MOVIE REVIEW
Sweethearts of the Prison Rodeo (2009)
The Times BFI 53rd London Film Festival
As reality television and documentary filmmaking become more prevalent in everyday society, it is accepted that the act of observation changes the people being observed. The question is therefore how to create an authentic experience while addressing this fact. Some documentary filmmakers such as Nick Broomfield or Michael Moore include themselves onscreen, others provide a voiceover narration once the editing process is complete. But what Bradley Beesley has done is more dangerous and disingenuous than that.
Mr. Beesley grew up in Oklahoma and apparently has made several films there; this reputation gave him access to two minimum-security prisons in 2007 as the prisoners began their annual preparations for the prison rodeo. Yes, a rodeo in which all the competitors are prisoners. It’s been an annual tradition in the state since 1940. There’s even a purpose-built stadium, in McAlester, Okla. Some prisoners, such as Danny Liles (convicted for murder), have participated for 13 years and are therefore comparatively experienced. Others, such as Brandy “Foxie” Witte (drug dealing and possession of firearms) and Jamie Brooks (murder, committed when she was 17), began their rodeo careers in 2006, the first year women were allowed to participate. Although Danny and various wardens and other prison officials provide a history of the rodeo and explanations of the effects it has on the prisoners themselves, the movie mostly follows the women through their very basic training before the event itself.
The four women profiled speak frankly to the camera about their choices, their hopes for their lives outside and — most poignantly — their children. The rodeo is a huge event in their lives, something for them to anticipate all year and something which good behavior ensures they can participate in. The term “gladiator” is used frequently by people discussing the event, but the participants don’t see it that way at all. For them, it’s a chance to show that they are people first, and capable of doing something beyond their bad choices. They can also show off a little and do something of which they are proud.
Ms. Witte speaks frequently at the start about how her mother went to prison when she was a child and then she ran away from home, losing touch with her family. A little later on, intertitles come up “Foxie has located her family” before showing the teary reunion between Ms. Witte and the mother and brother she hadn’t seen for 12 years. Mr. Beesley was at the screening I attended and confirmed my suspicions: It was the film producers who tracked down her family and engineered the reunion.
Now, it’s good that Ms. Witte is back in touch with her family; she is actually living with them now she is out of prison, according to her MySpace page. But it is deeply suspect that the people making the movie located her family for her and included it in the movie without mentioning their involvement. Why hide this in the context of the movie itself? Surely the filmmakers have a responsibility to tell the truth, both in their subject matter and in their impact upon it. If they cannot be trusted to assess their impact on the story they are telling, how can we trust they are telling it accurately?
Shot in bright sunlight, the film is permeated with a peculiar mixture of pride, defensiveness, resignation and hope. Even the rodeo scenes, during which a cameraman was in the ring in addition to multiple others in the arena, have an odd lack of danger – which is an achievement given the very real risk and occasional serious injury the inexperienced prisoners are running. On reflection, this is due to the project’s lack of sincerity. What else despite the family reunion was engineered away from the camera?
If the filmmakers had been up front about the impact they had on their story, it would have made for a stronger and more interesting film about exploitation, people’s rights and whether it’s possible to truly change. But that wasn’t the film Mr. Beesley wanted to make. In fairness, he has taken a sensationalistic subject about unpleasant people and told his story in way that is respectful and full of hope. But since he cannot be trusted, the whole enterprise ends up ringing hollow.
Comments