THE WILD PARROTS OF TELEGRAPH HILL
Certainly a film for pet owners. I can't imagine what anyone who hasn't bonded with a pet would make of Mark Bittner, who, for several years played godfather to a flock of wild parrots in San Fransicso. I went with a friend who is a pet devotee herself, and was moved to tears his statements f reciprcal emotional bonding with the parrots, who flew in and out of his lefe as they fulfilled their destinies. It is not a fim for animal skeptics. It has elements of both adages, "Truth is stranger than fiction," and, although this is a documentary, for some it would require a "wlliing suspension of disbelief."
Actually, as good a view of wild parrots as this movie is, it is actualy more a portrait of Marc Bittner, a sort of pre-80's slacker, who is part of the post Beat, hippie/anti-war generation. The film doesn't realy account of how he survives (he lived rent free and an Italian woman gives him free food, presumably because he is a Telegraph Hill fixture and adds to the texture of the neighborhood. And, director Judy Irving's parrot shots, however cnvincint and illuminating about how parrots live, still could be left open to an interpretatiion other than Mark's. And, of course this is mitigated by the fact that, as we find out at the end of the film, they becaue a coupl;e, probably to remind us of the parrot relationships we've encountered in the film.
This is the third documentary in a row that I've seen, and certainly PARROTS is interesting, affecting, and maybe because I've become a pet person myself, occasionaly very moving. Also,. there's very little else out there to choose from.in the world of narrative film. The others I've seen recently are BORN INTO BROTHELS and WATERMARKS, and, in spite of reservations, I believe I made the right choices.
, And, I certainly will remember Connell, the blue-haired parrot, who "chooses" to live without a partner and to fly free in the open, and who meets a fate of choosing to live in the wild.
Actually, as good a view of wild parrots as this movie is, it is actualy more a portrait of Marc Bittner, a sort of pre-80's slacker, who is part of the post Beat, hippie/anti-war generation. The film doesn't realy account of how he survives (he lived rent free and an Italian woman gives him free food, presumably because he is a Telegraph Hill fixture and adds to the texture of the neighborhood. And, director Judy Irving's parrot shots, however cnvincint and illuminating about how parrots live, still could be left open to an interpretatiion other than Mark's. And, of course this is mitigated by the fact that, as we find out at the end of the film, they becaue a coupl;e, probably to remind us of the parrot relationships we've encountered in the film.
This is the third documentary in a row that I've seen, and certainly PARROTS is interesting, affecting, and maybe because I've become a pet person myself, occasionaly very moving. Also,. there's very little else out there to choose from.in the world of narrative film. The others I've seen recently are BORN INTO BROTHELS and WATERMARKS, and, in spite of reservations, I believe I made the right choices.
, And, I certainly will remember Connell, the blue-haired parrot, who "chooses" to live without a partner and to fly free in the open, and who meets a fate of choosing to live in the wild.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home