In general, I tend to be a pretty big fan of human nature/drama documentaries, which is what drew me to "Cusp". But this little documentary is so far-reaching (in terms of themes) and so hands-off (in terms of content) that it is difficult to know exactly what to make of it--only that I didn't enjoy it all that much.
For a very basic overview, "Cusp" follows three teenage girls during a Texas summer as they deal with male relationships, various degrees of troubled home situations, drugs/alcohol/parties, and their entrance (or lack thereof) into a larger or adult world.
Though obviously there is always some editorial content in any documentary (simple deciding what footage gets used and what doesn't provides that), in "Cusp" it truly comes at that very minimum of an amount. It's not like directors Isabel Bethencourt & Parker Hill actively ask the girls any questions or probe into certain topics. This is very much "point the camera and let it capture what it may" style filmmaking.
On one hand, this tactic produces what is probably the closest-to-reality vision of events one could ever see (even considering that the nature of the present camera itself may lead to performative aspects). In other words, it captures the essence of reality simply by not pressing for it. There are indeed a few moments of clarity where the girls stumble across relatable quandaries that have been pondered by young people across the decades.
But that leads to what I consider to be the major problem with "Cusp": just what, exactly, is it going for or hoping to accomplish? Is it about the fraught nature of teenage girl-dom? Free/aimless summers of youth? Unstable home lives? Complicated relationships with boys? Because the filmmakers don't define any boundaries, it can be difficult to know what the take-home points are supposed to be.
Overall, I think that one's enjoyment of "Cusp" may largely be determined by an individual's ability (or interest) to ascribe meaning to mundanity. This film gives the viewer absolutely nothing in terms of parameters, so it is entirely up to us to piece together the take-home messages. I guess I prefer my documentaries with a bit more of an ingrained thesis or "leading questions", hence the low star ranking.
For a very basic overview, "Cusp" follows three teenage girls during a Texas summer as they deal with male relationships, various degrees of troubled home situations, drugs/alcohol/parties, and their entrance (or lack thereof) into a larger or adult world.
Though obviously there is always some editorial content in any documentary (simple deciding what footage gets used and what doesn't provides that), in "Cusp" it truly comes at that very minimum of an amount. It's not like directors Isabel Bethencourt & Parker Hill actively ask the girls any questions or probe into certain topics. This is very much "point the camera and let it capture what it may" style filmmaking.
On one hand, this tactic produces what is probably the closest-to-reality vision of events one could ever see (even considering that the nature of the present camera itself may lead to performative aspects). In other words, it captures the essence of reality simply by not pressing for it. There are indeed a few moments of clarity where the girls stumble across relatable quandaries that have been pondered by young people across the decades.
But that leads to what I consider to be the major problem with "Cusp": just what, exactly, is it going for or hoping to accomplish? Is it about the fraught nature of teenage girl-dom? Free/aimless summers of youth? Unstable home lives? Complicated relationships with boys? Because the filmmakers don't define any boundaries, it can be difficult to know what the take-home points are supposed to be.
Overall, I think that one's enjoyment of "Cusp" may largely be determined by an individual's ability (or interest) to ascribe meaning to mundanity. This film gives the viewer absolutely nothing in terms of parameters, so it is entirely up to us to piece together the take-home messages. I guess I prefer my documentaries with a bit more of an ingrained thesis or "leading questions", hence the low star ranking.