Week Of May 1, 2006 - Mystery Week - Tue / Wed / Fri

May 3, 2006

It was a sunny day in San Francisco today. Apparently, the first in a while. But the sun was shining for my arrival to the final three days of the two week long San Francisco International Film Festival. It's the 49th year of the fest and it is sporting a new director, Graham Legget, who seems to be getting rave reviews, putting the last few tumultuous years behind the fest and looking happily to next year's 50th anniversary celebration.

My catch of the day - aside from my obligatory trip to House of Nanking, which was as good as ever, maybe better - was three movies deep, though I did get a quick glimpse at a bit of a few other films thanks to a new system called Kaleidescape... but I digress. (I'll explain more about the system on Friday.)

The first film I saw was Stanley Nelson's Jonestown: The Life & Death Of The People's Temple. As the title suggests, this is a look at the Jim Jones story. And for me, it was the best thing I have seen about the man, his mission, and his mania.

It all starts with making the point that Jones was, essentially, the Bill Clinton of that generation... the white man who spoke to black people with ease, grace, and remarkable effect. Jones' People's Church was, as defined here, a church that was primarily a black church. And more that that, it was a black empowerment movement.

Nelson documents the evolution of Jim Jones from preacher to church leader and how choices were made to move repeatedly to continue to build both the number of members and the political power of the group. In the process, some of Jones' schemes, like getting members to assign all of their assets to the group, don't seem so horrible, more kibbutz than scam. The elderly and the young, for instance, were well taken care of and the costs of living, from food to medical, was adequately taken care of by the group... even if hearing that some got a $5 a week allowance plays as a laugh line.

But don't think that this is some Jim Jones lovefest. Besides his bouts of megalomaniacal insanity, there are his sexual appetites, brainwashing techniques, and relentless paranoia.

About 80 members of the People's Temple survived the mass execution/suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. And about 10 of them tell the bulk of the story here. This group includes three major players in the organization, including on of Jones' adopted sons, who was at the screening for a Q&A along with Mr. Nelson.

What is fascinating about this film, besides the basic story, is how Jones, like Hitler, Castro, and others before him (and since) offered "his people" 80% something wonderful, making their lives better and reaching for something that almost anyone would have to applaud out of context. And then there is that 20%... crazy... dictatorial... murderous... hateful. It is easy to wonder from the outside, "How could they follow that maniac?" This film does a great job of exploring that issue.

The film was made for The American Experience on PBS and the network will likely remain the launching pad for the film. There are some holes in the storytelling, especially after the massacre. But Nelson says there will be a lot of added material on the DVD. I look forward to that. Excellent film.

The last film I saw today caught my ear as I drove into town with a festival volunteer. The movie, The Bridge, has stirred up a lot of dust here in San Francisco. It is a documentary about the 24 suicides who jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge in 2004. Former Scott Rudin sidekick Eric Steel directs his first film and starts with the remarkable effort of sending a film crew to keep a daily vigil watching the bridge for jumpers and potential jumpers for one entire year. 21 of the 24 suicides were identified. 3 have never been filmed. I would estimate that we see about 15 of the 24 take the leap in the course of the film.

Interesting, huh?

Yeah, I thought so too. And the film is causing a great deal of discussion here in town about whether the bureaucracy responsible for the bridge has done enough to prevent suicides, which run at this rate pretty much every year, a stat which leads the world. This is a great value to achieve as a result of making a film, in and of itself.

However, Mr. Steel has a problem. The movie, which watches for jumpers and then does post-mortem interviews with families and friends of the suicides, trying to answer the question, "What happened?," never finds a real focus. What's the point? And I'm not even asking Mr. Steel to offer a specific opinion... just a focus.

Is this a movie about the futility of suicide? Is it about the nature of the choice to jump off a bridge? Is it about those who are left behind? Is it about the failure of the government to act? Is it about the physiological impact of this kind of suicide?

I was really interested in this film and really wanted to go for whatever ride Steel was offering. But once the groundwork was laid down - people who commit suicide are sad and they leave their loved ones frustrated and in pain - I found myself increasingly frustrated by the lack of anything more than variations on the theme. I have great sympathy for those who chose death and for those who have to live with that choice, but in order for this to be anything more than a social worker's training film, there has to be something more.

Steel wears his earnest intentions on his sleeve and I don't mean to mock in any way. I just cannot, for the life of me, figure out what he thought he was up to here... even after listening to a 30 minute Q&A. I do see that it is an important subject to him and that he came up with a remarkably challenging and rigorous way of filming. But I went into the film pretty much knowing everything I knew coming out. And while I am not fearful of watching people jump to their death - the cleanliness of it all, which it is, is exactly what Steel was trying to break up and refocus for the viewer, but the pain of watching these people in the process of their death is mostly formatted in our heads - I wish there was more structure - or less - around those images of the factual record.

The middle film was Pepe & Fulton's Brothers of the Head, which I quite liked in its earlier form in Toronto last September, though I, along with every distributor in town, thought editing was needed.

Returning to the film today, I found that the first act still stands up as spectacular psuedodoc. The rest of the 90 minute running time is not quite what it could have been, based on the footage. The film was cut significantly for running time. But the problem with the movie was never the length as such, but that Fulton & Pepe, who are second time filmmakers (Lost in LaMancha), but first time feature directors, fall in love with the cleverness and in the process, lose the thread of the fake documentary. (The doc tells the story of conjoined twins who become pop idols.)

A lot of the work that I would edit out is quite beautiful. It's not that it isn't skilled. The problem is that one loses the belief that one could be watching a real documentary. They essentially shot elements of 4 or 5 different styles of documentary, which no one who is actually making a documentary does. One conceit they use to good effect is Ken Russell's biopic on the brothers, which of course, borders of absurdity as seen through a haze of drugs. Great! There is thus a reason for the footage to exist. The other primary conceit is that a Scorsese-like director shot a documentary about the duo years before. Excellent. And the doc we're watching interviews players from the story in current time. Perfect. That should be enough. But it isn't for the young, talented directors.

Part of what is great about a doc like Lost In LaMancha or Scorsese's No Direction Home is that there are holes caused simply by the nature of making a doc. You can't be everywhere all the time. So in many cases, holes have to be filled in. But not here. Because it's not really a doc, every hole is filled with the footage a documentarian would dream they had. And that breaks the fourth wall. And that's a problem.'

All that said, I still highly recommend this film for its first act and for many wonderful treats in the rest of the film. I just wish that the filmmakers could go back into the editing room with fresh, objective eyes to cut the film to feel as though it really was a doc. Oh well.

E Me: Any SF suggestions?

Week Of April 3, 2006 - Life In the Bubble - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of April 10, 2006 - List Week - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of April 17, 2006 - Review Week - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of April 24, 2006 - Overlooked Week - Mon / Wed / Fri