A Show That Does Capture "Reality"

From documentaries to reality TV, what they have in common is that both genres are perceived to document reality and are made to look real. One can not deny that there may be some form of reality being captured, but there is nothing that can be considered 100% authentic when looking into the genres. It is no secret that when a camera is present that an individual does not act the same. No matter what the situation, there is always a hidden agenda behind an average documentary and reality tv show. So the question is asked: has there ever been a movie or show that captures the truth? The answer is that there has been. Look at the show "Caught on Camera". Hidden cameras that capture footage of people, who are unsuspecting of cameras being present, doing what they would normally do. Though not everything they do is considered pleasant or nice, the footage is real because they are no actor/ress playing up the camera time and the situations are not setup for the purpose of entertainment. That is the quality that both documenteries and reality tv shows both have in common. Now if there was only a way to intergrate the qualities of a show such as Caught on Camera with the documentary film, it could be a way of getting even closer to the reality of a scene.

Medium Cool is seen as being more significant Symbio-yada yada

When comparing Medium Cool to Symbiotaxiplasm, it is hard to deny how much more significant Medium Cool was if you compare the two on the level of success of making a hybrid film. Symbiotaxiplasm is seen more as a hoax with the crew members as well as the actor and actress playing up to the cameras there documenting them while they made the film. Everything that is said and done in the film is not captured in a reality aspect. That meaning that the reality that is supposedly seen in the film is the behind the scenes look into the film crew. Everyone's actions are easily dictated through them knowing that they are there making are documentary about this behind the scene look into the film. Everything is then exaggerated from them on for the purpose of capturing footage that is seen as entertaining as opposed to natural. The scenes where the crew is critisizing the director are especially unnatural, because even though they maybe unscripted, they are still improvised. It is seen as more of a documentary as opposed to being a hybrid film.
Medium Cool, on the other hand, succeeds in its combination of fact and fiction by taking a reality they have no control over and intergrating a plot and characters around it. The director of Medium Cool was not even sure if there would be any riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention, but stuck to his prediction that there would be and it payed off in the end. The script was a gamble because if anything the director was hoping to happen did not happen, then there could have been devastating effects. Though the film had flopped at the box office, it still had gotten a mainstream theatre release. Whereas Symbiotaxiplasm was expected to receive a theatre release, but instead made its way straight to video. It goes to show the significance a plot can have on a film and how it is received by the public.

Fragility through Discontinuity

In most narrative works the characters are developed by the continuity of the story. They have an arc that is shown as they are shown. In Waiting for Guffman the characters are shown through discontinuity. In the interview scenes that open the film there are these moments that hint at fragile element to the characters through what isn't said. The fact that Corky is a gay man isn't what makes him fragile it is the idea that he believes it is a well-kept secret. He believes that he is fooling everyone by talking about his wife or being a construction worker and it for that reason that he is so interesting and so developed. The other characters also have moments like these. Dr. Pearl is most developed in the moments where he half laughs at his own jokes and gives off this subtle exhale that sounds like, "someone else tell me I'm funny." It's such a unique way to create characters because it goes against all the normal conventions. Instead of showing why a character is the way he or she is or telling us why he or she is the way he or she is Waiting for Guffman doesn't tell us or doesn't show is. It is through the subtlety and discontinuity in the interview scenes that give birth to the fragility of the characters.

An era

Medium Cool and Symbiopsychotaxiplasm are both films that are expressions of the times. Both films came out around the same time, Medium Cool in 1969 and Symbiopsychotaxiplasm in 1968, and both films played with acting and reality. The two films the stories of the time from different eyes. Medium Cool used journalists, the voice of a society, to tell a story of change and social chaos. As in a news story, the narration is very direct. You have your main characters, settings in which important events take place, such as the convention. Symbiopsychotaxiplasm is told from the inside of the youth culture in the later 1960s. The narration of the story is winding, choppy and seems as if there's no direction. The style of both of these films directly reflect from which part of society each film exposes. Medium Cool's style is more "mature" and formal. Symbiopsychotaxiplasm is the summer of love children because it was put out before the event happened. Since it was made before 1969 could come to an end and commentary could define the movement, Symbiopsychotaxiplasm was a true commentary of the time, as real as the "actor" within the movie. Symbiopsychotaxiplasm's story telling is relaxed and unorthodox, their "actors" are real in real situations that gave the film a very natural tone. Medium Cool used the real situations with actors, unbeknown to those around them, to try and create the feel of Symbiopsychotaxiplasm's crew. By having the film come out of 1969 and using more rehearsed scenes, Medium Cool could only be a commentary on a movement that has died under the media's eyes. The closing shot of the journalist's death in Medium Cool emphasizes that statement. Medium Cool was a movie that showed the death of a generation that Symbiopsychotaxiplasm didn't see coming.

Purpose of War Games

On the surface, Peter Watkin's Culloden and War Games seem similar. They are both sponsored by BBC and both try to enlighten the viewers on history/future. However, just by viewing, War Games has a severely different tone that is not meant to educate but to enlighten. In Culloden, there were actual characters recreating the war scenes of Battle of Culloden. The film was shot as if it was taken from a news clip of the Vietnam war. War Games has a much more narrative feel. The use of titles cards within the film directs the viewer into the director's more obvious message; we have gone too far. Culloden just used interviews in the film. In War Games, unlike Culloden, the words spoken are framed by phrases such as "based on" to give a sense of authority. Watkins was using War Games to urge the public that we have damaged humanity twice and there will inevitably be a third time. There was no such urgency within Culloden. Though it had a moral message, it remained in the psudeo-reality. War Games so obviously played on the parody of documentary that the content was taken to a level beyond entertainment. No wonder why BBC decided not to air such a political film.

What is real?

One of the objectives in clas is to dissucss what is a documentary. One could stress content or form. When you focus on content a subtopic arises; does it matter if the content is real and what is real? In Symbiopsychotaxiplasm, the viewers are taken into a film documenting the production of an experimental film. It seems as if the experimental film is in itself a documentary of actors. William Greaves takes screen tests of the same scene with different actors. Because there is no real plot development the viewer of that movie focuses in on the nature of a screen test, the role an actor plays in a film and the process of movie making. Outside of that, Greaves directs the production and puts on for the camera, an actor himself. The crew seems to be the only ones not acting which gives Symbiopsychotaxiplasm an authentic and documentary feel. Knowing, at least almost certain, that the crew is truthful and blunt infront of the camera, gives the audience referential truth. The rest that is played out by the actors and Greaves is the spirit of the film, asking when are you really yourself, by yourself, infront of a camera or interacting with others? Or can you never represent your true self because there will always be someone's memory which edits you into your next role.

the real War Game

War Game may have been made in the 1960s, but it seems like they were attempting to predict a future that many of us fear. The way in which the film creates a world that is frighteningly real and acts as something that could likely happen. In a world where nuclear weapons can be created by many, the destruction of the inhabitants of earth seems possible. The film makes people see that this is not just a possibility for us, but it is something that we have to be ready for. It shows us what will happen if our ideas do not change. The film is so scary because much of what we see is true, or is at least based on what happened to places where the bombs were dropped, like Hiroshima. I do not think that we would have been so quick to bomb the cities if the public knew just how much devastation the nuclear bombs could bring. The realism of the film is created by using handheld cameras, almost making it seem like this is actually going on. The world that we are being shown is one of fear and, even though the film does not use many effects, the viewer can almost feel the pain that those in the film are experiencing. One example is when the bomb has just gone off and people's skin is actually burning off. We do not see exactly what it looks like because the people hold their faces, but imagining what it could be like makes it more frightening. The film expresses the evils of man and the technology we have created will only harm the inhabitants of earth. The film has just as much of an impact today as it did when it first came out because we have seen what these bombs can do and the wars that we are experience now are not as conventional as those fought in the past. Instead of fighting on an open field, we fly over targets and drop bombs. The film takes this aspect of our world and shows us what could be a possible future. The film is such a great impact because of the way we see how the people are being affected by the bomb and, even though it is fictional, it provides a detailed account of what we may be forced to face.

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: May I have another?

Symbio... Starts off with a bang. The series of couples talking about their serious issues really brings the audience in, before completely deconstructing the reality of the scene. The main players in the film, the director, his crew and the "actors" act out "real" life bfeore the camera. While attempting to be completely true to life the director actually creates a character that according to his crew is not himself. The crew meanwhile holds counsil throughout the film breaking down the flaws in the experimental-narrative-documentary they are working on and the pretenscious behavior of their director. I'm not sure if the actual actors in the film are in on the experiment, but it is very interesting seeing the actors out of character insecurities. Overall, Symbiopschotaxiplasm: Take one was one of the more interesting filkms that we have watched this semester.

War is No Game

There are lots of war movies that seem to glorify war. From Saving Private Ryan to 300 most movies that deal with a war have good guys and bad guys. The films make it very clear that "these guys" must beat "those guys" or the world, as we know it, which is good and pure, will certainly fail. Another way war movies glorify war is by creating a hero admits the fighting and killing. This character is always ultra heroic, good looking and never thinks twice about killing the bad guys. He is usually the ultimate hero and no matter how many bullets are shot at him or spears thrown at him he will always survive.

War Game is not like these typical movies depicting war for a few reasons. The first reason is because the war that it is showing is not a typical war. It's not a war between bad and good and it's only showing one side of the war. Because nuclear war is not a typical war between one side and another it is not shown in a typical narrative style. This is the strength and weakness of the film. It is the strength because it is a unique way to approach a non-typical style of war and its weakness because some of the scenes seem extremely fictional (i.e. the boys talking about how they don't want to be anything when they grow up). The film also shows that when it comes to nuclear war there is no good or bad because it's bad. It's bad both for the country that the bomb is dropped on and also for the country that drops the bomb because of what it does to completely innocent people.

Overall War Game is a good attempt to show a very difficult subject and in the end it shows that war, especially nuclear is no game.

Always Performing

The people of Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One all seem to hold one thing in common: their performances. Whether they are the actors or not, everyone is performing for the camera even when it’s not on them. The most apparent is when they have their wrap meetings where they discuss what the meaning of the film they are shooting. They tell the viewer that they have restarted the conversation for the purpose of filming it. Here they must recreate the points they made before. In a later wrap meeting, they even make the comment that the director could be standing outside at that moment and could be directing them in their conversation. Are they acting? As an audience we don’t know, but the crew knows if the conversation is a farce or real.
Even the male actor shows how a person is still acting when he thinks he isn’t on camera. While he thinks everyone is reloading their cameras he complains to one of the sound guys about his female co-actor. His emphasis and storytelling show the viewer that he acts for other people even when he believes the camera to be off. His realization that the camera was recording him causes him to laugh embarrassedly and creep away from the crew.
The viewer can only guess as to what is a true conversation or not, but the viewer should note that every person is performing for the camera and for others around them.

The War Game

The tricky thing, in regard to the pseudo-documentary, is the level of realism required to create palpability. In a film intended merely as comedy, realism is less of an issue. In the case of The War Game, however (and many films like it), there is clearly a statement being made. The War Game hopes to act as a not-so-friendly reminder of the devastation that nuclear warfare has caused in the past, and its potential for havoc in the future. Although the “would be” scenario (the narration including pieces such as “this is a possible part of nuclear war” and “this is what it would be like”) is an intentional and obvious statement against the film’s authenticity, there were other elements that I found more troubling.

One of the most perturbing and distracting moments in my particular viewing of the film involved the “man on the street” interviews conducted. When asked about their knowledge of radioactivity, the people responded, often times, with the same indifferent and emotionless “I don’t knows.” As an audience member expected to question the authenticity of these interviews, I felt as though I was being condescended. How could I possibly be expected to second-guess these interviews? The interviews were so implausible, in fact, that they were laughable at times. One particular instance that was intended to be moving but came off, instead, as ridiculous, was that with the children. A montage of interview snippets meant to display despair of the young children showed their responses to the question “What do you want to be when you grow up.” Instead of heart-wrenching, which was undisputedly the feeling that was hoped for, it was humorous. The class didn’t even try to suppress their laughter as the pouting children recited a chorus of “nothings” for the camera. While the blame for this lies primarily with the actors, it nevertheless detracts from the overall effectiveness of the film as a documentary.

Similarly distracting were some of the aesthetic elements of the film. There was one particular scene where the camera panned across “bodies” lined up indiscriminately on the ground. Covered in a layer of ash, the bodies there was something about their positions and appearance that seemed too “alive” to be accepted. Following the hypothetical attack, the citizens of Kent (and the surrounding areas) were either dead or completely unscathed (aside from a charcoal powder smeared across their faces, which seemed to calculatedly placed to be believed). The physical effects of radiation, which are sickeningly morbid, were alluded to, but the physical images (which simply consisted of darker and heavier layers of “ash”) were severely lacking in graphic nature (to the point of suspended belief in the narration).

While The War Game certainly left much to be desired in the authenticity department, there were also many points that deserve to be acknowledged in a positive light. Most noticeable were the shaky and hand-held camera movements, which are constantly observed in class. This instability in camera operating was strongly felt during the riot scenes. The camera, seemingly shooting from within the crowds of people, was “thrown about” with the herds of people. This gave a better perspective of the chaos that might be felt in a similar situation. In random places, the cameras followed close behind different “characters” (for example, the officer going door-to-door to inform citizens of their newfound duties to board refugees), giving over-the-shoulder shots of the unfolding action. Also very effective was the acknowledgment of the camera operators. The camera tries to get access to the area where the corpses are being deposited (and presumably burned or buried). The watchmen stop them, shouting “you can’t go in there” and “no photographers allowed.” Moments such as these, along with the tyrannical portrayal of authority figures (one man recounts a scene where soldiers were being shot by their higher-ups for not partaking in inhumane military practices against civilians), help reinforce Watkins’ original purpose for making this film, which is perhaps the most effective aspect of the movie. Many governments across the world, at that particular time (the 1960s), were attempting to quiet the protests and uproar of concerned citizens by offering a sense of false reassurance that, in the event of a nuclear strike, they would remain essentially unscathed. Watkins, along with many other citizens, saw this treatment as patronizing. The power of this film can be attributed mainly to the context during which it was released. The War Game, when viewed as a bold form of insubordination against the government, is what helps the film overcompensate for its weak points and come across as a striking statement against nuclear warfare and governmental indifference.

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One

Jeffrey Anderson called it “a puzzle without an answer.” Wade Major referred to it as a “veritable fairytale,” and example of “far-out existentialism funneled through the lens of a camera and transported through the decades – a rare time capsule that time cannot encapsulate.” After spending some time reading reviews about Symbiopsychotaxiplasm, it seems that even the most “film literate” of reviewers shared the same confusion at the movie’s end as our class.

The film opens with an exchange that seems to have been directly referenced by the Ryan/Kellner article about the “anti-Establishment” films of the 1960s. An array of acerbic and vulgar accusations pours from the mouth of a woman, one half of a couple whose individual sexual crises have sabotaged their marriage. Amidst her suggestive remarks of homosexuality and infidelity, we learn both of the woman’s desire to conceive a child, and the man’s aloofness regarding the topic. While the content of the dialogue is intriguing enough, Greaves takes it a step further by repeating numerous times, each with a different couple (as, we later learn, is part of a screen test for the casting of the film). Patricia Ree Gilbert (as Alice) and Don Fellows (as Freddie) are ultimately the couple with which the focus of the film lies, “although not for reasons of dramatic efficiency. Overwrought acting, often unbearably melodramatic dialogue, and a too-obvious flirtation with the sensational all contribute to the steady death of a scene that grows more and more intolerable with each repetition” (Wade Major).

More interesting than the dramatic action of the scene of Greaves’ “Over the Cliff,” however, is the premise of larger picture, the experimental film Symbiopsychotaxiplasm. In directing the members of his crew, Greaves instructs, “You’re in charge of the filming of the film being filmed.” Wade Major describes the nature of the film best in saying:

“Set entirely in New York's Central Park, the picture is a wild juxtaposition of footage shot by a documentary crew which has been split into two groups -- one assigned to capture a kind of improvised screen test… and the second assigned to film the doings of the first.”

Wesley Morris, writer for the Boston Globe, goes so far as to compare Greaves to the larger film icons of the genre and time (who were similarly referenced during our class discussion):

“OK, so this is a movie-within-a-movie at a time when most of the meta-cinematic action was coming from Andy Warhol and Jean-Luc Godard. But Greaves goes one better. He's doing Godard doing Cassavetes.”

The screen tests go as planned, until “unexpected” technical difficulties are encountered. In one instance, Greaves discontinues the action of the scene because one of his cameras runs out of film. In another, a police squad car enters the frame. They struggle with audio and visual problems, as well. These problems, coupled with the ambiguous nature of Greaves’ methods of direction, incite an even more enthralling element of action.

The members of the crew, who appear to have lost patience with the blind instruction of their leader, proceed to record their thoughts on the progress of their shooting. Innocently enough, they begin talking about the effectiveness of the film, and what Greaves’ intentions might be. Before long, however, it becomes an investigation into the directorial competency of Greaves, involving many comments that are less than complimentary. Interesting enough to evoke comment from the class are the diction and manner with which the crew speaks. While our class identified these rap sessions as “very of the time,” Major offers a more accurate encapsulation of the mood during these scenes of seemingly “low-tech, Woodstock-era reality television.” “In a film already saturated with the stylings and attitudes of the day, these intensely esoteric discussions, with their groovy counterculture artspeak, almost take on an air of otherworldliness.” While we, as the audience, go with the presumption that these sessions are completely unplanned and without the knowledge of Greaves (the poor production quality of said sessions are an indication of poor planning; as each “character” begins talking, it takes the boom operator a few moments to adjust to the new speaker; the result is murky audio at the onset of each speech), Morris offers interesting insight into his possible involvement: “What if Greaves knows they're talking about him and chooses to put that footage in his movie? ‘It may be the biggest put-on of all time,’ someone says. This isn't merely self-consciousness. It's engaged, in-house film criticism. Is Greaves a dictator or a kind of socialist leader? If he's the latter, is he then still the picture's author or is everyone? And if it's everyone, does that mean the project no longer means what it originally meant? This is a rare deconstructive movie that actually considers the possibility of theoretical deconstruction.” While some may wonder about Greaves’ inclusion of such unflattering opinions of him, Major cites this as a major “selling point” for the simulated authenticity of the film. As he stated in his review, it is “critical, for blurring the lines between art and artifice, truth and fiction, illusion and reality … Students of cinema history are certain to be most intrigued by the film's genre-splicing, style-defying conceits which fall squarely in line with such similarly challenging late-'60s and early-'70s milestones as ‘Easy Rider,’ ‘I Am Curious (Yellow),’ ‘Medium Cool,’ ‘Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song’ and any number of Godard efforts.”

While the fact that the film’s ambiguous nature is certain to raise confusion in its audiences (which seem to be treated as the “lab rats” of a film experiment), Symbiopsychotaxiplasm cannot be overlooked completely. In fact, had it experienced a commercial theatrical release at its time of completion, it “could have been one of the seminal film experiments of the 60s” (Major).

Propaganda on 92nd Street

The film "The house on 92nd street" demonstrated the way that the U.S. has always used films for propaganda purposes. The film did a great job at showing how the U.S. is an impenetrable fortress that can never be struck down even by spies living in its own borders. It was obvious that this film came out after WWII because it made it quite clear how smart the U.S. government is and it also revealed the types of advanced technology that was used to win the war. Something that relates to today’s propaganda would be the documentaries about the war in Iraq that are geared towards showing how the U.S. is winning the war, even though this is clearly not the case. The point is that propaganda is a convention used by the government to demonstrate the power that this country has.

War Game discrepancies

Although "War Game" had many qualities that made it feel like nuclear war was a real possibility during the 1960's, the film also had qualities that took away from its realism. During a nuclear war an electro magnetic pulse is generated which shuts down every mechanical piece of equipment. Having this knowledge would mean that it would have been impossible for the filmmakers that were apparently documenting the nuclear attack to have working cameras. In addition the people that they were documenting were suffering and dying from radiation sickness, which in theory would mean that the filmmakers would be suffering from it as well. Given these facts the film takes on a less realistic documentary presence and a more fictional presence. In the end the filmmakers may have not have cared about these discrepancies in their mission to show what a nuclear attack may look like.

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm

One of the reasons that Symbiopsychotaxiplasm was not successful in becoming a mainstream film could be the format in which the film was presented. For the late 60's this film was revolutionary in the way that the view was able to watch it. One of the most revolutionary things in the film would be the fact that at times there were three different screens to focus on at the same time. This would most likely have been hard for moviegoers at the time to grasp and pay attention to. Additionally the incorporation of the filmmakers into the film was something that most likely would have been a foreign idea for moviegoers. Comparing this film to films and TV shows in recent years it can be seen as a milestone. In today’s television it is not a rare occurrence that there will be multiple screens on at the same time (ex. 24). This can also be seen in films as well as many music videos of today. I have a strange feeling that if this film was released today it would most likely be looked at as more mainstream rather than outside of the box as it was in the 60's.

Leisure Society or Not?

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One brought up the discussion of a Leisure Society. The similarities between the society back then to society now hasn’t changed much. When one looks at today’s generation, the use of movies, television, internet, and video games has greatly increased. Many have describe this not as leisure but as apathy. Most of this generation, news journalist claim, refuse to participate in the political aspects of society or take on any forms of protest of the government.
But I question whether this is a Leisure/Apathetic Generation that is growing up or an Escapism Generation. Perhaps most of this generation does not want to take on the government because they see that there is nothing they can do and so escape to change an imaginary world in a video game. And yet, there would seem to be a different kind of protest happening that doesn’t happen on the steps of Washington D.C. but on the forums of the internet. Maybe this generation sees a greater chance of improvement through their writing rather then actions.

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm

This film had a weird unsettling feel about for a while. There wasn't anything in particular about the film that was unsettling, only the fact that it was hard to ascertain what was going on for a while. The film forces you to deal with many levels of reality that unfold without warning during the movie. First, you feel like you're watching an actual movie... then a documentary about filming a movie... then a parody documentary about filming a movie. At one point you start to feel like the movie is a documentary by the director playing a joke on the cast and crew, and then you start to think maybe the crew is in on it also. There's nothing in the film that you can accept as truth, there's only discussion about what truth is and vague answers about what the whole movie is about. I guess the best way to describe it is that the movie seems to start out semi-normal and then becomes aware of itself. This can also be a metaphor for society in the 60's as we moved into a new era of understanding about the world and ourselves.

War Game

Peter Watkins film The War Game must have really struck a nerve back in the mid 60's. Although it won a Documentary Oscar in the 1966 Academy Awards, it was ironically banned by the BBC after they produced it. Although it may have appeared condemnative of the British government and their preparation against nuclear war, The War Game actually condemns any society in which nuclear threat is a possibility. Probably the scariest part about the movie wasn't that it showed the extreme violence stemming from a nuclear attack in Britain. What made it most unsettling was that those events actually happened. The research was done on previous bomb sights like Hiroshima to provide the information. This element of documentary forces the audience to cope not only with a plausibility of nuclear threat in Britain, but also the grim face of nuclear war. The horror that a nuclear bomb causes is unacceptable along the lines of human decency, but if we are going to live in a world where nuclear warfare is a necessary evil, we may have to keep our ears plugged about the consequences (at least, according to the BBC in 1965.)

Kozloff - Invisible Storytelling

Kozloff argues that The Naked City is an excellent example of a film using voice over narration to give the story a documentary-like feel, in order to make the point that there is truth to this story. Kozloff also states that the narration in this film is unique in its approach. It is not the melodramatic, detached “Voice of God” that was so present in other films of the day. The Naked City’s narration uses other methods to engage and include the audience. Foremost, it is self reflexive. In the beginning of the film we are told by the narrator that we are watching a film. He introduces himself, the cast and crew. Instead of the narrator existing in the fictional world along with the characters, he is acknowledging that it is all a construction at the hands of the filmmakers.
Kozloff claims that the filmmakers wanted the narration for The Naked City to have a literary feel, setting the tone of New York City in the gritty, hot summer through poetic descriptions. Mark Hellinger, the producer as well as narrator of the film, was in love with this idea of New York City, so the portrayal of Manhattan in this film is clearly biased. Normally this would be a problem, but since we are listening to a voice that is watching the film over our shoulder as opposed to being a detached god somewhere up in the clouds, the bias seems ok.
There is a sense of immediacy in Hellinger’s narration, as he directly addresses the characters as if they can hear him, particularly in the last sequence during the police chase. This makes the audience feel like the narrator is sitting in the theater along with them, as if he himself does not know the outcome. He also uses the present tense throughout the film. This is not narration that is hearkening back to the past. He is giving the audience facts as in a news report, furthering the documentary feel of the film.
Kozloff also challenges the opinions of Bonitzer and Doane, who say that narrators automatically have all the power because they come from a disembodied “other” that knows all and sees all, implying that that which cannot be seen is automatically powerful. Kozloff points out how we cannot see novelists or essayists, yet we still question and criticize them. This raised an interesting question: Why do we so readily accept what film narrators say as the truth? The Naked City played around with convention, but, in the end, the voice of Hellinger really did know everything. He stated in the very beginning that he had a hand in the film’s production. So for all his use of present tense, direct address and the occasional allowance of other characters to have their own (scripted) voice over, he was still the omniscient authority.

Ryan/Kellner: From Counterculture to Counterrevolution, 1967 to 1971

While some of the points in the Ryan/Kellner reading, "From Counterculture to Counterrevolution, 1967 to 1971," were slightly redundant (not in the context of the article, but in the context of the film studies classes I've taken up to this point), I thought it did a good job of explaining the why in the change in film content during this crucial time.

It set up a pretty explicit backdrop for the remainder of the article, especially citing historical events/movements/etc. It addressed the 1950s as a time of vast restriction, uniformity, and a fear of variation. It then pointed to some of the classic "New Hollywood" films (Midnight Cowboy, The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde and Easy Rider) as a means for people to break away from the conformity, and to establish an independent and liberated voice for the generation of the 1960s. The 60s, a time identified largely with public unrest and the vocalization of social/political concerns and complaints (the Civil Rights movement, insurgence by feminism activists, strong opposition for the war, etc.), and the emergence of the idea of "the Establishment" and ways to go against it. Essentially, the America of the 1960s was unraveling the threads of the social fabric three times quicker than the 1950s America spent creating it.

The idea of alienation and rebellion was coming through in full effect in the films (The Graduate, one of the biggest grossing films of the 60s, inspired by the French New Wave, and featuring a soundtrack by Simon and Garfunkel, was an inevitable success). It seemed that for every identifiable aspect of "The Establishment," there was a film made to rebel against it (alienation from the "white middle class," the bourgeois lifestyle, a reliance on the "American Dream", etc.). There were films that reflected the feminist movement (Wanda, Diary of a Mad Housewife, The Rain People and Up the Sandbox), the Civil Rights movement (Uptight, Watermelon Man, and The Spook Who Sat By the Door), and the student-orchestrated anti-Vietnam movement (Billy Jack, The Revolutionary, and The Strawberry Statemement).

As could have been expected, however, the glorification of this rebellious outcry caused a large amount of unrest amongst conservatives and the older portion of the American population. The article does an excellent job of bringing the movement full circle, describing it as a cycle. The seventies brought a paranoid population, concerned with the dissolving unity in America. There was too much disharmony between the conservatives and the liberals, and tension began to manifest itself in the form of violence, less peaceful protests, etc. Soon came the emergence of a new audience, seeking films with simpler, less-hostile, and more conservative themes. As is in the tradition of Hollywood cinema, the industry responded quickly by catering to these needs with films of "personalism" (Love Story, French Connection, and Dirty Harry). Amongst popular topics were intimacy (which many were searching for at the time), a more accepting view of crime prevention (a critique of the liberal view of criminal justice), and "films promoting conservative positions on the family, sexuality, unions, human nature, crime, war, politics and society as a whole."

As previously stated, a lot of the ideas put forth in this reading have been addressed before. However, it was the inclusion of the historical backdrop that really aided in an understanding of why Hollywood was as it was during the transitional period from the 60s to the 70s.

Intro of 92nd

The opening scene of The House on 92nd Street is very similar to a history channel style documentary. It starts with about 5 minutes of solid narration, discussing the workings of the Nazi Regime. It includes rare, scratchy footage of mysterious looking men walking in and out of mysterious looking buildings. In these shots the film is trying to both pull viewers in and educate them on what exactly they are being pulled into. In the same style to most history channel documentaries it is telling the viewer, "This is what we are going to talk about." And, "You are going to here about all these things you've probably never heard about before." But never really suggests, at least in the opening scene that it is going to take ninety minutes to do so. What works with this film is the ability it has to walk the line of interesting narrative fiction, while still seemingly staying true to historical accuracy. The opening is a unique approach to a narrative story and with The House on 92nd Street I believe it works.

Lipkin reading

The Lipkin reading on docudramas addressed the ways in which Twentieth Century Fox cashed in on the use of documentary elements in their post-war films. They sniffed out the hot button issues and either gleaned many composite cases and developed a story around it, or re-created some real life event to shed light on a moment in history. TCF put a lot of emphasis on actuality based films after WWII. They had made docudramas in the past, but perhaps the success of Italian neo-realist films encouraged them to churn out the docudramas more frequently after the war.

The postwar docudramas produced by TCF were considered both films noir and social problem films. Films were shot on location to seem more gritty and real, as opposed to the “dreamland” fabrications made by Hollywood up until this point. Many actuality-based docudramas were lauded for calling attention to issues that had not been talked about publicly. In order to address and strive to ameliorate the problems presented in the films, close attention was paid to making things look as authentic as possible, through technology, shooting on real locations, printed materials, etc. This added a journalistic air to the film, and journalism is (arguably) a more respected medium in terms of telling the truth. When these non-fictional elements were fit together properly with the fictional narrative, a believable docudrama was achieved. But the main criticism of docudramas was that they often relied too much on melodramatic tones. The melodramatic acting, score, etc. at times overshadows the actuality-based documentary style and defeats the purpose of believability.

Lipkin identified three ways in which docudramas link data with claims. Models are used to represent the real life documents, places, people that the docudrama is re-creating. The term sequencing refers to the ways in which the real footage and fictional scenes are merged in the film to make it believable. Lastly, the placement of fictional and real elements within a scene are referred to as the interactions. These elements, in conjunction with the audience’s willingness to suspend disbelief, are what make a docudrama successful. Lipkin argues that the postwar docudramas produced by TCF represent how to utilize these elements, and are copied by the docudramas of today.

Real Footage in The House on 42nd Street

The way in which The House on 42nd Street gives the audience the idea that this story is not only based on a true story, but it is a small part of a true story. The footage allows us to see real people who were being questioned by the FBI in order to find out who were spies. Close to the end of the film, we are shown a line of people being brought in because they were suspected of being spies. This small amount of footage alone seems to give more credibility to the film because we are seeing people that had no part in the film, but are being used to show that real people were spying on U.S. agencies. The filmmaker could have easily filmed people from the actual film being brought into custody, but he chose to show the real people who were the basis for the villains in the film. This intentional change from staged events to what really happened brings a new level of realism to the film, which allows the viewer to have a stronger belief that the events that were portrayed in the film actually happened.

Throughout the film, we are aware that we are watching actors simply doing their job, but the archival footage allows us to believe that these actors may only be acting, but they are acting in order to show us what really happened in the U.S. The film is almost being used to document history in order for the American public to see that these people may have tried to deceive the U.S., but we were too smart for their tactics. The film may be trying to create the idea in people that the U.S is great and powerful and the archival footage is used in a way that supports this idea. Instead of being shown problems that occurred due to the spies, we are being shown the spies in order to think that the U.S. was successful in stopping their plan to destroy America.

House on 92nd Street

House on 92nd Street struck me as a film that could be watched several times over, with the way in which it gives audiences real characters and a storyline that are believeable, that are worth putting thought into. The story was the highlight of this film, in how its events really did happen; that's what caught my eye, anyway. I did like the film noir aspect of 92nd Street, with its dark mis-en-scene and purpose...it gave it an exciting edge that I didn't think this film would have.

Technology in House on 92nd Street

The use of technology in The House of 92nd Street is varied and interesting The movie helps keep the viewer interested and create a sense that they are uncovering evidence along with the characters. In The House of 92nd Street, the FBI uses a chemical to uncover the invisible writing on the letters that are in code. Showing the viewer this creates interest and a need to figure out what the letter says. This keeps the audience watching the movie and rooting for the good guys to figure out the schemes of the bad guys. The other pieces of technology used in The House are the photographic chambers they use to capture the image of the letters they discover and the ability to change around information in order to confuse the enemy. But while these keep the audience invested in the movie, they do show that they struggle with some things such as the identity of the head of the nazi ring and how a man is smuggling information out of a laboratory.
The best “technology” of the movie is the human mind. They are able to figure out that the man smuggling information out of the laboratory has an extraordinary memory that enables him to remember all the experiments they performed. This is seen as amazing because of the complicated formulas of the experiments that he runs. The film shows the audience the difficult situations the FBI have and how they are able to figure it out. The FBI are able to beat a man with photographic memory and save the day.

Setting Up the Truth

In The House on 92nd Street and Call Northside 777, the opening credits are seen in a distinct fashion by way of a book. A hand from an unknown character flips through the pages revealing names of the cast and crew. Both finally come to the statement that the movie is based on a true story. In this way, the director has set up to the audience not only are they going to be entertained with a movie but what they are about to shown is true. By using a book as the opening credit, the director allows the viewer to know that this is a story that they are getting the privilege of knowing. The added benefit that when something is in print, the viewer believes it to be true, is helpful to these movies.
The writing in The House on 92nd Street, replays to the audience just how true this story is by adding that they used real FBI agents in some of the scenes and tried to film whenever possible in the exact location that the events took place. This movie wants to show the viewer that it’s trying to portray this film in the most truthful light possible. However, today the viewer can tell that there are propagandist tendencies in these films when it constantly refers to the FBI as a great organization that doesn’t fail at anything.

House on 92nd Street

House on 92nd Street blended elements of film noir and docudrama. It was one of the first times Hollywood attempted to use real, archival footage in a narrative film. Being one of the first tries at interweaving the real with the narrative, I think they did a fairly good job. Not only was the real surveillance footage used to set up the story and the German spy element, but it was also mixed in with other shots to blur the lines between real and fake. Throughout, I couldn't help but think about December 7, in that this fell in with the WWII propoganda films, disguised as a suspenseful thriller. It also raised the same question of whether or not moviegoers in the 1940s were hit over the head with the melodramatic patriotism the same way we are today, or were they genuinely moved? Maybe, since this film came out in 1946, the public wanted something that reaffirmed their faith in the American government. The sweeping, theatrical score that's played everytime the F.B.I. building placard is shown gives the audience the cue that this is the place to be revered. Lots of technical terms and processes were explained throughout the film not only to add to the "real" effect of the film, but to give a feeling of legitimacy and authority. The F.B.I. in this film was a well oiled machine that could solve any problem.

December 7

December 7 was par for the course as far as World War II propoganda films go. I found it interesting that some of the shots were framed with captions, to give a newsreel feel for these "actual" events. But whatever actual footage was used in the film was overshadowed by the narrative. They took the event of Pearl Harbor and recreated what they could while creating a story of triumph over adversity on the part of the Americans - to boost morale. The lines of what is fake and what is factual are blurred by how slanted the story is. Yes the Japanese military was our enemy in WWII, but the narrator spent too much time painting them as "dirty Japs". The voice over of "General Tojo" taking stock of the destroyed U.S. ships was laughable. That was clearly an American doing a bad impression of a Japanese accent. But, played over footage of an animated transmission tower sending out this voice triumphantly over Japan (with an ominous looking dragon statue in the background), it is displayed as the truth. The lines between fact and fiction are also blurred when we see the soldiers "fighting" the Japanese planes. They shoot and shoot at the sky, but it seems like they're shooting at nothing at all.

Most of the film was geared towards tugging at the heart strings, i.e. shots of little Hawaiian children having to duck in trenches during drills and having to put on huge gas masks, the beautiful Hawaiian landscape being torn up. The film at this point is blatantly "rallying the troops" to get back the evil force that corrupted "America's Eden". A very interesting part of this sequence was the coverage of the Japanese American shopowners taking down all signs of Japanese culture, language, etc. out of shame (or at least that is what teh narrator tells us). Someone nowadays can't watch that without thinking about the Japanese interment camps during WWII. But this film shows a different attitude towards Japanese Americans - not one of distrust, but one of pity that they have been driven into shame by the Japanese military. One wonders if this film really did arouse patriotism in the hearts of people in the 40s, or did anybody notice the glaring propoganda.

Propaganda's progress

It is amazing how much more slick propaganda has become. The tactics used in December 7 were audibly laughable to its present day audience. The narration may have been necessary to guide the audience it was created for, even entertaining; however, for people watching the film today, it is embarrassingly in bad taste. Triumph of the Will seemed to be ahead of its time, especially in comparison to the two American films. The filming techniques, camera angles and choice of shots were more subtle and in turn very effective.

All Lies

Although No Lies embodies the quality of refelexivity and touches on real issues, it falls short of the title "documentary". No Lies is documentary style in appearance and structure; however, the use of theatrical actors and a script seperate it too far from any form of documentary. No Lies could be considered a reflexive fiction, or even a reflexive pseudocumentary. If the actors were replaced with social actors and the script traded for an interview (even guided), the film would be a perfect documentary

December 7

December 7 was a film that must have been thought of as incredible when it was first seen. The use of miniatures to show what happened during the fighting was used extremely well. A person going to see this film when it first came out must have thought that it was actually shot when the attack on Pearl Harbor took place. A film like December 7, if it was done today, would mostly be special effects. December 7, on the other hand, used models to make the fighting seem real. The shots may not have been completely accurate, but one could easily believe that it was real when the film first came out.

December 7 was not only a way of showing people what happened at pearl Harbor, but also gave a strong feeling of just how great the United States is. Even though many people were killed in the bombing, the film made it seem that the U.S. was barely affected by the tragedy. The film tried to make it seem like the Japanese failed in their attempts to hinder the U.S. People were seen getting ready for any other possible attacks, making it seem like the Japanese should not even bother attempting another attack because the U.S. will undoubtedly be ready for anything they can throw at us. This film was a great way to make people see the greatness of the U.S. and make them think that nothing bad could ever happen to us. Pearl Harbor may have been a horrible tragedy, but the film shows people that the U.S. can overcome any type of obstacle, no matter how large.

intro

(i posted this some time ago, but didn't realize it wasnt on the class blog...)
to answer the question of how the three films worked within and against their respective genres, i will start with Dead End. this film is an example of classcal hollywood. it conforms by including hired actors, staged sets and lighting, a script, etc. the story was also fictional. however, it slightly bent the rules of classical realism in that the story was a reflextion of the contemporary social issues. it tried to address a large scale problem with the use of film. in a way, it pioneered that aspect about films that has been seen through the years ever since.in Rain, an experimental approach was used to get across an abstract idea. since the film was experimental, there really is no way that it could stay in or go out of convention since the convention itself is a very loose one. although i did not get the message at first, i agree with what was said in the subsequent discussion regarding the film being about the power of weather and man's weak and practically futile struggle against it.in The City, a documentary approach was used to get across what was utterly an opinion. it is hard to judge how this film stayed within or without convention since the convention of documentaries did not emerge until after the film was made. by today's standards, the film was a bit biased and sensational in its approach to the subject. heavy sound design was used to persuade the audience towards the makers' point of view. again, it is a harsh criticism though since this a retrospective analysis. the film did seem to "obey" in that it used non-actors for subjects and did not stage events, or at least it seems.

Actualities or Just Really Bad Documentaries?

If the widely accepted definition of documentary is "the creative treatment of actuality", and a film such as The Thin Blue Line, which blends actuality and narrative footage, is considered a documentary, then one should consider that some early cinematic ventures could potentially be considered documentaries, even if the creative treatment may not be wholly entertaining. One film in particular that illustrates this is The Execution of Czolgosz, with Panorama of Auburn Prison. It contains a rather lengthy pan of the prison, which is the actuality portion of the film, then transitions to a reenactment of the execution of McKinley's assassin. While there is not any narrative voice to illuminate the viewer on what this short film is all about, to those watching this film during the time of its relevance, it would most likely be understood in the same way as today's more complex documentaries.

Mediated Manipulation: A look into the concepts of 'Medium Cool'

The film Medium Cool raised a number of pertinent issues. The major issue, the one that seemed to speak the loudest, was that of the 'mediated society.' This is an issue that is quite prevalent in today's America. Film and television seem to dominate people's lives, for many the television is more alive then their own life. It is not uncommon for an individual to relate an occurrence in actuality to something experienced by a fictional character in a movie or television series, and America's faithfulness to it's mediated culture has reached a status of epidemic proportions.
Starting Point 1 in the problematic structure of our mediated environment is the falsity of our mediated portrayal. The easiest case-in-point: Image Doctoring capabilities. Everyone knows that the woman or man portrayed on the cover of the 'hottest magazine' has been 'photoshopped' to look like someone other than their actuality. We doctor our own image in a similar fashion through plastic surgery, at an extreme, and more simply through the use of make-up or hair dye. These self-doctoring methods can be used to enhance our true selves, but more often seem to be used to imitate the positive aspects of others that the public is told are also supposed to be their own positive aspects.
Point 2, and a major concept within this film, is the idea of the mediated, or representational image, as being something somehow more real than ourselves. Because of it's informative nature, specifically within news arenas, the media is viewed by the public as a source 'telling you the way it is'. While there is dialogue that occurs between media and the public, where one influences the other, it seems that the media often latches onto the very negative aspects of the american culture and chooses to repeatedly illustrate those aspects without attempting to overcome them and use it's influence over the public to reach a higher plane of existence.
Medium Cool addresses these issues and has a main character that documents the voices of those who need to be heard and who could bring awareness to a submissive and clouded public. At the end, the audience is informed about the car accident and subsequent death of the main characters through a news cast, high lighting the media-as-life understanding within American society.

Understanding "Actualities"

The term "actualities" is an interesting one. Using it here, it is referencing the short(or, potentially, long--usually short) bits of footage that have not been doctored in any way and don't attempt to create a story other than that which was presented within the given actual setting(i.e. documented events where the viewer hasn't been pre-situated). In class, shorts by Edison were viewed, most of those shown are examples of this genre. Often times, this cinema-verite-esque filmic style is understood as being somehow more real than other kinds of filmmaking, as it is presenting the events AS THEY WERE. The difficulty here is understanding what qualifies something as being 'real' and, furthermore, what it is that human beings go through in connecting with and creating their realities.
Since actualities don't situate the viewer, they don't tell the viewer what exactly is going on, the individual witnessing the filmic event is left to make guesses as to what circumstances have taken place to produce said event. The viewer must utilize his/her imagination. This leaves a large margin of error on the part of viewer's personal understanding of the presented footage. Because nothing is expressly said, the viewer must decide what happenings are progressing, if the viewer decides incorrectly, if the viewer assumes something is occurring that could be argued as being entirely wrong, then the viewer could be said to have misinterpreted what was viewed. In so doing, in misinterpreting, the audience member has distorted the reality and one may argue whether the audience's understanding of what has taken place could be understood as actuality or not. In this manner, in understanding reality through an agreed upon interpretation, one could say that a narrative film--where the situation is clearly dictated and understood--is more real than something that is misunderstood and, possibly, seemingly out of place. Furthermore, it could be argued as to whether or not there's relevance to something that can't be placed within an interpreters reality spectrum, i.e. if there is no dialogue to situate something for proper placement within other's realities, what is it's relevance to these others' existence? And, without relevance, what is it's reality?

Just some thoughts.

However: The historical relevance of such filmic documents can be argued, also the novelty of such footage, but that is for another essay.

Cait

Edison Films

One of the most interesting things about the early cinema is that the stories haven't really changed. They have the romance, the comedy, the action, the sci-fi and history. The most interesting one I thought was the film with the rich man looking for a wealthy bride. The first thing that went through my head was, "Oh this is the bachelor." I don't really watch the bachelor but I assume that the creators of the show thought that it was really unique and an interesting way to do TV. It's really not. Even though that film was fictional it's still the same idea. Lots of girls chasing after one guy=comedy.

Even though it's hard to watch an hour and a half of these films back to back it was still very interesting to see that while film and movies have evolved technologically the stories are similar. It shows that uniqueness is a hard thing to come by in the cinema.

Children in Tire Die

In "Tire Die" the children could be looked at from two different perspectives. During the segment where all of the children are begging for change what was the filmmaker going for. Did he want to portray the children as a nuisance, or did he want to show them in a light that sympathized with them. Portraying them, as a nuisance certainly could be a possibility, at one point their yelling of throw ten becomes so annoying that it hurts the ears. The director obviously wanted to amp up the volume on the children to have an effect on the audience. However at the same time the director could have been trying to sympathize with the children by showing their sheer numbers and how loud that they were. What also ads to this point of view are the people on the train that take on the two different perspectives. Some of the people obviously feel bad for the kids and throw them change, on the other hand some of the people on the train sit there and try to ignore the children. The film could be read from either perspective depending upon the person watching it.