Documentary Films and Programs

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Menendez Brothers’ Review: Reframing a Case

      by

      To the extent this documentary about Lyle and Erik Menendez has appeal, it is of the tabloid variety.“The Menendez Brothers” doesn’t so much relitigate the case of Lyle and Erik Menendez as reframe it. In 1996, the brothers were convicted of murdering their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in Beverly Hills in 1989. That was their second trial. The first had ended in 1994 with two deadlocked juries, each assigned to deliberate over one sibling.This documentary, directed by Alejandro Hartmann and released on Netflix less than a month after the streamer put out Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan’s dramatization of these events, opens with the hook of “exclusive interviews” with the brothers, who “have not told their story together in nearly 30 years.” But its main contentions break down along two lines.One is that, following the #MeToo movement, the public might be more receptive to the brothers’ claim of “imperfect self-defense”: They had argued that their father had a history of sexual and psychological abuse that led them to an honest but mistaken belief that their parents would kill them.The other is that the context of the trials mattered. The first trial was televised in what the film portrays as a warm-up for the news media circus that would surround the O.J. Simpson case. The second trial began after Simpson had been acquitted of murder; the movie suggests that public criticism of that verdict interfered with the Menendezes’ getting a fair shake.No Netflix documentary could offer sufficient information to assess those claims, and this one, which glosses over even mild complexities like the separate juries in the first trial, feels incomplete. (Last week George Gascón, the Los Angeles County district attorney, announced that he was reviewing the case.) To the extent the film has appeal, it is of the tabloid variety. Betty Oldfield, an alternate juror in the first trial, recalls corresponding with the imprisoned Erik Menendez and receiving an oil painting that he had done. Pamela Bozanich, a deputy district attorney who prosecuted the first trial, says she “couldn’t find anyone to say anything nice about Jose Menendez except for his secretary.”The Menendez BrothersNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 56 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Pavements,’ ‘My Undesirable Friends’ and Other Documentaries at New York Film Festival

      by

      In epic takes like “My Undesirable Friends” and playful biopics like “Pavements,” the vital art of the documentary is on full display.Documentaries face a great paradox in 2024: They proliferate, but most nonfiction filmmakers will tell you they’re also harder to get made. Streaming services groan under the weight of true crime and biographical films, but most feel fast, formulaic and shoddy, designed specifically to throw on while watchers scroll on their phones. Meanwhile, directors who aspire to challenge audiences and craft art from reality say that they struggle to find money and distribution — and that it’s gotten markedly tougher in just the past few years.That’s why the festival circuit is so important to independent and international documentarians. It can be their best shot at reaching audiences and, perhaps, finding a distributor. But I notice that at many major film festivals, nonfiction can feel like a second-class citizen, unless a celebrity is involved. The films are often programmed in documentary-specific categories, as if they need to be kept away from the “real” movies. Some festivals, like Cannes, barely program any nonfiction at all.Thankfully, the New York Film Festival is not one of those. This year’s edition includes 18 feature-length (and longer) documentaries and 10 nonfiction shorts, and they’re placed alongside fiction in various sections rather than siloed. And while the festival, which rarely features world premieres, has only two this year, both are nonfiction.Technically there are two celebrity-focused documentaries on the slate (unless you count the delightful botanist Mark Brown, of the equally delightful “7 Walks With Mark Brown,” as a celebrity). The more conventional is “Elton John: Never Too Late,” directed by R.J. Cutler and David Furnish, the singer’s husband. The other is Alex Ross Perry’s gonzo “Pavements,” about the indie-rock band Pavement, which involves a little reflection and history from the band but mostly a bunch of elements that mess with the audience: footage from a Pavement jukebox musical that was briefly mounted downtown in 2022 (I saw it) specifically for this movie; a dramatic movie about the band, starring Joe Keery (“Stranger Things”) as the lead singer Stephen Malkmus, that may or may not actually exist; a museum exhibition of Pavement memorabilia. It’s terrifically strange and entertaining even if you (like me) have never really been a fan — and you’ll get a lightly satirical skewering of the whole musician biopic genre, to boot.“Youth (Hard Times) is one of two films from Wang Bing showing at the festival.via NYFFBut where “Pavements” is goofy and doesn’t take itself too seriously, several other documentaries tackle serious subjects with aplomb, and run times to match. “Exergue — on Documenta 14,” directed by Dimitris Athiridis, is a whopping 14 hours, presented in chapters. It’s a riveting and often dryly funny film about Adam Szymczyk — the artistic director of the 2017 edition of Documenta, the highly influential every-five-years exhibition of contemporary art — as he works with his team of curators to put together that show. While there’s a specific event at its center, “Exergue” is also a formidable survey of the challenges facing the contemporary art world as it wrestles with racism, colonialism, politics and power.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Television

      What’s on TV This Week: ‘Below Deck Sailing Yacht’ and ‘Abbott Elementary’

      by

      Bravo airs its reality show about “yachties,” and ABC is back with its Emmy-winning sitcom.For those who still enjoy a cable subscription, here is a selection of cable and network TV shows, movies and specials that broadcast this week, Oct. 7-13. Details and times are subject to change.Monday60 MINUTES: ELECTION SPECIAL 8 p.m. on CBS. This program, in which CBS sits down with the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees, has been a bit of an election-season tradition for over 50 years. And with no more debates on the docket, this would have been another opportunity for voters to hear from the candidates before Election Day. But on Tuesday, according to CBS, former President Donald J. Trump backed out, declining to be interviewed by the correspondent Scott Pelley. Vice President Kamala Harris is still scheduled to be interviewed by Bill Whitaker.BELOW DECK SAILING YACHT 9 p.m. on Bravo. For a while, the fate of this “Below Deck” spinoff seemed precarious. The last season aired through July 2023, before the boatswain, Gary King, was accused of sexual misconduct by a member of the production team, Samantha Suarez, in an exposé for Rolling Stone. The next month, King didn’t appear at BravoCon, a convention where fans can meet Bravolebrities, so viewers wondered if he was off the show. But just like that, King is going to be back on our screens with very little explanation. At the time of the accusation, Bravo said: “The concerns Ms. Suarez raised in July 2022 were investigated at that time and action was taken based on the findings.” King will be joined again by the chief stew Daisy Kelliher and, of course, Captain Glenn Shephard, a fan favorite.TuesdayGraceland, the mansion once owned by Elvis Presley, in Memphis, Tennessee.Jeff Mitchell/ReutersAN OPRAH SPECIAL: THE PRESLEYS — ELVIS, LISA MARIE AND RILEY 8 p.m. on CBS. For this special, Oprah Winfrey traveled to Tennessee to sit down with Riley Keough, the granddaughter of Elvis Presley and an actress in her own right. This is the first time that Keough has been interviewed since her mother, Lisa Marie Presley, died unexpectedly in January 2023. Lisa Marie had been writing a memoir, “From Here to the Great Unknown,” which Keough finished on her behalf after her death.WednesdayThe cast of “Abbott Elementary.”Gilles Mingasson/DisneyWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Food and Country’ Offers a Close Look at How America Feeds Itself

      by

      “Food and Country” argues that our food production systems don’t work and offers potential solutions.In the early days of the pandemic, I accidentally ordered five chickens and three dozen giant, fragrant Amalfi Coast lemons. I thought I’d ordered one five-pound chicken and three lemons from a local restaurant supplier who’d had to quickly pivot to home cooks like me. But between my frazzled, stressed brain and their usual order quantities, wires got crossed.It worked out fine — we just roasted a lot of chicken and made delicious limoncello — but I found myself thinking about that blurry, confusing time while watching “Food and Country” (in theaters), a new documentary about all the ways that America’s food systems are broken and all the ways they can be fixed. Directed by Laura Gabbert, the film finds its guide in Ruth Reichl, the eminent food writer (and former New York Times restaurant critic). She is one of the nation’s most curious and well-connected voices on food, and she spends a lot of the movie speaking with growers, farmers, ranchers and restaurateurs in those familiar little Zoom windows.It turns out the pandemic was the right impetus for this film. For many Americans, used to picking up our groceries at the local supermarket, the disruption of, for example, deliveries and meat processing meant that items were available suddenly, sporadically or not at all. My five-chicken order was a result of realizing that my usual grocery delivery service was booked up for weeks and, as I was avoiding stores, that I needed to find another method of getting food.This was a very mild inconvenience, and it soon resolved itself. But experiences like this (along with sourdough-baking and scallion-growing fads) reminded many of us of what we take for granted. For those whose livelihoods depend on food production, though, cataclysm is always on the horizon. In this documentary Reichl explores with experts how our systems became broken over the postwar decades and, as several participants say, led to most farmers and ranchers barely breaking even while the big companies that process and distribute their products profited. She and her guests also cover a dizzying array of big issues: historic racism against Black farmers and the present-day ramifications; the plight of restaurant owners trying to stay afloat while treating workers fairly; farmers’ innovative efforts to bring sustainable, healthy crops to their communities.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Blink’ Review: The Last Things They May See

      by

      In this travel documentary, two parents take their children on a spectacular world tour before a rare genetic condition may cause blindness.“Blink” is almost shameless in its earnest simplicity: Two parents decide to take their family to see the world after finding out that three of their four children have a rare genetic condition that can lead to impaired vision. Tears may flow for you, too, in what could (positively) be called a weepie travel documentary from Edmund Stenson and Daniel Roher, who worked together on the Academy Award-winning film “Navalny.”Edith Lemay and Sébastien Pelletier wish for their children to store up visual memories for the future, even as night-vision problems have already set on. Accompanied by the film team for 76 days of their yearlong trip, the close-knit clan from Montreal fly and hike and hot-air-balloon and camel ride through Egypt, Thailand, Namibia and Nepal, among other places, including a fraught cable car ride in Ecuador.For Stenson and Roher, their film is also about a fear of loss more generally, as well as about growing up and leaving things behind, the fleeting nature of experience and parental anxieties around care and control. Detractors can cry “tourism” — the rock formations in White Desert National Park in Egypt are transporting — but “Blink” keeps escaping any pat framing to tap into a deeper ache.That’s accomplished by doing more with less when it comes to parental musings and kids saying the darnedest things. The directors also aren’t afraid to kick the 84-minute movie into a trot now and again. Life comes at you fast, after all, and “Blink” reminds us to look at each day as if it might be the last.BlinkRated PG. Running time: 1 hour 24 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Intercepted’ Review: The Awful Intimacy of the War in Ukraine

      by

      In leaked phone calls home, Russian soldiers grapple with the war they’re waging. This new documentary sets the calls’ swagger and anguish against images of the invasion’s devastation.The voices of the offscreen Russian soldiers and their acquaintances in the powerful Ukraine-set documentary “Intercepted” are matter-of-fact, swaggering and anguished. “I tell you, they live better than us here,” a soldier tells a woman back home. “Right, look how the West supports them,” she says.Sometime later, another soldier explains to a different woman, “We were given the order to kill everyone we see” to protect Russia’s miliary positions. “I’m telling you, I’ve already seen a forest full of corpses, more than a cemetery.” He adds, “I said that I won’t kill anyone.”Not long after Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, and Russian troops started flooding into the country, their communications began leaking out, at times with dire consequences. Ham-radio operators and open-source groups began capturing unencrypted battlefield radio transmissions among Russian forces on the ground. Ukraine also intercepted more prosaic phone calls that Russian soldiers made to their families and friends, to their wives and mothers and children. The soldiers talked about how they were doing, what they’d seen, what their orders were and even disclosed their locations; some spoke about whom they had killed.You hear a number of these phone calls in “Intercepted,” which was directed by the Ukrainian-Canadian filmmaker Oksana Karpovych. In a director’s statement for the movie, Karpovych explains that she was working in Ukraine as a producer for the news network Al Jazeera when the invasion began. After the intercepted calls were publicly released, she and a crew of four — including her cinematographer, the British photographer Christopher Nunn — traveled across Ukraine gathering images of devastation, which she has juxtaposed with calls intercepted between March and November 2022. The result is a haunting, often jolting depiction of the profound toll that the war has exerted on soldiers and civilians alike.“Intercepted” is at once subtle and blunt. It opens on three children — one on a swing — next to an otherwise empty country road that stretches down the middle of the shot. It’s an outwardly ordinary, pacific tableaux. There are chalk marks scrawled on the road, a couple of bikes resting on the grass and a woman lingering off to the side. The trees are lush and green, and there are no obvious signs of war. At one point, a car in the distance slowly crosses the road. Karpovych then cuts to a closer shot of the kids, which allows you to see their faces more fully; I think that she wants you to remember them as you watch.That first country street leads to many more. The movie starts in the north and moves south and then west, a route that Karpovych has explained in interviews is meant to suggest the trajectory of the invasion. Using a mixture of vivid, precisely framed moving and still images, she takes you across the war-ravaged country. You travel down dirt and paved roads, some flanked by incinerated military vehicles, and into heavily bombed villages and cities. She also recurrently brings you into people’s homes, including some that look like they were hastily abandoned. In one, a carton of eggs still rests on a kitchen table amid a jumble of crockery, suggestive of an unfinished breakfast. In another house, a woman sweeps up shattered glass.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Patrice: The Movie’ Review: At a Crossroads

      by

      The emotional core of this crowd-pleasing documentary concerns a couple who cannot marry without jeopardizing their disability benefits.The title of “Patrice: The Movie” is a little misleading. Although this documentary, directed by Ted Passon, certainly offers a biographical portrait of Patrice Jetter, a school crossing guard, disability rights advocate and Special Olympics athlete from New Jersey, its emotional core concerns her relationship with Garry Wickham. Jetter and Wickham want to marry, but doing so — or even living together — could jeopardize their disability benefits.Their friend Elizabeth Dicker summarizes how this situation is not just cruel, but also apparently illogical: “If two people are having Medicaid benefits, and then those two people get married and then they just don’t lose their benefits, how is the government making or losing any money?” (“Patrice: The Movie” doesn’t delve into the policy specifics, but critics have argued that the limitations on Supplemental Security Income are badly out of date.)It is easy to root for Jetter and Wickham as a couple, and to see Jetter in particular as a joyous creative force. She speaks how she found an outlet in drawing and how she has spent 20 years designing a model train world patterned after Palisades Amusement Park. In the film’s fanciful, Wes Anderson-ian flashbacks, the adult Patrice plays herself opposite child actors, against production design based on her drawings.And while Jetter and Wickham’s political fight is not resolved as of the end of the movie, the thread in which Jetter works to raise money for the new van she needs to commute affordably to her job has a crowd-pleasing finish.Patrice: The MovieNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 42 minutes. Watch on Hulu. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Movies

      New York Film Festival Pitches Its Ever-Expanding, Global Tent

      by

      Standout selections include “Nickel Boys,” the Mumbai-set “All We Imagine as Light” and the documentary “Dahomey,” about African repatriation.Every year, the New York Film Festival sets up a big tent at Lincoln Center and invites its hometown to the greatest show on earth, or at least to watch some of the finest movies from across the globe. This year is no different, with standout selections that include the opening-night attraction, “Nickel Boys,” RaMell Ross’s tender, beautifully expressionistic adaptation of the Colson Whitehead novel; “All We Imagine as Light,” Payal Kapadia’s delicately observed, stirring drama about three women living in Mumbai; and “Dahomey,” Mati Diop’s intellectually electrifying documentary about the fraught complexities of repatriation.Over the decades, the festival’s tent has grown larger and its attractions more expansive. The main lineup and the Spotlight section feature a mix of established and lesser-known auteurs, as well as a smattering of stars. This is where you can find the recommended latest from Mike Leigh (“Hard Truths”) and Pedro Almodóvar (“The Room Next Door”), as well as the second and third parts of Wang Bing’s absorbing documentary trilogy about young people in China — “Youth (Hard Times)” and “Youth (Homecoming)” — which together run a whopping 378 minutes, about an hour longer than Julia Loktev’s 324-minute “My Undesirable Friends: Part I — Last Air in Moscow,” about journalists in today’s Russia.Marianne Jean-Baptiste in Mike Leigh’s “Hard Truths.”Creativity MediaIn 1963, its inaugural year, the festival presented 21 new feature films, and created a major stir. Not everyone on Lincoln Center’s board had been happy about the prospect of movies sharing space with the performing arts, with one member carping, “What’s next, baseball?” The festival programmers pushed on, and the film lovers came running. A critical and financial success, the ’63 iteration even made the cover of Time magazine, which trumpeted that the event “may well mark for Americans a redefinition of what movies are and who it is that sees them.” Six years later, the cultural legitimation of movies hit another milestone with the formation of what’s now known as Film at Lincoln Center, which runs the festival.Given that such snobbism about movies now seems quaintly absurd, and given too the ubiquity of festivals, it can be difficult to convey what the New York Film Festival meant when it was founded. Although Cannes and Venice had been around for decades, festivals hadn’t yet emerged as the crucial international distribution network that they are now for smaller, less mainstream work. In 1963, the big Hollywood studios were releasing bloated epics like “Cleopatra,” and art houses and audiences were both quickly growing. Yet the movies still had a maddening reputation problem. In an editorial titled “The Film as Art” published the day the first festival opened, The New York Times made a sweetly sincere case for the event.“Moviegoers and moviemakers are divided into two unequal parts in this country,” the editorial began. “The vast majority of the moviegoers go to see what the moviemakers call ‘product.’” The selections in the festival, by contrast, the editorial continued, “dignify movies in this country; tell the world that we too are interested in cultural efforts.” I’ve quoted these words before, and I’m sure that I laughed the first time I read them. Even so, they bear repeating given the state of the art and industry, especially in the United States, where movies are still referred to as product (and content) and the Oscar race tends to generate more attention than the movies do. These days, any defense of art bears repeating.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More