AFI Docs 2017 - Icarus

The opening night film of AFI Docs 2017 was Icarus. I must say, I was surprised to see them pick a sports film as the opener, but as I learned more about the film, the choice began to make more sense. The film starts out as a sort of Supersize Me on steroids (and I mean literally on steroids). Amateur endurance cyclist Bryan Fogel decides he's going to start doping to show how Lance Armstrong and other athletes have managed to use performance-enhancing drugs undetected, despite a system that tests them frequently to prevent that.

But then Fogel's American specialist decides he doesn't want to risk his reputation by helping Fogel do this and refers him to a Russian specialist, Grigory Rodchenkov, head of the Russian anti-doping lab. The film begins to pivot to be not about Fogel at all.

Rodchenkov is quite the character - he's brilliant, hilarious, a dog-lover, and generally incredibly cheerful. Fogel and Rodchenkov quickly become friends, even visiting each other in their respective countries so that Fogel can give Rodchenkov his pee to create a profile for him that will help Fogel cheat the testing system while doping.

A little ways into their relationship, Rodchenkov casually mentions "have you seen the film about me?" He is referring to a German film that claimed that basically all Russian athletes in the Olympics and other international competitions have been doping for decades and that Rodchenkov is the brains behind the state-sponsored operation.

As those claims get picked up, examined, investigated, etc, the film starts to turn more thriller, and the film becomes a window into the Russian psyche and what they'll do to win - something that has much broader implications for us here in the US right now. Not only that but Rodchenkov begins to suspect his own life may be in danger when Russian officials ask him to resign. Without giving too much away (even though it's real, googleable events), the film from here becomes devoted to keeping Rodchenkov safe and also getting out the truth about the Russian doping situation.

Overall, I enjoyed the film. I will say that I think it's maybe 20 minutes too long, and there were times I was a bored. But Rodchenkov is a wonderful character, and there were also times I was completely riveted. I am not a particularly sports-inclined person, so my personal reaction was essentially "all this just to win some games?" I realize that sports is a multi-billion dollar industry, but that fact itself bothers me when we live in a world where people are starving or dying in conflicts. During the Q&A people kept saying "this is such an important story" and to be perfectly honest, I kept thinking to myself "is it though? There are so many much bigger issues that threaten the lives of millions in this world." To me the only way it's important is as a lens into the lengths Russia will go to achieve their goals. If they'd go this far and game a very detailed system to win some medals, what lengths do you think they've gone to in order to influence America's election? That said, not every documentary has to be really important. Sometimes a film is worth watching because it's an enjoyable story and I would recommend this film for that purpose. I am hoping that they continue to fine tune it before it's released on Netflix though - apparently it's changed a great deal between Sundance and AFI Docs, and I think it could still use some tightening up. But even if not, it's definitely worth watching.

AFI Docs - An Inconvenient Sequel

I have to first admit I never did see An Inconvenient Truth, but I'm not someone who needs to be convinced of the urgency of climate change. At AFI Docs this weekend, I did have the privilege of seeing An Inconvenient Sequel, the 10-years-later look at how much more urgent it's become. The film follows Al Gore as he educates people on how to be climate activists all over the world, and then to Paris where we watch the drama of that climate agreement play out. Unfortunately, we Americans are all too aware of the fact that Trump is trying to pull the US out of that climate agreement, a fact which was not in this film but which the filmmakers said would be added to the end of the film before it hits theaters at the end of July.

The film is quite well done. Some of the imagery and information shook me to my very core, and yet the film has a good amount of comic relief and several messages of hope. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll have a rage blackout or two... All the feels that good documentaries can cause. But I think, unfortunately, because of the fact Al Gore is the main character, the film will really just be preaching to the choir. I don't think any conservatives are going to watch the film. That said, a strong box office showing can still show public support for this issue. And there are interesting bipartisan moments, like when Al Gore goes to Georgetown, Texas, which will be one of the largest towns in the US using 100% renewable energy very soon, and yet the mayor is Republican, as is probably much of the town. Honestly, someone should probably make a short documentary about that town - that might go a lot farther convincing people on the conservative side that renewable energy is beneficial.

Definitely I recommend seeing the film when it comes out July 28th (select theaters) or August 4th (Nationwide).

AFI Docs 2017 - Nowhere To Hide

Nowhere To Hide is a film about life in the dangerous "triangle of death" in central Iraq after the US pulls out. It is told from the perspective of Nori Sharif, a nurse in Jalawla. At first the film starts with him sharing the stories of people he knows whose lives were destroyed by the US war. But as Al Qaeda and ISIS begin to cause increasingly more havoc in the area, the story becomes more about how they are stuck in a war they don't really understand, unable to do anything to fix it and then later trying to escape it.

In the beginning, despite the carnage Sharif has already seen, he seems happy. His own family had been lucky to be relatively unaffected. He jokes and laughs. Even some of the people whose lives have been destroyed by the US war still manage to joke and laugh. As the film goes on, the smiles disappear and you can see the toll the war is taking on Sharif. You witness some of the carnage from his perspective, and I cried at multple points in the film. The one glimmer of hope throughout is the children - despite everything going on, the children still find joy is running, playing, dancing, listening to music. Of course they're not unaffected, and you wonder how this desensitization to extreme violence will affect them in the future, but to see the resilience of children is a reminder that the natural state of our spirit is joyful.

I think one of the more interesting things I learned was actually in the Q&A, in which director Zaradasht Ahmed said that at the beginnings the Iraqis were celebrating the arrival of the Americans. I always took that to be American propaganda. But then how from there, we did it all wrong, destabilizing the region and turning the Iraqis against us.

The film is a horrifying personal account of war. It will definitely make any American who supported the Iraq war think a lot harder about what we did over there. And it's also just a really well-told, touching story, particularly since it takes place over the course of several years.

It is a very sad film, but one I wish this film would become required watching for every American. I think it would create a lot more empathy, and make us think a lot harder about entering future conflicts.

AFI Docs 2017 - No Man's Land

I must admit I was a little hesitant to see No Man's Land. The film is about the armed standoff at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, led by the Bundy brothers. Part of me didn't want to give these radicals any more attention than they had already gotten. But I went and saw it anyway, and I'm so very glad I did.

Documentarians tend to be a relatively liberal bunch, myself included, so I was mostly expecting to be angry. At a panel about documentary in service of civil discourse this morning, one of the panelists said, "the best thing I can hear at one of our community events is 'I never thought of it that way before,'" and that's exactly the reaction I had to this film. And part of what attracted me to the documentary field in general was the ability of documentary to help people see others' perspectives, but I still hadn't really ever seen a documentary about conservatives that made me see their side of things before. For example, I loved the film Jesus Camp, but I left it mainly feeling like those people were completely out of touch with reality.

This film was different. In our incredibly polarized society right now, this film showed all sides of the argument equally and fairly. Their access was amazing. And what struck me the most were the number of things I had in common with the militiamen. For example, some of the issues that come up that some of the characters oppose are things like the Patriot Act and the militarization of the police force, things every liberal I know is against. These men feel their way of living is being taken away - a feeling most people I know in the cities share, albeit in different ways. And while I don't think fear of change is productive, most Americans agree that things are changing primarily for the worse: there aren't enough jobs, wages suck, we're running out of options, and people are angry. This is a feeling it seems most Americans share right now.

When it comes down to it, these people want what is best for their families. They want to do more than survive, they want to thrive. And even survival feels increasingly difficult for many Americans right now. That feeling that the government isn't listening to the people anymore is something most Americans can relate to and the desire for drastic action to get them pay attention rumbles within many of us. What we differ on is how to achieve this, and that's where it does start to feel a little hard to stomach. I fully believe in peaceful approaches. I'm a strong advocate of gun control, and I think any militia that thinks even their automatic weapons can stand up against the government's drones, tanks, missiles, etc, seems naive at best to me. Situations with weapons involved can escalate unnecessarily, as it did in this standoff, which led to one of the leaders of the militia getting killed. People in the nearby towns were scared. They felt like they were being bullied, which is ironic because on of the militia leaders later says (without irony) to the camera something to the effect of "the government can't come in here and bully and intimidate people with weapons."

Anyway, the point is, this is a riveting film, and one that is incredibly fair to everyone involved. Every character is treated with respect. There are some really great insights from both sides. And it shows how truly complex this situation was. It really made me think and it inspired me to try to find the commonalities I have with people on the other side of the political spectrum, which is something I think we all should be doing if we're going to keep American democracy in tact. I definitely recommend the film.