Came away feeling a lot of respect for the sincerity of the filmmaker,
which is very odd, given that the thing you admire him for is for
apparently going with his instinct and turning against the subjects of
his film. But it is persuasive, and seemingly not so manipulative,
when you see the paintings Marla has been documented doing versus some
of the earlier work. What's missing, and what might cloud the case of
the filmmaker, is a clear temporal understanding of work she did
subsequent to the supposedly vindicating work "Ocean" (the one that
fails to convince the filmmakers, and me as a viewer, and even the
wife of the prospective buyer who is clearly shown being kind of
browbeaten into choosing it.) Did she do similarly accomplished work
subsequent to it (while not being filmed?). A fascinating element of
this film is the realist painter/promoter who goes from saying Marla's
work is genius, to at the nadir of the period she is discredited
following the 60 minutes expose, revealing that he has no feeling or
insight into this work, only into the power of marketing, to then
rally and begin proclaiming her genius again on the upswing. The
father comes across as seriously, increasingly duplicitous, which is
also fascinating, because it's understandable that certain people
under suspicion "would" behave that way. He always seems caught in an
echo-chamber of awareness. The mother on the other hand is this self-
righteous beacon of truth, self-proclaimed shy and constantly
reiterating that she wished none of this had ever happened, and yet
she is actually the real expert before camera because she makes her
case so persuasively you feel horrible questioning it. But question
it the filmmaker does, and won't let go of the suspicion. While I
found the paintings sort of interesting and allowed some of the
passionate commentary to make the case felt, I found the gambit of the
filmmakers most fascinating, and the fact that they do come off as
somehow objective judges, despite their even throwing in the NY Times
writer's making us aware of inherent fiction in all documentary film.
It's actually a very calculating work that anticipates the viewer in
the manner of the best suspense film (although the film certainly has
no literally high suspense in its structure. Still, the doubts are
planted, their role held up to the mirror, their judgments made, and
they acquit themselves of any wrongdoing essentially…and you're WITH
them. It comes across as a very ingenuous treatment and the family
comes across by the end as the antagonists. Can't remember a film
with a similar dynamic. "Capturing the Friedmans" comes to mind as
perhaps a similar genre of the "judgment documentary" but I remember
(probably wrote about it at the time, look it up) that it's structural
omissions were pretty blatant to produce the verdict that it did (even
if you felt you would have agreed with it in any case,
hypothetically). Here it all seems right out in the open, unless what
hit the editing room floor were interviews, say, with the father
coming out with reasoned arguments or other such things that would
have heightened the ambiguity, but for whatever reason (truth or
skilled filmmaking) I just tend to doubt these exist. You get a
feeling for the rectitude of the filmmaker that seems to relegate that
to unlikelihood.
Noted the use of Nino Rota from 8 1/2 and elsewhere particularly when
looking at paintings, taken from the moment where Guido visits the
ghosts of his parents near the catacombs? Music so dear to me.
Also, coincidentally some Orff from Schulwerke, from which Badlands
also borrowed. Clearly a filmmaker at work…
The film was very uneven in look but that didn't really matter. Some
stuff I can tell was definitely Nelson (the good stuff) while some
other was just on the fly arbitrary camera.