Family Trees and Tobacco Leaves

Ross McElwee’s Bright Leaves (2003) is an autobiographical exploration of McElwee’s familial roots in both the North Carolina tobacco industry. The film begins by Ross searching to find out more about how his great-grandfather both created and lost his fortune in the tobacco industry. Deeper into the film we see Ross also explore the paternal ties in his own family, particularly the relationship Ross has with his father and his relationship with his young son.

As a fan of Ross McElwee, I chose to view this film not so much for the content presented but because of McElwee’s autobiographical style. I particularly like how he takes a larger subject, such as the North Carolina tobacco industry, but always brings it back to diving deeper into his own self-identity and relationships with friends and family that he finds defines him. We see this also in his 1985 film Sherman’s March. A quote from Bright Leaves that I feel sums up Ross’ roots exploration of the film is found at the opening of the documentary when he says, “My wife then said I’d been looking a little anemic – maybe in need of a transfusion – my periodic transfusion of Southerness.” Here Ross introduces his desire to get back in touch with his Southern roots and throughout the film we see him do so as he establishes relationships with cousins he’s never before met and also the intimate relationship he is building with his son.

Similar to Ross McElwee, I have found a common theme in my own work to be concerned with questioning my own self-identity and the stories of the past that have shaped me to be who I am today. I am inspired by Ross’ candidness and willingness to be frank and vulnerable from behind the camera. These are tools I hope to implement as I continue to make my own documentaries.

It's Not Your Business

Abby Epstein’s The Business of Being Born (2008) is a passionate commentary on the American health care system’s approach to childbirth. The film focuses on the fact that while the majority of the world still implements the “old-school” way of midwifery, the U.S. most commonly uses drugs, medications, and hospitals.

I was attracted to this film mainly due to the fact that in just three short months I’ll be giving birth myself. As that time approaches I find myself feeling incredibly inadequate and unprepared so I watched this film to educate me on the topic of childbirth. In my experience of watching Epstein’s film, I feel she definitely did her job as a director in making me care about the subject at hand. As I watched I began to question the validity of my choice to give birth in a hospital, even though I do trust my doctor. However, I didn’t trust her tactics in making me care and felt the film was very biased and in favor of women choosing to give birth with the help of a midwife rather than a doctor. This was shown by the subjects interviewed as well as some archival footage of films and documentaries about birth. Almost every subject interviewed, from doctors and experts to expecting mothers and midwives, each were in favor of midwifery and against the hospital experience of giving birth. Unfortunately, the director only very briefly included the opinion of just a few doctors that questioned the safety of hiring a midwife.

A particular scene that stood out to me most was when the Executive Producer, Ricki Lake, spoke in an interview about how she felt she was cheated out of fully “experiencing” her child’s birth because of the intervention of doctors and nurses. This was the first point of the film where I began to question my decisions as an expectant mother. Questions like am I putting myself or my child at risk by welcoming a doctor’s “intervention? Am I a bad mother for not first choosing a midwife over a doctor? In the past few days the more I’ve considered these questions and the film that raised them, I’ve come to the conclusion that the focus of the film is certainly a valid argument toward childbirth, but it is not the single right way.