On October 30, 1938 the United States experience mass hysteria because of a radio broadcast by the Mercury Theatre on air over CBS. Howard Koch wrote the script for the radio show from the H.G. Wells novel "War of the Worlds." It is crazy to think that people actually believed that it was a real broadcast about an actual attack from mars.
These are some of the stories about reactions from the Associated Press.
Woman Tries Suicide
Pittsburgh - A man returned home in the midst of the broadcast and found his wife, a bottle of poison in her hand, screaming: "I'd rather die this way than that."
Man Wants to Fight Mars
San Francisco - An offer to volunteer in stopping an invasion from Mars came among hundreds of telephone inquiries to police and newspapers during the radio dramatization of H. G. Wells' story. One excited man called Oakland police and shouted: "My God! Where can I volunteer my services? We've got to stop this awful thing!"
Church Lets Out
Indianapolis - A woman ran into a church screaming: "New York is destroyed; it's the end of the world. You might as well go home to die. I just heard it on the radio." Services were dismissed immediately.
Rushes Home From Reno
Reno - Marion Leslie Thorgaard, here for a divorce from Hilsce Robert Thorgaard, of New York, collapsed, fearing her mother and children in New York had been killed. One man immediately started east in hope of aiding the wife he was here to divorce.
Now these stories all seem a little bit ridiculous especially because it was a radio broadcast. In a society with itunes, podcasts, XM radio and the personal MP3 player it's hard to think about getting freaked out because of a radio broadcast. Imagine for a second if a filmmaker in the style of documentary fiction ran a news story about a pending war or an attack of the coast. I know that while watching Citizen Kane, Waiting for Guffman and Zelig that these stories are fictional, but the more I think about the idea of documentary fictions I see the power of these works. While most of the work screened in class would be hard to imagine as real right now it would be interesting to show a modern day documentary fiction film to someone who may not be so familiar with film.
In this technological savvy generation is it possible for something like the 1938 radio scare to happen?
February 27, 2007
February 26, 2007
Luis Bunuel at Columbia University 1941
When I first watched Land Without Bread, I didn't know what to expect. All I knew was that it was a pre-documentary documentary made by the same guy who did the eye-slicing movie with Dali. There was, of course a level of skepticism involved, after all you could make a movie about anything by narrating footage. I just didn't think Bunuel would have any reason to fake something like that. When I read his essay in PIFF, I thought he sounded genuine. He even recounted how the native Hurdanos even protested leaving. Unfortunately, Land without bread turned out to be less of a pre-documentary documentary and more of a pre-documentary mockumentary. I'll admit I was taken in by it at first. Realizing that Land Without Bread was staged was the most disillusioning stripping of an ethnographic film's integrity since I heard Nanook of the North was staged.
The film seems out of context because of how old it is. We expect mockumentaries now, but in 1932 I'm sure the public was less likely to catch the film's subtle give-aways. I'm not surprised Land Without Bread film was banned by the Spanish government. If you have a film purporting to be a travelogue that depicts a fabricated impoverished society in Spain, the film is almost certain to seem less like art and more like anti-Spain propaganda. I guess Spanish authorities were not fully aware that Bunuel was merely transcending genres even as he invented them. I suppose under-appreciation come with the territory of being ahead of your time.
In Bunuel's conclusion, he stated "although sufficient money is one of the most important conditions to make a film, a film can be made just the same when one loves the work." Given the context of the quote, I read it as either 1) his dedication to his craft, or 2) his commitment to the lie. As a filmmaker, perhaps it's a veiled critique of them being one in the same.
The film seems out of context because of how old it is. We expect mockumentaries now, but in 1932 I'm sure the public was less likely to catch the film's subtle give-aways. I'm not surprised Land Without Bread film was banned by the Spanish government. If you have a film purporting to be a travelogue that depicts a fabricated impoverished society in Spain, the film is almost certain to seem less like art and more like anti-Spain propaganda. I guess Spanish authorities were not fully aware that Bunuel was merely transcending genres even as he invented them. I suppose under-appreciation come with the territory of being ahead of your time.
In Bunuel's conclusion, he stated "although sufficient money is one of the most important conditions to make a film, a film can be made just the same when one loves the work." Given the context of the quote, I read it as either 1) his dedication to his craft, or 2) his commitment to the lie. As a filmmaker, perhaps it's a veiled critique of them being one in the same.
The Style of Culloden
Watkins' drama-documentary Culloden is effective in its use of the conventions of documentary style to draw the viewer into what would otherwise be a long-winded, boring history lesson. The presence of the camera, as well as the way it is acknowledged throughout the film, makes the viewer buy into the fact that this is representational of a true event even though the world of the story takes place about 150 years before cinema's birth.
First, there is the camera following the action of the battle by being present on the field. Techniques used, such as reacting for explosions, illustrate that this event is supposed to be taking place as the camera was recording it, much like the television footage from Vietnam broadcast during that war. There are moments where the film strays from the point of view of the cameraman. Most notably, the first person experience of the soldier who gets carried, put down, then shot by the opposition.
The other dominant element of documentary style that is used in Culloden is the interview. The filmmaker is present, asking questions off-screen, and the men answer, looking directly into the camera as they do so. This gives the viewer the impression that the subjects and their responses are authentic, because nothing seems rehearsed. Watkins' use of non-actors enhances the feeling of reality, because most of the subjects interviewed don't have the typical acting chops one observe from more seasoned performers.
The filmmaker has succeeded in making a unique drama-documentary that entertains as it educates, something that has been attempted in the years after the making of Culloden, with varying degrees of success.
First, there is the camera following the action of the battle by being present on the field. Techniques used, such as reacting for explosions, illustrate that this event is supposed to be taking place as the camera was recording it, much like the television footage from Vietnam broadcast during that war. There are moments where the film strays from the point of view of the cameraman. Most notably, the first person experience of the soldier who gets carried, put down, then shot by the opposition.
The other dominant element of documentary style that is used in Culloden is the interview. The filmmaker is present, asking questions off-screen, and the men answer, looking directly into the camera as they do so. This gives the viewer the impression that the subjects and their responses are authentic, because nothing seems rehearsed. Watkins' use of non-actors enhances the feeling of reality, because most of the subjects interviewed don't have the typical acting chops one observe from more seasoned performers.
The filmmaker has succeeded in making a unique drama-documentary that entertains as it educates, something that has been attempted in the years after the making of Culloden, with varying degrees of success.
February 23, 2007
Waiting for Guffman
I wonder how the characters for this movie were created. The director played the part of his character so well that I feel as if the character came first, then the story. Corky is such a strong character that he could do his own show, like Sasha Barron Coen does.
What made me wonder about the style of the comedy is that I didnt think it was funny when I watched it by myself 4 years ago, but I thought it was hilarious when watching it with a group of people. I'm not sure why that would be, except maybe when you hear people laughing then, like a yawn, you start to laugh to.
Another reason that I may have not liked it before is because I didnt know most of the actors. For some reason, recognizing the actors, makes it more ironic and funny. This doesnt really help the poor film maker. Perhaps that is why most student mockumentaries are not as funny.
Stephen Wright
What made me wonder about the style of the comedy is that I didnt think it was funny when I watched it by myself 4 years ago, but I thought it was hilarious when watching it with a group of people. I'm not sure why that would be, except maybe when you hear people laughing then, like a yawn, you start to laugh to.
Another reason that I may have not liked it before is because I didnt know most of the actors. For some reason, recognizing the actors, makes it more ironic and funny. This doesnt really help the poor film maker. Perhaps that is why most student mockumentaries are not as funny.
Stephen Wright
February 22, 2007
Realism of Waiting for Guffman
Waiting for Guffman is a perfect example of a mockumentary, poking fun at real life while making the viewer get the impression that it is really happening. The characters in the story can easily be seen as actual people. The perfectly timed pauses that occur when the characters are speaking to the camera only adds to the realistic effect of the film. Instead of cutting quickly to another scene, Christopher Guest leave the camera on the character a few extra seconds, mainly because pauses in the film mimic the pauses that occur in real life. People do not always know what to say and are not always the most articulate, but Christopher Guest uses this to his advantage when he is filming his story.
The characters not only seem real because of the way they act in front of the camera, but also because we are given the interesting back stories of all of the major characters. We know what the characters do for a living, what their families are like, and why they happen to be living in Blaine, Missouri. Each character is given a unique story that makes them seem as if they are really citizens in the small town. Eugene Levy's character, Dr. Pearl, is a good example of this because we get to meet his wife, find out why he became a dentist, and how he enjoys entertaining people. All of the major characters are given this treatment in the film to provide the viewer with an even more elaborate sense of realism.
One of the final ways we are brought into the world of Blaine is because we learn the story of the town itself. Blaine might be a small town, but we learn that it became "famous" for making stools. The history of the town is provided by the town historians, saying how Blaine Fabin founded the town when he and his followers traveled to California. We also discover that they had an alien encounter before the Roswell occurrence. Both the major and minor details we are given throughout the film contribute greatly to the realism of the movie, giving us the impression that these are real people celebrating the town of Blaine.
The characters not only seem real because of the way they act in front of the camera, but also because we are given the interesting back stories of all of the major characters. We know what the characters do for a living, what their families are like, and why they happen to be living in Blaine, Missouri. Each character is given a unique story that makes them seem as if they are really citizens in the small town. Eugene Levy's character, Dr. Pearl, is a good example of this because we get to meet his wife, find out why he became a dentist, and how he enjoys entertaining people. All of the major characters are given this treatment in the film to provide the viewer with an even more elaborate sense of realism.
One of the final ways we are brought into the world of Blaine is because we learn the story of the town itself. Blaine might be a small town, but we learn that it became "famous" for making stools. The history of the town is provided by the town historians, saying how Blaine Fabin founded the town when he and his followers traveled to California. We also discover that they had an alien encounter before the Roswell occurrence. Both the major and minor details we are given throughout the film contribute greatly to the realism of the movie, giving us the impression that these are real people celebrating the town of Blaine.
Reflecting on Culloden
I praise Peter Watkins and his crew for creating the film Culloden, but I found it hard to take seriously, try as I might. Although the subject matter was serious and valid for a docudrama, I felt that the way in which it was portrayed was lacking a solid base - a base that would allow the film to be looked at objectively. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it - of course I did! But then I wonder, did the director want the film to be 'taken seriously' or was it a historically driven farce?
Whomever designed the look of the film - i.e. costumes - did a wonderful job with really researching the different clans and nobility, how each clans' attire differed from one another's - that really was a big part of the historical aspect of it. The makeup and hair were also really well done - very realistic from my point of view.
The individuals that were 'interviewed' on the battlefield were fantastic - I would love to learn more about their involvement in the film...were they local actors? Did they improv a lot? Their performances were really a highlight of the film, and their honesty when answering questions (When did you last eat? sleep?) was funny and refreshing. Well done on the casting. Culloden, as an entertaining film, receives high marks from me.
Whomever designed the look of the film - i.e. costumes - did a wonderful job with really researching the different clans and nobility, how each clans' attire differed from one another's - that really was a big part of the historical aspect of it. The makeup and hair were also really well done - very realistic from my point of view.
The individuals that were 'interviewed' on the battlefield were fantastic - I would love to learn more about their involvement in the film...were they local actors? Did they improv a lot? Their performances were really a highlight of the film, and their honesty when answering questions (When did you last eat? sleep?) was funny and refreshing. Well done on the casting. Culloden, as an entertaining film, receives high marks from me.
February 21, 2007
Land Without Bread-Movie without point
There is so much to consider after the first viewing of Land Without Bread. The most important element though is whether or not it is factual with its representation of the people. It was already said that the movie was fake, but one can not completly disregard it as fake.
Think about it, the people in the movie were real. It is not as though they were actors that were wearing make-up and costumes. The director may have staged what they were doing, but he staged what they were doing where they actually lived. It's not like there was a set or a fake location was used. The thing about it is there was a voice over that was presenting this fairy tail story of these people. Take away the voice-over and watch it in observational mode and draw your own conclusion about these people. It would probably be similar to the narration of the film. That is the factual side of the film, the people and locations. Let's look at the fictional side. First, the staging of the people in the film. Let's face it, think of a documentary where there did not seem to be any scripting or staging going on with the characters. Secondly, the voice over that in a sense exploits the people as they go about their daily lives. There is the reason the movie is considered a hoax, because the narrative shows no empathy for the characters be spoken about. Otherwise, there would be no way of argueing the movies authenticity. So even though the movie is manipulated to an extent, it is not completly fake.
The one thing everyone can agree on though, is the movie definetly had no point.
Think about it, the people in the movie were real. It is not as though they were actors that were wearing make-up and costumes. The director may have staged what they were doing, but he staged what they were doing where they actually lived. It's not like there was a set or a fake location was used. The thing about it is there was a voice over that was presenting this fairy tail story of these people. Take away the voice-over and watch it in observational mode and draw your own conclusion about these people. It would probably be similar to the narration of the film. That is the factual side of the film, the people and locations. Let's look at the fictional side. First, the staging of the people in the film. Let's face it, think of a documentary where there did not seem to be any scripting or staging going on with the characters. Secondly, the voice over that in a sense exploits the people as they go about their daily lives. There is the reason the movie is considered a hoax, because the narrative shows no empathy for the characters be spoken about. Otherwise, there would be no way of argueing the movies authenticity. So even though the movie is manipulated to an extent, it is not completly fake.
The one thing everyone can agree on though, is the movie definetly had no point.
February 20, 2007
Dramatization in Documentary
In John Corner's article, Drama Documentary, he discusses the use of dramatization in documentaries and documentary elements in fiction films. The documentary elements of fiction films help to authenticate their main points and the dramatization in documentaries mostly help to engage the viewer. For the purposes of this essay, it will be discussed why dramatization in documentary is a necessity, but also how it can inhibit the main points of the documentary film.
On the second column of page 32, Corner writes, "questions of reference concern how a particular programme [sic] relates itself to the real world, with what degree of specificity as to people, places, times, events and actions." In the case of the documentary, the authentic footage available is often un-cinematic. The point of the footage is not to be 'pretty' or engaging, but to highlight or simply display the factual elements. Because of this, it is often not the most interesting to view, at least not necessarily in large doses. Dramatizing scenes allows the filmmaker to create an aesthetic for appreciation by the audience and a visual cue for potentially uncaptured reported events. When the audience is allowed a visual memory of something, even if the footage is false, then the idea put across is taken as being more real, or factual. Film goers are also used to seeing cinema that is, well, cinematic. The stylistic elements of a film, i.e. choreographed shots, well placed edits, etc. are what draw the viewer into a fiction film and allow the movie to be viewed as it's own world, it's own reality, for the period of time during which the viewer is engaged. Using the same tricks in a documentary can capture an audience members attention and allow them to fall into that riveted and accepting state of being.
However, the conventions of fiction film in documentary can also be distracting and take away from the reality of what is being viewed. When an audience member understands that the re-enactments are indeed full of tricky cinematic conventions, they may feel further distanced and become questioning about the validity in regards to the entirety of what is being viewed.
There is no 'right way' to do it. There will always be a multitude of concerns when it comes to the creation of any film, documentary or otherwise. While potential issues should definitely be taken into consideration, in the end it is the mind of the filmmaker that will be the ultimate decision maker when it comes to the final composition. As personal opinion, I find that dramatized elements in a documentary give necessary visual cues and allow the filmmaker a greater control of the stylistic feel of the film, also giving the documentary a personal voice that high lights the reality of the impossibility of personal objectivity.
On the second column of page 32, Corner writes, "questions of reference concern how a particular programme [sic] relates itself to the real world, with what degree of specificity as to people, places, times, events and actions." In the case of the documentary, the authentic footage available is often un-cinematic. The point of the footage is not to be 'pretty' or engaging, but to highlight or simply display the factual elements. Because of this, it is often not the most interesting to view, at least not necessarily in large doses. Dramatizing scenes allows the filmmaker to create an aesthetic for appreciation by the audience and a visual cue for potentially uncaptured reported events. When the audience is allowed a visual memory of something, even if the footage is false, then the idea put across is taken as being more real, or factual. Film goers are also used to seeing cinema that is, well, cinematic. The stylistic elements of a film, i.e. choreographed shots, well placed edits, etc. are what draw the viewer into a fiction film and allow the movie to be viewed as it's own world, it's own reality, for the period of time during which the viewer is engaged. Using the same tricks in a documentary can capture an audience members attention and allow them to fall into that riveted and accepting state of being.
However, the conventions of fiction film in documentary can also be distracting and take away from the reality of what is being viewed. When an audience member understands that the re-enactments are indeed full of tricky cinematic conventions, they may feel further distanced and become questioning about the validity in regards to the entirety of what is being viewed.
There is no 'right way' to do it. There will always be a multitude of concerns when it comes to the creation of any film, documentary or otherwise. While potential issues should definitely be taken into consideration, in the end it is the mind of the filmmaker that will be the ultimate decision maker when it comes to the final composition. As personal opinion, I find that dramatized elements in a documentary give necessary visual cues and allow the filmmaker a greater control of the stylistic feel of the film, also giving the documentary a personal voice that high lights the reality of the impossibility of personal objectivity.
Land Without Bread - Propaganda?
As shots of a meager town and its inhabitants flashed across the screen, I knewI recognized Land Without Bread - maybe I had seen this before in History of the Documentary. The title hadn't rang any sort of bell, but as soon as the voiceover started, I instantaneously recalled the film and started to remember small bits, as well as personal opinions I had developed after I had first viewed it. I admit, I sat back, thinking this was just basically review, and started other homework while listening to the audio with an occasional glance up. But it was IMPOSSIBLE - I couldn't hear the narrative and NOT look - I had been in awe of how meagerly (if you could even call it that) the Hurdanos lived the first time I saw the film, but even the second time around, I still couldn't understand how people could be willing to live in such circumstances. After five minutes, I gave up my other side work and watched the movie in its entirety. Much to my surprise, by the end of Land Without Bread I had very different feelings about the film than I had the first time around.
I found the voiceover to be this films strongest point - it was convincing, all knowing, and spoke to the audience with a tone not only asking for sympathy, but giving it as well. The dramatic music was a bit upbeat for the tone that the narrative and the shots were creating. The more I watched, the more I realized that the narrative was not created to depict what was going on in the shots - the shots were edited to depict what Bunuel wanted to convey through the narration.
The first time I watched this film, I remembered feeling incredibly bad for these people - they didn't seem to live at all, rather exist, in horrible, horrible conditions. This viewing, I felt much of the same - at first. Then I couldn't help but wonder if they wanted out of these conditions - how could people live like that for generations and generations? Why wouldn't they migrate elsewhere? Did they even want to be happy? The film depicts them as being a rather stupid people - it seems everything they did to survive really didn't further them, but kept them alive, thus they were investing in nothing but the present moment, preserving nothing for the future. The narration told of the Hurdanos living in an incredibly infertile land, so they'd rot leaves in their homes to put down on the soil - becoming sick in the process. It also told that when a venemous but non fatal snake would bite, they'd usually die due to them not being able to care for their wounds. I couldn't believe that after centuries of existance, it seemed as if they'd learned nothing. The film wasn't making me sympathize for them - I was actually becoming more and more bewildered/angry, and wondering exactly what the point is Bunuel was trying to get across. Was he simply up-playing a small, unknown, poverty stricken town to take jabs at the Spanish government? Were things really this bad, or just personal propaganda?
I'm curious to know what others thought of Land Without Bread. It is well done, I'm just not entirely sure what to believe as fact and what to understand as Bunuel's play on imagery/words.
I found the voiceover to be this films strongest point - it was convincing, all knowing, and spoke to the audience with a tone not only asking for sympathy, but giving it as well. The dramatic music was a bit upbeat for the tone that the narrative and the shots were creating. The more I watched, the more I realized that the narrative was not created to depict what was going on in the shots - the shots were edited to depict what Bunuel wanted to convey through the narration.
The first time I watched this film, I remembered feeling incredibly bad for these people - they didn't seem to live at all, rather exist, in horrible, horrible conditions. This viewing, I felt much of the same - at first. Then I couldn't help but wonder if they wanted out of these conditions - how could people live like that for generations and generations? Why wouldn't they migrate elsewhere? Did they even want to be happy? The film depicts them as being a rather stupid people - it seems everything they did to survive really didn't further them, but kept them alive, thus they were investing in nothing but the present moment, preserving nothing for the future. The narration told of the Hurdanos living in an incredibly infertile land, so they'd rot leaves in their homes to put down on the soil - becoming sick in the process. It also told that when a venemous but non fatal snake would bite, they'd usually die due to them not being able to care for their wounds. I couldn't believe that after centuries of existance, it seemed as if they'd learned nothing. The film wasn't making me sympathize for them - I was actually becoming more and more bewildered/angry, and wondering exactly what the point is Bunuel was trying to get across. Was he simply up-playing a small, unknown, poverty stricken town to take jabs at the Spanish government? Were things really this bad, or just personal propaganda?
I'm curious to know what others thought of Land Without Bread. It is well done, I'm just not entirely sure what to believe as fact and what to understand as Bunuel's play on imagery/words.
Land Without Bread - Propaganda?
As shots of a meager town and its inhabitants flashed across the screen, I knewI recognized Land Without Bread - maybe I had seen this before in History of the Documentary. The title hadn't rang any sort of bell, but as soon as the voiceover started, I instantaneously recalled the film and started to remember small bits, as well as personal opinions I had developed after I had first viewed it. I admit, I sat back, thinking this was just basically review, and started other homework while listening to the audio with an occasional glance up. But it was IMPOSSIBLE - I couldn't hear the narrative and NOT look - I had been in awe of how meagerly (if you could even call it that) the Hurdanos lived the first time I saw the film, but even the second time around, I still couldn't understand how people could be willing to live in such circumstances. After five minutes, I gave up my other side work and watched the movie in its entirety. Much to my surprise, by the end of Land Without Bread I had very different feelings about the film than I had the first time around.
I found the voiceover to be this films strongest point - it was convincing, all knowing, and spoke to the audience with a tone not only asking for sympathy, but giving it as well. The dramatic music was a bit upbeat for the tone that the narrative and the shots were creating. The more I watched, the more I realized that the narrative was not created to depict what was going on in the shots - the shots were edited to depict what Bunuel wanted to convey through the narration.
The first time I watched this film, I remembered feeling incredibly bad for these people - they didn't seem to live at all, rather exist, in horrible, horrible conditions. This viewing, I felt much of the same - at first. Then I couldn't help but wonder if they wanted out of these conditions - how could people live like that for generations and generations? Why wouldn't they migrate elsewhere? Did they even want to be happy? The film depicts them as being a rather stupid people - it seems everything they did to survive really didn't further them, but kept them alive, thus they were investing in nothing but the present moment, preserving nothing for the future. The narration told of the Hurdanos living in an incredibly infertile land, so they'd rot leaves in their homes to put down on the soil - becoming sick in the process. It also told that when a venemous but non fatal snake would bite, they'd usually die due to them not being able to care for their wounds. I couldn't believe that after centuries of existance, it seemed as if they'd learned nothing. The film wasn't making me sympathize for them - I was actually becoming more and more bewildered/angry, and wondering exactly what the point is Bunuel was trying to get across. Was he simply up-playing a small, unknown, poverty stricken town to take jabs at the Spanish government? Were things really this bad, or just personal propaganda?
I'm curious to know what others thought of Land Without Bread. It is well done, I'm just not entirely sure what to believe as fact and what to understand as Bunuel's play on imagery/words.
I found the voiceover to be this films strongest point - it was convincing, all knowing, and spoke to the audience with a tone not only asking for sympathy, but giving it as well. The dramatic music was a bit upbeat for the tone that the narrative and the shots were creating. The more I watched, the more I realized that the narrative was not created to depict what was going on in the shots - the shots were edited to depict what Bunuel wanted to convey through the narration.
The first time I watched this film, I remembered feeling incredibly bad for these people - they didn't seem to live at all, rather exist, in horrible, horrible conditions. This viewing, I felt much of the same - at first. Then I couldn't help but wonder if they wanted out of these conditions - how could people live like that for generations and generations? Why wouldn't they migrate elsewhere? Did they even want to be happy? The film depicts them as being a rather stupid people - it seems everything they did to survive really didn't further them, but kept them alive, thus they were investing in nothing but the present moment, preserving nothing for the future. The narration told of the Hurdanos living in an incredibly infertile land, so they'd rot leaves in their homes to put down on the soil - becoming sick in the process. It also told that when a venemous but non fatal snake would bite, they'd usually die due to them not being able to care for their wounds. I couldn't believe that after centuries of existance, it seemed as if they'd learned nothing. The film wasn't making me sympathize for them - I was actually becoming more and more bewildered/angry, and wondering exactly what the point is Bunuel was trying to get across. Was he simply up-playing a small, unknown, poverty stricken town to take jabs at the Spanish government? Were things really this bad, or just personal propaganda?
I'm curious to know what others thought of Land Without Bread. It is well done, I'm just not entirely sure what to believe as fact and what to understand as Bunuel's play on imagery/words.
Blurred Boundaries
If someone was to tell me that I was going to watch a movie about a war in the 1700's I would have expected a somewhat boring, history channel style documentary, with cheesy re-enactments and obnoxious experts. I have to say that I was presently surprised with Culloden.
The camera work and opening introductions throughout Culloden were incredible. The camera work blurred the boundaries between modern day news footage and narrative war movies. Crossing between close-up interview shots of the "characters" in the war to point of view shots of these "characters" falling through their death was an interesting way to blur the boundaries between the two types of camera work. The narration and interviewer also blurred the boundaries. The narrator asks questions to the soldiers, which gives the feeling of modern day documentary or news footage, especially when the interviewers questions have to be translated. The boundaries are blurred when the narrator crosses over and voices his narration with lines such as, "This is three pound, this is what it does." These moments of the film gave it the feeling of instructional video.
Overall the crossing of boundaries between classic narrative and modern day news gives this historic event a new and unique style that I have yet to see in any other films, especially when you add the blurred boundaries of the narration style.
The camera work and opening introductions throughout Culloden were incredible. The camera work blurred the boundaries between modern day news footage and narrative war movies. Crossing between close-up interview shots of the "characters" in the war to point of view shots of these "characters" falling through their death was an interesting way to blur the boundaries between the two types of camera work. The narration and interviewer also blurred the boundaries. The narrator asks questions to the soldiers, which gives the feeling of modern day documentary or news footage, especially when the interviewers questions have to be translated. The boundaries are blurred when the narrator crosses over and voices his narration with lines such as, "This is three pound, this is what it does." These moments of the film gave it the feeling of instructional video.
Overall the crossing of boundaries between classic narrative and modern day news gives this historic event a new and unique style that I have yet to see in any other films, especially when you add the blurred boundaries of the narration style.
February 19, 2007
Culloden
I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this film, both in the moment - and afterwards. I had put this in my netflix cue, thinking for some reason that it was a friday screening that I could not attend. When it arrived a day after our class, I found myself watching it again, and excitedly telling a friend all about it. I was able to recall many details, both of the film, and of the history of the battle itself, and it was in that moment that I felt the full impact of the effectiveness of this docu-drama. To have such recall, the film must have had a personal impact. I found myself researching the battle, the jacobite uprisings, and the film itself. In reading, I found that alot of the choices Watkins made in the film had to do with a very tight budget (he was not a well-known director at the time). He didn't have many extras, or horses, or canons, or cameras - so he was almost forced to use very careful, controlled tight shots and close-ups. In doing so, he showed the impact and brutality of war through intimacy - since he didn't have the resources to literally show us the big picture (1,500 men charging into battle and rows upon rows of canons firing..) he showed us everything he could about, and in, the details. The fact that Watkins didnt want to use professional actors, but instead chose to focus more on ethnographic continuity between the cast and history - using amature and non-actors from London, the Scottish Lowlands, and the city of Iverness (Scottish Highlands) to represent the warring factions. I wonder if Watkins made this decision due to budget constraints, to further himself from the trend of over-acted, voiced-over documentaries, or to balance out the leap of faith (or suspension of disbelief, as we discussed it in class) that occurs when we, the viewer, accepts the presence of a tv crew at the battle in 1746. It turns out the narrator with the proper British accent is actually Watkins. I think this gives alot of insight into his position on the battle, and on war in general. It seems clear that he is anti-war no matter who is involved - and according to Watkins on his website, he did deliberately construct the film to look like the TV footage of the Vietnam War that everyone at the time was exposed to. Watkins says, "This was the 1960s, and the US army was ‘pacifying’ the Vietnam highlands. I wanted to draw a parallel between these events and what had happened in our own UK Highlands two centuries earlier". All in all, I found this unconventional docu-drama/pseudo-documentary to be a very effective means of constructing a filmic visual record of that which could not be photographed or filmed.
The Thin Blue Line loses its focus
It seems that most viewers responses on The Thin Blue Line were that the director was very clear on his beleif that Randall Adams was innocent and his documentary was made with the synopsis of proving that. However, one could also conclude that the director was not nearly as focused on his subjects, whether guilty or not, as he was towards using these stylistic modes of representation. Not that the director didn't beleive that Randall Adams was innocent, but the movie is so focused on having a "hip" look that his presentation becomes more visual than factual. Are people watching this documentary because of a man wrongly accused of murder or because it has this fantastic way of showing montages and recreations of events? It's probably about half and half, but when dealing with a documentary, a director is suppose to layout the facts as plainly as possible while focusing directly on whom or what they are representing in order for the viewer to draw their own conclusions on what they believe. Another thing to consider is that the items that were portrayed in the montages were all items that had nothing to do with the real trial, but were rather used in the film. The same goes for the reanactments of the events because they have no authenticity as well. The director includes these elements in the film in order to be deceiving, but to also present a film that is visually attractive. Is the viewer to accept the montages and reanactments as factual, or is director just putting his own spin on what really happened?
February 17, 2007
the importance of distinquishign genres for hte audience
Documentaries and dramas are an unlikely combination. ethical questions arise in terms of the director's necessity for transparency when presenting his rendition of the facts, history, and the validity of his sources. once the film crosses over into fictional work, it is less criticized by the public, event hough many will assume everything is nothing but the truth. Some examples include Schindler's List, where Spielberg freely combines historical footage and dramatized scenes with no few clear-cut stylistic differences, forming a new history on film. While he presents an intelligent argument in that film alongside a positive political message, it is still fiction even though many spectators will assume otherwise.
The flip angle is a documentary that utilizes techniques in fictional pieces to bring tis point across. Here enters Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911. Creative editing and scripted interviews pushed the boundaries of the documentary genre. So much in fact, that Moore felt the need to answer to his critics, by validating the choice of "facts" he presented. (his lengthy response is the link provided).
the widespread commercial success of Moore's films prove that the general public, despite the threat of being misled, loves this precarious combination of techniques. they seek to get as close to real without the doldrums of reality. Scripted shows like Simple Life with Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are a great example. the viewing public knows what they are watching may be fake or real--- or some mix, but it also loves the game of deciphering.
the growing popularity of drama/documentaries could point to two facts:
1. the society has lost trust in the media and given up on any form of objectivity, so doesn't mind the mix of entertainment with journalistic techniques.
2.the public is so media saavy by being flooded with messages via the internet, publications, broadcasting that it no longer feels the need for a gatekeeper to tell them what is real.
just a thought.
The flip angle is a documentary that utilizes techniques in fictional pieces to bring tis point across. Here enters Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911. Creative editing and scripted interviews pushed the boundaries of the documentary genre. So much in fact, that Moore felt the need to answer to his critics, by validating the choice of "facts" he presented. (his lengthy response is the link provided).
the widespread commercial success of Moore's films prove that the general public, despite the threat of being misled, loves this precarious combination of techniques. they seek to get as close to real without the doldrums of reality. Scripted shows like Simple Life with Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are a great example. the viewing public knows what they are watching may be fake or real--- or some mix, but it also loves the game of deciphering.
the growing popularity of drama/documentaries could point to two facts:
1. the society has lost trust in the media and given up on any form of objectivity, so doesn't mind the mix of entertainment with journalistic techniques.
2.the public is so media saavy by being flooded with messages via the internet, publications, broadcasting that it no longer feels the need for a gatekeeper to tell them what is real.
just a thought.
February 16, 2007
observing real life ina fictional drama
Hiroshima Mon Amour shares a lot of characteristics with direct cinema. The hand-held cameras, shooting on location, and cinematic devices like extended takes and dead time contributed to a feeling of reality. Just like direct cinema, the director pushed a ideological message with depictions of an ordinary life. The audience was only observing two days, presented in seemingly real time. We watched the characters chat, connect and reminisce with each other. There was no firestorm–no cataclysmic event. It was a everyday event: two adults meeting, embracing, and moving on with their lives. But like the time this was shooting, everyday events took on additional meaning. All the gray and shots of rain were mean to evoke the atomic blast. The hotel was even named “New Hiroshima”. Symbolic of the world’s efforts to move this city on, teaching them to forget and erase the past.
The realness was assisted by consistent contradictions. There was a sense of the hidden reality as shown by the keyholes the audience had into the subconscious of the French woman. Close-ups dragged the spectator into her pain and loneliness. The director purposefully kept the same artistic style when shooting her memories and the present so they would blend into one stream of consciousness for the viewer–as they had for her. Even the two slaps on the face woke us up like they woke her up.
Referencing direct cinema, the director took his time to show us what it would really feel like and look like. The audience was able to identify with the main characters at a much higher level than in the typical fictional piece. We were able to experience the small changes and details that make things real. Two excellent examples include her running through he field to meet the German soldier. The music communicates her joy, and contrasts with the gray, wintery bleakness of this provincial French town during war time. The camera shows us the soldier signaling to her, and then sneaking out, bounding across the field, –we see time passing her by.
Her going up and down the stairs in the hotel are a great exhibition for Resnais’ use of contrast, elongated takes the first time she calmly walks to her room. We see the full extent of her journey. The second part, we see her slowly unraveling. Her gait has changed. By the end, she is rushing down the stairs, hurrying to get away from her own demons, choices, and the necessity of acting right then. Each run up and down the stairs had that much more meaning because the audience had something to compare it to.
Lastly, some of the most important scenes to thematically unravel the move were cleverly shrouded by distracting these everyday occurrences. The parade depicted the grotesque superficiality of the anti-war parades when contrasted with the effects of the war. Maimed, disfigured faces were walking around like ghosts in a gray, shell-shocked city. Meanwhile outsiders were so quick to move them forward, past their reality— as if forgetting would make it all disappear. This scene is key to understanding the director’s antiwar message, but he audience is too busy watching the back-and forth between the man and the woman. Like real life, we were distracted.
The realness was assisted by consistent contradictions. There was a sense of the hidden reality as shown by the keyholes the audience had into the subconscious of the French woman. Close-ups dragged the spectator into her pain and loneliness. The director purposefully kept the same artistic style when shooting her memories and the present so they would blend into one stream of consciousness for the viewer–as they had for her. Even the two slaps on the face woke us up like they woke her up.
Referencing direct cinema, the director took his time to show us what it would really feel like and look like. The audience was able to identify with the main characters at a much higher level than in the typical fictional piece. We were able to experience the small changes and details that make things real. Two excellent examples include her running through he field to meet the German soldier. The music communicates her joy, and contrasts with the gray, wintery bleakness of this provincial French town during war time. The camera shows us the soldier signaling to her, and then sneaking out, bounding across the field, –we see time passing her by.
Her going up and down the stairs in the hotel are a great exhibition for Resnais’ use of contrast, elongated takes the first time she calmly walks to her room. We see the full extent of her journey. The second part, we see her slowly unraveling. Her gait has changed. By the end, she is rushing down the stairs, hurrying to get away from her own demons, choices, and the necessity of acting right then. Each run up and down the stairs had that much more meaning because the audience had something to compare it to.
Lastly, some of the most important scenes to thematically unravel the move were cleverly shrouded by distracting these everyday occurrences. The parade depicted the grotesque superficiality of the anti-war parades when contrasted with the effects of the war. Maimed, disfigured faces were walking around like ghosts in a gray, shell-shocked city. Meanwhile outsiders were so quick to move them forward, past their reality— as if forgetting would make it all disappear. This scene is key to understanding the director’s antiwar message, but he audience is too busy watching the back-and forth between the man and the woman. Like real life, we were distracted.
New types of entertainment
I've never thought as reality TV as a form of documentary, but after reading John Corner's "Drama-Documentary", I am seeing today's entertainment in a new way. There are drama-documentaries, like the movie watched in class "Missiles of October", and docu-dramas, a show like "Real World". Missiles of October depicts the Cuban Missile crisis from both the American and Russian view points. While the content of the film is real, or realistic, the actors in the movie are not the real people in the original situations. The fictional movie is allowed credibility through its documentary format. The information is presented, but it's been carefully constructed, just as the whole movie has been. Docu-dramas are allowed the flexibility of casting actors, perfecting lighting, making the script flow well. But, as we all saw, it doesn't call for a better movie. Drama-Documentaries are popular for today's tv. Corner notes that it is hardly "used as the only mode of depiction within the programme" (33). For example, "Real World, is made of a house of young adults. But watching people live wouldn't be as exciting as watching them fight. The show is constructed so the young adults are always being enticed with confrontation. It is a film social experiment. Though this is an example, it is not the best. Back to movies, "The Thin Blue Line" by Errol Morris, cuts interviews with dramatized flash backs of the crime. Morris mixes the traditional footage of a documentary with something that might be found in a docu-drama. Today's audience wants something more. When watching fiction, they want those things to happen to them so they are placed in realistic settings. When we watch documentaries people want it to flow with a feel of a story, not be set down and coldly told facts. It seems as if this experimental diffusion of formats is to supplement the viewers' need for a more fantastical reality.
The Thin Blue Line's Agenda
The Thin Blue Line may not blatantly say it, but there is an obvious agenda for the film, which is to prove that Randall Adams should not be in jail for the murder of a police officer. The film does seem to prove his innocence, but it mainly makes the point that there was never enough evidence to give Adams a guilty verdict. The documentary utilizes a number of different types of proof that contradict the theory that condemns Adams for the shooting.
The film uses interviews to give us the feeling that not only was the evidence false, but Randall Adams could not be capable of this type of crime. We learn, through interviews of those attached to the case, that Randall has no criminal record and had no motive once so ever that would lead him to kill the cop.
The film also uses newspaper clippings as a way of telling us the story, but one of the most interesting part of the film is the use of dramatization. We are not only shown what happened, but the director shows us what could have happened. It works very well within the film and adds to the belief that Adams should never have been found guilty for this murder. In each dramatization, the face of the killer is never shown. We are not able to make out his face because there was no chance for anyone to know what his face looked like.
An interesting part of the film came at the end when we see only an audio recorder and hear a tape playing. Nothing goes on throughout the scene visually, but there is no reason for it. We practically hear David Harris say that he is the only one who knows that Adams is innocent. The conversation going on is so enthralling that we do not need to see anything going on. This scene might not have worked in some documentaries, but it was able to work so well in this film because Morris did an incredible job of keeping the viewer interested. He pulled us into a world that we did not know of, but made it clear as to why he wanted us to see the problems that sent an innocent man to jail.
It's amazing how much of an impact this film had, especially because it lead to the release of Randall Adams. It shows that Morris was able to do exactly what he wanted, which was to prove that there was practically no evidence that supported the theory that Adams killed this cop.
The film uses interviews to give us the feeling that not only was the evidence false, but Randall Adams could not be capable of this type of crime. We learn, through interviews of those attached to the case, that Randall has no criminal record and had no motive once so ever that would lead him to kill the cop.
The film also uses newspaper clippings as a way of telling us the story, but one of the most interesting part of the film is the use of dramatization. We are not only shown what happened, but the director shows us what could have happened. It works very well within the film and adds to the belief that Adams should never have been found guilty for this murder. In each dramatization, the face of the killer is never shown. We are not able to make out his face because there was no chance for anyone to know what his face looked like.
An interesting part of the film came at the end when we see only an audio recorder and hear a tape playing. Nothing goes on throughout the scene visually, but there is no reason for it. We practically hear David Harris say that he is the only one who knows that Adams is innocent. The conversation going on is so enthralling that we do not need to see anything going on. This scene might not have worked in some documentaries, but it was able to work so well in this film because Morris did an incredible job of keeping the viewer interested. He pulled us into a world that we did not know of, but made it clear as to why he wanted us to see the problems that sent an innocent man to jail.
It's amazing how much of an impact this film had, especially because it lead to the release of Randall Adams. It shows that Morris was able to do exactly what he wanted, which was to prove that there was practically no evidence that supported the theory that Adams killed this cop.
February 15, 2007
The use of Repetition in The Thin Blue Line
After viewing The Thin Blue Line last Friday I found myself intreuged by the way that Errol Morris used repetition. The film concentrated on looking at all the possible angles that the murder could have taken place through the use of reenactments. Although the reenectments have the feel of an emergency 911 show they still do a good job of evaluating the posibilities of what happened. Morris also gives information as the movie goes on that makes the audience step back and take a look at what they have learned and reevaluate their thoughts on the truth. Through the use of repetition and reenactments the film gives a well-rounded view for the audience to interpret in their own way.
February 13, 2007
The Thin Blue Line
I found it very easy to be captivated by The Thin Blue Line - the re-enactments, photos and interviews carry this documentary along quite smoothly. The editing pulls viewers at an almost set, steadylike pace until you realize you have yourself taken a keen interest int the story and are in fact convinced that Harris is guilty. The shots of different clocks conveyed a sense of time passing, and yet you couldn't help but feel that it was some sort of game, a large play on the words of two stories that start out quite similar but each themselves take drastic turns. Combined with the music that Glass provides, the film takes on an incredibly eerie feeling, adding to the already building mystery and suspense of whose story is truth and whose is fiction.
The construction of truth in The Thin Blue Line
It's amazing to think about how Errol Morris' highly stylized doc The Thin Blue Line could be powerful enough to help lead to the exoneration of wrongly imprisoned Randall Adams. There's no verite footage recording what actually happened the night that the officer was killed, and also within the structure of the film, there's not really a definitive flashback to illustrate the truth. Instead, the film is punctuated at the end with the audio recording of David Harris essentially confessing the truth to Morris.
The structure of the film is effective, where in the beginning there is a sense of the truth being out of focus, leaving one to think who's really guilty?, or did they both have a hand in the crime? Over the course of the film, through the Rashomon-esque flashbacks of the crime coming from more subjects that took part in this story, the picture gets a little bit sharper, and by the end the viewer is left satisfied because it's apparent that Harris was the truly guilty one.
As far as the style of the film, the noir look for the flashbacks and the eerie Phillip Glass score add a little bit of Hollywood to the mix, and in contrary to the beliefs of the cinema verite crowd, it never feels like the truth has been fabricated in this documentary, rather it feels like it's been constructed through creativity. There is more than just a stylistic difference between verite and an investigative documentary like The Thin Blue Line. Verite captures the here and now and leaves it open for people to observe what it was like be at a certain event. Morris' film has the advantage of looking at things in retrospect, and in doing so, creates a multi-layered documentary. Not only is it about how Randall Adams was framed by David Harris, but it's also an indictment of the flawed Texas justice system, and also a tale of how a traumatized three-year-old could potentially be turned into a life long criminal.
The structure of the film is effective, where in the beginning there is a sense of the truth being out of focus, leaving one to think who's really guilty?, or did they both have a hand in the crime? Over the course of the film, through the Rashomon-esque flashbacks of the crime coming from more subjects that took part in this story, the picture gets a little bit sharper, and by the end the viewer is left satisfied because it's apparent that Harris was the truly guilty one.
As far as the style of the film, the noir look for the flashbacks and the eerie Phillip Glass score add a little bit of Hollywood to the mix, and in contrary to the beliefs of the cinema verite crowd, it never feels like the truth has been fabricated in this documentary, rather it feels like it's been constructed through creativity. There is more than just a stylistic difference between verite and an investigative documentary like The Thin Blue Line. Verite captures the here and now and leaves it open for people to observe what it was like be at a certain event. Morris' film has the advantage of looking at things in retrospect, and in doing so, creates a multi-layered documentary. Not only is it about how Randall Adams was framed by David Harris, but it's also an indictment of the flawed Texas justice system, and also a tale of how a traumatized three-year-old could potentially be turned into a life long criminal.
Comments on the Jeanne Hall article & Primary
The Jeanne Hall article looks at how Primary claims to be a more truthful representation of reality in documentary form, because of the creation of the cinema verite technique. Throughout the article she points out the many flaws still present in the film, illustrating that it is still a construct, with some elements of Hollywood still present, such as a non-diegetic soundtrack and continuity editing. Some of this criticism seems unfair, because as Grierson defines it (and most film academics also support his definition), documentary is the "creative treatment of actuality". It would seem that the creative part of that often goes overlooked. For there to be a pure, unbiased, non-directed documentation of an event on film, one would need to record a subject without their knowledge of any filming taking place (preventing any "acting" on their part), and it would have to be an unedited long take (preventing any possibility of the Kuleshov effect, thereby creating a meaning that's not really there). The result of this would be quite uninteresting to most people, save for the voyeurs.
Primary, even with all of it's claims of being a truer representation of reality, is still a breath of fresh air in comparison to so many staged documentaries that came before it, most notably Flaherty's Nanook of the North. It took what a documentary could be in a different direction, and as a result took the form to another level with films trying to copy the verite style, or films trying to rebel against the verite style.
Primary, even with all of it's claims of being a truer representation of reality, is still a breath of fresh air in comparison to so many staged documentaries that came before it, most notably Flaherty's Nanook of the North. It took what a documentary could be in a different direction, and as a result took the form to another level with films trying to copy the verite style, or films trying to rebel against the verite style.
February 12, 2007
Las Hurdes / Land Without Bread
While watching this documentary it becomes obvious that shots are set up. And you become unsure as to how much of this film is truth and how much is made up. But, despite that fact, you know that the film maker is trying to expose some truth, so it still lends a sincere feeling of sympathy for the people. But did Luis Brunuel hire actors or did he do a sort of Nanuk thing by directing actual peasants?
During the film you start questioning the film makers true intent if the story is really true. Is he trying to help these people or is he trying to get famous off their misery. First off, the sick girl that they passed by and soon died. They could have helped her, taken her with them, but instead she died alone. After all, the film said she had a bad sore throat. Did he want her to die in order to make his film better? Or did he just make the whole thing up? It seems to brutal to be true.
But also, those poor animals. That was NOT faked. Luis Brunuel wanted to show every animal that died in narration actually dieing in real life. It doesn't cross your mind at first but then your intrigued by how he got such a good shot of a goat bouncing down a rocky cliff and going splat at the end. A perfect birds eye view. I went online and sure enough... that poor goat... funny... but that poor goat. Also, the donkey he had men cover in honey and stung to death by a zillion bees so he could get it on film to match narration. Luis was not very nice to animals so it makes you wonder what kind of conscience this man has and whether he can be trusted. Indeed this films leaves you questioning whether to laugh or sypathize.
Stephen H.P. Wright
During the film you start questioning the film makers true intent if the story is really true. Is he trying to help these people or is he trying to get famous off their misery. First off, the sick girl that they passed by and soon died. They could have helped her, taken her with them, but instead she died alone. After all, the film said she had a bad sore throat. Did he want her to die in order to make his film better? Or did he just make the whole thing up? It seems to brutal to be true.
But also, those poor animals. That was NOT faked. Luis Brunuel wanted to show every animal that died in narration actually dieing in real life. It doesn't cross your mind at first but then your intrigued by how he got such a good shot of a goat bouncing down a rocky cliff and going splat at the end. A perfect birds eye view. I went online and sure enough... that poor goat... funny... but that poor goat. Also, the donkey he had men cover in honey and stung to death by a zillion bees so he could get it on film to match narration. Luis was not very nice to animals so it makes you wonder what kind of conscience this man has and whether he can be trusted. Indeed this films leaves you questioning whether to laugh or sypathize.
Stephen H.P. Wright
The Power of the Cinema
Directly after watching The Thin Blue Line, I called a friend of mine who has internet access(as I do not) and asked him to check wikipedia.org for the name Randall Adams and see if it was mentioned whether or not the film aided in prompting a reinvestigation of his case. It did. Randall Adams spent 12 years in prison for the murder of a police officer before being found not guilty.
The Thin Blue Line did what cinema is supposed to do, it created awareness and made a difference. It is a powerful and gripping documentary that manages to retain it’s own style while delivering factual information through talking head interviews.
The shot design for the interviews in The Thin Blue Line is aesthetically pleasing without being over the top, the lighting is elegant and the various color schemes maintain an aesthetic continuity. The re-enacted scenes are purposely and openly stylistic, the shots themselves bring awareness to the fact that what is being watched is indeed cinema—they do not pose as ‘real life,’ they do not act as something to trick the viewer. This is evident in the use of close-ups, especially on extraneous objects such as car lights, shots taken from under the car as the police officer walks past, the twisting red siren light that is repeated for dramatic effect, and especially the shot from outside the police interrogation room as the officer speaks with Randall Adams. The walls a bright blue and the windows framing the important elements of the scene. All the components of these re-enactments speak of cinema, they have their own voice and their own look that allow the viewer to be drawn in without forgetting that these are indeed re-enactments and not real-live events. Also, the juxtaposition of truth with archival cinema footage works to create an understanding of the manipulation inherent in documentaries.
However, the greatest significance of The Thin Blue Line comes at the end with the last interview of David Harris in which he effectively confesses to the murder of Robert Wood and to the innocence of Randall Adams. The delivery of this interview is incredibly effective. While all the others show David Harris is his bright orange prison uniform against a cell background, looking healthy and confident, this interview is audio only. The audio is scratchy and Harris sounds tired, it is through the use of subtitles that the audience is able to clearly understand what is being said. On the screen, there is just the image of a small tape recorder playing, the kind of recorder one would assume caught the conversation the audience is now hearing. The wheels of the recorder heads turn slowly and cuts to extreme close ups of various parts of the recorder emphasize the intense significance of what is being said. Randall Adams has been jailed wrongfully for 11 years. The case of Randall Adams makes his innocence pretty clear, but it is this interview that sets it in stone, the lead witness to the murder is indeed the murderer – because he says so himself.
The Thin Blue Line did what cinema is supposed to do, it created awareness and made a difference. It is a powerful and gripping documentary that manages to retain it’s own style while delivering factual information through talking head interviews.
The shot design for the interviews in The Thin Blue Line is aesthetically pleasing without being over the top, the lighting is elegant and the various color schemes maintain an aesthetic continuity. The re-enacted scenes are purposely and openly stylistic, the shots themselves bring awareness to the fact that what is being watched is indeed cinema—they do not pose as ‘real life,’ they do not act as something to trick the viewer. This is evident in the use of close-ups, especially on extraneous objects such as car lights, shots taken from under the car as the police officer walks past, the twisting red siren light that is repeated for dramatic effect, and especially the shot from outside the police interrogation room as the officer speaks with Randall Adams. The walls a bright blue and the windows framing the important elements of the scene. All the components of these re-enactments speak of cinema, they have their own voice and their own look that allow the viewer to be drawn in without forgetting that these are indeed re-enactments and not real-live events. Also, the juxtaposition of truth with archival cinema footage works to create an understanding of the manipulation inherent in documentaries.
However, the greatest significance of The Thin Blue Line comes at the end with the last interview of David Harris in which he effectively confesses to the murder of Robert Wood and to the innocence of Randall Adams. The delivery of this interview is incredibly effective. While all the others show David Harris is his bright orange prison uniform against a cell background, looking healthy and confident, this interview is audio only. The audio is scratchy and Harris sounds tired, it is through the use of subtitles that the audience is able to clearly understand what is being said. On the screen, there is just the image of a small tape recorder playing, the kind of recorder one would assume caught the conversation the audience is now hearing. The wheels of the recorder heads turn slowly and cuts to extreme close ups of various parts of the recorder emphasize the intense significance of what is being said. Randall Adams has been jailed wrongfully for 11 years. The case of Randall Adams makes his innocence pretty clear, but it is this interview that sets it in stone, the lead witness to the murder is indeed the murderer – because he says so himself.
No Coincidence
Much like most documentary films, Good Night and Good Luck looks to highlight a particular issue. It seems no coincidence to me that this film was made when it was. In a time where the "Patriot Act" and other right revoking documents are being thrust upon us a person may just as easily be labled a "terrorist" and denied his or her rights of habeus corpus. Parallel to a person of this era being labeled a communist or communist sympathist. It becomes apparent why this film was made at this time. People can and will relate to a film that can be applied to similar circumstances.
Hiroshima Mon Amour
Hiroshima Mon Amour starts off as an expository documentary by narrating through the tragedy at Hiroshima and the suffering and hardache suffered by its people. Within moments the voice over narration ends and the story about the tragedy of Hiroshima intersects with the fictional story of two consenting adults who have deep rooted feelings for each other after spending the night with each other. Lui can not seem to overcome his desire of love for Elle and acts on it while Elle, having the same feelings, resists and represses her feelings. The directors intention of combining these two stories about Hiroshima and love is a way for one story to reflect the other. The story about love seemed almost unecessary as it proceeded after the story of the tragedy at Hiroshima. However, the story of love was a reflection of the actions of the people who live in Hiroshima and how they dealt with the tregedy of the nuclear tragedy. Elle repressing her true feelings of love is an indication that the people of Hiroshima have repressed their feelings of anxiety, fear, and pain since that tragedy. The technique of taking a fictional story and relating it to a past event takes precedent in the documentary world because it becomes an experimental way of approaching documentary filmmaking. The director did things outside of the norm of documentary filmmaking and the end results, if not liked, than has to at least be appreciated for its effort.
Within Hiroshima Mon Amour
Within Hiroshima Mon Amour, we find three interacting storylines: 1) that of Elle, the French woman, and her memories, 2) the relationship with the Japanese man, Lui and 3) the ever present distruction and rebuilding of Hiroshima after the bomb. It is interesting how they weave through one another and how Elle and Lui chose to use memories of their respective homes to get to know one another. The city of Hiroshima and how it displays its hopes and fears in the wake of the bomb is an ideal backdrop for two people who want to be together but can't due to fears of obligation and of reliving the past.
Elle's story and them memories that continually flood it might be the cause of confusion on the part of the viewer, especially when Lui tries to plant himself in the shoes of her dead lover back in Nevers...she talks as though their relationship happened just yesterday - and how it was the only thing that kept her going while she was kept in the cellar by her parents for having this relationship with the Belgian. A sad story and also sad because it seems to be the only thing she finds important enough to remember with such passion. Lui is not able to reach her, and pull her out of this vacuum and start living again - like the people of Hiroshima have. They've rebuilt and forgotten that horrible event that shattered their lives - as a country, they have rebuilt and focused on the future. But Elle, unable, and perhaps, unwilling, does not and leaves the man that could have helped her to look towards the future.
Elle's story and them memories that continually flood it might be the cause of confusion on the part of the viewer, especially when Lui tries to plant himself in the shoes of her dead lover back in Nevers...she talks as though their relationship happened just yesterday - and how it was the only thing that kept her going while she was kept in the cellar by her parents for having this relationship with the Belgian. A sad story and also sad because it seems to be the only thing she finds important enough to remember with such passion. Lui is not able to reach her, and pull her out of this vacuum and start living again - like the people of Hiroshima have. They've rebuilt and forgotten that horrible event that shattered their lives - as a country, they have rebuilt and focused on the future. But Elle, unable, and perhaps, unwilling, does not and leaves the man that could have helped her to look towards the future.
February 10, 2007
Remembering Hiroshima Mon Amour
Hiroshima Mon Amour has many issues that it tries to express. A main one is memory it’s role in a person’s life. Memory is shown in two different views through the movie and both have a different effect on the audience. One view starts with Hiroshima and the effect the atomic bomb had on the land and people. Here, the city is rebuilt and remade after the horrible event that took place. However, while it takes pains to remind the tourists what happened with museums, the city seems to take pride in what happened with rides and flashing towers designed to look like rockets/bombs. The city attempts to glaze over the horrors of that day and forget what it did much like the audience does by the end of this movie.
The viewer is assailed with terrible images of the damage that the bomb did and the effect on the population but by the end of the movie we barely remember it. While images of the effects of the bomb show up once more in the movie, during the march/parade, the remainder of the movie moves on to another topic of tragedy and another view of memory that share similarities with Hiroshima.
Elle, the woman, had an appalling experience in Nevers that she forced herself to forget. She moved on with her life and tries to glaze over the horrors of that part of her life by becoming an actress. However, much like the burnt out building that remains in Hiroshima, Elle is reminded of what happened to her in Nevers because of Lui, her new lover. She is forced to confront her memory and relate it to Lui because of her feelings for him. The feelings are similar or the same to what she felt for her first love and this reminds her of the pain she dealt with. She relates her account of what happened that show flashbacks of the actual events of her life. This provides the audience a deeper emotional investment with her story/tragedy.
But after she tells her story the viewer is given long montages of her walking the streets and cylindrical conversations with Lui that result in the audience's memory loss of her tragedy. By the end of the movie the audience has forgotten Hiroshima and vaguely remember Elle’s story but are quickly brought back to this with their closing lines in which they embody the horrible event that took place.
The two types of memory, a city’s way of remembering and a single person’s memory, are different but hold similarities to each other. Each have their landmarks and each attempt to cover over their feelings and lessen the tragedy but each does it in their own way.
--Nicole Hoover
The viewer is assailed with terrible images of the damage that the bomb did and the effect on the population but by the end of the movie we barely remember it. While images of the effects of the bomb show up once more in the movie, during the march/parade, the remainder of the movie moves on to another topic of tragedy and another view of memory that share similarities with Hiroshima.
Elle, the woman, had an appalling experience in Nevers that she forced herself to forget. She moved on with her life and tries to glaze over the horrors of that part of her life by becoming an actress. However, much like the burnt out building that remains in Hiroshima, Elle is reminded of what happened to her in Nevers because of Lui, her new lover. She is forced to confront her memory and relate it to Lui because of her feelings for him. The feelings are similar or the same to what she felt for her first love and this reminds her of the pain she dealt with. She relates her account of what happened that show flashbacks of the actual events of her life. This provides the audience a deeper emotional investment with her story/tragedy.
But after she tells her story the viewer is given long montages of her walking the streets and cylindrical conversations with Lui that result in the audience's memory loss of her tragedy. By the end of the movie the audience has forgotten Hiroshima and vaguely remember Elle’s story but are quickly brought back to this with their closing lines in which they embody the horrible event that took place.
The two types of memory, a city’s way of remembering and a single person’s memory, are different but hold similarities to each other. Each have their landmarks and each attempt to cover over their feelings and lessen the tragedy but each does it in their own way.
--Nicole Hoover
February 9, 2007
Hiroshima Mon Amour
Hiroshima Mon Amour was certainly not an easy film to digest. In this single film, Alain Resnais seems to be attempting to employ all the possible utilities of the medium at once. It tries to communicate many different things on many different levels, and I'm not sure it's possible for one person to comprehend all those things after only one viewing. Even after pondering the film for days, I'm not sure I grasped everything it was trying to express. The way Resnais blended a documentary style with narrative and something like stream of consciousness managed to create a strange, almost dream-like world. Still, even with the surrealistic tone, the film came across to me as more honest than any documentary could be towards what happened in Hiroshima - and the rest of the world - during World War II, the effects of which still very present at the time the film was made.
Resnais begins by shocking viewers with the true horror of Hiroshima after the bomb was dropped as two faceless bodies clutch each other. This documentary guise quickly falls away as the faces of our two main characters are revealed. On the surface, they are two individuals coping with troubled pasts in the midst of a troubled city. However, below the surface of this narrative rests a general metaphor for life and the suffering that results from what many consider to be human nature. As the story progresses, the characters become less and less important as individuals and more significant as representatives of anyone and everyone. In this same vein, Hiroshima and the horrors that occurred there act as an example of the sort of tragedy human beings bring upon themselves, drawing attention to the fact that we are the cause of our own suffering.
One theme which permeated the film was that of whether or not to forget. When tragedies and horrors like these occur, one might think that to forget would be the easiest way to heal. Perhaps that is the correct way to deal with the pain. However, that raises the question of whether we as a race can learn anything from these mistakes if we allow ourselves to forget. Indeed, one is left wondering if it is even possible to forget the pain caused by such decimation or if to forget is sometimes the only way to survive.
Resnais begins by shocking viewers with the true horror of Hiroshima after the bomb was dropped as two faceless bodies clutch each other. This documentary guise quickly falls away as the faces of our two main characters are revealed. On the surface, they are two individuals coping with troubled pasts in the midst of a troubled city. However, below the surface of this narrative rests a general metaphor for life and the suffering that results from what many consider to be human nature. As the story progresses, the characters become less and less important as individuals and more significant as representatives of anyone and everyone. In this same vein, Hiroshima and the horrors that occurred there act as an example of the sort of tragedy human beings bring upon themselves, drawing attention to the fact that we are the cause of our own suffering.
One theme which permeated the film was that of whether or not to forget. When tragedies and horrors like these occur, one might think that to forget would be the easiest way to heal. Perhaps that is the correct way to deal with the pain. However, that raises the question of whether we as a race can learn anything from these mistakes if we allow ourselves to forget. Indeed, one is left wondering if it is even possible to forget the pain caused by such decimation or if to forget is sometimes the only way to survive.
Eyes on the Prize: Insights
I haven't seen any comments on EOTP: Nation of law? So i thought I'd post some of my own thoughts. This documentary reflects and portrays specific moments in this turbulent time, but was really a great insight into a time when fear, from whites and blacks, was so prominent. It seemed to be a fear of the unknown. Starting from the first part of EOTP, it should be stated that the Black Panther Party is an intresting and controversial organization. You have, on one hand, some stereotypes (weather true or not) that the group is radical. The President even labels them as a great threat to the internal security. They are political in nature, and admitantly so. EOTP, however, sheds some fantastic light on the realities of the party at that time, and some of the people associated with it. The members, Fred Hampton being at the top, were all quite level headed individuals who trully demanded, and rightfully so, a fair, just, and equal society. This equality should have no color. "White power to White people, Black power to Black people, Yellow power to Yellow people." The government wasn't ready for this type of radical change, and truthfully didn't know how to react. Likewise, you end up with an unsubstatiated and illthought raid of the Black Panther Office, and the execution of Fred Hampton. What a shame that was for the government and the people. Breaking out of the norm, in every single civilzation/society, has proved to be a very long and costly process. This was no different. It took many kinds of heroic actions by the members of the 'radical' Panther group to have their voice heard amongst the people, both Black and White.
What a shame so many things have to rely on violence to change. Yet another example the film raises is the takeover of the prison and hostages by the 1200 inmates. Here you have men who must be heard by the community, and the only way that could be achieved is taking hostile action. They wanted better living conditions in the prison and wanted to be treated like humans rather than dogs. You could tell how afraid they were to cross this line, but knew that it was necessary. Likewise, you could tell how afraid the government was about the entire situation. They did the only thing they knew, and that was go in with guns and show force. Every inmate was stripped and beaten, and tens of people, including the hostages, where shot by police. In surely made people look at the present state of affairs, and question whether or not this nation is a nation of law.
What a shame so many things have to rely on violence to change. Yet another example the film raises is the takeover of the prison and hostages by the 1200 inmates. Here you have men who must be heard by the community, and the only way that could be achieved is taking hostile action. They wanted better living conditions in the prison and wanted to be treated like humans rather than dogs. You could tell how afraid they were to cross this line, but knew that it was necessary. Likewise, you could tell how afraid the government was about the entire situation. They did the only thing they knew, and that was go in with guns and show force. Every inmate was stripped and beaten, and tens of people, including the hostages, where shot by police. In surely made people look at the present state of affairs, and question whether or not this nation is a nation of law.
February 8, 2007
Hiroshima Mon Amour - one way, or another.
It’s hard to say if Hiroshima Mon Amour is a classic love story that deals with loss, infidelity, memory, struggle, sanity, miscommunication, conflict, time, and fate by using historical tragedy to give it context and backbone, or if it’s a film about a historical tragedy and collective memory involving those same elements that uses a classic love story to draw the viewer in and make the personal universal and the universal personal. The long opening shot and the “wacky” and foreboding music, with the eventual transition into a shot of intertwined bodies that looked, depending on the moment, like they were covered in rubble, then maybe snowflakes, then maybe sweat all led me to believe I was situated pretty squarely in a rather digestible narrative fiction film. However, the film quickly moves into a dialogue between 2 antagonistic voices that are presumably the voices of the lovers, yet seem to almost float above their actions, (it’s hard to tell if the conversation itself is actually happening, or if it’s just in the head of one character, or if it is a conversation that *could* happen between them) as we see footage of a museum dedicated to the bombing of Hiroshima. Here, there is a layering of films within films and memories within memories. We have a film in the present moment (the lovers) whose dialogue gives way to a flash back to a museum trip experienced by one character that happened in the near past, that then collapses into another memory/flashback belonging to both the whole world as well as a character - and within that flashback of the bombing of Hiroshima there is both actual archival footage (we assume it is real footage) and films made by the museum that Elle says something like “they did their best to reconstruct it”. We also see shots of present day Hiroshima, of little roadside gift shops and a bus company that gives tours of the city and ruins called “Atomic Tours”, which comes across as a criticism of the industry of tragedy – or perhaps the cheapening/exploitation of memory and tragedy. Is the past all that Hiroshima has to offer, or has become a testament to? This montage of tourist attractions made me curious about what lies beneath the surface of Hiroshima, and what lies ahead.
Once we are (momentarily) back in the present, our characters continue to linger around in bed, getting dressed and growing curious about one another – they have a lot of chemistry, but don’t really know each other that well and are waking up to that reality. Once Lui starts asking Elle questions about herself, she seems to quickly degenerate from a confident and bold mood (she “likes men” and enjoys “occasional” one-night stands, though married) to someone with a lot of burdens who is tormented about something in the past. Elle gets out of bed and wanders about the apartment, but as she watches Lui sleep, she has flashbacks to the moment when her first love died. We learn later that Elle is developing feelings of “love” for Lui, and probably hasn’t felt such feelings since her first love died; she says later in the film “I cheated on you with that stranger tonight”. For her, falling in love again was a betrayal of her first love. Lui, too, is “falling in love” with Elle, and is persistent on learning what makes her tick.
Lui spends the rest of the night trying to make sense of Elle, and so do we. Elle eventually opens up to Lui about her past, and we learn about the death of her first love, her isolation, shaming, and consequent insanity. Suddenly, we are wondering about the reliability of our narrator. As dawn approaches, Elle and Lui chase each other around in circular dialogue as well as the city – each trying to decide what to do about the future. As their situation becomes more and more of a time-sensitive moral dilemma (we don’t really know what their future will look like or what decision they will make before Elle’s plane takes off….not unlike the ending of Casablanca - referenced in this film), the characters grow more iconic. Elle is a site caught in, or between, the past and present, in need of some sort of resolution in order to have a future. Lui is like a stand-in for that seemingly impossible future. Both characters are larger than themselves, while becoming memories even in the present moment. Lui becomes Hiroshima, and Elle becomes Nevers. She is a jumble of horrible memories and trauma, and he, somehow, seems to persevere through his.
The film doesn’t provide any answers to the questions it asks – and I found myself tempted to resolve it one way or the other. Are our hearts, and are our histories healed in forgetting, or in insisting on remembering? In the end, the film seems to speak to the futility of this dilemma and perhaps to the futility of choosing between the falsehood of an “objective documentary” or a twisted, collapsing love story as the best way to explore these questions. At least, that’s how I saw it.
Once we are (momentarily) back in the present, our characters continue to linger around in bed, getting dressed and growing curious about one another – they have a lot of chemistry, but don’t really know each other that well and are waking up to that reality. Once Lui starts asking Elle questions about herself, she seems to quickly degenerate from a confident and bold mood (she “likes men” and enjoys “occasional” one-night stands, though married) to someone with a lot of burdens who is tormented about something in the past. Elle gets out of bed and wanders about the apartment, but as she watches Lui sleep, she has flashbacks to the moment when her first love died. We learn later that Elle is developing feelings of “love” for Lui, and probably hasn’t felt such feelings since her first love died; she says later in the film “I cheated on you with that stranger tonight”. For her, falling in love again was a betrayal of her first love. Lui, too, is “falling in love” with Elle, and is persistent on learning what makes her tick.
Lui spends the rest of the night trying to make sense of Elle, and so do we. Elle eventually opens up to Lui about her past, and we learn about the death of her first love, her isolation, shaming, and consequent insanity. Suddenly, we are wondering about the reliability of our narrator. As dawn approaches, Elle and Lui chase each other around in circular dialogue as well as the city – each trying to decide what to do about the future. As their situation becomes more and more of a time-sensitive moral dilemma (we don’t really know what their future will look like or what decision they will make before Elle’s plane takes off….not unlike the ending of Casablanca - referenced in this film), the characters grow more iconic. Elle is a site caught in, or between, the past and present, in need of some sort of resolution in order to have a future. Lui is like a stand-in for that seemingly impossible future. Both characters are larger than themselves, while becoming memories even in the present moment. Lui becomes Hiroshima, and Elle becomes Nevers. She is a jumble of horrible memories and trauma, and he, somehow, seems to persevere through his.
The film doesn’t provide any answers to the questions it asks – and I found myself tempted to resolve it one way or the other. Are our hearts, and are our histories healed in forgetting, or in insisting on remembering? In the end, the film seems to speak to the futility of this dilemma and perhaps to the futility of choosing between the falsehood of an “objective documentary” or a twisted, collapsing love story as the best way to explore these questions. At least, that’s how I saw it.
Hiroshima Mon Amour: what was all that about?
The guy in front of me went off on a rant about why this movie was so bad. I kind of agreed with him, and so it was pretty entertaining. However, you must give Kudos to Resnais for even being able to create a movie this complex. Movies this dense don't grow on trees- because if they did, it could fall and crush sombody.
You have a French girl who starts off by talking about how she experienced Hiroshima through the meuseum and reenactments. The movie starts off like a documentary-esque montage of Hiroshima related footage, but then you realize it's just a character's dialogue. Already we have a commentary duplication of the past and its benefits. Then the revelation that the guy is Japanese sets us up for a metaphor about Asian European post war politics. We find out she used to be insane, and then recovered her sanity. This opens up even more opportunites. The annihilation and rebirth of a city can represent her journey through insanity and back. Also, we can question the necessity of sanity in a world where the sane wreak destruction.
Once we learn some background about her romantic affairs, her relationship with the guy is twofold. She's using him to get over a former love, and also turns him into a metaphor for his city. At this point, she can't decide whether trying to remember something is a good thing or not. She questioned this with the Hiroshima example at the begining of the film: is it better to remember history to learn from it's mistakes, or should we forget it so we don't have to explain the atrocities human nature allows?
Maybe the answer is that humans don't want to be happy at all. After all, why would two people be having affairs if they're content with their marriage. Are they even happy in the first place or are they trying to ruin it. Also, do these characters have the ability to be happy in a world that has shown them such sorrow?
If you read all that, I'm impressed. I'm sure there's something I missed or tangled up. Drop a comment.
Here's a link to a Alain Resnais Wikipedia article. There's a really well worded description of the movie in the second paragraph under Carrer.
"Don't Use Wikipedia In Your Paper!" -Paul Swann
You have a French girl who starts off by talking about how she experienced Hiroshima through the meuseum and reenactments. The movie starts off like a documentary-esque montage of Hiroshima related footage, but then you realize it's just a character's dialogue. Already we have a commentary duplication of the past and its benefits. Then the revelation that the guy is Japanese sets us up for a metaphor about Asian European post war politics. We find out she used to be insane, and then recovered her sanity. This opens up even more opportunites. The annihilation and rebirth of a city can represent her journey through insanity and back. Also, we can question the necessity of sanity in a world where the sane wreak destruction.
Once we learn some background about her romantic affairs, her relationship with the guy is twofold. She's using him to get over a former love, and also turns him into a metaphor for his city. At this point, she can't decide whether trying to remember something is a good thing or not. She questioned this with the Hiroshima example at the begining of the film: is it better to remember history to learn from it's mistakes, or should we forget it so we don't have to explain the atrocities human nature allows?
Maybe the answer is that humans don't want to be happy at all. After all, why would two people be having affairs if they're content with their marriage. Are they even happy in the first place or are they trying to ruin it. Also, do these characters have the ability to be happy in a world that has shown them such sorrow?
If you read all that, I'm impressed. I'm sure there's something I missed or tangled up. Drop a comment.
Here's a link to a Alain Resnais Wikipedia article. There's a really well worded description of the movie in the second paragraph under Carrer.
"Don't Use Wikipedia In Your Paper!" -Paul Swann
February 7, 2007
Luck has nothing to do with it
From the start of Good Night and Good Luck one would feel as though they are watching a real documentary of McCarthism. From the fast moving pans from character to character to the intentional out of focus shots on the characters, this movie has all the elements of a documentary, but it is not. That was a creative decision made to give the film as much credibility on its representation of the McCarthy years as possible. Other elements used was filming in black and white as well as using the real news footage and McCarthy speaking himself. This added the highest level of realism to the movie and that is what needed to be done especially if the film was going to market itself as based on a true story. Even though subplots were added for entertainment value, the viewer will still leave the theatre beleiving that that is what actually happened. Any filmmaker would know that the movie was exaggerated for the entertainment value, but that is also what the filmmaker will learn from. These techniques are used so the viewer has trouble distinguishing the difference between fiction and non-fiction. The Blair Witch Project made a bunch of filmmakers filthy rich doing just that, but it worked just so much better in Good Night and Good Luck.
The significance of Primary
One could make the argument that the purpose of a documentary is for a director to bring a subject to light from a neutral standpoint so at the end of the film the viewer would be the to make their own conclusion. The documentary Primary was suppose to do just that, but any viewer can tell that the film is very biased towards the two competitors that consisted of the old-fashioned Humphrey and the superstar like Kennedy. The one that is under attack is where this argument starts. Most would conclude Humphrey was under attack and being viewed as a has been struggling in this race in which he has no chance of winning. Then you have the superstar Kennedy having nothing but crowds of people surrounding him as well as his beautiful wife. However, by the director doing just that, he takes the chance of causing what I will call a rebound effect. Simply put, a director models their movie in a way that the viewer comes off with a certain opinion on that film and that opinion tends to be the same as the directors. On the other hand, say the opinion the director was trying to get across was the exact opposite of the opinion the viewer has after watching their film. That's the significance of Primary. There is no simple answer over who's being put into the negative light.
Kennedy comes off as a cocky politican that has people all over him and it seems as he doesn't need to do much to overcome Humphrey. When JFK is shaking people's hands, he can't wait to get into his limo away from all the excitement. His speeches were about nothing and when it came time for counting the votes, he seemed very tense for such a popular guy.
Now there is Humphrey who's this politican that needs to go out and talk to the people for their vote, they are not there surrounding him. His speeches, even though maybe in front of 20 people, had a point of what he was going to do for the people and their agriculture. He knew his importance in the race whereas JFK was viewed as more of a guranteed victor. At the end of the race Humphrey was the winner and JFK lost. The old timer beat this superstar who, throughout the documentary was viewed as though he had no chance of losing. Maybe his ego was a little too big? Now if the director wanted to really make Humphrey look really bad, why did he leave the results of the election out? As the teacher pointed out it was Humphrey's hometown and the margain he won by was disgraceful for a politican in their hometown. That element was left out and the opinion one is left with is never underestimate the turtle in the race.
Kennedy comes off as a cocky politican that has people all over him and it seems as he doesn't need to do much to overcome Humphrey. When JFK is shaking people's hands, he can't wait to get into his limo away from all the excitement. His speeches were about nothing and when it came time for counting the votes, he seemed very tense for such a popular guy.
Now there is Humphrey who's this politican that needs to go out and talk to the people for their vote, they are not there surrounding him. His speeches, even though maybe in front of 20 people, had a point of what he was going to do for the people and their agriculture. He knew his importance in the race whereas JFK was viewed as more of a guranteed victor. At the end of the race Humphrey was the winner and JFK lost. The old timer beat this superstar who, throughout the documentary was viewed as though he had no chance of losing. Maybe his ego was a little too big? Now if the director wanted to really make Humphrey look really bad, why did he leave the results of the election out? As the teacher pointed out it was Humphrey's hometown and the margain he won by was disgraceful for a politican in their hometown. That element was left out and the opinion one is left with is never underestimate the turtle in the race.
February 6, 2007
On Primary Discussion
Whoa, great vibe we had going there in class tonight. Since I watched Primary, I'll talk about that. Somebody mentioned that the movie painted Kennedy as the bad guy, but I didn't see it that way. If we were trying to seperate Humphrey and Kennedy by saying one really cares and the other is a phoney, Kennedy might have come off as the bad guy. However, while watching the movie, I got the impression that we were supposed to be watching both of them AS politicians. Both men are aware that politics is a game, and I feel the movie lets us watch it from the inside. With that in mind, I think the movie awards credibility as the better politician to Kennedy.
From the very begining, we see Humphry as your run of the mill hand shaker, whereas Kennedy looks like a rock star. There was one point where some campaign guy mentioned how the hardest part of a Kennedy campaign is channeling the enthusiasm he generates because everyone likes him. Compare that statement with a shot of Humphrey's audience yawning, and the message is clear- Kennedy is the unstoppable charm machine. Although this is cinema verite, there is definitely other meanings being created in the syntax, but with film, such is the nature of the beast.
All in all, I think the film could really care less about which candidate was better for the job, or even which one was the better politician. I still got an impression of what it was like to be in each of candidate's positions, but I also feel like I got to watch a movie with Kennedy as the protagonist. I didn't even realize he lost until it was mentioned in class. But in the long run, the Kennedy angle probably worked, because if the film had just been about Humphrey and some other guy, I probably would have never seen it.
Country Western Singer?
From the very begining, we see Humphry as your run of the mill hand shaker, whereas Kennedy looks like a rock star. There was one point where some campaign guy mentioned how the hardest part of a Kennedy campaign is channeling the enthusiasm he generates because everyone likes him. Compare that statement with a shot of Humphrey's audience yawning, and the message is clear- Kennedy is the unstoppable charm machine. Although this is cinema verite, there is definitely other meanings being created in the syntax, but with film, such is the nature of the beast.
All in all, I think the film could really care less about which candidate was better for the job, or even which one was the better politician. I still got an impression of what it was like to be in each of candidate's positions, but I also feel like I got to watch a movie with Kennedy as the protagonist. I didn't even realize he lost until it was mentioned in class. But in the long run, the Kennedy angle probably worked, because if the film had just been about Humphrey and some other guy, I probably would have never seen it.
Country Western Singer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)