| As the director of the film Democracy in the Shadows, this is my attempt to rectify a reckless and unbalanced review of this film written by Jeremy Klaszus in the October 27th issue of Fast Forward. The title of the article was: "What is it saying? Disjointed interviews make for painful doc."
First off, I was incensed by Klaszus’s review of our political documentary because of the arrogant manner and language he used throughout to essentially discredit what the film was truly trying to express. He makes exaggerated and negative statements, such as "it was about nothing." In fact, the message from the film was loud and clear: democracy in Canada and in Alberta is being eroded by politicians and a political process that is self-serving and not representative of the whole; second, politicians appear to be no longer accountable to anybody but wealthy and large corporations; and third, people feel disconnected and seemingly powerless to do anything about this democratic deficit. It is truly difficult to understand how Klaszus could come to this conclusion, unless he simply didn’t agree with what people were saying and/or didn’t understand the import of what was being stated in the film.
The style of the documentary is not conventional, yet this is what Klaszus seems to expect from it. Did Klaszus expect a film version of a college essay on democracy? Does he really believe that people have to be spoon-fed ideas, or are we capable of connecting the dots?
Our intent as a film school was to explore and try new techniques and we consciously chose elements like a painter choosing certain colours over others. We did not want to use a voiceover/narrative and wanted a rough, jagged, sombre feel to the camera work. We wanted to have a level of abstraction that would obfuscate the obvious and not be literal. We did not want to put people to sleep. Our goal was to be creative by putting together different elements, including an outstanding soundtrack (which Klaszus does not mention in his review). We also wanted an egalitarian feel to the documentary and that is why we put truck drivers together with intellectuals; café waitresses with magazine editors.
Yet, somehow this eclectic mix is disjointed and thus anti-democratic, according to Klaszus. He says in his review, "Democracy in the Shadows is so bad that it unconsciously makes a strong case against democracy." What ludicrous and juvenile logic is this? How could this film ever work against democracy? People who rarely or are never heard from have their say about what is going on in this democracy of ours. Pivotal concepts and insightful statements are made over and over by a wide variety of individuals, and somehow this constitutes something that would work against democracy.
Despite the fact we had very little financial support for this project, we forged ahead with a minuscule budget, believing, even though we did not have the possibility of million-dollar production values, at least we would have the freedom to create an interesting and stylish film.
Our primary goal with Democracy in the Shadows is to encourage dialogue about the state of democracy in Alberta and Canada and I believe we will achieve that goal with distinction when people have an opportunity to view the documentary.
Brent Spiess is the founder and director of the Inglewood Film and Art School. |
Copyright ©2005 FFWD. All rights reserved.