great Vox explainer video about Han Zimmer's score Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Gone within a year; never to come back Director: Jeff Orlowski Writer: Davis Coombe, Vickie Curtis, and Jeff Orlowski Cinematographer: Andrew Ackerman and Jeff Orlowski Producer: Jeff Orlowski and Larissa Rhodes Director: Jeff Orlowski Writer: Mark Monroe Cinematographer: Jeff Orlowski Producer: Paula DuPre' Pesemen and Jerry Aronson by Jon Cvack I’ve never combined two films in a single post before, and while I considered doing each separately, the stories are so similar in style and message that I imagine I would likely repeat everything I had to say about either. Both films were directed by Jeff Orlowski who's created a format that I’ve never really seen in a documentary, to the point where these could easily be long chapters in a 12-part miniseries. The stories are part adventure, part tech and part environmental documentary. The first film Chasing Ice focused on world famous nature photographer James Balog who’s determined to capture time lapses of the world’s major melting icebergs, figuring that only with visual evidence will anyone be able to convince Climate Change deniers of anything. He creates a company called the Extreme Ice Survey and immediately you understand the film’s another part Werner Herzog. While you grow to love the guy and his passion, at first Balog is at first an insufferable egomaniac; in which only a man of this type would elect to name his very serious ice research company with a name that sounds like a 90s bargain bin Steven Seagal movie. A large problem with climate change movies is that they need to ensure that everyone has the baseline knowledge of what’s happening. I loved Before the Flood, but I’ve also had heard most of the ideas time and again ever since Al Gore’s film kicked off the subject (BtF’s score and photography, notwithstanding). Instead, many documentaries have moved into more micro subjects - about water, trash, natural gas, oil, and so on. It’s a difficult position in that it’s proves how few people know about or accept climate change. In Chasing Ice and as Balog says the images can say it all, preventing the need for much explanation. The difficulty is getting the technology to capture those images to work, and in what’s less involved than its sequel, we watch as Balog and his team of interns and assistants march with across the world, setting up stop motion cameras along the major ice bergs. When they return a few years later, they learn that none of them worked. It’s a little suspicious as Chasing Coral has a strikingly similar disaster hit their cameras, in which when they put them underwater and come back to find them all out of focus. Chasing Corral involves Coral Reefs which, counter to the icebergs, I had no clue were dying at the rate they were. In 2016, somewhere around 29% of the world’s Coral Reefs were bleached; I never knew reefs were animals, involving a complex system of tiny polyps that rely both on protective creatures, sunlight, and a complex digestive system that keeps them alive and growing. As the film sums up brilliantly, just as if our bodies rose five degrees we’d have to go to the Emergency Room, rising sea temperatures of only a few degrees are causing coral reefs to essentially suffocate to death in rapid fashion. In this case Jeff joins “coral nerd” and young marine biologist Zackery Rag who’s determined to help demonstrate what’s happening to the scientific community. While not quite as Herzogian as Chasing Ice, instead he’s a guy that seems like he’d be one of your best buds in college - passionate, smart, and an overall likable person. Similar to the icebergs from Chasing Ice, where we got to witness an iceberg implode which was the side of Manhattan, in this film we’re seeing the beginning of aggressive coral reef depletion, which is occurring so rapidly that there’s very little time left to reverse course. Projections place the extinction at 2030 should present trends continue, and with little being done to combat the problem, it looks likely to occur. Similar to Chasing Ice, Jeff, Zach, and their team are determined to capture time lapses of the process, developing complex glass globules where the camera fits in, complete with a motorized windshield wiper to prevent any algae build up. They head down to the bottom of the ocean in order to anchor the devices, returning months later after the coral had already bleached, discovering that the cameras went out of focus within the first few shots, rendering thousands of photos useless. I’ve been in production long enough to understand that what can go wrong will go wrong, and so you can’t help wondering how after experiencing a similar problem in Chasing Ice that the filmmakers wouldn’t have checked the cameras a bit earlier to ensure it was all working. Nevertheless, they identity what went wrong and head off to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef which is nearly as long as the East Coast of America - and 29% of it is wipe out in this one year alone. When the footage has returned and Zach presents the photographs to a group of coral scientists at the preeminent coral science conference in Hawaii where there’s maybe two hundred people in attendance, possibly fewer, you realize that this problem has mountains to climb in that for something so devastating and vivid only a handful of individuals even really knew the scope of the problem. I had heard of reef bleaching, figuring it was a problem that was occurring in some remote areas of the world, having no clue how expansive and immediate it actually is. It makes you thankful that someone chose to put together a documentary like this, where Orlowski understood the importance of imagery over facts and figures in telling a story. It’s one thing to read an article about coral reef extinction and quite another to have breathtaking images open up the film, filling the story with subjects whose passion and knowledge enrapture you, until you then see the effects and speed at which these beautiful creatures can die and the toll it takes on those who care most. In one of the most devastating sequences, being at the Great Barrier Reef for months, Jeff and Zach witness the coral die before their very eyes; where when they began the shoot they were vibrant and healthy before fading white and dying, where the slightest touch would cause them to break up into pieces, falling to the ocean floor. Zach’s response has stuck with me ever since and could hit anyone who loves something and is forced to watch it die. Zach’s hero Ted Reef - a Coral Reef scientist whose television show Barrier Reef inspired Zach to become a scientist - has simple and straightforward advice for the young guy. Understanding the implications, where aside from the creatures, the collapse of corals could have tragic impacts on the entire food chain, Zach now has an ethical responsibility to do all that he can to explain and share his knowledge with the world; the way that James Balog has now dedicated a large point to sharing his knowledge about icebergs. A great gauge of a film is to imagine yourself as a kid before you ever realized you love film and think about how you’d see the film. The combination of great characters, cool careers, beautiful imagery, adventure, technology, and climate change’s urgency and need for fighters would have thrilled my mind; leaving me to want to go off and use the power of visuals to capture that problems that are going on to not just combat the problem, but to inspire others to do it too. After watching the two, I found myself wanting to make a similar film; to find a niche area of the world that’s dealing with the direct effects of climate change, finding both those who can explain why it’s happening and working with whoever I could to capture why it matters. I’m excited for what Jeff does next. While I was expecting your generic science doc, what I saw was the future of what science documentaries could be. BELOW: A glacier the size of Manhattan flipping over Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page |
Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jon Cvack and Yellow Barrel with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
|
RSS Feed