Model

In my entry on "Juvenile Court", I discussed the metaphorical use of a documentary subject. Should a subject reflect only itself, or can it be used to reflect a broader context?

The issue of using events in documentary films to focus on broader events could be discussed further using Wiseman's film "Model" as an example. This film has been criticized for lacking the "edge" of Wiseman's earlier films, and indeed, there at first don't appear to be any stand out scenes that leap out at the viewer. One would have thought that with a subject such as the fashion industry, Wiseman would have a lot to say concerning class and culture. Upon closer inspection however, one can see details that reflect subtle comments about the subjects. The detachment from the subject could be a reflection of the coldness of the atmosphere.

There are many examples of this. In his essay "Wiseman's 'Model' and the Documentary Project", Dan Armstrong writes: "In sequence after sequence he shows us models at work, presenting themselves to the camera after being suitably dressed, painted combed, brushed, placed into a context, and moved about. They are, in effect, so many props, inanimate objects, mannequins to display the clothing and project 'personality.' In one revealing sequence, three French models get the pose 'right' only after following directions to 'ignore one another. Pretend you're mannequins in a Bloomingdale window.'"

Armstrong goes on to talk of a scene where male models stand in the corner of a room during a party, in frozen mannequin poses, sometimes framing them between some of the 'beautiful' party-goers. Armstrong also mentions Wiseman's repeated use of mannequins, "employing them as symbols of the commodified self, the individual as object and product of the market." What should we make of Wiseman's detached view?

Perhaps ultimately we should all judge for ourselves. Wiseman makes his films to try to bring a point across, but not force it. As Wiseman in a 2000 interview with "Film Maker" magazine put it: "The notion that [my films] could be objective – I don't know how to deal with that. Every aspect of filmmaking represents a choice, whether it's the choice of subject matter, the way it's shot the way it's edited, the length of the film, or the duration and order of the sequences…. So I've never been able to get involved in this objectivity business. But at the same time, the word I substitute for 'objective' is 'fair.' And again, that's totally subjective. But I mean fair in the sense that I try to be open to the experience I have in making the film…. I try not to impose my preconceived ideas onto the material."

We have here an example of a filmmaker whom although makes films with a certain goal, there is enough in them to suggest that he is aware of other opinions and regards them as well. As for whether his films are exploitative, it could be said that what a person brings to the film, his or her opinion about what they have seen, is entirely their own, and has nothing to do with Wiseman. Ultimately, it could be said that he just makes films, and despite what believes about what he has filmed, what is ethical, or what is unethical, is only what we agree, or disagree with.

The cars, the buses the clothes, the lack of tech (everything is analog, and no phones/tablets/bluetooth/wifi)

It works as a time capsule of a bygone era, when there were newsstands and 100's of magazines, and plenty of work for models and photographers and support staff (lights, wardrobe, makeup, gaffers) and dozens of model agencies in NYC. Now that fashion magazines with fashions ads and newsstands at every corner are long in the past, these jobs don't exist anymore.

Besides that these various jobs around models and fashion models (or used to) exist, and they revolve around repetitive tasks, there's not much beyond that in this doc.

I wish it were more like the Wiseman's other docs, where you can determine who these people were (especially the models, who all come off as very vapid pretty faces), and how well they were actually doing their jobs. I don't know who was good or bad at their job, unlike his other docs I've seen. I'd love to know something at stake for the "perfect" shot or cover vs. Just good enough. What a "perfect" image meant to magazine sales or ad revenue.

Overall a disappointment, seeing how some of his earlier work I've seen are darn near perfect.

In Model, Wiseman has chosen the Zoli Modelling Agency, in New York City, as the focus of his camera's gaze.

We start by watching the vetting process that young, prospective, models must go through in order to be represented by the agency.

This is followed up by those prospective models- who only got constructive criticism out of the ordeal- going back to get photos done, to build up their portfolios.

After that, we skip forward to the point where signed models start to get gigs.

Starting with print photography; before moving into the realm of more videographic based commercial work.

As opposed to most of his work, this film has a more Depardon feel to it.

Perhaps, for obvious reasons (as Depardon makes films that are similar in nature to Wiseman, but started his career as a still photographer).

On top of watching the models model, we also observe the photographers shoot, and the assistants assist (with lighting and shadows, etc.).

Not to mention, the directors directing...and all of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the production of commercial advertisement.

The most interesting parts, for me, were watching the process of the pantyhose commercial being made.

How the different models were employed during each section of the shoot, and how all of the footage was combined to create the final product, in the form of a television commercial.

As well as how Wiseman uses all the normal folk, who have stopped on the street, or hang out of their windows, to watch these shoots in progress.

Unwittingly becoming models themselves, in a sense, for the production of this documentary.

However, certain scenes make you wonder if what Wiseman says is really true.

That he never "directs" people to "act" scenes out; rather only captures them in the moment.

Because some of the scenes seem a little suspect in this regards.

Particularly the one where three boys are filmed crossing a crosswalk, as they joke around with one another...with one boy eating an apple as he passes by the camera.

It seems kind of hard to believe that they would be so non-chalant, in going about their daily routine, with no recognition of Wiseman, and his camera, being set up on the corner of the street, whatsoever...when his gaze clearly set on them.

Their failure to give any sort of recognition to this is what leads me to suspect Wiseman may have had to intervene with a little direction here.

Especially considering the scenes included directly prior to this.

I also found the inclusion of the interview with the owner of Zoli, about the public's perception of models, to be, not only, interesting...but a clever way to incoporate that sort of perspective into the film, without being so intrusive.

Having some of exposure into this world, myself, in my personal life...I can say that the only downside to this film is that it's scope is limited.

Pertaining only to the highest end of the industry.

What Wiseman hasn't done here, is scratch the surface into the seedy underbelly of the fashion model industry.

A realm that fuels grooming; sexual trafficking; and the sexual exploitation of women, in general.

Which is a shame, because it renders the whole expose to be rather superficial.

But I guess that is to be expected in a documentary about the quest for fame, from beauty, in the most superficial industry on the face of the planet.

So it is what it is.

6.5 out of 10.