SXSW
Advertisement



The Business of Self-Involvement: ‘The Business of Being Born’ Trailer



It's a movie about the industry of maternity. No, it's a movie about Ricki Lake and filmmaker Abby Epstein. Stop. You're both right.

I’m so over filmmakers who put or involve themselves in their documentaries. Thanks to Michael Moore, who wasn’t the first to use first-person narrative in non-fiction filmmaking but who was certainly the one who brought it into the spotlight, so many documentarians want to be in their movies, be the subject of their movies or at least narrate their movies in a very personality-injected way. It’s like the whole Woody Allen, casting oneself as the star kind of directing, which influenced so many indie filmmakers, only it’s much worse. This isn’t to say that all documentary must be objective, and I continue to be a huge fan of McElwee and Broomfield (who apparently has changed his style of late) despite the fact that newbies like Jonathan Caouette and Zana Briski have been ruining subjective documentary filmmaking in recent years. Instead it’s to say that one shouldn’t pretend to be making a movie about a cause, when really one is making a movie about oneself, or one’s cause.

Case in point, this trailer for Abby Epstein’s The Business of Being Born, which attempts to make the documentary out to be like a footnote to Moore’s Sicko. It doesn’t really show how the film involves executive producer Ricki Lake on screen, nor does it let us know that Epstein, too, is a character. I’ll admit that I haven’t yet seen The Business of Being Born and so can not comment on just how much footage there is of Lake, who apparently gives birth in the film, or Epstein, who fortuitously became pregnant in the middle of making the film, but any amount is too much, in my opinion. I made exceptions for Don Cheadle, who executive produced Darfur Now, in which he also appears, because the film is partially about how celebrity is unfortunately the best route in which to carry a cause (and a film), but in Lake’s case it merely seems like a case of blatant self-interest. Anyway, the film opens today in New York City. And no, I’m not running out the door to see it, so it may be awhile before I find out if that self-interest works or doesn’t.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • bodytext


Related Posts:

2 Comments

  1. Posted January 9, 2008 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Just curious, but do you think the motivations of some of these filmmakers are to become famous for their cause?

    Because fame does open doors, and if you make yourself famous, doesn’t that help out your cause? There are people who have more thoughtful and insightful things to say on any given subject than a Michael Moore, but they aren’t famous.

    I also think all directors (documentary or not) put themselves into film as a way to promote themselves as a brand.

  2. Posted January 9, 2008 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    But then is the point of a documentary solely to promote your cause, to promote a cause, or simply to be an objective journalist? Obviously documentaries can be all three things. I just think it gets a little too self-satisfying for some filmmakers who involve themselves too much and figuratively pat themselves on the back in their films.

    There was an annoying quote from Ross Kauffman in New York magazine last week regarding him parading his Oscar around. I’m sure the singled-out quote is not something to be taken as an indication of him being self-congratulatory and/or pompous, but due to the way Born into Brothels is handled, I have to accept it that way.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*