On the other hand their were sentimental interviews playing up the "humanitarian" side of the films but these seem only to be supplements to the actual footage. It would seem to me that this film fell short in so many ways and in the end seemed to lack purpose of meaning. It was neither particularly insightful, moving, or entertaining and so at the end of the day I think Phillips was right. It was a glamorized snuff film.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Bridge to Nowhere
This film in general leads to a lot of tough questions but in terms understanding what it is in the realm of film, I believe it falls somewhere in between Ebert's and Phillips' reviews of the films. It does a lot of times play out as being very much like a snuff film. When thinking practically the only reason this film had the distribution that it did is the fact that their is actual footage of people dying; however morose that is I can't see the truth in any other way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You bring a very interesting perspective, Adam -- the notion that the film 'lacks purpose of meaning'. It's certainly true that the filmmakers did not make a clear attempt to put forth moral(s), or conclusion(s), the way that, say, Michael Moore does. Does this mean that the film does not have purpose, or meaning, or that the filmmakers didn't in making the film? Let's suppose it doesn't have purpose or meaning -- should a documentary film have one (and in what sense)?
ReplyDelete