“If a person is sincere and really wants to see the light, then they’ll see it,” states the subject of this straight-to-DVD documentary, and her attitude typifies that of helmer Longo, who seems incapable of objectively assessing the highly dubious claims of UFO observer Dorothy Izatt. Like the equally questionable Contact (1978; dir. Larray Savadore) – recently reviewed here – this film is so eager to believe the veracity of Izatt’s claims that it overlooks simple, rational explanations in favour of wild, illogical assumptions. Both Meier and Izatt’s evidence should be easily explainable to any filmmaker – Meier’s are not only idiotic models but compositionaly absurd, whereas Izatt’s are underexposed street lamps, cityscapes and aircraft given preternatural mobility by flicking or tapping the lens – the above screen capture perfectly illustrates this effect, which the so-called ‘photographic experts’ in this documentary are unable to identify.
But here the similarity ends: the Izatt films and their supporters aren’t interested in contacting alien life, but, perhaps more disturbingly, in perpetuating a religious fervour currently expanding in the USA; one that inhibits personal choice and development, and ostracizes other faiths and beliefs to the point of demonising them. Longo’s film guides the viewer through Izatt’s story, examines her evidence briefly and unsatisfactorily, and then concludes by suggesting that only the initiated can see the truth of her and her family’s unbalanced experiences – the implicit implication being that God is real as perceived by Christians, and only those of the one true religion can be accepted into His favour.
Longo’s film parallels this obnoxious persuasion by indulging the superstitious, ill-informed judgements of its participants, who are unable, or more precisely unwilling, to decipher a supernatural or extraterrestrial occurrence from the artifacting of a cheap digital video camera. This uneducated guesswork – common on programmes like Most Haunted (2002-Present), Living with the Dead (2008-Present) and Ghost Hunters (2004-Present) – isn’t the good-natured perversion of unfamiliar phenomena, or the willingness to believe in supernatural reality, but the blinkered and intolerant creed of those who seek to stiffle, or even punish, liberal-minded and impartial personal development.
Capturing the Light at the IMDb
Visit the official Capturing the Light website
UPDATE: Following the negative reception of this review, which you can partly read in the comments section below, we here at Brett Gerry Films have taken up the challenge of replicating Izatt’s films through more prosaic methods than extraterrestrial intervention. In the coming months – between other projects which must necessarily take precedence – we will applies our theories in a practical environment and post the results of our findings, regardless of their outcome, for you all to see.
10 Comments
You might want to actually watch the film before writing a review on it. She uses a film camera not a video camera. That image you posted above occurred in 1/18 of second (on film, not video) is hardly street lamps, and could not be achieved by a flick of the lens. I’ll take Lucas’s Industrial Light and Magic’s and professional cameramen’s opinions over your pseudo-intellectual analysis any day (which you forgot to mention was in the film along with an enormous amount other material). What a pompous ass.
This review was written directly after a screening of Longo’s film, and the explanation suggested by the reviewer, which supposes either deliberate fabrication or technical naivety on the part of Izatt and her collaborators, is based on the recognised fact that Izatt uses Super 8mm cameras to film her subjects. Super 8mm film records 18 frames per second, compared to modern video standards of 25 or 30 frames, thereby stretching the imprint of action on a single frame of celluloid beyond that we are currently used to. Occasionally, moving images captured at this rate can appear without bleed into adjacent frames when an action is shorter than the length of a frame, especially when an apparently static, distant object like a streetlamp, star or planet is filmed by a handheld camera.
The professional testimonials offered by Longo’s film – which do not suggest rational alternatives to the evidence – are based on the assumptions of modern media professionals (who are unconciously standardised to modern, digital filming processes), and their analyses eschew basic techniques needed to fake such an image in favour of preconceived ideals. The same reliance on science rather than simplicity can be seen in the photo-analysis sequences in the equally dubious Contact: An Investigation into the Extraterrestrial Experiences of Eduard Meier (1978; dir, Larry Savadore) – reviewed here – and is typified by the stilted mentality of UFO researchers like Bruce Maccabee, Leo Sprinkle et al.
At no point in this review does the reviewer infer that Izatt’s films were shot on video rather than film: the mention of ‘artifacting’ references a sequence in the film where Izatt’s family hysterically attribute supernatural import to an apparent fault on Longo’s footage of a family-member. Likewise, the screen capture comes directly from a still image presented by Longo, and, as such, can be seen as comparable to the techniques for fabrication offered by the UFO films from Kaikoura, New Zealand in 1978. Whether the review is attempting some ‘pseudo-intellectual’ debunkery and, indeed, if the reviewer and moderator of this website is ‘an ass’, should be left open to the reader’s own opinion and not influenced by any comment herein.
You wrote “ The professional testimonials offered by Longo’s film … are based on the assumptions of modern media professionals (who are unconciously standardised to modern, digital filming processes)” Hysterical! I had no idea you had a degree in filmmaker psychology so therefore know what they are thinking (or not thinking). Perhaps you should look in the mirror- it’s you who has the inability to relate Dorothy’s 8mm film of 18fps to today’s FILM standard of 24fps, instead you chose the comparison “Super 8mm film records 18 frames per second, compared to modern video standards of 25 or 30 frames.” Whoops!
Far more hilarious- you wrote: “Occasionally, moving images captured at this rate (18fps) can appear without bleed into adjacent frames when an action is shorter than the length of a frame”. Define shorter than the length of frame! Exactly what “occasions” would those be? Surely there must be a list since it’s just occasional. There is no such thing as an action shorter than a length of a frame silly goose, and even if there were, it’s not what determines bleeding versus not-bleeding onto adjoining frames. If this were your explanation for much of Dorothy’s work, you need to reassess because your understanding of how film works is, in fact, incorrect. Any film school student could point out the error of your explanation. In terms of film types, in this example 8mm and 24mm, here’s how it actually works: 8mm will always capture, in one frame, an 18th of second regardless of what action and its duration is occurring, just as 24fps will always capture, in one frame, a 24th of a second. Period. There is nothing more to understand. So if Dorothy’s flash frames are occurring in 1/18 of a sec, that’s truly an anomaly if it is legit because that, in fact, is an impossibility. To better illustrate, even filming lightening would show up in more than 1/18th of a second on 8mm film.
You also wrote: The professional testimonials offered by Longo’s film – which do not suggest rational alternatives to the evidence Yes they did, in fact, the cinematographer interviewed said exactly how it could be done, handing any doubter a gift right up front if you don’t want to believe in the authenticity of her footage.
You also spent a great deal on how the filmmaker made some religious point (followed by a sweeping generalization of America, but we’ll get to that in a moment) As the film relayed, Dorothy was born and raised a Catholic, she talked about her footage with her priest, who in turn told her it was from the devil. She relays this story and you somehow come to the conclusion that she or the filmmaker is touting one true religion? Astonishing Brett. Now a filmmaker can’t even have the subject tell their own story without you going off on a tangent clearly tied to your own religious baggage. Bravo.
Lastly, your sweeping generalization on America and what we believe is as pathetic as me saying all you Brits have crooked teeth and all your women have fat ankles. Stupifying!
All your fancy vocabulary can’t hide the fact that you’re just a bitter filmmaker. What a pompous ass you are indeed.
PS Your comparison of Izatt’s footage to Meir’s is hilarious. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. But I’d expect nothing less from you and your (lack of) observational skills.
“in this example 8mm and 24mm” Typo: I meant 8mm and 35mm
I find it very unpleasant that you resort, in your criticism of my review and feedback, to personally condescending and insulting me. I am not a bitter filmmaker, nor am I xenophobic or uneducated. As my review makes clear, I find Longo’s film to be a pathetic excuse for rationality, symptomatic of the growing trends in Western culture for retroactive thinking. Longo believes unshakably in what he’s telling us, but cinema must always be objective, especially with such a delicate subject matter. The explanations for Izatt’s films are not sufficiently explored in Capturing the Light and the film quickly descends into a pseudo-religious subtext.
My comments on the attitudes and mentality of modern media professionals are based on nearly ten years experience working with people who are well educated in the trade but remain ridiculously unable to tell the difference between ciné film and digital video – hence the comparison I used. In explanation to my explanation, frame rate is directly linked to the smoothness of action recorded or filmed: the higher the frame rate, the smoother the action. It’s logical, therefore, that 18fps records less than 24, 25 or even 30fps. Slow-motion filming, which aims to increase the smoothness of action, can utilise frame rates of 300fps upwards. The action that occurs on a single frame of Izatt’s Super 8mm footage could actually take less than 1/18th of a second to occur in real-time, therefore increasing the amount of blur on the frame. This is what I referred to when I suggested an action could be less than a frame and without bleed into the next.
There is an interesting discussion of this on the Above Top Secret forums that details some theories behind Izatt’s film, both in support and against, which you, or anyone else reading this, may find interesting:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread483413/pg1
I should add that I do not endorse the views on that site, as I have already suggested quite clearly how Izatt’s films could have been faked, intentionally or otherwise. I would also add that the comparison between Izatt and Meier is perfectly valid: apples and oranges they might be, but both are definitely very fruity!
Spin it however you want, you’re still saying you know what other filmmakers are thinking (not even suggesting, stating, as a point of fact)- whether from your observations of other filmmakers around you or the filmmaker of this film. You wrote Longo believes unshakably in what he’s telling us. See, I see the complete opposite. Maybe I’ve just seen more UFO films than you (and more than I’d like to admit). Hands down this is the most objective film ever done on the subject. There’s no narration to tell you what to think or believe, he provides evidence that it could be faked (as mentioned in the previous post) in fact, Longo just lets the people involved tell their story as they see it. I know I can’t say that about any other UFO film. Maybe you can. And I have read ATS and heard a few interviews from this guy, and from the sounds of it, he’s not involved in the ufo world at all, just a filmmaker who thought this woman’s story should be out there. And made it in a way that non-believers would be able to watch it as well as believers. As a film major/maker myself, I could see how difficult that task would be when dealing with a subject matter like this.
A quick look at the rest of this blog should suggest to you that its entire raison d’être is to highlight common practices in the mass audio-visual media and media education that are both detrimental and inhibiting, and to offer alternatives. As a full-time film critic and media journalist, as well as a filmmaker myself, I am painfully aware of the negative processes employed by practitioners and theorists in this country and abroad. Obviously I can not read their minds, but, as it is intrinsically linked to my profession, I can recognise when they are incapable of understanding their own craft, and definitely when they are deliberately pulling the wool over our eyes in order to either deceive us or cover their own stupidity.
In fact, I would suggest that in this case, Longo, at the possible behest of his collaborators – some of whom appear in the film and have a vested interest in the truthfulness of their subject, as pointed out by numerous posters on the ATS forums – structures his film on a subjective and totally deceptive level, hence my damning review. Capturing the Light has too much in common with other UFO documentaries, in that it has concealed reasons for believing its subject before it begins to investigate it. I have already given comparisons to similar cases in my previous comments, but would like to add there are also similarities between this scenario and countless other UFO cases, and subsequent documentaries discussing them, in that Longo, who may or may not have a preconceived interest in UFOs, certainly has an interest in pushing the reality of Izatt’s experiences onto the viewer.
(Things Longo fails to do that would cement his objectivity include but are not limited to: adequately explain the nature of frame rates and how this affects Izatt’s films; point out, as previously highlighted, the ludicrous nature of the family’s reaction to a bad artifact on Longo’s own footage; suggest a coherent explanation for the nature of Izatt’s phenomenon, if taken to be as true as the film wants us to; even the connotations of the title, and the various terminology employed by those involved, steers us away from an objective viewpoint and toward an unsettling and repugnant religious confirmation).
Perhaps, in conclusion, you would like to read my article on false-objectivity (available here) and apply what it identifies, not to a fictional narrative structure but to documentary form, in order to understand just how biased Longo’s film is.
I’ll take a pass on the tutelage of Brett Gerry. The only thing that’s painfully absurd is your attempt to explain away Izatt’s films by a “flicking or tapping the lens”. 1) nobody can flick a lens, create all the imagery of colors and patterns, in 1/18 of a second (her films are also not limited to light imagery). 2)You like to insult Dorothy’s intelligence and character, but I challenge you, to duplicate her work. Surely you can at least duplicate and present to all of us what one old “fruity lady” can.
Thank you for your comments, and your suggestion. Your attention is drawn to the update at the end of this review.
Fantastic Brett! I tip my hat to you for putting your money where your mouth is. Don’t forget to use a film camera and not a video camera!