Favorite Documentaries of 2006
TOP 10
1) WHEN THE LEVEES BROKE: A REQUIEM IN FOUR ACTS
2) THE WAR TAPES
3) IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS
4) AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
**DELIVER US FROM EVIL
**THE DEVIL'S MINER
7) JESUS CAMP
8) THE GIANT BUDDHAS
**OUR DAILY BREAD
**SHAKESPEARE BEHIND BARS
**WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?
**51 BIRCH STREET
RUNNERS UP
49 UP
THE US VS. JOHN LENNON
NEIL YOUNG: HEART OF GOLD
DAVE CHAPELLE'S BLOCK PARTY
THE GROUND TRUTH
JONESTOWN: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PEOPLES TEMPLE
WHY WE FIGHT
THE JOY OF LIFE
THE DEVIL VS. DANIEL JOHNSTON
THE FALL OF FUJIMORI
Honorable Mention:
10th District Court:Moments of Trials, Ballet Russes, Street Fight, The Heart of the Game, American Hardcore, My Country My Country.
Not Seen Yet:
The Case of the Grinning Cat, Andy Warhol: A Documentary Film, Shut Up And Sing.
Disagreements are significant, or this is all a waste of time.
Quote:
"*Chris, in your review of the film you ponder the filmmaker's intentions and methods. Here's an interview which might shed some light."
Am I so wildly off the mark to think this implies that new information might alter my understanding of Geyhalter's intentions and methods so I might not think, as I state I do, that they're working against each other? I nowhere indicate I was pondering them; I had a clearcut analysis of them. I welcome fresh information, but you know I'm sure that when I am going to the NYFF press screenings I am bound to be reading all the press kit information. I realize you didn't know what was in the press kit, but still, this interview is obviously part of the basic information on the film.
Quote:
I have no interest in changing your mind about this or any other film. There's nothing I can do about you being "depressed or numbed" by it (as you conclude in your review). It doesn't make the film any better or worse. Your opinion is only that, it doesn't have more significance than mine or that of anyone else who watches the film.
You have always indicated that you value some writing about film more highly than others, as you should. I don't see why you always reject the idea in theory (but not in practice) that our evaluations have merit more than that of just "anyone else who watches the film," who may be an idiot, or unable to present a coherent position.
You don't seem to accept that I am evaluating, not just giving a personal reaction. I mention being "depressed and numbed" because that is what I think the effect of the film is on a lot of people; I am not noting my clinical condition. What you can do about it is to acknowledge that it's a quality of the film, and not just a meaningless reaction of one person. And don't insult me by suggesting that anybody's opinion (which you haven't heard, and don't have in writing as you have my review) is equal to mine or yours. If we cannot influence each other, then I don't see why we bother to have these exchanges. I can assure you that your arguments about films have changed my mind about them many times. The problem about being numbed is that you are not influenced, as a polemical film will do; you're just numbed. So it does make the film "better or worse"; it is a part of an argument about the film's merits.