super inspirational- in terms of creating/organizing the information and footage into a brilliant work of art. I especially love that the social commentary will pretty much be relevant forever.
The film was very well organized and edited. Found footage documentaries are very interesting to me because of the very deliberately chosen imagery that is completely under the control of the filmmaker rather than “letting the story find itself” like the Maysles brothers direct cinema approach. This is far more conducive to a documentary that is structured around an argument. It is difficult to find a specific argument with a movie such as Grey Gardens, whereas Atomic Cafe is very overt due to the deliberately juxaposed imagery and music. If I were attempting to make an argument this is definitely the route I would take. However, the question that comes to my mind is how the "truthful" this style is in it’s presentation compared to the direct cinema style that gives the viewer more freedom for interpretation. Not that you can't interpret Atomic Cafe in different ways, but the filmmaker is fairly clear of what they want the viewer to think and this is based on his own subject position and the opinions formed from that. The Maysles take a more objective, "fly on the wall" approach which may be more "truthful" in a sense by letting the viewer decide what the film is about rather than being told. Whether or not everything the filmmaker argues is 100% correct, it is still the filmmaker’s own version of the truth not necessarily the viewer. In reality, we don’t witness an event and simultaneously have someone editting together the “truth” for us through juxaposed images. We are ultimately “flies on the wall” and decide what the truth is based on the material we witnessed, which is how direct cinema seems to work.
The film really showed America's faults in the war. The American people were scared at this time and it seemed that the government and big business capitalized on this fear. The filmmaker did a great job showing these facts that lay before him. Atomic cafe is a truth to the fact that as a nation we did not know what we were doing at this time. The filmmaker focused on the found footage from the military footage that told the American people how they should feel and act. They told us that it was only necessary to blow up Japan with two A-bombs because they would do the same to us. But they never did, so the film asked the question "what were we really afraid of"?
First off, I love this film, although I have to say I enjoyed Radio Bikini more. I am not sure if the filmmakers intentionally did this, but the overall impression I got from both films was one of a slightly distasteful joke, but only so because its content is so very truthful. For example, the way they edit from a shot of how to "properly" protect yourself in the event that a nuclear bomb does go off, to a shot of an h bomb exploding. The obvious inefficiency of this safeguarding is clearly shown and I find it quite amusing. Also, the way the PSAs and Army films, etc function is, to me, starkly satirical. The fact that it is edited in such a way, makes the whole topic seem very lighthearted and laughable, when it is a matter of utmost seriousness. To be honest: it made me feel weird. I didn’t feel like I should laugh, but the editing was so hilarious that I couldn’t but to.
Atomic Cafe is an interesting mix of taking historical footage and editing the pieces together to make an informative and hysterical documentary. I like the way in which the documentary tells a story in a linear way with the footage. I thought the documentary was hilarious simply because of the editing. Showing America’s ignorance in the 50’s with the bomb scare and the tactics to protect oneself is showcased within the editing. The imagination of the filmmaker by using the different footage seemed to tell a story of America’s intelligence and their ignorance. The redundant style of showing the people falling to the round to protect themselves from the bomb made the film become less informative and more hilarious. I would say that the film does help in teaching how manipulative a filmmaker can be during the editing process.
Still a piece of propaganda, but with a wink. This cafe moves from the Trinity test to the red scare, all the while attempting to point out the absurdity. Can stock footage of the past evoke lessons of today? Sure. But is there something fundamentally ironic about this movie? Shit who cares, right……funny as hell!
super inspirational- in terms of creating/organizing the information and footage into a brilliant work of art. I especially love that the social commentary will pretty much be relevant forever.
ReplyDelete- jessie bockenek
ReplyDeleteThe film was very well organized and edited. Found footage documentaries are very interesting to me because of the very deliberately chosen imagery that is completely under the control of the filmmaker rather than “letting the story find itself” like the Maysles brothers direct cinema approach. This is far more conducive to a documentary that is structured around an argument. It is difficult to find a specific argument with a movie such as Grey Gardens, whereas Atomic Cafe is very overt due to the deliberately juxaposed imagery and music. If I were attempting to make an argument this is definitely the route I would take. However, the question that comes to my mind is how the "truthful" this style is in it’s presentation compared to the direct cinema style that gives the viewer more freedom for interpretation. Not that you can't interpret Atomic Cafe in different ways, but the filmmaker is fairly clear of what they want the viewer to think and this is based on his own subject position and the opinions formed from that. The Maysles take a more objective, "fly on the wall" approach which may be more "truthful" in a sense by letting the viewer decide what the film is about rather than being told. Whether or not everything the filmmaker argues is 100% correct, it is still the filmmaker’s own version of the truth not necessarily the viewer. In reality, we don’t witness an event and simultaneously have someone editting together the “truth” for us through juxaposed images. We are ultimately “flies on the wall” and decide what the truth is based on the material we witnessed, which is how direct cinema seems to work.
ReplyDeleteThe film really showed America's faults in the war. The American people were scared at this time and it seemed that the government and big business capitalized on this fear. The filmmaker did a great job showing these facts that lay before him. Atomic cafe is a truth to the fact that as a nation we did not know what we were doing at this time. The filmmaker focused on the found footage from the military footage that told the American people how they should feel and act. They told us that it was only necessary to blow up Japan with two A-bombs because they would do the same to us. But they never did, so the film asked the question "what were we really afraid of"?
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I love this film, although I have to say I enjoyed Radio Bikini more. I am not sure if the filmmakers intentionally did this, but the overall impression I got from both films was one of a slightly distasteful joke, but only so because its content is so very truthful. For example, the way they edit from a shot of how to "properly" protect yourself in the event that a nuclear bomb does go off, to a shot of an h bomb exploding. The obvious inefficiency of this safeguarding is clearly shown and I find it quite amusing. Also, the way the PSAs and Army films, etc function is, to me, starkly satirical. The fact that it is edited in such a way, makes the whole topic seem very lighthearted and laughable, when it is a matter of utmost seriousness. To be honest: it made me feel weird. I didn’t feel like I should laugh, but the editing was so hilarious that I couldn’t but to.
ReplyDeleteAtomic Cafe is an interesting mix of taking historical footage and editing the pieces together to make an informative and hysterical documentary. I like the way in which the documentary tells a story in a linear way with the footage. I thought the documentary was hilarious simply because of the editing. Showing America’s ignorance in the 50’s with the bomb scare and the tactics to protect oneself is showcased within the editing. The imagination of the filmmaker by using the different footage seemed to tell a story of America’s intelligence and their ignorance. The redundant style of showing the people falling to the round to protect themselves from the bomb made the film become less informative and more hilarious. I would say that the film does help in teaching how manipulative a filmmaker can be during the editing process.
ReplyDeleteNicole White
Still a piece of propaganda, but with a wink. This cafe moves from the Trinity test to the red scare, all the while attempting to point out the absurdity. Can stock footage of the past evoke lessons of today? Sure. But is there something fundamentally ironic about this movie? Shit who cares, right……funny as hell!
ReplyDelete