Amazon.com
Inspired by a
nonfiction book by author James Ridgeway, this 1991 documentary--largely shot at a woodsy retreat in Michigan--focuses on a day in the collective life of American neo-Nazis, racists, and conspiracy nuts awaiting all people of color to ignite Armageddon in the United States. Ridgeway (credited as one of the film's directors) teams with filmmakers Anne Bohlen and Kevin Rafferty to take an intentionally leisurely, conversational tack with supremacists who have assembled for lectures and workshops on everything from getting their message out via home videos to moving all like-minded "white Christians" to the Northwest. Michael Moore (
Roger and Me), barely containing his bemusement, helps out with interviews that seem evenly divided between young people in various forms of Nazi garb and older people who look emotionally exhausted from a lifetime of suspicion and hatred. Clips from the public careers of more prominent racists such as David Duke and George Lincoln Rockwell are a part of this film, too, but what's most interesting about
Blood in the Face is the way those doomstruck souls huddling in the Michigan countryside appear far more pathetic than scary.
--Tom Keogh
From The New Yorker
A skillfully made documentary about the radical right wing in North America. The movie's directors-Anne Bohlen, Kevin Rafferty, and James Ridgeway-put on display an alarmingly large aggregation of Fascist loonies: members of the Klan, the American Nazi Party, and other, less well-known organizations, all of them dedicated to spreading the gospel of anti-Semitism and white supremacy. What makes these zealots good subjects for a documentary is that they're compulsive talkers, tirelessly eager to expound their elaborate paranoid theories and make converts to the cause. (It passes the time while they wait for Armageddon.) Some really stunning delusional systems are elaborated here: everyone interviewed on this picture seems in need of a complete neurological workup. The film is fascinating, but it's also frustrating in that it doesn't provide much of a context for its menagerie of crackpots. The filmmakers don't try to explain the origins of these reactionary movements or to assess their current strength. The movie's tone is sometimes cautionary, suggesting that these groups constitute a sizable and material danger, and sometimes merely condescending, encouraging us to respond to the sheer ridiculousness of the radical right's ideas. When the film is over, all we can say for sure is that we've seen a compelling freak show. -Terrence Rafferty
Copyright © 2006
The New Yorker