Do Not Bend: The Photographic Life of Bill Jay

[Helge]

In this instance, what, beyond the talking done by the various people being interviewed, was there to be shown? His impact was as an educator, not as a photographer. Even when he was working in the magazines, he was educating and promoting other photographers. So there's not much to show.

I agree the documentary was too long and a bit too long-winded. But there's not likely to ever be another documentary about him. He's easily one of those people who had significance in his area during his time but is easily overlooked by history. The world is shifted by such people. I'd rather there were more documentaries like this, about people like this.

You don't really consider yourself a humanist, do you? (That's a serious question, not a slight.)

Then I should ask you what you consider the traits of a humanist? In some ways yes, I’m a humanist. I exactly want to know the person Bill Jay in more detail. The interesting parts, not the important but for all people often incidental minutia of life and largely, in the films context, unmotivated praise from affiliated people.
A shorter film with far more weight on his actual thoughts would have made me more enthusiastic I think.
How did he actually change peoples thinking? What did they go on to do?
What philosophy did he draw on? Who was he influenced by?
Etc.

 

[pentaxuser]

In this instance, what, beyond the talking done by the various people being interviewed, was there to be shown? His impact was as an educator, not as a photographer. Even when he was working in the magazines, he was educating and promoting other photographers. So there's not much to show.

I agree the documentary was too long and a bit too long-winded. But there's not likely to ever be another documentary about him. He's easily one of those people who had significance in his area during his time but is easily overlooked by history. The world is shifted by such people. I'd rather there were more documentaries like this, about people like this.

You don't really consider yourself a humanist, do you? (That's a serious question, not a slight.)

That's the key to what the video was trying to do, IMO. Either you are attracted by this sort of life story to the extent of 90 minutes of talking heads or you are not or, at least not the extent of 90 mins

You have summarised it very well for me


pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

That's the key to what the video was trying to do, IMO. Either you are attracted by this sort of life story to the extent of 90 minutes of talking heads or you are not or, at least not the extent of 90 mins

You have summarised it very well for me


pentaxuser

It’s not that they are talking heads. It’s what they are talking about. Or indeed not talking about.

 

[pentaxuser]

Is a fair and uncontroversial summary of it as follows? "It is what it is and that's all that it is" as the famous spinach eating sailor says

pentaxuser

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Merely suggesting that getting those photographers, was not exclusively due to his winning persona.
Many of these artists was also kind of new and up and coming at the time he “scored the scoop”.

Helge, I'm all for exchanging ideas and, sometimes, opinions, but now you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. What "new and up and coming" the heck are you talking about? Issues of Creative Camera that Bill Jay edited featured, as far as American photographers are concerned, the names of Robert Frank, W. Eugene Smith, Lisette Model, Garry Winogrand, Weegee, Danny Lyon, Lee Friedlander and Diane Arbus, amongst others. None of them were "up and coming" in 1969 — Gene Smith's great achievements were mostly behind him (he only had Minamata left to do), Lyon had already achieved some form of celebrity from documenting the civil rights movement, Arbus, Winogrand and Friedlander had been subject of a groundbreaking exhibit at the MoMA in 67, and Robert Frank wasn't even photographing any more at that time.

If your argument is that the film isn't perfect, well fine. It has its faults, but, as I said, I believe they did a heck of a good job considering how little material they had.

If your argument is, as it also seems to be, that Bill Jay himself is not interesting or important or influential enough to merit a biographical movie, well, on that, you are pretty much on your own. I'm not sure why you insist on having such a negative view about someone about which everyone seemed to have a positive view, but, like the man said, you do you.

By the way: I loooooved Searching for Sugar Man

 

[Don_ih]

How did he actually change peoples thinking? What did they go on to do?
What philosophy did he draw on? Who was he influenced by?

Those are fair questions. But didn't the documentary answer those for you?

The documentary could have been more to-the-point, more focused on a few emphasized facets of Bill Jay, less ponderous and meandering - less personal. Would that be better? Probably more watchable. I get the feeling, though, that a survey of his work and a list of his influences would have been probably less memorable. And, given his attitude, I don't think he would have wanted a particularly academic approach to his life and work.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Those are fair questions. But didn't the documentary answer those for you?

The documentary could have been more to-the-point, more focused on a few emphasized facets of Bill Jay, less ponderous and meandering - less personal. Would that be better? Probably more watchable. I get the feeling, though, that a survey of his work and a list of his influences would have been probably less memorable. And, given his attitude, I don't think he would have wanted a particularly academic approach to his life and work.

This sums it up pretty well. The film did a heck of good job getting me curious and interested about Bill Jay, a name I had just seen in passing. What more can you ask? After that, wanting to know more, I got the book he did with David Hurn and read some of his articles on his website.

 

[Helge]

Helge, I'm all for exchanging ideas and, sometimes, opinions, but now you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. What "new and up and coming" the heck are you talking about? Issues of Creative Camera that Bill Jay edited featured, as far as American photographers are concerned, the names of Robert Frank, W. Eugene Smith, Lisette Model, Garry Winogrand, Weegee, Danny Lyon, Lee Friedlander and Diane Arbus, amongst others. None of them were "up and coming" in 1969 — Gene Smith's great achievements were mostly behind him (he only had Minamata left to do), Lyon had already achieved some form of celebrity from documenting the civil rights movement, Arbus, Winogrand and Friedlander had been subject of a groundbreaking exhibit at the MoMA in 67, and Robert Frank wasn't even photographing any more at that time.

If your argument is that the film isn't perfect, well fine. It has its faults, but, as I said, I believe they did a heck of a good job considering how little material they had.

If your argument is, as it also seems to be, that Bill Jay himself is not interesting or important or influential enough to merit a biographical movie, well, on that, you are pretty much on your own. I'm not sure why you insist on having such a negative view about someone about which everyone seemed to have a positive view, but, like the man said, you do you.

By the way: I loooooved Searching for Sugar Man

Guess you missed “many” and “kind of”.
67 was not that long ago at that time and what happened at MoMa was not automatically well known on the other side of the Atlantic then either.
Again, many (as in far from all) of them where just getting to the level of fame we associate them with today in the late sixties to early seventies, even in the states.

Searching for Sugarman was to a large extent a construction, and indeed myth making.
The whole general premise of the film is wrong.
The guy was never forgotten or particularly much more under appreciated than other similar talent.
He had one wonderful album.
But so has a hell of a lot of other people who are also “forgotten”.

It’s just like Exit Through the Giftshop, an elaborate sham.
They can always claim art and artistic freedom afterwards.

The filmmaker, who tragically committed suicide a few years later, specifically looked for an angle and opportunity to replicate a smaller scale but similar movie he had done a few years earlier. Also about a “forgotten” rockstar.

There could be more than simple humility to account for why Sixto didn’t want to appear on stage when the film won the Oscar.

 

[Helge]

Those are fair questions. But didn't the documentary answer those for you?

The documentary could have been more to-the-point, more focused on a few emphasized facets of Bill Jay, less ponderous and meandering - less personal. Would that be better? Probably more watchable. I get the feeling, though, that a survey of his work and a list of his influences would have been probably less memorable. And, given his attitude, I don't think he would have wanted a particularly academic approach to his life and work.

Obviously not. Not in anything but the must cursory way.
This felt academic and even detached. A persons mental development and growth is deeply intertwined with his physical life and is what makes them interesting.
No one springs from the brow of Zeus complete and ready.
Give some examples of his convictions, some examples of his feuds with academia, what he didn’t like, where people he influenced think he was wrong.
If anyone, for the little I know of him, he would have liked that.

 

[Don_ih]

This felt academic and even detached.

It was more anecdotal than academic. However, I see your point.

 

[Helge]

It was more anecdotal than academic. However, I see your point.

Call it late positivism. ;-)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I tend not to look at any long videos unless others comment that it was worth the time to view.

There are people here that I trust and those I do not. I listen to the first group. Besides many available videos just drag on and have nothing to show or tell.