Astra stated this in the interview we read, but I don’t think it translated into her film, Examined Life. While I did get the sense that the philosophers were toning down their jargon, the film is still clearly for a niche audience of academics, intellectuals, philosophers, etc. The reality of the film is that it is one based on credentials. She chose her subjects according to their CV and academic following. One person in the audience questioned why she didn’t interview the “people of the streets” as to their philosophies. I was also interested in the question. Would the film have gotten funded and distributed with the inclusion of unknown, non-academics?
The themes that were chosen (animal rights, revolution, otherness, disability and gender, ecology, etc) were diverse but also very selective. With this selectiveness (i.e. the random topic of animal rights), the filmmakers’ presence is perhaps needed. Astra is a lifelong animal rights activist, which is not expressed in the film. While I got a kick out of seeing Peter Singer in the documentary, it was most likely a personal motive to include him. Astra says that Ross McElwee is an influential filmmaker for her. Maybe she should have followed his steps and gone with a more personal documentary?
At first I absolutely loved the interview style of constant movement, but the talking heads still got old. There was so much room for beautiful and relative imagery with this topic. I honestly felt relief when they would cut to random passersby on the streets and beaches of New York.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteYou raise some really good points and strong criticism. Was there anything you found redeeming about the film, anything you took away from it, so to speak?
Ellen
The cinematography was beautiful, characters are interesting/insightful. I really liked the sort of anti-structure the film had. Astra took a lot of risks with this (and its obviously doing well).
ReplyDeleteI very much agree with Sarah, in terms of her criticisms of this film. I was at first intrigued by the shooting style that the filmmaker decided to employ (the philosophical walk), but as the film wore on, I started crossing my fingers, hoping that Astra would change her approach.
ReplyDeleteI must say that I did enjoy how the subjects managed to incorporate their surroundings into the selective dialogues. Still, I would have enjoyed a greater variety of locations. I do respect the filmmaker's creativity in coming up with interesting spots, while working on a tiny budget. Obviously, most of the film was shot in New York, but certain scenes still felt foreign.
I haven't been sleeping a whole lot lately, and this probably isn't the best film to see in a drowsy state. There's a good chance I might have gotten more out of the film, had I been completely alert. Still, I managed to stay engaged most of the time. Maybe this is a testament to Astra's filmmaking skills. She did take on a lofty subject, and I definitely she achieved quite a bit in this respect. Who thought that one could make a documentary like this, and manage to pull it off.
PS: Thanks for getting us tickets to this event, Ellen! You're the best!
ReplyDeleteSarah makes some good points.
ReplyDeleteIn Astra's defense, I think any attempt at something like this, that is a collection of rather independent philosophies on discrete subjects, cannot be reconciled with it's selection criteria. If we can't accept that it is incomplete, I don't see how we can accept it at all. Accordingly, this film can only be appreciated as Astra (and Ellen) pointed out: as a source of questions and not answers. It seems to me the assertions in the film all shared something in commomn, namely that they challenged common western/capitalist perspectives. I don't think the challenges we're meant to be the last word but rather the first word.
Reviews and summaries of the film are quick to point out something rather obvious - this is an ambitious project. She did her best to shake up the potential monotony through her presentation, and she did well in my opinion. But I agree with Jason when he says her technique grew tired with time. In the Q&A session, Astra mentioned a series that she's inspired by - which makes me wonder why she stuck with the feature format. To my mind, that's asking for an uphill battle. I just don't think it's wise or appropriate for this subject matter. But what do I know? Judging by the success her film is seeing, I know less than her and her distributor. Lucky us.
I had mixed feelings about the film, as it seems many others did as well. I'm definitely not wired as a thinker and quite frankly would never read a book if the material was published as that instead, but surprisingly there were only a few moments when I felt the pace was dragging on. I agree with others that the constant movement only worked in the beginning. As funny as it sounds, I actually get motion sickness from not sitting far back enough, and being subject to certain styles of editing/movement. This movie and the Bourne series are the only times I've had to close my eyes towards the end to recover.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that some more B-roll interjected into the sequence would have made it more interesting, I do appreciated some of the bloopers or mishaps that were intentionally left in. For example, the boat ride hitting the rock was a great way to introduce a pause to disengage our minds briefly. She was able to include those moments without taking away from the subject matter. Perhaps some of it is owed to the character's natural humor that she was able to capture. I remember Astra mentioning in the Q&A that she deliberately didn't not want to have too much of herself in the film, which I appreciated as well.