Madrid bombings documentary

February 2, 2005 4:44 AM

We Were All On That TrainIf any adventurous film festival directors happen to be reading, a Spanish production company called Docus Madrid has just released a fine documentary, comprising 24 short films, about the terrorist train attacks in March. The pressbook can be downloaded from the home page in MS Word, in English: otherwise, it's all in Spanish. Ticket money goes to relatives of the victims.
posted by Holly (14 comments total)

Since when does showing documentaries about bombing qualify as "adventurous"? Not to be dismissive, but if the documentaries were pro-bombing, maybe that'd be daring.

Hey, I'm all for more films, but this is about as "daring" as a revealing portrait of sex and drug use among high-schoolers.
posted by jscott at 6:08 AM on February 2, 2005

So jscott, I am to assume that you have seen the film already? Or are you just prejudging the adventurousness of something which you havent seen?
posted by R. Mutt at 6:51 AM on February 2, 2005

Are we going to be able to see it, does anyone know? Will this be releashed worldwide?
posted by agregoli at 6:56 AM on February 2, 2005

Sadly probably not, agregoli, which is why I sent the post out to "adventurous festival directors". That's probably the only way people are going to get to see it in a cinema near them, which is a shame since it's quite an important film, in it's own way.
posted by Holly at 7:25 AM on February 2, 2005

Sho 'nuff, my friendly Metafilter brother.

A quick overview of the documentary website and press kit gives this synopsis:

"A group of film directors had the intention of going deeper than the usual news coverage and wanted to contribute a plurality of viewpoints, resulting in a collective film in memory of the victims of the M11 attacks, in solidarity with them and their relatives, in repudiation of the violence of terrorism and with the will to defend democratic values and the freedom to coexist. "

OK, so it appears the documentary is... against the bombing! And it goes deeper than the "usual news coverage", which is like saying "It is more romantic than a one-night stand with a ruphinol-hazed co-ed".

I've gone ahead and browsed the pressbook (here). The stories all put a human face on the tragedy. They interview children who remember the bombing, tell the story of a doctor who was unharmed by one bomb but killed by another helping others, and show how life goes on.

Sorry, none of this is in the least adventurous. But maybe Holly just meant that showing a non-english-language documentary is adventerous. My local cool theatres, the Brattle and the Coolidge Corner, both show this sort of fare all the time. And I love them for it. But I don't go to see these sorts of films going "wow, how brave they are to show this". I go because I want to see them.

You don't have to always see a film to know what you're going to see.
posted by jscott at 7:56 AM on February 2, 2005

Oh, and if this shows up at my locals? I'll be there.
posted by jscott at 7:56 AM on February 2, 2005

So jscott, lets recap:

1) You have not seen the film.

2) You feel qualified to prejudge it.

and btw, given that the Brattle and the Coolidge Corner are both now nonprofit organizations, the willingness to show "this type sort of fare" does imply (money losing) adventurousness.
posted by R. Mutt at 9:02 AM on February 2, 2005

No, no, let's recap further.

1. I questioned the "adventurousness" of the subject matter.

2. The subject matter is quite clearly discussed in the press pack, down to the individual 24 portions of the film, with what's in each. All are, bascially, stories of the various folks who died on the trains, or whose lives were affected by the bombings.

3. From this, I have questioned how adventurous it is to show such a film. I consider it "par for the course".

4. Your last statement makes no sense. Isn't that the whole point of being a non-profit cinema? To be less beholden to commercial interests, and pursue funding and charitable donations/investments from individuals and corporations so as to not be afraid to show stuff of unusual matter? I mean, look at the Coolidge's schedule; that's some mighty tasty cinema eating over there. Especially the Human Rights Watch Film Festival. Those are MUCH more adventurous.

Hell, what's wrong with looking at the facts presented about a production (which, in fact, is presented by the production itself and is therefore hopefully slanted in the production's favor) and then coming to a conclusion? Do I have to sit through every future John Boorman film to know I'm going to blow my bladder and walk out confused?
posted by jscott at 10:47 AM on February 2, 2005

P.S. John Boorman sucks. I saw Zardoz TWICE and I'm going to be on my deathbed crying for those hours back.
posted by jscott at 10:47 AM on February 2, 2005

jscott, I would hate to see you crying on your deathbed - trust me.

But the point remains that you have been criticizing a film that you have not seen.
posted by R. Mutt at 11:01 AM on February 2, 2005

And you have been defending one you have not seen. It's called metafilter. Welcome!
posted by jscott at 11:13 AM on February 2, 2005

I have never defended the film. I have never seen the film. My objection has been to your criticizing something from a position of ignorance.
posted by R. Mutt at 12:14 PM on February 2, 2005

"Adventurous" is relative. The majority of high street cinemas wouldn't dream of showing this film - and only two, in fact, in Madrid itself. But I never called the subject matter "adventurous". It isn't, and neither is the treatment, particularly. The Brattle and Coolidge Corner look fairly adventurous places: why not get them to show the film?
posted by Holly at 1:23 PM on February 2, 2005

I hate it when the first poster in a thread sets an obnoxious tone that throttles the life out of any intersesting discussion.
posted by sic at 9:23 AM on February 4, 2005