Look, I get it. The creator has an insane depth of knowledge, a flair for putting historical progress in sequence and relation, and for digging out very obscure historical cinematic fact to educate the viewer.
I understand different ways of telling a story; the avant-garde, the alternative; breaking boundaries and forcing new ways to look at experienced subjects. Sometimes, this works. Sometimes, as it is here, the result is disaster.
Just because it's different doesn't mean it's good.
The material is spectacular. The presentation is horrifyingly flawed. An incredible story, presented by film, can be either brilliant or awful; in contrast, a boringly simple story can be brilliantly expressed or spewed out as worthless junk. The history of film is neither simple nor uninteresting. Here we have excellent material, brilliantly researched, and presented in a way that only the heartiest of viewer could possibly endure.
This documentary has great resources but is cut incorrectly. The idea of cutting between vintage clips and poorly filmed analogues just doesn't work. It is confusing, disruptive of continuity and frankly boring. It seems to me that the director/editor is trying to 'dumb down' the material to explain it. Never do that in a documentary - use the source material to show the detail, explain it clearly but simply by narration. Assume the viewer is just as smart or smarter than you. At some point, this disjointed and moreover 'pablumized' (copyright my term) presentation wears on the viewer.
The narration is beyond annoying (yeah, I know - some people find it difficult, some find it astonishing - unless an element is broadly appealing it risks being pretentious, uncommunicative, and ANNOYING ). There is no way this 'experiment' in English narration works, because it is largely unappealing no matter how much a given snob might think it is great. Put yourselves into the shoes of the broader audience - can you really say 'this narration is effective!'? It's like telling yourself that boiled jackrabbit is just as good or better than a Godiva chocolate; it may be to you, but not to most people.
The soundtrack seems like rushed afterthought. The scoring is choppy, shallow and uninspiring, and distracts from instead of enhancing the presentation.
Overall, the viewer is inspired not to seek out classic and important film, but to check their phones for the latest marketing from Target. Painful.
If the creators would REALLY like to educate the film going ignorant, they would hire an inspired editor, a gifted narrator, a knowledgeable, a deeply experienced musical director and a judicious producer to make it the watchable masterpiece it could be.
I understand different ways of telling a story; the avant-garde, the alternative; breaking boundaries and forcing new ways to look at experienced subjects. Sometimes, this works. Sometimes, as it is here, the result is disaster.
Just because it's different doesn't mean it's good.
The material is spectacular. The presentation is horrifyingly flawed. An incredible story, presented by film, can be either brilliant or awful; in contrast, a boringly simple story can be brilliantly expressed or spewed out as worthless junk. The history of film is neither simple nor uninteresting. Here we have excellent material, brilliantly researched, and presented in a way that only the heartiest of viewer could possibly endure.
This documentary has great resources but is cut incorrectly. The idea of cutting between vintage clips and poorly filmed analogues just doesn't work. It is confusing, disruptive of continuity and frankly boring. It seems to me that the director/editor is trying to 'dumb down' the material to explain it. Never do that in a documentary - use the source material to show the detail, explain it clearly but simply by narration. Assume the viewer is just as smart or smarter than you. At some point, this disjointed and moreover 'pablumized' (copyright my term) presentation wears on the viewer.
The narration is beyond annoying (yeah, I know - some people find it difficult, some find it astonishing - unless an element is broadly appealing it risks being pretentious, uncommunicative, and ANNOYING ). There is no way this 'experiment' in English narration works, because it is largely unappealing no matter how much a given snob might think it is great. Put yourselves into the shoes of the broader audience - can you really say 'this narration is effective!'? It's like telling yourself that boiled jackrabbit is just as good or better than a Godiva chocolate; it may be to you, but not to most people.
The soundtrack seems like rushed afterthought. The scoring is choppy, shallow and uninspiring, and distracts from instead of enhancing the presentation.
Overall, the viewer is inspired not to seek out classic and important film, but to check their phones for the latest marketing from Target. Painful.
If the creators would REALLY like to educate the film going ignorant, they would hire an inspired editor, a gifted narrator, a knowledgeable, a deeply experienced musical director and a judicious producer to make it the watchable masterpiece it could be.