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.
Is this what Reality TV is supposed to be? Because of the lack of structure there are areas that lend to some confusion, like the days melt into one another. This seems to be the reality of their lives, I imagine. If so, it is a clear depiction of the disorderliness of the subject, like abstract art. I did however see the eye contact between the subjects and the camera being a little skewed because they were looking at Albert and not the camera. I also saw the unwritten, undirected 'story' of the very tragic outcome of the lives of very beautiful very elite women who deteriorate just like the mansion.
I feel that Grey Gardens didn't quiet get away with displaying a narrative without creating a story to go along with it. Even though it didn't set up a conventional story detail of the two women it did infer quiet a story with the use of cinematography and editing. One example of this happening is the scene in which Little Edie walked into the room and gave a depressing look off to the side of the camera, in which the next shot was of a portrait of her younger self. This match on action is supposed to arouse in the audience a "story" of Edie missing the past, whereas she was probably not even looking at that picture or feeling nastalgic. This is just one of many examples in the movie where this happens so I feel like it didn't quiet get away with only showing the narrative while excluding a story.
It's interesting to me that nobody seemed to interpret the resulting story of Grey Gardens as a positive one. By this I mean more people referenced the destruction of the house and of the Beale's. Yet Albert Maysles continually mentions his emphatic connection with his subjects leading me to believe he did not see the women's later lives as tragic or the story as an example of decline. Had he, I doubt he would have finished the film for fear he would exploit them in some negative way. Instead I think his interpretation, and perhaps that of others, would be the beauty in the relative freedom the women now share as opposed to their previous lifestyle full of social regulations and obligations. Those restrictions don't apply at their secluded Grey Gardens and they forsake their legacy for a simple life unencumbered by societies expectations.
@Thomas, you are right in that the filmmakers spoke of love and passion and it seemed to be most definitely beautiful art to them. Nonetheless they did have some shots of the dark house panning to the brightness of day outside the window, and the Matriarch Edie laying in filth contrasted with the angelic image on photographs and paintings. What would be your assessment of their choice to show those stark contrasts?
Grey Gardens is a film collage revealing eccentric intricacies through an introduction to the inner most workings of a New England seaside estate. With a seemingly never-ending collection of food, plant, and animal B-roll, the mise-en-scene of Grey Gardens sutures the audience into a collage of lives that age within its boundaries. A choice display of chaotic dialogue, mixes into a chorus of telephones ringing, radios blaring, and footsies tap-tapping on hard wood floors that crescendo to an echoing cacophony of noise that for the audience is simply maddening. Seemingly lacking direction in plot, this collage relies heavily on the collection of footage acquired through an exhaustive amount of rolling hours to create an atmosphere where the camera disappears and the realist possibility of capturing truth becomes tangible. The main profiled character here is the location itself. A story with no beginning nor end, reflecting upon what went before and dreaming of prospects and opportunities yet to be fulfilled, Grey Gardens is a profile of past and future paradises, an exercise in the pain of looking back and the decay intrinsic to the passing of time.
A film such as Grey Gardens, having narrative without story, most accurately reflects the story or lack of one in daily life. Maysles simply shoots and blends everything in as one, just as memories blend together. There’s no need to distinguish the past from the present because reality is relative. If either of the Edys had a desire strong enough to pursue these “dreams” they talk about, money would not be holding them back; they intend to decay along with the house because this is who they are. Grey Gardens is a representation of the situation, not simply the house, the Edys, or the cats alone. If we were to do away with any one of these, Grey Gardens would be a completely different film. Maysles wanted, I assume, to portray life at this household accurately so the viewer can experience a different walk of life through the duration of the film.
I mentioned in class that I saw Little Edie's utterance early on in the film about keeping the line between the past and the present as being the defining statement of the two women's lives. In my opinion, the Beales suffered from Jay Gatsby-itis, in that they were both "borne back ceaselessly into the past." It is their lot in life to move backwards. Although Little Edie often expresses her desire to break free from her mother and Grey Gardens, there is something deep within her that prevents her from leaving. She can't move forward with her life, because she is constantly reminded of the past everywhere she looks. This, to me, is the key tragedy of the film.
The first time I watched Grey Gardens I was confused and didn’t understand what was going on. I literally thought Edie was a crazy person. But after watching it again, and really thinking about it, I started to understand. It is a little difficult since there is no narrative to guide us. Only the history of this family and their house unfold gradually and randomly as we observe them. In my last post I talked about how documentaries can fall into multiple categories. I would place Grey Gardens in expository and observational. When thinking about this, it reminded me of Animal Planet when they are following a herd of wild animals minute the foreign guy talking in the background. There is clear tension as the filmmaker wants only to be removed from the film in order to just observe.
Did the Maysles not make this film after seeing the articles about the delapidation of the house? I believe that they simply filmed to try to understand the circumstances under which two women, of former high esteem, could end up living in such a dire situation.
"Crazy" is an incredibly derogatory word in regards to the Beales. It was absolutely intergral that the filmmakers be like the cats- present and attentive, but non-judgemental. The Maysles garnered trust because they seem genuinely interested in giving the Beales a platform for explaination. We can't know what the filmmakers intent was- perhaps they meant to show the living conditions as excusable because the women were abandoned by society and their family, although I personally feel (like Thomas) the positivity in their freedom from societal constraints.
the lack of naration or emotional manipulation in this film is refreshing and intriguing, resulting in a experience that is strangely realistic. i feel that when the Maysles brothers entered the house they had no idea what to expect and how to reach to what there were witnessing, and they did this with camera in hand, resulting in a film where you feel like you have just been brought into this situation and are calmly observing everything. this style results in pure emotion as you witness these women as they carry out there lives. this is the style that Maysles strives for and is demonstrated in Gray Gardens.
I have been thinking about Gray Gardens almost constantly since watching it, all the while trying to figure out why I am so drawn to it. I think the reason is that I feel like I'm evesdropping on someone's most intimate and embarassing moments, but for some reason, they don't mind. I agree with Thomas and Jessie in that it is more of a preservation of their beauty than documentation of their decay. If people had only read the newspaper article and never seen the film, they probably would think these women were simply crazy invalids. Instead, we get to see through the film that they did have glamorous lives, and they probably always behaved the way they do in the film, only they were in a different environment. There is another aspect though, that I found very interesting. I think part of the reason they were still cheerful for the most part and oddly ambitious, is that they were the ones who made this decision to be almost entirely removed from society. It being their decision gave them a false sense that they still had control over their lives. We can see how removed they actually are in how their groceries are delivered to their doorstep and left so they don't have to have any contact with the outside world.
This film just drew me in from the first time we were introduced to the characters. We never needed back round information or a voice over because these woman felt so comfortable to show us who they where and why the documentary was about them and this house they lived in. Grey Gardens was a story all to its self and the filmmakers new this. The directors set up the camera but used a few different camera angles to help tell the story, and thats all that was needed from them. The camera angles helped show the womens past when pointed at a picture.
The wonderful thing about this narrative is the fact that the camera told so much by doing so little. The videographer’s primary goal was to capture the lives of two women with no script and no acting. The camera’s eyes told a great story in one of the purest, realest forms. After finishing this narrative I knew many things about the characters that the camera/videographer didn’t necessarily “intend” for me to know or see. I knew that the mother Edith Beales had a very unstable love life yet found sincere happiness in her music. It was also apparent that the daughter Edith Beales desired to be a Hollywood star. The two were not very clean individuals, and their relationship resembled that of a mother/daughter bond. I was able to witness with visually the filth, poverty, and secluded lifestyle that the two lived.
The Maysles' style and technique in this film was very impressive to me. To be able to interact and connect with essential strangers all while looking through a camera lens or holding a mic wearing headphones seems unfeasible, but that's exactly what they achieved. It makes me wonder if the time they spent empathising and getting to know the women is the footage that didn't make the cut because it seemed as if the Maysles were already on a friendly and knowledgeable relationship from the beginning. As for the narrative, I feel that the story is presented in the most realistic way possible, avoiding questions that trigger desired reactions and objectified voiceovers or text. What's left is a pure and honest representation of the two women in their decaying house.
We discussed in class last week the relation between this film and present-day reality television. To me the documentary "Grey Gardens" is much more real than any reality television show in which the "characters" are manipulated and forced into a narrative. The two women in "Grey Gardens" became so comfortable with the cameras and filmmakers that they weren't performing for the cameras. In reality television the characters are made so aware of the cameras and camera crew that they perform almost 24/7. I think this is partially because of the culture we live in now opposed to 1975. Reality television wasn't there to teach the women how to act around the cameras. I think that is what makes this documentary so much more real than many of the others watched in class that seem to have an agenda.
Grey Gardens had a home movie feel to me. I say this because like some of the other documentaries we have seen in class there has been some sort of narrative stricter. Most of the others had interviews with the subjects and voice over narrations. On the surface there may not seem to be an actual storyline but the film speaks for itself. It is a very impressive film where the filmmakers are able to catch two women reminiscing on the way things were. With the direction and camera movements they were able to capture their past and present. Showing the ladies glory days with close ups of old pictures and the decay with missing walls in the attic, dirt on the shelves, and random cats all over the mother’s bed. Because the Maysles were able to develop such a great relationship with Beales, the ladies actions did not change and I think they were themselves in this film. This wasn’t a documentary about having a linear story but showing the lives of everyday people. Edith always seemed pressured to stay with her mother and regretful she didn’t lead her own life. And I think that Edith was the major part of the films story because she felt lost in that life with her mother and the deteriorating house.
The lack of story seemed to be the real storyline to me. It reflected this portrait of two women stuck in a chaotic limbo of sorts--never moving. They never seem able to go anywhere or leave the house, possibly due to their own inhibitions. I feel the Maysles brothers succeeded in depicting this by intervening very little and only interacting when prompted by Little Edie. However, I am not sure if the women, particularly Little Edie, portrayed themselves as genuinely as they would have had there been no cameras and audience. Often, I feel as though they might have been parading for the camera. Though performance and grandeur seem to have been a huge part of their past, according to the various photographs pulled out from the dust that most likely would have stayed there had the Maysles not been there, it felt exaggerated in some parts. They have been cooped up in that deteriorating house fading away with it and here comes two interested filmmakers asking to document their daily lives- why wouldn’t they want to showcase themselves?
I thought the lack of a true narrative allowed the film to become more informative about the lives of these elderly women. From my personal experiences, Grey Gardens was an accurate representation of how many elderly people live when they are left with a house and little to no assistance cleaning it. The house sort of becomes a relic of their memories. From the outside, it seems to be forgotten and ill-kept, but inside it houses mementos which, like their memories, are scattered throughout with no sense of order. The way the two women tell their stories is evidence of this. They don't begin their stories with, "Do you remember that one time?" but instead begin talking about the past as if it was a soap opera they starred in. The goal of the film, as I saw it, was to venture into the rickety house at the end of the road that many might remember from childhood and explore the lives of the inhabitants which serves no narrative purpose, but is interesting in the way it examines without giving judgement.
I feel that, whether the Maysles meant to or not, for me Grey Gardens became a spectacle. Watching these two ladies and the intracacies of their life at Grey Gardens became like watching as you pass by a car crash. Meaning that, no matter how slow you go and how much you happen to see or "learn" about it you're not essentially a part of it and therefore cant relate. All the while, you can't take your eyes off it, you just have to look in amazement or confusion. Furthermore, the relationship between the camera, the surroundings and between the two women themmselves was to me something that I could not completely relate with. All together though, I think that the narrative that was innevitably created was engaging. The film making style was so that it created a time and place that was real to the viewer and contained very real people. It was then at the same time, similar to a reality television show in that I could not turn away from it though to me the content was somewhat frivolous.
Is this what Reality TV is supposed to be? Because of the lack of structure there are areas that lend to some confusion, like the days melt into one another. This seems to be the reality of their lives, I imagine. If so, it is a clear depiction of the disorderliness of the subject, like abstract art. I did however see the eye contact between the subjects and the camera being a little skewed because they were looking at Albert and not the camera. I also saw the unwritten, undirected 'story' of the very tragic outcome of the lives of very beautiful very elite women who deteriorate just like the mansion.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Grey Gardens didn't quiet get away with displaying a narrative without creating a story to go along with it. Even though it didn't set up a conventional story detail of the two women it did infer quiet a story with the use of cinematography and editing. One example of this happening is the scene in which Little Edie walked into the room and gave a depressing look off to the side of the camera, in which the next shot was of a portrait of her younger self. This match on action is supposed to arouse in the audience a "story" of Edie missing the past, whereas she was probably not even looking at that picture or feeling nastalgic. This is just one of many examples in the movie where this happens so I feel like it didn't quiet get away with only showing the narrative while excluding a story.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me that nobody seemed to interpret the resulting story of Grey Gardens as a positive one. By this I mean more people referenced the destruction of the house and of the Beale's. Yet Albert Maysles continually mentions his emphatic connection with his subjects leading me to believe he did not see the women's later lives as tragic or the story as an example of decline. Had he, I doubt he would have finished the film for fear he would exploit them in some negative way. Instead I think his interpretation, and perhaps that of others, would be the beauty in the relative freedom the women now share as opposed to their previous lifestyle full of social regulations and obligations. Those restrictions don't apply at their secluded Grey Gardens and they forsake their legacy for a simple life unencumbered by societies expectations.
ReplyDelete@Thomas, you are right in that the filmmakers spoke of love and passion and it seemed to be most definitely beautiful art to them. Nonetheless they did have some shots of the dark house panning to the brightness of day outside the window, and the Matriarch Edie laying in filth contrasted with the angelic image on photographs and paintings. What would be your assessment of their choice to show those stark contrasts?
ReplyDeleteGrey Gardens is a film collage revealing eccentric intricacies through an introduction to the inner most workings of a New England seaside estate. With a seemingly never-ending collection of food, plant, and animal B-roll, the mise-en-scene of Grey Gardens sutures the audience into a collage of lives that age within its boundaries. A choice display of chaotic dialogue, mixes into a chorus of telephones ringing, radios blaring, and footsies tap-tapping on hard wood floors that crescendo to an echoing cacophony of noise that for the audience is simply maddening. Seemingly lacking direction in plot, this collage relies heavily on the collection of footage acquired through an exhaustive amount of rolling hours to create an atmosphere where the camera disappears and the realist possibility of capturing truth becomes tangible. The main profiled character here is the location itself. A story with no beginning nor end, reflecting upon what went before and dreaming of prospects and opportunities yet to be fulfilled, Grey Gardens is a profile of past and future paradises, an exercise in the pain of looking back and the decay intrinsic to the passing of time.
ReplyDeleteA film such as Grey Gardens, having narrative without story, most accurately reflects the story or lack of one in daily life. Maysles simply shoots and blends everything in as one, just as memories blend together. There’s no need to distinguish the past from the present because reality is relative. If either of the Edys had a desire strong enough to pursue these “dreams” they talk about, money would not be holding them back; they intend to decay along with the house because this is who they are. Grey Gardens is a representation of the situation, not simply the house, the Edys, or the cats alone. If we were to do away with any one of these, Grey Gardens would be a completely different film. Maysles wanted, I assume, to portray life at this household accurately so the viewer can experience a different walk of life through the duration of the film.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned in class that I saw Little Edie's utterance early on in the film about keeping the line between the past and the present as being the defining statement of the two women's lives. In my opinion, the Beales suffered from Jay Gatsby-itis, in that they were both "borne back ceaselessly into the past." It is their lot in life to move backwards. Although Little Edie often expresses her desire to break free from her mother and Grey Gardens, there is something deep within her that prevents her from leaving. She can't move forward with her life, because she is constantly reminded of the past everywhere she looks. This, to me, is the key tragedy of the film.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I watched Grey Gardens I was confused and didn’t understand what was going on. I literally thought Edie was a crazy person. But after watching it again, and really thinking about it, I started to understand. It is a little difficult since there is no narrative to guide us. Only the history of this family and their house unfold gradually and randomly as we observe them.
ReplyDeleteIn my last post I talked about how documentaries can fall into multiple categories. I would place Grey Gardens in expository and observational. When thinking about this, it reminded me of Animal Planet when they are following a herd of wild animals minute the foreign guy talking in the background. There is clear tension as the filmmaker wants only to be removed from the film in order to just observe.
colin wilson
Jessie Bockenek-
ReplyDeleteDid the Maysles not make this film after seeing the articles about the delapidation of the house? I believe that they simply filmed to try to understand the circumstances under which two women, of former high esteem, could end up living in such a dire situation.
"Crazy" is an incredibly derogatory word in regards to the Beales. It was absolutely intergral that the filmmakers be like the cats- present and attentive, but non-judgemental. The Maysles garnered trust because they seem genuinely interested in giving the Beales a platform for explaination. We can't know what the filmmakers intent was- perhaps they meant to show the living conditions as excusable because the women were abandoned by society and their family, although I personally feel (like Thomas) the positivity in their freedom from societal constraints.
the lack of naration or emotional manipulation in this film is refreshing and intriguing, resulting in a experience that is strangely realistic. i feel that when the Maysles brothers entered the house they had no idea what to expect and how to reach to what there were witnessing, and they did this with camera in hand, resulting in a film where you feel like you have just been brought into this situation and are calmly observing everything. this style results in pure emotion as you witness these women as they carry out there lives. this is the style that Maysles strives for and is demonstrated in Gray Gardens.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about Gray Gardens almost constantly since watching it, all the while trying to figure out why I am so drawn to it. I think the reason is that I feel like I'm evesdropping on someone's most intimate and embarassing moments, but for some reason, they don't mind. I agree with Thomas and Jessie in that it is more of a preservation of their beauty than documentation of their decay. If people had only read the newspaper article and never seen the film, they probably would think these women were simply crazy invalids. Instead, we get to see through the film that they did have glamorous lives, and they probably always behaved the way they do in the film, only they were in a different environment.
ReplyDeleteThere is another aspect though, that I found very interesting. I think part of the reason they were still cheerful for the most part and oddly ambitious, is that they were the ones who made this decision to be almost entirely removed from society. It being their decision gave them a false sense that they still had control over their lives. We can see how removed they actually are in how their groceries are delivered to their doorstep and left so they don't have to have any contact with the outside world.
This film just drew me in from the first time we were introduced to the characters. We never needed back round information or a voice over because these woman felt so comfortable to show us who they where and why the documentary was about them and this house they lived in. Grey Gardens was a story all to its self and the filmmakers new this. The directors set up the camera but used a few different camera angles to help tell the story, and thats all that was needed from them. The camera angles helped show the womens past when pointed at a picture.
ReplyDeleteThe wonderful thing about this narrative is the fact that the camera told so much by doing so little. The videographer’s primary goal was to capture the lives of two women with no script and no acting. The camera’s eyes told a great story in one of the purest, realest forms. After finishing this narrative I knew many things about the characters that the camera/videographer didn’t necessarily “intend” for me to know or see. I knew that the mother Edith Beales had a very unstable love life yet found sincere happiness in her music. It was also apparent that the daughter Edith Beales desired to be a Hollywood star. The two were not very clean individuals, and their relationship resembled that of a mother/daughter bond. I was able to witness with visually the filth, poverty, and secluded lifestyle that the two lived.
ReplyDeleteThe Maysles' style and technique in this film was very impressive to me. To be able to interact and connect with essential strangers all while looking through a camera lens or holding a mic wearing headphones seems unfeasible, but that's exactly what they achieved. It makes me wonder if the time they spent empathising and getting to know the women is the footage that didn't make the cut because it seemed as if the Maysles were already on a friendly and knowledgeable relationship from the beginning. As for the narrative, I feel that the story is presented in the most realistic way possible, avoiding questions that trigger desired reactions and objectified voiceovers or text. What's left is a pure and honest representation of the two women in their decaying house.
ReplyDeleteBrad Riddell
We discussed in class last week the relation between this film and present-day reality television. To me the documentary "Grey Gardens" is much more real than any reality television show in which the "characters" are manipulated and forced into a narrative. The two women in "Grey Gardens" became so comfortable with the cameras and filmmakers that they weren't performing for the cameras. In reality television the characters are made so aware of the cameras and camera crew that they perform almost 24/7. I think this is partially because of the culture we live in now opposed to 1975. Reality television wasn't there to teach the women how to act around the cameras. I think that is what makes this documentary so much more real than many of the others watched in class that seem to have an agenda.
ReplyDeleteGrey Gardens had a home movie feel to me. I say this because like some of the other documentaries we have seen in class there has been some sort of narrative stricter. Most of the others had interviews with the subjects and voice over narrations. On the surface there may not seem to be an actual storyline but the film speaks for itself. It is a very impressive film where the filmmakers are able to catch two women reminiscing on the way things were. With the direction and camera movements they were able to capture their past and present. Showing the ladies glory days with close ups of old pictures and the decay with missing walls in the attic, dirt on the shelves, and random cats all over the mother’s bed. Because the Maysles were able to develop such a great relationship with Beales, the ladies actions did not change and I think they were themselves in this film. This wasn’t a documentary about having a linear story but showing the lives of everyday people. Edith always seemed pressured to stay with her mother and regretful she didn’t lead her own life. And I think that Edith was the major part of the films story because she felt lost in that life with her mother and the deteriorating house.
ReplyDeleteNicole White
The lack of story seemed to be the real storyline to me. It reflected this portrait of two women stuck in a chaotic limbo of sorts--never moving. They never seem able to go anywhere or leave the house, possibly due to their own inhibitions. I feel the Maysles brothers succeeded in depicting this by intervening very little and only interacting when prompted by Little Edie. However, I am not sure if the women, particularly Little Edie, portrayed themselves as genuinely as they would have had there been no cameras and audience. Often, I feel as though they might have been parading for the camera. Though performance and grandeur seem to have been a huge part of their past, according to the various photographs pulled out from the dust that most likely would have stayed there had the Maysles not been there, it felt exaggerated in some parts. They have been cooped up in that deteriorating house fading away with it and here comes two interested filmmakers asking to document their daily lives- why wouldn’t they want to showcase themselves?
ReplyDeleteI thought the lack of a true narrative allowed the film to become more informative about the lives of these elderly women. From my personal experiences, Grey Gardens was an accurate representation of how many elderly people live when they are left with a house and little to no assistance cleaning it. The house sort of becomes a relic of their memories. From the outside, it seems to be forgotten and ill-kept, but inside it houses mementos which, like their memories, are scattered throughout with no sense of order. The way the two women tell their stories is evidence of this. They don't begin their stories with, "Do you remember that one time?" but instead begin talking about the past as if it was a soap opera they starred in. The goal of the film, as I saw it, was to venture into the rickety house at the end of the road that many might remember from childhood and explore the lives of the inhabitants which serves no narrative purpose, but is interesting in the way it examines without giving judgement.
ReplyDeleteMartin
I feel that, whether the Maysles meant to or not, for me Grey Gardens became a spectacle. Watching these two ladies and the intracacies of their life at Grey Gardens became like watching as you pass by a car crash. Meaning that, no matter how slow you go and how much you happen to see or "learn" about it you're not essentially a part of it and therefore cant relate. All the while, you can't take your eyes off it, you just have to look in amazement or confusion.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the relationship between the camera, the surroundings and between the two women themmselves was to me something that I could not completely relate with. All together though, I think that the narrative that was innevitably created was engaging. The film making style was so that it created a time and place that was real to the viewer and contained very real people.
It was then at the same time, similar to a reality television show in that I could not turn away from it though to me the content was somewhat frivolous.