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.
This documentary "Doc in the age of terror (SOP)" takes us back to the original question discussed on the first day of class..Who determines what is truth? Who is right?.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the documentary I was still seeking "truth"..I felt that there were so many "truths" told in this documentary which made it hard to conclude that there could be one overal truth.
According to the U.S Soldiers that were responsible for many of the actions that took place, some deemed themselves as completely innocent while finding every excuse to justify their actions. There is also the "unsaid truth". The unsaid truth lies in the pictures where one can see the harsh treatment and torture that the prisoners went through. There is also an unsaid truth in these same pictures where these same "innocent" soldiers stand smiling, with thumbs up, celebrating their torture. The "unsaid truth" appears to be the loudest and the most prevalent in this documentary. Though interviews were presented from soldiers who were actually present, I was in no way compelled to believe that this was comlete TRUTH. I believe the truth remains with those dead prisoners and in the depth of those pictures...
Regarding whether an image gains "meaning" from within or via it's recipient seems to be less of a daunting question regarding a documentary like Standard Operating Procedure. Various forces collaborate with the images in the film to heighten the "meaning" of the images. The continuous, tense piano music, the interviews that start as voice-of-God commentary before showing the person actually speaking, and the grisly reenactment scenes all attempt to accent a story told completely from photograghs and interviews. With the disturbing nature of the photographs, these extra devices seem unnessary when simply the photographs and the interviews alone could tell the story. However, the use of these devices spins a more melodramatic nature on the images and basically manipulates the viewer into accepting the "meaning" that these other forces as well as the image itself, assign.
ReplyDeleteagreeing with tyler, what stood out to me the most in this film was the highly cinematic re enactments that were used to help tell the story. unlike the photography which seem merely documentary ( in there compitsition) the re encatments seemed very cinematic, featuring high key lighting, slow motion, and cinematic framing. these did not work to tell a story but were more for entertainment showing the actions not as realistic as they appeared. but i found they did demonstrate a high level of professionalism and quality and did help to move the film along
ReplyDeleteI would agree with John that the effectiveness of the dramatizations carried the story from still frame image to sill frame to enliven the very dark film noir talking head interviews. Something also must be said for the aesthetic element of the graphics 'expanding the possibilities for documenting the real" as stated in the Higgins article Documentary In An Age of Terror. However in that same article it points out that documentaries traditionally are easily identifiable by their mise-en-scene that is 'found' and not 'staged'..not the case in the documentary, S.O.P. as a result of the re-enactments. Still- very compelling elliptical style, as I am quite comfortable with the 'truth is relative' concept..wasn't looking for it, just the presentation.
ReplyDeleteAccording to dictionary.com, one definition of "truth" is this: conformity with fact or reality. After the endless discussions we had in class about what is truth, I found this to be the most concise and simple way of defining it, and that in relation to documentary film its simplicity is appropriately applicable. Take, say, SOP, whose narrative is constructed in a unique way where talking heads representing "facts" or factual accounts are intercut by a series of cinematic re-enactments, which I see as the "entertainment" value of the film (that is, it is highly excessive and unnecessary for comprehension of facts presented) That said I believe the style in which Morris makes his films - though provocative and seductive - does not allow the audience to fully become involved in the subjects because they are mediated through stylistic choices, such as re-enactments, elaborate motion graphics and of course the interrotron. All of these innovations seem to be undermining the potential of documentary film because it doesn't depict reality or discover facts in a way that documentaries should. As the article on Doc in the Age of Terror brings up, Morris' films have become known as a mixture between traditional documentaries and art house cinema, not necessarily films that adhere to the true potential of its genre.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I noticed about the documentary we watched on Thursday, "Standard Operation Procedure" is that like some other films we've watched it doesn't give us the answer at the end. We simply find out that some people went to jail, some didn't. Some of them regretted their actions, some didn't. Most of them felt like they had been treated unfairly but at the end of the documentary it couldn't definitively be said who was to blame. Presenting the information in this "factual" way may seem unbiased but in reality by not giving both sides of the story the film is at it's very basic super biased. While watching the film I saw the "factual" representations. Each person stated what they saw happening from their point of view but had there not been a narration over the pictures, we would have simply assigned our own meaning to them as we probably did when we first saw them years ago. But the narration "explains" the pictures from the point of view of those in them who are assigning their own meaning to them. The meaning I got out of the pictures when I first saw them and the meaning thrust upon them in the film are opposing and I struggle with wondering if they have a "true meaning."
ReplyDeleteNice stuff dear. Sex in Prague & Escorts worldwide & Busty Escorts in Prague
ReplyDeleteBook sexy escorts for whole night. Pretty escorts Prague & budget escorts Prague
ReplyDelete