the house on 92nd street

I too read this film as a propaganda film - it promotes both gender-appropriate behavior (and morals) and a pro-America mentality. The things that really tipped the film into propaganda for me were the music and the scripting/narrator. I've found in a few films this semester (Primary comes to mind as one) that the music - what kind and when - is very influential. The opening scene of House on 92nd street uses an instrumental version of "My Country tis of Thee" as the camera moves from a long shot of the White House to closing in on the FBI building which unmistakably is meant to stir a patriotic sentiment. The narrator is Reed Hadley, who at the time had a very recognizable voice and narrated government training films, etc. His voice was recognizable as informed and authoritive and in house on 92nd that voice is definitely all-knowing, all-seeing, and leaves little room anywhere for interpretation, or misinterpretation, of the images we are seeing. The film promotes an ethice sameness/whiteness - as we tour the FBI building there is no discernable ethnic or racial variety among any of the employees, whereas the enemy, the Germans and those Americans who help them have qualities, such as an accent, a swagger, a style of dress, the puts them outside of the white anglo-saxon protestant mold we see at the FBI. The women at the FBI, and by extension in American, are relegated to secretarial roles, where they catalog and manage volumes of information exclusively generated by the male FBI employees. The women have no agency or imperative in the information, no personal relationship to it - and while managing and cataloging this information is an important and necessary role, it doesn't have to, in it's nature, be done by women alone - and there is no reason why these women could not also be scientists or investigators, and no reason why men could not work filing and managing the data - no reason, or course, besides sexism. I kept thinking about "Rosie the Riveter" during these scenes of women working at the FBI - about the fact that during world war II the government pushed for women to leave their roles of working in the home and recruited them to work in factories and in other roles normaly occupied by men (thus the "we can do it" Rosie the Riveter campaign) and alot of women enjoyed this opportunity to work outside of the home, have their own income, and to build a new skill set. When the war was over, however, the government urged women to leave these jobs and return to being housewives or secretaries or other jobs that were considered "women's work". I wonder if any of this was in the atmosphere during the making of this film.

The Nichols Reading

Although the style of writing is less conversational than others, Nichols' insight into the world of documentary is very interesting. Prior to this class (and this reading in particular), I wasn't aware of the nomenclature and sub-classes that exist within the field, much less what separates each category.

I really appreciated his explanation of "reflexivity" as a way to understand documentaries.

That said, I feel that the language was an unnecessary barrier when trying to explain an already complex genre. Some of the words even seemed made-up (talismanic).

Regardless, it provided new terms to help dissect what we've seen in class, and distinguish the real from the fake. Even if his vocabulary falls in the gray.

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm

This film is reflexive in every tense of the term. Not only is it a film about making a film and all the pitfalls associated, but it is also a study in viewer's understanding.

As the story - or the lack of which - unfolded, I found myself increasing attached to these characters. It was as if, despite the fact that the scene took place in the 60's, that they were talking about any of my film classes and projects. By keeping things very open and non-specific, the film crew of Symbiopsychotaxiplasm were addressing life as a whole.

Primary

I watched Primary several times outside of class, and each time I found myself asking if I really thought the film was balanced, were the editing choices meant to sway the view one way or the other? It seems clear throughout the film that Kennedy is much more comfortable in front of the camera and more photogenic and even charismatic than Humphrey. I wonder if this fact alone might sway both a cameraperson and an editor to edit in your favor whether they realize it or not? With minimal narration, the natural trajectory of the narrative is told almost exclusively through visuals. It was Drew's intention to produce a balanced and fair picture of the primary and upon first watch I didn't think he accomplished this. It seemed that Kennedy continually came out looking better and Humphrey looked rather boring, to such a degree I wondered if the film hadn't been made to do so. Then, after repeated viewings, my opinion started to sway. I think it's actually the overall passage of time that changed the perspective with which the footage is viewed. Looking at Primary now seems more like viewing for the sake of investigating the life of a person who everyone thought/hoped would change the world and as he was, he was murdered for it. I found myself almost impulsively drawn to examine Kennedy more closely, to see footage of this legend that I hadn't seen before really distracted me from a more careful read of the film. After roughly estimating screen time, it seems rather equal and the moments where Humphrey is almost aggressively seeking people to talk to, where his own travelmates are dozing while he's talking, and where there are not many people at his appearances - well, it's clear that he owns those moments, undeniably. The camera is just recording what happened. The effect though, is that in the end I am surprised the race was not a complete and total landslide in Kennedy's favor. It's worth noting, though, that Drew went on to make more films about the Kennedys and while there wouldnt be much of a film to make about HUmphrey, it's just interesting to me that Drew continued to have a relationship with the Kennedy's.

Waiting For Guffman

Waiting for Guffman is interesting because Guest created a sense of reality while smudging the truth enough to cause soe giggles. It wasn't a doc. fiction in the classic sense since it's aim was to capture real desires versus actual events---or events that could even bbe actual. Behind all the laughs, were effective devices like one-on-one interviews, interestig use of sound, and dead plot time to signify real life. there was no neat story round-up, or even a clearly good/bad guy. each person acted out their role to show one particular side of a psyche.

Good Night and Good Luck

Good Night and Good Luck dripped with nostalgic references to a time long passed. Not being a baby boomer, I have difficulty discerning what is fact and what is fiction on a topic that took place so many decades ago.

What impressed me the most as a cinematographer was their attention to recreating the "shooting style" of the era, along with the musical moods and overall cinematic atmosphere.

The class screening was the second time I'd seen it, and I think I took more away with that reiteration. Since I am only versed in the Murrow/McCarthy information to the extent that it appears in Trivial Pursuit, I was forced to pay more attention to plot than style initially.

I truly believe that it is a masterpiece and a time capsule; assuming that its content falls closer to fact than fiction. A superb choice for discussion.

92nd street

What is hard about these films is that you look at them in a later context and it is hard to take them seriously as a narrative. So much about them is filled with propaganda, yet they are truly narratives at heart. Although blatantly ropaganda, it is hard to tell if the cheesy and corny elements of the film are due to this media being back by the government or is it because many films of that time had those elements. Dead end was a film that was filled with moments that were over the top, and really outrageous acting by modern day standards. Both have a lot of shouting, cheesy fight scenes, and dialogue that is extremely unatural. Perhaps the only reason that movies like dead end are given more credit than movies like 92nd street is because people like bogart were starring in the films. Whenever someone becomes a star the mass audiences are more willing to accept the stars earlier (and more lame) films. Perhaps 92nd street might have gone down in history as one of AFI's top one hundred films if it starred eva gardner and erol flynn.

House on 92nd St

In class we learned that this was one of the first films to combine documentary footage with dramatic action. Largely feeling like a propaganda piece about the strength of as-of-yet unknown FBI and the follies of the Third Reich, it is noticeably devoid of relationships. Everyone has a job that they are 100% devoted to. While there is betrayal and loyalty, there is no romance.

I found the use of technology interesting in this film because it almost serves as its own character, tying all pieces together. Between the microfilm, the hidden cameras, and the radio tower, technology is the one thing that either makes or breaks every single person in this film, and it is also what brings them all together.

If anything, this is a time capsule of commentary about the geographic and cultural tensions of the era rather than the power of the FBI and it's stymieing of the Nazi attack.

Culloden

Even though Culloden's mockumentary format was more akin to a Monty Python production than most of the BBC's work, its use of interviews had the distinct feeling of realism.

Considering that the topic took place in the 1700's, Director Peter Watkins wisely chose to infuse modern elements like documentary style question/answer segments along with battlefield commentary from the sidelines.

As the film wrapped up, it became apparent that it was the gritty handheld camera work, and extremely close shots amidst exploding bullets that made the viewers feel like they were actually there. The interviews actually provided an intimacy that would have otherwise been lost.

JFK

One thing that is great about Oliver stone is that he is willing to accept that he is working in fiction, and thus it allows him to get out of control with his theories if he is trying to dissect a certain moment in history. The reason that this is good is because the truth is always the strangest possible thing, and until one is willing to take that leap from the logical into the purely outrageous they cannot know the truth. If everything made sense, than everything would be solved. The truth of the matter is that when a president is killed, and a lot of odd events surround the killing, than one must be willing to think outside of the box. A lone gunman is the most obvious answer. There's tons of crazy people in america and it only seems natural that someone would want to kill the president. But, it is also just as likely the people inside the government that dont like the president could figure out a way to have him killed quietly. A lot of peole are not willing to do expose these things. Although stone may have started out with thinking that he is not going to make an honest story, he definately thought he ended a film with what really happened to JFK. Stone is good like that, and it's a shame that he didn't put that same willingness to question conspiracy surrounding the government when he made world trade center.

no lies

The woman in no lies is a very sympathetic character. It's hard to not feel for her, and to be honest, one might be somewhat of a monster if they have sympathy for the female protagonist of short film. Though this film is a classic, and was quite a statement for the time in which it was made, it is not a timeless piece, and as the years go on it simply looses more of the affect than what it had when it was first made. It's nice to know that women have more rights in todays society. It's also nice to know that men (and others) are becoming more aware of how sick and wrong a crime rape is. plus the american society as a whole are teaching their younn women to no longer take abuse of this nature. With all that being said, this is why the film looses more and more creditablitiy (in a modern context) as the years pass. It would be exppected that in todays society the things that were issues would not exist. New york isn't such a scary lace anymore. Police chiefs are urged to not be such creeps, and men in todays society are expected to do something if their femal friend tells them they were raped, they wouldn't just sit there and ask questions trying to figure out if their female friend was lying or not. Maybe the director wanted to point out issues that were relevant of the day, and doesn't care that his movie will not last through the ages. Maybe people still think that the issues presented in the film are still as relevant as they were then. I would hope not.

No Lies

No Lies is so pointedly reflexive, the actress is so self-conscious and conversational and the dialogue unfolds with such natural awkwardness and pacing into the actresses' disclosure that she has been recently raped that it's hard to image that the film is anything other than a documentary. It raises several ethical issues, of course, to learn that it is not a documentary. The audience feels puzzled, foolish, tricked or emotionally manipulated after, or as, the credits for the film roll. Besides the expected questins of ethical dilema and responsibility when presenting "fiction" as "real" - there is an additional layer of concern surrounding authenticity when put in the context of rape and believability. No Lies does an excellent job of portraying how rape survivors feel, and often react, to assault. It presents also, an almost all-too real account of how policie authorities, other women, hospitals, and society in general treat rape survivors or "victims" as they were called in the era the film was made. It seems clear to me that these systems and responses must have been well-researched to make the film; the part of the dialogue where the actress mentions that another woman walked by and didn't stop to help her reminded me in part of the Kitty Genovese case from 1964, that took place in New York. No Lies is often used in feminist film classes, and in training/educational settings because it so perfectly captures the responses of survivors and certainly impacts audiences in a profound and sympathetic manner - at least until the credits roll. My question, though, is whether or not there is an additional layer of responsiblity or at least consideration that must be made when one of the major problems that women (primarily) face when reporting rape and sexual harassment is believability. In addition to victim-blaming (which the 'filmaker' illustrated perfectly, women often (and certainly were at the time the film was made) simply not believed and listened to - so does making a "fake", "not-true" fabricated documentary about a fabricated rape add another layer to the dilemma? Does it compound the issue of believability and does the "fake-out" of the film detract and distract from the issue at hand?

Primary

Technologically speaking, “primary” claims to be the first documentary shot with synchronized sound. Previous to this development, the separation between picture and audio created a notable divide, allowing for wasted rolls in which the sound operation and the camera operator focused on different things. Drew, obviously aware of this features, uses background noise to tie together otherwise innocuous non-cinematic moments. The newfound surplus of sound-to-picture material serves as a bridge, tying Humphrey to Kennedy, the past to the present, and illustrating how stumping has evolved and yet remains the same. If “primary” proves anything by the end of the film, it is that “voiceovers” do not have to be diegetic. They do not need to be performed by an A-list actor, or even be the main focus of the scene. The background audio can be woven into a tool that supports the message rather than serving as a distraction from an otherwise “dull” clip.

The question remaining at the end of the analysis is whether this pioneering and original technique, employed by countless following filmmakers, was intentional or accidental. Did the camera decide that Humphrey’s shoe soles were a metaphor for his approach to politics after noticing that they had become worn down as a result of his endless street visits, or was it left rolling after the camera operator’s arm grew fatigued? Did Drew shoot more because he thought that the newly synchronized audio might reveal things in post that had been invisible during production? It is unquestionable that whatever the answer, the eccentric mix created shockwaves in the film community as a whole. This style of filmmaking can be found in today’s modern television, short films, and of course, documentaries. By straying outside of the lines and presenting the innocuous, Drew painted a picture more complete than any other (political) documentary before it.

Guffman: simple is funny

There have been a lot of films over the years that take the mockumentary form. A lot of them usually take the norm of poking fun at bigger events, and the odd people surround the events they are emulating. On edge in 2001 poked fun at the figure. Even Cristopher guests very own Best in Show took a stab at the world of dog competitions. Guffman's approach to poking fun at smaller events and more obscure people tends to make the comedy even more ridiculous and humorous. Guffman was able to take something as simple, small and obscure as a bunch of yokel's attempt to put on a play and turn it into a hilarious social commentary on middle america. There was not a big budget in making this film, but there was not a need for a big budget. To keep the scale of the film small, but direct the actors to make it a big thing in their own minds is what made it so compelling to watch. The peole portrayed in the film were characitures of people from the mid-west, but even with the exaggeration it still comes off as very real, and something that people can relate too, versus all mockumentaries that take huge characters from huge events, and let the audience be in awe of how ridiculous the character is the whole time, instead of allowing the audience to get emotionally involved in the characters

The Historical Documentary

Films which are rooted with strong connections in history are particularly intriguing to me. Creating a fictionalized account of historical truths is as interesting as it is informative, regardless if the reenactments are true to fact or not. Either way, they tell something important about the filmmaker and the era of the film. Taking Watkins' Punishment Park, for example, a fictionalized narrative is composed out of real world events set during a time of nationwide protests. The film draws strength from actual accounts of citizens who were, in one way or another, inhibited from expressing their beliefs. This film brings attention to realities that many wish to keep under the covers. One contrast to this film context is The House on 92nd Street, which attempts to promote the good instead of revealing the injustice. In this case, the audience is presumably aware of the condition (World War II/nuclear age) and should feel a sense of comfort in the 'resolution' of the problem. In these two examples, different approaches are taken to inform an ignorant audience on a specific agenda. However, 92nd street ends up the clear winner in box office. Surely Punishment Park revealed shocking realities, but Hollywood was not willing to accept the inevitable repercussions(federal/legal) of such a film release. And on the opposite end, the government backs up 92nd Street, a propagandistic World War II era film who's 'realities' are not particularly rooted in the real facts. Regardless, this type of film history teaches us about the filmmakers, their agenda, a nation's agenda, and what the audience is 'willing' to accept as fact.

Punishment Park

Punishment Park is a film that comments on America's harsh punishment of people who try to stand up for what they believe in, or refused to conform to the status quo. The "trials" before the ridiculously bureaucratic panel of judges was entertaining, yet made me furious at the treatment of the prisoners. Made in the 80s by a British director, it spoke of the unjust ways this country's goverment treated "threats" to democracy in the 1960s and 70s. The ending was infuriating in that the police officers changed the rules at the last minute, claiming that they had every right to. Perhaps this was Watkins' comment about the corruption of the police force. I liked how Watkins interspersed the interviews throughout the film, in between scenes of the prisoners trekking miserably through the course. If those in the interview room had the knowledge we had, they would have just taken the jail time. The sounds of panting, struggling and coughing were heard over the desert sequences, which, when paired with seeing the prisoners dragging themselves along, made the viewer feel the exhausted hopelessness of their situation.

Medium Cool

Medium Cool has one of the most powerful and well-timed opening scenes I can think of in any movie. There is no doubt that you are in a movie that's going to be about the media and responsibility the very moment that the cameracrew shoots the car wreck on the highway. The degree of calculation and methodology with which the crew circle the car and take close-ups of the injured woman is immediately suspicious; when they drive away without helping her, complete unmoved by what they have just seen, calling an ambulance as a cold-hearted afterthought (which is it - they could have called for help first) it leaves no doubt to the viewer what the primary theme of the movie will be - and the scene is truly memorable, and telling.
Jump then, to the end of the movie, where you have the two main characters wandering through the actual 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention riots. It is rather unbelievable that these actors and crew were really there, carrying out the script of a movie that so perfectly, poignantly and intentionally co-incides with a riot; history is in the making and fact and fiction collide. But it's a scene in the middle of the film that I keep thinking about. When Cassellis and his friend enter the apartmant of the cab driver who turned in 10,000 left in his cab to the police (who then questioned him as if he was criminal and not a hero) - the racial, political, and class tension in the room is brilliantly illuminated in all it's complication and I feel it really captured the times perfectly. I wish I had a script because so many of the things that the black militants (this is how they appear in the credits) say to Cassellis regarding his white priviledge, his disrespectful language, his racism, and his assumption that he can just show up to someone's apartment and gain access to their lives and thoughts are so powerful and so perfectly show how racism plays out in the media, and also how that racism was resisted and articulated by those whom it impacted. Brilliant scene. That aside, I thought a good amount of the plot was a bit weak, or at least too unbelievable. Cassellis is so incredibly selfish and self-absorbed I can't see him having a change of heart as easily as he does in the film, it seems unlikely he would really grow so found of Eileen and her son - or that in the end he would put down his camera at a riot and help look for a little boy. It makes for a happier ending (he's able to extract himself from "loving to shoot film" and engage with the real world in a somewhat personal crisis) just before a tragic ending - one which does sent a bit of a mixed message...he puts down the camera and meets his untimely death just as he grows compassionate? Puzzling. Too little too late, perhaps - or maybe that's the wrong decision for a media maker. I found this quite from Haskell Wexler which I found interesting; reading Cassellis as autobiographical made me have more empathy for him.

"When I was in Vietnam with Jane Fonda" says Wexler, "I was filming a farmer walking through a field when all of a sudden he stepped on a land mine. Two Vietnamese guys ran out there to help him and I ran after them to shoot the scene of them bringing this guy in, his legs all bloody. The whole time I had two overwhelming feelings. One was 'I got a great shot!', the other was to put my camera down and help the farmer. In the end I carried on filming even though I couldn't even see what I was shooting because I was crying so hard. I have thought about that moment many times, about the question of when you have to put the camera down, when to stop observing and get involved."

Waiting for Guffman

Christopher Guest’s films walk a fine line because they imitate documentary material while consisting of entirely fictional material, falling squarely in the “mockumentary” genre. His camera crew imitates clichéd elements of documentaries like frequent handheld tracking shots and intentionally out of focus moments while the frame hunts for action. At several moments in Waiting for Guffman, Guest has the actors speak directly to the camera, imitating the social actor diaries. Shortly after Director/actor Corky St. Claire and his ensemble of idiotic townspeople-cum-actors finish presenting their ridiculous play, the “documentary crew” slips out in the house to get the “audience” reactions. Corky’s long time admirer and city-councilman Steve Stark faces the camera and discloses his effusive opinion of the performance. Due to its length, Waiting for Guffman viewers only saw strategic snippets of the play, so Stark is used to talk about what exists invisibly beyond the camera, and how much he liked it. His first person account is slightly, but very functional. Conversely, Ron and Sheila Albertson, who double as travel agents when not rehearsing with St. Claire, spend several minutes talking about their relationship status. Specifically, they tell the camera about Mr. Albertson’s very personal genital operation. While humorous, it has does not develop the plot. Like a checkout counter gossip rag, it taps human curiosity but serves no other purpose. Through these exploitations, Guest lampoons the fake nature of Reality TV by paralleling it with his fictions.

Waiting for Guffman, based on Waiting for Godot, is a thinly veiled attack on modern media consumption. Cable television now provides 24-hour access to shows about overly sexual Laguna Beach teens that sit around all day in a pool. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent cataloging how a hotel heiress handles herself on a pig farm, and millions tune in every week to see complete unknowns cover famous songs in a desperate attempt to win a record contract. Guest illustrates the fact that viewers no longer demand a destination, only an interesting journey, because. Just like Godot, Guffman never arrives, and Guest makes the point that this film and our modern media is “much ado about nothing.”

Thin Blue Line

Errol Morris and Michael Moore are directors particularly skilled at converting audiences to their sides without appearing heavy-handed.

No matter who actually did it, Randall Adams or David Harris, audiences leave the theater with a clear picture, and whats more, they believe that they discovered it themselves. Much of Morris's skill lies in the passive passing, and user-friendly language. His unassuming film making entices the viewer to study the subject matter and be receptive to the information playing out on the screen.

It still amazes me that this film was able to get a man out of prison. Perhaps instead shelling out of pocket for high-power attorneys, criminals should hire Hollywood film makers to argue their case in the limelight.

Hiroshima Mon Amour

I was particularly harsh on this film immediately after the screening because I thought that the overly-dramatized and "interpreted" depiction of the war and it's effects were the polar opposite of what we should be seeing in a documentary fictions class. The opening credits consisting of close-ups of body parts covered in gold writing against each other seemed more akin to a James Bond film than something making a critical analysis of post-war tensions.

After my rage subsided, I realized that the play like interactions and soap opera like line deliveries were necessary so that the film maker could capitalize on the strained relationship the plot called for by the end. They had to artificially connect them so that they could pull them apart with maximum effect.

I guess if you are going to manipulate reality, there is some honor in making it obvious.

David Holzman's diary

What a movie. I think film is one of the best film in cinema verite, real or not. I was believing every second of this film until the credits rolled. The forgotten silver had me for a good part of the beginning of the movie, but david holzmans diary had me the whole way. I as the viewer was feeling for this guy every moment of the film. I was pulled into his neurosis, and felt as though I wanted him to really succeed at finding out what his life was about, and making his film. At the same time though I hated david holzman because for two hours I was under the impression that back in the sixties there was this really annoying guy who made these crazy home diaries, dated this awesome looking model, and totally would have been some one I would not hang out with. It is ridiculous to think of The number of emotions I felt by going on this journey through this one man's life, and it was all made up in some movie. I've had films "touch" me, but nothing ever gets to you more than something that's real. This film stirs real emotions in people until the second it is over.

Dead End

I found Dead End to be very entertaining, and funny even thought it wasn't supposed to be. It is a good example of the social problem film that studios tackled in the 30s, 40s and 50s. It addresses the idea of the slum vs. the gentrified area of town, and in this film one is literally behind the other. When the viewer can look past the staginess and melodramatic acting, the film speaks of something that is still addressed in present day films - what can happen to the young people in poor neighborhoods when they don't have the right guidance/mentors. The film takes place mostly on one corner, conveying how the slum was closed off from the more affluent part of the city. They're close to it, but worlds away from it. Of course the film has the age old moral at the end "crime doesn't pay". As with most film from this era, I can't help but think about how cheesy the melodrama style is, yet how popular it was back then.

Missle of october was it really so bad?

to be entirely honest it is not that easy to make any sort of reenactment piece and not have it look cheesy. There's a lot of good war movies out there, and in a war those could be considered re enactments, but they usually focus around a story or idea that is sprinkled with fact, and then fill in a larg number of gaps. Even if we look at great films like Culloden and the Thin Blue line we still feel that there is an element of cheesyness to them. Mainly this has to do with money, but part of it is because they wanted to re enact something, versus just making a fictional narrative around a particular even that happened. Culloden at points was unable to hide the blatantly obvious fact that they did not have as many actors as there were actuall ment that were involved in the battle. And it is hard to argue that there were not points when the thin blue line was very reminiscent of a bad episode of rescue 911. Sure, missles of october came off as well produced as some of the porn that was being produced during the time, but can anyone really expect anything more from a tv movie that was made during the seventies. In all reality, missles of october wasn't much worse than the multi-million dollar movie thirteen days starring kevin kostner (a movie telling the same story)

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm

What is particularly intriguing about Symbiopsychotaxiplasm are the reactions from the audience upon viewing. The level of interest, or better yet, intrigue, could be felt throughout the screening room. And the audience's take on the film is not dissimilar from Greaves's agitated film crew. The crew is dissatisfied with the direction that Greaves's takes with the film, and decides that there might be a larger meaning behind the director's apparent inadequacy. The crew is 'genuinely' mystified about Greaves's intents on the project, and realize that he may be creating something completely different...What is clear however, is that there is an overall level of unexplainable intrigue into the inner workings of a project that has no direction but what it makes for itself. The crew, in their questionings, allow the film the unfold in an extermely unique fashion, enabling the director to become the lead actor, instead of the proposed actors. Regardless of what Greaves originally intended for the project, the film succeeds in revealing deeper sediments than anticipated. The distinction between fiction,reality,and their relation to a storyline is blurred to an incomprehensible level. So much so that the crew doesn't know what's the 'real' agenda of the filmmaker. In the end, Symbiopsychotaxiplasm's journey is both extraordinary and open-ended.

The war game vs. death of a president

Although the bbc funded this film to be made they never aired it. It was too racey, too controversial, and far too real for the british people to take/accept and the british governement to admit. A lot of any country's well being depend on the morale of the people, and the truth of the matter is that most governments could not take care of its people when all hell breaks loose. The world is constantly in a teeter totter and at any given moment everything could go wrong and the whole world could just fall off. The people will not be saved by their governments, and eventually the governements will turn against them out of fear. This is sad truth that eole find hard to deal with, and that's what the bbc did not want their people to see back in the sixties. This is simialr to how the american government tried very hard to make sure that the film death of a president was not released widely, or at all if they could help it, The bbc showed it only public tv for free, because it wasn't their country. The american government does not want a film that shows how easy the president could be killed, how the vice president would try to blame syria and then start a war, how the government would use bush's assasination as a reason to impose more on the american citizens rights, and how an innocent man would be locked up for the killing of the president and no one would care, to a major audience. It freaks people out and it admits that the american government has weaknesses. The same thing applied in the sixties for watkins film.

Primary

I did not think much of this film after my first screening of it. Admittedly I watched rather quickly and did not take notes. Originally, I thought it to be a so-so piece. I did not think it broke many boundaries and I saw not much in the way of organization and motivation of shots.

I think what grabbed my attention the second time was when JFK was shaking the hands of his audience after a brief speech. The camera seemed to slip its attention ever so slightly to subjects other than the candidates. Emphasis began being placed more on the people being addressed. The camerawork adds, implicitly, a tone of importance onto the people, and lessens the significance of the actual speeches and politicians.

The War game today?

The Peter Watkins film The War Game which was originally made for BBC would not have the same effect today as it would when it was made. After networks telivised nearly all the action taking place in the gulph war, this country has been completely desensitized to images of war and violence. Not only the Gulph War , but images of the kids inside of Columbine High School, the footage of two planes flying into the world trade towers and a barrage of news footage everyday have shaped the way people view tthis type of footage. A film like The War Game would never fly these days. In it's time i'm sure it was shocking and contraversial, but nowadays it's watered down fiction. People are too burned out by images of human brutality that we actually expect to see it now; as disturbing as this may be it is the sad truth. And even more upsetting then that is the fact that it's only a matter of time befor someone does a terrible hollywood remake of The War Game and adds a ton of computer generated images and blood and gore. That's the only way people today would swallow it.

was resnais giving up on hiroshima mon amour a good thing?

So when resnais went into tackling hiroshima mon amour, he started out as making a documentary. This made sense at the time. night and fog was a big hit, and he was going to probably get a great response from the world again for making this hiroshima piece. Unfortunately he gave up on the idea of making documentaries all together and thus hiroshima mon amour becomes a narrative. This is troubling, because as anarrative, hiroshima mon amour was ironic and funny at points, but most of the time it was dull, unecessary and hard to follow. The shots in the film were well crafted, and there is something to be said about the way that resnais allows his cameras to pan at just the right moment, but this is present in all his pieces. The most interesting thing in the entire film was the first ten minutes of the movie. The way it was shot, the way it was edited, the way that it was intercut with the ashes falling on the naked bodies, all of these visually amazing elements made the first part of the film a beauty. I have seen few images in film that put me into such an involved trance. I couldn't pull my eyes away from the screen if I had wanted to. The rest of the movie had an interesting subject matter, and made me laugh occassionally, but as a whole the only thing that worked for me was the beginning of the film (the part that resnais made before he turned it into a narrative)

No lies... no holding back

The first time I saw No Lies I questioned whether it was real or not untill the credits rolled. After watching it again I still cannot believe how genuinly believable and powerful a film it is. Not the actresses performance, but the performance of the filmmaker was outstanding. The dialogue was very fluent and draws the audince in and makes for a very uncomfortable watch. The camera work especially hightens the realism with the amaturish zoom in/outs and the soft focus at times. No Lies still holds as much power today as it did when it was made.

Eyes on the Prize

This particular episode of the series dealt with The Black Panther Party and the riot at Attica prison. What struck me most were the layers of direct address and the differences between "then" and "now". In the archival footage from the past, people directly addressed their audience, not realizing that that film would be used years later for the documentary. In the "present day" interviews, the interviewees looked back on this footage and added new information to it, directly addressing their audience. One could say that the people speaking in the archival footage were both aware and unaware of their spectators. They knew they were speaking to people in their time, but, unbeknownst to them, a new breed of spectators would watch them again. The "present-day"interviewees gave a new voice to Fred Hampton and the Attica inmates, justifying their causes.

Punishment Park

Punishment Park worked on a very profound level. The film had a very real feel to it during the interogation scenes. The board of directors and the people being judged gave great very believable performances. The park scenes however, breaks the audience out of the realism of the film. For example, there waas a camera crew wwalking with the park prisoners and yet they seemed to have set shots of the prisoners walkingtoward them in the distance and set up shots that clearly took time to establish, yet the crew was on foot with the prisoners. Also, if the prisoners were on the run for their lives they would hardly have time to sit and discuss with the crew. The film as a whole works with the juxtaposing of dialogue in the courtroom and the images of the runners and provides a great look at the attitudes of the time.

Opening a Can of Youtube

Jeanne Hall opens her essay on cinema verite by talking about how on March of 1961 a can of worms was open and that can was cinema verite. The idea behind cinema verite is that it is pure life that is not interrupted by an agenda. While many will argue whether it will ever be 100% pure it is as close to uninterrupted life as one can get. For many years it has been strictly a documentary genre practice, but recently it has been taken over by the Internet. Anyone who has a camera and a computer will post their ideas feelings or whatever else they want on the Internet for all to see. I believe that this is the newest cinema verite movement. Yes, some of the stuff on the Internet is scripted and acted, but a lot of it is a thing that is just caught by the camera. Its anything from a kid opening a present and going crazy to outtakes of a man selling RV's swearing and cursing at his cameraman. Cinema verite will always be around within documentary but for this generation it has found its newest home on youtube and the Internet.

10 min.

What was Hiroshima like?

As an American it is never a topic that fills ones thoughts or
captures ones mind.  They were the bad guys in the Great War
and that is that.  In the film Hiroshima Mon Amour the idea
that Hiroshima actually happened to real people is brought
right to the front in the first ten minutes.  The
French-speaking heroine of the film explains in a monotone
voice-over how she remembers Hiroshima, while her Japanese
counter-part explains to her that she does not.

Is Hiroshima a forgotten tragedy?  Do people ever really think
about it happening?  As the film slowly weaves inside and
outside of the museum dedicated to the catastrophe remembering
is forced into the viewers lap.  The filmmaker is saying to
the viewer, "You will remember" even while the voice-over is
insisting that we don't.  The archival footage is so raw and
real that it is impossible to look away even though the
rawness is the very reason to want to look away.

The weakness of the film is that it leaves this rawness and
enters into an over-dramatic fantasy level that is hard to
relate to.  While the story of the film would normally be
somewhat compelling it cannot follow up the very real and
actual event of Hiroshima.  The dramatic camera shots and
lighting can't compete with the real life footage of burn
victims and deformity of the bombing.

The realness of the first ten minutes pulls the viewer in with
incredible and brutal realism.  The filmmaker saying, "Here it
is, do you remember?"

Punishment Park

I recall a friend telling me about this film within the last couple years - he had seen it somewhere and thought that the film was, in fact, "real". I remember thinking "Wow, that's incredible, I can't believe the kind of sh*t that happends in this country that you never hear about - it's unbelievable what our government can get away with". It's a relief to learn that this film is not, in fact, "real" - though there is so much in the film that feels authentic, and so much political turbulence in the contex/era in which it was made, I find it easy to stand behind my original reaction.
Watkins has a true gift for making comletely compelling, well-crafted, and important films out of seemingly little more than a moral imperative. Watkins is staunchly and unwaveringly ant-violence and anti-war and believeds it is his (and everyone's) responsiblity to promote world peace; for this film, he turned his eye to the U.S. While the fictional part of the film is "about" a federal tribunal that questions American radicals, rebels, and draft-dodgers and documents their choice to attempt to survive punishment park rather than serve a prison sentence, it functions on an allegorical level as well. Watkins cast non-actors in the film, choosing people with leftist values, political activists, "hippies" etc. to play the roles of "radicals" in the film, and chose people who were or had been police officers or were in the military or government to play the roles of officers and the federal tribunal. Some of the characters were based on members of the Chicago Seven, some of the non-improvised lines of the police officers were mimicking lines that various journalists had quoted from police officers in high-profile riots across the county, and the blatant abusive nature of the police in the film is reminiscent of actions of officers at the Kent State protests and in the 1968 democratic convention. Much of the dialogue and action were improvised - so people were largely "playing" themselves and the tension in the film was very real, and as good as any a gauge or record of the tension between, and among, these groups at the time - and even today. So, while the film serves as a specific allegory for the Nixon-era U.S. political climate and the atrocities of Vietnam, there is a larger allegory at work too. That is, abuse of power, the irrationality of violence, the plight of the political minority in the realm of an abusive and violent majority, the silencing and criminilization of dissent, and the struggle for true freedom - sound familiar, doesn't it?

Hollywood>Almost anything.

After reading the George Custen writing on the biopic I am starting to see how Hollywood didn't just control how things shaped the society we live in today but still shape everything around our lives. I was walking through the airport yesterday and as I glanced up to the monitors in the terminal I found out that Paris Hilton was just sentenced to 45 days in jail for driving with a suspended license. Custen talks about how sketches of famous men and women were manufactured like commodities. And as I read that and see Paris on screen I see that Hollywood has not stopped creating products. Stars and celebrities are manufactured like commodities. The definition of a commodity is a raw material that can be bought and sold. It’s sad that Hollywood and the society that feeds of this information has turned people into an item to be bought and sold. I know that celebrities have accepted the spotlight but do we really need to know as much as we are told? It seems that we are in a position of authority to accept this obscured amount of information shoved in our face or to reject it. I hope that our society isn't defined by the personalities of the age but by the actions of people trying to change the hurt and suffering of the world. If we keep going to the direction we are and absorbing the media we do I think it’s going to be the former rather than the latter.

Grierson and Guffman

Within the interview sequences Guest uses the choice of location to continue to establish his characters through discontinuity. One of the three principles of documentary coined by John Grierson is that the original scene is a better guide to the interpretation of the world (Grierson 147). Christopher Guest uses this idea to develop the fragility and insecurities of his characters. By placing Libby Mae Brown in the sun at the Dairy Queen while wearing her uniform the filmmaker is subtly placing her into a stereotype. She is not interviewed at home but at the Dairy Queen because there is an established idea concerning people who work in fast food. In actual documentaries this is key to add a certain mood to the scene or the character. Guest uses this to his advantage to mark Libby as dumb and lower class. The original world makes for more interesting filmmaking and because this is the real world of her life it adds to the realism of Blaine, Missouri in Waiting for Guffman. Libby is not the only character cast with this light of stereotypes but all the characters; whether minor or major, have similar placement in their various locations. Dr. Pearl is not only placed at the dentist office to show that he is a dentist but to also show that this is his stage, where he thinks his comedy is most accepted. His subtle laughs and slight pauses show his insecurities within his world. He doesn’t just tell jokes and sit awkwardly in silence; he sits awkwardly in his own world, which adds to the discontinuity. Location adds to the discontinuity because the viewers of Waiting for Guffman are seeing the characters on their time and on their turf. In the same way Fredrick Wiseman documentaries bring viewers to the uncomfortable locations that he chooses to go, Christopher Guest brings viewers to the awkward world of Blaine, Missouri.

1+3=3.5

According to Ricky Leacock there are three approaches to cinema. The first is pure cinema that could be summed up as the tradition of Melies. The second is impure cinema that could be summed up in the tradition of Porter, and the third would be the realist and is summed up in the tradition of Lumiere. Basically there is fiction, art and documentary. I know that its not that simple or easily defined but even if we were to delve deep into each of the categories I believe that the films we have been studying this semester would be left out. It is too easy to just dump the films into either documentary or fiction and it doesn't make sense to dump them into art film. The course is defined as a documentaryfiction study course and that is exactly where these two films fit. They are documentary and they are fiction. They are both. They are one genre of genre blurring films that only create half an approach to cinema. While they don't fit into narrative fiction or documentary they do fit into both so the genre, while is a completely new approach has been done before, not fully, but still has. Overall I believe that while we can't give it a full credit as a new approach to cinema, we can give it half.

Bill Nichols/ The Fiction of Objectivity

In Nichol's article about realism and objectivity, he bring up the instance of the documentary maker. A filmmaker who decides to shoot a documentary separates himself from the activist in that while activists can pursue a cause on their own terms, filmmakers cannot. When making a documentary, one must represent more than one side in order to keep some notion of objectivity. Although a filmmaker can personally feel strongly about an issue, he can only construct his film in a way that suggests his stance, otherwise it becomes propaganda.
If you were to make a documentary, in order to keep objectivity the events must be reported as they happened historically. Any people or institutions involved must have their accounts of the events observed with skepticism. I personally feel that objectivity is a myth in film making. Objectivity is only possible when dealing with facts without commentary or outside representation. You can make a documentary about an apple on a table. It's true that the apple was on the table, but the camera will always suggest more than necessary. How is the apple shot? How is it framed? How close are we to it? What does it represent? How long do we see it? Who shot the film and why? Even though these questions may not have any relevancy to the film- or even the fact of the apple being on the table- the fact that they can and will eventually be raised strips the "documentary" of it's objectivity.

waiting for guffman

This film was definitely a refreshing watch in this class, it was nice to see a straight up comedy. I've seen this film before, as I'm sure most of us have - but in the context of a documentary fictions class, I thought about it differently. Previously, I had no experience wtih the larger scholarship or study of mockumentary, semi-documentary, or the fictitious nature of the documentary. I had, like much of our reading makes mention of, really taken documentary as "truth" or an attempt at the "most truth" and anything else as fiction and therefore fabricated or "not truth". So, looking at this comedy now, I see it differently. I'd never really noticed before how many conventions of documentary are present in this - the talking head interviews, the hand-held shots, etc., and found in prior views my suspension of disbelief and engagement with the film didn't allow me to see the moments when the film slips into a standard fiction film, those moments when the cameras are in places where they would not be - like Corky in the bathtub, or just outside his apartment, or fixed on a character in a crowd that will become the person we recognize as possibly guffman but isn't yet. The selectivity of the camera, the way the viewer counts on the camera to show us what is imporant and what we need to know is more a possiblity of fiction than a camera in the midst of an uncontrolled documentary would likely be. So, I really appreciated being able to notice more of these "lapses" between genres.
I think the thing that makes this film, and other Christopher Guest films so funny - is his attention to detail. Even though these characters are completely ridiculous, the amount of care, detail, and even subtlety applied to establishing their attributes gives the characters a realness that moves them beyond stereotypes. Guest seems to distill a "type" (folk musician, theatre director, dog owner..) down to a few particular elements and then amplifies those elements so that you only read that person as "travel agent" and then fills in bizarre quirks into that caricature that build incredible and strange, but also real-seeming personality back into the character. Ultimately, I think he has a great deal of appreciation for the characters he builds, I think he can probably relate to them on some level - the small town politics, the disappointment of failed dreams, bizarre theatre ephemera, I feel he really gets the details and uniqueness of various communities (theatre scene, hair metal bands, competitive dog show scene) from within it, not from the outside - and that's what makes the humor so successful. It's almost like an in-joke rather than a pointed joke. I'm sure his research process is fascinating.

Steal Engines and Cardboard Rockets

Keil's article is about early cinema around 1905-06 period. At this point in history there was a transition going on in styles (non-continuitous to classical.) There was already a consciousness about the difference between fiction and non-fiction film. In fact early audiences had a preference for non-fiction. Fiction film often used a variety of material and combined staged and actual footage. Actuality footage could support the narrative or even become part of it. Eventually, as narrative film developed and matured, it took on a more invisible style and eclipsed non-fiction as the choice for film-goers.

Catherine Russell/ Surrealist Ethnography

For my final paper, I spent a lot of time looking at Las Hurdes and studying it. Catherine Russel's article on the film depicts it as a surrealist Ethnography. The film plays on our attraction to watching the Hurdanos suffer, rather than try to inform us about it, or make any changes to their situation. It does not try to build them as characters or even give us much information about them. Some of the information given by the narrator doesn't even match what we see on the screen. Bunuel's film feels like a mash-up of a bunch of different genres, especially the travelogue (which was the focus of my paper.) Some interesting references to the travelogue are the quick ordering of shots reminiscent of slide shows, which were the main visual format for lecture travelogues. Another reference is the blunt, condescending tone of the narrator. The narrator helps build discontinuity between sound and image, and the lack of sympathy in the descriptions borders on cruelty. This lack of sympathy both distorts our perception of the people in the film, and satirizes the travelogue lectures of the early 20th century.

Film for being a film

I have been waiting for an essay like Steve Neale's on Triumph of the Will. Neale brings up the fact that Triumph of the Will has never been looked at as a masterpiece of film. He does not ignore its emotional impact as well as its highly technical shooting. He explores how each shot emotes the core message of the film. For example, he comments on Hitler's evasiveness yet ever being present. Neale does not put down the film for its Nazism, which gives fair grounds for real interpretation. The purpose of the film is to build up Hitler and his power and the film does a great job. The message of the film overrides the direction in most dissections, but by doing that it ignores the mastery of the film.

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm

When this movie first started with several couples having the same argument, I was a little confused at what was going on, but I was completely enthralled with the absolute ridiculousness of the conversations, and the horrible acting by some of the couples. I kept asking myself "did people really used to say things like that to each other? do they still?" I was viewing the arguments as period pieces in and of themselves. As relieved as I was to get out of the montage of those couple arguments, when the film cut film cut to Michael Greaves and the camera crews I felt immediate disappointed, thinking I was in for a boring and sloppy "behind the scenes" of some film that I don't know or care about - and in effect, I was. However, the slight twist of "the behind the scenes of some film you don't know or care about IS the film" was enough to completey capture my attention again. The questions of how much did the director know or not know what he was doing or what would happen or what parts were real reactions and what were staged reactions are certainly interesting, but when I was watching it they didn't have too much bearing, for me, on the film. I was still fascinated with the completely outrageous "script" of the two characters and how their chemistry and behavior complete degenerated into what I would image is pretty unprofessional, but common. The guy living in the park was thoroughly entertaining and smart, he stands out in my mind as a really great "accident" in the film.
Oddly enough, in another class the very next morning a fellow student brought this film in to show in an exp. video class, and we watched about 20 minutes of it. He's doing a research thesis on this film, and accorting to him - Michael Greaves pretty much had the whole thing masterminded. He wanted to make a film of a film where the director drives both the crew and the actors to mutiny, and film it as the actual film - and it seems he succeeded. Apparently, the scenes we debated where the crew filmed themselves having a "behind the behind the scenes" discussion were also not scripted or directed. The crew was fed up and after a discussion in a bar one night, they decided to steal some film and start filming themselves talking about how screwed up the whole thing is, and after the "film" was through being shot, they gave the footage to Greaves as sort of a gift to say "you are a lousy director, here's our conversations about how lousy you are and how much this project sucks in the hopes that with some feedback you will not be such a lousy director in the future. Essentially they made a film within a film and played into Greaves more perfectly than he could have hoped for. All in all, I think this film is pretty much by filmakers for filmakers a degree to which I have never seen and probably never will see again - it's not surprising it was a flop and the time and is seeing a new life - particulary in a film department.

Punshiment Park

Punishment Park is Watkins' best film. Watkins is always trying to blur the line between reality and fiction by using the two interchangeably. Punishment Park is the perfect blend because he uses people who in real life hold the same position as their character. The action that follows from the court scenes feel real because the dialog was improvised. Improvised dialog which flows from the character is real for the scene. That gives an authentic feel for the moment because the words said fit. The only thing that was constructed was a basic plot outline. Larry David uses this technique in his show. David is a comedic Watkins. He directs Curb Your Enthusiasm based upon reality. The actors are all real friends of Larry David and play themselves with some changes. The storyline is outlined and the actors improvise the rest. Within the script, this is real action and reality for the scene. For me, improvised shows and films are captured reality.

Hiroshima

I found Hiroshima Mon Amour extremely hard to sit through. After a day or two afterwards I couldn't get it out of my mind. The levels within the film kept you thinking after the movie was over. What was it really about? Is it about the event, the relationship between the people, between the cultures, between the people and Hiroshima? I came to the conclusion that the film, in the end, spoke of relationship. The complexity of both characters is what drew the two characters together because they both relate to the world differently according to their histories. The reason the woman is so distressed is because of her relationship with the German. Her family didn't approve of relationshiop, neitheir did the family. The family's reaction was based on the daughter's relationship with the German. Though it's interesting to think about the film afterward, the hard part of watching the film is seeing their actions without knowing why they act in the way they do. Every action has a reason and a reaction, and that's what the movie tried to show.

True re-enactment

Missiles of October and Watkins' films have a similar link. Both films try and re-create the past through action and dialog. Though Missiles of October is extremely campy, it gives an earnest try at creating the "what could be". Watkins uses re-created action to comment on the past. Missiles of October is almost shot as a play, the settings don't change much, the actors talk to express their thoughts and emotions, and there are no jump shots, as Watkins' interviews. The rhythm that is established in the film keep the audience in rhythm with the story line the unfolding events. The extra dialog in Missiles of October just pull you away from the story and aware of that the writers are trying to be truthful. Watkins uses fictious dialog to articulate the mood of the time instead of trying to be factual. I wonder if in re-creating films of historical events would be better off without words, or, even better, have the action be the expression.

The City

The City is a propogandistic look at the perils of industry and the steps a community can take to pull society out of these so called pitfalls. It begins with a look at a more pastoral time, when simple farmers and craftsmen survived by cottage industry. Then, with teh onset of fatories, the film seques into showing us dirty, dejected, poverty stricken people living amongst the smog and dirt of a factory community. Their shacks are falling apart, the children don't smile, everyone looks like they're ready to kill themselves. The filmmakers are (unsubtly) conveying the ineffectiveness of factory business and how the factory owners exploited their workers. In the city sequence, the hustling, non-stop action is used to show the inevitable mechanization of human beings when they are driven by capitalism and fast-paced industry. The answer to this, according to The City, is to form some suburban haven where people still conduct business, but also enjoy life with an emphasis on family values. I couldn't help but think of Leave It To Beaver when watching this last "solution" sequence - the message being that suburban life is the best, most fulfilling way to live.

Culloden

Although it took some getting used to, I found the (non-comical) mockumentary style to be rather interesting. I also realized that since the camera is never specifically mentioned or addressed in name, the film is not necessarily anachronistic. But then again, I suppose the historian standing on the “sideline” was pretty unexplainable in terms of reality but obviously realty was not director Peter Watkins’ main objective.

Perhaps the entire film was a comment on war documentaries in general. He could have been commenting on the emotionless and inhuman feel that war documentaries can sometimes have. Watkins’ may also just have been saying that a lot of past documentaries have been, or could have been faked; as if he is saying, “Look, I can do it too.”

Silent

The Edison movies were interesting to watch. They documented people in their time, but it was presented in a way that the action could have occurred in today's world. People's ideas have developed out of basic needs, attractions and interests. Before film there were plays and before plays there were stories. The stories were born out of human interaction. As stories were handed down they evolved. Characters were invented to take the role of an idea in a story. I feel that these silent films we watched are examples of the beginnings of fiction film. They are real people doing natural things, and without words they are just everyday people doing everyday things. The film making became more developed when they involved props, such as as movie within a movie or expressive hand coloring.

Medium Cool

I found myself almost shocked at the craftiness of this film. Coming from film school, it sometimes seems that our modern ideas of more liberalized or at least non-commercial media are new ones. Medium Cool proves that people were thinking that way for quite some time. The perspectives of both an “average” American single mother and an egotistical, apathetic cameraman for the local news lends a multilayered view on the times. We get to see these characters’ simultaneous reactions to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech and how a man who works for the news is completely out of touch with the people he is providing the news for, and does it only because, he says, “God, I love film.” The sheer pretentiousness of that line is so fitting for such a self-involved character.

Waiting For Guffman

Although this film is absolutely hysterical at times, I feel it still falls a bit short overall. Our surprising introductions to the bizarre characters is probably the highpoint of the piece. I think it works because Christopher Guest has obviously well observed documentaries of the past. He realized that putting funny characters in those seemingly real situations makes for a new style of surreal humor. The problem is that it gets old quickly. After we meet and figure out every character (I must with the exception of Guffman), they become predictable. It’s nothing really new though, once you’ve seen one Guest mockumentary you’ve pretty much seen them all.

Missiles of October

While we may have looked at this film as being a bit silly, I don't think it ever really got the credit it deserved. Yes, it was dated, but that doesn’t mean it had nothing to contribute to film history. We got to see an insider look at the oval office. And although it may have been portrayed before, I really got a sense from the use of technology (what seemed to be a new video format) and the framing that the director was really reaching to try to make something significant. And I mean that as opposed to “13 Days” which completely sensationalized/Hollywoodized the entire same incident.

Good Night and Good Luck

Good Night and Good Luck definitely gets points for being stylized well to get the look of the 1940s and 50s, and it was a smart choice to shoot it in black and white, which close attention paid to lighting. The melding of actual footage and fictional scenes was effective, almost seemless. It was interesting to see a (fictitious) depiction of what went on behind the scenes with Edward R. Murrow, although he seemed to always remain in that dignified caricature (perhaps Edward R. Murrow actually did act like that even off camera, and they were staying true to form). This film was a good history lesson about the feud between Murrow and McCarthy, and more interesting than a straight documentary on the subject.

Roland Barthes' Insights on Descrption

In Roland Barthes' "The Reality Effect," he provides the idea of the importance of description in telling a story. Description allows the reader to find out much about the characters, whether if it is what the characters look like, how they have their home decorated, or anything else that may give us some insight into the character's mindset. Some descriptions may seem very significant in a story, while others can be seen as somewhat unimportant. Barthes understands that descriptions allow the reader to understand the character at a more complex level. In a screenplay, for example, a character can talk for long periods of time and we may not learn anything, but the description of that character's wardrobe or home may speak volumes. A film is usually made after the screenplay has been written. The writer writes descriptions in the screenplay in order to help the director understand the meaning of the scenes and what is internally going on within the characters. It is easy for a film to just have the character say, "I'm depressed," but it is much more interesting to actually show us through action or the character's surroundings, which is what the description provides. Also, the descriptions we are given are often based on ideas that we understand, which allows meaning to be created. If a character sits on a lonesome chair in the corner of a room, that could have many different meanings for us. Descriptions allow us to come to an understanding about a character without having someone come right out and say it. They allow the reader to create meaning in their own way. The writer may have certain ideas of what he/she wants to convey, but it is the reader's job to understand what that message is and the only way to understand the message is to interpret the meanings of the descriptions. When we read something, we look for clues that bring us into the world of the character. We are provided with descriptions so we can come to an understanding of what the maker is attempting to tell us.

War Game

I found War Game to be a clever mockumentary in that it was not just a shock tactic about the impending doom of war, but it also reminded the viewer that this in fact did happen - although without the tongue in cheek humour. This humour is also what made the film all the more disturbing. One was left torn, wondering if it was okay to laugh at the police "aiding" the British doctors by shooting burn victims in the head. While the film is designed to look like a documentary, subtle reminders bring it outside of the form, i.e. subtitles telling the audience that this is what COULD happen IF...etc. The unrealistic elements added a humorous tone to the film, like the soldiers directly addressing the camera while they are under attack, which is in conjunction with real war footage from Germany and Russia. This film plays with the viewer's willing suspension of disbelief.

Lumiere and Melies: Opposing Views

In Siegfried Kracauer's "Basic Concepts" from Theory of Film, we learn the beginnings of film and what events transpired to help bring us one of the most important mediums of our time. Lumiere's films focus on what happens in real life, but Melies chose to do something that Lumiere did not understand could be done. Melies made film into a storytelling mechanism and created fantasies that would do something completely different than before. As Lumiere's cameraman, Melies was able to see that there were endless possibilities for film to be used. He was not single-minded about the medium and was able to create effects that we use today, like "multiple exposure, superimposition as a means of summoning ghosts, the lap-dissolve, etc," as stated by Kracauer. Lumiere was able to use film in order to bring real events to the screen, much like documentaries, while Melies creates new worlds that we may not have heard of, like most fiction films. The ideas that these two men had about film created something that has become a major part of our lives, but they were both equally important in their contributions. Lumiere brought us moving pictures, but Melies had the imagination to see what film was capable of. He attempted to tell stories that we could watch and enjoy. His imagination helped to give film its true beginning because we were no longer just watching average events unfold, but we could see stories that would create higher meanings for the viewer. Melies does not seem to be remembered as well as Lumiere, but they both made important contributions to help make film what it is today.

The Emergence of Cinema Verite

(thoughts in response to Realism as a Style in Cinema Verite: A Critical Analysis of Primary)

The fact that cinema verite was such a surprise to the film community is somewhat perplexing. Considering the field ‘revolutionary’ certainly is a strange way of viewing the ‘discovery’ of the style of filmmaking known as cinema verite.

A brief encounter with the history of filmmaking leads one rapidly to the first major public display that was simply a train barreling towards the camera. Following this were other such basic documentations as the Lumiere Actualities, where situations just as they were became ingrained in film forever.

Mostly, it seems, because of a lack of portability, narrative structure took place predominately in the studio setting with a tripod-prone camera. The invention of a more portable technology led to the capability of on-location shoots and eventually to the idea of following someone around with a lens aimed the whole way. This act of following someone around would be the basic idea behind cinema verite.

The intelligence in Robert Drew’s approach is that he followed individuals who were so wrapped up in their present situations that mentally addressing the presence of the camera was an internal energy that they didn’t have much extra to expel, being so concerned with the complications of the present moment. This isn’t to say that he received a wholly truthful rendition of each present moment, because anything will change upon being directly observed, especially when it involves a camera lens consistently being shoved in one’s face and especially when one is dealing with politicians who are genuinely affected by the public’s opinion of them.

Grierson on Documentary made me think of this…

It’s strange. The want to break down, understand, and debunk those forms of entertainment which are not up to par is completely understandable, and natural. Sometimes, however, when one takes a step back, it can seem like over kill, an expelling of unnecessarily expelled energy, a waste of time. While the content of these ‘lower forms’ can easily be scoffed at and criticized, the truth is that they have a market and therefore at the very least, a small portion of the population has some level of appreciation for them. While, when taking time to think it all over, most should be able to comprehend the negativity that abounds within such low quality content and the plausibility of it’s potential negative consequences when saturating a large portion of the unthinking population, sometimes it feels like everyone should just shut up, relax and enjoy the ridiculousness of that awfully constructed horror movie that showcases nudity and congratulates excessive sexuality.

On a personal note, I have made mention of this because I am one to spend time being annoyed by media that does not live up to full potential, but I am also one to spend a great deal of time with B-movies playing in the background of my day to day. And while I understand the negative complications of media that doesn’t think fully about it’s impact, or thinks about it and chooses immoral grounds of basis, I must say that I can very much enjoy those kinds of concepts which I choose to direct my anger when approached from a hypothetical stand point.

What am I saying?…Chill.Out.

Immoral Impulses Understood Through Punishment Park

Artists have often faced a great deal of struggle when attempting to make harsh critiques on the reality of situations that most political figures would rather have swept under the carpet. And it is exactly these sorts of situations that artists are the most interested in highlighting. Peter Watkins is a filmmaker who is focused on confronting political issues, specifically those that revolve around war. His films make blatant statements, generally liberal, and are structured as documentary to bring attention to the authenticity of the statements being made, even if the situations in themselves are false.

Punishment Park is a film that makes a statement about the Vietnam War. Using actual political activists and their real arguments, Watkins depicts a fictional setting where such activists are arrested and sent to “Punishment Park” for their actions. The park is falsely represented as being a positive alternative to a lengthy prison sentence. In actuality, the park is a place where those contained must complete the impossible task of taking a 50 mile hike to a posted American flag while pursued by armed police officers with motor vehicles. On the hike the officers are not supposed to shoot unless absolutely necessary, but they do shoot, sometimes purposefully maliciously and sometimes accidentally from anxiety or fear. One of the most disturbing aspects of the mockumentary is the general officers’ acceptance of their own despicable behavior. Even while being documented openly and addressing and being addressed by the camera they maintain that their actions are somehow justified. This says, to an extent, that the individuals within society are so far removed from the concepts of their actions that they can not even understand why or how they would be understood as being reproachable.

A Response to: Jargons of Authenticity by Paul Arthur

People crave ‘authenticity.’ A film is often much more appealing if understood as being based on a true story or of being a documentary, which is understood as being truth within itself. But the created structure and subsequent execution of the entertainment style between both documentary and narrative is not actually so divided as to create polar opposites as some might think when viewing one in relation to the other.

The construction of actuality, or the representation that can be defined as authenticity, is not so easy to come by and it’s existence is even questionable within the realm of the film world.

Nanook of the North is a film that claimed it’s status as one of privileged vantage point. It posed as an insiders look into the life of the Eskimo. But just as sets are constructed for the stage and for the studio locations of the narrative world, Nanook consists of a number of false sets that allow for better camera angles. The film also has staged actions, scripted elements. So while it may have attempted the most realistic of portrayals, it still exists as a portrayal, and it’s level of genuine authenticity can easily be called into question.

The necessity of entering the real into an environment with structural limitations, such as that of the film world, may in and of itself be the destruction of any authentic depiction of reality. Because, while reality itself has some intrinsic structure by which it functions, human beings are so intimately intertwined within this structure, it’s representation within a human created ‘reality’ necessarily denotes a level a falsity and a view of the supposed actuality through a subjective eye.

"Triumph of the Will: Notes on Documentary and Spectacle"

Steve Neale's article looks at the idea that Triumph of the Will is notable in which it is seen as visually dazzling, but also as Nazi propaganda. He states, "It derives from a juxtaposition of a series of related conceptions of film, -documentary and propaganda, a juxtaposition which is not in fact explicitly made or explicitly recognized by the critiques of Triumph of the Will but one which, once it is made, generates a number of interesting and important contradictions, centring in particular on notions about the relationship between documentary, cinema, and vision." Neale's ideas delve into the film in ways that people have often separated. Triumph of the Will may be seen as a disturbing film for some people, but the way in which it combines, as Neale says, documentary, cinema, and vision, provides an unforgettable experience. Neale goes through some of the film's sequences, but the sequence of Hitler entering the stadium proves Neale's ideas to be truly insightful. The scene is visually breathtaking, especially because of the scope of what we are seeing. The filled stadium stands to pay respect to Hitler. We may be seeing propaganda, but we are also seeing a cinematic vision that many would not be able to achieve. Each shot of the scene, like the entire film, is planned out perfectly. We are shown strategically placed shots of the people, Hitler, and the Nazi swastika. The film has meaning for many because of the way in which is combines of of the characteristics described by Neale into one film. We may be seeing something that looks like a documentary, but everything is done exactly how Riefenstahl, the director, planned it. He takes advantage of the many shots he has to choose from, like high angle shots of the soldiers. He does this to make the film look even more spectacular in a way that may look like propaganda, but also invokes a sense of what cinema meant to the filmmaker because of the way he has created his vision.

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm

I found Symbiopsychotaxiplasm to be very entertaining, since it was like a view into the past 60's counterculture. Even if a person couldn't necessarily follow what exactly was going on, the rants and tangents the crew/characters went on in search of "truth" (how 60s) was enough to make you keep watching the film. It was a film within a film, a piece with a lot of layers. In one aspect it is teh making of a film, yet it is also a film crew's struggle with a difficult director, and in another aspect it's about a director pulling the puppet strings. I liked how each sequence ended with the film running out. I also thought it was interesting that the filmmaker played around with different videographic techniques, like the frames shrinking into a sequence of frames against a black background, like a film reel.

Noel King's Recent Political Documentary

The article Noel King has written looks at how the film Union Maids can be viewed and interpreted. A claim she provides delves into how Union Maids could be a useful tool in order to get people to see the struggles that women were often faced with and how those similar struggles still exist. The film can be critiqued because of its content or because of how it is actually created as a film. A point that King makes, using sources to back up these claims, suggests that the three women in the film could have possibly been members of the Communist Party. This could be true, but the film was careful not to mention these women as socialists, but as radicals. This point suggests that a film can be completely changed by leaving out one single detail about its characters. If in fact these women were Communists, political activists would most likely not want to use this film to inform people. People in the U.S. have many negative feelings about Communists and using a film who celebrates the achievements of Communists would cause much controversy. A film can be as true as a person wants it to be, but there may be some things that the filmmaker specifically chooses not to tell. Politically, this film is very strong and contains a message that many people should understand, but the film could also be seen as very unpatriotic if these women were actually discussed as being Socialists. The meaning of a documentary film can be changed completely if minor details about its characters are left out, which can allow the viewer to be more sympathetic to the film's characters.

Interviews in Culloden

Culloden attempts to provide history in a realistic manner, which is helped by actually interviewing the people who are fighting in the battle. The filmmaker creates a more realistic film because he does something that an average film about an historic battle would not do. The film tries to show us the views of the men fighting, whether they believe they are fighting for a good cause or not. We are able to have more faith in the telling of the story because we are actually learning about the most important aspect of any war, the soldiers. We find out what their lives are like and what they are putting at risk by putting their lives on the line. The person behind the camera actually speaks to the soldiers and shows us the men that are fighting the battle while the people who decide to go to war stand in the background. The prince who has stubbornly decided to continue fighting sits on his horse as the soldiers give their lives for no reason. Through the interviews, we learn that the men fighting may not be the most important people in the world, but they are men with families and men who are risking everything for a lost cause. The interviews give the viewer a glimpse into the fear that the soldiers are feeling. Even though we know that there is no possible way that there was actually a camera filming the real battle, the interviews attempt to show us the possible attitudes that the actual soldiers could have had if they were being filmed. Interviews may make us aware that we are watching a film, but those used in Culloden bring us into a sense of reality affects us because we are looking into the eyes of the soldiers.

Reading: The Truth About No Lies

The chapter called The Truth About No Lies in F Is For Phony allows the reader to see what Mitchell Block did in order to create a film that has been widely seen by film students since its creation. The genius of the film is the way in which Block was able to make us think that we are watching the long take of a woman telling the story about how she was raped. Block was practically being forced to make a film so that he could graduate. He was using few actors, a small crew, and only had one location. The story seems so real because he used actual stories about women who were raped that were on a tape, which he calls "The Rape Tape". He was careful not to make the actual women who were taped seem as if they were telling the story. He used an actress who could manipulate an audience into believing that this is her story, and not simply a story that a filmmaker is trying to tell. Block also says in the reading that the catalyst for No Lies was An American Family. There are many similarities between the two, except that No Lies was fiction while An American Family was real. Both works, however, are able to create a sense of reality for the viewer because everything seems to progress in real time. No Lies rings true for so many who see it for the first time because Block researched the subject very carefully, from the way in which the women were raped to how the police officers questioned them. Block succeeded in creating a fake documentary that shows us the endless possibilities of film.

Mixing Real and Unreal Footage

Battle of San Pietro is a 1945 propagandist movie that incorporates the use of real footage and recreated scenes. The question here is how can an audience trust a film that manipulates its image? The answer is that the audience, when viewing it at that time, was not aware of the manipulation. Today we know and understand this exploitation of the image and now can answer that we cannot trust the image we see before us and thereby the film loses its effect on the viewer audience. But what about the actual footage that shows the actual battle, destruction, and death? Does this still hold the same power over today’s viewing public that held its audience in the late 1940’s? If we know that some of the footage is fake, how can we trust the true footage when we are expected to believe the entire film?

Early Editing in Movies

The movie was finally becoming its own entity when it commented on itself in Uncle Josh at the Morning Picture Show. During this time, the narrative film was having commercial success, allowing filmmakers to explore a variety of techniques and storylines. The value of making edits was just beginning to be known as shown in A Trip to the Moon where fades were used to show the passage of time and jump cuts in Great Train Robbery allowed the audience to clearly follow the action. When Uncle Josh was made, the movie was aware of its effect on its audience and showed how the emotion and entertainment could be switched up through the editing. One after another of different Lumiere shorts appears on the fake movie screen while the actor reacts to the scenes. This can be seen as a primitive form of awareness of the effect editing has upon the viewing audience.

From Motion to Stories

The Lumiere shorts shown in class were of simple actions that were designed more to show off the new technology of motion of film rather then actual content. What was filmed are now considered scenes from ‘everyday life’; workers leaving their job, dancers, and the demolition of a building, etc. Lumiere saw how he could manipulate film even then when he used the demolition of a building and rewound it. As the years went by more people saw how they could make stories with this new technology, so A Trip to the Moon, Great Train Robbery, and Uncle Josh at the Morning Picture Show were created. With these films, an audience could see how far a movie would take them and inspire others to experiment with the tools of film.

Following Basic Documentary in Culloden

Culloden followed the basics of a real documentary with interviews, time frame, and narration to make the audience accept its form as a documentary fiction. In the film, the director interviews both of the fighting sides during and after the battle. Many documentaries of today contain interviews of a number of different people and a good documentary, that explores any kind of “battle”, interviews both sides of the argument. Culloden also follows another component of a documentary, a chronological time frame. By keeping a single straight timeline, the director creates a sense of trust with the audience. Although this method has become discarded by recent documentaries or experimented with, such as Fog of War, a chronological timeline is still used as a main way to keep the audience trusting and aware of the events surrounding the event. The final method of narration is used in Culloden to let the audience have further knowledge of an event or to remind them that someone is leading them along. (Whether or not that is a good thing can be discussed elsewhere.) Narration is a key tool in documentary that can be relied on as a trusted source by the audience or make the viewer believe in an interview on the screen.

Punishment park does awesome with no budget

The fact that watkins has the guts to show the world for what it is something to be commended on. The films that I have seen have been harsh commentaries on the world that we live in today, tomorrow and of yesterday. He blatantly points out what is wrong, and perhaps even the reasons for as to why the problems are not being fixed. Now that's all fine and good, but what people seem to forget the most is how little money watkins was able to make these films for. When one compares them to hollywood (or european) features they have the same impact (if not more of an impact) and they are made for a fraction of the price. Punishment park. This was a film that was made for fifrty thousand dollars. A feature length film about a fascist police state that is filled with corruption, and allows the hunting of humans. Take another movie that was about hunting humans: Hard target starring jean claude van damme and directed by john woo. This film cost fifteen million dollars to make, and it was horrible. Take another movie about fascist states: V for vendetta cost fifty four million dollars to make. Now v for vendetta was not horrible, but if I want to watch a movie that scares me about what happens when governments take to much control, I'm going to watch punishment park first. Both of these action film were made a few years later than punishment park, but even with inflated money, punishment park still would have been made for millions upon millions less thanwhat these two films were made for. Watkins either has a very good accountant, or he knows how to use every dollar to the fullest extent of what it is worth.

America was not ready for medium cool

Medium cool was not a total flop, but it would have done a lot better if it was made in europe. There was a lot going on asthetically and metaphorically with this film. The shots were often long and gave the viewer a clear notion that the director had mis en sen in mind when setting up his shots. The editing of the film, and the way that scenes were presented chronologically was done well, but it was also a little off beat. Not to say that america hadn't seen films that did that already. Easy rider definately gave america a new understanding for how films could be constructed in the editing room, but it also was specifically was made for a counter culture, about crazy drugged out hippies drifters. When a movie is made about counter culture for the counter culture audiences the film is given a lot more leeway. Plus, medium cool came out during the same year as easy rider. So most of america hadn't even seen such unconventional film making on a big level by american filmmakers yet. Europe would've put this film in a category as one of the greats if resnais, godard, antonioni, or fellini had made it. But the fact that an american cinematographer/documentarian turned director made this film, well it didn't appeal to europe or america.

Poet or Prophet

You can look at Peter Watkins in two ways: A Poet or a Prophet

One is that Peter Watkins seems to always want to expose the evil in the world as if no one else gets it, and it can almost be insulting if you think long and hard about it. I am not sure who he is trying to teach because it seems like he is trying to reach an unreachable audience who will some how be convinced by his movies to change and we will all live in peace and harmony. Coming up with these scenerios that aren't real makes him look like a self proclaimed prophet, and looking back we can now see that he was a false prophet.

His films are interesting and you can indulge in their conviction but I don't think it's going to help anyone. All and all, this and many others of his films do nothing more than any other hollywood blockbuster like 'The Davinci Code'. They provide only conspiracy for us to fantasize about.

The other way to look at his films is that Peter Watkins is not trying to change or predict the future but expose the present. In terms of War Games and Punishment Park, those things have happened in other areas of our world. So, he is trying to make us think about truthful situations by giving us a piece of ficiton. In this way he is a poet of his time.

Eyes on the Prize

Eyes on the Prize was a great educational documentary. The episode we saw in class had great transition from one topic to the next. The interviewees, what ever they were saying, some how inter connected witht the flow of the story. The use of words wasn't often off and pointless considering what we were watching. It also never bored you with only having to watch different people talk, it had a lot of old footage, and you can see the hard work and time that must have been put into it.

The relavance of this series will last for ever, as long as there isn't another series that better completes its task. 20, 30 years from now, as people tend to forget more and more the past, a documentary, like this one, that covers so much in one package will become easy and accesable to any one trying to learn history. In fact, the relavance of this film may increase as the years go by.

I only wish they were easier to come by, and all together. If you go to a store and try to get the series, they may only have a few episodes.