AFI DOCS: Part 2

AFI Docs Part 2

One of my favorite strategies for navigating the sheer volume of films in a packed festival is to, on at least one day, let the screening committee do my work for me and put myself in one theatre for the day and see whatever screens there. Part 2 of my coverage is all about E Street Cinema’s Theatre 7. #WellDoneScreeningCommittee

Sonita 

I admit it that my one act of personal curation in choosing Theatre 7 was this film, Sonita, about a rapping teenaged Afghani immigrant living in Iran (if you are a fan of No One Knows About Persian Cats you should be). Rokhsareh Ghaem Maghami told the audience that when she first got to know Sonita, who wished her parents were Michael Jackson and Rihanna (the first thing that we see Sonita doing is pasting a photo of her face over a Rihanna concert photo), she thought she was making a dark documentary about a teenager without a future. And when Sonita’s mother arrives from Herat (Afghanistan) intent on marrying her and getting a bride price that would enable her brother to pay his bride price, it does seem like this bright, feminist flame of a girl with ferocious lyrical game was going to be snuffed out. No amount of talk from anyone in Iran, including the head of the Center where Sonita worked as a janitor, was going to convince Sonita’s mother to drop the idea of selling her daughter. But then Sonita asks the camera, and by extension the person holding the camera, whether or not she could pay the money the mother had requested (the equivalent to $2,000) for a six month respite and the story begins to change. 

Maghami admitted that she did not feel comfortable being on camera, but that the stakes for Sonita was so high that it was worth it to stop pretending that they were letting this story happen in front of them and begin to take part (a moment presaged early in the film when Sonita turns the camera on her filmmaker). In a film that is already telling an incredible story, the filmmakers themselves join the story and how can you possibly not want them to rescue this girl from a life of crushing poverty and beatings, among other horrors? But Maghami is such a skilled, aware filmmaker that her action, beyond its obvious humanitarian value, falls into a glorious tradition of meta-filmmaking in Iranian cinema, it immediately conjured Abbas Kiarostami’s Close-Up, a documentary re-creation by a Kiarostami of the time some guy convinced a family he was Kiarostami. By acknowledging that a documentary filmmaker can only ever pretend to be “letting something happen” in front of the camera, and sticking with Sonita to enable her dreams (and indeed beyond her wildest dreams - spoiler alert, this story actually does have a happy ending), she makes the best movie she can and does the best for Sonita and we are all better for Maghami’s personal and artistic choices (just check out music video of “Bride for Sale” that she helps Sonita make). Sonita is a textured examination of women in Persian culture and in Afghanistan that pulses with anger at the way women are in those cultures. It’s a stunning document with a legit happy ending and some great Persian rap. Must see.

The Road 

Well, The Road is not going to win any prizes for its visual style (though that production still is out of control good and there is a moment very late in the film featuring a multi-colored umbrella on a small crane against a wintry backdrop that is hard to beat). It really ought to win prizes for its holistic examination of the many layers of entrenched corruption that it reveals in covering the building of one particular stretch of the Xu-Huai Highway that runs through Hunan Province, a complex and corrosive system of corruption that is hollowing out popular support for the regime. 

Zhang Zanbo’s film opens with what seems like a typical story about a horrible private company, in this case the Loudi Road and Bridge Company, which bullies the locals into silence when promises of payment for damages are not fulfilled and which systematically deprives its workers of anything that could resemble rights or payment, specifically through the machinations of a local fixer called Mr. Meng. But the layers of corruption at work here are so much more multi-faceted than that of some private companies running amok, drunk on money and power dispensed by the central government as part of its enormous stimulus campaign during the financial crisis ($586 billion or so, what pundits might refer to as “real money”). Zhang Zanbo guides us through each level of work on this part of the road by focusing on particular groups of stories from the locals, the laborers, the fighters (the members of the company who were assaulted by gangsters hired by the Road Bureau, that’s part of the government, yeah, you read that right), and the singers, who are part of the plainly failing propaganda machine. This provides us with a rich portrait of the ways that the central governments money works its way back into the government, all enabled by a system of staggering informality. Workers are hired with promises, contracts barely exist, permits are demanded months after work begins, inspections happen after massive sections of bridge have been built, no engineer provides any form of documentation of their work and their primary source of income is not their salary, but the steady stream of red envelopes they receive from the construction company to do or not do their jobs, it is never entirely clear which and at this point I don’t think those inspectors or engineers know either. 

Officials and construction company members have become so certain that their behavior is in no way exceptional, no attempt is ever made to hide the passing around of red envelopes that actually pay the salaries of the government inspectors. The relationship is not cozy, far from it, but it’s not hard to see why the government of China is so terrified of its citizens; they know quite well that they are losing the consent of the governed at alarmingly high levels and thanks to The Road, we get first hand opinions of several of the workers who openly wonder how long the Communist Party can survive (with a camera in the room!). This is an incredibly important document that puts this system on full display (it, uh, has not been screened in China) and demonstrates just how tenuous the Communist Party’s hold on their citizens hearts and minds has become.

 

in the shadow of the hill:

in the shadow of the hill, on the other hand, should win many awards for its lush visual style and its intimate street level POV camera work that puts you inside the Rocinha (pronounced more like Hocinya) favela, which is on a hill between Rio’s two wealthy suburbs. Dan Jackson, a laid back Aussie who showed up for his Q&A in shorts and a pair of flip flops, leveraged the crap out of a Phantom drone and a GoPro to produce some really stunning aerial shots of the slum clinging to the sides of this jungle capped hill (see above).

The hook for in the shadow of the hill is the disappearance of a popular bricklayer named Amarildo de Souza during the police “pacification” campaign (a chillingly military phrase for a police operation) in the favela in the years leading up to the World Cup and the Olympics. When the police occupied the favela in 2011 it was an effort to take the area back from the traffickers, but what the community discovered was that the police would simply abuse and disappear the citizens of the favela in their pursuit of pacification. Amarildo’s tenacious family simplywould not let him vanish into the night, though, eventually triggering mass protests and the conviction of 13 officers complicit in Amarildo’s murder and torture. Jackson goes to great lengths to get beyond this hook and to really explore the pulsing community life of Rocinha and the vivacious forms of cultural protest that fomented in the streets. One of his community connections is the woman behind Lady Passionfruit, an incredibly bombastic performer of overt comic sexual clowning as an act of protest, a character born of the desperation of a local healer whose house had been torn down by the government. Another community actor is Aurelio Mesquita and his stunning performance of the “Via Sacra,” a Passion play that follows the stations of the cross in the streets of Rocinha. Aurelio is not connected directly with Amarildo’s family, but his performance of the Passion is exactly the kind of heart-felt DIY grassroots blood and guts and give it your all theatrical art that so many in the United States dream of making and despair at accomplishing for lack of resources. But Aurelio’s sheer belief in the necessity of washing Jesus’ story in the tears of Rocinha, acting out, literally, protest sustains him and his many actors, who turn the Via Sacra into a celebration of life in the favela, even as it protests the oppression of the police. 

I was prepared for in the shadow of the hill to be such a heart-wrenching story of dug in corruption and brutality that I could not watch the Olympics in good conscience and that I might feel dirtier than I already did for enjoying the World Cup and while that feeling is still there in the background because those two events are so corrupted by money and politics at this point (Aurelio has some choice words for FIFA in this film and he speaks for millions when he says “Go fuck yourself, FIFA”), but . . . Michele, Amarildo’s niece, concludes from this whole affair, in which her family was joined by upper class protesters to tell his story to the world, in which the police involved were arrested and convicted (‘sup Baltimore), that there is justice in Rocinha. It is a struggle and it is slow and a little bit crooked, but it exists and that 20 years ago, no one would have cared about a black body in the favela. This extraordinary woman’s ultimate message for the world is to remember that everyone is human first. I, for one, could not agree more and I hope that more people get to see her story and Dan Jackson’s wonderfully vibrant documentary about a strong community in the shadow of the hill.

 

AFI DOCS: Part 1

AFI Docs Day 2:

Ok, ok, I know. You’re wondering, whatever in the Sam Hill happened to Day 1? Well, I have a little story about calendars and check engine lights that will surely bore you to tears, so it’s best to just power through the mea culpa. Full summary of Day 1: I really wish that I could have seen Hooligan Sparrow, a doc about seeking justice for sexual abuse victims in China.

Astute observers of the AFI Docs experience will also wonder why I am not talking about the Opening Night Gala which featured a new documentary from Alex Gibney on that Stuxnet virus you’ve probably forgotten about called Zero Days. That has a much more prosaic explanation: Zero Days has a July 8th release date for the DC area and my full review will appear then. A short take on the film: If you know what Stuxnet is and who made, you were probably already going to see it and if you don’t know what that is, then you must see it. More on July 8th.

Now, Day 2.

Tempestad, a film that premiered to rave reviews at the Berlinale from Mexican-Salvadoran cinematographer and filmmaker Tatiana Huezo, is the story of Mexico. At this point, we are, or ought to be, depressingly familiar with the human wreckage caused by Mexico’s struggle to establish the rule of law in a country ravaged by cartels. It has been the subject of many films and told many ways, often with a focus on the intersection of drugs, kidnapping, and law enforcement (the good kind fighting the bad kind and generally losing think Sicario and Man on Fire). As a documentary,Tempestad is not able to use the traditional forms of investigative documentary filmmaking to tell the incomprehensibly tragic stories of Miriam and Adela. Miriam worked for the government in a customs office and was, out of the blue, arrested along with a number of her co-workers and sent to a cartel run prison. “The ones who pay” is how the phrase translated. In a bizarre caricature of justice, their arrest let the government claim it had busted a people trafficking ring (“See? These people were arrested?”) and then they made the cartels some extra (grotesquely acquired) income. Miriam’s story is harrowing and awful, especially when she describes what happens to those who don’t pay, and it is clearly impossible to track down this prison in Matamoros (which literally touches the United States) and stick some cameras around a place that the police know is run by the cartels (the charming phrase is “self-governing”). There is no way to document those images to tell Miriam’s story. Adela’s story is similarly un-filmable. Adela’s daughter, Monica, was abducted from her university campus by sons of policemen with the help of someone who claimed to be her friend. Considering the levels of corruption involved and the direct responsibility of members of the police for her disappearance, it is unthinkable to put a documentary film crew’s very lives at such risk. And so Tatiana Huezo and her team try solve this problem of representation another way, a way that demonstrates not the exceptional nature of these tragic tales, but rather how entwined in the fabric of everyday life such stories are. Huezo chooses to tell a completely everyday visual story while the women tell their tragic tales solely in voice-over. 

Miriam begins her story with the day of her release from the self-governing prison in Matamoros, far in the north of Mexico (like any further north and you would be in Brownsville, TX) all the way to her home in Tulum, 2,000 km away and her visual story is of that very long bus journey through Mexico. The predominant images are of people sleeping or people waiting, either for security checks to be accomplished or for the next bus. As riveting as Miriam’s story is and as beautiful as some of this footage can be (especially the final images when we see a silhouette of someone floating in a body of water who could be this woman who contemplated joining the cartel to prevent them from killing her once her family couldn’t afford to pay her quota), this particular representational problem is never really solved. The connection between the quotidian images of this journey and Miriam’s narrative is just too indirect and obscure.

Adela’s story is much more visually compelling, in no small part because we get to see Adela go about her life as she tells us about it. We do not see her talking head style, we simply see her and her nomadic life as a circus clown. I can’t even believe that I’m typing that, but this juxtaposition of her awful tale of agonizing grief and uncertainty and her current life full of children and other female performers as they build their tent and prepare for their performances produces a number of striking images and indelible moments, such as a little girl staring at the camera while the other children practice their elephant walk, or a languid child watching, bored to tears, from her perch in the ring to which she is attached by a seat belt or the final reveal of Adela’s gorgeous clown costume. Adela’s story is one of despair leading to fearlessness, but visually, it is full of mothers and daughters being with each other and growing together, a presence that draws attention to the absence of one particular daughter and it is utterly

Tempestad tells us stories of failure and terror that are altogether too common in Mexico, while connecting the viewer with evocative and beautiful images of the country as it struggles to cope. I might not have understood all of the connections between the images and the narratives, but this is a film that is well worth seeing and I will certainly be on the lookout for more work from Huezo and company in the future.

Haveababy takes its title from the a website haveababy.com, which is run by a fertility clinic based in Las Vegas. The documentary is about the emotional and financial trials and tribulations of trying to start a family with In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF). That is a heady mixture of personal, private, political and financial stakes and it would take a long-running television show to unravel all of the narrative strands bound up in such stories. As it turns out, and this should come as no surprise to anyone who has to pay for medical insurance, IVF is both expensive and not particularly well-covered by insurance (it is considered an elective procedure akin to cosmetic surgery, rather than as a treatment for the medical condition of infertility). So, the Sher clinic, the people behind the website, sponsor a contest every year where desperate people submit videos to the clinic through YouTube and Facebook. There is a public vote which narrows the field to ten people seeking IVF treatment (this is modern America - they are not all couples and not all the couples are married - that’s treated as a subtext in this film, I mean it’s already got so much on its mind for Pete’s sake) and then the clinic chooses one person to receive one cycle of IVF for free at the clinic. The doc explains right up front what that means when the head nurse of the clinic lays it out: a cycle of IVF is like paying $20,000 to walk onto a car lot for a 50-50 shot at walking away with a car, but they keep your money no matter what. I’m already exhausted and that’s just the first 15 minutes of this 77 minute doc.

Haveababy has a really difficult tightrope to walk narratively. It has to handle the reality TV premise of the contest with some aplomb not to seem like it is pandering to the same base emotional instincts of reality TV, which it only sort of sometimes achieves. But the doc is not really about Sher or the contest or even these specific people that we follow on this devastating emotional roller coaster (the depths of the falls from the emotional peak of a false start on a pregnancy are very, very dark), the doc is about how people cope with infertility and how the medical industry profits from people’s need to procreate, a need so fundamental that it completely short-circuits their ability to make rational financial decisions (not that most people are good at that anyway, because they definitely are not). Amanda Micheli and company actually do a pretty good job of creating a holistic view of what the Sher and other IVF clinics do and why people bankrupt themselves doing it. They are honest about clinic’s qualms with the “I Believe” contest. They are honest about Dr. Sher’s business practices (as he is as well). We see these men and women cope with existential questions about themselves and their choices. The film is never too sentimental, nor overly clinical about this nexus of medicine, procreation, and money. The emotional stakes are very high and the film respects that. As a document, haveababy is quite successful as I think about it now, but I left it with an uneasy sense that the film had acknowledged the existence of major issues at the heart of American medicine without actually grappling with them; the film sticks too much with the personal story of men and women getting pregnant when there is a bigger narrative thread to tug on. As the film notes, reproductive medicine is expected to become a $20 billion a year industry over the next five years. There’s no heartstring to tug on in that story.