criterionforum.org

Kaye's long gestating documentary on abortion finally has a trailer. Not suprisingly it looks provocative as all hell, but the decision to shoot in black and white comes off as a tad pretentious.

Why should the stylistic choice between color and b&w alone be inherently pretentious? I'm no fan of Kaye's, but I can see it being justified; for instance, if the opening title isn't an exaggeration (i.e. "18 years in the making"), he might've chosen to go with b&w to engender a more unified look, as constantly switching between different formats (35mm, 16mm, super8 (?), analog video, digital video, etc) can be distracting.

Antoine Doinel wrote: ... but the decision to shoot in black and white comes off as a tad pretentious.

Well. The movie's wildly pretentious - in the sense that the film oozes "meaningfulness" and "the traumatic difficulty" of the subject matter. It does have going for it some pretty fascinating interviews with super-radical, apparently brain-damaged anti-abortionists, one of whom turns out to murder an abortion doctor. Still, Kaye's lack of interest in questioning anyone's integrity - the young man's "story" in the cemetery early in the film seems obviously trumped up - is frustrating. Plus, of course, the pretention.

According to his interview in Radar magazine I read the other day, some studio gave him the keys to a $50 million dollar Katrina pic. I guess his exile is over.

Faux Hulot wrote:Why should the stylistic choice between color and b&w alone be inherently pretentious?...he might've chosen to go with b&w to engender a more unified look, as constantly switching between different formats (35mm, 16mm, super8 (?), analog video, digital video, etc) can be distracting.

I agree with yoshimori in that seems more like a ploy to give the film some kind of added gravitas. "18 years in the making" is hardly eons ago - it's on the cusp of the '90s. Michael Moore has often mixed vintage footage with contemporary stuff, mixing b&w and color with no problem. And Oliver Stone seemed to have no trouble at all juggling all the formats above in color for JFK.

I think it would've felt more true if Kaye had let the people speak for themselves instead of placing them in additional visual trappings.

Based on Kaye's one movie and this inflammatory, absurd, and poorly edited trailer, we do not need him to take on any more causes in his films. Deliberate message-driven social consciousness in art is a farce.

I don't know what shooting in black and white is adding to the film? Tony Kaye clearly thinks a lot of himself and is a certified ego maniac.

What does he think he's doing make a 152 minute documentary on abortion? I'll be surprised if he gets any distribution beyond a handful of prints.

Well, it's playing real soon at the Film Forum in New York, which is a decent location for any arthouse opening like this. Still won't be seeing it, though, for many of the reasons mentioned above.

I saw this a few nights ago. It is very good. Not at all like the barrage of boring, interchangeable "issue docs" we've seen so much of in recent years. Lake of Fire is an auteur film, one that truly explores the complexity of its issues.

I'm passing, precisely because it's in B&W.

I'm guessing that one possible reason this was shot in black and white is that it features numerous sections of graphic footage of abortion procedures, which may have been a bit much for some audience members had they been in color. Several reviews have drawn attention to the graphic nature of certain scenes. Chaddoli, you've seen the film - does this sound right?

I saw it at a screening a couple of nights ago and two women ran from the screening room at the first sight of an aborted fetus -- can you imagine how many would have fled if it were shot in color?

So yes, I think that may be part of the reason why he shot in B&W- along with the aforementioned ego, pretentiousness, etc.

From Variety:

Pic's use of monochrome stock, draining the red out of the imagery, will be most welcome for the faint of heart, although the helmer has said the decision to film the pic without color sprang from a desire to show how this so-called "black and white" issue is really all about shades of grey.

Due to the graphic nature of the subject matter wouldn't it be more advantageous to shoot in color? I mean, if we're going to spend two and half hours exploring this subject, I would think honest footage of the procedure (or whatever he is showing) is pretty much a necessity.

And the whole "shades of grey" reasoning sounds like something from a director just emerging out of film school.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Due to the graphic nature of the subject matter wouldn't it be more advantageous to shoot in color?

You'd think so. As it is, the black and white decision seems loaded with gravitas, almost as if Kaye figured such a move would instantly drape a suffocating layer of seriousness over his film. I would hope the film has enough solemnity already not to need any additional accoutrements. But do we expect subtlety from a man who declared himself the equal of Hitchcock before directing a single feature film?

Antoine Doinel wrote:Due to the graphic nature of the subject matter wouldn't it be more advantageous to shoot in color?

Not if people are going to walk out of the theatre just to stop themselves from getting sick. If what I've read about what the film contains is true, it will certainly be graphic enough in black and white.

I don't know. I don't think it's that graphic. Kaye sets his camera down in the procedure room and we see what actually happens.

chaddoli wrote:I don't know. I don't think it's that graphic. Kaye sets his camera down in the procedure room and we see what actually happens.

That's only partly true -- there are closeups of what comes out and drains into the pan, including a pair of eyes, small hands, etc. If that kind of thing sickens you, it'll sicken you in B&W or in color (though obviously it would be tougher to stomach in color for most).

Christ, I don't care what side of the debate the documentary ends up coming down on, that's unnecessary.

Why? It amazes me how people on both sides of the argument, are vociferous about their position on the issue but have little to no idea as to what exactly the procedure involves medically. I don't think you could have a documentary without it.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Why? It amazes me how people on both sides of the argument, are vociferous about their position on the issue but have little to no idea as to what exactly the procedure involves medically. I don't think you could have a documentary without it.

It's needlessly sensationalist and forces the issue by confronting the viewer in an unfair way. It's cheap and if by some strange twist of morals I suddenly stopped supporting a woman's right to choose, I wouldn't want a film that resorts to such tactics speaking for my side.

But Kaye does go out of his way to show it, as if he's a teenager who likes to watch those "Faces of Death" that showed actual on-camera deaths and says, "Cool!" each time another person falls by the wayside.

I understand that he feels it's part of the debate--after all, this is what goes on during the procedure--but showing it almost gleefully kills his pretense to objectivity. (Or as he says, "shades of grey.")

I don't understand how showing the actual procedure, in a documentary about abortion is sensationalist. It's like making a documentary about heart surgery and never getting into the OR.

You can show the procedure without literally rubbing our noses in it. Bringing the pan filled with the remains up to the camera as the doctor splashes around in the bloody muck and we see a tiny shriveled arm or part of the head with two tiny eyes might be dramatic, but it's also unnecessary.

We get the point.

I imagine this would be a better film if it were heavily edited to something more like 90 minutes, although then I suppose people would call it sensationalist and a facts-twister...

Antoine Doinel wrote:And the whole "shades of grey" reasoning sounds like something from a director just emerging out of film school.

If the villains are always on the left side of the screen and the protagonists on the right side (go find out what left and right are in French or Italian), then I'd say you were right.