“El Bulli: Cooking in Progress” highlights a movement, but leaves all but foodies in the cold

When one restaurant, El Bulli, stands above all others with its adventurous and experimental food, and becomes world renowned, why not document its story?

“El Bulli: Cooking in Progress” is a pure documentary in a sense; that’s no praise.  While most documentaries are edited to create a story structure and reveal memorable characters, this film avoids that.

The opening shot seizes our attention: the chief chef, Ferran Adrià, is in the dark sucking on a piece of glow-in-the-dark fish on a stick.  That’s cool.  Sadly, it’s also the just about the best part of this documentary.  The film-maker, Gereon Wetzel, omits any sense of artistic direction, or style or purpose.  Maybe you should call it observational movie-making?  He seems to have left the cameras on-location and merely edited the project for time and comprehensibility.  Maybe this is one of those films where a critic outside of the film’s target audience, oughtn’t write about it?

Yep. Cooking in progress (Courtesy: creative commons/flickr)

In a conversation with a different documentary film-maker, Morgan Spurlock, he mentioned someone that Werner Herzog said, “every cut is a lie.”  Well, none of the cuts used here are made in the interests of a story.  It ignores elementary rules of storytelling, which every working film-maker knows and uses to win an audience.

This opens at the Film Society of Mpls/St. Paul on Sept. 23.  The film-making should not be the focus.  It should be Spanish molecular gastronomy, which can transform a diner’s experience, and lift their dining standards.

After Mr. Adrià, the trio of co-executive chefs, Oriol Castro, Eduard Xatruch and Mateu Casanas, are emphasized, but we only get shallow gists of any of them, who they are or why they do their work.

Divided roughly in two, the film shows the testing and experimentation process and then how the chef foursome, and the restaurant team make the successful experiments work for diners.  Their serving process must abide by military precision; their diners consume 30 courses within three hours.

Another obstacle for you: their work is not just technical, but highly technical.  Too much so for those who aren’t either intensely curious, or foodies, or cooks themselves.

The chefs’ challenges might lose most other viewers.  It’s a shame because in a “60-Minutes” segment, from April 2010, one of Adrià’s protégés, José Andrés, who, according to renowned food critics, Ruth Reichl, is the pioneer in America of Molecular gastronomy, shows how exciting molecular gastronomy is!

If food excites you, but on a more common level, I urge you to watch a different, equally esoteric, but amusing story: PBS’ documentary, “Kings of Pastry,” about ambitious, competitive French pastry chefs.  It’s a superior example of a culinary documentary.  It’s exciting: it delivers drama, suspense and personal stories.

What would happen if you recorded your “Life in A Day?”

“Life in A Day” is a documentary directed by Kevin MacDonald.  Video cameras were given to more than 80,000 people and families from more than 190 countries.  Each recorded their lives for a single day, July 24, 2010.  Doing a chronicle like this is a production gauntlet.  A thankless one.

The film begins slowly.  How many people are patient enough to watch the waking moments of a dozen people from across the planet?  It’s not bad, but best bits follow the waking opening.

A teenager shaves for his first time with his dad on-hand

This opens at the Film Society of Mpls./St. Paul on September 2nd.

As happens with the occasional film, this has no plot, nor story, but has characters.  The storytelling method reveals character and characters in ways no other films do. There are people, whose points of view or sections stand out.  The randomness might remind you of the “Visions of Light,” the American Film Institute’s documentary, from 1992, about movie lighting.

A great moment: something is giving birth, but you can’t tell if she’s a mammal or not.  And then the point of view starts to teeter and slumps to the floor.  A man has fainted.  He’s now a father!

The magic comes when the subjects answer any one of four questions like “who do you love?,” “what do you love?” “what do you fear?”  On the part of fear, one woman flaunts her fat boy.  Another mentions loneliness.

“Life in A Day” is worth watching.

“In My Sleep” should stay in bed

Markus seems to keep waking up “In My Sleep,” with nasty evidence of murder in or on his hands.  His boss’ & best friend’s, Justin (Tim Draxl), wife, Ann (Kelly Overton), disappears and is presumed murdered.  The more often Markus awakes with suspicious, even bloody evidence in-hand, the more he starts to pursue cures to his disorder, and answers for the blood.

Markus (Philip Winchester), is a day spa masseuse and a parasomniac.  That word pops up often in conversatory, doesn’t it?  According to WebMD “parasomnias are disruptive sleep-related disorders that can occur during arousals from REM sleep or partial arousals from Non-REM sleep.”  They “include nightmares, night terrors, sleepwalking, confusional arousals, and many others.”  While the movie makes the noctural murders the prevailing disorder, it isn’t.

The key question: did he kill Ann?  The plot twists, which they add atop story wrinkle atop peripheral character tell us that the filmmakers, Allen Wolf and David Austin, almost forget or ignore this question.  None of these serves the story.  Instead they add up to distracting and frustrating us.  There are worse movies out there, but it might be hard to name one that’s a mess on as many levels as this.

Caged "In My Sleep"

This film played at the Film Society of Minneapolis/St. Paul in mid-August.

“In My Sleep” is an ambitious, overwrought and overwritten attempt at a thriller.  How many ways can you describe a bad, or badly made movie?  It’s like a cook who’s found himself in a Master Chef-like competition while having no clue of how to not come off as a fool, hold his own or even win.

An example: Marcus at a nightclub, with Justin and Ann.  The night is young, so he elects to hop to the next nightspot and find a girl.  But he gets a female crank caller, whom he assumes, by reflex, must be one of his one-time conquests.  But she asks him, in a forthright, non-sentimental way, why he sleeps with a new woman every night; why he can’t commit to one?  Now, it’s weird and creepy.  And this pondering question could make for a decent story about some of life’s pillars, love, sex and happiness.

A second example: in a surprise birthday party sequence, Markus opens a package, a particularly combat-worthy knife, is taken aback and then reads the card – sent and written by himself.  Bizarre.  Pieces of story, like this, are introduced capriciously and then dropped.

Every 15-mins seems to add a twist wrinkle, character or symbolism.  There are at least three scenes, subplots or sequences, which if omitted, would clarify the plot: there is the police’s investigation of Ann’s death; the one about Markus’ parents’ dysfunctions; and one where his love interest turns out to be a relative out to avenge his friend’s death.  Each is instead barely developed, like a child who claims a passionate hobby for about a week, before dropping it.  None of these serves the story.

“In My Sleep” trying too hard to be a gripping Hitchcockian thriller.  It’s desperate, adding new twists and absurd, potential subplots and character motivations.  It’s trying to cover for being inept.

Gift to self: a knife for killing

“Sleep” is incoherent and barely organized: it reminds me of HBO’s 2000 “Longitude,” story about the creation of Standard Time.  It’s splendid with fascinating characters.  The clock’s namesake, John Harrison, was so much of egoist that he didn’t strip away design errors; instead he added pieces to the clock, on top of the errors, to make it work.  According to the HBO film, the Harrison Machines, while working, also boast a mess of pointless, add-on parts.  The design was crude, but worked, and helped to save lives – but that’s a whole other story.  Too bad the “In My Sleep” flat out doesn’t work.

The filmmakers steal from Alfred Hitchcock, to whom a New York Times critic has compared “In My Sleep”, and John Dahl and other filmmakers.  Each of them deftly spins yarns of suspense, albeit in different and distinctive ways.

Compare this film to Mr. Dahl’s 1989′s “Kill Me Again,” 1994′s “The Last Seduction” or 1996′s “Unforgettable,” or to any one of Mr. Hitchcock’s oeuvres.  Do you need a list?  At least three must be on the tip of your tongue.  When Messrs Dahl or Hitchcock each uses suspense, it pays off, excites us and serves the story.  When Mr. Wolf does it we get the opposite.  At least half the time when Wolf tries the climactic reveal, which the music plays up, it collapses.  That broaches the other fundamental crisis: mocking or copying Bernard Hermann.

The musical score, which copies those of Bernard Hermann, who did many of Hitchcock’s, tweaks the strings with such exuberance as to mock Mr. Hermann’s remarkable, indelible music.  It’s disappointing.  It’s makes you shake your head, asking “why screw up that iconic musical touch?”

“In My Sleep” offers a promising plot in the first act.  But maybe it’s only enough to give it enough rope to hang itself.  Not everything in this is bad or badly done, but most of it is, and that drowns out what could have been a competent genre yarn.

Unfortunately the film team, Allen Wolf, and producer, David Austin, try too hard without having the competence or skills to accomplish their vision.  But this story shows meager evidence that they held a clear, cogent one.

But at some point you have to blurt “enough.”  The Razzies might find time to celebrate this one. It’s too bad, even morose; you want to give an artist some credit for daring or reaching.  Competence is the first question.

“Crime After Crime” is a moving documentary about a woman’s perseverence, and the sausage-making in “justice”

“Crime After Crime,” a feature-length documentary by Yoav Potash, about a troubled young woman, Deborah Peagler, who was convicted of homicide more than 25 years ago.  This, after having asked neighborhood gangsters to make her abusive lover stop beating and terrorizing her.  While a 2003 California law would only demand six years of her life in prison, her 1983 sentence took more than 25.  This is her story.

This suspenseful true story will show at the Film Society of Minneapolis/St. Paul starting on July 29th.

Ms. Deborah Peagler awaits justice and freedom (courtesy Sundance)

Two lawyers, Nadia Costa and Joshua Safran, stepped up to take her case, pro bono, after a 2003 California law was passed that changed the game for victim/survivors of domestic abuse who are convicted of homicide, and free her.  In doing so they found a sympathetic client, and a District Attorney’s office, run by Steve Cooley, that has committed and is committing “Crime After Crime,” as Mr. Safran described their conduct, to save face and keep careers.

When you picture justice, this isn’t it: not “Crime After Crime.”  It’s a spectacular story, where the themes and stakes will remind some of you of the activist 1970s movie trend with such titles as 1980′s “Brubaker,” 1979′s “…And Justice for All,” and 1975′s “Dog Day Afternoon,” of the underdog.

Winston Churchill, an extraordinary political icon of the United Kingdom, once said that “Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms…”  As it goes with that, so this seems to with justice: she was denied parole at least thrice.  At one point Safran describes how the parole and appellate process work in ways, which ignore or preclude the convict’s promise for doing good.  Ms. Deagler had been an ideal inmate, had earned a two-year degree, become a mentor to junior inmates and served far more time than 2000s laws demanded.  So the case requires Herculean efforts even when the law, precedent and rhetorical are on their side.

Lawyers Josh Safran and Nadia Costa guide Ms. Peagler toward freedom, if not justice (courtesy Berkeley Side)

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office does so many things that clash with the public’s interests or Ms. Peagler’s.  It makes you wretch and doubt America’s commitment to justice, or equal justice.  Originally she was sentenced via a legal perspective that lumped women, who lash out is desperation at their abusive husbands or lovers, with those women who kill in cold blood.

The stakes, offenses and perversions of justice, and morals in this story make it a crackerjack whodunit.  What makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand is that “Crime After Crime” trains its crosshairs, more and more, on the prosecutors misconduct.  The DA’s office conceals a pivotal document, uses unreliable and impotent witness testimony and reneges on compassionate agreements.

California's masses support Peagler's cause (courtesy LATimes.com)

“Crime After Crime” boasts as many plot twists and is as fast-paced as a sweeps week episode of “Law & Order.”  In some ways this is similar to 1993′s “In the Name of the Father,” even though that drama, which was based on a true story, exonerates justice in the United Kingdom.  In both stories, convicts languish in prison for crimes, and with sentences, more heinous than the evidence warranted.

Ms, Peagler’s odyssey is even more trying and dramatic than another documentary, POV’s “Presumed Guilty,” from 2010.  That  indicts the Mexican version of justice – and a very non-Western.  That candid and uncomfortable exposé provides excellent and telling comparison to Ms. Peager’s story.

Alongside being a splendid true crime drama, this documentary pushes us to consider several uncomfortable questions: what is justice?  what color is it?  why must it not only have a price, but one that makes our noses bleed?  Finally, what do we expect from it vs. what America’s founders wanted us to expect from it.

Share

Share

“The Kids Grow Up,” even with dad, Doug Block, roaring “no” through a camera lens

Close your eyes.  Imagine having just been born, and then opening your eyes to a man doting on you from behind a camera lens.  He’s your dad, documentarian Doug Block, and has just shoved that in your face.  Maybe that’s how his daughter, Lucy, felt after the thrill and fun of being recorded wore off, …and teenhood came?

Well, he kept that up, particularly when an empty nest loomed.

Mr. Block has recorded Lucy from her toddling days through her last ones in high school.  He didn’t begin with this film as a goal, but to document her life.  With her flight from home to college imminent, he feels “a new urgency” to make something of the footage.  Lucy’s story, “The Kids Grow Up,” is just as much one of her dad’s terror over losing his little girl, as it is hers of trying out her newly sprung wings.  This is a special, personal documentary film.

The Film Society of Minneapolis/St. Paul shows this one at St. Anthony Main from Feb. 25th through Mar. 3rd.  Mr. Block will attend the 7:15pm screening and be available to answer questions.

The story.  The irony.  the drama.

Doug introduces his daughter’s story as a record of her last year in high school.  As he says, early in the film, Lucy “had the great misfortune to be born right at the dawn of the consumer camcorder.  And the double misfortune to have a documentary filmmaker for a father,” Mr. Block said.  Prophetic.  Does he know just how prophetic?

“The Kids Grow Up” meanders along a sentimental path that this its maker seems to need in order to let Lucy go and become the woman she needs to be – on her own.  It seems to follow a stream of consciousness, having been organized more emotionally than with intention.  It’s mixed with Mr. Block’s thoughts about his relationship with his own father; and how Doug’s father himself learned to be one, on-the-job just as Mr. Block did.

As Doug’s wife, Marjorie, notes, “And when she works all this through in therapy,” the footage can be entered as evidence.

Even so, dad’s lovingly invasive lens provides several witty and amusing moments.

Little Lucy Block playing...maybe posing

The best bits

A hilarious moment comes during vacation when a teenage Lucy entertains her French beau, Romain, who’s on a European-style vacation.  Doug and Marjorie discuss the probability that Lucy and Romain have already had sex – in the apartment.

Doug doesn’t like it.  While she isn’t happy about it, Marjorie’s rational (maybe because she’s a lawyer).

Doug asks “How is it you’re so comfortable with Lucy and Romain doing it?”

Marjorie, “Well, I know they’re sleeping together elsewhere.  …Sexual pleasure is so nice!”

Doug, “Yeah, it’s something you can do by yourself…”  She chuckles and turns away.

Another guffaw comes as Lucy awaits her behind-the-wheel exam.   ”I’m about to take my road test.  I’m really nervous.  And being filmed isn’t helping…”  She breathes deeply in order to calm herself, which seems futile.  “I have to pee.  I feel like I’m gonna throw up…”  Just then she sees the examiner is primed to put her into and then right out of her misery.  The moment is concise, hilarious and genuine; and a potent summary of the stress that Doug’s and dad’s camera adds.

Pushing his daughter away in order to be closer?

But somehow Mr. Block doesn’t know when to stop.  Late in the film we see that his gentle, persistent inquisition pushes Lucy into fatigued tears – punishing her.  He’s pissing her off, she says.  A beat later, we see a brief scene of her toddler self, thrilled with the fun and ego boost from being on-camera.

“I like videotaping.  I like seeing myself on TV…rather than looking in a mirror,” Lucy says.

 

 

That juxtaposition is remarkable.  And telling.

Bottom-line: “The Kids Grow Up” is a sweet and candid dual portrait of a dad and his beautiful, level-headed grown young daughter.  Daughters’ll be sure that it’s a story for and about them.  Dads’ll differ, saying that it’s clearly for them.  This documentary film provides a different angle on how it is to be either one of them.

If we graded this: 4.5 out of 5.

Share

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.