April 9, 2003

I had the opportunity to watch two brilliant documentaries that I should have seen up at the Toronto Film Festival last year. But they are not new. Both are over 30 years old.

They are two of the films by Allan King. He is a Canadian filmmaker who start making documentaries in 1967, shooting his films in away that is more reminiscent of a John Cassevettes film than the documentaries we are used to seeing in this era.

The 73-year-old filmmaker is currently working on a film about death. He will present 30 minutes of work-in-progress footage from that film plus three of his classics – Skid Row, Warrendale and A Married Couple – at UCLA this Friday and Saturday. If you can get yourself out this weekend – if you live in LA - to see these films and to meet this filmmaker, I urge you to take it.

This period of American television will someday be studied in great depth. What is being called “reality TV” is nothing more than a commercialized form of documentary. But, like a magician, these shows tend to distract you with the prurient while doing the business of storytelling in ways that you won’t notice. But there is a real distinction in quality between the shows. And there is a reflection on the history of documentary.

The current “hot” documentarians are stylists who have created their own unique voices. Michael Moore really did deserve a WGA nomination for screenwriting, because nothing in his film documents anything other than his opinion… which I really loved seeing… but it’s about him. It was no less vain than Nanette Burstein and Brett Morgan’s Bob Evans doc, The Kid Stays in The Picture, which doesn’t bother pretending to be objective in any way, but only a reflection of this man in his very own mirror. (The duo did a classic doc, On The Ropes, which ended up premiering on TV in spite of serious support from Roger Ebert and lots of other critics.)

Ken Burns created a form of historical documentary in a way that felt so natural that it seemed like we had been seeing it forever. This is not to say that Burns didn’t borrow liberally from a lot of other filmmakers. But you can tell people that a doc is “like a Burns doc” and they do know what you are talking about.

Nick Broomfield has managed to make his behind-the-scenes work the center of each of his documentaries. He creates an atmosphere in which you connect emotionally not with the characters in the film, but with his plight in trying to get his film made.

The least appreciated “hit” doc maker is Errol Morris, who has brought the art of dramatic recreation to a whole new level in his work. Morris even invented a new camera rig to do interviews that would allow his interviewees to look him and the camera in the eye at the same time.

As I wrote before, Allan King did his own thing long before any of these other filmmakers and it has its own remarkably unique flavor. One critic commented on the fact that his films didn’t have the jerky camera work of other docs. But I think that misses the real value. He is the silent observer, but his camera is not omniscient. The subjects are clearly aware of the camera’s presence, but they respect it as part of the family, not an outside watcher.

The connection to Cassavettes comes with the long, long takes that he chooses to put in the final product. Unlike almost any other doc maker I know of, King does not search for a true three-act structure. He takes pieces of these lives, which combine to illuminate the whole. As you watch, you can’t really guess where the film is going. And I’m not sure you know when he’s hooked you. But the intimacy is a glorious surprise.

CORRECTIONS: Warner Bros. let me know that the “Pundin’ Poet” was meant to be the “Poundin Poet.” So without beating this into the ground, I’m happy with my new moniker and look forward to touring “the hood” in Bermuda to try it out. (The “hood” in Bermuda is about four blocks long.)

Also, Fox was kind enough to let me know that they have also been in the CD-Rom Press Kit game since December. Even better, they are doing an extra special press kit for X-Men 2. So they deserve some of the love offered to MGM yesterday.

Last week, I unpacked a Fox promo item… a glass chess set much like the one that Professor Xavier and Magneto play on in Magneto’s non-metal prison. Very, very cool. Now if I could only get Rebecca Stamos to come over for touch ups.

READER OF THE DAY: HANKER FOR A HUNK A CHEESE writes: “Well, I have to disagree with Ga-Rod.

Kelly Preston, particularly, has shown she has comic talent in "Secret Admirer" and "Only You." That she has been mostly in crap is more a sign of either being unlucky in her choices of parts or, considering the number of them, being a bad judge of parts. She is not cursed.

I have only seen Thomas Jane in a few things, but I think you've called it--he's a talented man who lacks that special charisma that makes for the most memorable actors. Star quality, if you will.

The only cursed people I know are the untalented actors and actresses that somehow manage to get cast, based on good auditions and producers who forget how bad they were in their last work.

My classic example of the type is Craig Wasson, who had several years of starring roles before dropping into second-tier supporting character roles. Every time I saw him, I was always astonished that they couldn't find anyone better than him. His performances in "Ghost Story" and "Four Friends" were probably the most inept I ever saw in starring roles in major Hollywood films--until his turn in "Body Double," a few years later.

It should be noted that this is not the same as finding an actor irritating, in the manner of Jerry Lewis, Adam Sandler (for some folks), or Peter MacNicol (for me). This is a matter of an actor who never convinces you, who lacks the talent or skill.

The people who pay for this curse are the actors who appear with them, and the audience. One such cursed performer throws off everyone around them, and sabotage the entire enterprise. (Thus critics describe Madonna as exuding a negative energy field, which keeps anyone around her from acting, as well as not acting herself.)”

THE OTHER JOHNNIE ENGLISH writes: “Thomas Jane is a younger Arliss Howard, or even Chris Cooper. Steady supporter, not really a leading-man type. I think he can pull off The Punisher, but I also think he has the potential to be as bad as Michael Jai White in Spawn or Jason Patric in Speed 2. As for the curse, he's really stretching.

First I'd like to defend Kelly Preston. She, like Rita Wilson, has made it clear her priorities are to be a good mother to her rich husband's kids first, and her career second. To somehow pin Battlefield Earth on Preston is silly. There will always be a place in

my heart for how Kelly Preston made me feel at 15 when I saw her in Twins. Rita Wilson was in junk like Mixed Nuts and The Story of Us. Are you going to tell me she's a curse to Tom Hanks?

Now to Thomas Jane. Deep Blue Sea didn't sink the career of Samuel L. Jackson. The Night I Committed Suicide didn't torpedo Keanu Reeves, and Antonio Banderas has the Spy Kids franchise after Original Sin. I'd blame Melanie Griffith in Antonio's life for his bombs (Crazy in Alabama, Two Much, Play It to the Bone) more than Jane. As for Dreamcatcher, Morgan Freeman has six movies lined up next, including a Jim Carrey comedy, an Elmore Leonard adaptation and a Nelson Mandela biopic.

True cursed actors and actresses disappear after a while. You'll notice Sean Young doesn't get work anymore. After crap like A Kiss Before Dying, Love Crimes and Firebirds, it's good riddance.”

E ME: Who are your favorite doc makers and why?