Category Archives: documentary

Making a Murderer (m/s, 2015)

Making a Murderer is a documentary series about Steve Avery and Brendan Dassey, who were accused of the murder of one Teresa Halbach. According to the prosecution, Teresa was unlawfully detained, tortured, raped and murdered by Steve Avery, who just recently was released from prison, where he spent 18 years for a crime that he didn’t commit. Later another suspect gets added to the investigation – a 16-years old nephew of Steve named Brendan. Over the course of 10 hours, every detail of this case, as well as testimonies of people involved and the progress of proceedings, are scrutinized. Notwithstanding the fact that both defendants were consequently convicted, and every appeal they made was rejected, the authors of the film obviously hold the side of the Avery family. And it appears that they have quite a lot of compelling arguments in support of their vision. The case indeed is full of holes and stretches; some intriguing questions remained unanswered, and basically ignored, by the justice system, which seems to be more willing to protect itself than the public.

In regards to the quality of this documentary, it’s far from flawless. There are 2 things that I really disliked about this show – apart from it being extremely tedious, of course, because this quality is inspired by the feasibility of the story, which is based on life, and real-life legal proceedings are excruciatingly boring.

So, the first thing: there’s too much hollowness – all those monotonous views and such, coupled with constant repetitions of stuff that bears no informational, nor emotional, nor narrative value at all. And the second thing: constant emotional manipulations. Whose side the authors are on becomes clear very soon in the story, but they just keep pushing that emotional crap in every freaking episode, as they weren’t clear enough in the beginning. It’s not only unpleasant, it’s also takes too much time. I bet, if you cut out the unnecessary stuff, the show would shrink by couple of hours. And besides, the most interesting content has nothing to do with the family’s emotional turmoil and stuff – it’s the actual video documents, like the interrogation of Brendan, for example; to be fair, there’s plenty of that here as well.

Now, after watching the show you would probably form an opinion as to what really happened there. I have too, and here’s my concept, which is purely speculative, I should add. Better skip it if you haven’t watched yet. Teresa was killed and, probably, raped right after she visited Avery plot. It was done either by her brother (who was way too eager to send Steve behind bars) or by somebody local: maybe Steven, which is unlikely, or somebody else (two guys, who alibied each other, kind of raise suspicion). Her body was ditched at the scene of actual crime, and her car was left somewhere nearby. On the 3rd day of the search the car was found by police officer Colborn, who inquired about it with the police line operator, but then contacted another police officer Lenk, and together they colluded to pin the crime of Avery, who was suing the police at the time (and Colborn probably also as some sort of atonement for coming forward with the 1995 phone call). They put the body in the car and drove it to the Avery’s plot, where they put the car as if in an attempt to disguise it, and burned the body. Later Lenk planted evidence in Steve’s trailer and garage, and the prosecutor came up with the whole rape & torture fable, which Brendan later ‘confirmed’ in his ‘confession’. Later on additional actions were taken to cover up this conspiracy, mostly during the trial.

The big question is: is it worth watching? I think, it is. First of all, it would show you how the legal system in the US actually works, because all the legal dramas on TV kind of contort the picture. And second: underneath it all, it’s an interesting story. A guy who was wrongfully convicted, tried to slap the system back, and got buried by it in response. There is a lot of ambiguity about it, but that’s just life. All in all, even with all the imperfections, this here is a valuable thing.

P.S.: The moral of this fable is really simple: don’t be stupid. It can really hurt you in the long run.

Names and figures


Tickled (David Farrier, Dylan Reeve, 2016)

Tickled is a documentary film about a journalistic investigation of a funny phenomenon called ‘competitive tickling competition’. David Farrier stumbles upon several video clips by pure accident, which wake his curiosity, but he only becomes interested when the initial research provokes a rather intense reaction. He decides to follow the thread, and does so with the help from Dylan Reeve, and by persistently trying to achieve clarity they uncover a deep and troubling story.

This documentary proved to be surprisingly interesting. What seemed at first like a harmless albeit bizarre notion transformed into something really strange and disturbing; the fact that it is also extremely plausible doesn’t help at all. On the one hand, I enjoyed the film tremendously, because it is constructed with great skill and profound understanding of dramaturgy (and also has extremely fine picture); but on the other – it kinda made me think about how odd the world is out there, how complex it is, and how disquieting and even ominous some of its parts can be. The film digs really deep, and at the end of it you would get a perfectly clear idea of what it is about, and that idea is weird and comprehensible at the same time.

I would recommend it to those people who are not afraid of the seamy side of life. Those who prefer to believe that the world is harmonious and balanced should probably avoid it.

Names and figures

[s] Quay (Christopher Nolan, 2015)

Quay is a documentary short that provides a glance into the inner workings of the Quay brothers workshop. The brothers talk about their puppets and about how they make their films. It is indeed short, so there aren’t any groundbreaking revelations there, but it does tell about a couple of interesting techniques, even if only in general. The execution is rather good – the film looks pretty and interesting, but the appearance does not steal any thunder from the subject matter. It has also made me want to re-watch the works of the Quays, so I suppose the purpose of this short is fulfilled at least for one case.

Names and figures

[s] Land Without Bread / Las Hurdes (Luis Buñuel, 1933)

Las Hurdes is a documentary short by Luis Buñuel about an isolated region in Spain, which was connected to the ‘big land’ only recently (circa 1932), when a road was constructed. It consists of 52 villages, all of which are extremely poor – to the extent, in fact, that their inhabitants consider bread a delicacy, never mind meat. It is overflown with diseases; a child born there has a pretty low chance of living past several months, and if survived, he or she is destined to the life of misery and constant struggle for existence.

After this film Las Hurdes all in all seem like a terrible place. According to wiki, there is a dark legend about this region that existed since the middle ages, which Bunuel continues. It appears that some of the scenes were staged by the director in order to create a gloomier picture (successfully), and some points were a bit exaggerated for the same purpose. But it appears that the dark legend does have objective roots, as the reputation of the region persisted until the beginning of XXI century, during which time the population was steadily decreasing, while living conditions remained on a generally low level notwithstanding all the efforts aimed at improving the situation. “Nowadays Las Hurdes is a good holiday destination for city-dwellers because of its scant population, its pristine wilderness and its landscapes. Thanks largely to tourism, present-day standards of living have risen to the average Spanish levels”.

The film, therefore, arouses mixed feelings: on the one hand it’s pretty well done, and with good intentions, too; on the other – it is manipulative (even if only a little), and it didn’t influence the reality very much (if at all), and chances are – exactly because of that impurity of means. But it did make me inquire more about the subject, – i.e. it made me interested, and this is probably a good thing.

Names and figures

Adam Ruins Everything (s.02, 2017)

In season 2 of Adam Ruins Everything Adam Conover keeps debunking various fallacies and delusions with same fervour and energy as always. Subjects of these season include pregnancy, weight loss, antibiotics, matching sites, personality tests, fine arts, school historic stereotypes (such as Columbus, or King Tut), education, doing taxes, why manufacturing is in China, conspiracy theories (specifically, moon landing), placebo effect, MSG, detox treatments, truth behind Orson Wells’ War of the Worlds radio play, problems of modern science, as well as such US-distinctive topics as US medical system, US student loans system, mount Rushmore, Hawaii, American lawn, design of an American suburb, poisoned candy on Halloween, 401(k), and food expiration dates. Episode #8 is dedicated to correction of mistakes made previously by Adam and other writers for the show – unwittingly, of course. Somewhere in the middle of the season Adam acquires a girlfriend, whom he met online, and the evolution of their relationship is intertwined with all the educational stuff.

There is much less of Emily, and even less than that – of her husband Murph; but they both still act as a target recipient from time to time. (The sister only appeared in the first episode for several seconds) As a rule, though, most of the stories have a one-off recipient (not to diminish the execution, – it’s quite amazing in all cases). Melinda the girlfriend serves as a partial substitution to Emily, in terms of sustenance of the narrative consistency, and it also has its own flavour; I’m not too fond of this storyline, because it seems like it was designed to last exactly until the end of the season, and I feel like it hurts the fidelity of the show; but, on the other hand, it’s very entertaining.

I didn’t like very much the most obvious novelty of the season, behind the scenes segment, that most of the episodes have, and that constitutes, basically, a brief formal interview with an expert who previously consulted Adam on one of the episode’s topics. In most cases it’s not very substantial, and at the same time it breaks the rhythm of the episode, which feels unpleasant, – it doesn’t seem to me like this effect is worth the amount of knowledge recounted during those moments.

Despite those few clouds, the sky of the show is crystal clear otherwise. The writing is incredibly smart and subtle, not to mention funny – depictions of historic figures and archetypes, for example, are totally hilarious, and that’s just the tip of  the iceberg. And, of course, the show is extremely informative – I definitely learned a couple of things I never knew before, – and it’s the most entertaining non-fiction I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen a lot). I recommend it with confidence.

Names and figures

Scary B.O.O.M. Underground / Scary B.O.O.M. v andegraunde (s.02, 2012)

In 2nd season of Scary B.O.O.M. v andegraunde Kirill Ermichev and Co continue telling about the Scary B.O.O.M rockabilly band, as well as some stuff that they think has everything to do with the rock music situation in Russia.

As it usually happens, the more you do something, the better you do it. Technical quality of the execution has improved quite obviously – the editing and the special effects became more subtle and better refined. Everything else, however, either remained on the same level or degraded. It’s still impossible to gain understanding about the music itself – it usually goes as a background to whatever is happening on the screen, and can be perceived by the viewer only as such; on rare occasions they did in fact show some performances, but there were too few of those, and none of them lasted for longer than a couple of minutes. The narrative has broadened in all the wrong directions: Ermichev found enough time to tell even about things that happen to the music performance industry during the summer, but not about what’s going on with the band. Apparently, somewhere in the gap between the seasons its lineup underwent significant changes: from the context of the story we can tell that the double-bass player left the bad due to personal reasons and general disappointment with music, but this topic is never address directly; disappearance of the drummer (who was frequently interviewed during season 1) is not even mentioned. The band leader, Ermichev, seems to be the only consistent thing about it, and he is a pretty boring guy.

Of the 15 episodes available online, only 12 were aired; the remaining 3 can be found on YouTube only. View count suggests that no one is really interested. Moreover, Ermichev himself lost any interest soon after, or even during, the filming of the 2nd season, – the band doesn’t seem to exist anymore. Contrary to Ermichev’s belief, it didn’t leave any significant imprint on the history of music.

The series claimed to cover the state of the art of rock music in Russia at the time, but failed to create a systematic picture; it also failed to provide the audience with a consistent narrative about the band’s history, development, features. It may still be useful to small bands as it tells about certain sides of a band activity that are not evident, but this usefulness is rather conditional, because these things change with time passing by, and this kind of experience tends to come naturally to musicians. All in all, this show seems to convey a viewpoint of those who never made it, those show were unable to break away from the everyday squabbles and gain a perspective. Not worth the time.

Names and figures

Scary B.O.O.M. Underground / Scary B.O.O.M. v andegraunde (s.01, 2011)

Scary B.O.O.M. v andegraunde is a documentary series about a russian psychobilly band Scary B.O.O.M., which was one of the few to gain relative popularity in Europe. The show tells about history of the bad, its everyday activities of all kinds, from designing clothing for performance, to controlling production of merchandise, to actually doing music.

I can’t believe this bullshit has been sitting on my self for 5 years; I’ve been a little intimidated because documentaries about music are usually not an easy viewing, and so I only got to it now, and what do I see? First of all, this is not a series about current rock-music scene, like it claims to be; rather, it is a chronicle of a band’s life – excruciatingly circumstantial, – until it suddenly pivots and starts telling about producing merch – again, in way too much detail; and then it pivots again, this time into the view on European music, which actually boils down to a short sequence of interviews with a leader of some band and also with some officials of a Finnish music / film festival. Obviously, the guys didn’t have an uber plan, and as a result we have this loose, incoherent narrative about so many things, it amounts to being about nothing at all.

What’s even worse is that this so-called rock band doesn’t have any temper at all, there isn’t even a hint of charisma in any of the participants, including Ermichev. They surely like to talk about themselves, – well, who doesn’t? and this whole thing would’ve probably looked very different if they’d made it, but they didn’t, and so it all seemed pretty pitiful to me. As far as I’m concerned, the band is long gone, and there’s nothing sad about it, it’s only natural, – it didn’t have a chance in the first place.

As for the music, I can honestly say that after watching this whole season, I would never, not even under a death threat, be able to distinguish songs of Scary B.O.O.M. from songs of any other band that was mentioned in the series. They all sound alike to me; probably, it’s because music plays pretty much all the time in the show, – so much in fact, it effectively becomes a part of the background, and stops to register at all. From those pieces that I can actually attribute to the band, none produces any significant impression, – I didn’t feel there was anything special about that music. I believe, the ideal result of any film about a real music band would be an overwhelming desire in the viewer to go and listen to more of that music; however, after I’ve watched this show, all I wanted to listen to was Eminem. Of all people.

Ultimately, it’s a poorly executed story about music that is not really worth it. I’m not sure, why would I watch the 2nd season of this, but I will. Stay tuned.

Names and figures

How Strange To Be Named Federico / Che strano chiamarsi Federico (Ettore Scola, 2013)

Che strano chiamarsi Federico is Ettore Scola’s tribute to his life-long friend and colleague Federico Fellini. It’s a semi-documentary, semi-dramatic memoir of their relationship, and includes some pieces of Fellini’s life that came to happen in direct connection with their friendship.

The film is poetic, ingenious and beautiful. It tells about Fellini with great respect and admiration, and at the same time not in denial of his certain character traits. Which are always forgiven, for he created so many wonderful things.

The narration is very well-balanced; the director alternates various techniques so that none of them can become a nuisance, and moves from one to another with amazing gracefulness at that. The acting – (and there was quite a lot of acting) – is in complete tune with the Scola’s design, not too bright, but perfect within the framework of the concept. All in all, an exceptionally harmonious story, honest and sincere, and light, and funny, and sad, all in one. In other words: highly recommended for all the cinema fans, as well as for everybody else.

Names and figures

Sport, Sport, Sport (Elem Klimov, 1970)

Sport, Sport, Sport is a semi-documentary by Elem Klimov dedicated to glorification of sport as a way of life, and as a profession. It is a mixture of several topics, – like potpourri, – with parts about sports history events with newsreel and testimonials from direct participants; fragmentary narrative about teenagers and other people committing to sport and talking about it; and also fictional parts – tales of the professional massage therapist uncle Volodya, who is a sort of like soviet baron Munchausen who’s really into sports.

I think, that last part is what spoils it all. Because, if you think about it, there is nothing wrong with accounts from history or filming the young generation of people captivated by what they are doing, – they may be a little boring, but they are clear in the core. Tales, on the other hand, seem so terribly fake, they started to annoy very soon, and by the middle of the film all I could think of was when will this finally be over? It’s obnoxious, and it ruins everything, like ten kilos of shit would ruin a whole barrel of jam.

In other words, this film is a radiant piece of propaganda, and even though it advocates a good thing – taking care of one’s body, that is, – lack of sincerity and unnatural, bright optimism not only spoil the movie as it is, it is also likely to have effect opposite to what was intended.

All in all, it was unpleasant, and feels like a waste of resources.

Names and figures

And Yet, I Believe… / I vsyo-taki ya veryu… (Mikhail Romm, Marlen Khutsiev, Elem Klimov, 1974)

I vsyo-taki ya veryu… is the last film by a famous soviet director Mikhail Romm, the one he didn’t get to finish by himself. It’s a documentary, specifically – canned news re-edited and reinterpreted in accordance with a certain vision. What he tried to do is to glance over the history of the XX century and come up with a conclusion – does the humanity stand a chance? You can guess what his answer to that question was by looking at the title.

Actually, the main idea was to tell the humanity something like: “We all know, you’ve done good things and bad things, and there are some of both kinds happening right now, but I know you can do better, humanity! I believe in you!” But the truth is, such appeal is bound to go without leaving a trace. I cannot imagine a single person who would become a better version of him- or herself after watching this, especially considering that there is quite a lot of bullshit in there.

The historical events are mostly presented in a biassed way, heavily influenced by communist propaganda; a lot of things are simply left out, which is sometimes benign (like not mentioning advances in medical science when describing the dawn of the century), but sometimes malicious (like not mentioning anything that happened in USSR at all, except for the fact of Lenin’s coup); later in the course of the film, its editors sank to the relatively current events in an attempt to not only prove that communism is the only rescue from the upcoming disaster, but also that soviet version of it is much better than the chinese. Of course, this film is far brighter than the usual agitprop, and I believe it was driven by a genuine desire to help all the people, but in the end, it’s all the same in nature, and you can’t trust something that is so untrue, even if it’s undoubtedly sincere.

I can still appriciate all the old reels, most of which I have never seen before, and masterful way they are all edited together, but in the context of free informational flow taking this work seriously would be ridiculous.

Names and figures

The Write Environment (m/s, 2008)

The Write Environment is a series of interviews with several well-known writers and TV show-runners, where they share details about their respective paths, industry insights, but mostly trivia connected to their most famous works. I only found these 6, although according to wiki, there are more of them.

Because of the format, the original order of episodes does not matter at all. This is how I watched them:

Damon Lindelof

Famous for: Lost
According to Lindelof, what makes a good writer is the ability to translate ideas into stories. Storytelling and scripwriting are the same thing. Writing can be taught. First comes the story (which is also the most important thing), and then a character, one that can create the deepest conflict. Script is always written from the outline; at that, outlines for Lost were very detailed – 25-30 pages sometimes, while an episode on the average is 55-60 pages. It is extremely important to leave “outs”, and not restrict oneself to choices already made. Never say never. “You always have to start with an archetype.” He compares writing for a TV show to ever-boiling stew, with new ingredients being added from time to time, and if some of them do not improve the overall taste, they won’t be added again. New characters are necessary. Comic strips are harder to write than TV scripts. Deadlines on TV are very real. He believes writing block appear where there’s a fear of writing shitty. He fights them by forcing through. He has an impostor syndrome in a light form. His advice: do not write for somebody, always write for youself, for you know your work better than anybody.

Doug Ellin

Famous for: Entourage
Doug Elling procrastinates a lot. Story goes first, but really it’s the combination of story and character. External pressure is important: during 4 years on the show he wrote more than during 18 previous years of free-riding. 4-5 pages a day is a good pace. What makes a good writer is the unique voice. Practice is mostly important, it’s the only way to get better. It is important to figure out the story before writing an actual script. At that, he never operates from a master plan (“uber plan”); more than once he finished the story before the season was over, and had to come up with something else in addition. Entourage is a dramedy. There is no outline. Re-writes on the set are quite common. David Schwimmer is one of his best friends. Producing is easier than writing. One season of Entourage is about 400-500 pages. Some of the stories of which Entourage consists happened to Ellin himself, others were told to him by other industry players. He specializes in dialogs writing. Story is the key.

Phil Rosenthal

Famous for: Everybody Loves Raymond
First there is an idea, and then it’s a lot of thinking, which to Rosenathal equals to worrying. He procrastinates a lot, and only starts writing under the pressure of realization that it has to be done. Half a page a day is quite normal. Stories get born from incidents. The rule of 3 is “setup – setup – punchline”, and not that there should be 3 jokes on every page. Story is always #1 concern. Doing comedy as tragedy might be a good idea. “Disposable entertainment.” Warmedy (“like a large bath of warm crap”). Aspiration to be likable is the death of everyting. You want to be relatable instead. Comedy is written specifically for a particular actor. He decided to end the show out of fear to run out of fresh ideas. Food for the crew is extremely important. Basic structure is: 1) premise (“why is it interesting?”); 2) Act break (culmination, “we’re getting married!”); 3) conclusion (“was it worth it?”).

Sam Simon

Famous for: Taxi, Cheers, The Simpsons
Golden boy; was a child prodigy. Family Guy is a rip-off, although he heard Seth McFarlane is a nice guy. South Park is absolutely amazing and hilarious. He’s not really a writer as most of the story construction happens in the room full of people in a collaborative process. He can procrastinate for a long time, and then write everyting in a day or two. Treehous of Horror was his idea, and he had to stand up for it. Story is the #1 thing, and you also need to love the characters. George Carlin is wonderful. The funniest people in the world are: Jerry Belson, Norm McDonald, Glen Charles, Drew Carrey. Never sacrifice character for a joke, it’s not worth it.

Tim Kring

Famous for: Heroes
Good storytelling ability comes from being observant and having something to say. Kring is the only of these 6 who went to film school (and even then he wasn’t majoring in writing). He always writes from the outline. As it usually goes, a treatment gets more and more detailed with time, and eventually turns into a script. His pace is 6-7 pages a day, an episode is done in a week. When working in a team, it is very important to be able to mimic somebody else’s writing style. Sometimes characters come first, sometimes it’s the concept. He prefers not to have master plan for Heroes, to leave as much possibilities open as possible. Cross-pollination between the writers team and the audience is a curious thing. He has a light form of impostor syndrome. It is important not to be too attached to one’s ideas or characters. One of the best way to go for a beginning writer is to be a writer’s assistant. For the show to really happen and succeed, first an idea should come to the right mind at the right time, then the casting should be perfect, and then the audience should fall in love with the result.

Joss Whedon

Famous for: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Doll House, Firefly, Serenity, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog
Whedon is 3GTV, third-generation of TV writers. He loves to have room for pacing. He writes up to 10 pages a day. He’s the ultimate geek (or, at least, was). His influences include: Monty Python, Masterpiece Theater. His father wrote for Golden Girls, The Electric Company. He always writes genre, because there are rules and structure. He loves to mix different genres, because gets bored otherwise. He doesn’t like “reset” kidn TV, and favoures serialized kind. 85 pages for an [episode] is not a lot. Movies is the “answer”, while TV is the “question”. You will be a writer only if you have an intrinsic need to write.

Generally speaking, these interviews are not so important as to how much you can learn from them about the profession, but can go a long way when it comes to encouragement of the beginning writers. Learning that successful and recognized authors suffer from the same fears as you do, that they procrastinate and stress out, but manage to overcome all of those things, can really make a difference, and this is the best thing about this series. And, of course, bits of information about industry’s behind the scenes scattered here and there, scarce as they are, help elaborate three-dimensional image of the American culture. All in all, it was pretty interesting – for me, anyway; I doubt that somebody not interested in becoming a writer would want to sit through 6 hours of basically just talking.

P.S.: I kept the files, and I’m willing to share, so if anybody’s interested, just contact me.

Names and figures

[s] Greenhorn / Nedorosl (Natalia Babintseva, 2003)

Nedorosl is a student documentary short about a young guy, who apparently is somewhere on the autism spectre. The film consists of the voiceover, where he’s telling about his hopes and aspirations, and the picture, depicting circumstances of his life.

While the life of a real person this film is built upon is as much valuable as any other, it is not interesting enough for a movie as there is no story behind it. Difficulties of life do not count as such, even if they constitute a relatively unusual comination like this. Which is why, notwithstanding decent implementation, the film is unlikely to produce more or less powerful impression, and therefore – to remain in one’s memory for longer than couple of days.

As a student’s work it’s okay, but nothing more than that.

Names and figures

[s] Nine Forgotten Songs / Devyat zabytykh pesen (Galina Krasnoborova, 2008)

Devyat zabytykh pesen is a documentary short about lives of a small nation (komi-permyaks) slowly dying out in one of the Russian regions. It’s not a report, and it’s not a commentary – it’s more poetic in nature than it is informative. It shows, quite plainly, the way they are – those people, and from these pictures a truly vast context vaguely appears; in the end, when all the pieces come visible (it’s much like the accumulation of critical mass), you seize the complete image of this sad story in one mighty effort.

The film is divided into several relative chapters, each containing some sort of a song usually sang by one of the locals. The camerawork is absolutely amazing, as well as the sound. Well, in the aftertaste this movie feels really great from all sides – I guess, it kind of grows into you overtime. Watching it wasn’t as great – after all, there’s little to no action through-out the whole thing, which is, of course, compensated with the palette of other devices, but still bears some little effect.

All in all, it’s a wonderful work of art, and a highly enjoyable experience, too.

Names and figures

[s] Odessa Manholes / Odesskie lyuki (Yuliya Gorodetskaya, 2007)

Odesskie lyuki is a short report-type documentary about a bunch of homeless glue-sniffing kids living in Odessa (mainly in some manhole). There is no moralizing, nor there are any specific ideas about how to solve the social problem. It’s a simple depiction of unsightly reality and nothing more than that. And this is what makes it interesting, and even imparts a certain depth to it – after you remember that 10 years has passed since it was made, so most of its heroes are probably dead, or in prison.

The film obviously lacks a professional touch (just as its creators lack in experience), but compensates for it with sincere curiosity.

Names and figures

Short Anthology (RESFest Edition)

Here’s some shortfilms, none of which is worthy of a separate posting. All of these came from the anthology of the RESFest participants. Almost all of them are just a meaningless sequence of visual images and sounds.

(1997 || Directed and written by: Rodney Ascher || IMDB || ~1m)

Apparently, a video sequence meant to accompany some music.

Tongues and Taxis
(2000 || Directed and written by: Michael Overbeck || Performed by:  Jesse Schmal, Michael Overbeck, Aaron Zigman || IMDB || ~8m)

An absurd cartoon about the guy whose tongue mutated into a giant monster. May be valueable if you need to evaluate Overbeck’s amination skills, but on itself has no point and no actual reason to be.

Modern Life
(1999 || Directed and written by: Dean Mermell || Performed by: Edie Maples, Fred Adler || IMDB || ~7m)

A silent film stylization meant to convey a message that modern people are only free in their dreams (when sleeping). It’s not just a questionable concept and primitive implementation, it’s also the fact that we don’t need to watch whole 7 minutes to get that brilliant idea, 1 minute would’ve been more than enough.

Pasta for War
(2000 || Directed and written by: Zach Schlappi || Performed by: Robert Prosky, Aaron McMasters, M. McGuffin || IMDB || ~3m)

A pacifist animation which essense is coded in the title. Has no independent value, neither when it comes to the meaning, nor with the toolkit used.

(2000 || Directed by: Mike Mills || Performed by: Deanna Templeton, Ed Templeton || IMDB || ~17m)

This is a very long streak of pointless shots with certain themes sometimes surfacing here and there (like the guy painting the girl in different positions). It doesn’t develop into a story of any sort, meaning the instruments used by the author were not enough to create the context. As a result, it’s extremely boring.

Snack and Drink
(2000 || Directed by: Bob Sabiston || Performed by: Ryan Power || IMDB || ~4)

This piece is built on the same technique as, for example, A Scanner Darkly, a 2006 movie by Linklater (real footage is post-processed to look like animation and enhanced with some true animation), but unlike it has no story, because people blabbering with each other during their journey to the nearest fastfood is not a fucking story.

A Portrait of Harry
(2000 || Directed by: Thomas Trail || IMDB || ~2m)

Harry is the elderly guy who plays banjo. That’s the whole essense of the film, there’s nothing more to it. Frankly, I have no idea why people would waste time creating such bullshit, unless it’s sort of educational process landmarks, but in that case they definitely should not be linen in public like this.

(2000 || Directed and written by: Koji Yamamoto || IMDB || ~2m)

Two gingerbread rabbits are fighting each other using katanas. The title is supposed to mean something, but no meaning emerges from what is shown.

Cirkus (+The Making Of)
(2000 || Directed by: Herman Weeb || Written by: Dominique Thibodeau, Herman Weeb || IMDB || ~5m + ~8m)

This film is a heavily processed video sequence involving a roundabout and a girl in a mask, all in the effort to convey the message of circus, whatever it may mean. Completely unclear without a libretto. Also, nothing is happening here. Interestingly enough, video clip about the making of the Cirkus is more interesting (and pretty) than the actual film; and still, notwithstanding all the author’s explanations about how and why, the purpose of making this whole thing remains obscure. Another failed attempt to pass empty mystique for deep meaning.

(1999 || Directed and written by: James Kenney || IMDB || ~8m)

This one here is a symbolic representation of human interaction with the outside world. Or, at least, I think that’s what this is: the form consists of philosophycal reasoning accompanied by a sequence of video shots with fetuses yet unborn, and some of people’s names equalled to their immediate meaning in English language, so it’s kind of hard to make sense of it. Personally, I consider it bullshit.

Golden Shoes
(2000 || Directed and written by: Dame Darcy, Adam Gravois || IMDB || ~3m)

This is an animated story about who knows what. The animation is awful, the story in unintelligible.

Vision Point
(2000 || Directed and written by: Stephen X. Arthur || IMDB || ~2m)

This one is an excersise in editing and special effects. No clear message, no characters, no nothing.

(~2000 || Directed by: Dave Schroeder (?) || ~6m)

This one here is a puppet movie that looks a lot like a scene from a Rambo movie, only with action figures instead of real actors. Maybe it was conceived as a parody, but even so it’s not interesting at all. Looks pretty lousy, too.

(~2000 || Directed by: Stefen Nadelman (?) || ~3m)

This is an animated music video clip. The animation is not bad, it’s quite interesting, actually, but still – there’s no cinema in there.

The mix that I saw also includes some untitled video sequence about driving somewhere and thinking about stuff. No idea, what’s that about.

Generally speaking, it seems like the organizers of RESFest really tried to concentrate all the bullshit in one place; if that was the purpose, it can be called a success. But I, for one thing, am glad that RESFest is no more. The world does not need it.

(v. 0.1)
®shoomow, 2017

Adam Ruins Everything (s.01 part II, 2016)

This here is about the 2nd part of the 1st season, which consisted of 14 additional episodes and saw the light of day in the course of 2016. The reason why it should be called the continuation of season 1 and not a separate season 2 (which would’ve made much more sense) is unknown to me.

The show acquired couple of new traits, but on the whole it stayed just as vigorous it has been from the start, a turning-learning-into-fun sort of thing, highly absorbing, and implemented in a absolutely fascinating manner, both from the viewpoint of ideas and that of professional quality.

New things introduced include Adam’s sister, Rhea, and her somewhat shading off effect, as well as new regular section titled Even Wonder Why?, which was used on multiple occasions to tell about a smaller subject indirectly related to the main one (or not). Other than these 2 things there were no format developments, which is normal, because the initial format was exceptionally successful from the get-go, and proved to be quite steadfast, too.


Themes of this season’s half can be divided into 2 almost equal parts, one of which is solely American issues, and the other concerns the world in general. Both are interesting enough, although, not by the same token; the american part seems to have grown in comparison with the season’s 1st half.

All in all, Adam Ruins Everything is the best educational project in the world right now – and that’s saying something, because in the recent years the enlightenment is on the huge rise, so the competition is fierce.

Names and figures

[s] Lovin’ / Lyublyu (Maria Kozlova, 2005)

Lyublyu (literal translation: “I love“) is a documentary short about some musicians struggling to survive in the unwelcoming conditions of modern Russia. Technically it’s a student’s work, but it’s actually much more balanced and expressive than most of the students’ graduation movies – mostly thanks to exquisite editing and truly outstanding visual solution, but also because the subject is interesting enough and is presented with passion and skill.

This film participated in one of the VGIK (Russian Institute of Cinematography) film festivals, and received some secondary diploma, but I believe it was much better than the one that won best non-finction.

Names and figures

[s] Cannabis: What’s the Harm? (Part I) (James Alexandrou, 2011)

Cannabis: What’s the Harm? is a 2-part documentary made for BBC. The essense is in the title – the author tries to figure out if cannabis is harmful, and if so – to what extent. I’ve only seen the first part, because the 2nd is almost impossible to come by; also, there isn’t much point in making the effort. Except for certain curious details, there is nothing here that I haven’t seen or knew before.

One peculiarity of this specific investigation is the British angle, as well as the view of a Brit on the American situation. Another – is that the author tries to present opposite views on the issue without any attempts to influence his subjects, or impose his understanding on the audience, which makes it possible to form one’s own opinion – that is, of course, if there isn’t one already formed. Because if there is, the viewer is likely to accept only certain parts as the confirmation of his standpoint while ignoring those that contradict it.

Generally speaking, if you know a thing or two about the subject, you won’t find anything new here, so ultimatelly, there is no point in watching it.

Names and figures

[s] Paperboys (Mike Mills, 2001)

Paperboys is a documentary short about a piece of american suburbian culture that is very likely to become a thing of the past in the following decades – a system of newspapers delivery by teenage boys, which is also a way for them to earn their own money. The subject seems trivial at first sight, but it’s actually just one of many causes to capture current state of a changing environment; it’s a sort of document of the epoch that is not particularly curious for us as we are living through the same epoch, but it definetely would be a valid source of information on how people lived – for the researches of tomorrow. At that, everybody involved in making this film certainly didn’t think about the project as insignificant, because their approach was pretty serious; it’s clear they put a lot of time and effort into their work. And the result is decent enough.

Names and figures

Super High Me (Michael Blieden, 2007)

There was a movie called Super Size Me, where guy conducted an experiment on himself and was eating only extensive amounts of fastfood for a certain period of time. Super High Me was inspired by this idea: a stand-up comedian named Doug Benson decided to do something similar, only with smoking pot instead of eating burgers and fries.

Under the conditions of the experiment he abstained from smoking for 30 days taking different measurments of his physical and psychological state at the same time; and then he heavily smoked for 30 days, also taking the same measurments. During all this time he was followed by a camera crew, thus this movie.

While it was pretty interesting to observe, especially considering that Benson is kind of funny guy with great speaking ability, the mass fraction of science in the film is not sufficient – not for me, anyway. There were certain points (including comparative ones) showing interesting results, but too concise and too fleeting to satisfy my thirst for knowledge; also the symmetry of the procedure leaves much to be desired – obvisouly it was sacrificed to entertaining quality of editing.

Observation of the test subject were sometimes interrupted with footage about various sides of the marijuana legalization process in the US, mainly in California. Most of them are outdated by now, but still quite interesting – from the historian’s point of view.

Generally speaking, the film is rather good notwithstanding aforementioned drawbacks, and quite fun, too.

Names and figures

The Term / Srok (Pavel Kostomarov, Alexey Pivovarov, Aleksandr Rastorguev, 2014)

The Term is a documentary film about Russian remonstrative movement which arouse in 2011 (when it became crystal clear that Putin is not going to give up his power) and slowly died out by the end of 2013. Actually, it still flutters, but there’s no real hope for change – at least, not in the immediate future.

The Term was actually a large documentary project that produced an enormous number of ~3-10 minutes long video clips covering different sides of the movement. All of them can be found here. These clips served as a raw materials database for the film. I believe, if you really wanna know about these events, you should attend to the Youtube channel rather than watch this movie, because it provides a much broader picture, and is devoid of the drawbacks characteristic of the full-length film.

What are those drawbacks? Well, first and foremost, many important events simply didn’t make it there – probably, because the directors didn’t want the film to be too long, i.e. it was a measure aimed at widening the audience. Although, when you think about it, all the things I deem to be film’s shortcomings have that same nature, including the overloading of the line dedicated to the romantic relationships between Sobchak and Yashin – mainly, because without it the film would be as random and chaotic as the reality was, and it’s kind of tiresome and therefore not very attractive to the ordinary viewer.

I doubt that those sacrifices were defensible; it’s rarely a good idea to play up to the audience, because more often than not it looks pathetic. However, the film is still a good enough portrayal of an interesting period – it definetely can be sufficient to excite genuine interest in the matter. Besides, the implementation – the editing, the camerawork – is exquisite and even beautiful sometimes. All in all, notwithstanding all the flaws, I liked what I saw.

Names and figures

Short Anthology

Here’s some shortfilms, none of which is worthy of a separate posting:

Terry Tate, Office Linebacker
(2002 || Directed and written by: Rawson Marshall Thurber || Performed by: Lester Speight, Michael Sean McGuinness, Michael Cornacchia || IMDB || 04:09)

There’s no story, just an idea, but a rather funny one. Very neatly done, too. Still, it’s merely an anecdote.

La barbichette

(2002 || Directed and written by: Kim Chapiron || Performed by: Vincent Cassel, Olivier Barthelemy, Marko Payen || IMDB || 04:48)

Also, no story. The whole film is just one situation, at that it’s outcome remained unclear. I have no idea why it was created, for which purpose exactly, but it was slightly entertaining.

Daybreak Express
(1953 || Directed and written by: D.A. Pennebaker || IMDB || 05:20)

Train comes, train goes – that’s basically it. The director targeted a train that passes on the verge of a rising day, hence all the play with lights and color. But it’s not even a documentary, because you would need an idea for that – it’s nothing but an exercise in editing.


(v. 0.1)
®shoomow, 2016

How Drugs Work: Cannabis (Gabriella Polletta, 2011)

This is a part of a miniseries with 3 or 4 episodes in total, the rest of which I probably won’t be watching. It’s dedicated to marijuana, obviously, and related stuff.

I almost liked the visualizations – they are pretty clear, and I haven’t seen anything better, but to tell the truth they are crude and awkward, and could’ve been so much better – it reeks low budget. Large part of the timing was occupied by the observation of the drugged people habits, which was stupid and irritating, because it’s a common place and there is nothing cognitive there at all. Later the film became really silly, especially when they started to tell balls about the Skunk, and how extremely dangerous it was – their rethoric in that part kinda resembles statements of today’s officials about Synthetic cannabinoids – at that I know some of the stuff about the latter to be true, but Skunk is just another breed grown naturally, and its demonization looks weird. Also, this is the first time I’m hearing about it, and as I find myself to be rather well-educated on the subject, I will deem this bullshit until proven otherwise.
(I also undertake the responsibility to find out more about this)

In general, this film feels not like an educational documentary, but more like a bad, unfunny parody on such. There’s probably not a good reason to watch this at all.

Names and figures

Adam Ruins Everything (s.01)

Now, this is something tasty. If anybody ever seen the show about Bullshit by Penn&Teller, here’s the version renewed and updated. Not literally, of course, but these two projects share many things, like critical thinking approach and passion against ignorance, among others.

What Adam ruins is delusions of all kinds, but mostly those that were born thanks to ‘marketing experts’. It’s kinda astonishing how many convictions that we believe to be natural or normal were actually introduced in order for some people to make money. Adam successfully unmasks many of them (and, hopefully, many more to come), and he does it in a manner so adorable, it’s almost impossible not to love him. The contents of the show is not just interesting, it’s extremely useful, even though some delusions are very difficult to die. I learned a lot of interesting stuff about which I had no idea, and the thing with the hymen really blew my mind away.

The form of the show might be even more interesting than its contents. It is a highly delicate compound of fiction, documentary insets and educational efforts flavoured with great deal of talent and mind-boggling enthusiasm. The concept is so original, it’s hard to imagine how it might even work (if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes, I would’ve been full of scepsis), and yet, it not just works, it works amazingly well. Besides those three foundations I mentioned, the format also incorporates vivid images, wonderful camerawork and exquisite editing, as well as many interesting techniques, such as indication of references to scientific research papers right there on the screen, various kinds of animation, and, of course, humor and self-irony. Each episode includes several topics united by a common subject, and also a piece of continious and consistent story featuring Adam and his friends. Scripts are very well-balanced, and pretty intense too, – but I had no trouble of keeping up, even though English is not my native tongue.

Season’s finale must be totally mentioned separately, because it deals with a rather grim theme – death. Notwithstanding generally comical orientation of the show, the approach to this episode was different – the matter was handled with respect and caution it deserves, – and that made me love Adam even more. There should be more people like him in the world.

In short, this is a bright and brilliant show, an absolute must-see for every person on this planet.

Names and figures

The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (Brett Harvey, 2007)

Not a bad documentary film, although the specific purpose of it is unclear (other than proving to the world): the subject had already grown too big and ultimatelly breaks up into a number sub-topics, such as advocating marijuana usage, uncovering schemes and business models connected with cannabis production and trade, trying to understand why proscriptive measures don’t work, looking closer into the drug work mechanisms, and so on. The film touches upon most of these things, but in most cases manages to illuminate only the basics.

First half hour may be easily skipped by anybody familiar with pro-cannabis arguments: this part is solely dedicated to the marijuana advocacy, and there is very little new to learn (if anything at all). Following parts are more interesting as they prove details that are not so easy to come by, like the role of Canada in North American drug trade, how actual movig of product between the borders happens, the inside of a growing facility, stuff like that. Of course, this movie is in no way a manual to any of those things, it doesn’t focuse on any of the crucial issues, but shows them in general; still, some useful information can be withdrawn even from here. The title for the film feems random, as the authors talk about the formation of so-called Union not more than 10 minutes tops.

I can say that I learned a thing or two from this film, and though it’s far from being perfect, it is an essentially good and useful work.

Names and figures

%d bloggers like this: