Last week, after hearing that Errol Morris paid some of the subjects in his new documentary Standard Operating Procedure, The New York Times published an article about the integrity of paying interview subjects in documentary film. Even though the article does explore the complexity of the issue, it also seems to me that the article is fairly against Mr. Morris and his film - the last paragraph and line of the article is very telling:
“My own position,” he added, “is that it shouldn’t be done.”(David Paletz) [New York Times]
This article angered me quite a bit. Documentary subjects have been paid for years, in fact I was at an interview with Michael Apted 2 years ago where he admitted that he paid the folks in his 7-Up series. It was the same exact situation as the interview where Morris freely spoke of paying his subjects, the difference being that nobody in the press picked up the story. To decide to publish a story like this in direct connection to a film (instead of as a general study on the topic) immediately starts to discredit the film - and when you’re dealing with a controversial film and something that is a commonplace practice of documentary filmmaking, I can’t help but find the article to be irresponsible.
But enough of me, even though I’m being objective, I obviously write for the company that has helped to release SOP - so I’ll share some from other folks in the blogosphere:
Read the rest of this entry »
After seeing Michael Haneke’s shot by shot remake of his 1997 film Funny Games this weekend I started doing a little internet hunting to see what others had to say about the film, it’s take on violence and how it worked as a remake. One of the most interesting pieces I found was in the Chicago Reader On Film Blog by Pat Graham. In his short blog entry he gives us:
Katie:
Nicole: 
Giulia:
Gina: 
Kerry:
