Tombrarian

Kick Like a Girl is a highly entertaining, blissfully short (25 min) film about a girls’ soccer team whose coach arranges for them to play in a boys’ league because they had gone undefeated in 2 girls’ leagues. For the most part, Kick Like a Girl is very positive and uplifting but hearing some of the parents’ reactions to their sons playing against girls is definitely disheartening.

The girls are very charismatic and interview very well for being so young. The filmmakers interview some of the boys who get beaten, and their views are more open-minded than some of the parents. Some of the boys who went into the games deriding the girls learn to respect their opponents. The girls are shown to work much better as a team, and some of the boys recognize why this teamwork was a key part to the girls’ success.

As much as I like the film, I’m not sure how high it will rank on my list of Notable Videos for Adults. Kick Like a Girl would be an excellent choice for middle school students, but then again, after seeing how some of the parents react in the film, some adults could learn a lot from this title as well.

I recall this film getting generally positive review when it came out. Checking Rotten Tomatoes confirms my memory is correct since My Kid Could Paint That nets a 93% rating. Which means I have some explaining to do since I really, really did not like it.

Ostensibly the story of Marla Olmstead, a 4-year-old whose paintings sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, My Kid Could Paint That squanders the opportunity to delve into the meaning of abstract art and creativity, as well as the exploitation of children. Unfortunately, the film only touches briefly on these issues. I had read a bit about this story at the time and was hoping the film would provide more insight, but it remains firmly in the shallow end of the pool.

My Kid Could Paint That clocks in at under an hour-an-a-half but still feels too long. The filmmakers spend too much time setting up the premise before introducing the supposedly unfair portrayal of the family on 60 Minutes. However, the 60 Minutes episode seemed to raise many of the questions that were on my mind about how the parents may have been manipulating their daughter.

The director, Amir Bar-Lev, inserts himself as a character in the film, much to the detriment of the proceedings. He portrays himself as being trusted by the family, thereby getting unprecedented access to them. Later, when Bar-Lev has some doubts about, he is downright cloying when approaching them, belying his inability to ask the hard questions this film needs to be asking. It’s almost as if Bar-Lev doesn’t even understand the nature of documentary film making, as he makes observations along the lines of “oh, by being here and filming this, I might be influencing the outcome.”

The film touches on the question about the nature of abstract art and speaks with one critic on the subject but fails to really address the issue, especially the issue of intentionality. Even if Marla made these painting solely on her own, she cannot possibly have an idea of what she is trying to create or have any framework of what abstract art is reacting against.

Bar-Lev fails to address some of the inconsistent comments by the mother and by Tony Brunelli, the owner of the gallery who first showed Marla’s work. When the 60 Minutes episode first aired, Laura Olmstead professed to being glad that her daughter’s life as a popular artist was over. But she also pounced on the chance to throw her daughter back into the spotlight the first chance she had and professed that she was glad the 60 Minutes controversy was over. Similarly, when the 60 Minutes controversy came to light, Brunelli claimed that, by showing Marla’s work, he was making a statement about the inauthenticity of abstract art (Brunelli is a photo-realist painter). But when Marla’s work started to sell again, he changed his tune.

Both these instances point to one of the major failings of the film. Namely, that Bar-Lev never gets to the motivating factor that drove the parents to continually push their daughter into the spotlight. Laura Olmstead speaks a little toward the end about how she might possibly be exploited her daughter, but we never get any understanding about why they wanted to expose her to so much publicity and controversy.

Because the film only superficially touches on some interesting issues and because Bar-Lev inserts himself so prominently, I can’t help but feel that the film is as exploitive of Marla as anything the parents do.

I just recommended Super High Me to be considered by the Notable Videos for Adults committee (If you are a librarian, you too can recommend a documentary for us to consider).

Super High Me started out as a joke as part of Doug Benson’s stand-up routine. After seeing Super Size Me, Benson joked that he should smoke pot for 30 days. The joke led to conversations with the director, and they decided to make the movie.

Comparisons to Super Size Me are inevitable, and I have to say, despite the popularity of Super Size Me, that Super High Me is the better, more important film. Super Size Me is indisputably entertaining, but that fact that eating fast food for every meal of every day for a month is unhealthy shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. But the health risks and benefits of medical marijuana are less well-known and certainly obfuscated in the popular media. Super High Me is not a one-joke movie. It is very informative and the stakes are much higher because many people rely on medical marijuana. No such statement can be made about fast food. One drawback of the film is that although it shows the effects of pot smoking over the course of a month, it does not address any long-term effects.

The film also presents a rather unnerving portrait of the tension between state and federal authority. The film is set in California, where medical marijuana is legal and sold in dispensaries. At one point, a renegade cop harasses the business owner, and, later, the DEA busts the dispensary.

Because Doug Benson is a stand-up comic, Super High Me is very funny at times. But the film transcends the initial joke to become a very informative, challenging movie.

Over the course of the year, I’ll be watching a few dozen documentaries for the Notable Videos for Adults Committee, so chances are I’ll be hitting a few clinkers. Got to the first one last night, Cracker Crazy: Invisible Histories of the Sunshine State.

The best thing this film has going for it is wonderful archival footage. But the film tries to cover too much history and fills gaps with a lot of text. Barely two minutes go by without a screenfull of text popping up. The odd thing about so much text is that in other spots, the filmmakers use narrators. But they use a variety of narrators with no apparent rhyme or reason. And the narrators sounded unprofessionals and dull.

When I say a lot of text, I mean A LOT of text, which became very tiresome very quickly.

I’m not sure what the organizing principle of the film is, but it isn’t chronology. The overall arc of the film is chronological, but it bounces back-and-forth which makes it a bit hard to follow. It even bounces around within specific segment.

Some of the specific stories are interesting (the building of the Key West Railroad, Walt Disney’s possible ties to the Nazi’s) but they were underdeveloped. An entire film could be made of many of the segments, and Cracker Crazy does itself a disservice by trying to cover too much.

Did I mention it uses A LOT of text?

I just watched Bill Haney’s The Price of Sugar as the next film to be reviewed for the Notable Videos Committee. Narrated by Paul Newman, The Price of Sugar tells the story of Father Christopher Hartley who worked in a parish in the Dominican Republic. He witnessed the mistreatment of Haitian workers who were rounded up to harvest sugar cane. He fought against the powerful family that owns the plantation to try and force them to treat the workers more humanely.

The filmmakers present a complex story with great clarity while both explaining the bitter history between the Dominican Republic and Haiti and the story of Father Christopher Hartley. The film is a very moving portrayal of exploited workers. Although this topic is not an unfamiliar one, this story is a unique combination of corporate greed, political turmoil, and local corruption.

It also does not shy away from some of the complexities of the story. Father Hartley is presented as well-intentioned. His motives seem to stem from authentic concern for the people who are suffering, yet he displays a certain arrogance that the film confronts by revealing his privileged past and interviewing a peace corps volunteer who was rather tentative in her opinion of the priest. The film also explored the one-sided nature of his endeavor as he fought to help the Haitians but did very little for the locals. His dedication to the Haitians brought hatred, derision, and even death threats his way.

My one complaint is that the film did not have much of a conclusion. The filmmakers attempted to use a rally against Father Hartley as the climax of the film by building up the anticipation of violence, but the rally lacked any real confrontation and the film ends a bit weakly. But, overall, this is an excellent and important work, exposing major human rights violations that many people may not be aware of.

June is looking like a crazy month.

Our library is hosting LOEX of the West beginning June 4th. I’m on the planning committee and will be tech support, so I’ll be heavily involved.

I begin teaching a class for the School of Library and Information Science at San Jose State University starting June 2. I’m teaching a Resources and Information Services course focusing on film and media. The class is entirely online, so I will not be driving back and forth between Vegas and San Jose.

CineVegas begins June 12th. I hope to get to some of it. I’m not quite as excited about this film festival as I have about others. Part of the fun of going to the festivals in places like Philadelphia or Toronto is traveling around and getting to different areas and taking breaks at different restaurants. CineVegas is mainly at the Palms Casino Resort.

Finally, the American Library Association conference is at the end of the month, and I will be driving out to Anaheim for the long weekend.

More entertaining than a film about competitive Donkey Kong should be. On the surface, one would think this film would suffer the same so-what-who-care dilemma as does Helvetica. After losing his job, Steve Wiebe turns to playing Donkey Kong to fill the void. He enters the world of competitive gaming where Billy Mitchell, at the time, held the world’s record for the highest score in Donkey Kong. King of Kong transcends what could have been a rather niche picture because it explores a world not many people are familiar with but presents an engaging underdog and a smug, distance champion. Although the film devolves into a rather familiar underdog story, it occurs in such a strange milieu that it can’t help but to be interesting. King of Kong puts an interesting spin on Henry Kissinger’s famous statement that “University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.” The competition here gets rather vicious and the people involved take the competition very seriously.

People of the right age group will find this film more compelling than people who did not grow up during the time when video games like this were popular. The film explains enough about the game to acquaint newcomers as to its basic game play and provides a bit of history of video games in the 1980’s.

As a member of ALA’s Video Roundtable Notable Videos for Adults Committee, I get to watch documentary films throughout the year. The committee will then meet to discuss the films and vote for the most notable films of the year.

I watched my first film for the committee, Helvetica, which provides a short history of the so-named typeface and discusses its cultural significance, being, as it is, the most-popular typeface. Directed by Gary Hustwit, Helvetica is more entertaining than a film about a typeface should be. It certainly shines a light on a topic that most people take for granted. One of the main reasons it is so entertaining is because of the well-chosen interviewees. Everyone in the film is very knowledgeable and passionate. Also, production is very professional throughout.

Despite the fact that viewers may become more appreciative of this aspect of graphic design, Hevetica still suffers from a so-what-who-cares dilemma. I say that mainly in terms of trying to decide if this will be one of the most notable films of the year. Although Helvetica is an entertaining and very well-crafted documentary, I imagine that some of the other films we will be considering will have a bigger and more lasting social impact.

This year’s National Media Market will be held in Lexington, KY on September 22-26. The early bird deadline is May 1and you can save almost $100 by registering early.

Last year, I volunteered to create a wiki for the conference. I didn’t make the suggestion until very close to the conference, so not a lot of people participated. So, this year, I have already set-up the wiki, so there is plenty of time for people to contribute.

In addition, there will be a special meeting about digital rights the day before the conference. That information has not been posted to the official site or the wiki yet but should be available soon.

You can see my posts from the 2007 NMM here.

A week or so ago, I wondered if Blu-Ray had won the format wars. I have my answer: according to Information Week, Toshiba plans to stop making HD DVD players.