I thought the film Superherodads was terrific, both exemplary as a piece of propagandistic film-making based on emotional truth and as a piece of ballet, with a rhythm and a simple form which made a quite singular impact perfectly adapted to its length. Of course, I am pretty well placed to judge - the emotional chords struck were close to my own heart.
In the UK we may conflate the concept "documentary" with the concept "impartiality". And the reason would be partly because the BBC is required to be politically neutral. What is neutral, therefore, about views reflecting a video industry heavily dominated by the discipline and ethos of the BBC? If we were philosophers, or making films in the style of Jean Cocteau, would we laugh at such naivety? I have watched films from many language groups, in many countries, experiencing and discussing the way they convey their message from all sorts of angle. I would advocate the rule of substance over the rule of form, but maybe that is only me? Such marvellous vignettes as Super Hero Dads should not suffer the tyranny of the complainant - if they have upset someone's morning coffee break, it is because of the verity they encapsulate.
I have no brief to defend F4J, and would personally, if I were in a decision-making role, make clear the impulsive nature of the film, or cancel the brand credit, which is an add-on, but I would also communicate the spontaneous voluntarism which leads people, for reasons which must be the purest political reasons out there, to champion the cause of family rights, it is a defence of our humanity. I am not in that decision-making position, and neither is anyone except the film maker.
In the UK we may conflate the concept "documentary" with the concept "impartiality". And the reason would be partly because the BBC is required to be politically neutral. What is neutral, therefore, about views reflecting a video industry heavily dominated by the discipline and ethos of the BBC? If we were philosophers, or making films in the style of Jean Cocteau, would we laugh at such naivety? I have watched films from many language groups, in many countries, experiencing and discussing the way they convey their message from all sorts of angle. I would advocate the rule of substance over the rule of form, but maybe that is only me? Such marvellous vignettes as Super Hero Dads should not suffer the tyranny of the complainant - if they have upset someone's morning coffee break, it is because of the verity they encapsulate.
I have no brief to defend F4J, and would personally, if I were in a decision-making role, make clear the impulsive nature of the film, or cancel the brand credit, which is an add-on, but I would also communicate the spontaneous voluntarism which leads people, for reasons which must be the purest political reasons out there, to champion the cause of family rights, it is a defence of our humanity. I am not in that decision-making position, and neither is anyone except the film maker.