Cool News
Capone Does A Documentary Double-Header With YOUNG@HEART And Morgan Spurlock!
Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.
Harry, Quint, and I dealt with a bizarre series of e-mails over the weekend from a guy who was actively angry at us for not reviewing EXPELLED here on AICN yet.
Let me say this for the record: I love documentaries. I love the form, and as long as I’ve been a film freak, I’ve been a documentary freak in particular.
I’m sure at some point I’ll see EXPELLED. I was invited to see it before it opened, but my schedule never matched up to any of the available screenings. That’s happened with many movies so far this year for me. At least 40 I can count. It’s part of what happens when you do this for a living... you make choices about what gets seen when, based on any number of different reasons. Sometimes it’s because you don’t love the trailer. It just doesn’t move you. Sometimes it’s because there’s something else screening the same time that you want to see more. Sometimes you’re not a fan of the filmmaker. Sometimes it just doesn’t work out.
But as far as there being some organized agenda against a particular film or even a type of film here at the site... bullshit, and I find it offensive to even have it suggested. Some other moron keeps trolling various talkbacks calling the site “liberal propaganda.” Considering how apolitical my love of film has been over the years, I personally find that description repulsive. I don’t like propaganda of any stripe. I love documentaries, but I hate one-sided bully pulpit filmstrips that are just designed to jam some idea down your throat. No matter what the idea is.
Capone happened to catch two documentaries that he’s reviewing together for us today, and unfortunately, neither one is EXPELLED. However, one of them is one of the most well-liked documentaries to be released in recent memory, and I’m looking forward to checking it out. I’ll give you a hint... it ain’t the Morgan Spurlock film...
Hey people. Capone in Chicago here with a couple of choice documentaries for you to check out.
YOUNG@HEART
I've been on a documentary kick lately. I've been catching up on docs I missed at SXSW and have seen some truly inspired works that I'll probably compile into a single report. I just interviewed Errol Morris this week about his harrowing new film and Morgan Spurlock about the film chronicling his tour of the Middle East in search of Osama Bin Laden. But few documentaries of late have made me as happy about being alive as YOUNG@HEART, an uplifting, glorious, funny, entertaining and deeply touching work about a senior citizens chorus in New England that specializes in songs you wouldn't really think seniors would be singing. If you've ever wanted to see folks in their 80s and 90s sing Radiohead, James Brown, The Clash, Prince and even Sonic Youth, look no further. I was absolutely convinced that this film would be the most manipulative movie I saw all year, and I could not have been more wrong. This film was the closing night offering at SXSW for a reason: because it absolutely rules.
Chorus Director Bob Cilman is a pushy SOB who pulls no punches if one of the members isn't pulling their weight or if he thinks a song isn't going to work for the group. His process of teaching the songs to the chorus is remarkable, and the speed at which they learn to perform them is incredible. But unlike most chorus groups, the Young@Heart Chorus must be versatile and adapt quickly in the always-likely event that one of its members becomes sick or even dies. (This is a major influence even during the short time filmmaker Stephen Walker follows the group's progress as they rehearse for a new show.) So watching one singer perform a solo version of Coldplay's "Fix You" while oxygen tubes run into his nose takes on a meaning that is undeniable. But the film is far from all serious. I laughed so often during Young@Heart that I missed a great deal of dialogue. This film is a stitch. I particularly loved Eileen Hall, a 92-year-old (when the film was made a couple years ago) British war bride, who opens the film with a show-stopping version of The Clash's "Should I Stay or Should I Go." The movie (which concludes with highlights from the finished show) is a guaranteed crowd pleaser that will introduce you to some of the most delightful individuals you will ever see on film. I hope I'm able to sing "I Feel Good" when I'm that old. You will adore this movie.
WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN?
In the school of documentaries where the filmmaker decides not only to place himself in front of the camera to discuss whatever subject matter he/she is discussing, but also to become the focus of the film, Morgan Spurlock is at the top of the heap. His SUPER SIZE ME is classic "taking one for the team" as he ate nothing but McDonald's food for 30 days. His fantastic FX series "30 Days" is often powerful in unexpected ways as he and others live the life of a person sometimes totally dislike them, often diametrically opposed to their core beliefs. The show actually makes me anxious in the best possible way. But his latest feature, in which he and a film crew set out to find the world's top terrorist is a bit different. Sure, Spurlock is still squarely in the middle of the action--from military survival training to going country to country in the Middle East on his hunt.
I was never 100 percent convinced that Spurlock was really looking for Bin Laden, but that's not really the point. He was spurred on to make this journey happen when he and his wife discovered that they were unexpectedly pregnant, which led him to consider the world in which he would bring his baby into and the type of world that could spawn a man like Bin Laden. So armed with etiquette lessons and a friendly demeanor Spurlock travels to some of the world's hottest hot zones hoping to shed light on the state of the Middle East and the world. He interviews leaders and everyday people hoping to discover the source of anti-American feelings in the region, how Bin Laden could come from such a prosperous family in Saudi Arabia and to experience first-hand the overwhelming amount of hospitality given by the people.
WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? is just as interesting for what it doesn't do as for what it does. It doesn't engage in a major bashing of the Bush administration; nor does the film tackle the much-touted belief that the U.S. knows where Bin Laden is, but that it's far more profitable and useful in maintaining power to keep him alive. Spurlock's goal is not to create world peace, but his slightly hippie-ish approach to this film makes it feel that way at times. When he's not asking random store clerks where Bin Laden is hiding, he's making sure to point out just how much "like us" these people are that he is seeing. If you care at all about this film, you probably already know whether or not Spurlock finds his intended target. But that never stops the movie from being a great crash course in Middle Eastern politics. I was particularly intrigued by his visits to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel, where he is attacked by Orthodox Jews, which is funny to watch until you realize that the guy was probably in serious danger.
I believe Spurlock set out to make a movie that might inspire others to consider other cultures before setting down a path toward hating a certain country or people or religious group. He wants a peaceful place to raise his child, and while the film often comes across as unfocused, the messages that do come through are positive and hugely entertaining. Spurlock is gifted in front of the camera, and his people skills are second to none. You can't help but wonder what would have happened if the director and his crew did, somehow, arrange a meeting with Bin Laden. Could they handle it? Would they have even gone through with it? As a guy eagerly awaiting the birth of his first child, Spurlock would have been crazy to go through with something like that, and I guess that was always in the back of my mind while watching this still-entertaining and humorous work. I'd say if you're a fan of Spurlock's, you'll probably have more fun with the new "30 Days" season starting at the beginning of June than you will with WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN?
Capone
-
+ Expand All
-
...but what's the point?
-
This is a beautiful film. I thought it would be boring and was forced to watch it, so glad that I was. It's well worth checking out.
-
thought I'd get it in first. Also want to bet that the whiner was MorbidObesity.
-
Fuck Ben Stein and his wanting to get "intelligent design" taught in schools. And fuck Cygnus.
-
Documentaries belong on tv not movie theaters.
-
Is Ben Jew into God Teach? Also i read something that thats the movie that started to monitor who was going to see advance showings of movies? And Live, some of the best movies I've seen the past couple of years have been docs. I believe they deserve more theater time then crap like D-Wars and Name of the King and Juno.
-
I don't even know what to say about it. An embarrassment to America maybe?
-
Because how can you even "teach" intelligent design? There's nothing there to teach. Other than the statement that "Some religions believe God directly created all life" what is there? It's not like the Bible discusses cell mitosis...
-
I saw it yesterday. It's moronic, sleazy, dishonest, scientifically ignorant, witless, technically inpt, manipulative shit. It would be all but impossible to make a pro-ID movie which ISN'T shit (it's like making a pro-flat earth movie...the premise is retarded and indefensible from the start), but EXPELLED goes beyond simple scientific stupidity and religionism into literally calling people Nazis if they accept evolution (which is a proven fact, just in case you didn't know). Stein also confuses evolution with the origin of life and constantly uses the scientifically meaningless word, "Darwinism," tp refer o what he imagines is some kind of grand, unifying atheistic ideology. EXPELLED is hate speech. It's nothing but crybaby whinging from Bible fundies upset that "Big Science" won't accept their primative creation myth as having any scientific validity. Stein tries to frame the whole thing as a "free speech" issue, but what the movie is really upset about is that the scientific and acdemic community insist that IDists actually follow scientific methods and fucking PROVE something. IDists think they should have some special dispensation to skip past normal methods of testing and peer review and just go straight to presenting it alongside evolution (which is a proven fact) as if ID was some sort of legitimate "alternative." It isn't. ID isn't even a theory, in scientific terms. All it is is a religious belief. It is not justified as a hypothesis by any observable evidence, makes no falsifiable predictions and cannot be tested. AICN should not have to apologize for ignoring EXPELLED any more than it should have to apologize for not reviewing religious programming on cable. EXPELLED is not a legitimate documentary -- not even in the Michael Moore vein. It's just stupid, proselytizing religious propaganda. It's like one of those "news" segments on te 700 CLUB, only stretched out to 90 minutes.
-
Morbid brought up Expelled in the other Spurlock TB so I think Jarv is right.
Mori, why do you even have to defend the site from being biased one way or the other? Bias is natural, and this isn't a news site that has to adhere to journalistic neutrality (not that that matters - look at Fox). At least you give free reign for Conservatives to voice balancing and contrary views, which enhances debate on this site. And don't even worry about the Cygnus "aintitliberalpropaganda.com" subject spams. Both Cons and Libs around here regard that as stupid anyway. -
It made less then 1100 bucks per theater..ouch.
-
A factually incorrect propoganda film trying to trick people into thinking it's a documentary doesn't deserve any attention from this site, regardless of which way it's slanted.
If there was an equally unfactual pro-evolution documentary I would be just as outraged (although they wouldn't have to make up any facts in that case, since the evidence for evolution actually exists versus nothing for ID). -
(thank fuck I live in Britain, we're not that exposed to this shite) but isn't the "proof" of ID in the eye of a fly? don't they argue that all the constituent parts could not have evolved through natural selection, so therefore there must be some guiding hand behind it?
-
The eyeball is one of several things that IDists try to claim are "irreducibly complex." They are full of shit in every case. There are multiple pathways for the evolution of the eye (which has probably occureed independently more than once). Every stage in the models for these pathways is clearly represented in living species. IDists have yet to produce a single example of a genuine "irreducible complexity" anywhere in biology.
-
It's one thing to be pissed-off at some douche and his false claims or dislike a bad movie like "Expelled". But why so much hate towards an opposing view? Even if you think that view is utter stupid shit is there really any reason for you to take it upon yourself to tell everyone who feels that way that they're foolish. Furthermore is there any reason to hate their foolish views so fervently? What the hell makes you so great that you should judge others and the way they feel so harshly.
I find it funny that it's usually those that preach open mindedness and tolerance that speak the angriest and most biggeted words when dealing with those that don't fall in line with their beliefs.
Just a thought. -
What I dislike is the LYING. Stein's film is fundamentally dishonest on just about every level. Evolution is not an opinion, by the way. It's a fact. Saying there are opposing views to evolution is like saying there are opposing views to gravity or to a round earth.
-
Here's the deal about monitoring who sees the film EXPELLED:
Richard Dawkins, prominent evolutionist (who, in the film, says that the only way intelligent design could be possible is if we were created by an alien race, but definitely not an all-powerful God) and a few of his friends actually started FOLLOWING Ben Stein and the EXPELLED group while Stein was on the promotion circuit. Whenever the EXPELLED group stopped to promote and show the film, Dawkins and co. would crash the viewing and heckle... that's right, Richard Dawkins has nothing better to do than follow Ben Stein around and make fun of him for making this movie. Pathetic.
This just proves what EXPELLED is saying; whether you believe that creationism should be given EQUALITY to evolution or not, evolutionists go absolutely CRAZY when the POSSIBILITY is even suggested... not a very scientific way to look at a hypothesis. -
Is to TEST the fucking thing, not to just cry like little bitches because the scientific community expects you to follow normal protocols. IDists want a free pass. They can't make a testable prediction or point at any evidence for their "hypotehsis" (which is really just a religious belief), yet they expect to be able to skip past all peer review and just have their bullshit taught right along with (or instead of) evolution. There really isn't even anything to TEACH about ID. It has no body of evidence and no predictable tests. It's impossible to research. It's just an unsupported declaration that "god did it," without the slightest bit of evidence to back that up.
-
is a good idea. Too bad evolution doesn't fall under this category. Macro-evolution has never been conclusively observed, therefore no hypothesis can be truly tested using the scientific method. Evolution requires much more faith than Intelligent Design does, or ever will.
-
Furst of all, I should point out that so-called "micro" and "macro" evolution are fake, Creationist distinctions. They are the same thing. "macro" is just a whole bunch of "micro."
Having said that, there are amny cases of directly observed speciation (so-called "macroevolution") and the genetic evidence such as endogenous retroviral genes prove common descent beyond all doubt. When you say evolution isn't tested, you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about. Evolution is probably the most tested and most confirmed theory (which is not the same as a hypothesis, and which does not mean "unproven"). In the last 150 years it has faced more opposition than any other theory and been subjected to millions of falsifiable tests. Guess what. Evolution has never failed a test. It would be pretty easy to falsify if it wasn't true. All you'd have to do is find a single fossil out of place in the geological column. Find one human legbone in a pre-cambrian layer and you will have disproven evolution. Yet out of the millions and millions and millions of fossils ever recovered, not a single one has ever been found in the wromng layer. What are the odds taht all those fossils would just coincidentally layer themselves precisely in the order
By contrast, ID has never made a single prediction or offered up a single testable hypothesis. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the Matrix as there is for ID, so why not let Matrix advocates offer their "theory" in classrooms? Why not let Wich doctors teach about evil spirits in Med school? How about "intelligent falling" advocates in physics? Please tell me why ID is less ridiculous or deserves any more respect than those other things. -
Macro evolution is not just a whole bunch of micro. Macro evolution preaches that one species can immediately give birth to a related but completely different species. I'm not going as far as to say, "macroevolution teaches that a cat can give birth to a dog, isn't that ridiculous, yada yada yada." However, macroevolution (a term created by Russian Entomologist and evolutionist Yuri Filipchenko in 1927, therefore making it NOT some sort of fake Creationist distinction) DOES teach that a species can give birth to a different species. As much as you'd like to think so, THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED OR PROVEN. And if people are going to start citing the fossil record, they should know that the fossil record is the single most damning thing about evolution. The fossil record (consisting of millions of fossils, but none of a completely linked line, i.e. MISSING LINKS) has so many holes in it, it's surprising anybody believes in it. But I guess that's where faith comes in. If it makes you feel better, though, you can win. Mostly because I'm fairly certain that even if we went back and forth for the foreseeable future, neither of us would change our opinions. Bye!
-
And you are absolutely wrong what the word means. "macroevloution" is the word that creationists use to refer to speciation. It is not a claim of evolution that one individual can "give birth" to another species. It just means that enough variation or so-called "microevolution" (these are creationist words, not scientific ones) will eventually result in a population which can no longer interbreed with i's parent species. It's not a sudden change. It's extremely gradual change over time. A useful analogy is language. Language changes slowly and imperceptibly over time until it is no longer recognizable as the language it used to be. French, Italian and Spanish are all commonly descended from Latin. It doesn'y mean that one day people were speaking Latin and the next day they were speaking French.
You're also completely wrong about so-called "transitional fossils." (a bogus term really, since all species are "transitional." No species is "finished") There are thousands and thousands of them. Fossilization is a fluke process anyway. The vast majority of dead animals do not become fossilized and it would be silly to expect to find every single individual dead animal in every single pathway, but what we have found is more than sufficient. The problem with this "missing link" canard (there are no such things) is that as soon as you find something in between two stages, then creationsits say, "but now what goes in between THOSE two stages?" It's called "God of the gaps" reasoning.
Noit that fossil evidence matters anyway. We can prove evolution without a single fossil just from the genetic evidence and from directly observed speciation.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts