Steven Crowder offers a thorough review of Taylor Swift’s film Miss Americana. I saw this twice at the festival as it was shown twice where I was volunteering.
I just don’t follow Taylor Swift’s music as I’m of the era of The Who, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, etc. I feel she sings for a younger fan. I did learn something about her life and saw how she presents a dazzling image on stage. Again, a highly produced, dazzling show doesn’t wow me. I’m content to see musicians in street clothes performing live to an audience that’s less than 100.
The documentary presents Taylor without much input from anyone else. I wish there were interviews with the music teachers or voice coaches and people who knew her when. Instead we see this young singer talking and talking to the camera giving her views on her life. During the post-film Q and A, where no audience questions were allowed, Taylor Swift said that she wanted to make a film that wasn’t propaganda. That comment verified my thought that this was a propaganda film. All the ideas came from the subject or were approved by her. She may be a wonderful person, but I’d like others to speak up and say so.
The documentary includes some early footage from her childhood and teens, but I was left wondering exactly who chose to make her records. Who gave her a break? No one succeeds without help and that’s not a bad thing necessarily. However, the film makes it seem that Taylor Swift’s success is solely due to her efforts. While she probably does work extremely hard, she has to have help from others. Also, it’s just more interesting to show different memories, different stories, and different perspectives.
Steven Crowder makes some excellent points about how Taylor probably has glossed on to some ideology without analyzing information, without comparing what her team tells her with other information sources. I agree that she has made some big mistakes in her thinking. Her 4th wave feminism hurts women and creates a straw man to vilify.
In short, this is a film for avid Taylor Swift fans, though they probably already know all this. I feel the film was a waste of my time.
A patron recommended the documentary Chef Flynn about Flynn McGarry, a boy who’s been creating fine dining experiences since he was in middle school. Flynn’s mom, a filmmaker who repeatedly laments putting her own career on the back burner, has supported Flynn’s cooking since he was a toddler and was probably eating organic baby food.
While watching a prodigy teach himself the fine points of gourmet cooking was interesting, I found the stage mom’s hovering hard to watch. It’s great to see a parent promote a child’s interests and talent development, but this “support” can cross a line into control and vicarious living. In Chef Flynn I saw that misstep from the mother who continues to film her kids even when they ask her to stop and when she inserts close ups of her business card into the documentary. Sometimes the mom offered solid common sense, but often she made me cringe when she asked Flynn how many “Likes” he’d received or when she got up in the middle of the night to see if The New York Times story was published online and then worried that it wasn’t online at the minute it was promised. Of course, a mom would buy the paper featuring her son, That’s normal, but getting up before the sun and refreshing a page compulsively because the article wasn’t yet posted was fanatic. And all that hovering as well as the self-imposed pressure for Flynn to make it big as a world class chef as a teen was painful to watch.
I also wish the father had been able to speak in the film. What does he think about the family, about Flynn’s talent and success? We get all our information and the analysis of her divorce from the mom. Again, painful to watch since it’s clear to the audience what’s missing.
The documentarian behind The Eagle Huntress (2017) describes the story of its making.
Wow! I can’t think of a more sincere, thorough look at a man dedicated to making the world a better place. I can be sarcastic and skeptical, you’ve got to have a heart of stone to not be moved by this documentary about the work of Fred Rogers, the force behind the classic children’s show Mr. Rogers’s Neighborhood.
This 2018 documentary shows Fred Rogers’ life from when he started his career planning to go seminary and then go into ministry. He was about to enter ministry just as television was gaining steam. Back then children’s television was little more than mean spirited slapstick comedy. While he would have made a fine pastor, he impacted the country much more through broadcast.
Fred understood the power of television and the complexity of children. While networks saw kids as needing little more than cheap laughs, Rogers saw that the medium could do more to help children understand their emotions and the problems of the world that scare us all.
Because it was so different, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood won kids, parents and child development experts over.
The film features his wife, sons, the actors in the program and others in the media explaining their experience and insights on Fred. It shows Fred interacting with kids as well as speaking before congress. Moreover, it discusses the parodies and challenges that Fred struggled with. It even shows the protestors who came to his funeral. I was surprised that anyone would protest against Mr. Rogers at his funeral in 2003.
No one has followed in his footsteps, which is a pit. We’ve got plenty of snarky humor, more sincerity would be welcome.
It’s a shame that this wasn’t at least nominated for Best Documentary in 2018.
While I’d heard of the Al Pacino movie Serpico, I didn’t know the plot or anything other than that Frank Serpico was a NY cop with a rebellious streak. This documentary, Frank Serpico, gives the story of Serpico often in his own words and in the words of New York Times reporters and cops who worked with him.
Frank Serpico is a colorful character and always has been. The film is chronological and provides background on his youth and family. I learned that before Serpico joined the police force, he was a teacher in New York.
Serpico seemed to be a skillful cop who from the start was on the periphery of the force because he wasn’t Irish American. Irish Americans made up the majority of the force. The film makes much of how Serpico was an outsider which made him more likely to speak out, report and testify against the pervasive corruption in the NYPD in the 1970s.
While working in narcotics, Serpico soon discovered that most of his peers were on the take. Another investigation supported Serpico’s conclusion. Cops on up the hierarchy were taking in millions. As predicted, Serpico was targeted by the cops who resented him. If you’ve seen the movie from the ’70s, you know he was shot and abandoned by the other cops. Because a civilian called the police, Serpico got medical attention and lived.
Now in his 80s, Frank Serpico describes what happened and why he was so ethical. There’s an interesting scene when Serpico was reunited with one of the cops who didn’t report Serpico getting shot.
The good cinematography that adds point of view. The movie with Pacino is brought up a lot and as Serpico wasn’t after fame, he exiled himself far from the city. A few areas could have been eliminated or shortened as they were repetitive. All in all, this was a film that held my interest that apparently isn’t as embellished as the Hollywood production. So if you’re interested in the police in general or Frank Serpico in particular, check out this film.
Featuring Scott Adams, Jordan Peterson, James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, communications professors, and other experts, this film by Mike Cenovich explores “Fake News.” The face-paced, Hoaxed will keep you stimulated as it presents the history of Fake News along with examples, past and present. It’s a must-see film, though you should also read and watch other
It taught me about the Operation Mockingbird, when the CIA paid American reporters to write the stories it wanted. At first that was supposed to apply just to foreign media outlets, but later spread to stories that were published domestically. Operation Mockingbird lasted from the 1950s till the 1980s when Senator Frank Church went public about this program.
The structure builds and builds so that a viewer will see how pervasive Fake News is and how so many journalists are guilty. Each subject has a different take and vibe from Scott Adam’s low key personality to the electric Stefan Molyneux’s caffeinated monologue, which is a compelling connection between Plato’s cave story and our illusory view of the world via media.
Hoaxed (running time 2 hours, 8 minutes) is available on Vimeo.
Gather four award-winning, accomplished British actresses to gossip, reflect on their careers and to a lesser degree their private lives and you’ve got Tea with the Dames. Starring Joan Plowright, who I learned was Lawrence Olivier’s third wife, Maggie Smith, Judi Dench and Eileen Atkins, Tea with the Dames is shot in Plowright’s country home which provides an idyllic English setting for the actresses to look back on their careers and friendships. Plowright and Smith do touch on Olivier’s sharp criticism. He sure could make a cutting remark to anyone who wasn’t performing as he thought they should.
I learned how each actress got started, how dedicated they are to their profession and what they thought when they received their titles. I wasn’t that familiar with Atkin’s work and from the film, I still don’t after viewing this film. The film’s designed for people well acquainted with the actresses. If you’re not, I think you’d find it confusing.
There’s no real structure and the film meanders more than most interview programs. Still these women are captivating and I enjoyed seeing how confident and at home with themselves and with each other these women were.