people in Grizzly Bear Costumes

Herzog's ongoing VO commentary resides somewhere between an intense interest in reality and a (contemporary) concern for intersubjectivity. Through this odd (read: not usual in doc) blend he both challenges the importance of the documentary (form) while still maintaining an interest in the real.

There is a poetic assigning of meaning at every turn, almost ignoring a statement in the middle of the film that Treadwell didn't "realize that seemingly empty moments had a strange, secret beauty." Or, from the last scene of the film: "Out of all the bears we see, only in this one do I not see reflection only the indifference of nature."

ALMA

Ok, so the story in this one is the real draw. But, I wonder if there are discussion points about the film's construction we can forward/ For example, that the film was almost two years in filming and another three in editing (they took there time here) leaves me wondering about the construction of time in the film. That is, there is no real time marker running through the film ("two Christmases later..." sort of thing).

atomic cafe

So, what of it......?

SHERMAN's MARCH

Please feel free to add comments that are inventive, intelligent, thoughtful, and precise.

Don't Look Back

I am hopeful that the discussion about sound, David Bowie, etc didn't seem too far afield today. But, some things to consider for sure.

Here's some space to respond to something about this film.

Purchases create identity, OMG

Ok, this has almost nothing to do with class, but I thought I'd share it anyway.

If you want to know how consumerism, video, and self-identity collide, watch the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yXuruFZyFc

Her identity is a product of her consumer choices. She wants you to know her by her purchases. It's got to be the most self-validating exercise I've witnessed so boldly pronounced since watching this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oaHHrNQVrg

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO22Z0T3qPE

(not the commercial that precedes the video).

Yet, I wonder if the enormity of her presentation doesn't also point to other cultural, social, and economic issues of documenting oneself.

Any thoughts?

the thin Blue Line

All,

What do we make of this film? Go at it.

Be careful over the break; stay in one piece and off the internet.

JR

TITICUT FOLLIES

What sorts of 'readings' can you give to Titicut Follies? Although there's not much story (it's about this place and these people but not in a linear, cause-effect way), there is style. What do you make of this style? Can you imagine choosing such a style for a documentary you are making? What are the shortcomings/advantages?

Grey Gardens

What about a film, like Grey Gardens, that seemingly has narrative without story? That is, there's no attempt at exposition; there's no info needed to unravel the plot; no path to be followed; and, no goal toward which we need orientation.

Vernon, Florida

We will be discussing this film on Tuesday along with the online essay by Alex Gerbaz. Link to that article through the course day-by-day syllabus.

I have a feeling after watching a Morris film that I've watched a fiction film, something with the feeling and narrative features of fiction, a sort of ambiance associated with such. Does it have to do with the Interrotron's "new" way of both suturing me into the film and of revealing its process?

Doc in the age of terror (SOP)

We have discussed many facets of documentary truth and the creation of meaning (which, of course, alters our conception of what truth is). We may have even come to recognize the ultimate impossibility of a totalizing understanding of such a thing as truth. I use "thing" here intentionally as a vague, nebulous, amorphous word since truth is too. Specifically, we noticed how Trihn Mihn-ha points to the complications and slipperiness at the intersection of reality and moving image. To quote Reassemblage regarding the way that film (specifically ethnography) seeks to establish 'meaning' to every sign: "what about the internal commentary that escorts images?" In other words, do images "mean" something from the outside (the critic, theorist, observer), or do images manifest their own logic independent from this outside?

We have not yet talked about the ways that documentary appeals to our genuine desire for 'truth'. That is, although truth may be always already gone when we think we 'have it', our want/need to go after that truth is real and genuine. We want stability, something to fall back on; Higgins' article works from that side of the truth discussion. If Trihn Mihn-ha highlights the fissure between sign and reality, Higgins points to our human desire to bridge the gap between sign and reality. For her, documentary serves a particular purpose here, based no small part on our tradition of putting faith in images.

Give me a BigMac

We can see that SuperSize Me fits squarely in the expository mode: it is overtly argumentative; VO dominates the film; it is directed to the viewer; its editing maintains rhetorical continuity; and, by continually visiting doctors, etc. it aims toward a sense of objective judgment ("the charts don't lie"). Yet, as we will see this week, the film also follows some of the strategies of the interactive mode: the doctors, et al he recruits for the experiment become the textual authority that the editing practices of another film would be (say, inCapturing). The ease of this assignment points to the ultimate lack of necessity of categorizing documentaries into specific modes: we know nothing more about the film by assigning it a mode. Moreover,Supersize Me employs techniques of at least two of the modes.

documentary as a Capturing

I admit to being ambivalent about Capturing the Friedmans.

On one hand the film does a fine job of validating the claim that documentary is more of an "experience" than an "object" (a topic we'll discuss this coming week). We are acutely aware that we are somehow active in piecing together the story. Moreover, we are aware of the film's very conscious (recognizable, not hidden) awareness that it too is putting this enigmatic puzzle together. We can recognize the choices the film has made in framing (the male on the couch) and in editing (intercutting between home video and contemporary footage). I don't mind a film's overt activeness in this manner (see any Errol Morris film, e.g.).

On the other hand (though I am sure there are more than two hands here), the film is frustrating in this very way. For instance, Debbie Nathan, the journalist who looks into false memory/sex abuse cases, is quite intentionally not given the space to develop a linear story. The film consciously stops her narrative telling and moves to another's view so often that it leaves me wanting to hear more from her (actually, she seems the only one able to tell the "whole" of the story). It's as if the film withholds information for its own "artistic/creative/power" benefit.

Thus, I admit I picked this film because of what it exposes about documentary film(-making), more than about what story it tells us.

The True Meaning of Pictures

All,

Ah, the first opportunity to post. Here's my ideas:

The film's ability to present both sides of a debate about the ethics (though the film never uses this word) of a documentary artist, his subject, and the viewer remains with me strongly. That is, the film, even in presenting on a real debate on a real (memorable) subject nonetheless leaves the viewer in the middle (unlike, say, a Michael Moore film, which adamantly takes a side on its subject). The viewer, therefore, still has some contemplation at hand.

Does Shelby Lee Adams's photography exploit those he claims he is merely showing to the world, the world into which he continually reminds the viewer he was born? Remember, the one "holler" dweller who claims she's been "schooled" (ie, went to college) is the only one of them to also claim that the photos are exploitative. In contrast, another (near the end of the film) sees nothing wrong with the types of photos Adams takes, and she presents some pretty clear justifications for such a view. Which is correct? Is either correct? Do their comments expose more about the artistic and viewing processes than necessarily about the validity of their claims?

As you can read from my post here, we are not so much interested whether or not you like the week's film as much as we are in the ways it engages you, the ways it is put together, and the effects that such construction have on the viewing process. Moreover, with a film such as The True Meaning..., we can make argumentative claims about the ways the film is also a document about the tension between artist, subject, and viewer (really, though, this is fodder for discussion with every film).

test

just a test