Footnote (2010– ) User Reviews

Head's up: Footnote up and coming and winning like charlie sheen's proverbial tiger blood

[teaANDzen · 7/10 · 22 April 2011]

I have been following this show, and there is some dialog right now on their blog about being objective/subjective, etc., including a response from a producer. The show seems to be as much about launching buzz online as about the content they air. The latest episode (ep.3) on porn could certainly have been stronger if there had been someone to offer more conflicting/complicating views. However, these are real people with real stories that pulled me in. 3-4 stars. The pastor who struggles with porn/sexual issues is a common, nefarious icon, and yet it is dealt with in a way that goes past the platitudes and generalizations to place you in a specific person's shoes. This is good and artful storytelling, and it seems to be a hallmark so far. See ep.1 on the issue of community. Footnote is different from anything else out there... in a good way. These are new creators with a unique program. It has strong visual appeal. The design and execution are pristine. While it doesn't feel like prime time material yet, it is of course only just into the very first season, and the format has potential to catch. This is a show worth keeping an eye on.

A provocative show

[mihuckab · 9/10 · 24 April 2011]

After footnote brought genuine stories on the REAL warmth of community and then the REAL questions about death, why not the REAL face of pornography? The current episode on pornography offers genuine stories about a porn star, a (former) porn producer, a porn addict, a relationship influenced by porn and a ministry to pornographers. There's an artistic nature to footnote that takes me beyond the documentary. The creative interludes and poetic camera combined with the raw reality of the interviews offer a consistent experience of wonder and challenge with each episode. I'm following footnote closely -it's more than entertainment with them. They want to provoke thought, maybe provoke change, and so far each episode has accomplished that with me.

why can we have biased pro-porn documentaries?

[a_new_ppg · 8/10 · 21 April 2011]

Social sciences such as anthropology, sociology etc are only a matter of positioning: the author chooses a perspective. So why do people think that pro-porn documentaries or movies are objective? They really aren't. Plus, I believe the producers of this show did not take an "objective" stance. Firstly, look at visuals and image; this is an obviously artistic series. I do enjoy post-modern relativism sometimes, but let's not be "relative" about everything. Let's have opinions. And let's respect the opinions of others. I believe this is a beautifully constructed show. The stories are interesting and touching. But most of all, the photography and visuals are just delightful.

Horribly one-sided propaganda...

[schoepeo · 1/10 · 16 April 2011]

This show came on after the watered down version of Entourage one night and the topic caught my attention, but within minutes of watching I realized that the creators sought out people who fit exactly what they wanted to portray. I realize all documentary films do this to some extent, but there isn't an alternative view presented at all.

The episode I started to watch was about the porn industry. They "interviewed" a girl who is a porn star, a girl whose boyfriend was "addicted" to porn (although, he sounded pretty mild compared to those who actually are addicted), and a former (emphasis on former) porn producer.

All of these people painted this picture of the porn industry as a horrible trap that they can't wait to escape. The series failed to present any other views. There are porn stars, girlfriends and producers who don't see the industry as a bad thing. There are those who see it as a great industry full of potential. There are those who are unsure about it.

This show is total bullshit and should not be allowed to call itself a documentary series.