Jasper Mall (2020)

Directed by Bradford Thomason and Brett Whitcomb.

Bottom line: There are hoards of YouTube channels that look at dilapidated malls (specifically) but they tend not to have the quiet, thought-out story arcs found in Jasper Mall; for a chill movie to watch, I recommend this one. 3.5/4

Malls are closing. Why go out to these massive spaces to buy something (at probably a higher cost) than just getting it online? I certainly remember going to malls; there were two malls that I went to in Pittsburgh, PA. Actually, three. There were three malls that I went to. There was (is, at the time of writing) The Galleria. It's the "fancy mall" or "rich mall" but, for a little me, a very boring mall. There was no arcade, no videogame store. They had one of those rich kid toy stores, you know, the ones with the science toys and the super high detail plastic figurines? Next, we have South Hills Village. I think this one is solidly middle class. It's got the staples; Hallmark, Disney Store, Gamespot.

Though, a quick aside, I think it might be starting to go a little downhill. How do I know? They got rid of the Taco Bell and replaced it with a generic taco place. How could you do that to me, South Hills Village? 

Lastly, we had* Century III Mall. This one has quite the YouTube footprint. It was massive and popular but, alas, is now closed. 

Anyway! This is all to say, malls were a thing. They were fun to hang out around at least for my generation so maybe there's some nostalgia going on here. Similarly, seeing old falling apart structures can be kinda fun too; that's why there are so many YouTube videos like this.

This brings us to Jasper Mall, this is a documentary that explores the mall of the same name in Jasper Alabama over the course of a year. We have a cast of characters with whom we follow too. We have a high school couple. We have a retired man who plays dominos with his friends. We have a florist who has been at the mall for twenty-five years. Finally, we have the manager/caretaker/head security/head of marketing/head janitor/tiger king (he looks like Tiger King and he used to own a private zoo). All of the people are nice and enjoyable to watch. Their back-stories aren't the deepest nor is there much character development but, for real, that's not why we're here.

One of the great things about this documentary is that it's quiet. Sometimes, when you have one that is making an argument like Blackfish, you have more of an in-your-face structure. The interviews are juxtaposed to highlight discrepancies. Jasper Mall, however, lets the images speak for themselves. At one point, the manager is talking about his hopes to galvanize the mall. The camera lingers. You have the time to soak in his facial expression: fear, worry, and yet hope. Simple but effective.

If my memory serves me, I gave Blackfish a 4/4 because it really got me pumped up. Jasper Mall was a very pleasant, thoughtful meander through the mall but it didn't get me pumped up so I'm not going to give it a perfect score. It was something that you could very easily have on in the background (though you'd miss some of the really good shots). I'd also have appreciated a bit of a post-script; I wanted to learn what happened to the manager guy...

Although, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe that's kinda the idea. He might still be at the mall working as he has been to save it. The mall is still there, a shadow of its former self, but it remains. Nothing really changes at the mall, it just slowly fades. So maybe we can imagine the manager in a similar state. Oh, I like it. Alright, I'll bump up the score a little more.

So, in summary, with the quiet and well-thought-out cinematography alongside an interesting subject matter, I would recommend Jasper Mall.

What do you think, Reader? When was the last time you went to a mall? Thanks for reading!

12 O’Clock Boys

Written and directed by Lotfy Nathan. Starring Pug, Coco, Steven.

Bottom line: 12 O’Clock Boys illuminates a complex social atmosphere in North Baltimore but it does so in a way that feels incomplete, not to mention a little exploitative.

2.5/4

12 O’Clock Boys is the name of a motorcycle group (one might argue that they aren’t quite a gang) in North Baltimore. Their name arises from the fact that when they do wheelie’s (that is, riding on the back wheel of their motorcycles) their wheels are straight up and down like the hands of a clock.

12 O’Clock Boys is also the name of a documentary which follows Pug, a thirteen-year-old kid who wants to eventually join the illustrious (or notorious, depending on who you ask) aforementioned group.

Many documentaries I’ve seen about gangs focus strictly on the gang: its origin, current members, former members, and police. 12 O’Clock Boys incorporates those but, as it follows the development of Pug, we come to see the larger ecosystem of Baltimore; not only do we see the gang and its relationship with the police but also we get to see how the gang operates with Baltimore and the poorer districts of the city, and even its relationship with future members, i.e. children.

Pug’s home life is such that I can see how one might be drawn to the 12 O’clock Boys and the resulting sense of community. It’s kinda sad to watch over the course of the movie how Pug gravitates towards an angrier lifestyle. He wanted to become a veterinarian and he had a bunch of pets but by the end of the movie he says that he wants to become a dogcatcher (I suppose because it sounds tougher). It’s too bad too because, when he talks about animals, he sounds rather knowledgeable about them.

I read in an interview that Pug and his mother participated in the documentary because they wanted to shed light on the group. If people had a place to ride their bikes, like a park, they argue, then the problems would go away. But, is that really the case? Thinking about this is one of the more interesting questions to come out of the movie.

On one hand we have the founding members saying that they just wanted to ride, because when they ride they forget about their problems, yadda yadda yadda. Former and current members interviewed, insist that the gang doesn’t do anything like guns or drugs or whatnot; they just want to ride their bikes. And, yet, they break traffic laws and intentionally ride past the police department to exacerbate the already tenuous relationship with the police.

We see Pug practicing with a child-size ATV and, eventually, in the park on his dirt bike. The plan is always to practice and ride until he gets to the point where he can ride with the group in the streets. There’s the rub.

What would the dynamic be if the group had a venue for their riding? Would it be the same or is part of it the experience breaking the law?

At one point, the group is riding up and down a street and in a nearby park when the police come. The environment is electrified by the clash between the bikers and the police. So it’s not “just about riding,” but the movie doesn’t really explore what it really is about.

If you’ve read my previous reviews, you might recall that I generally dislike children in movies. More often than not, it’s a cheap way to force an emotional response from audiences. 12 O’Clock Boys is pushing it. With Pug, we see this kid come of age and watch his development. But because he’s a kid, it feels mildly exploitative.

With respect to following Pug, there are a couple standout sequences. First, when Pug finally gets a dirt bike. He is practicing in the park near a group of kids playing basketball and one comes over and asks if he could try out Pug’s bike. After some hesitation, Pug lets him. Sure enough the kid says, “I’m just going to take it around the block.” The kid speeds away. After a few minutes, Pug runs around the corner to see if he’ll return. You can see fear, desperation, embarrassment, and frustration wash over his face as he looks at the camera and then the cameraman. It feels like a really great moment to capture on screen.

At the end of the movie, Pug has spiraled further into the hood mentality. He had just gotten in trouble for fighting in school. The cameraman asks what Pugs intends to do about his bike. “Steal it back,” Pug answers matter-of-factly. As he explains the plan, footage of the robbery plays. The movie ends with a shot of Pug in the back of a van dressed in black, with his bike, looking silently at the camera. It’s depressing but well executed.

I’ve spent a lot longer thinking about this movie than countless other’s that I’ve seen and I can’t quite figure out why. I think it has something to do with why I found it unsatisfying. We watch Pug spiral downwards into the subculture of the 12 O’Clock Boys, which is depressing, right? We hear positive messages from the current and former members but we see contradictory images: a guy kicking the tail light of a police car, for example. The stories and images paint of picture of this group and it’s surrounding city but it’s not getting anywhere.

I don’t think a movie should necessarily a definitive position but I feel like it would be helpful to provide a starting point and, perhaps, a direction for conversation. It you watch fluffy tupolev’s Youtube video entitled "12 O'Clock Boys", you’ll have just as much of a conversation starter as 12 O'Clock Boys. If you are interested in watching it, currently, it can be found on Youtube.

Somm

Written and directed by Jason Wise. Starring Bo Barrett, Shayn Bjornholm, Dave Cauble, and Ian Cauble.

Bottom line: Somm is a stellar documentary about the fascinating world of sommeliers.

3.5/4

A sommelier is an expert of wine. Sommeliers assist restaurants in wine selections and wine pairings. There are several levels of official sommeliers with the highest rank being the Master. In the decades that the test has been around, only a couple hundred people have passed around the world. Somm is a documentary that follows a group of guys as they complete their year of preparation for the exam to become Master Sommeliers.

Somm does a wonderful job of balancing the magnitude of the test (by establishing its difficulty and significance) as well as the emotional impact of the test. We come to feel (not just understand) how hard people study for the test and the stress it creates. Each of the students are presented in such a way that you root for them all. Initially, I thought Ian came across as abrasive and obnoxious but by the end, I was rooting for him just as much as I was rooting for everyone else.

The test itself is broken into three sections: a theory test, a serving test, and a blind tasting. You can’t focus on all three sections, so which one do you choose? Before watching this movie, that’s a question that never would’ve occurred to me but I think Somm nails it. I read a comment somewhere that the film doesn’t really emphasize the importance of the serving portion. I agree but I have a potential idea as to why.

The Theory portion requires an extensive knowledge of wine. One must know the names of countless wineries and regions, historical details, and details about the creation of wine. It is however, a test. Everyone knows what tests are like and nobody likes ‘em. The rigorous study for this part is the main vehicle for coming to relate to the characters, but the theory element itself isn’t emphasized.

Unless you’ve worked in the service or food industry, the Service portion of the exam probably won’t mean much to you. We do get to see one practice test where a couple master sommeliers pose as difficult customers. “We want something between a red and a white that goes with our fish,” orders the customer, “but we want it cold. Ice cold.” The hopeful trainee gives a selection suggestion, must handle the realization that he doesn’t have that particular wine, then must quickly chill the wine. This one scene is sufficient to capture the name of the service portion of the test.

In the Tasting portion, the examinees are given three reds and three whites. They have to smell and taste each and name-say everything there is to be said about them: the alcohol level, the sweetness, the fruits and flavors incorporated into the wine, the region if not the winery, and a potential year.

The Tasting portion is a major point of interest in the film and it’s a brilliant decision. We all know wine. Many of us, I think it’s fair to say, enjoy wine. The image of a person who can taste a wine and provide incite into the elixir is one of character and class.

I can tell you a red from a white. As a slight aside, we got a bottle of five-dollar wine one night instead of the normal Three-Buck Chuck from Trader Joe’s. We decided that Three-Buck Chuck is just bad (but you know, you’ll have that for three dollars) and the five-dollar wine was still bad but at least it tasted like wine. It gave us the feeling that somewhere out there exists wine that actually tastes good. I’m practically a sommelier!

Anyway, with this basis, the film is able to build from a subject to which we can all (in varying levels) relate.

There was one point, however, where the film slipped a bit. During a practice tasting, the one person said a Chardonnay was some other type of white wine. The point of the scene was emphasis how he was cracking under pressure but the simplicity of his error almost undermined the difficulty of the test.

If he said a wine from Nepal was from California or a region with completely different style of wine, it would be accomplishing the same task. It would show that he was cracking while maintaining the difficulty of the test. How can this guy be an expert if can’t tell a Chardonnay from a categorically different wine?

That said it was a very brief scene that didn’t detract from the film all that much. Somm manages to navigate an esoteric subject in a compelling way. It is a beautifully crafted documentary that I highly recommend.

Please let me know what you think of my assessment and/or Somm in a comment below! Do you have a favorite wine? I think mine is Vodka…alright maybe I’m not a sommelier. Thanks for reading!