May 10, 2007
Death of a President
Death of a President, directed by Gabriel Range
There is No Lie About No Lies
Mitchell Block’s No Lies was captivating. It seems as though it was one long take (when actually it might have been more, since film magazines at the time were only 4 minutes long), but it’s the content that keeps the audience there watching. The invasion of this girl’s privacy, her apparent easy going mood about such a traumatizing event, and the in your face camera action brought a life to the film. I do not understand why certain people say that the director would be burned at the stake if it were not for the credits at the end of the film explaining it was all staged. He expressed real concern for his “friend” in the film and asked her questions like “well did you go to the police.” No Lies was marvelously done in my opinion (with an unorthodox way of going about it but marvelous none the less).
Orson Welles Masters the Newsreel Look
In News On The March! in Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles (god among men and a man among women), we see how fictional elements are crafted to appear as documented reality. In the Thatcher news conference scene there is a sound cutting discontinuity that emulates the difficulties newsreel editors encountered when having to cut together footage where all the sound was captured on film. There is a hand-held shot of an elderly Kane being pushed around by his servant in a wheel chair which looks like it was captured by some greasy paparazzi. We see Kane standing in with look-alikes of Hitler and Teddy Roosevelt. Welles even went so far as to drag the actual film along the ground to have the scratches and dirt defects that would have been seen in actual newsreel footage of the era (people actually stood up and hissed during the first shooting because the quality of the film was so bad). Welles, having worked on the ‘real’ news program, March of Time, had been well acquainted with the structure, form, and signifiers of the ‘real’ news style. He well realized that the events portrayed in the news don’t just happen by themselves but are organized and put together in a certain recognizable way. His genius lies in the utilization of this ‘real’ style to give not just a higher sense of reality to the fictious character Kane, but also are an expository device used to guide the audience through the territory of the complex flashback narrative just as the news functions as a map to guide people through the territory of their complex lives.
Reality TV the New Age Voyeurism
Reality TV by its very nature, is the national emblem for a nation of Voyeurs. With its almost comedic pretense of representing reality it goes to show just how far our generation will go to achieve the titillating peeping tom experience of invisibly witnessing the real. Just as everyone knows that the barn yard antics of Jerry Springer are just about as real as the Easter Bunny…or Scientology, we never the less watch it and psychotically delude ourselves that this is something that really happens.
Actualities and Actuality
What is it that is actual in an actuality. We may say that the event which was captured on film, that moment in time and space is a representation of what actually happened. But actually what actually happens, happens from that one point of view but from an infinite number of point of views all at once. Thus is the nature of Actuality. The films we watched in class have rendered actuality into a limited, particular, atomized, subjective perspective. And what is so actual about that?
May 9, 2007
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm - Take One
In this film, the blurring of the lines between documentary and fiction is very apparent. Even though it is very loose in its construction, which can be related to the documentary style, it does have narrative qualities beneath the surface. The film tells the tale of the main character, a film director named William Greaves, who attempts to create a different kind of film. Whether he is successful or not is up to the viewer after the film has ended. It is also possible that the film as a whole is purely fiction, and none of what appears to be spontaneity is actually real. There are several moments in the film, most coming from the conversations with just the crew, where the viewer second guesses what they are watching, as some of the subjects within the film support the idea that they are just carrying out the director's plans. Even the actors taking part in the film within the film could be portraying themselves as horrible performers to enhance other parts of the film to make it seem more "real". The homeless man at the end, for example, could have been an actor playing that part. These are the questions that get raised anytime a filmmaker tries to mix fiction elements with documentary form. I did believe the homeless guy though, although I see the point was raised that he could have been a paid actor. I'd like to believe not. But then again, this movie didn't make enough of an impression for me to go back and ponder that. I cannot BELIEVE somebody funded this.
Posted by steve mccann
Posted by steve mccann
May 8, 2007
Actualities
I found the actualities we watched in class fascinating. Regardless of whether they were staged or real, they are cultural artifacts. They show us what people found as interesting, new, and exciting. People seem to have been amused by merely images themselves. Experiencing the surreal is what I imagine thrilled them most.
These films can be looked at in an almost Darwinian sense. They are the common bonding ancestors of all films today. All the different genres and sub-genres today derived directly or indirectly from this messy pool of media. Just a thought.
These films can be looked at in an almost Darwinian sense. They are the common bonding ancestors of all films today. All the different genres and sub-genres today derived directly or indirectly from this messy pool of media. Just a thought.
House on 92nd Street
This film is a prime example of what resulted from the McCarthy Era. Sen. McCarthy’s rants and rhetoric instilled a great deal of fear of, and duty towards stopping the threat of Communism. McCarthy sympathizers were scattered throughout the entertainment industries and it would only make sense that some of them worked on House on 92nd Street.
It still goes on today. The U.S. military whole-heartedly accepted a request from the makers of Black Hawk Down to train the actors as army soldiers. Government vehicles, weapons, and supplies all were donated to help the production of the movie since it was in the interest of the military to make themselves look as efficient as possible to help recruiting. The makers of films like these remind me of high priests in any civilization who use dogmatic standards to sway people to think, and ultimately act in a certain way.
It still goes on today. The U.S. military whole-heartedly accepted a request from the makers of Black Hawk Down to train the actors as army soldiers. Government vehicles, weapons, and supplies all were donated to help the production of the movie since it was in the interest of the military to make themselves look as efficient as possible to help recruiting. The makers of films like these remind me of high priests in any civilization who use dogmatic standards to sway people to think, and ultimately act in a certain way.
May 7, 2007
THE Will.
Neale's article sees Triumph of the Will as as a means of Nazi propoganda. Beautifully done, masterfully put together, but none the less - plain propoganda. I can't argue with that- Triumph of the Will supposedly turned thousands of Germans towards the famed dictator Adolph Hitler to follow him into one of the most brutal wars the human race has known. It was put together specifically for that task - Hitler wanted to portray power, and show people that through his vision, he could share it with them. He knew very well Riefenstahl was capable of such a vision cinematically. After reading up on this, I discovered Riefenstahl, in fact, after being propositioned to do the film, turned him down: numerous times. But Hitler was determined, and would have no one else make the film. He promised to give her whatever he needed, and a budget wasn't necessary: he wanted this to be the biggest and best production possible in the name of the Nazi government. Every single part of it was staged - the perfect lines, the salutes, the car ride, the lines and lines of followers vying to see Hitler make his entrance. Camera posts were set up at all positions, not only on the ground, but on the outside of buildings and towers alike. Leni Rifenstahl nailed it - she not only gave him a visually bedazzling piece that raised him as nothing less than a god, but bridged the gap between some fancy uniforms and onscreen power. Afterwards she was hailed as an artist - and after the wars, accused of helping Hitler to wipe out millions. Was Riefenstahl responsible? After all, it was only her artistic vice in which aided Hitler in this film. People saw what they wanted to see - yes, she was able to convince them. She HAD to - shes an artist, a director, a true filmmaker. Holding her responsible would be holding any artist who has ever created something believeable responsible. To accuse her in aiding Hitler to wipe out millions is ridiculous, accusing her that she did a really, REALLY good job in helping people believe Hitler is "the man" - yup. Such is the life of an artist.
Mr. Bill Nichols
I really enjoyed reading Nichols view on fictional characters as compared to social actors, especially within a documentary. He thinks (his opinion) that people do not relate to fictional characters as they do with social actors. Thinking back in relation to many of the documentaries we've viewed in class, I never really wanted to see a fictional character anyway - I wanted someone with truth, and a problem, that we could follow and try to help them fix (or watch them fix, if you will). Nichols recognizes this, and states that because this person is true to life and relatable, though their purpose may or may not be ballooned up to be something much bigger than it really is, as an audience, we care, and will stay involved with their feat. Therefore, we are drawn to charcters that share relatable components and relate easier.
Bill Nichols’ brings up an interesting point of documentaries. Nichols says that people seem to pay less attention to fiction characters than to social actors. At first I did not agree with him. Look at the crazes of such films as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and any Disney film. People love those characters and their story world. When watching a documentary you do tend to “prepare ourselves not to comprehend a story but to grasp an argument” (Nichols 5). The social actors are real so their status in the film is not only acting as a symbol for the greater society, but showcases an example from the story they are trying to highlight. Because the person is actual, no matter how the story is formed by the director, we care. Nichols brings up the point that because the character experiences similar “sounds and images…a distinct bond to the world we all share” (Nichols 5). So, though the documentary may be trying to expose a truth, the most important part that draws the viewer into the story is the fact that the story is true and all components are found in our own life. The more one can relate, the closer to the story one can feel.
Bill Nichols’ brings up an interesting point of documentaries. Nichols says that people seem to pay less attention to fiction characters than to social actors. At first I did not agree with him. Look at the crazes of such films as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and any Disney film. People love those characters and their story world. When watching a documentary you do tend to “prepare ourselves not to comprehend a story but to grasp an argument” (Nichols 5). The social actors are real so their status in the film is not only acting as a symbol for the greater society, but showcases an example from the story they are trying to highlight. Because the person is actual, no matter how the story is formed by the director, we care. Nichols brings up the point that because the character experiences similar “sounds and images…a distinct bond to the world we all share” (Nichols 5). So, though the documentary may be trying to expose a truth, the most important part that draws the viewer into the story is the fact that the story is true and all components are found in our own life. The more one can relate, the closer to the story one can feel.
Drama Doc. The Lowdown.
John Corner said "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." (pg. 32) Usage of documentary elements in drama documentaries and fiction films are often used to engage the viewer and help an audience to relate to and understand a film. Many times, the footage used from any kind of documentary is more for a flashback through time and era - often political movies and film do this. It's never necessarily attractive, but highlights the necessary education elements. This often helps an audience to be taken back in to place in time, which better promotes the overall feeling of the film itself. In the end it is the creativity and path of the filmmaker that will be ultimate factor when it comes to the final composition. I think such cues allow greater control in the style of the film, as well as give a film (documentary or not) a more personal vice.
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.
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.
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm - Oh. Geez.
William Greaves attempted to create a "new" kind of film. "New". Whatever that means. This is never going to be one of those films I go back and watch again because I feel I've "missed something". In fact, the entire hour and a half of it I had NO idea what I was watching. I saw people acting, people trying act, people acting trying to act like they weren't acting (?), a director that had no idea what the heck he was doing, no drive, and a crew that was just as clueless as me (that part, I liked. Their conversations were the one breath of fresh air that "film" had). After reading some of the other blogs related to this, I saw that many people saw it as one of those films that makes you guess it it's legit or not, whether the actors were in fact acting horribly on purpose or because they were just plain bad,
Fake or Not to Fake? - Pseudodocumentary (Chap. 3)
I've always liked the word "psuedo". Never really knew what it meant, always assumed it was similar to a version of something. Thus. Psuedo-documentary. = "like" a documentary. Then there's the fact that there are loads of definitions for drama documentaries. Genre conventions have no weight, other than camera movement and technique. It's interesting to hear it described in this way. Honestly, before coming to this class, I had no idea how blurry the lines were between a documentary and a non-documentary in general (aside from camera shots, etc). But then comes the different segments of a documentary, which blurrs lines even more. Chapter 3 brought me t oa conclusion that documentary is something that will forever keep changing to meet the needs of not only the director but the audience, and classification of a documentary film is more or less based on opinion than book savvy fact.
House on 92nd St. Propoganda?
Do we really think that house on 92nd St was indeed propoganda? That wasn't quite the first thing that came to mind while watching it - I loved what the movie was - a war noir that got your heart rate going. Extremely entertaining, and believeable. But why must we jump to the face that it was meant to be propoganda? Why can't it just be what it IS: entertainment for an audience that was in the middle of a war? I suppose you could look deeply into it, examine it's makeup and probably come to the conclusion that the government is indeed trying to relay its deep dark secrets. I definitly saw the message that the FBI is meant to be feared and that they mean business. It closed in the idea that no one can ever get away with anything under the clear and precise watch of the ever so sneaky FBI - I can see how this made people feel safe, probably at a time when their government wasn't telling them much to begin with. The stereotypical masculine woman came to be very interesting to me - I never really thought anything of it until after the movie.
Guffman was worth the wait
Waithing for Guffman was fantastic, and I couldn't have picked a better film to have been shown to emphasize documentary in the modern day comedy. I love Christopher Guest's in depth portrayl of his characters, and how each of them fed off of the town and one and other. I felt like I was watching a circus the entire time - some of it was just so ridiculous, but, in fact, did remind me of everyday people in everyday situations. Who doesn't want to get out of their small town and make something of theirselves? Recapture their youth? Find some sort of path to take before you end up working drive through of a fast food place the rest of your life? In the quest to figure out who they were and where they wanted to go, watching the caust of Waiting for Guffman literally made my day and left me wondering how I had never come across this film until this class.
Hiroshima, Mon Amour
Easy to watch? Eh, sometimes. It's catchy, and was way ahead of it's time. Easy to understand? No - no, not really, you have to work with it and follow it through. BUT, once you to follow where it's going, Hiroshima, Mon Amour, a really beautiful peice of poetry transferred to the big screen. Renais was truely talented, and had an incredible understanding of human emotion and reaction. It would have been difficult for any director to portray such a complex story in a way that an audience could view and understand, but Renais was able to take the story and make not only a film, but a peice of art. The film was almost like picture poetry - I don't think I'd ever seen anything like it, apart from more art oriented films full of music and singing about your emotions as to make them perfectly clear (Moulin Rouge, Chicago, etc)
I think the thing I enjoyed most about this film was its connections - to each action there was a reaction, to every reaction a reason. Not only was it a love story between Lui and Elle, but a relationship between Nevers and Hiroshima. Both stories seemed to run parrallel to one and other. Nevers basqued in sun the day Hiroshima was bombed - years later, as Hiroshima heals, Nevers is left guilty and can't seem to move on from the tradgedy. As she tried to make peace with Hiroshima, she finds it isn't, in fact, Hiroshima that she needs forgiveness from - it's herself.
Resnais took a documentary appeal mixed with a VERY modern approach to filmmaking in Hiroshima, Mon Amour, and it worked beautifully.
I think the thing I enjoyed most about this film was its connections - to each action there was a reaction, to every reaction a reason. Not only was it a love story between Lui and Elle, but a relationship between Nevers and Hiroshima. Both stories seemed to run parrallel to one and other. Nevers basqued in sun the day Hiroshima was bombed - years later, as Hiroshima heals, Nevers is left guilty and can't seem to move on from the tradgedy. As she tried to make peace with Hiroshima, she finds it isn't, in fact, Hiroshima that she needs forgiveness from - it's herself.
Resnais took a documentary appeal mixed with a VERY modern approach to filmmaking in Hiroshima, Mon Amour, and it worked beautifully.
Goodnight & Goodluck - Kudos, Clooney
I never had much interest in seeing this movie while in theaters. Nothing against it right off the bat, just wasn't my cup of tea. I'm really glad I didn't, because I don't think I would have had the opportunity to enjoy it the way I did. I really liked looking at Good Night and Good Luck from the angle we were able to - as a makeshift documentary. Clooney did fantastic - from the props to the archival footage, I think it all came together really well and looked great. I hate it when people think you can make a movie in black and white and all of a sudden it will we a 1950's noir looking classic - it's so much more than that. The movie itself did well with connection human traits to the media boom and the growing world around them, and did a really, really great job of using documentary style shooting to bring a legitimate piece of time and a really memorable story to the big screen in a fashion that modern day audiences could enjoy.
Realism as a Style in Cinema Verite: Technology and Primar
The role of technology in Primary is integral to the execution of the ideals of Drew, and cinema verite (a label he did not choose, or enjoy). Drew wanted to “be there when the news happens”, was “determined to be as unobtrusive as possible”, and was “determined not to distort the situation”. In order for Drew to act as near as possible to a fly on the wall, the technology had to evolve to allow cameras and sound recorders to fit into the space of a car, to record audio, to edit on the road. Drew helped to engineering equipment that was capable of doing this, and set out on the road in Primary. At one point Leacock and Drew drop midgetape records into ashtrays around Kennedy’s hotel room and Leacock sat down and casually held the camera in his lap an filmed Kennedy claiming, “I’m quiet sure he hadn’t the foggiest notion I was shooting” and this, apparently, moments like this make Leacock and Drew believe they are accomplishing their goal, biut how can they, or anyone know what was really happening. Perhaps Kennedy decided to assume that the cameras are always recording and to act accordingly at all times.
Despite technology, despite the tiny microphones and smaller cameras, it’s still impossible for the crew to disappear, that their choices of framing a shot, editing a shot, and the very presence of the camera impacts behavior or the subject and therefore can never truly capture “reality” as it unfolds. This is why, according to many theorists in Hall’s article – Drew Associates and other practitioners of cinema varite come off as naïve and foolish, caught between arguments that “the truth no longer lies in seeming to give a good performance but in seizing the individual unawares[. . .].” (Marcorelles, 1963) and “given that no film can ever break down completely the barrier between the real world and the screen world, cinema verite knowingly reaches for unattainable goals” (Mamber, 1974) and “this claim to a new privileged grasp of reality appears in retrospect to have been somewhat naïve” (Waugh, 1975). Essentially, the mood shifted from the belief in the possibility of filming something unmitigated to the realization that it is impossible to do so. Introducing the idea of reflexivity – the act of the filmmaker visibly and intentionally injecting themselves, their presence, and the camera into the frame in an obvious manner was an attempt at again trying to capture this notion of “reality” and an “honest” documentary – but if we take Michael Moore, for example, I can’t make any claims that his documentaries are any more honest and real than those that are not reflexive.
I think the closest comparison I can think of for reaching some of the goals that the critics and theorists in Hall’s essay articulate again involves technology. Reaching actual unmitigated actuality footage seems more possible in the realm of surveillance video, not so much that in the realm of House on 92nd street, but more the footage that would come from a security camera, a camera in a store, on a traffic light, in center city, on temple campus. Here, the camera is in place, constantly surveying the action around it, without the touch of the hand to select what is important – there is no music, no narrator, no editing. Whatever happens, happens. Of course, the verite aspect can be breached again if the subjects are aware the they are on surveillance cameras, in fact, this is some of the point of surveillance. Though, perhaps we are so used to surveillance that 1)our behavior is constantly monitored such that it produces a new normative behavior or 2) we don’t care any more and behave as we would without the presence of the camera. This type of footage, gathered as far from human intervention as possible, may approach the goals of verite.
Another aspect of technology that may alter the possibilities, and realities of verite is videoblogging in the style of personal narratives. Access to a camera, editing equipment, and a means of distribution (internet) is fairly common and in these circumstances, the subject can tape themselves, edit themselves, appear reflexively as well as subjectively in the video. One could, at any moment, click on video that is a self-made interpretation of reality – there is often little explanation, no voice-over narrator, no context, and little knowledge about how why or where the video was made. It could easily be a subjects deliberately “constructed” representation of reality – but even that process is, in and of itself, an unmigited true reality. It’s not a perfect theory, but neither are the theories in Hall’s article – they are all attempts at solving the riddle of reality and representation but after reading her essay and all the contrasting arguments, I found myself wondering if it “really” matters.
Despite technology, despite the tiny microphones and smaller cameras, it’s still impossible for the crew to disappear, that their choices of framing a shot, editing a shot, and the very presence of the camera impacts behavior or the subject and therefore can never truly capture “reality” as it unfolds. This is why, according to many theorists in Hall’s article – Drew Associates and other practitioners of cinema varite come off as naïve and foolish, caught between arguments that “the truth no longer lies in seeming to give a good performance but in seizing the individual unawares[. . .].” (Marcorelles, 1963) and “given that no film can ever break down completely the barrier between the real world and the screen world, cinema verite knowingly reaches for unattainable goals” (Mamber, 1974) and “this claim to a new privileged grasp of reality appears in retrospect to have been somewhat naïve” (Waugh, 1975). Essentially, the mood shifted from the belief in the possibility of filming something unmitigated to the realization that it is impossible to do so. Introducing the idea of reflexivity – the act of the filmmaker visibly and intentionally injecting themselves, their presence, and the camera into the frame in an obvious manner was an attempt at again trying to capture this notion of “reality” and an “honest” documentary – but if we take Michael Moore, for example, I can’t make any claims that his documentaries are any more honest and real than those that are not reflexive.
I think the closest comparison I can think of for reaching some of the goals that the critics and theorists in Hall’s essay articulate again involves technology. Reaching actual unmitigated actuality footage seems more possible in the realm of surveillance video, not so much that in the realm of House on 92nd street, but more the footage that would come from a security camera, a camera in a store, on a traffic light, in center city, on temple campus. Here, the camera is in place, constantly surveying the action around it, without the touch of the hand to select what is important – there is no music, no narrator, no editing. Whatever happens, happens. Of course, the verite aspect can be breached again if the subjects are aware the they are on surveillance cameras, in fact, this is some of the point of surveillance. Though, perhaps we are so used to surveillance that 1)our behavior is constantly monitored such that it produces a new normative behavior or 2) we don’t care any more and behave as we would without the presence of the camera. This type of footage, gathered as far from human intervention as possible, may approach the goals of verite.
Another aspect of technology that may alter the possibilities, and realities of verite is videoblogging in the style of personal narratives. Access to a camera, editing equipment, and a means of distribution (internet) is fairly common and in these circumstances, the subject can tape themselves, edit themselves, appear reflexively as well as subjectively in the video. One could, at any moment, click on video that is a self-made interpretation of reality – there is often little explanation, no voice-over narrator, no context, and little knowledge about how why or where the video was made. It could easily be a subjects deliberately “constructed” representation of reality – but even that process is, in and of itself, an unmigited true reality. It’s not a perfect theory, but neither are the theories in Hall’s article – they are all attempts at solving the riddle of reality and representation but after reading her essay and all the contrasting arguments, I found myself wondering if it “really” matters.
Real Emotional Logic: House on 92nd street
Lipkin argues that docu-dramas, in order to work, rely on an almost unspoken agreement between the film maker and the audience – a suspension of disbelieve whereby the audience accepts at the very premise of the film, and at face value, that the blending of these two genres is in fact the best, if not the only way that the subject matter can be presented. This is particularly evident in TCF post World War II docudramas; House on 92nd street comes to mind. At the beginning of the film, the cast credits are the first thing the viewer sees, printed on FBI logo paperstock with “Federal Bureau of Investigations” official cover sheet and the words “Twentieth Century Fox Presents” imposed over it (as part of the titling of the film). From the very outset, the viewer is situated somewhere between the two planes of documentary (the FBI paperstock) and a dramatization (the Twentieth Century Fox logo). Inside this FBI file are the cast,credits, and a message to the viewer that the story is adapted from espionge cases from the files of the FBI, and was made with their complete co-operation. The text says “It[the film] could not be made public until the fist atomic bomb was dropped on Japan.” Right away we see the justification that Lipkin predicts. Lipkin says “re-creation and fictionalization are warranted – justified – to the extent that the resulting docudrama indicates its connections to actuality”. Lipkin goes on to discuss that Zanuck, the studio head at TCF, was among the first studio heads to take his crews on location and this information, is in fact, next to appear in our FBI file of movie credits and info. We learn that the picture was filmed on location when possible in the “actual place the original incident occurred”. Upon close inspection of the film and the information we have been give so far, we learn that this story (fiction, mind you) was based on a series of various cases from FBI files – yet here we are told that there is an original incident, singular, that is about to be illustrated. Already we have made a subtle suspension of disbelief, and we are only one and a half minutes into the film. Just in case we are still skeptical, however, the next information we are given is that all F.B.I personnel in the picture are actual members of the FBI. If we weren’t ready to make that leap of faith moments ago, we likely are now.
Lipkin states that many of these docu-dramas were categorized as film noir, but also as social problem films. TCF, due to it’s frequency of the production of these films were making a “strategic effort to exploit actuality” because, Lipkin argues, the market demanded it. These films did extremely well at the box office, were widely praised by critics, and really seemed to speak directly to the needs of a post WWII America – perhaps something about the mix of fiction and reality; the conventions of fiction filmmaking that prescribe a tidy narrative and formal closure mixed with the authenticity and centering voice of moral authority, command, control, and assurance common in documentaries all solidified by deliberate studio choices - such the formal choice of casting b-list actors who were familiar but could also be anybody - was a safe and effective way for Americans to recover from some of the trauma and social issues that WWII brought to light. These TCF fox films were probably just the right timely balance of reality to make them seem relatable, relevant, and credible, mixed with a fiction that allowed the viewer to “get lost” in the film and then feel a sense of resolution and resulting security that was probably missing from their lives.
Lipkin states that many of these docu-dramas were categorized as film noir, but also as social problem films. TCF, due to it’s frequency of the production of these films were making a “strategic effort to exploit actuality” because, Lipkin argues, the market demanded it. These films did extremely well at the box office, were widely praised by critics, and really seemed to speak directly to the needs of a post WWII America – perhaps something about the mix of fiction and reality; the conventions of fiction filmmaking that prescribe a tidy narrative and formal closure mixed with the authenticity and centering voice of moral authority, command, control, and assurance common in documentaries all solidified by deliberate studio choices - such the formal choice of casting b-list actors who were familiar but could also be anybody - was a safe and effective way for Americans to recover from some of the trauma and social issues that WWII brought to light. These TCF fox films were probably just the right timely balance of reality to make them seem relatable, relevant, and credible, mixed with a fiction that allowed the viewer to “get lost” in the film and then feel a sense of resolution and resulting security that was probably missing from their lives.
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm - Take One
In this film, the blurring of the lines between documentary and fiction is very apparent. Even though it is very loose in its construction, which can be related to the documentary style, it does have narrative qualities beneath the surface. The film tells the tale of the main character, a film director named William Greaves, who attempts to create a different kind of film. Whether he is successful or not is up to the viewer after the film has ended. It is also possible that the film as a whole is purely fiction, and none of what appears to be spontaneity is actually real. There are several moments in the film, most coming from the conversations with just the crew, where the viewer second guesses what they are watching, as some of the subjects within the film support the idea that they are just carrying out the director's plans. Even the actors taking part in the film within the film could be portraying themselves as horrible performers to enhance other parts of the film to make it seem more "real". The homeless man at the end, for example, could have been an actor playing that part. These are the questions that get raised anytime a filmmaker tries to mix fiction elements with documentary form.
The House on 92nd Street
This is an interesting film to examine because it takes its form less from documentary and still has a very propaganda-like nature to it. Perhaps it could be labeled a propaganda-narrative for the sake of this criticism. The overall message of the film is that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the smartest law enforcement organization on the planet. In case the viewer had any question about this, they only need to watch the closing of the film where the shield of the FBI takes up the whole frame.
The way that the Germans are portrayed in the film is very similar to what one would expect from a propaganda film. The stereotype of the females being masculine in nature, for example, and the chance at every turn to show that the enemy cannot get away with anything under the watchful eye of the FBI; these work to make the viewer feel confident that the U.S. Government can prevail in the face of any danger, even the possibility of the Germans procuring the most dangerous weapon in the world.
The way that the Germans are portrayed in the film is very similar to what one would expect from a propaganda film. The stereotype of the females being masculine in nature, for example, and the chance at every turn to show that the enemy cannot get away with anything under the watchful eye of the FBI; these work to make the viewer feel confident that the U.S. Government can prevail in the face of any danger, even the possibility of the Germans procuring the most dangerous weapon in the world.
Gomez on Culloden
ONce again this is pretty good analysis of a watkins work. It gives the background and the post production and product feeling of the director with regards to his piece. Gomez does well at showing the difference in the honest (or sincereity) of watkins fictional work versus the dishonesty of something that is claiming to be entirely real. This is the difference between someone like watkins versus say ken burns. Not that Ken burns isn't willing to tell the truth, but Ken Burns is never going to be willing to delve into the psyche as much as watkins would. Furhtermore burns works solely in a factual form that is based on written acounts, and documented testimonies, but Burns always comes off as detached, and not really apealing to be honest. Anyone can tell a story in a monotone voice, and bore everyone in the room. Watkins' stories may not be real, but he keeps the viewer riveted, and he make them care about the situation that occurred, and the people harmed by it. Burns tried to show america the civil war, and he put most of america to sleep. Culloden raised anger, disgust, and hate in its viewers. It's a shame that he was so disappointed with the final result.
Reality TV: Poisioning America
Reality TV has become a pain here in America and it is ruining the younger generation. Reality TV claims to be real when in fact it is coherced in every way. Producers play a big part in this process. They are the ones responsible for making a reality show worth watching. How does this happen? Well situations are setup by them. They make sure there is some form of controversy that will take place to give the show an entertainment value that will keep the viewer drawn to it. Reality shows are not scripted line for line, but they are scripted in the sense that the producers are going to know exactly what is going to happen each day. So there is not much reality behind the concept if scenes are being forced to happen and just do not happen naturally. Look at Jerry Springer for example. The guests are real and the situations are real, but the producers coherce them in to acting like animas when they are on their show for the sake of being exciting and keeping the viewer drawn to the show. Tis reality tv boom has lead to a nonstop exploitation of everything. From the Amish people to babysitters everyone is getting on the reality tv boom. Youtube is a result because of this phonomenom and this is where the younger generation is getting the wrong impression. They are jumping on this bandwagon not knowing the demeaning values that it has in the end.
Gomez on watkins
Gomez does a pretty good job of going through giving the reader an idea of how this film came to be. Like most great films, this one was not intended to be made, or should I say was not some weird amazing Idea that watkins came up with all on his own. It came to watkins through a series of events, let downs, a circumstances, and then finally was made. If one watches the director interview with watkins on the dvd to punishment park, they will see and hear watkins talk about alot of the stuff mentioned in the gomez article. It's interesting that three films losing funding, and a dis heartened watkins being touched by the events that surrounded the kent state massacre, would eventually lead to what I feel is one of deepest and most profound mockumentaires ever made. Gomez does a good analysis of this film and how it came to be.
Reality Tv
Audiences are addicted to reality tv because of the allusion of truth. In chapter 7 of Faking It, reality tv is used as an example of a category 2 mockumentary. Roscoe and Hight write reality tv shows need to have a sense of ethical morality. Included in reality tv are shows like ER. CSI would fit into this as well. Look at the cultural impact of CSI. Before the show, science was not cool and there weren’t kids coming out of high school dreaming of being a crime scene investigator. Because dramatic cases occurred within a non-fiction setting of an occupation, the events seem like simulated life. But this is not the case, life is not as exciting and exotic as it appears on tv. To go more mainstream reality tv, shows like Real Life promote a certain type of reality. Producers construct a house in which drama will likely happen. Cameras are situated all over the house waiting to capture a moment that can be used in the editing room. Most events are not planned but the way they are edited take the action out of context and leave the viewer to believe other wise. Reality tv will always be an oxymoron for shows previously mentioned. Shows, for example seen on Animal Plant, are better examples of how a reality tv show should be structured. The camera is used for interesting angles but keeps out of the false construction and is addressed by the hosts. The acknowledgement from the host to the camera makes a trust bond between the host and the viewer. Anything as melodramatic as Real World is not reality, it’s just a night time parody of soap operas.
The Degree 3 Documentary
In Faking it, Roscoe and Hight break documentaries up into three levels. The first level is a simple parody that only reflects on the subject while using a documentary structure. The second level is documentaries having a subtle look upon themselves while they have constructed a parody. The most complex level is a parody on the structure itself. In the book they mention Man Bites Dog, but I think Medium Cool could fit into this category as well. As in Man Bites Dog, Medium Cool, plays with the media roles of the character. At the end, the characters die and the camera focuses on the lens of the camera, a comment about the whole structure of not just this film, but of the film community. People of all backgrounds can enjoy the category 3, but it would be the most interesting to people within the film community. The more one knows about a situation, topic, structure ect. The more one can take out of mockumentary.
Identification through realism and fiction
Fiction and truth are separate ideas but always work in some type of ratio. Without truth, fiction is unattainable, and without fiction, or a constructed narration, truth can be horribly boring and drawn out. Films that take place during a specific time use the time for a prop. The time era helps narrate a story, it does not keep the message time specific. Nichols uses American Graffiti as an example. Yes, the film does comment on the restlessness of teens during the 1950s, not much has changed within human nature today. Errol Morris does a good job at mixing truth and fiction. All his stories are true but keeps the viewers engaged by placing truth in a fiction format. Also, Nichols mentions Triumph of the Will, as an example of fiction in truth. Because the editing is used to enforce and idea and not continuity it is an example of distorted truth; fiction. We watch these films because the use of fiction brings us in and entertains us while pointing out the heart of the film.
Trust
Bill Nichols’ brings up an interesting point of documentaries. Nichols says that people seem to pay less attention to fiction characters than to social actors. At first I did not agree with him. Look at the crazes of such films as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and any Disney film. People love those characters and their story world. When watching a documentary you do tend to “prepare ourselves not to comprehend a story but to grasp an argument” (Nichols 5). The social actors are real so their status in the film is not only acting as a symbol for the greater society, but showcases an example from the story they are trying to highlight. Because the person is actual, no matter how the story is formed by the director, we care. Nichols brings up the point that because the character experiences similar “sounds and images…a distinct bond to the world we all share” (Nichols 5). So, though the documentary may be trying to expose a truth, the most important part that draws the viewer into the story is the fact that the story is true and all components are found in our own life. The more one can relate, the closer to the story one can feel.
Good Night and Good Luck
Here's a film that caught my attention early on, and I'm happy it has received the credit it deserves. The storyline alone is compelling, showing a newsmedia team battling against the societal norm in broadcasting. The acting definitely makes the piece work very well, but the mise-en-scene really transforms the audience into the era. Black and White is used effectively, and with sharp contrast. Lighting plays a critical role, both in the studio and elsewhere to accentuate subtleties and create a visually interesting set. And back to the storyline; scripts that are based on history are tricky, as they must live up to that time. Good Night and Good Luck does good on that, representing a news reporters' drive to relay the facts to the American People.
The Battle of San Pietro / December 7th
The difference between the films The Battle of San Pietro & December 7th is great, even though at their core, they are both propaganda films coming out of World War II. In San Pietro, the American involvement in the war is legitimized, and there is sympathetic imagery of the poor villagers, mainly children, who have reason to rejoice because the U.S. has come and saved the day. Although obvious, the messages of the film work on a much more subtle level than December 7th, which leaves the viewer feeling like they have been beaten with a star-spangled baseball bat. From the over-the-top narration, to the cartoon-like stereotypes of the Japanese, to the thoughts of the dead at the end, it's surprising that there was not an advertisement to buy war bonds somewhere during the credits. Both films try to stir the patriotic feelings within all Americans, and it seems that The Battle for San Pietro was probably more effective on audiences, because December 7th is just too heavy-handed, at least by today's standards.
Phony Definitions
This chapter is a little confusing at first, but makes sense when trying figure it out. The author talks about how the fake world reflects the real world. Typically when something fake it being portrayed in film, it was thought up because of something real. The book uses the example in Citizen Kane. The newsreel is what they say is the fake reflecting the real because it represents who owns the media, whos is in the news, and what it is about. Even though the character is fake, The news is handled in that same manner. What the chapter is highlighting is that fake documentaries, ven though labeled fake, have a certain reality behind their structure. They undoand then redo reality and just put a twist on it. That goes for most "real" documentaries because one can argue that the same process takes place. A direcor will always have their own spin to put on it. Fake docs also do not suggest the truth of the real documentary. That becomes noticeable through the rather obvious flawed depiction of their subjects. It will also not fall back upon the authorizing function of its form. Though it gets its label of fake, it is using the real as its foundation leaving the viewer the question the authenticity of the real documentary.
steve neale, triumph of the will
Whether or not he got paid to make this article as boring as it was, or maybe neale is just a dull guy, but either way this article could put peaople on speed to sleep. Who cares if neale does a break down of every single shot in the first few minutes of the film. That is the difference between still photography and the moving image, you can't dissect it like you could stills. One is not going to figure out why Triumph of the will is considered a great movie based on Neale exlpaining every shot. The viewer will only understand the movie, and how it was able to affect a country by watching it. Picassos work can be explained. Shakespear can be read. But neither one of these works are worth anything unless you see them in person live. Not to say that any good art should never be talked about, but the director of Triumph of the will took care of the shot by shot pre production aspect of the movie, just show me the movie.
The television genre book
This was another article that seemed very hung up on the idea of labels and making sure that everything that was made had place where it could be categorized. When one breaks it down, there could be hundreds of different ways to categorize films, and to get stuck on these sepereate ideas of what constitutes what can be called apseudo documentary vs. a portrayal or mockumentary, it's all just ways for people to try to sound smart. The "drama documentary" the day after could be considered just that. But it also could simply be considered a drama. Or better yet, a made for tv drama. Or someone might just call it a movie, or amade for tv movie. Yes, it takes real ideas, and places characters in scenarios that could actually happen, but it is also a fictional film that has no relvance to anything that has happened, nor is it trying to appear that way. So pretty much anything that any viewer wanted to call it would work. The day after seemed most like an action movie to me, if anything.
Bill Nicoles: Modes of Representation
Bill Nicoles really gives a detailed explanation on the history of documentary film. The four different modes that he covers was the expository, observational, interactive, and reflexive. He explained that expository was the first of the modes. I had a demeaning quality behind it because it basically had a way of telling the viewer what to think. This lead to the observational documentary. Since synchronous recording equipment was more readily available and there was a dissatifaction with the moralizing commentary of the expository documentary, filmmakers thought this would be a new wave in documentary filmmaking. Observational documentary limited the filmmaker to the movement, required deetachment from the event themselves, but also relied on the filmmaker to be unobtrusive. That is where this mode, how perfect it may seem, stills falls short of being demeaning. Though there is no voice over, the editing is what is relied upon to enhance and manipulate the impression of lived or real time. Though it is what started the Cinema Verite movement, it became just another mode of documentary failing to ignite the movement it was once anticipated to. The interactive mode is what had come next and involved using an interviewer to talk with the subjects and then of the the reflexive mode which was the last of the modes Bill Noicoles describes.
Jonathan Rosenbaum
It seems like This guy was just getting a little too defensive, and wanted to make sure that some of his favorite movies got taken seriously. Somethings are dubbed somethingbecause that's the easiest way to describe them. Whether one wants to call it a pseudo documentary, a re enactment, or an emulation or imitation of something that once occured, it is going to called a mockumnetary (especially by people outside of the extremely intelligent film theory circle). Rosenbaum was primarily criticising scholars for using the term, but they have every right. Part of the reason that mockumentary stuck is because some of the most successful fake documentaries were these funny films that were dubbed mockumnetaries. Punishment park is by no means a funny movie, if anything it is more of hypothetical re enactment of what happens who countires turn into fascist states. BUt that is a long winded description, and the truth of the matter is someone could just as easily say its a dark mockumentary. Unfortunately this a debate that has the natuarl progression of a circle, but Rosenbaum (not yet at least) to be quoting wikipedia in a scholarly paper/article
Hail Primary
Jeanne Lynn Hall's, “Realism as a Style in Cinema Verite: A Critical Analysis of Primary" was a waste of time. Perhaps if I was entirely unfamilar with the way that films were made, this article would have been useful to me, but after more thanf our years of film school, it was mainly just a waste of time. I understand that she was trying to break down the film in what was almost a shot by shot analysis of the events that occurred, but why? Was article for people who were not film majors? Even though primary itself was a ground breaking film and something that many had not seen, the craft of making films was around for almost seventy years when primary first came out. People in the movie business understood what was involved with making Primary, and all the techniques that Drew was using to subtley get his message across. Plus, if the article is not for people in the business and directly involved in film, then who was Hall trying to reach. It just seems that if one is writing an article for a group of people that study film, or dissect films, or converse about films on an intellectual level, she should do more than simply break down techniques to make two things look like they are related.
Leacock uncontrolled cinema
Leacock is truly a ground breaking guy. Pennebaker and Drew did a lot for film, a direct cinema in particular, but Leacock really had his mind straight when it came to what makes good film making. He took some new approaches to the craft of film making, and also was willing to accept that part of what he was doing was journalism, and thus he always had that in mind when making his documentaries. What always strikes me as interesting, is that you can Leacock's school of though which is get out of the way and let the action happen. Or you can have someone like jean rouche who not only will direcet the action in his "documentaries" but he will also have his subjects do multiple takes of real life playikng out before the camera. Personally I like leacock pictures more than Jean rouche films, but both Directors approaches are so different, and the things that Leacock complains about in the uncontrolled cinema article have a lot to do with how well he can make a piece, because in Leacock's eyes being a fly on the wall is the only way to truly tell what happenes. Jean Rouche is so involved anways in creating reality that he robably didn't have as many problems with the old style of shooting sync sound as Leacock did.
No Lies
After viewing Mitchell Block’s No Lies, one cannot help but think of the ethics involved in documentary filmmaking. Block himself must have had a fairly good understanding of these ethics because he did something to his film that took it from a film that was an invasion of the poor girl’s privacy to something less unscrupulous. He added credits to let the viewer know that the film was fiction. In doing this, the viewer can feel a little jilted if they had sympathy for the rape victim in the story, but they end up feeling relieved that it didn’t really happen to her. What would have been the reaction if there was no writing or directing credit at the end, and it was presented as a true documentary? It seems that the film may have gained more attention, because the controversy involved would have certainly opened more eyes. After that, Block would have to come clean, then be burned at the stake. His credibility as a filmmaker would be lost and he would probably have a hard time finding a job. Perhaps he knew all of this ahead of time and decided to head it off at the pass and just put those credits in the end. It ends up being a subtle shock, but not the public outrage it could have been.
Documentary Style in Citizen Kane
After the opening scene in which Charles Foster Kane utters his final word and passes away, the film transitions to the “News on the March” newsreel. The choice to incorporate the documentary style into Citizen Kane was most likely because Welles felt it was the best way to create the illusion that this man was real. Handheld shots were utilized and supposedly some of the negatives were run across the editing room floor to add scratches and dust to make it appear like it has been projected so many times. Combined with the “voice of god” narration, this segment of the film attempts to show the viewer the true story of the character’s successes and failures in life. It also sets up an objective view of who Kane was, and these facts will either be supported or contradicted as the film goes on and the reporter interviews those close to Kane.
When Orson Welles conceptualized the “News on the March” segment, he was just continuing what he started with his War of the Worlds radio broadcast, which was trying to convince the audience into believing something is real, making the film more enjoyable.
Drama/Documentary
Exploring the differences and similarities of documentaries that utilize dramatized parts (reenactments, primarily) versus dramas that utilize documentary-style research/footage, the author suggests that there is a need to distinguish them from one another for audience understanding and clarity. The audience needs to know if what they are watching is "real" or "fake" and can have reactions other than what the filmaker intended if they are not give this information upfront (No Lies).
Movies are powerful, and can have the power to re-energize or even re-write popular versions of history (as Linda Williams writes in “Mirrors Without Memories”). If that is true (and I do agree with her) then the question of historical authenticity or of disclosure from the filmmakers becomes quite interesting.
Responsibility and accountability in filmmaking (and in any art in general, really) are constant yet shifting issues. As a maker of art, should you contextualize your work for your audience? (maybe…) As a consumer/critic of art, should you consider its production and historical accuracy? (probably…) I think that the responsibility for making connections beyond the work out into the rest of the world (art world, film world, or whole world) is up to the viewer/consumer, and not the artist. As a maker of media, you should be aware of your context, histories and genres and try to anticipate and understand the implications of your work. What you choose to do about these things is clearly a more personal, singular decision, but reflexive awareness adds clarity, and the ability to discuss and define those choices can only aid in your own understanding of your work.
Having said that, I think that the audience also has a responsibility to be active, and more active than we are typically are asked to be in our consumption of films, art etc., If we are accountable to ourselves and to each other, and discuss the film/art, there is the possibility of understanding something broader or more applicable, its ramifications in our lives, or seeing something in a new way. Through dialogue, any authenticity, history, or lack thereof can be challenged, allowing another story/reality to emerge.
Movies are powerful, and can have the power to re-energize or even re-write popular versions of history (as Linda Williams writes in “Mirrors Without Memories”). If that is true (and I do agree with her) then the question of historical authenticity or of disclosure from the filmmakers becomes quite interesting.
Responsibility and accountability in filmmaking (and in any art in general, really) are constant yet shifting issues. As a maker of art, should you contextualize your work for your audience? (maybe…) As a consumer/critic of art, should you consider its production and historical accuracy? (probably…) I think that the responsibility for making connections beyond the work out into the rest of the world (art world, film world, or whole world) is up to the viewer/consumer, and not the artist. As a maker of media, you should be aware of your context, histories and genres and try to anticipate and understand the implications of your work. What you choose to do about these things is clearly a more personal, singular decision, but reflexive awareness adds clarity, and the ability to discuss and define those choices can only aid in your own understanding of your work.
Having said that, I think that the audience also has a responsibility to be active, and more active than we are typically are asked to be in our consumption of films, art etc., If we are accountable to ourselves and to each other, and discuss the film/art, there is the possibility of understanding something broader or more applicable, its ramifications in our lives, or seeing something in a new way. Through dialogue, any authenticity, history, or lack thereof can be challenged, allowing another story/reality to emerge.
Stiry/Discourse
Story/Discourse
A Note On Two Kinds Of Voyeurism
The author describes a balance of physical absence and presence in the cinema: when the actors are acting, the audience is not there, and when the audience is watching, the actors are gone, leaving their performances captured on film. They position this relationship as typical of cinema, and parallel it with the historical rise in the importance of the private individual vs. the community, by suggesting that the spectator doesn’t need to be seen while watching nor does the person being watched need to see the “see-er”. Both understand their specific roles, though there is not an activity that is shared between them, and a dialogue or interaction is impossible.
I think that this distancing of the subject (active, watcher) from the object (passive, actor) in this equation facilitates some of the “magic” of movies. It, along with the specific characteristics of film as a medium, allows the construction of a more “believable” world, a faraway fantasy world, where the viewer can see the actor and watch their every (calculated, edited, scripted) move with no real physical consequence, though they still engage emotionally with the story. Different from plays or live musical performances, movies can allow for a closer-than-normal/hyper real understanding of a situation or story, by specifying a frame for the viewer. Using cinematography, musical scores, sound editing, and special effects, movies have a one-way communication out of the screen and into the eyes/ears of the audience. The actors never hear the clapping at the end of the screening (which I always think is an odd thing to witness and points to a sort of collective audience experience) – and yet they never fail to be motivated to perform.
A Note On Two Kinds Of Voyeurism
The author describes a balance of physical absence and presence in the cinema: when the actors are acting, the audience is not there, and when the audience is watching, the actors are gone, leaving their performances captured on film. They position this relationship as typical of cinema, and parallel it with the historical rise in the importance of the private individual vs. the community, by suggesting that the spectator doesn’t need to be seen while watching nor does the person being watched need to see the “see-er”. Both understand their specific roles, though there is not an activity that is shared between them, and a dialogue or interaction is impossible.
I think that this distancing of the subject (active, watcher) from the object (passive, actor) in this equation facilitates some of the “magic” of movies. It, along with the specific characteristics of film as a medium, allows the construction of a more “believable” world, a faraway fantasy world, where the viewer can see the actor and watch their every (calculated, edited, scripted) move with no real physical consequence, though they still engage emotionally with the story. Different from plays or live musical performances, movies can allow for a closer-than-normal/hyper real understanding of a situation or story, by specifying a frame for the viewer. Using cinematography, musical scores, sound editing, and special effects, movies have a one-way communication out of the screen and into the eyes/ears of the audience. The actors never hear the clapping at the end of the screening (which I always think is an odd thing to witness and points to a sort of collective audience experience) – and yet they never fail to be motivated to perform.
Documentary Contradictions
In Paul Arthur’s “Jargons of Authenticity (Three American Moments”, he quotes Brian Winston who says, about documentary film, that “ ‘the need for structure implicitly contradicts the notion of unstructured reality’ and documentary movements are sustained by ‘ignoring this contradiction’”.
Don’t we ignore this contradiction in all movies? Do we want the same things from documentaries as we want from fictional films: sympathetic characters, compelling crisis, understandable and complete resolution? Because documentaries are based in “reality”, we expect a portrayal that is unencumbered by cinematic/narrative structures. The impossibility of this all-seeing camera or unbiased portrayal is suggested by Winston, and has easy proofs. It seems we crave, or are trained, or almost expect fictional devices anyway – we will put the pieces together and construct a narrative whether we are given one or not.
Popular, contemporary documentaries like Spellbound or Rock School show “real people” in “real” but somewhat extraordinary situations…things that are not so far-fetched that we can’t relate to them, but are still out of most peoples’ reach: champion child spellers, kids playing Black Sabbath on the guitar in the context of “school”. They use the same cinematic tricks as mainstream Hollywood films to engage the audience, build our trust and empathy for the characters, introduce a crisis (which gets us rooting for the good guys) and then resolving it, in a tidy package of 90 minutes.
Everyone knows that “real life” doesn’t work that way, so why do we expect that documentaries (or for that matter, reality television) can capture “real life”? The timeframe and format of non-experimental mainstream film cannot accommodate the complexities, the boredom, and the qualities of time/events passing that our daily lives contain.
The value of a documentary is that it can be a glimpse, a window into a larger world that the viewer doesn’t have access to. It can be an affirmation of concerns, fears, the hopes of its audience. But it can’t be a portrayal of an unmediated or “pure” reality, even if that is what we want…
Don’t we ignore this contradiction in all movies? Do we want the same things from documentaries as we want from fictional films: sympathetic characters, compelling crisis, understandable and complete resolution? Because documentaries are based in “reality”, we expect a portrayal that is unencumbered by cinematic/narrative structures. The impossibility of this all-seeing camera or unbiased portrayal is suggested by Winston, and has easy proofs. It seems we crave, or are trained, or almost expect fictional devices anyway – we will put the pieces together and construct a narrative whether we are given one or not.
Popular, contemporary documentaries like Spellbound or Rock School show “real people” in “real” but somewhat extraordinary situations…things that are not so far-fetched that we can’t relate to them, but are still out of most peoples’ reach: champion child spellers, kids playing Black Sabbath on the guitar in the context of “school”. They use the same cinematic tricks as mainstream Hollywood films to engage the audience, build our trust and empathy for the characters, introduce a crisis (which gets us rooting for the good guys) and then resolving it, in a tidy package of 90 minutes.
Everyone knows that “real life” doesn’t work that way, so why do we expect that documentaries (or for that matter, reality television) can capture “real life”? The timeframe and format of non-experimental mainstream film cannot accommodate the complexities, the boredom, and the qualities of time/events passing that our daily lives contain.
The value of a documentary is that it can be a glimpse, a window into a larger world that the viewer doesn’t have access to. It can be an affirmation of concerns, fears, the hopes of its audience. But it can’t be a portrayal of an unmediated or “pure” reality, even if that is what we want…
eyes on the prize
It's almost embarassing that I've never come across this series before in my education, or life in general. It's obviously an incredible project to achieve in general - in scope, scale, and execution. It turns out that a friend of mine had the series checked out from the Temple library, she was watching it for the sake of watching it, and had been making her way through the whole series. She handed it off to me and said, "Here, this is amazing and emotinally devistating - I've been crying my way through a dvd every night." Her reaction to the series definitely set my expectations on a particular slant, and I found I had to work very hard to look at the work in several ways. First, I had to watch simply as a human, and let the horrific history of our country methodically reveal itself, and just sit with it. I found within that I was watching the film as a white person, who obviously grew up in a de-segregated society that is technically post civil-rights, and while the history, subject matter, and some of the footage is certainly a part of my education, history, and "image bank" it's emotionally and intellectually compelling to watch so thorough and extensive a document and to put it in a context today of race relations in the US, in this city, in this part of the city, in this school, and at this time, is very powerful. It was inspiring to see a work that focused on the agency and effort of people involved in the civil rights movement that are not famous and who lived their lives, or moments of their lives, with such necessity and conviction. That said, I had a hard time focusing on the parts of me that are supposed to be in film class, and analyzing this as a part of a documentary fictions class. What are the fictions, are there any? Does this film breach the actual with the fiction? Are there moments when it approaches propaganda? Are there emotionally manipulative devices at work in the music, narration? Does it matter? It's almost too close to home to look objectively, and it's one of few instances in this class where I didn't have a negative association with any of the devices at work.
the house on 92nd street
I too read this film as a propaganda film - it promotes both gender-appropriate behavior (and morals) and a pro-America mentality. The things that really tipped the film into propaganda for me were the music and the scripting/narrator. I've found in a few films this semester (Primary comes to mind as one) that the music - what kind and when - is very influential. The opening scene of House on 92nd street uses an instrumental version of "My Country tis of Thee" as the camera moves from a long shot of the White House to closing in on the FBI building which unmistakably is meant to stir a patriotic sentiment. The narrator is Reed Hadley, who at the time had a very recognizable voice and narrated government training films, etc. His voice was recognizable as informed and authoritive and in house on 92nd that voice is definitely all-knowing, all-seeing, and leaves little room anywhere for interpretation, or misinterpretation, of the images we are seeing. The film promotes an ethice sameness/whiteness - as we tour the FBI building there is no discernable ethnic or racial variety among any of the employees, whereas the enemy, the Germans and those Americans who help them have qualities, such as an accent, a swagger, a style of dress, the puts them outside of the white anglo-saxon protestant mold we see at the FBI. The women at the FBI, and by extension in American, are relegated to secretarial roles, where they catalog and manage volumes of information exclusively generated by the male FBI employees. The women have no agency or imperative in the information, no personal relationship to it - and while managing and cataloging this information is an important and necessary role, it doesn't have to, in it's nature, be done by women alone - and there is no reason why these women could not also be scientists or investigators, and no reason why men could not work filing and managing the data - no reason, or course, besides sexism. I kept thinking about "Rosie the Riveter" during these scenes of women working at the FBI - about the fact that during world war II the government pushed for women to leave their roles of working in the home and recruited them to work in factories and in other roles normaly occupied by men (thus the "we can do it" Rosie the Riveter campaign) and alot of women enjoyed this opportunity to work outside of the home, have their own income, and to build a new skill set. When the war was over, however, the government urged women to leave these jobs and return to being housewives or secretaries or other jobs that were considered "women's work". I wonder if any of this was in the atmosphere during the making of this film.
The Nichols Reading
Although the style of writing is less conversational than others, Nichols' insight into the world of documentary is very interesting. Prior to this class (and this reading in particular), I wasn't aware of the nomenclature and sub-classes that exist within the field, much less what separates each category.
I really appreciated his explanation of "reflexivity" as a way to understand documentaries.
That said, I feel that the language was an unnecessary barrier when trying to explain an already complex genre. Some of the words even seemed made-up (talismanic).
Regardless, it provided new terms to help dissect what we've seen in class, and distinguish the real from the fake. Even if his vocabulary falls in the gray.
I really appreciated his explanation of "reflexivity" as a way to understand documentaries.
That said, I feel that the language was an unnecessary barrier when trying to explain an already complex genre. Some of the words even seemed made-up (talismanic).
Regardless, it provided new terms to help dissect what we've seen in class, and distinguish the real from the fake. Even if his vocabulary falls in the gray.
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm
This film is reflexive in every tense of the term. Not only is it a film about making a film and all the pitfalls associated, but it is also a study in viewer's understanding.
As the story - or the lack of which - unfolded, I found myself increasing attached to these characters. It was as if, despite the fact that the scene took place in the 60's, that they were talking about any of my film classes and projects. By keeping things very open and non-specific, the film crew of Symbiopsychotaxiplasm were addressing life as a whole.
As the story - or the lack of which - unfolded, I found myself increasing attached to these characters. It was as if, despite the fact that the scene took place in the 60's, that they were talking about any of my film classes and projects. By keeping things very open and non-specific, the film crew of Symbiopsychotaxiplasm were addressing life as a whole.
Primary
I watched Primary several times outside of class, and each time I found myself asking if I really thought the film was balanced, were the editing choices meant to sway the view one way or the other? It seems clear throughout the film that Kennedy is much more comfortable in front of the camera and more photogenic and even charismatic than Humphrey. I wonder if this fact alone might sway both a cameraperson and an editor to edit in your favor whether they realize it or not? With minimal narration, the natural trajectory of the narrative is told almost exclusively through visuals. It was Drew's intention to produce a balanced and fair picture of the primary and upon first watch I didn't think he accomplished this. It seemed that Kennedy continually came out looking better and Humphrey looked rather boring, to such a degree I wondered if the film hadn't been made to do so. Then, after repeated viewings, my opinion started to sway. I think it's actually the overall passage of time that changed the perspective with which the footage is viewed. Looking at Primary now seems more like viewing for the sake of investigating the life of a person who everyone thought/hoped would change the world and as he was, he was murdered for it. I found myself almost impulsively drawn to examine Kennedy more closely, to see footage of this legend that I hadn't seen before really distracted me from a more careful read of the film. After roughly estimating screen time, it seems rather equal and the moments where Humphrey is almost aggressively seeking people to talk to, where his own travelmates are dozing while he's talking, and where there are not many people at his appearances - well, it's clear that he owns those moments, undeniably. The camera is just recording what happened. The effect though, is that in the end I am surprised the race was not a complete and total landslide in Kennedy's favor. It's worth noting, though, that Drew went on to make more films about the Kennedys and while there wouldnt be much of a film to make about HUmphrey, it's just interesting to me that Drew continued to have a relationship with the Kennedy's.
Waiting For Guffman
Waiting for Guffman is interesting because Guest created a sense of reality while smudging the truth enough to cause soe giggles. It wasn't a doc. fiction in the classic sense since it's aim was to capture real desires versus actual events---or events that could even bbe actual. Behind all the laughs, were effective devices like one-on-one interviews, interestig use of sound, and dead plot time to signify real life. there was no neat story round-up, or even a clearly good/bad guy. each person acted out their role to show one particular side of a psyche.
Good Night and Good Luck
Good Night and Good Luck dripped with nostalgic references to a time long passed. Not being a baby boomer, I have difficulty discerning what is fact and what is fiction on a topic that took place so many decades ago.
What impressed me the most as a cinematographer was their attention to recreating the "shooting style" of the era, along with the musical moods and overall cinematic atmosphere.
The class screening was the second time I'd seen it, and I think I took more away with that reiteration. Since I am only versed in the Murrow/McCarthy information to the extent that it appears in Trivial Pursuit, I was forced to pay more attention to plot than style initially.
I truly believe that it is a masterpiece and a time capsule; assuming that its content falls closer to fact than fiction. A superb choice for discussion.
What impressed me the most as a cinematographer was their attention to recreating the "shooting style" of the era, along with the musical moods and overall cinematic atmosphere.
The class screening was the second time I'd seen it, and I think I took more away with that reiteration. Since I am only versed in the Murrow/McCarthy information to the extent that it appears in Trivial Pursuit, I was forced to pay more attention to plot than style initially.
I truly believe that it is a masterpiece and a time capsule; assuming that its content falls closer to fact than fiction. A superb choice for discussion.
92nd street
What is hard about these films is that you look at them in a later context and it is hard to take them seriously as a narrative. So much about them is filled with propaganda, yet they are truly narratives at heart. Although blatantly ropaganda, it is hard to tell if the cheesy and corny elements of the film are due to this media being back by the government or is it because many films of that time had those elements. Dead end was a film that was filled with moments that were over the top, and really outrageous acting by modern day standards. Both have a lot of shouting, cheesy fight scenes, and dialogue that is extremely unatural. Perhaps the only reason that movies like dead end are given more credit than movies like 92nd street is because people like bogart were starring in the films. Whenever someone becomes a star the mass audiences are more willing to accept the stars earlier (and more lame) films. Perhaps 92nd street might have gone down in history as one of AFI's top one hundred films if it starred eva gardner and erol flynn.
House on 92nd St
In class we learned that this was one of the first films to combine documentary footage with dramatic action. Largely feeling like a propaganda piece about the strength of as-of-yet unknown FBI and the follies of the Third Reich, it is noticeably devoid of relationships. Everyone has a job that they are 100% devoted to. While there is betrayal and loyalty, there is no romance.
I found the use of technology interesting in this film because it almost serves as its own character, tying all pieces together. Between the microfilm, the hidden cameras, and the radio tower, technology is the one thing that either makes or breaks every single person in this film, and it is also what brings them all together.
If anything, this is a time capsule of commentary about the geographic and cultural tensions of the era rather than the power of the FBI and it's stymieing of the Nazi attack.
I found the use of technology interesting in this film because it almost serves as its own character, tying all pieces together. Between the microfilm, the hidden cameras, and the radio tower, technology is the one thing that either makes or breaks every single person in this film, and it is also what brings them all together.
If anything, this is a time capsule of commentary about the geographic and cultural tensions of the era rather than the power of the FBI and it's stymieing of the Nazi attack.
Culloden
Even though Culloden's mockumentary format was more akin to a Monty Python production than most of the BBC's work, its use of interviews had the distinct feeling of realism.
Considering that the topic took place in the 1700's, Director Peter Watkins wisely chose to infuse modern elements like documentary style question/answer segments along with battlefield commentary from the sidelines.
As the film wrapped up, it became apparent that it was the gritty handheld camera work, and extremely close shots amidst exploding bullets that made the viewers feel like they were actually there. The interviews actually provided an intimacy that would have otherwise been lost.
Considering that the topic took place in the 1700's, Director Peter Watkins wisely chose to infuse modern elements like documentary style question/answer segments along with battlefield commentary from the sidelines.
As the film wrapped up, it became apparent that it was the gritty handheld camera work, and extremely close shots amidst exploding bullets that made the viewers feel like they were actually there. The interviews actually provided an intimacy that would have otherwise been lost.
JFK
One thing that is great about Oliver stone is that he is willing to accept that he is working in fiction, and thus it allows him to get out of control with his theories if he is trying to dissect a certain moment in history. The reason that this is good is because the truth is always the strangest possible thing, and until one is willing to take that leap from the logical into the purely outrageous they cannot know the truth. If everything made sense, than everything would be solved. The truth of the matter is that when a president is killed, and a lot of odd events surround the killing, than one must be willing to think outside of the box. A lone gunman is the most obvious answer. There's tons of crazy people in america and it only seems natural that someone would want to kill the president. But, it is also just as likely the people inside the government that dont like the president could figure out a way to have him killed quietly. A lot of peole are not willing to do expose these things. Although stone may have started out with thinking that he is not going to make an honest story, he definately thought he ended a film with what really happened to JFK. Stone is good like that, and it's a shame that he didn't put that same willingness to question conspiracy surrounding the government when he made world trade center.
no lies
The woman in no lies is a very sympathetic character. It's hard to not feel for her, and to be honest, one might be somewhat of a monster if they have sympathy for the female protagonist of short film. Though this film is a classic, and was quite a statement for the time in which it was made, it is not a timeless piece, and as the years go on it simply looses more of the affect than what it had when it was first made. It's nice to know that women have more rights in todays society. It's also nice to know that men (and others) are becoming more aware of how sick and wrong a crime rape is. plus the american society as a whole are teaching their younn women to no longer take abuse of this nature. With all that being said, this is why the film looses more and more creditablitiy (in a modern context) as the years pass. It would be exppected that in todays society the things that were issues would not exist. New york isn't such a scary lace anymore. Police chiefs are urged to not be such creeps, and men in todays society are expected to do something if their femal friend tells them they were raped, they wouldn't just sit there and ask questions trying to figure out if their female friend was lying or not. Maybe the director wanted to point out issues that were relevant of the day, and doesn't care that his movie will not last through the ages. Maybe people still think that the issues presented in the film are still as relevant as they were then. I would hope not.
No Lies
No Lies is so pointedly reflexive, the actress is so self-conscious and conversational and the dialogue unfolds with such natural awkwardness and pacing into the actresses' disclosure that she has been recently raped that it's hard to image that the film is anything other than a documentary. It raises several ethical issues, of course, to learn that it is not a documentary. The audience feels puzzled, foolish, tricked or emotionally manipulated after, or as, the credits for the film roll. Besides the expected questins of ethical dilema and responsibility when presenting "fiction" as "real" - there is an additional layer of concern surrounding authenticity when put in the context of rape and believability. No Lies does an excellent job of portraying how rape survivors feel, and often react, to assault. It presents also, an almost all-too real account of how policie authorities, other women, hospitals, and society in general treat rape survivors or "victims" as they were called in the era the film was made. It seems clear to me that these systems and responses must have been well-researched to make the film; the part of the dialogue where the actress mentions that another woman walked by and didn't stop to help her reminded me in part of the Kitty Genovese case from 1964, that took place in New York. No Lies is often used in feminist film classes, and in training/educational settings because it so perfectly captures the responses of survivors and certainly impacts audiences in a profound and sympathetic manner - at least until the credits roll. My question, though, is whether or not there is an additional layer of responsiblity or at least consideration that must be made when one of the major problems that women (primarily) face when reporting rape and sexual harassment is believability. In addition to victim-blaming (which the 'filmaker' illustrated perfectly, women often (and certainly were at the time the film was made) simply not believed and listened to - so does making a "fake", "not-true" fabricated documentary about a fabricated rape add another layer to the dilemma? Does it compound the issue of believability and does the "fake-out" of the film detract and distract from the issue at hand?
Primary
Technologically speaking, “primary” claims to be the first documentary shot with synchronized sound. Previous to this development, the separation between picture and audio created a notable divide, allowing for wasted rolls in which the sound operation and the camera operator focused on different things. Drew, obviously aware of this features, uses background noise to tie together otherwise innocuous non-cinematic moments. The newfound surplus of sound-to-picture material serves as a bridge, tying Humphrey to Kennedy, the past to the present, and illustrating how stumping has evolved and yet remains the same. If “primary” proves anything by the end of the film, it is that “voiceovers” do not have to be diegetic. They do not need to be performed by an A-list actor, or even be the main focus of the scene. The background audio can be woven into a tool that supports the message rather than serving as a distraction from an otherwise “dull” clip.
The question remaining at the end of the analysis is whether this pioneering and original technique, employed by countless following filmmakers, was intentional or accidental. Did the camera decide that Humphrey’s shoe soles were a metaphor for his approach to politics after noticing that they had become worn down as a result of his endless street visits, or was it left rolling after the camera operator’s arm grew fatigued? Did Drew shoot more because he thought that the newly synchronized audio might reveal things in post that had been invisible during production? It is unquestionable that whatever the answer, the eccentric mix created shockwaves in the film community as a whole. This style of filmmaking can be found in today’s modern television, short films, and of course, documentaries. By straying outside of the lines and presenting the innocuous, Drew painted a picture more complete than any other (political) documentary before it.
The question remaining at the end of the analysis is whether this pioneering and original technique, employed by countless following filmmakers, was intentional or accidental. Did the camera decide that Humphrey’s shoe soles were a metaphor for his approach to politics after noticing that they had become worn down as a result of his endless street visits, or was it left rolling after the camera operator’s arm grew fatigued? Did Drew shoot more because he thought that the newly synchronized audio might reveal things in post that had been invisible during production? It is unquestionable that whatever the answer, the eccentric mix created shockwaves in the film community as a whole. This style of filmmaking can be found in today’s modern television, short films, and of course, documentaries. By straying outside of the lines and presenting the innocuous, Drew painted a picture more complete than any other (political) documentary before it.
Guffman: simple is funny
There have been a lot of films over the years that take the mockumentary form. A lot of them usually take the norm of poking fun at bigger events, and the odd people surround the events they are emulating. On edge in 2001 poked fun at the figure. Even Cristopher guests very own Best in Show took a stab at the world of dog competitions. Guffman's approach to poking fun at smaller events and more obscure people tends to make the comedy even more ridiculous and humorous. Guffman was able to take something as simple, small and obscure as a bunch of yokel's attempt to put on a play and turn it into a hilarious social commentary on middle america. There was not a big budget in making this film, but there was not a need for a big budget. To keep the scale of the film small, but direct the actors to make it a big thing in their own minds is what made it so compelling to watch. The peole portrayed in the film were characitures of people from the mid-west, but even with the exaggeration it still comes off as very real, and something that people can relate too, versus all mockumentaries that take huge characters from huge events, and let the audience be in awe of how ridiculous the character is the whole time, instead of allowing the audience to get emotionally involved in the characters
May 6, 2007
The Historical Documentary
Films which are rooted with strong connections in history are particularly intriguing to me. Creating a fictionalized account of historical truths is as interesting as it is informative, regardless if the reenactments are true to fact or not. Either way, they tell something important about the filmmaker and the era of the film. Taking Watkins' Punishment Park, for example, a fictionalized narrative is composed out of real world events set during a time of nationwide protests. The film draws strength from actual accounts of citizens who were, in one way or another, inhibited from expressing their beliefs. This film brings attention to realities that many wish to keep under the covers. One contrast to this film context is The House on 92nd Street, which attempts to promote the good instead of revealing the injustice. In this case, the audience is presumably aware of the condition (World War II/nuclear age) and should feel a sense of comfort in the 'resolution' of the problem. In these two examples, different approaches are taken to inform an ignorant audience on a specific agenda. However, 92nd street ends up the clear winner in box office. Surely Punishment Park revealed shocking realities, but Hollywood was not willing to accept the inevitable repercussions(federal/legal) of such a film release. And on the opposite end, the government backs up 92nd Street, a propagandistic World War II era film who's 'realities' are not particularly rooted in the real facts. Regardless, this type of film history teaches us about the filmmakers, their agenda, a nation's agenda, and what the audience is 'willing' to accept as fact.
Punishment Park
Punishment Park is a film that comments on America's harsh punishment of people who try to stand up for what they believe in, or refused to conform to the status quo. The "trials" before the ridiculously bureaucratic panel of judges was entertaining, yet made me furious at the treatment of the prisoners. Made in the 80s by a British director, it spoke of the unjust ways this country's goverment treated "threats" to democracy in the 1960s and 70s. The ending was infuriating in that the police officers changed the rules at the last minute, claiming that they had every right to. Perhaps this was Watkins' comment about the corruption of the police force. I liked how Watkins interspersed the interviews throughout the film, in between scenes of the prisoners trekking miserably through the course. If those in the interview room had the knowledge we had, they would have just taken the jail time. The sounds of panting, struggling and coughing were heard over the desert sequences, which, when paired with seeing the prisoners dragging themselves along, made the viewer feel the exhausted hopelessness of their situation.
Medium Cool
Medium Cool has one of the most powerful and well-timed opening scenes I can think of in any movie. There is no doubt that you are in a movie that's going to be about the media and responsibility the very moment that the cameracrew shoots the car wreck on the highway. The degree of calculation and methodology with which the crew circle the car and take close-ups of the injured woman is immediately suspicious; when they drive away without helping her, complete unmoved by what they have just seen, calling an ambulance as a cold-hearted afterthought (which is it - they could have called for help first) it leaves no doubt to the viewer what the primary theme of the movie will be - and the scene is truly memorable, and telling.
Jump then, to the end of the movie, where you have the two main characters wandering through the actual 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention riots. It is rather unbelievable that these actors and crew were really there, carrying out the script of a movie that so perfectly, poignantly and intentionally co-incides with a riot; history is in the making and fact and fiction collide. But it's a scene in the middle of the film that I keep thinking about. When Cassellis and his friend enter the apartmant of the cab driver who turned in 10,000 left in his cab to the police (who then questioned him as if he was criminal and not a hero) - the racial, political, and class tension in the room is brilliantly illuminated in all it's complication and I feel it really captured the times perfectly. I wish I had a script because so many of the things that the black militants (this is how they appear in the credits) say to Cassellis regarding his white priviledge, his disrespectful language, his racism, and his assumption that he can just show up to someone's apartment and gain access to their lives and thoughts are so powerful and so perfectly show how racism plays out in the media, and also how that racism was resisted and articulated by those whom it impacted. Brilliant scene. That aside, I thought a good amount of the plot was a bit weak, or at least too unbelievable. Cassellis is so incredibly selfish and self-absorbed I can't see him having a change of heart as easily as he does in the film, it seems unlikely he would really grow so found of Eileen and her son - or that in the end he would put down his camera at a riot and help look for a little boy. It makes for a happier ending (he's able to extract himself from "loving to shoot film" and engage with the real world in a somewhat personal crisis) just before a tragic ending - one which does sent a bit of a mixed message...he puts down the camera and meets his untimely death just as he grows compassionate? Puzzling. Too little too late, perhaps - or maybe that's the wrong decision for a media maker. I found this quite from Haskell Wexler which I found interesting; reading Cassellis as autobiographical made me have more empathy for him.
"When I was in Vietnam with Jane Fonda" says Wexler, "I was filming a farmer walking through a field when all of a sudden he stepped on a land mine. Two Vietnamese guys ran out there to help him and I ran after them to shoot the scene of them bringing this guy in, his legs all bloody. The whole time I had two overwhelming feelings. One was 'I got a great shot!', the other was to put my camera down and help the farmer. In the end I carried on filming even though I couldn't even see what I was shooting because I was crying so hard. I have thought about that moment many times, about the question of when you have to put the camera down, when to stop observing and get involved."
Jump then, to the end of the movie, where you have the two main characters wandering through the actual 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention riots. It is rather unbelievable that these actors and crew were really there, carrying out the script of a movie that so perfectly, poignantly and intentionally co-incides with a riot; history is in the making and fact and fiction collide. But it's a scene in the middle of the film that I keep thinking about. When Cassellis and his friend enter the apartmant of the cab driver who turned in 10,000 left in his cab to the police (who then questioned him as if he was criminal and not a hero) - the racial, political, and class tension in the room is brilliantly illuminated in all it's complication and I feel it really captured the times perfectly. I wish I had a script because so many of the things that the black militants (this is how they appear in the credits) say to Cassellis regarding his white priviledge, his disrespectful language, his racism, and his assumption that he can just show up to someone's apartment and gain access to their lives and thoughts are so powerful and so perfectly show how racism plays out in the media, and also how that racism was resisted and articulated by those whom it impacted. Brilliant scene. That aside, I thought a good amount of the plot was a bit weak, or at least too unbelievable. Cassellis is so incredibly selfish and self-absorbed I can't see him having a change of heart as easily as he does in the film, it seems unlikely he would really grow so found of Eileen and her son - or that in the end he would put down his camera at a riot and help look for a little boy. It makes for a happier ending (he's able to extract himself from "loving to shoot film" and engage with the real world in a somewhat personal crisis) just before a tragic ending - one which does sent a bit of a mixed message...he puts down the camera and meets his untimely death just as he grows compassionate? Puzzling. Too little too late, perhaps - or maybe that's the wrong decision for a media maker. I found this quite from Haskell Wexler which I found interesting; reading Cassellis as autobiographical made me have more empathy for him.
"When I was in Vietnam with Jane Fonda" says Wexler, "I was filming a farmer walking through a field when all of a sudden he stepped on a land mine. Two Vietnamese guys ran out there to help him and I ran after them to shoot the scene of them bringing this guy in, his legs all bloody. The whole time I had two overwhelming feelings. One was 'I got a great shot!', the other was to put my camera down and help the farmer. In the end I carried on filming even though I couldn't even see what I was shooting because I was crying so hard. I have thought about that moment many times, about the question of when you have to put the camera down, when to stop observing and get involved."
Waiting for Guffman
Christopher Guest’s films walk a fine line because they imitate documentary material while consisting of entirely fictional material, falling squarely in the “mockumentary” genre. His camera crew imitates clichéd elements of documentaries like frequent handheld tracking shots and intentionally out of focus moments while the frame hunts for action. At several moments in Waiting for Guffman, Guest has the actors speak directly to the camera, imitating the social actor diaries. Shortly after Director/actor Corky St. Claire and his ensemble of idiotic townspeople-cum-actors finish presenting their ridiculous play, the “documentary crew” slips out in the house to get the “audience” reactions. Corky’s long time admirer and city-councilman Steve Stark faces the camera and discloses his effusive opinion of the performance. Due to its length, Waiting for Guffman viewers only saw strategic snippets of the play, so Stark is used to talk about what exists invisibly beyond the camera, and how much he liked it. His first person account is slightly, but very functional. Conversely, Ron and Sheila Albertson, who double as travel agents when not rehearsing with St. Claire, spend several minutes talking about their relationship status. Specifically, they tell the camera about Mr. Albertson’s very personal genital operation. While humorous, it has does not develop the plot. Like a checkout counter gossip rag, it taps human curiosity but serves no other purpose. Through these exploitations, Guest lampoons the fake nature of Reality TV by paralleling it with his fictions.
Waiting for Guffman, based on Waiting for Godot, is a thinly veiled attack on modern media consumption. Cable television now provides 24-hour access to shows about overly sexual Laguna Beach teens that sit around all day in a pool. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent cataloging how a hotel heiress handles herself on a pig farm, and millions tune in every week to see complete unknowns cover famous songs in a desperate attempt to win a record contract. Guest illustrates the fact that viewers no longer demand a destination, only an interesting journey, because. Just like Godot, Guffman never arrives, and Guest makes the point that this film and our modern media is “much ado about nothing.”
Waiting for Guffman, based on Waiting for Godot, is a thinly veiled attack on modern media consumption. Cable television now provides 24-hour access to shows about overly sexual Laguna Beach teens that sit around all day in a pool. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent cataloging how a hotel heiress handles herself on a pig farm, and millions tune in every week to see complete unknowns cover famous songs in a desperate attempt to win a record contract. Guest illustrates the fact that viewers no longer demand a destination, only an interesting journey, because. Just like Godot, Guffman never arrives, and Guest makes the point that this film and our modern media is “much ado about nothing.”
Thin Blue Line
Errol Morris and Michael Moore are directors particularly skilled at converting audiences to their sides without appearing heavy-handed.
No matter who actually did it, Randall Adams or David Harris, audiences leave the theater with a clear picture, and whats more, they believe that they discovered it themselves. Much of Morris's skill lies in the passive passing, and user-friendly language. His unassuming film making entices the viewer to study the subject matter and be receptive to the information playing out on the screen.
It still amazes me that this film was able to get a man out of prison. Perhaps instead shelling out of pocket for high-power attorneys, criminals should hire Hollywood film makers to argue their case in the limelight.
No matter who actually did it, Randall Adams or David Harris, audiences leave the theater with a clear picture, and whats more, they believe that they discovered it themselves. Much of Morris's skill lies in the passive passing, and user-friendly language. His unassuming film making entices the viewer to study the subject matter and be receptive to the information playing out on the screen.
It still amazes me that this film was able to get a man out of prison. Perhaps instead shelling out of pocket for high-power attorneys, criminals should hire Hollywood film makers to argue their case in the limelight.
Hiroshima Mon Amour
I was particularly harsh on this film immediately after the screening because I thought that the overly-dramatized and "interpreted" depiction of the war and it's effects were the polar opposite of what we should be seeing in a documentary fictions class. The opening credits consisting of close-ups of body parts covered in gold writing against each other seemed more akin to a James Bond film than something making a critical analysis of post-war tensions.
After my rage subsided, I realized that the play like interactions and soap opera like line deliveries were necessary so that the film maker could capitalize on the strained relationship the plot called for by the end. They had to artificially connect them so that they could pull them apart with maximum effect.
I guess if you are going to manipulate reality, there is some honor in making it obvious.
After my rage subsided, I realized that the play like interactions and soap opera like line deliveries were necessary so that the film maker could capitalize on the strained relationship the plot called for by the end. They had to artificially connect them so that they could pull them apart with maximum effect.
I guess if you are going to manipulate reality, there is some honor in making it obvious.
David Holzman's diary
What a movie. I think film is one of the best film in cinema verite, real or not. I was believing every second of this film until the credits rolled. The forgotten silver had me for a good part of the beginning of the movie, but david holzmans diary had me the whole way. I as the viewer was feeling for this guy every moment of the film. I was pulled into his neurosis, and felt as though I wanted him to really succeed at finding out what his life was about, and making his film. At the same time though I hated david holzman because for two hours I was under the impression that back in the sixties there was this really annoying guy who made these crazy home diaries, dated this awesome looking model, and totally would have been some one I would not hang out with. It is ridiculous to think of The number of emotions I felt by going on this journey through this one man's life, and it was all made up in some movie. I've had films "touch" me, but nothing ever gets to you more than something that's real. This film stirs real emotions in people until the second it is over.
Dead End
I found Dead End to be very entertaining, and funny even thought it wasn't supposed to be. It is a good example of the social problem film that studios tackled in the 30s, 40s and 50s. It addresses the idea of the slum vs. the gentrified area of town, and in this film one is literally behind the other. When the viewer can look past the staginess and melodramatic acting, the film speaks of something that is still addressed in present day films - what can happen to the young people in poor neighborhoods when they don't have the right guidance/mentors. The film takes place mostly on one corner, conveying how the slum was closed off from the more affluent part of the city. They're close to it, but worlds away from it. Of course the film has the age old moral at the end "crime doesn't pay". As with most film from this era, I can't help but think about how cheesy the melodrama style is, yet how popular it was back then.
Missle of october was it really so bad?
to be entirely honest it is not that easy to make any sort of reenactment piece and not have it look cheesy. There's a lot of good war movies out there, and in a war those could be considered re enactments, but they usually focus around a story or idea that is sprinkled with fact, and then fill in a larg number of gaps. Even if we look at great films like Culloden and the Thin Blue line we still feel that there is an element of cheesyness to them. Mainly this has to do with money, but part of it is because they wanted to re enact something, versus just making a fictional narrative around a particular even that happened. Culloden at points was unable to hide the blatantly obvious fact that they did not have as many actors as there were actuall ment that were involved in the battle. And it is hard to argue that there were not points when the thin blue line was very reminiscent of a bad episode of rescue 911. Sure, missles of october came off as well produced as some of the porn that was being produced during the time, but can anyone really expect anything more from a tv movie that was made during the seventies. In all reality, missles of october wasn't much worse than the multi-million dollar movie thirteen days starring kevin kostner (a movie telling the same story)
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm
What is particularly intriguing about Symbiopsychotaxiplasm are the reactions from the audience upon viewing. The level of interest, or better yet, intrigue, could be felt throughout the screening room. And the audience's take on the film is not dissimilar from Greaves's agitated film crew. The crew is dissatisfied with the direction that Greaves's takes with the film, and decides that there might be a larger meaning behind the director's apparent inadequacy. The crew is 'genuinely' mystified about Greaves's intents on the project, and realize that he may be creating something completely different...What is clear however, is that there is an overall level of unexplainable intrigue into the inner workings of a project that has no direction but what it makes for itself. The crew, in their questionings, allow the film the unfold in an extermely unique fashion, enabling the director to become the lead actor, instead of the proposed actors. Regardless of what Greaves originally intended for the project, the film succeeds in revealing deeper sediments than anticipated. The distinction between fiction,reality,and their relation to a storyline is blurred to an incomprehensible level. So much so that the crew doesn't know what's the 'real' agenda of the filmmaker. In the end, Symbiopsychotaxiplasm's journey is both extraordinary and open-ended.
The war game vs. death of a president
Although the bbc funded this film to be made they never aired it. It was too racey, too controversial, and far too real for the british people to take/accept and the british governement to admit. A lot of any country's well being depend on the morale of the people, and the truth of the matter is that most governments could not take care of its people when all hell breaks loose. The world is constantly in a teeter totter and at any given moment everything could go wrong and the whole world could just fall off. The people will not be saved by their governments, and eventually the governements will turn against them out of fear. This is sad truth that eole find hard to deal with, and that's what the bbc did not want their people to see back in the sixties. This is simialr to how the american government tried very hard to make sure that the film death of a president was not released widely, or at all if they could help it, The bbc showed it only public tv for free, because it wasn't their country. The american government does not want a film that shows how easy the president could be killed, how the vice president would try to blame syria and then start a war, how the government would use bush's assasination as a reason to impose more on the american citizens rights, and how an innocent man would be locked up for the killing of the president and no one would care, to a major audience. It freaks people out and it admits that the american government has weaknesses. The same thing applied in the sixties for watkins film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)