Jamie Daily

Searching for Sugarman (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Searching for Sugarman (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award, which it won.
Won Best Documentary Feature (Malik Bendjelloul, Simon Chinn).
Watched April 14, 2014.

 
 

Searching for Sugarman is half horror story and half fantasy for musicians.  Two South Africans are in search of what became of the 1970s rock and roll legend Rodriguez.  The catch is that he is only a legend in South Africa, despite his being an American.

 

The documentary interviews multiple people who say that Rodriguez was the real deal.  His soul and lyrics made him as big as the Beatles or Elvis Presley in South Africa, but no one in the States knew who he was.  He recorded two albums and then disappeared into obscurity.  In the days of no internet and only album covers, no one picked up something by a "Rodriguez" to listen to.  

 

Somehow Rodriguez's album made its way to South Africa, unbeknownst to him or his record label.  It spread like wildfire and genuinely helped spur on political revolution.  He was an inspiration to local bands and his lyrics built up a nation that felt oppressed by their leadership.  

 

No one knew what happened to Rodriguez.  There were all sorts of rumors about his very public and gruesome suicide, but no one actually knew.  This film is the search for his story and what became of a legend.

 

For the most part, I saw Sugarman as a feel good film.  I won't say too much (no spoilers here!), but the end of the film, story wise, was my favorite.  The story was good, the interviews were good, and the information presented was all good.  The execution of the film, particularly editing wise was not as successful.  I felt that once it reached its climax the pace was extremely slow.  Despite its few flaws, I think that this film will really resonate with anyone who has once pursued a career in music.  

 

Aften having seen the film, I don't know if I would ever watch it again.  Although it was interesting, there was almost too much information and not enough B-roll (non-interview footage).  If you can connect with the struggle of a musician, or you would like to listen to some great music, then this is definitely the documentary for you.

(Trailer contains spoilers!)

 

Mondays At Racine (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Mondays at Racine (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Documentary Short (Cynthia Wade, Robin Honan).
Watched March 12, 2014.

 

Mondays at Racine is a well done documentary short that is so much more than just a story about women with cancer.  The two sisters who own a hair salon open their doors to women diagnosed with cancer once a month and give out much more than a free hair cut.  

 

The story follows a couple women with breast cancer, while featuring a few others.  The owners' roles in the film are very small.  They have painful, personal experience with cancer, but they also realize that in our society, and especially in Jersey, women have a very distinct idea of what beauty is.  They want women to feel beautiful, especially when going through cancer because they have enough to worry about already.  This is their way of giving back, and they make a good point that they get so much out of the experience that is is almost selfish.  It makes them forget or dismiss their own troubles while helping these women.  

 

One of the main cancer fighters has been fighting for years, defying all odds and living over a decade beyond what the doctors told her she would live.  She mentors younger women with recent diagnoses in emotional aspects, but also when it comes to surgery and treatments.

 

It was a great forty minutes watching this film, but I cried a lot.  The story telling was okay, the editing was okay, but the people were phenomenal.  Our world emphasizes beauty, and these women are truly beautiful.

 

The Invisible War (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

The Invisible War (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Documentary Feature (Amy Ziering, Kirby Dick).
Watched March 10, 2014.

 

The Invisible War is a devastating documentary that discusses the victims of rape within the US military and how it has negatively affected the victims' well beings, their careers, and their relationships.  More than ninety percent of the time, the attackers go unpunished and about 25% of the time it is because the attacker is their commanding officer.  Not all victims are women, either.  But because of the way that the military handles rape crimes, most victims never come forward.

 

This is a powerful story that needs to be told.  Already the documentary has brought attention to the people who can make changes.  When this documentary was filmed, the person who determined the course of action for the case and the attacker was the commander, but this has since changed. 

 

One woman, Kori Cioca, who had joined the Coast Guard, was attacked multiple times by her CO.  She came forward several times, with multiple officers, to report the man and to be transferred, but she never was.  Her jaw was broken in the attack and, as the documentary shows, she has struggled for years to get the VA to cover her medical costs.  She has been eating soft food for about five years.  

 

She and other women from the Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force, have all come together to tell their story and speak up.  Rape should never be accepted as an "occupational hazard."  They want people to be aware and they want justice.

 

For the most part this was a good documentary.  The stories were heart breaking, the women were relatable, and their families were visibly suffering along side them.  They were living every day with their anger because there was no justice, no sense of closure, and every day another women, or men, were going through what they went through.  Sometimes the editing was not at par with the rest of the film.  They used jump cuts inappropriately during interviews--something that is regularly used in a YouTube format, for example, but rarely in mainstream media.  As an editor this was distracting and pulled me away from the tragedy being communicated on screen because it is "against the rules," so to say.  

 

I think the biggest reason for this film is for these women's voices to be heard.  They tried for a lawsuit.  They spoke with people in D.C.  They cried with each other when they told their stories.  It is about what happened to them, but more so what did not happen to them.  They were told that they were asking for it, that their uniform was too provocative--anything that would release the attacker of guilt.  This is something that tends to happen in the American culture, and it is devastating that it happens so often within what is supposed to be our finest.

 

I feel strongly about this film.  Its execution was fine, its story telling ability was good, but the people within it are what makes it great.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am very proud of our military and its members.  I tried to keep this review objective but I don't think I did entirely.  I am passionate about speaking up for the victims, not the people who committed the federal crime.  

 

I will not tell you either way if you should see this film.  I leave that entirely up to you.  There are many women, and even a man, in this film who tell their stories and how it has changed their lives.

 

Lincoln (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Lincoln (2012)
85th Academy Awards
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 12 awards, of which it won 2.
Nominated for Best Picture (Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy), Best Director (Steven Spielberg), Best Supporting Actor (Tommy Lee Jones), Best Supporting Actress (Sally Field), Best Adapted Screenplay (Tony Kushner), Best Original Score (John Williams), Best Sound Mixing (Andy Nelson, Gary Rydstrom, Ronald Judkins), Best Cinematography (Janusz Kaminski), Best Costume Design (Joanna Johnston), and Best Film Editing (Michael Kahn).
Won Best Actor (Daniel Day-Lewis) and Best Production Design (Rick Carter, Jim Erickosn).
Watched February 27, 2014.

  

I have heard a lot of good things about Lincoln, and perhaps these things, along with Daniel Day-Lewis' win at the Oscars made me expect too much.  As much as I tend to enjoy the pristine nature of a good Spielberg film, the stage like dialogue, production design, and cinematography left something to be desired.

 

President Abraham Lincoln is perhaps one of the most well remembered Presidents.  This film focuses on a small period of time around his reelection, just months before his assassination.  He is gunning for the 13th Amendment, which would abolish slavery, much to the chagrin of his cabinet.  Even some within the Republican party were hesitant.  Everyone wanted peace from the Civil War.  They wanted their sons to stop dying in battle and for the South to come back to the nation.  The Democrats were vehemently opposed to the Amendment.

 

We all know what happens in the end, which takes away some of the mystery and suspense, although the filmmakers tried their best to keep the audience on the edges of their seats.  The representatives vote and threaten each other.  Lincoln is slow and yet eloquent.  He speaks strongly when needed but prefers a calm state and story telling.  In tense situations he commands the attention of a room by telling a story that might relate to the situation at hand.  

 

The acting, particularly from Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field, is top notch.  They deliver difficult lines and portray a wounded spirit very well.  My favorite scene involving Mary Todd Lincoln (Field) is when she defends her remodel of the white house to some extremists, showing a bit of the gumption that Lincoln must have fallen in love with in the beginning.  The loss of one of her sons has all but done her in, but in this moment there is fire in her eyes, much like in the President's when he expresses how disgusting slavery is.  

 

He and his political party dance the line between peace and the freedom of slaves.  They believe that if they declare peace with the south before the Amendment is brought to a vote, there will be no sense of urgency and it will not be passed.  They employ questionable and typical techniques to "buy" votes and stall envoys.  

 

Some of the story is much too slow, or maybe unnecessary.  I understand why they included the story line of Robert Lincoln (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the son who wants to go to war, but it is so underused that it is more of a distraction from the main story than anything else.  It shows the fear of his parents and unearths more of their grief.  The emotions in these scenes are palpable, but the execution of the filmmaking is very staged.  There is a constant tug of war between filmmaker and actor in this film that I found very distracting.  

 

Despite some negative attributes, the film is well done and deserving of its nominations as well as wins.  I would definitely watch it again, although I might not own it.  If you are a history buff you will probably really enjoy it.  I can recommend Lincoln as a good film, but you should expect it to be somewhat slow, dark, and quiet.

 

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 2 awards.
Nominated for Best Costume Design (Colleen Atwood) and Best Visual Effects (Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, Michael Dawson, Neil Corbould, Philip Brennan).
Watched February 26, 2014.

 

Snow White and the Huntsman is an entertaining film worthy of its nominations--no more, and no less.  Recently we have been treated to new spins on old tales and for the most part, this rendition of Snow White is pretty good.

 

Snow White (Kristin Stewart) is supposed to be incredibly beautiful, not just in appearance.  Her mother the queen was well loved and poured that love out to her daughter.  When the queen dies, the king remarries (fairly quickly) to an incredibly beautiful woman who kills him immediately and takes the throne.  Ravenna (Charlize Theron) is perhaps the best part of this film.  She clings to her beauty and must take the youth of young virgins in order to maintain it.  Otherwise her skin sags, her hair thins and grays, and she loses all beauty.  Her magical mirror informs her always what she must do to remain the fairest in the land.

 

Snow White is kept prisoner in her own castle and when she comes of age, she must escape to save her own life.  The Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) is brought before the queen and ordered to track Snow White and bring her back.  This is the twist of the film--the Huntsman has a strong part to play, and he soon falls under the charm of Snow White, just as the dwarves and other rebels of the land.  In this rendition, there is still an apple and a prince charming, but there is also war and evil knights made of glass shards.  

 

As much as I loved this movie, I would not give it five stars.  Charlize Theron was brilliant, although I think she was riding the edge of the knife between "perfect crazy" and "too much crazy" the whole movie.  A lot of the focus of the film was displaying just how crazy she was.  I did love, however, how discontent she was.  From fits of rage to silent tears, her range of emotions was amazing.

 

Another downer was, of course, Kristen Stewart.  To be honest, I do think she's pretty--not necessarily fairest of the land pretty, but pretty.  Her method of acting came in handy when it came to her wandering through the dark forest.  She was confused, scared, disoriented--I think she played that part well.  I also thought she did a good job during her monologue at the end.  However, I did not have much faith in her character.  She not only represents life, but in actuality IS life.  Snow White was a challenging character in comparison with Bella from "Twilight," but I do not think that Stewart pulled it off.  She was not believable as Snow White.  She was instead a girl running around in a big medieval dress, trying to be a great beauty.  Snow White is supposed to capture everyone's heart, but Kristen Stewart did not capture mine.

 

My personal favourite was, of course, The Huntsman.  Chris Hemsworth--tall, muscular, brunette (yeah, I missed the blonde hair too), and with a Scottish accent.  Whether you are male or female, you should have a crush on this man.  I thought he did a good job with "Thor," but when he did his monologue in "Snow White," I could tell we are going to be seeing good things in his future filmography.  Hopefully he will not just be the brawny action star who plays the same role all the time.

 

I loved the special effects.  I expected more of the glass-demon knights we all saw fighting in the previews.  I was a little disappointed they had such a small role.  I didn't notice the editing, which must mean it was good because trust me, I notice when it is bad.  The symbolism was blatantly obvious--death versus life, red apples being eaten, etc.  I liked the cinematography.  I think my favorite aspect was probably character development.  Before the end of the film, I knew who each of the characters were and understood their decisions.  We were given enough information about their pasts to understand their present.  While rooting for the good guys, I had a sick desire to see the queen succeed because Theron captured me with her crazy ways.

 

If you are not looking for a deep film, or even a frivolous film, I would definitely recommend Snow White and the Huntsman for a Friday night entertaining movie.  It is rated PG-13 so it is certainly not as kid friendly as the original Disney animation, but other than that it is a good family film.

 

No (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

No (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Foreign Language Film (Pablo Larraín).
Watched February 6, 2014.

 

No is an interesting contribution to this year's foreign language films.  In the beginning I was not a fan.  It is a Chilean film about the 1988 referendum and the ad executives who produce the campaigns to defeat Augusto Pinochet.  It is shot, produced, and directed as if it was all actually done in 1988, complete with 4:3 aspect ratio and obsessive lens flares that over expose the frame constantly.  Perhaps the thing that took the most getting used to was the jump cuts.

 

Jumps cuts are cuts used in editing.  There is no transition between clips, but one clip right up against the next, often different locations and potentially different characters in each scene.  Usually, in film editing, even if they use jump cuts they will insert clips to imply time has passed or that we have moved to a different place.  In the beginning of No, the campaign is trying to talk René Saavedra (Gael García Bernal) into directing the TV spots, while his boss is trying to talk him out of it.  With little to no back story or understanding of the Chilean political climate, we are thrown into these scenes edited back to back to back, often only a few seconds long.  

 

If the rest of the film was like the beginning, I might not have made it through.  As an editor and lover of story, I could not be grabbed by the dialogue that I could not understand and the conversation that I could not keep up with simply because of the editing.  Things turned around pretty quickly, however, and while they still employed the same type of editing throughout the film, it slowed down and eventually employed some traditional timeline tactics and only occasionally used their chaotic use of jump cuts to better effect.  

 

The No campaign is granted fifteen minutes of airtime a day, while the Yes campaign receives the rest of the time.  René spends much of his time convincing those around him that they need a jingle and a focus on happiness instead of the fear and hatred that they all feel in their hearts.  General Pinochet has allowed the election mostly because of international pressure, and after his long time in office, he has instilled a lot of fear in his people of disappearances, exiles, and deaths.  The No campaign is innovative, current, and employs a lot of commercial tactics from the west, including the Coca Cola versus Pepsi commercials that were airing at the time.  They use a lot of humor and symbols associated with happiness.  The Yes campaign eventually begins to adopt the same tactics.

 

While there is a lot of fear and some vandalism, René and his associates stay relatively safe from political backlash.  We follow the majority of the process, right up until the election.  René is stoic and unemotional the majority of the time.  He rides a skateboard which implies both that he is young but also that he is clinging to youth and innocence.  Despite his differing views from his employer, his boss protects him and advises him against becoming tangled in the wrong side of politics.  Once it is all said and done, they are both still on the same side--that of supporting each others' artistry.

 

There is a lot to love about No and one of those things is that they took the risk of not shooting everything in HD.  It is old and gritty and dark.  Some characters are quiet observers while others are passionate orators.  There is family drama and love.  If you are okay with reading subtitles and can make it through the first half hour, this is actually a pretty good film.  It is straightforward and almost one-note, but perhaps that is the film's strength.  It does not try to throw in any plot twists, but carries you along with René to discover what it means to be a political activist in Chile in 1988.

 

Kon-Tiki (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Kon-Tiki (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Foreign Language Film (Joachim Rønning, Espen Sandberg).
Watched January 25, 2014.

 

I have an affinity for films and shows that involve being stranded on an island, or finding ones self in a desperate situation in the middle of the sea after something like a ship sinking.  I don't know why--perhaps it is to see someone survive without modern comforts and vicariously experience the adventure and danger therein, or perhaps it is because I was introduced to Robinson Crusoe at a very young age.  All things considered, a film about six men traveling months at a time on a simple raft should be right up my alley, and while the story itself was up to scratch, the film was not.

 

Kon-Tiki is based on a true story, from book, documentary, and personal accounts of Thor Heyerdahl (Pål Sverre Hagen), a scientist of the 1940s who wanted to prove that Polynesia was populated not my Asians as the world believed, but by Africans.  No respectable publisher or scientist would give him the time of day and told him the only way for anyone to take his theory seriously would be for him to make the trip across the sea from Peru himself.  National Geographic would have none of it, and although he had no money, Thor got together a crew and congregated in Peru where he convinced the government it would be worthwhile to finance their mission.

 

They built a balsawood raft precisely as it would have been built, using no modern technology to construct it, and set out on a 4,300 mile crossing.  The crew is briefly introduced to us: Thor is the ever optimistic and never doubting scientist, Herman Watzinger (Anders Baasmo Christiansen) is an engineer turned refrigerator salesman who is controlled by fear, Knut Haugland (Tobias Santelmann) is a war hero obsessed with his parrot, Bengt Danielsson (Gustaf Skarsgård) is the photographer, Erik Hesselberg (Odd Magnus Williamson) is the only one who has been to sea before, and Torstein Raaby (Jakob Oftebro) the young adventurous one who works the radio.  We never learn more about the characters than this, really, and that is one of the big faults in Kon-Tiki.

 

What could have been a three hour adventure in which we get to know each character as I am sure they got to know each other in their 101 day sail across the sea, we only get a hour and a half, most of which documents their adventures with sharks, whales, and glowing sea creatures.  Most of the film they are trying to find the southern current that will take them toward Polynesia, and there is one dramatic moment in which they must go over or around a reef.  All things considered, the film was shot beautifully, the introduction was well done and exactly as it should be, but the raft ride itself was a bit lacking.  We saw a lot of Watzinger's fear and Thor's struggle to captain him.  Their raft was absorbing water, and while this would probably be a big concern in reality, as would their inability to catch the current, only Watzinger seems to take these things seriously (although perhaps too seriously).

 

I enjoyed the film, but it did not give me enough.  The run time wasn't enough for the characters, so instead they chose three of the seven to focus on--one being the sea--and left it as good.  Although there is one terrific scene involving a nail biting encounter with sharks, the rest of their adventures that should have been exciting were somewhat dull.  In the sequences they chose to dwell on, their timing was exquisite.  The colors and contrasts were beautiful, both in Norway in the beginning, but especially in their raft trip, alone on the big blue sea.

 

As the film is only an hour and a half, and it depicts a bit of history that is brave and encouraging, I would recommend this film.  It certainly isn't my favorite, but the good scenes were magnificent, while its short comings kept it from being well rounded.  If you have ever read the book or seen the documentary, this is probably one movie you should add to your Netflix list.

 

Inocente (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Inocente (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award, which it won.
Won Best Documentary, Short Subject (Sean Fine, Andrea Nix Fine).
Watched January 21, 2014.

 

Inocente is definitely an Academy type documentary, and I can see by their standards how it stood out.  I haven't watched any of the other shorts yet from this year so I'm not sure how they compare.  However, I'm not sure that Inocente would have won in my book, and here's why.

 

I thought if was fairly average.  The story had power and the colors and symbolism were there, but I felt that its stillness and quiet moments were a large weak point.  As a fan of photography and cinematography alike, I understand and can appreciate how just one frame or photograph can speak volumes.  In Inocente, those frames were so repetitive that the forty minute short felt like seventy.

 

Inocente Izucar is a 15 year old living in San Diego, California.  For all intents and purposes, she is homeless.  She has never lived one place more than three months at a time and knows most, if not all of the shelters in and around her county.  None of her friends from school know.  She has found healing in art, so much so that she can't even keep it off her face.  She paints her face every morning, dons her bright red converse, and is off.  She enjoys being alone and does not spend a lot of time with her family, but instead at ARTS (A Reason To Survive) where she paints bright scenes from her dreams.  

 

Inocente is chosen by the director of ARTS to be one of two chosen to host their own art show.  She creates thirty pieces in a couple months, and then sells them for twelve thousand dollars towards the program and her college fund.  The documentary follows her artistic journey and uses the art pieces as background as she narrates over the top, sharing stories of the past.  She and her family are living illegally in the United States, and Inocente feels like it is her fault that they are homeless and running scared.  Her abusive father was deported years ago, and Inocente feels directly responsible.  At only eleven years old, her mother pleaded with her that they should both jump off the Coronado bridge.  Inocente had to talk her down.

 

Despite the power in her words and story, I felt like the story telling was weak.  The people were all respectfully represented, but there was little shown of the difficulty of their life.  There was so much time spent in the art studio and so much less on just her life that although Inocente shared many stories and many things, very few things stood out as emotionally grabbing.  The colors and camera work were well done, as far as MTV goes, but I am surprised that the film gained an Oscar from the Academy.

 

Inocente's story seems like it would be fascinating, and her way of telling it is raw and real.  She feels awkward at first, not knowing how to start.  Her art is a central focus, and perhaps that was the goal.  Perhaps she and the Fines wished her art to tell her story more than her words.  They wanted it to be brighter and more positive.  I can understand that, but I guess it just was not my cup of tea.

 

If the story I relayed for you sounds interesting, I would recommend the film to you.  Obviously a lot of other people really enjoyed it, I was just more indifferent to it than they were.  I will say this, though--the colors were absolutely beautiful, as was Inocente.  I wish her the very best.

Fresh Guacamole (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Fresh Guacamole (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Short Film-Animated (PES).
Watched January 10, 2014.

 

Fresh Guacamole, the shortest short ever nominated for an Oscar, is a technically sound stop motion film by PES.  A film that once went viral online, somehow, amazingly, garnered recognition from the Academy.

 

PES is well known on YouTube and other internet sites for producing some quality content, and this two minute feast is no different.  It doesn't make any grand statements, although perhaps it was meant to, but instead practices film techniques and the art of stop motion to a T.  

 

If you know how to make guacamole, or if you enjoy eating guacamole, or if art is in your DNA, you will probably enjoy this film.  It takes the simple process of making guacamole but replaces the food items with (mostly) every day objects.  The avocado is a grenade and the pit is a pool ball.  The chips are poker chips and the tomatoes are tomato pin cushions.  The human hands and avocado inards, as well as a few other items are as they should be, but the diced up tomato becomes red dice, the onion (a baseball) becomes dice as well, and so on.

 

The two minute short is slightly entertaining, mostly interesting, and pulls at a curious side of humanity that enjoys every day objects being used other than they should be.  For example, I have always loved The Borrowers (a book and also a movie about tiny little people who live in the walls of houses), partly because of how they use human items in such interesting ways--thimbles as large drinking glasses, and so on.  

 

If you have two spare minutes, I would encourage you to watch the video below to see flawless technique and a cute spin on a simple Mexican treat.

 

Chasing Ice (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Chasing Ice (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Music-Original Song "Before My Time" (J. Ralph).
Watched December 2, 2013.

 

Most of the documentaries that make their way to the red carpet on Oscars night have big statements spilling out of their reels--agenda after agenda that typically pull at the heart springs of America and make radicals out of people who otherwise wouldn't give a care.  Chasing Ice is certainly in the same category, although I respect the creators' story telling more here than in other documentaries I have watched because of The Academy.

 

I have to tell you guys, as much as I love and adore documentaries, I am not a fan when they have an agenda.  Although it is clear that Chasing Ice is making a statement, it is one of the few that presents its argument in a much better way than just simply biased interviews and clever editing techniques.  No, the creators of Chasing Ice know what they are doing and how to persuade the everyman as well as the educated.  They may have an agenda, but they balance their techniques by not just playing off the emotions of their audience, but by presenting physical, visual facts that are hard to argue against.

 

The film follows the journey of one James Balog, a photographer for National Geographic, who went to school for science but found his passion in cameras.  He became passionate about ice and glaciers and began a three (plus) year journey of documenting the changes that these giant formations go through.  Through many trials, he and his team constructed boxes and computers that could withstand the elements in places like the Arctic, Alaska, and Montana.  They put cameras here that would take hundreds of thousands of photos during the years so that he could put them into time lapses and show the world what was really happening to our ice.  

 

He, among many others, strongly believes in climate change and global warming.  He believes that it will greatly and very negatively affect our futures on this earth.  He knew, however, that words were not enough.  That skeptics would just listen to someone else.  So instead of just speaking his convictions, he took action and, through many trials as well as physical injuries, has spent years of his life photographing the changes in glacier formations.

 

The documentary also features interviews from Balog's family, his assistants, and other experts who he may or may not have worked with.  The "agenda," or emotional subplot are actually kept to a minimum in most of the interviews and I believe that the filmmakers did a very good job of translating their story through visuals instead of words.

 

That being said, the film was not nominated, the song from the final credits was.  It is a cool, haunting song accompanied by the smokey voice of Scarlett Johansson, and is much more radical than the film itself.  It speaks of the passion that the filmmakers and photographers must have felt, even though they pulled back and gave more educated arguments.  The song itself was emotional like most documentaries with an agenda, and although as a stand alone song it is weak, it is strong within the film.

 

While the film itself is not necessarily the most outstanding work out there (evidenced by the fact that it missed out on a nomination), I appreciated their ability at story telling.  I felt a connection to the people within the film, and the photography made me fall in love with ice in all of its beauty.  If you have the time to spare and want to see some incredible landscapes (and probably the most shades of blue you've ever seen in your life), I would recommend that you see this film.