In class, we watched the beginnings of The Fog of War and Zoo. Based on these introductions, which film would you want to see more of? Would you want to see both? Neither? Why?Please post a thoughtful response explaining the reasons behind your decision. Include in your post if/how considerations of subject and technique, etc. factor in. Feel free to compare and contrast the two films, thematically and aesthetically. Think about the ways in which they are similar and different.
9 comments:
This is a re-enactment? Someone died? People do these things outside the realm of demented pornography? Zoo brings up too many questions to just let it slide after watching 15 minutes. The story is haunting, compelling, dream-like. The images are memorable, easy on the eyes. I would definitely see more of this film, even if the subject matter is graphic/disturbing.
Maybe that's just the stigma talking though. I felt that I learned about the film more through articles about it than from the film itself. The words seemed to hit very hard, but the images were compassionate, and I felt as if the filmmakers had a genuine empathy to these people.
Also I've seen Fog of War a couple times. Phillip Glass gets under my skin after a while.
I was enjoying Fog of War from what I'd seen. I could have continued watching it. Honestly four days later I can't remember much about what aesthetically appealed to me but it kept my attention. The subject was interesting and I thought it had a solid structure--I liked how the interview was cut and how the sound bytes were used for the narrative, because that's not always easy to do. Maybe it was Robert McNamara's eloquence and rhetoric, or it was solid editing. I liked the opening when the man at the podium was making sure the cameras were ready for him to begin-it felt honest, like the Inquiring Nuns, even it it was archival footage.
I was intrigued by the dancing light on the screen at the beginning of Zoo, it was sort of entrancing. From what I remember it had a pretty visual aspect. But I'll be honest, I found myself drifting in and out during this one. I'm not going to blame that on the filmmaking, though, as the room was very dark and that almost always impacts my attention span and puts me out. I would be willing to give it another try, despite the strange subject matter, as I agree with Max that the director seemed sensitive to the characters. I would be interested to see how they approached the topic--since I decided to snooze during this one.
In "The Fog of War," I was alittle confused at first what the movie was about. I guess the only part I remember was when he was in the podium, asking if the press was ready. I guess that's why this movie didn't stick with me, I don't remember much of it. It wasn't appealing to me, and didn't grab my attention the first 10-15 min of it.
However, I definitely remember the second movie, Zoo. It's something so bizarre, so out-of-the-ordinary topic, that it sticks out from the rest. At first, I had no idea what was going on. They don't actually say what the movie is about, but these people's love for their animals. Then, when I saw the girl lay in the field with the horse, at dusk, I thought that was odd. Sleep with a horse? Then things started to piece together. The person behind the doc kindof tried to tell the story without actually saying what it's about. It's kindof a play on words. If you flat-out tell people, this is about love between a human and an animal, they would be disgusted and turned off. However, he takes a not-so-ordinary approach to this subject.
I would like to look more in depth into Zoo. Not only is the subject matter more edgy and intriguing but the way it is presented is what captured me. It seemed to have a smooth and fluid pace but something about the cinematography was astounding. I cant quite put my finger on it because the imagery of the film is fading in my memory as we speak, but i remeber wondering who and how they shot this. It was so clean and sharp, and the textures seemed enhanced. FOr exmaple there was a shot of these people and their horses, thye were laying in the grass in the early morning and i felt like i could feel the mist on my face and the dew on my bare feet. IT was shot remarkably, and that kind of aesthetic quality combined with uneasy subject matter is the recipe for a great film
I would of liked to see Zoo because I have never seen anything like that before. It was an interesting topic and it was a little disturbing, but I would like to know more on the subject and see how the people ended up.
I would also enjoyed Fog of War too because I like movies on War if something went wrong with that War or if there's is information that wasn't mentioned before.
The movie i would like to see more of is The Fog of War. While i really like to the cinematography of Zoo, which was beautifully shot, i was just way more interested in The Fog of War. I would like to see a Zoo at some point, don't get me wrong but i would much rather see The Fog of War. I found the archival footage in Fog of War to be captivating and I thought the narration by Robert McNamara was a fantastic. I also thought the back and forth between McNamara and "the voice behind the camera" was hilarious.
Though the subject matter of these two doc's is very different each film maker approached their characters lives without judgment. Each film dealt with individuals who have led lives in two very controversial ways. With Zoo the characters remain physically anonymous with the entrancing reenactment cinematography, but are clear very open about their deviant behavior. They speak about their lust as though it is something to be admired or romantic and the film maker does nothing to counter that attitude or degrade it. With Fog of War the subject McNamara is presented to the audience in a common Errol Morris style interview. He speaks clear and precisely about his involvement in the Vietnam War but in a way in which he removes responsibility from himself. Honest but elusive. Of the two Zoo enrages me more. I hate how the film maker gives these sick people a vehicle to promote their behavior in a way that makes it seem poetic or loving. Does that makes this a bad documentary? No.
For me this was one of the more dificult questions wh have had so far. I can't really figure out where I stand on these two films. I thought that The Fog of War was interesting (to some extent) but I am getting a little sick of these war films. Not to say I just don't care about what the soldiers go through, but I could really care less about Robert McNamara trying to clear his conscience.
On the other hand, I don't really know how I feel about Zoo either. I enjoyed the way the film looked, but I don't know if I could get past the subject matter enough to enjoy the film. Overall, I guess Zoo is what I would like to watch the remainder of because while disgusting, the mindset behind these individuals is interesting.
To tell you the truth I don't think I would have liked to watch either of them in their entirety. Fog of War seemed like something made for the History channel and the topics brought up in Zoo is just too disgusting for me to think about. The picture on the blog will equally haunt my memory for the rest of the semester.
Fog of War did not capture my attention and I did not find it compelling in any way. The fifteen minutes we saw of the film was just random archival footage and an interview, I was not pulled into the film at any point. I have seen better war docs on Iwo Jima and Pearl Harbor that pulled me in because of the characters interviewed and the balance between archival footage and re-enactments. Fog of War just seems to boring to watch for an entire two hours.
I will give Zoo more credit because I thought the cinematography was fantastic and the characters were introduced in such a way that enticed your curiosity and made it hard to look away. From the clips we saw of the film it was hard to determine it was a film about bestiality until a woman farmer said that her horses had been raped, then I immediately saw the connection and I was afraid to watch any more. If I was forced to watch either one I would pick Zoo because I felt it was the better film. The beautiful landscapes and intriguing characters made it the better film in my opinion.
Post a Comment