Death of a President

Death of a President, directed by Gabriel Range, is a glamorous hybrid of fact and fiction. It combines these two opposites to promote thought and reflection about fictional events supported with factual newsreel and interview footage. The certain tropes that go along with news-format footage are repeated through out the film, adding to the validity that what you are watching is real. This pseudodocumentary takes its viewers on a thrill ride of cataclysmic events that ensue because of the death of our current president, but still is done in such a way to make its viewers think.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.