B-

Sundance award winner All Light, Everywhere illuminates the surveillance state

Film Reviews Surveillance
Sundance award winner All Light, Everywhere illuminates the surveillance state

Photo: Neon

Over the course of Theo Anthony’s documentary/cine-essay All Light, Everywhere, we are treated to an extensive tour of Axon Enterprise (formerly Taser International), a “less-lethal” weapons company that, as of 2017, held an 85% market share of body camera technologies among U.S. police departments. PR spokesperson Steve Tuttle describes how the company’s design is meant to mimic the human eye: In contrast to body cameras that use, for instance, infrared technologies, Axon’s are designed not to convey anything beyond the police officer’s perspective. As Tuttle explains: If the body cam shows more than a person can see, then how can its footage be used to prove, in a court of law, whether or not a police officer was justified in their use of lethal force? Tuttle tosses off the statement unthinkingly, but it carries a whole host of frightening assumptions about policing, justice, and the role of technology in both. In All Light, Everywhere—which won a U.S. Documentary Special Jury Award for Nonfiction Experimentation at this year’s Sundance—Anthony is out to uncover those assumptions.

To accomplish this, Anthony has amassed an impressive arsenal of tangentially related material. The tour at Axon, by turns absurdly hilarious and downright chilling, forms one major thread of All Light, Everywhere. Another is centered mainly around Baltimore, the filmmaker’s home city, still haunted by the unlawful murder of Freddie Gray. This thread comprises passages of police being trained to use Axon’s body cameras, as well as scenes with a drone-technology entrepreneur, Ross McNutt, who is trying to sell both the city and local citizens on his aerial surveillance system in the name of lowering crime. In the latter half of the film, McNutt’s company becomes the subject of a testy local meeting, which is as revealing, in its way, as the discussions in Frederick Wiseman’s recent City Hall.

More indicative of All Light’s overall construction, however, is its third strand, which traces historical efforts to displace (or even eradicate) human subjectivity when capturing, measuring, and representing the world. Operating along the lines of a discursive film-essay, All Light, Everywhere steps through a variety of experiments developed to this end: scientific expeditions to measure the 1874 transit of Venus, Étienne-Jules Marey’s pioneering motion studies (carried out in the French colony of Senegal), and Francis Galton’s “composite portraiture” (not to mention his eugenics work), among others. In all this, Anthony’s clear cinematic model is German filmmaker Harun Farocki’s seminal 1989 Images Of The World And The Inscription Of War. Laying bare all the human constructs and “blind spots” that allow images to either “speak” or remain silent, Images refutes, in its provocative and singular way, any notion of photographic neutrality. Further, it demonstrates how such notions are bound up in existing, and often unjust, structures of power. Anthony applies Farocki’s methods to newer technologies like drones, body cams and AI, but his underlying ethos is the same.

Despite the judiciously chosen material, however, All Light, Everywhere lacks something in terms of conceptual organization. In some cases, the issue is thudding obviousness: After we are told that “someone, somewhere is putting this world together,” we get a desktop shot of Anthony’s editing software to remind us that this movie, too, was put together by someone, somewhere. In other moments, though, the film fails to productively distinguish between a range of disparate contexts. It links the structuring theme of the “blind spot” to such a breadth of material—from human vision to camera design to structural issues of police reform and abolition to judicial procedure—that the term all but loses its specific utility, detracting from the force of Anthony’s individual strands of inquiry. (His 2019 documentary Subject To Review, made for ESPN’s 30 For 30 series, benefited from applying a similar style to a relatively focused subject: the use of instant-replay technology in tennis.)

All Light, Everywhere is about both making and questioning connections, but by the end, its methods feel not so much productively protean as frustratingly noncommittal. (However well-intentioned, its coda registers mainly as a studied rhetorical device.) Still, there’s something to be said for a film that offers myriad paths for further exploration. The only irony is that, for all of its formal convolutions, All Light, Everywhere ultimately succeeds in more conventional terms: that is, on the strength and specificity of its chosen material.

7 Comments

  • grantagonist-av says:

    Part 1The “Behind the Bastards” podcast did a good pair of episodes in which Axon/Taser played a huge role, discussing the long and sketchy lengths they have gone to in order to keep Tasers from being declared a cause of death in police brutality cases, no matter how bad police are misusing them.
    This company is a truckload of shitbags.Part 1: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-excited-delirium-how-cops-81965684/Part 2: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-excited-delirium-how-cops-82245525/(I tried so hard to make those nice clickable links, but jfc does this comment editor suck. Every time I clicked “Publish” it turned to shit.)

    • sassyskeleton-av says:

      the whole concept of “non-lethal” only works if the people using the devices have been trained correctly.
      so of course the cops fuck it up all the time.ACAB

  • dirtside-av says:

    If the body cam shows more than a person can see, then how can its
    footage be used to prove, in a court of law, whether or not a police
    officer was justified in their use of lethal force? Tuttle tosses off
    the statement unthinkingly, but it carries a whole host of frightening
    assumptions about policing, justice, and the role of technology in both.It depends on what the intent of having officers wear cameras is, doesn’t it? My understanding is that the demand for body cameras primarily originates with those who want officers held accountable for their actions. The use of body cameras might (in principle*) reduce the number of times officers abuse their power, or reduce the severity with which they’ll do so, because the officers know they’re being recorded. And in those cases when an officer does abuse their power, the cameras can (again, in principle*) provide a mechanism for holding officers to account, rather than having to rely solely on “cop said, perp said.”But if we are going to rely on cameras to try and show us what the cop (ostensibly) could see, then it does seem to make sense—at least on the surface—that the cameras should mimic what the officer can see as closely as possible. Axon sure seems like a bunch of garbage, but I don’t think this is the thing to find “frightening” about the whole scenario.
    * Cops have of course found many ways to work around body cameras, including “accidentally” turning them off, or “accidentally” forgetting to recharge the batteries before going out on patrol, or “accidentally” covering up the lens with something, or the footage going missing when there’s a public outcry, and so on. And let’s not even get into how PDs try to spin what’s in the footage by saying there’s context that wasn’t recorded, or even just trying to convince everyone (or at least, enough of the public) that what they did was justified.

    • dr-boots-list-av says:

      I had the same thought. Are we supposed to be more afraid of the panopticon in this instance, or of the authorities manipulating information for their own benefit? Are they trying to say the cameras are being hamstrung in some nefarious way?The review does seem to indicate movie suffers from lack of focus as well, so maybe this is reflective of the material.

      • dirtside-av says:

        I think police body cams would barely even contribute to a panopticon. The area being filmed by all police cameras, combined, at any given time, is a tiny, tiny fraction of all available space.As it turns out, corporate surveillance capitalism has turned out to be a much more real and plausible danger than government surveillance. (In the U.S., anyway.)

  • cinecraf-av says:

    Sundance has become a great reverse bellwether in recent years. If it got into Sundance, it’s s safe bet it’s mediocre.

  • thomasjsfld-av says:

    since i already have to do extra steps i have time to add leaving a comment to my new chores: how are you going to write an article about a damn new release and not link a trailer sheesh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share Tweet Submit Pin