MY FLESH AND BLOOD (Jonathon Karsh, 2003)

“It gets complicated,” states Susan Tom of Fairfield, Ca. in Jonathan Karsh’s moving documentary My Flesh And Blood (Jonathan Karsh, 2003). That statement is an understatement of the highest order, for which she is referring to one of her 12 special needs children she cares for all by herself, and his 8 biological siblings none of whom share the same two parents as himself. This is just the background to one of the children, his name is Joe a young kid with physical problems (cystic fibrosis) and mental problems (ADHD). Among the 12 there is a pair of Russian girls both born with out legs, an 8 year old with burns over 80% of her body including her face, and a boy of 19 with a disease I can not even begin to pronounce let alone cope with in such cheer and hope. What My Flesh and Blood does is give insight into a woman’s life and her adoptive children, whom she loves as if she gave birth to all of them herself. What is presented to us as the viewer is not so much just a diary of a year in their lives but more a view of a 13th child with in the family. The Documentary crew takes on a role of the member of the family almost, one that needs to be accommodated and paid attention to. This is an intimate portrayal of the Tom family, and given the way they function as a family the story would not have been told in the same way otherwise. A clinical third party of a doc that separates it self from the subject with the camera would not have gotten as much warmth, welcome and insight as a doc that behaved, traveled and interacted like a member of the family. The first scenario would have painted a much more lonely picture of the Tom family, but the one we see presents such a true picture of what a family is whether or not they share the same flesh and blood or not.

Perhaps I personally was so involved in the story that I could not separate my self as a viewer just as the crew could not as the chronicler of their story. However, I am still of the opinion the this documentary is decidedly one sided, that is not to say that the implicit message is that we should all go out and adopt special needs children because it is not. I think here the message is, either implicit or explicit, that of tolerance and understanding. A documentary that was truly neutral on this family would fail miserably to find an audience and would be such a pointless and un-engaging story. On the flipside the only other view (to play a very evil devils advocate) I could see would be a documentary exemplifying the benefits of eugenics. That is not something I would ever wish to view.
The old adage of ‘seeing is believing’ is ever pertinent to this story, to read of this one would more than likely feel some sort of sympathy and forget just as easily. The fact that one a camera crew documented a year in their life, to me, brings a qualitative value to their story. The video brings the subject matter that much closer to the eyes and minds of those who can change the system, which the Tom family survives by. This is by far the perfect medium for them; it allows their individual story’s to be told effectively. This story comes through with a day-to-day flow that spans a year in their life, but as with any film the flow of the story is told with editing.

I cannot see a distinctive principle behind which the cuts were decided, but what I can see is that each scene or indeed segment was as long as it needed to be. In that each cut had a purpose to propagate the narrative, sequences regarding Joe (35-40% of the entire movie) were often hectic and jarring just like his behaviour, sequences on Faith Tom (8 year old burn victim) were heartfelt and as cheerful as she was. But Susan herself is dealing with her own self image problems and discusses on occasion her weight problem and inability to find or maintain an romantic relationship with a man. All these are dealt with at least once while others are returned to again for further clarification and a deepening of the story. The scenes of the entire family gathering for a day at the pool, or at the ice rink are placed emphatically at seasonal changes. This breaks up the previous sequence/act to represent the passage of time. The only negative to the whole presentation is the use of music, music undoubtedly influences mood and emotion but the problem in this sense is that it really draws the viewer in, the subtle music emphasizes the action during the scenes it is used. This is fine in fictional dramatic pieces but from a documentary sense music and sound can influence an audience more than any image/textual sense. But again the camera itself acts like a member of the family; the use of sympathetic/dramatic music only helps to promote this subtle influence.

Does this film raise and/or answer any questions? I had no questions going in and few once I had finished. What questions I did have were honestly taken care of by watching the special feature on the DVD. However, what I am left with is a feeling of hope, not only for those kids still in Susan Tom’s care but for the other countless, nameless children and their caregivers. This story is universal for anyone who has experienced in person just a shade of what we saw happen in the Tom home. Being dyslexic I could say that I relate to the frustrations of those with learning disabilities but I could not even begin to know what these kids were dealing with, all I can say is that the difference between knowing a child with a physical, mental or both disabilities is so much more that understanding them. My Flesh and Blood only promotes this understanding; it by no means allows one to know the Tom family.

Q & A
a film by Sidney Lumet

How the supporting cast in this film supports or challenges the lead character of Francis Reilly or his main antagonist Mike Brennan? Talk metaphor, race, stereotypes and archetypes.


Sidney Lumet wrote and directed Q & A, for which he brings to life the seedy goings on of corrupt police, the mafia, an even dirtier district attorney and the young strong willed but good natured Asst. DA. Made in 1990 this film portrays the death of the me decade, the selfish, Reagan/Thatcher idioms of the day.
Every character in this film at one point or another has their own personal agenda within the overall storyline, this makes for selfish motivations and everyone wants a piece of the pie. Nick Nolte as Captain Lt. Mike Brennan NYPD is the epitome of this greed, he murders in cold blood a man out side of a nightclub. This establishes his guilt very early on and thus the film itself is more of the investigation closing in on him and like any metaphorical cornered animal will fight for its life to get out. Asst. Dist. Atty. ‘Al’ Francis Reilly is the one assigned to the case from here he investigates for an hour of screen time before even suspecting Brennan of shooting the victim in cold blood. This again is a product of the selfish stereotypes represented in this film, Reilly is a son of a cop and a former cop himself, and thus for respect of the profession and the man, he at first refuses to believe that Brennan acted unlawfully. What this does is allow the main antagonist (Brennan) to be as mean, cruel and ruthless as he likes and we as an audience despise and hate him for it. Because no one sees it but us at first it leaves the other characters as mere chess pieces being manipulated.

Assigned to help Reilly are two cops who have worked closely with Brennan in the past one of whom even served in the marines in Vietnam with Brennan. This stereotypical buddy cop dynamic is challenged very harshly in this movie, as the character Chapman implies quite near the end he is a cop first and a friend second. At one point Brennan challenges Chapman’s friendship by guilt tripping him with Vietnam stories, and blackmailing his other cop/friend Valentin with his involvement in gangs before becoming a policeman. Chapman and Valentin are respectively of African-American and Latino origin, this in and of itself adds another layer to this dynamic. The supporting characters challenge Brennan (unknowingly though) to keep one step ahead of Reilly up to the point where Reilly begins to suspect Brennan of murder and not killing a man in self defence. Aspects of their race and the life they had before they were cops continues to pop up as a metaphor for redemption. Brennan is a cop beyond redemption, his greed and fear are what motivate him, he is the archetypal villain. But still this does not excuse the amount of clichéd characterisation within the film. Again Brennan's former cop friends and Reilly’s current cohorts, though performing admirably in their roles, stink of racial cliché. Chapman and Valentin are there as motivators, supporting characters with little to resolve after the death of Brenna, merely relief that a killer has been stopped.

This issue of race is prevalent throughout Q&A so much so that every characters ethnicity is established implicitly as soon as they are introduced. Brennan’s racism and homophobia is not exactly as an opposite to Reilly, more so Reilly sees in Brennan all the things he loathes in himself. Reilly on the other hand can fit into the stereotype of the good natured, green, Asst. DA that is ambitious, he knows the streets though as a former cop himself, we want him to find a case against Brennan. This case develops when we are introduced to the Puerto Rican drug lord who is dating Reilly’s ex girlfriend. Again a stereotype made flesh and a stereotyped story, boy meets girl, girl leaves boy, girl shacks up with polar opposite person in the form of a drug dealer. Bobby Texador owns the club the man is murdered outside of, his personal guests at the time were two Mafioso having drinks. All four of them, the girl, the drug dealer and gangsters appear at the Q&A along with the atypical sleazy New York lawyer. This film is about race and honour above all things, problem is Reilly’s investigation challenges his honour, his mentor indeed has his own agenda against Reilly’s new boss Quinn. Q&A is an implicit metaphor of the racial tension with New York, this ethnic melting pot boils on to the screen with all the stereotypical characters needed to make it convincing but still not enough depth to satisfy.

“Reilly’s investigation turns up many unsavoury characters, all marked by the distinctive ethnic characteristics stamped out by Hollywood. There’s the Italian mobster, the noble black cop, the Puerto Rican drug lord. If Mr. Lumet cares so deeply about divisive stereotypes, why has he stocked his film with nothing but?”1


Bibliography
1. Salamon, J. Wall Street Journal: Leisure & Arts. Article: Lumet’s ‘Q&A’ Heavy on Radical Cliches. (Eastern edition) New York, N.Y.: Apr 26, 1990, pg A12