Bones Brigade: An Autobiography

I know nothing about skateboarding. I don't even know how to skateboard (although, I did try once). The only name I recognized from the synopsis is Tony Hawk. The only reason I decided to go to the screening of Bones Brigade: An Autobiography is because the final screening of the film is sold out so I figured other people (in the know?) must think it's worth watching. It also happened to fit into my schedule.
I dozed off in this movie as well. I mean, it was okay, but nothing too interesting. I'm going to hope that's because I'm not an avid follower of the skateboarding culture. Although, one elderly lady who also said she knew nothing about the subject matter praised the film when asked for feedback from director, Stacy Peralta. But maybe she just said that because she was put on the spot. Who knows?
Anyway, let's just analyze the film for what it is. It's a series of interviews with different members of the skateboarding community who were influential or invested in the sport around the 1980. Interspersed between their interviews was skateboarding footage and other footage from the 1980s. It told a story in chronological fashion and ended with little blurbettes with updates on each of the featured characters. It seemed to be a pretty traditional documentary in terms of format. In the post-screening Q&A, Peralta talked about how many of the Bones Brigade had asked him to create this documentary. That they felt that there was a story to tell. A documented story about a group of people who were so influential on skateboarding as we know it today. With that purpose in mind, I think the documentary did a great job. Was it groundbreaking and did it uncover anything shocking, controversial or anything that I'll remember many years down the line? No, but I don't think that was the point. This is a documentary that something wanting to know more about skateboarding culture can and should watch.
One of the questions from the Q&A was about whether Peralta was conducting the interviews when the interviewee talked about Peralta. He said that initial interviews were conducted by him, but after starting to piece together the film and needing to go back to do follow-up interviews, for specific topics, another member of the crew would conduct the interviews and Peralta would not be present. It was a mutual decision by Peralta and the interviewees. Every so often in these Q&As, I'm reminded that making a documentary is very similar to the process that I follow when conducting research. I'm currently involved in a study in which I am conducting interviews with my participants. Of course to a certain extent, the interviewer takes a position of authority, but in this particular case, the relationship that I have developed with these participants even before they joined my study has been one in which I am the person of authority. While I like to think that there is no power dynamic in this study and that there will be no effects on my data as a result, it's hard to know for sure. I usually watch films for enjoyment sake. I like the topics of the film, I like the storyline, I like the music, I like the art direction, I like learning, but I don't naturally analyze the film for the '-ology' behind the creation of the film. I like it when I'm reminded (often during the Q&A) that there's kind of a science or methodology behind making a film. It's another layer that I don't natural associate with the final product, but I like thinking about it and relating it to some of the issues that I deal with in my own work.

- picture courtesy of www.hotdocs.ca