lor_ I've been following Fred Wiseman's career since 1966, when I was in college at MIT, where he previewed his yet to be released debut movie "Titicut Follies". I've watched many of his subsequent works, including the hard to sit through (in an uncomfortable Alice Tully Hall screening) 5-hour "Hospital", and on the occasion of his look at NY's venerable library system I have some structural matters to discuss.Wiseman differs from most documentary directors in refusing to use voice-over narration, or on-screen commentary, or even any superimposed identifiers to show the identity of players on screen. This is a defect of "Ex Libris", though he gets all the brownie points imaginable for purity of his approach. Clarity, however, is sacrificed.Instead, it is both editing and the selection of which material (I'm sure he accumulated many hours of suitable footage to sift through here) to use that gives Wiseman his style. The tedium is usually worth the wait in terms of learning something.This reminds me of Cinema's worst self-imposed limitation movement of all time, the stupid (and hopefully dead as a door nail) Dogme manifesto of a couple of decades back. In the same search for some phony notion of purity, Lars von Trier and other misguided advocates eschewed all sorts of things like artificial light, special effects and many camera techniques - a horrible experiment. Cinema should be about using and discovering whatever will enhance the finished film, not tying one up in knots to adhere to some regimented akin to Puritanical belief.Simlarly, the Nouvelle Vague directors in France at the end of the 1950s created a still influential revolution cinema, but also through out plenty of "babies with the bath water" in the process. Besides disparaging the classic work of the '30s and '40s romantic greats like Autant-Lara, Carne, Delannoy and Prevert, led by Godard they abandoned many a basic element like reverse-shot set-ups and cutting that are fundamental to quality cinema. Watching the swish-pans from face to face that Godard & his followers would use instead of tried-and-true reverse shots was a painful experience for me (akin to sarcastic extreme camera moves in close-up coverage of a ping pong or tennis match) to endure. Net result is many a brilliant French movie made during the '40s left unknown to a couple of generations of film buffs thanks to the New Wave emphasis (especially in film schools), and so many current hacks, even lauded ones, unaware how to edit properly - e.g., the frequent and jarring cutting across the center line that folks untrained in proper reverse shot procedure commit regularly. (Hint: watch the heads jumping back and forth on screen during a simple conversation in many a bad TV show or indie feature.)

bettycjung 4/3/18. Oh, so the New York Public Library isn't at all like the way I would envision what happens to a museum like in those Night at the Museum movies. The books still sit on the shelves as silent as ever, but the people who go there do so for than just the books. Apparently, a lot more is going on than just people sitting around and reading or looking at a computer screen. This documentary takes a slice of life approach to looking at what goes on at this iconic library. I should say it's more a swath than a slice. I get that it's an extremely large library and there's a lot going on. However, nothing is ever explained, so it's like being a ghost wandering through the halls and looking into the meetings and programs going on. Not sure if spending over 3 hours of wandering around actually helps the viewer develop an appreciation for the library itself. I suppose it like visiting another country - you can wander around and discover new things, or get a good tour guide who can really help you tear the city apart for its precious secrets. I think I would have enjoyed a more historical approach that commemorates the building of the library and how its mission and vision have changed over time. Just going into some detail about its architecture would have been quite enlightening - the building is absolutely gorgeous. So, this documentary may be more for the curious than for the librarian at heart, who would definitely prefer the Dewey Decimal System for organizing people's thoughts and ideas embedded on the printed page.

anagram14 OK, I'm biased. I love libraries. If you don't, let it be. If you do, prepare for bliss. The movie wanders from one branch of the NYPL to the other in a way that seems aimless at first, but builds a rhythm that becomes almost musical while remaining completely natural. The glimpses we get of what's happening at every branch tell an uplifting story. A library is no longer just a place to store books. It serves its patrons in surprising ways: providing Internet access and teaching computer skills; hosting groups of young parents with toddlers chanting nursery rhymes together; not evicting the odd homeless person who dozes off there in winter; finding private funding for what the unreliable distributors of public spending won't cover this year. Where this venerable institution really comes into its own, though, is in providing a platform for all the incredibly articulate and inspiring people who keep popping up throughout the movie. What a joy to watch. Discussions, lectures, interviews, concerts, poetry, passionate arguments, everything nerds thrive on. And not just nerds. Elvis Costello and Patti Smith are among the guests. Keith Richards is on record as saying that the library was the only place where he willingly obeyed the rules. Toni Morrison called libraries pillars of democracy. I was a believer before seeing this. Now I know why. If you are too, this is a must.

proud_luddite New York's various library branches are visited in all boroughs in this documentary. It includes various segments highlighting free lectures, job fairs, community gatherings, school classes, help to the needy, and library business meetings.The variety of the segments and their subjects are as well chosen as are the variety of people in each of them. For those of us who love New York and New Yorkers, the people alone make much of this film an enjoyable experience.Many of the lectures were fascinating but some seemed intended for the few with either a higher level of academic intellect and/or a great knowledge of the subject at hand. While this might have been something to overlook, it is harder to overlook the movie's biggest liability: its length of three-and-a-quarter hours. The movie could have been reduced by at least one-third.Though most of the segments were a reasonable length of time, this was not the case for the library staff meetings that were too frequent and too long - much like staff meetings for those of us in our real lives. While some moments in these scenes were interesting, they had a tendency to remind us of the occasional auditory, mental torture of our own lives - something we'd rather forget when watching a movie.