Money for Nothing: Inside the Federal Reserve

By: Addison Wylie

Personally, my knowledge of the Federal Reserve goes about as deep as a mall fountain collecting pennies and dimes.  Naturally, Jim Bruce’s documentary Money for Nothing: Inside the Federal Reserve should be the perfect vehicle to educate people like me who need a bit more information about its history and the possibly bleak future it has ahead of it.

Jim Bruce seems like the right filmmaker for the job seeing that he’s previously worked on The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters, a fantastic documentary that includes everyone in the audience.  Money for Nothing marks his directorial debut.

As much as Bruce has tried to make the content in Money for Nothing accessible through visual examples and interviews with financial intellectuals, he loses his audience too many times.  During the first third, the filmmaker slows down his doc so everyone can catch up.  However, he forgets who he’s pitching his film towards and gradually moves faster – leaving confused movie goers in the dust once again.

At one point, Bruce gets so far ahead of himself, that it’s almost as if he ignores the fact that his audience’s interest is dwindling.  He shrugs his shoulders and takes off full speed ahead.  Meanwhile, I’m trying to follow as best as possible, but sense a disconnect between myself and the content.

On that level, the doc fails.  The main purpose of a documentary is to educate and inform.  When the documentarian doesn’t show signs of compassion and gives up hope on rustier movie goers, the project becomes one-sided as it talks directly to those who have a clearer understanding of the topics at hand.

Even though I realized this doc may not be for me entering into Bruce’s film, I was an open book when I started watching.  I’ve gone into documentaries before knowing very little about the topic at hand, and have finished those films feeling enlightened.  With Money for Nothing, I feel embarrassed to admit I was led astray many times.  Instead of filling my mind with new thoughts and opinions, it just reminded me about how little I know about this financial world, which in turn makes me feel glum and dumb.  I can imagine other movie goers who are like me will feel the same.

What Jim Bruce’s doc has going for it though is its clean-cut presentation.  Interviews have been shot competently, animated segments and the usage of different clips to generate comparisons or allegories are much appreciated and add a fresh change of pace, and Liev Schreiber’s narration is fitting and doesn’t draw attention to the celebrity.

At the end of the day, what matters most is the information to which the doc is built on.  Bruce may have it locked down, but he unwieldy delivers it to his spectators.

For those viewers who are bonkers for dollar bills, you may find yourself enjoying what Money for Nothing has to offer – though most of this may be old news to you.  Everyone else, however, may be finding themselves drawing nothing from the money they spent on admission.

2016: Obama’s America

By: Addison Wylie

It’s easy for the public to slap negative accusations on the political documentary 2016: Obama’s America. It’s almost asking for it with its timely release during the current presidential race.

I’m a critic who enjoys watching a variety of different movies but I’m also someone who hasn’t been keeping up with current politics nor knows a lot about US President Barack Obama’s history and what makes him tick.

In a way though, the documentary is almost wishing that every movie goer watching 2016: Obama’s America is like me. Directors Dinesh D’Souza and John Sullivan want to teach onlookers about Barack Obama’s upbringing – tracking all the way back to the life his Father led and how it could’ve possibly affected how Barack sees the world; as if we’re learning for the first time.

I also knew nothing about author Dinesh D’Souza and his book called The Roots of Obama’s Rage that Daniel Larison of The American Conservative labeled as “a bad conspiracy theory” and “the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet”  because of how it browbeats the President, his intentions and motivations. Dinesh isn’t a fan of Mr. Obama, to say the least.

You may agree with D’Souza or you may agree with Larison but with his documentary, D’Souza states some very interesting points that at least get the gears turning in your head.

He argues that because Obama had an absentee Father, many of his decisions in the White House are fuelled by wanting to impress someone who was never there.

Barack’s Father, who has passed away, led multiple lives with different women and fathered different children. According to D’Souza, in a young Barack’s eyes, Obama saw his Father as a man he could look up to. While Barack Sr. was away, Obama would be told stories by his Mother of how strong his Father was – further proving to Barack that this man could be an excellent role model. Stories that were either fabricated or exaggerated. Maybe not all of the stories, but at least the ones that seem prominent in the filmmakers’ eyes.

We’re led through the film by D’Souza, who gives us a brief history on his life including time spent working alongside a past President. He explains how he sees similarities in both Barack and himself. For example, they were both born in the same year and they both were married in the same year.

The doc works for a large portion not because of the durability of D’Souza’s arguments but because I genuinely think that the author/filmmaker is a curious and sharp guy. He’s confused by some decisions executed by Obama and just wants to know what made him sign off on these choices.

D’Souza also proposes a legit moral question about 2008’s political campaign. Did voters see this chance to vote for a black President as a way to fulfill one’s confidence and needs for a chance to say that they were a part of making history? It’s a question large quantities of people will immediately shut down but it does make you wonder if anyone voting had that hidden agenda.

Dinesh interviews people including doctors as well as friends and acquaintances of the Obama family. The interviews are gripping as Dinesh and the interviewee discuss possibilities that seem like they could be true because of recent evidence. Thoughts and questions tend to click and, because the talks are relaxed, the attitudes are easy going and feel more like discussions rather than interviews.

Then, the film hits that rough spot.

When Dinesh tracks down Barack’s distant half-brother, George, and confronts him, the attitudes change. Dinesh becomes aggressive – too aggressive. George is the one who actually appears more easy going.

The tone gets heavier in Dinesh’s voice and the questions become more personal. However, Barack’s half-brother gives quick answers and comebacks that Dinesh isn’t ready for. A lot of scrambling and rummaging through papers ensues on D’Souza’s part.

The film doesn’t learn from this mistake. By shifting tones, 2016: Obama’s America becomes less of a thought provoking cohesive thesis project and more of a heavy handed finger-pointing session. Even the lighting and the music during the interview segments become heavier and more dramatic.

The arguments also lose their punch.When discussing Obama’s history, D’Souza mentions Bill Ayers, a past friend of Barack who has a dangerous history. This insight, as well as info on his other friends, is brought up only to link scary words and scary names to the people who are close to Barack.

Case in point: When discussing Ayers’ plans to hatch a plot on the Pentagon, D’Souza tells us that Ayers and Osama Bin Laden have something in common.

It’s fine to bring up troubling information if it adds to Barack’s mystery and affects the foundation of finding out why Obama is flawed himself, but by wording the information in such a way that uses harsh words to garner kneejerk reactions out of an audience, discredits your film. At that point, you may as well use the argument that Barack isn’t a wise Presidential pick because Obama sounds like Osama.

2016: Obama’s America falls on its face because D’Souza and Sullivan insist on pushing at us to prove a point, but that personality doesn’t suit either director and doesn’t convince us of anything. The film has some interesting points about the current plummeting economy during this weak last third but the doc consistently talks at its audience rather than to it.

The first half of the film was getting this relaying of information right, the second half couldn’t be more wrong. Ironically, change did this passion project a disservice.

But, the most disappointing part about D’Souza and Sullivan’s documentary is that it ultimately proves that everyone who was judging the film by its promotional material before seeing the movie themselves, was right.

The Campaign

By: Addison Wylie

The Campaign is hilarious, but, the funniest thing about the new political comedy starring Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis may be the reactions from confused patrons expecting a dumb comedy.

The befuddled audience members will not find this funny, because they’ll be too busy being disappointed, but everyone who got a kick out of this mixed breed of childish humour and a straight political underdog story will be grinning from ear-to-ear.

There’s a difference between being childish and being dumb. If director Jay Roach wanted his film to be dumb, he would’ve exterminated any reason to care for Galifianakis’ Southern happy-go-lucky Marty Huggins. He would’ve had Galifianakis and Ferrell’s Cam Brady facing off in numerous duels and have the two go through the motions we’ve seen exaggerated in Spy vs. Spy comics in MAD magazine.

That’s not the case here. Roach, who has directed critically acclaimed political tv movies such as Recount and this year’s Game Change, is determined to make this movie as if it was aimed to air on HBO. The political race between Marty and Cam is handled as seriously as a plot of this calibre can be in a film produced by Galifianakis, Ferrell, and Ferrell’s cohort Adam McKay.

What stands out about the story and how it plays out is how the movie isn’t trying to make us laugh at every single turn. The leads will make us laugh with their priceless exchanges with each other but then Roach and screenwriters Shawn Harwell and Chris Henchy will counter the laughs with their straight-faced approach.

The chemistry of the two moods never feels uneven but rather highlights that the filmmaking team know how to make both kinds of movies and aren’t afraid to dedicate the right amount of time to each tone.

The satire never feels heavy handed either, which is refreshing in a mainstream comedy. What easily could’ve been 2006’s American Dreamz, a decent-at-best comedy that blatantly reminded movie goers of its witticism, ends up becoming more biting than anyone could’ve expected.

Ferrell’s Cam Brady is a spot-on mockery of North Carolina’s politician John Edwards. From his constant gestures towards God and supporting the troops to his similar scandalous “busted” moments like tweeting pictures of his privates, we can’t help but think of Edwards’ troubled campaign.

However, Ferrell’s jabs don’t redirect our interest in the movie. We still guiltily enjoy watching Brady try to dig his way out of the holes he has dug himself into.

The rest of the cast fares very well with Galifianakis’ Marty being as sincere and genuine as possible and winning us over with his joyfully small town sensibility. Dylan McDermott is well cast as Marty’s charmingly slimy PR extraordinaire and Jason Sudeikis is a good straight man to Brady’s robustness.

However, this smart script is still one aimed towards a mainstream audience which means everything does get wrapped up nicely with a bow and a cherry on top. It’s surprising since Harwell has written for HBO’s Eastbound and Down, a series helmed by Jody Hill who usually focuses on being anti-Hollywood.

If you go in to watch The Campaign expecting another chapter in Ferrell’s man child filmography, you’re sure to be let down. Brady is a man child but because of that satirical undertone, this is a different kind of spoiled character we haven’t seen the funny man play. The results are even better than those previous, more immature efforts.

Plus, the film has two cameos from actors who starred in the Academy Award winning silent film The Artist. Before catching The Campaign, I would’ve never expected to write that in a review for this film. Goes to show you what kind of diverse and surprising film we’re dealing with.