Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows

Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows was made in 1995, during a major boom period in professional wrestling. It was an era when Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock were coming into their own, and when the “reality” of the sport was no longer in question. What mattered most was the spectacle and the enjoyment. During this time, Bret Hart was also dominating wrestling headlines, but not for his fame, fortune, or well-earned respect. Instead, he found himself at the center of a Vince McMahon deal gone bad, and he walked away with a documentary that exposed it all.

An idealized hero, Bret Hart fully buys into the concept of doing the right thing, both in his personal life and as a WWE character. Vince McMahon, on the other hand, plays the villain, and the line between his real-life persona and his on-screen character is far less clear. Their paths cross from the very origins of the WWE and ultimately collide at a moment when the company itself appears on the verge of collapse.

Unable to separate his real-life identity from his fictional character, Bret loses sight of the difference and falls prey to the darker realities of wrestling entertainment. McMahon, however, seems incapable of recognizing a difference at all, ultimately failing to honor a departing hero in his final days with the company.

By offering a rare and intimate glimpse into the reality behind professional wrestling, the film solidifies these two figures both as wrestling icons and as real human beings. In the end, Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows reveals just how real these larger-than-life characters truly are, both inside and outside the ring.

Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/hitman_hart_wrestling_with_shadows

15 Mini Reviews by Doc This Reviews

It has been a while since I last wrote, more due to life changes than a lack of content worth watching. Truth be told, I have taken on a new job, moved from NYC to Detroit, and am currently editing projects for the Detroit Pistons. Needless to say, that has kept me busy. Nonetheless, Netflix continues to be good to me, and I have managed to work through a solid list of great films. Below are a few mini synopses.

• The Queen of Versailles
  
  These guys hit documentary gold.  This was a crew that started watching one of the richest families in the world in hopes of creating what seemed to start out to be an MTV Real World meets The Wives of Jersey Shore.  But the catastrophe of the collapsing banking and real-estate market comes crashing down in the midst of their project, and as the film progresses, the unfolding of the economic downfall during the Bush era drives their film into an interesting unfolding of riches to rags and adds a great deal of value to the overall piece.  Interesting from beginning to end and worth watching.  Overall 7.5 out of 10.

• Enjoying a PBS series on NYC called New York (Episodes 1 - 8).  I am on episode 6.  It starts to get good around the end of episode 4 and onward.  The earlier episodes just don't have the film archive to complement the historical story, so it struggles, but great history and well told.  Overall 6.5 out of 10.

• 180 South: Nice, dreamy, a bit cliché at times, with the close being a premeditated story to help assist the image of Patagonia and their South American national park project.  With the criticism goes the fact that I have watched it numerous times and purchased copies for my father and friends to enjoy.  Overall, 7 out of 10.

• Objectified:  Interesting perspective on how designers design, furthered by a message of how they wish they designed.  Seems a copy of the doc Helvetica's style without the level of sustained interest and high-quality editorial storytelling.  It's filled with tons of great beauty shots of symbols, shapes, and designs to be expected from top designers and appropriate to the culture.  Overall 6.5 out of 10.

• Planet Earth, the series by Discovery...not a lot to tell on this, as I think anyone and everyone knows its name and its quality.  If not, just Google it, but great for notes on shooting natural environments. Overall 7.5 out of 10

• Sicko:  What can I say? Moore has never been so marginalized in his attempt to keep his audience.  If you're informed enough, you can pick out the parts that are of value, but in general, it's a horribly one-sided story that follows his usual thread of one-sided propaganda sold as 'good journalism.' I do like the end, though, and it is mildly discouraging how backward a system, when dissected into small parts, can seem.  I was a Moore fan around the time of Bowling for Columbine, but have since lost faith in his process, which is often sensational propaganda sold as journalism. Overall 5.5 out of 10.

• Michael Moore Hates America: It's a low-budget piece that isn't horribly well-made, but if you have ever watched a Michael Moore film or enjoyed his perspective.  Then it is worth taking a look at the underdeveloped but valid perspective of someone from the other side. Overall, 6 out of 10.

• *Gasland:  Oh my, this reality is scary and even more shortly after watching I stood by helplessly as this type of drilling, 'Fracking' took place across the road from my parents' house in Michigan...how lovely.  The H2O state (Great Lakes State) gets the gift of the worst thing to happen in drilling since we stuck the needle in our vein for energy.  Overall, 8 out of 10.

• Urbanized:  Very dry from a story perspective, very interesting from a global development perspective.  Great for a 101 course on cities.  6 of 10 on entertainment, but 8.5 of 10 on education level.  Overall, 7 out of 10.

• *Deep Water: Top-shelf storytelling and uncovering of archived footage to put together an epic telling of a story that would rarely be anywhere but in a book.  Global sailing, competition, death, and uncovering a mystery.  A great combo and a must-see!  Overall 9.5 out of 10.

• Herb and Dorthy:  A lovely concept poorly told.  Take a rare couple of New York art collectors living in art-stuffed quarters with classic collections from amazing art shows over the past 40-plus years, and in my eyes, you have documentary gold...that is, if you gather, organize, and assemble correctly.  Then do some fun stuff in the editing bay, and pow, you got it, but they missed it.  In any case, don't take it off the shelf; it is worth considering for a watch, but keep your expectations in check.  Overall 7 of 10.

• Capitalism: A Love Story...read my review on Moore for Sicko and add it here with the doc title.  But I did watch it and learned something... Overall, 6 out of 10.

• *Burden of Dreams (a documentary covering the making of Fitzcarraldo): This is a classic and unquestionably better than the film, but it makes watching the film more enjoyable.  Pick it up on a Saturday afternoon and learn just how dedicated filmmaker Werner Herzog is to his craft.  Can someone sign me up for his next film?  Overall 8.5 out of 10.

• Radio Bikini:  Interesting telling of A-bomb testing on Bikini Island post WWII and the unfolding of its effects on the environment and people involved.  Great archive, interesting facts, and scary truths of what we did with reckless care to what we knew. Worth your time.  Overall, 8 out of 10.

• Slasher: Good, Bad, and Ugly... It's a crazy car salesman, and if you like character studies, then pick it up and hold your breath.  Won't tell you to watch it, won't stop from doing so... Overall 7 out of 10.

• The Girl Next Door:  Good behind-the-scenes look at how strange porn really is when you see just how it is made...it's not overly graphic, but review at your own risk.  Overall 6.5 out of 10.

That's what I got for this review of DOC THIS.  Hey, let me know what you like and discover your own discoveries in the comments below.  And please pass it around!!

The Devil and Daniel Johnston by Jeff Feuerzeig

I have a new number one, and it is about to burst out of me. The Devil and Daniel Johnston may quite possibly be the most well-developed documentary of the past decade. Why? First and foremost, the archive. This film may contain the greatest archive of one person’s life that I have ever seen in a documentary. That alone would earn it the top spot, but it does not even begin to touch the story of this fascinating human life. Told through the eyes and ears of this film, it made me want to jump straight into it and live even a small portion of it myself.

Making The Devil and Daniel Johnston must have been one of those rare moments where a documentary filmmaker finds themselves standing in absolute glory after uncovering a mine of archival gold. The stacks and stacks of material surrounding the making of this film must have created endless possibilities for story development, ultimately giving birth to a documentary that feels almost staged in its perfection. Of course, the other side of that gift would have been the painstaking process of sorting through it all and knowing what to leave in and what to cut. In the end, what emerges is a deeply compelling portrait of Daniel Johnston, supported by the footage and audio needed to truly understand what it was like to live inside his world.

Raised in Pennsylvania in a conservative home with strict values, Daniel Johnston struggled to fit in. Sometime in his late teen years, he broke free from it all in a collision of madness and music and hit the road. Gifted as an artist yet struggling with reality, his relationships with family grew tense. His outlets became art, music, and short films, mirroring his internal life back to the world. Obsessed with recording his existence on tape, he captured moments of personal thought, bursts of musical brilliance, and an astonishing archive of family secrets that reveal a household many of us can recognize.

The story of Daniel Johnston, like his mind, moved in two directions. And with Daniel, those directions were always straight up or straight down. Breaking away from his roots, he played his way to the top of the Austin music scene, creating a roar that rivaled anything the region had produced before. Rising toward what he believed was his destiny, Daniel found himself on the early stages of MTV, holding attention just long enough to leave a mark. With a growing legacy of cassette-recorded music, his agent worked tirelessly to get him recognized, eventually pushing Daniel into the center of a record label bidding war that left behind both legend and infamy.

But with Daniel, there was always a deal with the devil, and the devil never forgets. Everything eventually came crashing down. He lost his record deal, stopped making music, destroyed his artwork, and quite literally brought both himself and his father’s plane to the ground. Confronted with the reality of his collapsing mental health, Daniel began a long road back toward sanity, a journey that both saved him and erased parts of who he once was.

When the film jumps forward to the time it was shot, we find Daniel healthier and singing one of my favorite songs, Casper the Friendly Ghost. It is here, in both the film and this song, that Daniel appears at his most beautiful. He is softer, larger, and older. Less wire, more reflection. And if you listen closely to the lyrics, it feels as though he understands that he himself has become Casper, and that Casper was always who he was meant to be.

---
TRAILER

Since its watching, I have fallen in love with this movie and with Daniel and his music.   I have researched more of his work, listened to more of his songs, and gained an understanding that, as the directors share in their commentary, Daniel quite possibly is one of the greatest songwriters and singers of our time, yet unknown.

I hope you will follow up with watching and I would welcome hearing your comments and thoughts.

DANIEL JOHNSTON LINKS:

CASPER THE FRIENDLY GHOST: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrNT-4hXD3w

OFFICIAL WEBSITE: http://www.hihowareyou.com/ 

TWITTER: @danieljohnston  

FAN PAGE: http://www.rejectedunknown.com/

STORE: http://www.rejectedunknown.com/store/

FORUM: http://www.hihowareyou.com/messageboard/

FULL LENGTH MOVIE ON YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHsKByGW7JE

FURTHER LINKS:

True Love" appears in new Axe hair commercial!  http://youtu.be/NvX71ZbTk-E

Brother’s Keeper by Joe Berlinger & Bruce Sinofsky

Brother’s Keeper landed in the mail from Netflix on the recommendation of a friend of mine, and within the first 20 minutes, it was already a top ten on my list. By the end, it had moved firmly into my top five.

Call me behind the times. The film was released in 1992, yet it feels as relevant and powerful today as it did when it was born. It took me a while to put it together, but after about 45 minutes I realized I was watching a documentary that felt like a hybrid of the novels To Kill a Mockingbird and The Grapes of Wrath. The film uncovers a small town, backwoods way of life and explores a rare pocket of human nature, all while taking on a court case that flushes out the uniqueness of four brothers who had lived together in one house since birth. I found myself struck again and again by a quiet sense of awe, though I wasn’t entirely sure why.

Set on a farm in upstate New York, the brothers had lived their entire lives together in a run down, ramshackled house, described in the director’s commentary as a kind of personal sanctuary. One morning, they wake to find one of the four not breathing in his bed, with markings on his face that point to death by suffocation. After picking up the story in a local newspaper and following it from near its origin, Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky worked quickly to secure the rights to film the events following the brother’s death, documenting what unfolded all the way to the courtroom.

Over the ensuing one hour and forty five minutes, the film reveals the fascinating lives of these four brothers, the farm they grew up on, and the conflicting elements of the legal case. Together, these layers show just how confused the legal system, law enforcement, and state government can become when they collide with a closed, independent small town culture in the rural countryside of a major state.

At first glance, the average viewer may set this film aside without stopping to see why it is so remarkable. Looking closer into this small subculture challenges our ability to understand natural non conformity. It is far easier for a trained, modern mind to dismiss the brothers as strange or out of touch. But if you look deeper, you begin to see something rare and deeply human.

What emerges is a sense of self and simplicity, a way of life that does not seek approval from larger systems of thought. It is this independence that defines these men and their town’s belief in the right to make their own choices, even if that means being damned by a system that believes it knows better. That independence is both beautiful and dangerous in an age shaped by fear and suspicion of small, self contained groups.

This way of life is disappearing rapidly from the public eye, and Brother’s Keeper offers a fleeting glimpse into a world that may soon no longer exist. It is that glimpse that makes this film a top five for me, a moment we may not be able to look into again.

TRAILER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlDSGMAyUrE

FULL LENGTH ON YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvroFeisc9k&feature=related

Manufacturing Consent directed by Mark Achbar

Just over a year ago, I had the opportunity to interview Mark Achbar about his documentary The Corporation, a film that rightfully earned its reputation as a cultural and intellectual lightning rod. Since that conversation, I had been eager to finally sit down with another of his original works, Manufacturing Consent, and this week I was able to do just that. After watching the film three times over the course of six days, I’ve fallen completely in love with it, and these are a few thoughts that continue to linger.

Manufacturing Consent is, in many ways, a blast from the past assuming you consider its 1992 release date to be “the past.” Yet despite its age, the decades since its release have not dulled its relevance or impact. In fact, time has only sharpened it. Watching the film today feels much like rereading George Orwell’s 1984 in the present era. What once felt speculative now feels disturbingly familiar.

Centering on Noam Chomsky, the nearly three hour documentary is structured in a linear, categorical fashion that lays out his biography and body of work without the use of traditional narration or authored text. Instead, the film relies almost entirely on archival footage and sound bites from Chomsky’s public lectures and interviews. It is a rare editorial choice and one I both admire and fear.

From beginning to end, the film is packed with compelling clips drawn from Chomsky’s speaking history. I found myself captivated not only by his perspectives on society and media which are globally original and intellectually sharp but even more so by his method of exposing the premeditated and manufactured influence of American media since its earliest foundations. He carefully outlines how those in power use media to steer public opinion toward their own interests. It is a viewpoint rarely articulated with such precision, and I found myself continually drawn in by his ability to present complex ideas in a way that is both enlightening and deeply challenging.

Despite being a respected scholar and a devoted family man, Chomsky has remained steadfast in beliefs that have marginalized him within mainstream culture and, at times, threatened his professional standing. He openly speaks about freedom of speech, selective media coverage, military power, and political manipulation topics most public intellectuals avoid. As a result, he exists largely outside pop culture visibility and political favor, despite the immense value of his work. Ironically, this exclusion only reinforces the film’s central argument: that limiting exposure to dissenting perspectives helps streamline public thought and effectively “manufacture consent.”

What I respect most about Noam Chomsky is his ability to see outside the box in a way most people simply cannot. It is the kind of perspective that might make others want to scream, “You’re all going the wrong way.” Yet Chomsky, rather than shouting, calmly invites you to look again and decide for yourself.

That said, both the film and its subject are not without their weaknesses. The documentary is edited almost entirely through tightly matched sound and image bites, stitched together to form its narrative. While this approach is artistically compelling, it also restricts the range of information presented and subtly guides the viewer toward a specific conclusion based on what is included versus what is omitted. Some might argue that this is simply the nature of documentary filmmaking, but in doing so, the film arguably employs the same selective techniques it critiques within mainstream media.

In reality, limited information shapes perception in all forms of programming. As the film itself points out, when news entered television, it left the realm of journalism and entered show business. This truth applies universally. And while I am a strong supporter of Chomsky’s work and a genuine admirer of Manufacturing Consent, it is a film best watched with awareness and a critical eye.

Perhaps the most valuable takeaway is not agreement or disagreement with its thesis, but a heightened awareness of the information we consume, the motives behind those delivering it, and the stories that never make it into the mainstream at all.

For viewers with access to Hulu, Manufacturing Consent is available to stream there. A full length version can also be found on YouTube.

Thanks for reading.

--

For viewers who can access Hulu you can watch this doc online here at Hulu.

Also Youtube has a full length version available here on Youtube.

DOC THIS SPOT LIGHT: THE BLACK POWER MIXTAPE 1967 - 1975

DOC THIS is SPOTLIGHTING The Black Power Mixtape 1967–1975, a documentary directed by Göran Hugo Olsson that brings to life a remarkable trove of archival material from one of the most transformative eras in modern American history.

The film isn’t a traditional linear narrative. Instead, it is a cinematic mixtape of material shot by Swedish journalists between 1967 and 1975 who came to the United States to document stories of racial injustice, urban unrest, and revolutionary change at the height of the Black Power and civil rights movements. Thirty years later, this 16mm footage was rediscovered in the archives of Swedish Television and thoughtfully reassembled into a documentary that feels fresh, raw, and immediate.

What makes The Black Power Mixtape 1967–1975 so compelling is its blend of visually rich historical footage with contemporary voiceover commentary from influential artists, scholars, and activists. Through this combination, the film captures both the look and feel of the era — the music, the fashion, the streets, and the personalities that defined a movement — while offering insight into what those images meant then and what they mean now.

The documentary features intimate and unguarded moments with key figures of the Black Power movement such as Stokely Carmichael, Angela Davis, Bobby Seale, and Eldridge Cleaver, giving viewers insight into the evolution of ideas about Black autonomy, self defense, and cultural pride that challenged the dominant narratives of the time.

Complementing the archival footage are the voices of artists and thinkers like Erykah Badu, Talib Kweli, Questlove, and Harry Belafonte, whose reflections bridge the historical struggle with its ongoing resonance in culture and politics today. This treatment turns the film into more than just a historical document; it becomes a living conversation about empowerment, resistance, identity, and the costs of systemic oppression.

The mixtape format — a series of visual chapters tied together with music and narration rather than strict chronology — gives the film an almost rhythmic quality, reminding us that these years were not just events on a timeline, but moments in lives lived with urgency and passion. The Black Power Mixtape doesn’t try to offer a complete history of the movement, nor does it shy away from its contradictions and controversies, but it does open a window into the era with unprecedented access and emotional clarity.

Ultimately, the film stands as both a historical time capsule and a reminder that the issues it explores — racial justice, power structures, cultural identity, and resistance — are still deeply relevant. Watching it is not only an education in the past but an invitation to reflect on today.

Go look it up, check it out, and let us know what you think when you do.

If a Tree Falls, directed by Marshall Curry

Just finished watching If a Tree Falls, directed by Marshall Curry, and it is a knock your socks off piece of filmmaking.

If you have ever wondered what drives environmental activists to chain themselves to trees, fight the system, and earn labels that leave corporate couch potatoes dazed and confused, this film lays it out with clarity and restraint. Told through the capture, trial, and prosecution of Daniel McGowan, the documentary explores how a thoughtful and seemingly grounded individual became involved in acts that would ultimately label him an environmental terrorist and arsonist.

MARSHALL CURRY

The film is edited masterfully, using linear interviews that carefully unfold the story while blending reenactments, archival footage, and amateur video into a seamless and emotionally driven narrative. The post-production recreations are effective without being sensational, supporting the story rather than overpowering it. The result is a heartfelt and unsettling look at how frustration with the system can push someone from protest into direct action, even when that action results in millions of dollars of destroyed private property.

What makes the film so effective is its balance. From beginning to end, it allows both sides to speak. It does not excuse the crimes, nor does it flatten the motivations behind them. By the time the film reached its conclusion, I was surprised to find myself conflicted. While fully aware of the severity of McGowan’s actions, I still found myself wishing the punishment could somehow just go away. That emotional tension speaks to how successfully the film humanizes its subject without asking the audience to agree with him.

This is a powerful and thought-provoking documentary that stays with you long after the credits roll.

The film is currently available to stream and rent online, including on Netflix. Watch it when you get the chance and let me know what you think.

This was a DOC THIS report by Barry Walton

What is, THE HIGH: MAKING THE TOUGHEST RACE ON EARTH about?

It is three in the morning and it is happening again. I am waking up from a dead sleep and gasping for breath, but this time it is combined with a nightmare that I am suffocating and it makes it all the more frightening. It’s the 3rd night in a row now and I am scared to fall asleep, and even more scared that this whole thing is going to come to an end before it starts. After 30 minutes, I try again but then panic – my mouth wide open grasping for air.

HIMALAYAS OF NORTHERN INDIA
Where am I and what am I doing here? I am in the Himalayas of Northern India at 12,000 feet and I am following a rare group of ultra running trailblazers at the 2nd running of the highest altitude ultra in the world, and have been acclimatizing to the altitude now for three days.

HIMALAYAS OF NORTHERN INDIA

It has been a year ago since I followed up on an email telling of an ultra running doctor out of New Delhi who was creating a new race that included running the two highest motorable passes in the world. I called him up and he started by telling me of how he thought up the idea. It was a day-run up to a place called Rohtang La (the pass of piled corpses). The goal was just to have fun running with friends up to 13,000 feet. An elevation challenge for an ultra runner bound to his homeland, India, for work. But the run was cut short by a landslide and they found themselves in a warm café drinking tea and staring into the wave-like road map of the Manali–Leh Highway, wondering what if.

It wasn’t apparent to me at the time I was hearing this, but the idea of running at these altitudes seems insane. The first time at 18,300 feet, the body doesn’t respond all that great and the pulse-ox meter that one runner is testing tells us so. The heart rate is at 112 beats of the normal 60 and the body’s O2 is down to 76% of its norm of 98%. But the body does change. Red blood cell building and O2 adapting, slowly the lungs make better use of the oxygen and as the days pass, we are all starting to see our heart rates drop and blood O2 levels go up, and this is a good thing. It means I am not going to get on that plane and fly home. It means I am going to see the starting line after all.

After Rohtang La, Rajat returned home to his family and found himself struggling to think of anything other than this map of the Himalayas. His mind started to crunch the numbers and his fingers started to punch up the details and in 9-months time he had constructed a race crossing 137-miles (222km) covering the passes of Khardung La (18,300ft) and Tanglang La (17,583ft) before finishing in the Morey Plains at 15,000 feet. Now all that was left was finding runners to run it.

2011 START OF THE HIGH

ULTRA HIGH: RUNNING AT 18,000 FEET
Sifting through the ultra running pool, he found 30-runners to say yes, but as time would have it that number trickled down to one – Molly Sheridan – and now that one was standing in front of me at the second running of what became the documentary film Ultra High: Running at 18,000 Feet (released in 2010 at 1 hour 10 minutes and distributed internationally, later becoming available on streaming platforms).

Next to her, pacing like race horses were Ray Sanchez (USA), Lisa Tamati (NZ), Samantha Gash (AU), Jason Rita (AU), and Sharon Gayter (UK). And so while I sat backwards filming on my motorcycle, they were waiting to take on this challenge before it took them.

The run to Khardung La isn’t all that bad. Once your body has acclimatized to the altitude it is pretty good at taking on the first 26 miles. By the time the runners get to the peak each of them are still moving at a pretty good pace and looking at a long 26-mile downhill into Leh before planing off for a 45-mile stretch through the high desert of the Leh Valley. But the comforts of this flat land can turn dark. The continuous hours of low level O2 can sneak up on you leaving you with exhaustion, dehydration, cramps, and worse. It is something to be aware of and it was this element that crept up on the runners in that first year’s event and almost ended the entire race before it began.

Rajat’s thirty runners had turned to one and that one runner, Molly, helped turn it into three. By race day of 2010, Rajat was poised at the starting line doing the countdown and with a click of a second those faithful three were off and carrying with them the unknown question of if this race could even be done.

Molly at Khardung La (18,300ft), 2010
Months before this moment Rajat had worked to do his math. He was a doctor after all and it wouldn’t look good for a doctor to have dead runners on his hands. So he visited the Special Forces branch of the Indian Military to gather information on how to prepare the body for the high altitude. Standing square in the office of some of the highest officials in the land there was dead silence as the officers listened to his race idea before looking him in the eye and stating, “Are you mad! No one can do this…it is impossible”.

Words to live by one might think, but not Rajat. Not the man who grew up in a home where the word “NO” to his running interest was all too common a theme. A theme that left him seeking the very outlet of this race today. And so he set off to make this race bulletproof and prove to the military, his country, and the ultra world that this run could and would be done. But now 24-hours into his own race, two of his runners were in the ICU with one getting evacuated for further emergency care.

It was Molly who went first to the ICU. She had gone too long without water coming down Khardung La and needed an IV to recover. Bill Andrews came second and shortly after with problems that required an immediate flight out. And so there was only one – Mark Cockbain – and the questions again arose of if this race was even possible.

Why do you do it? That was the question I used to ask. Why do you run these distances? I was only just learning about this sport and the answer for them was simple, “because we can”.

MARK COCKBAIN, TANGLANG LA 2010

Humans can endure amazing things and in that endurance we can discover something about ourselves that we never knew.

By this time, Rumptse was the town on everyone’s mind. It is the last cutoff point before the finish and the place to rest before the final push up Tanglang La.

Mark Cockbain on his way to Tanglang La 2010
I thought about myself for a moment when I first met Mark in the UK for an interview. Would I have been willing to drive towards that finish line all alone? There was no glory in this. There were no competitors to go up against. There was only the long dirt road ahead and an empty finish line. And the answer is I don’t know. For Mark however, none of that really mattered. All that mattered was that he was only a few steps from crossing over the top of Tanglang La and needed to go down.

Watching Mark cross over the top, Rajat hopped back in his car to finalize plans with Molly and Bill. Arriving at the hospital in Leh, Bill was in bad condition and Molly was by his side. Assessing that more proper medical care was in order, they booked tickets and hopped on a plane home. Leaving the ground it became clear for them both that the race was over, but not finished.

Standing at the finish line one year later, surrounded by cars, ambulance, crews, and a banner, the excitement of the 2nd year’s finish was in the air. Walkie-talkie updates were coming in and it wasn’t certain who would arrive first. In those last 14 hours at around 17,000 feet, Sharon Gayter overtook Ray Sanchez and fought to keep the lead ever since. Watching with excitement you could vocally hear her panting as she turned the final 100-yards towards the finish. Pushing herself to her limits, her lungs were screaming for air as she crossed the finish line and collapsed into the hands of the medics. The crew was in a roar – the first runner had officially made it, but there was more to come and others were still out there.

Sharon Gayter crossing a landslide 2011
Seeing Molly and Bill off on the plane, Rajat now was driving back to find Mark with a million thoughts on his mind. Did they make it? Are they safe? Do we have a race or is this a lost cause? But the answer wasn’t easy. After leaving them at Tanglang La the night before, Mark and his crew made a dangerous mistake. Tired and exhausted from all they had done, and suffocating from a lack of O2, they pulled the car off the road and with Mark inside each fell asleep.

I imagine Mark’s last dream up there was similar to mine during acclimatization. Laying there in the back of that truck suffocating and hypoxic, he snapped out of that slumber and rocked forward with one thought in mind, “We have to get out of here and start moving or we are just going to lay here and die”. First with the right foot and then with the left, Mark kept moving and one step at a time he made his way down to lower ground and the finish.

It was daylight now and Rajat was headed to the rendezvous point of Whiskey Junction. He had checked the finish line first to see it empty without sign of Mark or crew. Now he was searching for them in the last place they could be. Pulling into the rest area he looked around quickly and found them down by the river, bathing their feet. Grabbing his breath and looking more closely, he could see they were smiling. It wasn’t much, but it was enough. With that it became apparent they had finished the race and it was done. The impossible had become possible and it was time to go home and celebrate.

SHARON GAYTER CROSSING A LANDSLIDE 2011

Sitting here at the finish and rethinking through the 2010 race, I am now starting to wonder where Molly is. Listening to the radio I heard that she didn’t make the cutoff at Rumptse and I don’t know where she is now, but I do know one thing: I really hope she makes it. It isn’t because she didn’t finish the first race last year or that I want to see a comeback story come true. It’s because Molly is that person who gives you that little push in life, the push we all need to get our dreams going towards true, and now I want to see her get that push so that hers come true too.

As seconds turned to minutes and the clock struck down to under one hour, we saw that last runner coming around the final turn and it was her. Out in front of me, holding the finish line banner and waiting for her arrival was Rajat and most likely he was thinking about all that it took to get them here: the dream of doing it, the work to make it, and the moment when Molly said she would stay by his side. Watching her cross the finish I knew it was complete. It was finished for her and for him as well. Standing there in front of my camera was a pair of people – one who dreamt the impossible and one who believed it could be done.

The remarkable story of making this ultra marathon has been captured in the featured documentary Ultra High: Running at 18,000 Feet (released internationally and now available to watch on streaming platforms like Apple TV and Prime Video).

          

The Corporation, directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott

The Corporation, directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, and based on the work of Joel Bakan, is not a film designed to entertain or keep you on the edge of your seat. It does not rush through information for the attention impaired, nor does it offer small, bite sized talking points meant for casual conversation at work. Instead, it is a film grounded in facts and analysis. It speaks less about the problems already visible and more about those looming ahead. At its core, it challenges untethered capitalism and asks us to consider how being the best at what you do can be as dangerous as it is beneficial.

By outlining the corporation as a psychopathic, self obsessed, disconnected, and manipulative entity, the film focuses on the unsettling reality that corporations are legally defined as persons and granted the same rights that come with that designation. Achbar, Abbott, Bakan, and their team sift through roughly one hundred and fifty years of history, tracing how corporations shaped American legislation to evolve into what they are today. By tackling the legal definition of corporate personhood head on, the filmmakers turn the very centerpiece of corporate power against itself, exposing how dangerous this terminology truly is.

Placing this corporate “person” into the seat of a psychologist, the film methodically evaluates it against the criteria used to assess a healthy human being. One by one, the corporation fails. Each trait reveals a pattern of behavior that would be deemed socially destructive if found in an individual. Over its one hundred and forty five minute runtime, The Corporation makes it painfully clear that if left unchecked, the modern corporation will become, is becoming, and in many cases already has become, a monster capable of consuming everything in its path.

The central question that lingers throughout the film is deceptively simple. What does any of this have to do with me? While the documentary addresses how the system affects individuals, it spends less time examining how individuals affect the system. The answer, perhaps uncomfortably, must come from within. Because no matter how clearly we understand the dangers posed by corporations like Walmart, McDonald’s, Nike, and others, they continue to make our lives easier. They offer convenience, efficiency, and comfort, quietly dulling our sense of urgency.

Even as they manipulate laws, exploit global labor, and shape future consumers from childhood, these corporations remain embedded in a system most of us do not feel compelled to change. And perhaps that is exactly how they would prefer it to remain.

If you get the chance, rent a copy and experience it from your own perspective. Let me know when you do.

Thanks for reading.

TRAILER & EXTRAS

 

Mindscape of Alan Moore, directed by DeZ Vylenz

There are times in life when you come across a film that is neither great in its entirety nor dynamic in structure, yet when it ends, it leaves you feeling changed, wanting more, and still trying to digest what you have seen. Mindscape of Alan Moore, directed by DeZ Vylenz, is just such a film.

Hidden behind a mass of hair and beard, mysteriously adorned with gothic style rings, a cutoff T-shirt, and a deck of magical cards constantly in motion, Alan Moore at times resembles a softer, more introspective version of Charles Manson. He is the kind of character who might send those with a weaker stomach running from the outset. But if you can see past the visual distraction, resist the urge to dismiss him outright, and keep your own wisdom intact, the film rewards you with moments of thoughtful insight into creativity, perception, and the human condition.

The film opens with Moore facing the camera and narrating his own life story. Early on, he demonstrates his manipulation of language by reframing the word trafficking, typically associated with illegality, to describe his approach to writing fiction. “I traffic in fiction,” he explains. “I do not traffic in lies.” While initially distracting, this wordplay quickly colors the portrait of the man, offering an early glimpse into the philosophical case study that follows.

Turning to his childhood, Moore reflects on his formative years with remarkable composure. Sharing deeply personal memories, mistakes, and realizations in what feels almost like a single uninterrupted take, he displays an ease that draws you closer. Sitting under lights with a crew present is rarely comfortable, yet Moore moves through stories of failure and defeat with a calm that helps explain the man he has become.

After dropping out of society and drifting through the lower rungs of working life, cleaning toilets and handling animal carcasses, Moore makes what he calls a “shot in the dark” decision to become an author. In doing so, he articulates one of the film’s most striking ideas: that to truly create, one must abandon both the fear of failure and the desire for success. The idea that the purest actions are those performed without lust for results is unexpected coming from someone whose appearance might suggest otherwise, and it is here that the film fully earns attention.

As Moore moves through his career, he opens up about his work for DC Comics on The Swamp Thing and his relocation to America, which he describes as part of a “brain drain.” His critiques of American fascism, authorship, and cultural misuse are delivered obliquely, but these ideas seem to crystallize in his most famous work, Watchmen, later adapted into a feature film. When discussing fame, Moore offers surprisingly grounded insights into its dangers and distortions, ultimately choosing to live out his beliefs by returning to Northampton, England, and beginning a new chapter away from the spotlight.

At forty, Moore declares himself a magician, and it is here that both the film and the man begin to drift further from concrete ground. Logic, history, and metaphor blur as Moore reframes reality through a mystical lens. These moments can feel confusing or even alienating, yet they also provide an unusual window into the thought structures of a deeply intelligent and imaginative mind.

By aligning modern writers with ancient shamans and portraying contemporary authors as cultural prostitutes stripped of authority, Moore emphasizes the power of the written word and its frequent misuse. At the same time, he moves freely between fact and metaphor, a skill sharpened through years of crafting fiction. This is where his insights become both compelling and potentially dangerous, and where the viewer is best served by maintaining a healthy sense of caution.

Ultimately, Mindscape of Alan Moore invites you into locked rooms of thought and offers keys shaped by Moore’s own interpretations. Over seventy-eight minutes of dialogue, his slow, hypnotic voice works through nearly every major facet of life. He challenges the limits of perception, redefines how individuals understand their surroundings, critiques distorted ideas of sex and war, invites participation in what he calls creative mind space, and reflects on the overwhelming influx of information driven by modern technology. In the film’s final moments, he delivers some of the most imaginative and provocative ideas presented throughout.

In closing, if you can set aside the film’s sometimes intimidating visuals, move past surface judgments of appearance, and take the time to engage seriously with the thoughts being presented, Mindscape of Alan Moore proves to be a mentally stimulating and creatively challenging experience. You may walk away with a deeper understanding of a worldview very different from your own, and perhaps a few new ways of thinking unlocked along the way.

Thanks for reading.

DIRECTOR DeZ Vylenz
http://www.shadowsnake.com/biogeo_dez.html

Our Daily Bread, directed by Nikolaus Geyrhalter

I was first introduced to Our Daily Bread, directed by Nikolaus Geyrhalter, in 2009 while watching a series of documentaries focused on industrialized food that I had discovered through Netflix. Within a grouping of three films, Food Inc., King of Corn, and Our Daily Bread, this one stood out immediately for its unconventional approach to the subject. By choosing to eliminate dialogue and narration entirely, and relying solely on natural sound, the film engaged my thoughts in a way the other two documentaries did not, forcing me to actively process what I was seeing rather than being guided toward a conclusion.

The film opens with an unsettling calm. Pig carcasses hang blankly from ceiling hooks, drifting past the lens as the camera follows an employee cleaning the floor beneath them. From there, the film moves methodically from pigs to mechanized gardening, from mechanized gardening to cows lined up for slaughter, from cows awaiting slaughter to vast yellow fields of sunflowers being sprayed by a crop duster, and then to baby chickens rolling down a conveyor belt like car parts on an assembly line. The visual rhythm establishes early on that Our Daily Bread intends to cover the full spectrum of modern food production, leaving little room to question how what ends up on the dinner table arrived there.

Colorful and quietly disturbing, the film stirs emotion through imagery alone as it presents industrial food production across Europe. Making this system appear visually beautiful while simultaneously revealing its dangers is no small task, yet Geyrhalter manages to strike that balance. At times, the experience feels like Baraka colliding with food production, where composition and movement seduce the eye while the subject matter unsettles the mind.

Over its ninety-minute runtime, Our Daily Bread leaves you in awe of how far we have come in the mass production of food, while gently nudging you toward a more uncomfortable question. Just because we can produce food this way, does it mean we should continue? The absence of commentary leaves that decision entirely with the viewer, making the film linger long after the final image fades.

--

INTERVIEW WITH DIRECTOR NIKOLAUS GEYRHALTER:
Taking the opportunity to delve deeper into how it was made, where the idea came from, and how it effected the people who made it.  I took the opportunity to speak with director Nikolaus Geyrhalter about the making of the piece and this is what he had to say:

DOC THIS:  My first thought is how did you come up with the idea of building this piece?
Nikolaus: Usually, I make the films I would like to see and that no one has shown...and so I was very curious about the subject. My interests didn’t have to do so much with the message that the film has at first instead I initially just wanted to see what was happening with our food and then figure out for myself what the film was about.

DT: In regards to the audio, what drove the choice to go without it in this project?
N: Actually I wouldn't say it’s without audio. It’s without narration and commentary. I mean there is audio in the sense that there is the original sound and this sound is so telling. I honestly wouldn’t have known what to add. I mean - I wanted the audience to be able to really see and hear and feel for themselves and then be able to build up there own opinion. I think that this style versus telling them what to think is much stronger because everyone really can enter the same room, the same area - much like I did when filming and then hopefully they can be over-whelmed in the same way that I was. So I think it was just the right choice to leave the audience alone with what they see…like I was alone with what I saw when I was shooting it.

DT: With an experience like this, how does it changed you?
N: Well –um I was shooting the piece over two years, so I saw a lot of change. But I guess for me what I would say is this...on one hand now I really do believe that organic food is better food. I would never think that for me to become a vegetarian would solve the problem, but I guess I just think that you can try to go organic as much as you possibly can. The other thing I learned is if you try to eat as clean as possible and go organic and if you do all the ‘right stuff’ to try to avoid this industry, you simply can’t really avoid it at some level.  Even if you can escape it because you have the money to afford to buy better food you must realize that there are other people who may not have that money and won’t be able to do that.  So it is the kind of reality that we are facing and living in whether you like it or not…for me I guess there are a lot of concerns.  But at the moment I guess do what I can.  I grow my own potato’s and try to live as organic as possible and that is it.

DT: I am curious with some of the factories with the chickens and the cows and what not.  Did you light those rooms or did you just shoot them with natural light?
N: No, it was all natural light. I didn’t have the chance to put any artificial light in.  Although it wasn’t really necessary because the light as it is it’s part of the architecture - it’s part of the structure of those rooms, so I was very happy to just work with the light that I found.

DT: Where there any scenes that you had to cut out for the length of time or other reasons that you wish you could have left in?
N: You know we cut out all the interviews.   We did do interviews, but it was a decision during the start of editing that interviews were just too boring and so we decided from the very beginning not to use any interviews at all.  It was just that we felt that what ever the people interviewed had to say it would not contribute to the film at all because what we saw with our own eyes was much stronger than what people could tell.  So this was the big change of direction in the film that we decided that we wouldn’t have any thing the interviewers said in it…it was not the original concept.

DT: When you were starting to work on it, how did you go about getting funding? Or how difficult was it to get commissioned for this project?
N: I have to say that in Austria we are very lucky because there is serious funding for documentaries especially if they are made for cinema. And usually you will get some amount of funding for research and then you have to apply again, but if the project is approved you will find they are able to award good amounts of funding for documentaries here.  Now it is getting a little more complicated as the budgets are getting smaller and smaller every year, but at that time to receive funding was not that complicated.

DT: Are you working on anything new now?
N: In the moment I am about to finish a film about Europe and this is also a film without commentary or narration. From the structure it can be compared with Our Daily Bread, but it’s more about where we as a society are standing right now and it also has to do with immigration and deportation.

DT: Is that connected with terrorism, international, or what is the theme connected with?
N: No, its more a bit philosophical about just where our country or Europe in general stands and how superior or inferior we really are or are not.  I wouldn’t even necessarily call it a documentary, but more like an essay.

DT: What’s the name of it?
N: In German it will probably be ABENDLAND in English I think it will just be called Europe.

DT:  Thanks for your time.
N: My pleasure thanks for your interest.

Reviewing this film and speaking to Nikolaus about its making was an honor and I hope you enjoyed.  As always I encourage you to comment with thoughts on the review or film as well as check out the links for preview and purchase.

Thanks for reading!

--






--


OFFICIAL WEBSITE: http://www.ourdailybread.at/jart/projects/utb/website.jart?rel=en

Standing Army, directed by Enrico Parenti and Thomas Fazi

I was recently introduced to Standing Army, directed by Enrico Parenti and Thomas Fazi, by an Italian friend of mine who works at RAI, Italy’s national television network. He felt the film might interest me, given that I am an American, a veteran, and a filmmaker, and he was right. The documentary was produced by an Italian crew who were inspired to make the film following the announcement that the United States military planned to build a new base in Vicenza, Italy, a decision that moved forward despite widespread public opposition, protests from local residents, and outspoken political resistance from the region.

The film begins by documenting these protests before expanding outward, taking the viewer on a tour of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo and then grounding its argument in unclassified statistics and extensive archival footage related to the US military. Over the course of three years, Parenti and Fazi assembled a detailed examination of the United States’ expanding global military presence, the effects this presence has on host countries, and the possible motivations and risks behind its continued growth. What they ultimately present is an unsettling diagnosis of a condition that many Americans may already sense but rarely confront directly.

The title Standing Army itself is compelling. Visually, it evokes the image of soldiers in uniform, waiting, prepared, and immobile. When that army is the United States military, the subject becomes even more difficult to ignore. Growing up in the US, hearing phrases like “our military is the best in the world” shouted by a drill instructor in boot camp, is something I admit I once carried with pride. This film challenges that pride by placing it under external examination. Viewed through the lens of foreign filmmakers who step inside the US to interview scholars and authors such as Noam Chomsky, Catherine Lutz, and Gore Vidal, the documentary offers a perspective that is difficult to gain while living within the country’s borders.

Using field research, archival footage, and expert testimony, Standing Army frames the United States as a modern empire and connects the immense growth of its military to long standing warnings issued by past presidents, including George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower’s cautionary words about the military industrial complex, a term I first encountered in The Fog of War, become a recurring anchor point. The film argues that terrorism and foreign wars are not isolated outcomes but symptoms of an overextended system. It also draws a clear line between the expansion of US military bases and the interests of global oil contractors, a connection that has been repeated so often in recent history that it risks becoming background noise to voters more focused on local news or reality television.

Watching the film’s depiction of a military apparatus that appears able to go where it wants, when it wants, while leaving cultural and environmental damage in its wake, is deeply uncomfortable. Yet it is also unsurprising, particularly in light of events associated with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps the most painful realization the film offers is the suggestion that the US military is no longer defined solely by the idea of standing ready to defend the nation. Instead, it has evolved into a complex system that increasingly pursues economic and political stability through conflict, positioning its resources wherever it sees advantage.

The film is not without its weaknesses. Its most notable flaw is a lack of meaningful opposition to its central argument, which at times pushes the message toward the edge of propaganda. Relying heavily on expert interviews that reinforce the same viewpoint, the film labels the US military as the “800 pound gorilla in the room” without offering counter perspectives from policymakers or military officials. Selective use of a public speech by Hillary Clinton and visual manipulation of footage featuring Barack Obama, making him appear cold and distant, further reveal the filmmakers’ willingness to shape perception. Even the opening music carries a tone of paranoia. While these choices maintain tension and engagement, they also weaken the film’s credibility by leaning too heavily in one direction.

Still, it is difficult to ignore moments that cut through these shortcomings. Watching Edward Luttwak, a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, dismissively address those who challenge military interests is jarring and revealing. Listening to author William Blum calmly list recent wars alongside the military bases that followed gives weight to the film’s claims. By the end, it becomes easier to understand how it might feel to live with a foreign military embedded within one’s country, and harder to deny that the United States is most often the one occupying that role.

As a side note, Standing Army has received recognition across parts of Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, though it has yet to secure distribution in the United States. You can watch the trailer below and visit the Standing Army site to purchase a copy. It is a professionally made and valuable film for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the United States’ military influence around the world.

Thanks for reading. I hope you enjoyed it. Comment and join for future reviews.

_______

BUY YOUR COPY AT:

http://www.standingarmy.it/
________