Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Group Update Fun
Filming is finished! hooray! - As I write this our video is being put onto Jake's hard drive. Today our group will be figuring out a time to meet and begin the editing process, including adding any voiceovers or titles we might need and picking music.
mmm, tv....
Somehow breaks always seem to be anything but breaks, but I of course managed to find time for some good tv watching. The only show I actually watch these days is Grey's Anatomy. (I fear 'I Love New York' is the end of us all) Grey's is at least a top ten show and nearly everyone I know watches it too. I had to laugh when I tried to compare it with Meyrowitz's ideas really. The thing with any show that has a technical aspect to it (like CSI), is that people start to think they know what they're talking about.
I cannot totally agree that television is this wonderful tool for sharing knowledge and experiences - it's not. As soon as I saw that the movie Blood Diamond was coming out, I cringed. All I could think was how many people would be spouting half-formed theories and incorrect facts over their dinner tables while never really learning anything about the real problems that face real people an ocean away.
And then I had another thought. You see, in my opinion, TV is full of keywords. If you hear a fact from TV, you should use that as a measure of how much you DON'T know, not 'ooh look I now know one fact about Africa'. Without proper follow up TV just makes people Think they're knowledgeable - very dangerous.
Then there's the flipside: without TV, a lot of people wouldnt even know One fact about Africa, or whatever the case may be. I guess the straightest line I can take is that TV is a good tool, but you have to use it as a tool to create something worthwhile, otherwise its just a boobtube.
I cannot totally agree that television is this wonderful tool for sharing knowledge and experiences - it's not. As soon as I saw that the movie Blood Diamond was coming out, I cringed. All I could think was how many people would be spouting half-formed theories and incorrect facts over their dinner tables while never really learning anything about the real problems that face real people an ocean away.
And then I had another thought. You see, in my opinion, TV is full of keywords. If you hear a fact from TV, you should use that as a measure of how much you DON'T know, not 'ooh look I now know one fact about Africa'. Without proper follow up TV just makes people Think they're knowledgeable - very dangerous.
Then there's the flipside: without TV, a lot of people wouldnt even know One fact about Africa, or whatever the case may be. I guess the straightest line I can take is that TV is a good tool, but you have to use it as a tool to create something worthwhile, otherwise its just a boobtube.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Last Emperor
This excellent movie tells the story of China's last emperor, Pu Yi, from his own fascinating and rarely told point of view. This is the only place that I've found the story told from inside the Forbidden City.
We see Pu Yi as he grows up with the idea that he is god on earth, and how he must adapt to the responsibilities that also come with being a ruler.
The movie heats up when his whole world, indeed all of China, is thrown into revolution. Pu Yi finally learns of life outside of the palace in the hardest way. He is forced to abdicate.
Quite apart from his decadent lifestyle in the first have of the movie, we now watch his decline, from being exploited by the invading Japanese into a puppet ruler, to a Chinese jail where he is forced to prove his allegiance to the new rule. Finally he is reduced to what could only be acceptable to red China, an ordinary peasant, obscure and silent about his past.
The film is more entertaining that historical, and rightly so. It would be remiss not to focus on the emotions involved in such an exciting, and sometimes jarring, life journey like that of Pu Yi's.
We see Pu Yi as he grows up with the idea that he is god on earth, and how he must adapt to the responsibilities that also come with being a ruler.
The movie heats up when his whole world, indeed all of China, is thrown into revolution. Pu Yi finally learns of life outside of the palace in the hardest way. He is forced to abdicate.
Quite apart from his decadent lifestyle in the first have of the movie, we now watch his decline, from being exploited by the invading Japanese into a puppet ruler, to a Chinese jail where he is forced to prove his allegiance to the new rule. Finally he is reduced to what could only be acceptable to red China, an ordinary peasant, obscure and silent about his past.
The film is more entertaining that historical, and rightly so. It would be remiss not to focus on the emotions involved in such an exciting, and sometimes jarring, life journey like that of Pu Yi's.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Philo. T. Farnsworth
Before watching the documentary I'd never thought much about Philo T. Farnsworth. I had known that he was the inventor of television, but I figured the only use for that nugget would be in case I ever get on Jeopardy. I was really surprised by what i learned watching the show.
Philo was a smalltown guy who happened to be a genius. He realized his dream rather early and bent all his energy toward making it a reality. The show did a good job of showing how this project was really his entire life - there was a good story of him leaving his wife on his wedding night just to go and mess with his television. It made what happened next all the more tragic.
After scrounging for investors and working himself into the ground trying to complete it on time...Philo finally got the machine to work. And then came the patent wars. The large company he was working with, RCA, decided it would be much easier on their bottom line to not have to pay this smalltown tinkerer for his great invention. It didn't much matter whether he was white or educated or not so long as money was involved. They tried to take control of the idea from Farnsworth and it wasn't until a great legal battle and most of his resources were spent that he was able to gain a patent.
Finally, commercial television was banned. It was decided that the technology should only be used for military purposes, and soon Farnsworth's patent was up. In the end, he had turned to alcohol to ebb the stress and finally died, a much changed man. This film was a great testament to the struggle of the little guy, and the hard truth of just how much power the gatekeepers have.
Philo was a smalltown guy who happened to be a genius. He realized his dream rather early and bent all his energy toward making it a reality. The show did a good job of showing how this project was really his entire life - there was a good story of him leaving his wife on his wedding night just to go and mess with his television. It made what happened next all the more tragic.
After scrounging for investors and working himself into the ground trying to complete it on time...Philo finally got the machine to work. And then came the patent wars. The large company he was working with, RCA, decided it would be much easier on their bottom line to not have to pay this smalltown tinkerer for his great invention. It didn't much matter whether he was white or educated or not so long as money was involved. They tried to take control of the idea from Farnsworth and it wasn't until a great legal battle and most of his resources were spent that he was able to gain a patent.
Finally, commercial television was banned. It was decided that the technology should only be used for military purposes, and soon Farnsworth's patent was up. In the end, he had turned to alcohol to ebb the stress and finally died, a much changed man. This film was a great testament to the struggle of the little guy, and the hard truth of just how much power the gatekeepers have.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
News>Docs:
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)