directed by Errol Morris
I watched this on a very hot night after a very hot day, and I drifted into a sleep-related fuzzy state in the middle. So…maybe I shouldn’t be “reviewing” it.
It was interesting. But I feel odd being invited to laugh at real people for who they really are. It’s one thing to notice people yourself and be amused by them; it’s another to make a movie about them and distribute it with the intent of making people laugh. The movie wasn’t exactly unsympathetic to these people, but the quirky framing (did Errol Morris invent that “look?” It seemed ahead of its time) and the maximum-absurdity editing seemed to be saying “crazy show, isn’t it?” I’m not saying that’s irresponsible or mean-spirited. But I was aware, the whole time, that empathy was left up to me; Errol Morris sat it out. Or took it for granted. Certainly the moviemaking itself was, if anything, at the subjects’ expense.*
In the end, I felt an interest in the various figures that went beyond mere amusement. Because any real person, given enough screen time, deserves more than a simple reaction. But again, I don’t know what to say about the film on those terms. If it had just been interviews where people expressed themselves, and that was the entire content, presented journalistically, I think I would have felt differently about this obviously good material. But the movie was made quirky, well beyond the quirks of the people interviewed. I guess what I’m saying is that to me, that sort of detracted from the humanity-encountering pleasures that were the core of the movie.
Also, the overall construction of the movie was pointlessly odd, I thought. The whole first section was devoted to less memorable interviews, about a story that was never quite made clear, and was eventually dropped. The artifice-emphasizing framing and editing were even more present in that section; seemed like Morris was working hard to try to build something with character out of his footage. And yet I couldn’t say what that character was supposed to be. I didn’t really find my footing as a viewer until the more interesting interviews later on. So I don’t really want to give that much credit to Errol Morris for what I got out of it. At least not until I see his other movies.
On the other hand, as I mentioned, I did kinda fall asleep. So, um, forget all this, because I don’t know what I’m talking about.
It was interesting. And amusing.
* I can imagine a fan of this movie saying that it’s actually intensely empathetic, just by virtue of the fact that it gives its subjects the time and space to be themselves, and implicitly says that we owe them our attention. But there’s a difference between thinking that people are intriguingly weird and feeling empathy for them, and when Morris occasionally tips his hand, we see only the former. I can believe that he might well have felt the latter too, when he was being silent, but I can also believe that he didn’t. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s something I had to bring to the movie. That’s all.
Have you seen any other films by Errol Morris? You really should. I’m a big fan of all his work (Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control is my favorite, as I’m sure you know), and if you take his films all together, you can see that there is a consistent approach he takes to all of his subjects. Morris clearly loves quirky people–the genuinely quirky at that. Not people who charm those around them because of their endearing quirks, but people who are seen as outside of the norm, often isolated because of their “oddness.” An autistic girl who designs slaughterhouses, a Holocaust denying prison reformer, an obsessive topiary gardener, Robert McNamara. I think his style gives a very honest look at these people. The films always feel so clean to me, like the camera is hovering over the subjects from a distance, but there’s nothing but clean air between it and them. That allows for a lot of clarity and a lot of room for complexity to fill that empty space. I always leave his films with a mixture of sympathy for the subject, plus just a pinch of disgust.