Sunday, January 31, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would agree that SuperSize Me falls under the expository mode. However, there are aspects of the film that can place it within other modes. Interactive would be next because the filmmaker puts himself square in the middle of the film. As the guinea pig in his own experiment, the filmmaker becomes a focus point in the film. Along with interviews from doctors strangers, and his girlfriend, the film could easily slide into interactive mode. I would argue that all films including documentary can fit into reflexive mode. In post production the filmmaker has complete control. He or she can edit the film in sequences to portray whatever meaning he or she wants in the actions and words they present in their final cut. So there is a "lack of necessity" for categories because films tend to fall in more than one. Though there is something said about films that don't fall in a category.
ReplyDelete-colin wilson
I can definitely see how Super Size Me fits into two modes, but upon viewing it for the first time on Thursday, I have to say that my first impression of it was definitely of an expository mode. For instance, I felt that the images existed only to advance the argument, as opposed to functioning on their own. Spurlock's voice over certainly helps to place it into this category. However, like Colin above me, I can also see how SSM could be classified as an interactive documentary. Although I'm not sure if the film can definitely fit into one set category, one thing is certain: I did not head over to the McDonald's on Marietta Street to pick up some fries after the screening, as per usual. I suppose that means that Super Size Me was effective, whether expository or interactive!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the two commenters above and Dr. Roberts that the film is in a blend of expository and interactive mode, but I also strongly agree with the last part of Dr. Roberts’s comment “we know nothing more about the film by assigning it a mode”. To me the interesting aspect of documentary films is not the mode, but more of the perception. Most people minus the few have a sense of mistrust going into watching a fiction film, but people seem to lose this sense of mistrust when watching a documentary film. As film students we are taught the art of image and sound manipulation; we understand the impact of adding, taking away or even joining images and sounds together. So we understand that there is always a manipulator behind the scenes. For instance I understand how McDonalds spends millions in advertising to promote it’s brand; they use images of happy children, glamorous toys, and burgers that look juicy and delicious, but in reality when you go to the restaurants all you find are dirty play places, toys that break after 10 minutes, and a burger that does not quite live up to it’s image. Spurlock as much as he is speaking the “truth” he also uses the same techniques as a McDonald’s commercial. For instance in the movie there is a scene where there is a family trying to say the Pledge of Allegiance in front of the White House and they keep messing up and then when Spurlock asks what is the big Mac slogan one of the women quickly finishes it in one try. Then the scene cuts to the McDonald character figurines standing in front of the White House. I understand McDonald’s is bad for people’s health, and I agree with Spurlock’s overall message, but I do not like the manner in which he delivered his message at times. For instance the scene I just described really did bother me; if you look at the scene closely you can tell that the little girl seems to know the pledge fully but it is the grown ups that keep messing up, and I believe it may be due to their nervousness; they are essentially in the spotlight to perform, and when the lady gets the slogan correct her posture is more relaxed and it seems as though she answered it as though she was just having a natural conversation with Spurlock; meaning it was not as though Spurlock put a spotlight on the entire group to “perform” the slogan.
ReplyDeleteI understand that as objective as we try to be as filmmakers we cannot be because we are human. Truth essentially exists, but the form of truth changes depending on who sees it. To me the point seems to be that as future filmmakers there is a social responsibility that comes along with the job of being a filmmaker. Not trying to pompous but to me it seems as though media helps to shape reality as much the vice versa, so I guess the only question remains what reality do you wish to shape as a filmmaker?
I mean, we all probably know that eating McDonalds for 30 days straight will not yield good results in terms of one's health, so why does Spurlock have to insult our intelligence by doing exactly just that? (Granted, people still do eat Big Mac's everyday) The expository aspect of his McDonald's life style is not what I found to be interesting because it seems like that the conclusion of it is so obvoius. But what I liked about the film was that Spurlock went the extra distance to interview people with credentials (while Spurlock conveniently put his "character" into those moments), many of whom end up becoming the authoritative voice of the film, not Spurlock. The textual authority of the experts - nutritionists and doctors - seem to be the main thing that makes Super Size Me watchable. But Spurlock himself does serve a purpose in the film. His natural and likable personality makes the audience feel obligated to take his side and thereby sucking them into his biased conlusion of his subject matter, which I found kinda annoying. But overall, the film gave me insight in what I had already known so maybe that's why it wasn't as appealing to me as it was to many other people.
ReplyDelete