Anschauen Gift

Gift

Gift is a movie starring Marcus Alfred, Wayne Alfred, and Giorgio De Finis. Creative essay doc inspired by Lewis Hyde's classic bestseller The Gift. Chronicling gift-based cultures around the world and challenging the logic of...

Other Titles
Le don
Running Time
1 hours 30 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Documentary
Director
Robin McKenna
Writer
Robin McKenna
Actors
Marcus Alfred, Giorgio De Finis, Wayne Alfred, Mingwei Lee
Country
Canada
Year
2018
Audio Languages
Deutsch, English, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

GIFT is a creative documentary inspired by Lewis Hyde's classic bestseller The Gift: "a brilliant defense of the value of creativity and its importance in a culture increasingly governed by money and overrun with commodities." RIchly cinematic and politically provocative, it follows character-driven stories: from the elaborate preparations for a Pacific Northwest potlatch to an unexpected gift of music at the Auckland Art Gallery, from an occupied factory in Rome protected by art, to the "pirate utopia" of Burning Man.

Comments about documentary «Gift» (20)

Kelly C. photo
Kelly C.

This is a very interesting documentary about the film industry. From the production of "A Haunting", to the current state of "The Life Aquatic". It's a good one to see if you're interested in the movie industry. One thing that made it so good was the fact that it really didn't take itself too seriously. Some people may think that it's just a documentary, but I think that it's really more than that. It's a good documentary that actually had me in tears at some points. The production of "A Haunting" is amazing. I think that it's one of the best movies I've ever seen. The cinematography was incredible. It was like a mix between a documentary and a movie. The sound quality was amazing. The special effects are also really amazing. I also like the way they incorporated different movies in the documentary, and made it more interesting. There's a lot of other documentaries about the movie industry, but this is the best one I've ever seen. If you're interested in the movie industry, I recommend this one.

Carolyn Rose photo
Carolyn Rose

Watching this documentary for the first time, it was quite a few years since I last watched a documentary in a cinema. I would have been more than happy to sit through the entirety of this movie on my own, but I have to admit that I didn't get a chance to. I don't know what happened to the film, but I think it was released in 2013. Regardless of the fact that it wasn't, this is a great documentary that deserves to be seen by all those interested in the subject. The subject of this documentary is nothing new, but I believe that the film makers have managed to bring the subjects matter to the attention of the general public. It also is good to see that many of the subjects aren't in any way well known. This is a must see for any documentary fan.

Andrew K. photo
Andrew K.

A documentary about a young man who wants to start a musical. It was produced by a "progressive" organization who has promoted "tolerance" as a virtue. The young man who created the film, John Lennon, has a good deal of explaining to do, and he does it well. I do not want to go into the details of his life, which is fascinating, but I will mention that he was involved with the Beatles, was in the British New Wave and contributed to the making of "The Bee Gee." It was not until after he had left the Beatles that he became a radical, though he later changed his views on homosexuality and the Vietnam War. He was also an activist for gay rights, and this is what led to his death. If you are a fan of the Beatles, you may want to see this film. If you are not, you may not be very interested in it.

Austin photo
Austin

There is no such thing as a perfect wedding. However, it seems that this one was perfect. It is a beautiful wedding, well-made, well-attended and well-presented. The best part is that it is all over the Internet. It is not a simple "on the wedding day" type of wedding. Instead, it is a webcast of the wedding that is played on a computer or mobile device. The bride and groom look at each other on the screen. Then, it cuts to the groom and the bride. Then, they are in a car. Then, it cuts to the bride and the groom. And so on and so forth. It is a beautiful thing to see all of these people. It is not a wedding. It is a webcast of a wedding. It is a beautiful thing. If you do not like webcasts, do not watch this.

Brian Davidson photo
Brian Davidson

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on the film version. The movie stars Nicole Kidman and Philip Seymour Hoffman as their characters. Hoffman and Kidman have opposite, but pretty similar, roles in the book. Hoffman is a charming, good-looking New Yorker who goes to Japan to teach a group of American boys how to perform dance. Kidman is a shy and pretty Japanese girl who meets Hoffman on the subway and falls in love. I'm not really sure why they would put Hoffman in the book, since Kidman and Hoffman are very different people in the book, but it works. The movie is also a bit different. It was a bit longer than the book, and sometimes I was looking forward to the next scene. The movie actually starts off in New York City, and moves to Tokyo, Japan. The entire film is filmed in the hotel rooms of the three main characters. Hoffman has a room, and Kidman has a room, and Kidman's parents have a room. Kidman's parents have a couple of room-mates, and Hoffman's parents are very boring and strict, unlike Kidman's parents. Overall, I think this movie was a good adaptation of the book. It had some interesting things to say about New York and Japan, and was just really funny. It also had some good dance moves, though the dances weren't really choreographed. Overall, it was a good film. I would give it a 7/10.

Henry photo
Henry

The way this documentary was made really gives the viewer a sense of how out of touch Hollywood is with the real world. In the real world, people are desperate for change. The movie makes that point so well. I was impressed with how much of the issues that the documentary was made about were actually done by the Academy Awards. I would have liked to have seen more of the real life experiences of the actors, but I'm sure the real life experiences of the Academy Awards winners would have been of interest to anyone who cares about the Academy Awards.

Dennis photo
Dennis

This documentary is a look at the actual history of the original gift, and the false claims it has received over the years. The film follows the journey of a single family from Scotland, where the original gift was found to one of the richest families in the world. They go through the years to see what happened, what the family claims, and what is now claimed to be the truth. The film is very thorough in documenting the events, but it doesn't seem to explain how the family got to this point, and why it is being presented as fact. It also seems to imply that the family is lying, and that there is no real evidence for the claim of the original gift. It is interesting to see how the family can claim that their ancestors never lived in Scotland, but then go on to claim that they lived there. The documentary also has a few very interesting interviews with people who have helped the family. One of the more interesting aspects is that the family is going back and forth between Scotland and England, without saying where they are going. I thought that this was a good point, because I think that this is really an important part of the story. It's also interesting to see how the family has changed, and how they seem to be taking different paths. The documentary does a good job in showing that the original gift is not true, and that the family is not telling the truth. I think that this documentary is a good starting point for people who want to learn more about the history of the original gift.

Jessica L. photo
Jessica L.

I did not read the book, and found this documentary to be too on the nose. I think the main problem is that the film makers try to make the "short" film into a full length feature film. The book was longer than this documentary. That is not the point. The point is to show the point of view of the character, and how he grew from a spoiled brat into a strong man. This documentary is a must see for anyone who is a fan of the book. I think it is important to give the director the benefit of the doubt, and not expect a movie to be a documentary. It was a good attempt, but not quite what I had hoped for.

Carol S. photo
Carol S.

This documentary, made for PBS, tells the story of a man who travels to Africa to give away his own land. When the man is captured, he is forced to become the king of his people. It is a powerful film that explains the situation of a person being enslaved by the people of another country. This is a story that is too often ignored. The film is worth seeing because it shows the heartbreak that comes with losing one's own land. I have seen this film several times and I enjoy it every time.

Danielle O. photo
Danielle O.

While the main focus of the film is on the lives of four women in the town of Holbrook, New York, it is not clear whether the film is concerned with the women's lives or their struggles with their own. The film is shot primarily from the point of view of the women, so that the viewer is not immediately aware that the film is about them. The film seems to be primarily a study of the women's relationship with one another and their personal struggles with their own personal issues. It is not clear what the film is about. We do not know how the women were raised, or what their lives were like before they went to Holbrook, but we are not told anything about them. We do not know whether the women were married or unmarried. We do not know what they did for a living before they went to Holbrook, but we do know that they were prostitutes. The film seems to be concerned with the women's struggles with their own personal issues, but it is not clear how that is reflected in the film.

Henry Perry photo
Henry Perry

I had not heard about this documentary before. As it was being released in the US, I was fortunate to catch it in a full screening. It was at that time when I was pretty much bored of all the anti-vaccine propaganda from the government. However, I had no idea that it was actually a documentary about the dangers of vaccines. I was still surprised that this is a real documentary. I must admit that I had no idea the vaccine was responsible for the death of over 100,000 people. I would've never guessed that it is about vaccines. I would've thought it was about some other, better topic. There were a lot of things that were overlooked in the film. The subject of autism is not talked about at all. Even though I don't think autism is a serious issue, the media was too quick to make it seem like it was. It wasn't a topic that was talked about until recently. We also learn that the media is willing to ignore stories about a new vaccine that actually has been tested in a lot of people. I think that should be made known more. I think that this is a good documentary that should be made available to everyone. It's not that I was against vaccines, but I think that the media would be willing to cover stories about them that are not about a vaccine. It's a documentary about the dangers of vaccines and how they have been harmful. People should be told the truth and we should be in a better position to make our own choices. We don't have to take the government's word. We need to be able to make our own decisions about what we do. I was surprised at how much of the information I learned was related to vaccines and I really hope that the information is made available to everyone. It is up to us to decide what we do with our bodies and the environment we live in.

Marie G. photo
Marie G.

Watching the film, the first thing that struck me was how well the documentary was executed. I've always loved how the filmmakers use the Internet and social media to tell their stories, and this film did a great job at that. They did a great job at being able to go from the present to the past and back to the present, as well as sharing that the camera crew and the director took a lot of risks and didn't feel comfortable doing it. I think that they did a fantastic job at keeping the viewer in the present, but also showing how many things change and it is difficult to capture the past with a camera and such. It was great to see how many stories that were told, and I think that it was a great film to watch and learn from. I also liked the way that they covered the different situations and how they are related to each other. It was great to see all the different perspectives and to learn from it. It was a great documentary, and I recommend it.

Joseph photo
Joseph

Now I can relate to the topic. I have a daughter who is on the autism spectrum, and sometimes seems to be a little bit odd, or a bit shy, or just different. I think it is normal for some people to have their mind so open that they think they can go out on a limb and say "I don't know how to act in a relationship, but I know I would be OK if I met someone" without realizing how stupid it is. This movie is about how not everyone thinks the same way. It's not just about autism, but if you think your partner is autistic, there is a huge chance they are. The movie has a good message, but it doesn't try to make you think about autism or the other issues that come up. It's just a "feel good" movie with some good parts. I would definitely recommend it.

Lori Henderson photo
Lori Henderson

I have seen some great documentaries on my travels. But this is one that truly shocked me. When I saw the credits I didn't think anything of it. But when I got home, I realized the filmmakers used the names of all the people who were involved in making the documentary. That really disturbed me. And I really wanted to know what they used them for. I feel it is a great documentary, but I feel like I was robbed of seeing what the actual documentary was about.

Joe S. photo
Joe S.

I love these movies because they are the best documentaries I have ever seen. They show you a great look at what is going on in a foreign country, and show you a great perspective of what is going on inside the country. The documentary features a great portrayal of what happens in a refugee camp and a great look at the refugee life. It is also good for people who are not interested in what is happening in a refugee camp. People who want to see what is happening in the refugee camp, but want to learn about what goes on inside a refugee camp. It is an enjoyable documentary.

Jacqueline P. photo
Jacqueline P.

This is a documentary about the project to build the world's tallest building, and the people who got involved in the project. It starts with the history of the project, and how it was built, and then goes on to a bunch of interviews, and then interviews with a bunch of people involved with the project. It's pretty interesting, as well as informative. They talk about some of the problems with the project, like the cost, and the people who got involved. The problem is that the project was never completed, and now it's almost impossible to build the world's tallest building. It's a pretty interesting documentary.

Alice G. photo
Alice G.

This is the first film I've seen from director Michael Moore, who's been doing a lot of great work lately. It's a documentary about a family of 12 (all boys) that comes from a poor Southern Baptist home. The youngest, Frankie, is the sexiest kid of the group. After a few years of going to a church youth group and seeing a lesbian couple get married, they decide to attend a Pentecostal church for their teenagers. The atmosphere of the church is very Christian, and the girls take their clothes off and talk about sex. I didn't find it too surprising that the girls were gay, but I did find it interesting that the oldest girl, Candy, was always talking about sex and how much she enjoyed it. The film has some great stuff. One of the best is when Frankie says he's never been with a girl. He was able to meet one of the older girls who was divorced, and the two have a "tough talk" about life. The story of the church is also really interesting, and the two girls are also very funny. Moore talks about how they are the next generation of the poor kids. It's very interesting and a really good look at the poor southern neighborhoods. It's not an award winner, but it's still a very good documentary.

Nancy A. photo
Nancy A.

i was the producer of this film in 1988 and I remember that there were two very important things that were stressed in the conversation between the people who made the film. First was the fact that they were using "capital letters" in a pretty specific way, it was not very artistic and it was still very much important to have a movie that was true to the "cantonese" way of speaking that they had chosen. Secondly, the way that the movie was made was pretty much what I would say is still used today. In the film, the character of the director was shown to be very much in charge, he had a very strong influence on the group of people that made the film, but he also had a very different view about what was going on in the movie and it was obvious that the director didn't get along with the production crew very well, so much so that they basically had a fight and the director was essentially kicked out of the production. The other important thing that was stressed was that they were shooting the movie in Cantonese because the director thought that Cantonese would be more accurate than English. He thought that Cantonese was more poetic and there was something poetic about Cantonese that the director liked. In the end, Cantonese was chosen because it was believed that Cantonese was a more accurate representation of the movie and that English was not an accurate representation. Now, the movie was made in 1988 and Cantonese was still an extremely popular language in Cantonese and I don't think that it would have made any difference. The movie itself was not particularly well received. The film was shown in a theater at the first showing and it was a very low-attendance showing. It wasn't a very good showing but I have seen it many times since and it is still quite a popular film. I still think that it is an excellent film but it wasn't that well received by the people that saw it.

Catherine photo
Catherine

I was shocked to see how many people gave this movie bad reviews. My question is, if a movie has a 90% score on IMDb, how many people think that this is an okay movie? It's hard to say. It does have it's moments, but I was hoping it would get better. I didn't expect this movie to be that good. I gave it a 7, because it's a good movie to see at the theater. But I will be really surprised if this movie gets better. This movie is a mess.

Kathryn Price photo
Kathryn Price

In the mid 1960s, the U.S. government began to take action against people and institutions in the Latin American countries for having close ties to the U.S. military or CIA. This prompted a wave of interest in Latin American artists in the U.S. The work of Luis Bunuel, among others, made this attention more intense. In 1970, the director and poet Pablo Neruda came to the U.S. to promote the film "On the Beach." He had been given special permission to make a documentary about the role of Salvador Allende in the Cuban Revolution. The film is a serious indictment of the U.S. government. Many of the scenes in the film were taken from his own films. The film was made as a test of censorship. If they could control what could be shown, they could control what could not be shown. Neruda's film became the symbol of this censorship and a personal crusade by him and other artists in the U.S. to stop it. The film was initially shown on television and then was shown on a national TV station. It became a success. Neruda and his film were banned in the U.S. It was only in the late 1980s that the film was shown on television. This film is certainly controversial, and certainly a challenge to the ideology of censorship. But it is also a clear statement of the impact of this film in the Latin American countries and their own reactions to it. It is a brave and important statement. The film starts off in the mid 1960s and the music used in it is from the 1960s. It is set in Guatemala, but it is clearly a U.S. production. The key scenes take place in Mexico City. The film is about the relationship of the journalist Luis Bunuel, who has fled to Mexico City, with the cultural elite in Mexico and then with the revolutionary government in Mexico. Bunuel tries to make an honest film about his experiences in Guatemala. His film is on a whole different level from the work of the artists who were arrested and deported. There is a long discussion of censorship in Latin America and in the U.S. The director shows the plight of artists who had their work censored. He is not afraid to confront the censorship as it is happening in the film. The film is very successful. There are many scenes of people protesting and some are actually people in the film. The film is very well done. The work of Pablo Neruda is not really made clear in the film, but it is very clear that he is really saying that the censorship is the way that the U.S. government is trying to control artists. Neruda is not afraid to say anything. He is a very intelligent man. He is just as concerned about the censorship as the artists in his country. In the film, he talks about censorship as it is happening in Mexico and in the U.S. He says that he is afraid to be shot. It is interesting that Neruda and the filmmakers are speaking about censorship when the government is shooting the press. The government shoots the press and the press shoots the government. The government shoots the people in the film and the people shoot the government. The film is very clear that the people are not happy with the censorship. The film is very different from the work of the artists who were arrested. The film is much more explicit about the censorship. It is clear that the artists were not happy with the censorship. They wanted to be part of a revolution, but they were not going to be involved in it. They had to say "No" to the government. The film