More stories

  • in

    'Framing Britney Spears' Filmmakers Talk About Their Process

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Britney Spears’s Legal BattleControl of Spears’s EstateThe ‘Free Britney’ MovementWatch ‘Framing Britney Spears’ in the U.S.Making the DocumentaryAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTimes InsiderBehind the Making of ‘Framing Britney Spears’The director and a senior editor of the Times documentary answered viewer questions about the media response, the star’s mother and searching for clues on Instagram.A new documentary from The New York Times examines the so-called Free Britney movement made up of fans of the pop star Britney Spears.CreditCredit…G. Paul Burnett/The New York TimesFeb. 11, 2021Updated 2:22 p.m. ETTimes Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.The premiere last week of the film “Framing Britney Spears,” part of the TV documentary series “The New York Times Presents,” looked closely at Ms. Spears’s legal battle with her father, Jamie Spears, over control of her finances. For more than a decade, that control has been held largely by Mr. Spears in a conservatorship, a complex legal arrangement typically used for the sick or elderly.Since the film’s release on FX and Hulu, celebrities and fans have expressed their support for Ms. Spears on social media. The latest court hearing in the fight was scheduled for Thursday in Los Angeles. On Wednesday, Samantha Stark, the director, and Liz Day, a senior editor on the film, answered questions from readers in an “Ask Me Anything” session on the website Reddit. The following are edited excerpts.Were there any legal hurdles you faced in making the film?LIZ DAY We did not receive any direct legal threats while making the documentary. Reporting any investigative story requires extreme attention to factual accuracy and fairness, and this project was no different, though it was made even more difficult by an ongoing court case, attorney-client privilege, medical privacy, celebrity nondisclosure agreements, distrust of the press and other factors.What is the involvement of Lynne Spears, Britney’s mother, in all of this?SAMANTHA STARK So what we know about Lynne Spears is that she is not legally a part of Britney’s conservatorship team. We know she recently petitioned to be included to have access to more information and to be able to have her lawyer speak during the hearings, and that she filed as an “interested party” to do that.It’s unclear what involvement Lynne had related to the conservatorship up until recently. In a Nov. 10 hearing, Lynne said, through her lawyer (and I’m paraphrasing) that she thanked Jamie for the work he had been doing but that she wanted Britney to wake up to see brighter days. It’s very hard to understand what role Jamie, Lynne or a number of other people have played throughout the conservatorship because so many of the court records are sealed.What’s your view on the media response to the documentary? It feels as if many of the outlets that disparaged Britney years ago are now doing thinkpieces about how the media destroyed her.STARK There’s one thing I noticed in the past week doing interviews with media outlets that I never even thought of before the film came out. When Britney was being shamed for her sexuality as a teenager and stalked as a young adult, the gatekeepers to all these media outlets — the ones doing the shaming — were in their 30s, 40s, 50s. We as teenagers watched that happen. Now that my/our generation are a lot of the gatekeepers, we’re saying “no more.”How should those media outlets respond after playing a part in all the derision that Britney endured?STARK I think they should respond by not ever doing anything like it ever again. I think they should take a note from Britney’s book and be kindhearted, open and nonjudgmental.Did you contact any of Britney’s ex-husbands or boyfriends, like Jason Alexander, Kevin Federline, Jason Trawick or Charlie Ebersol, or some of her photographers/videographers, like David LaChappelle and Nigel Dick?DAY Yes, at the end of the doc we listed the members of Ms. Spears’s family who we requested on-camera interviews with but who did not respond or declined. But we reached out to a lot more people than just that list, including the ex-husbands/boyfriends mentioned. We spoke with Nigel Dick and reached out to David LaChappelle too. There were many people we spoke with on background who did not appear on camera. There were also a few people whose on-camera interviews we did not include because of time.Britney Spears hasn’t been able to fully control her career for 13 years under a court-sanctioned conservatorship. A New York Times documentary, now streaming on FX and Hulu, examines the pop star’s court battle with her father for control of her estate.CreditCredit…Ting-Li Wang/The New York TimesWhat are your thoughts on the obsessive Britney fans who question and dissect her social media posts?STARK There’s such a tight circle around Ms. Spears, seemingly enabled by the conservatorship, that it’s really hard to ask her how she is or what she thinks. We know that she hasn’t done interviews in a long time and that when she did for many years she was likely under very careful watch. So I honestly think it makes sense for people to look to her Instagram to try and parse how she might be doing. It’s the only place we’ve been able to see or hear from her for quite some time.Did you look at the financial records? Forbes has estimated her wealth at $60 million. Shouldn’t it be higher?DAY Excellent question. Britney’s true net worth is a mystery, and there’s speculation that there may be a lot more money beyond $60 million outside of her estate, in trusts or elsewhere as royalties, intellectual property and more. There are lots of companies set up as private LLCs, of which records are scant. One thing I would add is that often when you hear big Hollywood paychecks, you have to consider everyone who is taking a cut — managers, lawyers and government taxes, for example.Did you expect this film would result in a big resurgence of the #FreeBritney movement?STARK When making a film, I never know what parts of the piece will hit people in the emotional gut. I really had no idea this would happen.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    ‘Ruth: Justice Ginsburg in Her Own Words’ Review: Still Notorious

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgObituaryJudicial LegacyHonored at CapitolHer Advice for LivingPhotosAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘Ruth: Justice Ginsburg in Her Own Words’ Review: Still NotoriousThis documentary puts her words front and center, relying on clips to provide a sweeping view of her ideals.Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the film “Ruth: Justice Ginsburg in Her Own Words.”Credit…American Film Foundation/Virgil FilmsFeb. 11, 2021, 7:00 a.m. ETRUTH – Justice Ginsburg in her own WordsDirected by Freida Lee MockDocumentaryNot Rated1h 29mFind TicketsWhen you purchase a ticket for an independently reviewed film through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.Despite what its title may imply, the documentary “Ruth: Justice Ginsburg in Her Own Words” does not recount Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s career through her words alone. But it does put her words front and center, relying on video and audio clips — of an address she gave as a law professor on the Equal Rights Amendment, of her Supreme Court confirmation process, of her arguments before and from the bench — to provide a sweeping view of her ideals.[embedded content]Little here will seem new to those who paid attention to Ginsburg’s career or watched the Oscar-nominated documentary “RBG” (2018). But the director, Freida Lee Mock, repeatedly returns to the idea that change comes in steps. We hear from Jennifer Carroll Foy, who attended Virginia Military Institute after the Supreme Court’s Ginsburg-authored decision in United States v. Virginia led to the school opening to women, and from Lilly Ledbetter, who lost a dispute over pay discrimination suits before the court but whose case (and Ginsburg’s dissent) paved the way for the subsequent Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.While there may be no bad time to listen to Justice Ginsburg, this documentary, first shown in 2019 and finalized last year, is getting a release belated enough that it needs updating. Justice Ginsburg’s death in September is acknowledged only an “in memoriam” title card; when Irin Carmon, an author of “Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” says that Ginsburg is “in great shape,” it’s difficult not to cringe. And though filled with valuable details, the documentary has the misfortune of arriving after countless other appraisals.Ruth: Justice Ginsburg in Her Own WordsNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 29 minutes. In virtual cinemas.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    ‘There Is No “I” in Threesome’ Review: Monogamy Alternatives

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘There Is No “I” in Threesome’ Review: Monogamy AlternativesA director and his fiancée chronicle their yearlong open relationship in this documentary that offers a clever examination of perspective.Jan Oliver Lucks, right, with Zoe in the documentary “There Is No ‘I’ In Threesome.”Credit…HBO MaxFeb. 11, 2021, 7:00 a.m. ETThere Is No I in ThreesomeDirected by Jan Oliver LucksDocumentary1h 27mFind TicketsWhen you purchase a ticket for an independently reviewed film through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.The documentary “There Is No ‘I’ in Threesome” (on HBO Max) begins with a couple stripping naked atop a high diving board. Giddy and clasping hands, they brace for the jump.The director Jan Oliver Lucks, who goes by Ollie, and his fiancée Zoe are taking the plunge into an open relationship. Living on opposite sides of New Zealand, the long-distance duo are free to date and sleep with other people for a year leading up to their wedding. Using iPhones, they will each record the experience: Ollie hopes the documentary will make them poster children for an enriching alternative to monogamy.[embedded content]Ollie and Zoe prove a sweet match, but as they coo and cuddle, they can be difficult to root for. Both are attention-seeking and excessively admiring of their project, and the home video of their hangouts tends toward indulgence. They may aim to present polyamory as tenable and fulfilling, but it comes off more as a risky experiment — particularly once Zoe’s fling with a theater director named Tom develops into a serious romance that strains her bond with Ollie.But as our central couple’s connection falters, the documentary evolves into an astute examination of perspective. Zoe captures her own footage of her time with Tom, yet we begin to see her affair through Ollie’s eyes. As the film’s director and narrator, Ollie controls the story, and he uses this role to showcase his jealousy and his hurt. His cleverness culminates in the documentary’s startling final act, where Ollie shows how the artifice of filmmaking can mirror the lies we tell ourselves about love.There Is No “I” in ThreesomeNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 28 minutes. Watch on HBO Max.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Filmmakers Look at Woody Allen Abuse Allegations in Four-Part Series

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFilmmakers Look at Woody Allen Abuse Allegations in Four-Part SeriesKirby Dick and Amy Ziering are known for films exposing sexual abuse in institutions. Why did they delve into a thorny family tale? “We realized the full story had never gotten out.”Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering spent three years making a documentary that re-examines the allegation that Woody Allen sexually abused his adopted daughter.Credit…Photographs by Rozette Rago for The New York TimesPublished More

  • in

    Britney Spears Conservatorship Case Heads Back to Court

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyBritney Spears Conservatorship Case Heads Back to CourtAfter a new documentary about Spears by The New York Times was shown, calls to #FreeBritney were joined by a new message: “We are sorry, Britney.”Behind the scenes during the shoot for the “Lucky” music video in 2000. A moment captured by Britney’s assistant and friend Felicia Culotta.Credit…Courtesy of Felicia CulottaFeb. 9, 2021Updated 7:01 p.m. ETThe legal battle over who should control Britney Spears’s finances and personal life is scheduled to return to the courtroom later this week amid a renewed discussion of how she was treated during her meteoric rise as a teenage pop star and during her subsequent mental health struggles.The issue resurfaced in recent days after “Framing Britney Spears,” a documentary by The New York Times, premiered Friday on FX and Hulu. The film centers on the conflict over Spears’s conservatorship, a legal arrangement that has allowed other people — primarily her father — to manage her career, her personal life and her finances since 2008.In tracing back the origins of the current legal battle, the documentary tells a story of a gifted performer who for decades has been surrounded by people seeking to capitalize off her, and who was ultimately driven to desperation by an insidious celebrity culture and paparazzi who would not leave her alone.The film also explores the #FreeBritney movement, a campaign by fans that seeks to portray the conservatorship as a money-hungry means to exert control over Spears.Since the new documentary’s debut, these calls have multiplied, with several celebrities joining in and amplifying a movement that was once confined to a niche group of activists and superfans. In posts on Instagram and Twitter on Tuesday, Spears appeared to comment indirectly on the documentary by sharing a performance of hers from a few years ago and writing, “I’ll always love being on stage …. but I am taking the time to learn and be a normal person ….. I love simply enjoying the basics of every day life!!!!”“Remember, no matter what we think we know about a person’s life,” she wrote, “it is nothing compared to the actual person living behind the lens.”With a hearing scheduled on Thursday in Los Angeles, here is a breakdown of the conservatorship controversy.Dressed in a pink silk dress, Britney poses with her chaperone and friend, Felicia Culotta, in 2000.Credit…Courtesy of Felicia CulottaWhat is a conservatorship?Sometimes known as a guardianship, a conservatorship is a complex legal arrangement typically reserved for the old, ill or infirm. A representative is designated to manage the person’s affairs and estate if that person is deemed to be unable to take care of themselves or vulnerable to outside influence or manipulation.Spears has lived under a conservatorship since 2008, after a string of public meltdowns (which, the documentary notes, were aggressively captured by paparazzi who followed Spears nearly everywhere she went). For more than a decade, Spears’s father, James P. Spears, known as Jamie, has overseen much of his daughter’s financial and personal life as one of the conservators. The appointed conservators have control over everything from Spears’s mental health care to where and when she can travel; the setup means that Spears’s conservators are required to submit detailed accounts of her purchases to the court — even minor charges like $5 purchases at Sonic Drive-In or Target.Conservatorships are always portrayed as being for a person’s protection. Representatives for Jamie Spears have said that his stewardship over her career likely saved her from financial ruin. He said in court filings that his “sole motivation has been his unconditional love for his daughter and a fierce desire to protect her from those trying to take advantage of her.”Jamie Spears stepped back from his role as his daughter’s personal conservator in 2019, citing health problems; a professional conservator took his place temporarily. The current court battle revolves around control over Spears’s estate.A new documentary from The New York Times examines the so-called Free Britney movement made up of fans of the pop star Britney Spears.CreditCredit…G. Paul Burnett/The New York TimesWhere does the issue stand in court?Last summer, the contours of the case changed drastically when Spears’s court-appointed lawyer, Samuel D. Ingham III, said in a court filing for the first time that his client “strongly opposed” her father as conservator. In requesting that Spears’s temporary personal conservator, Jodi Montgomery, a professional in the field, be made permanent, Ingham left open the possibility that Spears might one day seek to terminate the conservatorship fully.“Without in any way waiving her right to seek termination of this conservatorship in the future,” Ingham wrote, “Britney would like Ms. Montgomery’s appointment as conservator of her person to be made permanent.”In November, a judge declined to immediately remove Jamie Spears as head of his daughter’s estate; at the same time, the judge added a corporate fiduciary, Bessemer Trust, as co-conservator, as the singer requested.In December, the judge extended Montgomery’s temporary role as personal conservator until September of this year.The hearing on Thursday in Los Angeles will likely include a discussion of the roles that Jamie Spears and Bessemer Trust will play in managing the estate. A lawyer for Jamie Spears did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Britney poses with a rose on her head during a photo shoot in 2000. Rose imagery recurs throughout Britney’s career — today roses are woven throughout her Instagram feed.Credit…Courtesy of Felicia CulottaWhat does Britney Spears want?What has become clear in recent months through her lawyer, according to court filings, is that Britney Spears no longer wants her father to serve as her conservator.At a court hearing in November, the singer’s lawyer said that “she is afraid of her father,” whom she has not spoken to in a long time, and that she will not perform again if her father maintains control over her career, The Associated Press reported.For years, Spears had largely ignored the calls from fans to #FreeBritney, but more recently, she signaled some approval when her lawyer wrote in a court filing that his client “welcomes and appreciates the informed support of her many fans.”(Her father has referred to #FreeBritney activists as “conspiracy theorists.”)What is less clear is whether Britney Spears intends to try to terminate the conservatorship in the near future. Her initial aversion to the arrangement was clear in 2008, when, in an interview with MTV, Spears compared her circumstances to a jail sentence with no end.In her social media posts on Tuesday, Spears wrote, “Each person has their story and their take on other people’s stories.”Her current boyfriend, Sam Asghari, came out earlier Tuesday with a blunt criticism of Jamie Spears, writing in an Instagram story that he has “zero respect for someone trying to control our relationship and constantly throwing obstacles in our way.”Who else has spoken up?The #FreeBritney movement has gotten attention from celebrities before, such as when Miley Cyrus shouted out the phrase during a concert in 2019. But the film has amplified the support — and sparked a reckoning from journalists and others around how they may have played into the hypercritical Britney obsession of the aughts.In the days after the documentary dropped, celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker, Bette Midler and Andy Cohen tweeted out the hashtag. Calling the documentary a “gut punch,” the actress Valerie Bertinelli tweeted a list of men who she believed to have harmed Spears throughout her career. The singer Hayley Williams wrote that “no artist today” would have to endure what Spears did.In the days after the documentary’s debut, another message, which was popularized by celebrities including the singer Courtney Love, began trending: “We Are Sorry, Britney.” It was a sorrowful admission that the intrusions into Spears’s private life, the fixation on her sexuality and the relentless focus on her mistakes rested on the shoulders of many.Joe Coscarelli contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    ‘Eurovision Song Contest’ and ‘Borat’ Advance to the Oscar Shortlist

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Awards SeasonNetflix’s First Winner?Our Best Movie PicksNew Diversity RulesOscar-Winning DocumentariesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘Eurovision Song Contest’ and ‘Borat’ Advance to the Oscar ShortlistThe films’ tunes made the cut for original song. Shortlists for documentary, international feature and six other categories were also released.The original song category includes “Husavik,” from the Rachel McAdams-Will Ferrell comedy,  “Eurovision Song Contest.”Credit…John Wilson/NetflixFeb. 9, 2021, 6:00 p.m. ET“Borat Subsequent Moviefilm” and “Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga” inched one step closer to being Oscar nominees on Tuesday when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced its shortlists for nine categories.“Wuhan Flu,” from the “Borat” sequel, and “Husavik,” from the Will Ferrell comedy about the European contest, advanced in the original song category along with 13 other tunes. Some 92 songs, including “Just Sing” from “Trolls World Tour,” didn’t make the cut.Members of the various branches will vote March 5-9 to determine the final five nominees. Oscar nominations will be announced on March 15.In the documentary feature category, 238 films in contention were whittled down to 15. Favorites still in the mix include Netflix’s “Dick Johnson Is Dead” “Crip Camp” and “My Octopus Teacher.” Also, in contention are Amazon’s “All In: The Fight for Democracy” and “MLK/FBI.” Neither Netflix’s popular “The Social Dilemma” nor Bryan Fogel’s “The Dissident,” about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, made the list.In the international feature category, 93 countries submitted films, the most ever, but only 15 now remain. “Another Round,” from Denmark, has been an early favorite and made narrowed list. The film, from director Thomas Vinterberg, stars Mads Mikkelsen as a high school teacher in the midst of a midlife crisis. Also popular is the Polish director Agnieszka Holland’s “Charlatan,” which was submitted by the Czech Republic.Voters from all branches of the academy are eligible to vote on the international feature category but are required to meet a minimum viewing requirement to do so. The group chose films from around the world, including the Ivory Coast (“Night of the Kings”), Guatemala (“La Llorona”) and Tunisia (“The Man Who Sold His Skin”).The academy also released shortlists for the short film categories, hair and makeup, visual effects and original score. For those contenders, go to oscars.org. Here are the shortlists for original song, documentary feature and international feature.Original Song“Turntables” (from “All In: The Fight for Democracy”)“See What You’ve Done” (“Belly of the Beast”)“Wuhan Flu” (“Borat Subsequent Moviefilm”)“Husavik” (“Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga”)“Never Break” (“Giving Voice”)“Make It Work” (“Jingle Jangle: A Christmas Journey”)“Fight For You” (“Judas and the Black Messiah”)“Lo Sì (Seen)” (“The Life Ahead”)“Rain Song” (“Minari”)“Show Me Your Soul” (“Mr. Soul!”)“Loyal Brave True” (“Mulan”)“Free” (“The One and Only Ivan”)“Speak Now” (“One Night in Miami”)“Green” (“Sound of Metal”)“Hear My Voice” (“The Trial of the Chicago 7”)Documentary Feature“All In: The Fight for Democracy”“Boys State”“Collective”“Crip Camp”“Dick Johnson Is Dead”“Gunda”“MLK/FBI”“The Mole Agent”“My Octopus Teacher”“Notturno”“The Painter and the Thief”“76 Days”“Time”“The Truffle Hunters”“Welcome to Chechnya”International FeatureBosnia and Herzegovina, “Quo Vadis, Aida?”Chile, “The Mole Agent”Czech Republic, “Charlatan”Denmark, “Another Round”France, “Two of Us”Guatemala, “La Llorona”Hong Kong, “Better Days”Iran, “Sun Children”Ivory Coast, “Night of the Kings”Mexico, “I’m No Longer Here”Norway, “Hope”Romania, “Collective”Russia, “Dear Comrades!”Taiwan, “A Sun”Tunisia, “The Man Who Sold His Skin”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    ‘Black Art: In the Absence of Light’ Reveals a History of Neglect and Triumph

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCritic’s Pick‘Black Art: In the Absence of Light’ Reveals a History of Neglect and TriumphAn HBO documentary explores two centuries of art by African-Americans, and the path they forged for contemporary Black artists.Kerry James Marshall’s ‘‘Untitled (Studio)’’ (2014) appears in “Black Art: In the Absence of Light,” a documentary film directed by Sam Pollard.Credit…HBOFeb. 8, 2021Updated 3:56 p.m. ETBlack Art: In the Absence of LightNYT Critic’s Pick“This is Black art. And it matters. And it’s been going on for two hundred years. Deal with it.”So declares the art historian Maurice Berger toward the beginning of “Black Art: In the Absence of Light,” a rich and absorbing documentary directed by Sam Pollard (“MLK/FBI”) and debuting on HBO Tuesday night.The feature-length film, assembled from interviews with contemporary artists, curators and scholars, was inspired by a single 1976 exhibition, “Two Centuries of Black American Art,” the first large-scale survey of African-American artists. Organized by the artist David C. Driskell, who was then-head of the art department at Fisk University, it included some 200 works dating from the mid-18th to the mid-20th century, and advanced a history that few Americans, including art professionals, even knew existed.The HBO documentary recalls a landmark show “Two Centuries of Black American Art” at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1976. It was organized by David C. Driskell.Credit…Museum Associates/LACMAThe press gave that survey a mixed reception. Some writers griped that it was more about sociology than art (Driskell himself didn’t entirely disagree). But the show was a popular hit. At the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, where it originated, and then at major museums in Dallas, Atlanta and Brooklyn, people lined up to see it.What they were seeing was that Black artists had always done distinctive work in parallel to, and some within, a white-dominated mainstream that ignored them. And they were seeing that Black artists had consistently made, and are continuing to make, some of the most conceptually exciting and urgent-minded American art, period — a reality only quite recently acknowledged by the art world at large, as reflected in exhibitions, sales and critical attention.Driskell appeared in the HBO documentary before he died last year. “Isolation isn’t, and never was, the Black artist’s goal,” he said. “He has tried to be part and parcel of the mainstream, only to be shut out.”Credit…HBOThe HBO documentary introduces us to this history of long neglect and recent correction through the eloquent voices of three people who lived both sides of it: Driskell, a revered painter and teacher; Mary Schmidt Campbell, the president of Spelman College in Atlanta, Ga., and former director of the Studio Museum in Harlem; and Berger, an esteemed art historian and curator. (The film is dedicated to the two men, both of whom died from complications related to Covid-19 in 2020, Driskell at 88, Berger at 63.)They’re surrounded by artists, most of them painters, of various generations. Some had careers that were well underway by 1976 (Betye Saar, for example, and Richard Mayhew, who was in the survey). Others were, at that point, just starting out in the field. (Kerry James Marshall remembers being blown away by a visit to the show when he was 21). Still others — Kehinde Wiley (born 1977) and Jordan Casteel (born 1989) — weren’t born when the survey opened but still count themselves among its beneficiaries.The portraitist Jordan Casteel discusses how she finds her subjects on streets.Credit…HBOMarshall in his studio explains the many colors he uses that are “Black.”Credit…HBOThe question arises early in the film — in a 1970s “Today Show” interview with Driskell by Tom Brokaw — as to whether the very use of the label “Black American art” isn’t itself a form of imposed isolation. Yes, Driskell says, but in this case a strategic one. “Isolation isn’t, and never was, the Black artist’s goal. He has tried to be part and parcel of the mainstream, only to be shut out. Had this exhibition not been organized many of the artists in it would never have been seen.”The film refers, in shorthand form, to past examples of shutting-out. There’s a reference to the Metropolitan Museum’s 1969 “Harlem on My Mind: Cultural Capital of Black America, 1900-1968,” an exhibition that was advertised as introducing Black creativity to the Met but that contained little in the way of art. And mention is made of artists’ protests of the Whitney Museum’s 1971 survey “Contemporary Black Artists in America,” which was left entirely in the hands of a white curator.A book of essays titled “Black Art Notes,” printed that year in response to the Whitney show, accused white museums of “artwashing” through the token inclusion of African-American work, a charge that has continuing pertinence. (The collection was recently reissued, in a facsimile edition, by Primary Information, a nonprofit press in Brooklyn.) Even before the Met and Whitney shows, Black artists saw the clear necessity of taking control of how and where their art was seen into their own hands. Ethnically specific museums began to spring up — outstandingly, in 1968, the Studio Museum in Harlem.The 1969 exhibition “Harlem on My Mind” resulted in demonstrators picketing outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art.Credit…Jack Manning/The New York TimesWe’re talking about a dense, complex history. No one film can hope to get all of it, and this one leaves a lot out. (Mention of the Black Power movement is all but absent here.) Still, there’s a lot, encapsulated in short, deft commentary by scholars and curators, among them Campbell, Sarah Lewis of Harvard University, Richard J. Powell of Duke University, and Thelma Golden, the current director and chief curator of the Studio Museum. (Golden is a consulting producer of the film. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is its executive producer.)Rightfully, and delightfully, the majority of voices are those of active artists. Faith Ringgold, now 90, wasn’t in the 1976 show, or in big museums much at all, because, she asserts, her work was too political and because she’s female. (Of the 63 artists in “Two Centuries of Black American Art,” 54 were male.) Her solution? “I just stay out till I get in,” she says. And persisting has paid off: Her monumental 1967 painting “American People Series #20: Die” has pride of place in the Museum of Modern Art’s current permanent collection rehang.)Faith Ringgold said she was excluded from the black and mainstream art movement because she was female. “I just stay out till I get in,” she said.Credit…HBOThe artist Fred Wilson explains his use of objects and cultural symbols to explore historical narratives in sculptures and installations.Credit…HBOParticularly interesting are segments showing artists at work and talking about what they’re doing as they’re doing it. We visit Marshall in his studio as he explains the many, many paint colors he uses that are “black.” We follow Fred Wilson into museum storage as he excavated objects that will become part of one of his history-baring installations. We watch Radcliffe Bailey transform hundreds of discarded piano keys into a Middle Passage ocean. And we tag along with the portraitist Jordan Casteel, who recently wrapped up a well-received show at the New Museum, as she seeks out sitters on Harlem streets.There’s no question that the visibility of African-American artists in the mainstream is way higher now than it’s ever been. (Thank you, Black Lives Matter.) A big uptick in shows is one measure. Landmark events like the 2018 unveiling of the Obama portraits by Wiley and Amy Sherald is another.In an interview in the film Sherald brings up this sudden surge of attention. “A lot of galleries are now picking up Black artists,” she says. “There’s this gold rush.” But where some observers would see the interest as just a next-hot-thing marketing trend driven by a branding of “Blackness,” she doesn’t. “I say it’s because we’re making some of the best work, and most relevant work.”In 2018, Kehinde Wiley, left, unveiled his painting of Barack Obama, alongside Amy Sherald’s portrait of Michelle Obama, at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. Credit…Gabriella Demczuk for The New York TimesThe point of Pollard’s film, which was also the point of Driskell’s 1976 survey, is to demonstrate that, and to demonstrate that Black artists have been making some of the best work and the most relevant work for decades, centuries. But they’ve been making it mostly on the margins, beyond the white art world’s spotlights.The artist Theaster Gates, who appears toward the end of the film, sees the advantage, even the necessity, of that positioning.“Black art means that sometimes I’m making when no one’s looking,” he says. “For the most part that has been the truth of our lives. Until we own the light, I’m not happy. Until we’re in our own houses of exhibitions, of discovery, of research, until we’ve figured out a way to be masters of the world, I’d rather work in darkness. I don’t want to work only when the light comes on. My fear is that we’re being trained and conditioned to only make if there’s a light, and that makes us codependent upon a thing we don’t control. Are you willing,” he asks his fellow artists, “to make in the absence of light?”Driskell, to whom this film really belongs and with whose presence it concludes, also leaves the question of the future of Black art open-ended. Around it, he’s says, “there’s been an awakening, an enlightenment through education, a desire to want to know. On the other hand, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. : We haven’t reached the promised land. We’ve got a long way to go.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    ‘Life in a Day 2020’ Review: A Video Diary of a Difficult Year

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }At HomeExplore: A Cubist CollageFollow: Cooking AdviceVisit: Famous Old HomesLearn: About the VaccineAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘Life in a Day 2020’ Review: A Video Diary of a Difficult YearThis YouTube documentary seeks to be a time capsule during a period of great racial divide and pandemic distress.A scene from the YouTube documentary “Life in a Day 2020.”Credit…YouTube OriginalsFeb. 5, 2021Updated 6:29 p.m. ETLife in a Day 2020Directed by Kevin MacdonaldDocumentary1h 30mFind TicketsWhen you purchase a ticket for an independently reviewed film through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.Will we ever fully be ready to remember 2020? The masks. The quarantines. Racial injustice. So much death.Assembled from video footage shot by people from around the world on July 25 of last year, “Life in a Day” is a well-meaning but unnecessary crowdsourced documentary, a companion piece to a 2011 version of the same name, that thinks we’re ready.The film gets off to an obvious start: with a symphony of child birth. Mostly, though, the breezy snippets capture everyday mundanities that encompass a vast range of human experiences and multicultural behavior, juxtaposing beauty and darkness, birth and death. It’s a call for empathy with some genuinely moving moments. What this video portrait doesn’t do is focus enough on its subjects to allow for any true investment in their lives.[embedded content]Though participants’ experiences are singular, their clips are cut together into montages to create a sense of pandemic-era interrelational connection. A few subjects get extended screen time, their narratives stitched throughout this patchwork of life. The result is a tediously formatted stream of categorized segments that might as well fall into hashtagged classifications: Environmental Conservation, Zoom Life, Class of 2020, Love Is Love and You Weren’t the Only One Cooking All the Time.The film indicates that the director Kevin Macdonald (“The Last King of Scotland”) and the producer Ridley Scott received 324,000 videos submitted from 192 countries for this project. That’s a lot of videos. And yet, amid Black Lives Matter marches and medical workers in hazmat suits, the filmmakers devote considerable time to a man who drives around chasing trains on all seven Class 1 railroads. Spoiler alert — he succeeds at whatever he’s trying to achieve (the film assumes you understand why this is an accomplishment). And, honestly, good for that guy. I know his pursuit is meant to be a quaint respite. But over and over in a film about 2020? When a young Black woman is only briefly shown lamenting the death of two of her brothers who died while in police custody? I want her story.“Life in a Day” seeks to be a time capsule during a period of great racial divide and pandemic distress. But since the time it’s memorializing is still fresh, the film arrives about 10 years too soon. As it stands, it hasn’t captured anything that 90 minutes of TikTok surfing can’t.Life in a Day 2020Not rated. Running time: 1 hour 30 minutes. Watch on YouTube.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More