Surprise, we’re back! In Episode 14 of the podcast, Joshua Ligairi talks with American Hardcore director Paul Rachman about the making the seminal punk rock doc, Rachman’s early days in the bourgeoning hardcore scene, making grunge music videos with David Fincher in the early 90s, co-founding the Slamdance Film Festival, finally garnering Sundance acceptance, and the production of his new film, Lost Rockers.

00:00 INTRO
Where have we been?
Beauty Day
Hot Docs names Charlotte Cook director of programming
Cleanflix
06:13 Paul Rachman interview
1:05:45 OUTRO

Download the MP3
Subscribe via iTunes
Subscribe to our RSS Feed

Links and clips after the jump

Credits
-Intro Music “The Other Place” – Gang Green [i-Tunes link]
-Outro Music “Ameoba” – Adolescents [i-Tunes link]

American Hardcore Website
Lost Rockers on Facebook
Paul Rachman Website
Paul Rachman on Twitter
Joshua Ligairi on Twitter
The Documentary Blog Twitter
The Documentary Blog Facebook

RELATED VIDEOS

American Hardcore Trailer

Lost Rockers Teaser

Back in 1995, documentary filmmakers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky flew down to West Memphis, Arkansas, to cover a murder trial that they thought would represent the callousness of today’s youth and the total deterioration of American values. Three teenagers had apparently decided to kill and decapitate three eight-year old boys on a whim. What they found, however, was something entirely different: a small town witch hunt, an incompetent justice system and mass hysteria. Despite a lack of complete lack of physical evidence, Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Miskelly were convicted and thrown behind bars before they could scarcely comprehend what had happened to them.

The resulting documentary Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills was a landmark film, not just because it told a story that was both gripping and shocking, but also because it started a movement. That movement, in part, led to Paradise Lost 2: Revelations, a sequel that focused on the battle to free the West Memphis Three (as they have since been labeled) and also raised suspicions about the possible involvement of the father of one of the murdered boys, John Mark Byers. Alas, a decade after the release of that film, they were all still serving life sentences, one of them on death row. Which brings us to Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory.

The third film in the series focuses on a plethora of new evidence that has been unearthed to potentially prove their innocence, and it also checks in with these people ten years later. In some ways, a lot has changed. Everyone seems to have a lot less hair for one thing, but it also seems that people have generally mellowed out. Damien and John Mark Byers have made amends, and the West Memphis Three have learned to accept their situation and make the best of it. Does time really heal all wounds?

The movie once again opens with ominous Metallica guitar riffs and swooping aerial shots of West Memphis, and then proceeds to attempt to summarize events from the previous two films. Although you could probably do an endless series of films about these characters and it would never get old, there is an incredible amount of recapping that eventually becomes necessary in order to keep new viewers up to speed. At first it feels that we will never get to any new material, but it slowly rekindles the feeling of outrage as we see all of the ridiculous decisions that were made along the way.

The majority of the film is concerned with presenting the evidence that has been gathered by new experts who were hired by the WM3 Legal Defense Fund. They have obtained new DNA evidence that wasn’t available with the technology they had at the time of the trial that does not link any of the West Memphis Three to the crime scene. Lorri Davis, a long time campaigner and now Damien’s wife, is among those who were instrumental in pushing for the evidence to be presented in court. Despite a statute allowing for post-conviction DNA testing, however, the request is initially denied due to a questionable interpretation of the law.

The DNA testing does reveal a new potential suspect, and even though the courts are not interested in hearing about it, the film indulges this possibility for a while. Compared with the previous film, however, the evidence is not as strong and the suspect is not nearly as riveting on screen as the fire and brimstone of John Mark Byers.

The big problem with reviewing this movie, of course, is that the cut shown at TIFF was essentially unfinished. As most people know by now, the West Memphis Three were finally released last month with ten-year suspended sentences. The details of the deal they made and their re-introduction to the real world after 18 years in prison is not covered by the film. I guess this is what happens when your movie is pushing for change — it can potentially rewrite the very story it is documenting, which is obviously a good thing, but means the filmmakers are one step behind.

Although Paradise Lost 3 is perhaps the tightest and most well-made of the three films thus far, it is a little less compelling content-wise, particularly if you’ve seen the first two films. The new ending will make it stronger and more satisfying to be sure, but it remains to be seen how much material they might leave for a possible fourth film. As it stands, Paradise Lost 3 serves as a solid conclusion to what is an amazing non-fiction trilogy. However, if a fourth film were to become a reality, it could end up being the non-essential middle chapter of an otherwise epic story. Only time will tell. — Sean

One of the hottest tickets at TIFF last year was Werner Herzog’s 3-D documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams (is it Cave or Caves? I’ve seen it spelled both ways). The film explores the Chauvet Cave of Southern France, which contains the oldest cave art known to man, dated at approximately 32,000 years old. Herzog was given special access to the cave and was allowed to shoot using lights that don’t emit heat so as to avoid damaging the drawings.

A trailer has turned up online for the film this week, and although it’s difficult to get a feel for some of the visuals in 2D, it definitely seems to capture the Herzogian sense of mystical awe and wonder. IFC Films picked up the movie for distribution at the film festival and will supposedly release it in March, although it’s unclear how many theatres will have the opportunity to present this in 3-D. I missed out on it last year, so I hope I get a chance to see it on the big screen before settling for a DVD and Blu-ray release in two-dimensions. Cave of Forgotten Dreams is set for release on March 25th; check out the trailer after the jump.

If you were a fan of Mark Hartley’s fantastic documentary Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!, well, there’s a pretty good chance that you’re going to dig his next film as well. Machete Maidens Unleashed! is another investigation into the outrageous low budget genre movies of a particular country, this time focusing on the Philippines. The movie features interviews with John Landis, Joe Dante, Roger Corman, and Sid Haig and looks at the making of such cult classics as Blood Island, Cleopatra Wong and For Y’ur Height Only.

Although this might seem like a rehash of the same kinds of movies and stories featured in Not Quite Hollywood, I don’t think anyone is complaining. Personally I think Hartley has positioned himself perfectly to make an endless series of documentaries about b-movies from every corner of the globe… and I’d watch every single one. Machete Maidens Unleashed! plays at TIFF next month although it does not have a theatrical release date yet. The trailer is embedded after the jump, and it is definitely NSFW… but would you want it any other way?

Originally posted at Film Junk

After following the development of Casey Affleck’s Joaquin Phoenix documentary over the past year or two, I have been pretty curious to see what the final product will be like. You may remember hearing about some of Phoenix’s strange public appearances last year, including a seemingly awkward interview with David Letterman, and his attempt to quit acting in order to start a rap career. This was all essentially staged for the film I’m Still Here, and while I was fascinated and amused at the time, I think he played it straight for so long that people just stopped caring after a while. The release of the actual film feels like it’s coming a bit late, as if the joke has been dead for some time now.

Magnolia Pictures has finally released a teaser trailer for the film, and it still maintains an air of mystery about the whole thing. It consists of short clips set to a tongue-in-cheek voiceover spouting philosophical nonsense about Phoenix’s situation. Part of me thinks this is trying to be like Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat or Bruno, only using a real person to stage public pranks. But will this actually play for laughs, or is it meant to be a serious meditation on the nature of celebrity? I guess I’m still curious enough to check it out, but I have no idea what the general response will be. Official synopsis and release dates after the jump. Let us know what you think.

Official synopsis:

The directorial debut of Oscar-nominated actor Casey Affleck, I’M STILL HERE is a striking portrayal of a tumultuous year in the life of internationally acclaimed actor Joaquin Phoenix. With remarkable access, I’M STILL HERE follows the Oscar-nominee as he announces his retirement from a successful film career in the fall of 2008 and sets off to reinvent himself as a hip hop musician. Sometimes funny, sometimes shocking, and always riveting, the film is a portrait of an artist at a crossroads. Defying expectations, it deftly explores notions of courage and creative reinvention, as well as the ramifications of a life spent in the public eye.

I’m Still Here starts a theatrical run on the 10th September and will be available on demand from the 24th September.

Originally posted at Film Junk

Cropsey
Directed by: Barbara Brancaccio and Joshua Zeman
Written by: Joshua Zeman

Every neighbourhood has its secrets and every city has a dark underbelly. This seems to be one of the unsettling messages we are meant to take away from Cropsey, a documentary exploring the urban legend of a serial killer with a hook for a hand that has been passed down through the generations on Staten Island. When directors Barbara Brancaccio and Joshua Zeman decide to dig up the truth behind this tale that they heard as kids, their investigation does not necessarily lead to any earth-shattering revelations. It does, however, take us through some pretty creepy real-life locales and a horrifying true crime story, eventually leaving us to ponder the validity of our own ghost stories.

Back in 1987, Jennifer Schweiger, a 12-year-old girl with Down’s syndrome went missing on Staten Island. Her dead body turned up buried in the woods near the abandoned Willowbrook Mental Institution, and the man who took the blame was Andre Rand, a drifter who had previously worked as an orderly at Willowbrook and was now known to live in makeshift campsites nearby. Although there was never any definite proof that Rand did it, he had a history of sexual abuse and was certainly a creepy enough character to convince residents of his guilt. Several other mentally challenged children also disappeared in the area over the years, but their bodies still have never been recovered. We pick up the thread with Rand due to be released from prison soon, and prosecutors attempting to pin more of the murders on him in the hopes of putting him away for good.

This movie seems to have garnered a reputation as the “real-life Blair Witch Project”, which is not entirely true, but not that far off either. For the most part, it is a documentary that loosely follows an ongoing court case without having much access to the legal teams or the main defendant. At times it feels like your standard made-for-TV documentary with ominous music and narration, and it tells the backstory with the help of various news reports and newspaper clippings. Among these is a disturbing 1972 report from Geraldo Rivera on the horrible conditions of the Willowbrook facilities (which was essentially his big break at the time). Eventually, however, the movie shifts to the present day and becomes much more immediate and involving.

Brancaccio and Zeman decide to hit the streets, talking to people who live in the area–parents of the missing children as well as former acquaintances of Andre Rand–while trying to put together the pieces, to figure out if he is guilty and what really happened to those children. One of the more intriguing elements of the film is their attempt to get an interview with Rand himself. Eventually he starts writing bizarre letters to them and he seems ready to talk, but as time goes on they find themselves wondering if he is just manipulating them.

However, it is when Brancaccio and Zeman go out on location to explore the area surrounding Willowbrook that things really get eerie. They head out into the woods, through some of the places where searches were conducted for the missing children, and find abandoned campsites where some homeless people (including Rand) supposedly lived. They also explore some of the abandoned buildings of the Willowbrook Institution and the tunnels underneath it, which feel a lot like the old house in The Blair Witch Project or the abandoned mental institution in Session 9. These scenes definitely give you goosebumps and get your heart pounding, and while these searches are performed more for the sake of the audience than for the sake of the investigation, there’s no way to fake the foreboding atmosphere of these places.

The fact that Brancaccio and Zeman appear on camera frequently could put off some viewers hoping for a purely “objective” look at the story. On one hand, their demeanor is one of genuine curiosity and they are careful never to sensationalize anything. On the other hand, they are never quick to shoot down wild theories, either, letting stories of devil-worshiping and necrophilia take shape in your mind as definite (albeit remote) possibilities. Like any good ghost story, Cropsey does a good job of feeding your fear and allowing your imagination to run wild. They also jump back and forth between evidence of Rand’s guilt and innocence, ultimately leaving you with plenty of unanswered questions.

In the end, there are still real life murders, a real court case and a compelling mystery behind it all that is worth exploring. If you want a straight-laced documentary that sticks only to the facts or one that examines the inner workings of the legal system, this may not be a movie for you, but if you’re willing to let yourself be played a bit for the sake of entertainment, the movie is extremely well-executed. Although the direct connection between the legend of Cropsey and Andre Rand is never really established, it hardly seems to matter. The movie shows us that sometimes grim reality is just as terrifying as fiction, and that urban legends are not always as fake as they seem. — Sean

Cropsey airs tonight on Investigation Discovery at 9 pm EST.

Although we weren’t able to attend the Sundance Film Festival back in February, one of the many intriguing movies that I kept hearing about from this year’s festival was a film called Catfish. The unassuming title did not do much to catch my attention initially, and since the film screened under the Documentary Spotlight, I am guessing that a lot of other people probably overlooked it as well. However, it started to build buzz and ended up getting picked up by Rogue Pictures, which is strange, because they are generally known for horror films. Now that they’ve released the first official trailer on Apple, there is no mention of the fact that it is a documentary; the genre is listed simply as “Thriller”.

The vague synopsis explains that filmmakers Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost began to document an online relationship that was developing between Ariel’s brother Nev and a girl that he met on the internet. They eventually decided to take a road trip from New York to rural Michigan to meet her, at which point they discovered something that was both “shocking” and “unsettling”. The trailer is also pretty elusive, but it does a great job of setting up the mystery and leaves you dying to find out what happens next. The fact that this is a real documentary makes it even more intriguing, although the way the trailer is structured almost leads you to believe it is fake. Either way, I am sold. Catfish hits select theatres on September 17th; check out the trailer and see what you think.

Originally posted at Film Junk

If you thought Adrian Grenier’s role on the HBO series Entourage blurred the line between fiction and reality in strange and amusing ways, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet. When he’s not busy playing movie star Vincent Chase, Grenier has been making a name for himself as a documentary director and producer over the past decade. In 2002, he filmed a personal road trip to meet his father for the first time, turning it into the feature-length documentary Shot in the Dark. His follow-up project, Teenage Paparazzo, finds him turning the camera outward to focus on someone else, while simultaneously drawing on his own unique celebrity status.

When a precocious 13-year-old kid catches him off guard one day by unexpectedly snapping a photograph instead of merely asking for an autograph, Grenier is intrigued. Upon discovering that the kid actually does this on a regular basis and competes with many of the professional paparazzi in Hollywood, Grenier feels compelled to investigate further. By tagging along with young Austin Visschedyk and putting a camera on him, his initial goal is to understand the role that paparazzi play, and also to possibly get Austin to re-evaluate his naive obsession. Ultimately, however, the journey leads him even further, from manipulating the media to questioning the very nature of celebrity and fame itself. The result is an accessible yet multi-layered documentary that makes for a fun watch, even if it doesn’t necessarily answer many of the big questions that it purports to tackle.

Although the film’s title seems to indicate that the majority of screen time will be devoted to Austin, it doesn’t quite work out that way. Grenier is a part of the story from the very start (for obvious reasons), and he makes no effort to hide behind the camera or remain a passive observer. He jumps right into the action, prodding Austin for answers, and even going so far as to buy a camera of his own to try and pass himself off as a pap. It is precisely Grenier’s involvement that allows for the various role reversals that occur and the dizzying spirals of self-reflection. (At times, this documentary feels like the on-screen equivalent of an M.C. Escher drawing.)

While Grenier is probably the main draw to the film for a lot of people, he is also what holds it back from fully succeeding. His motives are called into question multiple times throughout the film, and it’s hard not to think that he is pushing things in a direction that he has already predetermined. It’s also impossible to forget that he’s coming from the point of view of a celebrity, and that he is an actor who is trying to make a piece of entertainment here. Some of his clever schemes don’t really pay off (the fake Paris Hilton scandal, for example), and some of the interview subjects seem a bit self-indulgent (as fun as they were, the interviews with the Entourage cast members felt a bit out of place). Still, he is a likeable and charismatic guy, and comes across as genuinely curious, even if his relationship with Austin is somewhat vague.

Later in the film, Grenier delves deeper than one might expect, by interviewing various university professors and media experts about the psychology behind celebrity worship. This leads to a particularly memorable exchange with Henry Jenkins at a baseball game, where Grenier is approached by a fan mid-interview, and is also featured on the stadium’s giant video screen. Although some of the academic talk is interesting, it starts to feel like a regurgitated university textbook, and detours from the main storyline with Austin for a little too long.

Austin, for his part, is about as fascinating as a 13-year-old can be. That is to say, he is cute and funny, and his skills are impressive for his age, but he can also be obnoxious and self-centered and rarely has anything particularly deep to say about what’s going on around him. His perceived innocence does allow for some slightly more candid footage of other paparazzi photographers who take him under their wing, however. One interesting thing that comes up is the issue of parenting, and whether or not his parents are right to allow him to come and go as he pleases at all hours of the night. It’s not explored as much as it could have been, but at least it is addressed. Austin’s own rise to fame is also an intriguing element of the story, even if his reaction is somewhat predictable.

The movie uses some split screen techniques to try and spice up the presentation, but at times it comes off a bit amateurish. Generally speaking, though, the movie flows well and generates a good mix of humourous and thought-provoking moments. The conclusion isn’t all that satisfying since Austin’s story doesn’t really have an end, and no major revelations are made, but I suppose a feedback loop like this can be infinite and a decision had to be made to cut it off somewhere. Teenage Paparazzo will air on HBO sometime later this year, and when it does, it is well worth checking out. At the very least, it proves that Vinnie Chase may have a future as a director when his Aquaman fame finally fades for good.

Over the past decade or so, we have been subject to a never ending wave of documentaries about fans and fan culture, largely produced by fans themselves. The majority of them are ultimately self-serving and shoddily produced, but every now and then one of them manages to rise above the rest and prove itself to be something more. The People vs. George Lucas is not one of those films. Don’t get me wrong — a lot of people will definitely be entertained on a surface level, but but as an insightful look at the lasting appeal of Star Wars, the mind of George Lucas, and the battle for ownership of art in the digital age, the movie fails to shed new light and simply indulges its subjects a little too much.

There is plenty of potential for a documentary of this sort, seeing as Star Wars is such a huge cultural touchstone, and the fan base surrounding it is one of the biggest and most passionate. What’s more, George Lucas has become a curious and controversial entertainment figure in recent years, making a lot of questionable creative decisions while also becoming a bit of a recluse. To make a movie like this from an unauthorized perspective opens up some new possibilities, and early on the film succeeds in digging up some dirt on Lucas by criticizing his decision to essentially erase the existence of original prints of Star Wars while simultaneously pushing the importance of film preservation in Congress. The idea of an artist revising his own work gets a little bit of discussion, but eventually it gives way to more fan ramblings.

A large chunk of the movie attempts a dissection of the Star Wars prequels and why they were a disappointment, which to me, is not all that interesting. It has also been done much better elsewhere. The movie rehashes a lot of the same old gripes people have been arguing about online for years (Jar Jar Binks), and although there may be something cathartic about it, I think by now a most people are over it and sick of discussing it. This could have been worthwhile if they had brought in some critics to comment on it or people who were involved in the production, but most of the interview subjects are just fans.

Which brings me to my biggest complaint about the movie: it just throws a bunch of random people at you without really introducing you to them or justifying their inclusion in the film. Maybe some of these people are celebrities within the world of hardcore Star Wars nuts, but I certainly didn’t know who most of them were. Fans were apparently encouraged to submit pre-recorded rants via webcam for inclusion in the documentary, but actual “experts” are far and few between. Why should I care what the creators of NukeTheFridge.com, MC Frontalot, or some guy wearing a stormtrooper outfit think about what went wrong with the prequels? If they are funny, that’s one thing, but otherwise it’s irrelevant.

Surprisingly, Kevin Smith is nowhere to be found here, but Neil Gaiman, Henry Jenkins and Gary Kurtz are among the few worthy interview subjects. Unfortunately, neither of them get enough time to really make any points. There are some older clips of Francis Ford Coppola thrown in for good measure and also some stock interviews with Lucas, but the quality is so bad that it’s difficult to hear the audio at times. (Spoiler: George Lucas did not agree to any new interviews for this film.)

Director Alexandre O. Philippe’s choice to make this a “participatory” project seems to be in keeping with the spirit of the subject matter, but it also severely hampers the production quality and leads to a lot of rapid-fire editing. The movie constantly cuts to clips of YouTube videos and fan films for comic relief, but most of it is either stuff you’ve seen before or stuff that is not that funny to begin with. I realize that part of the reason for this is to offset the lack of official Star Wars footage, but ultimately it is a poor substitute. The phenomenon of fan films and fan edits don’t even get explored with much depth, aside from maybe some brief sidebars on Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation and Star Wars: Uncut.

On some level, I have to admit that it can still be compelling to watch people talk passionately about Star Wars, and it is cool hearing stories we can all relate to about first experiences with the original films, the special editions and the prequels. I just don’t know that this is really a good enough reason to make a feature-length documentary. It is definitely a conversation starter, and plenty of fans will enjoy it simply because it caters to them, but as a definitive look at the Star Wars phenomenon, The People vs. George Lucas falls short. At its best, it is lighthearted and easy to digest, but it doesn’t really tackle many of the issues it purports to address, choosing to showcase a plethora of goofy fan videos instead. The conclusion is also a bit of a cop out, considering that under the circumstances, this mock trial should have been thrown out of court in the first place.

Hot Docs is less than a week away now, and we just got a hold of the official trailer for one of the opening night films, Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage. From directors Sam Dunn and Scot McFadyen (Metal: A Headbanger’s Journey, Global Metal), I think it’s safe to assume that this will be the definitive look behind Canada’s legendary prog rock pioneers. They may not have a reputation as the coolest band in the world, but other musicians have always worshiped them, and the trailer clearly shows that there will be no shortage of big name rock stars talking about how influential they are. I just hope there are also some great stories about their formation and the evolution of the band throughout the decades to go with it. Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage premieres on Thursday night at 9:30 pm at the Winter Garden Theatre in Toronto.

Apple.com has the official trailer for Alex Gibney’s latest film, which premiered at Sundance earlier this year and will hit select theatres on May 7th. Casino Jack and the United States of Money is about Jack Abramoff, a former DC lobbyist who successfully bribed a number of government officials and scammed Indian casino owners out of a ridiculous amount of money, before being sent to jail for 4 years. Clearly, if anyone is qualified to tackle this story, it’s the guy who directed Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. There is also a fictional take on Casino Jack headed to theatres later this year that stars Kevin Spacey, Barry Pepper, Jon Lovitz, and Rachelle Lafevre.

I’ve been wondering for a while now what happened to the Freakonomics documentary that was announced back in 2007. Based on the best-selling book by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, it had an all-star line-up of documentary directors each signed on to direct different segments of the film including Morgan Spurlock (Super Size Me), Alex Gibney (Taxi to the Dark Side), Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing (Jesus Camp), Eugene Jarecki (Why We Fight) and Seth Gordon (The King of Kong). As a fan of the book and many of these filmmakers, I was really looking forward to it.

At some point there were rumours that the movie may have run into production trouble, and last year, when Morgan Spurlock was reportedly showing off footage to buyers at Cannes it did seem like some of the segments had been cut (last I heard, it was down to just five). Now the public will finally get a look at the finished product when Freakonomics makes its world premiere at this year’s Tribeca Film Festival as the closing night gala on April 30th. You always have to wonder when a movie takes this long to surface, but I’m still hoping it lives up to its potential.

Source: New York Times