The Gleaners and I

The Gleaners and I explores a lovely comparison between a woman coping with her age, and a French society that gleans unwanted food. The film introduces this theme of accepting the “unwanted potatoes” by exploring historical paintings of gleaners. These paintings show beautiful subjects gleaning wheat. The golden hues, and sunlit subjects reflect a golden age of gleaning. The filmmaker, Agnes Varda, then asks herself, “What is the modern form of gleaning?” The film abruptly transitions to French rap music, and rapid cuts of people digging through garbage and unwanted food. From then on, the film explores the “unwanted” food that is gleaned by the community. Varda appears on camera multiple times, and looks into the lens to determine whether she is an unwanted.

This film is similar to Bright Leaves because the filmmaker makes the film sort of autobiographical (or more like a diary). The Gleaners and I explores the modern forms of gleaning. Varda arrives at a potato farm, and interviews the owners as well as the gleaners. She observes the huge pile of good potatoes that are left to rot in the fields. According to the owners, their buyers only accept a specific size and shape. Thus, large potatoes and irregular shaped potatoes are unwanted, and left to waste. Varda appears on camera, and examines her hands. Her wrinkles, and leather-like skin expose her age. The juxtaposition alludes to her struggles coping with her age. Is she just as unwanted?

As Varda observes people and communities gleaning, she discovers different perspectives. Some gleaners are timid, and perhaps, ashamed to glean. In the potato fields, one man quietly sneaks around the pile to avoid being notice. On the other hand, a professor in the flea market takes his time picking and eating the leftovers. As she interviews and explores the lifestyle of many French individuals, she also provides insight into the poverty, and community. The individuals glean alone, which is significantly different from the gleaners in the painting who glean as a community.

It is challenging for me to understand Varda completely. She is intrigued with unwanted things: the heart potato, her hands, her ceiling, and her old house. I believe she considers herself as a gleaner. She evens gleans with individuals in the potato field. Varda is ultimately a gleaner herself. At the conclusion, Varda takes the gleaners painting out of the room for display. 

New York Dolls

New York Dolls is a beautiful film that explores a rockstar’s transcendence in something beyond his music. As discussed in class, and also in the film, Arthur discovers a spiritual balance as he strums his guitar, and stays faithful to his newfound faith in the LDS church. There is a moment in the film, when the filmmakers remove the audio from the concert, and replaces the audio with an angelic choir. Arthur is experiencing something beyond this world.

This is a charitable film. The beginning of the film introduces the glamour, and high-rise of the New York Dolls. Photographs, interviews from bands, and rock music decorate the “exposition” of the film. Arthur, the bassist, and his friends are uniquely dressed and made-up. Certainly, the band’s daring, and artistic personality makes its impression in music history. The film does not manipulate or force a judgment on the New York Dolls. Rather than allowing narration to navigate the film, the film interviews peers, rockstars and colleagues to tell their story. I found it interesting, and delightful that the filmmakers interviewed Arthur’s bishop, and home teacher. Ultimately, interviews were used to explain feelings, and important moments in Arthur, and the New York Dolls’ lives. The film then transitions to Arthur’s present lifestyle: his fishnets are replaced with church pants, a white shirt and a “missionary-like” name card. Rock music is replaced with the surrounding noises of the everyday. The visual and aural comparisons between youth, and his present are strikingly different. At first, the film seems to suggest that Arthur could not have both his life as a rockstar, and his life as an LDS member. However, eventually, the film reveals that Arthur is able to find balance in both.

Arthur is a lovable character. The filmmakers are charitable to him. Interviews with his co-workers express their excitement as they discover his past as a rockstar. One co-worker considers herself as his groupie. He finds home his in work. Though he falls to humble means, he enjoys sharing his lifestyle with the audience. The film does not fall under the observational mode. Rather, the subjects are aware of the camera, and engage the camera in their activities. For example, Arthur introduces the “camera” to the local bus that he rides to the Family History Center. Arthur gives us a tour of his humble apartment, and his workspace at the center.  He compares his apartment to the grandeur of a simple New York hotel room.

Although, Arthur finds meaning in his life through the church, he continues to struggle with several things. His financial problems seem to limit him, and bury him. For example, Arthur’s financial situation forces him to sell his guitars in the pawnshop. The successes of his other band-members leave him confused, and slightly jealous. However, most significantly he struggles to find peace with a broken relationship with the lead singer. Again, the film is charitable because Arthur is able to resolve many of his struggles. He is able to return to music. He rekindles his love and friendship with the members of the band. Lastly, Arthur meets a lovely ending.

An Inconvenient Truth by Davis Guggenheim

An Inconvenient Truth by Davis Guggenheim was a surprisingly intriguing one. The intrigue came from both the content as well as the extreme hype of this film. My initial reaction to all the attention (especially back in 2006) questioned the film. Were audiences just seeing this film because it’s Al Gore?  Prior to watching the film, I also questioned why a documentary film that is primarily lecture-based could reach so many viewers? This film earned $49 million at the box office, which is one of the highest grossing documentaries. Looking back in 2006, the year "played" with the idea of global warming- take for example, the August Newsweek cover that said, “GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!” Obviously, the magazine was poking fun at the disbelievers. But this film doesn't "play" with the disbelievers; the film really does make believers. Anyways, I can understand why this documentary intrigued the masses. So, after a belated jump on the bandwagon, I finally watched this film.

The film was a captivating experience. I was surprised that a multi-media PowerPoint presentation could keep the audience’s attention. First, the presentation was beautifully treated with interactive graphs that provoked anticipation for the next statistics, photographs and animations also proved to move the audience. The film tactfully used the devices with the presentation to establish a “conversational” gathering. Glimpses of the audiences encouraged the feeling that we must join this discussion, and we must join this debate. The nods, and astonishment in the audience further reinforces this presentation as a current, and concerning situation. We become the audience. Al Gore is presenting and informing us. Gore effectively heightens the predicted statics in the next coming years by displaying the graph on a gigantic screen. He uses a construction elevator to get to the top of the screen in order for him to point on the future rise of CO2 emissions. The global warming animations of the polar bear and the Simpsons further engaged the audience, and simplified global warning to the basics. Perhaps, Gore's strongest trait during his presentation is his ability to make the principles simplistic enough for anyone to understand.  For example, he shows pictures of glaciers taken 15 to 30 years ago, and then compares it to a current picture. His data is chilling. We are certainly in trouble.

The film contained great balance. Director Guggenheim paired basic information about global warming with a man’s mission to better the conditions of the earth. An Inconvenient Truth observes a man that travels city to city to give this same presentation. This is revealed by the many shots that show Gore on a plane, in a car, pulling his suitcase, changing and tweaking the PowerPoint on his computer. His voice-overs are quite effective. 

There were several elements that created “voice” in the film. The film is first introduces Gore’s childhood home. He comments on the feeling of hearing the birds, seeing the leaves that rustle against the wind— the director is romanticizing about the earth (or what it once was). Later in the film, we return to this very spot, and Gore’s home has changed. The camera walks with Gore as he rekindles his memory of his home. The film also establishes Gore’s voice by revealing him as a worker. We see Gore working on the presentation. We see him meet with colleagues from China. There is truly great balance between the actual representation and the shadowing of Gore.

I didn’t feel like the film was entirely manipulative. The facts were facts. And, the facts were very chilling. Gore made the film personable with his touches of humor, and enthusiasm. It was a great film that was entirely informative with glimpses into a man and his concerns for the earth.