Gaga: Five Foot Two

Development

The project originated through Gaga's management team, which had discussed making a documentary about the singer for some time, though, according to the film's director, Chris Moukarbel, there was initially "no urgency" around it.^[2] The idea was first raised by Gaga's longtime manager Bobby Campbell in conversations with Live Nation, which produced the film, and the company subsequently suggested Moukarbel as director.^[3] Gaga was at first reluctant to participate, as she was focused on writing and recording and did not want a film project to become a distraction.^[2][4] Moukarbel later said there was no formal preparation period before filming began, and that the project was introduced casually through Campbell while Gaga was working on her record.^[5]

Moukarbel conceived Gaga: Five Foot Two as a cinéma vérité-style portrait centered on a limited period in Gaga's life, avoiding sit-down interviews, talking heads, and retrospective material about her past. He said he wanted to "keep the camera on her" and capture "what was happening in the moment", rather than rely on others to explain her work ethic or career.^[6][2] He also said his intention was not to make "a movie about fame", but rather a portrait of "an artist who is famous" and the conditions she must navigate in order to create her work.^[7] The director also intentionally avoided making a film that resembled Madonna: Truth or Dare (1991), despite regarding it as a benchmark for the music documentary genre.^[2] Moukarbel described the finished film as an "impressionistic portrait" rather than journalism or an attempt at establishing an "objective truth".^[3] He likewise said the film's style was meant to place viewers "in the present moment with her", minimizing archival material and backstory in favor of immediacy.^[5] Entertainment Weekly reported that the film was conceived as a "completely new project", unrelated to Gaga's abandoned documentary plans with Terry Richardson, and that both Gaga and Moukarbel wanted it to focus on "a very specific time in her life".^[8]

Filming took place over about eight months, as Moukarbel followed Gaga during the making of Joanne and, later, her preparation for the Super Bowl LI halftime show. The latter was not part of the original plan, but became the story's natural ending once Gaga learned during filming that she had been booked for the performance.^[6][2][4] Moukarbel said that the Super Bowl structure appealed to him because its live, high-pressure format made it a fitting way to bookend the documentary.^[9] Filming began in June 2016, after Gaga had already finished writing the album.^[8] Moukarbel recalled that the first day he filmed Gaga—at her home, as she cooked and then went to the studio—ultimately formed the basis of the film's opening scenes.^[2][4]

Moukarbel said he began editing while production was still underway, reviewing footage with his editor in order to identify the story early and shape later filming accordingly. Most of the documentary was shot by Moukarbel alone, as Gaga generally preferred not to have a larger crew around while she was writing or working, although additional crew members were brought in for larger-scale events such as the Super Bowl and music video shoots. He also noted that the camera's relationship to Gaga changes over the course of the film: early scenes are shot in close proximity, while later ones place her farther away and increasingly surrounded by staff as "the demands of her career start to take over".^[6][2] Moukarbel said that, despite Live Nation's financial backing, much of the production remained small-scale and was paid for out of his own pocket because the level of access required a minimal setup, often consisting only of himself and a camera.^[9] He told Entertainment Tonight that he had initially imagined incorporating more overtly stylized or produced footage, but abandoned those ideas because they did not feel appropriate to the film's more intimate approach. He also shared that roughly half of the footage was shot in the studio, though much of it was omitted from the final cut because it became repetitive once the broader shape of Gaga's life during the period came into focus.^[5]

Moukarbel and Gaga agreed that he would film everything he saw unless she asked him to stop, which happened only rarely. Filming was usually paused when conversations involved people who were not present or topics Gaga considered too sensitive, including aspects of her relationship with Taylor Kinney.^[6][2] In later interviews, Gaga shared that she had decided "really early on" to give Moukarbel "full access" to her life and that she tried to ignore the presence of the cameras so that the documentary could capture events as naturally as possible.^[7] She said she wanted to be fully invested as the documentary's subject, rather than shape it into "a commercial" about why audiences should admire her.^[3] Gaga also added that she and Moukarbel had not known each other before production began, and praised him for being "respectful of [her] space, even when it was very private moments". Although she described herself as a somewhat unwilling participant, she said the positive reactions of her friends and family to early cuts encouraged her to continue with the project. She believed the documentary carried a "positive message" about her experiences as a woman, and linked it to her broader belief in personal expression and in creating art that would inspire and entertain people.^[10] Moukarbel said the film did not maintain a strict fourth wall, and that he chose to retain moments when Gaga addressed the camera directly because they made the documentary feel more honest.^[5]

Moukarbel stated that Gaga did not watch the documentary until its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, giving him unusual creative freedom in shaping the final film. One of the few elements she specifically wanted included was her chronic pain, as she hoped viewers dealing with similar conditions would feel less alone.^[6][2][4] Moukarbel added that Gaga's willingness to remove herself from her usual overseeing role ultimately "made for a better movie", and said that the trust between them developed gradually and organically as he followed her through everyday routines and studio sessions.^[9] Campbell said he wanted Gaga to feel "free enough to truly be herself and allow the cameras to disappear", rather than participate in what he described as a "hyper-produced, filtered look" at her life. One especially intimate moment used in the film originated from audio Moukarbel captured while Gaga was speaking off camera with her assistant; he included it only after obtaining her permission.^[3] Since Gaga did not review the film during editing, Moukarbel showed her only a small number of scenes he considered especially sensitive, such as the doctor's appointment and the discussion of Madonna, to make sure she was comfortable with their inclusion. He also said that Gaga viewed the project as "an artistic adventure", which helped explain her openness to emotionally difficult material.^[5]

Music

In addition to songs from Joanne – including "Million Reasons", "John Wayne", and "Diamond Heart"^[11] – and other performances by Gaga, the documentary also features music from other artists, including Sonnymoon's "Just Before Dawn", Chilly Gonzales's "Gogo", Sofi Tukker's "Matadora", Richard Swift's "Would You?", Guy Lombardo's recording of "Has Anybody Seen My Gal?", Trentemøller's remix of "The Mole" by Chimes & Bells, Anna Meredith's "Nautilus", and "Stand on the Word" by the Joubert Singers. Patrick Belaga was credited with the film's original score.^[12]

Writing for i-D, Sophie Wilkinson argued that the soundtrack not only documents the creation and promotion of Joanne, but also offers insight into Gaga's musical tastes and helps communicate ideas of paranoia, hard work, beauty, and the costs of fame. She highlighted the use of "Kaval Sviri" by the Bulgarian State Television Female Vocal Choir during the Super Bowl sequences, Colin Stetson's instrumental music in quieter reflective passages, and Belaga's score in scenes depicting Gaga's chronic pain.^[12]

Artwork

On August 24, 2017, Gaga unveiled the documentary's poster and cover artwork online.^[21] Created by Berlin-based German artist Pierre Schmidt (aka Drømsjel), it features rainbow waterfalls, flowers, and an extra eye streaming down Gaga's face. Drømsjel's work, characterized by a surreal combination of vintage collage and digital manipulation, attracted the attention of Moukarbel, who had been following the artist's work on Instagram before contacting him to create the poster. According to Drømsjel, the piece was a collaborative effort between himself, Gaga and her team, Netflix, and Dutch photography duo Inez and Vinoodh, who shot the photo used for the cover for Gaga's 2016 Harper's Bazaar editorial.^[22][23] The pair have photographed Gaga for a variety of past projects including the cover art for her 2013 single, "Applause".^[24] Schmidt stated that the collaborators discussed extensively how to produce a distinctive and “iconic” image for the documentary ahead of its premiere. He has also cited artists such as Salvador Dalí among the inspirations for his surreal visual style.^[22]

Critical response

Gaga: Five Foot Two has received generally favorable reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, it has an approval rating of 72%, based on 43 reviews, with an average rating of 6.40/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Gaga: Five Foot Two offers an absorbing glimpse of its superstar subject's backstage life, albeit one weakened by inconsistent focus and a dearth of performance footage."^[25] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 63 out of 100, based on 15 critics, indicating "generally favorable" reviews.^[26]

Daniel D'Addario of Time described Gaga: Five Foot Two as "a riveting piece of work", praising it for its rawness and emotional immediacy. Comparing the film to other pop-star documentaries, he felt its power lies in Gaga's unusual openness and in its portrayal of a vulnerable period in her career that many pop stars would have concealed.^[27] Pitchfork's Judy Berman wrote that Gaga: Five Foot Two brings Gaga "several inches closer to earth" and found the documentary "intriguingly raw".^[28] Adam Graham of The Detroit News called Gaga: Five Foot Two an engaging portrait of Gaga that captures "very human moments", and praised the documentary for offering an intimate look at her life beyond fame without the need for outside voices or talking heads.^[29] Vanity Fair's Julie Miller called Gaga: Five Foot Two a "searingly raw" and "surprisingly emotional" documentary, praising Gaga's willingness to appear in vulnerable moments, including scenes of chronic pain and emotional distress, and noting her self-awareness and humor throughout the film.^[30] Jazz Tangcay of Awards Daily praised Moukarbel for offering a revealing look behind Gaga's celebrity image, highlighting the film's undercurrent of loneliness and its depiction of the toll fame has taken on her personal life. She deemed Gaga: Five Foot Two as a "captivating and terrific documentary" that offers "a treasure trove of new and refreshing insight".^[31] Jennifer Gannon of The Irish Times described the film as the moment "an icon of statuesque proportions is captured shrinking to human-size", praising it for showing Gaga in a rare period of uncertainty and vulnerability. She argued that the film ultimately suggests Gaga is most fully restored through the artifice of performance, particularly in its buildup to the Super Bowl LI halftime show.^[32]

Other reviewers responded more ambivalently to the documentary's intimacy. Lauren O'Neill of Vice viewed the film as a revealing portrait of Gaga's loneliness amid fame and praised it for showing the physical and emotional toll of her demanding schedule. She found it most effective when it focused on Gaga's vulnerability, especially in scenes involving her family, singling out the moment she plays "Joanne" to her grandmother as its most moving passage. Although O'Neill noted that the documentary is not entirely candid, she ultimately considered its unpolished depiction of Gaga's ordinary, offstage self to be valuable.^[33] The New Yorker's Amanda Petrusich described Gaga: Five Foot Two as engaging and unusually coherent for a music documentary, but argued that its most compelling moments are the unintentional ones, when Gaga's self-presentation seems at odds with what the camera captures. She wrote that the film conveys the loneliness of fame and the troubling blur between personal and professional relationships in Gaga's entourage, while also questioning the documentary's carefully managed intimacy and selective candor.^[34] Joe Reid of the Decider wrote that Gaga: Five Foot Two was "a better documentary than it needs to be", praising Gaga as "incredibly genuine" and highlighting the film's depiction of her family life, chronic pain, and creative process with Mark Ronson. Although he felt that some scenes exposed the documentary's artifice, such as one in which Gaga casually removes her top during a backyard meeting, he concluded that the film leaves viewers "wildly impressed" by Gaga's determination and artistic vision.^[35]

The Hollywood Reporter's Leslie Felperin complimented scenes such as Gaga playing "Joanne" for her grandmother, but found that despite the jarring camerawork, the singer remained overly focused and scripted about her appearance. Felperin was nevertheless positive about the film's technical execution, praising its editing and sound design for conveying "the frenzy of Gaga's life".^[36] Caryn James of the BBC opined that, although Gaga: Five Foot Two carries an empowering message, it is ultimately "both raw and calculated", with Moukarbel's fragmented style helping to obscure how carefully the documentary controls Gaga's image. She concluded that it serves as a "carefully designed delivery system" for Gaga's more serious persona.^[37] For Ed Potton of The Times, Gaga appeared volatile in the documentary, citing moments such as her complaints about Madonna, removing her bikini top mid-conversation, and reacting angrily to an unapproved costume change. He added, however, that these diva-like moments are tempered by self-awareness and the pressure of preparing for a performance before a global audience of 117 million.^[38] Dan Callahan of TheWrap wrote that Gaga: Five Foot Two captures Gaga "at a down time in her life", portraying her as emotionally fragile and worn down by chronic pain. While he noted moments of openness and self-awareness, he suggested that the film shows a performer exhausted by spectacle and in need of renewed focus on her music.^[39]

Several writers responded especially positively to the documentary's depiction of chronic pain. Mauren Lee Lenker of Entertainment Weekly and Je Banach of Vogue, both of whom have fibromyalgia, praised Gaga's openness about her condition; Lenker wrote that the film left her "continually choking back tears" and made her feel seen and less alone, while Banach described it as a "rallying cry" for people with chronic pain and argued that its portrayal of vulnerability as strength helps confront the stigma surrounding invisible illnesses.^[40][41] Writing for The Atlantic, Spencer Kornhaber argued that the film and Gaga's public discussion of fibromyalgia highlighted the broader skepticism with which women's pain is often treated, and suggested that the documentary invites viewers to confront assumptions about whether a pop star's suffering should be believed.^[42]

Film critic Owen Gleiberman reviewed the documentary for Variety, writing that "Gaga radiates a potent energy — she's intensely funny and aware", and compared it to other musical documentaries such as Madonna: Truth or Dare. He commended Moukarbel's direction, saying that he was able to "mix things up", showcasing Gaga's meltdowns as well as her camaraderie with fans.^[43] In his review on RogerEbert.com, Peter Sobczynski opined that, although Gaga: Five Foot Two does not reach the level of landmark music documentaries such as Bob Dylan's Dont Look Back (1967) or Truth or Dare, it still creates "a sense of intimacy and revelation", even if Gaga never appears fully unguarded. He added that what makes the documentary work is Gaga's "inspiring and engaging presence".^[44] Josh Modell of The A.V. Club wrote that Gaga: Five Foot Two feels less contrived than Truth or Dare, presenting Gaga as less cool but more human. While he found the documentary somewhat dull in its early attempts to humanize her, he praised its behind-the-scenes access and said it ultimately does "a nice job" of capturing her emotionally intense and "sometimes grotesquely glamorous life".^[45]

Among the more negative reviews, Eric Henderson of Slant Magazine argued that the film lacks the "momentum and artistic intent" of stronger music documentaries and often settles for "feigned realism as its own reward".^[46] CNN's Brian Lowry felt the documentary offers an intimate look at Gaga's life but rarely feels "as spontaneous or illuminating as [its] access would suggest", adding that parts of the film approach "the edge of tedium".^[47] Benjamin H. Smith of the Decider found the film engaging for fans but ultimately "a little disappointing", noting that despite attempts to reveal Gaga's ordinary side, "very little about her life is ordinary", and concluding that "sometimes the illusion is better than the reality".^[48] In a two-star review for The Guardian, Bryan Armen Graham described the documentary as "artfully directed" and "meticulously curated", but argued that it follows familiar genre beats and never becomes as revealing as it seems to promise. While he noted moments of vulnerability and sincerity, he concluded that Five Foot Two ultimately plays like "a longform advert" for Gaga's new phase, with "the mask still firmly in place".^[49] Patti Greco of Cosmopolitan felt that the documentary lacked a compelling dramatic structure, writing that "aside from the story about her aunt and a few brief mentions about her split from Taylor Kinney, there's not an arc to the documentary, let alone stakes."^[50]

Lorraine Ali of the Los Angeles Times unfavorably compared Gaga: Five Foot Two to Madonna's Truth or Dare, arguing that it is a disjointed pastiche of generic pop-star clichés that offers too little insight into Gaga beyond documenting a career reinvention. While she found scenes involving Gaga's chronic pain, her breakup with Taylor Kinney, and her family affecting, Ali ultimately concluded that "a star isn't born here, she's diminished".^[51] Brad Wheeler of The Globe and Mail described Gaga: Five Foot Two as "Madonna: Truth or Dare, but without the dare", calling the documentary "entertaining but manipulative". He argued that Gaga appears constantly self-aware on camera and that Moukarbel largely indulges her presentation, while also criticizing the film for ending before the Super Bowl halftime show itself, which he felt left its climax unsatisfying.^[52] The Village Voice's Kelsey McKinney similarly argued that the film lacks context and a clear narrative focus, criticizing it for presenting Gaga's pain without adequately explaining its origins or significance. She also found that, compared to Truth or Dare, the documentary offers too little insight into Gaga's relationships or inner life, concluding that it resembles "an extended Instagram story" more than a fully developed documentary.^[53] Emily Yoshida of Vulture felt that Gaga: Five Foot Two is too myopically focused on Gaga's recent past to provide a fuller sense of her life or career. Although she found the film superficially intimate and considered the Super Bowl scenes its most focused material, Yoshida criticized its lack of context about Gaga's roots and said it ultimately feels "like a rest stop before the comeback the film would never acknowledge is still on the horizon".^[54]

Accolades