One doesn't need to specifically learn about the history of Los Angeles, and California, to gain a sense that the past (and, let's face it, future) of the area involves issues of water and land rights. True, some notable movies have been made about such matters, but they don't necessarily give a complete image. To read up even a little bit about that history, and the people involved in it, is fascinating and instructive, a tale of money, power, innovation, dubious morals and ethics - and an incredible feat of engineering early in the twentieth century. One should perhaps be grateful to filmmaker Patrick Kielty for making this small BBC documentary, aiming to shed some light on these past events and the impact they continue to have on the region; make no mistake we get a snapshot of most every odd and end, including perspectives on it all. We see archived still photos, interviews, footage of the modern aqueduct and the fruit that it bore, and the sights of modern L. A., and of the modern rural communities where L. A.'s water originally came from. One wishes we see more of all this, for the abbreviated runtime of (less than) one hour is hardly enough to truly give a comprehensive look at chief architect William Mulholland, let alone the full breadth of the subject matter, but it remains an interesting and informative watch just as it is.
On the other hand, there are concrete issues with the presentation. It's one matter to be limited in terms of how much time one has to try to convey as much history as one can; in his effort to speak to as many points as possible, no one point necessarily gets the treatment it deserves, and the film feels a tad unfocused in attempting to explore both the man and his legacy. Just as much to the point, even just in looking at the major topics that the picture does, it experiences tonal issues - swerving from appreciation of the accomplishment of engineering, to hush-hush doubt about its ethics, to reverence for Mulholland, to condemnation for the failure of the St. Francis Dam in 1928, to awe at the sheer scope of what the man tried to or did achieve. And those tonal issues only get worse as Kielty cracks jokes, inserts music over top, and otherwise presents the material in a manner more consistent with Guy Fieri's Food Network offerings than an earnest documentary. Some of the tangential discussion or dialogue could have been meaningful if it were touched upon in a more thoughtful manner, such as drawing comparisons between attempted sabotage of the aqueduct and sociopolitical violence elsewhere in the world. Yet then Kielty will turn around and imitate an American accent in exaggerated jest, or make an ill-considered joke about child molestation (no, really), and one wonders if in the next moment he isn't about to hop on a pogo stick and gleefully shout "Hee hee! Hoo hoo!"
Ultimately this is worth checking out, but it's a flick that too often comes across more as a popsci frivolity, or "Gee whiz, look at that!" sensationalism, more than it does a truly contemplative examination of a historical figure or his works. It gives us a taste of the suggested subjects, but if you're really invested and hope to find out all you can about water, land rights, Los Angeles, and the people involved, this isn't the feature that will provide that education. I do like 'Patrick Kielty's Mulholland Drive,' but I rather think the title would have been better served if a more honest, mindful approach were taken than the one we get here.
On the other hand, there are concrete issues with the presentation. It's one matter to be limited in terms of how much time one has to try to convey as much history as one can; in his effort to speak to as many points as possible, no one point necessarily gets the treatment it deserves, and the film feels a tad unfocused in attempting to explore both the man and his legacy. Just as much to the point, even just in looking at the major topics that the picture does, it experiences tonal issues - swerving from appreciation of the accomplishment of engineering, to hush-hush doubt about its ethics, to reverence for Mulholland, to condemnation for the failure of the St. Francis Dam in 1928, to awe at the sheer scope of what the man tried to or did achieve. And those tonal issues only get worse as Kielty cracks jokes, inserts music over top, and otherwise presents the material in a manner more consistent with Guy Fieri's Food Network offerings than an earnest documentary. Some of the tangential discussion or dialogue could have been meaningful if it were touched upon in a more thoughtful manner, such as drawing comparisons between attempted sabotage of the aqueduct and sociopolitical violence elsewhere in the world. Yet then Kielty will turn around and imitate an American accent in exaggerated jest, or make an ill-considered joke about child molestation (no, really), and one wonders if in the next moment he isn't about to hop on a pogo stick and gleefully shout "Hee hee! Hoo hoo!"
Ultimately this is worth checking out, but it's a flick that too often comes across more as a popsci frivolity, or "Gee whiz, look at that!" sensationalism, more than it does a truly contemplative examination of a historical figure or his works. It gives us a taste of the suggested subjects, but if you're really invested and hope to find out all you can about water, land rights, Los Angeles, and the people involved, this isn't the feature that will provide that education. I do like 'Patrick Kielty's Mulholland Drive,' but I rather think the title would have been better served if a more honest, mindful approach were taken than the one we get here.
