Stevie

As a documentarian, Steve James has a lot to learn, especially about editing. STEVIE rings in at more than two and a half hours but should have been cut to 90 minutes or less. In any film, every scene needs to count, to have a narrative purpose, and a movie needs to have some definite dramatic shape and narrative drive to hold its audience and justify its running time. STEVIE doesn't exhibit any of these qualities. In fact, it's an overlong, meandering mess that soon becomes a very tedious viewing experience. Bad form is one thing but bad faith is something else entirely. To be blunt, the implicit class politics of this film really suck. Steve James says he is making a film about Stephen Fielding out of a sense of guilt for not having kept up with Fielding in the decade since serving as Fielding's Big Brother. Maybe the guilt is real but the film smacks of a kind of pitying bourgeois condescension toward "white trash" life that conceals what is at base a lurid, voyeuristic fascination with the awful ignorance, dysfunction, and backwardness of the rural poor that get educated yuppies morally exercised but also affords them an exhiliarating sense of their own superiority. Much of middle America is a wasteland of bigotry, violence, ignorance, susperstition, and sloth. The film's implicit message? Aren't we glad we're not them...

It's interesting to read peoples' reviews of this. There definitely seems to be the either love it or hate it perspective going on. I found the film to not be defined that easily however, which I think contributes to its effectiveness. It's complicated, and I found myself changing my mind on many of the film's points throughout the film and even now, after seeing the film a week ago. Many have criticized the director's perceived exploitation of Stevie. I don't see it that way. I see it as honest. James indicates early on that when Stevie was assigned to him, he wished he would have gotten a kid that he shared common interests with or could at least identify with better. It takes guts to admit that. That's honest. The fact is he stuck it out with Stevie, and did the best he could. It appears later in the film he might have abandon Stevie, but - it is a fact of life that sometimes things like that happen without a reason. I think throughout the film James was trying to walk the line of what was best for Stevie and most appropriate as far as his involvement with Stevie and his family. Sure there is a question as to how Stevie benefits from this film - will it make his life better? Probably not. Will it make a difference a few years from now? Probably not. I was fascinated by the film and its ability to shift my emotions so dramatically. I think the fact it does not answer the questions makes it more compelling. You actually have to think about it yourself.

This, to my mind, is how a documentary should be. The filmmaker makes no direct appeal for sympathy, he doesn't try to explain things, he just shows what is and lets the involved parties state their versions of what happened. In short, he documents: he does not propagandize.

Rarely have two and a half hours of viewing slipped by so rapidly for me. I was near tears at the end of it--not because my emotions had been "tweaked" or played with by the film's creator, but simply out of a feeling of despair for our miserable human condition. This superb film lays a lot of truths about humanity pitilessly bare.

I cannot recommend it highly enough.

I watched Stevie last night at work...I work in a children's home with young children who were sexually abused or are sexual offenders (the kids were asleep when I watched this). He spent six years of his life in a place like this which was supposed to help him. It's very hard to get through to kids like this and even though people like me try, the kids do not get the therapy they so desperately need. Did anyone see the way Stevie backed down when faced with anyone that was dominant or made him responsible for his actions? His family and the filmmaker were enablers and told him what he wanted to hear and never addressed the issue. If he were to be held responsible for his actions all his life by the people he cared about and respected and not just told things to pacify him, maybe he would be a different person. I thought that this was a wonderful documentary and it makes me take the work that I do much more seriously because I see how it can turn out.

I had a tough time watching the scene where the camera is on Steve James as Tonya tells him that at least something good came of all this, that at least a film was made about Stevie. I didn't like how long they allowed the camera to catch Steve's emotional reaction and it seemed a little too obvious...like the scene in Broadcast News where William Hurt whips up some tears to show on camera. I don't like that kind of manipulation. However, that being said, I don't mean to imply that Steven James wasn't sincere in his reaction; it was his editing choice that seems insincere.

It's a complicated film. Just like Stevie the person, there are no easy answers; unlike Stevie the person, life is not simply black and white. I do think the title reflects many things: the subject as he is now, the director's memory of Stevie the little boy, and the director himself. I don't believe that Stevie was exploited, but there is something in the intention of the film that is unsettling. And I think that unsettling feeling is an okay thing to have. If I taught a film class, this is a film I would definitely want to use to explore the nature of point of view, the ethics of documentary film-making, and the nature of simply being human.

I adored Tonya's friend in Chicago. Tonya, her friend, and Wanda reflect the very best about people and shatter easy stereotypes. These are all smart, independent, warm, thoughtful women, which is just wonderful to see in a documentary film.