chairvaincre

The film started well, without any particular intention or purpose, capturing life, in life. But then the filmmaker acquired a purpose, and went looking for certain things, tried to film certain things to the exclusion of others, and lost objectivity (objectivity has nothing to do with whether something is fiction or nonfiction)--which could be seen in how his subjects acted toward him, as if they were performing more and more. There was almost an expression of disbelief on their faces--the cardinal sin in documentary-making. The filmmaker paid tribute to Mekas and Akerman, but could do well to learn a bit more from them.