I enjoyed the discussion that everyone got into after the viewing of "No Lies." The film brings up a good topic of rape and how it is dealt with in society. The filmmaker character is very pushy about the subject, and almost seems to be badgering his girlfriend as if it were her fault. Then he takes a sudden vigilante turn and begins to question her for not doing more about the rape. This aspect is what I found most interesting about the movie. The girl would rather put it behind her and not think about it, whereas the guy thinks she should dredge everything back up.
A rape will have serious psychological effect on the victim, but does that mean they should never be allowed to move on? If the woman turns a blind eye, does that make it easier for the next rapist to get away with it. More importantly, just because you are raped, does that obligate you to pick up a torch and become an anti-rape crusader? Just because someone wants to put the past behind them doesn't mean they don't care. The girl was merely willing to move on instead of trying to solve a crime that probably would have not gotten solved anyway. By forcing someone to reopen a dark part of their life when there is little hope it will do any good, who does that benefit?
1 comment:
In his essay in the "F is for Phony" text, Mitchell Block specifically endorses "No Lies" as a direct response to the reality television show "An American Family." In doing so, he notes the special dynamic between the subject(s) and maker of the film, and how this dynamic is used to sway the audience to one belief or another. What is important in Vince's post is his acknowledgment of the ever-evolving relationship between Alec [Hirschfield] and Shelby's [Leverington] characters. The accusing, and at times condescending, tone that Alex takes with Shelby is instantly identified by viewers as outrageous. As Shelby's position as victim is further reinforced (by the unraveling of her nonchalant exterior, as well as her disclosure of the further abuse she faced at the precinct), Alec's position as instigator heightens, and the audience is forced to outrage at the fact that this man could speak so callously to a woman who has just been raped (as he offers suggestive implications that she in fact enjoyed her traumatic experience). As Shelby becomes more defensive, the audience becomes more protective of her, and more disgusted with Alec (who appears to have evaded his friend's emotions to create a more interesting film). In his essay, Block acknowledges the ethical questions raised by the production of "An American Family" (effect on the filmmaking process on the people sharing their lives; the effect that showing the film publicly has on the subject). Block sees "No Lies" as "a drama that is fictional rather than a drama that is real." By creating a film fictitious in nature, he was automatically saved from the ethical constraints of his chosen subject matter. In his essay, he poses the question: "Could one create reality fictionally and not worry about how filming it would affect the subjects, since in my work the subjects do not exist - they are actors?" By using documentary technique, but employing the conventions of narrative (a script, hired actors, etc.), Block was able to successfully push the envelope on a project where an "image of reality" was everything. Had the film dealt with an actual rape victim, the "filmmaker" (Alec) would likely not have been so inclined to ask such hard-pressed questions. Without the dramatic tension, "No Lies" would fail to exist.
Post a Comment