after no less than three people (which constitutes a fairly hefty majority in the oline world) told me i should go see tabloid because it was "right up my alley," k.smartt and i spent this just past steamy saturday afternoon parked in front of the silver screen.
and, people. wow. i'll resist (for now) the temptation to delve into the whole celebrity studies aspect of the tabloid spectrum of truth and the notion of invading one's own privacy.but i want to write about tabloid because things often seem less real if i don't write about them. and also because i want you all to be so provoked by my dumbfuddlement that you'll see it and tell me what to think. because after three days straight of rumination, i still really just don't know. it is all still very wtf.
erroll morris is the anti-michael moore. i say this having never seen a single michael moore movie, but i'm assuming what's prevalent in the previews is likely pervasive in the films (forgive me, dear michael moore, if i'm grievously wronging you in this assumption) and based on that, in his documentaries michael moore bangs you over the head with THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD BELIEVE. in contrast, morris displays considerably more sleight of hand. he lays out a buffet of things to think about and then steps back.
i both heart and hate erroll morris for this.
his films grant the viewer a tremendous amount of freedom to draw his or her own conclusions. as a result, they are both endlessly provocative and incredibly frustrating. because you sit through what seemed like a fairly straightforward hour and a half film and spend the next three days thinking, but wait... what the fuck?