criterionforum.org

I noticed there's been next-to-no mention of this film in the forum and I believe the audience here would definitely appreciate it. I caught it on MSNBC where I believe it has been broadcast twice, unfortunately broken up with commercials after the first half hour, but there are some more theatrical screenings upcoming in various places - check the official site for the latest info.

If you have a chance to catch this I very much encourage it. It's hard to say that this is my favorite film of 2008 given the subject matter (which I don't want to give too much away about), but it was certainly the best documentary I caught and inspired the strongest emotional reaction to a film I've had that I can remember. Sometimes it takes a documentary like this to remind you of the unbelievable cinematic power that can be found in a true story and a camcorder.

Tivo'ed this off MSNBC. I've been dying to watch it. I know what happened, but it sounds like incredibly gripping and moving material.

I have been searching for information about a dvd release of this film, so thanks for the link. I’m ambivalent about the rapid-fire style of the film, but the story it tells, and the unfolding circumstances of the documentary’s evolution, are extraordinary and moving. This one is hard to shake off.

Why does the spine of the dvd box indicate that this is “disc 3?” Disc 3 of what?

ltfontaine wrote:Why does the spine of the dvd box indicate that this is “disc 3?” Disc 3 of what?

It's the third disc to be released by Oscilloscope Laboratories after Adam Yauch's Gunnin' For That #1 Spot and Irena Salina's Flow.

My goodness, guys. I just finished watching Dear Zachary courtesy of Netflix Instant Streaming and I cannot stop bawling - I think it's over and then it just starts up again. I just wanted to thank Oscilloscope for distributing such an important and powerful film that I wouldn't know about were it not for the AVClub's report of the passing of Zachary's Bill in Canada, that began:

Feel like crying? Then drop your computer and go see the 2008 documentary Dear Zachary: A Letter To A Son About His Father. Actually, wait a second: It's streaming on Netflix, so pick your computer back up.

For some sick reason, that sounded like an invitation to me to see something I'd heard nothing about, and I come back after viewing it completely shattered. The fact that Oscilloscope took the time and money to pick up and distribute this film in the United States speaks volumes to me about the character of the company and their priorities, and makes me boundlessly happy about supporting them in the future. Aside from being a well-made amateur documentary, it's a story that needs to be told, and needs to be told in the way that this documentary tells it. Reading a news report or Wikipedia entry about the circumstances of this story would have cheapened it and lessened its importance and impact - which is why I'm glad that this film is out there and is so readily available. Thanks to Oscilloscope for making that possible.

To anyone who hasn't seen this - queue it up on instant streaming or just go right ahead and buy the DVD - you will have no regrets about doing so. I will be buying the DVD soon - not because I feel like I'll ever be emotionally prepared to sit through it again - but because it'll give me an opportunity to support the filmmaker and support Oscilloscope.

mfunk9786 wrote:Aside from being a well-made amateur documentary, it's a story that needs to be told, and needs to be told in the way that this documentary tells it.

Your little blurb here mixed with years of nagging from other internet sources has finally compelled me to see this film, and I have to disagree. In fact my main issue can be summed up easily by the part of your quote I've highlighted. Obviously the story being told is tragic and should be known so as to incite change. In fact this aspect makes my feelings over my feelings almost disappointed, disgusted in myself a bit. Ultimately though I'll refuse to let real life tragedy effect my feeling on the film. The first thought that comes to mind is mercenary. This may not have been the starting point for telling this story, but especially as Zachary is discovered I feel the movie becomes an unsuccessful film maker going after a friend's tragedy to tell a story that in and of itself can not be dismissed. It feels very nasty and manipulative on his part.
What really bugged me though was just how terribly the film is composed. It is developed for maximum manipulation, but it doesn't even succeed on that level. The key narrative device of this being a letter to Zachary plus how it edits around the character makes for a very blatant conclusion. The second the stakes are laid the ending becomes obvious. Additionally the way the story is told leaves open no complexity yet seems self satisfied in it's supposed profoundness. this was a good man, this was an evil woman. This is what happens when an evil woman is allowed free.
That last sentence could have developed into an interesting exploration of the law's subduction by evil, but the film maker is either unaware that he posed this question or simply doesn't know how to develop this. That's fine, but his end goal isn't worth the journey. He has a priest endorsing vigilante justice and just glosses over that to pound in the idea that this woman was pure evil. Again though it's wrong of me to be upset at a story for being about something other than what I want it to be about. So let's look at this black and white morality tale in which evil goes unguarded to destroy good over and over again. Let's ignore the way that they show this mentally ill woman as only deserving of death when she should instead have been hospitalized. With that I'll admit there was a seduction to the story. Before the above and other questions impressed themselves upon me I was beginning to go well the conclusion doesn't matter, all that does is that this woman pays for her crimes.
That I snapped out of this seduction further suggests, going back to the beginning, that this man is simply a poor film maker who has hit upon a narrative that it is impossible not to sympathize with. I'd like to reiterate again that I do find the story behind this documentary horrifying and worth serous consideration when it comes to laws, but this isn't about the facts of the case. This is about the narrative this film spins around it. I guess what I'm trying to poorly communicate is that I found this to be the Schindler's List of documentaries to place a little hyperbole on things.

knives wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Aside from being a well-made amateur documentary, it's a story that needs to be told, and needs to be told in the way that this documentary tells it.

Your little blurb here mixed with years of nagging from other internet sources has finally compelled me to see this film, and I have to disagree. In fact my main issue can be summed up easily by the part of your quote I've highlighted. Obviously the story being told is tragic and should be known so as to incite change. In fact this aspect makes my feelings over my feelings almost disappointed, disgusted in myself a bit. Ultimately though I'll refuse to let real life tragedy effect my feeling on the film. The first thought that comes to mind is mercenary. This may not have been the starting point for telling this story, but especially as Zachary is discovered I feel the movie becomes an unsuccessful film maker going after a friend's tragedy to tell a story that in and of itself can not be dismissed. It feels very nasty and manipulative on his part.
What really bugged me though was just how terribly the film is composed. It is developed for maximum manipulation, but it doesn't even succeed on that level. The key narrative device of this being a letter to Zachary plus how it edits around the character makes for a very blatant conclusion. The second the stakes are laid the ending becomes obvious. Additionally the way the story is told leaves open no complexity yet seems self satisfied in it's supposed profoundness. this was a good man, this was an evil woman. This is what happens when an evil woman is allowed free.
That last sentence could have developed into an interesting exploration of the law's subduction by evil, but the film maker is either unaware that he posed this question or simply doesn't know how to develop this. That's fine, but his end goal isn't worth the journey. He has a priest endorsing vigilante justice and just glosses over that to pound in the idea that this woman was pure evil. Again though it's wrong of me to be upset at a story for being about something other than what I want it to be about. So let's look at this black and white morality tale in which evil goes unguarded to destroy good over and over again. Let's ignore the way that they show this mentally ill woman as only deserving of death when she should instead have been hospitalized. With that I'll admit there was a seduction to the story. Before the above and other questions impressed themselves upon me I was beginning to go well the conclusion doesn't matter, all that does is that this woman pays for her crimes.
That I snapped out of this seduction further suggests, going back to the beginning, that this man is simply a poor film maker who has hit upon a narrative that it is impossible not to sympathize with. I'd like to reiterate again that I do find the story behind this documentary horrifying and worth serous consideration when it comes to laws, but this isn't about the facts of the case. This is about the narrative this film spins around it. I guess what I'm trying to poorly communicate is that I found this to be the Schindler's List of documentaries to place a little hyperbole on things.

domino harvey wrote:I love this film too much to be of much use in a debate on the merits of its basic composition... I can't engage knives on the level he dislikes the film. His opinion is perfectly valid, of course, but if you can't buy into the premise and execution of the film... what can I possibly say in the film's defense other than "Nuh-uh!!!" ? I guess to me it's like replying to sentiment like "Singin' in the Rain... ugh, so many musical numbers! And the characters were all so typical. And the corny jokes!" If you don't see magic up there on the screen, how can I convince you something so intangible is there?

knives wrote:What really bugged me though was just how terribly the film is composed. It is developed for maximum manipulation, but it doesn't even succeed on that level. The key narrative device of this being a letter to Zachary plus how it edits around the character makes for a very blatant conclusion. The second the stakes are laid the ending becomes obvious

Although I can see where you're coming from knives...I can understand how someone could levy the claim of manipulation at this film... I felt the structure of the film was perfect because as I look back on my viewing experience I feel like I was reacting to unfolding events exactly*** as the members of Bagby's family were at the actual time said events were unfolding- and I don't see that as manipulative on the filmmaker's part. I think he has a right to share with the audience the immediacy of his and everyone else's grief, remembrances, struggles and shocks. Whether or not you know they're coming doesn't lessen the impact, at least not for me. (For the record, I did not see the ending coming, and it remains the biggest gut punch I've ever experienced while watching a film)

*** Obviously not exactly. But I hope you know what I mean.

I do agree that on the emotional side of things this film can be successful in duplicating the emotions it wishes to. I was mostly referring to how the film making harms the story it is trying to tell. From narration to where footage is place and where it is repeated the story becomes completely familiar with all of its twists obvious. He sets the film up from the beginning to be a thriller, a suspense story. Much like most films in that category over the last twenty years the emotional gears that are key won't work if you can see them all. I guess it's a bit like the thing Zedz picked up about the girl in red in Schindler's List to keep hammering that uselessly in.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember being disappointed that Dear Zachary wasn't the masterpiece that so much of the buzz had made it out to be. The story at the heart of the film is compelling and tragic or tragically compelling, but the execution of the film was, to me, its biggest flaw - the framing structure was clever, but the whole film is shot like a true crime doc on MSNBC (and I don't meant that as a compliment), even down to the jarring sound effects and visuals when the big reveal is revealed (I was waiting for John Candy to wave a plate of pancakes into the camera, Dr Tongue-style). It's not that the narrative of the film is manipulative (all documentaries are manipulative, or at least manipulated), but (as knives points out more eloquently than I), it reduces such a complex story with complicated characters into a showdown between good and evil. That works in a Western, but it flattens out the "real" story.

As I was watching it, I kept coming back to Capturing the Freedmans, a film that engages the problematics of documentary and unknowability in (to me) a much more satisfying and ambiguous way.

Aside from the emotional gut-punch of the big reveal, what am I missing here? (No sarcasm intended).

Zinoviev wrote: its biggest flaw - the framing structure was clever, but the whole film is shot like a true crime doc on MSNBC (and I don't meant that as a compliment)

I haven't really brought this up, but that was an other nagging aspect for me(it's appropriate then that MSN did have a hand in financing this movie). It looks like and in certain aspects tells it's story like a ten minute interlude on Anderson Cooper or one of the other pundit shows out there. It's competent film making I suppose, but the way the story is told is far too basic and lacking in thought for a feature film. There's a salaciousness there to attract viewers.
While this isn't a critique on the film as it had no intentions of doing this, but I really wish it had explored some of the whys that it jumps over. Why did the Judge give her advice and allow her to post bail, why did that psychologist work so hard to free her, why was she given full custody rather than temporary. A very interesting and unique narrative is at the heart of this story, but it's not the one presented her.
I suppose I am being far more harsh with this film than I would a fictional narrative, but in what little experience with documentary I do have I have developed the feeling that the film maker forces more responsibility on themselves by tackling a true subject even if they do it in an untrue way. They must tell the story with more consideration of the subtleties than this film did.

I think it's somewhat telling that I don't really remember all that much about this film aside from the reveal and the emotional impact that the relationship between Zachary and his grandparents had on me, even though this was one of my most anticipated films of 2008 and remember excitingly going to Pasadena to check it out in the theaters. Like knives and Zino have stated, I remember being underwhelmed with the film's sound design and the filmmaker's narration in general, as well as the amateur editing. Like This Film Is Not Yet Rated, I enjoyed Dear Zachary for its subject matter but can't help being disturbed at the thought of how good it really could have been with a more experienced (or perhaps talented) filmmaker.

Nevertheless, I was certainly bawling my eyes out as well, so I felt it for sure. It's just weird trying to depict the importance of the film in hindsight if such an emotional experience was immediately forgotten upon leaving the theater. Perhaps this is because of my own fascination with learning or taking something from a film, something that may be unfairly attributed to movies like Dear Zachary that are stories rather than an argument or learning/philosophical experience.

Doesn't everyone understand: this film wouldn't be this film if anyone else made it. Kuenne never claimed to be Errol Morris, he just set out to make a movie about his friend that no one outside of friends and family would have seen anyway, and circumstances got more and more bizarre along the way. The narrative that this film has couldn't be duplicated by an after-the-fact recounting of events by an acclaimed documentary filmmaker. It's a wrong place, wrong time situation - I think that most everyone who saw the film can understand that a first time filmmaker who was unintentionally and unexpectedly thrust into having the material to tell such a horrible and grandiose story deserves to be cut an unprecedented amount of slack.

mfunk9786 wrote:The narrative that this film has couldn't be duplicated by an after-the-fact recounting of events by an acclaimed documentary filmmaker.

That in all honesty would have been a major improvement for me. That narrative here I find to be morally iffy at best fused with a few Spielberg elements that have no place even in the documentary that you set it up to be.

But it then wouldn't be this film. Does that make sense or do I just sound nuts?

It's like criticizing an autobiography because the prose isn't on par with Twain or Dickens.

You're not nuts. That's part of why I was so down on myself in my original post, what I wanted is simply entirely different from what this film could've offered. Considering the subject matter though there are better films that could have been made, but again that isn't letting the film exist upon it's own merits. The problem though is that I find it to lack all merit beyond it's emotional story. The director is very amateur in his editing, pacing, and narration.
Along with that, I do tend to try to avoid this subject but here it is very important, I find the film to be morally wrong. The initial thesis seems odd and I really don't have any idea why he would start on this particular route. As the narrative develops the disgustingly mercenary nature of what he's doing increases until the final plot twist turns this into something I find absolutely distasteful. I'm sickened from every choice he made as director. He just shows blind ignorance at best.
Yes, it is wrong of me to attack a film for not being what I want it to be, but what it ended up being is indefensible on it's own merit. We got the worst movie that could be made from this story. An MSN piece by way of Spielberg.

Were aliens used as a deus ex machina in this?

Tom Hagen wrote:Were aliens used as a deus ex machina in this?

Spoiler alert!

knives wrote:We got the worst movie that could be made from this story. An MSN piece by way of Spielberg.

Worst, best; tomato, tomato

knives wrote:Along with that, I do tend to try to avoid this subject but here it is very important, I find the film to be morally wrong. The initial thesis seems odd and I really don't have any idea why he would start on this particular route. As the narrative develops the disgustingly mercenary nature of what he's doing increases until the final plot twist turns this into something I find absolutely distasteful.

I didn't dare mention this in my original post at the risk of inciting an argument, but I will just say that this also didn't sit well with me during and after my viewing. When mfunk says that the director didn't expect this film to be seen by anyone outside of his family, I question whether or not his intentions were sincerely in line with this and what exactly he wanted to accomplish with this film's creation.

I meant the story of Andrew having been murdered and what was originally supposed to merely be a loving tribute for Zachary to see when he grew up. It obviously evolved into something more.

mfunk9786 wrote:I meant the story of Andrew having been murdered and what was originally supposed to merely be a loving tribute for Zachary to see when he grew up. It obviously evolved into something more.

I know, I was referring to the original story of Andrew. It's a very odd premise to work around, therefore I question whether or not he really intended it to solely be for Zachary's benefit or if it was merely the most interesting subject matter he could think of to make a film about (and hence wouldn't be made solely for the family). I'm not meaning to imply anything by this, I'm just being honest about something that concerned me with the original thesis of this film.

I think your assessment of the filmmaker has gone from merely wrong to overwhelmingly insulting and glib.

Although he may have stated it ever-so-slightly indelicately, I have to agree with mfunk here. Like I said earlier, I can understand certain criticisms levied at this film, I certainly see its flaws. But James Mills, you're hinting at a rank opportunistic callousness...never mind accusing the director of lying.... and I just cannot understand how someone could think that of Kuenne when he is inextricably, personally (and yes, a little blindly) tied to the tragedy unfolding in front of his lens.

I know it's apples and oranges, but I think of something like Exit Through the Gift Shop, another "right" place, "right" time documentary, and can see how people might speculate on motivations and reasons that differ from what is explicitly expressed in the film, but to bring that kind of speculation here is unfathomable to me.

To Mills defense I was saying(perhaps more delicately)the very same thing. Afterall if the film is to be believed than he started the film before knowing about Zachary, in which case why. It was set up early on that he was an amateur film maker. It really does reak, for me at least, of mercenary opportunism.