ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

documentary

A Chef’s Journey – Cooking with Cooperation

by Leave a Comment

Food and restaurants have become popular reality TV subjects, with at least one channel dedicated to such shows. Rémi Anfosso’s A Chef’s Journey may seem like something you would find on the Food Network, but it really doesn’t follow the template of those reality shows.

The film follows Chef David Kinch of Manresa, a Los Gatos, California, restaurant with 3 Michelin stars, as he takes his staff on a trip to France for a series of “four hands” dinners at other esteemed restaurants. They will go to other 2 and 3 star restaurants in Provence, Paris, and Marseille. Most of his staff is young; many have never been abroad. The idea is that the events will serve as a kind of cross-pollination for the staffs of the restaurants involved.

If this were a Food Network show, we would be expecting near disasters (or total disasters), but that is not the way Anfosso presents this story. Kinch and his staff worry about getting the ingredients they will need (such as abalone and sauces that take several days to prepare, so they are taking them frozen) to the places they will be cooking. The staffs will be working together and may have little ability to even speak a common language. Chefs in general have a reputation for being a bit imperial and not wanting to share. But as we watch the trip unfold, everything seems to work out well. The biggest problem is that the various members of staffs are all trying not to offend their counterparts and not really getting to know each other or what they do.

Also different from the way the Food Network would approach this is that the food itself stays in the background. We see some of the dishes being prepared (and this is all small plates of very beautiful and artistic food), but the only eating we see happening is when the staff gets to taste the foods the others have made. We hear some of the foods described, but some we never know just what we are seeing.

Each of the stops on this journey provide a different setting, country, city, and Mediterranean coast, that affect the way the chefs in those places approach cuisine. In Provence, the emphasis in on the freshness of the herbs and vegetables. In Paris, the restaurant sees itself as the height of French cooking. In Marseille, it is all built around what the sea can deliver that day. It is the chef in Marseille, Gérald Passedat, who provides the clearest view of his philosophy of cuisine.

While it is refreshing that the film doesn’t generate conflict the way a Food Network show would for dramatic purposes, it would have been good to see what problems they did encounter and how that was resolved. It also would have given us a chance to see some of the cross-pollination that I’m sure must have happened.

The film is meant to be a celebration of cross-cultural cooperation. It serves that function, but not as deeply as it might.

A Chef’s Journey is available on Virtual Cinema through local arthouses and on Vimeo.

Photos courtesy of First Run Features.

TIFF20: Enemies of the State

by Leave a Comment

Enemies of the State' Review: Whistle-Blower Doc Shocks Until the End - Variety

No stranger to American whistle-blower stories, Director Sonia Kennebeck (National Bird) tackles the unique and complicated life of Matt DeHart, formerly of the Air National Guard.  The Indiana home where Matt DeHart lived with his parents was raided based on the suspicion of child pornography.  Assuming that a child pornography charge was just a ploy to catch him with sensitive government documents (and because of his alleged ties with Anonymous and Wikileaks), Matt took action.  He drove to Mexico, and subsequently attempted to seek help with the Russian and Venezuelan embassies in Washington, D.C.  He believed the government was out to get him and realized that it was only a matter of time.

This wild story was only the beginning of a years long dance between DeHart and the United States government, including arrests, alleged torture, and seeking asylum in Canada.  Even after the attempt at seeking asylum in Canada, this story continued to evolve and get more complicated.

One constant throughout this whole story was how close the family bond was between Matt and his parents, Paul and Leann.  Paul and Leann were willing to protect their son by any means necessary.  Despite Paul and Leann both serving their country in the US military, they believed their son, lost faith in their country, and stuck with Matt every step of the way.

Matt DeHart, the hacktivist who was refused asylum in Canada, sentenced in U.S. on child porn charges | National Post

Not unsurprisingly, Enemies of the State came off as quite biased for the first three quarters of the film.  There were nominal scenes with statements from people who were against DeHart, but mainly it was Matt’s parents telling their terrifying story.  

However, the last half of the documentary certainly takes a different turn when new evidence is uncovered.  In fact, these new revelations make you question a lot of what you heard earlier on in the film.  You will likely question where the truth lies and whether or not what you just heard really is a giant conspiracy theory.

Enemies of the State is an entertaining and well put together documentary that gives you as much information as possible but still made you question the truth.  In fact, to this day (and largely due to Matt’s silence in the last year after being released from prison), we still don’t have the additional information that I felt was needed for closure.  Needless to say I’m interested to see what, if anything, happens with Matt in the future.  Matt DeHart has been compared to Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden.  Is he a hero who intended to release information that America needed to hear?  Or is he a criminal who attempted to cover up his wrongdoings with a conspiracy theory? 

Enemies of the State premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 10, 2020.

Black Boys – The Two-edged Sword

by Leave a Comment

“The bottom line for why things haven’t changed is there is no love for black boys.”

Sonia Lowman’s documentary Black Boys opens with former NFLer Greg Scruggs reading The Little Engine that Could to his toddler son. It transitions to a middle school age boy taking Richard Wrights Black Boy from a shelf and reading it. That dichotomy of idealism and reality is the driving force of the film. Or as activist/rapper Malcolm Little puts it, “You’re talking a double-edged sword to be a black boy in America, because you have to tell yourself that you are magnificent and that you are free and beautiful, while simultaneously acknowledging that the world is not built for you. It’s not built for your success. It’s not built for you to survive.”

The film is designed in four sections entitled Body, Mind, Voice, and Heart. In each of those we get a touch of what it means for young black men as they grow into the world. Sports dominates the Body section. Sports may seem like a way out of the difficulties blacks face, but is it? Or is it just another exploitation of black bodies? Education becomes the main topic of the Mind section. Again, this is an area of great hope, but we also know that as early as kindergarten, black children are often getting less attention and are sold lower expectations. The Voice and Heart sections really focus more on the hopeful side of the film’s core contrast to let us hear what the experience has done to the people interviewed and how the future has an opportunity for change, but that is by no means a certainty.

I consider myself woke (at least for an old white guy), so there isn’t much in this film that is new to me. But it is a very powerful presentation of not just facts and figures, but of the emotional reality of the lives of the people we visit. This is in no small part because of the excellent work Lowman has done in interviewing her subjects to evoke their reflections. Whether the subjects are athletes, educators, activists, or young people looking at their future, the insights provided are always challenging without being overly judgmental. As a white person watching the film I didn’t feel as though I was being called on to feel guilty, but to be engaged with the issues of social justice that are brought forth.

One piece of archival footage that spoke to me, personally, was a press conference held by Philadelphia Eagle player Malcolm Jenkins in which he never spoke, only held up prepared signs. Several of the signs repeated the sentence, “You aren’t listening”. To me that is a reminder that the first (but not the last) thing I need to do when faced with the cries for social justice, is to listen. I may have heard these things before. I still need to listen again.

Black Boys is an invitation for all of us to listen. Some of us need to hear the facts and figures we may have missed. Some of us may need to hear the pain some people have lived through. Some of us may need to hear of the inequalities we never knew about. Some of us may need to hear the visions of hope that continue to be dreamed—and realized. Listen.

Black Boys is available on NBCUniversal’s Peacock streaming service.

The Social Dilemma – You’re Being Manipulated

by Leave a Comment

“So we’ve created an entire global generation of people who were raised within a context where the very meaning of communication, the very meaning of culture, is manipulation.”

Hopefully you “like” Screenfish’s Facebook page and follow us on Twitter and Instagram. But keep in mind that each of those actions tells the world a little bit about you. And those various platforms will use that (and all the other info they’ve collected about you) to allow others to try to manipulate you. In The Social Dilemma, documentarian Jeff Orlowski takes us on a tour of how those social media platforms shape and manipulate us as individuals, and as a society.

The film is filled with commentators who have stepped away from important positions in social media companies, many for ethical reasons.  They have first hand knowledge of the hows and whys of social media. One, a former Twitter executive, tells us: “What I want people to know is that everything they’re doing on line is being watched, is being tracked, is being measured. Every single action you take is carefully monitored and recorded. Exactly what image you look at, and for how long you look at it. Yeah, seriously, for how long you look at it.” These people go on to explain how all that information is monetized (one of the people we hear from is the former director of monetization at Facebook), and how others can use that information to target you with ideas (not limited to ads) that may shape your life in many ways.

The film isn’t a completely dark picture of the internet. Those who worked in the industry early on got into the work with visions of the good that could come from it. As one points out, it has allowed families to be reunited, organ donors have been found. It has literally saved lives. But that comes with a price. As one of the commentators tells us, social media are both utopian and dystopian simultaneously.

Many people may worry about the extent to which social media have filled the world—especially when parents think about how much screen time they should allow their children. Some think the way we connect with social media has destroyed the personal connections we had when it was face to face. That has become a problem for many. Even those who speak in this film note their own struggles with online addictions that they have had to deal with—and they invented some of these things.

That tendency to be tied to our screens is only an aspect of the real problem, which is how that opens us up to manipulation by business, political, and perhaps even immoral actors. They can tailor what they say or show to whom. It makes it very easy to spread disinformation and fake news more rapidly than real information can be shared. At the heart of the problem are questions about truth—including if there can be any real truth in this “information age”. (What an irony that the more information we have available, the harder it is to find the truth.) I like a reference in the film to the Peter Weir film, The Truman Show. Each of us is unaware of the people watching us and shaping what we think is reality.

While all the commentators are interesting, the one who got my attention was Tristan Harris, who worked as the Google Design Ethicist (who knew such a thing existed) before starting a non-profit to deal with the ethics of this “attention economy”. In a presentation he gives during the film, he offers this warning: “We’re all looking out for the moment when technology will overwhelm human strength and intelligence. When is it going to cross the singularity, replace our jobs, be smarter than humans? But there is a much earlier moment when the technology exceeds and overwhelms human weaknesses. This point being crossed is at the root of addiction, polarization, radicalization, outrage-ification, vanity-ification, the entire thing. This is overpowering human nature, and this is checkmate for humanity.”

That really takes this examination of the role of social media into the realm of the spiritual (although that is not the kind of language these people use). One of the big spiritual questions they don’t quite ask (but would be of great importance) is the role of free will and determinism in this process. Do we have choice in this, or does the manipulation of social media have control of us?

Another question of import is whether the genie can be put back in the bottle. That is a question that these people struggle with a bit at the end. Some may doubt it can be done without real regulation, which is difficult to bring about after the fact. The film’s message is not to focus on the “can it be done” question, but to make the point that we must regain that control.

The Social Dilemma shows on Netflix. For more information go to Netflix.com/TheSocialDilemma.

Photos courtesy of Netflix.

Gather – More than Something to Eat

by Leave a Comment

“The Red Nation shall rise again and it shall be a blessing or a sick world, a world filled with broken promises, selfishness and separation, a world longing for light again.” (Crazy Horse)

Food is more than just physical sustenance; it is often an important part of a community’s identity and life. Gather, from director Sanjay Rawal, enters into the relationship between Native American’s and their traditional food sources. We learn not only about the food, but also what those foods meant—and still mean—in those cultures.

The film notes early on that seventy percent of all foods consumed around the world were developed by the indigenous peoples of the Americas. These include tomatoes, potatoes, corn, zucchini, and chocolate. There was a great diversity among the various nations that populated North America before European colonization. The film focuses on three very different sets of Native Americans as they seek to reconnect with the food sources of their ancestors.

Among those we meet are Chef Nephi Craig of the White Mountain Apache Nation and Twila Cassadore of the San Carlos Apache Nation. Craig is working to build a restaurant that will serve the traditional foods. Cassadore is a forager who knows the kinds of foods that the people lived off of through the years. We also meet Samuel Gensaw of the Yurok Nation. He and others have fought for native fishing rights in Northern California. Elsie Dubray of the Cheyenne River Sioux Nation comes from a family that raises bison. She has done science fair projects dealing with bison meat and with the high levels of diabetes in Native Americans.

Each of these very different perspectives create a mosaic how food continues to be an important part of the Native American culture. However, often that connection to traditional foods has been lost. Gensaw describes the area he lives in as a “food desert”. There are no stores for miles around. For many it means shopping at the gas station. But by seeking to restore the people’s connection to the river, with its salmon and eels, there can be better food available.

Throughout the film, we see ways that food is different from just meeting our physical needs. There is a certain spirituality about food and the way we relate to the environment and to one another. These people all find connection between who they are in their communities and the foods they work with and share with others.

The film also makes the point that often food was a part of the genocide against Native Americans. One of the ways Europeans sought to destroy the indigenous peoples was through cutting off their food sources. It led to starvation, dependency, and ultimately being separated from the land that had sustained them. This history leads people in the film to talk about food sovereignty. Their rights to traditional foods are not just about connecting to the past, it is a sign of their independence and separateness form the broader culture.

We often overlook the many ways food is part of our lives. Even when we offer a prayer of thanksgiving over our meals, it may be more of a routine than an actual acknowledgement of meals as part of our spiritual lives. By seeing the many ways food has import in the lives of these Native Americans, we may also want to consider the many ways our body, minds, and spirit are fed by our own eating habits.

Gather is available on iTunes and Amazon.

Photos courtesy of Illumine.

Feels Good Man: Redeeming the Frog

by Leave a Comment

It’s always tough when your cartoon frog becomes the symbol of white supremacy.

Wait, maybe I’m getting ahead of myself.

The new documentary Feels Good Man chronicles the rise and fall of Pepe the Frog, an internet meme that became associated with alt-right extremism and hatred. Originally created by Matt Furie, Pepe was originated in Boy’s Club, an online comic that focused on four slacker friends who share the same apartment. In one particularly memorable story, Pepe is caught urinating with his pants around his ankles. When he’s confronted by his roommate about it, he simply replies, ‘Feels good, man.’. When this image became an internet meme, it eventually became co-opted as a symbol of the alt-right movement. Long after the craziness first launched, Furie attempts to gain back control and find redemption for his creation in the face of overwhelming odds.

Directed by Arthur Jones, Feels Good Man is a searing indictment of internet culture that demonstrates the damage that can be done when internet trolls unleash their rage. Though Furie’s famed cartoon amphibian was originally intended for humour as a representation of young adult slacking, it gradually became a strange symbol of an angry internet subculture that was looking to vent their fury. To them, Pepe’s knowing smirk and innocent face became an opportunity to speak angrily about the state of culture and write it off as humour. (They would argue that it doesn’t really matter if you use hate symbols when it’s all a joke, right?)

Having no way to speak for himself, Pepe became the voice of others’ hate.

As a result, Feels Good uncovers an even greater conversation about who owns content. Despite the intended innocence of Pepe the Frog, the added subtext of white supremacy and hate completely changes the meaning in the larger world of the underground internet. For Furie, Pepe the Frog represented youthful innocence and nonsense. In the hands of others, he became an excuse to attack others. Somehow, along the way, it was decided by a large portion of people that the original purpose behind this cartoon amphibian was irrelevant because their vision for the character fed their angst. In this way, Feels Good points to the danger of the online world where images remain open for interpretation and the origins of content lose their meaning.

At the same time though, Feels Good is also a quest for redemption for the bizarre cartoon, if such a thing exists. Though his meme became a symbol for evil, Furie himself passionately seeks justice for his creation. While it seems bizarre that an internet frog would require a campaign for redemption due to the angry mob, this is absolutely true in the case of Pepe. Passionate and personal, Furie’s quest to speak up on behalf of his beloved creation is endearing and, frankly, an uphill battle. Once the damage has been done, how do you convince people to change their minds? At a time when ‘cancel culture’ is a terrifying reality, the notion of grace and understanding are often lost amidst the noise of accusation. 

For Furie, redemption for Pepe lies not in making money but rather in reclaiming the lost soul of his creation. (Personally, I found myself particularly angered on Furie’s behalf when, despite his innocence in the matter, he’s asked if there’s anything he could have done differently to prevent what took place.) As Furie works endlessly to restore his fallen frog, Feels Good Man serves as a reminder that people have value and deserve justice, even when under fire by the cyber mob. 

Feels Good Man is available on VOD on September 4th, 2020.

Political Gain (and Games): 1on1 with Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine (BOYS STATE)

by Leave a Comment

The political world is filled with men and women who both seek power for the sake of serve and help others or, more negatively, out of a need to self-validate by winning. Pending on the candidate’s goals and intentions, they can prove themselves to be agents for positive change or simply succumb to the immaturity of their youth.

But what does it look like when youth are the ones with the political power?

Directed by Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine, the new documentary Boys State takes the viewer behind the scenes at Boys State, a summer leadership program for teenage men, developed by The American Legion. (The film indicates that there is also a Girls State program but the filmmakers opt to only follow the boys.) With over a thousand teenage boys in attendance, the youth are challenged to build a representative government from the ground up. As the young men nominate and elect candidates, they also must decide what means—and requires—to win. Asked how they discovered Boys State, Moss claims that their interest was piqued back in 2017 when the events of the camp garnered national attention.

“We feel lucky to have stumbled upon Boys State as a prism to look at American politics and democracy today,” Moss begins. “We didn’t have the benefit of participating in the program as young people growing up in California. I just didn’t know about it. It wasn’t until we read about the program the Texas Boys State program, having voted to secede from the union becoming something of a scandal [in 2017] in the national news [that it] caught our eye. That was at a time that we, like a lot of Americans, were struggling to understand the irreconcilable political division in our country and how have we gotten to this point? What’s our way forward? I think [we saw] in Boys State and Texas, potentially a prism to look at these questions and look at how susceptible young men are to sort of the rhetoric of the moment and what they may offer us as a hope forward.” 

When the boys first arrive, they are split between two political parties, the Federalists and the Nationalists. However, despite the division, they are given no other political guidelines or priorities to build upon. Left to decide for themselves what they value, it’s fascinating to see how different the political ideologies can be amongst the youth. In developing their film, political diversity became a high priority for McBaine and Moss as they chose their subjects to follow.

“When we did find out about this program, we loved the idea that there’s this space where kids with politics to the right and to the left, [who] are [invited] and forced to come together and talk politics face to face,” McBaine explains. “There are so few of those spaces left, maybe not even the Thanksgiving table anymore in a family. So, we knew going in that it was going to be fraught and we hoped it would be. We knew it would be uncomfortable. It would be really interesting to see what went down if they voted to secede in 2017, what the heck were they going to do in 2018? But there’s 1,100 kids who were invited to attend every year and that’s a lot of people.” 

“We knew the only way we were going to be able to survive this event as something occurs and as a crew trying to cover it, but also emotionally. The kind of films we make really are character driven. We wanted to immerse ourselves with a small group, and we wanted that small group to have a diversity of not only background in life experience, but also different politics. So, we worked very hard over three months, criss-crossing Texas, and filming with lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of boys, until we found the four that we do end up following through the program, all of whom are very different and surprise us. We’re very lucky we found the four that we did.”

Although Boys State seems to consist of a form of hyperreality of the political world, it does offer a window into the machinations of backroom Washington and the games that are often played behind the scenes. However, given the age of the participants, it begs the question of whether or not the young men took their experience seriously. While the sheer number of youth ensured a range in maturity, Moss claims that he was impressed just how important the experience was to many of the boys.

“I think there was both [mature and immature youth]. Actually, what’s interesting is you see both embodied in Robert himself,” he points out. “[Robert’s] not sure if he should take the process seriously or play to the cheap seats. I love that sort of just to work it out for himself and he realizes that he’s miscalculated and that Steven has actually taken it more seriously than he has. I love that discovery (Robert’s discovery and our discovery) that he’s been trying to figure it out. We were attracted to young men who take politics seriously. No doubt, all of them do. Robert had been a page in the U S Senate. Stephen had worked on political campaigns. Ben, as you know, had a Ronald Reagan doll on his bookshelf and is a political junkie. Renee is already like a grownup and taking activism and politics seriously. So we connected with their serious commitment to the political process and caring about it. No doubt that we saw boys that don’t take it seriously. You see them pass legislation about Prius drivers going to Oklahoma and pineapple pizza. That’s funny, but then actually got serious. I think that tension in Robert, in the group (and maybe our country as a whole) is really sort of reflective, right? It is actually kind of where we’re at. People want to go to Washington and blow up the system, whatever that means. We’re left with a bunch of rubble or they want to kind of come together and figure it out. Those ideologies are in contest at Boys State and exaggerated form.” 

“They’re also 17, right?” reminds McBaine. “We’re also making a coming-of-age film. I think that straddle of boyhood and headed towards manhood thing is a space we also wanted to visit frankly and check in with. So, to some degree, the serious unserious is part of their everyday in everything they do, let alone what happens.”

Similarly, one of the most fascinating explorations within Boys State becomes the drive for power. Although being elected within their system offers no real weight outside of Boys State, the drive to victory becomes a purpose unto itself for many of the youth. Asked what they saw regarding the pressure of obtaining power, Moss feels their experience shows that, while some people are simply willing to do whatever it takes to win, others do understand the importance of serving in political office.

“I think no doubt this kind of lust for power for power sake is something we’re living with and the consequences of that now in a very profound and unsettling way,” says Moss. “I love the moment where Steven has asked, ‘What is the purpose of a politician?’ (He’s campaigning for signatures on his ballot.) He says ‘To serve others and not themselves.’ That simple and yet profound definition is something we all need to remind ourselves about. I think you see it in Ben (and he would recognize it now himself with some perspective) that there’s a kind of corrosive aspect to winning an election at all costs for the sake of winning. He really embodies that in his strategy and his tactics. He’s brilliant at it. He even invokes some military kind of metaphors and talks about politics and winning as combined arms warfare, sort of exaggerated kind of violence to politics. So, confronting that and actually hearing Ben’s direct bluntness about it was shocking. But I think also what gave us hope was to see young men of color like Renee and Steven who have very different politics than the mainstream at Boys State rise to power because they have a positive vision. That sort of power for a purpose, if you will, was very hopeful for us to see not only them offer that vision, but to see their vision return in the support of the electorate.”

Since the experience consists of 1,100 young men battling for political gamesmanship, the film also feels like a window into youthful (and potentially toxic) masculinity. Filmed at the time surrounding the MeToo movement of 2018, McBaine notes that, while she didn’t know what to expect, she was encouraged by what she saw in some of the young men.

“We went with all these questions about democracy and hyperpolarization, and what are [the next generation are] taking in, and what they’re seeing in adult state,” she clarifies. “I think what we didn’t quite realize until we got into the room with 1,100 boys, that we also had this incredible window into boyhood. [It was] 2018. I guess if I thought hard enough beforehand, I would have realized this is what we’re going to see, but not until I got there did I really have to confront that we were making a film about masculinity on some level. I’ve never been in a space like that. Myself and two other cinematographers I think we were the only females for miles around. There was plenty on display there that kind of met my expectations for good or for bad about what I would see.” 

“In checking in on boyhood in 2018, around the era of MeToo, around conversations about toxic masculinity [and] what they’re seeing in politics in Washington, I knew I was going to see a certain amount of it. Some of it was going to scare the heck out of me and some of it was going to upset me. What I wasn’t totally prepared for—and I love this about what I do for a living—is that I then also saw and experienced all kinds of masculinity I hadn’t expected to see. And that really did involve a lot more empathy. Not just from Steven, this was really in a lot more spaces around the event than I thought, [with] listening and real emotion, frankly. It was an emotional week that I didn’t think was going to be an emotional week. That too has power in that space, and truly profound power. The connections that were made between some of these boys was really heartening, frankly and made me less worried about the men of the future… We want to do [Girls State] next. I don’t really have any good intel on what happens in those spaces yet, but we plan to soon.” 

When he considers whether or not their experience at Boys State has changed their view of the current political system, Moss believes that the film shows the type of maturity and growth within the participants that gives him hope for the future.

“I think we both wanted, on some level, a Hollywood ending to our story,” Moss reflects. “Actually, it was a process to accept what the outcome was, but we found it actually ultimately very uplifting that it’s a struggle. Stephen will continue to fight for what he believes in and he has so much to offer both in he himself, um, but in what he embodies and will inspire in others. Renee as well, what’s also been great to see is how much reflection Ben has brought to his behavior two years ago at Boys’ State and now he recognizes the corrosive impact of such politics on our body politic. He’s really disavowed that kind of politicking and the gamesmanship. I think that kind of moral growth we need as a country, he shown us in person, and that’s also really hopeful. Just the fact that we can still all get together, Ben, Renee, Steven, Robert, and kind of talk in a small form embodies what I hope for us as a country. We may not agree on everything, but at least come together and find out as Steven would say, what can we agree on? I’m sure there is something.”

Boys State is available on AppleTV+ now.

House of Cardin – The Man and the Brand

by Leave a Comment

Who is Pierre Cardin? That may seem a curious question given that his name is recognized all over the world. But it is the question that begins the documentary from P. David Ebersole and Todd Hughes, House of Cardin. The question is answered from a variety of perspectives and people—ranging from other designers, such as Jean-Paul Gaultier and Guo Pei, to people he dressed, such as Naomi Campbell and Sharon Stone, to musicians and performers, such as Jean-Michel Jarre and Alice Cooper.

The film is less of a biography that an exploration of a brand. Pierre Cardin began his work in the fashion industry in the post-World War II years, and began to become known in the fifties and sixties. He was innovative in his fashion, but also in his marketing. He made both women’s and men’s fashions. He used people of color as models. He went to Japan and to Russia to show his new creations. Most notably, although a part of the high fashion world, he made clothing for everyone. He is credited with democratizing the world of haute couture.

But his brand was much more than clothing. He was something of an artistic polymath. He also created furniture. And he was a lover of the performing arts, creating a theatrical space for plays, film, and music. His name has been licensed into many areas. (In terms of the branding of his name, he reminds me a bit of Donald Trump.) We may at times wonder if he has spread his brand too thin.

Although we see a bit of Cardin’s life, the film stays a bit distant. At times we may get a sense of arrogance, but at other times, he seems as every-man as his fashion. We don’t get a real sense of his passion. But we do hear from those who know him of the passion he has inspired in them, either to create their own expressions, or to see the world in a new light.

At 98, Cardin continues to be involved in many artistic endeavors. There are some ways in which his name will be his legacy, but for some, the visions that he created will live on in their works as well.

House of Cardin is available in theaters, on virtual cinema through local arthouses, and will be available on VOD in mid-September.

Driven to Abstraction – Fraud of the Century

by Leave a Comment

The greatest art fraud of the twentieth century is examined in Driven to Abstraction, a documentary by Daria Price. Over a period of fifteen years, the Knoedler, the oldest and one of the most prestigious art gallery in New York, sold $80 million dollars worth of forgeries. Among the artists whose works were forged are a who’s who of modern American: Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Robert Motherwell, and many others.

As the story is told it seems very obvious to the viewer that a large fraud was taking place. Several previously unknown works by well known artists slowly trickled into this one gallery. There was, of course, a story about why this was happening, focusing on a mysterious Mr. X, Jr. His father might have been Mexican, or Filipino, but moved to Switzerland. Now Mr. X. Jr. was cashing in some of the art his father had collected. This may seem ridiculous on its face to viewers, but we also learn that anonymity is very common in the art world. One of the people in the film says that art is one of the largest unregulated markets in the world.

What was really going on, as we learn as the film unfolds and eventually a court case plays out, is that the works were all made by one Chinese artist living in New York, Pei-Shen Qian. A small-time art dealer, Giafira Rosales, would bring the pictures to the Knoedler where Ann Freedman, the gallery director would find buyers. Of course, provenance is an important aspect of selling art. An authentic art work should have a paper trail. Freedman would have carefully worded lists of people who had seen the art, implying but not saying that they verified its authenticity.

It is easy to look back at this and see the red flags that should have been obvious.  But we never learn why various people didn’t pay attention. This is a world of wealth and secrecy. It is only when the trial takes place that we see just how deep the fraud was. But the trial in many ways is inconclusive, because the parties settled before the end of the trial without those who knew what was happening telling what they knew and when. It raises questions of not just who was responsible, but also what constitutes responsibility in such situations.

The film also raises questions of what it means to be a villain or a victim. In this story, it could be that our first impressions may be distorted. Are people acting out of greed or hubris? Are they under the power of others and must keep doing what they have been even if they suspect wrongdoing? Are they so caught up in the world of money that they don’t want to see what should be obvious? Or do people tend to portray themselves as victims when they have acted badly? All those questions are possible by the time we get to the end of this story.

Bombardier Blood – An Upward Climb

by Leave a Comment

Patrick James Lynch’s documentary Bombardier Blood is the latest documentary to wow us with the barriers that can be overcome in life. The film focuses on Chris Bombardier as he strives to be the first person with hemophilia to climb the Seven Summits—the highest mountain peaks on each continent.

Hemophilia is a genetic disorder that affects one in 10,000 births. Those who have it do not produce one of the factors that allows blood to clot, so even a minor injury can be vary serious. It often results in severe deformities in joints. Children with hemophilia are often not allowed to take part in sports or even jump on the bed. But with treatment, Bombardier was able to have a much fuller life—playing baseball up to the college level and skiing. When he couldn’t play baseball any more, he went through a period of depression, but by going to a camp for children with hemophilia, he came to understand that he was not alone. There is a sense of community among those with the disease. He calls them his “blood brothers”.

Chris Meeting with Nepal Hemophilia Community

After college he began working at a hemophilia center. On a trip to work at a hemophilia center in Kenya he was taken aback by the suffering and deformities he saw in those who couldn’t afford treatment. (Treatment costs about $35,000 a month, so without insurance, few can afford it.) He also climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro, the first of his Seven Summits. It was from that part that he made that task a source of fundraising to help others with the disease.

Most of the film looks at his attempt to climb Mr. Everest, which would be his sixth summit. Before heading to base camp, he visits a local hemophilia center in Nepal to meet some of his blood brothers and have them sign a flag (for the Save One Life group that seeks to sponsor treatments) that he will take with him to the top.

Chris Infusing with Guide Ryan Waters at Base Camp

The film includes interviews with his mother, his wife, and his uncle. There are certainly concerns about what he is doing, but there is also a great deal of love and support. Like other films of this genre, it is not so much about the task itself (although we certainly see how difficult the ascent of Everest is). This film wants to see the power of the human spirit to not only go beyond what people say can be done, but to do so in such a way that others are blessed by the endeavor. (Bombardier raised over $100,000 to support treatment for over 75 patients.) It serves as a reminder that why someone does something is often far more important that what it is they have done.

Bombardier Blood is available on VOD.

Photos courtesy of Believe Limited.