فيلم Gift

Gift

Gift is a movie starring Marcus Alfred, Wayne Alfred, and Giorgio De Finis. Creative essay doc inspired by Lewis Hyde's classic bestseller The Gift. Chronicling gift-based cultures around the world and challenging the logic of...

Other Titles
Le don
Running Time
1 hours 30 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Documentary
Director
Robin McKenna
Writer
Robin McKenna
Actors
Marcus Alfred, Mingwei Lee, Giorgio De Finis, Wayne Alfred
Country
Canada
Year
2018
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

Inspired by Lewis Hyde's classic The Gift: How the Creative Spirit Transforms the World, GIFT is a richly cinematic film, interweaving character-driven stories. On North America's Pacific Northwest Coast, a young Indigenous artist and carver undertakes the elaborate preparations for a potlatch: to make a name for himself by giving everything away. In Rome, Italy, a factory occupied by migrant families is transformed into a living museum, protected by a barricade of art : a model of resistance, and an invaluable gift. In the pirate utopia of Burning Man, a mutant bumblebee art car distributes honey in a post-apocalyptic desert landscape. Meanwhile, in Auckland, New Zealand, artist Lee Mingwei prepares to launch Sonic Blossom, a transformative gift of song. GIFT is a tribute to something that can't be measured or counted, bought or sold. Exploring the parallels between artists' work and a gift economy, it's a reflection on the creative process, the reasons we labour in service of our gifts, and the beauty and challenges of fearlessly giving and receiving.

Comments about documentary «Gift» (21)

Martha photo
Martha

As I mentioned in my previous review, this is a documentary about video games and the relationship between gamers and the medium. There are a lot of gamers that are willing to openly express their opinion about games, so that's why this is a must watch for anyone interested in the subject. It is a good way to get a feel for what gamers think of the industry and what it has to offer. I enjoyed the interview format because they both give some insight into their personal experiences and this helps to illustrate some of the different viewpoints that gamers have. It also is interesting to hear from gamers who have different viewpoints. I thought that there were some points that didn't need to be clarified, but in general the documentaries are good and have good points to offer. The focus of this documentary is on video games, but it is interesting to hear about other types of games as well. The most interesting point of the documentaries is to see what is the most popular genre, because most gamers seem to agree that the most popular one is RPGs. Overall, this is a good documentary that I would recommend to anyone who is interested in gaming, especially if you like RPGs or games in general.

Bobby P. photo
Bobby P.

We've all heard of the famous art of the past, and now it's time to hear it for ourselves. A Documentary that Reveals the Stories behind the Creation of an Art. Who are these people, the people who paint the works of art, and how are they doing it? Through the simple stories of these artists and the way they make their art, the stories are left open for the viewer to explore, the process is not a secret, there are many ideas and methods to their work, and they talk about this and that with some of the most famous artists in history. The beauty of this film is how all of the people in the film have amazing stories and how they tell them. For example, the one person who doesn't speak English, she doesn't talk about art, but tells us what she's doing with the same words, that she's making a painting, that she's working with watercolour, she's doing all these things. When we go to the art fair, we see the art of another artist. And we learn about that artist, and we watch the work. And the other people have similar stories. We get to know about the art of another, and we start to care about the art of that person, and how they create and create. We feel for the artists. It's not just about the process of the artists, but also about the process of their creation. The process is not something you just watch, it's something you can watch, learn from, and I hope you will enjoy this documentary. It's an amazing story, full of life and energy, that is to be shared with the viewer. It's amazing to see how much work goes into the art that we see on the screen, the energy, the passion, the raw talent, the love and the magic. You'll want to be a part of the experience.

Michael G. photo
Michael G.

The film is narrated by the former Secretary of Defense and former National Security Adviser to the President, Madeleine Albright, who says that the worst part about the invasion of Iraq was that it happened in broad daylight with no air support. The movie was made after the invasion of Afghanistan in which some of the same events played out, however, no one was killed and the casualties were minimal. I have always had a fascination with the former Secretary of Defense, and I would like to think that I am somewhat of an informed viewer. The film's subject, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, plays a key role in determining who will be the next Secretary of Defense and how the military should be structured. The film has some insightful comments about the President's War on Terror, such as when he says "How many people have to die before you listen to the military and make them feel they have some say in how the U.S. is going to be run?" (Albright comments on this line.) The film is somewhat ironic, given that the war is more about fighting the emotions and not the actual military tactics. The film is not without its flaws. The final scenes in which Albright talks about the war as a few hours before it is over seem to be a bit far-fetched. (And for what reason? It was a nation-wide war, but it seemed that the military just didn't want to be involved in anything to do with the war, as if they were going through the motions, or as if they were "being used" by the President.) The movie ends abruptly and without any explanation of why the President decided to invade Iraq. It just seemed like a decision to get out of the way for the Bush-Cheney regime to go after Iraq, especially since Iraq is a country that is a member of NATO. I am certain that the military was involved in the planning of the war, but if it was the military, they would have decided to go out with their guns blazing. They were not to blame for the problems of the invasion, which were entirely due to President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq. He had already made up his mind to invade, and his decision to go to war, and the subsequent American military operations to combat the invasion, was due to his own personal ambition. I have always felt that George W. Bush is the worst President of our time. He does not understand the political and economic realities of the world and makes decisions without thinking about them. The war in Iraq was supposed to be the first in a new era of peace, but instead of that, we have had more than a decade of war, which has resulted in a weak, divided nation-wide economy, a huge poverty and unemployment problem, and a breakdown of the social structure of the United States. The economic collapse has been worse than any recession since the Great Depression. I am certain that the economic collapse will continue, but I don't think it will be as bad as the Great Depression, which ended in 1933. In a sense, the United States is at a crisis point, where it is in a state of depression, because the economy is broken. It seems that no one in Washington has the ability to fix the problem, or even to come up with ideas. There are too many people who have been handed a piece of the economic pie, but none of them know how to take it away. For example, some people claim that the war

Bruce A. photo
Bruce A.

I first saw this documentary on cable in late 2009 and was blown away. While the acting was good, the content was so moving and compelling that it moved me and made me want to see the film a second time. I don't like to comment on documentaries because I don't want to be a spoiler, but I wanted to add my two cents about this one. First, the music. You can tell when the director chose songs based on the emotions they are supposed to be showing. This film is based on the theme of changing one's life through music and this movie has the best soundtrack ever recorded. In fact, I was mesmerized by the way the music was created and the way the filmmakers depicted it. The soundtrack was chosen as a metaphor for the movie and was chosen in a way that you could hear the mood and energy of the movie. The story is very moving and is very interesting, but it could have been better. One of the best things about this documentary is how the director does not talk about the progress of the movie in interviews with the actors and the director. He simply takes you back to the beginning and shows you the journey that has led up to this moment. The music is the main reason why I want to see the film again. I recommend this film to anyone who wants to understand a different perspective on life, personal growth, music, and artistic expression.

Stephen photo
Stephen

I remember watching this on a plane with some friends who never saw a documentary before. I remember thinking it was a pretty boring documentary but I knew it would be good, as I had been researching about the history of the arts. This is the kind of documentary that makes you think. Its not too detailed but still enough to make you think. There is also some history and science in it, but it is not like any of the documentaries out there. The acting is not really good, the music is not really good. The only thing I remember is that there is a great quote of Shakespeare in it. Overall, I was impressed with this documentary.

Kelly photo
Kelly

I thought the film was done well. I really enjoyed the films content and I thought it was worth the ticket price to see it. It was a well thought out film about money and the plight of those in a relationship. The film was just over 2 hours but it seemed long. The film was also long because it did not leave any room for answers. It was very difficult to give answers to questions in the film but I think it should have been. There was so much we could have learned about the factors that affect marriage and how to deal with it. I think the film would have been better with a bit of plot left to develop the story. In addition, the film had a lot of plot holes. I think they should have made sure that we got answers to all the questions in the film. They could have found a good way to get answers to questions without leaving us with a big cliff hanger. They could have also put the film in a better light for the audience. They could have made it more of a comedy. I think that would have added a lot of humour to the film. I think the film should have been longer because there was a lot of questions and not enough answers to answers. I thought it was a good film. I think people would enjoy it because it was done well.

Eric H. photo
Eric H.

I liked the way the show was put together. They had everything they needed. We also had the storyline, which made me feel the same way as the actual movie. It wasn't the same as the movie, but it was a good follow up to it. The soundtrack was really good too. It's worth seeing. It was the only part of the movie I didn't like. It was about the same time period as the movie, but they should have cut out a scene or two. I was a little disappointed they didn't use the movie posters or posters from the original film. It made me feel like it was fake. If they didn't use it, then it would have made it more enjoyable. My other problem was the lead actress, which I didn't like. It was really hard to get into her character. Her mannerisms were a little out of place. I don't know if it was because she wasn't the one who was giving the talk in the original movie, or if it was just because the character just didn't have the right touch to her. I was also confused as to why they didn't use the main actor from the original movie. The original movie's actress didn't look like the one who was talking in the original movie. I was really surprised when I saw it was a woman, but it was just because she was a lead actress. The lead actress from the original movie looked really fake. I didn't really like the acting in the movie, especially since they had a lot of those, so I wasn't really into the movie. It wasn't too bad, but I think it would have been better if they used the original movie's actress.

Lawrence photo
Lawrence

Just to say that I am a fan of Samira Ali's work and her acting was outstanding in this movie. It shows the story of those people who were given the gift of physical and mental healing. This is the true story of the story. Not a typical Hollywood movie. It is also the story of how many doctors have to work with people that have the illness that they are treating. The subject is the history of doctors, psychiatrists, and medical research. They are not doctors, they are specialists. They are able to do this because they have been trained to treat people that have been treated for their disease. I loved this movie and I am glad that this documentary is now available on DVD. It is highly recommended and I will be getting it as soon as it is available. It is a must see.

Ethan W. photo
Ethan W.

If you're a fan of the "90210" TV series, you'll probably want to see "The Gift" as soon as possible. There are tons of things about this documentary that are enjoyable to watch. It's pretty well done and captures the spirit of the show well. There are some clips from the show that are very entertaining. The most interesting clip is the one where everyone is talking about what kind of cake they're going to make for their birthday. It's a real classic moment. The movie itself is a lot more dramatic and less funny. It's full of really depressing scenes and scenes where characters are just bawling their eyes out. I think it might be a little too depressing for some people. The cast is very good. The best is Will Farrell as the protagonist. He's a total badass and he does a great job. The other cast members are also great and their performances are very similar to what they did on the show. There's also a lot of really funny people in this movie, including Larry David, who plays the voice of Kramer. He does a great job with his character. Even though this movie isn't the best documentary I've seen, it's definitely an enjoyable one.

Roy Fisher photo
Roy Fisher

If you are an actor who has never spoken to a human being before, and you never will, this documentary is for you. The movie was made to educate people and get them to understand the human condition and to appreciate life. It's not about being 'so good, you're so bad', it's about being human. It's about accepting that there are two sides to every story and that sometimes good things happen, even if it's not the most expected outcome. The movie is beautiful and inspirational, but not very funny, and the ending is a little over the top. The movie is still entertaining and it's worth watching for the stunning scenery and the feel good nature of the movie. So, go watch it, but don't expect a blockbuster or a great moment from the movie. It's still worth watching and you will learn something.

Brandon Alvarado photo
Brandon Alvarado

Given the subject matter, the portrayal of a very complex man, who goes to extreme lengths to protect his family, I thought this film was excellent. But it did have its share of problems. The producers of this film did not appear to have the information they were using to tell the story. They used things like reading the medical records of the family, which led to some elements being left out, such as the fact that James' wife had been ill with Alzheimer's Disease. There were also some rather surreal moments in the film, which I found difficult to follow, and some editing choices that did not fit the film well. The point of view of the man who lived it had no real impact on the plot. I also thought the plot was a little confusing in some parts. I thought the writing was good, but I think the producers could have made it more clear about some things. Also, the story was a little over-the-top in some places. But overall I enjoyed it very much. I think that the producers of this film are talented filmmakers, and that the documentary would have been great if they had used the information they had to tell the story. I think they did a good job, but they should have used the information that they had to tell the story, rather than throwing everything at the audience, leaving a lot out, and making it confusing.

Vincent photo
Vincent

All in all this film was decent. It was actually a bit boring at times. I don't think the director was able to present a coherent story line, so you can feel lost at times. The footage was actually quite interesting and in some places I was intrigued. It did feel like the director was trying to make a statement about the role of government, but it was quite unclear. I was very disappointed with the ending, and it felt like the director took his time with the story, and there wasn't enough information given about the ending. Overall, it was an interesting documentary and a decent watch. It's worth a watch and will make you think.

Frank photo
Frank

This film by writer/director William Golding examines the relationship between a boy who had his parents murdered by the state and his younger brother and sister. It's a truly intriguing and heart-wrenching tale that manages to be incredibly disturbing and yet incredibly uplifting. While it may not be one for the entire family, it's a film that's highly recommended for adults and for children who are at least 12. The performances are terrific and are aided by an outstanding score by David Holmes. Overall, a really great film that deserves a lot more attention than it gets.

Joseph Patel photo
Joseph Patel

It's a sad story that is yet to be told. This documentary follows a group of teenagers who went to a campsite in which there was a dangerous wild animal present. The kids were extremely excited about the ride and all of the anticipation that this was going to be an awesome trip. What was not known was the risk that this wild animal could possibly take and in the process of riding the scooter, the animal actually came out of the woods and killed a 14-year-old. I don't want to give too much away, but just know that the video evidence was absolutely terrifying to watch. I'm sure the parents of the teens were traumatized, but I think the video evidence was even more disturbing because it was the video evidence of what was going on that made the parents so mad. The parents decided that the best course of action was to sue the campsite for a significant sum of money. The group of teens decided to participate in this lawsuit to try and get money from the parent who actually caused their daughter's death. This lawsuit turned out to be a bit of a disaster. In order for the lawsuit to succeed, the parents had to be the only people who had evidence of the attack. They did not. In the end, the parents lost their fight to get money from the campground and were forced to settle out of court. They got nothing from the campground and the lawsuit ended. The video evidence showed that the wild animal was in the park with the teens and it was actually much more dangerous than what the parents claimed. It wasn't a wild animal like a grizzly or a wolf, but it was a massive, large mammal that was capable of hunting people. The teens got very angry about this and they just wanted their money back. It's unfortunate that something like this can happen to anyone and this story would never have come out if not for the family's publicity of this case.

Madison Hicks photo
Madison Hicks

Given the recent spate of positive reviews I decided to watch it as a pre-Christmas present to myself. A big review in the local paper and TV, plus a favourable review by a friend of mine, convinced me to go to the cinema to watch it. And now I must say I was very impressed! I'm surprised at how few people had the courage to give it a good review - there were only a handful of people who gave it two stars, and most of them were from people who were more than a little biased against this movie. I was particularly surprised at the positive reviews of this film. It is a serious subject matter that most people will not be keen to talk about and that for some reason is not even talked about very often. Yet people are enthusiastic enough about it to go and see it. If that is not evidence that the public is ready to have some sort of discussion about things that are important to them, I don't know what is. I didn't expect this movie to be a masterpiece but I do feel that it deserves a wider audience. I guess I can say that this is probably the most important film ever made in Britain, since "Trainspotting" and "The Life of Brian". The characters are complex, and the plot is very well thought out, considering it was made by a guy with an A-level in political science. In short, this is a very good movie. If you don't mind some very strange humour, then by all means, watch this movie. I doubt that it will change your life but I would be surprised if it didn't change yours!

Crystal photo
Crystal

If you are the type of person who expects a "2 and half hour feature", and who is expecting anything beyond a "spoiler-free" discussion of current issues, then this is not the movie for you. If you are a very involved and dedicated public figure, then this is the movie for you. The film is presented in two parts. The first half is divided into a series of interviews with current and former members of various Christian denominations. The second half of the movie, which concerns itself with the effects that the founding of the United States had on the church, focuses primarily on the problem of divorce, but also covers other social issues. The interviews are done in a very blunt way, and while many are helpful, the tone is not friendly. The other aspect of this film is a critique of the church's current problems. While there are some examples of the problems that have been stated in the film, most of the people who have been interviewed have pointed out the problems that are not mentioned in the film. They give a very clear picture of the problems that are out there in the church, but the problem is still not well presented in the film. Overall, this film was a little disappointing, because I was expecting to see something that was different, and that was not the case. It is worth watching just for the interview segment with Tim LaHaye.

Ryan photo
Ryan

I watched this film on an airplane, and the first question that came to my mind was, "is this propaganda?" This is a movie about saving a terminally ill man, so you'd think that it'd be pretty hard to balance the message. I guess we're not so different as the governments. On the other hand, the man is in a coma and he has a good chance of being freed. That's not a good message. But the movie also has a lot of time to paint the world's view on his life. It's more of a documentary, but it is filmed in a very naturalistic style, and some of the things that happen in the movie are very important. The idea of "collateral damage" is one that I've heard a lot about. The movie does a good job of explaining it. It is a very powerful message, and I think it's important to put it in a good way. I think that there are a lot of countries that would like to have the same treatment of people like him, and it would be very important to put that into a good way. I think that a lot of people could relate to the movie. I guess it's mostly about the man's condition, and the chances that his life is still worth living.

Virginia Bishop photo
Virginia Bishop

Eddie Lacy has been a major contributor to the history of the Holocaust. In fact, he was one of the primary founders of the American Jewish Defense League. He also provided a useful platform to the anti-Semitic journalist, Herbert Lom. He was sentenced to the death penalty in 1942 and was executed in 1947. During his trial, he described himself as a fighter of "redemption" against the evils of the Nazi regime. Lacy was a soldier, fighter, philosopher and humanitarian. This documentary is a serious attempt to debunk the "Holocaust is a lie" mantra and shows the history of his work, his family and his close ties to the White Russian (a Ukrainian Jewish organization that suffered a horrific fate). It is a disturbing and fascinating look into the life of a man who should be regarded as one of the greatest figures in history. The film does not simply say that he was a Jew and a Nazi and that his mission was to save the Jews and that he succeeded. The film reveals the fact that he was a leader in the Jewish community, fought against the anti-Semitism and the Nazis and later, when he was released from prison, he became a prominent activist for Ukrainian Jews. This documentary is a must see for people who want to know more about this historical figure.

Ronald M. photo
Ronald M.

The film begins with the narrator talking about his life and his thoughts. As the credits roll we are introduced to a small group of players in the history of cricket, mainly its beginnings in India. The narrator tells us that he became interested in cricket during a game between a cricket team from the US and a team from India. This event made him want to know more about cricket, especially the Indian team. As he continued to watch the games and learned more about the sport, he began to be interested in the history and culture of cricket. One day he got the chance to meet a woman who was the director of a cricket museum in New York. He told her about his interest in cricket. She told him that she was the one who helped him gain interest in the sport. The next day the group started to meet and discuss their thoughts on cricket and the history of it. The narrator says that the movie is not a documentary about the history of cricket. He is telling the story of the players, the game and the movie. The history and culture of cricket was not mentioned at all, so I have not seen any of the original history of cricket. This did not stop me from enjoying the movie. The people in the movie were very well chosen to reflect the personalities of the various players. The actors were very good, especially Tom Hanks. The movie showed the joy of being a player, the pride and the hate of being a player. I thought the movie was very entertaining. I enjoyed every moment of the movie and it was a good introduction to the history of cricket.

Jesse H. photo
Jesse H.

My mom (a very artistic person) loves to watch documentary's on movies, and in her opinion, this is a great movie about the life of Thomas Edison. She has a very different take on this movie than I do. She says that the film is full of inaccuracies, and that she would give it a 10 if it was real. I say that is just her opinion, but I also think that the film is well done, and it makes you think about the life of Edison. It also makes you wonder what other "historical" films are based on true events.

Elizabeth Hansen photo
Elizabeth Hansen

In my humble opinion, it is a very good documentary. It's not great, but it's better than some others. As a film, it is pretty good. As a documentary, it is great. It shows how the welfare reform efforts at the time of the Civil Rights movement were so much more than just another piece of the Civil Rights Movement. It shows how welfare reform is actually a civil rights movement. So, if you are an ardent civil rights advocate, you should be very proud of the film. If you are not, I think you are going to be a little bit disappointed.