'Cave of Forgotten Dreams' a haunting doc (2011, Werner Herzog)

“Cave of Forgotten Dreams” couldn’t have a more accurate title. The new documentary by Werner Herzog takes viewers on a rare tour deep inside a cave in France that, hidden until the mid 1990s, is filled with hundreds of cave paintings dating back 35,000 years.

The paintings include images of wild animals -- many now extinct -- in battle, hunting, fleeing a predator or even sharing an affectionate moment with a mate.

Believed to be the oldest cave paintings in existence, they have an exquisite artistic quality that makes them jump off the cave walls, a canvas that was used to create the impression of depth, shadow and movement by the artists.

Who painted the hundreds of images, why, and what were they trying to express? The film asks all these questions and provides some answers while acknowledging that a full understanding of the ‘why’ will never be achieved.

Herzog seems OK with that, content to accept that the images represent the dreams of a long-gone people. And perhaps only through our own dreams can we glimpse what life may have been like for the artists., he suggests.

The Chauvet cave in France’s Ardeche region was discovered almost by accident by three hikers in 1993. Its entrance had been closed off by a landslide or rockfall millennia earlier, effectively sealing and preserving the artistry within.

Almost immediately the importance of the discovery was realized and the French government quickly restricted access and installed a steel door on the cave.

Other than a handful of scientists and researchers, few people have been allowed access in the 18 years since, which is one of the reasons Herzog’s film is so exciting.

Shooting in 3D (though I watched it on DVD) Herzog and a crew of two others, permitted only to take three cold-frame, battery powered lights and minimal camera gear with them, were allowed four hours of shooting per day for a number of weeks.

There were strict limitations. They were forbidden from stepping off of the aluminum walkway that runs through the cave, meaning the crew was often caught in the shot due to the tight spaces they work working within. Nor could they leave the cave during their four-hour window, or the day’s visit would immediately end because the caretakers wanted to minimize the amount of airflow into the cave.


But those restrictions don’t seem to have had a negative affect on the film. The flashlight beams illuminating the images, the unsteady hand-held lighting and camera work, make the paintings appear as they must have 30,000 years ago, illuminated by torch or firelight, with shadows sharply contrasting against highlights.

The images are powerful and even somewhat disturbing in their realism. Due to their perfect preservation, they appear as though they could have been drawn yesterday. In one instance, black marks show where a torch was scratched against the ceiling. And on the floor below are the fragments of charcoal. Incredible.

One of the anthropologists studying the cave explains that when he was first allowed access, he found himself almost haunted by the experience. He was obsessed with the riveting images while in the cave, then relieved to once again emerge above ground, and would later dream about the drawings at night.

Herzog described a similar experience.

“Dwarfed by these large chambers illuminated by our wandering lights, sometimes we were overwhelmed by a strange irrational sensation as if we were disturbing the Paleolithic people in their work, it felt like eyes upon us. This sensation occurred to some of the scientists and also the discoverers of the cave, it was a relief to resurface again above ground,” he explained in the film’s narration.

The paintings mostly depict animals that were indigenous to the area at the time they were created. Horses, rhinoceroses, wooly mammoths, tigers and leopards all make an appearance.

In one case, the beautiful single-line style illustration of a now extinct species of a female and male lion answered a long-held question about whether the male of that species had a mane. It did not, the painting revealed.

Many of the paintings show animals in action with, with extra legs painted in to show movement, or multiple horns on a rhinoceros, giving the clear impression that the creature is rearing his head in fury.

Another image shows four horses, their heads almost superimposed over each other. They are drawn with such sophistication that they would not be out of place in any gallery today. And fascinatingly, each horse has a slightly different expression and they seem to cover a variety of moods and attitudes.

The narrator points out that one of the horses’ mouth is open, as though he is whinnying.

The artists clearly studied the animals in great depth. Did they do so as hunters, future domesticators, or simply out of an early human fascination? We don’t know and likely never will.


There is only one human image in the cave. In the deepest recesses, a woman’s form is drawn on a stalactite, with her sexual organs over-emphasized to symbolize fertility.

Near the entrance of the cave, an artist painted multiple positive impressions of his own hand – a hand with a slightly crooked little finger. Then, much deeper in the cave, that hand shows up again as a signature, or calling card of sorts, provoking fascination among the researchers desperate for any clues to the identity of the artists.

And deep in the cave there is the track of an 8 year-old boy, and alongside it, the track of a wolf.

“Did a hungry wolf stalk the boy or did they walk together as friends. Or were the tracks made thousands of years apart? We’ll never know,” Herzog says, his words serving as one more reminder that the mysteries of such a deep past will remain so, even amid the discovery of such a direct connection to those who walked on two legs thousands of years ago.

'Win Win' actors breathe life into a simple story (directed by Tom McCarthy, 2011)

First of all, is there any role Paul Giamatti takes on that doesn’t turn to gold? I just have so much respect for the guy, from “Sideways” right up to his recent tear-inducing work in “Barney’s Version” and now, in “Win Win.”

He seems to have a subtle ability to turn ordinary, humdrum roles into fascinating character studies.

In “Win Win,” he plays small-town New Jersey lawyer and wrestling coach Mike Flaherty. Life is OK for Mike, but that’s about it. His marriage is fine, work is mediocre and money is tight. And his wrestling squad, well, it sucks.

That all begins to change with one small act of deception -- one that truly defines the old “when once we practice to deceive” line.

In order to earn some extra money, Mike offers to take on the guardianship of one of his clients, a wealthy man in the early stages of dementia whose only desire is to stay in his home. With no family to help him do that, the state is going to put him in a retirement home, until Mike steps in.

But instead of following through on his promise, Mike pockets the $1,500 monthly stipend and sends old Leo off to the home anyway, because helping him stay in his house was going to be “too much work.”

Mike probably would have gotten away with it, with no one the wiser, except that the grandson Leo never knew he had, Kyle, shows up in town in an attempt to connect with his grandfather while his drug-addict mother is in a treatment program.

Things start to look up for everyone involved. Mike takes Kyle in to live with his family, Kyle quits smoking, goes back to high school and becomes the star of the wrestling team, and Leo begins to connect with his grandson, who despite his troubled past seems to have integrity and a heart of gold.

When Kyle’s mother, with less admirable qualities, shows up, things suddenly get complicated as Mike’s once seemingly insignificant white lie takes on new significance.

Helping to tell the story and round out the cast are Amy Ryan (‘The Wire,” “Gone Baby Gone” as Mike’s wife Jackie and Bobby Cannavale (“The Station Agent”) as Mike’s best friend Terry.

The film is hung largely on the performance of Alex Shaffer, as Kyle. Shaffer, an accomplished wrestler in how own right, won the New Jersey state championship in 2010.

With almost no previous acting experience, he landed the “Win Win” role in a walk-on audition after learning from a friend that the director was looking to cast a real-life wrestler.

Shaffer is perfect as the withdrawn, single-word answer kid who has been mistreated in the past and doesn’t trust easily. We all know someone like this, and Shaffer pulls it off perfectly, grown up and tough in some scenes, vulnerable and childlike in others. Amazing.

But Giamatti drives the film. In his role as Mike he plays an easily relatable, likable character dealing with the everyday struggles that many of us face: Paying the bills, struggling with feelings of mediocrity, dealing with health and stress issues and simply trying to find a way to be happy and fulfilled in life.

The movie opens with a shot of Mike (short, balding, paunchy) jogging along a forested trail in the early morning. As he huffs along, two tall, athletic, spandex-clad runners blast past him like he’s standing still. And this is an analogy for how Mike feels about his life. No matter how hard he works, he’ll always be at the back of the pack.

So when Mike sees an opportunity to get ahead a little, even though it’s somewhat dishonest, he takes it.

Many of us could relate to that, and faced with a similar temptation might even make the same decision. But that doesn't make it right, and the rest of the film is about the results of Mike's decision and how it affects his life and those around him until he is finally willing to admit his wrong, ask for forgiveness, and deal with the consequences, even though they will likely be unpleasant.

A nice surprise at the end of the film is a new song by "The National," called "Think You Can Wait." Solid tune written by the band after watching the film. Check it out here.

'Soul Surfer' a story of faith, family, and one massive shark

I’ve been on a surf movie kick lately. I watched in the past week “North Shore” and “Blue Crush” and then yesterday my wife and I went to see “Soul Surfer” – the new film based on the real-life story of a young Hawaiian surfer, with talent and dreams of going pro, who suffers a massive setback when a 13-foot tiger shark attacks, taking her arm.

The film is based on the life of Bethany Hamilton, who was just 13 when she lost her arm, but through sheer heart and force of will, managed to continue her surfing career.

When we walked into the cinema to find we were two of only a handful of adults – the theatre was a sea of 12-year-old girls – I was immediately worried that this would be a teen girl-power flick with nothing to offer anyone else.

And there was definitely some of that. The entire story hinges on the girl’s faith, strength of will and fighting spirit to come back from a life-altering moment that would have crushed most people.

But there’s something in this story for everyone. For one, the surfing is incredible, right up there with some of the best mainstream surfing films I’ve seen.

And though this story had the potential to be dripping with cheese – “somewhere between cheddar and jalapeno jack,” as one of the characters says, it wasn’t.

The incident itself is played out with the grim horror one would expect, her family’s struggle to deal with the changes in Bethany’s life – and their own – are all handled carefully and realistically, and AnnaSophia Robb does a respectable job in the role.

But at the core of the story is the girl’s faith. Before the incident, during her recovery and as she begins to return to normal life, it’s the leash that keeps her firmly anchored amid the swell.

Her mentor, played by country singer Carrie Underwood, tells her amid a deep moment of doubt, that though she doesn’t understand now why she has been put through such a trial, someday, with broader perspective, she will. And of course, eventually, she does.

This movie takes the best of “Blue Crush” – a story of girl-power and chasing your dreams at all costs, and “North Shore” – a film about taking risks and venturing out of your comfort zone to figure out who you are – and combines them. But it adds in the elements of faith and family and the amazing fact that this is a true story about a girl who never let go of her dreams despite a crippling injury that would have destroyed many other people.

It also includes a last-minute cameo from Turtle, one of the main characters in “North Shore” – which makes it even better.

If you do see this film – and trust me, I realize it’s not for everyone. If you don’t like surfing, if faith stories annoy you and if you’re repulsed rather than moved by a little bit of cheese, you might want to give it a miss.

But if you do, stay for the credits, when documentary footage shows how much of the film mirrored the true events that took place in Hamilton’s life.

"Never Let Me Go" grips your heart in a non-futuristic sci-fi kind of way (2010, Directed by Mark Romanek)

Image courtesy of illustrator Nick Thornborrow's fantastic blog

“Never Let Me Go” is a simple yet chilling portrayal of a bleak world where average life expectancy is over 100 years, with people relying on replacement organs provided by “donors” – clones whose entire purpose is to extend the lives of others.

The premise is that we began cloning humans in the 1950s, but the film takes place in the 70s, 80s and 90s, and the practice is now an accepted, normal part of life.

As a result the film, based on the book by Kazuo Ishiguro, feels like a modern-day story rather than a futuristic sci-fi, which it could have easily become in the hands of a different director or screenwriter (Mark Romanek and Alex Garland).

The story centres around Tommy, Kathy and Ruth, three ‘donors’ played by Andrew Garfield, Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley. We meet them as children at what first appears to be an upper class boarding school in the English countryside.

But when the headmistress, after finding three cigarettes hidden in the garden, gives the students a stern lecture on how it’s more important for them, than for anyone else, to care for their bodies, the reality of their life’s purpose sets in.

There are other clues to their status, as well. The students become infectiously excited when they learn there will be a sale, and they will be able to purchase items using tokens they have earned and saved over the year. They’re promised it will be a “bumper crop” of items.

But when the boxes of goods arrive, and are set out on tables for the sale, it becomes clear they are little more than the broken, shoddy, cast-off toys from real children living “outside” -- a metaphor for the second-class status that rules the donors’ lives.

But even though there’s a sad, pathetic quality to the scene, there’s also a simple beauty in the joy the children receive from the broken toys. When Tommy gives Kathy a cassette tape of soulful music, there is a heart-wrenching quality to the way she is affected by the songs.

The students also spend each year creating works of art, in hopes their pieces will be selected for the “gallery,” an almost mythical place or event that none of them seem to have ever seen or to fully understand.

Eventually, the three children grow up and leave the school – wrestling with love and jealousy along the way -- to prepare for their donation cycle. Each donor is expected to “complete” after four donations – meaning their life will end.

They go on to their own pursuits. Kathy becomes a “carer,” whose purpose is to comfort, encourage and cheer-up the donors as they go through their cycle.

Ruth and Tommy begin their donations, and it isn’t until years later that the three are once again united.

When they reunite, it’s under different circumstances. Their lives are nearing an end, and they begin to seek answers from those who have controlled their destinies. Not that they challenge their purpose in life, or rebel, because that’s just not something they do. But they are seeking a deeper understanding, or explanation, of their role in the world.

Perhaps the best answer comes when they finally ask about the art gallery they contributed to each year at school, wanting to know its true purpose.

“We weren’t using the gallery to look into your souls,” explains their former headmistress in a brutally frank moment. “We were using the gallery to see if you had souls.”

Fly fishing in the Far East and other adventures at the Banff Mountain Film Festival

I made it into the Banff Mountain Film Festival Saturday night, but just barely. I had procrastinated buying tickets for two weeks, left it to the absolute last minute, and then, shocker, found out the event was sold out.

I was really mad at myself for not making it a priority, but more than that I was disappointed to miss the event, which I’ve seen nine out of the past 10 years.

But a last minute decision to try the box office an hour before the show, paid off.
The festival organizers (and Rock Oasis owners) had “a few” unadvertised tickets that hadn’t sold at one of the pre-sale outlets and I was able to get two! Oh man was I happy.

The festival never fails to inspire me to plan a trip, try a new sport, or just get out climbing or biking or hiking. (past write-ups here and here.)

The highlight of this year’s BMFF (at least on the Saturday night – Friday and Sunday had their own lineups) for me was a film called “Eastern Rises.”

One thing I always love about the festival is that it’s never willing to be constrained to a certain type of film. The theme is simply ‘outdoor’ films and that can manifest itself in a lot of different ways.

"Eastern Rises" by Ben Knight (FeltSoul media) was a film that didn’t fit in the normal extreme-adventure-adrenaline-junky category but that nonetheless embodied the spirit of the festival. It was about fly fishing in the Kamchatka Peninsula in eastern Russia.

At the start, Knight, who as I understand it shot, directed and narrated the film (thought there’s no IMDB listing and little more than a few random blog posts on the web thus far) explains that he was invited along on an epic fishing trip to the isolated and rugged, and mostly unfished far east of Russia.

But rather than make a beautiful, artsy exploration of the craft of fly fishing, he decided to make a more honest (and cynical and downright hilarious) picture about the trip – that includes fleeting shots of bigfoot, a box of sausages, scary helicopter rides, a Russian blonde in short shorts, and plenty of ridiculous conversations.

But there’s more than that too. The camera captures beautiful, striking, heart-rending moments that bring tears to the eyes of any fisherman or adventure seeker.

The film was poetry to watch, and had me reminiscing about guiding summers at North Star Lodge, and checking weather reports for the warmer weather that will soon bring the trout into the Ganaraska River.

"Eastern Rises" takes place in true frontier land, one of the hardest places to get to in the world, and the rewards are fantastic.

And the two main protagonists in the film (Alaskan fishermen whose names I sadly do not even know due to the shameful shortage of info out there – even on the film’s ‘under construction’ website) are so perfect for the film. One is young, but a born fisherman with deep thoughts on his choice of career and a slow, well-thought-out way of explaining those ruminations that is thought provoking and easy to listen to.

On his response when a client asked him how his parents felt about him ‘wasting his life’ as a fishing guide: “Well…I think they’re jealous, like everyone else.”

The other main fisherman in the film, whose name I also do not know, is a little more verbose, a little louder, the joker of the group, but nonetheless also a brilliant fisherman with fascinating ideas about angling, life, and that Russian bigfoot he’s obsessed with.

But accompanying these characters are fish, millions and millions of fish. Rainbow Trout boil out of the water one after another, exploding onto huge flies tied to look like mice, the prime food source for these carnivorous fish.

It’s incredible. And the camera captures these moments with superb clarity and an artistic approach that makes every fish seem like a primary character in the film.

In the end, this is really just a beautiful, well shot, funny and irreverent film about a group of guys that go on an epic adventure. In that way, it’s like every other adventure movie.

One of the characters, when describing his chosen career path, kind of sums it up I think:

'In the end, fishing is a pretty selfish pursuit. You’re not really doing anything to make the world a better place or to improve the plight of humanity -- except maybe somehow by enriching your own soul.' (paraphrased…)

This film, like fishing, may not make the world a better place. But it will enrich your soul and make you happy, and in that way, perhaps, it is making the world better. Don’t you think?

Eastern Rises | teaser from felt soul media on Vimeo.

This film also has a fantastic soundtrack. Thanks to CompleatThought for putting together a reference list here.


Here are a couple of other films that I really enjoyed at the festival...


“Tibet: Murder in the Snow” (Mark Gould)

There were a few other pretty amazing films that also deserve a mention. “Tibet: Murder in the Snow” was a fantastic film about a tragedy a few years back when Chinese police at the Nangpa Pass on the border of Nepal fired on a group of young Tibetan refugees, killing a teenage nun.

The event was witnessed by numerous Western climbers at a nearby base camp awaiting their summit opening, many of them recording or photographing the incident. The Australian filmmakers painstakingly tracked down these eyewitnesses all over the world, including other survivors who were in the group, and reconstructed the heartbreaking true story.

“As it Happens” (Renan Ozturk and Corey Richards)
Two mountaineers, filmmakers and all-round great storytellers, set out to climb the 6,000-metre Tawoche Himal in Nepal. That would be a feat on its own, but they also documented their adventure moment-by-moment.

And rather than compile a whole bunch of images and footage, bring it all back home and make a film after the fact, they did it guerrilla style. Using a solar-powered modem, and mobile editing equipment, they edited, voiced and posted short dispatches along the way, rogue blogger style, and were followed online by 100,000 people as they did it.

This film compiles those dispatches into a very real and dynamic film that makes you feel like you’re right there with them. Though you’d probably rather not be. 36 hours without water, clinging to a Himalayan mountainside, while trying to make a film, not to mention survive, isn’t for everyone.

Everyone needs a Catfish in their life to keep them sharp...

I have 20 minutes to write this. That might be a good thing since I've been told I tend to ramble on a bit...

“Catfish.” This is a good film, though maybe not what you would expect. It’s a documentary of sorts, with two guys (Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman) filming the relationship their best friend Nev (Yaniv Schulman), a photographer in New York City, develops over Facebook with a family in Michigan.

The family includes a mom, two daughters and a brother, and various other loosely associated relatives. They may or may not have horses. One of them is an artist. One of them may be a dancer…or something.

"Not based on a true story,” the trailer says.

"Not inspired by true events.”

"Just true.”

Intriguing, right?

You’d be forgiven for thinking this was some sort of a horror film from the trailer.

It’s creepy, no doubt, and there are some horrific aspects to it, but mostly it’s an exploration of our online, social media culture and the types of relationships that can develop over the Internet -- and what happens when real human beings intersect with their online-only friends.

I spent two weeks avoiding learning anything about the film, before watching it. This helped, and I recommend it. Beyond reading this blog – which I promise has no spoilers – you should really avoid details that might give away the crux of this story.

We watched “The Social Network” a couple of weeks prior to seeing “Catfish” and it really helped to give context and contrast – sort of like seeing two very different sides to the same story. I recommend doing that.

If this film starts out a little weirdly, hang in there. It gets better and better and is worth sticking around until the end, just like Nev does.

Grenier turns the lens around in 'Paparazzo' (Adrian Grenier, 2010)

I didn’t have high expectations for “Teenage Paparazzo,” the new documentary by actor Adrian Grenier of “Entourage” fame.

I’m usually suspicious of celebrity vanity projects to begin with, and the subject matter of this film -- a cocky kid out ‘til 3 or 4 a.m. stalking celebrities in L.A. with a camera – didn’t sound all that appealing.

But I was surprised in a good way by this movie. Not just by the storytelling and legitimate documentary style, but by Grenier’s honesty throughout.

The story focuses on then 14-year-old Austin Visschedyk. Grenier encounters the teen one late night in Los Angeles and is astounded to find him ensconced within a gang of much older Paparazzi photographers, staking out a celebrity hotspot.

Grenier becomes fascinated by the idea of someone so young doing such a grown-up job -- not to mention wondering how the heck he pulls it off on a school night -- and decides to turn the lens around and film a documentary about Visschedyk.

At first, the fast-talking, slick and not that likable kid is all for the project. The idea of hanging out with a bonafide celebrity and getting a little bit of his own fame seems to sit pretty well with him.

Visschedyk reminded me of a child star who has spent too much time around adults at a young age, and therefore grown up too fast, and without the necessary life lessons. He swears like a trucker, talks back to his parents and basically whines about almost everything.

At one point he suggests he isn’t all that happy about the arrangement with Grenier, but doesn’t want to say what’s really bothering him.

Grenier pushes him on it.

“Well, I thought you were going to, you know, like, let me know where you were going to be and stuff.”

That isn’t part of Grenier’s plan. He seems to want to take as journalistic of an approach as possible, and isn’t keen on setting up celebrity photo shoots just to keep the spoiled kid happy.

Instead Grenier wants to follow Visschedyk as he works, and interview other Paparazzi members, celebrities and Visschedyk’s parents to try and put together a film about how celebrity and society interact and how it’s possible for this kid to do what he does.

But between the tension this causes between Visschedyk and other photographers, the fact the kid begins to simply get bored with Grenier’s artistic endeavour, and rising media interest in the kid-phenom, their relationship begins to break down.

Visschedyk stops returning Grenier’s calls, fails to show up to a meeting or two, and gets tangled up with another copycat project, where a father is shooting a documentary about his alleged Paparazzo son.

It’s interesting to see how Grenier handles the change in their relationship. He gets genuinely stressed. He’s put time, effort and money into the project, and he’s desperate to save it.

On the other hand, he admits that his interest in Visschedyk is the main catalyst for the problems they are experiencing. The kid has become a bit of a star in his own right as major media picked up on the story after getting word that Grenier was making a film about Visschedyk.

While getting too involved with a story can be the kiss of death for many documentarians and journalists, it actually makes this story more interesting. Halfway through, the whole direction changes and Grenier has to roll with it and make it work.

“I’d like to be, you know, famous,” Visschedyk says at one point, admitting he doesn’t necessarily want to be a famous photographer, but more that like Paris Hilton, whom he has photographed and gotten to know – he just wants to be famous for being famous.

Grenier admits he’s created a monster and doesn’t quite know what to do about it.

The image of a rich and famous celebrity struggling to get his way, is in start contrast to the life of Grenier’s ‘Vince’ role on "Entourage," and is one really refreshing aspect of the film.

Grenier manages to save his film though, by taking more drastic measures that Visschedyk can live with, picking up a camera himself and joining the ranks of the Paparazzi himself, to see how they work and live.

The film ends with a touching scene where Grenier and Visschedyk seem to get real with each other – something that may not be easy for either of them to do, given their careers – and agree to chart a different path with their relationship.

A post-script update on Visschedyk also helps take the edge off and allows the audience to warm up a little more to this really annoying but talented, dedicated photographer, who is, after all, just a kid.