Tell Them Who You Are (2004)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

This is an astonishing documentary that will wring your heart while it bends your mind

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

One can't help but feel sorry for Mark Wexler. Goodness gracious me. To have a genius for a father. Not an easy thing. Rita Hayworth after her marriage with Orson Welles say "Being married to a genius is exhausting" Imagine being the son. Naturally Mark is a sucker for punishment. He gets himself in the lions cage knowing that he's the lion's favorite dish. In any case. Bravo Mark! I don't think we'll ever have a more realistic, balanced and fair portrait of Haskell Wexler. The documentary is unavoidably manipulated by its subject but even that shows a private side of the man and his amusingly enormous ego that couldn't have come to the fore if it wasn't for Mark Wexler. I enjoyed, with certain moments of real discomfort, this wonderful documentary about one of the greatest pains in the ass that ever lived. His work will live forever and this film signed by his son will travel in time as a perfect companion.

The title references a story recalled by Wexler junior and is a well chosen one as perhaps the story is a small illustration of the relationship between the success father and his son. I came this film because I recognised Wexler from Medium Cool and the Making Of film I saw recently, but I was even more interested when I realised quite how many famous films I had seen where he had been the cinematographer. I, like many others, thought "here is an interesting man and hopefully a good documentary". Sadly it isn't – or at least, not in the way that I hoped it would be.Mostly we hear little of Wexler the filmmaker and even as a man, the film is unable to really bring out the person so much as just seeing him being grumpy and deliberately difficult. Maybe this is who he is, but even if this is true the film doesn't really capture this very well or even structure it – it just happens as a side-effect of nothing else working. At times (most notably in the early stages) the scenes where Haskell directs over the top of his son Mark offered interest because I thought it would be a good way where the film could get him talking about the craft and the film would be strong on that. Although this happens in miniature here and there, it just happens and doesn't seem to be something deliberate that is followed up on and the potential in these scenes are never realised.Mark has done lots of interviews for this film but few are used for more than a snippet here and there. Instead we get the majority of the film depicting the relationship between father and son as they argue and Haskell continually forces his will onto Mark. In this way it is interesting because, regardless of who the person is (and in this area it doesn't really matter that the father is a famous cinematographer) the unspoken story offers potential. Some have said that the way Haskell hijacks the film makes it a mess and a failure – but I disagree. The mess came in the editing suite and the failure is the failure to pull all these "real" moments into a structure where they are the film. Instead these moments again just happen and the inability to harness them and make them in to a film is what frustrated me – not the fact that they happened.However without this happening, it did leave me agreeing with several others who question the value of the film. It doesn't do a good job looking at Haskell's career; nor does it do a good job looking at him as a man; nor does it do a good job of looking at the craft of the cinematographer; nor does it manage to structure a portrait of a father and son relationship. So what does it manage to do? Well, the truth is, a small amount of each of these but nothing in sufficient quantity or quality to be of real value. Intermittently interesting but mostly it is a messy, out-of-control affair with limited value.

I grew up in Chicago and was 18 years old when the riots broke out there during the 1968 Democratic Convention. I didn't go down there because my Chicago Democrat father would have thrown me out of the house if I had gotten involved. So I saw the riots going on 8 miles from house on TV, while Haskell Wexler was down in the streets making a film about how the media was shaping my beliefs about the situation. I think that about sums up my "personal" relationship to Haskell Wexler. When I saw the film Medium Cool, my mind was altered forever. I eventually got a doctorate in communications research and I teach young people about the influence of media in their world and about how they can use the media to change the world.I sense that the mediocre rating of this film may be due to the fact that people could miss the absolute perfect symmetry of this film. They fail to see how the father forces the son into cinema verite mode (far away from the controlled format of the Smithsonian type of documentary that Mark was used to) and how the son accepts this and creates a film that the father can sign off on. There is a lot of truth in this film. Even if Mark's values do not mirror Haskell's, he is unafraid to expose his own feelings. And I get a sense that Haskell's influence on his son is more profound than he realizes through much of the film. Also, coming from my own lefty perspective, I found the exploration of a life well lived to be inspirational. This film has just surfaced on Sundance Channel in 2006 and if you are interested in finding some of the connecting threads in Haskell's life or are the sort of man who cried watching "Field of Dreams," it's well worth the watch.

I have just seen the film at Venezia Film Festival 2004. If it were still necessary this film proves how good documentaries are earning the place of Real Cinema comparing with so many bad fiction films. This is absolutely cinema, this is a story, emotions, narrative solutions, editing, whatever you may find in well done cinema. Also thanking Michael Moore we'll may able to see distributed films like this. But not only 'politically correct' documentaries: beautiful documentaries can have nothing to do with politics or strictly social matters. This film is an excellent example. If you like this kind of cinema go to IDFA Festival in Amsterdam where it's possible to see a real good selection of documentaries. 'Tell Them Who You Are' manages to picture the story of a legendary cinematographer and director, larger than life for a son who follows his steps. And the son probably manages to overcome his father, at least as director, realizing a light and intense portrait, never exceeding in autoindulgence or rethoric. Good for any audience and especially for Movie freaks.