![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
how not to make a documentary
Apr. 17th, 2013 08:38 pmi saw dror moreh's the gatekeepers, which ought to have been an excellent documentary. the premise is straightforward: moreh interviewed the six most recent former leaders of shabak, israel's feared secret service. people who run significant parts of major spy agencies usually don't give interviews, and until relatively recently, even the name of shabak's boss was top secret (he was traditionally just refered to by initial). so, this movie ought to have been a coup.
the problem is that moreh seems unable to resist gilding the lily. where the emphasis in an interview documentary should be on what the subject says, moreh seemed to want to show off his staged footage -- some is reconstructions of historical events, some is just pointless window-dressing -- and to try to gin up the spoken bits with fancy sound effects to make them more tense.
the movie really needs neither. it needed a defter editing hand and less attempt to hammer home moreh's own political biases about israeli policy towards the palestinians. in fact, a few scenes which end with choice quotes supporting those biases are cut so closely to the ends of the speakers saying them that i can't help but wonder about selective editing. did the next words out of their mouths change the emphasis of what they're saying? or did they color or partially retract those statements? i really shouldn't be thinking either one; how the documentary was made shouldn't be its subject.
( what the subject should have been (spoilers). )
if one has interest in how the middle east works or how spy agencies work, the movie is worth seeing on DVD... with an itchy fast-forward finger to get through moreh's staged footage. possibly with the sound off, too, to ditch the movie's unnecessary attempts to build tension via sound effects. (it's in hebrew with subtitles, so there's not much reason to listen to it unless you know the language.)
the problem is that moreh seems unable to resist gilding the lily. where the emphasis in an interview documentary should be on what the subject says, moreh seemed to want to show off his staged footage -- some is reconstructions of historical events, some is just pointless window-dressing -- and to try to gin up the spoken bits with fancy sound effects to make them more tense.
the movie really needs neither. it needed a defter editing hand and less attempt to hammer home moreh's own political biases about israeli policy towards the palestinians. in fact, a few scenes which end with choice quotes supporting those biases are cut so closely to the ends of the speakers saying them that i can't help but wonder about selective editing. did the next words out of their mouths change the emphasis of what they're saying? or did they color or partially retract those statements? i really shouldn't be thinking either one; how the documentary was made shouldn't be its subject.
( what the subject should have been (spoilers). )
if one has interest in how the middle east works or how spy agencies work, the movie is worth seeing on DVD... with an itchy fast-forward finger to get through moreh's staged footage. possibly with the sound off, too, to ditch the movie's unnecessary attempts to build tension via sound effects. (it's in hebrew with subtitles, so there's not much reason to listen to it unless you know the language.)