Transplanting The Self

To Give Is To Receive Is To Give {Ryan Tebo, 2008}

(okay, this needs a bit of initial background info: the piece under review is a brand new documentary by a graduate of Syracuse's VPA Film MFA program, Ryan Tebo, currently on tour as part of a collaborative multimedia show called "Petting Zoo" with the two central subjects of his documentary, musician Tom Abbs (pictured left) and painter MP Landis. Abbs and Landis, longtime friends + collaborators, recently underwent surgery together during which Abbs generously provided Landis with a new kidney from his own body, in order to counteract Landis' looming kidney failure. Tebo + Co. shot footage of the whole emotional process, and their touring show uses music + painting + video + performance to focus on the complexity of their recent situation, using the documentary as a grounding point.)

WATCH THE PREVIEW

I'm not sure, in the case of this documentary, whether it is really the means that justify the ends, or rather the ends that justify the means. I love the idea of the film being an extension of the "Petting Zoo" principle where a free exchange of input among each medium attempts to dissolve authorship. I especially appreciate that the footage is shot by several different parties, in a sort of 'pot-luck' aesthetic of handing off the torch.

However, I feel that the essence of the film is really made in the edit, and could stand on its own as an arranged emotional progression. This contradicts what appears to be a valid attempt by Ryan to minimize his hand in the work in order to highlight all of those involved.

I blame my calling all of this into question on Ryan's introduction of the work within not only a greater philosophical and metaphysical context, but also within his own aesthetic and cinematic philosophies as an artist. At the same time, I am appreciative of the questions and insight this introduction provided prior to our viewing the work.

Having an understanding of what the maker's ideological intentions can often hinder a viewer's ability to absorb information from a piece, however, in this case I was happy to have a better grasp of the situation (i.e. the context of the tour, the nature of Michael & Tom's relationship and past collaborations) and still see that if not given these through-lines, the film could still be read, understood and enjoyed for what it was trying to document.

Duck and Recover

Atomic Cafe {Jayne Loader, Kevin + Pierce Rafferty, 1982}




It's pretty difficult to pay any more compliments to this film other than those it has already earned. The device of montage and polar imagery is used in perfect form. The scrutiny of the audio and era-born music provides meat to the overriding social commentary of the found footage. The images they use more often than not speak for themselves.

Of course the majority of the information (or misinformation rather) that is cut together does its job of shooting America's Atomic Age and Cold War policies of hysteria in the foot. However, some elements are taken out of context in a questionable manner. What I find interesting, after further reading, is a specific inconsistency on which several sequences of this film thrive. In the criticism of modern agenda-oriented documentaries, this forcing-of-the-hand would have been red flagged from the get-go.

That inconsistency is the use of "duck and cover" reels that have become so well circulated in contemporary wartime satire. Apparently these segments of footage actually misrepresent the intentions of these "preventative" drills. Along with a few internet sources, I asked my mother over the phone about these drills, as she was attending school during the Red Scare of the Cold War era. She said at her boarding school in Rhode Island, her buildings were all loose mortar with weak steal framing, and ducking under their desks was a measure to avoid debris in case of a nearby bombing. Another source on one internet forum addressing this question explained that many school houses at that time still had very high windows left over from the days before electricity, and the drill was meant to protect them from shards of glass loosed by sonic impact. My impression is that these drills were not advertised as "ways to survive" a direct atomic attack, but rather for more practical civil defense regarding low-impact bombing areas (or in short, peripheral damage zones).

Of course the ridiculousness of many of the frivolous cautionary measures shoveled out by the government during the Cold war stand without question as horrific but true. Also, the assumed air of authority by a government as confused about atomic fallout as the general public still rings as an act of smarmy fear-mongering. This "duck" film however, seems to be heaping anger on a plate that's already full enough with our country's other failures at sanity, without any outside help from clever placement and editing. It's a shame that this is the only hole I can find in the film's netting. The rest of the film seems so hard to criticize, simply because of its (shameful) social and historical accuracy.