Why are documentaries all so depressing?
So in lieu of actually accomplishing anything of merit this weekend, I spent two days watching documentaries and eating soft pretzels from Wawa. Here is what I learned.
Project Nim - Project Nim was kind of the linguistic equivalent of Nazis dunking gypsies in tanks of ice water just to see what happened. Except instead of Nazis, you had hippies, so they were only cruel by accident. Also Herb Terrace is a massive twat.
The Devil and Daniel Johnston - Fascinating stuff, an interesting biography, although I don't think the film goes as deeply into the interaction of genius and mental illness as much as it perhaps intended to. Frankly I still consider Johnston's art and music to be puerile, and the fact that he's mentally ill doesn't lend them some sort of deeper meaning.
Capturing the Friedmans - Something probably went wrong with the investigation and we have to ask some troubling questions about the interplay between police, public, and the media, and how it can impact justice. But I don't think the Friedmans were innocent. And I feel that the filmmaker slanted things that way enough (leaving out some important facts about the case to make them look better) that I'm suspicious of drawing that conclusion based on the film. At any rate, two facts are unassailable: it's right and good that the Nassau County prosecutor is reexamining the case, and watching this family self-destruct is fascinating and disturbing.
The Art of the Steal - Entirely plausible and alarmingly predictable outcome. One of the most interesting undercurrents here that I'm not sure is really adequately explored by anyone is the intersection of differing philosophies of culture. Dr. Barnes' ideas were very admirable in some senses, as he felt art should be the province of those interested in bettering their minds, not socialites and billionaires who needed to decorate their guest bathrooms. On the other hand, his efforts to keep his art out of the hands of the Philly establishment that he felt catered too much to the latter group were at odds with the philosophy that holds that art is a public treasure that ought to be accessible to everyone: that's the basic principle of museums, even if museums are now frequently concerned primarily with money as a practical matter. It seems to me that there's a discussion to be had here about the clash of private control of art (as embodied in the Barnes Trust) and public control of art. I recognize that's not the movie the director was making, and I'm not criticizing that, I'm just saying I think there's another angle that would be interesting to explore.
I may rewatch In the Realms of the Unreal later, it's interesting and it probably won't piss me off too much. It's just weird and fascinating.
Project Nim - Project Nim was kind of the linguistic equivalent of Nazis dunking gypsies in tanks of ice water just to see what happened. Except instead of Nazis, you had hippies, so they were only cruel by accident. Also Herb Terrace is a massive twat.
The Devil and Daniel Johnston - Fascinating stuff, an interesting biography, although I don't think the film goes as deeply into the interaction of genius and mental illness as much as it perhaps intended to. Frankly I still consider Johnston's art and music to be puerile, and the fact that he's mentally ill doesn't lend them some sort of deeper meaning.
Capturing the Friedmans - Something probably went wrong with the investigation and we have to ask some troubling questions about the interplay between police, public, and the media, and how it can impact justice. But I don't think the Friedmans were innocent. And I feel that the filmmaker slanted things that way enough (leaving out some important facts about the case to make them look better) that I'm suspicious of drawing that conclusion based on the film. At any rate, two facts are unassailable: it's right and good that the Nassau County prosecutor is reexamining the case, and watching this family self-destruct is fascinating and disturbing.
The Art of the Steal - Entirely plausible and alarmingly predictable outcome. One of the most interesting undercurrents here that I'm not sure is really adequately explored by anyone is the intersection of differing philosophies of culture. Dr. Barnes' ideas were very admirable in some senses, as he felt art should be the province of those interested in bettering their minds, not socialites and billionaires who needed to decorate their guest bathrooms. On the other hand, his efforts to keep his art out of the hands of the Philly establishment that he felt catered too much to the latter group were at odds with the philosophy that holds that art is a public treasure that ought to be accessible to everyone: that's the basic principle of museums, even if museums are now frequently concerned primarily with money as a practical matter. It seems to me that there's a discussion to be had here about the clash of private control of art (as embodied in the Barnes Trust) and public control of art. I recognize that's not the movie the director was making, and I'm not criticizing that, I'm just saying I think there's another angle that would be interesting to explore.
I may rewatch In the Realms of the Unreal later, it's interesting and it probably won't piss me off too much. It's just weird and fascinating.