I think what a documentary is, and i think my group will agree, is a story about a group or even one person with a specific cause behind it. The cause can be funny or serious. The filmmaker's job is to help the viewer decide how the story applies to them, and how they can shift their thinking or their actions to honor the story they've seen. The stories will be directed, but the actual answers of the people being shown should not be planned or scripted.
The appeal of a documentary is that it should be a window to real life, usually a situation that you might not normally get to see, or otherwise know much about. Considering that this is indeed a film, it also has to entertain. Without good editing or some, however loose, form of direction, nobody would care to watch. One of the best ways to prove a point subtly yet powerfully is with music. The images themselves are also powerful, but will look contrived a lot of times if you change colors or backgrounds to look a certain way. Music is the one thing that doesn't technically alter the truth. Everything that the viewer sees is actually the real-world situation. This makes it much harder for the audience to feel that they are being directed.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
new old postings
boy this post was a fun one to track down. . . finally got it on the blog though. . .
With this show, 30 Days, I was already on the look-out for some agenda setting. Morgan Spurlock, the maker of Supersize Me, was the host of the documentary. In it we followed Frank, a legalized immigrant and minuteman, as he agrees to live with a family of illegal immigrants living in the country he works so hard to defend.
I could tell right away that there was very good casting, as Frank was already able to speak Spanish fluently, he was able to communicate with his host family and was able to understand a lot of their customs. There is a strong theme of family in this documentary as we see the mother and how she saves money for her childrens’ Christmas presents and how the daughter is trying to get admitted into college. Frank is finally persuaded to take a trip to Mexico to visit their extended family. Finally being able to see the dilapidated house that they came from makes Frank all the more aware of what a difficult road they have to follow and how much work they have already put in.
I was surprised at just how bad the family’s conditions were in Mexico but at the same time I agree with Frank that I just can’t approve of their coming into the country illegally. I still believe that we have to be able to take care of American’s needs first before we can worry about all the people coming in and illegally taking our jobs. One of the things in the documentary that hit home for me and helped solidify my position is that Frank was coming from the same place but that he was able to become a citizen legally. Another point for me was when the younger daughter was finally able to get into college. This bothered me very much as a college student myself, that she was able to get in without anyone noticing that she’s not even a citizen of this country. Also, she’s most likely receiving aid that could have gone to other Americans.
Overall I did think that this was a good documentary, it did gave illegal immigrants a face and a voice. Now I feel that I can at least sympathize with them, even if I can’t agree with what they’re doing. I think I would give this a B- because I think that it should have followed more families.
With this show, 30 Days, I was already on the look-out for some agenda setting. Morgan Spurlock, the maker of Supersize Me, was the host of the documentary. In it we followed Frank, a legalized immigrant and minuteman, as he agrees to live with a family of illegal immigrants living in the country he works so hard to defend.
I could tell right away that there was very good casting, as Frank was already able to speak Spanish fluently, he was able to communicate with his host family and was able to understand a lot of their customs. There is a strong theme of family in this documentary as we see the mother and how she saves money for her childrens’ Christmas presents and how the daughter is trying to get admitted into college. Frank is finally persuaded to take a trip to Mexico to visit their extended family. Finally being able to see the dilapidated house that they came from makes Frank all the more aware of what a difficult road they have to follow and how much work they have already put in.
I was surprised at just how bad the family’s conditions were in Mexico but at the same time I agree with Frank that I just can’t approve of their coming into the country illegally. I still believe that we have to be able to take care of American’s needs first before we can worry about all the people coming in and illegally taking our jobs. One of the things in the documentary that hit home for me and helped solidify my position is that Frank was coming from the same place but that he was able to become a citizen legally. Another point for me was when the younger daughter was finally able to get into college. This bothered me very much as a college student myself, that she was able to get in without anyone noticing that she’s not even a citizen of this country. Also, she’s most likely receiving aid that could have gone to other Americans.
Overall I did think that this was a good documentary, it did gave illegal immigrants a face and a voice. Now I feel that I can at least sympathize with them, even if I can’t agree with what they’re doing. I think I would give this a B- because I think that it should have followed more families.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
AHA Blogger decided to work!
Trying to figure out what I think about documentary’s usually gets me going in circles. On one hand I think we need them. We have to have people out there that are passionate enough to try to inform people about certain issues. On the other hand I usually end up thinking about the way they’re made, and how contrived some of it is.
You've got tons of people competing and trying to get you to care about Their cause, plus it Is a show, and if you want people to watch it, it has to be entertaining. To stir up the right feelings so many components are added like music and narrators. Good editing can work wonders too.
I think the best documentaries show several stories within the larger picture. That way, even though you know you’re being manipulated, you can at least feel that you have a somewhat larger scope of what is happening as opposed to just tracking one story, like they did in the 30 days episode. While I’m sure there are lots of people in the exact same situation as that family, they certainly were a model family. I think it would have helped to see different families and their different personalities.
Documentaries should give a voice to a cause, showing the people that are directly involved, and showing enough of them so that people don’t just give one face to a whole movement. I think you have to show all the different faces of it, even to embrace some of the nastier sides of a movement if you have to, because people are going to latch on to those and think you’re avoiding them otherwise. If that happens then they’ll completely ignore the good side of things.
So to me a documentary firstly has to be a show. If you present it 100% as something that’s just for a cause, people will probably reject it. People don’t want to be told what to think, they like to be ‘inspired’ to feel a certain way about something. Hopefully that will lead to action. So to me, effective documentaries have to be entertaining and emotional but only in Extremely subtle ways. People are pretty cynical of TV these days. They know a lot more than they used to about the way production works, so I think you’d have to be very careful and keep everything toned down so the viewer doesn’t feel attacked.
You've got tons of people competing and trying to get you to care about Their cause, plus it Is a show, and if you want people to watch it, it has to be entertaining. To stir up the right feelings so many components are added like music and narrators. Good editing can work wonders too.
I think the best documentaries show several stories within the larger picture. That way, even though you know you’re being manipulated, you can at least feel that you have a somewhat larger scope of what is happening as opposed to just tracking one story, like they did in the 30 days episode. While I’m sure there are lots of people in the exact same situation as that family, they certainly were a model family. I think it would have helped to see different families and their different personalities.
Documentaries should give a voice to a cause, showing the people that are directly involved, and showing enough of them so that people don’t just give one face to a whole movement. I think you have to show all the different faces of it, even to embrace some of the nastier sides of a movement if you have to, because people are going to latch on to those and think you’re avoiding them otherwise. If that happens then they’ll completely ignore the good side of things.
So to me a documentary firstly has to be a show. If you present it 100% as something that’s just for a cause, people will probably reject it. People don’t want to be told what to think, they like to be ‘inspired’ to feel a certain way about something. Hopefully that will lead to action. So to me, effective documentaries have to be entertaining and emotional but only in Extremely subtle ways. People are pretty cynical of TV these days. They know a lot more than they used to about the way production works, so I think you’d have to be very careful and keep everything toned down so the viewer doesn’t feel attacked.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
And now, a bit about stereotypes:
I suppose the way I would have to define them would the perception I have about any person or group that I have made without having had much contact with them or with anyone else knowledgeable about them. Lippman says, and quite rightly, “ we define first, then see. ” ….and he’s right. I think in a lot of cases, people just have to have some sort of opinion.
People know that a lot of the images they’re being fed aren’t entirely accurate, but maybe if they cobble together some views from a few sources they like, (or maybe just the ones with the best PR) then they can probably conjure up a semi-factual opinion. The pictures in our heads are fueled by a million different influences and it gets very difficult to even know which ones we are playing off of. Maybe something I saw when I was little that I didn’t understand at the time, I later tried to explain by fitting it into the stereotypes I’ve learned from TV, friends, magazines and God knows what else. After some time I would probably begin to explain the story as though that’s actually what happened. We can write and re-write our memories all over again with our changing influences and that’s a rather scary thing in my opinion.
Minds are interesting places. I’m fairly sure my brain must be leaking something after thinking about all of this. I’m off.
People know that a lot of the images they’re being fed aren’t entirely accurate, but maybe if they cobble together some views from a few sources they like, (or maybe just the ones with the best PR) then they can probably conjure up a semi-factual opinion. The pictures in our heads are fueled by a million different influences and it gets very difficult to even know which ones we are playing off of. Maybe something I saw when I was little that I didn’t understand at the time, I later tried to explain by fitting it into the stereotypes I’ve learned from TV, friends, magazines and God knows what else. After some time I would probably begin to explain the story as though that’s actually what happened. We can write and re-write our memories all over again with our changing influences and that’s a rather scary thing in my opinion.
Minds are interesting places. I’m fairly sure my brain must be leaking something after thinking about all of this. I’m off.
Why, it's a new blog! and on globalization no less....
Well as I’ve mentioned before…I really love TV, but as I’ve blown waaay more money on Apple products, I’d rather talk about them. After reading Hanson, the first thing that popped into my head was globalization. I love podcasts every bit as much as the tv, and here especially it is easy to see how quickly you can find styles of music and different news broadcasts from all over the world. Any person anywhere with the minimal equipment required could create their own podcast for the world to see. This does make the world a smaller place. And it is interesting to hear what so many different people have to say, but in some ways I can't help but wonder how many things are filtered out. Maybe in the easiest way, how many brilliant talks are simply not listened to because they have a terrible voice or a pathetic podcast picture.
It seems to me personally that globalization is great for those that would just draw from it. But to actually get involved in one of these projects makes you realize just how much more competition you have to be heard. And the winner of any of these competitions is often those with the best PR.
It seems to me personally that globalization is great for those that would just draw from it. But to actually get involved in one of these projects makes you realize just how much more competition you have to be heard. And the winner of any of these competitions is often those with the best PR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)