Back Row Thoughts – The True Artists

As I’m writing this post, at approximately 8:30pm PST, I have completed one of my annual stretch goals for the Oscar Blitz. The Documentary Feature shortlist has officially been cleared. Earlier this evening, I took in the last of the 15 semifinalists, No Other Land. It was the hardest to seek out, because it did not have any domestic distribution, likely due to its sensitive subject matter (Israeli occupation in the West Bank and the forced and violent expulsion of Palestinian residents). If you’re not in the United States, the film is accessible through various VOD and streaming services (check the film’s website for links), but because in this country everything has to be a business, I had to cross my fingers and hope for a breakthrough. That came in the form of it being nominated at the Independent Spirit Awards, and while it was delayed, I eventually got a screener as a voting member of Film Independent. Thankfully, if it’s on your to-do list as well, the film will finally be given a limited theatrical run starting on February 7.

As such, I can finally continue my batch reviews ahead of Oscar nominations (just five days away, assuming no further fire-related postponements). I’ve already handled three of the 15 via Netflix, and now I can move on to the other 12. As many of the films are thematically similar, it only seemed appropriate to group them together. Over three “Back Row Thoughts” columns, I’ll give each their moment in my tiny spotlight, so that they can be appreciated regardless of whether or not their names get called on Thursday.

First up is a foursome of documentaries dealing with the arts. Each of these covers different ground, and in unique ways. From an experiment in filmmaking to one of the candidates for International Feature, this is a truly eclectic set, and if you get the chance to see them, you’ll probably find something to pique your interest.

Dahomey

The International Feature submission from Senegal, where it has also made the shortlist, Mati Diop’s Dahomey is a quasi-documentary told in two distinct parts. The first is odd but intriguing, while the other is much more straightforward. On their own, either side would make a compelling short, but I’m not sure they gel as a complete feature.

During the colonial period, European powers dominated countless indigenous peoples and nations the world over. As part of this process, they looted millions of artifacts and objets d’art. None of this is new information. However, there have been concerted efforts over the past few decades to reconcile these thefts and return the artworks to their native lands. That’s what concerns the first half (and closing remarks) of Dahomey. Recently, the French government negotiated with the Republic of Benin, which contains the land that was once the titular Kingdom of Dahomey (if you recall, the 2022 film, The Woman King was a very loose retelling and dramatization of its history), resulting in the repatriation of 26 artifacts.

Included in that group is a statue of King Ghézo, and this is where the film has its fun. The transportation from France to Benin is taken from the statue’s perspective, with cameras loaded onto it at certain points to give off a POV effect. Moreover, actor Makenzy Orcel provides an omniscient voiceover for Ghézo during the journey, acting as the king’s spirit, as it muses about how much has changed in his native land in the 200 years that he’s been gone, wondering how much of his cultural identity remains, and fearing that he’s been forgotten. This is odd but fascinating stuff, and a truly intriguing way to make this likely boring diplomatic process feel personal. You get to take the trip with one of the pieces, getting an almost living companion. Almost all of what he “says” is pure conjecture, but it’s educated conjecture that makes sense within context and is at least plausible on the surface.

The second half is where things just kind of fall apart. Once the pieces arrive and are put on display (a reception of dignitaries make all the right gestures of magnanimity), a debate is held at a local university, where students talk back and forth about their feelings on the matter. Most feel that 26 pieces is not enough (France has over 7,000 in its possession), some are grateful that they got anything, and others basically just insult each other and call for righteous revolution.

In other words, yeah, it’s a college debate. Very little of substance is shared, and most of the histrionics come from people who are simply too young and have not seen enough of the world to fully understand it. Their passion is appreciated, if somewhat misplaced and ill-informed, but because it’s just a debate among themselves, with no real government involvement, it’s just sound and fury signifying nothing. There’s a youthful impatience about everything, with only a handful recognizing that diplomacy is never an overnight proposition, and that progress has at least been made, incremental though it may appear.

There’s value in what these kids are saying, but the whole half hour we spend here just stops the overall film’s momentum dead in its tracks. This was an opportunity to learn a crucial part of our collective history, get some catharsis in a small amount of justice being served, and set a call to action to make sure that this isn’t a one-and-done gesture of patronizing largesse. Instead, we took what started out as something extraordinary and reduced it to a bunch of 20-year-olds screaming about how they want all the world’s problems solved NOW! Weird that the inanimate statue has a more proper perspective on things than its living descendants.

Grade: B-

Eno

While No Other Land was the last one I saw, and the hardest to personally track down, I’m going to take a shot in the dark and say that Eno will be the least accessible of the shortlisted docs to a wide audience. That’s because it not only has no distribution, but the filmmakers designed it to only be seen in select screenings, like a very intimate roadshow engagement. I was lucky to see it listed at the American Cinematheque literally the day after the shortlists were announced, so I snatched up a ticket immediately, even though the screening itself was three weeks off. It was probably the only chance I’d get to see it. As it turns out, however, my viewing is likely the only time anyone will see it the way I did. This is because director Gary Hustwit designed this biographical experiment in a way where every screening will be different.

On the surface, this is a documentary about Brian Eno, the iconoclastic musician and producer known for his time as a member of Roxy Music, his frequent collaborations with David Bowie, and for engineering some of the most iconic albums of all time. Never one to do things the traditional way, Eno only agreed to do the film if the film itself was going to be a reflection of his musicality and love of technology. Over 30 hours of interviews were conducted, and nearly 500 hours of archival footage was gathered, with minimal editing to create short sequences.

All of this information was then uploaded into the anagram Brain One program (developed by Brendan Dawes), a generative platform that creates a 100-minute film from these vignettes in a way that is progressively logical. It’s not technically artificial intelligence, because the program is self-contained and doesn’t create anything new from the inputs. It just calculates a narrative order, choosing appropriate sequences as it goes. As such, no two projections are the same, with an estimated 52,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible results.

It’s an audacious and very ambitious concept, and for what it’s worth, it generated an enjoyable story. I got some history of Eno’s time in Roxy Music, his work with the likes of U2, a bit of insight into how he composes music using similar tech, and some contextual backstory for how he’s always seen himself as being different and divergent from the rest of the crowd. Ironically, these very radical means ended up giving me a fairly formulaic music biopic documentary. I even chuckled a bit when I saw a segment about his time working with DEVO and producing their first major album, as I took in a DEVO documentary at AFI Fest last year, one that was very much by the numbers (but still entertaining), and which included a standard-issue interview with Eno about the process. You can’t help but laugh at having the unique experience of the program creating a version of events that arguably undermines its own purpose.

I have to admit, this was fun, but I’m also conflicted on the ethical implications. I give Hustwit and Eno the benefit of the doubt because they’re upfront about their intentions, even if you can easily argue against them. For instance, Hustwit, who introduced the film at the screening I attended, justified this choice by saying that there should never be one definitive version of a movie, just like there’s never one definitive version of a story or a song. But yeah, actually, there is. Sure, when performing live, there are variations in a song that make it slightly different each time you play it, but the fundamental melody never changes, and if you listen to a recording, you are hearing the same version each time. Similarly, if you’re telling a campfire ghost story, you can embellish things or leave out details because it’s off the top of your head. If you read a BOOK, however, it’s still the same story.

But that’s neither here nor there. My point is, Hustwit and Eno made their motives clear from the get-go, but that doesn’t mean this would work in other, less trustworthy hands. Given the entertainment industry’s underhanded attempts to circumvent the anti-AI rules that were put into union contracts – a process that necessitated two strikes that nearly crippled Hollywood over the last 15 months – I can easily see them developing similar tech to create multiple versions of TV shows and films, and basically making it a selling point that you need to watch something several times to “see it all.” Netflix has already sort of done this with their interactive “Choose Your Own Adventure” specials, but at least those are ultimately user-initiated and controlled, and the viewer can duck out whenever they feel like it. But wait until Disney decides, “Hey, you haven’t seen Bambi until you’ve seen the live action, generative Bambi with 7,000,000 different outcomes depending on which showing you go to! And you only unlock the TRUE ending if you pay to see it in IMAX on your third viewing!” I put nothing past them.

So yeah, this was a quirky diversion because it’s being used in a very small, very specific context, and I certainly applaud the technological prowess that had to be harnessed to even make it possible. But this only remotely works because of the type of artist Brian Eno is and always has been. The moment it’s commercialized, we’re fucked.

Grade: B+

Queendom

This is a difficult film for me to parse, as I wholeheartedly agree with its underlying message, but I can’t stand the execution. The movie follows a queer drag performer called Gena Marvin from Russia, a country that has been in turmoil for years, thanks to the outright evil actions of its leader, Vladimir Putin. Among the acts of intolerable cruelty is the scapegoating of the LGBT community, banning so-called “pro-gay propaganda” and essentially criminalizing homosexuality.

Marvin, 21 years old at the start of the film, opts for a confrontational style of performance art, dressing their already tall frame in massive platform heels, gawdy costumes, and makeup, making a public spectacle of themself in hopes of drawing attention. That attention of course comes, putting Gena’s safety and freedom in danger at every turn. Even when they’re not dolled up, they’re a target for bullies and bigots who’ve been emboldened to take matters into their own hands by Putin’s regime.

It breaks your heart to see this, but not just for the obvious reasons. Yes, it is beyond tragic that this sort of behavior is not only legal and encouraged. Gena, and everyone else, should be able to live however they please as long as they’re not hurting anyone. However, it’s also infuriating because at times you just want to jump into the screen, smack Gena upside the head, and yell “PICK YOUR DAMN BATTLES, BITCH!” This is the dilemma that Gena’s grandparents face on a daily basis. They’ve raised Gena since childhood, and they don’t want any harm to come to their grandchild. They accept Gena as is, but are left constantly worrying for their safety and wellbeing, mostly because Gena keeps strutting out, knowing full well the potential consequences.

And why does Gena do this? Is it for some grand statement of individual freedom and civil rights? Mostly no. Yes, Gena participates in a protest against the arrest of Alexei Navalny (wearing colored duct tape in the stripes of the Russian flag), but the majority of the time spent “making art” is to promote their fucking Instagram and get modeling jobs. It should also be noted that these are unpaid jobs, which Gena’s grandfather points out repeatedly. I can respect the hustle, but I’m not giving it a goddamn Oscar. For God’s sake, the film opens with Gena in full regalia at a grocery store, acting completely shocked when the employees ask them to leave, as if the reason they’re being singled out isn’t patently obvious. “Oh no, what did I do?” Gena asks, fully aware of the camera crew following along. “I just want to buy groceries.” No you fucking don’t. You know exactly what you’re doing. Whether or not I or anyone else approves of it is immaterial. You went there with the intention of stirring things up and drawing attention. If you really cared about eggs, you’d just wear jeans and a shirt like everyone else. This required time, effort, and planning.

That’s why it’s so hard to sympathize. I don’t want any harm to come to Gena or anyone else, but honey, you’re not doing yourself any favors. There’s a time and a place for all of this, and the freaking supermarket ain’t it. You’re literally asking for trouble when you crawl around on a subway train in costumes so big you can’t possibly fit, because it only serves to piss people off. And yet you also act surprised when the police arrest you or the army tries to conscript you to the frontlines in Ukraine. This is Russia! The whole country is bears on unicycles! Stop trying to poke them! By the time Gena is forced to flee to France as a refugee, I’m just glad the movie’s over, rather than this person’s particular plight. If you keep intentionally shooting yourself in the foot, am I supposed to care if the wound gets infected? Pick your spots and live, rather than becoming a martyr to nothing.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but Gena’s outfits look grotesque. I know I shouldn’t judge things in such a shallow manner, but when I’m left with little to no substance underneath the veneer, this is what you get. RuPaul would have Gena sashay away within two episodes!

Grade: C-

Frida

Frida Kahlo was one of the greatest artists of the 20th Century. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it, especially if they saw the biopic from 20 years ago starring Salma Hayek. This film, sharing the same title, feels like we’re just going over the same ground.

This is a pretty standard biography, comprised of archive footage, home movies, and journal entries from Kahlo herself, narrated by Fernanda Echevarria. It details her love of painting from a young age, her tomboyish adolescence, the accident that nearly killed her during her college years, her eventual marriage and divorce (and second marriage) to fellow artist Diego Rivera, and her affairs and sexual proclivities. If you’ve ever studied Kahlo’s life, none of this is new.

What sets this apart from other documentaries is the somewhat controversial decision to include animation. Several of Kahlo’s paintings are rendered on screen, accompanied by action animations once they’re complete, essentially making them come alive. This is nice to look at, but it comes at the cost of intellectual credibility. The animations are modern choices by the filmmaker Carla Gutierrez, which recontextualizes the intent behind the paintings to suit the narrative being created, mostly by dramatic interpretation of Kahlo’s diaries. This doesn’t so much give us insight into Kahlo as a person, but renders her a telenovela character while also potentially denigrating her work. I don’t think that was the intent, but there are points where that was certainly the effect.

More importantly, though, this movie is just, kind of boring. Maybe it’s because I’ve seen too many other films like this, and because I already had my introductory history lesson two decades previous, but this just came off as fanfiction, a way to gussy up an interesting story that Gutierrez didn’t realize was plenty compelling on its own. As such, it’s far from a bad film, but you do have to question why this got shortlisted over more poignant and crowd-pleasing entries.

Oh wait. Brian Grazer and Ron Howard are listed as Executive Producers. Mystery solved.

Grade: B-

***

That’s all for this edition. I’ll do my best to get the rest in before nominations are revealed on Thursday, but rest assured I’ll have them all in before I cover the category itself as part of the Blitz.

Join the conversation in the comments below! Have you seen any of these films? Which one looks most interesting to you? Do you think generative movies will catch on as a new trend? Let me know! And remember, you can follow me on Twitter (fuck “X”) as well as Bluesky, and subscribe to my YouTube channel for even more content, and check out the entire BTRP Media Network at btrpmedia.com!