Revised Documentry Blog

Documentaries: Not as Honest as You Think

           One of my favorite types of film is the documentary. These films educate, inspire, and enlighten us to topics perhaps we never would have known about or have been as well-versed on. But are all documentaries as unbiased as they are made out to be? The blatant and obvious truth is that almost none of them are without ulterior mission. The people who make documentaries do so, in order to educate the public on their opinion. Despite this fact, I have many favorite documentaries and I will tell you about a few of them in this blog. An interesting question about the future of documentaries, is what sort of topics will be covered. They have certainly changed over time; More recently the topics covered seem to pertain to the current issues facing society yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I have noticed that many of the early documentaries that I have seen consisted mostly of human interest stories such as “Grey' Gardens” and “Harlan County USA.” These two documentaries both tell the story of the human condition and the struggle that goes along with it. They also both touch on the subject of being trapped or stuck in certain conditions. If you watch “Grey Gardens” you can see how being trapped in that house with her mother would drive Little Edie insane. In “Harlan County USA,” you can easily sympathize with the lack of options available to these people and how stuck they are in the line of work and socioeconomic situation they were born into. The more recent documentaries that I have seen, seem to consist of comments on political or world issues, these include, “An Inconvenient Truth,” “Shut Up and Sing,” “Capitalism: A Love Story,” and “Sicko,” just to name a few. 

            My favorite documentary of all time is “Grey Gardens.” This film by the Maysles brothers, tells the story of Edith Bouvier Beale and Edith “Little Edie” Bouvier Beale who were relatives of Jackie Kennedy-Onasis, and their existence in their sprawling dilapidated estate in East Hampton. The other inhabitants of their home include, raccoons, squires, rats, and a plethora of cats all of which they feed, while barely being able to feed themselves. You watch the film with pity for Little Edie having been trapped by her selfish mother for so many years, giving her whole life to care for her. It's sad to see all the promise and beauty that both the house and Little Edie both used to hold. In many ways, the house is an extension or representation of what has happened to Little Edie both inside and out. There are many moments where she is clearly having psychotic episodes, but is unaware of her bizarre behavior, giving into it even more, attempting to vie for the cameras every attention. The documentary has a mood of sadness and disparity while letting you into a home and it's inhabitants world, where no one had been in so many years. 

Yet, “Grey Gardens” isn't as innocent as it seems. These two filmmakers, Albert and David Maysles directly provoke and allow Little Edie to do retakes of her bizarre behavior, as is shown on the behind the scenes DVD. They are almost taking advantage of these two frail and mentally unstable individuals, by putting them on display in a sort of world wide freak show. The act of documentary film making seems to have lost, or perhaps never had, the amount of honesty it evoked.

              “The September Issue” is another example of a film that gives us a look into an environment most of us will never experience. In it, we meet Anna Wintour, editor in chief of Vogue Magazine. The recent narrative film, “The Devil Wears Prada” was based on this cold (pun-intended) high-powered women who essentially runs the world of fashion. Wintour funded and produced the documentary in an attempt to disparage the insinuations made about her in “Devil.” This brings me back to the point I made earlier of every documentary having an ulterior motive. “Devil,” showed Wintour in the harshest blazing florescent light she wouldn't be caught dead in, so she decided to do her own well-polish fashion shoot with her own motives in mind. We get a look into the world of fashion and the daily life at Vogue, which is quite fascinating and surprisingly complex, yet while watching you have to wonder how much is staged, played-down, and how much Wintour is acting herself. Wintour is of course humanized and sympathized with by the films audience, by conveying her as a lonely and misunderstood hero of publishing. Perhaps, Wintour's performance is just as good as Streep's in “Devil.”

             Most of the documentaries that I watch today have a political or social intent. One of my favorites has been “Sicko,” about America's health care system. After watching the film, you ask yourself how we let it get this way, how did we let health care become a 'for-profit' industry when it is one of the most basic human needs? Director Michael Moore, takes us around the U.S. and the world on a mission to educate us on how wrong and devious this system has become. Yet, back to my original point, the definition of a documentary according to Dictionary.com is as follows, “a factual film or television programme about an event, person, etc, presenting the facts with little or no fiction.” Michael Moore doesn't include fiction in his work, but he does present a slanted view point, often that I agree with, but that isn't consistent with the strictest definition of an unbiased documentary presenting all sides of an argument and letting you decide what you believe. He blatantly tries to persuade you by leaving out details and facts that might having you standing on the other side of the political fence on this issue. Other documentaries I have seen recently that contain political or social messages are "Shut Up and Sing," about the controversy surrounding The Dixie Chicks after the comments they made about George W. Bush and " An Inconvenient Truth," about the global warming crisis. 

“An Inconvenient Truth,” is another example of a movie I love, but one which contains exaggerated and bloated facts, which many scientists have disputed. It was intended to motivate the audience into driving Prius's and to discontinue America from consuming beef, both of which would contribute to helping solve the global warming crisis. Yet, the facts are not completely accurate, as an article in the New York Times stated in 2007.

              What is the future of documentaries? Are they even really documentaries, or more like mockumentries, with the authors pushing their own slanted view onto their willing audience? I hope that the future of documentary filmmakers hold themselves to a higher standard of unbiased reporting. Another question is will they continue to go in a political, social, and educational direction as the trend recently has been? Or will we have more “Grey Gardens” type films, that give us a glimpse into a world most of us would never know? I think the answer is both. Documentaries will always be around and will continue to cover a large variety of topics that peek the human interest. Let's just hope future audiences keep them honest. 

 The New York Times Online. (2007).  From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html

Revised Forward, Backward, or Standing Still

Forward, Backward, or Standing Still?

          There have been many great African-American performers in the film industry since the 1900's, including Bill “Bojangkes” Robinson, Sidney Poitier, and more recently actors like Halle Berry, Denzel Washington, Will Smith and Don Cheadle. These pioneers, have paved the way for many other black actors to enter an industry that is less than welcoming at times. Yet, these current African-American actors still play into stereotypes of the past. You would think the characters they would choose to portray were beyond the choices of other black actors such as Tyler Perry and the Waynes brothers, but the truth is, they really aren't.

           Black people have been exploited in film for many years. They have been misrepresented as dumb, lazy, and animalistic in film culture. This blatant racism, constructed by white film makers and studio executives throughout Hollywood history is utterly disappointing. In recent years, more and more black film performers have been emerging, yet the image of black people on screen is still only slowly changing. I believe part of the reason for this is the fact that many of these African-American performers are giving in to the cultural stereotypes that have oppressed them for so many years by choosing to portray them. So, I suppose the question is 'why?' Why would black performers continue to project images of African-Americans in the way they were originally represented by racist white filmmakers of early Hollywood?

            As we saw in the film “Hollywood Shuffle,” many black actors are only offered roles that portray them as dumb servants, drug-dealers, or gang members. As an actor, if you have to chose between eating or playing a dumb servant, you play the dumb servant. And I sympathize with and understand African-American's who don't always get to take the higher road like Bobby Taylor did in “Hollywood Shuffle.” But, after a certain point in someone's career, when you have more options, why would you chose to continue down the degrading path that you were forced to take to get there? Not only does it pigeonhole you, but your peers and entire community as well.

           Denzel Washington is the greatest African-American actor of our time and perhaps of all time. He is an Academy Award winner for best actor and has also directed two major studio films, “Antwone Fisher” and “The Great Debaters.” In my opinion, Washington has done as much for the advancement of African-American's in film as Sydney Poitier. Yet, for his Academy Award win as Det. Alonzo Harris in “Training Day,” Washington portrayed a very stereotypical corrupt police officer, who will stop at nothing to get his way. Why couldn't it have been Ethan Hawke as the good guy and Washington as the bad guy? Just because he was given an award for this performance doesn't mean it does racial justice, in fact I feel it does the opposite. There are many roles that Washington has portrayed, that I feel were on par with or even better than his work in Training Day and that didn't include racial stereotypes. His performance in “Remember the Titans” was more than notable, yet he was not even nominated. Perhaps, it was because he didn't play a stereotypical black man, instead he played a football coach, a role rarely filled by an African-American in reality. 

Halle Berry's name is another that is associated with huge strides forward in film for black actors, yet has the same troubling track record for some of her “battered poor black women” roles, such as her 2002 Academy Award winning performance in “Monster's Ball.” In which, she plays a down and out poverty stricken black women, who gives into every bad stereotype we have of black people and on top of it becomes dependent on a white man in the end of the film, played by Billy Bob Thornton. In 2002, both Berry and Washington took the two top honors at the Academy Awards for best actor and actress, yet I wonder if this was step forward for the African-American film community? Both roles they portrayed were disappointingly stereotypical and I feel took steps backward in how African-American's are portrayed on screen. Berry was the first African-American actress to every receive the prestigious award. Also, 2002 was the first year in which both a black actor and actress won both top honors. So, with so many forward achievements, why are these great actors choosing to portray negative stereotypes that only end up holding the black film community back in the roles that have always been assigned to them?

          People like Tyler Perry and the Waynes brothers continuously reinforce negative stereotypes of black people, with characters like “Medea” played by Tyler Perry and Tyrone C. Love in “Requiem for a Dream,” played by Marlon Wanyes. Yet, other actors such as Berry and Washington are also doing it as well, just on a different more “prestigious” level. But I don't think it's prestigious at all. Why would these talented actors chose these roles? Is it because audiences want to see black people portrayed as cartoons of the past? Do they think it's entertaining to see black people made to look like poverty stricken fools or devious criminals? I don't believe the answer is 'yes', but perhaps I'm giving everyone too much credit. Wouldn't it be easier and more dignified to say 'no,' just as Bobby Taylor did? Or maybe it isn't that simple, to be honest, I can't say.

Revised Gay Cinema Blog

A New Dawn for Gay Cinema?

            In recent years we have seen more and more gay cinema, which is fantastic. But yet, for such a liberal arts community, we still haven't reached a completely contemporary place of acceptance, where gay films can be made without subliminal messages, suggesting this specific lifestyle is wrong or immoral. Or where actors who are gay, can live their lives out in the open. Although, there have been so many great ‘gay oriented’ movies in past years such as, “Brokeback Mountain”, “Milk” “Boy’s Don’t Cry”, “Capote”, “A Single Man”, and one of my favorites, “My Summer of Love.” “My Summer of Love” is one of my favorite movies of the new queer cinema movement. A friend of mine, Natalie Press, stars as a lonely and lost girl in rural England, being pushed by her brother to become an evaneglical Christian. She meets the alluring and sexy Emily Blunt, by chance one day, and Emily Blunt’s character leads her into a love affair that lasts over the course of one summer. What I love about this movie is that there is only one brief sex scene between the two characters. The love between these two people is shown through time spent together, doing such things as riding bikes through the country, sharing their most intimate secrets, and taking mushrooms and going to a disco class for old people. I love that the director, Pawel Pawlikowski, made the choice not to play into the sex appeal of lesbians for the benefit of certain members of the audience. He simply told a real love story that could have been about any two people. This is something that I really love about “Brokeback Mountain” as well; neither character was played as a flamboyantly gay person. They were played as real people who happened to fall in love.

The one thing that disappointed me about “My Summer of Love,” was the secondary storyline, where Press's character's brother be raids and forbids her from spending time with, the person who she thinks could be the love of her life, simply because she is another woman. Her born again Christian, yet very hypocritical brother (who hits her in one scene), is such a disappointing addition to this movie, that I feel it would have been better served without. It also reminds us of the age old and played-out message that homosexuality is wrong. I understand that the director may have been trying to speak out against bigots like the brother character, but I feel it was an unnecessary addition to the film. I think the message of open and accepting love would have been better transferred into the minds of the audience without this distracting addition.

            The Academy should be somewhat praised for giving more attention, in recent years to gay cinema, yet still many of the films they have chosen to recognize, such as Brokeback Mountain, still contain underlying messages that homosexuality is wrong. By Jake Gyllenhaal's character being killed in the end of the film and the two main love interests not being able to live a full life together, it subconsciously reinforces these old adages. I don't believe the writers or director Ang Lee, intentionally slipped this message into the film to make use believe these dated notions, yet some audience members could derive them subconsciously.

All the movies listed above were either nominated or critically acclaimed. The time when we should praise the Academy, is when they nominate a movie with gay content that doesn't contain these subliminal messages, because the whole world notices these films, and when it’s a movie like, “Milk,” the world becomes more educated and perhaps open minded. Even if it just makes them more ‘OK’ with watching a gay oriented movie, something is being accomplished, even if the all the formulas aren't perfect yet.

The expansion of the openly gay community into the entertainment world has brought new outlets to the public such as, “Logo.” Logo is a channel geared toward gay, bisexual, and transgender people. They have shows such as, “RuPaul’s Drag Race”, which is a contest show in which drag queens compete to be the best drag queen they can be. I think it’s great that a show like this can exist on television (even if it is on an obscure cable channel and seems to make a mockery of these people). I believe we may be on the verge of a new era, where you are less and less defined by your sexuality.

It’s very sad to see how the studio system used to (and still does) treat actors once they are openly gay, dropping people from contracts simply because of their sexuality is utterly wrong. Although, I have heard that Warner Brothers covered up James Dean’s homosexuality by setting him up with dates and girlfriends. It seems as though, as long as you were not open about your sexuality in the past, the studio would overlook it, but this doesn’t make it right. Even today, actors who are gay are not usually open about it, there are very few who are brave enough to be and they usually suffer because of it by being given only gay oriented roles.

            As a side note I find it very interesting that we as a country are more paranoid and prejudice toward gay people than countries like France and Italy. Yet, we have been making great strides in our cinema world to expand the way we think and to get rid of our previous stereotypical visions of gay people, still not enough is being done. And as it stated the out text book, perhaps the reason for this prejudice is due to the fact that we started out as a very conservative and religious country, but I think there are a growing number of people (especially in major cities) who are evolving to a new way of thinking, thanks to films like the ones listed above and to filmmakers and critics who are willing to be brave by making films that represent a growing community around the world.

Revised Sofia Blog

A Hollywood Dynasty

            As we have learned there have been great women directors throughout history, but more specifically in recent years. They range from, Penny Marshall, to Jodie Foster, to Barbra Streisand, to one of my favorites Sofia Coppola. Coppola, a new and young addition to this league of women, has directed four major studio movies, including “The Virgin Suicides,” “Lost in Translation,” “Marie Antoinette,” and her latest film “Somewhere.” Her young career has been one of hits and misses. She hit critical acclaim with her first two films “Virgin” and “Lost,” the latter being in my top five all time favorite films. Sofia Coppola speaks to a younger, hipper, and perhaps slightly lost generation. Her films reflect a playful femininity and yet a quiet sadness that I feel speaks to my generation, especially to women. She includes current trends into classic stories that make young audiences eager to watch her work.

            Sofia began her career as an actress, or rather the daughter of a major director (Francis Ford Coppola). At the age of 11, she took the stage name “Domino” and appeared in a few unknown films, along with her infamously panned performance in her father’s film “The Godfather III.” This sense of a lack of identity, during this time her life, may have transitioned into the common thread we all see in her work today. She transitioned into the role of director in 1996 with her first short “Bed, Bath and Beyond,” which focuses on a “British bombshell,” who is desperate for her husband to cast her in his film as a pop star. Her next short “Lick the Star,” came in 1998 and centers on a group of young school girls who devise a secret devious plan. Her studio feature debut came in the form of “The Virgin Suicides,” based on the book by Jeffery Eugenides. Her father played a key role in landing her the job at Paramount Classics (Paramount’s mini-major studio division), by coming on board as an executive producer. The choice proved successful for Coppola, earning her major critical acclaim. Her next film, “Lost in Translation” (2004) was a huge critical success and earned her an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. With “Translation,” she also became the youngest and first American women ever to be nominated for Best Director. (IMDB.com).

(Tagline: "Everyone wants to be found.")

            It seemed as though Coppola was on top of the world and could do no wrong in the eyes of critics and the public, until the release of “Marie Antoinette,” which received very mixed reviews. The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festive, where several members of the audience booed during parts of the film, yet it still received a standing ovation at the end. Is it true that once a director turns out one or two acclaimed films, they have a get-out-of-jail free card for a few misses? I would hope not. Excuses like that, do no one any good, especially the director themselves. Sofia’s work has seemed to center solely on women and their struggle to find themselves, until her latest film, “Somewhere.” The 2010 film, focuses on a rebellious jaded actor who becomes reunited with his young daughter. A similar theme exists in “Translation,” with actor Bill Murray playing a burnt-out aging actor lost in his own life and also the city of Tokyo. It will be interesting to see how Coppola let’s us peak into the life of another male or will we see mostly through the eyes of the female lead (Elle Fanning)?

            It doesn’t take a close look to see the theme of daughter and father in most of her work. It was rumored that “Translation” was a true story about her and the films star Bill Murray. The two differ in age by more than 30 years, Electra Complex anyone?  Growing up as the daughter of one of Hollywood’s “film school brats” can’t be easy and the thread of privileged women searching for themselves exits in all of her films.

Her cinematography is one of her trademark assets, with diffused light and hand-held shots that make you feel present in every one of her picturesque moments. Coppola is a director that makes us feel visually, allowing us as the audience to feel present in every frame of her work. The simplest, quietest moments powerfully penetrate our consciousness, turning a moving image into moving art, that can make you cry with only the slightest flicker of emotion on one of her character's faces.

I think an important thing to consider in regard to Sofia's career is whether she would be at the point she is without the nepotism granted to her by her father. Many other female directors struggle for years without a “Hollywood royalty” support system. Other female directors such as Penny Marshall have also been given opportunities due to the incestuous nature of Hollywood. We must consider the other female directors we have learned about, who didn't have it as easy, especially the African-American ones such as, Kasi Lemmons and Neema Barnette. This insinuation on my part does not mean I am discrediting her work, I think she is for the most part a fantastic director, but we need to consider the other female directors who have had to pull their way up rung by rung, who don't have a father that can green-light a studio movie by merely attaching his name as an executive producer. I understand the perspective of having to make it on your own without a Hollywood family support system by your side. With characters, that don't really have jobs, or missions of any real substance, they all seem to just be drifting though their lives, perhaps as Sofia was before she found her calling as a director. Sofia's privileged upbringing is also a theme that flows through most of her work. Sofia's privileged upbringing is also a theme that flows through most of her work. With characters, that don't really have jobs, or missions of any real substance, they all seem to just be drifting though their lives, perhaps as Sofia was before she found her calling as a director.

            Her much anticipated film, “Somewhere”, will be released later this year and only time will tell if her follow-up to the disappointing “Antoinette” will sit well with audiences and critics. But at the end of the day, Sofia is a director that makes studio movies that feel like independent films. They lift us up, and push us down, all while making us wonder what we would do if we were in the shoes of one of her characters. In fact, much of her storytelling is done in moments where no one aside from one character is present, allowing you to feel you are sitting in that taxi with Bill Murray gazing out at the glowing lights of Tokyo. Rather than telling us how to feel, she let’s us decide for ourselves, leaving a bit of mystery at the end of each movie. Such as in “Translation,” where Murray whispers something into Scarlett Johansson’s ear, which we the audience are not allowed privy to. It's too important of a moment to spoil with any line written by even the best director. It’s moments like this that keep us guessing what Coppola is trying to say, even in those quite moments when she isn't saying anything at all.

Topic: African-Americans and American film

Forward, Backward, or Standing Still?

          There have been many great African-American performers in the film industry since the 1900's, including Bill “Bojangkes” Robinson, Sidney Poitier, and more recently actors like Hallee Berry, Denzel Washington, Will Smith and Don Cheadle. These pioneers, have paved the way for many other black actors to enter an industry that is less than welcoming at times. Yet, there are many other black actors who uphold negative stereotypes of the past. Some examples of these performers are Tyler Perry and the Waynes brothers. These performers often play into old-fashioned and dated images of African-Americans that continue to hold them back.

           Black people have been exploited in film for many years. They have been misrepresented as dumb, lazy, and animalistic in film culture. This blatant racism, constructed by white film makers and studio executives throughout Hollywood history is utterly disappointing. In recent years, more and more black film performers have been emerging, yet the image of black people on screen is still only slowly changing. I believe part of the reason for this is the fact that many of these African-American performers are giving in to the cultural stereotypes that have oppressed them for so many years by choosing to portray them. So, I suppose the question is 'why?' Why would black performers continue to project images of African-Americans in the way they were originally represented by racist white filmmakers of early Hollywood?

            As we saw in the film “Hollywood Shuffle,” many black actors are only offered roles that portray them as dumb servants, drug-dealers, or gang members. As an actor, if you have to chose between eating or playing a dumb servant, you play the dumb servant. And I sympathize with and understand African-American's who don't always get to take the higher road like Bobby Taylor did in “Hollywood Shuffle.” But, after a certain point in someone's career, when you have more options, why would you chose to continue down the degrading path that you were forced to take to get there? Not only does it pigeonhole you, but your peers and entire community as well.

           Denzel Washington is the greatest African-American actor of our time and perhaps of all time. He is an Academy Award winner for best actor and has also directed two major studio films, “Antwone Fisher” and “The Great Debaters.” In my opinion, Washington has done as much for the advancement of African-American's in film as Sydney Poitier. I can't think of a single example of a role where Denzel played into any black stereotype. The earliest character I saw him portray was a quick witted and clever lawyer in 1980's educational movie about drunk driving. Hallee Berry's name is another that is associated with huge strides forward in film for black actors. In 2002, both Berry and Washington took the two top honors at the Academy Awards for best actor and actress. Berry was the first African-American actress to every receive the prestigious award and 2002 was the first year in which both a black actor and actress won both top honors. Like Washington, Berry has rarely, if ever, chosen to portray an negative black image, perhaps with the exception of “Monster's Ball”. So, with so many forward movements, why do some performers still seem to be running backwards?

          People like Tyler Perry and the Waynes brothers continuously reinforce negative stereotypes of black people, with characters like “Medea” played by Tyler Perry and Tyrone C. Love in “Requiem for a Dream,” played by Marlon Wanyes. I don't know the answer to the question I asked earlier, which is 'why?' Why would these talented actors chose these roles? Is it because audiences want to see black people portrayed as cartoons of the past? Do they think it's entertaining to see black people made to look like fools or devious criminals? I don't believe the answer is 'yes', but perhaps I'm giving everyone too much credit. Wouldn't it be easier and more dignified to say 'no,' just as Bobby Taylor did? Or maybe it isn't that simple, to be honest, I can't say.

Topic: Documentary Style

Documentaries: One of the Best Forms of Education

           One of my favorite types of film is the documentary. These films educate, inspire, and enlighten us to topics perhaps we never would have known about or have been as well-versed on. I have many favorite documentaries and I will tell you about a few of them in this blog. An interesting question is about the future of documentaries and what sort of topics will be covered. They have certainly changed over time, pertaining to the current issues facing society yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I have noticed that many of the early documentaries that I have seen consisted of human interest stories such as “Grey' Gardens” and “Harlan County USA.” These two documentaries both tell the story of the human condition and the struggles that go along with it. They also both touch on the subject of being trapped or stuck in certain conditions. If you watch “Grey Gardens” you can see how being trapped in that house with her mother would drive Little Edie insane. In “Harlan County USA,” you can understand the lack of options available to these people and how stuck they are in the line of work and socioeconomic situation they were born into. The more recent documentaries that I have seen, seem to consist of comments on political or world issues, these include, “An Inconvenient Truth,” “Shut Up and Sing,” “Capitalism: A Love Story,” and “Sicko,” just to name a few. 

            My favorite documentary of all time is “Grey Gardens.” This film by the Maysles brothers, tells the story of Edith Bouvier Beale and Edith “Little Edie” Bouvier Beale who were relatives of Jackie Kennedy-Onasis, and their existence in their sprawling dilapidated estate in East Hampton. The other inhabitants of their home include, raccoons, squires, rats, and a plethora of cats all of which they feed, while barely being able to feed themselves. You watch the film with pity for Little Edie having been trapped by her selfish mother for so many years, giving her whole life to care for her. It's sad to see all the promise and beauty that both the house and Little Edie both used to hold. In many ways, the house is an extension or representation of what has happened to Little Edie both inside and out. There are many moments where she is clearly having psychotic episodes, but is unaware of her bizarre behavior, giving into it even more, attempting to vie for the cameras every attention. The documentary has a mood of sadness and disparity while letting you into a home and it's inhabitants world, where no one had been in so many years. 

              “The September Issue” is another classic example of a film that gives us a look into an environment most of us will never experience. In it, we meet Anna Wintour, editor in chief of Vogue Magazine. The recent narrative film, “The Devil Wears Prada” was based on this cold (pun-intended) high-powered women who essentially runs the world of fashion. Wintour funded and produced the documentary in an attempt to disparage the insinuations made about her in “Devil.” We also get a look into the world of fashion and the daily life at Vogue, which is quite fascinating and surprisingly complex. Wintour is of course humanized and sympathized with by the films audience, by conveying her as a lonely and misunderstood hero of publishing.

             Most of the documentaries that I watch today have a political or social intent. One of my favorites has been “Sicko,” about America's health care system. After watching the film, you ask yourself how we let it get this way, how did we let health care become a 'for-profit' industry when it is one of the most basic human needs? Director Michael Moore, takes us around the U.S. and the world on a mission to educate us on how wrong and devious this system has become. The definition of a documentary according to Dictionary.com is as follows, “a factual film or television programme about an event, person, etc, presenting the facts with little or no fiction.” Michael Moore doesn't include fiction in his work, but he does present a slanted view point, often that I agree with, but that isn't consistent with the strictest definition of an unbiased documentary presenting all sides of an argument and letting you decide what you believe. Other documentaries I have seen recently that contain political or social messages are "Shut Up and Sing," about the controversy surrounding The Dixie Chicks after the comments they made about George W. Bush and " An Inconvenient Truth," about the global warming crisis. 

              What is the future of documentaries? Will they continue to go in a political, social, and educational direction as the trend recently has been? Or will we have more “Grey Gardens” type films, that give us a glimpse into a world most of us would never know? I think the answer is both. Documentaries will always be around and will continue to cover a large variety of topics that peek the human interest. Let's hope more and more keep being made so we can all vicariously experience and learn about as many topics as possible.

Topic: Modern Women Directors

The New Coppola

            As we have learned there have been great women directors throughout history, but more specifically in recent years. They range from, Penny Marshall, to Jodie Foster, to Barbra Streisand, to one of my favorites Sophia Coppola. Coppola has directed four major studio movies, including “The Virgin Suicides,” “Lost in Translation,” “Marie Antoinette,” and her latest film “Somewhere.” Her young career has been one of hit and miss. She hit critical acclaim with her first two films “Virgin” and “Lost,” the latter being in my top five all time favorite films. Sophia Coppola speaks to a younger, hipper, and perhaps slightly lost generation. Her films reflect a playful femininity and yet a quiet sadness that I feel speaks to my generation, especially to women. She includes current trends into classic stories that make young audiences eager to watch her work.

            Sophia began her career as an actress, or rather the daughter of a major director (Francis Ford Coppola). At the age of 11, she took the stage name “Domino” and appeared in a few unknown films, along with her infamously panned performance in her father’s film “The Godfather III.” She transitioned into the role of director in 1996 with her first short “Bed, Bath and Beyond,” which focuses on a “British bombshell” who is desperate for her husband to cast her in his film as a pop star. Her next short “Lick the Star” came in 1998 and centers on a group of young school girls who devise a secret plan. Her studio feature debut came in the form of “The Virgin Suicides,” based on the book by Jeffery Eugenides. Her father played a key role in landing her the job at Paramount Classics (Paramount’s mini-major studio division) by coming on board as an executive producer. The choice proved successful for Coppola earning her major critical acclaim. Her next film, “Lost in Translation” (2004) was a huge success and earned her an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. With “Translation,” she also became the youngest and first American women ever to be nominated for Best Director. (IMDB.com).

(Tagline: "Everyone wants to be found.")

            It seemed as though Coppola was on top of the world and could do no wrong in the eyes of critics and the public, until the release of “Marie Antoinette,” which received very mixed reviews. The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festive, where several members of the audience booed during parts of the film, yet it still received a standing ovation. Sophia’s work seemed to center solely on women and their struggle to find themselves, until her latest film, “Somewhere.” The 2010 film, centers on a rebellious jaded actor who becomes reunited with his young daughter. A similar theme exists in “Translation” with actor Bill Murray playing a burnt-out aging actor lost in his own life and the city of Tokyo. It will be interesting to see how Coppola let’s us peak into the life of another male or will we see mostly through the eyes of the female lead (Elle Fanning)?

            It doesn’t take a close look to see the theme of daughter and father in most of her work. It was rumored that “Translation” was a true story about her and the films star Bill Murray. The two differ in age by more than 30 years, Electra Complex anyone?  Growing up as the daughter of one of Hollywood’s “film school brats” can’t be easy and the thread of privileged women searching for themselves exits in all of her films. Her cinematography is one of her trademark assets, with diffused light and handheld shots that make you feel present in every one of her picturesque moments. Coppola is a director that makes us feel visually, allowing us as the audience to feel present in every frame of her work.

            Her much anticipated film, “Somewhere” will be release later this year and only time will tell if her follow-up to the disappointing “Antoinette” will sit well with audiences and critics. But at the end of the day Sophia is a director that makes studio movies that feel like independent films. They lift us up while making us wonder what we would do if we were in the shoes of one of her characters. Rather than telling us how to feel, she let’s us decide for ourselves, leaving a bit of mystery at the end of each movie. Such as in “Translation,” where Murray whispers something into Scarlett Johansson’s ear, which we the audience are not allowed privy to. It’s moments like this that keep us guessing what Coppola is trying to say, even in those quite moments when she isn't saying anything at all.