… with the subtitle ”A Tribute to Everyday Life”, a big and impressive exhibition in Copenhagen, that runs until August 1st.

International it is content-wise, and everything – i.e. the fine catalogue and the short informative texts next to the photos of the artists are in Danish AND English. It is very professionally set up, let me salute the curators: Morten Brohammer and Finn Larsen, and the text writer Jens Erdman Rasmussen.

Why and how? ”We have for some time been keen on doing an exhibition on street photography but could not decide on the right story, We found that story in Vivian Maier, who after her death became a sensation, when her amazing photographic legacy by chance was discovered at an art auction 10 years ago. Since then the myth of the nanny with the camera has grown; especially as the story of a loner who worked alone on her own photographic vision”.

So the Vivian Maier exhibition is launched as the main attraction, including the opportunity to sit down and watch the film about her, ”Finding Vivian Maier”. BUT the exhibition, as the curators indicate in the quote above includes much much more. There are photo classics like Diane Arbus, Atget, Krass Clement, my personal hero Robert Frank, Walter Evans, Hans Eijkelboom, Jean Hermanson, Koudelka, Jens-Olof Lasthein, Garry Winogrand, and many other fine photographers from Denmark or abroad.

I was there for some hours and have not seen it all the way I want to. It is overwhelming and I was happy to sit down to rest and re-watch not only some of the Vivian Maier film but also ”Don’t Blink” about and with the phenomenon Robert Frank, who is given a whole wall with the special edition of Süddeutsche Zeitung, 64 pages, printed by his publisher Steidl in 2016.

Copenhageners and foreigners who visit the capital of Denmark, go and visit:

Gadefotografi 1917-2017, Øksnehallen, København. 28. juni – 1. august, Daily 10.00 – 20.00, friday and saturday 10.00 – 22.00.

www.dgi-byen.dk/oeksnehallen/

The last part of the Putin Interviews is by far the best of the four. It is shot after Trump was elected as President in the US and the first half hour of the conversation deals with that issue: Did Russia influence the American election, did Putin know about it, did he order the hacking etc. Stone seems now much better prepared and puts direct questions that leads to Putin – to a certain degree – analysing the American election and the victory of Trump. With archive clips put in from American media (Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, McCain etc.). From there the conversation goes to cyberwar, the American use of the stuxnet computer worm in Iran, the fear of a world war, of another Hiroshima and Nagasaki…

”It’s not possible to give fear to the Russian people”, says Putin, who reflects on all the questions put to him.

The last part also works better because the first half hour is set up like on a stage: Two chairs in front of each other in a big room. Next to Oliver Stone the indispensable interpreter Sergei Churdinov on one side, on the other side the dop Anthony Dod Mantle pointing his small camera towards Putin – and around them standing or sitting on chairs along the walls, security people, many more camera and sound people, producers I guess, it’s all visible, they are all part of a play, and now I accept the dramatising editing that I felt confused about in the first part. Maybe I just got used to it? After this Stone goes to the Red Square, without Putin, he visits the grave of John Reed, he says with a smile ”where is Trotsky”, it’s a part that fills the gap before the final meeting, where Stone questions Stalin, asks about Putin’s parents, characterises him as one of the wealthiest men in the world, Putin denies he has bank accounts all over, and finally of course: If you are elected in 2018 you have been in power, in 2024, in more than 20 years… Putin seems a little irritated, the only time during the four interview parts, about the theme (my words, Stone is more polite) ”power corrupts”… The interview sessions are over, Oliver and Vladimir hug each other, Putin says to Stone that he, Stone, will get in problems for this documentary program, advises again Stone’s wife to go to St. Petersburg during the White Nights and off he leaves with all his people through the pompous halls. The show is over. The actors leave the stage.

… the best he can, to Putin and the third man, who is next to Oliver Stone all the time interpreting the words of the President to the film director. In itself a difficult situation, I found myself suffering a bit with Oliver Stone, who obviously has problems in understanding right away what Putin says. And if he does, he most of the time does not know how to react. At least when it is serious stuff, world politics, Ukraine, Crimea… ”The Putin Interviews” are not critical interviews.

I watched episodes 2&3 and the reason I have changed the caption is the very simple that the entertainment part has got limited space. In my head. Well, there is still Putin as superman, playing hockey on ice, learning that sport when he was 60, Putin telling about his training and swimming every day, Putin revealing that he has two daughters and is a grandfather, I could almost see him being moved… but otherwise he does not lose control and Stone – as he promised – lets him talk. The beginning of the second episode deals with the American withdrawal from the ABM in 2002 after 30 years, the ABM being the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Putin expresses his disappointment with that decision and worry for ”the balance” if NATO continues to put missiles around the borders to Russia. Meaning that ”we have to respond”. Stone invites him to watch ”Dr. Strangelove”, the film crew films him while watching, no reactions, while the interpreter is having a good time with Peter Sellers. Putin speaks long and committed about ”the balance” problem.

Who started in Georgia, who stood behind the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, it was the population in Crimea that decided to be part of the Russian Federation, we did not want Assad to have the same ”treatment” as Sadam Hussein and Gadaffi, that´s why we do what we do with a focus on fighting ISIS etc. etc. It’s all well known, what the Russian president thinks about these issues. He talks, he performs as Oliver Stone wanted him to do, he is well formulated, OMG compare him to Mr. T. In the White House! Locations for the talks differ, a tour in Kremlin, his palace 20 mins. from Kreml, Sotji and as said the hockey stadium, where he greets Oliver Stone’s wife and tells her to visit St. Petersburg. On this point I agree with him.

http://www.filmkommentaren.dk/blog/blogpost/3968/   

The last part of the Putin Interviews is by far the best of the four. It is shot after Trump was elected as President in the US and the first half hour of the conversation deals with that issue: Did Russia influence the American election, did Putin know about it, did he order the hacking etc. Stone seems now much better prepared and puts direct questions that leads to Putin – to a certain degree – analysing the American election and the victory of Trump. With archive clips put in from American media (Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, McCain etc.). From there the conversation goes to cyberwar, the American use of the stuxnet computer worm in Iran, the fear of a world war, of another Hiroshima and Nagasaki…

”It’s not possible to give fear to the Russian people”, says Putin, who reflects on all the questions put to him.

The last part also works better because the first half hour is set up like on a stage: Two chairs in front of each other in a big room. Next to Oliver Stone the indispensable interpreter Sergei Churdinov on one side, on the other side the dop Anthony Dod Mantle pointing his small camera towards Putin – and around them standing or sitting on chairs along the walls, security people, many more camera and sound people, producers I guess, it’s all visible, they are all part of a play, and now I accept the dramatising editing that I felt confused about in the first part. Maybe I just got used to it? After this Stone goes to the Red Square, without Putin, he visits the grave of John Reed, he says with a smile ”where is Trotsky”, it’s a part that fills the gap before the final meeting, where Stone questions Stalin, asks about Putin’s parents, characterises him as one of the wealthiest men in the world, Putin denies he has bank accounts all over, and finally of course: If you are elected in 2018 you have been in power, in 2024, in more than 20 years… Putin seems a little irritated, the only time during the four interview parts, about the theme (my words, Stone is more polite) ”power corrupts”… The interview sessions are over, Oliver and Vladimir hug each other, Putin says to Stone that he, Stone, will get in problems for this documentary program, advises again Stone’s wife to go to St. Petersburg during the White Nights and off he leaves with all his people through the pompous halls. The show is over. The actors leave the stage.

 

Vurdering:

The right to fail… which is, I am afraid, what Laura Poitras does in her newest film ”Risk” that was released in theatres in the US early May. Actually she showed a version of the film at the Cannes Film Festival 2016, but changed it after the US Elections, one reason with Wikileaks and eventual Russian hacking into the Democratic party files and because (she says so in the film): “This is not the film I thought I was making. The hardest dilemma was the decision I had to make after the screening at Cannes. I had two choices: either walk away from the film and not release it or to address the [rape] allegations.”

Which she does in what is her most personal film after the fine works ”The Oath”, ”My Country, My Country” and of course the Oscar-winner ”Citizenfour” with Edward Snowden as the main character.

In ”Risk” it is Wikileak founder, the iconic Julian Assange, who is in

focus, surrounded by Sarah Harrison (the one who got Snowden from Hong Kong to Moscow) and Jacob Appelbaum, who in the film (as Assange) is accused of sexual abuse within the Wikileak organisation.

Poitras fails to put – as she formulates it herself – ”the contradictions” together in a film with a flow and she does not avoid to jump from one event to the other as she does with the material she has filmed with Assange since 2011.

It gets superficial, is it about the impressive effort for freedom of the speech launched by Assange with the leaks or is it about him as a person, who indeed does appear as a male chauvinist p.. in some sequences and in others as an arrogant leader of the gang that operates within very little space in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Then there is a bit about Manning, then Applebaum strongly accusing Egyptian internet operators of closing access according to the government’s wish, then Lady Gaga ”interviewing” Assange, funny as she wants to know if he ever cries, if he has feelings etc. – and then, and it does not work, Poitras own comments ”notes from my production journals”.

Here she opens for some important conflicts she has had with Assange, ”I don’t trust him”, and – if I got that right – an affair she had with Applebaum that she and he did not want to have in the film, a dream she has… it just comes audio here and there.

I do appreciate and respect Poitras honesty but these hints are not developed and you sit there disappointed when you see that she wants too much, gets too little in a fragmented structure.

Photo: Sarah Harrison and Assange.

USA, 2017, 92 mins. (The film is available on Amazon, i-tunes etc.)    

http://riskfilm.org/

http://nofilmschool.com/2017/05/risk-laura-poitras-review-interview

We have had many posts on this site about the magician on a football pitch, Leo Messi, who today can celebrate his 30th birthday. Congratulations! We picked one text to celebrate. The one about Alex de la Iglesia’s film ”Messi” Here it comes:

Svetlana and Zoran Popovic, directors of the Magnificent7 Festival in Belgrade present ”Messi” that will be screened February 1st (2015) at the festival. The text also includes words from the director:

When one of the most important Spanish directors, Alex de la Iglesia was asked to make a documentary about world famous footballer Lionel Messi, he decided not to make the film about the sport but to look for the mistery behind it, for what he calls the “rosebud” moment. De la Iglesia was fascinated by the way that

Messi polarises opinion in spite of his astonishing ability. “Half of the world loves Messi. The other half hates Messi. There is not something in the middle.” If he searched hard enough, De la Iglesia was certain, he could discover just why Messi had pushed himself to become one of the greatest footballers of his age. When he was making the film De la Iglesia was thinking all the time about the legendary Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane”, about the boy with the sledge who grows up to become the all-powerful media magnate.

Thus he created extremely dynamic and fascinating docufiction puzzle consisting of the dinner scene with some of the iconic football figures and Messi’s closest friends and people from his youth and childhood, archive materials and specially directed fiction scenes based on true events. The idea of the dinner came to him from Woody Allen’s film “Broadway Danny Rose” in which a group of old-time comedians reminisce about a person called Danny Rose – and he comes alive in their anecdotes.

The film was premiered at the Venice Festival as one of the best made documentaries in the past year – charismatic participants, excellent directing, camera and sound. Masterly edited!

Director’s Word: What I’ve done is made a film that shows a story, but I also wanted to make a film that explains why Messi is the way he is. Why is he so shy? So reserved? What happened to him in childhood to make him that way? He is one of the most celebrated people in world, along with Cristiano Ronaldo, with some of the greatest opportunities to open himself up to the world. And yet he shuts himself off in his town with his family. This is a film in which we wanted to mark the life and biography of a personality. It’s made for people to enjoy, along with Messi, and for people who care about him as a personality.

Spain, 2014, 97 mins.