In discussing the various approaches that can be used in putting together a documetary (open vs. closed, information vs. revelation, etc.), we watched excerpts from the following films (complete with links to more information about each):American Revolution 2
Inquiring Nuns
Hearts and Minds
LBJ
Please write at least one to two paragraphs detailing which one of these films interested you the most. Identify its approach and explain why you found the method the director chose so effective. Feel free to compare and contrast with the other three films to better support your point.
Your response should be posted no later than noon on Monday, February 9th.
11 comments:
Hearts and Minds stuck with me more so than the others. It seemed to be more of a complete documentary, and technically superior to most narrative films. While American Revolution 2 allowed captivating footage to speak for itself, and Inquiring nuns took an interesting perspective on simple interviews, Hearts and Minds combined the two and wove them in periodically, keeping these devices fresh. LBJ held nothing back in the way of propaganda, delivering a bold message shamelessly. I respected the passion, but it was also off-putting. Hearts and minds seemed to sneak in Davis' point of view without beating us over the head. The issue on which is more morally sound is up for debate.
Hearts and Minds also displayed superior technical achievements which helps to break the stigma that all documentaries are shot by a coke-head on a Handicam. Attention to visual and audio aesthetic acts almost in a hypnotic way, allowing total immersion into a reality created by Davis.
I like the American Revolution 2 the most. One because of the style and two, I, at times consider myself a revolutionist. I like how they just turned on the camera and let things happen. They didn't force or interview. They just let things naturlly come about. I also liked LBJ too, but it was all over the place and kind of wild. The other two I barely remember.
But the revolution stuck to me. I would like to shoot like that one day. I would want things to appear as they really are rather than trying to get something out of it. If it is necessary, an interview will have to come out.If there is natural chaos and confusion I like it like that.
The documentary I enjoyed most was ‘Inquiring Nuns.’ I think that considering the topic, the method chosen was most effective and it really drew me in. I had a good feeling I would enjoy it from the very beginning when the nuns were just sitting in the car with the directors discussing how the street interviews would be played out and what was expected of them. I thought it was very honest. We were able to hear from the directors themselves that they weren’t searching for or probing in order to get any particular response, they just really wanted to know what people had to say. The nuns were such likeable characters, genuine and curious, and once they hit the street they seemed to be really empathetic with the people they came across. There was no judgment. The characters were so real and I wanted to keep hearing more of what they had to say. Without necessarily meaning to, they became intriguing and insightful… it’s such a simple question, and I think it means so much to a person when someone finally just takes the time to ask what you think and how you feel on any particular day.
I liked the minimal editing, and I even liked when a cameraman would pan from the nuns to the person on the street and do a quick zoom-in and make focus adjustments mid-sentence. Both aspects made it feel really authentic. I felt I had freedom while watching ‘Inquiring Nuns’ that I didn’t get from watching the other documentaries. I was able to determine my views for myself and make my own conclusions. ‘Titticut Follies’ would be closest in method to ‘Inquiring Nuns’ but I definitely enjoyed the content of this one a whole lot more. I was extremely turned off by ‘LBJ’ especially. It was very close-ended and I was unable to feel for myself. I was shown an image with very strong music blaring in the background, swaying me to feel a certain way, and then bombarded with “random” images to really drill that emotion in further. It was like watching mind-numbing propaganda, and I didn’t have the control to turn it off.
The film that interested me the most, by far, was Alvarez's LBJ. From the second the film began I was hooked; eyes super-glued to the screen. At first, due to my lack of knowledge of History, there was no point to the film. It was simply intriguing, provoking useless thoughts.
However, after reading the link provided on the blog and watching some YouTube clips of Alvarez's other work, I could apply the film to the "social changes" at that time. In the category of political propaganda I found the film to be supremely effective.
LBJ has a defined socialist message. In order to get this message across, Alvarez's presence in the film is constant and required.
I was really intrigued by "Inquiring Nuns" because of their approach and the kind of questions they were asking on the street. This documentary took a very philosophical approach to interviewing people and I really enjoyed hearing the responses. After watching these films I find myself being captivated by the creativity involved in documentary filmmaking.
I really enjoyed "LBJ" and "Inquiring Nuns" because both films provided a very strong message and went about showing that message in very unusual, creative ways. I thought it was very strange to see two nuns walking down the streets of Chicago and approaching random people to see if they were "happy." I never would have imagined doing something like that which is why I think I loved it so much. I wasn't as intrigued by "American Revolution 2" and "Hearts and Minds" because they just seemed to be generic historical documentaries. They didn't try new and exciting methods to convey a message, they simply provided you with the facts. I feel that anyone can just grab a camera and film everyday life but it takes a special type of person to take on a creative artistic approach when making a documentary.
My favorite documentary shown last week was "Inquiring Nuns." I feel this was my favorite documentary because it was something so simply, anyone in the streets can do. I would like to see how different it would be if it was nuns asking the same questions today? Or possibly in other parts of the world, such as in Europe or Asia. I feel by giving the nuns the power to ask the questions, giving the mic, and giving them the power to "go with the flow," it makes the documentary even more interesting and unique.
I thought it was funny when one of the nuns did not want to hold the mic, because she was scared of this "new technology" and was afraid she would mess up.
I found the objectivity of 'Inquiring nuns' alluring. It was obvious to me that neither the nuns or the film makers had a direction they were attempting to steer the documentary in, that it was more of an open experiment which I found to be highly successful. The responses and interactions with the nuns were authentically funny, and I like that the documentary had central characters and followed a single story line. Some of the other documentaries we watched in class were too all over the place and had so many characters that I could see how it would be harder to capture and maintain an audience's interest.
'Inquiring Nuns' also gave us insight to a historical period of time. Instead of directly focusing on the war, it gave us peoples responses to it. The two people who were in a band talked about how they would be happier to not be in war. It was interesting to see what representations of the time period leaked through the lens depending on the people the nuns interviewed. I think the best thing about the film is that it was entirely focused on an eternal, personal, and imperative aspect of life that is rarely regarded in documentaries- the simple notion of happiness.
I think I liked the Hearts and Mind film the best. To me, this is made using a typical (and tried and true) documentary format, and it just seems to work for me better than the others. We're given a lot of information, and we're allowed to paint our own picture of the subject, in this case the Viet Nam War. Of course, this style often leads the viewer to a conclusion, but not nearly as much as something like LBJ. We're still left with room to interpret the subject.
Inquiring Nuns was great. The best of the bunch in my opinion. Nothing to flashy or fancy in the stylistic aspect, yet it demonstrated some pretty deep social issues. The core content of the films substance is what drives it to excellence in my opinion, and the choice to lack distinct style is as important as the choice to add it, in films such as LBJ for example. Plus those nuns were pretty cute.
I learned something about style and what it can look like from each one of these films. This goes on to raise more questions for me and my personal aethestic. Would I be able to trust my idea enough to just go for it like in Inquiring Nuns or would I need a structured direction like in Hearts and Minds? This is something I need to discover about myself. How much control do I feel I need over my subject? As far as an immediate connection I would have to go with LBJ. I didn't feel like that the production of that film was all that radical. If there was a voice over instead of that dramatic music I think people would have found the images far more comfortable.
I cannot truly say that one of these films interested me much more than any other. I found them all to be extremly interesting but the style that I connected with the most would have to be that of American Revolution 2. As we talked about in class, what I found so interesting about the film is that it was not planned, they did not know what was going to happen, but they felt that something worth documenting was going to occur. I also felt that it was so effective because it was mostly just what happened, there was very little intervention from the director aside from where the camera was and where there were cuts.
Post a Comment