The Gleaners and I~ Internalizing

The Gleaners painted by Jean-Francois Millet

Gleaning: To scrounge the left over and unwanted items.  Usually food after a harvest.

The Gleaners and I (2000) by Agnes Varda is charmingly enigmatic.  The film seems to be entirely the musings of a tiny, aging, artsy French woman.  Agnes Varda travels around France with a small camera not unlike a GL2 to seek out the modern equivalents of the subjects in Millet’s painting, The Gleaners. The Gleaners and I is the sort of film adventure that isn’t out to prove too much.  What it does is allow you to follow along for the ride and internalize some of the things she discovers. 

Agnes Varda finds people all across the gleaning spectrum.  Some glean out of necessity, others for hobby, some for ethical reasons, and others because of tradition.  She also seeks out perspectives from both sides.  She visits the judicial courts and finds that there are current laws that still protect the “rights” of gleaners.  She visits the owners of the fields and orchards and hears their relationship with the gleaners.  I was surprised to find that many welcomed the practice and just asked that they stay 10 yards behind their own harvesters etc.

Varda’s film provides several interpretations or degrees of gleaning.  It makes you look at your life and try to see where you fall on the chart.  Ebay, thrift stores, and garage sales are all part of it to some level.  Dumpster Diving behind Krispy Kreme for donuts is not an unheard of…bonding experience here in Provo.  While there are certain levels of gleaning that I saw in the film that I am grateful I do not need to do, it does make you want to reevaluate how much you are wasting.  What are some ways we can cut down?  There is a level when things should be thrown away and not turned into milk carton flowers.  However, I commend the intent.  One of the stories that I really liked from the film was the gourmet chef who gleans for herbs and fresh produce.  He isn’t above being economical for the sake of luxury.  In fact he finds that he has more control over his produce.  He also doesn’t waste anything in his restaurant.  Bones get used for soup stalk, excess vegetables get used for pestos etc.

While her film is more of a “musing” film than an activist film, it is unavoidable to internalize the concept.  The Gleaners and I shows enough degrees of “gleaning,” that it is hard not to identify at some level.  Doing so almost makes it a much more powerful activist piece than others.   

Catfish 2010~ Charity and Exploitation

Article contains no major spoilers. 

I will be honest in saying that if this film ever does turn out to be a hoax I will be crushed.  Although the reality of their documentary is largely argued, I choose to believe that this is in fact a documentary.  That being said, Documentary isn’t an all knowing and equal perspective.  Just like any of our individual perspectives, the camera is just that, another pair of eyes and interpretation.  This is where the idea of exploitation and charity becomes an issue in documentary.  The ability to fully analyze, to perceive all perspectives, and to give an accurate representation without bias is something only God can do.  But because of the power film has on the viewer, it is important that the filmmakers do not abuse their opportunities to shape their films.  The Documentary, Catfish (2010) is an excellent example of a conscious effort to tread this line between exploitation and charity carefully. 

What are the sorts of things that cause us to exploit people and circumstances in our films?  When we have some sort of power or authority over a person we tend to indulge.  Youtube is full of parents exploiting their children’s cute or embarrassing moments for “hits.” The co-directors of Catfish, Ariel (Rel) Schulman and Henry Joost center their film on their close friend and/or brother, Nev.  Their familial relationship with Nev gives them much more access.  The directors very much behave like brothers and buddies in their interactions with Nev rather than as directors.  They don’t give Nev much privacy and they are very pushy towards him to keep him going.  In the scene when Nev starts to feel suspicious about his online girlfriend, Megan, Nev becomes upset with Henry and Ariel and asks for privacy and the discontinuance of the film.  It was no longer the adorable and innocent plot he had signed up for.   To continue with the project would mean that Nev would be forced to be publically and completely vulnerable.   Realizing that their story was getting interesting, Rel and Henry used their relationship with Nev against him and guilting Nev into continuing because he owed them.  As the film plays out Nev has completely revealed himself.  Rel and Henry capture on film Nev’s most emotionally taxing and humiliating experiences.  Nev, however, slowly becomes a part of the proactive power behind the film.  It is hard to tell how much of Rel and Henry’s persuasion was backed by a genuine belief that the project could help both Nev and viewers learn from the story and how much was shear giddiness at having stumbled upon an awesome plot line.

Catfish demonstrates incredible charity in the films production as well.  In the Q&A, Nev thanks their editor for choosing to be so sympathetic towards his “character.”  While all of the footage in the film was true angles and moments from Nev, there were also a lot of angst and frustration that was also filmed of him that did not make the cut.  The film could have easily been cut to make Nev look like a brat who deserved what he got. 

The thing that really sets Catfish apart from other films is its charity shown towards the film’s “villain.”  This was choice that was shown in the film.  They wanted to make their stance perfectly clear in their film.  In this scene they talked about how they wanted to figure out the truth, wanted to provide opportunities for that and that this was not going to be an attack or an insensitive confrontation.  They stay true to that.  They were sensitive in their approach and after it was all out, they gave the offending character a chance to say whatever they wanted.  They very much had a voice in the film.  While the crew did not condone their actions, they didn’t condemn them either.  This choice gave a very unique thing to happen that is not typical of a story about exploitation.  People who do bad things are bad people.  However, Catfish allowed for there to be good to be sought out as well.

They gave a sympathetic ear to an undeserving voice.  Without that foreign effort, their experience and their film would have had little to redeem it from the bitter situation that it was.   

No End in Sight (2007)~Shaping our Emotions with Film

No End In Sight

Control Room

I watched No End in Sight because I had just seen Control Room.  Both are documentaries that act very activist and both cover roughly the same events but from two very different perspectives.  Both films present a perspective that is very specific and well crafted.  Films like these serve a very important role in looking at some of the angles that may have been overlooked.  The problem I find is in a very obviously missing point of view.  The “they refused to comment” card is kind of a cheap play.  No one in his or her right mind would comment in “exposing” documentary.  No matter what they say they will be damned.

The problem with both films is that they focus on one perspective.  For that reason, I was glad to watch them side-by-side.  Control Room comes off as a somewhat malicious, “We blame the Americans for everything, oh man what have you done!?” Where as No End in Sight was very much a, “I told you so, only I didn’t, but I thought it!”  I think that there were very big mistakes that were made with this war.  However I don’t agree with this trend of dispersing the blame and responsibility.  These films look at how bad the war is going and say, “Why did THEY get us into this?” “They” is always someone else.   We forget the surging public support for war in September of 2001.  For a while there we berating France for being more hesitant to join in with us.  The American public was very much involved in this pro-war effort.  It is a very unhealthy attitude that our country has towards its self these days.   

It is pretty clear that there are multiple factors that have caused the chaos since.  The right experience wasn’t applied to the right jobs.  There was little on ground help for soldiers.  They didn’t have translators when needed.  There was little collaboration with the local authorities who, according to Control Room, were anxiously waiting to help.  Iraq is in no way exempt.  They have a very real responsibility to their country and should have pulled some weight. There are many things that the US did very badly that has led to a longer and more destructive war.  

Mark Twain said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”  I think that this holds very strong here.  These films are very opinionated.  On one hand they are doing just that, trying to make the audience pause and reflect on the situation.  I wonder though if by doing so, we’ve created a new majority.  One in which we blindly assume that all politicians are white, bumbling, and senile men with death in their hearts.  We discount all opinions as manipulative rubbish unless it is the negative, accusatory one.  At one point in the film I paused the screen and called Adam over.

“Who is this guy?  I hate him.”

“Oh I read his biography, his side is very interesting. They (No End in Sight) are pretty cruel to him.” It is pretty evident that this guy was, at the very least, extremely insensitive in his public remarks and truly deserves the public slap in the face these two films bring.  Hate, however is not a well-balanced and analytical response one should have when trying to find solutions.   

I acknowledge that my perspective is one from the safe side of the war.  That and I have revealed myself as one who has little patience for anything showing a single opinion.  In such circumstances I find myself immediately seeking value or explanation from the other end.  I may be defending a perspective that is somewhat undeserving.  Bureaucracy, corruption, death, and pride are all very real and should be aggressively checked and balanced.  It may be that that is exactly what the filmmakers are trying to do here.  The thing we need to remember is that activist films are often very political, very well crafted to make you feel strongly about something.  This isn’t entirely bad, but it is manipulative.