Documentary, the means of presenting

I feel I must say something about those poetic artisans. They are so interesting. Each of them is a combination of paradoxes. They are such amusing cranks that they design and present their brilliant thoughts and emotions with sincerest intention while in a most confusing way. Let’s take a look of some examples mentioned in the article:

If Laszlo Moholy’s Play of Light: Black, White, Grey (1930) (http://youtu.be/e0x730uP2yI) is an innocent piece filled with boyish naughty, then Thompson’s N.Y., N.Y.( http://youtu.be/ztxuCv5-4D4), it’s even difficult for me to find a proper word to describe. If there’s a word in English that can ever represent that there’s a person with a hole inside his brain, that’s it. Although I found that piece was surprisingly acceptable and entertaining to me, I could prevent myself from shaking my heads with laughs during the process. If we set B,W,G as a ‘romantic’, ‘gentle’ and ‘soft’ visual poetry, then Thompson’s N.Y.,N.Y is definitely strange, imaginary and with signs of mental/physical disorder, either brain or eye problem. This group of people is so amazingly awkward that they refuse to answer, deny the coherence and destroy the normal boundary of our daily world honestly and sincerely.

Well, let’s back to our common world.

Other types of documentary pay obviously much more attention on answering questions and making sense of one object, which seem more comfortable to me. I believe that ART do is needed by our society because it’s one of the most powerful means we have to present as well as observe. It opens a chance for public to pull their blinded and limited focus and attention to something important or valuable according to artisans. In this sense, artisans are also social reformers, since there do have lots of gaps in our society to take care, like distinguish in wealth, marginal groups, inequality, environment…

Here are three good examples I love:

A touch of sin(2013)

Microcosmos(1996)

The cove(2009)

Intro to Documentary Response

Documentary, as a genre, is a simple enough concept to grasp. But the way in which a story is documented is no different in this genre than when it is being created from scratch. The variety of methods available when recording actual event have a profound effect on how they are viewed by the audience. For instance, a simple and short documentary, Toxic Toys looks at a small business dealing with a problem in their industry that put their customers at risk. The set up is simple, with only one interview, in the store, merchandise surrounding the speaker. The close, personal nature helps create this atmosphere of trust. Most documentaries include these interviews, they are the bread and butter of news stations that go to the streets and catch action as it's happening, but it is still just one way in which a documentary is made. In the internet savvy, graphic art inspired modern world, a different approach might be more fitting. The Innovation of Loneliness addresses the effects of our social media consumed world in a way those consumed with social media would be drawn to. The target audience is likely to respond more favorably to the bright colors and fun infographics that older viewers who would take less interest in the subject to begin with. I just find it completely astounding the manner in which the  least 'Hollywood' genre in film can still be glamorous and tell a damn good story. That being said, documentaries that try to take on Hollywood are in a different grouping entirely. March of the for Penguins, for example, take a big name narrator and presents the lives of these arctic birds so melodramatically as to be somewhat of drama. Compare this to the much less popular documentaries not released nationwide in theaters where there lacks this overt attempt to depict the animals as if they were characters on a primetime tv show vying for love and riches. I think from this more commercial form blossomed mockumentaries which have the great aspects of both words while allowing for greater creativity of the filmmakers' part.  

Introduction to Documentary

I love documentaries.  They truly sparked my interest in film, and I value the ability to display a real story or event in an interesting and visually stimulating way.  I've never heard of the different types of documentaries, but I feel like I could've similarly separated them before.  I definitely find that expository, participatory, and observatory style of documentaries to be most popular and available today.

For example, many expository documentaries have been labeled "shockumentaries".  The main point of these is to make people aware of an issue, but usually with a certain bias or persuasion in mind.  Criticism stems from the use of documentary as a medium to make people feel bad or guilty about a certain issue.  Sometimes, like in Food, Inc., fear is instilled in the viewer.  In one scene, a woman who owns a chicken house shows us her chickens, and then we are shown a montage of unhealthy, dying, and dead chickens.  In this scene, very sad music plays, which aims to trigger the emotions of the viewer.  Though these films can sometimes exaggerate the images, they don't hide from the fact that they are biased.  They are filmed with the intent of getting people to think a certain way, and as long as the viewer knows that, they can have a more objective viewing experience.  I find the film Waiting for Superman, a documentary about the poor education system in the US, a more universal film that anyone can understand and advocate for.  Unlike Food, Inc. where many people may feel they can't relate, it shows a glaring problem that affects every child, and involves less personal opinion from the viewer.

Further, I find a relatively new TV show, Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown, a perfect combination of participatory and observatory.  Chef Anthony Bourdain travels the world and shows the food and cultures of certain areas.  It's participatory in that he has discussions with other chefs, and sometimes goes into their kitchens and immerses himself in the culture in the time that he's there.  It's observatory because we see many images of people cooking and food being prepared, as well as random people going about their daily life in whatever city they're in.  I love this so much because the images are beautiful, which is sometimes rare for documentaries on TV.  Because of this, and the combination of participation and observation, the show is simply beautiful to watch, but is still informative and interesting.
Parts Unknown Clip

Response to Introduction to Documentary

                I read this same excerpt for a class last semester and I’m reminded over and over again that while there can be distinguished six different modes of documentary, they are very rarely independent of one another. That is, almost all documentaries combine modes to tell their story. I’m a little wary of documentary just because it is very easy to skew a situation to fit your own intent in portraying it and somehow it feels dishonest. This is the main criticism levelled against Michael Moore, for example, regarding his film Bowling for Columbine. This documentary explores the extent of gun violence in America and the reasons behind it, as well as trying to come up with solutions for it; as the name of the film indicates, the main tragedy that it focuses on is the shooting at Columbine High School. The reason this movie is criticized as being biased is Moore’s treatment of Charlton Heston, the then-president of the NRA. In a scene where Moore goes to his house and interviews him, it doesn’t seem like Heston had given consent, and Moore then suggests that Heston is upset because he is defensive of his actions (namely, still being pro-gun even after the shootings). There is little acknowledgment that Heston is old, possibly senile, and uncomfortable with a filmmaker coming to his home. This is not to say that Heston is entirely guiltless, of course – but painting all pro-gun people as evil isn’t exactly fair either.

                Most documentaries that I’ve seen have fallen under the general category of expository/participatory mode – that is, there is a voice-of-god or voice-of-authority narration with images that “illustrate, illuminate, evoke, or act in counterpoint to what is said” (107). For example: Bowling for Columbine, Food, Inc., and Blackfish. Another mode of documentary that I find fascinating, however, is the reflexive documentary. One that comes to mind is another film we watched in the same class last semester, the 1989 short film Ilha das Flores (Isle of Flowers), directed by Jorge Furtado. The film tracks the story of a tomato from the farm to someone’s house. What I found really interesting about Ilha das Flores is that it makes political commentary but in a very roundabout way, precisely because it flouts the conventions of most documentaries that make social commentary. The film comments on the poverty of the families living on the Isle of Flowers – they are so poor that their food comes from the rejected pig food, which is literally garbage from nearby areas. But it does so by talking about, for example, the biology of human beings, the meaning of a “second”, the making of perfume, and other seemingly unrelated things that come together to define “freedom”, juxtaposed with shots of garbagemen and a landfill. I think Ilha das Flores makes much more striking commentary on poverty because of its seeming lack of direction, because the unstructured-ness of it suggests a sort of authenticity that somehow, films like Bowling for Columbine don’t.

Response to Intro to documentary by Harris

Before I read the article, I always think that documentary is just a video or film that chronicle what’s happen around us like those TV programs in Discovery channel. However, Introduction to documentary gave me a comprehensive introduction of what is documentary by breaking it down into six different genres.

One interesting knowledge I gain from reading this article is that documentary could be bias, which totally contracted to what I used to perceive documentary as media that maintain objectivity. But this article made me redefine how documentary could be, to some degree, manipulate by filmmaker base on his/her opinion.

On the other hand the documentary can observational but at the same time, it could be editing and arrange in a specific pattern to help reinforce, or directing the audience on a subconscious level.

SAMSARA food sequence is an example of how filmmaker manipulating the shots and arrangement of the video to convey his/her opinion or message to audience. The concept of the video is simply to depict the process of harvesting food, processing food, distributing food, however the shot and the music that the filmmaker choose at the first part of the video make me feel disturbing and the ironic ending scene illustrate filmmaker position or attitude throughout the whole piece . This kind of documentary is my favorite, it not only add a knowledge to our stockpile, but also enriched our perspectives by bring it up an issue and share it with the audience.

Objectivity in Documentary

I think that the ideas that the author raises about intervention in an observational documentary setting are particularly interesting. When does the filmmaker have the responsibility to intervene? I think that this question ties back to larger ideas about relativism, objectivity, and perspective. For example, outrage over lack of intervention generally occurs when the filmmaker fails to interfere with an ethically objectionable act. Yet, the characteristics that define the ethically wrong are not static. They exist in relation to one’s cultural beliefs and priorities. As such, what might seem wrong could be culturally acceptable to someone else, especially depending on the context of the documentary. In this case, it would be somewhat ethnocentric and potentially problematic for the filmmaker to intervene. This ties into the idea of objectivity itself. If the role of the documentary filmmaker is to be an objective informant for his/her audience, this implies disengagement. As such, it would seem inappropriate to intervene, as it would change the documentarian from an “objective” bystander to engaged participant. However, the concept of objectivity is flawed. There is no such thing as singular objectivity—this is apparent in the examples of all of the documentary forms that the author discusses. Truth is malleable, truth is subjective.

The documentary The Act of Killing directed by Joshua Oppenheimer is one of the best I’ve seen at working with the subjectivity of truth. The film follows the right-wing paramilitary/”military hero” leaders of Indonesia. They gained control of the country following a military coup and a genocidal reign of terror. Once in control, they changed the historical narrative to fit their own priorities and benefit their regime. The filmmakers challenge these warlords to recreate the scenes of the killings in certain styles (Western, Gangster, etc.) In doing so, “the filmmaking process catalyzes an unexpected emotional journey for Anwar, from arrogance to regret as he confronts, for the first time in his life, the full implications of what he’s done.” 

Introduction to Documentary Post

In the article "Introduction to Documentary," the French film Chronicle of a Summer is mentioned numerous times. The documentary focuses on the personal accounts of various Parisians during one summer. I agree with the article that this film is a great example of the observational mode. The film contains numerous scenes where the camera simply observes conversations had by the Parisian individuals or actions conducted by the Parisian individuals. Here is an excerpt from the film that perfectly exemplifies the observational aspect of the film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpxVtFQgS4o Yet, Chloe brings up a relevant point as well. It seems difficult to neatly isolate documentaries into a single mode. The article even places Chronicle of a Summer in both the observational and participatory sections. In relation to Chronicle of a Summer, a voice over is used to tell one of the Parisian's story as she walks around the city. Another instance where Chronicle of a Summer breaks observational documentary convention is towards the end of the film. In one of the final sequences, all of the featured Parisians are gathered in a theater as the two directors screen their footage. In this sequence, the two directors are shown asking the Parisians questions. It is my understanding that interviews or question-based conversations are not a part of the observational mode, yet this aspect of the film seems to necessary for the directors to be able to successfully convey their message. Chronicle of a Summer can be seen in its entirety on Hulu. I highly recommend watching it. The documentary is a great look into the ever day lives of typical Parisians in the 1960s and what they think of social issues of the time. Another documentary that I recommend watching is Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. The reason I suggest watching Bowling for Columbine is because of the intense contrast it creates in comparison to Chronicle of a Summer. Moore's film is much more direct and aggressive in the telling of its message, which greatly contrasts the more relaxed, quiet nature of the French film, yet both can be classified as participatory documentaries. Moore's film also defines any rigid classifications of documentaries because he strongly employs "the voice-of-[G-d]" aspect of the expository mode. Here is a link to the entire film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XORCYavjhk0.

Reading Response to "Intro to Documentary"

The word "documentary" was first applied to films of this nature in a review of Robert Flaherty's film Moana, published in the New York Sun on 8 February 1926 and written by "The Moviegoer", a pen name for documentarian John Grierson. Documentaries seem to have a certain obligation towards "truth." Nowadays, when people are asked what “documentary” is, they always say "It is a type of film that is based on the real world and real people, depicting things as they are or telling about historical events in a supposedly truthful or objective manner.” No single criterion seems to qualify or disqualify a given film. For example, it is often considered that actors belong to fiction films and not to a true documentary. On the other hand there are exceptions that we are ready to accept, such as a TV-documentary using professional actors to re-enact a crime scene in order to make us understand how something may have happened. Indeed it would be immoral to have the real criminal perform another knife stabbing on the real victim - even though that could be said to be more true or closer to the original event. Producing a documentary is a complex craft and just as any other creative endeavor, it demands several layers and a focus on the overall intent. When presenting a great documentary, I think that it’s very important to make sure that the topic isn't something mundane or universally agreed-upon. More intimate documentaries have just as much of an opportunity to resonate with an audience if the story they tell is captivating. As film became a more popular mode of representation, the purpose became not only to record reality, but also to promote certain ideals of what was real, how the world should be viewed, and what social changes were necessary for the good of mankind. The camera was used to explore and analyze events and people, to inquire about meanings, to make the audience question their reality. By using specific techniques to form the production, documentarians can make their footage seem like the absolute truth and control to a large extent how the viewer receives the film.