-
- I don't know what truth is. Truth is something unattainable. We can't think we're creating truth with a camera. But what we can do, is reveal something to viewers that allows them to discover their own truth.
- —Michel Brault
- Every cut is a lie. It's never that way. Those two shots were never next to each other in time that way. But you're telling a lie in order to tell the truth.
- —Wolf Koenig
- We are really only successful in finding out anything when we are filming somebody who is more concerned with what he is doing that with the fact that we care filming him.
- —Richard Leacock
- Of course there's conscious manipulation! Everything about a movie is manipulation ... If you like it, it's an interpretation. If you don't like it, it's a lie — but everything about these movies is a distortion."
- —Frederick Wiseman
- For projects two and three, we will embark on the study of the documentary form as argument. In project two, we will study the form and its context. By observing some landmark documentaries, we will create criteria together for what we think makes a "good" documentary. Then you'll choose a documentary and evaluate that film by the criteria we have created. In project three, you'll be conceiving, directing, filming, and editing your own documentary which we'll screen in an in-class film fesitval. You'll be keeping a detailed production log and providing director commentary to help us understand the intention of your work.
- Let's begin by reading a short introduction to the documentary. Head over to the ASU library website and perform a search for an eBook called The Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction by Patricia Aufderheide. Read Chapter One: Naming & Form, pages 1-25. Then choose a short documentary to watch from this website. In a comment to this blog post of at least 400 words, draw connections between the reading and the short film--for example, what features mentioned in the text do you see playing out in the film? I would also welcome a very short summary and your reaction to the film.
- For Thursday's class, be prepared to discuss film techniques discussed in this helpful primer on filming a documentary.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
The Documentary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the documentary, “The Mystery of Flying Kicks”, the producers follow an unanswered question of why shoes end up on telephone lines across the nation and world. Obviously, people are the cause of the shoes appearing, but what made them decide to toss a perfectly functional pair of sneakers?
ReplyDeleteThe connections I draw between “The Mystery of Flying Kicks” documentary and the book “Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction” is that the film follows the definition within the book. The first way that the film connects to the book is that the film is unbiased in opinion on the overarching question, what do shoes on a telephone line symbolize and who puts them up there? For a documentary to be considered a true documentary, the producers must be unbiased and factual. Documentaries are meant to be non-fiction films, rather than fictional movies.
In one of the documentaries brought up within the “Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction” was about a girl who carried vinyl housing with her on her quest to spread the warning of health risks associated with cheap house siding. While the documentary explored social issues, it refrained from trying to persuade the audience, only inform them of what goes on around them unnoticed. The documentary, “The Mystery of Flying Kicks” makes the same approach at those who partake in “shoe graffiti”. The documentary does not persuade the audience one way over another, only shedding light on a mostly overlooked concept. After viewing the documentary, the audience is left with something to think about. And they will think twice the next time they pass under a telephone wire with a lonely pair of sneakers dangling from the wire.
As described in the book, this documentary follows the standard “voice-of-god narration, an analytical argument rather than a story with characters” (Aufderheide, 23). With a voice of someone never shown, the documentary follows numerous leads to answering the question, along with short phone messages left by people around the world describing their personal interpretation of why people throw sneakers on telephone lines.
I think the most interesting opinion that was voiced over during the documentary was by Todd Sieling from Canada. He depicted a vivid image of shoes on utility wires as a political expression of a decaying neighborhood, distancing itself from it’s prime. I think this section leaves the audience with the most food for thought, about the impressions of older cities. Growing up in a relatively new and affluent suburb, I rarely witnessed shoes on telephone wires, maybe because that neighborhood is not yet considered decaying.
* or maybe because nearly all of the utility wires have been run underground.
DeleteI watched the short film “The Man Who Delivers.” Just by reading the title, the viewer might think this is some kind of messed up biological fluke where a man has a baby. But thankfully that was not the case. The short film is about a man who delivers cocaine throughout London. This is his sole profession and it provides for himself and his family. The film is modeled around a day in the life of this dealer. However, I think that it almost sums up his entire life due to the repetitiveness of what he does.
ReplyDeleteA major point in “Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction” was the constant challenge to depict real life and remain informative, while keeping your viewers interested. The producer of “The Man Who Delivers” conquers this struggle with ease and even takes into account another related problem. He is making a film about a man who performs illegal actions every single day. Therefore, he has a client agreement with the subject of the film that he must keep his identity confidential and not use any information that would incriminate the client. The producer does a phenomenal job of conquering both of these problems.
The film is set up as a narrative of one day of the dealer’s life. The film introduces different times throughout the day to show what an average day is like for the dealer. However, he never shows the man or even an actor at all. The visuals of the movie are as if you are the dealer and are experiencing his life through his eyes. The actual information is presented through a narrator just like stated in the reading. However, I found the most interesting aspect of the presentation of the information to be the use of text messages. The producer used actual text messages to and from the dealer to really immerse the viewer into the life of the dealer. This really did an excellent job of informing the viewer about the various struggles of a drug dealer who is also trying to support and raise a family. They showed messages from buyers of his, and from his girlfriend about sports games of his kids and her concerns for where he is and his safety.
Overall, I think this short film really follows the definition of a true documentary. The producer presents non-fiction information while maintaining a narrative and immersing format. The producer also takes on the additional struggle of maintaining a confidentiality agreement with the subject of his film. “The Man Who Delivers” does a great job of giving viewers an inside look into the life of a minor cocaine dealer in London.
The short film I chose to watch was titled “The Heat”. Not fully understanding what I was going to see when I clicked on the video, I was quickly enthralled and taken by the story that began to unfold before my eyes. The Heat is about a Brooklyn Mom with a passion, and her struggle to reach her dreams. Throughout her youth, Heather Hardy has always had the tough girl mentality, being strong and independent. When she thought that was her future, she unexpectedly became pregnant with her daughter. Unlike many others who would just give up, though with evident struggles to overcome, Heather kept on fighting for her dreams and eventually became a professional boxer.
ReplyDeleteThis correlates with some of the teachings from “Documentary Film: a Very Short Introduction” by appealing to an audience and giving them information and reality from a source of someone’s life. Heather Hardy can be used as an example to persuade an argument of strength, independence, and persistence in modern day women. As discussed in the book, the documentary has a certain “form” that makes its own appeal. The story was told by Heather, as her own “voice of God” which tells you that she made her own path to overcome, and divine intervention was nothing but a product of her own focus and hard work. Focusing primarily on her own image and that of New York, we were able to get an idea of how she lived, the setting in which she lived, and her routine (mainly subways, the gym, and in the ring).
Later on we got a view on how homes were utterly destroyed during hurricane Sandy, which hit fiercely in the area in which Heather lived. This gave an underlying economic and general well-being conflict to introduce an ever greater struggle to heather, which gave the documentary a tone of franticness for Heather to come over using the strength within. Given these hardships, we can link the economic undertone along with the form of Heather giving her dialogue of the scenario as a way to inspire the later result of her focus on boxing. Another factor of the documentary could possibly be ethics, considering women’s boxing is not necessarily common practice. Being a “tough girl” as previously mentions, Heather’s being persuades the point that it is okay to break the norms, and not live a conventional lifestyle and rather do what you love.
The short film that I decided to watch was “The Record Breaker.” While scrolling down the list of which films were available to watch, this one was the first to catch my eye and grab my interest. The film is about a man who dedicates his life to breaking world records. He trains for them just as an athlete would train to become better at his sport. The film gives background information about this man’s life and shows how he got so into attempting to break so many world records. By giving background information, viewers can see where this mans passion comes from and why he continues to spend his whole life trying to break more records.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first chapter of the book “The Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction” by Patricia Aufderheide, I noticed several connections between the book and the short film “The Record Breaker.” I realized that there is much more to filming a documentary than people tend to realize. Several difficult decisions need to be made on how to go about creating the film as well as the strategies that will be used in the film. As I read the first chapter of the book, I noticed one of the biggest struggles that documentary film makers possess is the ability to portray reality while keeping the film entertaining. Three main categories that documentary filmmakers spend a lot of time thinking about are the types of sounds, images, and special effects they will use for their film. All of these things can either make or break the documentary. In the short film I watched, the director did a good job on managing all three of these things so that the film kept its reality while remaining entertaining. Specifically, the director of “The Record Breaker” used appropriate sounds, images, and special effects that all complemented the story he was trying to present.
Overall, after watching “The Record Breaker” and reading “The Documentary: A Very Short Introduction,” I can determine that the film follows the patterns of a true documentary. It is somewhat a “regular documentary” because it follows the guidelines that a typical documentary would. The film tells the story of a man’s life and his dedication for breaking world records by sharing stories told by himself and his father. There is nothing that breaks the trend of this film being a “regular documentary.” Overall, I learned that documentaries are much more complex than I originally had thought.
The documentary I watched was Crush, a short-film made by Bianca Giaever and Rachel Antonoff. This documentary showcases two lovers, Rick and Shira, who met in 1972 while attending school in Boston. In the film, the story of how they met is shown. Rick lived on the same floor as Shira and one night him and his friends were being loud. Shira and her friends walked over to his room and asked them to be quite and Rick only could pay attention to how cute he thought Shira was. Their friendship finally began a month later when Rick bought some pumpkins for Shira and delivered them to her. The documentary states that after Rick bought the pumpkins the normal thing would be for them to start dating, but instead they just were friends. Over summer, Rick goes to Europe and Shira starts to notice how much she misses him. When they both get back to school, Shira tells Rick that she loves him. Rick and Shira finally start to date, but their friendship is what made them in love not the dating, so it felt unusual to them. Rick and Shira eventually got married, but the documentary focuses on the beginning stage of their relationship.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing this documentary to the book, The Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction by Patricia Aufderheide, I think this film uses artistic experiment as the form. Jason Sondhi describes the film as Rachel injecting humor and fun into the sometimes deathly serious world of fashion. The film is also a portrait of reality because Rick and Shira are narrating it, but sometimes they are shown as disagreeing on what exactly happened when they first met. An example of them disagreeing is when Shira says they wrote love letters while Rick was in Europe, but Rick does not remember them ever doing that. The film shows off fashion and has an edgy and colorful set that helps to tell the story in a comedic and fun way. I definitely think Bianca Giaever and Rachel Antonoff use the film as a way to express themselves, not to just tell the story of the two lovers. Antonoff and Giaever also manipulate the norm of documentary by the fashion and the way that it is filmed. From my point of view, Crush reinvents, invents, and challenges the normal set up for films in a very creative, artistic, and classy way.
The short film that I watched was called “Always A Fire”, a film about a former, soon to be NFL superstar, Chad Jones and how in one instant his dream of playing football in the NFL were taken away from him. Jones was an all American high school athlete in both football and baseball, he ended up attending LSU on a full sports scholarship to play both of those sports. He continued exploiting his skills in both areas at LSU but particularly shined in football. He was entering the NFL draft with high hopes until one evening he crashed his car directly into a pole, causing his left leg to be shredded, broken bones, and gigantic lacerations, which almost made him lose his leg all together. The doctors were luckily able to save his leg but there was much rehabilitation needed to be done, and that’s basically how the documentary ended.
ReplyDeleteMy personal take on the film was that it was very interesting, I myself am a huge sports fan and stories like this really catch my eye. The film itself was a very on edge type of documentary, and was able to keep me wanting me the whole time. It was actually so interesting and ended without telling what really happened to him besides more rehab with hopes to rejoin the NFL, I researched and found out that he got drafted by the Cincinnati Reds baseball team in 2013.
One thing I noticed right off the start when comparing “The Documentary: A Very Short Introduction” to “Always A Fire” is that the short film tends to follow everything about what a documentary actually is listed by the story. The film follows all of the paths and guide lines to what a true documentary is. I began to take notice that filming a documentary is a lot more difficult than it seems to be when reading into the chapter. Actually tying in real life events but also still trying to keep ahold of the audience is challenging. But in this short film it was very easily managed. Styles of the documentary are also another key factor when creating them. Each director has their own artistic way to presenting their story to the world. The combination of these two things is what makes the actual short film, “Always A Fire” a great short film.
Looking through the list of documentaries, I chose to watch “The Runner” based on my experience in running. The documentary, shot and produced by Matan Rochlitz and Ivo Gormley, asks the question of whether people are more open to personal questions from strangers if asked while they were running. It stems from the notion that people that run for recreation have their inhibitions relaxed when they are running. The entirety of the eleven minutes has the directors asking questions to random runners in a London park while on the back of a bicycle trailer. The runners give a myriad of stories ranging from suffering from clinical depression, having a parent with dementia, or a strained sex life with a runner's significant other.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the introductory chapter of Patricia Aufderheide's, “The Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction,” it was easier to see that the entire documentary is filmed using artistic experiment. Throughout the documentary, there is no narrator whatsoever, and you only hear a few of the director's questions to the runners; the film focuses mainly on the responses and stories that are given by the people being filmed. As stated in the book, this documentary tries to be an “eye” on society, showing people in a way that transcends just mere observation of them. The film lacks most points of a regular documentary: it lacks a conventional narrator to tell us what is happening, there are no experts present to provide any insight, information, or authority, and music is not used exclusively used to convey emotions. Unlike a typical documentary, the film doesn't serve to try and educate people on a subject or bring any sort of controversy to attention, rather, it serves to answer the question previously stated. There is no central story that is revolved around, only the small tidbits that the individuals being filmed present about their personal life.
In essence, the documentary's purpose is to entertain. It does not try to be conventional, there is no story, no narrator, no controversy it is bringing attention to. It was made to see how comfortable people can be giving strangers insight into their personal lives when their inhibitions are at their lowest. It shows people are willing to reveal more than one would think, and portrays common people running at the local park as individuals who all have their own issues and problems they are trying to overcome. It certainly shed light on the documentary genre, and was a very interesting film to view.
The short film/documentary that I decided to watch was “The Runners.” This particularly caught my eye due to the fact that I am a long-distance runner myself and was intrigued to find out what this documentary studied and explored. Filmed from the back of a bicycle trailer, this clip took a unique approach on combining running and asking personal questions. Literally taking place during a person’s run, the subjects were asked a series of intimate and private questions ranging from areas such as clinical depression to parental dementia to the uncovering of couple’s sex lives. The subject’s genders were both male and female, and ages ranged from young 20’s to the elderly. The concept and idea of this type of documentary is nothing like I have ever seen before. The method of cinematography and filming really had a way of reaching out to the viewer and pulling them into every word these runner’s spoke. When watching it, it definitely evoked some emotion. The raw look in these runner’s faces were priceless and real. The word’s they spoke as they ran prevailed sympathy and compassion. The background sounds of the footsteps pounding the concrete complimented the vibe and tone of the film perfectly. It was very interesting and compelling to hear the answers and statements told as they were exercising.
ReplyDeleteAfter also reading the 25 pages of the book “The Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction” by Patricia Aufderheide, I was able to make many connections between the two. With things like the format, style, and cinematography, it’s made me realize that every aspect is essentially done a certain way to fit the specific formatting of a documentary. This short film definitely fit the idea that documentaries are more story-like and attempt to teach you something. In a way, it was trying to reach out to the audience and have them look at the topic from a different, more unique angle. The thought behind the production of this short film was also very complex but simple at the same time. There was no real structure needed with just taping from behind a bicycle, but the combination of the sound of the runner’s steps and breathing with everything else, made a real impact. All of these things are taken into account when trying to make the documentary as interesting and insightful as possible. This documentary was somewhat also used as a way for these runner’s to express their feelings and realize things about themselves along the way.
All in all, there was definitely an art behind this short film. There was no real structure and wasn’t intended to educate or spark up controversy like many other documentaries. It revealed the inside of people’s lives in a distinctive way and surprised me on how much they were actually willing to tell.
The documentary that I chose to watch was “Black bike Week” because not only did it look interesting to me, but I’ve always wanted a ninja bike and love seeing everyone who rides them. Another reason it drew me in is because I like to learn about other people’s culture and how they act and what events they participate in. To be honest in the beginning I thought it may talk about the violence of bike gangs but as it unraveled and played out it was the opposite of my expectations. It is a documentary of a bunch of African American bikers that all come together in California I believe it said, and just enjoy each other’s company and just talk about life. In the book “The Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction” Patricia Aufderheide says that “Reality is scarce” and “Reality in documentaries is sometimes a misconception” Which I absolutely agree with, and it was proven true in “Black Bike Week”. One of the riders interviewed talked about how everyone just assumes that once they see a big group of bikers, whether they are wearing matching vests or not, that they are gang members and are just overall bad people. This is a very promenade stereotype and it is because there are biker gangs but not all bikers belong to a gang. This is where it gets touchy because as it says in “The Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction” the hardest part of a documentary is to show reality but still trying to keep it entertaining. The “Black Bike Week” is mainly just a video of them driving around town and dancing having a good time but to be honest, it wasn’t that interesting. Aside from the interviews of some of the bikers and what they had to say the documentary itself was a little bit dry. This is the hardest part about documentaries and really separates a good documentary from a great documentary. Overall I think there are many different ways that a documentary can be compelling to different people but they all show a story of reality and what some amazing people have accomplished along with events that have changed the world.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary that captured my attention most after reading a few video descriptions was “The Heat”. This story involved a woman named Heather Hardy who grew up with a vision that she would join the police department to become a detective and eventually travel around the world and fight crime. Her life changed when she got pregnant and for a while, she was completely lost. She decided to start boxing just for fun, but she eventually found that she had developed a passion for it. While it was difficult for Heather to be a mom and a fighter, she was able to use her boxing career to support her daughter. Heather begins telling the story of how Hurricane Sandy hit Brooklyn and how it made such a huge impact on hers and other people’s lives. The point of her telling this story is to show that no matter what happened, she stayed tough and fought through the hardships of life.
ReplyDeleteI was able to find a variety of connections between the documentary “The Heat” and the reading “Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction”. The first obvious connection between the short film and the reading is that, in the reading, the author states “A documentary film tells a story about real life” (Aufderheide 2). This documentary fits the simple definition of a documentary because it told the real story of Heather Hardy’s life. The reading also stated that a documentary incorporates a set of decisions about how the filmmaker should present their story such as: sound, images, special effects, pacing, etc. For example, in the documentary I chose, I feel that the sound and music used really made the documentary interesting to the viewer, which kept the audience’s attention. I also think that images/clips of Hurricane Sandy added to the documentary really had an affect on the way Heather’s story was portrayed. It made the audience feel like they were witnessing it first hand, which added that much more emotion and seriousness to the story. Another connection I made between the reading and film was that the reading says that documentaries usually require sophisticated editing and to me, I felt as if the editing in “The Heat” was very well sophisticated. I felt like the sad/dramatic music, the dim lighting, and even the way that Heather spoke about her story and the tone in her voice all matched up and everything just seemed in place.
The documentary I chose to watch was “I Beat Mike Tyson”. The short film follows a man, Kevin, who once defeated Mike Tyson in the boxing ring and then disappeared from the spotlight as quickly as he found it. Within the first two minutes of the film, I immediately saw a connection with a concept that was discussed in the book, “Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction”. The first scene is a clip of Kevin knocking out Mike Tyson, with an emphatic crowd screaming in the background. This excitement quickly followed by artistic shots of suburban Boston, paired with mellow music, and a scene where Kevin is packing his childrens' lunch and dropping them off at the bus stop. This is an example of how the filmmaker can manipulate the sequence of events in order to create a certain tone or mood.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary differs from the majority of examples presented in the book because it does not try to compel the audience to act or expose the dark underbelly of a well-known corporation. The film simply exists to tell a story, to entertain. The filmmaker utilizes dialogue from Kevin's critics in order to create an underdog mentality in the audience's mind. This goes back to “Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction”, where the showcasing or presentation of the story can be altered depending on the intent and subject of the film. For example, the book discusses how a documentary with a "voice of God" type narration (like Planet Earth) is usually an "analytical argument" without characters of a story. The naming of this documentary, "I Beat Mike Tyson" is an indicator of the style in which the film will be presented. The first-person title correlates with the fact that it does not have a third-person narrator, but rather, lets the camera work and "characters" of the story speak for themselves.
"I Beat Mike Tyson” is a compelling, "no frills" documentary that doesn't try to be something that it's not. The most compelling part of the film is that it is so personal and grabs the audience in a way that most educational documentaries usually can't. I'm don't think that it can categorized as a "regular documentary" in the context of the book. It is more focused on storytelling with a bit of artistic camera work than narration and trying to prove a point.
The short documentary "Black Bike Week" gives viewers a glimpse into the annual social gathering of the same name. As per the title, the gathering consists of many African-Americans who all gather with one common interest: motorcycles. The documentary contains both unscripted footage of the participants, as well as interview-type footage. The unscripted footage is composed of people riding their motorcycles, scantily-clad women dancing, as well as people socializing and hanging out. The interview scenes show participants of Black Bike Week discussing various aspects of the event, such as what the event is all about and their personal story behind why & how long they have been a part of the gathering. The documentary also brings up the issue that many African-Americans face due to negative stereotypes: that they are gang members or criminals, when in fact, most are normal people, just as you and I.
ReplyDeleteThe book "Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction" discusses the various aspects of documentaries that set them apart from other types of movies and narrative techniques. For example, the conflict of representation vs. reality is a constant issue that documentaries face, as there is often a notable difference between the reality of the subject that is being discussed and the representation of this reality in the documentary. Additionally, another characteristic of documentaries that set them apart is the form. The form consists of four major aspects: sound, images, special effects, and pacing.
"Black Bike Week" contains many of the characteristics of a documentary that are outlined in "Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction." For example, the issue of representation vs. reality is noticeable due to the portrayal of participants of the event. The documentary serves to portray all of the participants as innocent people who would not commit a crime or do anything illegal. Though this is most likely true for a large majority of the participants, it is likely that at least a few bikers are speeding, or driving recklessly. This is nearly inevitable in groups of motorcyclists riding high-powered sport bikes, and can be seen in various videos of gatherings of other bikers on similar motorcycles.
The sound of the documentary consists of slow-paced leisurely music that gives a carefree, relaxed feeling to the short film. The images of "Black Bike Week" contain two major types: interview style, as well as candid footage of participants, both of which I discussed in the first paragraph. The documentary does not contain special effects, as far as I am able to discern, other than transitions between the different shots. Finally, the pacing of the documentary is slow and relaxed, further contributing to the calm nature of the documentary.
The documentary I chose to watch was "The Record Breaker." This documentary was about a middle aged man and how he traded his promising Harvard law school future for a life of tranquility and spirituality. Inspired by his mentor, he decided to set on breaking world records for a living. The documentary also goes into his family discussing how they felt about it at first and then now.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the reading, it seems that this film focuses on showcasing convention. It presents lots of pathos to try and put the reader in the eyes of our record breaker. It's interesting because although I am personally a hardcore atheist, I could almost see myself running this type of life. Maybe not necessarily record breaking, but maybe something very fun and interesting just the same. One thing I noticed about this documentary is that it goes back and forth from narration and actual in the moment kind of storytelling. There was also a lot of different sound played to represent different scenes. There was spiritual and peaceful music when talking about how he went on a spiritual journey and learned from his mentor and motivational music when he was trying to practice to beat a record. Some specific scenes with his very playful and energetic dog was also prevalent in order to engage with the audience better.
Overall, the documentary was very interesting and it was remarkable to find out how many world records he had actually broken. The changing form of the documentary kept things interesting and fresh even though a lot of the documentary is repeated. The filmmakers also did a good job capturing some of the difficulties of leading this kind of life such as him not being able to hike up the mountain on stilts or his parents disapproving of his course of actions in life. In the end though, he continues to be the best person he can be and everything seems to work out for the most part. One thing I would like to know though is how much money he makes from breaking record and whether or not that can actually support him financially.
The documentary I chose to watch was called "Crush" by Bianca Giaever and Rachel Antonoff. The documentary was basically about how two people Shira and Rick, who ended up getting married, share their story about how they met and the how the relationship came to be. I thought the documentary was very fresh and unique overall and it was a pretty interesting story to hear and see about. Also how it was organized and how the story was portrayed fit with the whole quirkiness of the storyline.
ReplyDeleteThere were quite a few connections I noticed between the documentary "Crush" and the book "The Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction". The main one I noticed was how narration is a big part in documentary films and it is what tends to separate documentaries and other films and movies. In the documentary "Crush" the whole thing was the Shira and Nick narrating the beginning stage of their relationship and basically telling the story of how the met and the road that lead them to getting married. Their narration seemed really natural which I liked and made the story seem more real and genuine. While they were speaking the people in the footages would act out pretty precisely and word for word what was being narrated and at the same time the narration was going on. Another connection I noticed was the camera movement. The book mentioned how documentaries tend to have unsteady movement and shakey footage which makes the viewer feel like they are actually experiencing it/in the film itself and makes the documentary seem more real. There were definitely a lot of times where the camera movement in "Crush" was shakey and you could tell that they were not using a tripod during those times. I also noticed that the camera would focus on parts and move as if they were the viewer's eyes which also made the viewer seem as if they were actually being led through the story and experiencing it with them. The book also mentioned how the narrators tend be male and have a "voice of god" voice because it gives the narrator more authority. I realized that in a lot of documentaries that is the case however while one of the narrators in "Crush "was male, I would not say he had a "voice of god" voice. He had a voice that fit his character and I think that for this particular documentary, it was much more effective that way.
The documentary, Among Giants, followed the experience of someone named Farmer and his attempt to preserve the redwood trees of the McKay Tract in California. Farmer, among with other activists, sat in the treetops of these redwoods in order to prevent California companies, such as, Green Diamond Resource Co., from clear cutting different areas of the forest. This sort of destructive logging has left long lasting scars, or desolate areas, throughout the California costal redwood region. Deforestation is one of the largest contributors to global warming, as trees have the ability to absorb greenhouse gases and carbon emissions. It is also has a large stake in biodiversity loss. A loss of habitats for different species may potentially lead to extinction or endangerment of that species.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though the title of this short film, Among Giants, didn't necessarily capture my attention from the list of short films offered on the given website. Especially in comparison to things titled, I beat Mike Tyson or Crush. Instead, it was the description, “Risking injury and incarceration, an environmental activist disrupts the clear-cutting of an ancient redwood grove by sitting on a tiny platform up in the tree canopy,” is what drew me into this specific documentary. However, after watching this documentary, it put the title into perspective and I am really happy with my decision to watch this particular documentary over something like, Invasion of the Puzzle People.
This documentary did not follow the typical “voice of God,” Morgan Freeman voice over or a typical 60 minutes banter between the interviewer and interviewee format of a documentary. Instead, it focused on the subject of the film, Farmer, and his experience in his tree sit to protect this area. It captured my attention as a viewer based on it's content, rather than how they edited together different scenes. This short film captured the reality of California by filming large desolate areas of redwood trees within the McKay Tract. By using a collection of facts of the deforestation of this land as well as a personal experience or anecdote of an activist who spent nearly four years tree sitting in order to avoid any more clear cutting of the redwoods.
Sorry all, I know you all have been waiting for my highly coveted blogging skills... Just kidding.
ReplyDeleteSo I made the 20-minute mistake of watching “Bear 71” this afternoon. It was by far the most boring documentary in the world, and I almost cried about halfway into it because I looked at the timer and was only halfway done. On a better note, “Bear 71” is a very unique documentary; it has about four minutes cumulative time of actual documentary footage. Within the four minutes that were spread out with 2 two minute clips that were very strategic in hitting a soft spot regarding the environment and the human effect on nature in the Canadian National Parks. In “Bear 71,” bear 71 is supposedly narrating the documentary through the voice of a woman, which represents her (Bear 71) own voice.
The documentary is a virtual map of six zones in the Canadian National Park that can be explored by the viewer (But you do not figure that out until the documentary is almost over) via holding your cursor over other animals and observing the five pictures of the animal that appear. The bear, bear no. 71, narrates the story and tells of how much the forest has changed within the past 11 years. She had raised three sets of cubs and now the forest smells like hash browns because of the town lying below the tree line, miles away.
Basically humans are making it hard for the bears, and all of the rest of the wildlife at the Canadian National Park to locate food using their sense of smell. The last clip of the bear no. 71 is a sad clip of the bear and her cub rummaging on a train track for the grains spilled by an earlier train. A train comes, and bear no. 71 narrates her own death by stating, “A train was coming so I did what was natural, I roared and charged…” The clip does not finish with the actual death of the bear, but rather a first person synopsis clip of after the bear was struck, all that was seen was a blurry video of feet rushing to help the bear. Her cub was taken into custody and then released shortly after, and the supposed voice of bear no. 71 narrates the aftermath; apparently this is all a result of the smell of human intervention within the boundaries, and also the smell of hash browns invading the natural smells of the forest.
According to “Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction,” by Patricia Aufterheide, this is definitely a documentary. It documents real life events; although it has a fictional sense to itself, it does follow Patricia Aufterheide’s guidelines to a documentary, “A movie that isn’t fun…” This is definitely not a fun movie to watch. It is, however, “A movie that does it’s best to represent real life,” only because bears do not talk. It is intriguing that the virtual map provided the option of holding your cursor and watching the sequenced pictures coming from, mostly coming from, tree strapped hunting camera.
All in all “Bear 71” does follow the guidelines and expectations of a documentary to the fullest. The goal of this documentary was to point out that human intervention is destroying the natural abilities of animals to gather food. Sadly, “Bear 71” does not demand sympathy from me that the director was aiming to achieve. I am a Corporal in the United States Marine Corps and I care far more about human welfare rather than sympathizing with our impact on nature.