Documentaries are starting to have a real problem: They're all the same. Most directors prefer to stay a certain distance from their subject, even if they have every reason to move closer. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a secret committee who only approved of one type of documentary, forcing 99% of them to have the same construction.
Blood Brother is a movie that's probably going to get a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. Like most social documentaries, who wouldn't like it? It's a great story. Rocky Bratt, a somewhat troubled young American, goes to India and finds himself loving his life at an HIV orphanage. Bratt really engages with the kids, gets his heart broken nearly as often as he succeeds, and loves the country in general.
So what's not to like? The film seems empty, in a word. The entire opening is Rocky doing nothing in particular in America. The footage is great, but assembled in such a way that I don't know what the aim was? Rocky? The kids? Rocky's relationships? HIV? It's just bogged down, and deemphasizes the kids in such a way that it falls dangerously close to the "White Savior" treatment.
The film's structure is just odd, having the imprint of a traditional narrative, but ultimately cannot put it all together. It's like a few strips of tape were slapped over the entire thing. Rocky is the only true character in the film. The kids are like props, occasionally being brought out and held up to the camera. The frustrating thing is that we certainly see enough footage that could really illustrate certain children and bring them to the spotlight. The one boy, who gets dangerously sick towards the end, is said to "always be around" yet we see him twice- in his sloppy introduction, and when he's near death.
The music, combined with the editing, adds another depth of irritation to the film. The mythical Documentary Committee I mentioned earlier apparently only approves of films that have a few "happy" montages of people dancing and running, and scored by a strummy string quartet piece. If we're having a flashback, better have some animated sketches.
Documentary has really become flavorless recently. Sure, there's exceptions that really try to do something interesting and "represent the truth"in an honest and engaging way- I'm thinking along the lines of Restrepo, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Smartest Guys in the Room, Inside Job and Waltz with Bashir. But the vast majority seem to fall under the vanilla production line aesthetic of Jiro Dreams of Sushi, Hell and Back Again, and now Blood Brother.
The real tragedy of Blood Brother is not just that's its bland, typical, and out of focus, it's that it could easily be good. There are editors and directors that could take the innumerable hours of raw footage shot and make something truly engaging, intelligent and downright interesting. If Blood Brother told a bad story, it wouldn't be as infuriating as its end result: A good story told in a bad way.
