tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30690257.post9200907891691673713..comments2024-03-21T04:11:40.462-07:00Comments on Category D: A Film and Media Studies Blog: Personal Documentary and the Collective SubjectChris Caglehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11896423565458620046noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30690257.post-65066654099583674522015-07-30T04:55:17.965-07:002015-07-30T04:55:17.965-07:00Clayton, I appreciate your reply. To answer some s...Clayton, I appreciate your reply. To answer some specifics: I agree that Thrope is not a great filmmaker. He seems self-taught and working in a mimicked, conventional form, a la Spurlock. I found the film compelling and insightful nonetheless. I have no doubt a better filmmaker could have made more of the topic, but a better filmmaker hadn't made that movie yet, so I credit Thorpe for doing so. <br /><br />"Laura" is one of my favorite films and yes it's limiting to reduce the movie to the images-of reading. That said, I'm not sure images-of popular history is all bad. It is worth getting popular audiences to think about how Disney cartoons cast voices, for instance.<br /><br />As far as the left-baiting charge, I really don't see the film's primary audience as progressive allies interested in gay rights politics, though they are important for distribution and the film does gesture at points to those spectators. As I mentioned on Twitter the film talks out of school too much to be a left-progressive rally cry: it reveals gay culture as neurotic, troubled, and conflicted in contrast to the political iconography mobilized around gay marriage rights. Honestly, I can't think of too many gay-authored documentaries lately (with any broad distribution) that interrogate gay culture and self-identity. <br /><br />So in all I would agree with you on a lot of the aesthetic counts, even if I ultimately weigh the judgment differently. My main disagreement is that I find the gay politics of the film vital and even at times nuanced. But I seem to be in the minority opinion on the film!Chris Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11896423565458620046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30690257.post-47764044733614028062015-07-29T22:45:15.254-07:002015-07-29T22:45:15.254-07:00Thanks for these insights, Chris. I would remain a...Thanks for these insights, Chris. I would remain adamant that the whole of the doc is conventionally left-baiting in parts and that Thorpe just isn't much of a filmmaker, spending too much time getting sound bites from famous folks, making the film feel like it's soft-balling its case. Furthermore, we're left with a superficial ending that resolves little of the deeper implications about voice and where these anxieties REALLY come from; rather, we get a scapegoating of films like "Laura" in an inane bit of (misguided) film history 101. The critique is old hat, right? It takes us back to Molly Haskell and "From Reverence to Rape," where we're stockpiling types and policing positive or negative representations. I don't know that Thorpe's conception of the dilemma goes too deep or, at least, he's unable to convincingly offer as evidence more than his own experience and strife, which too is a bit watered down and staged to soften the film.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03803950248061096167noreply@blogger.com