DIRECTORS’ CUP VOTING, ROUND 1, MATCH 52: Errol Morris (Mr Death: the Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr) vs Olivier Assayas (Clean)
Errol Morris (Mr Death: the Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr) – 1 vs Olivier Assayas (Clean) – 0
Errol Morris is a terrific showman, and that alone raises important questions about documentary filmmaking. After all, I’m not sure how I feel about documentarians being showmen: does his auteur-style “personal stamp” overwhelm that he’s ostensibly supposed to be, well, documenting?
No. And a documentary filmmaker should never claim that it would, unless they are somehow trying to claim that what they are showing is somehow unfiltered truth, which is impossible anyways.
Since Morris uses a very conversational style (you don’t often hear his questions, although somtimes you do, you know there is a conversation happening), you know its a very constructed environment most of the time anyways.
For the people saying that Morris’ films somehow contort their subjects or stand in judgement of them across all of his films, can you give some examples? Doesn’t he essentially let people speak their mind? Or are you saying that you are suspecting he is showing their comments out of context or not showing all sides of them?? I don’t see this. And I’m not sure how you can know this. I’m curious.
Errol Morris (Mr Death: the Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr) – 1 vs Olivier Assayas (Clean) – 0
go Morris !
Mr Death 22, Clean 13 appears to be the current tally with about 12.5 hours to go.
Is this the same Errol Morris who won a challenge with Werner Herzog, culminating in Herzog eating his shoe?!
…same Errol Morris…Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe
edit: a man of his word, if not certifiable …
really ? Morris did that ? WOW
“For the people saying that Morris’ films somehow contort their subjects or stand in judgement of them across all of his films, can you give some examples? Doesn’t he essentially let people speak their mind? Or are you saying that you are suspecting he is showing their comments out of context or not showing all sides of them?”
Cinematic meaning is in the framing.
It’s one thing to point a camera at a subject and say, “Speak your mind.”
It’s another to point a camera at a subject and say, “Speak your mind”, then slowly cant the camera to represent the subject losing it.
Mr. Death is a good one to show this. Lopsided wide-angle framings, Mad Scientist imagery, a contortionist view of his face. Fog of War delights in putting shadows on McNamera’s face to show he’s “shadowy” when a lot of what he talks about he’s trying to make clear and illuminate as possible. I am serious when I say that Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control is the most offensive Morris I’ve ever seen. First of all, the title does not apply to any of the characters (one is a lion tamer, another studies hairless underground rodents, and a third carefully tends shrub statuary, and all are patient, dedicated, and eager to speak their minds), and the characters are genuinely interesting and passionate people, but Morris shoots them in literally canted frames and honestly seems to be pointing the camera like a finger saying, “Hey get a load of these geeks eh? Eh? EHHHH??? What weirdos!”)
As I mentioned before, with Leuchter it’s a little harder to notice because the man is twisted himself, so it’s arguable that form follows function here. However, the fact that he treats McNamera the same way (which, sure, is good filmmaking if you want to villianize McNamera like much of the audience for that movie did), and also treats people who fill their own lives with their own personal dedications (I think Morris’ point is that they’re obsessions, which is why I call what he does “judging” them) the same way, it seems Morris’ auteur stamp is to find fascinating and idiosyncratic characters and ask them to express themselves, and then turn their attempts to speak against them by bending the medium they’re presented in itself. It makes me feel sorry for his subjects, no matter who they are.
I can agree that I may be being a little harsh on Morris, but in a world with the Maysles brothers, Frederick Wiseman, and Herzog, who all, like Morris, have points (yes, sometimes political) to make and stories to tell and who all, like Morris, find fascinating subjects, Morris is the one who does not seem to approach his subjects with wide eyed fascination and pure involvement with their personality, but stands back and stifles a grin as he slowly pulls the lens out of focus. The joke is always on the subject in Morris’ work, and I find that immoral in and of itself.
That is my impression of him and I’m sure he’s a great guy in real life. He might not even feel the same way I do. But I think his movies are crap and he does not deserve to move on, especially in comparison to such a resounding movie like Clean. I know that many people didn’t like Clean and some didn’t even like either, but to me, even poorly made sincere cinema always wins out over audience manipulation and trickery. And I don’t think Clean was poorly made.
—PolarisDiB
I’m a little less harsh in my opinion of Morris than maybe I’ve seemed, but his films are what they are, fake face-to-faceness and all. Rather than documentary, I think it’s more accurate to call them non-fiction films (in the sense that Capote’s In Cold Blood is a non-fiction novel rather than reportage or biography).
-For the people saying that Morris’ films somehow contort their subjects or stand in judgement of them across all of his films, can you give some examples?-
Sure, specifically regarding this film, here’s a example of how the shaping of the film effects the portrait of Leuchter: Morris showed an early cut of the film to a class of Harvard students and, essentially, half of them bought what Leuchter was saying and half of them took Morris to be a Holocaust-denier, so Morris added material to refute Leuchter’s methodology and professional qualifications and recut the film, so the film ends up presenting a perspective that is very different from Leuchter’s own.
-but in a world with the Maysles brothers, Frederick Wiseman, and Herzog, who all, like Morris, have points (yes, sometimes political) to make and stories to tell and who all, like Morris, find fascinating subjects, Morris is the one who does not seem to approach his subjects with wide eyed fascination and pure involvement with their personality, but stands back and stifles a grin as he slowly pulls the lens out of focus. The joke is always on the subject in Morris’ work, and I find that immoral in and of itself.-
For the most part I agree, though I sort of think Herzog fell in to Morris mode in his use of Timothy Treadwell’s footage in Grizzly Man: “I believe the common character of the universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility, and murder,” etc.
Ah yes. I have not seen Grizzly Man but know it is controversial for Herzog sort of over-emphasizing madness where madness there wasn’t. However, Lessons of Darkness stands as a movie with a strong political point made by a faceless narrator and edited to build up audience’s peceptions of an event possibly out of proportion to the event itself, but is still a sort of questioning musing into the actual significance of the imagery itself as Herzog allows the audience to sit back and observe, from a purposefully detached distance. This is an example of a very subjective documentary that I believe is quite well made in opposition to the Morris mode directing audience thought (which Morris critics on this thread are not the only people noticing, plenty of voters, including some who voted for Mr. Death , have called it “manipulative”—the real base of my passionate side of my argument, since to me sincerity is more valuable than quality—a reason why b-movies are often more entertaining than their mainstream big budget counterparts).
—PolarisDiB
Wow – Maysles brothers, Wiseman, and Herzog not manipulative? how about Watkins?
What I like about Morris, and I think this IS his ethos, is that he is screwing with your judgment and asking one, or showing one, that you have no idea what you believe.
The Thin Blue Line (1988), Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (1999), The Fog of War (2003) Standard Operating Procedure (2008) are allegorical. The story behind the story is about what you the audience believe.
Leuchter = the audience
re Mr. Death:
When Morris originally screened an early version of the film for a Harvard film class, he found that the students reacted by either believing Leuchter’s side of the story or by condemning the film as a piece of Holocaust denial. Morris had no such intention, however, as Morris had considered it obvious that Leuchter was wrong, and that the main idea of the film was intended to be the exploration of Leuchter as a being almost completely lacking in self-knowledge
It’s to try to enter the mindset of denial.You would think it would be the easiest thing in the world to identify this behavior as wrong, horrific, depraved. ………. it’s about finding out why Fred Leuchter holds these views.
Treadwell had some issues, whether he was “mad” or not—the man was delusional at best and got himself and his girlfriend eaten alive (and got the bear that did it destroyed, the final ironic culmination of his life’s work).
Wow, PolarisDiB I never picked up any of what you are picking up from Morris.
I would have never come to this point:
Morris is the one who does not seem to approach his subjects with wide eyed fascination and pure involvement with their personality, but stands back and stifles a grin as he slowly pulls the lens out of focus. The joke is always on the subject in Morris’ work, and I find that immoral in and of itself.
If anything, I always felt he loved his subjects as much ore more than some of those other documentary filmmakers you said. He even ads in additional material to help and emphasize what they are saying.
Canting the camera angle means that he is making fun of the person? Maybe it just makes it more interesting to watch. Or maybe if the person really is losing it, they have a reason to lose it. It doesn’t mean they are crazy to be laughed at, just a passionate person. I think he likes passionate people.
Putting a shadow on McNamara’s face (which I don’t remember but will have to look back at) wouldn’t negate to me that in his current conversation he is trying to be shadowy in his recounting of events. I think McNamara was being very illuminating and Morris recognized it, but sometimes the events he was recounting had people in them who were shadowy or the whole tone of what he was talking about was thematically very dark. Do you expect someone to be talking about war and have bright happy colors?
Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control is my least favorite of his films I’ve seen too, but again not because I felt like Morris was laughing at these people or making you feel like you were superior. Rather I felt like he was putting them in a pedistal as people who really had a noble calling and successfully turned their obsession into a career. I just didn’t like it because I didn’t feel like the people’s obsessions had enough in common to keep transitioning them between each other.
I’m just baffled how you are seeing Morris as supercilious when I see him as the total opposite, as a respectful person giving these people a voice. How we see someone in such vast opposites. I’m not sure.
Wow, PolarisDiB I never picked up any of what you are picking up from Morris.
I would have never come to this point:
Morris is the one who does not seem to approach his subjects with wide eyed fascination and pure involvement with their personality, but stands back and stifles a grin as he slowly pulls the lens out of focus. The joke is always on the subject in Morris’ work, and I find that immoral in and of itself.
If anything, I always felt he loved his subjects as much ore more than some of those other documentary filmmakers you said. He even ads in additional material to help and emphasize what they are saying.
Canting the camera angle means that he is making fun of the person? Maybe it just makes it more interesting to watch. Or maybe if the person really is losing it, they have a reason to lose it. It doesn’t mean they are crazy to be laughed at, just a passionate person. I think he likes passionate people.
Putting a shadow on McNamara’s face (which I don’t remember but will have to look back at) wouldn’t negate to me that in his current conversation he is trying to be shadowy in his recounting of events. I think McNamara was being very illuminating and Morris recognized it, but sometimes the events he was recounting had people in them who were shadowy or the whole tone of what he was talking about was thematically very dark. Do you expect someone to be talking about war and have bright happy colors?
Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control is my least favorite of his films I’ve seen too, but again not because I felt like Morris was laughing at these people or making you feel like you were superior. Rather I felt like he was putting them in a pedistal as people who really had a noble calling and successfully turned their obsession into a career. I just didn’t like it because I didn’t feel like the people’s obsessions had enough in common to keep transitioning them between each other.
I’m just baffled how you are seeing Morris as supercilious when I see him as the total opposite, as a respectful person giving these people a voice. How we see someone in such vast opposites. I’m not sure.
—For the people saying that Morris’ films somehow contort their subjects or stand in judgement of them across all of his films, can you give some examples?—
Sure, specifically regarding this film, here’s a example of how the shaping of the film effects the portrait of Leuchter: Morris showed an early cut of the film to a class of Harvard students and, essentially, half of them bought what Leuchter was saying and half of them took Morris to be a Holocaust-denier, so Morris added material to refute Leuchter’s methodology and professional qualifications and recut the film, so the film ends up presenting a perspective that is very different from Leuchter’s own.
But Matt, in the case of Leuchter, don’t you understand why he would want to do that?
And also, I asked you to give specific examples “across all of his films”. This is just from one film, the one we are currently debating. But some people have gone on to say that this is how ALL of his films are. He tackles a pretty wide range of events and personalities.
-I have not seen Grizzly Man but know it is controversial for Herzog sort of over-emphasizing madness where madness there wasn’t.-
Well, Treadwell had issues, but the real problem that I have is Herzog’s using his good intentions and subsequent death as to stump from which philosophize about the nature of the natural world. Was Treadwell prone to irrationality in his attitude toward nature, and did that lead him to engage in extremely dangerous behavior? Yes, sure, but it doesn’t follow that "the common character of the universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility, and murder.” That’s Herzog from completely outside the footage.
-It’s to try to enter the mindset of denial.You would think it would be the easiest thing in the world to identify this behavior as wrong, horrific, depraved. ………. it’s about finding out why Fred Leuchter holds these views-
Yes, Robert, that’s what the film should have done. Morris talks about Leuchter as being interesting because he was totally lacking in self-awareness, but rather than try to find out why he so apparently lacks self-awareness (and, perhaps, more importantly, why such as person was able to have the professional influence he did, get swept along by the agendas of others, as well as, without the narrative deck stacked against him as it is in the final cut of the film, present what for half of a given audience was a convincing argument for the validity of his own work). Instead, Morris simply works the material to discredit work that should have been self-discrediting in the first place.
-But Matt, in the case of Leuchter, don’t you understand why he would want to do that?-
Yes, of course, but note that the “he” in that sentence is not Leuchter but Morris, so now we’re back to what I said initially—the film is about Morris, not about Leuchter (or at least only about Leuchter as he relates to what Morris wants to do with him). Morris is not just the man behind the Interrotron curtain anymore, now he’s Mark Lewis using the camera as a weapon:
the only Assayas film i’ve seen is Boarding Gate(?) and i thought it was terrible. Haven’t bothered with any of his other films
MATT:"Well, Treadwell had issues, but the real problem that I have is Herzog’s using his good intentions and subsequent death as to stump from which philosophize about the nature of the natural world. Was Treadwell prone to irrationality in his attitude toward nature, and did that lead him to engage in extremely dangerous behavior? Yes, sure, but it doesn’t follow that “the common character of the universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility, and murder.” That’s Herzog from completely outside the footage.”
I agree with you, but at the same time, it does provide an effective counterbalance to all the neo-hippie sentiment popular in our society today. perhaps Herzog overstretched himself—the example itself is pretty unusual, as well as extreme—but i enjoyed his perspective on Treadwell, even if it was biased.
Boarding Gate would have gotten my vote Argento is awesome.
-Herzog overstretched himself-
In general, the way I see Herzog documentary work as a whole is that he tends to use one relatively concrete subject as a way to enter into the contemplation of a more abstract one—so, for example, the end of the world (the South Pole) becomes about the end of the world (the possibility of extinction), etc. Treadwell and the browns becomes Herzog’s meditations on nature:
“what haunts me, is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy. I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature. To me, there is no such thing as a secret world of the bears. And this blank stare speaks only of a half-bored interest in food. But for Timothy Treadwell, this bear was a friend, a savior.”
(so, Werner, which is it: is nature mearly “indifferent,” or is it “chaos, hostility, and murder?”)
I guess what troubles me about the technique is this case is that he’s using Treadwell’s to-the-death commitment (as foolhardy as it may have been) to voice more or less casual musing about the subject . . . though I don’t disagree with you about the notion of “counterbalance.”
^^Encounters felt messy to me. His point in Grizzly Man comes through loud and clear. But in Encounters, it’s a little muffled by all the detours he takes along the way. It’s a less focussed effort imo.
But i agree with your general take on his documentaries. I used to ignore his documentaries in the past, but nowadays they are arguably superior to his features. I only liked Bad Lieutenant out of the last 3-4, and that isn’t a patch on his 70’s work.
Don’t wanna hijack this thread much longer on Herzog while voting’s still open, but yes, I think of him primarily as a documentarian now, though Bad Lt. was entertaining as a goof. Instead of making films that are metaphor for his life, he’s making documentaries that are metaphor for his earlier fiction films.
Nobody else is going to vote for Clean?
Voting is closed
Mr. Death wins 22 – 13, and Morris advances to face Woody Allen.
Morris versus Woody. Now that’s a great match-up. I’m looking forward to Errol’s horribles beating Woody’s miserables.
Let me take this opportunity to publicly dare Ricky to confound expectations by selecting The Dark Wind for the next round. And of course, against an (alleged) documentary filmmaker, one would have to select either Zelig or Sweet and Lowdown.
I will back Parks on that Dare. I have many, many things to say about Dark Wind, in fact I Triple Dog Dare You.
Well, Treadwell had issues, but the real problem that I have is Herzog’s using his good intentions and subsequent death as to stump from which philosophize about the nature of the natural world. Was Treadwell prone to irrationality in his attitude toward nature, and did that lead him to engage in extremely dangerous behavior? Yes, sure, but it doesn’t follow that "the common character of the universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility, and murder.” That’s Herzog from completely outside the footage.
So is your issue that the filmmaker uses documentary characters and footage to expound on the filmmaker’s own view of the world? Or is it ok if a filmmaker does this as long as there isn’t a flaw in their logic that what they are showing leads to a certain viewpoint?
—But Matt, in the case of Leuchter, don’t you understand why he would want to do that?—
Yes, of course, but note that the “he” in that sentence is not Leuchter but Morris, so now we’re back to what I said initially—the film is about Morris, not about Leuchter (or at least only about Leuchter as he relates to what Morris wants to do with him). Morris is not just the man behind the Interrotron curtain anymore, now he’s Mark Lewis using the camera as a weapon:
Yes, that’s what I meant Matt. The “he” I meant was Morris. So do you or do you not understand why he would want to do what he did? I mean if you presented a film on Leuchter, would you want your audience thinking his reasons for denying the Holicaust happened was valid? I don’t understand who you feel like Morris is using his camera as a weapon towards. Who is he trying to hurt, and why would he be wanting to hurt them?
Oh man, voting is closed no more discussion allowed HA !
why he so apparently lacks self-awareness : such as person was able to have the professional influence he did, get swept along by the agendas of others
The Thin Blue Line (1988) Society never asked the police to find the truth.
Dr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (1999) Society never asked him to be self aware.
The Fog of War (2003): Society never held McNamara responsible.
Standard Operating Procedure (2008): Society….you get the idea.
Well yeah, why didn’t Morris step in front of the camera and just tell us to read Watts’ The Taboo Against Knowing.
I actually walked away from Fog of War with a completely different impression. I was surprised at how empathetic (though not necessarily sympathetic) it was towards Robert McNamara. With the stories of his career in the private sector and his war service, I thought the film presented him as an admirable success story who made some big mistakes and was still grappling them.
My problem with Mr. Death is that there didn’t seem to be much of a larger point. It was simply a lopsided sketch of one…I guess “nut” would be the right word. Morris seemed to be pointing the camera to show us a grotesquely, bizarre individual, but with no other point than to entertain us with his bizarre grotesqueness. (The important questions the film raises, about America’s support or tacit acceptance of the death penalty, felt like they were raised almost incidentally).
Matt Parks
-Interesting comments above about Clean as documentary, a la David Ehrenstein on Chinatown as documentary-I think to call Clean unequivocally documentary is overstating, but, as I sort of said earlier, despite the clear presence of a fictional narrative, it’s about Maggie Cheung in a much more direct and honest way than Morris’s film is about Leuchter (it’s really about Morris, and only about Leuchter insofar as Leuchter embodies perceptual differences from Morris’s own), but Morris’s film offers to easy feel good of pre-packaged Interrotron moral superiority, while Assayas’s film offers neither triumph nor tragedy, just a nicer skyline than the one at the beginning.