Hello! Welcome to Comm 100b Documentary History and Theory. We will be blogging here, posting our film reviews and discussing the films together.
The fours films on which you can post your first review are Stranger With a Camera; Nanook and Nanook Revisited; and Man With a Movie Camera.
Here are a few questions to get you thinking:
How does Nanook raise questions about ethics, as discussed in class and by Nichols?
How does Nanook Revisited raise and address those ethics questions?
Man With a Movie Camera was made in a highly experimental style for its time. I forgot to mention that his camera was hand-wound! In fact his name, "Spinning Top," derived from the sound of he cranked camera. Vertov, Kaufman and Svilova, the director, cinematographer and editor, called themselves "the council of three"--Kafman and Vertov were brothers, and Vertov and Svilova married. They were interested in making films that brought men and machines together, and that celebrated labor and the worker in form, not just in content. By the mid 1930s Stalin was advocating for socialist realism in full force. Abstraction like we see in this film was repressed and considered not appropriate for the Soviet state ethos. Vertov embraced the former leader Lenin's view that communism had not only a humanist face but also a "face" brought to light by revolutionary artistic style. Vertov felt that fiction film was like "film vodka," inebriating people (he meant that as a bad thing). When other filmmakers and artists conformed to the realist and narrative fictional style of the repressive Stalisnist era of the mid to late 30s and 1940s, Vertov held true to his beliefs and faded into the job of staff editor for film newsreels. This was after making a kind of blockbuster hit Three Songs of Lenin, which Stalin's people had him re-edit to include a tribute to Stalin. He held his ground esthetically and unlike many artists did not bend to conformity with the realist style. He died in obscurity (from cancer) in 1954. But his values and ideas lived on in film styles and movements we will see throughout our quarter: cinema verité and the Dziga Vertov Group are two legacies we will discuss.
I would love to hear your thoughts on Vertov's revolutionary style and his devotion to a kind of celebration of a "machine" vision of human labor and the work of the human hand on all sorts of jobs. Be sure to be descriptive, and to pose ideas for thought, debate and controversy!
Hello COMM 103D.
ReplyDeleteIn order to post on this blog, click 'comment' at the bottom of the post. That should open a field where you can copy and paste your film reviews or manually enter other comments.
Nanook of the North Review.
ReplyDeleteSynopsis: Nanook and his family are Eskimos, Inuk people. They live in the Canadian Artic and journey through summer and winter as hunters of the rivers. In the summer they live in tents and have an easier time fishing for seals and fish, but when winter approaches Nanook and his family nears starvation. Nanook catches one seal during the winter, and stores it on top of the newly igloo that he built for his family and his belonging’s protection. The igloo they built together brought the family to a more tight knit unity, during the frigid winter climate. The family sleeps naked and use the fur they wear in the daytime as blankets and have each other for body heat. Nanook has two children, he teaches the older one who is about four years how to hunt and gather as an Eskimo.
Other positions on the film: This film was one of the first documentaries made in such harsh weather conditions. Most men wouldn’t sacrifice their lives in order to create such a successful film that captures reality. The average rating on Rottentomatoes.com is 80% approval from the audience and 100% from their “tomatometer”. Some critics felt there were scenes were staged by Robert Flaherty, especially the part where Nanook struggles to fish out the seal and pulling him out of the water was never filmed. Over all most critics are fascinated by Flaherty’s talents, Nanook’s struggle for survival in such harsh weather conditions. Here is what Roger Ebert commented in 2005:
“The film is not technically sophisticated; how could it be, with one camera, no lights, freezing cold, and everyone equally at the mercy of nature? But it has an authenticity that prevails over any complaints that some of the sequences were staged. If you stage a walrus hunt, it still involves hunting a walrus, and the walrus hasn't seen the script. What shines through is the humanity and optimism of the Inuit. One of the film's titles describes them as "happy-go-lucky," and although this seems almost cruel, given the harsh terms of their survival, they do indeed seem absorbed by their lives and content in them, which is more than many of us can say.”
My position about the film: I have to agree with Roger Ebert! Yes, Robert Flaherty didn’t have the greatest technology, but he has captured a moment in history to where no man has ever gone. We’ve read in text books about igloos and the Eskimos rubbing noses as kisses, but Robert Flaherty gave them to us to actually watch and be a part of the Inuk people. I loved the way they show the two seasons in this film, we see in the summer that the Eskimos live in tents and are able to barter for a living. Thus, on the other hand we get to see the harshness of Artic winters and the reality of starvation. Through it all Nanook and his family have a sort of subdued love for each other that goes hand in hand with survival. They take care of each other, such as the wife chewing the leather of the boots, so that Nanook can wear them in the morning. Nanook spares his life daily while he hunts on ice patches for the sake of feeding his wife and children. The documentary takes us urban mass consumers to a place where scarcity is reality. Nanook and his family make us think about unnecessary material goods we fill ourselves with daily, in order to replace love and joy that comes only from humanity.
Synopsis: Elizabeth Barret, the director and commentator, retells both sides of the incident in Appalachia where a Hugh O’Connor, a Canadian Filmmaker, gets shot to death by Hobart Ison, a businessman and a good neighbor. The backstory of the incident is that due to the growth in Technology, the vast majority of the coal-mining workforce was out of labor. This led to many families in eastern Kentucky to go hungry. Filmmakers from across the country and even Canada were trying to show the general public of the problems arising in eastern Kentucky but failed to show the positive aspects, which led to an uproar in the community. (106 words)
ReplyDeleteOther positions about the film: The film is not extraordinary or astounding but average. The documentary received a measly 7.4 out of 10 from a trusted movie review site known as IMDb, which is an acronym for the Internet Movie Database. According to Lawrence Daressa, a writer for newsreel.org, states in her review of that the documentary has infamy “as much for its failures as for its achievements.” Then Daressa goes on to state that Barret’s goal is to “accurately represen[t] her community” and that the “great virtue of Stranger with a Camera lies in Barret’s courage to speak in the first person, to let us share her doubts and aspirations.” (106 words)
My view of the film: I agree with many of the critics that the film is nothing close to a spectacle by any means. Also in congruence with many other critics, I do feel that the film played a vital purpose, especially for the Appalachians who were negatively portrayed as the prime example of poverty in a dominantly white community. At around 33-34 minutes into the film, the old man attests that, “People from the North East of the US and other parts of the country were coming down filming the bad parts of eastern Kentucky, not appreciating the good parts and willing to publicize it.” And then around 40-41 minutes into the film, Barret states, “I didn’t want the rest of the world to think of us as hillbillies. To see us as ignorant, backward, or violent.” And to this extent, I believe the movie served its purpose. However, according to dictionary.com, a documentary is “based on re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements.” Therefore, as a documentary film, I do not agree on Barret’s approach of an ‘insider’ looking in. In a hypothetical situation, if you were serving as a juror to your friend’s criminal trial, in the absence of undeniable evidence, wouldn’t you give your friend the benefit of the doubt? I feel that it would be next to impossible to give your unbiased opinion. And for this reason, one cannot serve as a juror for a trial if you know the defendant, plaintiff, or the prosecutor. At around 58-59 minutes into the film, Barret agrees with my previous statements that, “It is the film makers job, or my job to tell fairly what I see. To be true the experiences of both Hobart Ison and Hugh O’Connor. And in the End to trust, that it is enough.” (308 words)
Reviewer: Jasmine McGinty
ReplyDeleteFilm: Man with a Movie Camera (1929)
Director: Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details: Mikhail Kaufmann was the cameraman, and Vertov’s wife, Elisaveta Svilova, edited the film. There are no actors in this film.
Location: Soviet Union, and films in the cities of Odessa, Kharkiv, and Kiev
Awards: 2012 Sight and Sound Poll- voted 8th best film ever made
Synopsis and background: This film is comprised of shots that do not make up a narrative or story, rather a day in the life of workers, addressing the means of production behind the camera. This means include tools and technology used to produce the film. Vertov captures a day in the working class life from morning until night in urban cities and how technology impacts the industrial societies. Having no actors, the black and white silent film only has orchestra music to accompany the montage style of film.
Other positions on the film: The film is widely recognized as brilliant because of the wide array of camera angles and edits that that adds to Vertov’s avant-garde style that exposes new camera techniques. This contributes to the importance of technology and means of production that are emphasized in the film. IMDB rates the film 8.4 stars out of an overall 10, by 10,740 users. Rotten tomatoes gives the film a 95% rating, contributing to the appraisal the film received following its release date. On the other hand, some critics such as the New York Times finds the film “somewhat confusing” as it shows scenes that do not piece together. Although there is wide approval and praise of the film overall, many critiques reveal its fragmented feel that allows the film to be hard to follow.
My position about the film: I do recognize that the film has praise in that it develops the concept of Kinoks, or cinema eyes, which shows the world better through the lens of a camera because it grasps the world in it’s entirety, as noted by the web archive of Dziga Vertov. This concept also catches life’s unawares. Yes, it is difficult to watch this movie in its entirety due to the lack of narration and storyline, which is common in today’s popular film. However, by focusing on the means of production and high technology that is emphasized, I can see how Vertov is commenting on how technology plays a critical role in the life of the average worker. We see that technology is monumental by the strategic use of angled shots throughout, for instance there is a low angle shot that gazes up on a telephone, monumentalizing modern technology of the 1920s. The extreme close up shots of multiple technologies, such as the woman putting on her bra reveals how technology is everywhere, even in the clasp on her bra. From the beginning, with the emphasis on the means of production taking place at the movie theatre scenes shows us commentary from Vertov so that the film is not just a documentation of real life events. I argue that Vertov shows the viewers the universality of technology and film as it is present is the lives of modern workers. No matter where one’s location is, background, or differences the film is meant to be relatable by all because of the growing influence of technology within urban societies. Although I can see both admirations and criticisms of the film, the camera techniques contribute to the film’s uniqueness, and emphasis on means of production show us how technology permeates society.
COMM 103D, Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review 1
Reviewer: Ashlee Hanson
Film: Man With A Movie Camera (1929)
Director: Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details: no cast; cinematographer-Mikhail Kaufman; editor: Elizaveta Svilova
Location: Soviet Union, specifically Odessa, Kharkiv, and Kiev (43)
Synopsis: In Man With a Movie Camera, Vertov creates an experimental piece of cinema that is attempting to depict the day-to-day activities of the people of the Soviet Union. We view a wide range of events that have become a part of the Soviet Union’s culture, one that is heavily influenced by political beliefs. Although there is no clear organization of the events that occur in the film, the audience can understand what a normal day would consist of within this society. From getting up in the morning to going to work to exercising by the sea, Vertov captures these moments without the use of any actors or staged performances. It is difficult to pinpoint a specific plotline because of the nature of this avant-garde piece of work but it could be said that Vertov is using this film to show the possibilities of what filmmaking can create.
Other positions on the film: Although this film has received a large amount of praise for its innovativeness and influence on the filmmaking world, it has also received critique based on the lack of a narrative. The combination of the different activities has been rejected due to the fact that it does not tell a complete story. Many people attend the movies to immerse themselves in an interesting story and to be entertained. Not to say that Man With A Movie Camera is not entertaining, it just happens that some viewers do not understand or appreciate the true purpose of this piece of art. The film also received criticism based on the stylistic choices such as the editing and cinematography. Vertov’s stylistic methods employ completely different meanings than that of other iconic Russian filmmaker, Sergei Eisenstein.
My position on the film: The part of this film that I found to be a really interesting theme was how in this industrialized society; technology has a way of influencing everyone. We assume that the peasants in society do not gain access to the advanced methods of technology but in fact they are immersed in the Soviet Union’s progression into an industrialized society. We see the factory workers handling heavy machinery. Without this technology, would these poorer citizens have a place in society? Possibly not. On the other end of the spectrum, the upper class is simply enjoying the luxuries that technology has provided society. The automated seats in the theater and the accessible means of transportation throughout cities like Odessa and Kiev show how technology is influencing the standard of living for some people in Soviet Union. I also found it intriguing how Vertov switched back and forth between the nicer parts of the city and the homeless people sleeping on the streets. I felt that this specific juxtaposition creates an understanding of the class structure’s dichotomy. The depictions of technology in the film shows the influence it plays on society but it also is demonstrating the clear divide between those members of the Soviet Union who are privileged and those who are not. I found what Vertov did in Man With A Movie Camera to be a highly artistic portrayal of how a developing society operates whilst in the middle of industrialization.
Reviewer: Mario Solano
ReplyDeleteFilm: Stranger With A Camera
Director: Elizabeth Barret
Other cast and crew details: Co-produced by Judi Jennings; Executive produced by Dee Davis; Edited by Lucy Massie Phenix; Co-production of Appalshop and the Kentucky Network, produced in association with the Independent Television Service.
Location: Central Appalachian Region, Kentucky
Awards: Nominated for an IDA Award for feature documentaries by the International Documentary Association (2000); Won a Silver Spire Award in the film & video category from the San Francisco International Film Festival (2000); Nominated for a Grand Jury prize for documentaries by the Sundance Film Festival (2000)
Synopsis: In the 1960s many filmmakers and photographers came to the central Appalachian region to document the poverty stricken land and the people that inhabited it; some of them were there for their own personal gain, while others were there because they felt it was their civic responsibility to share the story of these people to the rest of the United States. In 1967 Canadian filmmaker Hugh O’Connor visited the central Appalachian region to document the poverty in order to help spread awareness about the gravity of the situation. One day a local landlord, Hobart Ison, who resented the presence of the filmmaker’s crew on his property, shot and killed O’Connor. A large part of the resentment came from the media’s portrayal of the Appalachian region that made the local people icons in the country’s war on poverty. Filmmaker Elizabeth Barret, a local of the region, uses the incident of O’Connor’s death as a lens through which she tries to understand the relationship between people who makes films in order to spark social change, and the people who are being represented in the films that they make.
Other positions about the film: While having yet to receive any reviews from critics on the popular ratings site Rotten Tomatoes, audiences on the site have given the film a 69% approval rating. Respected scholar David Whisnant, professor of English and American studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill said that the film was “one of the best documentaries ever made...way beyond everything that has ever been done on the issue of where images come from and how images are perceived from different perspectives.”
My view of the film: I agree with professor Whisnant’s opinion that the film is a great exploration of how images are created, and how people from different perspectives perceive those images. With the many first-person accounts of the incident that Barret presents, along with her own understanding of the region, the film does a good job of recounting the story from all perspectives. She uses her own position as a film maker to help answer the questions that the film presents about the responsibility of those who take and use the images of others. Ultimately I think she says it best when she concludes the film by saying “it is the filmmaker’s job, my job, to tell fairly what I see, to be true to the experiences of both Hugh O’Connor and Hobart Ison; and in the end, to trust that that is enough.”
edited final paragraph:
DeleteMy view of the film: Barret’s exploration of the interactions between a person capturing images and the person being whose image is being captured, helps to bring some level understanding to the otherwise complex relationship. With the many first-person accounts of the incident that Barret presents, along with her own understanding of the region, the film does a good job of recounting the story from all perspectives. She uses her own position as a film maker to help answer the questions that the film presents about the responsibility of those who take and use the images of others. Ultimately I think she says it best when she concludes the film by saying “it is the filmmaker’s job, my job, to tell fairly what I see, to be true to the experiences of both Hugh O’Connor and Hobart Ison; and in the end, to trust that that is enough.”
Film: Nanook of the North (1922)
ReplyDeleteSynopsis: Flaherty follows Nanook and his family for a year documenting the life of Inuit living in northern Quebec, Canada. This silent documentary explains how people live in this region and how they survive by hunting for their food, living in negative zero weather, building their homes and making their own tools and clothing by what’s around them. It shows a heroic and brave side of a group of people that many do not know about.
Other Positions about the film: Flaherty has been criticized for portraying staged scenes in his documentary as reality. In the documentary, Nanook Revisited, it discussed the different ways Flaherty fabricated scenes to depict the way Nanook and his family lived. For example, the seal and walrus hunt, using spears instead of guns, making up the name Nanook instead of using his real name, Allakariallak, and using Flaherty’s wives as Nanook’s. Although there may have been staged scenes, William Rothman argues that the “primary goal is not to contribute to a body scientific knowledge of human cultures; it is far from an ethnographic film in the current sense. Rather, Flaherty distorts the real way of life of Nanook’s family in order to tell a story about a man’s heroic efforts to keep his family alive in a harsh natural environment” (3). Clearly, the film can be looked at and interpreted in many ways.
My view of the film: Regardless of the staged scenes and the made-up names, I think Flaherty did an amazing job documenting the lives of Nanook and his family. I argue that the staged scenes, such as the fight scene with the seal, added humor to a silent film. Flaherty followed this family for a year. I believe whatever he documented in this film was something he was trying to say and depict to his viewers. If we look passed the fact the Flaherty used his wives in the film, and we look at it as a culture that has two wives within the family and how they work together. I appreciate this film because it introduced me to a new culture, society, and a different way of living that I was not failure to. Nanook and his family struggle for survival and live very different lives than most people. Flaherty wanted to show viewers what he witnessed living within this society. Flaherty had gone back a second time to document Nanook after accidentally burning his recordings. Clearly, he saw and felt something worth sharing if he had the passion to go back again.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review
Reviewer: Victoria Menjares
Film: Nanook of the North (1922) Nanook Revisited (1988)
Director: Robert J. Flaherty, Claude Massot
Other cast and crew details: Nanook of the North, the first documentary; funded by French fur company, Revillon Frères; Eskimo film crew; filmed using a Bell & Howell camera and produced by Robert J. Flaherty. Nanook Revisited, French-television documentary; IMA productions; written by Claude Massot and Sebastian Regnier
Location: Inukjuak, Quebec
Awards: 1988 Library of Congress Award for U.S National Film Registry (Nanook of the North).
Synopsis: In the silent film Nanook of the North, director Robert J. Flaherty follows Inuit Chief Nanook and his followers, documenting their native lifestyles within the harsh environment of Inukjuak, Quebec. The key character, Nanook, takes Flaherty around the area demonstrating the key ways the Inuit people hunt, build, and socialize. Nanook Revisited follows the Inuit people 60 years after the filming of Nanook of the North and Robert Flaherty’s presence in the area. The film crew captures the modernization of the once native land and its people, retells the accounts of Flaherty’s presence and his affect to the community in relation to his film, and debunks the overall stereotype of the Inuit people presented through Flaherty’s documentary.
Other positions about the film: As noted by its Wikipedia page, Nanook of the North has been acclaimed as the first documentary film, sanctioning Flaherty as the father of documentary. The film has gained renowned praise for its representation of the Inuit people and their native lifestyle, prompting many others to follow suit in the filming of the primitive. The film is considered a culture phenomenon, influencing the works of literature, music, television, and film. Nanook Revisited was produced for the French television viewer and lacks the wide acclaimed audience that Nanook of the North received through out the years. The film criticizes Flaherty’s work for his staging and reenactments of central scenes within the film and his misrepresentation of the Inuit society lacking the influence of the modern age.
My view of the film: Like many of the critics against the film Nanook of the North, I too disagree with Flaherty’s lack of presenting the Inuit people in an accurate and ethical way. According to Nichols, the author of Introduction to Documentary, he states that the problem with defining what is documentary is figuring out whose story it is. Nichols in turn discusses Nanook of the North and recounts Flaherty’s use of creating a fictional character named Nanook and placing him with within a western family structure. According to Nichols, Flaherty as well directed his cast to preform hunting tactics and lifestyles accustomed with the Inuit people thirty years prior to the film. Such depiction “can be understood as both a plausible representation of Inuit life and of Flaherty’s distinct vision of it”(13). Nanook Revisited acknowledges such cases against Nanook of the North, debunking many of the scenes within the film. One scene in particular is that of two boys fighting with a seal’s fin within their mouths, the scene is then cut to two dogs fighting in the same particular manner. Such a depiction places an unethical representation of the Inuit people through the comparison to their likeness of wild animals and savages. The overall misrepresentation of the Inuit people within Nanook of the North is blasphemy. Unlike Nanook Revisited, a true representation of the Inuit civilization in 1988, Nanook of the North is a distortion of what a documentary should be.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review
Reviewer: Milad Khoury
Film: Stranger With A Camera (2000)
Director: Elizabeth Barret
Other cast and crew details: A co-production of Appalshop and Kentucky Educational Television, produced in association with ITVS. For P.O.V.; produced by Elizabeth Barret; Judi Jennings, distributed by Appalshop
Location: Eastern Kentucky, United States
Awards: Nominated for 2000 Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Prize Documentary; nominated for 2000 International Documentary Association IDA Award Feature Documentaries; won the 2000 San Francisco International Film Festival Silver Spire Film and Video History.
Synopsis: The director looks into the pathetic story of the murder of the National Film Board of Canada director Hugh O’Connor who was trying to make an ethnographic film about the poverty in Eastern Kentucky in 1968. Barret starts the film with a brief section about the incident and then she moves to provide the history of eastern Kentucky, her life story at the time when she was in high school, the life story of the killer Hobart Ison, the life story of the victim Hugh O’Connor, and then the movie ends with the incident and the views and decisions made by the court. Barret places herself in the middle to understand the viewpoints of both sides that led to the tragic incident. She raises questions which are open to interpretations by the residents of the community and other professionals that dealt with film making.
Other positions about the film: The film has received international tribute. Its substantial affect and its importance to elevate professional filmmakers’ awareness at the time they are being involved in ethnographic filmmaking. According to the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) which is an online database information related to films, television programs and video games, the film has received 74% rating from sixty four reviewers. Julie Salamon from the New York Times Archives recognizes the professional work that Elizabeth Barret had done with her movie by writing that “She has composed her investigation as a haunting narrative, but without losing sight of reportorial fairness. She interviewed witnesses to the murder, including both the O'Connor and Ison families, townspeople and reporters who covered the story (including Calvin Trillin, reading chilling excerpts from his 1969 article about the killing in The New Yorker). The film emerges as a provocative moral inquiry but also as a vivid portrait of a place and time, informed by Ms. Barret's gentle, personal rumination (with a beautifully written narration by Fenton Johnson, a Kentucky novelist).”
My view of the film: I commiserate with Julie Salamon review of the documentary. Barret has stand in the middle of the story providing fairness between both sides of the story. She holds Hobart Ison and Hugh O’Connor both accountable for the incident. She raises questions about the rights of the community to be portrayed in a documentary fairly by providing adequate and true information to the public. Barret has compiled interviews from people of the community, Ison and O’Connor’s relatives, and reporters who had involved in the coverage of the incident. Barret points out that Ison and O’Connor faced each other, one with a machine gun while the other with a camera, which both cause harm. Barret did not only provide truthiness behind the story, but it made the audience to relate to the incident by raising the questions of strangers visiting places and framing what they have witnessed, also she mentions that shooting strangers is not a solution.
Comm103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Brandon Clark
Film: Man With a Movie Camera (1929)
Director: Dziga Vertov
Other Cast and Cast Details: Experimental silent documentary film; Edited by Dziga Vertov’s wife Elizaveta Svilova; Produced by the film studio VUFKU; Mikhail Kaufman was the cameraman; No cast.
Awards: Nomination: Film Presented - 1995 Telluride Film Festival; 2012 Sight and Sound Poll- voted 8th best film ever made
Synopsis: Man With a Movie Camera was an experimental film created by Soviet director Dziga Vertov, alongside his wife Elizaveta Svilova who edited the film, and his brother Mikhail Kaufman, who was the cinematographer. There are absolutely no voice or actors in this film, just titles at the beginning. Their purpose for this silent movie was to show their audience that the goal of cinema should be to present life as it is lived. In order to do this, the filmmakers created a montage of real urban life in and around a Russian City. However, it was shot in several cities, including Karkhiv, Odessa, and Kiev. This film is mainly based around film techniques and the processes required in creating one. There are a lot of unique camera angles that were captured from many different positions in the city, and show the industrialized society of Russian cities in a non-narrative style.
Other positions about the film: This 1929 film received a lot of attention towards the end of the 20th century. On IMDb, a very well-known website for rating movies and other types of film, rated Man With a Movie Camera an 8.4 out of 10, which is highly respectable. Vertov used techniques that were once previously used in “Kino-Pravda” newsreels and documentaries. According to Wikipedia, “This film is famous for the range of cinematic techniques Vertov invents, deploys or develops, such as double exposure, fast motion, slow motion, freeze frames, jump cuts, split screens, Dutch angles, extreme close-ups, tracking shots, footage played backwards, stop motion animations and a self-reflexive style.” Vertov was extremely worried that his film would go unnoticed by the public, because it went against leader Vladimir Lenin’s beliefs on the movie industry. This non-narrative film shows the industrialized society of Russian cities in 1929
My View of the Film: Even though this silent film may seem a little dull, I truly admire Dziga Vertov and his crew for making this movie because they took a lot of risks in order to create this film. There are so many different frames in this production, and each frame contains something different about the urban life of a Russian City in the early 1900s. Vertov films from many different angles and perspectives of the city, and went to extreme lengths in doing so. Throughout the film, you see a man carrying a camera and looking for the perfect spot to film. In one frame, you see hundreds of people running from an enclosed area, and in another frame you see several trolley’s roaming around the city. What truly fascinates me is the fact that Vertov filmed this entire movie without knowing exactly what he was going to film, and just captured whatever city-life he saw. However, there is very little detail on the lower-class life of people living in the soviet city, and only captures upper class citizens enjoying themselves in the industrial society. In conclusion, any experiment requires a lot of risks, and Vertov definitely took a big chance in creating Man With a Movie Camera.
Jessica Abdul
ReplyDeleteCartwright
Comm103D
12 April 2014
Director
Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details
Cinematography/Cameraman - Mikhail Kaufman
Editor - Elizaveta Svilova
No actors or constructed sets
Location
Depicted 24 hours life of the Soviet city, filmed over a three year period in three cities-Karkhiv,Kiev, and Odesssa
Awards
In the 2012 Sight and Sound poll, film critics voted Man with a Movie Camera the 8th best film ever made
Synopsis and background
Man with a movie Camera, is a silent documentary film that is largely innovative in its avant-garde representation of politics and technological transformation. It strives to celebrate the dawning of the new communist era in its modernization of humanity, in a non-narrative and un-staged manor. Pioneering innovative film techniques, Dziga Vertov fashions a synesthetic collage that emphasizes technology and its residual beauty within society.
Other positions on the film
Many people including Stalin believed that Vertov’s fragmented and non-narrative approach to the film failed to capture the true life of the peasant class. People in rural places unfamiliar with cinema did not understand the concepts of the film; therefore Vertov was regulated to a much lower status than filmmakers such as Sergei Eisenstein. Currently, the film can be seen as one of the most revolutionary films created throughout history. Receiving a grade of 95% on the tomato meter, the film holds and average of 8.9/10 stars by its viewer audience, and is being referred to as “a truly liberating and radical work” by many top critics.
Your position about the film
I see this film as a moving work of art, and enjoyed the clever use of imagery through technical film innovation. Although highly artistic and advanced for its era, I would have enjoyed music during certain parts of the films such as when depicting the orchestra symphony in the beginning shots of the theatre; I believe such an addition would create a more powerful and memorable effects towards its viewers. Since this movie contains no coherent narrative and acts as rather a collective clash of ideals and images, it is not something that I would go to the theatre to watch. However highly artistic and charming nonetheless, it is something that I would like to hang up on my wall as a portrait for my living room. Based on my Russian heritage I believed that it was important for me to delve deeper into the lives and lineage of my ancestors.
Film Review
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Cheng – Chieh Liang
Film: Nanook Revisited (1990)
Other cast, crew details: A Production of IMA Productions and LA Sept
Synopsis: The movie of Nanook Revisited, it is based on the old, first documentary film, Nanook. This movie is to restart everything from the beginning, reveal the false reality of the old movie and to film what is the true of Inuit’s life. It simply used a lot of compare and contrast to see where are the false parts. In this documentary, the movie did a lot of the interviews to realize how the old film faked some of scenes to make it more funny and entertainment. For example, the main character’s name in Nanook movie is actually not Nanook. The director faked the name, and every time, when he has to hunt the seals, he can’t use any steel weapons, but only Inuit’s tools. All these purposes just wanted the movie looks like white movie because this is for the western people to watch.
Other positions about the film: This documentary is actually shocked a lot of people, everything what we watched, we shouldn’t believe it. Back to the old film, Nanook, the film is only for western people. The director wanted the audiences can enjoy the film, so he used the stereotype of Inuit’s culture to fake some of the scenes. Also, let the main character look like a hero, who is so brave to fight the natural environment. Then, when most of people watched this documentary, Nanook Revisited, people revealed that a lot of scenes are false. Most of audiences’ reaction actually were toward to negative side to the movie of Nanook. However, most of them gave this documentary as a positive rating. Accounting to the other website from the blog of movie review, the name, Jennifer Ritzenthaler, she thought the fake parts are kind of disrespect to the true Inuit people. And she said it is very interesting to watch this film to see how the reaction from the true family of Nanook working with the director.
My view of the film: From my point of view, I simply agree most of people said. However, I won’t say Nanook film is disrespect to Inuit’s group. I think if the director wants to let most of audiences watch the film. The film should be attractive. The director of Nanook, had his own thought in his mind. Western people are the majority group. He wanted to target the main market to sell the film. Otherwise, I think he wouldn’t get any profits from this film. However, the director didn’t tell us this film of some parts are false. He should mention it before the film started, but it was 19 century film, I think this kind issue was not still emerging.
Then, I considered this Nanook Revisited as real documentary, but not the old one film. The old one seems like a real profit film. The documentary should be let the people know about the “TRUE.” However, not the false. Let the public know the real world is. We should rethink about how this film address the ethic problem of how majority group can decide the minor group’s future. They can even make the fake film because the majority has more power to decide the way needs to go. The interviewer in Nanook Revisited hoped that no matter how the western people think about Inuit ‘s style. Inuit should show the real life is. This is always the real problem from the past to this contemporary world.
Site
http://anth229.pbworks.com/w/page/11745219/Nanook%20Revisited%20-%20please%20comment%20below
Films: Nanook of the North (1922) and Saumialuk le grand gaucher (Nanook Revisited) (1989)
ReplyDeleteDirector: Robert J. Flaherty (Nanook), Claude Massot (Nanook Revisited)
Other cast and crew details: Nanook of the North was sponsored by fur company Revillion Freres; used local Eskimos as a film crew under the management of director and producer Robert J. Flaherty. Filmed with a Bell and Howell camera.
Location: United States/France; filmed along the Canadian Hudson Bay
Awards: National Film Preservation Board, 1989
Synopsis: Nanook of the North, one of the first documentaries created in the 20th century, follows a man named Nanook and his family as they survive the lifestyle adopted by the traditional Inuit Eskimo society that has remained relatively untouched by the industrial world. In Nanook Revisited, director Claude Massot and his crew return to the site of Nanook’s story to uncover the truth behind the original film. What they found, however, was that the popular film was almost entirely staged, and that much of the seemingly authentic details were misconstrued.
Other positions about the film: Since Claude Massot felt the need to create a follow up documentary, it goes to show that skepticism about the original film’s validity may have rightfully been intact. As we see throughout Nanook Revisited, much of the original film had been fabricated, and it was the goal of Massot and his crew to bring justice to this untruth. Despite the lack of validity and disputed ethics, Nanook of the North is unquestionably regarded as one of the first successful documentary films to come to light, bringing a relatively unknown culture to the western world.
My view of the film: Based on the information provided in both of these films, I felt that the way in which Nanook and his people were portrayed has an unethical view via the ethnographic gaze of the documentary. As was uncovered in Nanook Revisited, much of the first film was staged, and Flaherty changed details of the Eskimo’s lives to fit certain characteristics that fit the stereotypes “the South” has of these northerners. Additionally, I repeatedly noticed a comparison of the Inuit people to savages, or portraying them as primitive, albeit with comedic undertones. Particularly, a scene of two young Eskimo boys playing tug of war with a seal flipper between their teeth is set in juxtaposition to a scene of the sled dogs fighting over pieces of seal meat. Instances such as this are presented to create the illusion of animalistic characteristics in the Eskimo people, setting them apart or portraying them as “different” from the audience members watching the film. Additionally, the particular scene of Nanook capturing a seal from under the ice and dragging it to the surface also highlights these same undertones. As we see in Nanook Revisited, this scene was fabricated to come across as more comical; seeing Nanook tugging at a rope shoved under the ice, or being pulled on off screen, was considered by Flaherty to be more entertaining than the realistic process of using a rifle. This is just another example of how Flaherty took the Inuit people and transformed their image as a form of entertainment for the masses. This reflects film historian Tom Gunning’s ideas in regards to a “cinema of attractions,” which focuses “its appeal directly to the viewer and took delight in the sensationalism of the weird, exotic, and bizarre” (Nichols, 126).
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review
Reviewer: Mengjia Han
Film: Man with a Movie Camera
Director: Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details: David Abelevich Kaufman, aka Dziga Vertov, the “spinning top” experimenter; Mikhail Kaufmann, cameraman; Elisaveta Svilova, editor; film studio VUFKU; no actors; no constructed sets
Location: Odessa, Karkhiv, and Kiev
Awards: Nomination: Film Presented - 1995 Telluride Film Festival; 2012 Sight and Sound Poll- voted 8th best film ever made
Synopsis and Background: The director, Dziga Vertov, presents a day of an ideal city of the new Soviet society by portraying every aspect of people’s lives, such as theater audience, dawn, people working and rest, sports, and art practice. The film focuses on revealing the truth through camera lens without intertitles, scenario, actors, sets or etc. The director is also the one who introduced the idea of self-reflective cinema by showing the cameraman in the movie.
Other positions about the film: Time Out’s review states this film is one of the most seminal and controversial films in the history of cinema and a “truly radical and liberating work.” As noted on the film’s Rotten Tomatoes’ page, it gives the film a 95% approval rating, based on 22 reviews. Film critic, Roger Ebert, points that Vertof did contribution on elevating the “Avant-grade freedom to a level encompassing his entire film.” However, as noted on The New York Time review, Vertof’s fast-pace and non-narrative series of images did not hold the audience’s attention.
My view of the film: Man with a Movie Camera is a powerful and influential film and marks a milestone in film history with director’s innovative style and its sentiment of honoring “film truth.” Dziga Vertov is a film master who has a personal Avant-grade style and keeps creative control over his works, such as montage, self-reflective cinema, “cinema eye,” and movie within movie. Since it is an experimental movie, there is no plot. The film just silently records what happens in a city, including people, stores, factories, cars, trans, and etc. Although the camera lens acts as eyes in seeing the world, man behind the camera plays an important role here. This film is about both movie camera and man with a movie camera. When the audiences immerse themselves in the images, the film reveals the cameraman in the film in order to notice them that what they are seeing is what cameraman makes them to see. All these things happen for a reason. By changing the camera angle the audience see different aspects of the city. For example, there is a series of footages showing several ladies in a convertible-racing car. They are not unique by themselves. Yet, it cuts to shots of cameraman shooting in another convertible-racing car. Through the entire movie, the director uses this technique to deliver a message to the audience that all those have been arranged; the audience cannot choose they want to see or not see. He wants the viewers to know that the way of using the camera or any technology can affect how people interpret the world. At the same time, the director also honor the “film truth.” In addition, the fast-pace montage makes a great impression with the fast-moving background music.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review 1
Reviewer: Wyatt Laser
Film: Man with a Movie Camera (1929)
Director: Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details: Cinematographer – Mikhail Kaufman; Editor – Elizaveta Svilova;
No cast.
Location: Soviet Union (Odessa, Kharkiv, and Kiev)
Awards: N/A
Synopsis:
This experimental film was spawned by Vertov’s belief in Leninism and the idea that film should represent life as it is actually lived. This film acts as a realistic depiction of a Soviet city (although the film was shot in three different cities) from morning to night. Much of the film depicts workers completing their daily tasks, and man’s involvement and relationship with machines. Other parts of the film seem to depict the production of the film itself (an interesting concept which tampers with traditional ideas of film perspective). Attempting to stay more true to life, Vertov chose to use no cast for the production of this film, and instead shot the cities as they naturally exist. Vertov makes a point to note that the film does not use inter-titles in n attempt to make the film universally comprehensible to all viewers.
Other positions on the film:
This film has received a large amount of praise over the years, and is credited as one of the influencing forces for the cinema verite style of documentary filmmaking. Vertov utilized revolutionary artistic style, without the use of narrative—which Vertov was a strong opponent of. Vertov used this film to bring man and machine together, and to celebrate the role of the worker. The film also received a 95% approval rating on popular rating site, Rotten Tomatoes. Mordaunt Hall of the New York Times believes that the film is “somewhat confusing. The individual who pops up every now and then with his camera has really little if anything to do with the picture, for what he photographs is not shown. One sees him at work, it is true, but he is no more interesting than a number of other persons in this kaleidoscopic stream” (1929).
My view the film:
While I can understand the New York Times critique of the film, as the self-referential nature of the film coupled with the rapid editing style can be jarring, I feel that the reviewer was not viewing the film in the proper context. Naturally, an audience should be initially put off by seeing the man filming, as the perspective of the film becomes skewed. There must be somebody giving us our perspective but we don’t know who that is, while at the same time we see some one else filming but does he ever give us his perspective? To understand this dilemma, we must think back to Vertov’s belief of film’s tendency to lie to the viewer and sell a false reality. Vertov is showing the viewer the artificiality of art and its tendency to lie. Vertov also drives this point forward by displaying the cameraman as just another worker in the city. While this idea of making the cameraman no more interesting than the other workers bothered the reviewer, I feel he missed the point. Vertov seems to be showing the viewer that the cameraman is no different than any of the other laborers; he merely fabricates and creates things with his hands. What he creates is artificial.
Reviewer: Ashley Hughey
ReplyDeleteFilm: Stranger with a Camera (2000)
Director: Elizabeth Barrett
Other Cast and Crew Details: Produced by Elizabeth Barrett and Judi Jennings, and written by Fenton Johnson. Lucy Massie Phenix edited the film with the Appalshop Studio in Whitesburg, Kentucky, which distributed the film as well.
Location: Jeremiah, Kentucky, USA
Awards: 2000 Sundance Film Festival-Nominated, Grand Jury Prize-Documentary; 2000 International Documentary Association-Nominated, IDA Award-Feature Documentaries; 2000 San Francisco International Film Festival-Won, Silver Spire, Film & Video-History
Synopsis: In Stranger with a Camera, director Elizabeth Barrett takes us to the town of Jeremiah, Kentucky and tells the story of Hobart Ison and film director Hugh O’Connor, and how Ison’s murder of O’Connor has shaped the difference in one’s viewing of an image and one’s understanding of an image. In the film, Barrett notes that she is from the region that the murder took place, but through her camera she sees more than just a murder story, but the complicated relationship between the media and the distinct culture of the Appalachian people. By utilizing different perspectives from Jeremiah locals and those who worked with O’Connor, Barrett unravels why the murder happened, but most importantly how the certain use of an image affects a certain group of people.
Other Positions About the Film: Stranger with a Camera has received many positive reviews in regards to Barrett’s telling of such a controversial story and topic about the murder of Hugh O’Connor, but also the topic of the media’s misrepresentation of images. Barrett’s cautionary film tells us the dangers of one filmmakers actions and his effect on the people of Appalachia. Based on Rotten Tomatoes, the film has received an average rating of 3.2/5 from 393 film ratings. Though the film may be considered average on its ratings, the film has been nominated for several awards such as the Grand Jury Prize for Documentaries at the Sundance Film Festival in 2000. A large majority of critics of the film agree that Barrett eloquently portrays the different sides of the Appalachian people and the O’Connor’s film crew, and how one man’s view of a people can greatly misrepresent them. According to Joshua Tanzer, Barrett shows her admiration for O’Connor by structuring her film with techniques that he commonly used, but also maintaining an unbiased storytelling of the Appalachian people and Hugh O’Connor. Barrett explores in Stranger with a Camera that “anyone who wants to represent others -- that is, to create their public image and a body of knowledge about them -- must always be aware of the histories and contexts within which his or her images and words will operate” (John Edwin Mason, http://johnedwinmason.typepad.com/).
My View of the Film: Based on my viewing of Stranger with a Camera, I believe that Barrett explains well the complex relationship between the filmmaker and his subject. While I do think that murdering Hugh O’Connor was wrong, I also understand the circumstances that drove Hobart Ison to commit the act. Telling someone else’s story is a big responsibility; they are not just empty words, but the words and lives of other people. Hugh O’Connor’s intentions may have been pure, but what most filmmakers and photographers forgot during that time of the War on Poverty was that these people were more than the stereotypical “hillbilly.” Photographers and filmmakers emphasized the impoverished towns and people, but forgot to show the beauty that lies in the towns and people as well. The Appalachian people are a community with a different culture and with a different responsibility to themselves and their families. I agree with Barrett in her film that it is important for the filmmaker to accurately portray the truth, and “the images that photographers make ‘may presume, intrude, trespass, distort, exploit, and, at the farthest reaches of metaphor, assassinate’” (Susan Sontag, On Photography).
Comm 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Santos V Tamayo
Film: Nanook of the North (1922), Nanook Revisited (1988)
Director: Robert J Flaherty, Claude Massot
Other Cast and Crew: Most of the crew were the native Inuits, closely related to Nanook. Starring Nanook, Nyla, Allee, Cunayuu, Allegoo, Camock.
Location: Quebec, Canada
Awards: In 1988 The Library of Congress decided it would be one of the first 25 films to be selected for preservation in the U.S National Film Registry. (Wiki)
Synopsis: In his travels across Canada, Flaherty decided to shoot hours and hours of film on the Eskimo lifestyle. Most of the film encompasses Nanook and his family’s travels across Northern Canada in a quest for food through the main seasons. Nanook and his family come across the issues of starvation and they solve it with different means of killing the wildlife like the cases presented of the seals and walrus,among others. Shelter also becomes an issue, quickly solved by their means of igloo building. Nanook revisiting, however, visits the Eskimos that were previously filmed by Flaherty. It brings forth a different aspect and some truth about the Inuit lifestyles. It debunks all the previous misconceptions of the Inuits that Flaherty presented and portrays the advancement of the Inuit people’s lifestyles. They seem more civilized, a bit more like the white men, less like the wildlife.
Other positions about the film: Flaherty’s Nanook of the North was the first of the documentary film brought into existence, thus, Flaherty is known as the father of documentary(Wiki). Most critiques of the film bring forth the issue of sound in the video, since, it is mostly silent. There is no character communication being portrayed in the film. Also the genuineness of the film is questioned after the film Nanook Revisited was released. The film brought forth theories that the film was a composition of staged events, that Nanooks wives were not in fact Nanook’s but Flaherty’s, and that Nanook didn’t kill his prey with spears but with guns. Most of these facts bring down the film that Flaherty made, specially through the lie that Nanook was in fact named Allakariallak and that he didn’t die of starvation two years after the film was released as stated by Flaherty but at home, most likely due to tuberculosis. (wiki)
My view of the film: Unlike the critiques of Flaherty’s film like that shown in Nanook Revisited, I fairly enjoyed the film, and thought that Flaherty portrayed a group of people in a fair manner. I believe most of his reasoning came from wanting to show how the Eskimos actually lived at that time not on how they’ve changed. The argument of ethics can be dismissed by the simple fact that ethics vary from group to group, from person to person. The central issue then becomes the fact that the Eskimos were great hunters of seals and walrus’. It is something they would be proud of and something they would want people to know. It is their roots as a group and of great importance. Also, Nanook Revisited was made 66 years later after Nanook of the North. In those 66 years many things could have changed, which they did in Nanook revisited, and it could be that both videos were actual portrayals of the Inuit at different times. Three generations could have passed in where history and roots could have been lost in which the characters of Nanook Revisited wouldn’t know much of their relatives and their lifestyles, where the landscape has been transformed and where the wildlife has been adapting. Also we miss out the fact that technology has helped the people changed, but how were they before these innovations? Flaherty depicts this in his film perfectly, not in a way to show white supremacy or animal-life behavior among the Inuits, nut to show history and life in his time. The two films show how much the Inuits have evolved as a people and that’s such an amazing thing to see. Especially since, we as a society continue to change.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer:
Shiryn Atashi
Film:
Stranger with a Camera (2000)
Director:
Elizabeth Barret
Other cast and crew details:
Produced by Elizabeth Barret and Judi Jennings; Written by Fenton Johnson; Studio and distributed by Appalshop; Cast contains herself, locals of the area, and Hugh O’Connor’s film crew
Location:
Eastern Kentucky/Appalachia; town of Jeremiah
Awards:
1) 2000 Sundance Film Festival - Nominated, Grand Jury Prize – Documentary
2) 2000 International Documentary Association - Nominated, IDA Award – Feature Documentaries
3) 2000 San Francisco International Film Festival-Won, Silver Spire, Film & Video-History
Synopsis and background:
This documentary investigates what was happening at the time of the 1967 death of Canadian director Hugh O’Connor by local Hobart Ison in the eastern Kentucky and Appalachian mountain area during O’Connor’s attempt to document the area’s situation as it became the poster child for the war on poverty. She focuses on the circumstances, the public image, and the lack of power by those in the town during the media siege and the war on poverty. The documentary contains interviews, and many perspectives, including her own, that make her way of telling the story unique.
Other positions on the film:
On the popular ratings site RottenTomatoes.com, the documentary received a 69% approval rate from viewers. This majority represents how little criticism there is on the film. There are few to no arguments online that critique her work, and the film is thought of as accurate and incredible by all those familiar with the area and the events that took place.
Your position about the film:
This documentary argues what Barret believes the responsibilities are for filmmakers when capturing images and videos of people and using them for their own work. It is a reflexive documentary about the ethics of documentation—it asks itself this ethical question throughout the work. She supports and defends both the insiders of the town as well as the outsiders which she believes is the ethical way to approach documentaries.
We are able to reflexively look at Appalachia, Hugh O’Connor, and Barret through the way she sets up her documentary. With interviews of locals in the area at the time, while also interviewing friends of O’Connor, she shows us how it is important to stay true to both sides and not just take videos and pictures without communicating with the groups.. Her experience growing up in a neighboring town is also brought to the viewers attention, keeping the viewers in the loop and aware of her unique position as an insider and an outsider. An insider because she grew up close to the town, yet an outsider because even though a few miles away, she was unaware of the environment and the O’Connor situation and had her own life separate from the town of Jeremiah’s struggles..
Barret keeps a balanced and truthful approach, which she believes is the ethically correct way to showcase this town. She argues how the 1960’s media frenzy was too much for one small town to handle, and only gave a “tunnel-vision image” of the town. Barret makes it a point to explain the coal mining situation and how the companies took advantage of these workers. However, she by no means excuses the killer Ison, she just tries to make the viewers understand what the town was going through. She respects O’Connor greatly, and takes the time to interview his friends and colleagues, and parts of her film are the same style as his work. She also states how her intention is to be true to both Ison and O’Connor directly in the documentary with a voiceover, further proving her belief that ethical documentary making needs to be informative, thorough, and unbiased instead of being exploitative.
Synopsis: A Man with a Movie Camera is a experimental documentary film that contains numerous shots for showing an ordinary day in the most developed cities in the Soviet Union. From dawn to dusk, Vertov presents a montage of Russian urban life. Instead of working with actors, he takes real people in a real world and all kinds of machineries. Since he extremely dislikes fiction film because he thinks that narrative fiction clouds people’s mind, he removed all of story-delivering-tools in the film, such as dialogs and texts. It also related to his ideological perspective to Leninism. He tries to use film as a tool for celebrating proletariat revolution. In this point of view, machineries and workers are both means of production of urban society so the narrative story of the film is not important. The important point is the energetic city run by workers.
ReplyDeleteOther positions about the film: As much as his innovative filming format, his filming and editing techniques are influential as well. Vertov created his own genre in film industry. The kino-eye is a filming technique that a camera shoots people but never be recognized by them so that the camera could take the most realistic shots. In his film, it contains hundreds of people working in their own industrial fields, but they don’t stare at the camera or don’t get interrupted. By that, audiences can get a sense of reality of the film and can accept what is in the film. It is not only technique but Vertov’s belief also. He emphasizes the reality of film more than anyone in his era. This is a monumental filming technique especially in documentaries. Another significant technique used in the film is montage. It is an editing technique that produces a single pictorial composition made by juxtaposing two or more shots. For example, the shot of the movie poster that a man poses ‘shhh’ gesture works with the following shot that a woman is sleeping on a bed. There isn’t any indexical sign in those shots, but by juxtaposing two shots in that way, audiences can bring a new idea up.
My view of the film: First time I finished watching the whole film, I sensed the fact that Vertov put enormous amount of effort in the film. According to Roger Ebert, the film was made from 1,775 separate shots and it about took four years to capture all shots. As a student of documentary production class, I realized that filming a documentary is not an easy job. Besides my personal thought, I felt that this film is extremely difficult to watch. Because of lack of narrative storyline, it couldn’t hold my attention for a long time. Vertov’s idea was praised in the Soviet Union, but I argue that in outer world where people don’t share ideological belief, the film couldn’t get a wide bond of sympathy. However, filming and editing techniques are interesting in aspects of modernity. Although it was made more than 80 years ago, its way of expression and filming technique are sophisticated enough to hook my attention. From that, I sensed the historical inheritance of film industry from the past to the present.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Ati Namvar
Film: Stranger With a Camera (2000)
Director: Elizabeth Barret
Other cast and crew details: A co-production of Appalshop and the Kentucky Network, produced in association with the Independent Television Service. Produced by Elizabeth Barret; Co-produced by Judi Jennings; Executive produced by Dee Davis; Edited by Lucy Massie Phenix.
Location: Eastern Kentucky, United States
Awards: Nominated for 2000 Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Prize Documentary; nominated for 2000 International Documentary Association IDA Award-Feature Documentaries; won Silver Spire, Film & Video-History at 2000 San Francisco International Film Festival.
Synopsis: The region of Appalachia in Eastern Kentucky became the “center of America’s poverty belt” in 1968 and many film makers and news producers fled there to document it. Hugh O’Connor, a director of the National Film Board of Canada, is an example of a director who did so. Unfortunately, a resident of Appalachia named Hobart Ison had a major problem with others on his land without permission and went on to tragically kill O’Connor as he was stepping outside of his car to snap a picture; Ison saw the director as a “stranger” or “outsider” with a camera. The director of this documentary, is a resident of Appalachia and experienced it for herself. She draws on her personal experiences throughout the film as she displays the history of the region, the life stories of both the killer and the victim, and the court’s outcome. She directs the film from an omniscient point of view attempting to create a fair and balanced approach; she creates this attitude by reflexively asking “what are the responsibilities of any of us who take images of other people and put them to our own uses?” in her film.
Other positions about the film: This ethnographic film has received attention and notice from the global community, but public critiques are limited online. A review by Larry Daressa on California Newsreel states that Barret “deserves our thanks for clarifying the problem” between “the always ambiguous image” and a filmmaker’s attempt to describe it fairly. He continues on to describe how Barret has a balanced point of view when approaching this problem by stating that “her authorial reticence…would deny her the opportunity to take sides in the issues shaping her community’s future.” Its overall rating on IMDb, a well-known Internet movie database, is an average 7.4 out of 10 stars. This shows how the film is un-ignorable to its audience, yet has still seen as many failures as it has achievements. One critic on this site discusses how the film doesn’t go deep into the larger issues of exploitation and “brutal crime in human terms” that exists in the region, however it does “precisely portray strangers with cameras aimed at a group of people and a way of life with which most people are unfamiliar” which is a main issue that arises in documentary making.
My view of the film: I identify with Larry Daressa’s review that Barret’s perspective and approach when directing the film is very fair in that it covers both the killer and the victim’s point of views. Her answer to the question she poses to herself and other filmmakers in the film, “what are the responsibilities of any of us who take images of other people and put them to our own uses?” shows her extreme insight and objectivity when dealing with the of being the “stranger with a camera” in many situations. In this broader sense, I feel that this documentary served its greater purpose of revealing a major problem that filmmakers face when making a film. However, the way that she served as both an “insider” and an “outsider” was a bit controversial and confusing because it is seen to be impossible to view something from a neutral standpoint when you are clearly born into one or the other.
Reviewer: Natalia Herret
ReplyDeleteFilm: Nanook of the North (1922)
Director: Robert J. Flaherty
Other cast and crew details: Funded by French Fur Trading Company, Révillon Frères; Cast as chosen by Flaherty--- Allakariallak (Nanook), Nyla and Cunayou (Nanook’s wives)
Location: Northern Quebec, Canada
Awards: (1989) One of first 25 films selected to be preserved in the United States Film Registry for its cultural, aesthetic, and historical perspective. (1994) Montreal World Film Festival Co-winner for Artistic Contribution.
Synopsis: Flaherty has been coined “the father of documentaries” and his silent film Nanook of the North is recognized by most as one of the first full-length documentaries ever. This movie portrays a self sustaining people whose culture and daily lives were captured by Flaherty’s narrative style framework. It borders fiction, and has several staged scenes, though it holds a great deal of actuality as well. While the actors were real people, there were no sets, and everything was mostly historically accurate: this film was still a constructed representation. The film portrays an Eskimo hunter named Nanook and his family as they try to survive in the cold, harsh arctic environment. The viewer is shown how communities of Eskimos like Nanook lived prior to European or Western influence.
Other positions about the film: There are many avid critics of this film because of its scripted representation of the Inuit community. A more recent documentation of the film’s false aspects can be found in Nanook Revisited, a movie filmed in the year 1988. Going back to the same Inuit region where Nanook of the North was created, this movie attempts to piece together Flaherty’s time in the community and the inaccuracies of his film. In revisited, there is a lot revealed about the original film that can be considered detrimental to its credibility from a historical standpoint. However, it is also recognized that the original is a priceless depiction of a culture that will probably never return to its innate primitive simplicity due to increasing modernization. Nanook Revisited provides a fresh perspective on the original film and also gives fascinating insight on local opinions regarding Flaherty’s work as well as more current Inuit practices like their unique schooling system.
My view of the film: I found some of the scenes disturbing in that they were so obviously staged and they contained blatant representations of the white man as a benevolent rescuer in contrast to the Inuit whom were portrayed as underdeveloped ‘savages’. As Nichols wrote, “we turn to fiction to understand the human condition” and this film is a critical example of that (7 Nichols). It’s difficult to classify as purely historical; however one must recognize the historical value of this film while acknowledging its perspective. This film has an outsider’s viewpoint and it had underlying intentions to depict the Inuit as foreign, for it was tailored to appeal western audiences. The Canadian school teacher from the modern Inuit community, states that Flaherty made a film of “the Inuit for the white people” in order to showcase their “primitive beauty” and “majesty” (Nanook Revisited). Though it was fictional at times, it was an attempt to capture the actuality of Arctic life. In Nanook Revisited, it’s disclosed that this movie is all the visual documentation that remains of the Inuit during Flaherty’s time. It’s curious to consider the effects of this film on the community, such as the naming of ‘Flaherty’s Island’ or the ‘Nanook ice cream’ mentioned by the school teacher in Nanook Revisited. There is really no way to know how the Inuit would be today if it were not for the movie’s influence, but there is no guarantee that we would know the Inuit lifestyle at all were it not for Flaherty’s film.
COMM 103D: Documentary History and Theory – Assignment 1: Film Review
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Isabelle Gonzalez
Film: Man with a Movie Camera (1929)
Director: Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details: Edited by Elisaveta Svilova, cinematography by Mikhail Kauffman. Produced by film studio VUFKU. Non-fiction film, no actors present.
Location: Soviet Union, cities of Kiev, Kharkiv, Odessa (not distinguished from one another in the film)
Awards: Nomination – Film presented, 1995 Telluride Film Festival. 8th place – Best Film Ever Made, 2012 Sight and Sound poll.
Synopsis: Man with a Movie Camera presents a silent, avant-garde documentary-style film depicting life in the urban Soviet Union. Vertov uses a multitude of cinematographic techniques such as jump-cuts, superimposition, extreme close-ups, and other camera shots to present a “narrative-less” film. The focus on working class life in Russia as a mechanical process is notable in the film, as Vertov takes the audience through a day in the life of the urban worker, dusk to dawn.
Other positions on the film: Widely acclaimed as an innovative film for its subject matter, abstract style, and prolific role as an early documentary picture, Man with a Movie Camera is commonly listed as an essential film in the global film catalogue. Though many give praise to Vertov’s meticulous attempt to create a film subversive in genre, most critics and audiences also find that it is difficult to follow and a tedious effort to construct some sort of overarching narrative where there is none outlined by the film crew. As illustrated by reviews in the New York Times and Philadelphia City Paper, and by acclaimed critic Roger Ebert, Man with a Movie Camera is a film whose effects will be felt for time long to come.
My view of the film: Dziga Vertov’s eclectic style of filmmaking makes for an interesting sort of deconstructed narrative, in my opinion, that both entertains as an aesthetic function and informs as a documentary process. The “slice-of-life” picture that Vertov creates through his disjointed cinematography and detail-oriented camerawork is interesting to observe in and of itself, but also seems to function as an illustration of the times. To me, the soft-filtered shots and the curious moments selected to juxtapose one another call to mind the more abstract moments of films such as American Beauty or The Virgin Suicides, serving to remind the audience of the timelessness of human nature. However, there is a distinct voice present in the film, and that is of the Soviet Union and Communism; the stamp that Lenin’s influence has left on Man with a Movie Camera is indisputable. The camera shots focusing on machinery and the means of production, such as the cinema scene in the opening shots of the film, emphasise the proletariat’s role in the creation of a new kind of nation, and the urban setting reinforces the idea that life in the USSR was one of struggle and recreation alike. Vertov’s film is one that stands the test of time due to its unique use of film technique and its role in the cinema library of the world, as I believe it certainly should.
Bibliography/Works Cited
Adams, Sam. "Screen Picks." Philadelphia CityPaper. CityPaper, May-June 2003. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Ebert, Roger. "Great Movies: Man With a Movie Camera (1929)." Roger Ebert. Ebert Digital, LLC, 1 July 2009. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.
Hall, Mordaunt. "Devushka S Korobkoy (1927) THE SCREEN." Rev. of Man with a Movie Camera. The New York Times 17 Sept. 1929: n. pag. New York Times. The New York Times Company. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Hangchen Liu
Film: Man with a Movie Camera (1929)
Director: Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details: Mikhail Kaufman who is cameraman,
E. Svilova who is editor, produced by the film studio VUFKU
Location: Odessa, Karkhiv, and Kiev
Awards: N/A
Synopsis: The film has no plot (story), it just represents the man who is photographer take the life of people and tells audience how photographer works. In addition, the director mainly records the ordinary life of Soviet Union people. This film is mainly divided into several parts, for instance, the director records audiences take seat in the theater, the dawn of the city, people’s work and sparetime life, sports and art practice and so on. It depicts all aspects of people's life, and it presents an ideal city of Soviet Union new society.
Other positions about the film: It is considered one of the most influential and innovative films of the silent era. As noted on the film’s Wikipedia page, the popular rating site Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 95% approval rating, based on 22 reviews. And the rating of the film is 8.4 from 10,754 users on another popular rating site IMDb. In addition, In the 2012 Sight and Sound poll, the film was voted the 8th best film. Moreover, the film was selected as one of top 10 documentaries film by Guardian and Observer critics on the theguardian site. However, although the film has won rave reviews in those years, The Soviet Union film critics criticized the film when it premiered in April 9th 1929 in Soviet Union, because for the time.
My view of the film: I think this film is very different between other films which I saw, it is so innovative. It has the characteristics of documentary and experimental film. it makes me so surprise that even though the film without actor sound and story, I did not feel uncomfortable. The director uses a lot of fast motions, it makes some of fragmentary life scenes splice together, the connection of every shot is so coherent and it also has the profound connotation. For instance, the combination of those segments which are weddings, funerals, babies are born, and the old man died, it shows strongly contras and it also let me feel that people from life to death are inevitable and fickle. In addition, I found the film has some of shots which are photographer adjust the lens of camera, and it would appear an eye from the lens of camera. In my opinion, it can express the lens of camera just like people’s eye, it can record people’s ordinary life. The director uses those shot just want to tell people that film should be absolutely reject falsity and use camera to record the real world, to catch life. All in all, I really enjoy this film, it makes me deep in thought after watching it. And it also let me understand and learn some of life philosophy. As for me, the film which is Man with a Movie Camera is the one of the most innovative and influential films of the silent era.
Reviewer: Trent Bastian
ReplyDeleteFilm: Nanook of the North
Director: Robert J. Flaherty
Cast and Crew: Follows an Inuk family
Location: Northern Quebec
Synopsis: Nanook of the North follows a Inuk family in an isolated region of Canada. Flaherty made several trips to this desolate part of Northern America in order to film a population seldom seen by most of the World. Coinciding with the continuing rise of industrialization and capitalism, this documentary follows a family that still struggles daily to find food. A significant part of this film is the search for food, whether it be fish or walrus. Flaherty does an excellent job framing many important scenes in order to create a sense of continuity as the film progresses. Also, the added music contributes to the drama Flaherty so often tried to induce. Because of this, Nanook of the North, is considered a docudrama as it filmed a real family but with Flaherty facilitating the suspense and drama. Nearly every day the Inuk people are seen exhibiting massive amounts of efforts in order to simply survive. However, much of this is complemented by the jovial spirit of this family. Nanook, the main character, is constantly in a fight for his and his family’s life but there is rarely a moment when there is not a smile on his face. Still, it is hard not to feel the despair emanating from the film, however much of that had to do with the announcement of Nanook’s death before the film started.
Positions about the film: Much of the film was celebrated with great admiration. Many critics acknowledged Flaherty's lack of experience with filmography but much of that was overcome by Flaherty's pacing and dramatization of the events within the documentary. There is also a tremendous amount of debate over the film’s authenticity. Obviously many of the scenes are cut several times and certainly Flaherty arranged certain sequences in a particular fashion. However, much of this is irrelevant as the film’s most important aspects is the simple portrayal of how another man lives. Roger Ebert sums it up quite well when he acknowledges the lack of technical sophistication but celebrated the “humanity and optimism of the Inuit.” So although the obvious technical limitations of the time and location affected parts of the film, it’s overall purpose was left untouched. Generally, Nanook of the North, is viewed as a very significant piece of filmmaking.
My position on the film: I personally enjoyed the film a lot. To me, it encompassed a genre that I had never really experienced before. I have seen a few docudramas but this had a completely different feeling. It has little plot other than following a family during their struggle for survival. Yet I think that itself is the most important aspect of the film. I understand the complaints of those in Nanook Revisited as one could argue over the exploitation of this particular family for Flaherty's gain. However, I do believe that Flaherty's depiction of the Inuit people was not for his personal benefit but for the benefit of those who had no understanding of Inuits and similar cultures. I think Flaherty accomplished this as best he could. Nanook and his family both seemed to express enthusiasm for Flaherty and his projects so based off of that, I can only assume that Flaherty directed Nanook of the North out of good will. I believe the finished film attests to that as the entirety of the film possesses no ulterior motive, only a depiction of how a group of individuals live.
Reviewer: Elizabeth Argo
ReplyDeleteFilm: Man With a Movie Camera (1929)
Director: Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details:
Silent Documentary Film; Produced by VUFKU; Dziga Vertov’s wife Elizaveta Svilova was the editor; Mikhail Kaufman was the cameraman; No cast.
Location: Soviet Union, specifically in Odessa, Kharkiv, and Kiev
Awards: 2012 Sight and Sound Poll- voted 8th best film ever made
Synopsis: Dziga Vertov created Man With a Movie Camera as an experimental piece to capture the realism of everyday life in Soviet Russia. The film was created as an expression for the celebration of the working class as it relates to the technological revolution. This film consists of a montage of fragmented shots that do not come together to form a narrative story, but instead address the means of production in 1929; Both in front of and behind the camera. There are no voices or sound in the film, only opening titles. The film begins with a theater scene, displaying all of its automated technology, and progresses to display a verity of daily events that occur around the urban Russian cities. Vertov’s avant-garde film has no specific organization, or clear plotlines, but instead presents filming as an active process, in which the filming techniques themselves are captured, and presented to the audience as a means for “truth” behind the lens.
Other positions on the film: Man with a Movie Camera was widely recognized and received widespread attention towards the end of the 20th century. According to IMDb, a popular website that provides background and review information on films, rated Man With a Movie Camera an 8.4 on a 10 scale out of 10,740 user reviews. Rotten tomatoes, a reputable movie rating website, gave the film a 95% rating, with an 89% turnout rate of viewers liking it. However, even with the raving reviews for its influence and unique expression, the film has also received negative feedback for being too fragmented and lacking in narrative content. Vertov’s “punk rock aesthetic” of images clashing to form meaning was eventually trumped by Sergel Eisenstein’s use of clashing images to promote a means for the resolution. Vertov’s popularity also dwindled as Stalin disliked his work and demoted in status at the time. Although Dziga Vertov died in obscurity, his values and idea continue to live on as a popular subject of critique and innovation.
My view of the film:
After viewing Vertov’s film, I had an array of mixed emotions regarding the content and cinematography involved. I liked the fact that he did not give up on his vision of truth and conform to creating fictional “Film Vodka” like other artists of the time. I though he made bold points without the need for sound, using strong visual content. For instance, he foreshadowed how technology and human activity in the workforce may be more connected than what meets the eye. He shot close ups of the orchestra players and related the hands on the instruments to the cinematographer’s hands on the reel of film in the next scene. Similarly, a row of babies sleeping in the hospital had representative tones of an automated production line. Yes, I admit the film became dry at times and very hard to follow because there was no direct story line. I would have liked to see more inserts of words or descriptive phrases detailing the film at times so that I would be able to fully focus on the points Vertov was creating. Although I have both admirations and frustrations with this film, I would overall give the film a 7 out of 10. Vertov’s expressionism expanded the boarders of cinematography, but also caused the audience to lose interest at times. Had he made the distinctions more clear and organized, I believe his filming career would have been more successful.
Reviewer: Jennifer Luong
ReplyDeleteFilm: Man With A Movie Camera (1929)
Director: Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details: A Soviet production crew which includes his editor and wife, Elizaveta Svilova and his cinematographer and brother, Mikhail Kaufman.
Location: Soviet Union
Awards: Nominated for Film Presented at the Telluride Film Festival in 1995
Synopsis and background: The film's protagonist is the cameraman travelling through the city, involving himself in its daily dawn to dusk activities, and observing all walks of life through the eye of his camera. Vertov’s silent film focuses on industrialization and the relationship of man and technology. He portrays man as the driving force of modern society and technological advancements; how man not only controls the machine, but how man is like a machine. The silent films shows a city dependent on the labor force from the slow pace images in the morning to the fast pace images. He compares people and machines to show the technological advances and social progress.
Other positions on the film: The film has received high acclaim globally. Its dramatic impact and its ability to raise awareness with its subject have been widely reported. The popular rating site Rotten Tomatoes give the film a 95% approval rating, based on twenty-two reviews. Some viewers may critique the film odd for lacking a plot; however it’s montage of images of people going to work, babies being born, etc. is a fascinating film that shows that cameras can be anywhere and capture anything.
My position about the film: Vertov uses modern techniques and illusions instead of the usual props of plot, titles or sounds which makes him film unique and interesting. The editing of the images of the camera and the human eye represents a window into a different world, the Soviet society in 1929 under Lenin. All aspects of society are intertwined and that there is contentment within Russia. This propaganda film was used to invoke emotion as well as a feeling of awe for the association of man and machine.
In addition, the sound effects have been added to create a dynamic between sound and vision, though the music may sound archaic at times, it makes the images stronger. The clash between hasty editing patterns and a more relaxed musical tempo enhances the film and its qualities that makes it different from its time.
Works Cited
"IMBD." Man with a Movie Camera. N.p.. Web. 12 Apr 2014. .
"Rotten Tomatoes." Man with a Movie Camera. N.p.. Web. 12 Apr 2014. .
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review
Reviewer: Shu Yu
Film: Nanook of the North (1922)
Director: Robert J. Flaherty
Other cast and crew details: Performed by Members of The Olympia Chamber Orchestra; music composed, compiled, and conducted by Timothy Brock; film restored and produced for video by David Shepard
Location: Port Harrison, Northern Quebec, Canada
Awards: According to the film’s Wikipedia page, in 1989, Nanook of the North was selected as one of the first 25 films to be preserved in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress.
Synopsis: The film recorded the authentic daily lives of Eskimos who lived in northern Quebec, Canada, with an Inuk man named, Nanook, as the main focus/character of the documentary. Nanook of the North presented what the real lives of Nanook and his family members were like in the north by showing their ways of obtaining food resources (fish, walrus, seal) in summer and winter, their methods of constructing their winter dwelling (igloo), their family entertainment, their ways of sailing on ocean and travelling on ground, trading, and so on.
Other positions about the film: Nanook of the North is considered to be an innovation and milestone in the documentary history, in which the film came out in a period when there were only few documentaries had been made, and “at a time when separating films into documentary and drama did not yet exist” (Nanook of the North, Wikipedia). Moreover, the Wikipedia page of Nanook of the North has also mentioned that, “the film was a box office success in the United States and abroad. In the following years, many others would try to follow in Flaherty’s success with ‘primitive peoples’ films.” The main idea which the film, Nanook of the North, tries to convey to audiences is that, “The sterility of the soil and the rigor of the climate no other race could survive; yet here, utterly dependent upon animal life, which is their sole source of food, live the most cheerful people in all the world – the fearless, lovable, happy-go-lucky Eskimo.”
My view of the film: I found Nanook of the North very interesting and educating, in which this documentary gave me a better understanding of Eskimos as an ethnicity, as well as, it also enhanced my knowledge with regard to their daily lives and survivals. By watching the film, and seeing the man, Nanook, and his followers always hunted wild and dangerous animals with their bare hands or harpoons (the only kind of weapon they use to hunt), and observing the only kind of transportation tool that they used for sailing on the unpredictable Arctic Ocean were kayaks, I learned that Eskimos are probably one of the bravest human races on earth. The story of the man, Nanook, has not only showed us the braveness of him as an individual, but it also reflected the heroic and fearless spiritual of the Eskimo race as a whole. Furthermore, the other aspects/elements within the film that demonstrated the importance of Nanook of the North to the human race and society were that: the authentic record of the real aspects of Eskimos solved a lot of confusions that people had on Eskimos, and the intertitles of the film (texts based on the author’s empirical experiences) also clarified the misunderstandings that the outsiders had on Inuk. For example, in the film, the author used intertitles to tell us “blubber-eating Eskimo” is a misconception, Eskimos actually use blubber as we use butter.
Reviewer: chuqian Ye
DeleteOther positions on the film
Robert Flaherty, who wrote, directed, produced, shot, and edited this film, is has remembered as the godfather of documentary filmmaking. This film is not only enormously popular in 1922, but also had regarded as a cinematic milestone in documentary film history. It is the first documentary film that combined actualities, scenics, and storytelling. It had been awarded the first successful documentary ever made; moreover, it was a true benchmark for ethnographic film. Robert Flaherty chooses to use a stationary camera in most of his shots which are not focusing on the personality of the family but rather their lifestyle and how they contribute to one another. That is very novelty, and there is a delicate meta-narrative about the making of the film reflected in the struggles of this Inuit family. As noted on the film’s Wikipedia page, the director Robert Flaherty was using a Bell & Howell camera, a portable developing and printing machine, and some lighting equipment, he spent 1914 and 1915 shooting hours of film of Eskimo life. He indeed dragged a camera to the Arctic, the actual one as the subtitle of the film takes great pains to note, and struggled right along with Nanook and the family for the duration of filming. Flaherty is trying to show the outside world of a glimpse of Eskimo life as he had experienced it during his years when he was living in the lower Arctic region. In the other words, Nanook is just the reflection of Flaherty's life-long interest in the interaction of diverse cultures.
My position about the film
My very first impression of documentary is “boring”, but Nanook of the North changes my mind. This film was presented with humors and insight, had sequences that were genuinely exciting, and had a clear and structured narrative. I like this film since it touches my heart by some subtle details, and it also gives me a new sense about a family. I think it’s very impressive when they collaborate to build up their igloo in a solidarity way, and it shows the detail upon detail demonstrates their amazing ingenuity. It transcends a mere recording the process because of the intimate human element these touches provide. Moreover, I like their harmony daily life styles although that is very curiously and fancifully for me. Many of the shots are focused on what the family is doing, their actual actions and so their faces are usually left out of the frame. The people would advance towards the camera rather than the camera going to them. This enables us to see that this family is showing us their lives and welcome us to witness what they are all about. Although their life styles are not the same as us, it gives me the idea that they are a real family since it is full of love.
All in all, I enjoy this film because it exposed lives of the people we don't see around, and so have only a little knowledge about. It also separated our differences and similarities as human beings, just like spring resembled a fresh new start and winter resembled the opposite. Nanook is a real hero in the film although he has gone down to ultimate defeat. It makes me realize that this is not just a film, but harsh reality. However, his soul goes marching on. His shadowy form still flickers across the screen, to prove to distributors and other shortsighted persons that Eskimos are human beings.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review
Reviewer: Kristian Ivanov
Film: Nanook of The North (1922)
Director: Robert J. Flaherty
Other cast and crew details: Follows an Inuk family. Allakariallak as Nanook, Nyla and Cunayou as Nanook’s wives, and Alle and Allegoo as Nanook’s sons.
Location: Northern Quebec, Canada
Synopsis: Widely considered to be the first full-length documentary, Nanook of The North is a silent film that follows an Inuk family and captures their daily struggles for survival. The Robert Flaherty follows Nanook, the main character and Eskimo that illustrates and exemplifies a population of people that is hardly recognized for the immense amounts of work and effort needed to survive as a self-sustaining community in an isolated region of Northern Quebec. Actors in the film play as themselves and though some scenes are staged, overall Flaherty makes an attempt to portray his realistic representation of this community. Overall, reviews focused their negative attention toward the film’s credibility of staged sequences and exploiting the Inuit community.
Other positions about the film: With a film shedding light on a rare group of people that has remained in the “dark”, Flaherty provided viewers with something rather special and this would ultimately open the floodgates for reviews ranging the entire spectrum. Nanook Revisited (1988) revisits the same area where Flaherty filmed Nanook of the North in an attempt to uncover inaccuracies and false representations from Flaherty’s 1922 film. In Nanook Revisited, much was discovered about Nanook of The North and the film’s authenticity. Though some things were revealed that argued the credibility of Flaherty’s film, the original is an excellent representation of a rare community that has since disappeared. Nanook Revisited brings us back to Nanook of The North and reminds us or enlightens us about a rare culture of people that have since remained in ruin due to the boom of modernization.
My view of the film: I have mixed feelings about the film. I appreciate Flaherty’s attempt at recreating a representation of a rare and isolated community, but the Inuit people were portrayed as savages and lesser beings compared the almighty white man. Because I believe it appealed to a Western audience, I think Flaherty had prior intentions in how he wanted the film to appear and appeal to certain people. Some scenes were obviously staged and after the first one appeared, in my opinion, I was contemplating the documentary’s credibility. To me, the film was meant to be seen by a white audience and specifically appeal to the West. As I mentioned before, I think it is amazing that Flaherty shed light on a culture that most did not know existed. With the creation of the first documentary, the film is groundbreaking and who’s to say we would ever learn about Nanook, his family and community if it were not for Robert Flaherty. I would argue that Flaherty represented the Inuit community fairly. As a director, his desires for success rely on the reception from his audience and in order to grasp their applaud, you need to give them what they want. In order to capture the white man’s “beauty” and superiority, Flaherty created the white man to be portrayed as the savior or hero. While I do agree some scenes were heavily staged and portrayed the Inuit as savages and white men as heroes, Flaherty captures the harsh realities of the arctic environment and the efforts needed to succeed and survive. He captured the people living in these arctic conditions and exposes us to an alternate lifestyle to our own.
Film Review
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Seung Jin Cha
Film: Nanook of the North
Director: Robert J. Flaherty
Other cast and crew details: Funded by French fur company Revillon Freres: Full collaboration of one Eskimo family.
Location: Northern Quebec, Canada
Awards: Was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” in 1989.
Synopsis: The director Robert J. Flaherty follows and films the lives of an Eskimo family, Nanook and his family along the Canadian Arctic to depict the lands and people there from August 1920 to August 1921. He chose respected hunter of the Itivimuit tribe, Allakariallak as a main character. The film shows how they construct their lives by earning their housing, food and clothing by hunting animals. It also shows how the family as a whole works together and demonstrates love and care for each other despite their surrounding circumstances.
Other positions about the film: The film was known for its cultural, historical, and aesthetical significance. It has received high acclaim for its detailed and fascinating portrayal of real hunting scenes. However, it has been criticized for portraying some events intentionally as reality. Some interruption includes hunting of the seal and how it’s usually done and how Flaherty encouraged them to film is different. They usually kill the seal with a gun however, Flaherty urged him to hunt in an old fashioned way just for the film. Another fact was that the two wives and children were actually not his actual wives and children. Flaherty recruited them as the cast for his film. Many movie review blogs and Wikipedia criticized his so-called documentary that is supposed to be real and alive was in fact intended and intentional.
My view of the film: I agree with the critiques of the film that argued that a documentary must not be deceptive although the purpose was not to trick the audience but simply to capture the best possible scenes. When I watched the film, I was fascinated by their family teamwork and how they depend on each other in such circumstances. After I read the critiques and found out how they were all casting for the film, I was shocked that the director could manipulate such documentary. Documentary should not be deceptive: it doesn’t matter how well the film depicts the heroic Nanook and his bravery on the screen. The point of documentary is to capture and portray the reality of people’s lives. It seems like Nanook and his family was portrayed with an ethnographic gaze especially because Flaherty encouraged them to capture the seal in an ancestral way even though they knew and in fact usually use technology such as gun. Now that I’m aware of it, this film appears to be highly exaggerated.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Wing Hong Law
Film: Nanook of The North Full Movie
Director: Robert J. Flaherty, Claude Massot
Other cast and crew details: A slient documentary of 1922, Flaherty followed the nanook family for one year to shoot for the flim
Awards: U.S. National Film Registry - 1988 Library of Congress
Synopsis and background: By following Nanook and his family, Flaherty shows the vitality of the Eskimos in the lonely desolate Arctic. Through the shots of the film, Flaherty brings audience into the culture and daily lives of Eskimos. This film expresses the dignity and wisdom of Eskimos via the captures of the Nanook family and their “adventures”. The scenes of fighting with the irresistible natural struggling are presented in the film. It shows the most authentic humanity and the different life of Eskimos with modern city life.
Other Positions about the film: As stated in New York Times, “Nanook of the North is regarded as the first significant nonfiction feature, made in the days before the term "documentary" had even been coined.” Although this film had been under the debate that whether or not it is a documentary, there is no doubt that it is still a milestone in the history of documentary work. It is not only pioneered the use of video to record the society as an anthropology documentary, it also set up a glorious start point of world documentary.
My view of the film: Flaherty was not the first director who shot Eskimos. However, in the past, when people shoot with the ethnic minorities, they often overlook the colonial exotic locales and wonderful scenery with a haughty gaze and a mentality of novelty and “play”. Yet, Flaherty injected a valuable humanistic care in "Nanook of the North". Flaherty was emotionally connected with the Eskimos. He shows a very appreciative attitude on their simple natural lifestyle, and is amazed by the tough vitality of the Eskimos who were in a difficult living environment. Eskimos wrestle with the difficult living environment that reflects the tough vitality amazed. He is like a "troubadour” with a camera, hang around at the edge of the nation. He is sighed with this ancient cultures, which is about to disappear. Because of this respectful attitude, "Nanook of the North" is far surpassed the same type of movies with adventure or review attitude from the past and later.
Location: Northern Quebec, Canada
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCOMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Anna Stern
Film: Man with a Movie Camera
Director: David Kaufman, Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details: produced by VUFKU; chief operator Mikhail Kaufman; Assistant Editor E. Svilova
Location: Moscow, Kiev and Odessa, Russia
Awards: Nomination 1995 Telluride Film Festival (The New York Times)
Synopsis and background: The director makes his intentions known early on in the film. The opening statements of the film discuss how all of the footage comes from a cameraman’s diary (Dziga Vertov). Man with a Movie Camera is an “experiment of cinematic communication of events without intertitles or a story or theatre” (Vertov). With the director’s exclusion of these elements, he attempts to create a new “international language of cinema based on the separation of theatre and literature” (Vertov). Throughout the film, his appreciation for the rise of modernization can be seen with contrasts between machines and new technologies and humans and daily life. Through the use of juxtaposition and montages, he reflects the politics of the new communist regime.
Other positions on the film: There were various critiques of the film after its release. Some critics felt that Man with a Movie Camera did not fully capture or show the real lives of the lower classes during the time. However, it has become a classic and is still well known and received today. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film was approved by 95% of the audience. A critic from the New York Times, Mordaunt Hall gave one of the only disapproving reviews because he felt that it was “quite tedious” and longer than it actually was. Other critics praised the film for its staying power, strong message, and Soviet associations (Rotten Tomatoes).
My view of the film: Although I acknowledge the film for its historical significance and successful attempts at illustrating futurism and the communist way of thinking, I agree with Hall’s critique. The purpose of the film is to illustrate the new political ideals and the celebration of technology, but Vertov does not do enough with this to keep me entertained. The constant contrasts and changes in scene caused me to feel disoriented and almost annoyed at times, especially when montages and collages would continually flicker and change. Scenes would be right in front of my eyes and then gone in a flash. Considering this was the effect used during the entire film, it grew tiresome and I felt it extremely difficult to pay full attention. By the end of the film, the back and forth, speedy comparisons all seemed too similar and it just dragged on.
Yet, the techniques Vertov uses and how he films with montages set up sharp contrasts and greatly emphasize the plot of the film. A good example would be the scene with the woman washing her face and then the sudden change to a high-powered hose shooting out gallons of water. Throughout the film, there would be a jump from something representing modernism, such as gears to a man working with his hands. These things would be contrasted, while in other, later parts of the film two differing objects are seen in the same clip, such as a horse and a car. I also would applaud the director for his success in creating that “international language of cinema” which he wrote about in the opening credits. Because of the lack of actors and actresses, plot, and storyline there is no dialogue, so viewers of all walks of life can watch and all understand.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Lian Liu
ReplyDeleteFilm: Man with a Movie Camera (1929)
Director: Dziga Vertov
Other cast and crew details:
Cinematography by Mikhail Kaurman and Gleb Troyanski
Assistant editor: Yelizaveta Svilova
Location: Soviet Union, Odessa, Khakiv, and Kiev
Awards: 2012 Sight and Sound Poll- 8th best film ever made; 1995 Telluride Film Festival – Film Presented
Synopsis:
Man With a Movie Camera is a highly experimental documentary film by Russian director Dziga Vertov, which generally shows urban life form in modern Soviet Union in a cameraman’s perceptions. Basically it can divide into five parts which are overture of audience having a seat into the theater, daily dawn and dusk of city, people’s working lives, people’s rest lives of the day after work, and artistic practice. The most innovative idea is that this film also records the process of film shooting and film editing. From the connotative construction, through the beginning of the cameraman going out with a camera, Vertov uses “radio eye” as a camera to record the society of socialism. The great meaning of this movie is not just because Vertov shot without any actors or sets to record the life reality, but also because he created the value that combines with theory and technology. In the part of technology, he used the double exposure, fast-forward, slow motion, freeze frame and clip jumping points these skills to edit and record this movie. In the other hand of theory, he created a form of self- betrayal is that bring the cameraman into the film.
Other positions about the film:
According to the Wikipedia, this movie was voted the 8th best film ever made in the 2012 sight and sound poll. Through the external links from Wikipedia, the rating site Allmovie gives this film five stars on editor rating, 4.5 stars based on fifty-two reviews from audiences. However, let’s go back to the year in 1929, there were more strong criticism than praise in the Soviet Union society because movie was a mysterious science at that era, and the idea of shooting that Vertov used in this movie was decades ahead.
My view of the film:
While watching this film, I felt myself like Vertov’s pair of eyes sensitive to any outside changes without any words. In my opinion, the most interesting thing is his visual ideas of time and space illustration. For instant, ordinary people could barely see if there is any combination between a scene of sleeping woman, a scene of cameraman, and a scene of running train. But Vertov successfully combined three scenes together with some sense of poetry. Such as, in the morning, the train was setting up from the station, but the sleeping woman felt too tired to get up for work. At the same time, the cameraman started to set up his camera. Then, the train kept running on its track, the woman still struggled to wake up. And the cameraman set his camera on the track and waited train’s coming. While the train looked like going crack up cameraman’s body, the woman was suddenly awake from nightmare. Seemingly, she saw the cameraman being cracked by train in her dream. Along with his camera rolling, my eyes kept watching out. I also felt Vertov much like to shoot objects from unusual angles and made them metaphors for other life forms in this movie. For example, a street in the morning, running machines, and quick walking people without expression, such images quickly sliding over the surface of modern Soviet life, were frequently seen in this film. After hiding himself behind the camera, Vertov traveled over time and space, located anywhere to capture what he believed is reality: the film playing on the screen is our real life. Actors playing inside the film are ourselves.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review
Reviewer: Hyungsun Wang
Film: Stranger with a Camera (2000)
Director & Producer: Elizabeth Barret
Other cast and crew details: Co-produced by Judi Jennings; Written by Fenton Johnson; Presented by PBS
Location: Appalachia, Kentucky, USA
Awards: Official section (Nominated for Grand Jury Prize in Documentary), 2000 Sundance Film Festival; Awarded Silver Spire in Film & Video – History, 2000 San Francisco International Film Festival; ALA Booklist Editor’s Choice Award for Best Video of 2000 (includes the “Top of the List” award)
Synopsis: Since early 1900s, diverse issues (social, political, economic, cultural) in mountains of Appalachia, a rural region in Kentucky, have been under debate. Elizabeth Barret, a locally born filmmaker, points to a historical event that took place in 1968. On September 24, 1968, Hobart Ison, a local landowner, shot a filmmaker, Hugh O’Connor, who was hired to film a documentary work about poverty in the Lecher County. Ison shot O’Connor in response to his hostility against the mass media attempting to disclose his region as an iconic image of poverty (which was related to the government’s War on Poverty agenda). After conviction, Ison is sentenced a year in prison as he was able to justify his crime as a self-defensive action against the intruder, O’Connor.
Other positions about the film: The film has been recognized by several organizations as impactful, well-presented work. American Historical Association has recognized the film as a meaningful work interpreting an iconic historical event. The film has been televised by PBS on “P.O.V.” series for its outstanding representation of contemporary issues. As for ratings, 64 users have raged on a 1-10 scale (figure presented in IMDB) 7.4 on this documentary. Mass media, such as the New York Times, or public media (including personal blogs) have extensively covered feedbacks on the film. Mostly shared comments about the film states that the filmmaker, Barret, has offered precise and significant insight on the history and social issues around the East Kentucky region.
My view of the film: I consider this film is well presented as to convey the director’s message to audience. Elizabeth Barret begins the documentary with her own narrations, addressing the question of what responsibilities should filmmakers (or audience) take in using images of “other” people for “our” own purposes. As a locally born director, she explores the event from the first-person perspective and asks ethical questions about social representation, media exploitation, and balanced relationships between different communities, social classes, or races. The film is based on a historical, social context set in a very unique place. Using a landmark event, however, Barret seems to effectively pull out her main message and apply the example to the general concept that evolves around public. Overall, the film is a nice representation of how media portrays historical and social issues, and how audience can be informed by such detailed documentary work.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review #1
Date: 4/14/2014
Reviewer: Fu Hung Barus Leung
Film: Nanook of the North (1922)
Director: Robert J. Flaherty
Other cast and crew details: Flaherty took part in nearly all of the parts of the film such as cinematography, production, script, etc; starring Allakariallak, Nyla, cunayou, etc; music by Stanley Silverman
Location: Hudson Bay, Québec, Canada
Awards: National Film Registry in 1989
Synopsis: The entire documentary depicts the everyday life of Nanook’s family documenting how they survive in this extreme environment. It had been shot for a year, so audiences can have detailed understandings of the Inuit. Throughout the film, it shows how they hunt and how they build igloo, which is the home that can make them living in the extreme environment. It portrays Nanook as a heroic figure considering the fact that he leads his family overcome unaccountable hardships.
Other positions about the film: The documentary has received both positive and negative reviews even though it is considered one of the best movies in numerous credible movie websites. Regarding the positive side, it is considered as the first feature-length documentary, so its impact and value towards the development of document is highly respected. Regarding the receptions of the film, 100% of the critics recommend this movie. Despite the fact that it has got positive reviews due to its pioneering act that leads the start of documentary, it has got unaccountable criticisms of how the scenes of the film are staged. As noted on Wikipedia, it states that the size of the igloo was not the actual size of a real igloo due to the size of the camera in that era. Also, the movie was filmed in the morning, so that they could have enough light to film the scene. In addition, the hunting scene of walrus was staged.
My view of the film: Regarding the criticism of the film, I understand why people would be so harsh about it. Regarding the standard of documentary, people expect to see completely true record of history, which means the real documentation of real life event. However, Flaherty staged the event to enhance the whole understanding of Inuk. In my opinion, the living environment and lives of them are still authentic since they all really live that way or they used to live that way. One of the scenes that people are bashing at is the hunting scene. In 1922, they had already changed their way of hunting from using harpoon to gun. However, Flaherty asked Nanook to use harpoon instead of gun in order to show the tradition of them, which I think is extremely fine. It is because that should be what audiences would like to see because if he filmed Nanook using a gun, that would make the whole purpose of him portraying the life of them become inaccurate. According to Roger Ebert, who is a professional film critic, he states that “The film is not technically sophisticated; how could it be, with one camera, no lights, freezing cold, and everyone equally at the mercy of nature? But it has an authenticity that prevails over any complaints that some of the sequences were staged. If you stage a walrus hunt, it still involves hunting a walrus, and the walrus hasn't seen the script. What shines through is the humanity and optimism of the Inuit.” That basically just concludes what I am trying to say, the way he staged the scene does not actually make the scene fictional and that is just how he accommodated with the old-fashioned equipment.
Bibliography
Ebert, Roger. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-nanook-of-the-north-1922. .
Nanook of the North. Dir. Robert J. Flaherty. 1922.
Film Review
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Eun Joo Cho
Film: Man With a Movie Camera (1929)
Director: Vertov, Dziga.
Other cast and crew details: Chief cameraman Mikhail Kaufman; Assistant Editor Alizaveta Svilova; Music composition and conduction by Michael Nyman; Soprano by Sarah Leonard; Produced by Michael Nyman/Kenji Eno (Warp), Co-produced by Katsutoshi Eguchi; Directed by Takao Kondo.
Location: Soviet Union (Moscow, Odessa, Kiev).
Awards: 2012 Sight and Sound poll film critics placed Man with a Movie camera as the 8th best film.
Synopsis: The director follows the ideology of the Marxist-Leninism term of dialectical materialism. As this film takes place in the Soviet Union during times of Communism, Vertov reveals the technological advances and modernization of the new world. This film captures the progression of society, the contrasting juxtaposition of images in life and death, the weak and the strong, and other reflective images. In this, Vertov is able to focus on the colliding aspects of life, the struggle that results from development, as well as the aspects of labor in the process of materializing.
Other positions about the film: The film has received positive and negative observations from the public. On one hand, viewers can appreciate the Kinographic approach that has fueled the film. The Film is said to represent “An experimentation in the cinematic communication of visual phenomena without the use of intertitles, without the help of a scenario, without the help of theatre” (Vetov 1929). This type of non-fiction experimental film is unique in it’s own aspect of revealing unconventional styles of expression. These can be seen through bizarre ideas of setting the cameraman in the glass of beer, planting a camera underneath a railroad track, and through mounting the cameraman on top of a oversized camera. Critics may argue that Vertov did not remain faithful to the Kinography of the film. For instance, it had been argued that the film contained too many intertitles, and staged scenes of the woman getting out of bed. Although it can be labeled as an experimental genre, the authenticity in Kinography may seem questionable.
My view of the film: I do believe Vertov’s intentions were pure as the elements in the composition of the film are agreeably in favor of the experimental film genre. However just as the critics have questioned the Kinography of this film, I too view these few instances of non-kinographic scenes as a flaw. Although these scenes do not disrupt the truth of the situation at hand, it simply does not represent the absolute “film truth.” However, the major theme of the theme remains well constructed as it creates a solid “international language” to reveal the progression in society that stems from technological advances and the effects that stem from this change. This emerges the concept of material dialecticism in it’s development of the struggle in material labor. This can be seen in powerful scenes of technological expression in the automatic chairs, trolleys, planes, and even in the most simplistic sense- through the humans interaction with an instrument (a tool of technology). This expresses the idea that simple tasks and materials are all apart of the node of society. The changes are temporary, yet forever changing.
Synopsis: The director follows the second coming of a man by the name of Mark Hogancamp who was an alcoholic and closet cross-dresser that gets gravely assaulted by five men outside a bar. The blunt trauma and brain damage from this event leaves Mark in a coma for 9 days. When Mark awakes, he finds out that he has retrograde amnesia and is forced to relearn all the basic skills from walking to writing. Although most of his motor functions come back, the psychological trauma forces Mark to withdraw from the world. In order to rehabilitate his eye-hand coordination and imagination, Mark starts to create a 1/6th scale model of a post World War II town called the Marwencol. Through the use of figurines that characterize people in real life, Mark uses Marwencol as a form of self-therapy.
ReplyDeleteOther positions about the film: The film has received high acclaim internationally but the reviews are not all good. According to Noel Murray, a critic of AVClub.com, “Jeff Malmberg’s documentary Marwencol is at its best when it focuses on Hogancamp’s little world, and lets the artist walk the viewer through his town’s increasingly dense mythology.” However, Murray then goes on to state that, “The problem with Malmberg’s tight, intimate study of this man is that when the story expands to the art world that’s taking an interest in Hogancamp’s work—and Hogancamp’s subsequent anxiety over a trip to New York for an exhibition—the larger narrative feels too limited in its perspective.” Similarly, the trusted rating site IMDb, also known as the Internet Movie Database, gave the documentary a 7.7/10 from 2,017 users.
My view of the film: Congruent to Murray’s review, I had mixed feelings about the documentary but for different reasons. Unlike Murray who didn’t like the way the documentary played out, I felt that everything from intro where they capture exquisite shots of Marwencol to the end where he proudly walks out in heels played out perfectly. I also thought that the words of the intro song that went something like, “Dream, that’s the thing to do…Things are never as bad as they seem. So…dream, dreeam, dreeeeeeam,” was extremely befitting this documentary.
Although shallow, the only problem I had with this documentary was the fact that Mark Hogancamp was a cross-dresser. At first I was completely sympathetic towards this man who was wrongfully assaulted. However, when I learned that he was a cross-dresser, I felt differently towards him. I just don’t understand why a man feels the need to wear women’s clothes… Nonetheless, Mark’s okay with how I perceive him because he states, “If I tell people who I am and what I am about, I’m true to myself. I’m not lying to myself. What they do with it is on them. I’m not accountable for their feelings, or how they perceive it. Make faces and stuff. That’s when I close in and discover who I am. And that’s all part of the finding out who I am part of this new life. Second life I was given.”
Reviewer: Zong Wen Fu
ReplyDeleteFilm: Marwencol (2010)
Synopsis:
This film documented a man who named Mark Hagancamp, who was attacked outside of a bar by five men on April 8th, 2000. This incident has caused him massive brain damage and he only had a little memory of his previous life. Since Mark was unable to afford the brain therapy. In order to save his life, Mark built a 1:6 scale of world wall II Belgian town with his imagination. He has made all the dolls representing himself as well as every person in his imaginary communities. (such as: friends, wife, enemies and etc). The town he built is called “Marwencol town” which is also the title of the movie.
Through the arrangement of town, fictional story and pictures taking for the soldiers, Mark gradually going back to be healthy, and the psychological shadow in his heart bas also gradually dispersed. The documentary film has shoot for four years, the storyline was simply documented the ordinary man who suffered from the violent attack. The resulted brain damaged and physical coordination has significantly impacted his life work. But he didn't give up himself, rather than he pours his memory and imgination to the decoration of small toys, and it does bring him back the "alive" hope and joy. Miraculously, he was restored to health, therefore, the haze of mind, is fading. Later in this film, it also talked about how his work was found by the artist and wanted to have a gallery show for Mark. But Mark seemed to have doubt for the gallery since he thought his town was so private for himself with full of fantasy. And the wild worlds outside are not so perfect to him because of the attack.
Other position of the film: This documentary film offered an angle to let people see how art imagination could become a therapy for people’s mind. The people who has weakness for physical and psychological health often choose to avoid the brutal outside world instead of choosing to live in his/her imaginary wonderland. And this film is doing the job to let the audience see the life of these people. By representing the beautiful film autobiography of this bizarre man, the camera is truly acted as the microscope for the audience to see the legitimacy of the story. Similar as other documentary, this film is also told by the first person, Mark to be the spokesperson to expand the story for the audience. Overall, not only this film documented a touching story of the Marewencol but also it has represented the idea of art therapy for the people who suffered from massive accident.
My view of the film: In this movie Marewencol, it captured my heart when I first saw the trailer of it. In people’s mind, there is a fantasyland of their most private thought. However mostly of this thoughts could only remain in the invisible imaginary and started to fade, as people grow old. Because of the incident, Mark was able to represent his own imagination from invisible to Marewencol town. For me, it was so heart touching and breathtaking to see a story like this. The most aspiring part of this film is how the director left a lot of privacy for Mark’s artwork and it showed a lot of respect for Mark’s fantasyland. In the meantime, it is sad to see a person can only looking for security and love in his fantasy world. And it reminds me to think that Marewencol actually exists in the deepest part in every people’s mind, and this movie made a great representation of it.
Film Review 2
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Jasmine McGinty
Film: First Person Plural (2000)
Director: Deann Borshay Liem
Other cast and crew details: The cast is mainly comprised of Deann herself, her American family- Alveen and Arnold Borshay, and her Korean family. Dean Borshay Liem is the director, writer and producer. Executive producer is Vivian Klieman. Cinematography by Michael Chin. Editing by Vivian Hillgrove Gilliam.
Location: Fremont, CA, and Korea
Awards: World premiere at the 2000 Sundance Film Festival, Grand Jury Prize for Best Bay Area Documentary at the San Francisco Film Festival, Emmy Award Nomination for Outstanding achievement in craft of directing, Best Documentary- DocAviv
Synopsis and background: This is an auto-ethnographic film that shows the life of a Korean woman Deann Borshay Liem, who was adopted by an American family in 1966 at a young age. As Liem gets older, memories of her birth family penetrate her mind and she begins to embark on a journey to discover the truth about her adoption, as well as her true identity. During this journey, Liem and her American family travel to Korea so Liem can face her past to find the answers she is looking for about her past, her identity, and her family.
Other positions on the film: Upon receiving multiple awards, First Person Plural was widely accepted as a brilliant auto-ethnography that speaks to US-Korean relations around adoption. By being so influential in the educational sector, many professors review this film as crucial, because it raises “questions about how global power relations help shape individual lives” (New Day Films, 1, 2014). This is merely one example from Elaine Kim, a professor at University of California, Berkley. Overall, New Day Films and professors globally praise First Person Plural as it serves an important role for learning and education. In addition, there was an overall 67% “like” of the film by audience viewers who watched it based on 78 ratings, according to Rotten Tomatoes. IMDB ratings display a 7.6 out of 10 overall rating based on 30 reviews. Reviewers from the San Francisco chronicle acknowledge Liem’s bravery and express that she should be honored. Overall, the success of this film by academic professionals, the general audience, and film critics support the film as an exploration of identity and truth.
My position about the film: Borshay Liem’s film raises questions of US-Korean relations, international adoption, and issues of double identity and this allows me to view her film as heartfelt, emotional and riveting. She allows the camera to involved and up close on her personal life, which is seen in extreme close up shots of Liem displaying raw emotion repeatedly shown throughout her journey. This micro-scale perspective allows for the viewers to see how an adoptee’s life is shaped and impacted by something that happened long in the past from a first person perspective. Liem starts getting distant memories about her Korean life well into her late 20’s and 30’s. Only then does she embark on the painful journey into exploring her previous life, which turns out to be an emotional rollercoaster for her and both of her families. This aspect of the film is where I believe Liem is successful because it offers the viewers a different perspective on the aspect of adoption, as it comes from a child adoptee and how it has shaped her life and her identity as an adult. The film accesses a reconciling of two cultural identities, the trauma of assimilation, politics of race and class, and the “forgetting” of ones past, as discussed by Cartwright. With this, the film covers a wide range of issues, which to me, are necessary for educational purposes as well as helps to truly understand the hardships of adoption in a raw light for people who are unable to personally relate to the issue.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review
Reviewer: Lian Liu
Film: Marwencol (Jeff Malmberg, 2010)
Director: Jeff Malmberg
Other cast and crew details:
All casts are playing themselves in the movie: Mark Hogancamp, he is the hero in this movie. Other casts are his friends, neighbors, producers, or supporters, it is including Edda Hogancamp, Mark’s mom; Emmanuel Nneji, Ulster county D.A.; Julie Swarthout, Owner, the Anchorage; Colleen Vargo, Mark’s former neighbor; David Naugle, Photographer.
Produced by: Jeff Malmberg, Tom Putnam, Matt Radecki, Chris Shellen, Kevin W. Walsh.
Original Music by: Ash Black Bufflo.
Cinematography by Jeff Malmberg, Tom Putnam, Matt Radecki, Kevin W. Wlash.
Film Editing by: Jeff Malmberg.
Location: New Yorks City, USA
Awards: Hot Docs - HBO Emerging Artist Award 2010. Silverdocs - Cinematic Vision Award 2010; SXSW Film Festival, Grand Jury Award for Best Documentary; SXSW Film Festival - Grand Jury Award, Best Documentary; Cleveland International Film Festival - Grand Jury Award, Best Documentary. Independent Spirit Award - Truer Than Fiction Award; Independent Spirit Award - Find Your Audience Award; Independent Spirit Award - Best Documentary (nominee); Boston Society of Film Critics - Best Documentary; Boston Society of Film Critics - Best New Filmmaker; Toronto Film Critics Association - Best Documentary (runner-up); Detroit Film Critics Association - Best Documentary (nominee); Dallas/Ft. Worth Film Critics Association - Best Documentary (nominee); Rotten Tomatoes - Golden Tomato - Best Documentary of the Year; International Documentary Association - Jacqueline Donnet Emerging Filmmaker Award; Cinema Eye Honors - Outstanding Achievement in a Debut Feature Film; Chlotrudis Society - Best Documentary of the Year; American Library Association - Notable Video For Adults – 2011; FESTIVAL AWARDS (click on an award for details); South by Southwest Film Festival - Grand Jury Award - Best Documentary; Cleveland International Film Festival - Grand Jury Award - Best Documentary; IFFBoston - Special Jury Award - Best Documentary; Hot Docs - HBO Emerging Artist Award; Seattle International Film Festival - Grand Jury Award - Best Documentary; Silverdocs - Cinematic Vision Award; Comic-Con - Judges' Choice Award (Best Overall Film); Comic-Con - Best Documentary; Fantasia International Film Festival - Best Documentary; Woodstock Film Festival - Maverick Award - Best Documentary; Vienna International Film Festival - DER STANDARD Readers' Jury Award; Whistler Film Festival - Grand Jury Award - Best Documentary; Mendocino Film Festival - Best Film on the Arts; Belfast Film Festival - Maysles Brothers Award - Best Documentary; Docville Belgium - Best International Documentary; Biografilm Festival Italy - Best Life Award
Synopsis: In April 2000, Mark Hogancamp was Brutally attacked by five men in a Kingston, NY park lot. When he emerged from a coma nine days, he could barely speak, eat, or walk due to brain damage. The attack left him brain damaged and with little memory of his previous life. After 47 days he stayed in hospital, he decided to build by hand a fiction town call “Marwencol” in his backyard to help recover physical and cognitive abilities. His self-made therapy involved creating a miniature WWII-era town populated with doll versions of people he knew (including himself). And this film is divided by nine chapters: The attack; The rule of town; The search for love; Discovered; What if your therapy became art; The art show; Who I am; The big city Jitters; What to wear. He not only built his fantastic world and put the people he knew in there, but also he used his camera to communicate, which means we also can identify him as a photographer and an artist, but the difference between Mark’s work and other photographers’ is “he is in his work, not using the work as a tool to do something”. During the period of recover, from the tiny world, he shoots life-like photographs detailing Marwencol’s many relationships and drams, helping himself to recover his hand-eye coordination and psychic wounds of his vicious attack. After Mark’s story and photographs are discovered, he has to face to choose between the safety of his fantasy life in Marwencol, and the real world he has avoided since the attack because his works and private therapy become public “art”.
DeleteOther positions about the film: This film has received more than 20 awards and high acclaim globally. According to Wikipedia page, he film received widespread critical acclaim, holding a 98% approval rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes and the site awarded the film their "Golden Tomato" Award for the best-reviewed documentary of the year. The Los Angeles Times called the film “an exhilarating, utterly unique experience” while the Village Voice said that it's “exactly the sort of mysterious and almost holy experience you hope to get from documentaries and rarely do.”
My view of the film: This is the best documentary film I have ever seen, the great thing about Marwencol is it’s unlike any other movie, and it’s so unique that it can be difficult to describe. He releases his angry through making violent fight by create the dramas in this tiny world, and that makes he accepts the fact that he was attack by the bad people. I’m surprised that he able to feel love and discover who he is gradually. In his works, the most amazing detail I was surprised is that every doll he made is vivid, and even the tiny small gun can be disassembled. To document the stories, Mark snaps beautiful photographs of the dolls fighting, drinking, meeting and loving one another. In addition, as a personal documentary, Mark’s story on a micro-scale, focus on intimate, private matters and feelings, and sometimes reflexive, posing question: “what if your therapy became art?”; “who I am?”; “what to wear”. Through answering these three questions, we walk into the Mark’s real spiritual world – he is a transvestism. And using “unofficial” personal records and memories to tell us how he remembers his personality and recreate his life. For example, when he came home from hospital, he asked “do I have girlfriend lives here?” when he saw the women shoes. The film exposed his special “hobby” in the end through spoken personal critical analysis or voiceover to make sure the audiences would accept his characteristic easily. Overview, this is a great movie and Mark’s works are incredible. I enjoyed every minute of it.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review #2
Reviewer: Hyungsun Wang
Film: First Person Plural (2000)
Director: Deann Borshay Liem (Kang Ok Jin)
Other cast and crew details: Written and produced by Deann Borshay, Vivien Hillgrove Gilliam
Location: USA, South Korea
Awards: Awarded the Grand Jury Prize (for Best Bay Area Documentary) in the San Francisco International Film Festival; Official Selection in Sundance Film Festival (2000); Emmy Award Nomination for Best Director; Official Selection in the International Public Television INPUT Conference (2000).
Synopsis: Speaking to the issue of international adoption (exemplified by Korean-American adoption), Deann Borshay, an adoptee herself, describes her life history that began in 1966 when she was adopted by an American family (Arnold and Alveen Borshay). She first thought she was an orphan yet later finds out that her Korean family was still living in Korea. She shows the process of her endeavor to investigate adoption documents. She figures out her real name (Kang Ok Jin, not Cha Jung Hee) and becomes embarrassed. In quest for identifying her real identity, Deann Borshay starts investigating her past by travelling twice to Korea (in 1988) with her American parents. Puzzled and confused, Deann Borshay organize a meeting for her both sides of family.
Other positions about the film: In addition to its presentation at various public venues, the film has been highlighted by several academic reviewers. According to the New Day Film, Eleana Kim (faculty at the University of Rochester) had emphasized that this work has become a “milestone in documentary film and adoption narratives”. Another faculty (Richard Lee) from the University of Minnesota had commented that this work demonstrates “the way in which individuals, families, and nations negotiate notions of identity and belonging” beyond the scope of the issue of adoption. The Korean Quarterly also pointed that this work is “the most eloquent testimony…that infuse her story”.
My view of the film: As a Korean who had seen real Korean adoptees in America, this film had strong association to my own culture. When I was growing up, issues around adoption of Korean babies have been discussed in media, yet I was not able to empathize with adoptees’ experience. Deann Borshay’s film resolves the concern to a certain extent. The director herself being an adoptee, her procedure for tacking her identity problem shows concrete real-life example of what Korean adoptees might often experience and feel. The main question of finding one’s identity when an individual comes from multiple cultural backgrounds is well-represented throughout the film. Moreover, the meaning of family (biological or adopting) becomes another subject matter worth contemplating. The director’s emotional state and her reconciliation are documented precisely, such that viewers can build empathy (particularly Koreans like myself) throughout the film. Overall, I think the film has brought up a relatively unknown yet critical concept about Korean adoptee raised in America.
SECOND FILM REVIEW: Chronicle of a Summer
ReplyDeleteSynopsis: Anthropologist and filmmaker Jean Rouch and sociologist Edgar Morin head to the streets of Paris during the summer of 1960 to ask a question, Are you happy?” They interview individual females, males, and groups revealing the hopes and dreams of many people while uncovering the emotional depth of many in the midst of the Algerian War, 1954-1962. At the end of the movie, Rouch and Morin show the individuals that were interviewed the images and footage that was obtained as they discuss the level of reality that was created. It is an example of Cinema Verite that highlights the connection between the real of filmmaking and the world of everyday as we discussed in class.
Other Positions about the film: The term film truth, as discussed in class, is advocated for understanding filmic activity making and viewing as integral parts of social practice, not just as a means of reflecting or interpreting life. It is a different way of filming and viewing films. A new wave of filmmakers were approaching cinema differently. For example: shooting on the streets and not always on sets, use of non-actors, blending of fiction and nonfiction styles, and to draw attention to means of production and conditions of labor, in the street and in the film. In a recent article by the New Yorker, Richard Brody discusses the film as “one of the greatest, most audacious, most original documentaries ever made, one that poses—and, what’s more, responds to—questions of cinematic form and moral engagement that underlie the very genre, the very idea of nonfiction film.” This new wave a cinema is used and analyzing films while making them, to study and influence the lives of everyday people in its political and economic context, especially during the time of the Algerian War.
My view of the film: I really enjoyed watching this film that looks at the lives of everyday people living in France during the 1960s as reality unfolds right in front of the camera. I enjoyed hearing how honest the answers were and how open people were when discussing why they are unhappy. They seemed so vulnerable and open when answering the question “Are you happy?” It was interesting to hear how similar people answered the question and how they related it back to money and their job. In order to show the truth of a society, it must show the means of production as we discussed in class that focus on labor, activity, and practice. At a time during the Algerian war when they were fitting for their independence from France, it seemed the people that were being interviewed were fighting to be happy and make the most out of their lives. I made the connection that both Algerians and the people being interviewed were fitting for happiness and freedom from everyday captivity. Fredrick Wiseman’s film High School (1968) share similar characteristics as Rouch and Morin do by using non actors, interviewing people going about their daily lives, and switching without warning. These techniques give the viewer a true sense of norm and reality that is being shown.
Film Review
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Eun Joo Cho
Film: High School (1968)
Director: Fredrick Wiseman
Other cast and crew details: Photographed by Richard Leiterman; associate editor Carter Howard; and assistant cameraman David Eames.
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Awards: 1991 National Film Preservation Board.
Synopsis: Wiseman shoots his non-fiction film in Northeast High School of Pennsylvania. He uses Cinema Verité, which excludes music, voice-overs, and synched sounds, to give raw approach to reality. This is seen through fairly long scenes of students being taught, disciplined, and in direct interaction with parents and faculty members. This cinematic technique is used to give a close representation of what schools were like at the time being. The audience is able to grasp the reality of oppression that is present at Northeast High School. This is an interesting dynamic, as we are able to see the disciplinary and reactionary measures that are taken on behalf of the faculty and the students.
Other positions about the film: This film has received large criticism in the past. The criticisms are present in the depiction of oppression on behalf of the students. In relation to the scenes of oppression, the faculty members were not ecstatic to be seen as unreasonable tyrants. According to Wikipedia, this film had been banned from Philadelphia for a period of time, due to the lack of context behind these scenes. For instance Mrs. London, a teacher at Northeast High School, was particularly upset at the lack of context and misrepresentation that had sprouted from the film. She had been told not to spend the entire period lecturing. Therefore, her lecture was changed to fit the instructions she had received. Although this film had received such criticism and controversy, it has made its place on the National Film Registry.
My view of the film: I found myself frustrated with the scenes in this film, thus making it difficult to watch. It deals with the fact that I can experience the frustration of the individual, but cannot engage with a specific students or faculty member due to the lack of consistency with a single character. I sympathize with the students at the school considering the fact that the faculties were being overly critical of the students. For instance, a faculty member tells a student to be a man and take a detention he does not feel is a viable punishment. Other students are talked down to in regards to their academic ability and self-image. For instance, the girls in the fashion class are told their legs are too thick to pull of a certain look. In another case, a faculty member attempts to resolve an issue between herself and her father. They are tackling the issue of whether she is a failure in the eyes of her father. Those conversations can be uncomfortable and off-putting. Although this film was difficult to watch, I did find Wisemans approach on the film to be a pleasant change. The technique of Direct Cinema helps give voice to the students in a discreet manner. This is seen in the direct commentary on behalf of the students speaking against the conditions in which they are to behave in school. They are given a voice to channel their opinions amongst society, as their lack of freedom is prevalent in this film. In fact, this technique and style of Direct Cinema has given new meaning to how film can silently express the troubles of others.
Film Review #2
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Shu Yu
Film: First Person Plural (1999)
Director: Deann Borshay Liem
Other cast and crew details: Edited and co-written by Vivien Hillgrove; cinematographer, Michael Chin; executive producer, Vivian Kleiman; associate producer, Scott Tsuchitani.
Location: California, USA; South Korea
Awards: Grand Jury Prize, Best Documentary, San Francisco International Film Festival; Best Documentary, DocAviv; Sundance Film Festival, Official Selection (2000); PBS National Broadcast, Point of View (POV), 2000.
Synopsis: First Person Plural is a film about the life/personal history of Deann Borshay Liem, the filmmaker of this documentary. Deann Borshay Liem was adopted by an American family when she was eight years old. She was sent from an orphanage called Sun Duck Orphanage in South Korea to the Borshay Liem’s family in California in year 1966. Left the homeland in such a young age, and grew up in a foreign country with foreign people and language, Deann’s memories about her family back in Korea and the Korean language were gradually eliminated as time passed. Dreams Deann had after she grew up awakened her old memories from Korea and her Korean family, and from then on, she decided to go find out the history of her past.
Other positions about the film: The film is considered to be one of the most important documentaries in the U.S. history, in which it disclosed the history of adoption between Americans and South Koreans from an authentic point of view. As many academic critics have said in the New Day Films page, “First Person Plural is not just a film about international adoption; it is a film about the ways in which individuals, families, and nations negotiate notions of identity and belonging” (Richard Lee, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota).
My view of the film: By watching the documentary, First Person Plural, and learning Deann’s personal experiences of being an adopted child, I have gained a better and new understanding about child abandonment that happened in South Korea back in time. At the time when the Korean War just ended, many families in Korea were suffered from economic depression, a lot of Korean families were forced to send their children away for adoption because of the money shortage. Rather than calling the action of relinquish child for adoption an abandonment, the intention for most of the Korean parents consented to send their kids away to other nations was to give their children possibilities to have better lives which the parents themselves could not afford or provide. Just like in the film, Deann’s Korean/biological mother confessed that the reason she gave up Deann for adoption was because her husband passed away when the kids were little, the income she made was barely enough to sustain the family, she did not have the extra money to send her kids to school, and she was not able to give her children the education they ought to have. She, the mother, thought by sending her daughter, Deann, away to other parents, Deann would get education and more opportunities to have a better life. Hence, for Deann’s biological mother, and many Korean parents like her, their actions of giving up their children for adoption may seem cruel on one side, but their intentions and considerations behind those actions are somewhat beautiful on the other side. Furthermore, another aspect of the film which I found particularly impressive was the First Person Plural has not only showed audiences the personal story of the filmmaker, Deann, but it also disclosed the problems that existed in Korean orphanage and adoption system back then. For instance, the Sun Duck orphanage falsified the paper work of the real Cha Jung Hee, and let Deann substituted for the real Cha Jung Hee to go to America when the real Cha Jung Hee was no longer available for adoption. As well as, in order to prevent Deann’s biological mother change her mind of giving up Deann for adoption, the Sun Duck orphanage sent Deann away to the U.S. before the scheduled date.
Comm 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Kristian Ivanov
Film: Marwencol (2010)
Director: Jeff Malmberg
Other cast and crew details: Mark Hogancamp is the main character in the film and he plays as himself. Everyone that makes an appearance in the film plays as themselves. Edda Hogancamp is his mother and Julie Swarthout is Mark’s boss and owner of the Anchorage restaurant. Colleen Vargo is a former neighbor of Mark and David Naugle becomes Mark’s friend after regularly seeing him “walking” his vehicles to the store.
Location: New York, New York City.
Awards: Marwencol was given the Independent Spirit Award - Truer Than Fiction Award, Independent Spirit Award - Find Your Audience Award, Independent Spirit Award - Best Documentary (nominee), Boston Society of Film Critics - Best Documentary, Boston Society of Film Critics - Best New Filmmaker, Toronto Film Critics Association - Best Documentary (runner-up), Detroit Film Critics Association - Best Documentary (nominee), Dallas/Ft. Worth Film Critics Association - Best Documentary (nominee), Rotten Tomatoes - Golden Tomato - Best Documentary of the Year, International Documentary Association - Jacqueline Donnet Emerging Filmmaker Award, Cinema Eye Honors - Outstanding Achievement in a Debut Feature Film, Chlotrudis Society - Best Documentary of the Year, American Library Association - Notable Video For Adults - 2011, South by Southwest Film Festival - Grand Jury Award - Best Documentary, Cleveland International Film Festival - Grand Jury Award - Best Documentary, IFFBoston - Special Jury Award - Best Documentary, Hot Docs - HBO Emerging Artist Award, Seattle International Film Festival - Grand Jury Award - Best Documentary, Silverdocs - Cinematic Vision Award, Comic-Con - Judges' Choice Award (Best Overall Film), Comic-Con - Best Documentar, Fantasia International Film Festival - Best Documentary, Woodstock Film Festival - Maverick Award - Best Documentary, Vienna International Film Festival - DER STANDARD Readers' Jury Award, Whistler Film Festival - Grand Jury Award - Best Documentary, Mendocino Film Festival - Best Film on the Arts, Belfast Film Festival - Maysles Brothers Award - Best Documentary, Docville Belgium - Best International Documentary, and Biografilm Festival Italy - Best Life Award.
Synopsis: On April 8, 2000, Mark Hogancamp was viciously attacked outside a bar by five men in his hometown of Kingston, New York. After awakening from a nine-day coma, Mark spends the next forty days in the hospital until he’s forced to leave due to not affording the hospital costs. Not having remembered many things before the attack and leaving himself with severe brain damage, Mark must relearn everything from reading and writing to simply walking again. Though this attack was a terrible tragedy, it may have been the single most important attack of his life. To overcome the terrors of the ‘attack’, he takes up a childhood hobby and creates Marwencol, a miniaturized but realistic World War II themed town full of figures and dolls that represent real people in life. He incorporates his friends and neighbors in his town. He also stages scenes, creates dramatic events and captures them with his camera. This hobby, acts as therapy that helps Mark be true to himself and discover who he is in this life. With more people taking notice of Mark’s work and the captured realism in his photos, he’s faced with a huge decision in putting his photographs and parts of Marwencol on display in an art gallery.
Other Positions about the film: Marwencol was highly acclaimed. Metacritic and Goodreads awarded Marwencol an 83%, Rotten Tomatoes gave an astounding 98%, and IMDb gave a score of 7.7. The San Francisco Chronicle stated, “If you have even a passing interest in outsider art, you owe it to yourself to see "Marwencol” and the Seattle Times stated it is “Simultaneously hypnotic and unnerving, it asks some rather uncomfortable questions about the nature of art and the potential and limits of self-healing”. Entertainment Weekly also stated, “I can barely describe the wonders of ‘MARWENCOL’”. Though with almost all positive reviews, I came across a review from Slant Magazine stating, “Malmberg's video imagery, captured by point-and-shoot camerawork, and livened up with big band music from time to time, can't hold a candle to outsider artist Mark Hogancamp's work”.
DeleteMy view of the film: Upon finishing the film, I was saddened but inspired by Mark’s life. David Naugle, a photographer and friend of Mark, differentiates Mark’s artwork from most other contemporary artwork by stating, “There is no irony” (in his artwork) and it is “not a tool for something else. He is in the work”. Mark creates his artwork for himself and perhaps slightly for his neighbors in which he’s created figures of them in his town “Marwencol”. But for the most part, Mark created his town to discover who he is in this second life he has been given. The most inspiring part of the film was when he tells his neighbors that they (their doll/figure) could be anyone they wanted to be in his town. Though Mark never specifically said this, and it may have never been the point, having the power to decide WHO you want to become in Marwencol or in real life really got to me. An individual who beared a devastating attack and then having to relearn EVERYTHING from eating to writing, to shedding light on deciding “who I am” in life and becoming anyone we should strive in becoming. It was odd to me that his work was put on display in an art gallery because to me, Mark is a very reserved man and Marwencol is his escape, his therapy, and his life. I was unsure if Mark was completely okay with the idea of exploiting his talents to the world when he appeared to be most happy in his home working on the town and his figurines. Even with complete control over what goes on in the town, I loved the fact he incorporated various events from his past (S.S attacking him leaving a scar and marrying Anna). Everyone in the town got along and smoked cigarettes, drank, and watched “staged cat fights at “The Ruined Stocking” (bar in Marwencol). It saddens me he may never find a real “Anna” and that he is content with his alter ego enjoying the life he desires. It hurt when he said he couldn’t remember his wedding or his wife, but could remember everything about marrying Anna in Marwencol. This is not to say remembering his wedding in Marwencol is depressing, but when we see him looking at old photos of him with his wife and videos of his wedding and then not recollecting anything is heartbreaking. Mark was basically looking at another person’s life. Even though Mark’s lifestyle may appear depressing in some eyes, he inspired me. Pouring his life into Marwencol and the realism in his town is amazing. The vehicles in the town having realistic milage due to walking them to the store regularly is fantastic and the realism and authentic relationships in the town is epic. I would pay to sit and chat with him about his town. Anyone with that much passion for their hobby and knowing every single thing about it would make the most interesting and entertaining conversation.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review 2
Reviewer: Yat Fung Johnny Cheung
Film: First Person Plural(1999)
Director: Deann Borshay Liem
Other cast and crew details: Deann Borshay Liem as producer and Vivian Kleiman as executive producer; Michael Chin as cinematographer; Vivien Hillgrove as film editor; Lisa Baro and Barbara McBane as sound editor; Sara Chin as sound recordist; Credited cast to Alveen Borshay and Arnold Borshay
Location: California, United States; South Korea
Awards: Nominated for Emmy Award for outstanding achievement in the Craft of Directing; Celebrated the world premiere at the 2000 Sundance Film Festival; Won the Grand Jury Prize for Best Bay Area Documentary at the San Francisco International Film Festival.
Synopsis and background: The film “First Person Plural” talks about the story of a woman who called Deann Borshay Liem, which is the filmmaker of the film. She was born and lived in Korea for eight years, and afterward, she was adopted by a white family and moved to San Francisco, United States. By making this film, Liem wants to bring out the truth that she is not the person that the others think of. As she was adopted and raised up by the American family, she had most of the memories with her adoptive parents, but in fact, she still have the memories with her family in Korea as she knows that her Korean parents are still alive and living in Korea. Liem’s white parents adopted her on March 3, 1996, at that time, Borshay family were trying to adopt a Korean girl called Cha Jung Hee, and the outcome was, they did adopted a Korean girl, however, the real name of the girl that they have adopted was not Cha Jung Hee but Kang Ok Jin instead. By making the mistake, Borshay family and liem didn’t know about the truth until Liem’s biological brother sent her a letter and informed her that her real name is Kang Ok Jin. By having different kinds of identities, Liem was being confused and contradict with her position, as she felt very difficult to discuss with her white family about her Korean family since she had a feeling of being disloyal to Borshay family as they were the one who raised Liem up. By making this film, Liem tries to show people that her white parents are being respectful, as they never question Liem about her past and always support her and love her, even though Liem iss an adopted child. Also, the film brings out the concept of the relationship in between the transnational and transracial adoption.
Other Positions on the film: By looking at the IMDb website, this film “First Person Plural” has received an overall positive rating for 7.6/10 by 30 people, which can say that this film has a pretty high rating. And by watching the reviews from the website “New Day Films”, I can see most of the reviewers are giving the positive reviews, as the reviewers agree that this film is a very good education documentary film for exploring the international adoption and also the racial integration. Also, the story of Deann Borshay Liem and Borshay family helps people to understand about what is true love and helps to solve the issues for the adopted children and adoption families.
My view about the film: By watching the film “First Person Plural”, I can see that Deann Borshay Liem has a pretty dramatic life. As an adopted child, she suddenly realized that her biological parents are still alive, and the main point is, she didn’t know how to face her biological parents, as the one who that raised her up were the American parents. By knowing about her dramatic life, I think it is a very good story that teaching us about what is love and how to be supportive to others, as an example of Liem’s parents, they are the role model that showing the people all over world that love has no limits in between different races, and by having trust is also one of the key points to make an ideal life and family.
Reviewer:
ReplyDeleteShiryn Atashi
Film:
First Person Plural (2000)
Director:
Deann Borshay Liem
Other positions on the film:
On the popular ratings site used nationally, RottenTomatoes.com, First Person Plural received a 67% approval rate from viewers. This majority of approvals represent the overall satisfaction and appreciation for the film. There are no major arguments or critiques on the work online, which I believe is because of her auto-ethnographic approach. This approach allows the viewers to see a specific story of her place in the broad adoption history, while also relating to the emotional and honest side of what happened in her life.
Your position about the film:
This was a really interesting documentary—rather autoethnography—for me to see because of the two conflicting identities that Borshay had to deal with. All of her life, she thought that she was an orphan who had no family traces still alive in Korea. Although she was happy, formed an identity and enjoyed her life in America, she still could not completely shake who she was before she came here at the age of 8 and the trauma that goes along with remembering an adoption. Seeing her realize that she did still have a mother and family back in Korea, when she thought she already had her family in America, was so emotional and eye-opening for me. How could this real family of hers have existed her whole life without her knowing it? Without her being raised by them? She grew up learning a different language in a different culture thousands of miles away, and living with a family she considered hers that she looked nothing like. These politics of race, what it means to be a family, and how to juggle two different identities are the main focus of her work.
Her home videos and auto-ethnographic approach allow the viewers to see what was really happening in her life, and relate to her as we can all relate to our own families and childhoods. It made me imagine what it would be like to find I have a real biological family thousands of miles away from me—where would my loyalties be? This is what Borshay showcases to us viewers about trying to bring those two families together, with a language, cultural, and geographical gap. She was able to create a life in America, but she could never completely shake her Korean roots and family, and now had to learn to handle both families and versions of herself in self-identity. If this story had been told by an outsider, it would not allow us to fully feel connected to Borshay who is telling us this very personal story about herself. We know that she is ready and comfortable to tell what happened to her, making us trustworthy and respectful of her and her journey. I was amazed by what she went through—racially, emotionally, physically, and mentally—when seeing her discover how she has two mothers, two families, and two identities, and I was able to buy into her story because of her autoethnography style. It is possible to have two families and two places to call home as her documentary and life show us viewers, something I relate to as having grown up in Indiana but also in California.
The title of the work really brings the message and the documentary together as she has two versions of herself—First Person Plural—because of her Korean family and American family both making up how she views herself and self-identifies.
Jennifer Luong
ReplyDeleteFilm Review #2
Film: History and Memory: For Akiko and Takashige (1991)
Director: Rea Tajira
Other cast and crew details: Production crew not listed
Location: USA
Awards: Won Special Jury Award: New Visions Category at San Francisco International Film Festival in 1991, International Documentary Association: Distinguished Achievement Award in 1992 at International Documentary Association and Atlanta Film & Video Festival: Best Experimental Video in 1992.
Synopsis and background:
After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, there was immediate distrust for people living in the United States with Japanese ancestry. There was great fear of another attack on American soil; therefore, a master plan was constructed to protect the country from espionage. The US government relocated Japanese Americans living in the US seizing their property and houses. Rea Tajiri’s family was among the 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans who were imprisoned in internment camps after the attack. Tajiri’s and many other families wrapped their memories of that experience in a shroud of silence and forgetting.
Other positions on the film: The dramatic impact and its ability to raise awareness with its subject.
My position about the film:
It is understandable that the past is difficult to discuss; however, Tajiri blends interviews, memorabilia, a pilgrimage to the camp where her mother was interned, and the story of her father, who had been drafted pre-Pearl Harbor and returned to find his family’s house removed from its site. The relics from the camps created a sense of realness even though many people try to forget its existence. This allows viewers to put themselves in her situation and have a better understanding of what many families had to endure and overcome. The film draws from a variety of sources: “Hollywood spectacle, government propaganda, newsreels, memories of the living, and sprits of the dead, as well as Tajiri’s own intuitions of a place she has never visited, but of which she has a memory”. I found it daring and courageous of that Tajiri to re-imagine and re-create what has been stolen and what has been lost and share her experiences to other viewers.
I emphasized with many of the Japanese Americans who experienced discrimination and prejudice throughout and after the war despite being American citizens. I was upset when watching the film and seeing many Japanese Americans forced into internment camps regardless of their innocence and sworn loyalty to the US government. It was ironic that American ideal that all people are created equal and every man is judged by his actions; however, the Japanese were unjustly interned because of their ethnic background.
Works Cited
"IMBD." History and Memory: For Aiko and Takashige. N.p.. Web. 26 Apr 2014. .
"Wikipedia." Rea Tajiri. N.p.. Web. 26 Apr 2014. .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCOMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review
Reviewer: Weishan Xiao
Film: High School (1968)
Director: Fredrick Wiseman
Other cast and crew details: Produced and Editing by Frederick Wiseman. Cinematograph by Richard Leiterman; Assistant Camera is David Eames; Assistant editor is Carter Howard.
Location: Northeast High School - 1801 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Awards: This film was selected to the National Film Registry, Library of Congress, in 1991.
Synopsis: In the year of 1968, director Frederick Wiseman decided to spend on five weeks shooting in a high school in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Through shooting in different school activities such as English class, Gym class or Conversation in the office, director takes us inside a high school to observe the interaction between teacher and student. Also, this film was one of the direct cinema (fly on the wall) documentaries in the early stages, which means there was no narration, no actors, no voiceovers and no non-diegetic sound at all; everything in the film was original and authentic.
Other positions about the film: Even though this documentary film was recorded in Northeast High School, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, it was banned from Philadelphia government for many years after the film released because of the description of high teachers and scholars as oppressed. From the exposition in Wikipedia page, “the film was mainly well received by the principal and board of education, who found it mostly accurate.” However, because of the accuracy and facticity, it brought up a controversial problem. According to Peter Janssen who is a reporter of Newsweek, “HIGH SCHOOL shows no stretching of minds. It does show the overwhelming dreariness of administrators and teachers who confuse teaching with discipline”1, people realized the film was too true and they did not want people to comprehend the school was oppressing their student, so that the film has never been screened in Philadelphia
My view of the film: The word “oppressive” can be summarized as theme of the “High School”. Personally, I really like this film because it shows exactly how a high school looks like; also, the film reminds me my experience in high school. There is a scene that not only impressed me most but also it can illustrate the feeling of oppressed from the film. In that scene, a Dean who wearing glasses was rebuking a student because he didn't wear the gym outfit. No matter how the student explained, the Dean only said, “We determined you take exercise or not, we determined that…” and director used a close-up shot of Dean that we can see his facial expression. One of the reviews from Internet said “The film focuses on the idea of faculty always getting its way over students, often unfairly or underhandedly.”2 Officer had power over the students, so they could determine what kinds of school live student could have. In some way, teachers or officers, they do not have empathy and refuse to understand their students. Further, this phenomenon would strangle some students’ talent because they were different in their teachers’ eyes. Thanks to Frederick Wiseman could show the reality to the world and let audience to unscramble their own idea instead of telling us his perspective of this film.
reference
1.Peter Janssen, Newsweek, http://www.zipporah.com/films/21.
2.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064429/reviews?ref_=ttawd_sa_2
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Santos Tamayo
Film: First Person Plural
Director: Deann Borshay Liem
Other cast and crew details: Vivian Kleiman,Executive Producer. Vivien Hillgrove, Screenwriter, Editor. Michael Chin, Cinematography.
Location: California, U.S. South Korea
Awards: National Broadcast premiere on December 18, 2000 on PBS. Emmy Award Nomination for best director. Official Selection, Sundance Film Festival 2000. Grand Jury Prize by the Best Bay Area Documentary San Francisco International Film Festival. Winner for best Documentary Docaviv.
Synopsis: The documentary represents the life of a Korean-American's struggle with her double/triple identity problems. Most of this because of an accidently adoption and cross identities between two young girls from a Korean Orphanage. An American family adopts a child from Korea in an attempt to do some good in their lives. By doing so, the Borshay introduce Cha Jung Hee to the American World. They treat her as one of their own kids and give her a life anyone would have wanted. However, Cha Jung Hee was not who most thought she was, but Kang Ok Jin. The Orphanage that had given her for adoption did not get full permission from her family to do so. Because of an already adopted Cha Jung Hee, the orphanage changed Kang Ok Jin identity to Cha Jung Hee. After Kang Ok Jin found out her real identity, she would soon come across the realization that her family was still alive. Unfortunately, for Kang Ok Jin, she was closer to the American life and distant from her Korean heritage. She was more associated with her American mom and dad and not her Korean parents.
Other positions about the film: Some reviewers say that the Film raised many identity as well as transnational migration and multiculturism issues. These are issues that affect today's society and that contribute to our understanding of ethnicity, race, gender. It was one of the first and best autobiographies of an individual’s life in the day-to-day society.
My view of the film: I enjoyed the film mostly because like Knag Ok Jin, we also struggle with multiple identities. Alternatively, at the very least, I feel like I do. I am Mexican American. There are times when I do not fit in with the Mexican heritage and community because I do not share most of their racist views or interpretations of prejudice towards them. There are times I feel like I am not American because I do not look or act a certain American way. However, I love cultures; I love soccer, not Football. Therefore, it is a mix in between. In addition, being Christian in believes has its own struggles. I do not believe god wants to punish people or that anything could separate us from them. I immensely believe in his never-ending love but that different from the old Christian bubble. However, there is also fear of letting people know I am Christian because of their predetermined believe on Christians. This film helped me identify the complication of identity of many people. Most do not know what they want in life or who they are, or how valuable and unique they are. It helped me realize the identity problems we as society have. All the notions, ideas and believes, yet no one is truly free from themselves. However, just as Kang Ok Jin came out of her bubble by facing fear and possible criticism from her family I realized we all could. Our identity is not based on how we look, or what we are, but on our relationships with people and our heart connection. We do not need to fear, but be who we are and by being real instead of pretending to be something, we are not and thinking, we have to have it all together. This is not true, because no one ever will.
Courtney Chang
ReplyDeleteProfessor Lisa Cartwright
Comm 103D Documentary History and Theory
28 April 2014
Film Review #2
Film: Marwencol 2010
Director: Jeff Malmberg
Other cast and crew details: Stars: Mark Hogancamp, Emmanuel Nneji, Edda Hogancamp, Tom Neubauer, Julie Swarthout, Janet Wikane, and Mark Wikane.
Location: United States
Synopsis: An American documentary about Mark Hogancamp, an artist and photographer, who deals with the aftermath of a vicious and life changing attack that changed his life forever. On April 8, 2000, Mark was attacked by five men outside a bar and left for dead. He was in the hospital for nine days in a coma and a total of forty days in the hospital. He had brain damage and had little memory of his past life. Unable to afford therapy, Mark created “Marwencol,” a World War era town in his yard with dolls that represented himself, his friends, and his attackers as a way to cope and rehabilitate with the attack.
Other positions about the film: The film received great reviews and attention, holding a 98% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The documentary has an official website where you can click on links to buy the film, read reviews, view awards, and articles about Mark and Marwencol.
My view on the film: I sympathize with Mark Hogancamp because his life is completely different and his recovery to go back to his old ways is through the use of creating a fantasy world. I also want to root for him because even though his life is now lived through dolls, he is able to cope in a different way that seems to help him more than hurt him. Not only does he admit that he was an alcoholic then and doesn’t drink now, the people close to him have always said in the interviews that the use of dolls and “hurting” the dolls and displaying bloodied dolls in his back yard has enabled him to express and let out his anger in a non-violent way. This type of coping mechanism isn’t often used by people, especially by those who have experienced these brutal attacks and then lived to talk about it. The fact that he is able to talk about Marwencol so honestly and lets the public inside his life is incredible and brave.
I think the beauty of this documentary is in the art that is displayed by Mark. The town of Marwencol is very detailed and dramatized. Each doll represents a real person in Mark’s life and there are many dolls that portray a character. The background and different settings, as well as the stories behind the town are based off events from his past both happy and traumatizing memories. He spends a good amount of time not only displaying the dolls and creating a life within the dolls, but he also photographs his dolls and captures moments. It is very interesting and inspiring to see his passion documented and his work viewed as a good thing and in a positive light rather than a negative and obsessed mind. The film is really intriguing because the story of the attack towards the end of the film is voiced over by Mark while pictures of the dolls are shown and ominous music is heard in the background. Mark talks about the night of his attack in a normal and clear voice. The film isn’t meant for anyone to sympathize with Mark, he is not displayed as weak or as someone still in pain and shock. I was completely reeled into his life and focused on him as person who has suffered, is still struggling but has a positive mindset and continues to work past the negative in his life. He says he is living his second chance at life to the fullest. He is an inspiration.
Reviewer: Ati Namvar
ReplyDeleteFilm: Marwencol (2010)
Director: Jeff Malmberg
Other cast and crew details: Produced by Jeff Malmberg, Tom Putnam, Matt Radecki, Chris Shellen, and Kevin W. Walsh; Edited by Jeff Malmberg; Distributed by The Cinema Guild.
Location: New York, United States
Awards: Nominated for Best Documentary at Independent Spirit Awards; won Grand Jury Award for Best Documentary Film at Seattle International Film Festival; won Best Documentary at Whistler Film Festival; won Best Life Award at Biografilm Festival.
Synopsis: This film documents a man named Mark Hogancamp and the world he creates in his backyard. Hogancamp, who was beaten by men outside a bar, suffered from massive brain damage and was put into a coma. He names the world he created “Marwencol” and this mini “town” represents a town during the World War II era. He plays in this town through recreating relationships and figures that represent his past life before his trauma. By doing so, he is able to improve his physical disabilities as well as speed up his mental recovery. Hogancamp never would have thought that his little makeshift town would be seen as any more than a private healing process, until his backyard was discovered by a famous New York gallery to do an art show. He is unsure through this period of public attention whether or not he wants to have “Marwencol” remain private, or allow the real world to see his “art.”
Other positions about the film: This documentary has been given many awards and is a popular pick for viewers and critics alike. Marwencol received 7.7 out of 10 stars on the well-known Internet movie database, IMDb. One critic on this site states that the film was “fascinating, captivating, funny, you’ve got to see this” and discusses how although the documentary was unusual, the way it was filmed shows true insight of the subject as a real artist. The film also holds a 98% approval rating on review site Rotten Tomatoes, which shows that it is very well-liked by its audience. Rotten Tomatoes also awarded the film their “golden Tomato” Award for the best-reviewed documentary of the year. Amongst being not only included but also number one on many lists including “The 100 Greatest Documentaries of All Time” and “50 Best Movies You’ve Ever Seen,” The Los Angeles Times also called it “an exhilarating, utterly unique experience.” Another well-acclaimed critic, the Village Voice, stated, “it’s exactly the sort of mysterious and almost holy experience you hope to get from documentaries and rarely do.”
My view of the film: I was extremely intrigued by this film and really enjoyed it for its uniqueness and attention to detail. It was nice to see how much trust the subject, Mark Hogancamp, had in the director, Jeff Malmberg, as he opened up about his work less than shyly. Malmberg approached the backyard “world” of Hogancamp with extreme respect and this was evident in his filming methods and decisions. I also really enjoyed the visible details of the town and world of “Marwencol” that the subject created. It was very interesting to see how this helped lead him to self-recovery from his incident and brain damage. This was not only interesting but also very inspirational to see someone recover from mental and physical damage in a way that many consider art. As the film was a personal documentary, it focused on intimate, private matters and feelings, in this case Hogancamp’s trauma and recovery. This film can be compared to another film called Let There Be Light (1946) because it is also a personal documentary. However, in Let There Be Light, the personal subjective impact being documented is the severe trauma and depression seen in 75 troops after their service in World War II. It intimately follows soldiers who were diagnosed with “shell shock” and how they deal with recovery at the hospital. Both documentaries are detailed and very up close and personal in their sensitive subject matters.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review
Reviewer: Fei Lu( 04/28/2014)
Film: Let There Be Light (1946)
Director: John Huston
Other cast and crew details: Written by John Huston and Charles Kaufman, Narrated by Walter Huston
Location: Army Signal Corps, United States
Awards: Screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 1981 Cannes Film Festival (1981).
Selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” (2010).
Synopsis: This movie is one of the three films directed by Huston when he served in the U.S Army. He recorded 75 American soldiers who were in emotional trauma and depression when they served in the U.S Army. Many of them were sent to the psychiatric hospital and got treated. Although they got many medicines and some new drugs and treatments, and the effect of those new treatments were great, the film maker still thought those soldiers need long-term and continuous psychiatric treatment.
Other positions about the film: This is a really controversial movie which depicts the soldiers from the war. In the film, it mentions that a large percent of soldiers have psychoneurotic symptoms. They feel depressed, isolated, fear and hopeless after they experienced the war. If people watch this movie, they would also have those negative feelings about the army and war, and it may affect the recruitment. Thus, it was banned by the U.S Army after the whole production was finished. The Army did not want people watch Huston’s production, so they found some reasons that related to privacy of soldiers, and confiscated some of his productions. People think that this movie is not appropriate to show when the war is still going on since there will be more recruitments and people need encouragement more than cruel truth.
My view of the film: I sympathize those soldiers that experienced the war and have psychological trauma afterwards. No matter how strong and brave they are, they have experienced the worst and horrible thing in the world. Although hospitals tried to cure them, and used all those new drugs and treatment, it was obvious that the war had too strong impact on soldiers. It is questionable that they were going to be fully healed. However, I understand what the U.S Army did since this depressed movie would definitely affect people’s encouragement. That is the reason they suppressed and banned it for a long time. People need courage and hope at the special time. However, this documentary movie is a valuable historical production, and it clearly tells people how the soldier suffered and got treated in the war time. It makes people hope that there will be light.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJessica Abdul
ReplyDeleteFilm: Let there be light
Director: John Houston
Director: John Huston
Screenplay: John Huston, Charles Kaufman
Cinematographers: Stanley Cortez, John Doran, Lloyd Fromm, Joseph Jackman, George Smith
Film Editing: William Reynolds, Gene Fowler, Jr.
Music: Dimitri Tiomkin
With: Walter Huston (narrator)
Location: follows 75 troops impacted by trauma and depression after WWII service – evaluation an treatment at Edgwood State Hospital (Long Island, NY)
Awards: government gave Huston permission to have a screening of Let There Be Light for an invited audience at the Museum of Modern Art, however it was banned within minutes on the basis that it violated the rights of the mentally ill and unstable.
The Ban on the film was lifted in the 1980s
The National Archives now sells and rents copies of the film freely
Synopsis:
John Huston's documentary, Let There Be Light, is a portrayal of the detrimental effects WW2 sufficed upon American soldiers. Shot in 1945 at a psychiatric hospital run by the United States War Department, the film reveals the hushed reality of the American troops, and the battles against their internal state of mental deterioration, in the post WWII era. Designed as a propaganda pitch, it intended to persuade and enlighten Americans about the realities of psychiatric discharge.
Other position: Many find that this film was way ahead of its time in recognizing and understanding how conditions; variously known as 'shell shock' and 'battle fatigue', are real disorders and need to be addressed with utmost importance. Highly opinionated, this film involves direct narration to engage its viewers. Assuming highly melodramatic and insidious music it predicts a gloomy foreshadowing.
My view: I found this film to be highly gripping in and raw in its portrayal of psychosis. I enjoyed the narration in this film because it added means of intensity, evoking emotions both horrifying and raw. Similar to Weismann’s film, Titicult Folies, it exposed the realities terrors that lie covert within the walls of everyday society. Although unpleasantly disturbing, I find films like these are valuable and meaningful to American culture and society.
Resources:
http://www.avclub.com/review/john-hustons-let-there-be-light-75573
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNoaSMKx0g
i just realized i posted the wrong version to TED ! the rough draft... this is the review i meant to post ! sorry for the confusion... honest mistake
DeleteCOMM 103D- Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review, Long Review
Reviewer: Sesha Yani Santoso
Film: Chronique d’un été (Paris 1960) (Chronicle of a Summer)
Director: Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin
Other cast and crew details: Featured- Sophie, Mary Lou, Régis Debray, Angelo, Jean-Pierre, Jacques, Jean, Céline, Landry, Jean-Marc, Raymond, Nadine, Simone, Henri Catherine, and Marceline Loridan Ivens; Photography- Michel Brault, Roger Morillére, Jean-Jacuques Tarbès, and Raoul Coutard; Production director- André Heinrich; Produced- Phillipe Lifchitiz and Anatole Dauman; Editing- Françoise Colin, Jean Ravel, and Néna Baratier; Sound- Barthélémy, Guy Rophe, and Michel Fano.
Location: France.
Awards: No awards.
Synopsis: Jean Rouch was an anthropologist filmmaker while Edgar Morin was a sociologist filmmaker and they were the director of the black and white documentary movie called Chronique d’un été (Paris 1960) or Chronicle of a Summer. Throughout the movie, there was an interview for the people on the street who was passing by with one simple question, which was “Are you happy?” and the answer was surprising – people were angry, unhappy, disappointed, and there was so little people who was actually feel happy. It turned out people were angry about the system and the France government; they feel there was an unfairness and fraudulency in the system. The responses from the people were expanded to the political and government issue, which explained why the people were angry. Therefore, this movie was a very controversial movie and the emotion that was being involved was a great deal.
Other positions about the film: According to the Internet Movie Database (IMBd), the review for the movie Chronicle of a Summer is 7.5 out of 10 and it is from 920 users. This movie was also nominated in the Telluride Film Festival in 1998 and this movie won back in the 1960 with the International critics prize in Cannes Film Festival. Moreover, Richard Brody from The New Yorker mentioned in his article that, “ It’s one of the greatest, most audacious, most original documentaries ever made, one that poses – and, what’s more, responds to—questions of cinematic form and moral engagement that underlie the very genre, the very idea of nonfiction film.” Not to mention, He also mentioned in the same article that this movie is a controversial movie, where the director questioned the cinematic history and the French government. Moreover, this film also showed the reality and what is happening among the people – the director questioned the people’s happiness by asking the question.
My view of the film: I feel that this movie shows what was really happening among the society – people were angry, mad, and disappointed with the system; thus, no one was happy on how things were. From my perspective, this movie was so inspiring and provoking at the same time. The people who got interviewed were the working class people who were passing by on the street and asking whether they were happy about their lives. Some of them answered that they were happy, some got mad, and some of them got offend by the question. I think this movie opened up the things that had always been covered by the government. The anger of the people had been going on for years and uncovered by the media and government had been discovered due to the movie.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review #2
Reviewer: Fu Hung Barus Leung
Film: Chronicle of a Summer (1960)
Director: Edgar Morin, Jean Rouch
Other cast and crew details: Produced by Anatole Dauman; Music by Pierre Barbaud; Film editing by Nena Baratier
Location: Paris, France; Ramatuelle, Var, France; Saint-Tropez, Var, France
Awards: Nomination of 1998 Telluride Film Festival
Synopsis: The directors hire Marceline as the interviewer to ask citizens in Paris (filmmakers’ acquaintances) from Factory workers to African student the question “are you happy?” Throughout the whole documentary, the directors also take role as the interviewers to help expand the discussions. Based on the question, the theme of Algerian war and French politics are asked further. Basically, those interviews touch numerous subjects, which are interconnected with self-happiness (the initial question of the interviews). However, the documentary takes a big shift from those topics to Holocaust. It explores how Marceline has suffered from the disaster. That is a memorable and unexpected shift in the documentary.
Other positions about the film: The film has received well-deserved compliments globally due to its pioneering use of cinema verite, which is the technique of “directors using non-actors, small hand- held cameras, and actual homes and surroundings as their location for a film.” The purpose is to make “subjects and audiences become unaware of the camera presence”. The use of cinema verite really helps the subjects to express their real feelings because when people notice the presence of camera, they tend to act differently. As noted on the IMDB site, it gives the film an average score of 7.5, based on ratings of 923 users. Disregarding the pioneering use of cinema verite and feedbacks of the films, its challenge of French censorship is also a successful factor of it. During that period, Algerian war was a hot topic. One of the main controversies that was raised is the French army’s torture towards Algerian prisoners. In order to cover that up, French government prohibited media to talk about the war. This film successfully leads interviewees to talk about the war using abstract terms, which could raise people’s awareness of the war without getting banned. That marks a historical “rebellion” to fight for the speech freedom and let people know the power of media.
My view of the film: I personally enjoy watching this documentary so much. How the directors connect happiness with censorship and politics are genuinely done. At first, audiences would expect this documentary is just a simple film that is going to ask if the citizens are feeling happy. However, after watching series of intimate interviews with few individuals and groups, audiences would soon notice that the connection and impact in the film. The major twist of the film is when the experience of Marceline in Holocaust is discovered. The way that the directors point out the meaning of her tattoo make us realize that they already knew that in the first place and know that would dramatically raise the discussion to a high level. From her speech while walking down the street in Paris, we can realize her unhappiness is due to her experience in the camp and her loss. From that, I can understand that directors are connecting how politics can determine every individual’s life. Other than the example of Marceline, the other interviews can also give us a glimpse of how politics play an important role in one’s life. For instance, factory workers can only be workers; they would not have opportunity to get promotion, which lets us realize how class is formed in France in that era. Overall, it leads me to think that we cannot divide ourselves from the society. How the society runs actually impacts our lives dramatically. One memorable thing that blows my mind is that all of the interviewees are unhappy. They all find lives unsatisfying mostly regarding money, censorship, and the war. Considering the fact that this movie was released in that sensitive era, the impact of it should be unbelievable since it directly bashes the politics and how it does not work. One of the major purposes of documentary is to lead people think and I deem that it does an amazing job to notice the citizens that there is something wrong in France.
DeleteJessica Abdul
ReplyDeleteStill Life
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
Director: Jia Zhangke
Other cast and crew details: Distributed by Xstream Pictures, starring Han Sanming, Zhao Tao, and Li Zubrhing
Location: China
Awards: 2006 Venice Film Festival Gold Lion, 2006 Asian Film Awards Best Director, 2007 Adelaide Film Festival Winner of the NATUZZI International Award for Best Feature Film, 2007 Valdivia International Film Festival, 2007 Durban International Film Festival Best Direction, 2008 Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards Best Foreign Language Film
Synopsis: The city of Fengjie is now marked for flooding and self-destruction. Into this city enters Han Sanming, a coal miner from the province of Shanxi. He visits various parts of the town before finally bordering a boat owned by his brother. He later becomes friends with an individual and this person helps him get a job on the demolition crew. The second part of the film does not contain information on Han Sanming. Instead, this portion of the film Shen Hong searchers for her husband Guo Bing. She learns that he has become a successful businessman and eventually meets with him. However, she walks away and tells him she’s in love with someone else. The final part of the film returns to Sanming, demonstrating his interactions with a woman and later his desire to depart from the location.
Other positions about the film: Jeffrey Chen argued that while the narrative was an important aspect of the film, the film’s most important qualities were the backdrop (Chen). Other film critics considered the film’s setting as embodying a non-place, as it occurs after the destruction of the dam and town, constituting an intervening period in this matrix. This has also been considered in relation to the film’s cinematography. The film’s cinematography is something exists aesthetically through a strong emphasis on movements (scapegoatjournal). These movements are exhibited through shots of moving clouds, shots of rivers, and shots of throngs of people who moving en masses, the reviewer recognized. Still, other reviewers have considered that the film represents a form of understanding that rooted in human relationships and the transitory nature of these relationships
My view of the film: I recognize that the film’s environmental and physical settings are critical aspects of its production. While some reviewers focused on these elements, I think that they perhaps did not go far enough in recognizing the deep metaphorical significance of the dams and the destruction that is occurring throughout the town. In most instances, the narrative components are sparse and contain limited interactions between the main characters. Rather than placing the greatest emphasis on explicating the film’s meaning through these characters, the film works in broad impressionistic strokes that convey such meaning. Director Jia Zhangke himself indicated that his intention in making film is to express what the Chinese have experienced and felt. Through the impressionistic strokes that are achieved through the film’s setting, the narrative occupies a position of reversal in that rather than driving the film it merely offers texture (Spiritualityandpractice.com). The ultimate effect of this is that the film is able to transcend simple plot devices and instead more powerfully depict the collective unconsciousness of the Chinese people (Chen).
References
2014.2014.scapegoatjournal,. 'Destruction As Intercession'. N. p., 2014. Print.
Chen, Andrew. 'Jia Zhangke Interview | Filmcomment'. Filmcomment.com. N. p., 2014. Web. 11
May. 2014.
Chen, Jeffrey. 'Reeltalk Movie Reviews'. Reeltalkreviews.com. N. p., 2014. Web. 11 May.
Spiritualityandpractice.com,. 'Spirituality & Practice: Film Review: Still Life, Directed
By Jia Zhang-Ke'. N. p., 2014. Web. 11 May. 2014.http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/films.php?id=17811
Jasmine McGinty on Best in Show
ReplyDeleteSynopsis and background: Best in Show is widely recognized as a film in the style of a “mockumentary,” an improvised mockery of aspects of documentary film displayed in an ironic, satirical and comedic fashion. This film follows the “lives” of five different couples/ individuals who are entering in a highly competitive dog show, which takes place at the Mayflower Kennel Dog Club Show, in Philadelphia. It tracks each entrant’s daily life prior to, during, and after the dog show. This film mocks documentary film by being shot in a similar way that an observational documentary would follow the lives of multiple individuals. It is shot in long takes tracking the characters actions, and then frequently cutting to interviews of the actors speaking directly to the camera and talking about how they feel about certain aspects in their lives being filmed, which are shown as overdramatic and witty interviews.
Other positions on the film: Many agree that this film is a “masterpiece of humor” and “acerbically funny” according to film critics from New York Times, BBC, and Rogert Ebert. Film review from Spirituality and Practice note that the role of the actors is crucial to the film’s success because of their ability to play these dramatic roles. The role of the actors is crucial for mockumentary because actors represent a real person, which shows how ethnofictional aspects are relayed in the film by the meshing of documentary and fiction. Others note that the film is hilarious and witty due to its raw improvisation. This adds to a feeling of reality because nothing is scripted, a benefit of using documentary form. In order to understand why Best in Show is comical, witty, and ironic, we must look to the types of documentary that it essentially mocks. American film critic Bill Nichols, describes six documentary modes, which are at play in the film. It combines aspects of mainly ethno-fiction and observational modes by combination of fiction and documentary, and allows reality to unfold before the camera as stated by Nichols.
My position about the film: Like most critics, I believe that Best in Show grabs the attention of the audience through its hilarity. The irony and comedy present in this film however, is due to the documentary production techniques that Guest uses. He is able to incorporate aspects of documentary film such as long takes, interviews, and improvisation so that the audience to recognize that Guest sheds light upon people who take things very seriously, in this case dog shows. Haraway’s article on dog/companion relations reveals how people can get very involved with their dogs. For instance, she discusses the expense of agility training; this is a measure some take however for the sake of a dog show (Haraway, 2003). Nonetheless, one critical issue I find with this film is the fact that Guest does not like to call this film a mockumentary. According to John Muir, in his book Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company, Guest does not like to associate his films with the word “mockumentary” because no group of people are ever mocked in them. He simply prefers to use such documentary techniques for comedic purpose (Muir, 2004). By having a majority of his film be comprised of improvisation, which strives to capture reality because it is not fictional or scripted, Guest is able to capture the actors as if they are in a real life dog show. One aspect of documentary that the film successfully portrays is the use of long takes, which derives from the observational mode of documentary, which also reality to unfold and display film truth (Nichols, 2010). This is because the camera watches how the contestants interact with their competition and dogs in their daily lives. The use of interviews reveals the aspects of ethnofiction in the film. Cutting to interviews shows that the characters are interacting with the camera, a commonality in documentary. As viewers, we know that it is not a real documentary and these are just actors who portray the comical aspect of how serious people take things such as dog shows, seen in the interviews. Overall, the uses of documentary technique make Best in Show satirical, humorous and successful as exposure of the lives of dog show competitors.
DeleteReviewer:
ReplyDeleteShiryn Atashi
Film:
Best in Show (2000)
Director:
Christopher Guest
I viewed Best in Show as not only funny and entertaining, but also extremely well-planned and well-executed by the production team. It is a true, from-the-book definition of a “mockumentary”, and while comedic and satirizing to the dog show world, it is also very accurate as well, as Guest and crew did their homework to make this a success.
Bill Nichols describes a “mockumentary” as a discourse that consists of aesthetics, a production agenda, and modes of reading (Nichols 144). Since documentaries are supposed to highlight and tell the story of true events, it does not classify as that because it is a planned, fictional story. It does follow the documentary style, however, as Nichols points out is part of the definition of a “mockumentary”.
Best in Show does this by first of all having a pre-planned script with lots of research being done by the director, Christopher Guest, as well as creating a relatable story. As we read in John Muir’s article on the film, Guest is recognized as a “thoughtful comedian” who spent a year going to dog shows and doing reading on the culture (Muir 130-131). The story is relatable as we meet many dogs and owners, and although stereotypical and entertaining in themselves, it can be said that the owners “have chosen a dog that in some way mirrors their own personal issues and values” (Muir 146). We see this in all of the owners and dogs, but I really enjoyed the eventual winner, Winky. Winky is owned by the average, middle-class American couple, and Winky’s dog breed and overall personality represent that endearing and well-liked sentiment. It feels honest meeting him and his owner, going back to the mockumentary aspect of mocking a documentary. By being well-informed on the topic, while also making the dogs and owners relatable, Guest is able to captivate the audience.
Nichols also points out that part of the humor and entertainment of “mockumentaries” is that the audience sees how the reality of it is constructed and can recognize its fictional story. Guest is successful in doing so by making it seem as realistic as possible. Muir tells the story of how one owner actually thought it was a real dog show during filming, and when she learned that it was not right before the climax of the film, she pulled her dog out because she was so upset (Muir 138)! That seemingly real and authentic nature of Best in Show allows the audience to relate and respect the work, making it successful as what it does as a mockumentary. His work has even led to the culture being more recognized because of its success, as Muir points out that ratings for dog shows have “gone up considerably in the years since the premiere” of the film, as it appealed to many audiences even those who typically would not watch dog shows” (Muir 151). Guest and crew’s filmmaking and research prevail when reviewing the film.
Synopsis: Best in Show is a comical film about five competitors and their dogs competing in a prestigious dog show, Mayflower Kennel Club Dog Show, held in Philadelphia. The film follows the five owners and focuses on the interaction with their dogs, with other competitors, and shows how serious the dog owners are about the competition. The film jumps among the owners to show how each one prepares for the dog show.
ReplyDeleteOther Positions about the film: Best in show has received high acclaim globally for its comical approach at depicting the humor behind dog owners and how they prepare their dogs for Dog Shows. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a 95% approval rating, based on 110 reviews and 89% for audience approval. Best in Show is “number 38 on Bravo's “100 Funniest Movies” and in 2012 Best in Show won a spot on Yahoo's list of the "100 Funniest Movies to See Before You Die”,” as stated by Wikipedia. Stephen Holden, from the New York Times, says “Best in Show is essentially a well-organized, exquisitely nuanced skit comedy, ''Saturday Night Live''-style sketches loosely stitched together and refined to the nth degree. This comic jigsaw puzzle is crammed with deliriously funny little bits.” John Kenneth Muir stated that “dog show ratings have gone up considerably in the years since the premiere of Best in Show, because the film popularized the sport” (151). All the actors gave a humors performance and Christopher Guest did a wonderful job making this film.
My view of the film: I absolutely loved this film. From the opening scene, where Meg and Hamilton Swan take their dog to see a therapist after she sees them having sex, to the two announcers at the dog show who are hilarious with their ongoing commentary during the show. I really like the way Christopher Guest depicted each character by having a charming gay couple, a couple who resembles the relationship of the late Anna Nicole Smith and J Howard Marshall, Gerry and Cookie Fleck, whom Cookie seems to have a past with many men she keeps running into and not remembering any of them, and having a couple wear braces. It adds to the humor of how obsessed these people are about their dogs and winning at dog shows. As John Kenneth Muir said, “everything in their life is a dog show” (131). Donna Haraway discusses how dogs are capable of “unconditional love” which I noticed throughout the film by the dogs and their owners. It did not matter how crazy the dog owners were. Their dogs still loved them and proved to be loyal companions. As Haraway states, “people love their dogs as children” and the dog owners in the film would talk and treat their dogs as children. In the first scene with the therapist, before camera turned to the dog, I thought they were referring to their child. Best in show is an example of a Mockumentary. The humor we feel when we watch a film such as this one is because of our engaged process of interpreting what we see as real and seeing them as constructed. It is funny because we know that Guest has exaggerated the events that may take place at dog shows and how some dog owners treat their dogs as kids. All in all, Best in Show is an amusing portrayal of the dog show world, and I really enjoyed watching it.
Reviewer: Fei Lu
ReplyDeleteFilms: Still Life (2006) and Dong (2006)
Director: Jia Zhangke
Other cast and crew details: Acclaimed Chinese painter, Liu Xiaodong; Actors Han Sanming (Sanming) and Zhao Tao (Shen Hong); Music by Lim Giong; Co-produced by Xstream Pictures and Shanghai Film Studio.
Location: Fengjie, China
Awards:
Still Life - 2006 Golden Lion at Venice International Film Festival.
Dong - screened at 2006 Venice International Film Festival and 2006 Toronto International Film Festival.
Synopsis: Director Jia Zhangke set out to create a documentary capturing artist, Liu Xiaodong paint workers from China to Thailand. This documentary was named Dong. Jia Zhangke started with Dong, but only after a week filming in Fengjie, he decided to produce Still Life. Still Life was produced because Jia Zhangke was interested in the people that occupied Fengjie. The plot consists of two main characters, Shen Hong and Sanming, come to Fengjie from Shanxi, Jia Zhangke’s hometown, in search of their spouses. Sanming is in search for his wife and daughter that he has not seen in 16 years. Shen Hong is searching for her husband that left home 2 years before. The backdrop of the film is the Yangtze River, where the Three Gorges Dam is located.
Other positions about the film: According to Jean-Pierre Rehm from Cahiers du Cinema, although Dong was produced as a companion piece to Still Life, Dong stands on its own as an aesthetically provocative exploration of the documentary form. Blessed with the director’s signature compositional beauty and humanism, Jia’s vision of China is concrete and explosive. Dong was criticized as just a minor addition to Still Life and was never received as a stand alone work made by Jia Zhangke.
Moreover, Ian Johnston from the Bright Lights Film Journal also points out how critics have made much of the four titles that appear in the course of Still Life: "Tobacco," "Liquor," "Tea," "Coffee.” He explains that “It's not that these everyday items split the film into four separate thematic parts; rather, each appearance of the title will coincide with or look forward to the use of this commodity in marking the kind of relationship that exists between people or the differences that divide them”. This is important to note because these consumable items are a part of daily tradition for many Chinese. These are often comfort items that are consumed with others. “Connections (are) made and relationships (are) established” by these items between the characters in Still Life. The connection between these goods and the characters “...are an implicit protest against the inhuman construction, demolition and displacement project”, says Johnston.
My view of the film: Still Life does engage and draw from the documentary form. It engages documentary form because of the setting of The Three Gorges on Yangtze River and the demolition of the flooding town of Fengjie. The flooding has forced people out of the city and has left workers demolishing free standing buildings. Jia Zhangke draws the many truths of an older China being modernized. The Three Gorges dam is symbolic in the sense that the flooding of Fengjie is metaphoric to the coming of a new age, the age of modern China, in the eyes of the global economy.
Like Zhenhai Tang, I also believe that Still Life and Dong are about the Chinese working people life. Images of local workers having to abandon their homes because of the flooding is coupled with the loss of more than 1200 archaeological sites that hold artifacts from previous Chinese dynasties. This is again symbolizes the transitioning of a new era in China. Another clear connection of this is evident in the fact that the director, Jia Zhangke is a part of the 6th generation of filmmakers of China. He was born in 1970 after the cultural revolution in China. Jia Zhangke film Still Life and documentary Dong, both are a reflection of a new generation of Chinese.
COMM 103D Documentary history and theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review
Reviewer: Santos V Tamayo
Film: Still Life 2006 and Dong 2006
Director: Jia Zhangke
Other Cast and Crew: Other cast and crew details: Acclaimed Chinese painter, Liu Xiaodong; Actors Han Sanming (Sanming) and Zhao Tao (Shen Hong); Music by Lim Giong; Co-produced by Xstream Pictures and Shanghai Film Studio
Location: Fengjie, China
Awards: Still Life - 2006 Golden Lion at Venice International Film Festival.
Dong - screened at 2006 Venice International Film Festival and 2006 Toronto International Film Festival.
Synopsis: Both films encompass the Chinese life amongst growing changes. In Still Life, two Chinese are in search of their wives and children. They attempt to look for them and realize the conditions, like flooding, have devastated their old home. Their families had moved away and have sought for better living conditions. In Still life we encounter two different people in search of their spouses. One of their spouses was going to return hope after a while, while the other spouse had already moved on with his life and had an affair with one of his clients. Dong on the other hand does not focus on the life aspect of a person but on his artistic work. It follows the artist Liu Xiadong while he paints a group of laborers near the dam. The video is focused on the actor and his masterpiece. It turns out the Dam is important in both Dong and Still Life. The area surrounding the dam was known as Fengje and it was the neighborhood where Shen Hong and Sanming searched for their spouses.
Other Positions about the film: According to the article by Ian Johnston Still life is a masterpiece. Johnston points out that the films theme was to point out the concerns of the people who are "disrupted and displaced by ongoing societal changes" likes the introduction of the dam. The dam itself is a tourist attraction as it has come to be known as the first of China's hydroelectric dams even at the cost of flooding the nearby neighborhoods and causing many individuals to be displaced from their homes.
My view of the film: I believe both film were able to enrich the world with their depiction of nature, the dam, and the life around the dam, the flooding. It is a documentary because it denotes the quality of life among the people of Fengje. I believe both of the films are about the people. I also believe they were used to talk about a political and social phenomenon between the Chinese. Innovations have cost many Chinese their homes, families and relationships too are lost as they displace across other neighborhoods surrounding the dam. I believe this film gives attention to the many problems that the dam has caused to the lives of many Chinese. The government succeeded in building a hydroelectric dam but at what cost? I believe this video brings attention to the individuals who are losing their homes and paying for the costs of innovations. I feel like it raises awareness of the certain conditions that people potentially live under around the dam that have to be addressed by the government. It can’t be left without attention and these set of videos do amazingly in depicting certain traits around the dam.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review 3
Reviewer: Wyatt Laser
Film: No Lies (1973)
Director: Mitchell Block
Other cast and crew details: Producer: Mitchell Block
Editor: Mitchell Block
Cinematographer: Alec Hirschfeld
Cast: Alec Hirschfeld, Shelby Leverington
Location: United States
Awards: N/A
Synopsis:
In this short film, a young woman named Shelby is interviewed by a man named Alec in her home. The film begins in a relaxed environment, in which Shelby is getting ready to go out for the night, but Shelby eventually breaks down and describes a rape that took place a week prior to the interview. The film is shot in a direct cinema style, but by the end of the film, it is announced that the film was not a documentary and that everything was merely acted out.
Other Views of the film:
This film is rather controversial in nature and has received widely varying criticisms and assessments. One interesting assessment comes from Vivian Sobchcak in her article, “No Lies: Direct Cinema as Rape.” Sobchack claims that “by the film’s end, the audience has been subjected to three rapes rather than one, and has experienced them on increasingly threatening levels. The first rape is the rape experienced by Shelby. While this is the only physical rape in the film, this is the least immediate and affective rape as it is only described by Shelby from memory. The second rape is demonstrated by the characters. Alec intimidates and violates Shelby, physically and emotionally cornering her, using his camera as a weapon. Sobchcak claims that this is the most physical rape for the audience. The third and most significant rape is experienced by the audience when it finds out the truth. Sobchack states that we are humiliated into the recognition of our own gullibility and are forced to face our own foolish and child-like trust” (15-17).
My view the film:
Sobchack’s article provides a very interesting perspective on the film which raises intriguing questions, not only about the film, but about direct cinema and documentary filmmaking as a whole. With Sobchack’s ideas in mind, the film begins to seem like more of a call-to-action, urging viewers to question the authenticity, honesty, and ethicality of direct cinema and the observational mode. By the end of the film, the viewer is forced to feel foolish for believing that what he or she has just seen is entirely made up. In this sense, the authenticity of documentary film is called into question and compromised by Block. He shows the audience how easy it is to sell them a false reality. Simultaneously, Block calls into question the ethicality and authenticity of the observational mode. The cameraman in the film acts as a sort of antagonist who pushes the subject to the edge. In the beginning, the interview is friendly and nonchalant, but as the film progresses, the interviewer pushes the subject to her breaking point. Bill Nichols adds to this point by stating that this film “serves as an important comment on documentary film’s potential for abuse by turning people into victims so that we can learn, voyeuristically, about their suffering and misery” (58). This applies to the observational mode, as well. Even though observational techniques try to convey authenticity, this film shows us through its self-reflexive nature how obtrusive the camera and cameraman can be. The cameraman violates the subject, forcing her to react in an unnatural way. Block seems to show us that documentary film not only has the potential to abuse the subject, but to abuse the audience as well. Much like Shelby, the audience is manipulated and violated by the filmmaker, leaving us with important questions about documentary film.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review #3
Reviewer: Fu Hung Barus Leung
Film: No Lies (1973)
Director: Mitchell Block
Other cast and crew details: Edited by Ray Anne School; Cinematographed by Alec Hirschfeld
Location: Manhattan, U.S.A
Awards: Best Narrative Short Film of 1973 Chicago International Film Festival
Synopsis: The director records a young woman getting ready for her night out. During the filming, he starts to ask her questions. At the beginning, he asks her about her life. Then, she exposes the fact that she got raped recently. That becomes the main focus of the whole “interview”. She keeps depicting her emotions and feelings under the tragedy. After his attempt of digging deeper into her feelings, her defense is stripped away and she completely shows how she feels about the rape. However, the director still doubts the authenticity of the event and how she deals with it. At the end of the documentary, it shows that the film is fictional.
• Other positions about the film: Referring to the website of Direct Cinema Limited educational, it argues that the film is a challenge to how the professional and even the society views and treats the victims of rape. It vividly depicts how helpless victims are when they seek for help. This short film undoubtedly helps society to understand the need of concerning the victims of rape. As noted on the IMDB site, it gives the film an average score of 7.3, based on ratings of 245 users. As we can see, it is filmed using the documentary form, which we can call it cinéma vérité. It is a form that filmmakers would have intimate connection with the subjects and audiences. It claims that it is the best way to show the truth and that would show the most original act of the subjects. However, due to the fictional content of the film and the way the filmmaker interviews the young lady, we can realize that it is a mockumentary. Referring to Nichols, it is basically a discourse that includes the use of production agenda, aesthtics and modes of reading (Nichols, 144) From my understanding of the reading, it is a form that is used to analyze the issues and events in reality using fictional content but in documentary form. That means that it aims to capture your attention of the issue of rape by the form of mockumentary. Jean MackKellar states that the film is a good way for the therapists to understand the feelings of the victims of rape in The Journal of Sex and Martial Therapy. We can understand that how successful the film is in depicting the emotions of victims of sexual assault.
My view of the film: I enjoy watching this film so much. The use of mockumentary is cleverly used in the film. If the filmmaker just uses the regular form of film to challenge how rape is viewed in our society, the effectiveness of bringing people’s attentions would not be that strong. From my perspective, the choice of cinéma vérité style is actually a mockery of the documentary style. Cinéma vérité is a style that deeply relies on interaction between the filmmakers and the subjects due to the presence of the filmmakers. However, audiences can have a glimpse of how this style can affect the interviewees. No doubt, it can help further expose the deep feelings of them. Unfortunately, filmmakers sometime can possibly push the limit too far that the interviewees may break down just like the young lady in the film. Personally, I think the filmmaker does an incredible showing how documentary can sometimes be too cruel in the attempt of revealing the truth. According to F is For Phony: Fake Documentaries and Truth's Undoing (Visible Evidence) by Alexandra Juhasz Juhasz and Jesse Lerner, Mitchell W. Block himself states that “this tripartite relationship is clear to see in NO LIES, I abuse (a) the subject with an insensitive filmmaker, (b) undermine the audience’s relationship with the filmmaker, by making him unlikable and unethical and (c) abuse the spectator by pretending to present the truth and lying.” From that, we can see Block is also trying to imply his mockery of documentary by stating the relationship between filmmakers and subject. In addition, the depiction of the treatment of raped victims is absolutely memorable. Although the film is fictional, the way that victims are treated is real. The attempt of raising awareness of rape is beautifully done and the result is definitely effective. The way that the way the film serves both the mockery the documentary form and the raise of awareness of rape really impresses me.
DeleteFilm: Still Life and Dong(2006)
ReplyDeleteSynopsis: Dong is the companion piece to Still Life, they share some of the same footage. Dong is the documentary which records painter Liu Xiaodong paints two paintings which are a group of laborers near the Three Gorges Damand later a group of women in Bangkok. And Still life talks about two stories. The first story’s leading actor Han Sanming is a simple and honest coal miner from Fenyang, he comes to Fengjie in order to find his ex-wife, who ran away sixteen years ago. The second story talk about Shen Hong who is a nurse from Taiyuan comes to Fengjie in order to seek her husband Guo Bin who had left their home for two years.
Other positions about the film: These two films have earned widespread praise globally. As noted on the film’s Wikipedia page, the popular rating site Rotten Tomatoes gives Still Life a 90% approval rating, based on 48 reviews. And the rating of Dong is 6.6 from 243 users on another popular rating site IMDb. In addition, in the New York Times, Manohla Dargis comments that “a modern master of postmodern discontent, Jia Zhang-ke is among the most strikingly gifted filmmakers working today whom you have probably never heard of”. And in the Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips comments that “the first great film of the year. It’s beautiful but so much more-full of subtle feeling, framed by a monstrous, eroding landscape”. In the TV Guide, Ken Fox comments that “Few of China’s Sixth Generation filmmakers have turned to their country’s explosive economic growth and its attendant upheavals with so sharp an eye and so heavy a heart as Jia Zhang-ke”. In the Chicago Reader, Jonathan Rosenbaum comments that “this 2006 drama may seen to be worlds apart from the surreal theme-park setting of Jia’s previous film, ‘The World’, but there are similarities of theme, style, scale, and tone; social and romantic alienation in a monumental setting, a daring poetic mix of realism and lyrical fantasy, and an uncanny sense of where our planet is drifting”.
My view of the film: I extremely like this film which is documentary-fiction, Jia Zhang-ke uses his documentary Dong as the raw materials for the story and creates this film, that is so amazing. According to reading, I know that “mockumentary” as a discourse that consists of aesthetics, a production agenda, and modes of reading (Nichols 144). In other words, “mockumentary” creates fictional story, but it follows the documentary style. Dong is the companion piece to Still Life, it is strongly associated with Still Life and they share some of the same footage. Dong is a documentary, therefore Still Life is a mockumentary, Jia Zhang-ke talks about two fictional stories by using documentary style. In fact, I feel a little bit bored when I see the film at the beginning of it, I consider that the film’s pacing is too slow. And the whole film seldom uses the close-up shot, most are medium shot and long shot. In this film, there are some shots which really impressed me. For instance, the first shot of this film is a long shot, the camera pans so slowly, I can clearly see some people are smoking, chatting and playing cards on the boat, the air was filled with the haze of smoke and noisy sound. The background is the charming scenery of The Three Gorges Dam. However, even if the scenery of the outside ship is beautiful, it can't attract their attention because their life is so bad, they have been forced from their homes. This shot vividly shows those working people’s numb psychological, hardship of life and it reveals the real life of the underlying Chinese society. In addition, by describing the lives of Han Sanming’s ex-life and Brother Mark, it shows the fact that Fengjie people have been forced from their hometown and had destroyed their traditional way of life because of building China’s Three Gorges Dam project. It reveals and critiques China’s social and political issues Hence, Still Life draws from the documentary form. On the other hand, I find that Jia Zhang-ke uses poetic mode which is “subjective use of language, visual and audio metaphor, images sometimes abstract following musical or poetry form not narrative” in this film, for instance, at 29:43 a boy is singing a song which is “Mice Love Rice”, and then the camera moves and focus on Han Sanming who is hearing him sing. In my opinion, the song is a metaphor for the love of Sanming and his ex-life, their love just like Mice love rice, it will never change. However, at 48:03, the same boy is singing a song “Two Butterflies” on the boat, and then the camera moves and focus on Shen Hong who is walking on the street looks helpless, I think this is also a metaphor — Shen Hong and her husband just like two butterflies, they chase each other, but they fly away respectively at the end. Their love is tragic. Overall, “the film, along with its companion documentary Dong, tells overlapping stories of the emotional trauma of local people caught in the dislocation at Fengjie while a new village is being built”(Howard Schumann). I really enjoy watching this film. Although this film talks about two simple stories, it explores the problem of the weaker social classes, critiques China’s social and political issues and shows some uncontrollable problems of life and implies many truths of life, it makes me deep in thought. And I would highly recommend this film to my friends.
DeleteWork cited
Nichols, “How Have Documentaries Addressed Social and Political Issues?” (212-252)
Howard Schumann “Still Life and Dong”(2006).
http://www.foreignfilms.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1659
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0859765/criticreviews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dong_(film)
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review #3
Reviewer: Lian Liu
Film: Still Life 2006
Director: Zhangke Jia
Other cast and crew details: Han Sanming as Han Sanming, the actor plays a character named after himself. The film's "Han Sanming" is a coal-miner from Shanxi province who has returned to Fengjie in search of his wife and daughter, neither of whom he has seen in sixteen years.
Zhao Tao as Shen Hong, a nurse, also from Shanxi, who has come to Fengjie in search of her husband, who has been out of touch for two years.
Li Zhubing as Guo Bing, Shen Hong's husband.
Wang Hongwei as Wang Dongming, an archaeologist working in the ruined lots in Fengjie and a friend of Guo Bing's who helps Shen Hong track him down.
Ma Lizhen as Missy Ma, Han Sanming's erstwhile wife.
Zhou Lin as Brother Mark, a young laborer who befriends Han Sanming.
Luo Mingwang as Old Ma, Missy Ma's elder brother, and Han Sanming's brother-in-law
Awards: 2006 Venice Film Festival
Winner of the Golden Lion
Official Selection
2006 Asian Film Awards
Winner of Best Director, Jia Zhangke
Best Picture (nominee)
Best Composer, Lim Giong (nominee)
2007 Adelaide Film Festival
Winner of the NATUZZI International Award for Best Feature Film
2007 Valdivia International Film Festival
Winner of Best International Feature Film
Winner, Best Actor, Han Sanming
2007 Tromsø International Film Festival
Winner of the FIPRESCI Prize
2007 Durban International Film Festival
Winner of Best Direction
2008 Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards[15]
Winner: Best Foreign Language Film
Winner: Best Cinematography (Yu Lik-wai)
Synopsis: Dong is a companion film of Still Life. It is a documentary which is about a painter/artist, Liu Xiaodong, how he creates his works. Basically, this film records how he captures the laborers work in the Three Gorge Dam and the women work in Bangkok. And Still Life is about two people go to Three Gorge Dam to find their spouses. It tells the story of people forced to leave their town due to the construction of a dam, and their return. Han Sanming is a typical laborer in the lower class in China, the movie records he comes to Three Gorge Dam to find his wife who escaped from him for 16 years. And the story of his wife is that he spent 3,000 RMB (500 USD) on buying his wife, few years later, his wife left him because policemen found her and saved her from Shanxi and took her back to the hometown. At the first, his wife’s family doesn’t like him and try to stop him to find his wife, but he find out he and his wife love each other after he find her. Wife’s family finally agrees Sanming can live with his wife again if he pays 30,000 RMB (5000 USD). Another part is about Shen Hong, a nurse, comes to Fengjie to look for her husband, who has not been back home for two years. They embrace before the Three Gorges Dam. Although they do share a dance together, they sadly give up and decide to divorce.
DeleteOther positions about the film: This film has received more than 10 awards and high acclaim globally. According to Wikipedia page, Still Life premiered at the 2006 Venice Film Festival and was a winner of the Golden Lion Award for Best Film. The film premiered at a handful of other film festivals, and received a limited commercial release in the United States on January 18, 2008 in New York City. And on IMDb, this film has received the ratings 7.3/10 from 3,617 users. According to Wikipedia, Review databases like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic recorded equally strong reviews for the film, with an 92% favorable rating (out of 25 reviews) from the former, and an 81% (out of 10 reviews) rating from the latter as of February 2008. At the end of 2008, Village Voice and LA Weekly's annual film poll of film critics placed the film as the 4th best film of the year, and Film Comment, official journal of the Film Society of Lincoln Center's annual end of year critic' poll of 100 film critics placed Still Life as the 6th best film of the year, with a total of 521 points. The film was voted the third best film of the past decade in a survey by the Toronto International Film Festival's Cinematheque, composed of 60 film experts from around the world. And the rating of Dong is 6.6 from 243 users on another popular rating site IMDb.
My view of the film: I’ve known this movie for a long time, but this is the first time I watched it. Still Life is a mockumentary film, which is a dramatic story combines with depict real events. Jia Zhangke set two main characters are from Shanxi because he is from Shanxi. He describes two social issues with the background of Three Gorge Dam, which are human trafficking and Three Gorges Migration. Human trafficking was rampant at that time, many women and children were sold to remote villages. In this movie, Sanming’s wife went back to her hometown with their child after policemen found her, even though Sanming treated her like a real wife. He even still cares about her after 16 years. And this movie has four parts, which are cigarette, liquor, tea, and candy. Cigarettes, is a luxury for the people who lives in the lower class. Liquor represents a type of Chinese custom that people will be your friends if they are willing to drink with you. Therefore, Sanming’s brother-in-law refused a bottle of wine from Sanming. Tea, is the only thing Shenhong’s husband left in the locker. There is nowhere she can find her husband, so she tastes the tea alone to miss him. Candy means happiness, Sanming’s wife shares a candy with him to prove that she is willing to be together with him. Through the process of searching their family in Three Gorge Dam, we can understand this project makes people leave away from their hometown. I remember there were many voices about this project, some approved this plan, some extremely opposed at that time. In my opinion even though this project has many benefits for north people in China, because it takes the water to North from South, but 2000-year-villages were gone in two days. This project submerged the historical places that we were supposed to keep it. It not just forced the local people leave away from their hometown but also destroyed their traditional way of life.
DeleteCOMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review #4
Reviewer: Hyungsun Wang
Film: No Place Like Home – Episode 520 from This American Life
Director: Ira Glass
Other cast and crew details: Ben Calhoun, with Alex Blumberg, Sean Cole, Stephanie Foo, Sarah Koenig, Miki Meek, Jonathan Menjivar, Brian Reed, Robyn Semien, Alissa Shipp, and Nancy Updike
Location: Web source available at: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/520/
Awards: N/A
Synopsis: The central issue covered in the episode is about people’s common feeling toward their home countries and home towns. Ira Glass, originally from Baltimore, recalls how he felt about Baltimore – where he was from and the city in which slogans and campaigns to promote the area were prevalent. The episode involves several interviews of people under diverse circumstances but who have the same common feeling (i.e., missing their home) toward their origin.
Other positions about the film: Although there are not many reviews posted online with respect to the episode itself, the host, Ira Glass, as well as the broadcasting group have been recognized widely among audience. Sprudge.com (a blog covering “coffee news & culture”) highlighted the episode as having a “wonderful coffee-forward segment” by its illustration of Trouble Coffee and Coconut Club (owned by Giulietta Carrelli, who also appears in the radio documentary).
My view of the film: The title of the episode, “No Place Like Home” striked me in a sense that I was expecting this work might be something very relevant to me. I am an international student who left home several years ago, currently living in a place that has extremely different culture, to which I do not have any connection. Still, I always miss my home country, my friends from home town, activities that I used to do in my everyday life. The episode reflected the same type of feeling I had for years: nostalgia. Although I am placed in different circumstances (not like people who were deported from US, employed in Mexico, but who longs to be back in US), the interviews presented in the radio documentary drew my empathy just as well as other types of documentaries that possessed more of visual components. My history is short, and perhaps simple, compared to those who had interviewed in the episode. But the production was sufficiently well made enough to draw my attention and make me nod when I hear interviewees say “ It’s an overwhelming feeling of sadness”. The radio documentary, despite its limited extent of showing or visualizing the issue at stake, seems to work well for this type of topic. Playing relevant songs (although I had not heard before) may engage audience’s feelings and empathy to a deeper level. I could not agree more to Ira Glass’s comment that it is a “universal” feeling. No matter where you are now and no matter where you are from, everyone has a “strong tie” to his/her origin. And perhaps that feeling is what keeps us to live on.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Eun Joo Cho
Radio Documentary Series: The Hidden World of Girls with Host Tina Fey (2011)
Director: Davia Nelson, Nikki Silva.
Other cast and crew details: Hosted by Tina Fey, Funded Corporation of Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts.
Location: Santa Cruz, California.
Awards: Awards have not been announced, but the radio documentary was collaborated with NPR and other independent producers.
Synopsis: The directors have produced a radio documentary that collaborates on an international level. Listeners are able to tell their personal stories through the radio to share the experiences they have encountered on their journeys. Through these stories, the audience is able to understand the difference in cultures, regions, and ways of living. These stories are empowering, personal, intimate, and include issues that affect women (violence, friendships, relationships, family, etc.) as they transition into womanhood.
Other positions about the film: The film has received a great amount of positive information in regards to the content of this type of radio documentary. For instance, WYNC (http://www.wnyc.org/story/hidden-world-girls/) has given a positive push for listeners to tune into the ‘special event.’ There are many words that indicate the excitement of this airing as it is explored as a journey across the world, and of women who experience a variety of circumstances to share with the audience. The actress Tina Fey is also noted as a ‘special host,’ as her popularity undeniable in the public. Other sites such as SFCV (https://www.sfcv.org/article/music-from-a-world-of-girls-stories) note the musical elements that follow this film. It describes the process of adding a musical element as something that ‘truly represents’ the reality the women had faced. The ‘personality’ of the sounds and music individualize and complete the process of creating a radio reality. Biewen is particularly fond of this work as he states that reality radio has various approaches, yet they are directed in creating a sense of feeling among the listeners (Biewen, 8). It is the sounds and musical combination that create an ‘experience’ (Biewen, 8).
My view of the film: I admire this type of documentary, as I find it to be particularly interesting in it’s structure. This radio documentary gave me a sense of engagement with the women telling their stories, as done so in a way that gives a more light-hearted, intimate feel. As I listened to the girls/women speak about their experiences, I appreciated the different cultures and differences between the women and their transition into womanhood. In particular, the story regarding the woman Liz Ones, and the ritual her four sisters and mother go through in the ‘coming of age’ ritual that is done when they turn 13. This is a gift that their mother passes on and teaches to her daughters. It is a passage of womanhood as she shows them how to do their makeup, and apply it correctly according to the season, their tone, and individual selves. The girl explains this as a ‘gift,’ as there is a lighthearted tone in the background. It gives a sense of contentment, and happiness as we hear Liz reminisce on her past. It truly compels the listener, and gives the audience a way to construct the women’s realities through the poetry of their words, and the musical composition (Biewen, 8).
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory, Film Review 4
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Fei Lu
Professor: Lisa Cartwright
Films: 5 Broken Cameras (2011)
Director: Guy Davidi, Emad Burna
Other cast and crew details: Triple production by Guy DVD Films, Alegria Productions and Burnat Films Palestine. Emad Burnat and Gibreel Burnat (Emad’s son) were listed as main characters. Editing by Véronique Lagoarde – Ségot with Sound Editing and Mixing by Amelie Canini.. Produced by Christine Camdessus and Serge Gordey. Music by Le Trio Joubran and Composed by Samir Joubran, Wissam Joubran and Adnan Joubran. Additional photography by Yisrael Puterman, Jonathan Massey, Alexandre Goetschmann and Shay Carmeli Pollak.
Location: Bil’in, Palestine
Awards:
Winner, World Cinema Directing Award: Documentary
2012, Sundance Film Festival
Winner, Special Jury Award and Audience Award
2011, International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam
Synopsis: 5 Broken Cameras is a documentary of the violent resistance of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land in Bil'in, which is located in the West Bank of Palestine. A farmer named Emad Burnat, the protagonist, decides to buy a camera to film his son's birth. In parallel, the documentary is set on the West Bank where Israeli troops, the antagonists’, are meeting resistance from Bil’in locals. Emad decides to film this as well. During this time, he begins to call himself a journalist, and ends up damaging 5 cameras, hence the documentary name, 5 Broken Cameras.
Other positions about the film: A. O. Scott from New York Times says, “5 Broken Cameras provides a grim reminder — just in case you needed one — of the bitter intractability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A chronicle of protest and endurance, punctuated by violence and tiny glimmers of hope, this documentary is unlikely to persuade anyone with a hardened view of the issue to think again.” After reading Scott’s review, I further understand the importance of the documentary. The documentary portrays an inside take on a conflict that the world has known to be ever on going. Scott further explains that Emad “...notes [through this film] the intersection of his family’s life with the ebb and flow of Palestinian and Israeli politics…”.
My view of the film: I was always interested in knowing more details about the Israeli-Palestinian struggle over land. This film has created images for me to think about the struggle and how both sides can overcome their differences. One thing that stuck out was the loss of Gibreel’s innocence as a child. Each year Gibreel grew older, he witness his family and friends struggle through life as their land was taken from them. Also, the destruction of each camera, year after year, was metaphorical to the destruction of Gibreel’s innocence. By the end of the film, five cameras were broken and Gibreel was five years old. The director also included a short clip of Gibreel’s birthday that added to the actuality of the film. Furthermore, the film included three main documentary techniques: actuality, voice-over and exposition. The actuality of the film was authentic and came straight from the five cameras used by the director. The raw film footage effectively grasped my attention as I related it to my own family films of documentary of life. The director himself did the voice-over throughout the film. This was effective because it created a first person point of view and also binded the father and son relationship between the director and Gibreel. The exposition of the film coupled with the actuality was very persuasive. In sync with the voice-over script, there were many scenes that validated the script. This made me believe the story as true.
Reviewer: Jasmine McGinty
ReplyDeleteFilm: 5 Broken Cameras (2011)
Director: Guy Davidi and Emad Burnat
Other cast and crew details: Palestinian farmer Emad Burnat co-directed the film with Israeli Guy Davidi. Directing, producing, editing and cinematography done by Burnat. Christine Camdessus, Davidi, and Serge Gordey coproduced. Film features Burnat and his family including youngest son Gibreel Burnat, with which the story focalizes upon.
Location: Bil’in, Palestine and Israel
Awards: Nominated for Academy Award 2013 (Best Documentary), won Amsterdam International Documentary Film Festival 2011 (Audience, Special Jury Award), Cinema du Reel 2012, Durban International Film Festival 2012 (Best Documentary), International Emmy Awards 2013, Jerusalem Film Festival 2012, Prague One World 2012 (Best Director), Sundance Film Festival 2012 (Directing Award), and multiple others.
Synopsis and background: Bought to document the birth of his fourth son Gibreel, Emad Burnat purchased his first camera. During the same time his son was born, the building of the wall barrier between the lands in the West Bank town of Bil’in was occurring. Burnat documents both his sons’ life growing up over the span of five years in conjunction with the protests and riots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Burnat uses a series of five different cameras, each of which was broken during his documentation of the Israeli army and the people of Bil’in. Taking elements from reflexive and observational documentary, Burnat captures the conflict through both the camera lens and his son’s perspective.
Other positions on the film: Many film critics view the documentary as a raw capturing of “real life” events. Film critics from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post regard the film as an essay style film that is presented “lyrically.” By splitting up the film into 5 different sections, each section filmed with a new camera, form and content can intertwine according to Hornaday. The significance of the cameras breaking contribute to the power the film has by encapsulating real life events, such as the bullets or tear gas breaking Burnat’s cameras (Hornaday, 2012). Critic Charlie Juhl notes, “A traditional documentary would interview all parties involved, research the historical evidence, and provide clues to which aggrieved party has the stronger claim. That is not the job of Emad’s cameras though; they just watch” (Juhl, 2013). This shows that critics view the film as embodying elements of observational documentary as described by Nichols. The job of an observational documentary is to merely watch as the film reveals the unfolding of reality (Nichols, 2010). Critics do not view the film as traditional, but observational to convey the power of reality during the protests and war in a form that flows easily because it is broken into five parts. Overall, general ratings of the film are fairly high; IMDB rates it a 7.9 out of 10 from 3,664 users (IMDB, 2014).
My position about the film: The way that I view this film is not only using elements from observational documentary, which is how mainly the film critics viewed it, but I believe that this film is largely shot in a reflexive form while using characteristics of observational and personal documentary to give it an emotional and humanizing feel. Bill Nichols notes that reflexive documentary strives to obtain authenticity and truth as its goals. In 5 Broken Cameras, it is from the beginning, portraying itself as reflexive. In the opening of the film Burnat lays his 5 cameras on the table and tells the audience that he used these to shoot the film, yet each one broke in the process. This shows us that he is exposing the audience to how the film was made. By exposing us to the process of filming with multiple cameras, which broke by the harshness of the protests and war, it reveals the impossibility of filming during an actual war, but the struggle of doing so anyway. The film also uses aspects of observational film in that it is shot with long shots and multiple long takes without a structural narrative and no filmmaker interviews. Burnat allows reality to unfold in space by simply filming the real events that occur. Elements of personal documentary are at play because Burnat uses the camera to document his son Gibreel’s life as he grows up. Filming his personal family exposes us to how the conflict affects Burnat’s personal life. By combing reflexive documentary with observational and personal, it adds power to the film because it shows the audience how real life events such as the conflict in the West Bank affects ordinary people living in the town. By filming in a specific and local setting, I believe the film is powerful because Burnat chooses to film with these styles of documentary. It looks more of like a home video than a movie, which touches me as a viewer through its humanizing way of tying the conflict in Palestine to a family experiencing it and a little boy growing up with it.
DeleteBroadcast:
ReplyDeleteThis American Life, Episode 249: Garbage (2003)
Your position about the broadcast:
This broadcast was captivating to me, something that I did not think would happen with no visuals, and on a topic seemingly so bland like garbage. I had never listened to a full radio broadcast like this one before. From the beginning, and throughout the broadcast, the production team uses captivating details and personal stories to cover a seemingly dull topic of garbage, making their episode successful in exploring a small scale issue.
One of the tactics that is the most successful in making this garbage story fun is the work of the hosts, primarily Ira Glass, in taking advantage of the radio broadcast set up. In act one, she tells the story of the san man Michael Hanley, who was killed on the job in 1996 when hydrofluoric acid exploded. Although she does not go into much detail, the reality of death alone allows the listeners to realize that garbage men are real people. She also discusses with san men, Andre and Roger, how there are a lot of ways to get hurt, whether it is by glass in the trash or by cars. She leads them telling us real stories. Often times, society ignores them, and to hear of them being affected by their job is eye-opening, which Glass realizes and which is why she discusses their jobs with them the way that she does. In the reading Reality Radio: Telling True Stories in Sound, it talks about how these radio shows captivate us by telling stories to the “space between the ears” (6). Essentially, telling stories we do not normally hear. Glass herself discusses in the reading that she is willing “to sound dumb during an interview” in order to get the kind of result she wants (65). Glass is able to connect with everyone she interviews and meets, as we see in act three with Detective Cowen, without the pressure of her having to “simply hold microphones in front of people and ask questions” (12). She has more freedom and potential for deeper conversations with time to explore the topic personally. Her work behind the scenes to produce these appealing, real life tales is what makes the episode overall interesting.
Another reason that this topic became so interesting is because of the topic itself. Like I said before, it seemed so unappealing to do a show on garbage, but This American Life thrives on these types of topics. The word garbage led to hearing about American citizens, their work, the poor and homeless in Mexico, and even the old mob business of those who ran the garbage system. When you first hear garbage, you think of just smelly stuff you have to take out every week. However, they developed it much more beforehand in order to make it so fascinating. Glass explains this in the reading where she says that they “won’t start a story” if they cannot imagine “the kinds of ideas it’ll lead to, the questions it’ll answer” (61). That development is how they are so successful, and how they knew to go to Mexico or look up how the garbage system is run. The “ordinary human story” has so much potential, and by choosing a topic like that, they are able to appeal to the common man, making their radio documentaries cool.
Comm 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Santos V Tamayo
Film: 5 Broken Cameras
Director: Emad Burnat/ Davidi 2011
Other Cast and Details: A co-poduction of Alegria Productions, Burnat Films of Palestine
In Arabic w/English subtitles
Location: Palestine/Israel/France/Netherlands
Awards: World Cinema Directing Award at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. Special Broadcaster IDFA Audience Award. Special Jury Award at the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam. It won Golden Apricot at the 2012 Yerevan International Film Festival for best documentary film. Van Leer Group Foundation Award for best Israeli Documentary at the Jerusalem Film Festival 2012. Busan Cinephile Award at the Pusan International Film Festival in 2012. It was nominated Best Documentary Feature at the 85th Academy Awards. Asia Pacific Screen Award for Best Documentary of 2012.
Synopsis: The title of the film is what the documentary is about. This documentary is made out of 5 separate cameras all of which were broken by or shot at by soldiers. Emad, the man filming the events of his village, Bil’in, buys a camera after the birth of his fourth son. He goes on to film the conflict between the villagers of his home and the soldiers who are guarding the separation barrier that is being built in favor of Israel. Each camera adds to the current events of the conflict and coexist in a time frame that not only depict the struggles of the villagers with the soldiers but that of Emad’s family and son Gibreel.
Other Positions about the Film: A. O. Scott from New York Times believes that some of the scenes from the documentary by Emad and Mr.Davidi were edited and performed, since they had a lot of film material to select from. He believes that some of these scenes were played out in order to convey a glimpse of the conflict to the viewers. Also, Scott believes tha t this is a good documentary in that it provides one man's experiences more than it does to try to influence vieweres to support one or the other side. It is a neutral documentary.
My view of the Film: I enjoyed the film. I didn’t dislike the content but became very upset at how the soldiers would treat the villagers. The soldiers depicted in the films would treat the villagers unfairly. They would take the kids of the families into their trucks. These boys were only seven and eight. I was very upset to see that. Also, they shot people at point blank just because they were boycotting and more precisely because they were Palestinian. It gave me a clear perspective of the Palestenian and Israeli conflict. It's more than just about land, but about racial issues and bitterness between the two groups. different hearing about the conflict to actually seeing it from a native villager, who was just trying to live. Going back to addressing the content of the film, these soldiers would rape the women. I saw many of the villagers get shot when they weren’t even dangerous or equipped with a weapon. Soldiers just threw gas bombs, charged and began shooting anyone. It was sad to see, it was also enraging. Unarmed citizens and kids were being killed and nothing could be done to save their lifes. It was frustrating to watch the film. I even began questioning what is justice? Where are the soldiers that should fighting for the villagers? Why are innocent people dying? Its harsh. It really is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/movies/5-broken-cameras-shows-life-in-one-palestinian-village.html?_r=0
Synopsis: Five Broken Cameras is about Emad Burnat, a self taught Palestinian cameraman, and the struggle and encounters that Emad, his family, and other people living within Bil’in, a West Bank village, face due to the building of a barrier by the Israelis. Throughout the film, all five cameras are either shot at or smashed. They each tell their own story.
ReplyDeleteOther Positions about the film: When it comes to politics, especially within the Middle East, there are always different views, opinions, and positions of how people feel about the event taking place. Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a fresh rating of 95% based on 43 reviews and 87% of audience liked the film. A.O. Scott, of The New York Times, wrote that it is “unlikely to persuade anyone with a hardened view of the issue to think again” and said that it is a "visual essay in autobiography and, as such, a modest, rigorous and moving work of art" that deserved "to be appreciated for the lyrical delicacy of [Burnat's] voice and the precision of his eye." Israel’s most popular right-wing newspaper, Israel Hayom, called the film "the best documentary of the year" as noted by Wikipedia. Larry Abramson, of NPR news, wrote that “the film is unabashedly pro-Palestinian, an indictment of Israel's settlement policy that never examines either the settlers' claims or the security forces' point of view.” In “How Can We Write Effectively about Documentary” by Bill Nichols, he discusses how to write and view documentary as a process. He starts out by stating that, “the first step is preparation. On first viewing we become immersed in the viewing experience. We may ask ourselves some questions about what we are seeing, but on second viewing this process of asking and thinking about what we see becomes more central” (168). Another important step is to take notes. We can choose to focus on something specific; however, we cannot focus on everything at once. As Nichols states, “notes provide a record of some of our own preoccupations and interests. [Notes] provide a source of material for the points we plan to make in our commentary” (170). Nichols mentions two important steps to consider when viewing a film and writing a response to it, regardless of your view about the film.
My view of the film: I really enjoyed watching Five Broken Cameras. I thought it gave a good view about the incidents taking place in Bil’in, a West Bank Village. I felt that the many different encounters I saw in the film put it in perspective and gave it a close to honest overview about the hardships these people are facing. I say that it is close to an honest overview because, like any film, it is usually told from a particular point of view. However, you must decide if it showed a relatively fair overview of the situation taking place. I also respect the film for the collaboration of the directors; one being from Palestine and the other being from Israel. Aside from the horrible situation taking place within this region, it told a beautiful story about family. Burnat bought his first camera to record the birth of his youngest son. Throughout the film, his sons are shown, and we actually get to witness them grow up simultaneously as the situation unfolds. We can actually view the film through Gibreel and get a sense of how he experiences growing up during this time. Two scenes in particular that show how the children are being affected is by the march they do and chant out “we want peace we want to sleep” and when Gibreel and his mom are walking together and she is asking him questions about what is going on and what he knows about the incidents taking place near his home. It was scenes like these that made the film stand out and made me sympathies for the families and young kids affected by the conflicts in their home.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteFilm Review #4
Reviewer: Fu Hung Barus Leung
Film: Five Broken Cameras (2011)
Director: Emad Burnat & Guy Davidi
Other cast and crew details: Produced by Emad Burnat, Christine Camdessus, Guy Davidi & Serge Gordey; Edited by Guy Davidi & Veronique Lagoarde-Segot; Cinematography by Emad Burnat
Location: Tel Aviv-Yafo, Tel Aviv, Israel; Bil’in, Ramallah and al-Bireh, Palestine; Nil’in, Ramallah and al-Bireh, Palestine
Awards: Audience Award and Special Jury Award of Amsterdam International Documentary Film Festival 2011; Best documentary of Durban International Film 2012; Documentary category of International Emmy Awards 2013
Synopsis: The film starts with the moment when Emad gets his first camera after his Girbreel is born. Basically, the film is divided into five parts due to the malfunction of those cameras. Throughout the whole film, we can see the record of his life and the protest against Israeli army. The protest is started because Israel tries to build a separation barrier, which aims to separate Bil’in from the Jewish Settlement Modi’in lllit. The villagers are unhappy about this decision, so they start a non-violent protest to fight against them. The entire film is shot in first person perspective and nearly the entire film is shot by Emad. In the film, we can see the struggle in their protest and their loss of friends.
Other positions about the film: Although the whole film is a heartbreaking story showing that Israeli soldiers treat Palestinians violently, it is criticized that the film is
Deletefilmed with merely Palestinian perspective. Referring to the review by Steven Stotsky on
www.camera.org, , he argues that the film covers up the fact using editing skills and tries to depict the impression that Israeli army is violent and cruel. He supports his argument by bringing in evidences showing that Emad actually edited the scene before publishing it. The film is so powerful and mind-blowing because it shows that the activists get violent responses from the army while fighting against them in a peaceful way. The army’s violent reaction undoubtedly disappoints every audience. However, the review shows that the “fact” that is depicted in the film may not be real and authentic. One of the most depressing scenes in the film is that when a helpless activist is lying on the floor, the army still violently pounce on him. However, there is a different version of the story. From the interview with the Israeli solider Ya'akov, he says that “"Now notice this. He is lying on the ground – shouts whatever he shouts, protests, and in another second, look what happens... a group of soldiers jumped on him. But ... it's not the same frame...And you can see me arrest him...The whole thing is not true... It's not that he lay on the ground and didn't do anything, and a pile of soldiers jumped on him and then he was arrested. It wasn't even close [to what really happened]."” (Stotsky) After viewing this evidence, we can have a glimpse how this documentary uses a deceiving technique to portray Palestinian as the only victim. In addition, Hila Volpo provides proof that the film shows the “truth” in a one-dimensional perspective. Adeeb was accussed of offences in 2009. “According to court records, the film that served as evidence was Burnat’s edited film, but not its final form. The court described how Burnat’s film showed Adeeb viciously beating an IDF soldier with a club.” (Volpo) That shows that the heroic and peaceful image of Adeeb is not completely accurate. Also, that would undoubtedly harm the persuasiveness of the film if the scene were included in the film. We can see how Emad takes benefits of his editing skill. As noted on the IMDB site, it gives the film an average score of 7.9, based on ratings of 3670 users. In addition, Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 95% based on the reviews of 43 critics.
COMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDeleteReviewer: Hangchen Liu
Film: 5 Broken Cameras (2011)
Other positions about the film: The film has earned widespread praise globally. As noted on the film’s Wikipedia page, the popular rating site Rotten Tomatoes gives the film an 87% approval rating, based on 1,724 users. And the rating of the film is 7.9 from 3,664 users on another popular rating site IMDb. In addition, in the New York Times, A.O. Scott comments that “5 Broken Cameras deserves to be appreciated for the lyrical delicacy of his voice and the precision of his eye. That it is almost possible to look at the film this way – to foresee a time when it might be understood, above all, as a film – may be the only concrete hope Mr. Burnat and Mr. Davidi have to offer.” And in the Hollywood Reporter, John DeForce comments that “the result is uniquely powerful, putting faces and human consequences to a political dispute that seemingly will never end.” In the Time Out New York, Joshua Rothkopt comments that “there has to be room for this kind of plea, especially a work that, obliquely, captures so many largely unreported details; the night raids rounding up children, the torn-up olive trees and kid’s soccer games in the battle zone.” In the Wall Street Journal, Joe Morgenstern comments that “5 Broken Cameras is short on facts and, like the demonstrations themselves, provocative by nature. Still, it casts a baleful light on anguishing, seemingly incessant scenes of tear gas hurled, bullets fired, and villagers fleeting for their lives and, on one shocking occasion, a life lost as the camera rolls. This is how the conflict looks from the other side of the barrier. ”
My view of the film: in fact, I hate to watch the documentary about the war because I do not want to see some cruel shots, such as, some of shots about fight, gun, struggle and conflict…... However, I have changed my mind after watching the film which is “5 Broken Cameras”. I consider that this film use the observational mode. In the “Introduction to Documentary”, Bill Nichols points out that “observational mode emphasizes the interaction between film-maker and subject. Filming takes place by means of interviews or other forms of even more direct involvement from conversation to provocations” (Nichols, 31). And this whole film shows that Emad Burnat uses his video camera to document the daily life of his four sons and conflict between people of Bil'in and Israeli soldiers. And the whole film frequently uses the close-up and long shot. And long take to allow reality to unfold before the cameras. It can let audience understand the real life of villagers. In addition, Nichols also points out that “all documentaries have a voice of their own, but not all documentary voices address social and political issues directly”(Nichols, 214). However, in this film, the voice addresses some of political issues. And it makes people pay attention to the Palestine issue. However, maybe most audience would only remember some conflict shots or some scenes of protest activity. However, I can find and remember some of warm shots in this film. And I am deeply touched by these warm shots. More specifically, from 7:48 to 8:00, Emad uses 12 seconds to show a long take shot which is a flock of birds fly freely in the sky. I consider that this shot can directly express Emad’s inner thoughts and feelings at that time. How he wishes that he was a bird! He wants to have freedom. I think all of villagers have the same thoughts at that time. In addition, at 36:08, Gibreel who is Emad’s son gives the Israeli soldier a white flower. I was specially moved by this warm shot. In my opinion, this shot symbolizes peace, it is also Emad’s wish---peace. However, at 36:33, when they were driven away, Emad asks Phil’s feelings, Phil says saidly: “what can we do? They are gobbling up all our land, Emad. They will never take down the wall. If they can keep building the settlement. It is all for nothing! ” this shot brings audience back to reality, the reality is cruel, people of Bil'in still face some of severe difficulties and challenges. The conflict did not end. All in all, I think that this film is not just a film, it is a story of life. I really enjoy watching this film. It reveals and critiques some of Palestine’s political issues and shows some uncontrollable problems of life. In addition, in this film, there are some of warm shots express director’s feeling and wishes, it makes me deep in thought. And I would highly recommend this film to my friends. Because this film, it make me love to watch the documentary which is about war. And I would highly recommend this film to my friends.
DeleteWork cited
Nichols, Introduction to Documentary, second edition.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125423/criticreviews
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/movies/5-broken-cameras-shows-life-in-one-palestinian-village.html?_r=0
My view of the film: The film is extremely enjoyable. When I watched it, I felt very sad due to the violent acts of Israeli Soldiers. Since the documentary depicts the army as evil honestly, I cannot stop feeling sympathetic to them because this is injustice. The way that Emad uses observational mode definitely benefits the results of the film. Observational mode is a way to shoot documentary with “no voice-over commentary, no supplementary music or sound effects, no inter-titles, no historical reenactments, no behavior repeated […], and not even any interviews.” (Nichols, 172-173) That aims to show the original perspective of the cameraman and how he views the events. In the film, we can experience how it works. Using this perspective, I can have a more intimate experience with the protest and become more emotional. Also, it can enhance the authenticity of it since it gives a feeling that it is without any editing and audiences can have the raw materials of the event. Disregarding the fact that Emad films an incredible documentary that can raise people awareness of the struggle between Israel and Palestine, the inauthenticity of the film should be bashed since documentary should serve to display the truth of our world. The film fails to display a fair perspective of the event, which could make people believe that Israeli soldiers did everything wrong and Palestinian is justice. However, the fact is that it is not true. Palestinian also did something wrong. They attacked the soldiers even after the warning of the soldiers. Therefore, I think this documentary is not a perfect one since it fails to portray a fair perspective of the story. Despite it may not be a perfect documentary, the story is still very sad. As we can see, Emad’s son asks his father why he does not stab the soldier after his friend is dead. That is a shocking moment when I saw this. Children are supposed to enjoy a happy and innocent life, but the children in Palestine are not that lucky. They already become mature when they are very young and all they learn about is war and violence. Overall, I think this is still a depressing story that should make people think the effects of war.
ReplyDeleteCOMM 103D Documentary History and Theory
ReplyDelete4th Film Review
Reviewer: Lian Liu
Film: 5 broken cameras 2011
Director: Emad Burnat, Guy Davidi
Other cast and crew details: Emad Burnat is the cameraman and the director. His wife Soraya Burnat, and his four sons, Mohammed, Yasin, Taky-adin, Gibreel. This film was developed through Greenhouse- a Euromed Audiovisual Project. A co-production of Alegria Productions, Burnat Films Palstine, guy DVD Films. With the participateon of France Televisions and Noga communications(Channel 8 Ikon).
Location:Bil’in & Israel
Awards: The film won the Golden Apricot at the 2012 Yerevan International Film Festival, for Best Documentary Film, the Van Leer Group Foundation Award for Best Israeli Documentary at the Jerusalem Film Festival in 2012, and the Busan Cinephile Award at the Pusan International Film Festival in 2012. It was nominated for Best Documentary Feature at the 85th Academy Awards Nominated for Best Documentary Feature in the 85th Academy Awards, and for the Asia Pacific Screen Award for Best Documentary of 2012.
Synopsis: This documentary movie is about how the people in Bil’in against the Israeli army for their homeland and recode the cameraman’s fourth son’s childhood at the same time. However, Israeli settlers begin to take up the land and build the separateon barrier in the middle of their land. However, Israeli settlers begin to take up the land and build the separation barrier in the middle of their land. The Israeli surveyors come to put the barrier, and at the same day his fourth son is born, that’s why Emad Burnat start to film this documentary. Emad also introduces this incident’s history. Each son’s birth represents a different period. The first boy was born in 1995, in his childhood, things were more open; second son was born in 1998, in a time of uncertainty. The third son was born in 2000 as the intifada began. The Israeli settlers take more and more land from the surrounding villages after they build the barrier. That’s why the people in Bil’in, they begin to organize demonstrations with Israeli activists joining them, and then they decide that every Friday, they try to get to that land and protest. Also people from all over the world join their resistance to support them. The Israeli army killed many people when they repress the demonstration even killed two kids. And during the time, Emad film everything happened, he almost got killed couple times and he lost 5 cameras that were broken by the attack. After 5 years of pressure from the people, the court’s decision begins to be implemented, the barrier is dismantled. And some lands will be returned to the owners, but Bil’in continues to resist the new wall.
ReplyDeleteOther positions about the film: According to the Wikipedia, this film received positive reviews from numerous critics. It has a fresh rating of 95%, based on 39 reviews at Rottentomatoes.com. A.O. Scott of The New York Times while stating that the film was “unlikely to persuade anyone with a hardened view of the issue to think again” and was a “hardly neutral...piece of advocacy journalism,” also said that it was a "visual essay in autobiography and, as such, a modest, rigorous and moving work of art" that deserved "to be appreciated for the lyrical delicacy of Burnat's voice and the precision of his eye." It also won the World Cinema Directing Award at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. The film also received the Special Broadcaster IDFA Audience Award and the Special Jury Award at the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam in 2011.
DeleteThe film won the Golden Apricot at the 2012 Yerevan International Film Festival, for Best Documentary Film, the Van Leer Group Foundation Award for Best Israeli Documentary at the Jerusalem Film Festival in 2012, and the Busan Cinephile Award at the Pusan International Film Festival in 2012. It was nominated for Best Documentary Feature at the 85th Academy Awards Nominated for Best Documentary Feature in the 85th Academy Awards, and for the Asia Pacific Screen Award for Best Documentary of 2012.
My view of the film: I was shocked by the first chaotic scene, he began to talk about how his life in Bil’in is. It is shocked to know about how the people in Bil’in flight for their lives and homeland. What is the most important thing for peasants? It’s the land. No one allows others would take his/her homeland. That’s why the people decide to organize demonstrations. When I watched the scene about Emad’s wife was hanging the clothes, the army came into the village and the gun shot sound was everywhere, but she didn’t have any overreact. It seems like people already used to the life full of gunshot and intifada. While I watch this film, I always wonder how can Emad films all of this when his friends got attack in front of him until he says, “ I film my brother Khaled’s arrest, I keep thinking ‘what should I do’. I have to believe that capturing these images will have some meanings.” After this, I realize that someone have to be clam and capture everything to let the world knows what going on is in Bil’in. I feel so angry the soldiers still attack the protestors even see the protestors hold the olive branch. Olive branch is supposed to be the symbol of peace. And the Israeli repression got worse to the Bil’in citizen. They come to the village in the night to arrest children in order to stop the demonstration. And the tear gas grenade the soldiers using to repress the protestors is hurting the children’s health day by day. The worst thing is two children were killed in the demonstration. After this, the Israel’s government decides to dismantle a section of barrier. It is the first success. I believe that Emad is very brave to drive the truck crush into the barrier, he lose consciousness for 20 days. Even though the barriers is removed finally, but the land will always bear the scars. I feel so sad about this. I have not much knowledge about the history between Israel and Pakistan, but I think it is very necessary to let the whole world know what happened in there, and get more support to help the Bil’in people to get their land back and have a stable life.
Delete