Rosenblatt

2022 Oscars Shorts Reviews: Documentaries

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

Once again, the nominated documentary shorts had a long combined running time. A time too long to be in a single film reel. I saw one set of shorts one day and another set the other day. All five documentary shorts are unique in their own subjects and in the themes they were trying to convey. Here are my reviews of this year’s films nominated in the category Best Documentary Short Subject:

The Elephant Whisperers (dirs. Kartiki Gonsalves and Guneet Monga) – It’s Mudumulai National Park in the Tamil Nadu area of south India. The park consists of mostly tribal people and many wildlife. In recent decades many species have become endangered. One couple of the Kattunayakan tribe named Bomman and Bellie are known to care for baby elephants. One of the elephants they care for is a baby elephant they named Raghu. Raghu was found badly injured and his mother was killed by electrocution. The couple nursed it, took care of it and raised Raghu as a pet until he can be of juvenile age. Soon they come across another baby elephant that was left behind as the elephants did their seasonal migrating. The elephant, who’s a female, is also tended to by Bomman and Bellie and Raghu treats her like a little sister. Over time, the government takes Raghu before the couple is ready to let him free. They still take care of the female.

This Netflix documentary is a story of an environmental theme. It’s as much about the tribal people taking care of the elephants as it is about the actual elephant itself. Both the species and the tribal people are both threatened with modernization and of climate change. The threats are made obvious, but the story does not get too heavy. In fact the story takes on an enjoyable feel to it. We see as the couple form a bond with the elephants and love them as if they were their own human child. They show as they put colors on the elephants as part of a religious ritual. The film is as much colorful and enjoyable in spectacle as it is good on its environmental topic. In addition, this film consists of five years of footage with the elephants and the couple. That’s why I place it as my Will Win pick.

Haulout (dirs. Evgenia Arbugaeva and Maxim Arbugaev) – A man is sent to the Chukotka region of Russia; the area of Asian Russia that’s a close distance to Alaska. He’s a marine biologist in a remote uninhabited area who’s given instructions through radio and enough food to last the season. One day, he notices a huge flood of walruses have come to the coast. They threaten to intrude the place he’s residing in. For hours throughout the day, he has to find refuge on top of the roof. Nevertheless he has to study the populations and the temperatures. Over a hundred-thousand have migrated to the area. Then as the season pass, they swim back in the Chuchki Sea. He then studies the dead walruses left behind. We then learn at the end the biologist, Maxim Chakilev, is studying not only a species but also the effects of climate change as the huge migration is a result of the changes, as well as the record numbers of deaths from the high temperatures.

This story is good as it comes without narration. It’s a series of events that happen and the story tells itself over the elapsed time. The directors, who are brother and sister, don’t just simply have a message to deliver. They have a message to show and let the story deliver that message. It’s as impressive as it is informative.

How Do You Measure A Year? (dir. Jay Rosenblatt) – From age one to age eighteen, film maker Jay Rosenblatt films his daughter Ella on each of her birthdays, or around them. With each film, he asks Ella the same questions, about her dreams, what she thinks power is, what she wants to be when she grows up, and her feelings toward her father. One of her goals is to be a singer and often she sings one of her favorite songs in the films. As she grows up, her answers go from playful to more serious. The questions about their relationship also have noticeable differences as there are times when it’s real serious. The final one at eighteen is tearful for Ella as she knows it will be the last one.

There are a lot of these films on social media where parents film their child as they grow. This film is not as complicated as the other films. This is one film a day for eighteen years. Nevertheless it tells a lot. You can see Ella grow and her mannerisms change. She goes from playful as a toddler to enjoying it as a child to being annoyed or disgusted with it as a teen to sad to see it all end at eighteen. These annual films also tell of a lot of her concerns and her deep hidden emotions. That’s what makes it unique from most chronological child films. It’s the depth of Ella’s answers and the relationship with her father that makes this set of films unique in its own way.

The Martha Mitchell Effect (dirs. Anne Alvergue and Beth Levison) – This documentary tells the story of Martha Mitchell, wife of John Mitchell. When Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968, he chose John to be his Attorney General. At the time, the White House was practically a male-dominated government. wives were supposed to be out of their husband’s business, just appearing aside them in public. Martha Mitchell was different. She was known to be unafraid to speak her mind. She’d even call in to radio shows and spill the beans of what’s happening. Things really became uncomfortable for the Nixon administration as she was not afraid to be critical of the system. We all know how much of a control freak Richard Nixon was. And for the wife of the Attorney General to blab all that, you could see how they could see her as a threat. She even became a celebrity with the public. Then around the time of the Watergate break-in, coincidentally or not, Martha was kidnapped at a hotel for three days. She was even injected by a member of the government. In the end, Watergate became Nixon’s downfall. John Mitchell was sentenced to prison and would eventually divorce Martha. Many people assume Martha paved the way for Nixon’s downfall.

This Netflix documentary is an important film to have right now. It focuses on a lot of things in politics that we see happening right now. First, it’s of political corruption. People are still encouraged to stay quiet and play the game. Those that spill the truth out are still punished. Second, it’s of a male-controlled environment. The whole political system in the US was male controlled and Martha’s husband was part of the people pulling the strings. So hearing of how a woman not afraid to tell it as she saw it would naturally make them comfortable. Third, it’s of control. Even though the US is to be seen as the “land of the free,” they have some hidden truths. There was a president who was a control freak and wanted everything done his way and feared opposition. In sure there were many times Nixon saw Martha as his top threat. That case where Martha was kidnapped and injected around the time of the Watergate break-in will leave you guessing. Was it an act of control from Nixon? This documentary will leave you with some unanswered questions. This documentary is very much a reminder that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Knowing how our system lies to us should make us glad for loudmouths like Martha.

Stranger At The Gate (dirs. Joshua Seftel and Conall Jones) – The film begins with family talking of former Marine Richard (Mac) McKinney. His daughter mentions of him being a mass murderer. The film then leads to an Afghani couple living in Muncie, Indiana. They talk of how they immigrated. The film then leads to Mac. He tells of when he was growing up and what led him to be a Marine. Footage of the WTC attack on September 11, 2001 changed everything. Mac was then to do service in Afghanistan and Iraq. His service ended in the mid-2000’s, but the war was not over in his head. He returned to Muncie to see Muslims. That, combined with the PTSD from the war, led him to see them as the enemy. He puts together a pipe bomb which he plans to detonate at the mosque in Muncie, without his wife and daughter knowing. One day, he goes to the mosque to see any particular areas where to put the bomb. Instead he sees a welcoming community. Members of the community talk of what it was like to meet Mac. Over time, Mac kept coming back. His desire to kill disappeared over time and he had a new desire to be part of this community. Then it’s exposed. His bomb is discovered. Everyone is in shock and Mac is interrogated to see if he’s a domestic terrorist. He served time, but eventually was welcomed back into Muncie’s Muslim community.

This is a remarkable story that forms itself well. As the story starts, the audience would first guess that Mac was responsible for a huge hate crime. As time passes, you would still think he committed that terrible act. Then as we progress on, you learn that Mac didn’t commit an act of domestic terrorism. He almost did, but it turned out to be a case that love won over. Those interviewed show the story from various angles from family to the Muslim community to the Afghan refugees to the police. They all have a lot to say and it leads to the overall message from the film. The message being hate is very often a state of mind. We see that as Mac was a soldier and was taught to hunt down the enemy during the war. His PTSD from fighting in the war mixed with his war-time mentality towards Muslims were the ingredients for his Islamophobia right there. The film also shows that hate can be defeated by love. It’s a message we need to hear right now, especially since we hear news about so many shootings and so many hate attacks. This is a remarkable story of how one such attack was prevented from happening when the almost-perpetrator allowed himself to heal. That’s why I decide this documentary to be my Should Win pick.

And there you go! That’s my focus on the nominees for the Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject. Very rarely do I want to see documentaries. These five films made it worth watching.

Advertisement

2021 Oscars Shorts Review: Documentaries

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

The documentary shorts nominated for this year’s Oscars had a combined running time over three hours. So it’s understandable why I chose to see the Animation and Live-Action shorts one day while seeing the Documentary nominees another day. The documentary nominees for this year are an impressive range of films. All have a unique topic of focus that gets one thinking. Some were positive stories while some were more on negative issues. All have something to say. And here are my thoughts on this year’s nominees:

Audible (dir. Matthew Ogens): The film focuses on the football team on the Maryland School For The Deaf. For sixteen years, they’ve had the best deaf football team in the nation. But the film begins as they show their first loss in sixteen years. Although the film showcases the school’s students and the football team, the prime focus is on student Amaree McKenstry-Hall. We see Amaree as he bonds with the team and conversates with the students. Sometimes it can get heated. We learn that he and the team play in memory of a former student who committed suicide after being send to a regular school. We learn of his family background of how his father left the family shortly after his birth. Soon he reunites with his father, who’s now recovered from his drug addiction and is the head pastor of a church. Then the homecoming game happens. This is to be the last game for many of the players.

This story couldn’t have come at a better time, just as CODA is a heavy favorite to win Best Picture! And just last year, The Sound Of Metal was a Best Picture nominee! The unique thing about this is it’s about deaf athletes. You learn about how deaf football players play, you learn how they communicate. However you also get a glimpse of what it’s like to be a deaf teenage. You see they have the same fun stuff you and I had as a teenager, but you also see they have problems, concerns and insecurities all their own. It’s not only about deaf teenagers and how they live out their teenage years, but it also shows us about Amaree and his own issues, his own battles. It’s a story that goes through so many angles, but is very insightful, and very much an eye-opener.

Lead Me Home (dirs. Pedro Kos and Jon Shenk): The film focuses on the homeless situation in the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle between 2015 to 2019. The film also focuses on some individuals whom they interview. They’re various men and women, and one trans female. They come from various races. The come from various backgrounds. The interviewees are asked three main questions: their names and ages, how they ended up as homeless, and would they live in a home. The people range in ages from 26 to their 50’s. How they became homeless are a mixed bag of scenarios from drug addiction to a criminal past to the trans female disowned by the family to abusive family scenarios to the mental illness of some one messed over by the welfare system. Many would like to live in their own house, but one does not. He says every time he moves into a place, he finds himself back to being homeless soon. He would like his own van.

This is an inciteful film about the homeless situation we rarely see. We see the people interviewed on how they deal with whatever sleeping situation they can fix up, their bathing or showering opportunities they can seize, the food they’re lucky to eat and whatever counseling they get. In some cases, we’re shown the homeless in their surrounding areas, and the homeless camps in that area are large in size. We’re also shown how the homeless are in debate in their civic and state rallies and how some citizens speak their disgust at them. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are some with Trump-fueled rage at the time. The film doesn’t exactly have too much of a beginning, middle and end. Nevertheless this film is a good showcase to a problem that we don’t really know a lot about, but think we do.

The Queen Of Basketball (dir. Ben Proudfoot): Lusia Harris is possibly the greatest basketball player you’ve never heard of. Born in Mississippi in 1955, she grew up poor in a segregated town. At the time, there were very few opportunities for African-American girls. However basketball for her was a way out. She would watch NBA games with her brothers and they would try to imitate the moves. Lusia stood out with her moves and her 6’3″ height. Her basketball prowess helped her pursue post secondary education at Delta State. During her first season (1974-75), the goal was to dethrone the Mighty Macs of Immaculata University who were considered the best female college basketball team ever. It paid off as Lusia and the girls were able to win over Immaculata and a new era had begun. The following year, Lusia and the Deltas did it again. Her prowess allowed her to represent the US at the Montreal Olympics where women’s basketball was being held for the first time. The US team won silver behind the Soviets. The following year, Delta repeated their win, duplicating Immaculata’s feat, and Lusia was crowned MVP. But it ended right there. There was no WNBA for Lusia to go to. She was also diagnosed as being bipolar over time. She was offered to play for an NBA team and was offered big publicity, but she turned it down. Instead she devoted her life to administration at Delta State, coaching and teaching. She married shortly after she graduated and bore four children. Looking back she has no regrets.

This appears to be a great story sold in a simple manner, but when you look at it, it makes for a great story worth telling. It often appears like the story of a pioneer in female basketball. Like she’s one of the many women who brought women’s basketball to where it is now. It showcases her achievements and her big moments and her post-basketball life. In that same manner, it’s told through her. It’s like it’s her story and it’s rightful that she is the narrator of this story. It makes sense as she’s the one who made it happen. In recent time, it also appears like a retrospect. Back on January 18th of this year, Lusia died at the age of 66. The documentary almost appears like a case where Lusia is looking back on her life. I’m glad she had the chance to do this documentary. A great way to remember her. That’s why I give it my Will Win prediction.

Three Songs For Benazir (dirs. Gulistan and Elizabeth Mirzaei): Shaista Khan is a man living in a camp for Afghanis displaced during the war in Kabul. He is recently married to a woman named Benazir, and he sings a song of his love to her. He has plans to start a family but he also has ambitions to join the army along with starting a family. He doesn’t know how hard of a balance this will be. His father does not look upon his goal of joining the army as a good thing. Finally he is given the opportunity to join the army as he will have a meeting with a sergeant. He celebrates with friends and with Benazir, who is pregnant in expecting their first child. He again sings to her. However when he goes to the military base, he learns he needs to be endorsed by a family member if he’s to join. Strict rules in the Afghani military. When he goes to his father and brother, they refuse. Shaista is distraught. The film flashes ahead four years. Shaista is now in an addictions treatment centre. Benazir comes to visit. He is overjoyed at seeing her and his two songs. He sings one last song to her.

This is a poignant documentary. Shaista is simply an Afghani man who wants to make something of himself for himself, his family and for his family to be. We should also remember that Afghanistan is the poorest nation in the continent of Asia. What you see in Shaista appears to be the common struggle of the Afghani people as they try to pick up their lives now that the war is over. Sometimes the losses end up bigger and more hurtful in the end. Nevertheless the film ends with an image of hope. It’s needed now especially since we learned six months ago that the Taliban have returned to power. This is a film that does get you thinking and hoping.

When We Were Bullies (dir. Jay Rosenblatt): While director Rosenblatt was watching a bullying film from the 50’s, a single incident brought back a memory of an incident when he was in the fifth grade. That was when he started a fight with a boy named Richard, who was the odd kid in the class, and other classmates joined in. This Richard was also the inspiration for his first film The Smell Of Burning Ants (1994). Soon he wanted to investigate more into this. What happened to Richard? Do the other students from the class remember that moment? Did they participate? Are they remorseful of it? What does the teacher feel of it? He goes to the school to look into more pictures. He meets with other former classmates at a school’s reunion. Over time, he was able to talk more and find out how they felt about Richard and the incident. He even learned his teacher from his grade is alive and mostly well and he’s able to talk with her. She’s able to give her opinions on bullying and even mentioned her late daughter was bullied too. Later Jay reveals he lost a brother the year before so he was carrying burdens too.

This is a surprising documentary. It’s surprising how one image can suddenly trigger back an unfortunate memory of the past of when you were young and stupid. It’s full of clever imagery mixed with animation as it goes about telling the story. The visuals and the audio make for a good mix. You can call it what you want. Some will say this is a very inciteful story, especially sine bullying is a hot topic. Some will say the film was done in a ridiculous manner. Some will even say this film was a work of Jay’s egotism. Nevertheless it does get one intrigued about human nature. Even its ugliest sides. That’s why I give it my Should Win pick.

Additional Note: Although we don’t know who this Richard is or see what his face was back then, we do learn that he’s still alive and he’s actually a film producer.

And there you have it! That’s my review of the Best Documentary Short nominees. We’ll see on Sunday not only which one wins, but if it’s one of the eight categories whose award won’t be broadcast!