It might be easy to write off “17 Blocks” as just another movie that shows black people struggling in a ghetto neighborhood plagued by drugs and crime. The struggle has been depicted in too many movies and TV shows to count, and it can become a tiresome stereotype, especially when law-abiding, middle-class black families are under-represented on screen—and when these role-model black families are portrayed on screen, it’s usually in the context of a comedy. But the documentary “17 Blocks,” which was filmed in the span of nearly 20 years, beginning in 1999, is so deeply personal and emotionally moving that it doesn’t feel like blaxploitation.
“17 Blocks” director Davy Rothbart (who happens to be white) got the idea for the movie after seeing a 9-year-old black boy named Emmanuel Sanford-Durant using a home-video camera to film himself and his family in their rough Washington, D.C., neighborhood that’s only 17 blocks from the U.S. Capitol building. Rothbart met and befriended Emmanuel and his older brother Smurf while playing basketball near the brothers’ apartment. The filmmaker, who never lived in the neighborhood, became close to the Sanford-Durant family and began documenting their lives over the years. The result is this movie.
Much of the early footage in “17 Blocks” was filmed by Emmanuel, a bright and thoughtful child who later had goals to become a firefighter. He’s almost the polar opposite of Smurf (who is six years older than Emmanuel), a drug dealer and addict with multiple arrests related to his criminal lifestyle. Middle child Denice (who is three years older than Emmanuel) doesn’t lead a life of crime, but she becomes a teenage mother and school dropout, which slows down her career prospects. As Denice becomes an adult, she has aspirations to become a security guard.
Meanwhile, the kids’ mother, Cheryl, spends many years raising them as a single parent (her marital status over the years remains a murky mystery in the film), but she struggles with an addiction to cocaine that leaves her children often feeling emotionally abandoned and resentful. The father or fathers of Cheryl’s three kids are not in the movie, and there’s no indication that the kids were raised by their father(s). It’s revealed in the movie that Cheryl came from a solid middle-class home where she was raised by her two parents and once aspired to be an actress. But her cocaine addiction often hampered her ability to be a responsible parent. It’s hinted in the movie that Cheryl’s parents sometimes had to help raise her children when she was in the throes of addiction.
Emmanuel is the family’s “golden child,” the one with the most potential and talent to become a success. He’s the only one of Cheryl’s children to graduate from high school. (Unfortunately, due to her addiction, Cheryl missed Emmanuel’s high-school graduation ceremony, which is one of the many regrets that she expresses in the film.) Emmanuel has a bright future ahead of him after he graduates from high school, and he’s looking forward to begin training as a firefighter. Unlike his siblings, who became parents as teenagers, and have children from broken relationships, Emmanuel hasn’t become a teen father. He’s in a solid and loving relationship with a neighborhood girl named Carmen Payne, who also has career goals, and they eventually plan to marry.
But a tragedy changes the Sanford-Durant family forever, and the second half of the movie documents how they cope with that tragedy. “17 Blocks” will not be an easy film to watch for many people because it might trigger feelings of sadness and/or anger for all the families who’ve experienced similar tragedies—regardless of race or socioeconomic status. “17 Blocks” is a wake-up call that might also inspire people to reach out to those in their communities who are hurting. And it’s also a reminder that it’s never too late to learn from our mistakes, and make our lives better for ourselves and other people.
UPDATE: MTV Documentary Films will release “17 Blocks” in select U.S. virtual cinemas on February 19, 2021.
Back in the days when VH1 embraced nostalgia and classic rock artists, the documentary series “Behind the Music”—which focused on a different artist per episode—became one of the network’s flagship shows. Grammy-winning singer Linda Ronstadt never did a “Behind the Music” episode, but the documentary film “Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice” looks like it could’ve been part of that series.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, because the early years of “Behind the Music” had had some fascinating and thoroughly researched episodes before the series became a watered-down publicity showcase. “Behind the Music” required the participation of the artist (or artist’s estate if the artist was deceased) and the use of the artist’s music. The artist’s story was told in chronological order, and followed a familiar formula of describing the artist’s rise to fame, having successful hits, struggling with various personal issues while at the top of their game, and (depending on the artist) either overcoming those issues, succumbing to personal demons, or trying to stage a comeback. The story is told through new interviews with the artist and people close to the artist, as well as archival footage, music videos and personal behind-the-scenes footage.
“Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice” is a very traditional documentary in that sense, except that for most of the movie, her new interviews are in voiceover. Ronstadt, who retired from performing in 2009, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2012, and she rarely does interviews these days. The other people who have new interviews for this movie include Jackson Browne; J.D. Souther (who dated Ronstadt in the 1970s); Don Henley (who was her drummer before co-founding the Eagles); Ry Cooder; music-journalist-turned-filmmaker Cameron Crowe; John Boylan (Ronstadt’s longtime producer); Peter Asher (Ronstadt’s former manager); David Geffen (whose Asylum Records released Ronstadt’s earliest solo albums); former Warner Bros. Records chief Joe Smith (who worked with Ronstadt at the height of her fame); Kevin Kline (her “Pirates of Penzance” leading man on Broadway); and Ronstadt’s Trio band mates Emmylou Harris and Dolly Parton.
All of them appear on camera, and speak highly of Ronstadt. There are vivid descriptions of Ronstadt being a supportive friend and collaborator, with a tendency to be a perfectionist when it came to her music. Several of interviewees mention that she was plagued with a life-long insecurity about her voice “not being good enough,” and she had anxiety over doing live performances. The movie also has a good archival selection of Ronstadt performing. Some of her biggest hits featured in the documentary include “When Will I Be Loved,” “You’re No Good” and “Blue Bayou.”
“Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice” chronicles her entire life story, from her childhood in Arizona to her early singing career as the lead singer of the California folk-rock trio the Stone Poneys (whose biggest hit song was “Different Drum”) to her solo career where she became the best-selling female rock star of the 1970s to her later years where she branched out into other forms of music. One of the documentary’s best achievements is reminding people of Ronstadt’s extraordinary musical versatility, as she proved to be talented in big band music (the “What’s New” album with the Nelson Riddle Orchestra), Broadway music (she received a Tony nomination for “The Pirates of Penzance”), Latin music (her “Canciones de Mi Padre” album, which was a nod to her Mexican roots), country music (her work with Trio) and adult-contemporary pop, including the smash hit “Don’t Know Much,” her ballad duet with Aaron Neville.
As for her personal struggles—besides having self-confidence issues about her talent—at the height of her fame, “Linda’s thing was diet pills,” according to Geffen, who says she took diet pills and speed to keep her weight down and to have enough energy for her grueling schedule. In retrospect, Ronstadt says that her drug use at the time caused paranoia that affected her personal relationships and her ability to communicate well.
Ronstadt also talks openly in new interviews and in archival footage about the sexism she and other female rock artists experienced in the male-dominated music business. Her romance with politician Jerry Brown is also mentioned—she says their breakup was mainly caused by their busy schedules keeping them apart—but as her former boyfriend Souther puts it, “Neither one of us is built for marriage or long-term relationships.” (Ronstadt, who has never married, has an adopted son and daughter, who are now adults. Her children are not mentioned in the movie.)
In the documentary, Ronstadt is calmly accepting about having Parkinson’s disease, which she says has given her a new perspective about not focusing on death but how she’s going to live before she dies. In the movie, her Trio band mate Harris begins to cry when she says that although Ronstadt doesn’t miss doing concerts, “I think she misses singing with her friends.”
Just when you think that you’re not going to see the present-day Ronstadt on camera and are never going to hear her sing again, in true “Behind the Music” fashion, she appears on camera during the last 15 minutes of the film, where she’s shown singing in Spanish with her nephew Peter Ronstadt accompanying her on guitar. The footage was filmed in 2019, according to a caption shown in the movie. Ronstadt says because she’s singing in harmony, and not singing lead vocals, she doesn’t consider it “real singing.” Still, the movie has what might be one of the last publicly released performances of Ronstadt singing after she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
In February 2019, Ronstadt’s “Live in Hollywood” album (a recording of a concert she did in 1980) became her first live album ever to be officially released. “Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice” is essential viewing for any of her fans, and it’s worth seeing for anyone who appreciates knowing more about a very talented and unique singer.
UPDATE: Greenwich Entertainment will release “Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice” on September 2, 2019.
Mark Webber and Bodhi Palmer in “The Place of No Words”
“The Place of No Words”
Directed by Mark Webber
World premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City on April 27, 2019.
If you want to sit through a 95-minute family home movie with the production values of a drama-student program and artsy pretensions about death, then step right up and get ready to experience “The Place of No Words” from writer/director/star Mark Webber. The movie goes back and forth between parallel worlds—one world takes place in the present day, while the other is a fantasy realm inhabited by creatures that look like rejects from Spike Jonze’s 2009 movie “Where the Wild Things Are,” as well as fairies, witches and knights.
The film’s story centers on a family, played by Webber, his real-life wife (Australian actress Teresa Palmer) and their eldest child (Bodhi Palmer). All of their characters in the movie’s modern-day world have the same first names. In the movie’s fantasy world, Mark and son Bodhi (who’s 3 years old in the movie) are supposed to be Vikings of some sort, and they spend a lot of time walking together through woods, where they occasionally encounter the aforementioned mystical creatures. The fantasy world isn’t completely in the dark ages because Viking Mark uses his smartphone to take photos after a fairy named Esmerelda (played by Nicole Elizabeth Berger) leads him and Bodhi into a scenic area in the woods. Yes, it’s that kind of movie.
Bodhi is an angelic-looking child, whose long blonde hair gives him a deliberately androgynous look. (Webber and Palmer have told the media that they’re raising their children as gender-neutral.) Bodhi is curious, intelligent and a little rebellious, and he adeptly handles what appears to be a lot of improvised dialogue. But when the movie’s press notes describe Bodhi as giving a “tour-de-force performance” in the film, that’s a sign that perhaps Webber is being too much a proud stage dad to notice that this movie is a self-indulgent bore that was obviously made to showcase his family instead of offering quality entertainment.
“The Place of No Words” attempts to answer a question that Bodhi asks in the beginning of the film: “Where do we go when we die?” It’s eventually revealed that modern-day Mark in the movie is a father who has the kind of illness (which is not named in the film) that requires him to be in a hospital bed with an IV tube stuck in his arm. There are enough scenes in the movie to signal that his illness is terminal, and everyone in the family is going through various emotions because of it.
The fantasy sequences are clearly a reflection of the way the real-world characters are coping with his illness. This might be a high concept, but the film’s cheesy production values (including 1980s-level visual effects and the fantasy-world costumes that look like they were borrowed from a high school) are distinctly lowbrow even for an average low-budget film. The film’s sloppy-cheap look might have been a deliberate choice since the movie tries really hard to be the type of cool-ironic indie film that will be praised as “edgy.” Instead, the “edgy” humor that the movie attempts sometimes goes into “Jackass” territory, such as a sequence whose details are too gross to mention here, but it involves farting, excrement and the use of the word “Uranus” as a pun.
Disgusting anus gimmicks aside, “The Place of No Words” has Mark and Bodhi’s relationship at the heart of the movie. Wife/mother Teresa is almost there as a sidekick to either play with Bodhi or comfort her husband. The supporting characters are somewhat forgettable, but that might be because the cheap costumes they have to wear are very distracting from what they say in the movie, which isn’t anything substantial. The aforementioned “Where the Wild Things Are” wannabe gnome-like creatures are a father-and-son team that some might interpret as being a weird monster manifestation of Mark and Bodhi as adults.
“The Place of No Words” isn’t the worst movie you could ever see, but its intentions to make a thoughtful commentary on death are so badly handled that it’s disappointing and might be offensive to some people. Any messages that the movie had about dying are overshadowed by the real intention of the movie, which seems to be director Webber casting his adorable son in the film to make him a star.
UPDATE: Gravitas Ventures will release “The Place of No Words” on digital and VOD on October 23, 2020.
[Editor’s note: After this movie premiered at the 2019 Tribeca Film Festival, the movie’s title was changed from “Aamis” to “Ravening.”]
A married mother is seduced into an emotional love affair by a good-looking younger man—and things take a dark turn. It sounds like the plot of a Lifetime movie, but “Aamis” is not a predictable TV movie of the week—far from it. The twist in “Aamis” is so disturbing that it would be too freaky for Lifetime. It’s best for anyone seeing this movie to be blissfully unaware of the spoiler information that’s revealed in the second half of the story.
“Aamis,” which is set in modern-day India, is the first Assamese-language film to premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival. What can be told without any spoilers is that the secretive love affair in the movie starts out innocently enough. Nirmali “Niri” Saikia (played by Lima Das) is a successful pediatrician who’s in a fairly uneventful marriage to another doctor. Niri’s husband Dilip (played by Manash Das) is a workaholic who is frequently away from home on business, leaving Niri to raise their young son mostly on her own. There’s no indication that Dilip is a bad husband and father. He’s just become inattentive to Niri, and it’s led to stagnancy and boredom that Niri feels not just about her marriage about also about her life.
When she meets grad student Sumon Boruah (played by Arghadeep Baruah), Niri is ready for something new and exciting in her life. Sumon, who is a long-haired bohemian type, has an obvious crush on Niri, who initially plays it cool and basks in the attention that the younger man gives her. Sumon is researching food habits—specifically meat eating—as part of his Ph.D. studies. It’s an excuse for him to arrange foodie dates with Niri so that they can sample unusual types of meat. Sumon encourages Niri to be more adventurous in what she eats, and he makes the bold claim that any animal can be eaten under the right circumstances.
Niri, who has a prim and proper image, makes it clear to Sumon and others who ask about their relationship that she wants to keep it strictly platonic. But her lingering glances with Sumon and her increasing anticipation for their next meet-up tell otherwise. It isn’t long before Sumon and Niri open up to each other emotionally, but Niri won’t let Sumon cross the line for them to become lovers. Meanwhile, Sumon becomes increasingly uncomfortable with suppressing his growing feelings for Niri, and it no longer becomes enough for him to take her to restaurants. He begins giving her gifts—artfully made gourmet meals that he has prepared himself.
The gourmet food gifts are a turning point in Sumon and Niri’s relationship. And when Sumon tells Niri what he did to prepare the meals, their relationship reaches the point of no return. The last 15 minutes of “Aamis” deliver a knockout punch that will leave viewers feeling both nauseated and emotionally haunted over the choices made in the name of love.
UPDATE: Kamakhya Films released “Ravening” (formerly titled “Aamis”) in India on November 22, 2019.
This bleak documentary about lower-class Scottish teens takes its title from the term used to describe females who are always on the hustle. At the center of the story is the film’s narrator, Gemma, a pretty blonde rebel who lives a rough-and-tumble lifestyle where she predicts she’ll either get “knocked up or locked up.” She lives in the steel town of Motherwell, Scotland, which was thriving in previous generations, but the manufacturing jobs have all but disappeared, and the community has been an economic downward spiral ever since. Gemma’s close circle of juvenile-delinquent confidants are her boyfriend Pat; her best friend, Amy; and Amy’s boyfriend JP. All of them are school dropouts who spend their days and nights not doing much but making mischief, partying, and sometimes getting into gang fights. Their accents are so thick and filled with so much slang that the movie has subtitles.
The most important adult in Gemma’s life is her paternal grandfather Joseph, who has essentially raised Gemma with his wife. Gemma has no relationship with her biological parents. As it’s described in the movie, her mother is a drug addict who abandoned Gemma as a baby, and her father passed on the responsibility of raising Gemma to his parents. Joseph has a hobby of raising pigeons and selling them to the locals. He also works at a boxing gym, and he tries to get Gemma interested in boxing and/or his side business of raising pigeons, but she’d rather continue her ambition-less existence in the council flats (the United Kingdom equivalent of public housing) where she and her family and friends live.
After being introduced in the first third of the movie, Joseph essentially isn’t seen again, as Gemma’s life undergoes a major change when she gets pregnant with Pat’s child. The documentary follows Gemma through her pregnancy and the birth of their son. Becoming a mother changes Gemma’s priorities dramatically, and her hard edge softens as her maternal instinct gives her a different perspective on life. She and Pat seem ready to settle down, and they try to become responsible parents by giving up their hard-partying lifestyle.
But life isn’t a fairy tale, especially in Gemma’s world, where expectations are low, ambition is discouraged, and people don’t have much motivation to get out of their rut of disenfranchisement. When it’s easier for unskilled young people in that world to get money by committing crimes or living on welfare than it is by getting a job, it’s no wonder that many are tempted to take the easier ways to get money. When a tragedy hits someone in Gemma’s social circle, it has long-lasting and damaging effects. That tragedy is the most emotionally riveting part of the movie.
Even though Gemma and her friends have what many people consider to be depressing lives, it’s hard to feel too sorry for them because many of their problems are of their own doing. They don’t have “third world” poverty because they are fortunate to live in a country where financially disadvantaged people can live off of government assistance. They also have access to birth control, unlike many people in truly impoverished areas of the world, so there’s really not much of an excuse for the rampant teen pregnancy in their community. The same places where chain-smoking, hard-drinking Gemma and her friends get their cigarettes and booze are the same places where they can get condoms. Birth control is obviously a low priority for people in this movie.
Even when Gemma becomes a mother, decides to sober up, and looks for a job, things come fairly easily to her. After she applies for a low-paying job at a local café by filling out an application online, even though she has no experience, she gets the job just by calling up the manager and saying that she’s a responsible person. Even the most low-paying café jobs nowadays still require applicants to meet the hiring manager in person, so it’s an uncommon stroke of luck that Gemma gets the job just by having a brief conversation with a stranger over the phone.
“Scheme Birds” was directed by Ellen Fiske and Ellinor Hallin, two filmmakers from Sweden, a country that is considered one of the most advanced in the world when it comes to how it takes care of its financially disadvantaged citizens. Perhaps Fiske and Hallin thought this documentary would be more compelling if it focused on someone who looks like the girls who star in the MTV reality show “Teen Mom.” Unfortunately, Gemma’s story is not unusual enough to have a lasting impact on viewers, and the fact that she takes for granted so many privileges that she has makes her even less sympathetic. There are millions of impoverished teenage mothers who face even more obstacles and challenges because of the color of their skin or because they live in a third-world country. But those aren’t the kind of girls who get cast on reality shows or have tabloid stories written about them, so it’s not a surprise that a lot of documentary filmmakers don’t want to tell their stories.
International premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City on April 26, 2019.
Award-winning restaurants and chefs around the world have gotten a lot of exposure, thanks to non-fiction shows like “Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown” and “Chef’s Table.” So when there’s a documentary about a risk-taking restaurant started by a world-renowned chef, that movie better deliver something extraordinary. Unfortunately, “A Taste of Sky” falls short of those expectations and ends up being a conventional documentary with some serious flaws.
“A Taste of Sky,” the first feature film from director Michael Y. Lei, is about the creation of Gustu, a fine-dining restaurant in La Paz, Bolivia. What made Gustu different from other Bolivian restaurants is that it was founded by Danish restaurateur Claus Meyer, whose Noma restaurant in Copenhagen was named Best Restaurant in the World by Restaurant magazine from 2010 to 2012 and in 2014. Meyer also had the idea of making Gustu a culinary school for underprivileged youth who could train to become chefs. “A Taste of Sky” focuses on two of those students: Kenzo, an ambitious hunter who was raised in the Bolivian Amazon, and Maria Claudia, who is from the Andes high plains.
To its credit, the movie doesn’t shy away from the “white savior”/colonialism issue. Meyer talks about it and is fully aware that he can be perceived as an arrogant European who thinks he can tell Bolivians how to run a successful restaurant in their own country. There’s a sequence in the movie showing Bolivian chefs or restaurateurs sitting at a table, essentially saying the same thing, as they criticize Meyer for founding Gustu to boost his own ego.
Meyer denies that his intentions are driven by his ego and a “white savior” mentality, but his denials don’t ring true when viewers see that the top managers he’s hired to get Gustu up and running are Europeans. A restaurant owner who cared more about cultural inclusivity would have hired at least one qualified local Bolivian to be one of the first managers of the restaurant. Instead, the Bolivians shown working in the restaurant are all subservient to their European teachers/supervisors. Unfortunately, director Lei does not question this ethnic inequality in the film. Perhaps he was too star-struck by Meyer to ask why Bolivians were excluded from Gustu’s initial management team. The film’s written epilogue mentions that a Bolivian employee of Gustu was eventually promoted to general manager about a year after the restaurant launched. Unfortunately, the viewers of this movie don’t get to see any Bolivians in positions of power at Gustu.
And that’s not the only problem with this film. “A Taste of Sky” has a lengthy interview with Meyer telling his life story, but there’s a corny gimmick that tries to be cute: His pre-teen daughter Augusta asks the questions in the interview. It’s unknown if Augusta came up with the questions herself or if an adult provided her with the questions, but the gimmick guarantees that Meyer would be asked very easy questions. There is virtually no investigative journalism in “A Taste of Sky.”
The movie has some footage of Kenzo and Maria Claudia learning chef skills and visiting their families back in their hometowns, but it’s all framed with the tone that they would be poor, downtrodden Bolivian people with a dismal future if not for this restaurant run by Europeans who have saved them from a life of misery. Kenzo’s brother, who was also enrolled in the chef school, had to drop out, in order to help their family take care of their farm. It’s not the catastrophe that the movie wants us to think it is, mainly because Kenzo’s brother doesn’t have the passion for cooking that Kenzo has. Kenzo’s family is poor, but they’re happy, they’re close-knit, and they live comfortably off of their land. Money can’t buy that type of family happiness.
Kenzo is seen as a bright and confident pupil, and his story is given more weight than Maria Claudia’s story. There is brief mention of sexism, as Maria Claudia talks about how her family didn’t think it was appropriate for her to be enrolled in the school because she’s a woman. It’s clear that not having the emotional support of her family has affected Maria Claudia’s confidence. But sexism in the restaurant industry overall— the industry has a long history of giving male chefs more power and better opportunities than female chefs—is barely acknowledged in the movie. It’s not too much of a surprise when a male chef at a prestigious restaurant in Spain invites Kenzo to be an apprentice. Maria Claudia doesn’t get a similar opportunity. One could argue that Kenzo is simply more talented than Maria Claudia, but the movie doesn’t really go into specifics about who are the most talented students in the program.
Worst of all, for a documentary about the opening of a restaurant, there is hardly any mention of the restaurant’s first menu or how the restaurant was marketed to customers. There are brief glimpses of food after it’s been plated, but what’s actually on the plate isn’t really explained. Crocodile is mentioned as a popular Bolivian entrée, but the movie never details what makes Gustu’s menu so special from the menus at other Bolivian restaurants.
In the movie, Bolivia is described as a third-world country that’s the poorest in South America, and Meyer wanted to launch Gustu as a fine-dining restaurant to help uplift the Bolivian economy. But the movie doesn’t even mention how pricing was chosen in order to market a “luxury” restaurant in a “poor” country. Customers aren’t interviewed, so there’s no sense of who goes to this restaurant. There are some lovely shots of the Bolivian terrain, and plenty of scenes that take place in the kitchen, but viewers don’t get to experience Gustu’s inner ambience from a customer’s point of view. In the end, “A Taste of Sky” could have been a fascinating documentary about a groundbreaking restaurant. Instead, it seems as if the filmmakers bent too far backwards to accommodate Meyer’s ego, and the whole movie looks like a superficial vanity project.
Brian Michael Firkus, also known as drag queen Trixie Mattel, is best known for winning Season 3 of “RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars,” the spin-off show to VH1’s Emmy-winning drag-queen competition series “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” This documentary examines Trixie’s rise to fame, her budding career as a singer/comedian and her personal behind-the-scenes struggles. For all of her flamboyant and sassy prancing and preening that she does on stage, the documentary reveals that off-stage, Trixie is quite grounded and humble. Even when chaos is are happening around her, she remains fairly level-headed.
It should be noted that “Trixie Mattel: Moving Parts” is produced by World of Wonder, the same production company for the “Drag Race” series. That might explain why parts of the documentary look more like a publicist-approved electronic press kit than a revealing biography. Trixie/Brian’s love life is not seen or discussed at all in the film. It’s unclear if Trixie/Brian (who is openly gay) wanted that subject matter to be off-limits in the movie, or if director Nick Zeig-Owens made that decision all on his own.
Most of the movie was filmed in the period of time after Trixie’s first stint on “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” where she came in sixth place on Season 7. Trixie then parlayed that fame into a stint co-hosting two talk shows with fellow “Drag Race” alum Katya Zamolodchikova: “UNHhhh” on World of Wonder’s YouTube channel and then later “The Trixie & Katya Show” on Viceland. As fans already know, “The Trixie & Katya Show” was canceled after Katya took a leave of absence to deal with personal issues.
The documentary brings some insight into what really went on behind the scenes. While in a dressing room getting ready for a show, Katya (whose real name is Brian Cook) openly discusses her anxiety issues and doing meth to cope with her problems. She talks about having a “psychotic break” and even loudly declares, “I should be in rehab.” Not long after that outburst, on another day, Katya has a meltdown and refuses to do the show. Shortly afterward, Katya is in rehab, and the show scrambles to do reshoots and find a replacement guest host.
Meanwhile, Trixie/Brian admits to feeling mixed emotions about Katya’s abrupt leave of absence—anger that Katya has jeopardized Trixie’s career; guilt that the resentment he feels toward Katya is a selfish emotion; and relief that Katya is getting the help that she needs. Trixie tries to be a supportive pal, but to her surprise, Katya ends their friendship. In one scene, Trixie reads aloud a vicious email from Katya in which she calls Trixie “arrogant” and “boring” on the show, and ends the email by saying, “Do what I did, bitch. Fail.” (Fans of Trixie and Katya already know if their friendship was mended, but for those who don’t know, the answer to that question is covered in the documentary.)
After the cancellation of the talk shows with Katya, Trixie forges ahead to launch a singing career in country music, with aspirations to be a drag-queen alternative to Dolly Parton. (Trixie tours on a regular basis, and has released two albums so far: 2017’s “Two Birds” and 2018’s “One Stone.” She also did a performance at the world premiere of “Trixie Mattel: Moving Parts” at the 2019 Tribeca Film Festival.) As for Trixie’s singing talent, she’s no Dolly Parton, but she’s not terrible either. She’s fully aware that she has to do her drag act as a country singer because audiences come to see Trixie, not Brian, on stage. (Although the documentary does show Brian doing soundchecks and rehearsals while not in drag.)
The estrangement from Katya has tested Trixie’s confidence, and she wonders aloud how much fans will accept her as a comedian without being part of a duo with Katya. There are many scenes in the documentary of Trixie on tour, meeting fans, getting dolled up, showing viewers her wardrobe, and going to “Drag Race” viewing parties. The movie also features appearances by drag queens such as RuPaul, Morgan McMichaels, Bob the Drag Queen, BenDeLaCreme and Kennedy Davenport.
Trixie mentions that there were two different endings filmed for her “Drag Race All Stars” finale, presumably to avoid spoilers from leaking out to the public. In one ending, Trixie was named the winner. In the other ending, finalists Trixie and Shangela were named the winners in a tie. She found out the real outcome at the same time as everyone else who watched the finale at the viewing party
A lot of people might think that a documentary about a drag queen would have a lot of histrionics from the star of the movie. But Trixie does not fall into the stereotype of being a hysterical drama queen. In fact, even when Trixie wins “Drag Race All-Stars,” she’s happy, but she she’s not jumping up and down, and she’s not crying uncontrollably. Even when she goes through some tough times emotionally, particularly during her period of estrangement from close friend Katya, Trixie doesn’t really cry on screen.
Brian/Trixie uses humor to deflect a lot of emotional pain, and it’s clear that he/she prefers to compartmentalize and hide away the pain rather than to let it all hang out—at least not in front of these documentary cameras. Brian briefly opens up about his unhappy childhood that included an abusive, alcoholic stepfather who Brian says often beat him. According to Brian, the last time his stepfather (who is now deceased) abused him was when he pointed a gun at Brian’s head and said he was going to kill him. Fortunately, Brian has a healthy and loving relationship with his mother, who is shown in the documentary when he goes to his hometown of Milwaukee while on tour.
Even though Brian says in the documentary that he grew up thinking it was normal to feel like wanting to die, he doesn’t consider himself to be a depressed person now. He admits that many people, including Trixie’s fans, assume that Brian/Trixie has issues with anxiety and/or depression. There are a few scenes in the movie when he gets emotionally touched when fans write to him or tell him in person how much Trixie has helped them with their confidence and/or mental-health issues.
Underneath the big hair and big personality, Trixie says she’s a songwriter at heart. When she confesses her life goals, she says it in a way that is very Trixie Mattel: “I would love to write songs for other people…just sit in the woods…and jerk off.” She also explains why mainstream audiences have embraced drag queens more than ever before: “They’re there to see this delusional confidence.”
UPDATE: World of Wonder will release “Trixie Mattel: Moving Parts” on several VOD platforms (including iTunes, Amazon, Google Play and Microsoft Movies) on December 3, 2019.
What more can be revealed about INXS lead singer Michael Hutchence that hasn’t already been revealed? There have been several TV documentaries, books and articles telling the life story of Hutchence, who died in 1997 at the age of 37. The surviving members of INXS released a self-titled memoir in 2005. There was even a 2014 dramatic miniseries “INXS: Never Tear Us Apart,” starring Luke Arnold as Hutchence. But the documentary film “Mystify: Michael Hutchence” stands out from the rest because it has something that the other stories don’t have: the participation of Hutchence’s most high-profile ex-girlfriends. Much of the never-before-seen footage in the documentary comes from these women who arguably knew him best, and it offers an intimate look at Hutchence at home and while traveling. The documentary, which features its new interviews as voiceovers only, also has the expected archival footage of interviews, performances and music videos that Hutchence and INXS did over the years. All are expertly edited to maximum effect.
For those who aren’t familiar with INXS, the documentary breezes through the early years of the Australian band (formerly known as the Farriss Brothers), starting with the group’s origins in 1977 and into the early 1980s. The other members of INXS were Garry Gary Beers (bass), Kirk Pengilly (saxophone and guitar) and brothers Andrew Farriss (keyboards), Tim Farriss (guitar) and Jon Farriss (drums). Through steady touring, INXS grew a fan base and broke through internationally in the mid-1980s. By the end of the 1980s, INXS had racked up several hits, including “What You Need,” “Need You Tonight,” “Never Tear Us Apart” and “New Sensation.” The documentary is named after the INXS song “Mystify,” which was one of the hits on the band’s best-selling 1987 album “Kick.” Hutchence, who was the band’s chief lyricist, was undoubtedly the focus of INXS, and his good looks and swagger made him a major sex symbol in his heyday. The band’s sales declined in the 1990s, but INXS is still considered one of the most influential rock acts from Australia.
Like most lead singers of popular bands, Hutchence had solo projects, but they’re mostly overlooked in this documentary. His commercially disappointing “Max Q” album (from 1989) gets some screen time, but his acting career and his self-titled solo album (released in 1999) aren’t mentioned at all. Leaving out Hutchence’s acting projects is a strange omission from this documentary, considering that “Mystify” film director Richard Lowenstein directed Hutchence’s first movie as an actor: the 1986 Australian rock-oriented drama “Dogs in Space.” Hutchence had a starring role in the movie, and he had a prominent supporting role in Roger Corman’s 1990 horror film “Frankenstein Unbound.”
The “Mystify” documentary has interviews with many of the same people who’ve given interviews about Michael Hutchence over the years, including the other members of INXS; Hutchence family members Rhett, Tina, Kell and Patricia; former INXS managers Chris Murphy and Martha Troup; music producer Chris Thomas; and Michael’s longtime friend Bono, the lead singer of U2. Because of the interviews with Michael’s ex-girlfriends who had serious relationships with him, “Mystify” probably has the largest participation from his loved ones and business associates of any Michael Hutchence biography so far.
Michael came from a broken home—his parents Kell and Patricia split up when he was 15—and the following year, he, his mother Patricia and his older half-sister Tina moved to Los Angeles so Patricia could pursue a career as a Hollywood makeup artist. (They eventually moved back to Australia after less than a year in Los Angeles.) The move to L.A. has often been described as a turning point for the Hutchence family, because Patricia and Michael had secretly planned the move for months, and when they abruptly left the rest of the family behind, including Michael’s younger brother Rhett, it permanently altered the family dynamic. (Kell died in 2002. Patricia died in 2010.)
When Michael’s parents were together, they lived in Hong Kong, and often traveled. All of this family background—which has been described numerous times in biographies about Hutchence, including the “Mystify” documentary—probably explains why Hutchence had a wandering spirit and was deeply conflicted about fame. He and people close to him often described him as having two different personalities—extroverted and confident in public; introverted and insecure in private.
But most of Michael’s former girlfriends haven’t spoken about him extensively for biographies. “Mystify” is the first Michael Hutchence biography to have the participation of Ananda Braxton-Smith (who dated Michael from 1978 to 1980, before he was famous); Michele Bennett (who dated Michael from 1982 to 1987); pop singer Kylie Minogue (who was with Michael from 1989 to 1991); supermodel Helena Christensen (who was his partner from 1992 to 1995); and a woman only identified as “Erin,” who had a secret affair with Michael for a few years before his death. Photos of Erin that are in the documentary show her to be a pretty brunette who resembles a young Bennett.
All of them talk about the two sides of Michael, and how he opened up to them about his deepest fears and insecurities. Minogue is perhaps the most candid, as she details how they got together, how they broke up, what was right about their relationship and what was wrong. Some of the things shown in the documentary are home videos of them nearly naked while on vacation somewhere, as well as love notes that the couple used to fax to each other. The documentary even reveals the aliases the couple would use when they had to send messages via hotel faxes: Minogue was “Gabby Jones” and Michael was “Swordfish.”
Christensen shares fond memories of living the high life with Michael in the south of France, where they would often spend their days and nights going to different friends’ homes to eat and party. An avid reader, Michael also liked to share and read aloud from poems and books. The “Mystify” documentary includes an audio recording of him reading an excerpt from a novel that fascinated him: “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer.”
Michael, who never married, was romantically involved with TV host Paula Yates from 1995 to 1997. Their daughter Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily (also known as Tiger), was born in 1996. Yates died of a heroin overdose in 2000, but when she and Michael were together, she was in a bitter custody battle with ex-husband Bob Geldof over their three daughters. The custody battle was a major source of stress, and it’s often been mentioned as a trigger for the circumstances that led to Michael’s death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging. The documentary includes a chilling timeline and testimonials detailing the last 12 hours of his life.
A considerable amount of time is spent in the documentary talking about the devastating brain injury that Michael suffered in Denmark after getting into a fight with a taxi driver in 1992. During the fight, Michael was pushed onto a sidewalk, his skull was fractured, and he lost his sense of smell and taste. Christensen describes in vivid detail about how he refused to get immediate medical treatment for the injury, and was frequently in denial about how bad the injury was.
The documentary has several testimonials from people who reiterate what other biographies have revealed: Michael’s personality drastically changed after the brain injury—he was easily angered, he began to suffer from severe bouts of depression, and he became more dependent on drugs. Toward the end of his life, he was abusing alcohol, cocaine, Xanax and heroin, according to his close confidants. Even though there have been theories that Michael accidentally died of auto-erotic asphyxiation, the “Mystify” documentary comes to the definite conclusion that his death was an impulsive suicide that was triggered by his depression, his brain injury, the stress of the Yates/Geldof custody battle and drug intoxication.
“Mystify” is the first documentary about Michael Hutchence that was made for the big screen. It’s the best way to experience this stellar film, which does justice to a larger-than-life talent that was taken away too soon.
UPDATE: Fathom Events will release “Mystify: Michael Hutchence” for one night only in select U.S. theaters on January 7, 2020.
Elijah Wood has been making a lot of eccentric indie films in the years since he starred in the blockbuster “The Lord of the Rings” movies. The extreme horror comedy “Come to Daddy” is his wackiest one so far—and it’s definitely not family-friendly entertainment. This review of “Come to Daddy” won’t contain any spoilers, but people should be warned that this movie is not for those who are easily offended or disturbed by bloody physical violence.
And what might be more unsettling to some people is that “Come to Daddy” has such a gleefully twisted sense of humor that people might find themselves laughing (with a degree of guilt) at some of the absurd things that are said in the movie’s torture scenes. Other people will not want to stick around for the rest of this deliberately nauseating ride; they might be so repulsed that they’ll stop watching the movie before it ends. (I saw plenty of both reactions at the screening I attended. I stayed until the bitter end.)
In “Come to Daddy,” Wood plays the emotionally stunted Norval, a recovering alcoholic and only child still living with his mother, who raised him as a single parent. Norval’s dad left the family when Norval was barely old enough to remember him. So when Norval gets a letter from his estranged father inviting Norval to visit him at his home, he goes out of curiosity and for a possible chance to reconnect with his father. Norval’s father lives in a secluded house near a body of water—it’s a familiar horror-movie device foreshadowing that things are not going to go well with this visit.
Needless to say, there are many twists and turns to the plot where secrets are revealed and people commit heinous acts on each other. “Come to Daddy,” the directorial debut of Ant Timpson, was written by Toby Harvard, who infuses the screenplay with so many over-the-top quips and dialogue, that the movie is not meant to be taken seriously as “torture porn.” This is the kind of movie where a sleazy criminal, after inflicting a lot of bloody mayhem, suddenly declares, “I’m outta here like Vladimir!” If John Waters directed a “Saw” movie, it would have a similar sensibility to “Come to Daddy.” As the central character, Wood carries the film with a campy touch, as Norval starts off with wide-eyed cluelessness until his family visit turns into a nightmare.
How much of a gross-out experience is the violence in “Come to Daddy”? Here’s a partial list of the extreme acts of torture that are in the movie, which isn’t content to show the usual barbarity that’s in a horror flick: Someone is stabbed with an excrement-covered pen. A man is slashed numerous times in the genital area. Someone’s head is covered in Saran wrap and then clubbed repeatedly. Someone’s mouth gets horizontally impaled by an arrow.
And here’s an example of the very dark humor in “Come to Daddy.” Someone who’s been kidnapped explains to another character how his captor gave him a choice of drinking his semen or having his ear cut off—and he chose to have his ear cut off because he was hungry and needed something to eat. The person who hears this story replies that the choice should have been to drink the semen because it contains a lot of protein.
You get the idea. And you might feel like taking a shower after seeing this movie.
UPDATE: Saban Films will release “Come to Daddy” in select U.S. cinemas, digital and VOD on February 7, 2020.
There’s a whole lot of daddy issues going on in “Noah Land,” a Turkish movie about family, death and religious conflict. The movie centers on Ibrahim (played by Haluk Bilginer), a senior citizen with a terminal illness, and Ömer (played by Ali Atay), who is Ibrahim’s son. Ibrahim’s dying wish is to be buried underneath a tree that he says he planted as a boy. The problem is that land where the tree was planted has become a holy site called the “Noah Tree.” The locals in the community don’t believe Ibrahim’s claim that he planted the tree. The villagers think the tree was planted by the biblical figure Noah after the Great Flood, so it would be sacrilegious to dig up the area surrounding the tree.
Regardless of who planted the tree, Ibrahim claims that his family still owns the land, so he has a right to be buried there. But the family had moved away more than 45 years ago, and there are no records to prove that the family legally owns the land. Ibrahim enlists Ömer to help him in his fight to be buried under the tree, and Ömer finds himself in heated conflicts with people who might go to extremes to protect the land.
Ömer is fraught with other emotional conflicts, because Ömer is still seething with resentment over his love/hate relationship with Ibrahim. The way Ömer remembers it, Ibrahim was often an absentee father when Ömer was growing up, and when Ibrahim was around to raise Ömer, he was overly critical of his son. Now that Ibrahim is asking for Ömer’s help in his last days before he dies, Ömer wants to be a good son, but he can’t help but feel that he’s being used by his father for selfish reasons.
And there are other daddy issues, because Ömer’s estranged wife (played by Hande Doğandemir) is pregnant, and he’s feeling anxiety about how he will be involved in his child’s life. Ömer fears that he might turn into an absentee father himself, so he makes an attempt to get back together with his wife, but she refuses, and says she wants to go through with their divorce. Ömer’s failed marriage and impending fatherhood have forced to him look at himself and his shortcomings—and he doesn’t like what he sees because he might be more like his father than he cares to admit. And he must ask himself, “Who is the real enemy?” Is it the community, his father, or is it himself?
Essentially, Ömer has to decide how far he’s willing to go to help his father, and how much he’s willing to forgive him for any real wrongdoings. Father and son spend quite a few scenes bickering back and forth, and they confront some of the issues from their past. “Noah Land” director Cenk Erturk, who also wrote the film’s screenplay, does an admirable job of portraying the messiness of complicated family issues.
Ömer is also realistically written as a flawed human being who’s having a hard time coping with what’s going on in his life—he’s often ill-tempered, petty, and understandably stressed out because he’s lost his wife and is about to lose his father. But all the arguing in the movie becomes a tad repetitive, and it’s dragged out for too long. “Noah Land” could have used some more editing to weed out some scenes that serve a redundant purpose and to tighten the suspense. The cast members, especially Atay, do a fine job in their roles. Some viewers might have a problem with the movie’s ending, but the actions taken at the conclusion of the film are authentic to the characters involved.
