BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

PodBill Just what I expected

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Ian (Flash Review)Yep, this is a documentary about the handful of people who write obituaries for the New York Times. Seemed like an unusual topic to make a film for thus it peaked my curiosity. The director did a good job of making it as exciting as the topic could be. The film went into how obituaries are written, what qualifies a person to make the cut and how much space is allotted based on a person's notoriety or perhaps their unique story that contributed to an interesting point in history. Also discussed, with much fervor, was how these writers handle a late afternoon death of a big name in today's world of immediate news. Such as when they had to rush Michael Jackson as he died near the end of the day and was unexpected. For many big names, they do have a partially written obit to save time in crunch time. It was moderately interesting but 60 minutes would have sufficed over 90.

Larry Silverstein This rather fascinating documentary, directed by Vanessa Gould, shows us the inner workings of the obituary department of the New York Times. One might expect this film to be somewhat grim but it proves to be anything but, with even some deadpan (pun intended) humor well placed into the movie.Ar first, I thought the writers and editors of the department came across as flippant, considering the subject matter of a person's death. However, it became apparent that they have a job to do and are trying to do it in the best way possible, spinning an accurate and interesting narrative for their readers, while trying to sum up someone's life in just so many words, while also under time pressures to meet a print deadline.There's also lots of wonderful archival film and photos of people and events over the decades, as well as screen shots of various New York Times obits over the years. I thought the doc really gave me a good insight into how the writers of the obits chose those persons that would go into their columns and how the pieces are cobbled together, eventually with a finished product emerging.

jdesando "Maybe a sentence or two will be about the death." Obituarist Dying is no fun, but the obit writers at the New York Times make the most of it. They treat the assignment as a celebration of life, a real life, a history of people who made differences in the lives of others. Additionally, more than the responsibility of finding out the facts of a life is getting the facts correct.Obit is a surprisingly upbeat documentary about a decidedly downbeat subject. The reporters are animated about the celebration and the discoveries they uncover in their journalistic pursuit. Most of them were accomplished journalists who are chosen because that part of the paper has grown from a pasture for declining reporters to a field of artistic possibilities energized by the lives the reporters chronicle.Much of the time they are going on gut feeling. When they reported on John Fairfax, the first to cross an ocean in a rowboat, they hit a goldmine because his life outside the rowboat was even more interesting.In one of the most prominent obits, the somewhat discursive doc features the death of William Wilson, one of the first TV consultants, who advised JFK the night in 1960 when he defeated Richard Nixon by virtue of Kennedy's telegenic superiority, helped in no small part by Wilson's choice of such details as the makeup he hurried to buy at a pharmacy.An interesting part of such obits as Wilson's is the choice for lead paragraph or the headline or where in the paper it should go--front page or obit section--and how long in words. These decisions are not fed into an algorithm but rather are the province of writers and editors who know history and culture well enough to make the decision.The NYT is my favorite newspaper, so good that I read the obits along with the editorials. Such a gift to me ensures that my own obit will exude the joie de vivre we both share.

Lilcount I saw this pleasant albeit unexciting documentary at Cinema Village in NYC on May 21, 2017.Director Vanessa Gould interviews the people who write obituaries at America's paper of record, the New York Times. Along the way we learn much about the modern newspaper in an era of instant digital journalism.We watch veteran obit writer Bruce Weber interview by phone a family member of a subject and record answers to standard questions on a printed form designed for that purpose. Another writer, Margalit Fox, rebuts criticism that the Times' obit pages feature mainly white males. Her response: the movers and shakers of the pre-WWII era were mostly white males. She predicts that within a few years subjects will reflect the civil rights and women's movements and gradually balance out. (Interestingly, all the writers interviewed are middle-aged white males except for Fox, a middle-aged white female. We don't see any diversity until we sit in on editorial conferences.)We learn that the Times has over 1700 obits prepared in advance, mostly for aged subjects. When Michael Jackson died suddenly on a Friday afternoon at age 50, nothing had been prepared and music writer Jon Pareles had four or so hours to sum up the King of Pop's life to make the print edition.We even get to see the genesis and correction of an error. While interviewing the widow of William P. Wilson, who was JFK's media consultant for the Kennedy-Nixon debates, Weber learns that Wilson's grandfather was a Congressman from Illinois. On camera, we hear him presume the senior Wilson was a Democrat. Of course, we find out later, and from the contrite Weber himself, that Rep. Wilson was a Republican.All of this is quite interesting, but not terribly thrilling. Gould was unable to cobble a real narrative from her footage. But the behind-the- scenes look at the New York Times and the interviewees (most of whom, by the way, are listed in the credits as "former" NYT obituary writers)make this feature worth watching.