“Before we got democracy, Andy was totally forbidden.”

Polish Filmmaker Stanislaw Mucha had a great idea–to travel to a remote area of Slovakia and discover Andy Warhol’s roots. Both of Warhol’s parents came from the village of Mikova and immigrated to America. In the bizarre documentary “Absolut Warhola”, Mucha travels to Mikova and uncovers several of Warhol’s aunts and cousins. One cousin in particular looks uncannily like Warhol, and another relative replicates Warhol’s art in needlework.

Andy Warhol (Andrijko Varchola) is something of a legend to the people of Mikova–even though most of them really have no idea exactly what he’s famous for. As one person says, “we knew he was a painter” but for a long time they didn’t know if he “painted rooms or houses.” Everyone interviewed has theories about Warhol. They all seem to be in agreement that it just wasn’t possible that Warhol was homosexual because no homosexuals ever came from Mikova. Along with this belief, come several other incorrect theories that Warhol’s wife shot him, she made him turn to men, etc. These interviews take on a surreal quality–especially when the filmmaker doggedly and valiantly tries to present the facts.

There’s also a trip to the Warhol museum in Medzilaborce–with its leaky roof, its rock singer curator, and its unwritten ban on gypsies. It doesn’t take long to realize that:

1)”Absolut Warhola” is as peculiar as its subject.
2) Warhol’s Slovakian background influenced his style. Mikova is an amazingly bleak and poverty-stricken area, but one cannot help noticing the gorgeous icons and their uncanny similarities to Warhol’s art.

While based on an extraordinarily original idea, the filmmaker’s deft handling of the material cannot cover the lack of substance here. A lot of the merriment comes from the bizarre characters trouped out for entertainment–the amateur trumpet player, the hostile shopkeeper, and the Andy Warhol Doppelganger who plays an accordion on the shell of a Soviet tank. There must be normal people in Mikova, but for the purposes of this film, they do not appear. And here’s a final thought–whatever would Warhol have thought of Mikova if he’d lived long enough to travel there, and what would the residents of the village have thought of him? For those interested in Warhol, or for anyone who wants to just watch something really odd, then “Absolut Warhola” is for you. In Slovak with English subtitles

“Death and dying followed us through filming.”

Silence=Death is one part of a trilogy of films on the subject of AIDS from German director Rosa von Praunheim. Von Praunheim, a prominent Gay Rights activist in Germany creates a film that focuses on the impact of AIDS on the artistic community of New York. According to von Praunheim–continued silence about the devastating effects of the virus results in ignorance and more deaths–hence the film’s title: Silence=Death.

Von Praunheim interviews those dying, those newly diagnosed, and those left behind after the loss of a loved one. One interview includes the poet Allen Ginsburg as he shares his feelings about being gay in an AIDS inflicted world. Ginsburg states that “the planet itself has AIDS” and draws comparisons between the symptoms of the virus and ecological damage and devastation wreaked upon the planet.

Many of those interviewed express feelings of anger and isolation, and stress how the disease effectively silenced and alienated them. One man describes rage when hearing the callous statements of several politicians–another man describes joining an AIDS support group and seeing all the other members die. Interviews with artists underscore the idea that many feel the desire to “leave something” behind. Von Praunheim takes the camera to a showing of the AIDS quilt–an event that leaves most viewers devastated by a sense of loss. The film also explores how many artists are galvanized by their experiences with AIDS and feel socially obligated to convert concern, thoughts, and rage into their work. Poets, performance artists, models are included in clips in a range of activities. One man reluctantly agrees to show the paintings of his dead brother to von Praunheim while simply and eloquently explaining how AIDS altered his brother’s work.

The films in von Praunheim’s trilogy are considered some of the most important documentaries on the subject of AIDS. But that doesn’t make them particularly easy to watch. Some of the scenes are extremely graphic and shocking (one scene is of a mouth sewn shut while blood oozes out of the wounds). Silence=Death was made in 1990, and AIDS awareness has increased sufficiently to make much of this material rather dated. Nonetheless, this 60-minute film gives a historical perspective to AIDS, and this continues to make it valuable.

“The dangers of its foods are universally known.”

In order to examine “the obesity epidemic that is sweeping America”, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock decides to eat McDonald’s food for one entire month–that’s three meals a day, and there are certain rules to this insanity: he has to eat everything on the menu at least once, and if he’s asked to ‘Super Size’ his meal, he will do so. Three doctors are on hand to monitor Spurlock before, after and during the process. There’s a cardiologist, a general practitioner, and a gastroenterologist. During this one month period as Spurlock begins “embarking on a one month McDonald’s binge,” Spurlock’s, weight, vitals, and blood values are all recorded. And these pre-binge numbers are then compared to tests run during Spurlock’s one-month food trial.

Obviously no one is supposed to eat three meals a day at McDonalds, and since most of us know that one meal alone offers far more calories than a regular meal at home (especially when you Super Size it or add a parfait), it seems like common sense that you’d put on weight in one month. But that’s not the point.

Spurlock’s method is a blend of sensationalism and guerilla tactics. This leaves us, the audience–in these days of reality TV when we can turn on the television and watch silly people eating large disgusting insects or unmentionable body parts of various animals–as the voyeurs. Will Spurlock really do this to himself? And so we watch–partially with glee and partially with distaste–as Spurlock begins wolfing down his Big Macs with increasingly LESS gusto as the film continues. Eating McDonalds solely for a month is preposterous, but really–would we want to watch this if he ate there for one meal a day for a year? The sensationalism is just the hook to get us in, and it works.

Spurlock tackles the question, “where does personal responsibility stop and corporate responsibility begin?” by examining the lawsuit brought by two obese teenage girls against McDonald’s for making them overweight. The case was thrown out. Spurlock compares the lawsuits against the tobacco industry–and compares the marketing tactics of the tobacco industry with the fast food industry–both deliberately marketing to children. We can all remember those lawsuits against the tobacco industry. And to those of us already enlightened against the dangers of tobacco, the suits seemed gratuitous. After all, no one made people smoke. They could stop anytime. But then as the lawsuits against the tobacco industry proceeded, other salient facts emerged–the nicotine amounts placed in the cigarettes to ensure addiction, and the deliberate targeting of children, for example. Spurlock argues that this sort of marketing exists with the fast food industry–the playgrounds, the little free toys, the kiddy meals–all of this is intended, he states, to lock the children in to certain habits and addict them.

But beyond just McDonalds, Spurlock examines America’s eating habits. Footage of Spurlock eating his McDonald’s meals is broken up with various facts and figures about the growing legions of those in America considered obese. He skewers the school cafeteria system with their coke machines and packaged, sugar laden foods. There’s footage of school children grabbing their cafeteria meals–sometimes just french fries, and school children who can identity pictures of Ronald McDonalds while they can’t identify photos of George Bush. Various people discuss the progression of food manufacturers towards increasingly larger and larger portions, the jargon of the industry, and the subject of addiction. While the documentary Super Size Me is obviously an intensely personal film, it also packs an amazingly powerful punch. An examination of the subject was long overdue, and deep thanks to renegade director, Spurlock–who cared enough to tackle this subject.

“You cannot tell people they can’t fall in love.”

“Tying the Knot”, a documentary from Jim de Seve examines the extremely controversial topic of gay marriage. The documentary blends footage of protests, comments by historians, and speeches by politicians with the very real dilemmas faced by gay couples in America. Years ago, I naively thought that just leaving a will would take care of a surviving gay partner. “Tying the Knot” examines the fate of two gay couples and these stories illustrate how the law fails to protect the surviving partner in the event of death. One of the couples–Mickie and Lois–policewomen in Florida–went through a marriage ceremony together, but after Lois’s death in the line of duty, her pension did NOT fall to her partner–but to her family instead. In another example, Earl and Sam lived together for 22 years, and after Sam’s death, Earl was supposed to inherit his property. A technicality in Sam’s will swung in Sam’s cousin’s favour, and Earl was tossed out of his former home. If gay marriage were legal, both Mickie and Earl would have been recognized as the surviving spouse, and they would have received all the associated benefits from that. But instead, both Mickie and Earl–not only have to cope with their grief and loss of a life partner, but also have to cope with all the legal fallout from the law’s failure to recognize them as little more than roommates. As the filmmaker points out, marriage “takes care” of all the legalities “with one stroke.”

But the documentary also raises some thought-provoking questions that go beyond just asking who gets the property in the event of a death. Gay marriage–by granting legal status–also guarantees many other legal protections–even such innocuous rights as hospital visitation, for example. What exactly is so offensive about allowing gays to marry–isn’t marriage about “fidelity, and commitment”? And yet those opposed to gay marriage use the “big lie of the Family Value debate”–the idea that gays just want to get married so they can ruin the institution for some bizarre reason.

The film shows gay activists visiting city hall and trying to apply for marriage licenses on Valentine’s Day. Somehow, when you see the gay couples lined up (some have been together for decades), it just seems ridiculous that they are turned away. The film argues that the institution of marriage has altered through the ages to accommodate social changes, and it uses the example of an interracial couple–the Lovings–who married in the 1960s at a time in which their union was not recognized by the state they lived in.

While I doubt that “Tying the Knot” will change the minds of those vehemently opposed to gay marriage, it’s likely that the film will open the minds of those who wonder what the big debate is all about. Why does anyone get married? Love, commitment and security all seem like valid reasons marriage, and as one man remarked in the film “If you don’t like same sex marriage, don’t have one.”

“Cuba is an obsession with American leaders.”

The documentary film, “Fidel” examines the life of Cuban leader, Fidel Castro. Beginning with his childhood as one of 7 children of a Cuban sugar planter, the film traces Castro’s political life. Castro grew up under the Batista regime, became a revolutionary leader, and eventually toppled Batista’s American backed government. The story of Castro’s military triumph is a remarkable one. The film also traces Castro’s ejection of American corporations from the big businesses of Cuba, and the ever-souring relations between Castro and the U.S.

One of the interviewees argues “the U.S. is essentially incapable of dealing rationally with Castro.” The film contains footage of Castro’s early visit to America in 1959 when he was hailed as a revolutionary hero. America’s relations with Castro went downhill from there, and after it became clear that Castro didn’t think that American business interests were the best thing for Cuba, and the Cuban people, there were CIA assassination plots, and of course, the Cuban missile crisis, and the infamous Bay of Pigs incident.

I particularly enjoyed the footage of Castro’s trip to the U.S. when he was invited to the U.N. He was turfed out of his swanky hotel, threatened to pitch a tent on the grounds of the U.N and was subsequently invited to the hotel Theresa–free of charge in Harlem. Castro accepted, and the film includes photos from Castro’s stay there–including photos of Malcolm X’s visit to Castro.

The film includes a great deal of information regarding Cuba’s involvement with African politics, and there are interviews with Harry Belafonte, Alice Walker, Angela Davis, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and various experts on American relations with Cuba. The film illustrates Castro’s charisma and personality, and his sense of humour is evident. The film, however, is extremely light in its treatment of Castro’s relationship with Che, and exactly what was involved in Che’s departure from Cuba. All we see is Castro and Che as revolutionary friends, and then Castro bringing back Che’s remains from Bolivia–the whole story of their post revolutionary relationship is gone. This is a pivotal part of Castro’s history, and no doubt it’s missing from the film due to the unflattering light it sheds on Castro. The film also does not even mention the Cuban prisoners dumped on the U.S during the period of the Mariel boatlift in 1980.

Castro has “outlived 9 U.S presidents”, foiled numerous assassination attempts, and he’s single-handedly defied the most powerful, militaristic nation on the planet. No wonder he’s not a favourite for American policymakers. But he is a great subject for a documentary, and those wishing to learn more will enjoy the film–even it doesn’t give a complete picture of its subject.

“The believers believed it, and the unbelievers didn’t.”

The Fairy Faith, a documentary from filmmaker John Walker explores the mysterious world of fairies. Walker’s grandmother believed in them, and on a quest to answer some of the lingering questions from his past, Walker travels to Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Skye before returning to Cape Breton. At these spectacularly beautiful locations, Walker interviews a variety of colourful characters–who all believe in fairies to one degree or another. He interviews a harpist, an artist, a paranormal specialist, and a Celtic mythology professor amongst others. Most of those interviewed have never personally seen fairies–nonetheless their faith is unshakeable. Walker saves the interviews with those who claim to have seen fairies to the end of the film.

The film explores some of the folklore associated with fairies, but I was a little disappointed that the film did not mention the Cottlingley fairy incident of the 19th century. As it is, the comments made by interviewees remain largely anecdotal–although the film did touch on the idea that fairies were co-opted and altered by the Victorians.

For those interested in fairies, the film has some interesting segments. Skeptics will probably laugh their heads off. If the film is supposed to convince viewers of the existence of fairies, I think it fails due to the over reliance on anecdotal comments. Some additional scholarly material would not have been amiss. As is, the film is a pleasant–and pretty–diversion.

“This kid’s got some moves, man.”

Elvis impersonators have always fascinated me, so when I heard about the documentary “Almost Elvis: Elvis Impersonators and Their Quest for the Crown” I knew I had to watch it. “Almost Elvis” follows the trials and tribulations of several Elvis impersonators as they compete in the annual Images of Elvis contest held in Graceland (where else). The film begins with a regional contest that awards a $1,000 prize and qualifies an Elvis impersonator, the gregarious Irv Cass for a spot in the Graceland competition. We see the impersonators (even a 15 year old) behind the stage and performing. Some impersonators resort to fake sideburns, and others resort to plastic surgery.

One of the things I’ve never understood about Elvis impersonators is that so many of them don’t really look like Elvis. The documentary set me straight, and tossed my pre-conceived notions to the winds. Apparently, it’s not strictly necessary to be Elvis’s twin–it’s the goal of any self-respecting Elvis impersonator, apparently, to create the “illusion of Elvis.” There can be only one King, and the impersonators must never, ever refer to themselves as Elvis.

In addition to examining the impersonators, this fascinating documentary takes the viewer into the Cult of Elvis–we see the fans, and even get a few juicy quotes from a bona fide Elvis scholar who analyzes the “nature vs. nurture theory” of Elvis impersonators and the fact that for Elvis fans, it’s necessary for Elvis “to be embodied and present” through the impersonators. We also meet the colourful costume maker–a man with a theory about Elvis and world peace, and we get a behind the scenes look at how these costumes (which range from $1,000-$4,000) are made.

DVD extras include: the trailer, a segment of the making of the film, bios, Mystery Elvis, media interviews, and extra scenes. Elvis fans–and the curious–will find this documentary a fascinating, entertaining glimpse into another world. Thoroughly enjoyable.

“Love and pleasure have always made the world go around.”

The documentary film “Mondovino” from Jonathan Nossiter takes the viewer on an international journey to the vineyards of Tuscany, Argentina, France, and Napa Valley. Footage includes interviews with wine importers, wine consultants, wine critics, retailers, experts, and small and mega wine producers. The film’s argument is that the wine business has been taken over from the small producers and now the market is driven by the mega producers (Mondavi, for example) who have changed the ‘face’ of the wine industry by hammering in conformity and moving away from “old wines”. This change in the wine industry is fueled, the film argues, by money and wine critics “who can make or break a wine” with one glowing article in the Wine Spectator magazine.

The film focuses on the Mondavi attempt to break into the French wine industry. The Mondavi empire’s plan to expand on French soil involved flattening a hill. Activists, The Citizens for the Protection of the Forest (aided by a “communist mayor”) squashed the Mondavi plan, and eventually, Mondavi moved on to more pliable pastures in Italy.

Nossiter allows his subjects to do the talking. We hear some wine makers speak about the spiritual aspects of wine, and others talk in terms of the numbers of bottles sold per year. There’s no avoiding the fact that there’s big money in the wine industry, and one wine critic has his nose and palate insured for 1 million dollars. The wine industry, apparently, includes all sorts, and this includes the Staglins who live in Napa and have a view of the Mondavi estates. The Staglins invite the filmmaker to their spectacular estate, and we have a glimpse of a garden full of expensive pretentious art. The Staglins proudly boast their workers are just like family–being family in this case means “a free hat or a t-shirt” for each worker.

For those even moderately interested in wine (me, for example), the film has a great deal of fascinating info to offer. It should come as no shock that money and advertising promotes the wine of the mega producers, but it’s still interesting to hear the theories each wine producer–the large, small, and micro–have to offer on the theory of taste, aging, “terroir”, individuality etc.

Some of the film includes sped-up hand held camera movements that are annoying. I wanted to see the scenery and the vineyards, but instead, at times I felt as though I was swinging around in one of those dreadful amusement rides. I found Nossiter’s visit to the poverty stricken winemaker in Argentina particularly interesting, and of all the wines, his bottles seemed the most intriguing. In his squalid hut, without fancy equipment, and with no limousine driven, jet setting wine consultants at his beck and call, was this humble wine any different, any better?

“Let me think…”

French philosopher Jacques Derrida died in Oct 2004, but a few years before his death filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering Kofman made Derrida the focus of this documentary film. Ultimately, as one would expect, Derrida is a slippery, complicated subject, but the filmmakers doggedly pursue their goal and film Derrida at several locations–including: his home, in New York, and in South Africa. This meditative film intersperses quotes from Derrida’s work with formal interviews, and casual moments of his daily life.

While Derrida good-naturedly suffers the film crew stuffed inside his home, he seems to become a little exasperated at some of the questions. When asked about the subject of love, at first, Derrida impatiently replies that he has “an empty head” on the subject, but he soon warms up to the task and provides some interesting insights. Derrida also discusses being tossed out of school for being Jewish–an experience that affected him profoundly. At one point, he’s interviewed for television, and the interviewer tries to get Derrida to relate Seinfield to Deconstruction. There’s a hopeless mismatch between the interviewer and her subject here, and this merely underscores that idea that most people are going to be hopelessly out of their depth with Derrida, and again, this makes him a tough subject to capture on film.

Derrida’s constant awareness of the process of self-examination works overtime in several scenes when he criticizes the format of the interview, and he argues that there’s an essential problem with biography. Biographies are, he notes, “often written by people in respected positions,” and then the book version of events becomes the accepted “truth.” Derrida quotes Heidegger on the subject of Aristotle: “He was born. He thought and he died. All the rest is anecdote.” Ultimately, Derrida is full of anecdote about its subject. The filmmakers do not attempt to present a Derrida-in-a-nutshell film, so don’t look here for a thorough analysis of his philosophy. Instead, we are left with elusive impressions of a complex mind.

“A little behaviour modification….”

In order to investigate the phenomenon of Fetishism, British filmmaker, Nick Broomfield haunts the halls of Pandora’s Box, a club that caters to clients with certain tastes. For a membership fee, clients arrange sessions with various mistresses employed at the club. Broomfield spent two months in Pandora’s Box filming the mistresses, the clients and some of the day-to-day operations. The documentary covers a range of fetishes, and as Broomfield says at one point, “just as I thought I’d seen it all…”

Broomfield explains that it’s estimated that 14% of men and 11% of women have some sort of fetish. Pandora’s Box is owned and operated by former dominatrix, Mistress Raven. Clients are carefully screened regarding their special tastes. Many of the clients hold high-powered jobs–attorneys, CEOs, Wall Street brokers, etc. Broomfield interviews several of the mistresses, trying to discover what–if anything–in their past indicated that they would eventually work in Pandora’s Box. Of particular interest is Mistress Raven who counters Broomfield’s attempts at understanding with a mind probe of her own. Clearly Broomfield finds her fascinating and impenetrable. Broomfield’s questions are not condescending but are based in genuine curiosity. Nonetheless, his presence obviously annoys some of the mistresses on various occasions when he steps over the line. At one point a session rapidly spins out-of-control, and I’m a bit vague about Broomfield’s role and responsibility for this incident.

Some of the transactions that take place in Pandora’s Box will probably be accepted with understanding, and some the viewer may reject. One of the most fascinating elements about this sort of taboo-raising documentary is the reaction one feels. We learn something about ourselves when watching the “transfer of power and control” of others. There’s a great deal here to think about, and I, for one found “Fetishes” quite riveting. The easily offended are unlikely to try this DVD–there is some nudity, and some of the naughty bits are fuzzed out.