Super Size Me (USA, 2004)
Directed by Morgan Spurlock
Starring Morgan Spurlock, Alexandra Jamieson

Cinema is full of food-related scenes which are guaranteed to turn one's stomach. We have La Grande Bouffe, in which rich people eat themselves to death; Peter Greenaway turning cannibalism into an art form with The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover; and the famously gross Mr. Creosote sequence from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. And now we have Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock's appropriately queasy documentary which is up there with Touching the Void as one of the decade's best films.Super Size Me follows Spurlock as he attempts to survive on nothing but McDonalds for an entire month. The rules are simple: he must eat three meals a day, he can only eat what is offered at McDonalds, he must try everything on the menu at least once, and he must answer yes if offered a super-size meal. In between tackling his alarming diet, Spurlock is closely monitored by a small army of doctors, and the only exercise he undertakes is walking the same daily distance as an average American.Although it's an intensely personal, first-person documentary, the film has none of the self-obsession or navel-gazing which has dogged Michael Moore or later Nick Broomfield. For starters, Spurlock is a lot more likeable than either of these: we don't just enjoy his company, we get the impression that the film crew did as well. He is populist, rational and refreshingly self-effacing, in complete contrast to Moore who, in the words of Mark Kermode, seems mainly concerned with inflating his own ego.Furthermore, Spurlock is pursuing a subject matter of great importance but getting under the surface with a bigger intention than scoring political points. Where Fahrenheit 9/11 frequently went off the boil for the sake of making Moore look good, Super Size Me keeps its eyes on the prize, being thorough and comprehensive in its investigations. In one of its best moments, Spurlock gets under the skin of a spokesman from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, getting him to admit that the lobbyists he represents are part of the growing problem of State-side obesity.Like the films listed in the opening paragraph, there are a number of scenes in Super Size Me which make you want to throw up. On Day 2 of the challenge, Spurlock orders a Big Mac and throws up in the car park. The camera looks away as he does it, but then shows the horrid yellow mess left on the tarmac. Equally disgusting are the close-ups of the food before it enters his stomach; suffice to say, it's nothing like the pictures. Worst of all, about half way through we get to witness keyhole surgery on a gastric band operation, set to the main theme from The Blue Danube.Critics of Super Size Me have pointed to these scenes as evidence of the film's partisan approach. Their argument goes that since Spurlock didn't test other restaurants or brands of fast food, he has a particular grudge against McDonalds and is using the film as a form of propaganda. The camera's lingering on Spurlock's discomfort, or his claims about his sex life suffering, are means of manipulating people into boycotting one company rather than exposing deeper truths about the industry as a whole.While the documentary may paint a far-from-rosy picture of McDonalds, such criticisms are unduly harsh. Spurlock makes clear from the start that this is not a clinical trial or a hard scientific experiment. He chose McDonalds for the reason that it has the most outlets across America, with the largest number of customers, and therefore would provide a more representative sample than a study of any other single chain. The evidence produced by Spurlock is conclusive but not medically binding, which makes it all the more extraordinary when we discover in the epilogue that McDonalds has withdrawn its Super Size options.The documentary is very even-handed in a number of points that it makes. At one of the schools examined in the film, the students are given a presentation by Jared Fogle, who lost a large amount of weight by eating Subway sandwiches. The crew then interview a teenage girl who admires what Fogle has done, but who cannot afford to eat Subway three times a day. The positive goals which celebrities like Fogle are setting are as unhealthily unrealistic as the impossibly airbrushed bodies of girls in magazines. In terms of self-esteem among teenagers, role models of any kind are portrayed as doing more harm than good.Super Size Me identifies three areas in which there has been neglect, ignorance or cynical foul play with regard to the consumption of fast food. The first, unsurprisingly, is with McDonalds itself. Spurlock sheds light on the immense amount of money spent on advertising, which far exceeds the national budget for promoting healthy eating. The prevalence of TV advertising means that no parent, no matter how responsible, can guarantee their child isn't being poorly influenced, and individual McDonalds chains (at the time of making the film) are not displaying adequate levels of information about the nutrition content of their meals.The second area which has fallen short is the government. More recent documentaries such as Waiting for Superman have detailed the years of neglect and underfunding in the American state school system in a more thorough and comprehensive way. But Super Size Me does show how the use of outside food contractors to provide school meals has led to a race to the bottom, in terms of price and in terms of quality. So much of the food served in schools requires no preparation other than reheating, and because the choices are limited children are brought up to accept nothing better, let alone healthier.But thirdly, Super Size Me has the balls to point the finger at the individuals who consume McDonalds so frequently. Having made a very solid case against fast food companies and lobbyists, and spoken about the frightening extent of fast food advertising, the film concludes by saying that it's as much down to us not making the effort as it is the society in which we are constantly exposed to such food. This might seem like a cop out, considering how much righteous anger the film generates through its arguments against the industry. But it is refreshing that a documentary has the balls to 'blame' the public without guilt-tripping them in the process.On top of everything else, Super Size Me is a very entertaining piece of work. As well as making you feel angry or sick, there are at least as many moments in the film which will provoke laughter - and genuine laughter at that. Hearing Spurlock's girlfriend talk about their disappointing sex life is hilarious; she comments, for instance, about how she always has to be on top since he started his diet. On the day that we see him throw up, Spurlock cracks jokes about the side effects of fast food on his system, muttering about "Mc-twitches" in his arm and other such complaints. Such scenes are pleasant interludes which make the experience more bearable and counteract any negative feelings we may have, e.g. shouting at Spurlock to stop it, lest he should kill himself.Super Size Me is a great example of populist documentary filmmaking which is a near-perfect balance of entertainment and information. Its impact will be greater the less one knows about fast food in general or McDonalds in particular, and many may be bothered that it doesn't go into enough detail when it needs to. But as an introduction to a subject which many have barely considered, it is both admirable and successful. One hopes that Spurlock's latest film can emulate both of these qualities.

Rating:
Verdict: En-gross-ing

Senna (France/ UK/ USA, 2011)
Directed by Asif Kapadia
Starring Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost, Frank Williams, Ron Dennis

Innovation and artistic value are not properties which disappear when a genre enters the mainstream, and nowhere is there more evident than in documentaries. There are copious examples of recent efforts which have found a relatively wide audience while pushing the genre envelope, from Kevin Macdonald's nail-biting Touching the Void to more introspective works like The Arbor and Of Time and the City. Continuing this trend is Senna, a really great documentary which could be one of the year's best films.Senna is a documentary about the late Formula 1 racing driver Ayrton Senna, which is constructed entirely from archive footage of him. This incorporates TV race coverage, press interviews, TV appearances in Brazil, behind-the-scenes footage and family home video. Although other voices appear over the footage, there is no consistent narration to impose a particular version of events over what we see. Senna is allowed to tell his own story, like he is reading from pages of a diary which switches between the first and third person.One of the instant advantages of this approach is that Senna avoids the cliché of the talking head. These are individuals connected with the subject or more contemporary commentators, whose often platitudinous insights can drag even the best documentary into tedium and mediocrity. But just as Julien Temple's rock documentaries have sought to capture the feel of a band rather than just what people have said about them, so Asif Kapadia makes us instantly immersed in the character of Senna as he saw himself, rather than just the reputations he accrued.Another coup of Kapadia's film is that it makes the televisual cinematic. Normally when TV footage is put on the big screen, it looks out of place because of a difference in aspect ratio or frame rate which breaks the flow. But Kapadia does not let this happen, blowing up the footage very carefully and reframing key scenes so that we zoom in on the characters' faces and emotions. The pace of the film, both as a thrill ride and a piece of storytelling, keep any technical quibbles out of our minds, so that even when the footage is grainy or incomplete, we don't complain.Senna explores a number of themes related to racing driving and the personality and attitudes of the drivers therein. There is a repeated mention of "real driving", the pure sensation of driving for its own sake, in which the goal is not simply winning but winning through pure talent and passion alone. It is this pure devotion to what he loves that made Senna stand out from the other drivers, and which led him to become a national hero in his home country of Brazil.Senna's complaints about racing technology mirror concerns in the sport as a whole, and comment on how the nature of Formula 1 has changed since he started racing in the 1980s. The tipping point comes in 1992 when Williams introduce new suspension technology on their car; at this point Senna's form begins to decline because he cannot adjust his pure style of driving to technology designed to make the driver do less work.

Within this there is a comment on how technology determines not only the style of racing but also the personality of the driver. In the middle of the film there is a conversation between Senna and Jackie Stewart, in which they talk about the changes in technology and how that has affected the flair of different drivers. The implication is the less there is for a driver to do in a race, the less there is for the driver to be, with said individuals hiding behind endorsements and statistics in the absence of real, passionate charisma.This difference in approach is further communicated in Senna's bitter rivalry with Alain Prost. Senna races with a pure spirit and an often reckless urge to win at any cost - he is not content to play the political games and he never does it for the money. But Prost, who is nicknamed the Professor, is content to play those games and drive according to mathematical calculations - if he can win a championship by staying in fifth, he will stay in fifth.Much has been written about how Prost comes out as the villain of the film, and it is undeniably true that at the height of their respective careers both men hated each other. But in fact, their relationship is far more complicated than simple rivalry. Beneath the public scrapes involving crashes and back-chatting, there is some form of mutual underlying respect which these men retained throughout their careers. In spite of completely different styles and attitudes, both men were willing to acknowledge the other's talent, which might explain why Prost currently serves as a trustee for Senna's charity.If we wish to paint the documentary purely in terms of heroes and villains, then the true antagonists are the Formula 1 regulators. The film examines the conflicted and clouded politics of professional racing and how the rules designed to make racing fair and exciting often go against the very things the drivers (or at least Senna) want. In one sequence, the FIA President Jean-Michel Balestre emphasises a particular regulation, only for the majority of drivers to vote against upholding it. In another, there is a heated disagreement about racing lines on the starting grid which leads to a spectacular crash involving Senna at the start of a race.But although Senna focuses on the physical effort and talent involved in racing, an equal amount of its focus is on the spiritual aspect of the sport. Senna was a devout Roman Catholic who prayed to God before each race, and who believed that God had called him to drive this fast and in this way. The way Senna talks about God often drifts in Chariots of Fire territory, so that you almost expect him to say: "when I drive, I feel his pleasure". But the documentary also shows that this relationship was not straightforward; the first time Senna feels God's presence, he crashes at Monaco, throwing away a huge lead and losing the race.Because the outcome of the subject is widely known, certain moments in Senna take on an eerie quality so that they become harbingers of his tragic death. When he goes on Brazilian TV after becoming world champion, a girl kisses him and wishes him a happy new year for every year up until 1993, the year before he died. In 1991 he talks about having many years ahead of him and still so much to achieve. Like Amazing Journey, the film touches on the possibility that certain individuals are so prodigiously talented that they were not put on this Earth to make old bones. And like Keith Moon, Senna's death was both a tragic accident and something to be expected by the way he lived his life.Even if you're not a fan of Formula 1, or particularly interested in the spiritual side of sport, there is more than enough in Senna to get your heart racing. Some of the racing footage is genuinely scary, as cars pass within inches of each other through corners and the on-board cameras give you a sense of speed with wider shots would not. Senna's driving throughout is extraordinary, and in appreciating this we follow his emotional journey. We feel his intense anger at being disqualified from the Japanese Grand Prix in 1989, and both his joy and immense pain after having won in Brazil in 1990 despite having to drive the last few laps in a single gear.There are aspects of Senna's life which remain absent from the documentary, such as his relationships with women and his influence on popular motoring, such as working with Honda on the NSX. But all in all this is a great documentary which is gripping, insightful and highly emotional. It does justice both to the man and to the ideals for which he stood, while leaving plenty of things open to interpretation. Like Senna himself, it is accomplished, thrilling and ultimately heart-breaking.

Rating:
Verdict: One of the year's best films

Touching the Void (UK, 2003)
Directed by Kevin Macdonald
Starring Joe Simpson, Simon Yates, Brendan Mackey, Nicholas Aaron

Docudramas, like biopics, are difficult things to pull off. They have to be close enough to the truth to be credible in the eyes of those involved, but they must also be engrossing and entertaining enough to pull in audiences which are not so well-versed. Touching the Void is a first-class balancing act between the two, and after eight years it remains both Kevin Macdonald's best film and a high point of the genre.Touching the Void recreates the extraordinary story of Joe Simpson and Simon Yates, two British mountaineers who attempted to be the first to climb the southern face of the Siula Grande in the Peruvian Andes in 1985. Having successfully reached the summit, tragedy struck on their descent when Simpson fell and broke his leg. Yates attempted to lower his friend down the mountain, but bad weather and increasingly desperate circumstances led him to cut the rope holding his friend. After surviving a fall into a deep crevasse, Simpson was able to climb and crawl his way down to the base camp despite having a badly broken leg and not eating for several days.Under normal circumstances, you would now have every right to have a go at me for spoiling the plot. But what makes Touching the Void so interesting, and remarkable as a piece of filmmaking, is that it is able to keep you in nerve-shredding suspense about the predicament of these two men even though the outcome is already known. The film makes this very clear by having both men appear in person in the opening shots (although in separate interviews, for reasons that will become clear from watching).

Unlike most films, where too much prior knowledge can cause prejudicial judgement, Touching the Void is not affected by whatever background research you would care to undertake. You could know the story and the book on which it is based inside out, and you still wouldn't be able to stop yourself sitting open-mouthed, wondering how the hell both of these brave men are still alive.In terms of its themes and ideas, the film is on its most general level about the ability of people - or at least certain kinds of people - to do the seemingly impossible under an appalling set of conditions with all the odds staked against them. Every time you think the characters have reached their limit, and that they cannot possibly even hope of surviving, they quickly go beyond said limits without a second's hesitation. Rather than begging them to just stop and let death take its course, we are in awe that they even had the idea to try, let alone by the reality that both survived.Like many extraordinary figures in whatever discipline, the relationships we build with Simon and Joe are a mix of distant admiration at what they did and endearment at how easily they can describe or relate their experiences. The more time we spend in their company, the more convinced we become that, under the same circumstances, we could not have done a tenth what they managed to do. This sense of distance, which is present in a lot of war documentaries, almost makes us feel inadequate and unworthy to be in their company.Fortunately enough, both Joe Simpson and Simon Yates turn out to be fascinating and approachable characters, who take a very straightforward, down-to-earth approach to both the incident and life in general. Simon is the more animated of the two, at least in terms of his facial expressions: his soft Yorkshire accent and darting eyes make him resemble a younger, more athletic Nick Park. Joe, on the other hand, is very considered, with very little movement in his upper body and a more lackadaisical way of talking. Macdonald shoots their interviews in fixed close-ups, so that every facial tic and change in vocal pitch becomes magnified, helping our insight to grow.Accompanying the interviews we have reconstructions of both the climb and Joe's miraculous descent down the mountain. In many TV documentaries, this is normally the point where things get silly, as an assortment of actors with varying degrees of hair and make-up sit around explaining the plot in funny accents. But Touching the Void is deeply cinematic, and the actors involved in these reconstructions make the experience very real. The pain and anguish is so believable that you can't help but wonder what Macdonald must have put them through on the set (if it can be called a set) to get them to that point of intense emotion.These reconstructions have a second role, namely in demonstrating how well-directed the film is. Macdonald contrasts the undeniable beauty of the mountain ranges and Andean lakes with the cold, dark, nightmarish reality of the crevasse into which Joe falls. His choice of camera angles is superb, ranging from wide helicopter shots of the actors on the summit to extreme, shaky-camera close-ups in the snowstorm.

This sense of professionalism makes the harsher moments of Touching the Void all the more wince-inducing. The scenes of Joe hopping his way down a glacier, screaming in pain every time his bad leg brushes against a rock, cause you to crumple up and almost watch through your hands. But even the non-physical elements of the film make it almost unbearable (in a good way). Because your proximity to the actors is so close, you are forced to ask yourself the very same questions. Would I have cut the rope? Would I have waited longer at the base camp? Would I have even tried to make it out of the crevasse?There is a natural comparison between Touching the Void and 127 Hours, since both films deal with characters in extremis who are forced to make potentially life-threatening decisions. And in terms of our relationship with the characters, there is a part of us which continues to believe all through the film that both the climbers and Aron Ralston are completely reckless in what they are doing. But whether because of the presence of the real-life men on screen or the performances of the actors retracing their steps, it is much easier to forgive this trait in Simon and Joe, making them more readily likeable.The one real weakness of Touching the Void, however, is something which is closely tied to the work of Danny Boyle. There is an interesting counterpoint in the film between the human and the spiritual; Joe may be a declared atheist, but he still speaks of "malignant forces" on the mountain - another reading of 'void' in the title. But when the film attempts to depict his spiritual frame of mind, it gets a little bogged down. Macdonald is not as adept as Boyle in interweaving the fantastical or supernatural into the grim and realistic, and the use of timelapse on the glacier looks like a lazy riff on the boulders sequence in Sorcerer, William Friedkin's much-maligned remake of The Wages of Fear.In spite of this minor shortcoming, however, Touching the Void is a riveting docudrama and a very fine filmmaking achievement. From a narrative point of view it achieves the rare feat of creating genuine tension and suspense when the outcome is clearly known to the audience. The fact that it shows its hand so early in this respect is a sign of great confidence in both the story and its emotional impact. It is a gripping work from every conceivable angle, and while not the most relaxing experience, it deserves to be seen.

Rating:
Verdict: Really frightening and frighteningly real