Environmental DVD must-see: Marie-Monique Robin's thoughtful, scary OUR DAILY POISON

If you're anything like me, at this point in time you've seen quite a number of documentaries that explore what is happening to humans, courtesy of the growing dangers to our environment from chemicals, pesticides, plastics, food additives and all the rest. And, yes, the imminence of global warming rather reduces all these individual threats to something minor in comparison. Still, the damage we've suffered and continue to suffer from a combination of corporate greed, bad science and bought-out scientists seems both incredible and disgusting.

The gift of Marie-Monique Robin's film, OUR DAILY POISON, is that its author, shown at left, never raises her voice as she goes on a hunting expedition to learn about what we are currently putting in our bodies via exposure to all these things, and then to determine whether the supposedly recommended daily intake of many of these poisons (and they are exactly that) are anywhere near what might be considered "safe."  Ms Robin seems to me a tireless (but never tiresome) investigator who is able to ferret out information and then insist that her interviewees answer her questions as directly and honestly as possible. She is specific, detailed and knowledgeable, piecing together her evidence extremely well, and hers is by far the best investigation-on-film about the dangers to our environment from these chemicals and hormones that I have yet seen.

In fact, one of the key points she and her scientists make here is how chemicals and hormones are nothing like the same thing, where dosage and daily intake are concerned. As one scientist succinctly explains, "The entire process of calculating an acceptable daily intake is based on false assumptions."

It gets better. And worse, of course. Nailing the U.S.'s own Food and Drug Administration, as well as the ESSA (European Food Safety Authority), as Ms Robin does, is bracing, but because these organizations wield the power, very little is able to be done. Due to the filmmaker's intelligence and probing, we learn all sorts of fascinating, frightening stuff. I think it was when the documentary got into the subject of the veracity of a particular study -- along with its "statistics" and what you might call "zombie mice" -- that Robin's ability to educate, entertain and alarm us fully kicked in for me. From there onwards, I didn't want to miss a single word or view that she has to offer us.

As the movie makes quite clear -- via evertyhing from talking-head interviews to charming archival footage and artful drawings -- it is less that the powers-that-be actually want to poison us than that they merely want to keep things on an even keel, with the corporations kept happy and profitable and the bad news kept away from any media attention (the latter is not so difficult in this time of media obeisance to corporate power -- and often corporate ownership, too).

What we learn here about everything from pesticides to endocrine disruptors, from aspartame to plastics, is genuinely frightening. Simply for the anecdote about scientific studies that used plastic tubing and/or containers, the movie is worth seeing! And there is so much more. The film ends with a look at India as a country with a terrific anti-cancer diet. But even India is now "Westernizing" to the point that Monsanto may have already undone the "health" that was present back in 2010, when this documentary was made. (It is a little additionally scary that a film this important has taken so long to surface here in the USA.)

As usual, the "bad guys" refused to be interviewed, and so, while some can claim that the film is "one-sided," this is only because the other side managed not to be confronted. Available now from the indispensable Icarus Films and running nearly two full hours in length (trust me, the doc is not overlong), Our Daily Poison is a terrific addition to the growing catalog of evidence of how the human race is effectively destroying its own health and habitat.

Ray Klonsky and Marc Lamy's DAVID & ME opens 8th annual Manhattan Film Festival at the Quad

The yearly Manhattan Film Festival will open its eighth run tomorrow at the Quad Cinema in New York City (click here for complete schedule and tickets). The only film TrustMovies has managed to see in advance is a worthwhile documentary entitled DAVID & ME that probes the so-called justice in our justice system, with emphasis on Brooklyn, NY -- a borough that has an increasingly disgusting record of forced confessions and wrongful convictions, to which this new documentary adds another nail in the coffin of former D.A. Charles Hynes' equally disgusting career. Unless, of course, that old phrase, "The fish stinks from the head" has no bearing here. Not that Brooklyn is alone is all this: See The Central Park Five to get a taste of Manhattan's contribution to injustice.

The film is the work of the Klonsky family up in Toronto, the father/son team of journalist Ken (above, left) and his offspring Ray (above, right). It was Ken who initially interested his son in the story of prison inmate David McCallum (shown at bottom) -- whom Ken thought to be innocent of the crime of murder for which David was convicted and for which he has already spent nearly 30 years behind bars. Ray himself was a troubled teen whom his father hoped to protect from getting any further involved in crime. When it came time to make the actual movie, Ray was joined by his friend Marc Lamy (shown below) and together they shot the doc.

Once Ray and David begin communicating via letters, a bond is formed that results in Ray's determination to see his friend freed. The more we learn about the original case, the less likely David's guilt appears. A forced confession (not difficult to achieve when your suspect is a boy of 16 years), witnesses who should have been called to testify (but weren't), mis-identification and lots of other either poor or deliberately bad investigation muddies up this sleazy case. Getting parole would mean that David must admit to the crime itself -- something he says he will never do, even if he must spend the rest of his life in prison.

The late Hurricane Carter (above), himself a wrongly convicted man, comes into the picture, trying, as well, to help David. We meet David's family and get to know them a little, as we hope along with them that something can be done to address the wrong committed here.

The movie itself is clearly a first-time venture for Klonsky and Lamy. Overall, there does not seem like quite enough content to fill even the 70 minutes the film lasts. The pacing occasionally lags and the content seems somewhat repetitive, while the back and forth between the Klonsky and McCallum families (the later is shown above), David himself (shown below and at bottom with Ray) and the ins-and-outs of the case appear a little scattershot. Health problems see to it that Mr. Carter soon withdraws from things, and the private detective who becomes involved can achieve little of the kind of headway needed to make real waves.

Still, the bare bones of David's case appear enough to turn thoughtful heads to his cause. But because we live in a society that does not make wrongful convictions at all easy to overturn (from birth, it seems, human beings should be trained to admit their mistakes), so far, injustice is still being served. This alone makes David & Me a must-see.

After appearing at the Hot Docs fest (where it was voted one of the top 20 films), the documentary plays the Quad tomorrow, Friday, June 20, at 7:15pm. Let's hope it will eventually be shown elsewhere, too.

Further 'enemies of the people' explored in Joshua Oppenheimer's The ACT of KILLING

Back in 2010, we covered a small but piercing documentary entitled Enemies of the People (that review can be found here) about Cambodia, in which its filmmakers record the words and actions of, among other "murderers," one of the top Khmer Rouge officials under Pol Pot, responsible for countless deaths of his countrymen, as he and others confess, right in front of us, on-screen. The film was grueling, informative, moving and hugely effective -- unlike anything that I had seen previously. Now, with THE ACT OF KILLING -- a new documentary that explores similar behavior in a very different country, Indonesia -- filmmakers Joshua Oppenheimer (below, left), Christine Cynn (below, right) and Anonymous (who, if s/he were identified, might risk death to him/herself and family) take this confession of genocide even further into the realm of, dare we say it, art.

Despite the similarity in subject matter, the extreme differences between these two films can be placed on the doorstep of both the countries in question and the people making the two movies. Indonesia has a squalid and disgusting history of genocidal dictatorship, death, torture and a populace most likely by now inured to this kind of slavery and lack of change. Cambodia's is otherwise. I am no expert here, but I believe that the revolutionary, horrific and relatively short

reign of the Khmer Rouge was a one-off thing for a people who had, like so many others, endured colonization and unfair rule, but whose religion of Buddhism, inflected with Hinduism, had endowed it with a certain inner peace (OK: I'm being a little simple-minded here, but culture, history and even -- gasp! -- religion do matter. Indonesia, by the way is almost entirely Muslim: over 87 percent, according to the 2010 census.) And while the filmmakers of Enemies -- Rob Lemkin and Thet Sambath (the latter's family was killed by the Khmer Rouge) -- took a simpler, more direct and personal approach that resulted in a purer look at people and events, Killing's crew have seen fit to quite heighten their film's rather surprising entertainment value.

Among other enticements, Oppenheimer et al. give us a "film" within the film (above) meant to somehow obscure the events; family celebrations; rehearsals and recreations of murder, mayhem and wives and children pleading for their loved ones' lives; tepid choreography amidst nature's grandeur (also above), accompanied by the famous pop song, "Born Free," which will never have been heard quite so full of irony; and a whole lot more.

Yes, this gussies up the film (it also lengthens it: 122 minutes against Enemies' 93), while making us better under-stand why two famous doc-makers -- Werner Herzog and Errol Morris, who also employ the art of gussying -- are credited with "presenting" this film. If The Act of Killing ends up entertaining us a tad shallowly against our better judgment, it also enriches, making us explore from different angles, while alerting us all over again to how human beings seem best built for killing, hypocrisy and denial.

The two main men we meet in the film, and who would have to be considered its stars, are one who calls himself Anwar Congo and another named Adi Zulkadry. Both -- shown in "make-up," above, with Anwar on the right -- are mass murderers. But the way they've handled this, down the decades, is quite different. Anwar is the more outgoing of the two, a real "family" man (shown below with his grandkids), but he's also the one who appears to be having trouble putting the past to rest. (Though I'm not quite sure I believed in his nightmares and "guilt." In the end scene, he seems to be wretching badly, but no vomit ever comes up. He may simply be the supreme "actor.")

Adi has a much better handle on it all. More direct and initially "honest," it turns out he believes in putting everything behind him and just leaving it there. Supposedly, because of the statute of limitations, the men can no longer be charged. But this has more to do with the current-and-as-ever political situation in Indonesia, where criminals, whether politicians or gangsters like these two guys, rule entirely. (The term "gangster," we're told again and again by the murderes on view, actually means "free man," which is yet more bullshit, just like much else spouted by Anwar and Adi.)

This movie, often disgusting and stomach-churning, will make you about as angry as any documentary you've experien-ced. (The Indonesian TV talk show, below, provides just one of these moments.) And then, as it goes along, you may find yourself beginning to identify with these two men. Just a little. But enough to possibly admit to the humanity we share. Oh, you'll still want them dead -- and maybe tortured a lot beforehand -- to somehow make up for every last one of those poor Communists, Chinese, or any other of the "other" deemed worthy of killing, whom they ushered into oblivion.

This is never broached in the film, but watching Anwar, I couldn't help but wonder if he isn't gay. I mean he looks, acts and dresses that way. But then, as we're in a Muslim country, this must of course go totally unexplored. At one point, early on, I think it was Anwar who explains, "We have to show who we are so that, in the end, people will remember." Uh... Yes, indeed, honey. And you and Adi -- along with Oppenheimer, Ms Cynn and Anonymous (the end credits here, unlike those of any motion picture I've seen, are chock full of this word) -- have done exactly that.

The Act of Killing, from Drafthouse Films, opens this Friday, July 19, exclusively in New York City at Landmark's Sunshine Cinema, where director Joshua Oppenheimer will appear in person on 7/19 at the 7:30pm showing and on 7/20 at both the 4:50 and 7:30pm showings. In the following weeks, the movie will roll out across the country in most major cities. Click here to see all currently scheduled playdates, cities and theaters.

BIDDER 70: The Gages' very necessary documentary about civil disobedience

What can a single person do to halt the encroaching rule by corporations in collusion with government? Plenty, as shown in the new documentary, BIDDER 70. Back in 2008, when President G.W. Bush tried to "gift" the energy and mining industries with thousands of acres of Utah wilderness via a much-disputed federal auction, a college student named Tim DeChristopher, on the spur of the moment, decided to try to stop this. Attending the auction as a protester, he suddenly bid $1.7 million (which of course he did not have) and effectively threw a monkey wrench into the proceedings -- which were, in any case, illegal.

When the Obama administration took over the following year, the "sale" did not go forward, but the prosecution of Mr DeChristopher did. (Obama and his minions have shown themselves to be anything but progressive on behalf of civil disobedience and/or whistle blowers.) The minor and relatively short (73 minutes) documentary made about this important event by prodcers/
directors Beth Gage and George Gage (shown at left, with Beth credited for writing) tells the tale at hand and some of the back story in cursory fashion but is still quite important because it brings the story to our attention and in the process forces us to understand what a single act of civil disobedience can accomplish.

Via the Gages' film, Tim DeChristopher (shown above, center, and below via a courtroom sketch) proves a bright, thoughtful and very brave young man whom American progressives have to thank for his intelligence and sacrifice. He ended up serving two years in prison for his action. This is somewhat of a spoiler, and I am sorry for it because the Gages attempt to milk as much suspense as possible out of the outcome of  the much-delayed trial (it took ten scheduled dates before the case actually went to court) -- even though that trial is long over and, in fact, the theatrical release of their documentary has been scheduled to celebrate DeChristopher's release from prison just last month.

In the course of the film we meet DeChristopher, his mom and brother, and see a glimpse of what the "mountaintop removal" that the mining companies are doing actually looks like and what this does to our mountains. We also learn how important it is to have a decent and fair judge on the bench (there are less and less of these in our current times). DeChristopher's judge allows nothing that might help his defense to be told to the jury. Here, the rule of law seems more like a gag order.

In the course of the film, you'll come to see Tim as a real American hero (a moniker he would undoubtedly deny) and his trial as something akin to the Soviet show trials of the century past (or to the recent Pussy Riot trial in Moscow, the documentary about which is soon to be released and will be covered here) where judges simply follow the dictates of their rulers. All the government delays, however, had an unintended result: Tim's cause grew in attention and support, as the young man founds the organization Peaceful Uprising and garners support from Nobel Prize-Winner Terry Root and environmentalist/celebrity Robert Redford (both of whom appear in the film).

His cause brings forth the likes of the photos above and below, national press attention and marches on the White House. The film even offers a little humor. As he prepares breakfast on the day of his sentencing, "I probably should have done the ketchup before I got dressed," Tim opines. The statement he makes post-sentencing is both smart and moving. This kid puts to shame those of us who email our congressmen, make phone calls, speak and write.  He put his words into action. We should be grateful--and learn from him.

Bidder 70, from First Run Features, opens this Friday, May 17, in New York City (at the Quad Cinema), and in Auburn ,New York at the Auburn Public Theater. On May 22 it hits Oakland, California, at the New Parkway theater, then comes to Los Angeles on June 7 at Laemmle's Music Hall.

Art, freedom, religion and fun: Caveh Zahedi's THE SHEIK AND I explores 'em all

In its (very) odd way, THE SHEIK AND I -- the new movie from Caveh Zahedi (of I Am a Sex Addict fame) is much like last year's oddity from Jafar Panahi, This Is Not a Film. Except this is the light, fleet, laugh-out-loud version of film-making under dictatorial Muslim rule. And unlike Mr. Panahi, Mr. Zahedi, shown below in his Sheik drag, though of Persian ancestry is an American citizen, as are his crew members, and so he and they don't (yet) risk imprisonment or torture for making their movie.

After viewing the film via link on my computer (a form of movie-going that I don't much enjoy), my companion asked, "What were you watching? I haven't heard you laugh that much in a long time." Well, this is very funny stuff, as anyone who has seen Zahedi's other films will expect. The differ-ence here is that the filmmaker finally has a subject that is timely, important and frightening, yet he approaches it with a near Candide-like quality of the faux naif -- resulting in his best film so far.

The hook: Zahedi is commissioned to make a film for a Middle East Biennial in one of the United Arab Emirates on the theme of "art as a subversive act." Of course there are some restrictions, he is told: among these, no nudity. Yet being a subversive filmmaker, as this guy clearly is (the Arab woman in charge, above, who invites him certainly knows this, as she has seen at least one of his other films), he is bound to subvert. It's his nature.

One of the things that comes to the fore as Zahedi and his crew (above) begin filming is the immense hypocrisy on view in this particular UAE. How much freedom to film can one expect in a little country that clearly has almost no freedom for its citizens? We find out just how little exists as the movie proceeds. Although this is never stated outright, it soon becomes clear that this arrangement is simply meant as some publicity stunt that will allow the Sheik and his emirate to appear democratic and culturally au courant, without really having to do a damned thing toward either goal.

It also becomes clear that hiring Zahedi to make their fake film is perhaps the dumbest thing the Sheik's crew could have done. The little filmmaker is having none of their nonsense. Instead he goes about, not just making fun of the Sheik (as he has been told he cannot do) but of anything and everything that crosses his path, much of which has to do with -- yikes! -- religion and women and racism and law.

How Zahedi does all this -- with such silly charm and a near-total lack of responsibility -- is the movie's ace-in-the-hole. My god, you think, no one could be this clueless. And of course no one could. The filmmaker is a very smart and insidious terrorist of the "art" sort. To say that he wins the battle is a gross understatement -- even if the film he "makes" is never shown in the venue for which it was created. Instead, it's what we are viewing here, and it is, in a word, a humdinger.

If we worry about the citizens of the emirate who cross Zahedi's path, help him, and will perhaps be punished for this, it is clear that the filmmaker also worries about them. He tells us, in fact, what happens to these people -- which is every bit as surprising as the movie itself. It is clear that in the seven years since he made I Am a Sex Addict, the filmmaker has grown up some. He's now married with a son, and we see the wife and the young child in the film. Both appear to be clever and happy, though we wonder at the wife's marvelous patience with her off-the-wall hubby.

The Shiek and I , from Factory 25 and with a running time of 104 minutes, premieres theatrically this Friday, December 7, in New York for a week's run at Brooklyn’s new Videology theater, followed by screenings across the country -- including at Chicago's Siskel Center, Seattle's Northwest Film Forum and Portland Oregon's Clinton Street Theater. Factory 25 is partnering with Fandor -- the online cinema that specializes in showing great independent films and uses its subscription fees to support filmmakers -- to release the film digitally on December 7th.  Factory 25 will also be releasing the film digitally on December 7th via TV VOD, iTunes, Amazon and other digital outlets. Its DVD release is expected in the spring of 2013.

Ra'anan Alexandrowicz's THE LAW IN THESE PARTS tracks Israel's 44 years of military law in the Occupied Territories

After raving last month about the extraordinarily moving narrative film set in Israel/Palestine, The Other Son, I'm doing it again -- about an equally worthwhile Israeli documentary that is dry and pointed yet every bit as meaningful and important as Lorraine Levy's emotional roller coaster. THE LAW IN THESE PARTS (Shilton Ha Chok), written and directed by Ra'anan Alexandrowicz, is a film I would not have missed in any case, because Mr. Alexandrovicz (pictured below), nearly a decade ago gave us one of the most remarkable movies I have ever seen, one that has stayed with me over time (and several viewings), James Journey to Jerusalem. (If you have never seen this little knockout narrative that tackles faith, immigrants, economics and Israel today -- for film's sake, stick it on your must-see list.)

The Law in These Parts (what a funny, ironic, movie-loving title so redolent of "the old west") seems, on its surface, simplicity itself: Alexandrovicz wants to explore the law that applies to non-Israelis who live in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And after all the films we've now seen that zero in on the Occupied Territories with personal stories and much screaming and yelling, what a fine idea it is to concentrate on the law -- that object seemingly above the fray and yet the very thing from which justice, or something less, must derive.

To this end Alexandrovicz gathers together and interviews/films the men -- all ex-military and all retired now: two judges, a legal adviser, a Deputy Military Advocate General, ex-Head of the Israel Military International Law Branch, and ex-President of the Supreme Court -- who all, so far as anything resembling genuine justice is concerned, proceed to hang themselves by their own petard.

How in the world did the filmmaker get these guys to work with him? Given his history -- his other documentaries and the remarkable James' Journey... -- his stance on his own country's treatment of Palestinians is rather clear. Perhaps, once one ex-military man agreed, the others followed, thinking of course that they would be able to convince the audience of their righteous knowledge, abilities and deeds. At times, their sense of self-worth and utter self-righteousness seem either Yaweh-blessed or appalling, depending on your viewpoint.

Interviewing a half-dozen of these elderly fellows (no women, of course), the filmmaker asks them relatively simple questions about the law -- which, it appears, has changed and "broadened" over the years and which, in any case, applies only to the Arabs living in these territories, not the Israelis. This may put you in mind of the USA's own "separate-but-unequal" Jim Crow laws of the last century in our southern states.

When the topic turns to torture, you will again be reminded of the USA in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe (see Rendition, for example), as these former justices slip and slime their way out of facing almost anything head-on. Along the way, Alexandrovicz asks one of the men something to the effect of, "Would Israelis live under the conditions that occupied endure?"  "That's theoretical, isn't it?" comes the non-reply.

Worst of all is hearing these men utterly contradict international law -- as they sleaze their way of out just about everything -- from the difference between "occupied" and "held" territories to a woman prisoner tried for giving food to men in need. "This is universal human behavior," insists her defense attorney. "These terrorist are not human beings, " counters the prosecution, taking us immediately back to the Nazi Germany view of Jews.

This is shocking stuff, made all the more so by Alexandrovicz's refusal to raise his voice or grow at all out-of-sorts with the attitude of these big boys. At times, as they stare at the camera, their smar-my, self- righteous look seems to say, "You assholes just don't get it." But we do get it. And we are not fooled nor impressed by Alexander Ramatii (above), former Lieutenant Colonel and legal adviser, recalling how his came up with the idea of Mahwat or "dead" land as an excuse for the Israeli's settling in the occupied  territories.

Simultaneously with the interviews and often connecting them, the filmmaker uses historical footage of the times under discussion, as above and below, without narrative additions. No need, as these pictures are worth the proverbial thousands of words. Alexandro-vicz also goes out of his way to let us know that he understands that, while the documentary form searches for "truth," this is not always so easy a task. And so the footage of these interviews that remains on the cutting room floor (or whatever heaven or hell to which edited video footage is consigned) may be making that truth less easy to ascertain. Fine, but what we see here is probably as close to that truth as we're going to come for some time.

The Law in These Parts, 101 minutes, from The Cinema Guild, opened up this past Wednesday, November 14, for its two-week run at New York's Film Forum. Elsewhere? Nothing scheduled as yet, so far as I know. Special note: the filmmaker, Ra'anan Alexandrowicz, will be making a personal appearance at Film Forum today, Saturday, November 17, at the 6pm screening, and tomorrow, Sunday, November 18, at the 3:15 screening.