O Tapete Voador (The Flying Carpet)

O Tapete Voador ("The Flying Carpet") (2010), dir. João Mário Grilo.
Outside screening: April 26th, 7:30pm, CMA.

The film highlights the creation of an ancient art form; the wool carpets of Iran have made their way to Europe over 500 years ago. This documentary uses the relationship between Portugal and Iran as a conduit for showing the creation of the magnificent "flying" carpets at various stages of their lives.
I'm not going to lie, at the beginning of this documentary I felt fairly disappointed and uninterested. It failed to captivate my attention like most documentaries tend to do at the very beginning. We see pattern after pattern of carpet. I feel as though the design of the carpets mean so much more to the director than they do to someone like me. I could see the audience too shifting in their seats as well, seeming as though we were all uninterested. It was only after seeing the process of how the carpets are made and learning of their cultural significance did I look at the carpets differently and with a more considerate eye. If there was one problem he could fix, I believe it would be to draw in the attention of the viewer sooner with some element. However, there were definitely some good things I liked about the documentary, and I outline some of them below.
The sound was of particular interest to me in the documentary. He mostly used traditional chants by native Persians (I believe). In one sequence, there is a long track shot of the ceiling of a Mosque. During this shot, you hear a chant that was filmed in that same location. The vocals were rich with reverb and the visuals were beautiful. I think with both of these elements, Grilo was really trying to encapsulate the space as much as possible, and he did so pretty well.
After about 15 minutes or so, the documentary really began its narrative flow when it explored the different steps involved with the creation of a carpet. Grilo had mentioned that it was very difficult in choosing weavers as many of them are generally solitary individuals and do not want to talk to men, especially men with cameras. Although he did interview a few weavers, most of the footage of them was dedicated to a vérité style, in which we watch them do the intricate job of weaving. This after all seemed to be more paramount than the people themselves who are involved. The carpet was most definitely the protagonist in this film. It's also apparent in another way.
The visuals were also paid close attention. After the screening, Grilo had said that every shot was chosen and created just like a knot in a carpet is skillfully carried out, "[a] film should be made like a carpet." It was interesting to hear a philosophy about filmmaking translated from weaving and carpet making. It's evident now what influences Grilo in his filmmaking. Another interesting thing to note about the visual image was in terms of technology. He adamantly said that the film should be done on 35mm to give justice to the true beauty of the carpet, but they had to settle on DV because of budget restrictions. Unfortunately as a consequence, Grilo discovered while filming that there were interesting things happening with the patterns of the carpets and the DV rendering. The intricate patterns seemed to confuse the rastering of each digital frame and resulted in less than real replications of the patterns on screen.
Nevertheless, the film was beautifully done and gave a look into the life of a carpet with a level of artistic quality that would have been absent in more of an informational video on the topic.

Check this link for screenings

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Calendar/Film?BrowseBy=specialscreenings

There are 2 director-in-attendance screenings on Thursday night, and a number of docs about town over the next week, for those of you in need of a few more write-ups.

Outside Event: 'Sunshine'

Sunshine (2009) – dir. Karen Skloss
Sunshine, a film about two generations of single mothers in the same family, is full of likable characters. Ironically, the overwhelming pleasantness of everyone involved is an obstacle the documentary must overcome. Sunshine’s biggest weakness is the lack of contemporary conflict. Skloss makes some token gestures towards creating tension, but it never develops – either due to the nature of the characters and the situation, or because it is not given adequate attention to evolve into a real issue. By the time the documentary starts, the family seems to have resolved its issues and settled into a comfortable situation. Even Skloss’ very conservative biological grandfather is ready to introduce her to his friends and take her to his beach house.
There is mention of the social stigma of single parenthood, but, in the modern day, none of the characters encounter any problems. Even Skloss’ Catholic, church-going adoptive parents have never experienced any negative reactions to Skloss’ pregnancy. There are other single mothers in the film, but we do not hear much from them – the only concern we hear about is dating. Other than that, the only things they seem to have to worry about are their avant-garde theater pieces. Skloss hints at internal conflict and self-judgment in her voice over; however, the voice over is delivered in such a soothing tone that it is impossible to give the concerns much credence.
In a way, the lack of tension is the point. It highlights the tragedy of the past stigma that separated Skloss and her mother, but a lack of conflict is a difficult foundation on which to build a compelling story. However, Skloss gives the story appropriate pathos and injects the contemporary with a very winning charm and humor.
Skloss creates a wonderful sense of the characters in the film. The camera was clearly kept rolling long before and after the actual interviews. Skloss does a great job of pulling casual moments, which do not advance the story, but that give a rich sense of who these people are. The film is, as a whole, very cleverly constructed and edited. Skloss does a great job of combining a wide variety of footage in a very neat, seamless way. She pulls in archival material, home movies, staged recreations, interviews, and in-the-moment shoots – shot either by herself or others. Skloss does a brilliant job of constructing the film, but also deconstructing it – leading to some of the most interesting and rewarding moments in the film.
There is a scene when Skloss is interviewing her biological mother while they are walking together in an isolated area. The mother notes that, by virtue of the camera being there, this seemingly private moment is going to be seen by many strangers. At one point, she takes the camera from Skloss and turns it on her, asking, “How do you like it?” It feels very natural, but it offers such an interesting commentary on the nature of documentaries.
My favorite bit of deconstruction, and one of the cleverest I have seen in a long time, involves the film’s reenactments of Skloss’ biological mother and father on the fateful night of her conception. They are shown periodically throughout the film in silhouette, canoodling by a lake. Towards the end, the camera pulls back to reveal the crew filming. Then we see the actors: Skloss and her ex-boyfriend, her daughter’s father. It is a great moment that comments so neatly and nicely on the parallels between Skloss and her biological mother’s story. It is in moments like this, when Skloss plays with the form in such interesting ways, that the film really shines.

Visual Acoustics

In Visual Acoustics: The Modernism of Julius Shulman, the director, Eric Bricker, celebrates the life and career of the world's greatest architectural photographer. Shulman's images brought modern architecture to the American mainstream. He captured the work of nearly every modern architect since the 30's; architects like Richard Neutra, Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gehry. Shulman's work is especially significant in portraying the southern California modernist movement.
In the film we see some fantastic architectural images and Shulman himself shines as a charming charismatic character. What we begin to wonder though, is what is the art and who is the artist. Is the true art the buildings of Wright and Neutra and they the artists? Or is Shulman the artist and his photographs the art? Or perhaps Bricker is the artist and his film the art? In the end I think we recognize all as contributing to the collective appreciation of beauty whether it is found in an edifice, a photograph or a film.

Best Worst Movie ever!! You gotta see it!

I drove my “new” used car to Alamo Drafthouse at south Lamar and was still gloomy about the scratch on the car which happened a few days ago. Not really in a good mood anyway. But I didn’t realize that I was about to see the most hilarious documentary I’ve ever seen.

“Best Worst Movie”--- a documentary by Michael Paul Stephenson. It was about a 1990 horror movie “Troll 2”. Back in the summer of 1989, Italian director Claudio Fragrasso went to a small town in Utah and recruited George Hardy and a group of actors to make a ultra-low budget horror film. But it never went on the big screen and was considered to be the worst film ever made. It received only 1 rating on IMDB and the comments out there were full of criticism and sarcastism.

However, after nearly 20 years later Troll 2 become super popular all the sudden. This is excerpted from the description about the movie : “A corn-on-the-cob sex scene, pudgy-potato-sack clad midgets, and a peculiar plot about evil vegetarian goblins attempting to transform a young boy’s family into edible plants is unintentionally hilarious, yet strangely captivating and highly entertaining.”

I guess that when you see a bad movie like that which is really beyond any kinds of bad movies, it sort of standout and became an unique one itself. I laughed so hard from the start to the end because it was so hilarious and also very positive. Or you can say it is a documentary about some people who know what they are doing and show some insistence even though the whole world against them.

This documentary started with a dentist’s normal life, George Hardy. He lives in a small town Alexander in Alabama and is a dentist. He is a mid 40’s guy and very positive, outgoing and considerate. Everyone in the town likes him, including his ex-wife. He’s so like a nice guy living next door but a few of them know that Dr. Hardy was once a main actor in a film nearly 20 years ago. The first part of this doc is made of intense contrasts but very intriguing.

Michael( the director of this doc piece) found him and other actors. The actors were all surprised that the film became so popular now that people had to take a long line just to get tickets. Those who were in the film now are dentist, producers and other occupations. I’m not gonna write about the whole story line because it’s worth watching, not saying.

Although this documentary piece is 96 minutes, it was a little bit fast-paced. You can imagine there must be a lot of things that are not included but very interesting as well. Tons of interview shots and cuts from “Troll 2” are two main elements in this doc. Along with fans of the movie and the actors’ personal life, they made this doc more closer to us.

There’s another interesting thing about this documentary. Dr. Hardy was the main character but also who led the len to explore about the film. He started to actively to invite other actors and actress to join the reborn of this bad movie. It’s like he wanted to make this piece more completely and inspiring. I have to say that when your main character become so actively in the subject matter you’re working on, it’s really lucky and things would goes faster and better.

The director was really good at capturing people’s facial expression and reaction, something I would call “decisive moment”. Sometimes there are values available not in the talk but in the reaction who hear them. For example, Dr.Hardy asked his daughter to post the flyer about the screening of Troll 2, but she kind of showed an unwilling reaction but an understanding of her Dad’s passion.

Also, the director used a unique way of telling story that not only makes people laugh but also revealed a sharp contrast. It is a movie that actors were too shamed to put on their resume, whereas the Italian director Claudio Fragrasso insisted he was making a good movie. This movie is famous for its lack of logic and full of cliche elements that make it so hilarious to entertain people. Ironically, you can tell from the Claudio Fragrasso's reaction that he was not that happy as other actors because he didn't think that the moive is about the entertainment but more about human being. When he said that he found out the audience laugh at something that shouldn't be that funny, I felt sad for him. “Best Worst Movie is story of one of cinema’s greatest tragedies… or triumph’s –Troll 2. The result is a hilarious and tender off-beat journey and a genuine homage to lovers of bad movies and the people that create them.”

At the end of the documentary, it went back to Dr. Hardy’s normal life again that was about making breakfast and going to the clinic. But things in his mind has been changed. He had already made the promise if there’s gonna be Troll 3 , he would definitely in.

Helvetica

Here's a part of the documentary and will help illustrate what I discuss below.

A documentary about a font. I know what you may be thinking: How could this seemingly minute subject be explored interestingly in a feature length documentary? Well, turns out there is quite a bit too say about one of most famous font-types in modern times. Nevertheless, the documentary also isn't just an exploration of Helvetica. I would consider it a film about graphic design with the font as its main focus. I seemed to learn more about graphic designer's opinions about type face in general than just Helvetica's history, impact, etc.
In any case, I feel this documentary did an excellent job at showcasing TONS of examples (some would consider this 'B-roll' actually A-roll) of where Helvetica is found without being monotonous or repetitive (i.e. signs, logos, posters, etc.). So, I decided I would analyze how exactly Gary Hustwit and his editor achieved this effect and what elements are at play in those sequences.
1. Pauses/Segue
First off, these sequences act as brief pauses between the various interviews and segue between them. It really allows the viewer to take in what was just said and relate it to the character of this documentary - Helvetica. I feel that without these pauses, the documentary as a whole would risk being monotonous with the majority of dialogue/information being traditional-style interviews. As mentioned before the sequences do a nice job at segueing into the next 'topic.' It feels like we are taken out of the office and/or design studio environment into the environment outside were Helvetica actually is and lives.
2. Music
The majority of these sequences have music. The music really creates a strong sense of continuity, which is really helpful because of the varying shots. I also feel that the music fosters meditation on each shot individually as well as how they relate to one another and the documentary as a whole.
3. Variation/Recognition Aspect
One of the main reasons the segue sequences are not monotonous (or at least for the most part) is because of the variation in shots. Although we're seeing the same font-type over and over again, every shot is different. They each have their character about them. I also found myself searching for Helvetica in every shot. Obviously, it was easy to do but it kept me engaged and interested in any case.
4. Relationship with Content
Another use for these sequences is its relationship with the designers and experts' knowledge and opinions. After I heard commentary about the font, I tried to apply what I heard to the plentiful shots of its real-world application. For example, one of the main things the documentary touches on is how Helvetica is modern, clean, and unbiased. The unique thing about Helvetica is that it has a look of impartiality and lack of innate expression, a response to atrocious chaos of the Second World War. The sequences really were necessary is allowing the viewer to then see Helvetica and think about it in certain ways (framed so by the interviews that preceded each montage).

Although these sequences really breathe life into the documentary as a whole, strong interviews and nice flow as well as an interesting subject matter really made for an excellent documentary.

Weiner Dog Festival

Hey guys - guess what?

Sandy qualified in her race today (2nd out of 7 dogs running) and is moving on the quarterfinals tomorrow!

Michelle and I are going back to tomorrow with our impromptu crew to film a few more hours of coverage and to see if Sandy will be the grand prize winner!

No Failure to Communicate

Here's an interview with the experimental filmmaker who will have a screening next Thursday at AFS.

Caroline Koebel grew up without TV. She's been pursuing flickering images ever since.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:1018759

screening info:
https://www.austinfilm.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=1096

10 Under 10

What's in a Name? - the doc I produced with Caitlin Lundin and Huda Abdul-Razzak in this class last spring got accepted in the 2010 10 Under 10!

More on fundraising and grants

New models:
http://www.persistenceofvision.org/2010/04/20/tfpf-recipients-using-kickstarter-for-funding/

And TFPF:
http://www.austinfilm.org/Page.aspx?pid=300

And yet another screening with filmmaker present!

The UT doc center is pleased to present João Mário Grilo's THE FLYING CARPET:

O TAPETE VOADOR (THE FLYING CARPET)
A documentary by Portuguese filmmaker João Mário Grilo
Monday, April 26, 7:30 pm
University of Texas at Austin, CMA 3.120

It was through Portugal that the Persian carpets entered Europe to establish one of the most important cultural traditions in terms of decorative arts in the West. 500 years later, we returned to Iran to discover their original gestures of fabrication and the hypnotic forms and colors that still maintain all their freshness and fascination. The film is structured in four voyages + one, from geometry to nature, from knotting to abrash (the natural way a color fades and shades). In reality, it’s a film about itself and maybe about art in general and its infinite and immemorial landscapes. At the end it will reveal the mystery of the real “flying carpet”, the one through which so many people has flown as they flight today through the screen (a mobile carpet) and its magical powers.

O TAPETE VOADOR (2008, 56 min.) was filmed in Esfahan, Iran. João Mário Grilo is a Portuguese film director, author, and associate professor at the Communication Sciences Department, Social and Human Sciences Faculty of the New University of Lisbon (UNL). His other work includes the 1992 O FIM DO MUNDO (THE END OF THE WORLD, 1992) and 451 FORTE (2000).

--

Insightful article on Bill Moyers as he leaves 'Journal'

http://www.austin360.com/television/enthusiasm-for-conversation-ideas-citizenship-drove-bill-moyers-573141.html?viewAsSinglePage=true

Some sage reflections from guru Bill Moyers on the intersections of media, journalism, documentary, and advocacy in our world.

Donghwan Kim - Organizing Thougts

I feel that(thanks to Kim’s advice) I need to organize my thoughts through writing it down. I have been relying too much on the conversation with Edge, and I need some more footages that can include the heart of my documentary. Thus I have been trying to think about what I want this documentary to be about. The documentary will be about the homeless newspaper and what it does to the homeless people and the general public, and Edge and lady Valerie is the main voice. However, Both talking heads are kind of beating around the bush, and I have hard time connecting the two person due to the lack of verite footages, such as him picking up the newspaper at the office. The situation is also down – the new issue is far from coming out, and the vendors are mad that there are often no one in the office. Talking with Edge gives me a lot of good character demonstration footages, but still not to the core. Thus, I feel that there are two footages that are essential for the heart of the documentary.

1. the Verite shoot in the office: This I have been putting off because I was trying to go with Edge. If I get to go with him, that is the best situation, but it is hard because it is hard to make plans with him. The office footage(editors working on articles, coming in of the new issue if lucky) will, with or without Edge, provide nice b-rolls and the link between Edge and lady Valerie’s talk. I will deal with it by next Monday. I will shoot b-rolls and look for street poets in downtown to get some poems and other homeless voices.

2. the reception of the paper by general public: I have a few friends interested in reading the Austin Advocate News Letter. I will shoot their reaction to the paper, and their comments. Edge’s comment that the newsletter provide a bridge between the homeless and the housed people, thus comes to life, and will be the heart of my documentary. I scheduled shooting with my friends this Thursday, and I will try to catch the buying, the reading, and the reaction of my friends. These will be stitched together with many sales footage by Edge.

the Focus of the documentary: This has gone through a lot of changes since the beginning of the shooting. First, it started as ‘what is the hardship of the Austin Advocate, and why is it having hard time?’ as I began talking to the board members. Then, as I came to know Edge and his optimism and acquiring this distinctive rhythm of documentary through Guadalupe street shooting, I began focusing on Edge’s personality and his relationship with the office members as financially and mentally interdependent. However, as I began editing, I felt that there are questions unanswered, something very basic for my documentary to be meaningful: ‘what is this newsletter’s worth and meaning, to the general public, as well as the homeless people?’ Picturing the voice of homeless being heard by the public through the newsletter is the final purpose of this documentary.

Best Worst Movie, a documentary

http://www.originalalamo.com/Show.aspx?id=7271

With filmmakers in attendance opening weekend! Should be popular- I recommend reserving tix online.

From the Alamo website:
The 1990 horror movie TROLL II is The Worst Film Ever Made. But somehow, the stories of its participants and creation weave the best documentary we've seen in years! Critically acclaimed beyond belief, BEST WORST MOVIE is a hilarious, very real and shockingly sincere exploration of the incredible and/or flawed components that somehow brought history's most ridiculous film to life. This riveting true-life story brings us the actors and filmmakers behind TROLL II, telling the story in their own words whether they've spent years in the cult movie limelight or hiding from their on-screen legacy.

An incredible experience whether you're a TROLL II fan or you've never even heard of the damn thing. It was THE film of SXSW '09, it's one of the best docs of our time and we can't wait to watch it again.

Riddle? Yes. Enigma? Sure. Documentary?

An interesting new film that deals with authenticity, the art world, and pseudo/mockumentary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/movies/14banksy.html?ref=movies

Banksy, the pseudonymous British street artist, is laboring in a new documentary to convince audiences that he’s playing it straight.

Shorts screening from Women's Film Institute and workshop

http://reelwomen.org/2010/03/31/rw-presents-the-womens-film-institute-wfi-short-tour-workshop/

(A few docs in their line-up, as well as experimental docs. I guess check back on their website for exact time closer to the date. -dzm)

SATURDAY & SUNDAY, APRIL 24 & 25 — at the Picture Box Studio, 701 Tillery, Suite A-7, Austin 78702. Films by Women that Entertain, Inspire & Motivate. Women’s Film Institute (WFI) presents the WFI Shorts Tour. Out of 300 inspiring entries, 11 films were selected to be premiered. The diverse selection of shorts at the tour celebrates the exceptional contributions of women in the world of cinema and represents a convergence of films from around the globe, including the U.S., Italy, France and China. The tour includes an Academy Award winning short and a cross section of socially conscious films that will entertain, inspire and motivate audience-goers to take action. The films explore the search for self-discovery, the pain of love and loss, and the struggle to meet society’s expectations of beauty. As well as a range of current political and social topics–from the growing threat of climate change, to the plight of an orca whale forced to live in an aquarium, to education for undocumented immigrants. http://www.sfwfi.com

Asian American Studies Conference Screenings

Because I am tragically old and school wears me out I sometimes take a nap on Friday afternoon. This past Friday was on of those days. As I napped I dreamt of a yellow tabby cat trying to escape. Apparently it was my responsibility to capture it. The cat was fast and elusive, but I kept after it. When I awoke I realized the cat was a symbol for an opportunity, an outside event that I could blog about. It represented one of those elusive events that were rapidly getting away without my participation. The Asian American Studies screening at 7:30 that evening had become my dream cat.
The dream made me think of Eisenstein's montage theory. When you put two images next to each other you create a third thing, a different thing. My subconscious had worked like Eisenstein's montage. I had a goal, to attend a screening event. I also had an opportunity, the AAS screening. The two together became a dream cat.
What I'm getting to though, is not dream cats, it's Krutie, one of the most interesting of the short films screened Friday night. It was probably the film closest to documentary of the six presented. It was not experimental, it was more like a performance piece. The reason I associate it with dream cats is because of montage; a montage of the filmaker, Krutie Thakkar, in different guises, affecting different voices, sitting on a green couch. Accompanying Krutie and the couch were titles of both Sanskrit and Russian definitions for the word Krutie, a floating crouton and banana-rama-fo-fama type rhymes scrolling across the screen. Independently the images seemed to make no sense, but together they created a third thing. No, not a dream cat, but the concept of a young woman searching for identity.
Of the other five films screened, there was a good one, a bad one, and three that were so-so. The bad one was Texas Girl , about the Korean wife of a marine adjusting to life in his west Texas hometown. The distracting element of the film was that the woman, who supposedly just moved from Korea, had a Texas accent. She actually used better grammar than her husband. Another problem with the film was that it exploited every scene to make the marine husband look like a crude racist redneck. He became a one dimensional cliche undermining the story.
The good one was North of Ojinaga. A Japanese woman and Mexican man are smuggled across the border and abandoned by their coyote in the west Texas desert. They can't speak each other's language but begin to communicate using iconic American objects and advertising phrases. This film, unlike most of the others, had a logical structure and actual story. The photography was also a step above the others.
So, now I'm wondering why the cat in my dream was a yellow tabby when I prefer the darker calicos. Well, perhaps another day, another dream.

Cine Las Americas Festival in a few weeks

Tons of docs on tap:

http://www.cinelasamericas.org/film-festival/72-13/228-2010-films-by-program-section

April 21-29.

Austin Jewish Film Festival on now

The Austin Jewish Film Festival starts today and runs through next week. There are some screenings on campus and around town-- fiction and documentary. Check out this link for the schedule; the best way is to download their pdf of the schedule which tells you whether it's a doc or not:

http://www.austinjff.org/Alpha%20Flm%20List.html

Waltz With Bashir

It was appropriate that I watched this film the week after our experimental documentary conversation, because it made me think more about the definition of a documentary. The film is based on real interviews with Israeli soldiers who fought in the Lebanon War, and it tells the story of the director’s search for the truth about what happened during a massacre in Beirut that he has repressed his memory of.

Ari Folman said in an interview that it was a mistake for him to have called the film an animated documentary, because no one knows what that means and they have a hard time categorizing it in their minds. I can see what he’s saying, because just like with Chicago 10, it’s difficult for me to accept this as a truly documented story when all of the visuals are created by artists. Waltz with Bashir felt less like a cartoon than Chicago 10 to me though, maybe because the subject matter was so dramatic and the animation had a more stylized look to it.

I really enjoyed the film, and thought it did an effective job of telling a complex story. The storyline revolves around this hallucination/partial memory that the director has of the war, and he is trying to piece together where it came from by talking to other soldiers who were there with him. The hallucination scene, and many others in the film, have a dream-like quality that partially give the film that stylized look. In a lot of the scenes, especially the flashbacks or the dream scenes, the characters are moving in slow motion, which amplifies the surreal feeling of the film. In one of the special features on the DVD, Folman talks about the process of making the animation, and said that part of the reason the characters moved slowly was that it was cheaper that way. So whether or not the technique was intentional, it certainly added a moodiness that worked well.

I think one of the hardest things about documentary is trying to visually illustrate an event that has already happened, or a concept that you don’t have actual footage of. We’ve seen this done with archival footage like in Wide Awake, or with re-enactments like in A Thin Blue Line. I assume part of the reason the director chose animation for this film is because almost the entire storyline fell under things that already happened or ideas that there was no footage for (like the hallucinations). Considering those restrictions, I think animation was a creative way to be able to tell the story without having to narrate the entire film. I’m still not sure you can really classify this as a documentary, but I’m definitely starting to broaden my perspective on what that genre means.

Quest for honor

US Documentary Feature Films
Kurdistan/U.S.A., 2008, 60 mins., color

I thought about this movie all night long after I watched it. Yes, I called it a “movie”. For it has so much tension and climax going on and you wouldn’t even believe it’s actually a documentary. Even the way it started with a CNN news clip that makes you believe more you’re watching some kind of investigation murder movie.

The story line of this project is very well-organized and chronological. We followed Runak Faraj, the editor from Women Media Center, to experience the fight for human rights in Kurdistan. In a men-dominant society where women are usually powerless, they have to be so obedient that it seems their lives are worthless as well. And Women Media Center become where local women would go when they are under death threat or feel under pressure.

The more you watch, the more your heart sinks. That is probably why the director actually inserted lots of empty shots/landscape shots that sort of gave you relief moments because the story itself was too sad to handle at one time. The sound quality is very good that we can hear every single word when they spoke, especially at the outdoor scene where they found the body of Nesrin. The story ended in a way that there seemed no progress neither in their investigation nor in human rights, but it actulaly made it to raise people's awareness in helping those victims. However, things should be taken more slowly just like what the mayor implied. It's really a good idea to start with media, say, the newspaper publication that Runak Faraj works with.

One interesting thing I've noticed is that in this 60-minutes intensive documentary project, you can see how subjects were comfortable in front of the camera(just like a movie!), which probably means a certain amount of time that the director Mary Ann Smothers Bruni had spent with them before she started to shoot. After a 30-second CNN news clip at the very beginning of Quest for Honor, it went straight right to the phone call – about a woman’s death. How coincidently it was! Because sometimes the moment you want never comes, I wonder how they made it.

I admire her courage because she might be taken as an intruder from local perspective. Anything could have happened to her in the name of HONOR. However, I’m not quite sure if the project is based on western point of view to look other cultures. For some of the most bizarre cultural phenomenon in this world, there are a lot of times that western countries take these cultures as “wrong” based on what they think is “right" especiially when it comes to human rights.I'm not saying that killing somebody else by one's wish from other culture is none of our business. But as an audience, I would like to know more about how they get the idea of being “honor” and “dishonor” and how they develop this way of thinking. If we can take a more in-depth approach to find out the origin of this problem, the solution might be come up as well. It would be much more balanced and informative in terms of journalistic perspective if the director found out more about the belief of these men and women.

SWINGERS - Progress Report

So - it seems that all of the fun, open, vocal swinging couples in Austin are either gone or going to the hospital soon. I haven't heard back from K and O in over a week now, so a couple of days ago, I posted a 2nd ad on craigslist looking for subjects.

I got a very quick and positive response from a new couple - we'll call them R and R - they are a married couple, ages 29 and 28, respectively. R number 1 is a white, bisexual woman and R number 2 is her white, straight husband. They've been married for almost a year and have been exploring swinging and polyamory for about the same amount of time.

They believe they are in a very healthy relationship with strong, open communication, trust and understanding. They both said they would be willing to speak comfortably about the details and realities of their lifestyle. They have one semi-permanent male partner who R1 claims will be open to talking to us as well, which would be awesome. R2 also has a semi-permanent female partner, and they are also developing what could become a steady relationship with another female partner. R1 says she dates a few women here and there on her own and that she and her husband correspond with other swinging couples together as well.

So, in case K and O never appear again, it looks like we may be shifting our focus to this new couple. R1 sent me an online album of their beautiful wedding photos, but per her request for discretion up front until they feel comfortable with us, I will not post those photos just yet on the blog. They are both working professionals and R1 says she works for UT and isn't sure yet if her participation will have any negative consequences.

Any thoughts?