'The Doctor', the birth of cool

The Doctor
Way before Lebron and Kobe. Before 'His Airness'. And even before Magic and Bird, there was Julius 'Dr. J' Erving, the most exciting player of the second half of the 70s and early 80s. An all-time player that won titles at ABA and, finally, at the NBA, a sensation, a culture icon, a basketball ambassador, and a figure genuinely revered everywhere. But also, somewhat of an eclipsed, overshadowed player, which imo hasn't received that much attention, needless to say overseas (I was an unborn-little baby when he was one of the biggest basketball stars, so didn't have the chance to watch him live). So folks, how excited I was to watch this documentary!

Made by NBA TV, the league-owned network, 'The Doctor' is pretty straightforward and clearly wanting to capture and show the epic and magic of his playing, as well as his human dimension through some deeply affecting tragedies suffered during his life, 'The Doctor' is an engaging documentary for everyone who loves this sport. It advances smoothly, with dynamism and an overall feeling of joy and respect, fuelled by the archival footage and the enthusiastic comments of heavyweights like Magic Johnson, Pat Riley, Bill Walton or Darryl Dawkins, who portray him as a shock to the system, and alien, a revolutionary for basketball, as well as a role model. Because he was a human highlight, someone who seemed to levitate on air, a slam-dunk artist, and some sort of pioneer who made aesthetics, looks and flair translate into the court, as well as off-court (that hair and ultra-cool wardrobe). He was the coolest cat. He was the 70s. 

'The Doctor' development is simple, but the conventional, chronological order, works flawlessly well. We get to know about his college career, where he wasn't, at least initially, considered to be that great of a prospect. Then we know about his first, teenager success and how he became a legend in town after exploding in the mythical Harlem courts of Rucker Park (comments by the great Tiny Archibald and streetball wonder Pee Wee Kirkland, by the way). Julius was coveted as an exciting player but doubts on how his flashy game could adapt to the pros. But he took the Virginia Squires and the New York Nets by the storm. He simply turned into the face of the ABA.

The documentary takes its time (arguably the most exciting moment of the film) to portray that peculiar coexistence,  constant collision that was really a one-sided battle, and contrast between the two leagues, and how Erving ended being the major attraction of the dying ABA. But when the NBA finally absorbed the latter, the Nets ended selling Erving to the Philadelphia 76ers, and the final chapter of the myth began. Doubts about his adaptation to the league quickly vanished, but despite his star-status (in and out the court, being the lure of many commercial ads as well as NBA events) superhero games and otherworldly moves, he struggled to win a title, while the league entered into the unforgettable decade of the Bird-Magic rivalry... until Moses Malone arrived to the team and Julius finally found the well-deserved relief (that's the stressed word) with the 82-83 championship. It's amazing how even rivals seemed to cheer for Erving in these finals. Basketball owed the final recognition to Dr, J. His career slowly faded after that triumph, but his legacy (Michael Jordan and Lebron James acknowledging he was a major figure to imitate) is one of the most solid ever built in the game of basket.

Unfortunately though, 'The Doctor' falls pretty short in several areas, constraining itself to an extremely likeable hagiography that leaves out relevant information. We understand and, as touching highlights of the movie, value the personal side of Erving's life shown. But alongside the traumatic deaths of his young brother (when Erving breaks in front of the camera, it's hard not to get emotional) when he was a teenager playing at UMass, as well as the car accident that took away the life of his soon Cory in 2000, there's some related familiar turmoil "skimped" to us, such as the acrimonious divorce of Erving and first wife Turquoise, the two kids he had with other women when he was married to him, or the the drug problems of his ill-fated son. There's also some strange omissions in what regards to his professional career, like his first failed attempt to shift from the ABA to the NBA that resulted in an ugly feud involving the Atlanta Hawks and the Milwaukee Bucks.

Although as a documentary 'The Doctor' might be rated as a small underachievement, one has to admit I was deeply entertained (and moved at the aforementioned, sensible scenes) during its whole length. Granted, it lacks some depth and avoids controversy, but Erving fans or curious basketball lovers will for sure enjoy the story of the incomparable "human highlight reel".

SCORE: 6,25/10

"I Am Not Your Negro" the song remains the same

I Am Not Your Negro

“The story of the negro in America is the story of America. It is not a pretty story.” And you only need seconds to realize this is not going to be an average, entertaining yet easily forgettable movie. By no means.

‘I Am Not Your Negro’ is based on ‘Remember This House’, an unfinished project the GREAT James Baldwin began in 1979, where he wanted to trace a personal journey & account of the lives and murders of three beloved friends of him and fundamental African-American civil rights activists (and political leaders & social icons) Medgar Evers, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Unfortunately, when the masterful writer died in 1987 the manuscript was still merely started (only thirty completed pages). Luckily, filmmaker Raoul Peck found there was a story to be told, to be completed. A story so important and powerful today as it was when Baldwin envisioned his work.

‘I Am Not Your Negro’ is a fascinating piece from every point of view. First, as a documentary itself, it’s just surprising how much, considering the little stuff Peck had initially, there’s to say. It’s not really the somewhat expected historical reconstruction, rich on archival material, but the ability of the director to grasp and build the connections within the film and propel it into today. From slavery to John Wayne or Doris Day movies (oh, the lies we told kids that become fantasies that become political slogans that turn into idiotic policies, now let’s build a wall). From criminally offensive advertising and insufferable injustice to Martin, Malcolm and Medgar to Watts riots. From ultra-dumb reality shows to the latest Ferguson riots caused by the despicable police violence. Here’s why #BlackLivesMatter. ‘I Am Not Your Negro’ examines race relations in a very scary country. Because what this film shows is that America really stands for doesn’t have much to do with the "land of the free", but with the "kingdom of fear" forged by white Middle America. You know the guy who now runs the oval office? Enough said...

Second, because of its starring, involuntary main character. It’s Baldwin’s figure, powerful and delicate, pessimistic and hurt, even broken (the TV interviews reveal a human being so passionate and afflicted it is absolutely compelling), but always bright and lucid, who steals the show. And, needless to say, his words, hauntingly performed (not just spoken) by Samuel L. Jackson in the film, both his writings as well as the fragments of the aforementioned interviews, are not just the brilliant account of his times and the struggles suffered during the country ancient & recent past by a essential part of America’s population, cornered, left behind, oppressed and humiliated by their fellow Americans. They are, sadly, prophetic, revealing, enduring. The wounds are still open and bleeding.

‘I Am Not Your Negro’ is not an easy film. Obviously because of the subject addressed. But also because Peck/Baldwin have things to show and say, and they are keen to sacrifice the rhythm sometimes, as well as, more importantly, they are willing to respect the viewer, not treating her/him as someone stupid that needs everything to be highlighted and pointed out. Instead, a Sidney Poitier classic film can say so much, a meeting with Bob Kennedy can be such a slap in the face for the white (frequently liberal) hypocrisy, making the documentary a movie that goes beyond racism, to talk about the nature and perverse mechanisms of power: win, dominate, maintain the privilege by convincing, creating the mindset you are always the “good guy”. As an European, it makes you think immediately on how the EU is shamefully behaving with the refugee crisis, or how we deal with inmigration at home.

There’s also confusion and fear on the black movement side. Who was the president during the arise of #BlackLivesMatter? And Baldwin himself has real fear, he feels and sees himself as an outsider, and all the clarity he has in his speeches and discourses turns into vulnerability when considering his position (the “accepted” intellectual, the power of the radical but maybe not-so-radical TV-goer). Couldn’t be any other way? Things are really complicated. The task is titanic, challenging, defying. As ‘I Am Not Your Negro’ is. Striking must-watch.

SCORE: 8,5/10

'When the Garden Was Eden', Knickerbockers' pride

When the Garden Was Eden

Young folk, you probably don't know, but before Patrick Ewing, John Starks and Allan Houston there was life at Madison Square Garden. In fact, there were glory days, during the early 70s, when the Knicks were not only the most exciting team on the league, but also the most iconic and fascinating, as the roster was an incredible mix of personalities and attitudes. The most significant sports epitome of a transcendent, tumultuous period in America. That's what you're going to see at 'When the Garden Was Eden', an absorbing basketball documentary... that goes way beyond the rim, way beyond the game. 

Vietnam, a boiling racial unrest in the streets, the Watergate scandal... America was in serious turmoil... and so were the New York Knicks, a mediocre squad that clearly hadn't connected with the city and their people. As a matter of fact, with the exception of the ever-winning Celtics led by Auerbach and the Lakers, the NBA was still light years away from being the global league that is today. It's pretty interesting how director (more known as an actor) Michael Rapaport takes his time to show how small was the dimension of pro-basketball back then. And how and why that was about to change. Forever.

The story has the strength and the ingredients of a powerful novel (now I'm very curious about the book by Harvey Araton on which the documentary is based) and Rapaport, aside of collecting the opinions of almost all of the surviving players from those years, is wise enough to keep adding elements to his narration, creating a wonderful puzzle. One where facts, statistics and crucial games & moments are secondary compared. The main focus are the leading characters of the documentary. The people who became the Knicks team. A director's choice that makes the film fascinating, even for non-basketball lovers.

As a consequence, 'When the Garden Was Eden' turns out to be a wonderful oddity in this usually constrained territory of sports documentary. We are not invited to see a parade of epic plays of most talented guys (Willis Reed performance at the first Knicks NBA finals would be the exception), but how a team of very diverse people, with extremely different backgrounds, was built, and the sum of the parts worked together to bring the only championship years of the New York Knicks, making the Finals in three out of four seasons from 1970 to 1973, winning two titles (70 and 73) and changed the relation of the city with basketball, since then (and I hope forever) a basketball town, and propelled the media attention to the best of sports.

The work of assembling such a team makes Red Holzman one of the best coaches ever in my eyes because, as I'm saying, it's not just about choosing the right players, but also gathering and align them in the same direction (passing, defense, no stars, teamwork), despite being such an odd collection of personalities. Bill Bradley, a college star from Princeton that after retiring from basket would start a career in politics, two legends from the Jim Crow South, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, a blue-collar guy from Detroit, two in principle "me first" guards from inner-city, Earl "the Pearl" Monroe and Dick Barnett, plus Phil "Action" Jackson from Montana. Then add the extraordinary personality of Jerry Lucas (my goodness, he deserves a film on his own) and you have such a melting pot. Egos, politics, money issues, class and social facts. Rapaport is not afraid to ask the questions, and players are keen to tell us everything. It's mesmerizing. How could it possibly work? The answer isn't clear to me. But it did. They embraced the differences and used the magnificent coalition of talents to became a unique team. Inspiring. Easy to understand the Knickerbockers' pride after watching this movie.

My only complaint (minor, very minor) is how quick the film ends. I understand the team didn't go further than seven years overall (quite a lengthy period in sports), and truth to be told, there's something incredibly intriguing in the way such a winning team vanished (some answers at the film are striking), and how the majority of the players moved to another business, but I would have loved a bit more of detail in that area, because some of the characters were so interesting (Bill Bradley on politics, Jerry Lucas, and of course Phil Jackson, to name just three) and can't help but having feeling there are some things left untold. It's one of those rare films that deserved a longer running time. Because, as I said before, 'When the Garden Was Eden' is not just about sport. It's about people, and how people, despite their differences, can come together.

SCORE: 7,5

'Red Army', playing ice-Cold War

Red Army

Still "happily abducted" by sports documentaries, here's a quick shift from basketball (more to come very soon) to hockey. But it would be a major mistake to consider 'Red Army' just a film about sports. On the contrary, it's an original, very powerful look at history and politics. A simple yet quite deep and sounding insight on the recent past and the dramatic transformations of the Soviet Union/Russia. And a captivating tale on talented individuals being part of the strict and gigantic machinery of a system in the verge of collapse. All on ice!

'Red Army' goes down with the chronicle of the Soviet Union's most successful national team on sports (easily comparable with an almost unbeatable dynasty: the team won nearly every world championship and Olympic tournament between 1954 and 1991, never failed to medal in any International Ice Hockey Federation tournament they competed in): the Red Army hockey team. But forget about epic games, memorable situations and bombastic plays. The legendary team was, of course, a joy to see, with hall of fame players arguably among the best that sport has ever seen... but the film puts the focus on what was behind that USSR dream team. And what the viewer see is equally thrilling and scary. 

Director Gabe Poslky shows us how the soviet national hockey team was a propaganda instrument, one that served the purpose of creating heroes within the country and built an image of being indestructible to rivals. It didn't have much to do with sports. It was a matter of politics in the late Cold War days. The squad dominating world hockey, for USSR leaders at least, meant communism exhibiting its power and glory to the whole planet. Cold War was also a culture war that played in many different venues. Also on ice.

To achieve that goal, the players needed to commit themselves to an incredible amount of effort, with methods and attitudes that crossed the line between what was sport obsession, extreme determination of elite sports, and demented practices. 'Red Army' explains how the national players went from tough but beloved and respected coach Anatoli Tarasov, who emphasized skills and personal abilities to help the team (probably a romanticised, even poetic look) to the dictatorial regime of General /coach Viktor Tikhonov. A tyrant who had nearly absolute control over his players' lives (there's a horrific scene regarding the serious illness of one player's father who says everything), making his players practice for 10/11 months a year, isolating them from their families and friends. Followed everywhere by KGB. Punishing them to after the 'Miracle on Ice' happened (the defeat on 1980'S Olympics against the US). And the nightmares just begun...

The previous lines on Tikhonov are not my opinion, but national team captain's Viacheslav 'Slava' Fetisov (considered one of the best players ever). He is the main character of the film, along with other legendary players and hockey-related journalist, directives and analysts. And the story he reveals, somehow reluctantly (adding poignancy and depth to the film) is the crude tale of a country dealing with a crisis and serious internal conflicts, and how sport mirrored social evolution, announcing the fall of the communist system...  a transformation full of struggles, suffering, injustices and dubious results. Polsky, in an extremely wise movement, is capable of encapsulating such a big and complex topic, the decline and transformation of an empire through the words and expressions of someone whose past and present is so intrinsec of the country. Fetisov, once an indisputable national hero became a country's traitor once he expressed his desire to play in the American NHL, tired of inhuman practices, over-strict regulations and low incomes. His fight against USSR authorities was titanic and appalling, as he obviously risked his life (not to miss the meeting with Soviet Minister of Defence), and sacrificed a couple of years of his extremely successful career, before he could play at the States, thanks to Gorbachev's glasnost policies and, eventually, the collapse of the socialist republic, leading a bunch of Russian colleagues. 

But, as I said, Fetisov is an incredibly interesting character, and that's what makes 'Red Army' stunning. Because he gets mad at the director when he asks him about the Cold War (it was about money). Because he's a tough guy trying so hard not to break in front of the camera, even when he is admitting he was betrayed by his friends, his country. And because the whole picture doesn't end at the States. He struggled at his first American team, the New Jersey Devils (as well as his fellow red army colleagues playing in America). He wasn't really appreciated by fans either (after all, the fear of communism existed)... He missed the game as it was played back home (again, Tarasov's school). Until he was traded to the Detroit Red Wings, where he reunited with some Russian up-and-coming stars to won back-to-back titles... that he took to Moscow. Somehow, he was still playing for his country, although his country was completely different then (chills to see/hear him and some other players talking about the new, capitalist Russia). He then became Russia Minister of Sport under President Vladimir Putin government (until 2008). He was still on a mission. What a mind blowing look into a human being in all his contradictions, idiosyncrasy, virtues and wonders. What a refreshing take on a country experimenting one of its crucial periods in history. Great documentary. 

SCORE: 7,75/10

"I Hate Christian Laettner", the devil in blue?

I Hate Christian Laettner

"Blame" Contra for "making me" watch more basketball documentaries... But this one came out of the blue really. I remember pretty well. Very shocking. Who was the unknown pale kid posing alongside the great of the greatest, the DreamTeam? Why was he among the 12 selected for the 92' Olympic team? The freak on me quickly gathered some information: Christian Laettner was one of the major stars coming from NCAA ever, leader of the Duke University team that made four consecutive Final Fours and won two national championships. Impressive to say the least. What a terrific player he must be. But in Barcelona he didn't play a lot (to be polite) and his NBA career never met the expectations, so Laettner became "the odd one" on an incredible moment for basketball lovers here in Spain... and not much more. Not enough to be remembered.

That's the main problem with this otherwise highly recommendable sports documentary. I can't  really connect with the powerful story because, for Spaniards, Christian Laettner was mostly unknown (back then the chances to watch NCAA games was really hard, no Internet then, kids, can you imagine?). It's a shame, because 'I Hate Christian Laettner' is a very interesting take on a polarizing player, and an even more absorbing attempt to discuss how and why a person can be the main target of the hate from so many people. Remember this happened way before social networks began its predatory and nonsense hate.

Director Rory Karpf wisely structures the documentary on questions raised to be debated upon, making 'I Hate Christian Laettner' easy to follow when it had the risk of became a filmed discussion such an abstract thing as the reasons for hating someone. We see the interviewed people (including himself and his family and Coach K, Mike Krzyzewski, who has a special, moving bound Laettner) have their say on whether Laettner deserved the many negative definitions/accusations he received: cocky, privileged, bully, pretty boy, arrogant. Some, as the ones related with the economic side are quickly dismounted, while others reveal what masses can easily build with a couple of prejudices given, mainly with regards on his looks (he looked like a guy from 'Melrose Place' or '90210', but those were the aesthetics for many back then, on clear opposition of the Fab-Five from Michigan University looks and behaviour) or with the elitist university on which he studied (heavily hated) and played for. He became a symbol, a negative one. It's a very powerful narrative. We get a glimpse of what lies behind all the fierce, bizarrely intense dislike on him. Social, ethnic, class angst, and a brutal example of media construction imagery.

There were basketball reasons too, and that's when the film offers its share of action... and doubt on the character. Laettner was a terrific player, capable of doing so many things on court, but also a tough player and teammate, unafraid of getting nasty and aggressive (the chapter with friend Bobby Hurley is almost scary) if that was he thought it was needed. Capable of stomping on the chest of a downed player, then making the most dramatic shot in the history of NCAA basketball to win the championship. Every single person is more complex than what looks, stats, prejudices and media might say...

A very enjoyable documentary with an unusual depth, even for someone who didn't know almost anything about "the issue" (the hate) which, at the end, asks a great question to people. Do we need someone to hate?

SCORE: 6,75/10

'Magic & Bird: a courtship of rivals', 2 were the colours

Magic & Bird: a courtship of rivals

I just finished reading 'Cuando éramos los mejores' the Spanish translation of Jackie MacMullan's book 'When the game was ours', published by my dear friends of Contra (a publishing house focused on music and sports, amazing people, amazing books), so I thought it was the right time to watch this TV documentary broadcast on HBO, a film partially inspired by the book (MacMullan is one of the main experts interviewed here). What a pleasant week. A double feature of some of the best basketball EVER (arguably the best ever) played. Read, watch, and remember a much beloved time of my childhood-early teenage years being abducted by these two titans. My superheroes.

The documentary is a must for anyone who loves basketball, as it does a fine job of chronicling the unforgettable careers and, foremost, the unmatched rivalry between two of the biggest basketball legends EVER (and unarguably two of their best players). A tale of competition, obsession, respect, friendship and passion for a game that got saved, redefined, blossomed and rocketed to a planetary sport (the greatest one) thanks to them.

From tracing their humble origins in East Lansing, Michigan and French Lick, Indiana, to their first meeting at an international tournament to the first encounter as the greatest rivals at 1979 NCAA Basketball Championship Game, to the mythical Celtic-Lakers finals of the 80s, the story here is simply memorable. Not just the titles (5 for Magic, 3 for Bird), not just the epic of their triumphs, not just the way the saw the game (passing the ball, making their teammates better, always aiming to compete and win, day-by-day) not just the stats and the individual titles, but the sense of both unmatchable players constantly living parallel lives while pushing themselves to their limits. Reaching for the papers to check the numbers of the other, watching their games and getting frantic at the others wins. And, after the Converse commercial, even sharing a dramatic shift of their careers (back injury for Larry, VIH for Earvin) that forced both giants to cut short their formidable trajectories.  

Like a positive version of 'The prestige' a 'Courtship of rivals' does a fantastic job on portraying how a confrontation of incredible talents sparked a whole league to another level, and how a lasting friendship was built against all odds, against being opposite characters. It also explores the racial issues that were an important factor of the rivalry among the fans ('The Great White Hope' versus 'The Hollywood Smile', the redneck and the glamorous) and it's surprising, and refreshing, how both players haven't got anything to do with it. Bird in particular destroys the whole argument in his laconic explanation. They were also bigger than the media, league, their teams and social conventions & prejudices.

The movie doesn't rely on many outside opinions: MacMullan, Pat Riley, Kevin McHale, Michael Cooper, Magic's sister, Bird's brother, a few sportcasters. Simply there's no need for it, as the film has both main actors, keen to tell it in their own words. Magic with his trademark huge smile on his face and his smooth voice, Bird trying to dodge the camera, utterly shy, scared of revealing too much. And director's Ezra Edelman solid work overall is rewarded by a couple of mind blowing moments. When Magic can't held tears after recalling how he felt after Bird called him on the phone when he knew about his VIH infection. And when Bird says how much he liked Earvin's persona (out of the 'Magic' character). That's something than can be acted. Here's a real human, transcendent bound, that goes way beyond the ball.

But, as it usually happens, the book is better. Of course being such a huge basketball fan and such a devotee of both players, I would have loved much more game footage, but I assume Edelman considered that was already known, or easy to seek and watch. But that's secondary. The documentary fails short compared with the book because the second goes deeper in the minds and thoughts of Earvin and Larry, and MacMullan takes them (and us) on an exciting, rich, many times dark and tough too, trip. One where stats, plays, games, championships are not just entertainment, but life itself. The author delves in the VIH question, digging on Magic's marriage and exploring the icon's feelings about the reject and disappointing behaviour of so-called friends (Isaiah Thomas, Karl Malone, still hate them). The Barcelona Olympics (the question on legacy, the role of Michael Jordan) and the latest chapters of their relationship are quickly skimmed on the film, while the book has time to talk about Bird's and Magic's experiences as coaches and managers. Still, a great documentary about two immortal sport legends, and how they built that legend. Together. Another miracle done by basketball. 

  

SCORE: 7,25/10

"While We're Young", bohemian like you

While We're Young 

Very nice and welcomed surprise. Didn't know what to expect about 'While We're Young'. I have a strange relation with Noah Baumbach's movies, Loved 'The squid and the whale', liked the utterly dark 'Margot at the wedding', but I don't want to watch it again. 'Greenberg' was quite ok too, but I'm scared to death to watch 'Frances Ha' (seems a movie for hipsters), and I thought this one could be a very weak film, something several reviews stressed. Happily, there was no reason for my fears.

'While We're Young' might easily be the most balanced and, I guess, accessible of Baumbach's films to date. That assessment means two important facts. First, the bitterness and poignancy of many of Baumbach's previous works is virtually gone. As a matter of fact, the movie is a comedy, a satire. And second, the characters are likeable. This is, of course, a matter of personal taste. But aside the aforementioned 'The squid and the whale', in my opinion, his best movie yet, that makes leading characters Josh and Cornelia, played with conviction and some sort of charm by Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts, the most interesting, relatable, well-rounded, flawed, irritating at times and, therefore, human Baumbach has ever created.

Yeah, I have read the comparison with Woody Allen and, although I admit it hurts me quite a bit (I'll always be a fan) it is true that Baumbach has constructed a more credible, contemporary and refined story about the behavior of intellectuals than Allen's latest efforts. 'While We're Young' portrays this stucked couple trying to prove themselves they are still "in", still bohemian, still hip, although they have grown up. How do they try to connect with the times? Befriending, Jamie and Darby, played smoothly by Adam Driver and Amanda Seyfried, a free-spirited couple still in their twenties, after the younger hipsters approaches Josh after one of his boring classes on filmmaking (Josh is a documentary filmmaker).

'While We're Young' works admirably as a funny game of contrasts. Old friends having kids and making their existence surrender to the babies, while the couple of hipsters celebrate a 'street beach' event or an Ayahuasca ceremony (leaded by Dean Wareham in an hilarious role). One looks scary, the other one intriguing... but scary too? Baumbach is just saying: both generations are quite ridicule, and is pretty easy to mock them. Oh yes! Here's another unmissable vynil for your record collection. Oh yes! Can I have a better Ipod for my daily running exercise? Cool and laughable, childish, at the same time. It also makes you think about yourself for a second (and in a lightweight manner). As someone who is in between both ages, and who works/deals within a hipster environment but has never been or felt part of it, many of what appears in 'While We're Young' sounds extremely familiar... I'm writing this review while listening the new Churches album, completely shocked this is "what you should listen now" when to me sounds suspiciously similar to Carly Rae Jepsen. Didn't we agree 80s electro-pop is embarrassing?

The movie also attempts to explore one of the 'controversial questions': what's authentic then? It might the weakest side of the film, because Jamie's convictions as a filmmaker (Darby's to a lesser extent too) are not really exposed if compared with Josh's adamantium but lost aims. But despite that might be a shortcoming, it do serves well Baumbach's purpose of showing people with good and insufferable qualities as well, complex and multidimensional, trying to do something with their life as they keep growing. Highly recommendable, whether you are a young hipster or an old bore, hahahaha...

SCORE: 7,25/10

'A Man Within', Burroughs, the alien

William S. Burroughs: a Man Within

I'm about to start reading 'Cursed from birth' (review coming soon at Indienauta), the memoirs of the unhappy and short life of William Burroughs Jr. and I remembered I had this documentary on the (long, overlong, infinite) movies-to-watch-list. Perfect timing, right?

'A man within' tries to offer an insight, based on archival footage (seems some never-seen-before) plus an impressive cast of interviewed people (Peter Weller, John Waters, Laurie Anderson, Gus Van Sant, Jello Biafra or Genesis Breyer P-Orridge to name a few), of William Burroughs, the writer, cultural-social activist and counterculture icon. It's an extremely difficult goal, as Burroughs might be one of the most elusive, contradictory and hermetic authors/human beings I can think of. Director Yony Leyser's does a nice job of assembling the movie, dividing it on a number of topics regarding "the man", as well as making it quite dynamic, with and engaging pace. But after the ending credits roll on, the mysteries surrounding Burroughs remain the same.

As entertaining 'A Man Within' is, revelations are few for the already converted. Ok, you have a point. With Burroughs you can pretend to have clear answers. But with the exception of a few remarks and memories from some of his most intimate friends and colleagues (not the bunch of famous admirers, with the exception of Patti Smith, who was really close to her and has a wonderful account on him near the end of the documentary), and the scenes on which we see him sharing the table with Allen Ginsberg or shooting cans outside his house, the promised insight on his work, life and times it doesn't go beyond the surface. More like an introduction, done with heart and wisdom, but just an introduction.    

In terms of structure, 'A Man Within' is a worthy attempt of gathering all the pieces that conform Burroughs' legend & complex puzzle: his role within the Beat movement; his subversive, rebellion against his time, against control & restrictions; drug addiction and experimentation (another of the most remarkable aspects of the film, he was a slave of drugs, not his defender); gun lover and main responsible of the death of his wife, something that tortured him for the rest of his life; absent father; punk godfather; and a revolutionary writer (a dubious painter too). But maybe Leyser's approach was too modest? It seems to me there's a lot more to dig in every chapter. For example: I'm not that interested in knowing that Iggy Pop wrote a song about him (despite the anecdote and how he explains is hilarious) or that Sonic Youth visited him in Kansas, but it would have been great to know why he collaborated with so many artists and what the artists were looking for with these collaborations. Besides I do miss a much deeper account on his books, having the impression 'The Naked Lunch' and 'Queer' are vindicated by many... but have been read by very few.

But let's keep with the moments that endure, as a 'A Man Within' has plenty of them. Aside from the already mentioned relation between Ginsberg and Burroughs, there's the amazing 'Thanksgiving Day ' short film ("thanks for a Continent to despoil and poison"...), his suffering after the ill-fated, demented William Tell. And the lovely, surprisingly charming end. Even the alien, the iconoclast, the irreverent, the guru, the cut-up pioneer, futuristic visionary, needed the same we all strive for...

SCORE: 6,25/10

"Citizenfour", revolution will be encrypted

Citizenfour

There are, at least, two movies in 'Citizenfour', so allow me to divide the review in two parts.

Part 1. 'Citizenfour' is a thriller. A thriller about espionage. But you won't see George Clooney selling you coffee, or Brad Pitt playing with his sunglasses in slow motion, or CSI's Miami ridiculously photoshopped settings. It's a real life one. It happens in laptops, at several homes, and in hotel rooms where conversation happens. Don't look for car chasings, explosions or heroic cops/detectives. We could even agree there's few action, and the documentary is slow-paced and complex, something that you might find that disappointing or too much for your taste. That's sad. Because it's hard for me to think on movies that can compare to 'Citizenfour' in what regards to tension. The tension of seeing a movie director, Laura Poitras, a journalist, Glenn Greenwald, and a computer professional (a high-level analyst) Edward Snowden, risking their lives because of planning to meet in secrecy, then gathering in Hong-Kong to unveil the latest only weapon: information. Real, deeply disturbing, meaningful information, proving how the American National Security Agency (NSA) is invading your privacy. Indiscriminately, Illegally. Unacceptably. Shamefully. And when I say you, I mean everyone. You might prefer to keep checking your mobile. That's very sad too. This thriller makes 99% of thrillers look irrelevant and dumb. Here's reality, unfolding by the minute offered to any viewer willing to see thanks to a brave filmmaker. Here are real, working-class heroes exposing themselves in the search and defense of truth. A truth that is hidden by the most powerful government on the planet (but make no mistake, despite the US government is the one primarily pointed out, any Western government is equally responsible, or at least accomplice). A truth that should embarrass the government of any nation self-defined as a democracy. A digital David against an army of Goliaths. A flesh and bones starring role, scared, fragile (you can see the fear, the uncertainty in his face, his body language, it's gripping, compelling and disturbing at the same time) but determined to sacrifice his life to reveal a scandal that is silenced with just one word: terrorism. That's a real hero in my book. Move to part 2.

Part 2. If as a movie 'Citizenfour' is a fascinating miracle, a movie done 'undergound', the importance o what it tells us is even more striking. The movie begins with director Poitras already working on a film about surveillance in the US, a country unconsciously (I hope) sacrificing their liberties in the name of security, in the name of the war of terror after 9/11. What Poitras show us is appalling and disturbing well even before Snowden reaches her. Same can be said about Glenn Greenwald's work too, as he is the other one in front of the camera, creating journalistic pieces explaining the whole issue, being invited to talk in front of selected audiences on the crucial revelations. He has one blatant scene in Rio de Janeiro when he just says that this is not about security or terrorism but to gather as much information about economy, privileged information for corporations, so the US economic machinery is still on top. Funny when liberals and capitalism defenders say they are against regulations but use the government to control you, don't you think? Funny when a nation forces other country to sit on a negotiation table on behalf of international agreements/law but at the same time mocks any of these more basic principles going beyond its borders in its demented espionage paranoia, don't you coincide?. Funny when a president uses Malcolm Luther King's words about freedom and equality but he's eroding civil liberties inside and outside the borders of the nation he governs, don't you agree?
 
The amount of lies & liars documented on “Citizenfour' is depressing. But for me, it's even more dispiriting to have the feeling, as a puzzling open debate within the EU wisely points out, a vast majority of citizens in the Western World has given up. Are we really ok with the idea of being permanently watched, monitored, controlled? Do we love our digital devices so much that are more important than our privacy? Are we ready to say bye to our democratic system and became politically-correct dictatorhips regimes? Have we been asked about it? I haven't. And I still want my rights. Don't you? A good starting point to react and do something might be watching this film. Thanks Poitras, Greenwald and, of course, Citizenfour.

SCORE: 8,5/10

"The Spirit of '45", the 99%, back then

The Spirit of '45

So glad to see Ken Loach back on track. "The Spirit of '45" is a moving documentary and a crystal-clear tribute to the British people that, together, were capable of leaving behind the scourge of the II World Wars, and along with the '45 Labour government rebuild the country. A new England under a new vision: a fair and united society. Tories, Republicans, Merkel fans, PP voters... all right-wing devotees, as well as Tony Blair or Zapatero nostalgics, 80-90s socialists, you should stop reading right now. This is going to give you hives (skin rash).

Loach doesn't care about the possible (obvious) criticism he has/is going to face. I assume he's got so used to the accusations of being heavily biased that he probably doesn't waste a single second to read critics opinion (who cares about the right-wing opinions anyway? we all know they are all crazy). After all, "Spirit of '45" is the next step of a director who has always had a coherent political speech, something showed in his long filmography. 

As expected as well, Loach is not interested in portraying a flamboyant, state-of-the-art documentary. He combines footage from the vast British archives with contemporary interviews, many of them people who were there and, with their answers can define how dramatic was the situation after the war, how the changes arrived with the labour government. The film is not the most dynamic, but on the other hand, is powerful and determined to get its point exposed: there's an URGENT NEED of another SPIRIT OF '45.

Co-operation, solidarity, unity, support, but also nationalisation of any economic-productive sector that was pivotal for society, and the creation of a welfare system (health, education, subsidies). Does it sound familiar to you? Yes, that's the same social protection system our despicable politicians in Europe are trying to destroy. Or the national health program Republicans from the States would qualify as evil (meaning communist, of course). Keynes against the "market law", now updated into an even more criminal version, Friedman's privatise-everything (that serves to my only benefit) law, packed with shameful speculation. Sorry, but like Loach, I have decided it makes no sense to waste my time trying to be more "polite/tolerant" with the people who are the reason of the disaster we are in now. Let's say it out loud and clear: we have enough of criminals who are there just for their own greed. 

Let's go back to the documentary then. It's so evident Loach is trying to tell us we can't give out hope today. Yes, the bastards are everywhere, and extremely powerful and the situation is extremely difficult. But was it worse than 1945? Don't think so. And then, the 99% of Great Britain decided it was time for a change, a revolution. And so came the change. Loach rediscovers history to show it's time for another revolution. That we can fight and succeed.

I personally missed the voice of young people, believing it would have been nice to confront the current generations with the memories and thoughts of the elders. Also I'm kind of dubious of the last-minute attack to Thatcher. Don't get me wrong, Thatcher can't be condemned enough, but it's kind of tricky the way it is exposed. She introduced the criminal (sorry liberal) economic policies in the country, trying to dismantle the Welfare System. But Loach doesn't take the time to explain how the monster arrived to Downing Street, and she wasn't alone. What about John Major? And Blair? Aside from that, a documentary to watch and think about it.

SCORE: 7/10

"A Decade Under the Influence", filming the 70's

A Decade Under the Influence

"A Decade Under the Influence" has many points of attraction and interest. A serious documentary trying to examine the decade of the 1970s in what regards to cinema, giving the voice to some of the most relevant filmmakers (plus some actors, producers and industry heavyweights) from that period (many of them still among the best directors nowadays) to talk about their movies, their meaning and the changes that American society went through on that period of time. It has all the elements to be a memorable work on the so-called New Hollywood era, but it has two serious issues that undermine the film as a whole.

The first one is quite simple: this is not a dynamic film. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for special effects or these sort of documentaries where the visual tricks are the recurrent solution to fill the narrative gaps or just extend the length of the work to the usual standards. But Ted Demme (who sadly passed away) takes the most straightforward option. Mixing the opinions of the directors with little additional footage, some historical and some directly from the films. The result is a slow-paced documentary, that can be boring for audiences without a particular interest on it. That's sad because the opinions of Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, Peter Bogdanovich, William Friedkin, Dennis Hopper... and a extraordinary long etc is what makes this movie a must-see. Julie Christie, along with Altman and the great and also forever missed "Sidneys" (Lumet and Pollack) are the ones with the smartest and clearest minds.

And the second one is another proof that some topics are, almost, 90% infallible. How many times have you heard or said that the book is better than the film? "A Decade.." has a much more complete, challenging and interesting competitor in the form of a book. Of course, I'm referring to Peter Biskind's monumental "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls". Everything on the 70s, and much more (dark, poignant and scary), is there. After reading that book watching this documentary seems like a Disney's version of the New Hollywood's decade. Sure, this film is not cheating: wants to grasp the opinion of the filmmakers and artists who were there and with that choice compound a collective tale of the decade. But are the starring characters telling all they know? I'm afraid not. Believe me, please read the book and you'll figure it out.

If you are interested in the 1970s, on its turbulent, contradictory and exciting times (rebellion, activism, hedonism, sexual revolution, civil and counterculture movements, drugs...), and how there was an art, cinema, that tried to reflect that social turmoil for a new generation of moviegoers, but finally gave up, you MUST watch this movie. If you want to discover a time when we weren't forced to watch another crap film after another crap film after another crap film, and directors wanted to show and talk about stories and not the next visual effect, this documentary should be a turning point to make you watch dozens of unforgettable movies. But  if you really want to know about the 70s American cinema,.then remember that there is a book waiting for you. "A Decade" should be just a noteworthy starting point.

SCORE: 6,75/10

"Once Brothers", friendship, war and basketball

Once Brothers
Hard to think about something more dramatic and depressive than the civil wars on the former Yugoslavia. As a teenage naturally attracted to history and politics, I remember the need and will of being informed about that horrible conflict taking place at the heart of Europe and where mankind showed one of its ugliest faces ever. But I didn't know that many years after that tragedy ended, I was going to be so compelled by another take, intimate and very special, of the (his)story.

As a basketball fan I remember, vividly, several games from Drazen Petrovic and Vlade Divac as part of the incredible national team of Yugoslavia as well as their respective individual careers. As a Barça supporter, Drazen became the enemy being the star of Real Madrid, but it was impossible not to be mesmerized by his unparalleled talent, while Divac was always a personal favorite as part of the latest era of Magic Johnson's Lakers, plus the center of one of the most spectacular squads never played on the NBA: the Sacramento Kings. But I didn't know about their intimate bond, a friendship that together with Kukoc, Radja, made them unbeatable and brought them to the NBA, on a time European players where an exotic thing. And I didn't know about how their relationship ended either, when the war came.

"Once Brothers" is gripping, to the point of making unnecessary the gross outlining from ESPN channel (part of the “30 for 30” documentary series). The drama is the story. I do want to believe Americans are sensitive enough to understand the madness and nonsense of war to need the reinforcement of the drama with tricks like music or overcharged lines of script. Luckily the human tragedy here is too compelling to ruin the documentary because of bad direction choices.

Because "Once Brothers" is striking, utterly sad and deplorable, using the case of elite basketball players to explain the personal tragedies that war brings. Friends torn apart due to circumstances beyond their control. The love for a flag (hope that one day mankind will understand a flag is just a colored cloth) and a silly gesture on a moment of emotional burst transformed Divac and Petrovic into national heroes in Serbia and Croatia, therefore enemies while civil war exploded back home. Ethnic tensions that weren't a problem before surfaced to help ruining one of the most true and precious things we have: friendship.

Directed by Michael Tolajian, is quite remarkable how intimate the film aims to be. As a matter of fact, this is the personal voyage, emotional and physical, of Divac, also narrator of the documentary. From his perspective, we see all the meaningful places: the snowy Serbian town where he was born, the gym where the Yugoslavian national team trained, the hotel in L.A. that was his first home in the States, to Zagreb today, where Divac is still the enemy or at least a real stranger (that walk is so shocking, one of the highlights of the film). It serves well the purpose of explaining that friendship was never restored, because we all know how Drazen was killed in a car accident on 1993, just when he was achieving stardom recognition on the NBA (is also deeply touching to see how they supported each other when they were at NBA, immigrants isolated from home, specially Drazen, who had difficult seasons), and how Divac has ever come to terms with the death of a friend before they had a chance to reconcile.

Surfing the net I have realized how some wounds will never be healed. The hatred speech, from both sides, is still easy to find. The accusations and insults to Divac are recurrent. Same can be said about Drazen. Heroes and villains depending on which side are you on. Well, maybe is true. Maybe Divac made an anti-Croatian political statement with the flag on purpose. Maybe he was extremely naïve about the then exploding conflict and Drazen had reasons to be angry. But what I can see on “Once Brothers” is a grown-up man, 7 foot tall, sincerely trying to repair the bond with his friend, regretting all what happened. I also see/hear a young and then a grown-up Tony Kukoc explaining how Croatian players were intimidated, by their own friends and relatives, of the consequences of not severing all ties with Divac. Same applies to a puzzled but wise Dino Radja, admitting the fear and the damage caused as a result of it. These collection of revealing moments are better than any history lesson or detailed account on the conflict, showing the human face of the tragedy caused by war.

SCORE: 8/10

Music Documentaries: recommendations wanted!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"The Other Dream Team", basketball and freedom

The Other Dream Team

Indie music, movies, literature... but there's a fourth passion of mine that I have never written about on this blog: basketball. I'm a devoted fan of this sport since I was a little kid. NBA (way less now), European and national basketball. I can almost watch and enjoy any kind of basketball game. And aside from Barça, my other favourite team will always be the Lithuanian National team. If I name my all-time three favourite players, Arturas Karnisovas, Sarunas Jasikevicius and Arvydas Sabonis, I think what I want to say is quite obvious. "The Other Dream Team" had all the ingredients to be a very special film for me.

What I had no idea was that this documentary was going to be so rewarding and absorbing. "The Other Dream Team" is a surprisingly powerful look into what means basketball for Lithuania, what role this sport had in the country's fight for its Independence from the USSR, and how its (arguably?) best basketball generation lived and struggled under the previous regime to then became symbols and most recognisable faces of the new, free Lithuania.

Director Marius A. Markevicius took the conventional approach with little, if not zero, flashy or original structure, just archive footage combined with the opinions of the people interviewed. But please don't understand this as a criticism. Markevicius knows he has an incredible, true story to show here, and who's better to tell it than the people who were part of it? That's what matters, after all.

And what story this is. For basketball fans like me, to listen & see myths like Arvydas Sabonis, Sarunas Marciulionis, Valdemaras Homicius and Rimas Kurtinaitis, is just precious (also add Vladas Garastas, Bill Walton, Chris Mullin, and Arturas Karnisovas, yes!!!, among others). But their opinions are not meaningful just for basketball fans. No, they are even more relevant because they show the human beings behind the stars.

The legendary players talk openly about their extremely humble beginnings and what their family suffered with the Soviet Union's invasion. They show how tough and conflicting times (Marciulionis' face when talking about his speech says it all) they had representing the USSR national team in the 80s, beating the USA on the Seoul Olympics, while at the national league the fights between Zalgiris Kaunas and CSKA Moscow were more than just games. How their careers were on the verge of collapsing due to the Soviet barriers against their players going overseas. And of course how they lived the revolt and freedom of their country, finally representing, and winning bronze medal at Barcelona 1992 Olympics, beating the Unified team on the final match. They gave the reborn Lithuania an outstanding athletic achievement that served to commemorate their independence worldwide. Yes that tournament will be always remembered as the one that gathered the most impressive basketball team ever: the USA's Dream Team. But it should be remembered too for the unbelievable triumph of the Lithuanian team, and for what it represented for a whole nation in such a crucial moment of its history. Besides, the funny note of the film, this was the most improbable, cool and music related basket squad ever, thanks to The Grateful Dead (no spoiling).

Lithuania is a country that breathes basketball, the only European country I know where football (maybe Slovenia too?) is not number one sport (please resist that way). Thanks to this documentary I understand some of the reasons why. This sport gave them strength and a distraction to keep surviving while they were living under an extremely long dictatorial regime, and gave them inspiration and pride to finally free themselves. The filmmakers brilliantly understood that behind this feel-good-sports tale there was a highly interesting political/historical story to explain, not shy of including also the opinions and views of Lithuanian political leaders (even to an arguably excess, would have been interesting to count with "the other side" perspective). Seeing and hearing what the Lithuanian players went through we realise what every citizen was suffering, understanding why basketball means so much for this little country. The parallel story of Jonas Valanciunas towards his inclusion of 2011 NBA draft completes the picture with grace.

A moving, very special film. For basketball and non-basketball fans. 

SCORE: 8,25/10

"Woody Allen: A Documentary", life through a camera

Woody Allen: A Documentary

I already wrote this: I owe a lot to Woody Allen, not only in terms of "cultural education" but also in terms of humour and a certain view of life. I was sixteen when a friend of a friend passed me a couple of films. The first one was Truffaut's "The 400 Blows" (Les Quatre Cents Coups). It grab me and shook me as very few things before. But it was nothing compared with the impact of the second film. I'm referring, of course, to Allen's "Annie Hall", that not only remains as a fundamental movie for me. I know that will "remain with me" forever.

This personal introduction explains why it was virtually mandatory for me to watch this documentary, even though I suspected there wasn't going to be a lot of new information for me on the director (seen it all, read it a lot). The surprise was that for a while, "Woody Allen: A Documentary", it does proof to be a quite revealing and very entertaining film.

Seems that director Robert Weide has had access (which is remarkable) not only to deconstruct the career of the Brooklyn artist, but also to film a bit of his daily life and creative process. During its first half, we have the chronicle of Allen's rising from teen writer to stand up comedian, TV star to a movie writer-director praised as an iconic auteur. For any devoted fan, the archive footage of his monologues and jokes on TV, along with the opinions of the people who are (look at his film credits!, always the same people) "Allen's gang": Jack Rollins, Charles H Joffe, Letty Aronson...is hugely enjoyable. But the contrast with his opinions on camera, his memories of childhood, and his writing habits (the scenes when he shows his working desk, his impossibly outdated German typewriter, and the scrapped notes he keeps that then will become scripts are precious), make this documentary A MUST-SEE.

Seriously, it could have been close to perfection. We start the recap of his filmography going movie after movie for a while (nice to see Martin Scorsese sharing his views on Allen's career). There's another precious chapter (it couldn't be any other way) with the apparition of Annie, or better said, Diane Keaton. Yes, as the movie says, count me among the ones that felt in love with her in this movie. There's one wonderful scene, with Allen incapable of not laughing in front of her, that it reveals much more than any declaration on their level of connection. But after "Stardust Memories" Weide changes the film structure. Gone is the idea of going film-by-film, and everything seems to be rushing from there on. A glimpse on the Mia Farrow-Soon-Yi scandal, although it is remarkable Allen share a thought on that too, a very quick jump into the 90s, another one on his late "lost period", and then his unexpected success with the charming "Midnight in Paris", all mixed with opinions on his legacy, and how actors (Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Penélope Cruz, Scarlett Johansson or Naomi Watts among others) enjoy his peculiar way of directing them. Too much in too little time, forgetting too many things...

Now I have found the film I've just seen is the cinema-release version of a PBS documentary which originally clocks at 191-minutes. That is an enormous difference in length (almost 80 minutes) which might help explaining why the second half of the film looks more disjointed and pressed. I'm sorry to say that if that's the case, well then it seems that, again, business defeated cinema. A commercial decision (reducing the film length) was prioritized instead of consistency and coherency of what potentially was a superb documentary on one of the most important directors, if you allow me to say, ever. I know that I will end watching the complete documentary sooner or later, so I'll let you know... For now, a recommendable documentary that could have been a must-see.

SCORE: 6,25/10

"Let's Get Lost", the sad jazz of Chet Baker

Let's Get Lost
Beefeater In-Edit 2012, Chapter III

Our third film on this edition during the 10th edition of the Beefeater In-Edit Festival was a special challenge for me. I assume this would decrease my "hipsterism" or "coolness factor" to dramatic levels, but I don't get jazz. I won't lie. It bores me, sometimes even annoys me, and I don't think it works for me, not even as background music. That's why "Let's Get Lost", incredibly praised by movie critics (rated 2nd on the documentaries' best-of list) was a challenging proposal for me? Would I enjoy it?

The answer is yes and no. Mostly "yes", because Chet Baker's story is powerful and puzzling, and foremost, because director Bruce Weber seems to be always there, allowed to explore not just the most pleasant parts, basically that Baker was an outstanding talent, a one-in-a-million musician, but also showing that he wasn't precisely a lovely human being: liar, drug addict, not a very caring father, troublemaker, etc. It seemed to me that he was careless about life, and in some way a very sad character. Was he really able to connect with other human beings aside from his trumpet or voice? Weber had the courage of presenting the contradictions of the artist. Showing that behind the "cool cat" flair, there was a lot more to dig in.

"Let's Get Lost" show us Baker's "glory days" in abundance, becoming an icon (he was also good-looking, so success was granted), a reference for the youth in the 50's. He basically represented being cool. It's very interesting to see (its also pointed out by a few opinions) how jazz and particularly Chet Baker were "the alternative" in those days. But his "dark side" was also notorious, and Weber finds and seeks opinions enough to let the spectator get its own conclusions. In particular, there's a lot of attention and information regarding Baker's behaviour with his several women. They are one of the stand-outs of the film for sure.

But I also said "no" before. And that's due to the amount of footage that to me was gratuitous or overlong (as you can see I'm not referring to the songs played despite admitting I'm not into jazz). We have plenty of them, and I can only presume artistic intentions (many of them seems to recall Nouvelle Vague in the way they are filmed) that may embellish the film as a whole, giving it a dreamlike sensation. Ok, it may fit with the music, and even gives a poetic touch reconstructing some moments of Baker's life. But there should be some logic in the chaos, and sometimes is very hard to find it in the film. The opening scene on the beach, the cars at the amusement park, these recurring night walks joined by stunning ladies, the naked women book... I can understand the purpose was to reflect that Baker's life was almost surreal, a junkie (the end of the film is striking) living a parallel existence, one that Weber wants also to present, mixing, building what his memoirs, thoughts and experiences would have been along with not that beautiful reality. But it really harms the dynamic of the film. A length of 120 minutes was completely unnecessary. It also makes it a bit confusing and, sorry to say, pedantic.

Overall, it's an striking portrait of a deeply absorbing character, but also a blurred documentary that wouldn't qualify as really recommendable for many. Shame because "Let's Get Lost" could have really deserved all the praise received.

SCORE: 6,5/10

"Searching for Sugar Man", mystery, magic, music

Searching for Sugar Man
Beefeater In-Edit Festival 2012, chapter I

First of the five films of our selection at the Beefeater In-Edit 2012, and what a movie to start the Festival! Finally a film where what matters is the story that is trying to tell the spectators. And what a story! Incredible, shocking, mysterious, touching, musically very attractive... In a word, fascinating.

This is a documentary on a completely forgotten artist. Not even a side note on the page of the 70s' music history. Sixto Rodriguez, an unknown folk-rock singer/songwriter from Detroit (Mexican familiar origins) who released two albums in the early 1970s, "Cold Fact", and "Coming From Reality". Despite the quality of his music and lyrics, somewhere in between Bob Dylan and Nick Drake, he could not achieve any popularity, so he quickly vanished, retiring, unnoticed from music. We get opinions from his producers and critics, praising the artist and blaming his lack of success and being dropped by his record label.

To this point, "Searching for Sugar Man", would have been a nice music discovery, because the songs of Rodríguez deserve to be listened (so the research will be done) but not a very memorable film. But we quickly discover this is not the end of the story... On the contrary, is an unexpected beginning... Because while completely unknown in America, the guy was a phenomenon in South Africa, a massive success and a referential artist for many people in that country, the soundtrack of the fight against Apartheid by Afrikaners. For them, Rodríguez was a hero with little or zero information about. A mysterious legend who rumours said had a dramatic end.

How could that be? Why Rodríguez was never aware of his success? What about the terrible suicide? I won't spoil you the movie, so I will stop revealing the development of the film here. Just let me add that starting from these questions a search of information, an attempt to solve the mystery begins, carried by hardcore fans, who become music detectives. It will unfold a story that you will qualify as surreal, impossible, one that Swedish director Malik Bendjelloul bring to us in the most touching way, as explained by the people who did themselves, meeting and connecting with others. It's an amazing quest, that will grab you and touch you deeply. Because they will reach an unexpected goal, a goal that will reveal itself as an example, a celebration of human condition and how powerful music can be.

"Searching for Sugar Man" is not only a great and deeply absorbing entertainment. It is also an inspiring film on mankind. There's mystery, magic and wonderful music. What more can you ask for? Thanks In-Edit for such a discovery.

SCORE: 8,5/10