More stories

  • in

    Jane Wodening, Experimental Film Star and Intrepid Writer, Dies at 87

    For 30 years she collaborated with the filmmaker Stan Brakhage, her husband, often appearing on camera. After they divorced, she lived off the grid and wrote about her life.Jane Wodening, the longtime collaborator and wife of Stan Brakhage, the avant-garde filmmaker, who flourished as an author after their divorce, writing stories about her years living on the road and then alone in a mountain shack, died on Nov. 17 at her home in Denver. She was 87.The cause was cardiac arrest, said her daughter, Crystal Brakhage.Mr. Brakhage, who died in 2003, was among the most influential experimental filmmakers of the 20th century, though his work could be considered an acquired taste. He made hundreds of movies, most of them silent, that were deeply personal, sometimes elegiac and very beautiful, though they dispensed with any recognizable narrative, often veering into complete abstraction.For three decades, starting in the 1960s, he and Ms. Wodening (pronounced WOE-den-ing) lived a spartan life in a century-old cabin in a ghost town in the Rocky Mountains called Lump Gulch, sharing it with their five children and many animals, including a donkey and a pigeon named Fanny.It was this world that Mr. Brakhage captured in his idiosyncratic, inscrutable way, in what the film critic J. Hoberman, writing in The Village Voice, described as “home movies raised to the zillionth power — silent and rhythmic, based on an invented language of percussive shifts in exposure or focus, multiple superimpositions, refracted light, and staccato camera moves.”Ms. Wodening was the star of many of them. He filmed her delivering their first child in a bathtub in “Window Water Baby Moving” (1959), a startlingly lovely work that is considered one of his masterpieces. “Wedlock House: An Intercourse” (1959) is a kind of short horror film, with flickering images of the couple having sex interspersed with flickering shots of them having an argument.The work didn’t sit well with feminists, who accused Mr. Brakhage of objectifying his wife. But Ms. Wodening didn’t see herself that way.“Jane was committed to the filmmaking and the artistic enterprise,” said John Powers, who is an assistant professor of film and media studies at Washington University in St. Louis and working on a biography of Mr. Brakhage. “Stan felt he was in service to the muse,” he added, in a phone interview, “and she considered herself a loyal supporter of that muse, and the muse needed help.”A lot of help. Ms. Wodening offered ideas, critiques and camera and sound assistance, along with running the day-to-day business that was “Stan Brakhage.” He signed his work “By Brakhage,” which he always said meant the two of them.Ms. Wodening with Stan Brakhage, her former husband and collaborator. Often the star of his experimental short films, she also offered critiques and camera assistance, and helped run the day-to-day business.Jason Walz/Uncommonbindery, via Granary Books, incBut Mr. Brakhage, never totally faithful, left Ms. Wodening for another woman, and in 1987 the couple divorced. The children had left home, the cabin was sold, as were the animals, and Ms. Wodening took off in a bright yellow Honda Civic kitted out so that she could live in it. (The back seat was removed, among other interventions.)For three years she spent months at a time on the road, touring the country, camping in arroyos, mountain trails and friends’ driveways, even working for a spell as a tour guide at an archaeological site near Barstow, Calif., in the Mojave Desert.“Driveabout,” a 2016 account of that time from Sockwood Press, one of the small presses that has published her work over the years, is charming, funny and often quite profound, like Thoreau but spiced with mild profanity and more drama, as Ms. Wodening faced perils as a single woman sleeping in truck stops, camping near sketchy characters and nursing an old friend through delirium tremens.In this and other works, she came into her own. Her voice was as engaging and charming as her ex-husband’s was abstruse and highfalutin. Steve Clay, a founder of Granary Books in New York City, a small publishing house that is devoted to poetry and art books and that has put out works by Ms. Wodening, recalled his expectation that the wife of Stan Brakhage would be more “formally experimental” in her writing. “Instead, it was sort of folksy and straightforward,” he wrote in an email.To film buffs, however, Ms. Wodening remained a mythic figure — an “Enigmatic Character in Film History” as one radio program described her in a headline.“Driveabout” (2016) chronicled the years Ms. Wodening spent living out of her car and on the road after her divorce from Mr. Brakhage in 1987.via Sockwood PressShe was born Mary Jane Collom on Sept. 7, 1936, in Chicago, and grew up in Fraser, Colo., a small town in the Rockies about 70 miles northwest of Denver. Her parents, Harry and Margaret (Jack) Collom, were teachers at the local school, where Harry was also the principal.Jane was a shy child who preferred the company of animals, especially dogs. (She wrote that she spoke canine sooner than proper English.) She worked in an animal hospital and enrolled at Colorado State University, in Fort Collins, thinking she would study to be a vet, before dropping out.When she met Mr. Brakhage, “we were adolescent wrecks,” she told an audience a few years ago at Los Angeles Filmforum, a showcase for experimental movies. They married in 1957; she was 21 and he was 24, and “it was quite a relief for both of us.”She recalled her first foray into his films, shortly after their marriage, when he declared: “You should take your clothes off, and we should make a film about having sex.” She balked at first — “I’m not that kind of girl!” — but he said, “I’m an artist, and an artist has to have a nude.” She thought about all the great nudes of history — from Raphael to Duchamp — and told herself, “‘I have an opportunity to join a group of people I quite admire,’ so I stripped and went to it.”For most of her adult life, she was Jane Brakhage. When she returned from her car travels, transformed, she changed her name. She settled on Wodening, meaning child of Woden, the Anglo-Saxon god; since her family lineage stretched back to the early Britons, it felt somehow appropriate, she said. And she bought property near Eldora, Colo., about 20 miles west of Boulder, a mountainous site where she lived in a Hobbit-like shack with no electricity or running water — but thousands of books and a typewriter — living a hermit’s life for the better part of a decade.It agreed with her.When her family worried about communicating with her in an emergency, she became a ham radio operator, learning morse code to do so, and found community among other hammers, as they called themselves, who were mostly men and introverts like herself. Her call sign ended with the letters HPH, to which she gave the phonetics “Hermits Prefer Hills.”“To become a hermit and at the same time to become popular was not only paradoxical,” she wrote in “Living Up There,” her memoir of her years in the mountains, “it was a tremendous delight.”Ms. Wodening was the author of 14 books, including “Wolf Dictionary,” about how wolves communicate with one another. She had a loyal following and small but steady sales.Toward the end of her decade at Fourth of July Canyon, as her mountain home was known, she connected with another hammer, Carlos Seegmiller, a computer programmer. He lured her back to civilization (and helped her trade her typewriter for a computer). They lived together in Denver until his death in 2008.In addition to her daughter, Crystal, Ms. Wodening is survived by her daughters Myrrena Schwegmann and Neowyn Bartek; her sons, Bearthm and Rarc Brakhage; 14 grandchildren; and six great-grandchildren.At her death, Ms. Wodening was working on a history of the world starting with the Big Bang. More

  • in

    ‘Into the Weeds’ Review: Man Versus Monsanto

    This documentary by Jennifer Baichwal recounts a legal battle in which a groundskeeper in California took on a multibillion-dollar company.In 2018, Dewayne Johnson won a lawsuit against Monsanto; he had argued that the company’s glyphosate-based weedkiller, which he had used as a school district groundskeeper in Northern California, caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Jurors found that Monsanto had failed to warn consumers of the potential risks.The company, which had just been acquired by Bayer, was initially ordered to pay $289 million. Although that award was later reduced, Johnson’s suit was at the vanguard of tens of thousands of similar claims that linked Monsanto’s herbicide to cancer. (Bayer has repeatedly said that the product does not cause cancer.)The Canadian filmmaker Jennifer Baichwal is known for environmental documentaries (“Manufactured Landscapes,” “Anthropocene: The Human Epoch”) that emphasize aesthetics as much as advocacy. In “Into the Weeds,” subtitled “Dewayne ‘Lee’ Johnson vs. Monsanto Company,” she explores similar concerns through the more conventional framework of a legal battle.The documentary delves into the specifics of Johnson’s case. Various lawyers from his side walk viewers through the logistics of the lawsuit; the movie makes clear just how difficult it is for one person to take on a corporation that has vast resources, dexterity in countering evidence and — the film argues — unfairly easy access to regulators.More potent as muckraking than as filmmaking, the documentary also spends time with Johnson, who is shown applying ointment to the lesions that, as of shooting, still appear all over his body and leave blood stains on his sheets. Elsewhere, “Into the Weeds” meets with others in the United States and Canada who developed lymphoma and had used glyphosate-based herbicide. Their stories illustrate the breadth of the ecological and agricultural challenges that remain.Into the WeedsNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 36 minutes. Rent or buy on most major platforms. More

  • in

    ‘Total Trust’ Review: Under Surveillance

    Jialing Zhang’s documentary follows a journalist and two families fighting for rights while dealing with invasive surveillance tactics from Chinese authorities.Partway through the documentary “Total Trust,” the Chinese journalist Sophia Xueqin Huang diagnoses the readiness of Chinese civilians to comply with expanding surveillance measures. “It’s just like the story of the boiling frog,” she says; the ceding of small privacies gives way to the surrender of larger freedoms until — before you know it — every facet of life is monitored and controlled.“Total Trust,” directed by the Chinese filmmaker Jialing Zhang (“One Child Nation”), offers a persuasive picture of this Big Brother system in action. Filmed largely during the pandemic, the film tracks three stories of people policed by the Chinese government: Huang, who came under scrutiny by authorities for her coverage of the #MeToo movement; and the families of two lawyers, Chang Weiping and Wang Quanzhang, who were imprisoned after taking on human rights cases. In a climactic scene, Chang’s wife and son travel to attend his trial; they are held for hours at a highway checkpoint, supposedly as a Covid precaution, until the end of the hearing.These accounts cut off rather abruptly; ending titles brief us on where the subjects are now, including the troubling update that Huang was arrested and detained in China despite plans to study in the United Kingdom. That the film fails to track this turn of events feels like a missed opportunity, and reminds us that “Total Trust” is not a chronicle of how circumstances can go from a simmer to a boil, but rather a moment’s temperature check.Total TrustNot rated. In Mandarin and English, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 37 minutes. In theaters. More

  • in

    ‘Werner Herzog: Radical Dreamer’ Review: A Guide to the Filmmaker’s Work

    This documentary examines Herzog’s oeuvre and celebrity influence.In the preface to his 1991 “Memoirs,” Kingsley Amis stated, “I have already written an account of myself in twenty or more volumes, most of them called novels.” Amis published the memoirs anyway. It could be said of the protean filmmaker Werner Herzog that he’s presented a monumental and wide-ranging account of himself in the form of over 60 motion pictures. He’s also been the subject of two fantastic documentaries by Les Blank, “Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe” and “Burden of Dreams.” And on top of that, Herzog himself published a memoir this year.One may wonder, then, about the possible utility value of Thomas von Steinaecker’s film “Werner Herzog: Radical Dreamer,” a brisk documentary made with Herzog’s participation. It definitely exists, though, and might be more obvious had the picture been titled “The Young Person’s Guide to Werner Herzog.” It begins with Herzog’s unusual contemporary media celebrity and examines how he got it — honoring some of his most astonishing work, including the obsessive epics “Aguirre: The Wrath of God” and “Fitzcarraldo.”The array of talking heads praising Herzog may seem random to the novice: Carl Weathers, Nicole Kidman and Chloé Zhao are among them, They’ve all worked with Herzog, or been his beneficiary somehow. Such is his cultural reach. The movie also provides a smart primer on the “New German Cinema” Herzog helped bring into being during the 1960s. An anecdote about how Herzog walked across Europe to heal the ailing German film critic Lotte Eisner — the connective tissue between Herzog and the 1920s German maestro F.W. Murnau — is emblematic of the man’s shoe-leather mysticism.After praising Herzog’s mastery of cinema, his friend and peer Wim Wenders drolly reflects that the man, now based in Los Angeles, presents Americans with an oddly appealing persona: “A likable but somewhat fanatical German.”Werner Herzog: Radical DreamerNot rated. In English and German, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 42 minutes. Rent or buy on most major platforms. More

  • in

    ‘South to Black Power’ Review: A Great Migration in Reverse

    In a new documentary, the opinion columnist Charles M. Blow calls for Black Americans to move to the South to gain political footholds.The documentary “South to Black Power” — directed by Sam Pollard and Llewellyn M. Smith — employs many of the gestures a newspaper opinion piece might. Which is apt, since Charles M. Blow, an opinion columnist for The New York Times, is the film’s searching guide — but also, at times, its expounding subject.Based on his 2021 book, “The Devil You Know: A Black Power Manifesto,” the film revisits Blow’s argument that the only way for Black Americans “to lift the burden of white supremacy” is head to the South. With this “Great Migration in reverse,” they can build a majority and take hold of the political levers of those states and their legislatures.During the 2020 presidential election, Georgia, where Blow now resides, offered tantalizing evidence of the kind of might he envisions. In this documentary, which is filmed in the run-up to the 2022 midterm elections, Blow visits Mississippi, Alabama, the Carolinas (with a warm stopover at his childhood home in Gibsland, La.).He bolsters his thesis but also stress tests it with people who have never left, who have left and returned, or, like the author Jemar Tisby, who have put down new roots with uplift in mind.In a nice bit of journalistic even-handedness, several of Blow’s interviewees are not entirely convinced by his thesis, or they believe there are other paths to political gains. For example, the community strategist Asiaha Butler shares why she decided to stay in Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood, despite the gun violence and the tug of family in the South. Her story of how seeing a young girl playing alone in a vacant lot and throwing bottles into the street cinched it — she had to remain — is as moving as it is authentic. And her reasons are as committed to empowering Black Americans where they are as Blow’s call for mass migration.South to Black PowerNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 23 minutes. Watch on Max. More

  • in

    ‘American Symphony’ Review: Intimate Harmony

    This portrait of the musician Jon Batiste and the author Suleika Jaouad follows an artistic couple through ambition and adversity.Partway through “American Symphony,” the musician Jon Batiste pokes gentle fun at the coverage he received in advance of the 2022 Grammys. The breadth of his 11 nominations, which bridged pop, jazz and classical categories, made him tough to label. He ultimately fended off Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish to win album of the year.This documentary, directed by Matthew Heineman, is likewise deceptively tricky to peg. In the broad strokes, it is a process film, following Batiste, who grew up in the New Orleans area and trained at Juilliard, as he prepares a wildly original symphony that shares a title with the movie. “My ambition for composing this symphony is massive,” he says. “I’m trying to expand the canon of symphonic music, break through long-gatekept spaces.”(Ben Sisario, writing in The New York Times, described the piece, which premiered at Carnegie Hall in 2022, as a “Whitmanesque canvas of funk, Dixieland jazz, operatic vocals and Native American drums.”)But this is also a movie about two artists, their love, their creative attitudes and how, as a couple, they approach living a “life of contrasts.” That description comes from the writer Suleika Jaouad, Batiste’s partner (they marry during the film), whose best-selling memoir, “Between Two Kingdoms,” was published in 2021 and who, before college, studied at Juilliard herself, with a specialization in double bass.As Batiste gets ready for his Grammy and Carnegie Hall coups, Jaouad undergoes a bone marrow transplant after a recurrence of cancer. (She received her first leukemia diagnosis at 22, and from 2012 to 2015 wrote in The Times about her experiences.)While some of the backstage material has an official feel (Batiste and Jaouad are listed among the many executive producers, along with Barack and Michelle Obama), the documentary does not shy from showing private moments. It captures Batiste hiding his head under a pillow as he talks on the phone with his therapist and sits in with the couple as a doctor discusses the open-ended course of chemotherapy he is recommending. When it comes to the music, too, the film is unafraid to dwell on a drawn-out silence or phrase.American SymphonyRated PG-13 Potentially upsetting medical scenes. Running time: 1 hour 44 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More

  • in

    ‘Who We Become’ Review: Interrogating Identity and Injustice

    Three young Filipino women self-document difficult conversations with their families and friends during the first year of the pandemic.Three young Filipino women probe ideological divisions in their communities in “Who We Become,” a sensitive but straightforward documentary largely filmed during the first year of the pandemic. The nonfiction exercise consists almost entirely of footage captured by the subjects; the director PJ Raval assembles the self-documented scenes into a rough arc by tracking how the women stay connected to their families and engage with them about identity and injustice.The film begins with a perfunctory news montage priming us on the Covid-19 crisis — as if we need a reminder — before pivoting to spend time alongside Lauren Yap, a college senior returning to her family home in Bedford, Texas, for virtual graduation. The documentary goes on to bring in scenes from Monica Silverio, an activist in Austin, and Jenah Maravilla, a community organizer in Houston, who both become involved with the Black Lives Matter movement. Their friends are encouraging of their advocacy work; their parents, sometimes less so. “Do a peaceful protest at home,” Monica’s father suggests on a video call.The issues explored in “Who We Become” are essential, but the film’s content can occasionally feel superficial, as when Raval scrolls through text and images the women shared on Instagram. Those social media posts, designed for public consumption, pale in comparison to the documentary’s personal scenes. When, in an intimate video call, Jenah’s longtime friend Rachel tells her, “you’ve treated my Black body with care,” it is more galvanizing than any number of infographics.Who We BecomeNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 12 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More

  • in

    ‘Bad Press’ Review: Defending Journalism in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation

    The battle to claw back press freedoms is the nerve-racking subject of this civic-minded documentary.In “Bad Press,” you witness the moment when the Muscogee (Creek) Nation loses true freedom of the press. It happens with shocking speed: the Muscogee National Council, in a listless 7-6 vote in 2018, repeals the tribe’s Free Press Act. The battle to claw back this right is the nerve-racking subject of this civic-minded documentary directed by Rebecca Landsberry-Baker, a Muscogee journalist, and Joe Peeler.The film’s scrappy hero is Angel Ellis, a reporter for Mvskoke Media who has faced intimidation tactics while covering cases of embezzlement and sexual harassment. When the repeal puts her employer under tribal government oversight and its radio show shuts down, she makes the risky decision to speak out and rally for a constitutional amendment to enshrine freedom of the press. Such protections, the film explains, are rare among North American tribes.Beyond her bravery and sharp analysis, Ellis makes for good copy, refusing to publish “polished turds” instead of bona fide journalism. The filmmakers also sketch in a gallery of genteel Muscogee politicians who telegraph varying support for the press as they jockey for votes in elections for chief. Ellis and others show that internal criticism can be a sensitive subject for tribes after centuries of challenges to sovereignty.Landsberry-Baker and Peeler could linger more on details about the people involved instead of the horse-race suspense of vote counts. But who can blame them when freedom is in the balance, and as local media outlets dwindle nationally, the Muscogee voters’ defense of press freedoms sets a stirring example.Bad PressNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 38 minutes. In theaters. More