"TV DOCUMENTARIES DO COUNT: 'SEPARATED' BY ERROL MORRIS"

       Documentary films made specifically for television broadcast have become not only accepted but also respected since the early 1960s. Similarly, the directors who make these motion pictures have been highly admired as contributing to the art of cinema. Frederick Wiseman's works about significant American institutions, like mental hospitals and high schools, are still honored  after more than 60 years as are Wisemen's more recent documentaries.  Films by the  Maysles brothers about cultural icons like The Rolling Stones ( " Gimme Shelter " )   continue to dominate our TV legacy. Ken Burns fills public TV with stories of American history, like the Civil War and the game of baseball.    

     Another documentarian, Errol Morris, is not as well-known. Yet his latest movie, " Separated,  " is headed to become very salient in today's political landscape. Its style is a combination of both non-fiction  ( interviews, archival foortage and  true-life reactments ) and fiction (recreation of events using actors and visual imagery that become metaphors. Like Morris' other works, his subjects are about real-life people ( "Fog of War" through Robert McNamera's eyes and "The Thin Blue Line"  conveying the space between law-and-order and chaos in society.) 
     His most recent TV documentary, "Separated," not only fits into the political news headlines of the day, but also gives us clear and precise factual information about immigrants who were separated from their children when they entered the United States. It's as if we  know the people who play a role in the government, as if they are our co-workers. 
     We  become close to the immigrants on the run, too. They never really exist like the non-fictional individuals do; after all the immigrants  are played by actors. Yet we feel like we are with them on the journey for survival. Something happens to us along the way. At times, we begin to feel sorry for the government workers who surely must wonder about what happens to the abandoned children. Perhaps these men and women feel guilty that our "government keeps better records of property than it does of the children who are missing."
     As the documentray comes to an end, we decide we must take a stand. Who do we blame for this horrible separation. How can we make things better? Will we ever find the multitude of children stil missing? What is the  real purpose of director ErroL Morris's film?          
      It's clear that the documentray is a warning: watch out for the future when things may be worse. 






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE BEST OF 2018; WHERE SETTING IS THE REAL STAR

Now that it's the end of the year, media critics are submitting their favorite films and TV shows of 2018. Which then soon starts  an avalanche of international  awards, like The Golden Globes and Academy Awards. It's interesting to see if our own personal " bests" win any of those awards. They should. After all,  we select special works that people may neglect, not recognizing that they are extraordinary?  We  critics, in other words, have better aesthetic taste than the so- called  media "judges" who are considered primarily representatives of popular culture, not "art."  What's more, we critics don't, hopefully, single out winning media for political reasons ( ie. It's Joe Smith's turn to garner a  best actor award because he's getting old ).     While describing what media critics are and are not, I have often wondered what characteristics we do consider when picking the "Best." The obvious criteria  include ...
Read more

YEAH FOR "VICE"

A look at the new movie, "VICE" about Dick Chaney, relates to last week's blog regarding " The Best of 2018." In an odd way, that is.     "Vice" is a prelude to "The Best of 2019":  It has a good chance of winning  for  Best Picture. And for sure, Christian Bale will garner a Best Actor Award. As proof, consider Gary OLdman's Oscar  for his role as Winston Churchill in "Darkest Hour."      Be that as it may, the more challenging issue is this: what is the film's intention? Is it to change people's minds about Cheney, who as George W. Bush's Vice President, was a provocative and disliked elected official? In other words,  is the movie supposed to humanize Cheney, to make viewers feel sorry for him? Or is it to enhance  what we always thought about Cheney in the first place?        On another level, is this primarily a film about our political system that corrupts people ( and especially Republicans )?...
Read more

Today's Living Room War

If we had been committed TV viewers watching the Vietnam War, we would have known it as "The Living Room War," based on its qualities of intimacy and frequency. Today, news broadcasts, while not aways about a war, have those similar elements. Yet they exist for different reasons.      Back in the day, "intimacy" meant watching the same group of soldiers and their often- daily exploits. We came to know them. We came to care about them. They were the main "characters" leading the parade. Presently, such characters in a newscast are the hosts or broadcasters themselves, not the topics. These individuals are those who carry the dramatic weight, and we look forward each day to seeing and hearing them: people who have potent personalities, like Fareed Zakaria, Sean Hanity, Rachel Maddow and loads of others, who cover  broad  demographics based on race, gender, sexual preference and political ideology, among other aspects.        Regardless ...
Read more