Documentary – Pulp Diction

The start of the 21st century can be marked as an era which ushers in new technologies at a breakneck speed. This technology has changed not only the everyday lives of people, but how they are able to render the human condition through artistic mediums. Whether it be molecular gastronomy for food or remixing and sampling for music; we’ve all seen artists adhere or dissent from these new innovations to justify their claim to the truth within a medium. No movement is in a more precarious situation than the battle between digital and film within the movie industry. This ongoing battle is the subject of the inquisitive and compelling documentary, Side by Side.

The film documents the growth and history of both the photochemical and the digital process. Keanu Reeves (in probably the best performance of his career…) interviews a collection of many cinematic giants including Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, David Lynch, Danny Boyle, George Lucas, James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, and Steven Soderbergh. While some like Lucas, Cameron, and Lynch encourage the growth of digital and the rejection film, others, like Nolan and Scorsese, insist film is cinema at it’s purest form.

The arguments go on and on: digital allows for instant feedback, as well as detail manipulations in mis-en-scene in post-production, whereas film is expensive and time consuming. Digital allows for a wider array of stories to be told. Robert Rodriguez remembers the tedious and restrictive nature of shooting on film, saying his Sin City would not have been possible without digital.

But film advocates ask “Why trade my paints for crayons?”, arguing the quality of film will always be the standard. Without a filter, do the quality of films become progressively worse? In terms of quality, film is still hands down far superior, being able to capture both nuance and contrasts in the shot. However, not many new film cameras are being made; meaning film has reached its peak. Digital technology, however, can only improve.

Side by Side is an explorative and unbiased look at cinema’s heritage and it’s future. It poses how should movies be made, how should watch them, and how should they be integrated into our lives. Ultimately, Side by Side declares the medium may or may not matter, only the truth and heart that goes into story. Which format is better? That’s for you to decide. Just stack them against each other, side by side.

Imagine that your sister is not your sister. Your neighbor is not your neighbor. Your friend is not your friend. No, this is not a review for The Matrix, but The Imposter; a documentary depicting the tale of a French con-man, Frederic Bourdin impersonating the missing child Nicholas Barclay and conniving his way into the Barclay family.

The film reads like a how-to on stealing someone’s identity: Bourdin, dark-haired and brown eyed manages to convince the blond and blue-eyed Barclay family with his accented English that he is, in fact, their long-missing (now) 16 year old son. He weaves tales of sexual abuse, human trafficking, and bodily mutilation; so detailed and indiscreet he even cons the FBI.

The Imposter is all about narrative. The film watches like a page-turning crime novel, mesmerising with nerve racking twists (boy howdy are there twists) and unpalatable morality. It cleverly edits and weaves between dramatization and talking heads with a devil’s wit and sardonic sense of humour. The film is wonderfully rounded out with gorgeous cinematography; carving out dark corners creeping with lies and secrets.

Ultimately, the movie comes off as an extended A&E (hey that’s the name of the production company) true crime special. Towards the end, it starts to spin its wheels. The film can’t (of course) offer any breakthroughs or new revelations to the case that can’t be found on its wikipedia article, and the narrative begins to sag when the film should have ended 10-20 minutes prior. However it’s spine-tingling observations and dense narrative are both chilling and engrossing; I con you not.