"You're a lumberjack and here I am talking dresses to you"

Bill Cunningham New York 19/03/12

Director: Richard Press

2010

This has been on my must watch list for a while now, and has finally come round for a UK release. Well what does a documentary about a fashion photographer in New York have to offer an Englishman with practically zero interest in fashion? It turns out quite a bit. For starters Bill Cunningham isn’t ‘any’ fashion photographer, he is ‘the’ fashion photographer. He has been working in New York City for decades, and before that he was in the army, before that a hat maker in the famous Carnegie Hall. That is where we first see him, wrestling his Schwinn bicycle (his 29^th, the previous 28 having been stolen) out of a closet, which he uses as a trusty steed on the packed streets of NYC.

Bill is about 80 when we meet him, but this is not slowing him down or stopping him from cutting off angry taxi drivers. He maintains two longstanding magazine columns, one where he deals with the epitome of New York status (he chooses the charity parties to attend based on merit, not guest list) and another where he snatches candid shots of people on the street (we see a girl threaten to break his camera). We hear how he likes to shoot in rain and snow because it makes people pay less attention to him, and how he wants to see people with daring and taste, not “cookie-cutter” fashion. Somewhat ironically he spots trends months before they take off, and these then become ‘normal’. He claims that instead of imposing his own views on fashion he lets the street speak to him and tries to spot themes. He is in search of a fashion truth.

This is all interesting (especially for fashion students and the like) but for me I couldn’t care less who introduced America to Jean-Paul Gaultier. However I was intrigued by the way this old man was visibly energised by his work, smiling as he clicks away with his camera. Here the film makers do a good job, they follow Bill through the streets on his bicycle and show him running from the camera mid interview so that he can photograph somebody. My heart was warmed by the way he treated wealthy New York socialites the same way as eccentric dressers he meets on the street, he is genuinely interested in the clothes and not in his own opinions.

Underneath this picture of an aging workaholic legend is the question of his personal life. Well the short answer is that he doesn’t appear to have one, living alone in his small apartment packed with old negatives. This serves to make him even more interesting. Unfortunately time I felt could have been spent delving deeper in to who he is away from his passionate editing room was spent exploring his past and time at Carnegie Hall. While this is a worthwhile endeavour I thought that in an 84 minute film the priorities should differ. I later learnt that there is in fact a full documentary based on Carnegie Hall and the struggles of its residents (including Bill) to stop from being evicted (also covered in this film), and I intend to watch it.

However there are still enough glimpses into Bill’s mind to make this a good documentary. We learn that he thinks of fashion as “the armour to survive everyday life”, which begs the question what does Bill need to be protected from? Well just before the end of this film Bill is asked 2 questions by the filmmakers, one of them provokes a little laughter and the other almost causes him to break down and cry. This is really well done, it is not vicious or exploitative, he is asked honest questions and always valued as the intelligent man that he obviously is, even though the youthful energy he possesses combined with his older face sometimes combine to make him seem innocent or simple. I think we get to know Bill pretty well, without having to have his inner thoughts dragged out of him. The film makers are kind and don’t try to twist the story, they look for truth, as does Bill in his fashion column. I got what I wanted from this documentary and recommend it.

"I don't cheat on my taxes...you can't cheat on something you never committed to."

Rampart 23/02/12

Director: Oren Moverman

Writers: James Elroy, Oren Moverman

2012

I am a sucker for bad cops and anti-heroes. Harry Callahan, Travis Bickle, anyone in almost any Tarantino film, these are people I support because they go their own way, have no time for fools, just generally kick arse. Maybe I am some lame Hollywood demographic and don’t know it, however I like to think that I pick my Unhinged Violent Male With Heart Of Gold film’s carefully. I am a discerning sucker. Rampart (2012) obviously aims for the UVMWHOG category, however with a bit more reality infused into it than some I have listed above.

            Set in Los Angeles in 1999, the film taps in to some of the criticism the L.A police department has faced in the real world about police brutality. So straight away my mind went to Bad Lieutenant (1992) which for me is the be all and end all of dirty cop movies, and a particular high point for star Harvey Keitel. For Rampart, director Oren Moverman managed to land Woody Harrelson who is one of my favourite actors and that was when I got really excited about this film. The film also taps in to the Vietnam veteran angle of unhinged, evoking memories from Taxi Driver (1976) and giving the film a bit more emotional weight than just a bent cop.

            In Dave Brown’s (Harrelson) circle of police officers, casual racism is, well, casual, and we see him happily putting a man’ s head through a window as a form of questioning. He never eats, but imbibes alcohol often. This is counterbalanced by a close-up of him alone in his cruiser, combined with melancholy guitar picking as he drives to his home in the suburbs. Is there more to him? That shot is often repeated (it is in fact the opening) and that guitar is a mainstay of the soundtrack, it implies that a pain or bad experience underlie the film and the man. That pain is undoubtedly Vietnam.

            So now we have him set up as a mean cop, but he does have a soul, and has reasons for being violent (are they justifiable?). His family, we learn, comprises of two daughters – the younger one adores him, the elder hates him – and their respective mothers...who happen to be sisters. His younger daughter asks if she is inbred. She isn’t, but still...come on dude. And they all live together in one big unhappy family. All in all this is interesting and endearing, I felt myself caring about his life.           

            Soon enough, one of those in-car thoughtful close-ups are interrupted – a car crashes in to him. He chases the driver, beats him brutally and ends up on the news as an example of police brutality. Up to this point I was enjoying myself, the film was a little quirky, well put together and had Woody Harrelson, I was set. However with this latest plot point came a mix of half explored characters, sub-plots and conspiracy theories. I had no need to see Dave brown become a puppet in some plot to depose the L.A.P.D. because his inner demons would do that for him. We meet an old friend of his father who provides sweeping insights into Dave’s personality, ok fine but why do it so clumsily? We meet Linda, a defence lawyer who starts an affair with Dave...to what end? She doesn’t change him, just makes him a bit more unhappy. I got the feeling that most of his descent into madness happened before we got there.

            As I said, the film is well put together and provides us with a realistic feel, objects are in the foreground in scenes of domestic unrest and we feel like a visitor in the home. The camera will zoom in on faces or wobble like a handheld camera, yet in other scenes that demand it more extreme low and high angles are thrown in.  However this switching of styles does create an inconstancy, it’s like there are two films; one where we are supposed to watch a damaged man fall apart and wonder if he is good inside or just a brutal cop; and one were a cop is a pawn in some conspiracy theory. I don’t know why the second part was there. Was this a case of bad script plus good director, or did everyone involved just lack experience to know when to stop? Harrelson got to shine in a few (too few) scenes and there is a good cast (note Ben Foster as a homeless veteran) but I was too distracted to really notice. This had potential but Bad Lieutenant’s place on the throne is in no danger.

"Never repress anything"

A Dangerous Method   10/02/12

Director: David Cronenberg

Writers: Christopher Hampton (Screenplay), John Kerr (Book)

2012

Cronenberg delivers us in to the past with a jolt, and we see Keira Knightley acting hysterically. The fact that she is actually doing some acting is a nice relief from her stood looking pretty while pirates run around, even if I did find myself thinking it was a little contrived. To her credit, Knightley damn near pops her own jaw out of her socket while she contorts her face, depicting Sabina Speilrein who comes under the care of Carl Jung. He is played by Michael Fassbender, in juxtaposition to his patient he appears passive, intellectual and professional. Jung has been searching for a patient whom he can treat according to Freud’s theories and Sabina looks a likely candidate. Unfortunately he has to take a break for mandatory military service as a doctor, however this gives us chance to see more traditional, less understanding and more brutal treatment of Sabina. She makes no progress.

            Although his patient is reluctant upon Jung’s return, he finds her a job as his research assistant. Strangely performing research (through word association) on his wife, Jung sees Sabina’s flair for his work as she provides insights in to his unhappy marriage which is expecting a child. Jung and Sabina continue their analyst/patient relationship, and in their sessions we get an interesting idiosyncratic shot; Jung used to sit behind his patient in sessions to avoid distracting them, and this enables Cronenberg to have a two-shot where we see Knightley and Fassbender’s reactions fully. He can cut to a close-up of Fassbender and then to his P.O.V and back to the two-shot rather seamlessly and this helps the flow of such scenes, absorbs us in it, and it makes it more tempting for the audience to analyse Sabina along with Jung. We learn that her problems stem from physical punishment by her father and that along with that came sexual masochism.

            Jung goes to meet his hero; Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen). They discuss Sabina, their profession, Jung’s dreams, in a conversation that lasts 13 hours. Freud believes that their approach to psychology will still be opposed in 100 years. Despite their friendship and many shared views Jung disagrees with Freud’s adherence to a solely sexual interpretation of the mind and this troubles their relationship.

            Meanwhile, encouraged by a fellow analyst and patient, Jung facilitates Sabina’s wish of gaining sexual experience in order to gain a better understanding of her new Psychoanalytical studies. They begin a relationship blending sex and therapy. It is not a well kept secret.

            The rest of the film is an exploration of Jung’s relationships with these two people. Will he agree with Freud that it is better to stick to a sexual interpretation than risk criticism by sceptics? Will he continue his affair with Sabina? Despite these issues there remains a lack of conflict in the film and I found myself losing interest.

            In some ways the subject of psycho analysis being such a large theme of the film encourages the audience to engage with the characters’ minds and essentially analyse them and the film’s subtext. Yet there is also a voyeurism which comes with seeing private therapy sessions and thoughts displayed, as well as the sex scenes between Fassbender and Knightley, and I think this removed me from the characters slightly. This is a very dialogue heavy film. It is well written and you find that one conversation follows another, despite being in a different scene and time, and this is how we get the film’s plot. Characters discuss themselves and relationships on therapy, with others or even their partners, but there is little emotionally content to the conversations.

It is all analysis rather than conflict. While I think this is representative of real life (conversations and consideration of events is more significant in moulding a life than big events) it makes quite plain material for a film. It was intriguing and at times absorbing, however this is not a film I would recommend for the cinema, it is not much of an experience. This is a film that you must analyse and actively engage in to get the most out of it, but even then I wonder how much it has to offer. However it is well executed and convincing, the three lead actors did well and Vincent Cassel’s all too brief role livened things up.

"Who's the shrub?"

Hook          01/02/12

Director: Steven Spielberg     

Writers: J.M. Barrie, James V. Hart, Nick Castle, Malia Scotch Marmo

1991

            What happens when a lost boy grows up? In this film we are told that all adults are pirates, and that pirates must be killed. From the original Peter Pan story we know that Peter Pan was all about the eternal youth thing, but in this version he finally grew up, into a fast talking, business running, suit wearing, cell phone craving, super adult lawyer. Robin Williams has the lead role of Peter Banning, and is joined by a great cast; Dustin Hoffman, Julia Roberts and Bob Hoskins are all known to audiences for good reasons and the less familiar faces are up to standard too.

            Opening with typically memorable John Williams music which never fails to supply a film with that sense of having something extra (in this case a mix of playful magic and adventure) we open on to a dimly lit room where children gaze mesmerised at something, not a cinema screen but a stage where a school production of Wendy and Peter is going on. So the children watching this film were watching children watch other children (one of whom is related to Peter Pan) act in a play of a book which in the film was a true story but also is a book in our reality....well that fits with the theme of magical worlds merging with the mundane reality.

            Many fantasy stories feature the children of our world travelling to another reality, and Peter Pan is one of those. This serves as a device enabling the viewer or reader to go on the journey with the character; it justifies the suspension of disbelief and makes the unreal as good as fact. Spielberg of course kept this element of the story, and spent half an hour dealing with the grown up Peter Banning (Williams) who is making business deals during his daughter’s school play and in a meeting when his son has a baseball recital thing. He builds to Neverland and its magic slowly, and the anticipation is every bit as important as the pay off just like a horror film. Banning is ironically afraid of flying, but is finally getting round to visiting Wendy in London, he promised every year, but it has been a decade.

            All of the scenes in London are meant as a shock to the system (from the scream when they open the door) and Spielberg is depending on London in the snow at night to seem older and more magical than the American setting. We meet eccentric characters like Tootles, who has lost his marbles, and we hear Banning’s wife (also Wendy’s grandchild) talk about the magical times they had in the house where J.M. Barrie was inspired. Then, accompanied by the magical soundtrack which seems to float in from another world, Wendy descends the stairs. She tells Peter that he has become a pirate. He doesn’t get it.

            We get further glimpses of magic in the children’s bedroom, it is slightly dark and mysterious, and with a skewed camera angle we see wallpaper depicting scenes of pirates and an island. We glimpse one pirate in particular. This is all leading to a payoff, heralded by a barking dog, an eerie wind and Toodles remembering how his followers chant his name....Hook. Now the music is invading the restricted and organised world of Banning, and so is Hook. He leaves beastly scratches in the door, a note pinned up with a dagger and takes Banning’s children. But we don’t see him, just a green smoke. Simple and effective.

            From here on in Banning’s world is broken down as he is confronted with his past, even if he tries to rationalise Tinkerbell with Freud. To save is children he will have to regress and learn to use his imagination. Spielberg has equated Pan’s resistance to growing up with the inevitable taking on of responsibilities to provide for a family, and it has come at the cost of having any fun. Banning’s wife (Caroline Goodall) tries to remind him that there are only a few years where children want to play with their parents.

            Apparently the director was disappointed with the end result of this film but I don’t see why. He got the mix of involving an adult audience as well as children right. The cast is great, I especially appreciated Hoffman playing Hook somewhere between a celebrity showman and a moody adolescent in pirates clothing. And there is a noticeable lack of CGI compared to family adventure films of today; Neverland is tangible with good sets and interesting design. Furthermore, I stopped taking notes for this review when Banning arrives in Neverland because from then on it is a chance for Williams to shine opposite Hoffman and humour and action to do their thing, all the set up was in the real world and here is the reward. The reason I reviewed this film is because it is a childhood favourite that actively celebrates nostalgia, even though it would stand up on a first viewing. If you saw it as a child, re-watch it. If not, watch it anyway. 

"Tell you what you do: you just start your countdown, and old Bucky'll be back here before you can say "Blast off!"

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb   21/01/12

Director: Stanley Kubrick        Writers: Stanley Kubrick, Terry Southern, Peter George

1964

            I have a strained relationship with the work of Stanley Kubrick. I know that he is a technically gifted director, and that he mixes together scenes with hilarity and absurdity right next to dark and deadly serious violence. That quality is why I enjoyed his 1987 Vietnam War film Full Metal Jacket, and it is why, in my head at least, I know that he was the right director to adapt Stephen King’s The Shining, which is one of my favourite books. Yet for some reason I can’t seem to get around to watching The Shining (1980) and can’t make it through more than a few minutes of A Clockwork Orange (1971) at a time. I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) after being a lifelong science-fiction fanatic and hearing nothing but good things; however I was underwhelmed by it.

            I don’t know what mental barrier is in the way when it comes to those last three films, but I was scared it would be present when I watched Dr. Strangelove (1964), a film I knew little about when I settled down for a viewing. I imagined a more serious and heavy hearted commentary on nuclear war, but what Kubrick and his colleagues did was realise how heavy a subject nuclear war already is. Nobody needs to be reminded that these are weapons which eradicate cities all at once, and that have long lasting environmental effects. I learned this week that the term MEGADEATH is actually a unit of measurement, referring to a million deaths by nuclear explosion. These are weapons so destructive that we needed a new unit of measurement to grasp the scale of human lives lost. So what did Kubrick, Southern and George do with the script? They made a farcical comedy starring Peter Sellers.

            In the wrong hands this could have been disastrous. Thankfully Terry Southern was the kind of writer that could work on films as gripping as Easy Rider (1969) and as ridiculous as Barbarella (1968) after this, and so was up to the task. And as for Peter Sellers, he needs no introduction, and in this film he was allowed to treat audiences to not one, not two, but THREE different characters in one film, all with their own wonderful moments. Also starring was George C. Scott, who had already blown me away in Patton (1970) and plays a slightly (but only slightly) less intense military commander in the cold war rather than WWII. So Kubrick got the right men for the job.

            From the start we see early examples of Kubrick’s famous inspired use of music, and this continues throughout, mainly in the form of “When Johnny Comes marching Home” building intensity and adding tension. There is a documentary style introduction to the American B52 bomber planes, apparently utilised to provide a 24/7 airborne force 2 hours from their respective targets in Russia. They each have enough nuclear bombs to level their primary target and a secondary. The crew we are introduced to features cowboy hat wearing pilot Maj. “King” Kong, and they receive the order to execute “Plan R”, meaning that a sneak attack has been perpetrated by the Communist forces and it is time for retribution.

            For a while we only know what the B52’s know, and are clueless as to the nature of the sneak attack. Even totally English, stiff-upper lipped Group Capt. Mandrake (Sellers) is in the dark, relaying the order from his superior, American Brig. Gen. Ripper. It turns out that Ripper isn’t quite himself, and gave the order without a sneak attack, leaving the President (Sellers again) and Gen. Turgidson to deal with the political situation that comes with attacking first in a cold war, as well as trying to recall the planes, and Gen. Turgidson having to use the war room phones to deal with his horny secretary.

            Every single actor with more than 2 lines in this film is brilliant. The dialogue is witty and full of opportunities for Sellers and Co. to make us laugh. Through the satire and the absurdity we realise how convoluted the political and military world is, and how it is ridiculous that millions of lives can be in jeopardy through misuse of simple legislation. The point is there to speak for itself, and the only way Kubrick highlights it is by juxtaposing it with fantastic humour. This results in a point being made while the film is still enjoyable. The film has aged well and I think deserves to be mentioned as one of Kubrick’s best works (for the fact that he could edit around actors cracking up at Peter Sellers improvisations alone). But then again I have trouble identifying what is and is not Kubrick’s best work, so watch this for yourself and see if I am wrong.

"It's a burrito!"

Real Steel   11/12/12

Director: Shawn Levy              Writer: John Gatins

2011

           

            As a film with its roots in a Richard Matheson short story, many parallels to Rocky (1976) and a $110, 000, 000 budget, this film has lots of potential to live up to. It is also a film aimed at kids from around 7-13 so as a critic one must let a few bad lines of dialogue and an awkward plot point slide now and again. Plus it has Wolverine, it must be good right?

            Well I will start with the good points. This is a film with giant fighting robots and so jumps on to the back of the Transformers (2007) bandwagon (that presumably turns in to a robot itself) but for me that is not necessarily a good thing. However in this case I am proven wrong, CGI fight scenes with giant robots can have some semblance of realism, it is possible for me to follow what is happening during the fight and know which robot is a good guy and which is not. In this point if nothing else Michael Bay could learn from director Shawn Levy. Also the robots are fancy enough that they are interesting and simple enough to comprehend.

            Another good point is that, while to begin with I thought the writers were trying to portray Hugh Jackman as an all American tortured soul who is an alcoholic because he wakes up with two empty bottles of Budweiser on the floor, they went for a less clichéd route of making him a money loving morally bankrupt egotist who shows no emotion when he finds out that the mother of his child is dead, and is happy to sell off the custody of the child. I genuinely wondered how they could redeem him. On top of this, the film looks really great, the soundtrack is pretty reasonable and I can see how kids could get sucked in to this film, especially by the first robotic fight in a cool car factory.

            Alas there are bad points slapped right alongside the good. The film looks great, but the editing is stagnant and arbitrary, failing to build pace when it needs to yet happily cutting four or five times for no reason from a mid shot to a crowd shot. I am probably being picky, but it took me out of the scene where Jackman’s original robot is about to fight a bull (which seemed unfair on the animal) and he is too busy looking at a pretty blonde lady to avoid having his robot made in to scrap by the bull’s horns. So now he is even further in debt (for a man at least 50k in debt he has a fancy phone) and has no robot...enter his dead girlfriend and his son, whom he is willing to sign over to the child’s Aunt for a tidy 100k, but for whatever reason he has to look after the kid for a few weeks first. Half the money up front buys him a pretty awesome robot, who gets decapitated in a good scene, again due to Jackman’s ego. At this point I was wondering why we should support him at all; I want a film about the Mr. T looking robot instead.

           

            Like any responsible adult Mr. Jackman brings the kid along to break in to a scrap yard hoping to build a new ‘bot. This is one of the scenes where we are spoon fed the back-story of characters and this roboty world, but in case this gets too boring the writers chuck the kid off a cliff. Long story short, they find an old robot and start fighting, and winning. We get a montage and scenes where Jackman and kid bond, which is all well and good. Eventually they get a shot at a league bout, at which point the ‘villains’ are introduced. The enemy composes of Zeus (best robot fighter ever), his builder Tak Mashido (enigmatic and confident and Asian) and the manager Farra Lemkova (all...well...sexy and Russian I suppose). Apart from them being quite up their own arses, which I would be if I had the best robot fighter ever at my disposal, I never understand why we are supposed to dislike them. Then again it is an underdog story, even though said underdogs are a seemingly heartless egomaniac and a bratty kid who doesn’t like hamburgers (WTF) and grabs the mike off the announcer after winning one league fight to ask for a title challenge.

            If I sound like I am not interested, that’s because I wasn’t. Despite what I said about letting things slide I could not take how plot points are clumsily walked through one at a time, how characters will change their entire outlook based on one event, and the emotional crux of the film (Jackman giving the child to the Aunt) is made to be unspeakably lame. If there was more emotional depth and a little more happening in the plot the film would improve dramatically. For example, the love interest for Jackman comes in the form of Evangeline Lily. This woman is not a bad actress and is beautiful; she should be able to add something to the film. However she is reduced to the tough but lovely girl stereotype present in many action films, she is feisty at first to get our respect, but when a child comes along her whole outlook reverses.  All of her emotionality is coming from one source (her dead father) penned in for that sole reason, and apart from that, which is never explored, she is just there to prop up the other actors. I didn’t even notice when she and Jackman went from having an antagonistic back story to being back in love.

            I wanted to like the film, but it got dragged down by it becoming just about the kid and the robot, and about scooping together everything that children that age like (robots, fighting, video games and rap music apparently) and putting it on camera in a flashy enough way to keep their attention. I wanted to know about how actual boxers feel when they are taking massive amounts of damage in the name of making money for the manager and entertaining children, maybe the robot could have been sentient? Maybe all the robots could rise up and destroy the statue of liberty? I would watch that. 

"Playing with dolls"

Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey 04/01/12

Directors: Constance Marks, Phillip Shane    Writers: Phillip Shane, Justin Weinstein

2011

            I don’t think there are too many people below 50 years old that haven’t seen Elmo in action. As I child I loved Sesame Street (1982-2009), and I still love the Muppets. Sesame Street was distinctly American and set on an inner city street, but this didn’t matter because the pieces of fur and foam managed to engage children and make a connection through a screen. To be honest, Elmo was never my favourite (I was more interested in Cookie Monster) however for so many kids he was. As we see in this documentary parents were treating Tickle Me Elmo dolls like I treat the last cookie in the jar....

            This documentary explores the hand (and arm and mind) behind that red fur, a man named Kevin Clash. We first get to talk to him when he is showing us a polluted piece of water near his childhood home in Baltimore. He tells us about how he used to dream of going to Disneyland but his parents never had the money. Instead he would watch magical characters on TV, sitting close to the screen. His favourite was a puppet show called Captain Kangaroo. The seed was planted.

            He made his first puppet from ripping up his Dad’s coat, without permission. Fortunately his Dad refrained from breaking his neck and he went on to make more. He was teased for staying inside and playing with dolls instead of playing basketball, however he was becoming obsessed with getting his stitching as flawless as Jim Henderson, the king of puppetry. Eventually, while on a class trip to New York City he managed to visit Kermit Love (Yes KERMIT) the designer of many famous Henson characters. Slowly but surely Kevin made his way in to TV and on to Sesame Street, puppeteering minor characters. One fateful day, another puppeteer threw a red furry shape into Kevin’s lap, claiming to not know what to do with it.

            Kevin returned to Baltimore with the burning question of what this puppet should be about, what should define it? His solution was simply love, hugs, making a kid feel needed. And that is what works about Elmo, that he makes people feel good through his affection.

            While I would prefer this documentary to have gone a little deeper in to Kevin’s life, such as how him spending so much time away entertaining the children of the world impacted his daughter, there are a few touching scenes. When we see a young Kevin visiting a school for disabled children with his puppets, and how much those children appreciate his enthusiasm, it shows us that they are more than just pieces of cloth. It is also remarkable, and very sad, when we see one of many terminally ill children meet Elmo as her wish. Kevin comments that it makes Elmo “bigger than me” and that is true.

Kevin himself is quite a shy person, however his puppets seem to give him a stronger voice, even when sandwiched between his idols Henson and Frank Oz playing a ‘perfect employee’ puppet, I found that ironic. We see him give his daughter her sweet 16 birthday message as Elmo, and I couldn’t help thinking if he should be doing that as himself instead. This is, unsurprisingly, a quite touching and fluffy documentary, with just enough hard content to keep the interest up. However I am really glad I watched it, I smiled lots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRotWuJNIQA