When Documentarians Lie: Albert Maysles Pops a Corker
Albert Maysles, the so-called Godfather of the Documentary, gave an interview to Aaron Dobbs at Gothamist.com. Below is an excerpt from the interview, where Dobbs asks Maysles about Maysles' controversial appearance in the documentary, Michael Moore Hates America:
Dobbs: You appeared in the documentary "Michael Moore Hates America", but there's been some controversy both about what you said and your very presence in the film.
Maysles: What you don't know about that is that when they finished filming me I heard one of them say, "Michael Moore hates America," and I said, "Wait a minute. What's that all about?" I told them, "No, I'm not signing a release," and I didn't. But I consulted my lawyer, and there wasn't anything I could do about it. In a sense they had stolen some of that footage. They had misrepresented themselves, and I never would have participated in that kind of a film.
See here for a video clip from the interview that Mike Wilson had with Albert Maysles while filming for "Michael Moore Hates America". You must have Quicktime to watch the video.
Now you tell me, after watching that clip, if you think that #1. Albert Maysles overheard them talking about the name of the documentary only after they'd finished filming him; #2. Albert Maysles said, "Wait a minute. What's that all about . . . No, I'm not signing a release"; and #3 that Wilson misrepresented himself, that the footage was "stolen" or that Maysles displayed any aversion whatsoever to the title or the subject matter of the documentary after he was explicitly told the title and subject matter.
My favorite quote from the clip is when, after Maysles learns that the documentary's title is "Michael Moore Hates America" (while the cameras are obviously rolling), he says: "Ahhh - I think he does . . . and if he does, then that's the title."
Hmph. Misrepresentation, my ass.
ADDENDUM:
Apparently, Maysles has his "I was a victim to a couple of lying kids" fabrication down pat. In an interview with Film Freak Central, he repeats his new mantra: "As they were filming me, I didn't know who they were, but at the end of the filming, I overheard one of them mention the title to the other--Michael Moore Hates America--and I said, "What's that all about?" . . . "
See here for another clip where Wilson clearly tells Maysles, at the very beginning of their interview, who they are and what the documentary he's interviewing Maysles for is all about. Maysles even tells Wilson that a documentary examining the manipulative editing of Michael Moore is an idea he's had himself, and it's "a good idea" . . . but somehow, in the interval between the interview and Maysles' desire to re-establish his liberal cred for his upcoming MOMA retrospective, the story has turned into Wilson "misrepresenting" himself, and how Maysles "never would have participated in that kind of film."
So much for the power of truth.
Pauline Kael, a well-known film critic for the New Yorker, suggested back in 1970 that Maysles had staged scenes and fabricated the spontaneity of his Rolling Stones documentary Gimme Shelter, the movie which made Maysles a household name among documentarians. Maysles has gone on record as claiming that what Kael said about his work was "hurtful" and factually incorrect, but given Maysles' shaky relationship to the facts regarding his own appearance in Michael Moore Hates America, perhaps Kael had Maysles' number all along.
Comments
Quite possibly the worst and most flagrantly advanced case of suck-ass/save-ass syndrome of the which I've ever heard!
Posted by: Ted | December 16, 2005 4:10 PM
If Kael said it, I believe her. She was the last great movie critic. One of my faves was her one sentence review of Steel Magnolias: "Chalk scraping on a blackboard for 2 hours."
She also didn't truck with the art-house crowd, saying of Woody Allen's Interiors that it was "Deep, on the surface", & "Isn't it awful that Woody Allen wants to be Ingmar Bergman, when we're all sick of Ingmar Bergman?"
I'm taking Deep, On the Surface as my BA motto
_____________
Homocon sez:
Perfect, that leaves "Chalk scraping on a blackboard for 2 hours" for my website's motto!
Uh, wait . . .
I, too, love Kael. She wrote a review for "The Fury" that I think is one of the best movie reviews ever. She believed that cinema was art in all its forms, and didn't look down her nose at a mainstream flick just because it featured explosions or heteronormative protagonists.
Maysles attempted to get the New Yorker to retract Kael's review, but they refused and stood firmly behind her. When Kael was told that Maysles still considered her review, nearly thirty years later, to be a thorn in his side, she laughed and replied: "Tough shit!"
Maysles offered his consent to a release on camera for the MMHA people, knew what their documentary was about, and even went so far as to agree with their title -- and now he wants to complain that he was somehow duped and that the footage of him is essentially "stolen" just because he agrees with Moore's politics and is tired of being criticized at West Village dinner parties?
Yo, Maysles -- the ghost of Pauline Kael is holding on line two. Yeah, she said you'd know why she's calling . . .
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | December 17, 2005 11:41 AM
Spooooooooooooky - I still remember that review for the Fury, which was a great movie until it careens out of control at the end. She always stood up for good trashy movies too. Too bad about Brian DePalma, another victim of the auteur racket. He made brilliant movies from scripts by real writers, but kept writing his own shit like Body Double & Femme Fatale - godawful! I even thought Dressed to Kill sucked, & doesn't stand up well to the test of time. One thing about art, you don't get to pick what you're famous for: when making the brilliant Carrie, he famously told someone "This is a what a young director has to deal with. They give you this piece of shit & you have to do something with it."
________________
Homocon sez:
Ha! I remember reading "Carrie" when I was but a tender teen. Actually, I tore through King's entire oeuvre at the time. His writing was fiercesome, fairly percolating with sexual tension and a dark, spiritual loss. My poor teen-aged brain soaked it up like a sponge. When my Christian Fundie parents picked up the copy of "The Stand" that I'd carelessly left laying on the kitchen counter one day, they fairly had a heart-attack . . .
King's writing isn't anywhere near as good anymore, which is just a damn shame. And it was laughable when he produced that TV mini-series snoozefest of The Shining that he famously insisted was going to outdo Stanley Kubrick's version.
Riiiiight.
At least the deal that King struck to get the film rights back to The Shining guarantees that we don't have to listen to him whine about Kubrick anymore . . .
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | December 17, 2005 6:04 PM
Ugh, Kubrick? Kael on the Shining: "All work & no play makes Stanley a dull boy."
________________
Homocon sez:
Don't pick on Stanley. He can't help it that he turned into a dull, frustrated old man. He was wonderful once, and suffered the curse of not being able to live up to it.
Did you ever see Eyes Wide Shut? That was a scream for pity if I ever heard one. At least we'll always have Clockwork Orange.
And don't you dare say an unkind word about Clockwork Orange . . . I have my limits.
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | December 17, 2005 7:17 PM
To clarify, I was talking about Maysles.
____________
Homocon sez:
I thought as much, but thanks for the clarification, nonetheless.
Posted by: Ted | December 19, 2005 3:00 AM
Re: King
Right about Christine you could tell he was writing for the movie. Before that, he was writing for the book. I haven't liked him much since. I still read a lot of his stuff, but not like before Christine.
______________
Homocon sez:
Right. His books used to scare the bejesus out of me -- Salem's Lot was a genuinely creepy vampire novel. But he seemed to have lost all interest in the power of the printed word once the money for the film rights began rolling in.
Posted by: Veeshir | December 19, 2005 1:44 PM
Ah, The Stand! One of the best pieces of King's writing that I read in my teen years (I always liked The Shining as well - I think I had residual goosebumps for a year or two).
You must have been sloppy in your youth... I never left my copy out for parents to find!
After the strange and pseudo-weird experience of It, I haven't picked a book up of King's since.
________________
Homocon sez:
I think the word "sloppy" adequately sums up my entire adolescence.
I couldn't go near a bathtub with a shower curtain for months after reading The Shining.
Posted by: InTheWest | December 19, 2005 3:24 PM
Why does Stephen King make idiots out of all his characters?
The movies made me cherish Dolores Claiborne and Bobby Garfield (Hearts In Atlantis) but the book sucked, and though the writing in Dolores Claiborne was superb, the anti-climactic ending made her look like an altruistic tard!
Posted by: Ted | December 20, 2005 3:30 PM