The buzz about "Wild Parrots" is that it is a heartwarming portrait of a gentle man's bittersweet love affair with beautiful parrots.
Well, okay, if that's the movie you saw, great.
The "Wild Parrots" I saw was disappointing.
The least I expect from any filmmaker is honesty. If you use your camera to ferret out truths that most of us miss, and present those truths articulately and in an interesting way to others, you work deserves a showing, no matter its topic. I love birds and haven't much interest in sports and would rather watch an insightful sports documentary than a movie about birds that plays it safe and fudges its story.
"Wild Parrots" follows forty something San Franciscan Mark Bittner's relationship with a flock of feral parrots that live on Telegraph Hill in San Francisco. Bittner spends much of his time hand feeding the birds and observing their behavior. Bittner, who is of sound mind and body but declines to work, lives rent-free in a cottage owned by people who apparently do work.
The documentary's drama comes when the cottage owners decide that they must renovate the cottage. Given how extensively it needs to be renovated, they ask Bittner to leave.
Bittner is shown weeping on camera. He gives away Mingus, a parrot he had living in the cottage with him. He says goodbye to Conner, a lone member of a species that is different from the rest of the flock. Conner had never been able to find a mate (a hard thing for a parrot, as they are very social) and Bittner had performed some mate-like functions for Conner, for example grooming him.
Mingus is sent to live in a facility for abandoned parrots, and lonely Conner, after appearing to mourn Bittner's departure, dies tragically.
The movie wants us to believe that Bittner is being victimized by the couple who asked him to leave their cottage, where he had lived for years without paying any rent. The movie wants us to believe that Mingus and Conner's sad fate is all the fault of the evil landlords.
Oh, baloney.
Bittner makes it clear that he has long refused to work for a living, preferring what he calls a more "spiritual" and "pure" lifestyle. Jesus was a carpenter . . . but that kind of labor is not good enough for Mark Bittner.
Bittner could have gotten a job, enabled himself to pay rent, moved to a new apartment, and taken Mingus with him. After Bittner was evicted, he was taken in by friends in the East Bay. He was a short public transportation ride away from the parrot flock. He could have easily continued to visit the wild parrots; Conner did not have to mourn him.
I've lived in the Bay Area. I met many who didn't work, and who didn't pay rent. These folks often announced themselves as above such pedestrian concerns as, oh, paying money for the food they ate, or contributing to society through labor. These folks often sponged off of their parents and friends. They often disappointed their loved ones and children. Like Bittner, they always had quotes from Zen scriptures at the ready to make themselves sound deep.
Maybe there is a good reason why Bittner could not work, or live up to his commitments even to a flock of birds. The film never explores that question, though. It accepts, without any curiosity, Bittner's self description as a man too spiritual to work. The filmmaker became lovers with Bittner. Even so, women have been able, in the past, to explore the truths, both the benign truths and the hard truths, of their lovers' lives. That's what art is for, even art about parrots.
The film doesn't even look very hard at the parrots it captures in its frame. There are very difficult to watch scenes of parrots attacking an injured flock member. No theory is offered as to why this happens.
Any film featuring footage of parrots, other birds, and the sun on San Francisco Bay can't be all bad; "Wild Parrots" is beautiful. I just wish "Wild Parrots" had had a little bit more courage, a tad more curiosity, and some honesty. If the film had been more probing, and more honest, about both Bittner and the parrots, I'm sure I would have liked him, the birds, and the film much more.
Well, okay, if that's the movie you saw, great.
The "Wild Parrots" I saw was disappointing.
The least I expect from any filmmaker is honesty. If you use your camera to ferret out truths that most of us miss, and present those truths articulately and in an interesting way to others, you work deserves a showing, no matter its topic. I love birds and haven't much interest in sports and would rather watch an insightful sports documentary than a movie about birds that plays it safe and fudges its story.
"Wild Parrots" follows forty something San Franciscan Mark Bittner's relationship with a flock of feral parrots that live on Telegraph Hill in San Francisco. Bittner spends much of his time hand feeding the birds and observing their behavior. Bittner, who is of sound mind and body but declines to work, lives rent-free in a cottage owned by people who apparently do work.
The documentary's drama comes when the cottage owners decide that they must renovate the cottage. Given how extensively it needs to be renovated, they ask Bittner to leave.
Bittner is shown weeping on camera. He gives away Mingus, a parrot he had living in the cottage with him. He says goodbye to Conner, a lone member of a species that is different from the rest of the flock. Conner had never been able to find a mate (a hard thing for a parrot, as they are very social) and Bittner had performed some mate-like functions for Conner, for example grooming him.
Mingus is sent to live in a facility for abandoned parrots, and lonely Conner, after appearing to mourn Bittner's departure, dies tragically.
The movie wants us to believe that Bittner is being victimized by the couple who asked him to leave their cottage, where he had lived for years without paying any rent. The movie wants us to believe that Mingus and Conner's sad fate is all the fault of the evil landlords.
Oh, baloney.
Bittner makes it clear that he has long refused to work for a living, preferring what he calls a more "spiritual" and "pure" lifestyle. Jesus was a carpenter . . . but that kind of labor is not good enough for Mark Bittner.
Bittner could have gotten a job, enabled himself to pay rent, moved to a new apartment, and taken Mingus with him. After Bittner was evicted, he was taken in by friends in the East Bay. He was a short public transportation ride away from the parrot flock. He could have easily continued to visit the wild parrots; Conner did not have to mourn him.
I've lived in the Bay Area. I met many who didn't work, and who didn't pay rent. These folks often announced themselves as above such pedestrian concerns as, oh, paying money for the food they ate, or contributing to society through labor. These folks often sponged off of their parents and friends. They often disappointed their loved ones and children. Like Bittner, they always had quotes from Zen scriptures at the ready to make themselves sound deep.
Maybe there is a good reason why Bittner could not work, or live up to his commitments even to a flock of birds. The film never explores that question, though. It accepts, without any curiosity, Bittner's self description as a man too spiritual to work. The filmmaker became lovers with Bittner. Even so, women have been able, in the past, to explore the truths, both the benign truths and the hard truths, of their lovers' lives. That's what art is for, even art about parrots.
The film doesn't even look very hard at the parrots it captures in its frame. There are very difficult to watch scenes of parrots attacking an injured flock member. No theory is offered as to why this happens.
Any film featuring footage of parrots, other birds, and the sun on San Francisco Bay can't be all bad; "Wild Parrots" is beautiful. I just wish "Wild Parrots" had had a little bit more courage, a tad more curiosity, and some honesty. If the film had been more probing, and more honest, about both Bittner and the parrots, I'm sure I would have liked him, the birds, and the film much more.