oscar doc picks

It's time once again for my annual foray into the world of Oscar. This year, I'm sad to say, I've missed out on many of the main live-action nominees. But I was able to catch most of the documentaries with a major assist from Netflix. Without further ado, I present my 2013 Oscar prognostications for the categories of feature-length documentary and documentary short.

FEATURE-LENGTH DOCUMENTARY

Should win: 5 Broken Cameras -or- The Invisible War [tie]
Although this year's candidates are all very strong, I find it impossible not to give special kudos to those movies for which lives were literally on the line during their making and/or subsequent promotion. Case in point is 5 Broken Cameras, a maddening film about a Palestinian village in the West Bank that suffers relentless encroachment by Israeli settlements. While the main filmmaker, Emad Burnat, and his neighbors strive to protest these land-grabs in peace, the local Israelis do not respond in kind. Instead, they harass, threaten, arrest, and attack, often illegally and brutally. During four years of filming, Burnat burns through five video cameras, four of which are shot or otherwise destroyed, and one of which literally saves his life. 5 Broken Cameras is the sort of film that could serve as a poster child for Witness, a human rights organization with the motto "See it, film it, change it;" for that, I think it's well deserving of the Oscar.

Risking one's life, or certainly one's reputation, is also apparent in my other top pick for this year's Oscar docs: The Invisible War, a deeply moving, highly-charged account of sexual abuse in the U.S. military. Watching this film, I was brought to tears as, one by one, proud women (and one man) who wanted nothing more than to honorably serve their country recounted how they were coerced, harassed, beaten, and raped by their colleagues and superiors—and then ignored, belittled, and persecuted when they reported these events. Even more troubling were statistics about just how common such assaults in the military are today; by all accounts, at least 19,000 service members were sexually abused in 2010 alone. We also learn that prosecution of such cases cannot be handled effectively in the current system, since they are processed not through a federal court system but through the military chain of command, where serious conflicts of interests often lie. Of the five nominees, I feel this film has the most potential to create change as a result of its nomination, and it's heartening to know that even if it doesn't win, system reform may already be on the horizon.

Will win: Searching for Sugar Man
While it lacks the gravitas of the other four contenders, Searching for Sugar Man is the film to beat in this year's feature-length documentary category. It tells the improbable story of the search for a Dylanesque singer-songwriter named Sixto Rodriguez who all but disappeared after his 15 minutes of fame in the U.S. came and went in the early 1970s. It's a truly heartwarming tale, much akin to 2010's Winnebago Man. The movie could probably win on buzz alone, but it doesn't hurt that there are two contenders on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which will likely split votes), plus a very hot-button challenger in The Invisible War, the topic of which some Academy voters may shy away from.


DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT

Should win: [Draw]
I'm slightly handicapped in this category this year by the fact that I've only been able to watch three of the five nominees: Kings Point, Mondays at Racine, and Inocente. Of these three, I thought the latter was the strongest, most unique, and most artfully told, and not just because its protagonist is a 15-year-old artist herself. The film's cinematography was well done, and the combination of themes—immigration, homelessness, abuse, and arts education—was a refreshing reminder of many of the contemporary social problems we Americans like to sweep under the rug. In comparison, while I was moved by both Kings Point and Mondays at Racine, I honestly don't think either one has what it takes to take home the golden statuette. Finally, I hesitate to comment on the other two nominees, Open Heart and Redemption, without having seen them, but I will say that their trailers lead me to believe they're both excellent films. So, I'm actually going to give this category a pass on final judgment, but if it were between the three I watched, my vote would be for Inocente.

Will win: Open Heart
Call me crazy, but if you see a pattern in what the Oscar voters like, you stick with it. Two short documentaries that have won this category in recent years, Smile Pinki and Saving Face, were about savior doctors helping poor citizens of developing countries with free medical procedures to fix crippling conditions—cleft palettes in the first case and facial disfigurement from acid attacks in the second. In this year's Open Heart, poor children from Rwanda are brought to the Sudan for potentially life-saving heart surgery. Sound familiar? Until the Academy proves me wrong, I'm picking this story line every time. ∞

regarding nemo

New England came to a halt this week with the passing of the Nemo megablizzard. I decided to chronicle the storm's wrath with a little time-lapse film, which doubled as practice for the documentary editing class I'm currently taking. Of course, I had to shoot some stills, too! I think we're gonna be digging out from under this one for a while... ∞

seeing is believing

"I watch Bill O'Reilly every day. I love Bill O'Reilly. I'm proud to be an American. But I saw this movie, Chasing Ice, today. And it hasn't just changed me about global warming. It has changed me as a person."

And that's where I'll begin my review of the marvelous new Chasing Ice, a feature-length documentary from director Jeff Orlowski about a scientist-cum-environmental photographer who's out to change the world, one snapshot at a time. The quote is from an anonymous woman caught in the iPhone crosshairs of one Justin Kanew, a reality-TV star who recently walked out of a screening alongside this visibly moved mystery lady...

"I did not believe in global warming," she explains. "Every time someone mentioned global warming to me, I told them if they wanted to remain in my home they needed to step out. I said it was bullshit. I didn't believe it. And that is because I listened and I—this is the truth—I believed Bill O'Reilly. And I saw this movie, and I apologize to anyone I ever talked into believing there was no global warming. I have talked every friend, every person I know into believing there was no global warming. And now I have to undo my damage. And I will."

I recommend you take a moment to watch the rest of her soliloquy below.



To be sure, many global warming deniers are so deeply brainwashed entrenched on this issue that nothing save an abrupt about-face by the Faux News pundits would allow them consider otherwise. And of course, there are plenty of climate change skeptics who don't deny the existence of global warming or its effects, but who refuse to believe that the current warming trend is human-caused or that there's anything we can or should do about it. For a more comprehensive look at this cohort, you'd be better served watching Climate of Doubt, a recent Frontline documentary that deals head-on with the modern politics of climate change. In that film, viewers come to understand the anatomy of one of the biggest scientific smear campaigns of our time. It's at once eye-opening and maddening, but not surprising in the least; as with many things in life, just follow the money...

Chasing Ice takes an entirely different—and, in many ways, more powerful—appeal-to-your-gut approach. It does little to communicate the nuts-and-bolts science of our planet's rapid warming, other than to borrow a key graph from 2006's An Inconvenient Truth—the one with a carbon spike at the present day that leaves previous "natural cyclical rhythms" of atmospheric CO2 in the dust. Perhaps this is because the film's lead subject, James Balog, admits that he, too, was once skeptical about climate change's human origins...until he began to see things for himself.

At its heart, Changing Ice is a love story. It projects the passion and dedication of a small army of scientists and engineers with Balog's Extreme Ice Survey, an "arts meets science" project aimed at conveying the reality of global climate change with cold, hard, breathtaking visual evidence. The painstaking lengths this team goes to to mount and check their time-lapse cameras, to fight the often blistering elements, and to overcome severe technical and personal challenges hints at the urgency of the tale Balog and his colleagues are trying to tell.

And then there's the imagery. Jaw-dropping deep blue crevasses that seem to lead straight into the center of the Earth. A bright green aurora dancing wildly in the starry night sky above a stunningly beautiful icy scene below. A gigantic ice slab, miles long and hundreds of feet high, eviscerated in an instant as it calves off and crashes thunderously into the choppy Arctic sea.

All of which led me to ponder a familiar phrase: If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? The old adage kept popping into my mind as these incredible scenes filled the screen before me. It is clearly Balog's mission to make sure someone is present to witness and record for humanity what is happening in these glacial forests. And now, thanks to his work, a once doubting woman is starting to hear the reverberating din that these disappearing ice sheets have begun to make.

"There must be something I can do to help this, to help our children, to help my grandkids," she says, almost pleadingly, to Kanew and the phone camera in his hand. "I don't know what I can do ... But I'm gonna change it, because this movie was fantastic. Every human being in this world should watch this movie. Every one."

I could not agree more. ∞

CHASING ICE: OFFICIAL TRAILER

not even playing one on tv

Since 2004, the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media has worked tirelessly to study issues of gender in children's entertainment, and to spread their knowledge so that others might use it to affect change. This week, the Institute issued a sobering new report [PDF] on the state of gender in today's family programming. Consistent with past studies, the new research found that girls and women are vastly underrepresented; stereotyped; and sexualized in popular entertainment aimed at pre-teens. But this paper hit me particularly hard because it expanded on some unsettling trends in Hollywood's portrayal of women in various high-powered, high-valued careers, including those in the STEM fields.

In a section titled, "Females Still Slam Into a Glass Ceiling," study authors Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti, Ashley Prescott, and Katherine Pieper reported that in their survey of recent family programming, female characters were portrayed in positions of power at alarmingly low rates. For example, of 129 family films rated G, PG, or PG-13, female politicians were all but nonexistant. "[N]ot one speaking character plays a powerful American female political figure across 5,839 speaking characters in 129 family films," the authors write. "Men, however, hold over 45 different prestigious U.S. political positions."

Here are the sad stats for surveyed family films:

Employed Characters Within Sector By Highest Clout Position

Industry: Males / Females
Corporate executives: 96.6% / 3.4%
Investors, developers: 100% / 0%
High-level politicians: 95.5% / 4.5%
Chief justices, DA's: 100% / 0%
Doctors, healthcare managers: 78.1% / 21.9%
Editors in chief: 100% / 0%
Academic administrators: 61.5 / 38.5
Media content creators: 65.8 / 34.2

The analogous numbers for female characters working in the STEM fields were similarly problematic:

"Males and females are most likely to be depicted working in the life/physical sciences than in other STEM careers in family films ... Yet computer science and mathematics comprise the largest percentage of the U.S. STEM workforce. Even though female characters infiltrate the life/physical sciences, males are almost four times as likely as females to be shown on screen in this line of work in family films. ... Summing across computer science and engineering, the ratio of males to females in these arenas is 14.25 to 1."

STEM Characters by Gender and Job Type

Industry: Males / Females
All STEM fields: 83.8% / 16.3%
Life/physical sciences: 49.3% / 65.4%
Computer sciences: 23.1% / 7.7%
Engineering: 19.4% / 7.7%
Other STEM jobs: 8.2% / 19.2%

As I've written previously, it's just about impossible these days for girls and boys not to be bombarded with sometimes subtle, oftentimes blatant cues about stereotypical gender norms. Unfortunately, it's becoming ever more clear that even before children enter school, they're being exposed to imagery that reflects the idea that certain jobs or careers are for men and not for women. If there's a bright note here, it's that the Geena Davis Institute continues to push for education about just how badly the entertainment industry as a whole is doing on this front. ∞

Source for all stats: Smith, Stacy L. et al. "Gender Roles & Occupations:
A Look at Character Attributes and Job-Related Aspirations in Film and Television. 2012."

picking the shorts

With the Oscars ceremony just two days away, it's time once again to offer up some thoughts on the Academy Award-nominated films! This year I'm going to focus on the three categories of short films: live action, animated, and documentary. I've been increasingly drawn to the shorts in recent years, and I wish they could be given more exposure. That said, it's great to know there's been significant effort on the part of Shorts International, which coordinates licensing rights, to get the films onto as many movie screens as possible in the weeks before Oscar night. (They're also mostly available on iTunes and through various video-on-demand systems.) If you have a chance to check them out, do! If not, at least my picks should help you out in your Oscar pool...

LIVE ACTION SHORT SUBJECT

Should win: Tuba Atlantic When a curmudgeonly old Norwegian living on the rocky North Atlantic coast finds out he has only six days to live, he receives a visit from a "death angel," a young woman charged with seeing him through his final days. In the days that follow, she manages to coax from him the secret behind the mysterious giant tuba he's built next to his house. I loved this film for being at once quirky, funny, and tender. I hope it wins!

Will win: Time Freak The live action short subjects are always extremely varied: you have foreign films mixed with more home-grown material, and the topics range from super-dramatic to highly comedic or otherwise in-your-face. In recent years the Academy voters seem to have gone with more upbeat American pickings in this category. That would describe 2011's Time Freak, a cute film about a Brooklyn man who decides to use his time machine to relive events from his very recent past. I won't be completely surprised if the voters decide to go for something more dramatic this year, but I'm calling Time Freak as the favorite.

DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT

Should win: Saving Face In many ways, this short documentary is not easy to watch. It tells of the horrific trend in South Asia in which abusive men—often with the help of their families—maim women and girls with corrosive acid. It's impossible not to be affected by the damaged faces of some of the women shown in the film, but the point here is that this isn't some made up tale; these attacks have become an accepted part of the male-dominated cultures in which they occur. Stepping in to help is a Pakistani-born plastic surgeon who, like the rest of us, cannot fathom how such horror could be perpetuated in his home country. The film follows several of the victims he treats and documents new legal challenges to the penal codes for men accused in such attacks. As unlikely as it seems, there's a bright ending to Saving Face, which is eye-opening in more ways than one.

Will win: Saving Face This is a tough category this year. Much ado has been made about the Iraq War short Incident in New Baghdad, which details the now infamous 2007 helicopter shootings of unarmed civilians and two Reuters journalists through the eyes of one of the American soldiers on the ground, Ethan McCord. McCord has apparently received death threats for appearing in the film, in which he recounts his experience and expresses deep reservations about the Iraq mission and the American military in general. The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom is another powerful film about the complete destruction of one Japanese city in the wake of last year's tsunami disaster, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that one come away with the statuette. But the Academy seems to have a soft spot for "hopeful intervention" short docs, and this year's offering on that front is a great one, so I'm going with Saving Face.

ANIMATED SHORT SUBJECT

Should win: Wild Life I loved this rare bird of a film, which tells the story of a Briton who transplants himself to the Canadian frontier. The unusual duck-out-of-water story is supported by gorgeous animation, which comes off like a moving painting. Add to this the fact the protagonist's plight is compared throughout the film to that of a comet, and you've got a winner in my eyes.

Will win: The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore It's difficult to summarize this tale, which takes cues from both The Wizard of Oz and Fantasia. At its core, The Fantastic Flying Books... is a heartwarming story of a man in search of himself. The film reminds us all of the power of literature and of the tendency of fictional characters to enter our lives and become our friends. It's an imaginative piece that tugs at the heartstrings and is, in my view, the only real contender to take home the Oscar. ∞

oscar doc predictions

It's been three or four years since I started getting obsessive about seeing Oscar-nominated documentaries prior to the big red carpet event. But let's face it: Most Americans don't do docs. It's a damn shame, if you ask me. Documentaries are like college classes, without the tuition and without the prerequisites. True, you have to be prepared to get angry or upset, but docs teach you what the world is really like, without the sugarcoating of shows you might see on cable networks, even the ones that purport to offer "in depth" coverage of real-world events. And before you complain that documentaries do nothing but make people feel helpless, I'd counter that the best docs often reveal how one person, or a small group, can make a big difference, even in the face of powerful, monstrous forces.

Fortunately, it's been getting easier to find the Oscar docs in theaters here in New York over the past few years. The Paley Center in midtown Manhattan now shows all nominated docs, both feature-length and short, every year on the weekend of the Academy Award ceremony, and at least this year, the IFC Center screened all short subject nominees each day for more than a week. But you'd expect docs to show in New York and LA; it's time to get more of them out to places like Wichita and Montgomery and Albuquerque so everyone can watch and learn!

This year's crop of Oscar-nominated docs features a few recurring themes: big business's devastating impact on the environment; the plight of American soldiers during and after war combat; and funky-ass art. But there are some powerful and moving wild card topics, too. So on the eve of the Oscars, here are my picks for who should win and who will win in both of the documentary categories! You can find synopses and trailers for all 10 nominated docs on this page; some are also available for purchase from iTunes. ∞

Documentary Short Subject

Will Win: Strangers No More The most upbeat and heartwarming of the five nominees in this category, Strangers No More tells the story of a unique school in Tel Aviv, Israel in which refugee children from around the world come together to form the ultimate melting pot. There are really no losers in this year's batch of doc shorts, but considering the Academy's choice in the past two years of the similarly hopeful Smile Pinki and Music By Prudence, this seems like a pretty good bet to take home the statuette.

Should Win: The Warriors of Quigang Whether we like it or not, China is going to have to lead the environmental movement of tomorrow. This doc gracefully captures how one small city in Anhui Province is attempting to battle both an unruly local polluter an unrepresentative and unresponsive government. Here's one great example of a film that not only explains where the big problems lie but also makes heroes out of ordinary citizens trying to better the ugly hands they've been dealt.

Documentary Feature

Will Win: Gasland I had never heard of hydraulic fracturing, or "hydrofracking," before I saw this film, and what I learned scared the bejesus out of me. There's been quite a bit of press coverage about this doc since the nominees were announced, mostly due to the unsurprising loud reaction from the natural gas lobby over the film's depiction of their use of what can only be described as a poorly regulated and highly toxic method of extracting gas from the ground. While some have criticized certain methods of director Josh Fox, I think that in seeing this film, Academy voters will have come away with a pretty powerful overall message. What's more, the time seems ripe for a major environmental movie to take home the big doc prize.

Should Win: Inside Job Okay, boys and girls, here's the one movie that everyone in the country needs to see, and pronto. Director Charles Ferguson does an epic job of weaving one-on-one interviews together with easy-to-follow narration and infographics to explain how the recent financial crisis of the late '00s came about. At the end of the day, the lesson is obvious: Our economic policies have been set by the very cronies who masterminded what one interviewee describes as the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. What's more, the film makes it crystal clear that our government is deeply embedded in the pockets of a few powerful corporations, who literally gamble away our security in order to make billions for themselves—with no reprecussions whatsoever when everything collapses. I happened to catch this film in a theater, and the rage of the audience was palpable; people shaking their heads over and over, guffawing and sighing out of frustration at just how blatant the deception was and continues to be. Aside from the surprising production value, which I thought was super considering how dry a subject finance might seem to the average American, this doc needs to win for the sheer power it has in making people see why increased financial regulations—not to mention campaign finance reform—are absolutely essential to the future of our country, and indeed the entire global economy.

trouble in the jungle

Okay, boys and girls, time for a quiz. Your question for today: What's the worst oil spill you can think of?

Did you say Exxon Valdez? Oh, sorry, no. In the grand scheme of things, the estimated 30 million gallons it released into Alaska's Prince William Sound are chump change. Try again! Okay, the Deepwater Horizon disaster must have been worse, you're thinking. And you are correct. But even this year's catastrophe—which, depending on who you ask, leaked anywhere from 206 million to 348 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico—pales in comparison to a systematic leaking of some 18 billion (with a "b!") gallons' worth of petroleum-infused toxic waste into the waterways and soils of the Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest over the past 30-odd years.

Known to many as the Amazon Chernobyl, this horrid large-scale spill has poisoned once-pristine rivers and vegetation, killed untold millions of animals, and plagued thousands of Ecuadorian and indigenous peoples with various types of cancers, birth defects, and other ailments. Of course, with all the pollution taking place in a relatively remote jungle over several decades in a country you probably can't even place on a map, it'd be no surprise if you'd never heard of this environmental catastrophe. Well, you have now. Keep reading.

I learned about the calamity affecting the Ecuadorian region of Lago Agrio (Spanish for "sour lake") through a documentary released last year—and available now on DVD—called Crude. The film charts the struggles of some 30,000 Ecuadorians and indigenous peoples who've banded together to file a class action lawsuit against the Chevron Corporation, owners of the former Texaco, who were the initial drillers of oil in the 1,700-square-mile Lago Agrio area. The suit charges that Chevron should be forced to pay an estimated $9 billion—about two weeks' worth of their annual revenue—to clean up the contamination caused by Texaco's lingering oil pits and install new water systems.

Of course, prosecuting one of the wealthiest and most powerful companies on the face of the planet ain't easy—and Chevron is playing hardball. The script of this true-to-life drama has Michael Clayton written all over it, with corporate finger-pointing, alleged assassination attempts, and legal shenanigans the likes of which U.S. courts could only dream of (the case is being tried in the perpetually corrupt Ecuadorian legal system). At the end of the day, it's impossible not to take sides with the individuals who have no choice but to consume their polluted waters and face the consequences: a destitute mother who struggles to come up with the money to pay for cancer treatments for her teenage daughter; a baby, not two weeks old, covered head to toe with a dangerous skin rash common among those exposed to polluted waters; even a poor white goose, whose intake of oily water has clearly affected her nervous system to the point where she's paralyzed, webbed feet flailing in the air, staring at the cameraman with the look of certain death in her eyes.

The picture is grim, and it's an uphill battle for these folks, yet the film suggests some hope. One ray of light comes in the form of a Vanity Fair article, which exposes the issue, at least temporarily, in its high-profile pages. Another comes from Trudie Styler, wife of the rock star Sting, who teams up with her husband to raise awareness and money for the victims of the Lago Agrio disaster. As the film shows, their case has become a veritable David-versus-Goliath scenario, with no immediate end in sight. But with a scrappy legal team led by the feisty Ecuadorian prosecutor Pablo Fajardo and a savvy New York litigator, Steven Donzinger, it's still within the realm of possibility that David may actually win...if the trial ever ends. Anyway, check out the links below if you'd like to learn more. &infin

If you've got 10 minutes: See the 2005 New York Times op-ed about the Lago Agrio disaster and/or Trudie Styler's call-to-arms in the Huffington Post. You might also try this more recent article in the British Independent, or make a quick visit to the watchdog site ChevronToxico, which is devoted to the issue.

If you've got 15 minutes: Watch the 60 Minutes segment on the Chevron lawsuit.

If you've got 30 minutes: Read Vanity Fair's tell-all article about the lawsuit, from its 2007 Green Issue.

If you've got 100 minutes: Here's the website for the Crude documentary; it's also available on Netflix or for purchase from Amazon.

Images by the Rainforest Action Network on Flickr

all hail winnebago man

I don't really remember when it was that I first witnessed Jack Rebney making a fool of himself on the interwebs. In between unavoidable fits of laughter, though, I distinctly recall thinking, man, this poor guy is having a seriously bad day.

Turns out I wasn't alone. Over the past four years, several million people have tuned in to YouTube to watch a (NSFW) clip of hilarious outtakes from a 1989 series of promotional videos that Rebney shot for Winnebago, longtime purveyors of fine recreational vehicles. And until this past weekend I had no idea that, with the mouth of a sailor and a penchant for self deprecation, Rebney had become not only the top Internet search result for "angriest man in the world" but also a cult hero of sorts. All that changed when I attended a screening of Winnebago Man, a humorous and heartwarming ode to Rebney from up-and-coming documentary filmmaker Ben Steinbauer.

We start off clueless as to the whereabouts of the former Winnebago spokesman, who drops off the face of the planet after being pink slipped in the fallout from the creation of the outtake video. But we soon learn that the enterprising Steinbauer—who plays a significant on-screen role throughout the film—has decided to stop at nothing to track down this mysterious character. Eventually, we find the former salesman and his faithful dog Buddah living alone, deep in the woods of northern California. Thus begins the deconstruction of an enlightened but frustrated soul who enjoys the simple pleasures of life and wants nothing to do with the modern world, yet craves an audience for his surprising political and existential theories.

I don't want to spoil anything by saying much more, but I'll mention that at our screening, we theatergoers had the distinct pleasure of hearing a bit of commentary from the comedic yet cantankerous Rebney, who's currently traveling with Steinbauer to help promote the film. All I can say is: That a man who flings f-bombs like they're going out of style could so eloquently and succinctly castigate the previous presidential administration and at the same time deliver a call to arms for this country to invest in things like education and our national infrastructure pretty much left no doubt in my mind that Jack Rebney is my kind of people!

And with that, I whole-heartedly recommend that you go out and see this little indie flick, which will surely be more fulfilling than any blockbuster you might catch this summer. It'll make you laugh, it'll make you think. But mostly, it'll make you feel good about being a part of this sometimes crazy, but often enlightening, Internet-world we all now live in. ∞

we are all made of corn

Last summer, a friend and I took two weeks to drive a 6,000-mile loop around the United States. We saw all sorts of terrain, from the rolling wooded hills of the Appalachians to the eroded badlands of the Dakotas to the majestic mountains of Montana and Wyoming. But there was one thing about the lay of the land that hit home above all else: corn is everywhere.

As I've mentioned in the past, I've been trying of late to educate myself about what I eat so that, when confronted with the many food options available to me, I can make healthier and environmentally friendlier choices. In the process, I've continued to learn quite a bit about the food industry and its role in our country's economic, medical, political, and environmental history. I regret to report that with every new article or book I read, and with every documentary film or television program I see on the subject, the picture only gets worse. Still, the fact that food production is even a topic of discussion at all these days gives me some semblance of hope. To that end, I wanted to give kudos to a film I recently saw that deftly gets to the root of one of the biggest problems with what we eat today: the fact that almost everything we consume comes in some way from industrial corn.

I first learned about this idea when reading The Omnivore's Dilemma, in which author Michael Pollan describes (among other things) just how ubiquitous the giant grass Zea mays has become in our food system. And it certainly hit home last summer when I experienced for the first time what thousands of miles of corn and more corn really looks and feels like. But the 2007 documentary King Corn breaks the story down even further, bringing viewers not only into the homes and offices of the people who produce all this grain and the livestock that feed on it, but into the lives of some of the people, far removed from the corn belt, who've been affected by our glut of the yellow stuff.

The film starts out with two recent college graduates, Ian and Curtis, undergoing a chemical analysis of their hair. The results indicate that the majority of the carbon in their bodies originates from corn; you are what you eat, indeed! So the duo decides to take a year out of their lives, move to a farming town in central Iowa, and try to find out how this came to be. To understand the process, they plant one acre of corn on a small patch of a willing farmer's land and interview everyone who'll talk about the life of their corn, from its planting to its harvest to the various channels it may go through after that.

One of the reasons I really liked this film is that it shows you the state of the corn industry without being preachy: This is where we're at, this is how we got here, and we'll let you draw your own conclusions. As you can imagine, there was quite a bit of watching the grass grow during the making of the film, so aside from talking to the locals and playing a lot of wiffleball, Ian and Curtis also took some time to create fun stop-motion animations as a way to explain the basic economic and political trends behind the corn industry in the United States. The film definitely misses an opportunity to discuss some of the major environmental effects that farms have had on the country since World War II. But I'd say that's probably one of the reasons why the movie doesn't feel (as others I've seen have) as though you're being clubbed over the head by an insurmountable sensation of doom and gloom.

In any case, I highly recommend putting King Corn on your Netflix queue or going out and buying it on iTunes or DVD. There are no concrete solutions offered here other than being aware of what you're eating and of how the government plays a major role in keeping the status quo. But if understanding the problem is the first step in solving it, then this film should serve as an entertaining primer. ∞

the worth of water

A famous man once quipped, "When the well's dry, we know the worth of water." That man was Benjamin Franklin, writing in his 1746 edition of Poor Richard's Almanack. For a guy who lived 260-odd years years ago, Franklin sure sounds like he knew a lot about the year 2009. That's because the state of the world's clean water supply today is so dire, it's becoming inevitable that an all-out water war is likely to come to pass very soon. You think running out of oil is going to be a crisis? Oh, it will be. But it'll be nothing compared to the very real—and already growing—problem that a lack of clean freshwater will present to the human population.

Let me make this clear: People are already dying from a lack of clean water. Roughly one-sixth of the world's population currently does not have access to safe drinking water; that's over 1 billion people today! If we don't act now, you, too, are going to be affected. Yes, you, in your luxury condo in that big American city. Yes, you, in your rural wooded town with a seemingly endless supply of nearby rivers and streams. And yes, especially you, in your 2.5-acre lot in sprawling suburbia in the middle of the desert. And I promise you, it's not going to be a matter of if, it'll simply be a matter of when.

So what is the problem, exactly? The Earth is covered with 326 million trillion gallons of water; you'd think that'd be enough to keep us all hydrated. The reality is, although dihydrogen oxide is present on our planet in copious amounts, less and less of it is available for us to drink, while more and more of it is being polluted by fat cat companies who don't give a damn about anything but the bottom line. And sadly, the governments of some the biggest polluters—China, the United States, and India come to mind—are doing precious little to combat the disastrous effects that a lack of clean water is already having on their citizens.

From all I've been learning over the past few weeks on this topic, I could literally write a book about what's wrong with our water today—and why you should care. Instead, I'm going to make three simple recommendations for how you can do your part. I strongly suggest you comply with at least one of these; otherwise, I just might have to get all Erin Brokovitch on your ass!

1. Get Smart, Part 1: Watch a Movie! If you don't see another film for the rest of the year, do yourself and the world a favor and rent 2008's Flow, directed by Irena Salina. By doing so, you'll get to see with your own two eyes what the major threats to the world's clean water supply are. Most jaw-dropping to me was discovering how companies that want to treat water as a commodity are, in collusion with the World Bank, screwing people the world over by taking over previously communal freshwater supplies and selling that water back—often polluted, no less!—at exorbitant markups. And they do it with a smile, too. It's disgusting.

2. Stop buying bottled water. Sounds simple, and really, it is. It's not just a matter of saving all that wasted plastic—not to mention the thousands of tons of fossil fuels spent trucking and shipping very heavy water from far reaches of the globe (ahem, Fiji Water) to your nearest supermarket or corner bodega. You should also keep in mind that the companies that package and sell water are making gobs of money off of something you can get for free just by turning on the tap or using a water fountain. What's more, most of the water you get in bottled water is simply tap water anyway—it's not any safer or tastier! Do you really want to help giants like Coke (Dasani), Pepsi (Aquafina), and Nestle (Poland Spring, Deer Park, San Pellegrino, and Perrier, among others) line their pockets with more of your money at the expense of the environment? I didn't think so. Instead, just buy a safe (BPA-free) washable, reusable water bottle and bring it with you to the gym or wherever you need portable water. See? Easy. It'll save you a few bucks in the process, too.

3. Get Smart, Part 2: Read! I won't bother mentioning some of the great books on water consumption, pollution, and misuse that are already out there. If you've read down this far, I'm simply going to reward you with a much quicker tip: Pick up the Summer 2009 issue of Good magazine and read it cover to cover. In this issue you'll find an excellent explanation of why dams are so bad for us; a look ahead at how drinking pee may be in our future; an illustrated listing of all major models of water gun ever produced (yes, I'm talking Super Soakers); a step-by-step guide to reducing your water impact; a moving plea from legendary oceanographer Sylvia Earle on why we need to take care of our oceans; and much more. Alternately, pay a visit to The New York Times, which just published an important series on water pollution called Toxic Waters. Among other things, you'll read how good people are getting cancer from carcinogens in their tap water and how an unregulated farming industry has been dumping tons of pollutants into our water supply for years with nary a slap on the wrist.

The good thing to keep in mind, of course, is that all is not lost. One word of hope I've gotten from almost everything I've read and watched about our current water crisis is that with a lot of hard work, some concentrated brainpower, and some political will, we can easily solve all of our water issues before they become truly catastrophic. But you have to understand the problem before you can fix it. So get educated and spread the word, and we might not have to bear out old Ben Franklin's prediction about finding the true worth of water. &infin

stop-action magic

I'm a sucker for stop-motion films, so I thought I'd post a few of my recent faves. Some of these animations include humans, some are more of the "claymation" variety, but either way, they're really fun. ∞

Sweet Dreams by Kirsten Lepore



Sorry I'm Late by Tomas Mankovsky



Western Spaghetti by PES



DEADLINE by Bang-Yao Liu



Her Morning Elegance by Oren Lavie

oscar flicks, in 15 words

Now that the Golden Globes have been doled out, it's officially Oscar time again! My one true disappointment upon hearing the nominations this morning was the snubbing of Kristin Scott Thomas, who absolutely rocked in the übertense drama, I've Loved You So Long. That said, I'm glad the Academy didn't fall for all the garbage that Clint pulled in Gran Torino. Yeesh.

Okay, nitpicking aside, and without further ado, here are some 15-word reviews, to be updated regularly as I scramble to see more movies until the Academy Awards are presented on February 22nd! ∞

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Main concept was brilliant, but the execution much less so. Also, t'was way too long.

The Dark Knight: Everything a sci-fi superhero movie's supposed to be, and then some. Ledger should win.

Doubt: I'm boycotting what should have been O'Byrne and Jones's shot at Oscar. Business as usual.

Encounters At the End of the World: Herzog deftly captures how life—human, avian, aquatic—thrives on the bottom of the earth.

Frost / Nixon: The tension is palpable in Ron Howard's gripping recreation of David Frost's historic Nixon interview.

Frozen River: Worlds collide in this stark view of poor, Northern life. Prepare to be on edge.

The Garden: This is the kind of eye-opening film that just makes you mad. Greed really sucks.

In Bruges: Three hit men blundering in Belgium. The plot's fun; Ralph plays an excellent bad boy.

Iron Man: Would that we could fly! Downey's spot on, but the effects really steal the show.

Kung Fu Panda: Black leads a stellar cast of characters in this whimsical, yet eye-popping, animated kiddie comedy.

Man On Wire: The stunning story of a dreamer's impossible feat seems unreal, despite archival footage. RIP, WTC.

Milk: Could be confused for a documentary. Penn nails the role, but something is still missing.

Rachel Getting Married: Hathaway is remarkable in her struggle against an unbeatable personal demon. Intense but rewarding ride.

The Reader: Winslet, Fiennes, and the superb Cross master the subtleties of their characters' complex, turbulent histories.

Slumdog Millionaire: Feel-good movie of the year will probably take top honors. It's as good as any.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona: Another Woody fantasy. Catalan identity? Yeah, right. Acting is fine, but plot seems forced. Meh.

The Visitor: A fable for our generation. Jenkins richly deserves a nod for his searing, understated performance.

WALL-E: Utter saccharine, though the characters are lovable. Animation (excepting humans) is out of this world.

Waltz With Bashir: Fresh graphics, moody electro soundtrack, and moving remembrances of mind-bending war experiences. It's a winner.

The Wrestler: Like a car wreck: Seriously depressing, but Rourke is so mesmerizing, you can't turn away.


And for the shorts, we'll make it 5 words:

Smile Pinki: Modern medicine saves the day!

La Maison en Petits Cubes: Global sea rises, spirit lives

Lavatory - Lovestory: Everyone loves a secret admirer

Oktapodi: Run, quick, for the sea!

Presto: What's really up his sleeve?

This Way Up: That's what I call "deadication"

Auf der Strecke (On the Line): A devastating mistake costs dearly

Manon on the Asphalt: Today could be your last

New Boy: Starting anew: frustrating but invigorating

The Pig: Can't we all get along?

Spielzeugland (Toyland): Some mistakes do save lives

and the oscar goes to...

Every year, I eagerly await the Oscar ceremony and make a special point to see as many nominated films as I can prior to the big night. This year is no exception...so without further ado, I present the first annual Annals of Spacetime Oscar predictions!

ACTOR
Will win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Should win: Daniel Day-Lewis
An excellent field this year, but there's really only one complete standout, and that's Mr. Day-Lewis. Pretty much anything this guy touches becomes gold, and for good reason: He turns his juicy roles into extensions of his personality more than actor I can think of. Bravo.

ACTOR - SUPPORTING
Will win: Javier Bardem
Should win: Casey Affleck
I have issues with Javier Bardem's role appearing in the supporting category, for it could easily have been listed as a lead. That said, he'll walk away with the statue for his searing portrayal as a robotic mass murderer. It's a bit of a shame, though, since Casey Affleck deserves recognition for his nuanced performance as the disturbed killer of Jesse James.

ACTRESS
Will win: Julie Christie
Should win: -NA-
I'm gonna refrain from suggesting a favorite here since I only saw two of the nominated performances (Linney and Page) and I don't think either one is or should be a contender. So far there has been buzz aplenty around Julie Christie for her portrayal of a woman with Alzheimer's, so I'm guessing she'll take the prize.

ACTRESS - SUPPORTING
Will win: Saoirse Ronan
Should win: Tilda Swinton
I have a feeling the Academy may be looking to annoint a new child star... But while Ronan did give a nice performance as a prissy aspiring young writer, I'm pulling for Tilda Swinton. Swinton has had some meaty roles over the last few years, but none (that I've seen) has been as palpable as her nerve-racking portrayal of a corrupt business executive.

CINEMATOGRAPHY
Will win: There Will Be Blood
Should win: The Assassination of Jesse James by the
Coward Robert Ford
Wow, this is a toughie. All five are deserving, all for different reasons. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly has probably the most unique shots, but I'm gonna go with The Assassination of Jesse James, which features breathtaking vistas of the wintery West captured in artistic, untraditional ways. I'm guessing There Will Be Blood will pull in the award, though.

ANIMATED FILM
Will win: Ratatouille
Should win: Ratatouille
I was a big fan of Marjane Sartrapi's Persepolis graphic novels, but I keep hearing the film version is actually pretty flat. (I have yet to see it, though, so I may yet change my mind!) However, I think it's obvious that this year's animation prize will go to Ratatouille, and deservedly so. Wonderful animations and a cute story. And it is the year of the rat, you know.

DIRECTOR
Will win: Paul-Thomas Anderson
Should win: Julian Schnabel
While I think P.T. Anderson is very much deserving for his vision of Upton Sinclair's (truly) muckraking Oil! I have to give props here to Julian Schnabel, for turning the improbable autobiography of a man paralyzed but for one blinking eye into a somewhat fantastical full-feature film. My only suggestion, though, Julian: Skip the U2!

PICTURE
Will win: There Will Be Blood
Should win: There Will Be Blood
This category is by no means a walkover; there are four excellent films in the running this year, plus a token "fan favorite." That nomination would of course be Juno, which was a cute flick but nothing more. Atonement was a devastating love story, and its execution was more than competent, but I just wasn't as compelled by the film as I thought I should be; for instance, some of the war scenes really dragged, which was my one major criticism of the book, too. Michael Clayton is probably the most gripping mind-bender of the bunch, but despite its all-star cast, hot-button political message, and fresh score, I have a feeling it won't win the Academy over. I think there will be some split over the two Westerns, but in the end, the powerful acting and intriguing story behind There Will Be Blood will and should prevail. ∞