Albert Maysles
Albert Maysles is a filmmaker who has guided a large proportion of my work throughout this year. His work in direct cinema/observational documentary is something I have focused a vast amount of my research around, born in 1926 in Boston, Massachusetts he started his film career in 1955 and worked up until is death in 2015, with his last two films (Iris and In Transit) coming out in 2014 and 2015.
Here is a sample from my contextualising practice essay, 'The Representation of the older generation in modern society and documentary film'
Albert Maysles
work as a practitioner in documentary film is something I have looked closely
at specifically looking at him and his brothers 1975 film ‘Grey Gardens’ and
his work on ‘Iris. Grey Gardens focuses on the day to day lives of mother and
daughter Edith and Edie Bouvier Beale aka known as ‘little Edie’ and ‘big
Edie’, Aunt and cousin of former first lady Jackie Kennedy. The two brothers
were originally hired to make a film documenting the restoration of the New
Hampstead home but found themselves fascinated by the inhabitants of the Grey
Gardens home, and in turn chose to focus the film around the pair and their
relationship. Maysles worked in the style of direct cinema, a style of
documentary filmmaking pioneered in the late 1950’s by a young group of
filmmakers. Two of the champions of this styling were Robert L. Drew and
Richard Leacock. The aim is to be free of the “authoritative voice-over
narrator, didactic script, and traditional problem-and-solution format used by
the majority of their predecessors” (vogels 2005 pg1) instead they were focused
on capturing real life as it happened without directing or rehearsing with the
subject. The films of direct cinema lack a preconceived plot and avoid telling
the audience how they should interpret or feel about what they are viewing. The
introduction of a variety of 16mm film cameras and sound equipment that could
be navigated by one person. Cameras such as the arriflex and auricon alongside
sound recorders like the Nagra allowed for freedom of movement and
synchronization of sound whilst filming, opposed to the previously available
equipment. Leacock refers to the freedom stating, “The important thing was that
we were experimenting. All the rules were new. We were, in fact developing a new
grammar”. (Cousins, Macdonald 2006, 253-254) We see from the direct cinema
approach an attempt to engage an increased realism of the subject or subjects.
Approaches preferred in direct cinema by the directors and camera operators
were “close-ups, scanning the faces of their subjects, frequently holding shots
for long takes, in order to capture the emotions and reactions”. The overall
feel of this movement gave the audience the opportunity to gauge and decide for
themselves the believability of the subjects. Within the film ‘Grey Gardens’
there are breaks in the rules of direct cinema in terms of the appearance of
the Maysles brothers and a lack of chronology however it does adhere to the
lack of narration, music, and staged events. The two characters are represented,
as larger than life, eccentric and slightly bizarre. Both despite their
constant bickering there is a clear showing of them needing one another. It is
shown in the film that the two eccentric characters are born performers when
the appearance of tow handmade signs are shown one indicating ‘big Edie’ to be
the ‘world’s greatest singer’ and ‘little Edie’ to be the ‘the worlds greatest
dancer’. This strikes me as a problem when it comes to truthful representation,
as it does not portray how they live their lives on a daily basis. The
performance of ‘little Edie’ is constant through the film often singing and
dancing her way around the house portrays a potentially exaggerated acting up
for the camera. Edie frequently can be seen to take on a role for the film as
she states, “I have to think these things up” referring to one of her outfits
and almost taking on the role of costume designer. This said, it could also be
argued that the difference between how she acts on and off camera is highly
representative of how she shows herself to society and therefore how she presents
herself to the camera. This is also made clear when she says, “you don’t see me
as I see myself. But you’re very good what you do see me as. I mean, it’s
okay”, understanding the limitations of the camera but still valuing its
perspective. In terms of representing old age more specifically looking at ‘big
Edie’ as she nears the age of eighty, the brothers show her in a very realistic
manner. They use cinematic techniques derived from their background in direct
cinema to show her honestly Albert Maysles also claims that on her deathbed
when asked if she had anything to say she responded, “there’s nothing more to
say, its all in the film” This goes as a fantastic tribute to the film and the way
in which the brothers managed to capture her on film. Not portraying her as an
old woman, but just as herself, taking the focus away from her age and more
towards her personality. The younger character of the documentary is also
quoted as having said “To my mother and
me, Grey Gardens is a breakthrough to something beautiful and precious called
life.” This again reaffirming despite being a main character of the film where
in many cases the focus would be on her age, the focus is on life and
relationship with her daughter.
Direct cinema came under a lot
of criticism around the same time that ‘grey gardens’ was released Emile di
Antonio described it as “two halves of an apple, half rotten and half rather
decent eating… The rotten half is most of the work, the pretentiousness behind
it… The assumption of objectivity is false. Filmmakers edit what they see,
weight people, moments, and scenes by giving them different looks and values.
As soon as one points a camera, objectivity is a romantic hype.” (vogels
pg.144) Similar sentiments regarding objectivity are present in ‘directing the
documentary’ questioning, “How do you objectively spot the truth that you
should use?” and further stating that “documentary is a subjective construct”,
and how as filmmakers we must be led by our “intelligent passions”, using
“evidence that is persuasive and self evidently reliable” having the “courage
and insight to make interpretive judgments about using it.” (rabiger pg17-18)
Criticism came from many after
the release of the film as reviewers questioned the vulnerability of the
Beale’s mental state seen by many as exploitative and invasive. Walter Goodman
of the NY times wrote, “ The sagging flesh, the ludicrous poses … Everything is
grist for that merciless camera. The sadness for the mother and daughter turns
to disgust at the brothers”. These statements are easily counteracted by the
reviews of the subjects themselves mentioned previously. What Goodman’s review
does show is a negative attitude towards the appearance of ‘big Edie’ ‘sagging
flesh’ clearly referring to her aging skin. The shot is most likely referring
to the one inserted below.
This shows a clear example of
ageism in wider society as there is nothing wrong with skin sagging, it is a
natural product of aging however it is used to negatively review the film and
its subjects in an almost ‘I don’t want to see that’ manner.
We can also see within the film quotes like
“David, where have you been all my life” to show an enjoyment of their company
but also shows a want to be seen.
‘Grey Gardens’ is not
sensationalist, nor negative in its approach regarding the representation of
old age. It is honest, we see an older woman who clearly doesn’t want to be
left alone, seen among scenes in which Edie talks about leaving with subtle but
evident signs of resistance. There is a relationship shown between the two
characters that defies age and time in the form of the mother and daughter.
Maysles penultimate film
‘Iris’ (2012) focuses around the life of Iris Apfel a renowned fashion icon,
who at the age of ninety-three is still extremely active in the industry.
Maysles takes on a similar role within this film in depicting Iris remaining
behind the camera for the entire film with the subject talking to him through
the camera, however he does not stick within the confines of direct cinema,
using a small amount of interviews, montage and layered music. The two had
never met before they started filming but Iris claims she “fell in love” with
the idea and agreed to film. Maysles approach in this film is extremely unobtrusive,
spending large parts of the film following her to talks, events and such. Age
within this, films is not the focused upon topic, although her age is
referenced frequently we are not made to see this as her being, she talks and
is shown with a true passion. The end stages of the film we bare witness to
Carl Apfel’s (Iris’ husband) one-hundredth birthday, which steps in almost as a
final reminder of the age of the couple. With this film we are not subjected to
the negative stereotypes usually portrayed in mainstream media of a ‘grumpy’ or
out-of-touch’ elderly person but of someone who remains highly relevant in the
fashion world. There are doubtless references through out the film to her age
and the physical restraints that come with old age when she is ‘tired’ and
such, however these are very much breezed over and not held up in the light for
all to see. This representation is done through the way in which the film is
directed. The fact that Maysles was eighty-eight at the time of making the film
could lie heavily in the depiction of Iris as he understands the concepts of
age and how it is not age that defines a person. One of the most telling parts
of the film which shows Iris as having genuine concerns regarding her age are
when she is asked whether fashion ever keeps her up at night responding with “Matters
of health and things like that do. Things that are really important.” This
shows that despite the representation of the character as a lively older lady
there, are still the underlying fears that accompany old age. In one scene
Maysles gets (not visually seen) Iris to remove her glasses and look at the
camera holding the shot there for a prolonged period of time. This is
representative of Maysles attempting to break the barrier between the subject
and the audience; he is trying to get through the preconceived idea of age,
constructing a film that challenges stereotypes without completely avoiding the
topic of age.
