USMC boot camp has a reputation as the most difficult basic military training in the world. I went through MCRD San Diego and then spent several years stationed on Parris Island. This is a collection of my memories and observations about recruit life, drill instructors, and the stuff nobody usually bothers to mention. (Source: Lost…

The post Marine Corps Bootcamp is Stupid & Spiritually Depraved appeared first on Channel Nonfiction.

USMC boot camp has a reputation as the most difficult basic military training in the world. I went through MCRD San Diego and then spent several years stationed on Parris Island. This is a collection of my memories and observations about recruit life, drill instructors, and the stuff nobody usually bothers to mention. (Source: Lost…

The post Marine Corps Bootcamp is Stupid & Spiritually Depraved appeared first on Channel Nonfiction.

5 Questions from Tour…

1. What makes a great Q&A — and what ruins one? What’s the best and worst thing about Q&As? Does a Q&A ever make you feel very differently about a film? How many people is best on stage? Format? Vibe? I’m doing tons of these right now so of course I am curious what audiences really like…

2. Should the director, ummmm, get into it in the comments? On which platforms? On what sorts of topics or posts or reviews, on what matters? Boots Riley did it, and part of me thinks if it’s good enough for Boots Riley… personally, I like to engage in a friendly way, because creating content & generally being online is a great way to make new friends!!! But if someone makes a factual error, or an incorrect assumption about how the film was made, should I kindly correct the record? Or does responding inevitably make a filmmaker look defensive?

3. Is it bad for my career that I skipped the beauty tax this premiere season? I was all set to SPEND A TON OF MONEY doing my normal premiere routine: fixing my face with various injectables; buying nice new clothes in my current size; maybe updating the makeup look; getting a haircut and a mani/pedi. In the past, I saw this as a non-negotiable for someone about to be photographed every day. Now, I’m like, who has the money for this / why am I doing this? I am not wearing much makeup, I am not doing my hair (wearing a baseball cap), my wrinkles are visible, and my clothes are nothing to write home about. Will people judge me differently, or could I even potentially lose work?1

4. How do you sustain yourself spiritually through an exciting but exhausting season? Thinking a lot about how a successful launch (“Bloom Season”) induces a peculiar mix of excitement / good vibes / genuine happiness that the thing you made is reaching its people and just… full-on exhaustion. “Self-care” is truly not my thing — I come from a generation that in my 20s had me smoking a cigarette first thing in the morning, then going to a diner to continue smoking — but I find taking time to be alone in my garden, and also communing/cuddling with loved ones — these are 2 things I now realize I need more than ever. What restores you during an intense period — even a good and happy one?

5. Do you need a desk or an office? This one is about my creative home — and also a classified ad. I love my team at Spinning Nancy so much and it’s so important they can keep the home fires burning and keep projects moving forward. Thank you Gabriel, Julia, Danny and Nick. Could not do any of this without you. WE HAVE EXTRA SPACE IN OUR ENORMOUS BEAUTIFUL OFFICE SUITE in Gowanus at the Can Factory. Cute cool suite-mates, incredible artist community vibes guaranteed. I love our plants, our colorful decor, our high ceilings and all the sunlight. I truly love going there, it is where the magic happens!!!!

… and 5 Recommendations

1. My Kid Could Paint That (2007)
   I never saw this Amir Bar-Lev joint when it came out. I thought I had — I definitely heard about it — but now I know I didn’t, because if I HAD seen it, it would have been a major influence on me. I would now rank it as possibly one of my favorite docs of all time. It is astonishing beginning to end, expertly paced, funny, warm but incisive, complicated, provocative, troubling… it will blow your mind.

2. Watch these new-release docs!
   There’s never been more ways to see a new-release documentary. In theaters right now or coming very soon, we’ve got two masterpieces of personal filmmaking (Remake and The Same River Twice); two stellar artist portraits of pioneering lesbian artists (Mary Oliver: Saved the Beauty of the World and Barbara Forever); plus, two wildly different but equally excellent audience faves from Sundance: Cookie Queens and American Doctor. Sam Green, Lynne Sachs and William Greaves have new joints coming to theaters soon… and I’m psyched for that John Boorman Exorcist 2 doc too. On the internets, we’ve got Barbara Kopple’s The Hamptons (that’s not a new release; it’s from 2002! but I’d never heard of it and everyone is obsessed with it) playing for free on Le Cinema Club; I just subscribed to c5.now, so I can watch Star Cash, Physician, Heal Thyself! and Finding Orson; and on Netflix, we’ve got a new Maite Alberti film (A Child of My Own); Time and Water is now streaming on Disney+ and Hulu; We Are Pat just hit TVOD… I could go on. These are beautiful times for documentary!!

3. A podcast with practical wisdom for indie filmmakers.
   “Have You Seen My Film? A Kinema Podcast” is so good. My favorite episodes so far are the ones with Dan Sickles, Loira Limbal, Jeanie Finlay, Jon Reiss, the one where a Gen Z Filmmaker explains TikTok to a Milennial, and of course, Social Media and Digital Marketing for Indie Film with Dor Dotson and Matt Delman, which covers much of what I would have covered with these two today had I not messed up the calendar (sorry!!).

4. A Marriage at Sea: A True Story of Love, Obsession, and Shipwreck by Sophie Elmhirst
   Could not put this book down: a nonfiction suspense story you will not believe. Shocking story, wonderful characters, deep research, good writing, loved it. Also: it’s very short, if that’s the kind of thing that matters to you these days.

5. Dan Taberski’s Manifesto
   I love everything does, so it’s no surprise that I am loving this new series. The episode about the “Think Different” Apple ad campaign was a real highlight for me, but all of them are great. It’s equally good for binging, or episodic listening. Give it a listen!

5 Questions from Tour…

1. What makes a great Q&A — and what ruins one? What’s the best and worst thing about Q&As? Does a Q&A ever make you feel very differently about a film? How many people is best on stage? Format? Vibe? I’m doing tons of these right now so of course I am curious what audiences really like…

2. Should the director, ummmm, get into it in the comments? On which platforms? On what sorts of topics or posts or reviews, on what matters? Boots Riley did it, and part of me thinks if it’s good enough for Boots Riley… personally, I like to engage in a friendly way, because creating content & generally being online is a great way to make new friends!!! But if someone makes a factual error, or an incorrect assumption about how the film was made, should I kindly correct the record? Or does responding inevitably make a filmmaker look defensive?

3. Is it bad for my career that I skipped the beauty tax this premiere season? I was all set to SPEND A TON OF MONEY doing my normal premiere routine: fixing my face with various injectables; buying nice new clothes in my current size; maybe updating the makeup look; getting a haircut and a mani/pedi. In the past, I saw this as a non-negotiable for someone about to be photographed every day. Now, I’m like, who has the money for this / why am I doing this? I am not wearing much makeup, I am not doing my hair (wearing a baseball cap), my wrinkles are visible, and my clothes are nothing to write home about. Will people judge me differently, or could I even potentially lose work?1

4. How do you sustain yourself spiritually through an exciting but exhausting season? Thinking a lot about how a successful launch (“Bloom Season”) induces a peculiar mix of excitement / good vibes / genuine happiness that the thing you made is reaching its people and just… full-on exhaustion. “Self-care” is truly not my thing — I come from a generation that in my 20s had me smoking a cigarette first thing in the morning, then going to a diner to continue smoking — but I find taking time to be alone in my garden, and also communing/cuddling with loved ones — these are 2 things I now realize I need more than ever. What restores you during an intense period — even a good and happy one?

5. Do you need a desk or an office? This one is about my creative home — and also a classified ad. I love my team at Spinning Nancy so much and it’s so important they can keep the home fires burning and keep projects moving forward. Thank you Gabriel, Julia, Danny and Nick. Could not do any of this without you. WE HAVE EXTRA SPACE IN OUR ENORMOUS BEAUTIFUL OFFICE SUITE in Gowanus at the Can Factory. Cute cool suite-mates, incredible artist community vibes guaranteed. I love our plants, our colorful decor, our high ceilings and all the sunlight. I truly love going there, it is where the magic happens!!!!

… and 5 Recommendations

1. My Kid Could Paint That (2007)
   I never saw this Amir Bar-Lev joint when it came out. I thought I had — I definitely heard about it — but now I know I didn’t, because if I HAD seen it, it would have been a major influence on me. I would now rank it as possibly one of my favorite docs of all time. It is astonishing beginning to end, expertly paced, funny, warm but incisive, complicated, provocative, troubling… it will blow your mind.

2. Watch these new-release docs!
   There’s never been more ways to see a new-release documentary. In theaters right now or coming very soon, we’ve got two masterpieces of personal filmmaking (Remake and The Same River Twice); two stellar artist portraits of pioneering lesbian artists (Mary Oliver: Saved the Beauty of the World and Barbara Forever); plus, two wildly different but equally excellent audience faves from Sundance: Cookie Queens and American Doctor. Sam Green, Lynne Sachs and William Greaves have new joints coming to theaters soon… and I’m psyched for that John Boorman Exorcist 2 doc too. On the internets, we’ve got Barbara Kopple’s The Hamptons (that’s not a new release; it’s from 2002! but I’d never heard of it and everyone is obsessed with it) playing for free on Le Cinema Club; I just subscribed to c5.now, so I can watch Star Cash, Physician, Heal Thyself! and Finding Orson; and on Netflix, we’ve got a new Maite Alberti film (A Child of My Own); Time and Water is now streaming on Disney+ and Hulu; We Are Pat just hit TVOD… I could go on. These are beautiful times for documentary!!

3. A podcast with practical wisdom for indie filmmakers.
   “Have You Seen My Film? A Kinema Podcast” is so good. My favorite episodes so far are the ones with Dan Sickles, Loira Limbal, Jeanie Finlay, Jon Reiss, the one where a Gen Z Filmmaker explains TikTok to a Milennial, and of course, Social Media and Digital Marketing for Indie Film with Dor Dotson and Matt Delman, which covers much of what I would have covered with these two today had I not messed up the calendar (sorry!!).

4. A Marriage at Sea: A True Story of Love, Obsession, and Shipwreck by Sophie Elmhirst
   Could not put this book down: a nonfiction suspense story you will not believe. Shocking story, wonderful characters, deep research, good writing, loved it. Also: it’s very short, if that’s the kind of thing that matters to you these days.

5. Dan Taberski’s Manifesto
   I love everything does, so it’s no surprise that I am loving this new series. The episode about the “Think Different” Apple ad campaign was a real highlight for me, but all of them are great. It’s equally good for binging, or episodic listening. Give it a listen!

In August 2025, nearly a year ago to the day, I wrote about the development of generative AI. The integration of the technology in filmmaking has changed significantly since then. As identified by Variety’s Corbin Bolies in an article from July, around 300 Netflix programs employed generative AI across various steps in their production processes this year. Of Netflix’s own admission, the titles named in their report use gen AI across the pre-production, production, and post-production pipelines to assist the filmmakers in actualizing their visions while bringing down the streamer’s costs.

In its report, the company singled out the docuseries Brazil 70: A Saga do Tri and The American Experiment as having employed gen AI technology to “create highly complex sequences (e.g., enhanced crowds, historical battle sequences, and worldbuilding establishing shots).” For co-CEO Ted Sarandos, these scenes would have been difficult to incorporate into the films prior to gen-AI technology, due to the huge costs attached towards filming them had the filmmakers taken traditional means like dramatic recreation or animation. Speaking of the 17 minutes of AI enhanced footage in The American Experiment, Sarandos said that the material was produced, “twice as fast and at half the cost of previous options,” making it mutually beneficial for the filmmakers and Netflix. Sarandos’ enthusiasm towards the technology is expected for an executive focused on the company’s bottom line, but it poses great concerns for the future.

Whereas in recent years, AI generated material in Roadrunner and What Jennifer Did  caused massive uproars with audiences rejecting the use of processes they found deceptive, the climate has noticeably changed this year. Neither of the docuseries mentioned by Netflix is receiving as much criticism as the titles from recent years and evidently there exist other Netflix-backed documentaries that used generative AI but haven’t explicitly been mentioned in the report. Acknowledging that fact, regular consumers of Netflix documentaries have likely watched a recent title that used generative AI for stock footage, archival material, crowd sequences, voice enhancements, or  other aspects of the filmmaking process.

Irrespective of how a viewer may feel towards generative AI, according to Sarandos the tech is here to stay, and the company will continue to leverage it to bring down costs and strengthen their production pipelines. What is interesting about Netflix’s model for adopting AI technology is that instead of producing content made entirely by AI, they seem to be soft launching the concept to their consumers.

For instance, in The American Experiment, a docuseries about the formation of the United States, where one sees and hears from notable politicians including Hillary Clinton and Mike Pence, and former Supreme Court associate justice Stephen Breyer, one would not be inclined to question the production methodology of fleeting sequences of large crowds or stock footage that complements the talking points. As the AI generated footage does not interfere with the real, authentic footage of the talking heads, the series appears to maintain its contract with the viewer by not disturbing the experience of watching the film with material that might seem out of place or out of character.

This form of involving generative AI in production while retaining the authenticity of the film/series itself reduces the extent to which the viewer acknowledges that they are interacting with AI content. It is a shrewd and calculated way to introduce the viewer to AI technology without clearly stating it from the offset. Additionally, as Sarandos stated that the generative AI technology is being employed in pre-production, it can be inferred that research or fact-finding work that would otherwise be undertaken by humans could also be at risk of being offset to artificial technology.

This brings us to Sarandos’ classification that Netflix does not anticipate gen AI replacing filmmakers but rather intends to use it as a tool to assist the real humans involved in making the film. It is a questionable claim, however, considering Sarandos also said that the sequences produced using gen-AI are created at a significantly lower cost than other options. Undoubtedly, the cost here is reduced because  employing people to produce physical or digital recreations, or to hunt through the archives for footage or material that could be used are processes that would take up time and money.  Netflix can now get away with replacing these people with AI technology. By involving the technology throughout the process to expedite filmmaking and reduce costs, audiences must question how many jobs have been cut out as a result. How many people have been removed from the process to cut down the costs for Netflix? Sarandos’ empathy towards real humans must thus be taken with a grain of salt as Netflix’s approach appears to cater to a hierarchical order within filmmaking that protects the above the line credits like director or producer (for now) but not the roles of the countless below-the-line talents, like visual researchers or composite artists, involved in making a film successful.

Beyond the detrimental impact to the filmmaking industry in this regard, the introduction of employing gen AI in docs poses a different set of problems for the genre itself. When writing last year’s article, I could only find gen AI “documentaries” on the r/aivideo subreddit – a forum dedicated to discussing AI videos – but in the last year, prominent Indian filmmaker Rajkumar Hirani made Kathni Karni Ek Si, an AI generated documentary to honour the legacy of the Bajaj Group in India. A hybrid piece of docu-fiction, the short film uses gen AI to bring back to life the father of the nation, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, making him the central protagonist who marvels at the modern-day developments that the Bajaj Group has made in an independent India.

Those familiar with Hirani’s work will recognize the use of Gandhi as a self-reflexive homage to his comedy Lage Raho Munna Bhai, where the gangster Munna Bhai studies Gandhi’s philosophies to the extent that he starts seeing an apparition of Gandhi around him. If one were to compare the films, there is nothing that the AI generated Gandhi adds to the film that Dilip Prabhavalkar’s portrayal of the figure in Munna Bhai did not. In fact, the character in the short doc appears hyper-realistic in its animation, giving the film an uncanny feel as did the animation in The Polar Express, detracting from the messaging and reducing the impact of the ‘documentary.’ Nevertheless, Hirani is clearly amazed at the technology, as he has gone on to say that he plans to use generative AI in his films in the future.

Hirani, like Sarandos, appears as an industry pioneer who exists in an untouchable bubble. The specific technologies they back are unlikely to harm their careers and are likely to encourage more industry personnel to use them. Other examples include James Cameron (director of Stability AI) and Martin Scorsese (a partner and supporter of Black Forest Labs) who have also backed generative AI technology in their filmmaking process with qualified praise for its role in the creative process. However, while these industry leaders, alongside other propagators of generative AI, claim that the technology is democratizing the art form for young people, there is a resurgence in analogue  photography and filmmaking among Gen-Z. If the packed 70mm shows of Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey are anything to go by, audiences appreciate analogue filmmaking now more than ever. Last year alone, we saw One Battle After Another, Sinners, Bugonia, Die My Love, and even Jurassic World Rebirth shot on some form of film stock. In fact, the reason Jurassic World filmmaker Gareth Edwards opted to shoot on 35mm film was to give the dinosaurs, “a gritty, grounded reality reminiscent of the original 1993 classic.” On both accounts, be it democratizing for the new age or employing AI for ‘special effects,’ the technology has yet to offer anything to the medium beyond being a mere cost-cutting method. That would justify why money-minded executives such as Sarandos are so keen on engaging with it and co-opting it as integral to the filmmaking process.

For documentaries, this poses a different question. How can a visual that has been artificially generated, using a model that is trained on actual human labour be considered an aspect of documentation? If documentation is a presentation of facts, of life, of events as they happened or are happening, what space does artificial intelligence have in this truly human way of depiction? It is important here to distinguish between formally experimental documentaries that may use animation or CGI, as the images being produced remain a product of human labour and often reflect subjective experiences. For example, Chris Landreth’s animated short doc Ryan, which won the Academy Award for Best Animated Short, remains a human-made film that depicts real struggles and facets of life using animation. Landreth’s imprint and understanding of humanity are present in the unique animation of the film and its construction of famed Canadian animator Ryan Larkin’s struggles with addiction.

Today, artificial intelligence replaces this human imprint by constructing visuals that copy and are styled after the actual creations by other people without due credit or consent. And if artificially produced images that are developed using computer code instead of any human thinking are actively employed to create documentaries, what does that mean for the field itself? Audiences and filmmakers will have to reckon with that question and others while the technology advances.

The post What Place Does Artificial Intelligence Have in Documentaries? appeared first on POV Magazine.

Matthew Hamachek returns with a follow-up to his riveting 2024 docuseries The Dynasty: New England Patriots, this time continuing the fledgling franchise (with Erica Sashin now joining him at the helm) with a much shorter but still highly engaging look at the record-holding reign of a women’s college basketball team. The Dynasty: UConn Huskies is a three-part documentary about the success of the University of Connecticut women’s basketball team from its first NCAA Division I National Championship in 1995 through its recent twelfth title in 2025.

It’s difficult not to compare this installment to Hamachek’s previous effort (which made our list of the best documentaries of 2024). But it’s such a different kind of story, with lower-profile characters and distinct dynamics more relevant to this sport and athletic level. Similar to The Dynasty: New England Patriots, though, The Dynasty: UConn Huskies is a must-watch whether or not you’re a fan or familiar with the subject. It’s almost equally as thrilling and dramatic, if not as epic (despite covering more decades), in its brisk, episodic storytelling.

One thing that separates the Huskies documentary from the Patriots series is the fact that college players are more temporary. The latter story was spread evenly among a coach, his longtime quarterback, and their team’s owner, while the former is more focused on the only constant: Coach Geno Auriemma. Each of the three episodes has one star athlete — Rebecca Lobo, Diana Taurasi, and Paige Bueckers — who is more prominent than the rest for having defined a certain era. Still, with this dynasty, it’s clearer that the coach was most instrumental in achieving their domination.

Auriemma also has the most captivating presence as an interviewee in the documentary, and not just because he’s on screen more. He’s more charming and likable than Bill Belichick, even when he initially comes off as a no-nonsense SOB in an opening bit where he scolds the production. Auriemma quickly falls into a more comfortable mood that gives off tough yet cooperative, and rather cheerful at times. Also, intellectual, as he delivers clever metaphors and references Sisyphus and Caesar, as well as famous Latin phrases.

The Dynasty: UConn Huskies also makes plenty of room for Auriemma’s sometimes respectful rivalry with the late Lady Vols coach Pat Summitt, who had a dynasty of her own at the University of Tennessee during the same quarter-century period. I would have liked more on the history of women’s college basketball and how Summitt and Auriemma changed the game, rather than simply hearing that they did so without more background on the topic shown. Auriemma being a male coach in this arena, where women appear to be more common in the role, might also have been better addressed (I think it’s interesting that this is coming to Apple TV at the same time as Ted Lasso Season 4, which sees Ted now coaching a women’s soccer team).

And I could have done without hearing “Just a Girl” on the soundtrack, but it might be an unwritten law that anything involving women proving themselves in the mid-1990s has to license that No Doubt tune. Fans of the Huskies may also have complaints that the Maya Moore and Breanna Stewart eras are not covered enough. But in the end, these documentaries are about characters and narratives, and theirs might not have had enough of either.

When so many anthology sports documentary series exist to stress the significance of this person, that team, or some game, Hamachek has now presented two installments of a franchise that doesn’t need to tell us these teams are important — it’s obvious in their wins. Instead, he reminds us of the personalities and relationships that make these games, tournaments, seasons, and dynastic runs so enticing in their entertainment value beyond the display of athletic skill in the moment. It’s easy to hate a team that wins all the time, but hard to resist their stories when told this well.

Matthew Hamachek returns with a follow-up to his riveting 2024 docuseries The Dynasty: New England Patriots, this time continuing the fledgling franchise (with Erica Sashin now joining him at the helm) with a much shorter but still highly engaging look at the record-holding reign of a women’s college basketball team. The Dynasty: UConn Huskies is a three-part documentary about the success of the University of Connecticut women’s basketball team from its first NCAA Division I National Championship in 1995 through its recent twelfth title in 2025.

It’s difficult not to compare this installment to Hamachek’s previous effort (which made our list of the best documentaries of 2024). But it’s such a different kind of story, with lower-profile characters and distinct dynamics more relevant to this sport and athletic level. Similar to The Dynasty: New England Patriots, though, The Dynasty: UConn Huskies is a must-watch whether or not you’re a fan or familiar with the subject. It’s almost equally as thrilling and dramatic, if not as epic (despite covering more decades), in its brisk, episodic storytelling.

One thing that separates the Huskies documentary from the Patriots series is the fact that college players are more temporary. The latter story was spread evenly among a coach, his longtime quarterback, and their team’s owner, while the former is more focused on the only constant: Coach Geno Auriemma. Each of the three episodes has one star athlete — Rebecca Lobo, Diana Taurasi, and Paige Bueckers — who is more prominent than the rest for having defined a certain era. Still, with this dynasty, it’s clearer that the coach was most instrumental in achieving their domination.

Auriemma also has the most captivating presence as an interviewee in the documentary, and not just because he’s on screen more. He’s more charming and likable than Bill Belichick, even when he initially comes off as a no-nonsense SOB in an opening bit where he scolds the production. Auriemma quickly falls into a more comfortable mood that gives off tough yet cooperative, and rather cheerful at times. Also, intellectual, as he delivers clever metaphors and references Sisyphus and Caesar, as well as famous Latin phrases.

The Dynasty: UConn Huskies also makes plenty of room for Auriemma’s sometimes respectful rivalry with the late Lady Vols coach Pat Summitt, who had a dynasty of her own at the University of Tennessee during the same quarter-century period. I would have liked more on the history of women’s college basketball and how Summitt and Auriemma changed the game, rather than simply hearing that they did so without more background on the topic shown. Auriemma being a male coach in this arena, where women appear to be more common in the role, might also have been better addressed (I think it’s interesting that this is coming to Apple TV at the same time as Ted Lasso Season 4, which sees Ted now coaching a women’s soccer team).

And I could have done without hearing “Just a Girl” on the soundtrack, but it might be an unwritten law that anything involving women proving themselves in the mid-1990s has to license that No Doubt tune. Fans of the Huskies may also have complaints that the Maya Moore and Breanna Stewart eras are not covered enough. But in the end, these documentaries are about characters and narratives, and theirs might not have had enough of either.

When so many anthology sports documentary series exist to stress the significance of this person, that team, or some game, Hamachek has now presented two installments of a franchise that doesn’t need to tell us these teams are important — it’s obvious in their wins. Instead, he reminds us of the personalities and relationships that make these games, tournaments, seasons, and dynastic runs so enticing in their entertainment value beyond the display of athletic skill in the moment. It’s easy to hate a team that wins all the time, but hard to resist their stories when told this well.

IDA Member Spotlight: Alysa Nahmias
ida-admin
Mon, 08/17/2026 – 14:39

IDA Member Spotlight: Alysa Nahmias
ida-admin
Mon, 08/17/2026 – 14:39

Researching old documentaries can be a confusing but enlightening endeavor. Take the Best Documentary Feature category, for instance. Many sources point to the 15th Academy Awards as the first year of that category and four films as its inaugural winners. Yet two of those films were shorts because that year the Oscars recognized documentaries of any length in a single category called Best Documentary, with each winner named as receiving a “special award.” The following year, Best Documentary (Feature) made its actual debut, with Desert Victory taking home the Academy Award. That same ceremony saw a film that’s now available as a feature win the Oscar for Best Documentary (Short Subject): Gregg Toland and John Ford’s December 7th.

If you want to watch this “short subject” film and you look up its availability on, say, JustWatch, the first two streaming platform options presented (JustWatchTV and HBO Max) and the digital rental/purchase TVOD version (via Prime Video) show a runtime of around 80 minutes. This is how I learned that December 7th was originally a feature-length documentary. However, the version shown to a limited audience with certain security clearance and then screened for Motion Picture Academy members was condensed to 32 minutes. The original cut was preserved and eventually made available to the public in 1991. A VHS release offered only the “banned for 50 years” full-length version, while a decade later, DVD copies included both cuts. Now, depending on where you look, either the feature or the short (the latter being the option available on Tubi, Artiflix, and the Internet Archive) pops up without the other.

Read more