Reviews

Director Brian Knappenberger's documentary about a journalist-turned-activist in post-Taliban Afghanistan shows that even in a country ravaged by war, red tape and bureaucracy still exists. Sarah Chayes, the film's central personality, spends most of her time arguing with local officials and philosophizing about the Afghan plight. Life After War looks at the struggle to rebuild a village obliterated by bombings.

Knappenberger, who has done camera and cinematography work in other documentaries, most recently for a National Geographic film on the Discovery Channel, fully embraces the overwhelmingly brown atmosphere of the dusty Afghan desert. While the lack of color helps to immerse the viewer in the film, it also becomes slightly grating towards the film's end. The only relief from this comes early on, when stock news footage clips are shown. These clips showcase a few blues and greens, but also serve to give the viewer background on the state of post-Taliban Afghanistan.

The film, while it aired on PBS and had a limited theatrical release, did not seem to have a mammoth budget. The worst example of this occurs during Chayes' 14-hour trip on a rutted road through the Afghan desert without the use of a 'SteadyCam.' One cannot simply film a documentary on a post-war country and avoid any political implications, but Life After War, in its primary focus on the villagers of Akokolacha, manages to only touch on politics and U.S. involvement. Offhanded comments by Chayes in one scene exemplify this perfectly, when Afghans outfitted in U.S. army uniforms block her path when she attempts to gain access to a stone quarry. The rest of the film, however, puts a somewhat positive spin on the U.S. involvement, and Chayes' background as a reporter for the reputedly liberal National Public Radio does not interfere with much of the film.

Knappenberger's aforementioned use of network news clips does not necessarily have a political slant, although none of the clips criticize U.S. involvement. Many reporters, going back to Communist party member John Reed, have so involved themselves in their cause that simply reporting on the events is not enough. With Chayes, a personal request for help from a relative of Afghan President Hamid Karzai spurred her to activism. However, her passion for the Afghan cause is evident throughout the film. Her involvement leads her to the group Afghans for a Civil Society (ACS), whose main goal in the film is to rebuild the bombed-out village. ACS raises close to $20,000 at a Massachusetts fundraiser to rebuild that village, but the actual work comes much harder. Chayes' old role as a journalist who constantly answered to an editor is now flipped around, and she is faced with the task of mobilizing the villagers to rebuild their homes. She compares journalism to management, and admits later that she has trouble delegating work to less-than-enthused villagers. Life After War dances the line between an academic (read: boring) documentary and a cinematic (read: exciting) one quite well. The use of stock news footage, one-on-one interviews, and subtitles for virtually all of the Afghan dialogue juxtaposes itself along with plot-forward voice over narration, intense on-camera arguments between Chayes and virtually everyone else, and long, emotion-invoking shots of Afghans flying kites on top of the mighty Afghan winds-something that was outlawed under Taliban rule.

While most Americans with a television should be at least vaguely aware of the situation in Afghanistan, Life After War, will not give any insight into the complex political issues there. It will, however, put a human face on the newspaper articles and television sound bites. Knappenberger's capitalization on Chayes' passion for the people there provides the most human element of the documentary. Chayes' comments may come off as self-righteous or a little too 'Peace Corp' for some, but her aggressive personality moves the film forward. Other Afghans in the film, particularly a village elder named Hadji who argues with Chayes over the size of the house she's building for him (a two-meter argument), provide some comic relief to this often frustrating and confusing film full of arguing and deliberation. The 72-minute film leaves some questions. If any of the countless hours of footage should have made it into the final cut, a little background on the villagers of Akokolacha should be the first to be included. Perhaps a return to Akokolacha after the entire village is reconstructed could bring some closure, as only one house is completed at the film's end.

Sound editor Anton Gold's use of traditional middle-eastern music is used during natively Afghan scenes, while scenes where Chayes dominates have a decidedly western theme. The contrasting cultures' music provides an example of how different Chayes is from her second home in the village. Editor Greg McDonald tended to drag out some scenes too long, particularly the ones where Chayes argues with local authorities over access to stone for the houses. Rebuilding a bombed village is among the grandest of ideals, but Chayes soon finds out that actually doing it comes much tougher than expected. She is faced with uncooperative authorities, skeptical villagers, her role as a women in a society that is just beginning to accept females as legitimate people, and an entirely new, incredibly harsh environment. The film's sources of tension are everywhere, but Chayes' perseverance, most likely fueled by her past as an aggressive reporter, aid her in achieving what seemed to be a very unlikely goal.

Michael Moore's The Big One is a typical Michael Moore documentary. By this post-Bowling for Columbine and present Fahrenheit 91I time period, much of America and the world know of Moore's feet first documentaries. With Moore becoming the funnier Mike Wallace of the '90s and shoving a microphone in the face of corporate and political bad guys at every turn, Moore again stirs up the corporate status quo in The Big One, released in 1998. The film covers the most threatening aspect to the American way of life at the time: corporate downsizing. The setting is the Midwest and Moore travels to small midwestern cities, most often the ones hit hardest by the factory closings and layoffs of the late '90s. While not as focused or even as serious as Moore's most recent efforts, this film is still reminiscent to his others in that it is both funny and thought provoking.

Most likely unintended by Moore when filming, this film feels more like a time capsule than anything else. While factory closings and layoffs have continued into the 2000s, the impact the closings of the'90s had on America are far greater than the layoffs of today. A documentary on corporate downsizing today would be lost amongst the far more serious issues of U.S foreign policy and all it is related to, including terrorism, the Patriot Act and homeland security, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Factory closings and plant layoffs in exchange for higher corporate profits are an important issue, but when viewed six years later, this film seems almost insignificant.

The Big One covers American politics as an extension of corporate America in that both elite politicians and elite CEOs are essentially the same type of person. In one segment, Moore covers the most recent presidential campaign, and in a series of interviews, many people say that they refused to vote because both candidates in 1996 were the same person; the only difference was their political party name. Today, America is so polarized politically that the idea of refusing to vote based on the fact that the candidates are too similar is not only incorrect, but also outlandish. However, one must remember that Moore was first a journalist, and his films are news-based, and by the hand, are not meant to have the longest of shelf lives. At their best, they are perfect time capsules of various issues facing America at a certain time period.

Moore is highly visible in this film as he was in 1989's Roger and Me, only using his interview subjects to further his story and cause. While he does allow the characters to speak for themselves, they are only backing up his claims and not necessarily adding any more to the film than mere quotes. Moore's feelings and political motives are what make up this documentary, and they come through 100% to the viewer as Moore makes a convincing case for his cause.

The film's use of humorous stock footage, broadcast news reports, and stand-up comedy scenes with Moore behind the microphone make for entertaining segments that either divert the viewer from the story and provide for some comic relief, or conversely, further the story when the footage has a sharp political undercurrent. Moore's juxtaposition of serious-minded news reports as the build up with one of his narrated comments as the punch line are entertaining and part of what make his documentaries fun to watch as well as informative.

The Big One, while it does not necessarily have as solid of a story as Moore's other films and may be criticized for coming off as a 90-minute commercial for Moore's book, Downsize This, does manage to string together a few interviews with humor and a serious issue to effectively promote Moore's cause. Although we know Nike CEO and Moore interviewee Phil Knight would never put a Nike shoe factory anywhere in the US, much less in Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan, the fact that Moore asked Knight to do so concisely summarizes Moore's message and wish: that US-owned companies stop closing factories and outsourcing to cheaper foreign markets and start giving US workers their jobs back. Anyone who has taken an international business course or even perused the Wall Street Journal knows outsourcing will continue. Moore's ability to increase the public's awareness is his best trait as a filmmaker, not his attempt to single handedly change the entire face of US and international business.

The soundtrack, like other Moore films, is mostly there for humorous purposes. Moore lets the most serious moments in his films go without any sound other than the person weeping or ranting for maximum effect. That being said, his use of humorous songs including Americana classics pace the film and add to its quick nature. Moore only uses scene titles sparingly, as his narration divides the film verbally. The use of scene titles is not necessary when Moore is walking his viewers through the film.

Funded by the British Broadcasting Company, Moore's budget is much more than his contemporaries', but even a large budget cannot save this film. His choice of story topic is not lasting enough to appeal to viewers not living with the economic divisions between rich and poor of the late 1990s. Also, if Moore had let the story lead him to various locations across the country instead of his book tour navigating, maybe he would have found out more information and created something better than The Big One. Additionally, perhaps if Moore had narrowed his ideas of what he wanted to cover before he started filming ('The Big One' refers to the US as the 'big' country) instead of attempting to cover American politics, the economy and sagging social standards all in one 90-minute documentary, his ideas would have came across even clearer than they already do. This is where Moore succeeds in his later films, especially Bowling For Columbine, which strictly focuses on a single issue with minimal sidebars.

Sources of tension in this film go from the comedic sources ('media escorts,' i.e. middle age blonde women who cannot handle Moore's independent spirit) to the most serious ones (the US government and big business). He tries to grapple too much in The Big One, and that is where this film ultimately fails.

A wide-ranging, at times glowing documentary on Noam Chomsky's life and views on the American media, both large and small, mass and alternative, Manufacturing Consent took five years to create and covers Chomsky's life with over a hundred hours of interviews and lectures spanning 23 cities in seven countries. Directors and producers Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick followed around Chomsky in an effort to capture his beliefs on any media they had around them, including everything from 16 mm film to 8 mm videotape. Manufacturing Consent showcases Chomsky's profound beliefs and profiles his personality in humorous and thought-provoking ways that compel the viewer to learn about the topics he broaches with as much vigor Chomsky himself.

An anecdote from Chomsky about his childhood in the first part of the film sums up his attitudes in a charming elementary school story. Chomsky tells of a time where he attempted to defend a 'fat kid' in first grade from a group of bullies, but after a while he became frightened and let the child he was defending fend for himself. Chomsky says he was always ashamed for leaving the side of that person, and he parallels that instance to his defense of people, free speech and his support of human rights in third-world nations.

Often in the film, Wintonick appears in the background with camera in hand, or is heard off camera interviewing subjects familiar with Chomsky's controversial work. However, the most visually appealing aspect of Manufacturing Consent is the visually creative segments that break up interviews on-screen talking. The segments appeal to the visual learner not akin to grasping some of the advanced concepts and often detailed (convoluted at times) speeches of Chomsky. The best example of this learning tool is one problem Chomsky had with the New York Times after they manipulated a story from London's The Guardian concerning genocides in East Timor. The Times rearranged the story's paragraphs and cut out entire paragraphs to add a different spin to the story, as the U.S. was allegedly funneling arms and supporting the occupying Indonesians in order to make U.S. involvement appear minimal, and at best, positive. Hands appear on screen, with the newspaper article on a mini operating table, and medical instruments, shiny, reflective and lined up, are ready to dissect and take out pieces of the article. Essentially a pair of hands in white surgical gloves 'operates' on this news article, all to display the point more effectively. Similar visual segments are used during the film, all with as much of an impact as this one.

While Achbar and Wintonick show almost as many dissenters of Chomskys ideas as they do supporters, one could easily infer that the two are supporters of his ideas. However, they do not interject any of their own political ideas into the fray. The only on camera activity the two participate in is the acting out of Chomsky's ideas via the aforementioned visual segments. Although they are only acting out Chomsky's ideas, the pair still help to illustrate those ideas, thereby implicating their support. While Wintonick had experience doing political films before, they were mostly simple campaign shorts for Canadian politicians. For Achbar as well as Wintonick, Manufacturing Consent was their crowning achievement, and the film went on to become the top-grossing feature documentary in Canadian history.

Released in 1992, the film is only vaguely similar to today's political documentaries. While it is a far cry from the almost cinematic documentaries of Michael Moore, it laid the groundwork for Moore's films with its approach, full of archival footage, interviews, and humor. The stock footage, narration over still photos, and interview after interview are all used in an attempt to get as many of Chomsky's basic ideas across as possible, stretching the film out to two hours, 45 minutes.

There are two parts to Manufacturing Consent, the first covering Chomsky's life-- early background and his foray into protest from his professorship at Massachusetts Institute of Technology-- while the second portion focuses on his dissidence from the mass media's ideologies, or at least his dissidence with the mass media's way of communicating information. The directors only interview Chomsky directly for a small portion of the film. Most of the interviews are done by other subjects; everyone from alternative radio news anchors to talk show hosts to newspaper writers interview Chomsky, and Achbar and Wintonick are right there with their cameras to capture Chomsky's ideas and often the ensuing arguments. Anyone not familiar with the ideas of Chomsky before seeing this film need not worry, as this mammoth of a documentary covers the basics of Chomsky's ideas and writings. Several of his lectures at universities around the country are showcased, not only exposing his ideas but the personality behind them. While The New York Times lauded Chomsky as the greatest intellectual of our time and one of the film's visual segments show a group of baseball cards, only with 'philosopher all stars' as the theme (Chomsky is included), such blatant quotes and visuals are not needed to let the viewer realize Chomsky's genius, however disputed it may be. The filmmakers profile Chomsky in a way that, while it is not 'Noam Chomsky 101,' makes for an interesting profile of the man and fully encompasses his ideas on general issues like the mass media, and more specific ones concerning human rights violations and freedom of speech. Chomsky's detractors are also profiled in the film, and at one point, his defense of freedom of speech causes the Jewish raised Chomsky to be labeled as an anti-Semite. His preface for a revisionist book by author Robert Faurisson is a defense of free speech. In a later scene where Chomsky is surrounded by reporters questioning his preface, he says that only allowing freedom of speech for ideas that one supports inherently makes that person an adversary to free speech. While the directors make it clear that Chomsky is no revisionist or Holocaust denier, their inclusion of his willingness to grapple with controversial subject matter further illustrates Chomsky's daring personality backed by his intellectual prowess. The film does not have a clear-cut story per se, but rather it is a loose collection of ideas and theories that Chomsky has, all of which fall under his comments on the media. The directors take their time in illustrating those ideas with a variety of story telling and learning devices. Perhaps this is why the film is so long. After viewing, it is safe to say that besides a few of the visual segments, none of this film's content could be cut out to trim the story down. In attempting to cover the ideas and life of an intensely academic man who wrote dozens of books and articles, it may not be best to compact it in a single film, but the directors somehow succeed at succinctly conveying his messages. The soundtrack is similar to ones heard in other political or academic documentaries in that much of the music is reminiscent to that of the music heard on cable news channels or at worst, game shows. The use of sound effects during visual segments more often than not is solely provided for humor or to induce a feeling of haste, as most of the segments are played at double speed. The challenge in this film is to implement just enough background music so that the lengthy interviews and lectures do not become too monotonous. Most often, the use of music or background noise is used to break up long interviews. The budget for this film is not immediately discernible. While the directors admitted to not having enough money to follow Chomsky to Japan for an award he received during the film and they had to 'direct' a local film crew there for the scene, they still traveled with him to other locales. However, after viewing, it is obvious that the filmmakers following around Chomsky only had to film his public speaking engagements and interviews not related to the documentary. They just filmed his pre-arranged interviews with outside news sources and lectures at universities. The film was shot over four years and that time span can undoubtedly take up much of the budget. The main sources of tension found in Manufacturing Consent come from Chomsky's ideas themselves. His personality, at times confrontational when others disagree with him, or even when others merely interrupt him (most notably on news talk shows such as Firing Line in 1969), can be a proponent of tension between him and others. The other, less obvious sources of tension, are culled from more abstract issues involving Chomsky as the dissenter to popular, or as he puts it, 'corporate' opinion.