I think another reviewer here @nick94965 and a few other negative reviews (including one from the New York Times) misunderstand a few things that might put this documentary in a better light.
First, I thought the actress was fine, and introspective in a way that made the film work for me. We are watching her work on the character, the raw material and not a finished product. And that's important, and intentional. This documentary is as much about the actress trying to understand through her craft the character of Ms. Christine Chubbuck as it is about the events that led to the latter's suicide. It is dialogic between the two: one seen, one remembered.
In my view the director is saying any attempt to just recreate Christine Chubbuck is not going to be fair to her or successful for us, the audience. At several points the actress, Kate, concedes that she cannot grasp Chubbuck's story except in fragments. Of course if they were making a film like Christine (2016), the other film shown at Cannes, we would presumably see another edited and cut interpretation. We're instead looking at process as art imitates life.
Second, another essay at the New York Times by Dave Izkoff points out that the movie Network was only marginally related to the events in Florida. The writer of that film added a line about "the woman in Florida" but then erased it. The idea behind Network was in fact conceived many years before the Florida tragedy. Nevetheless, the film was juxtaposed successfully within this documentary to illustrate some of the emotions Ms. Chubbuck may have felt about her profession.
Third, there is a scene where the former colleagues of Ms. Chubbuck discuss her and show a videotape of Chubbuck engaged in an interview on her community program. One of them is adamant that he has refused to upload any of these old interviews to YouTube out of concern that people were requesting this less to honor Chubbuck's memory than to judge or exploit her memory. He stresses that Christine Chubbuck was opposed to packaging news as "blood and guts" sensationalism and yet ironically that's why everyone is interested in seeing these videos or films of her now. The actress at this point expresses sincere sympathy with this idea and holds onto it as a background emotion during the film's denouement. I personally disagree and think it would be fitting if the DVD included some full broadcasts from Christine Chubbuck's interviewing footage as a remembrance. But this camera operator/news professional knew her personally as a young 19 year old and that remains his opinion.
*SPOILER ALERT*
This sets up the actresses' decision to not pull the trigger. Now this is very likely staged, that is, the director and actress planned this storyline. In the end they're not going to give us the full blood and guts - at least not in a recreative way but in a way that maybe Christine Chubbuck would have appreciated. It is a defiant "is this what you wanted to see?" moment that is in keeping with Chubbuck's final message to the extent we can understand it.
I found this a perfect resolution that allowed me to reflect on this young woman's tragic choice along with the young actresses' emotional journey without feeling like I was complicit in exploitation.
Individuals decide to end their lives every day. It's not often public but it impacts those around them. As a society we should reflect on this. This documentary does not shy away from the positive and negative elements of such a choice.
The only criticism I would make of the film is it relies heavily on a single well known Washington Post account by Sally Quinn. I can only assume that remaining family members were not cooperating. One brother is said to be dead and we aren't told how (maybe it's none of our business). But if the family didn't cooperate that fact should have made it into the narrative at some point. And if they were willing then we should have heard more from them directly.
Perhaps related to the above, this film seems to have been made on a relatively low budget. It's professional, of course, but corners appear to be cut in choosing locations and sets. Now I'm not a film expert so perhaps I'm getting out from under my skis in saying that. It's my impression.
I recommend watching this in conjunction with the 2016 film Christine and also reading the original Washington Post article by Sally Quinn. I like to imagine that perhaps in some other universe a 29 year old Christine Chubbuck made a different choice and went on to a pleasant life of rich memories. And I hope that that Christine Chubbuck would find this documentary respectful and worth watching.
"All men by nature, desire to understand." (Aristotle, opening to the Metaphysics)
First, I thought the actress was fine, and introspective in a way that made the film work for me. We are watching her work on the character, the raw material and not a finished product. And that's important, and intentional. This documentary is as much about the actress trying to understand through her craft the character of Ms. Christine Chubbuck as it is about the events that led to the latter's suicide. It is dialogic between the two: one seen, one remembered.
In my view the director is saying any attempt to just recreate Christine Chubbuck is not going to be fair to her or successful for us, the audience. At several points the actress, Kate, concedes that she cannot grasp Chubbuck's story except in fragments. Of course if they were making a film like Christine (2016), the other film shown at Cannes, we would presumably see another edited and cut interpretation. We're instead looking at process as art imitates life.
Second, another essay at the New York Times by Dave Izkoff points out that the movie Network was only marginally related to the events in Florida. The writer of that film added a line about "the woman in Florida" but then erased it. The idea behind Network was in fact conceived many years before the Florida tragedy. Nevetheless, the film was juxtaposed successfully within this documentary to illustrate some of the emotions Ms. Chubbuck may have felt about her profession.
Third, there is a scene where the former colleagues of Ms. Chubbuck discuss her and show a videotape of Chubbuck engaged in an interview on her community program. One of them is adamant that he has refused to upload any of these old interviews to YouTube out of concern that people were requesting this less to honor Chubbuck's memory than to judge or exploit her memory. He stresses that Christine Chubbuck was opposed to packaging news as "blood and guts" sensationalism and yet ironically that's why everyone is interested in seeing these videos or films of her now. The actress at this point expresses sincere sympathy with this idea and holds onto it as a background emotion during the film's denouement. I personally disagree and think it would be fitting if the DVD included some full broadcasts from Christine Chubbuck's interviewing footage as a remembrance. But this camera operator/news professional knew her personally as a young 19 year old and that remains his opinion.
*SPOILER ALERT*
This sets up the actresses' decision to not pull the trigger. Now this is very likely staged, that is, the director and actress planned this storyline. In the end they're not going to give us the full blood and guts - at least not in a recreative way but in a way that maybe Christine Chubbuck would have appreciated. It is a defiant "is this what you wanted to see?" moment that is in keeping with Chubbuck's final message to the extent we can understand it.
I found this a perfect resolution that allowed me to reflect on this young woman's tragic choice along with the young actresses' emotional journey without feeling like I was complicit in exploitation.
Individuals decide to end their lives every day. It's not often public but it impacts those around them. As a society we should reflect on this. This documentary does not shy away from the positive and negative elements of such a choice.
The only criticism I would make of the film is it relies heavily on a single well known Washington Post account by Sally Quinn. I can only assume that remaining family members were not cooperating. One brother is said to be dead and we aren't told how (maybe it's none of our business). But if the family didn't cooperate that fact should have made it into the narrative at some point. And if they were willing then we should have heard more from them directly.
Perhaps related to the above, this film seems to have been made on a relatively low budget. It's professional, of course, but corners appear to be cut in choosing locations and sets. Now I'm not a film expert so perhaps I'm getting out from under my skis in saying that. It's my impression.
I recommend watching this in conjunction with the 2016 film Christine and also reading the original Washington Post article by Sally Quinn. I like to imagine that perhaps in some other universe a 29 year old Christine Chubbuck made a different choice and went on to a pleasant life of rich memories. And I hope that that Christine Chubbuck would find this documentary respectful and worth watching.
"All men by nature, desire to understand." (Aristotle, opening to the Metaphysics)