The Guardian 22 February, 2006
TV programs worth watching
Sun February 26 — Sat March 4
Rob Gowland
When I first became involved in the film society movement, in the 1950s, documentary films were as important and as highly regarded as feature films. We would as readily spend an evening watching Leni Riefenstahl’s stunningly poetic film of the 1936 Olympic Games or Dziga Vertov’s silent study of life in the Soviet Union, Man With a Movie Camera, as spend it watching John Ford’s gripping and splendidly acted drama of the Irish "troubles", The Informer.
Concerned to film not just "real life" but the reality of life, the Soviet filmmakers and the English documentarists of the 1930s who championed their work (Grierson et al) or the New Deal filmmakers in the USA like Pare Lorentz were by inclination and ideological conviction partisan. For them, filmmakers had to have a point of view — there could be no pretence of "objectivity", of presenting "both sides" of a question.
They recognised that documentary film had a role to play in educating humanity and helping to change society.
There was another form of documentary, represented at its best by Robert Flaherty. Here, documentary was not partisan but merely an interested, sometimes a sympathetic, observer.
Not surprisingly, the ruling class favoured Flaherty’s approach over the Grierson school. And so, inexorably, despite intermittent attempts to make new partisan documentaries, we find the dominant form on TV today to be the "non-biased" observational film that is content to merely show what happens as it happens and not to enquire into the reality behind it.
When filmmakers of this type make films on subjects that demand they have a point of view, the filmmakers indulge in an elaborate pretence of not expressing their own opinion, of "not imposing their view on the material". What nonsense!
The very act of editing the material, choosing who to interview, choosing what portions of his or her answers to use, is to assert the filmmakers’ point of view. But the viewer can be fooled into thinking it is some "objective, unbiased" presentation he or she is watching.
This is at once false and highly effective. It is a crucial element in modern manipulation of ideas.
The new series Israel And The Arabs: Elusive Peace (ABC 9.35pm Mondays) is made by what the ABC describes as "the Rolls Royce of documentary makers" (whatever that means). It’s not a filmmaker but a company (Brook Lapping Productions).
The company’s style, in the best modern manner, is to include lots of high-profile talking heads — "key players on all sides", of course — and to proceed on the assumption that history is made by the personal decisions of a limited number of significant individuals.
And of course, to make it into "compelling drama" it helps if you choose "key players" who disagree with each other.
The series Great Artists (ABC 10.05pm Tuesdays) is well shot in fascinating locations, and when it sticks to the life of the artist in question (this week it’s Raphael) is very informative and interesting.
However, the show’s host — art historian Tim Marlow — is determined to make his series stand out from all the others by taking what the series’ publicity calls "a fresh look" at important artworks of some of the greatest artists in history.
This "fresh look" involves Tim in making value judgements about the quality and effectiveness of aspects of the artist’s work. If you agree with him, fine. But if you don’t, he suddenly comes across as an opinionated young twit.
All he manages to prove with his iconoclastic criticism is that beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
Born Into Brothels (SBS 10.00pm Tuesday) screens in the Hot Docs timeslot. New York based photographer Zana Briski, while photographing the prostitutes of Calcutta’s red light district, became enthralled with their children, who in turn became enthralled with her.
She decided to give the children cameras and photography lessons. What evolved from this is the documentary Born Into Brothels which features the children’s photographs, reflecting not only great talent, but something larger: art as an immensely liberating and empowering force.
Born Into Brothels explores how the process of learning photography allowed the children to be exposed to the world beyond the walls of the red light district. Inspired by the talent on display in her young disciples, and increasingly concerned for their future, Briski embarks on the monumental task of getting the children out of the brothels.
Born Into Brothels also looks at the planning and organisation that went into coordinating the exhibit of the children’s photos in New York and in Calcutta in order to raise money for their education. The last moments of the film reveal where each child is now.
Born Into Brothels received the 2005 Oscar for Best Documentary Feature and the Audience Award at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival.
Much of Australia comprises far-flung cattle stations, so it is not surprising that cattle duffing (stealing) is still rife. Stock Squad, a four-part documentary series within the Inside Australia timeslot (SBS 7.30pm Wednesdays), deals with Queensland’s specialist police cattle duffer squad.
Their beat ranges from Brisbane to wide, dry landscapes as far west as Cloncurry, and to the tropical far North. It’s a different sort of police work and makers of TV cop shows will probably be eying it for possible drama series potential.
The world’s worst industrial disaster is recalled in One Night In Bhopal (SBS 7.30pm Saturday). It reconstructs the deadly chemical gas leak at the Union Carbide chemical plant in Bhopal, India, on the night of 2/3 December 1984.
A cocktail of ingredients, including the lethally toxic methylisocyanate (MIC), blanketed the city, killing more than 7,000 and injuring another 200,000.
Union Carbide, one of America’s most powerful corporations, opened its chemical plant in Bhopal to manufacture pesticide.
The program exposes the financial pressures and cost-cutting decisions that sacrificed the safe operation of the plant. It reveals the horrific nature of MIC and the failure of Union Carbide to warn Bhopal’s citizens of the time-bomb in their midst.
The film tells the story of the disaster through the eyes of those who lived through it. The others died hideous and painful deaths. Today the effects are still being felt in Bhopal, where on average one person a day dies as a result of what happened that night 21 years ago.
At the heart of the film is a vivid reconstruction of the night disaster struck, including a detailed breakdown of the sequence of events that propelled the city towards disaster. But the film also asks why have neither Union Carbide nor the Indian authorities provided Bhopal’s citizens with adequate compensation?