فيلم Garry Winogrand: All Things are Photographable

Garry Winogrand: All Things are Photographable

Garry Winogrand: All Things are Photographable is a movie starring Geoff Dyer, Jeffrey Fraenkel, and Susan Kismaric. A documentary about an important American still photographer who captured New York City in the 1960s (his work...

Running Time
1 hours 30 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Sasha Waters Freyer
Jeffrey Fraenkel, Susan Kismaric, Geoff Dyer, Erin O'Toole
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

A documentary about an important American still photographer who captured New York City in the 1960s (his work there is said to have influenced the TV show Mad Men) and later the West in Texas and Los Angeles.

Comments about documentary «Garry Winogrand: All Things are Photographable» (18)

Kevin photo

This documentary is the second documentary to feature MacGyver, the first being THE UNTOUCHABLES OF PREDATOR, which was made in 1988. Although MacGyver is seen as a family oriented, friendly man who is quite popular with the people he works with, that doesn't mean the people in this documentary are like him. This documentary highlights a variety of people who are like MacGyver. They've all been in situations that make them uncomfortable, and they can relate to what he's been through. MacGyver's life and death was one of the reasons the documentary is called THE UNTOUCHABLES OF PREDATOR. A man named Philip Charles Travers, who was an armed robber, was sentenced to death for the crime, but was able to escape. Travers told his story to a reporter who wanted to be a part of his story. This reporter, Bess Emerson, would go on to become the wife of George Peppard. Travers would go on to go back and forth to be in one of his five jobs. He would take up being a mechanic, but then become a bartender. He would go back to being a mechanic and become a mechanic again, and then a police officer. Then he would be a foreman for a copper company and then become a foreman again. He was able to do so many jobs in a short period of time. That was what made him such a successful man. It's good to see how MacGyver made it through that ordeal. It shows how he was able to overcome adversity. MacGyver did an unbelievable job in every situation. He's also interviewed here about some of the people that were in his life. They're all pretty interesting, and you can tell that this is a documentary about MacGyver. MacGyver got through all of those situations, but he just made it through. He could've never made it through. I also liked how the documentary dealt with his work as a designer. I think he did a good job with that. He was able to create something that really could be very useful. He really was able to use his talents to make things happen. Another interesting thing is how he was able to build a car that could go from point A to point B in one second. I think it was an interesting thing that was covered in the documentary. I thought he did a good job. The final thing I liked about this documentary was how the reporter was able to come up with a story that MacGyver had been working on for the last few months

Sean photo

This is a pretty good look at the film maker and his work. The first half of the film covers the early work of Garry Winogrand and how he became a photographer. The other half is the more recent work of his. I do think that the film should have focused more on how the photography was being made rather than on the subject itself. However, this is a pretty good film, and I think it will gain a much greater following as time goes on. The only gripe I have is that some of the interviews are cut and pasted from other films. Not a big deal, but it's a little disconcerting.

Katherine Chapman photo
Katherine Chapman

This is an excellent documentary about the use of public education in the United States, and how the politicians are currently using that funding to attack public schools. The film is written by John Adams (also a Pulitzer Prize winner) and Larry Kudlow, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina. While the film is very well put together, it is not without its faults. While the interviews and the research are good, the overall quality of the film is not great. It feels like a bunch of students and activists were selected and assigned a task. Even though this task is to look at what's already happened in the last 20 years, and how it has affected public education, there is no actual research done in the movie. Instead, it's more of a collection of interviews with the people involved. It is not that the film isn't interesting. I was impressed with the fact that the film has a background of political debate and in-depth analysis. But I think the research is too shallow and rushed. The interviews are very basic, with the focus on the researchers, rather than what they do, or why they do what they do. The film also misses some of the most interesting issues. While the film does focus on how public education has been attacked in the last 20 years, the focus is not as much on the things that have happened in the past few decades. Instead, we get a series of interviews with politicians and educators that basically confirm the earlier findings of the film. The research is lacking. The ideas in the film are more detailed, more in-depth, and more informative. There are actually some interesting ideas in this film, and some good ideas. But the overall quality is not great. It is definitely worth seeing. And if you're a student, you should definitely watch it. This is a must see documentary, and if you have a favorite politician, you should probably know more about them too. I think you will find this film very interesting.

Anthony photo

I'm the type of person who likes to think for myself so I'm not going to get too deep into the discussion here. The idea of the documentary is that, as an artist, we all want to look back on our work, and examine it from a new perspective. I found this film to be somewhat lacking in this respect, because it really did not cover anything very important and relevant to the discussion. The documentary starts off well, with Barry's first painting. Unfortunately, this painting is not well-documented, and I found it hard to identify any particular features that made it the way it was. The film jumps back and forth in time, showing various conversations Barry had about his first painting. However, as the film progresses, it becomes clear that we are not learning anything new about Barry's work. The interviews with the artists who painted Barry's first painting are not very interesting, and the documentary seems to give no background on the painter's life and work. In the end, it seems to be a film that uses its time to give a message, rather than to answer questions raised in the discussion. Although the documentary does have a good number of interesting and thought-provoking images, it feels a little too short for the topic it is trying to cover. For this reason I rate it an 8 out of 10.

Tammy Hanson photo
Tammy Hanson

This is a documentary that tells the story of a father who has to fight to get his children to accept that something is wrong with them. This documentary also gives insight into what makes a parent a good parent and how he deals with the mistakes made by his children. We also see a father try to make his children more aware of what is going on in their lives. This documentary also tells the story of the father's struggle to get his children to open up to him and accept that something is wrong. The film is well directed and well put together. The documentary starts off slow and there is a lot of personal stuff that needs to be explained and explained more. Also the film has some pretty intense moments. I don't understand how this film is rated so low. I thought the documentary was a very good documentary. I give it a 7/10.

Olivia M. photo
Olivia M.

I thought this film was interesting. It was entertaining, and it gave you an idea of the creative process behind the project. I think that the film is a good summary of the process of making a film. I also thought it was a great film to have a box set with. The images are great and there are some really amazing scenes of the home of Lorna's parents. It is a very funny documentary but it is also very important. I would have liked it if they had followed the story more closely. It was a great documentary and I would recommend it to anyone who likes documentaries.

Ronald P. photo
Ronald P.

I'm really sorry to see that this documentary failed to resonate with the public. It shows the huge amount of hard work that goes into filming an episode of "Game of Thrones" and how a long running series can be done in a fraction of the time. I'm still convinced that HBO is trying to do a new version of "Lord of the Rings". I do not like to give a summary of a long movie. I felt that an "episode" of "Game of Thrones" should have been three hours long. I was very disappointed that it was only an hour and a half long. There were no huge cast changes. I feel the series could have had a better ending. It seemed like the producers/directors were only focused on a few key points and neglected others. I am not sure if this is due to the nature of the series, the politics of the show or even the show itself. I would really like to know what it was like to be a part of the series. I felt like there were a few characters that could have been developed a little more. I would also like to know if they are going to do a "director's cut". If there is a new director, I would like to see his/her vision. I do not know if they can do that. HBO is just one part of the film industry. There are other companies that make movies that don't make it to the big screen. I would definitely like to see a new version of "Game of Thrones".

Albert photo

I have always been a fan of Garry Winogrand. His documentary on his infamous 1975 visit to Tibet, which I also saw in the film, was a long and detailed experience. This is a shorter version of the same topic. Although the documentary does not seem to have been officially released, a number of people have seen it and I think it has an excellent, if somewhat-vague-description, of his trip to Tibet. There are a few moments of real tension and tension-provoking moments during the course of the documentary, but I felt that the majority of the documentary was rather mundane and uninteresting. The documentary was not made to be a long and detailed documentary, as it is somewhat slow and unwieldy, and it didn't seem to leave me with a great deal of depth or understanding of the Tibetan culture and people, which I felt was important. I am not sure how this film compares with Winogrand's other films. Perhaps if you've ever had a short trip to Tibet or are a student of Tibetan culture, this documentary would be of interest.

Jordan photo

I'm going to start by saying that this documentary is made very well. The music is absolutely phenomenal, and the film itself is also excellent. But when watching it, the "strange" parts start getting pretty repetitive. As for the story itself, it's about a man named Garry Winogrand, who in 1981 was arrested in Ireland for his involvement in the murder of a beautiful woman. It's quite interesting to learn about his life and what he went through during those years. I wouldn't call this documentary a "must watch", but it definitely is worth a watch. You won't find this documentary on Netflix, so check it out.

Albert L. photo
Albert L.

I saw this film at an Edinburgh film festival, which was really nice, though the film was quite long and slow in places. I think the point was that everything is photographed, and I am sure it is, but sometimes it's a bit over the top. I think it's interesting to see the camera from different angles, but I was hoping for a more "normal" approach. At the end, it made me really sad and disturbed, but I think the film had a point and it could have been a little more touching. Overall, it was a good film, and I have enjoyed it. I feel that I would have liked it better if I had seen it on the big screen, but I guess that's just my opinion. I think there's lots of questions left unanswered, but I still think that it was a really good film. I think I will probably watch it again in a few years time, as I think it would be a good way to reflect on what had just happened. I don't think it's really a documentary, as the film did not really explain anything and could have been a little longer. It was not that bad, but it's not that good, either. I have a few questions, but I'm sure that there are lots more. I am not a huge fan of music, but I think I liked the film a lot. I thought it was quite good, but the main issue I had was with the ending. I didn't really care for the ending. It wasn't quite emotional, and didn't make me cry or anything. It seemed a little bit forced, but maybe it was the way it was put together. But overall, I really enjoyed it, and I can't wait to see it again. 7/10

Samantha P. photo
Samantha P.

After a lot of talk and planning, this documentary on Garry Winogrand has finally appeared. It is an interesting watch and the good news is that it is free! Also the documentary tells the story of a great man and his many accomplishments that will be missed by the rest of us. There is a lot of information that you would have to get some of. With the news of the internet and social media being more and more used, it is interesting to see what a difference a small little thing like a photograph can make in people's lives. The film has a very good voice over from many of the people that were involved in the making of the documentary. It is a wonderful, warm, and informative documentary that you should watch and give a view of what a really great man Garry Winogrand was.

Alice photo

No one knew what this documentary was going to be about, but I would say that it was the best documentary I have seen this year. It is about a photographer from West Africa, Gerald Walford (Tom Tykwer) who was in Africa for a year, trying to capture a lot of the things that African people went through when the continent was ravaged by war, famine, disease and colonialism. He had to take on the role of a photographer, and it made for an interesting story. One thing I really liked about this documentary was that the African culture is discussed in the film. If you are a photography student, this could be a great film for you to watch. It is very interesting, and you will be surprised about some things you never expected to see. The documentary was able to cover many topics that I knew nothing about, and that is a good thing. There is no mention about the sexual abuse of African women by the Christian missionaries, but there is a lot of discussion about the African-American women's movement and how the black and white worlds can mix. This is a really important subject that has not been discussed enough. I would definitely recommend this documentary.

Kimberly photo

This is a movie I knew nothing about before watching it. The subject matter is not very relevant to me, but the movie was well shot, and the pacing was well done. It was also very interesting to watch how they made the film. One of the things that I found interesting was how they made the subject of the movie so simple. The subject matter was very interesting, but it was much more difficult to convey the meaning of it. This is a movie I would recommend to any audience who likes documentaries or especially to any audience who is into the music scene.

Lisa Martin photo
Lisa Martin

If you love traveling you will love this film. If you have a knack for portraiture then this film is for you. Every shot is impeccable, and it shows you the highlights of your travel. If you have a love for doing things yourself you will love the interviews. For those who like "a little something" go for this one. 7/10

Lori photo

Watch this documentary and see if you think that the author is a stalker of young women or just plain stupid. Then, watch the other videos on the internet about his obsessive and sociopathic behavior. If you think he's crazy, you're right. If you think he's a serial killer, well, you are a pervert. The title should be "all things are not photographable" - but I think it's more accurate than that. I believe it should be "all things are not photographable". What does it mean? Well, it means that he's not really trying to find out anything, but just a totally unconvincing fetish for images, and he has no real motivation. It means he's not really a sick and obsessive person who wants to dissect and dissect his images and the people he has photographed. All this makes his behavior at the end of the movie even more incomprehensible, and it's hard to believe that a person who was a professional photographer would be so stupid.

Melissa photo

There are many ways of explaining the complete and utter lack of interest in this film. One way is to say that it was shot in some sort of 21st century Mediterranean Mediterranean-dryer noir. It was beautifully shot, with all the forms of stylized photography that make up the bread and butter of independent film-making. I didn't know it was shooting on film, but that didn't matter. There were countless scenes of people being photographed, and it was not a lot of things. The film's own premise, however, was not very original. As a film with a message, it could have been written by any number of people who are interested in that topic. But in a way, there was no point in watching it. The film was simply a series of shots taken by a series of people who, even after the film ended, were not sure what to do with the images. And it was a series of shots, not a series of people. But the photographs were not just about them. There was a sense of isolation and loneliness. There was a sense of detachment. There was a feeling of not knowing how to handle any of the pictures in the sequence, and this really broke the immersion. The film was too long. The conclusion was too abstract. There was too much behind the camera. There was no real sense of what it was about or why. And the shots were not particularly interesting, apart from the dramatic contrivances. I think that this film was more interesting for the people who took it than it was for the people who made it. But I don't really know why they made it. I guess, the people who made it wanted to know about it. Maybe they thought it would teach them something. But if this was an education, it was a bad education.

Roger Day photo
Roger Day

Tremendous. A more recent summary of the so called corruption is by the "American Journalism Review" under the title, "Unsuspecting 'citizen' witnesses to the Boston Bombing", a bit of a scandal for some reason but that does not change the fact that this is a very insightful and very well done film. I will admit that I thought it would be a bit over done and sentimental, but this film does not shy away from presenting the view of the audience and the political operatives involved in covering up the bombing. The images are pure cinema, the interviews with people who were at the scene, the news conferences, the stories they ran on the TV. All very important pieces of the story. The last segment is a bit off putting because of its subject, but it has an interesting plot. I think that a new film should go against the grain of these guys, to give us an alternative viewpoint. The theme is really that they have lost sight of what makes a documentary great.

Joshua Lee photo
Joshua Lee

A very entertaining documentary about a man who is (or was) a "progressive". This is mainly due to his habit of photographing different aspects of everyday life - from politics to film and his own life. However, it also shows his personal beliefs and how he feels about people. Although the subject of his photographic practices is very personal, and so is the subject of his personal beliefs, this documentary focuses more on the art and skill of the photographer than the "progressive" movement itself. The overall effect of the documentary is somewhat a mixed one, but overall is a good watch for anyone who is interested in how the "progressive" movement views its own causes. Also worth mentioning is the fact that this is a documentary, which means that the subjects who were interviewed are very open about the rest of their lives and the times they were interviewed - a great example of this is a man who was interviewed before he even became a "progressive". Some of the topics that are covered in the documentary include his experiences during the 1980's; his reasons for having gone pro-choice; his reactions to the pro-life movement during the 1990's; his views on the racial discrimination in the US; and of course, his thoughts on gay rights. It is clear that this documentary is not meant to make a judgement about the pro-life movement, but rather what one person (who didn't even become a "progressive" - simply because he went pro-choice) believes. Ultimately, this documentary is entertaining, and worth seeing, but its opinions about the "progressive movement" should be kept well away from being taken as fact.