msicism
patreon
Visions du Réel 2020: Quick Notes, Part Two
🕑 Added 2020-05-03 06:34:56 +0000 UTCSo this is a quick second installment of my report on films I watched for the at-home version of the Swiss documentary festival. Most of the stuff I viewed will be addressed in an upcoming festival report for Cinema Scope. Below, I am jotting down some remarks on films I did not cover in that piece.
On a Clear Day You Can See the Revolution From Here (Emma Charles / Ben Evans James, 2020)
Like a lot of recent documentaries, On a Clear Day wants to make broad, sweeping statements about a given culture (in this case, contemporary Kazakhstan). At the same time, its makers are savvy enough about postmodern ethnography and the skepticism toward "grand narratives" to know that such an effort is impossible, that there is no single, definitive "Kazakhstan," and there never was. So what we end up with is a collection of fragments, unified by an abstract theme or geographical trope. In this case, we sort of have both: Charles and James organize On a Clear Day by following the route from a huge Soviet nuclear station, following the incomplete electification lines across the Steppe, using this as a way to check in with people across the nation.
It's not a terrible idea, but the resulting film is little more than a series of sketches that posit, unsurprisingly, that Soviet ambition was wrongheaded, and traditional life was good. However, while showcasing the (admittedly astonishing) hyper-capitalist architecture in the city of Nur-Sultan, the filmmakers simply gawk, making no mention of the oil industry that financed those structures, or the oligarchs they were built to placate. Like a glib Chamber of Commerce video encouraging corporate investment, On a Clear Day gives history the stink-eye while embracing the present, no questions asked.
Non Western (Laura Plancarte, 2020)
A troubling, inconclusive documentary that operates somewhat in the "P.O.V." vein of observationalism / social problem journalism, Non Western is notable for what it's not. Based on its subject matter, one fully expects it to be a cautionary tale about blinkered white people and their appropriation of a culture not their own, in this case that of the North Cheyenne tribe. But it actually goes much deeper than that, which makes it all the more heartbreaking. Thaddeus and Nanci are in love and planning to marry. Thaddeus is a North Cheyenne man who lost his culture as a young man, first after being separated from his mother and placed with a white family, and then later when he made the decision to leave the reservation to attend a "white" Montana school to get a better education. Nanci is an academic with a PhD, who has studied Montana First Peoples' culture extensively, and as a child was introduced into tribal practices by a close family friend when she and her mother were destitute. While she expresses her deep connection with Native ways, she is very clear that she is white, and can never truly be a part of the culture without being appropriative.
The problems emerge around Thaddeus's adherence to proscriptive gender roles which he and his mother claim are part of traditional North Cheyenne culture. A brief argument about Nanci asking Thad to help with the laundry escalates to a discussion about how it is the wife's role to care for the husband, who is the spiritual leader of the house. She is to keep him fed, keep his house clean, and defer to him. As Thad tells Nanci, "in my house, your PhD means nothing." Complicating matters further, Nanci has three children from a previous marriage, two of whom like Thaddeus very much but worry that their mom is willing to sacrifice too much of herself in order to marry this man.
The film is remarkably evenhanded in articulating all sides of the conflict with respect, and what Non Western gently reminds us is that the preservation of tradition always has a conservative element to it, regardless of what those traditions are. (One tribal elder's suggestion that the old ways could be enriched by accommodating aspects of modernity, such as expanded gender roles, is quickly swept aside.) What Non Western doesn't do very well is show the actual stakes in the Thaddeus / Nanci relationship. Why are these two people together? Every marriage has its challenges, but in this case, the challenges are practically all we see.
The Marriage Project (Atieh Attarzadeh / Hesam Eslami, 2020)
While everything about The Marriage Project is more conventional that a Frederick Wiseman film -- its editing more abrupt, its organization less rhythmic and contrapuntal, nowhere near the expansive sense of space, etc. -- the fact that it calls Wiseman to mind in the first place is a pretty good sign. This is a film about the inner workings of an institution, a mental institution to be exact. And what Attarzadeh and Eslami show us, in grueling detail, is how various discursive operations (theraputic, bureaucratic, religious) manipulate the fragile lives that are ensnared within them, implanting heretofore unthinkable dreams and then ripping them away.
At the Ehsan House, a mental hospital in Tehran, one enterprising doctor / administrator has an idea. What if some of the male patients were permitted to marry some of the female patients? He thinks this could be good for them emotionally, might help set some of them back on the road to recovery, and allow them to satisfy their sexual urges within the confines of Islamic law. Most of the other doctors flatly reject this idea for the expected reasons. Are they competent to understand marriage? What if they want to have children? How will suitable patients be selected? As we watch the process unfold, we discover that men and women who love each other are deemed unfit, the stigma of mental illness defeats any attempts at reform, and that even the "liberal" doctor has his own reasons for the seemingly benevolent scheme. The Marriage Project provides a microcosm in which the social control that defines the broader society outside the asylum walls is reflected with absolute clarity.
