Paris is Burning

Paris is Burning is a documentary film that was directed by Jennie Livingston and was released to the public in 1990. Paris is Burning tackled the ever-controversial issue of gender and whether gender is performed or is innate. The film is mainly shot in observational mode, expect for the few times when Jennie Livingston is heard asking questions in the background. She also used word titles in the film to introduce the queens and sometimes had just key phrases on the titles. Livingston also used interviews with the queens to narrate the stories.

The camera crew follows around a number of male drag queens in NYC in what could be considered their underground world or subculture. These men compete in balls in order to gain status and acceptance in the drag world. Not only does Livingston focus on the extravagent balls that these men compete in, butLivingston also delves deep into the emotional and physical problems that these men deal with on a daily basis and captures them at their weakest points sometimes. The reality that these men live is actually a very sad one at times and this film will definitely educate those how are ignorant on the subject.

Editing Film

I learned many things from this film all about editing. Some of these things include:

Mise-en-scene refers to the center of the screen being the main focus or main person of the film.

Before the films we have today were introduced, there were things such as actualities. Actualities were movies that were not edited and had no story. Actualities were pioneered by Lumiere in the mid 1890s, around 1895. They were popular from 1895-1903.

Continutiy editing seeks to achieve logic, smoothness, sequentiality and the temporal and spatial orientation of viewers to what they see on the screen.

Classical cutting refers to up close shots of characters. Not only do we see the exaggerated actions of characters anymore, we can see their faces and expressions.

Montage editing refers to the juxtaposition of images to create meaning not found in either individual shot by itself.

Eisenstein was an emotional and political pioneer for the film world. He experimented with discontinuity, which refers to the relationship of shots create meaning, and no single shot tells the story. It's like a puzzle, you need all the pieces for the finished product. One example of this could be Way Down East.

180 Degree Rule - Do not film so that there is never a space larger than 180 degrees between the camera and the focus of the shot. This will completely disoriente the viewer and look very choppy as well.

Films such as The Great Train Robbery exemplify the idea of beginning and ending of action with a cut in between. The audience then needs to assume that things have been cut out. Parallell action is also shown in this film and refers to the idea of two stories going on at once. For example, the train being robbed and the actions of all of the robbers.

Nixon's "Checkers Speech"

On September 23, 1952, Senator Richard Nixon took over the radio and television for a half an hour to let the American public know that he was not guilty of the many things he had been accused of, and he still wanted to be the Vice President under President Eisenhower. The speech was called the "Checker's Speech" because in it, Nixon explains that he will not be giving back the dog his family received, and the dog's name is Checkers. The whole speech is shot in Nixon's office, which can suggest an aura of hard-work and business. He may also have been trying to gain camradrie with the American people by allowing them into one of his most sacred places. Also, there are a variety of shots used in the speech. Nixon is shot sitting at his desk, from the desk up, addressing the American public, he is shot standing in front of the desk, (in order to construct some reality and desperation) and he was shot in a close up which showed just his face. I think that these different shots were used to emphasize what he was saying at the moment. There were no titles used on the screen, and it is obvious that there was no narrator other than Nixon himself. His speech was surprisingly sucessful and actually saved his spot on the ballot for Vice President.

LBJ

LBJ was a short avant-garde film produced by Cuban filmmaker, Santiago Alvarez. LBJ came out in 1968, and basically blamed LBJ for the assassination of JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., and of Bobby Kennedy. Alvarez used archival images throughout the film, as well as archival footage of speeches given. He also used subtitles because the film is in Spanish. Alvarez uses an owl throughout the film as well for some sort of symbolism. He never came out and said what it stood for, but some guesses could be LBJ himself or death. Editing and montage editing played a big role in this film. The juxtaposition of the images made some statements that could never be made by one object by itself. The correlation between the images really gives the viewer the idea that Alvarez wants to convey. Obviously the editing portrays his point of view in this film. LBJ is shown in a very negative light. There is also no real narrator, except for those giving speeches and the subtitles during those speeches. Other than that, there is music played constantly in the background.

Primary

Primary was released in 1960 and followed the campaign trail of the 1960 Wisconsin Primary election between John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey for the United States Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States. Primary was produced by Robert Drew and shot by Richard Leacock and Albert Maysles. Primary was purely an observational documentary and was groundbreaking because for the first time, filmmakers were able to follow the candidates around much easier because of mobile cameras and lighter sound equipment. Leacock and Maysles observed both men and never interfered with them or participated in the film in any sort of way. However, the way that the producer and editor chose to depict the men in the final film were very different observational styles. When the camera was on Kennedy, he was always smiling, shaking hands, and/or just showing connections to his followers. Kennedy basically seemed like a very open and trustworthy person. He was portrayed to be very personable. On the other hand, Humphrey was observed more at a distance, always wore a hat, and rarely interacted with his followers to the point of Kennedy. Also, in many shots of Kennedy, his wife, Jackie was present. She was even given notoriety for her style and became somewhat of a fashion icon to the American public. I believe that the editing process of this film was definitely essential to the film's message. What the editor chose to show and not to show seems a bit bias at times because of how personable Kennedy seems and how standoff-ish Humphrey seems.

Thin Blue Line

Released in 1988, Thin Blue Line tells the captivating story of two men, Randall Adams and David Harris' different sides of the murder of a policeman and all of the repercussions involved. The film was directed by Errol Morris and was one of the first serious documentaries to use reconstruction as a major part of the film. Reconstruction or re-enactments were usually thought to be untruthful and not very legitamate. The reconstruction is used to show the crime scene and how each man said the murder happened. Although obviously not completely accurate because no one can re-enact exactly what happened, the re-enactments worked for their purpose and gave reconstruction a better name than it had previously had with documentaries.

Morris used archival footage, reconstruction, and interviews with David Harris and Randall Adams themselves, as well as all other parties involved in the murder and trial. Although he used interviews quite often throughout the film, he never used titles to let the audience know who was speaking or what their relation to the case was. I'm not really sure as to why Morris chose to do this, but I think it definitely did keep the audience's attention because they were always guessing as to who the person was. Also, there was no real narrator since the interviewees basically told the entire story. As previously stated, this film was one of the first to use reconstruction, and it really paved the way for the shows of today such as Law and Order and America's Most Wanted.

Feed

Released in 1992, Feed was a documentary that followed the New Hampshire primaries and captured what happens right before the politicians would go "on air". The film had many different subjects, and this list of subjects included Bill Clinton. This film was directed by Kevin Rafferty and James Ridgeway. The angle that the film took was one of comedy and the comedic things that politicians really do go through and do right before they go on the air. The prepping that is done for them is ridiculous and really makes people see the candidates for who they are before they are coached on what to say or are made up to look how the cameras want to portray them. Much of the film is composed of raw satellite feed from major television networks which was not intended for the public viewing.

Class Relations of Self-Performance on Reality Television & Frontier House

These two articles focused mainly on how British television focuses solely on class relations, and how spoiled people actually are today. Shows such as Nanny 911 or Super Nanny are shows that create shame and guilt for the parents that cannot discipline or handle their children. Also, these nannies often come from Britain, and they are magically able to change the children's habits and make the parents better parents. Also, shows like Honey, We're Killing the Kids cause shame and guilt for parents that are feeding their children horrible things and causing their obesity themselves. All of these shows then offer rules and advice for the parents to follow to help change the lifestyles of the parents and children. However, how long after the nannies or nutritionists leave do the changes stay? How long do the children behave before they are back to their ways of misbehaving? I think that this is a flaw in the construction of reality for these shows. There is no way that one little intervention with a nanny will permanently change your parenting habits or your children's behavior. These are definitely not accurate depictions of reality.

In Frontier House, people are put through the hardships of life before electricity and all of the pamperings we are used to today. There are crazy restrictions put on these people, but they are in fact reality of how people once lived. For example, there was no toilet paper to use, and women could not use any type of feminine products. The interesting thing about this show is that even though people were forbidden to have relationships outside the cast, people often made deals with the crew and could essentially "cheat" and receive luxuries such as steaks or a mattress. An interesting quote from this article says, "While reality television certainly bears some resemblance to a documentary format, there are several very important distinctions. Foremost is the fact that while the documetary can be said to prsent itself as the "truth," the reality show is more concerned with the "authentic." This means that often documentary films present the account of an event, and a reality television show is more interested in a social character. This is very true it seems. For example, how do people get cast on the Real World? They embody a certain person that the producer wants. For example, on the present season of the Real World, Mike was cast as the bisexual male. This would essentially cause drama in the house, which the producer could not turn down. Therefore, throughout the show, Mike had a certain persona to exemplify.

The Representation of Wives and Mothers in Reality Television & Representations of Race in Reality Television

These articles focused mainly on shows like Wife Swap or Extreme Makeover, shows that target mothers, wives, and middle class women. The article also mentions again that in the U.S. we tend to focus more on race than on class, as they do in Britain. The articles also categorized reality television shows into five main groups: Competition, where there are shows based on talent, money, and love; Crime Solving, where there are shows such as the First 48; Court Shows, where there are shows based on general courts, specific courts, and personality based courts; Docusoaps, where there are shows based on real people and shows based on celebrities; and lastly, there are Transformative shows that include physical make overs, celebrity based makeovers, houses being made over, and other things. This last category of reality television shows is the largest group that targets mothers, wives, and just women in general. There are constantly mothers/wives on Wife Swap that need to learn from the other family in order to transform themselves. Also, shows such as Extreme Makeover or What Not to Wear focus mainly on women that need to be made over in order to be socially acceptable by society. It seems the focus is always on transforming women, wives, or mothers. This may be driven by womens constant drive to be perfect or to be better than they are, as well as society's ever-demanding criteria for good looking women or good wives or mothers. It is quite interesting that we tend to focus so much on transformative television in the U.S. It seems as though we have an obsession.

Sherman's March

Sherman's March, directed by Ross McElwee was a linear closed documentary. McElwee used the voice of God narration in the beginning, and some of the images were random. McElwee shot this film in a participatory mode because you can see and hear him. He is often speaking to his subject and can be seen in random shots where there are mirrors. He used word/signal phrases on word titles. This film could definitely be considered an avant-garde film because of its extremely unusual characteristics. There are points of no narration in this film, for example, when Pat is doing her cellulite exercises, he turns off the sound on the camera. There are other instances like this where he seems to be so focused on his subject he cannot narrate at the moment. It can be considered to have been shot by an amateur camera man because of the many times you see the camera and McElwee often hugs his subject and leaves the camera to focus on nothing or to be jostling around. There are constant interviews that constitute for the narration, there is no one narrator. There is a mix of historical places and just following Pat around randomly. There is often dim lighting throughout the film, and at one point McElwee even films himself, so he obviously needed a tripod for that one scene in his hotel room. There were also points where McElwee stayed focused on one frame but spoke a lot. For example, the moon in the sky was the focus, but he was rambling about the A bomb tests. There were also not always smooth transitions between frames.

When relating to the masculine conquest in this movie, you can relate the title to Sherman's actual military march which was a conquest of destruction, McElwee had a romantic conquest in the film, the camera (the way he used that to attract the women to him and also gave him something to talk about), the car work ( an attempt to be masculine by McElwee) , and the nuclear war (a way to get out aggression in his mind).

London

London was a film that can be considered an avant-garde film. This means unusual or over the top. London was produced by Patrick Keiller and funded by the British Film Institute. London was also a mock travelogue that was narrated by Paul Scofield. London used word captions or titles, but often they would relate only briefly to what was being said or being shown in the documentary. There was a voice of God narration, and the images did not always match up to what the narrator was saying. This can be considered abstract, adding to the film's avant-garde classification. There were also a few moments of no narration whatsoever. Two examples of this were when looking at the remains of a building after being bombed, and when the camera was focused on the rippling of a pond with birds chirping in the background. Here was another case of things not matching up, or nonsynchronous sound, there should have been water sounds, not birds chirping. This film was also mainly shot in medium shots, and the camera stayed on the subject for long periods of time. One question that arises while watching this is "Who's story is this?" There are clearly two main characters, but neither is ever shown. Also, although the film should be highlighing the positive things in London, it shows negative things such as buildings being bombed. Also, they don't visit very famous places. There is a clear use of irony in the images and narration. This film can be considered observational and has a level of spontaneity. It is also a very detached film and is shot with a static camera.

Ric Burns

The Ric Burns presentation was extremely captivating. I truly enjoyed hearing him speak and being the first audience outside of his crew to see his up and coming documentary. While watching his documentary I noticed that he used recreation or dramatization in that whale film. The crew and ship were obviously not the crew from the ship years ago, and the battle scenes had to have been re-enacted as well. Also, there was a voice of God narration, except for when he would use his experts for interviews. Burns also used old letters to help narrate, being read by the voice of God narrator. It was clear that he also did immense amounts of research about his topic and found the best historians and experts that he could use for interviews. He also had a lot of objects that helped to relate the viewers' minds to the time of the actual whale hunters. He was very well educated on his topic, and as he warned the audience, was a bit crazy with all of the information he had retained. I specifically remember one woman asking a question after we had watched the second clip of the film and he took twenty minutes to answer it. I truly enjoyed watching his documentary clips and listening to him speak.

Seven Up

Seven Up was a journey film or series that followed the lives of many children from the age seven and continues to follow them in incriments of seven years. For example, the first film was filmed while all of the subjects were seven years old, and the next filming was done at age fourteen. The children are now ages 53-54. The producer Michael Apted referred to it as a humanisitic documentary. He was also known for saying, "Give me a child till he's seven, and I'll give you the man." This documentary focused on class, not on race, as television or movies often to in the U.S. Apted followed around children from low class to high class, clearly exemplifying the differences just by filming them. Apted in a way exploited the beliefs of the low, middle, and upper classes. He played around with the certainity/uncertainty in the children's lives. For example, one of the low class boys had no idea what he was going to do with his life when he was seven, but by the 21st year, he was in a steady job and seemed to be much matured from what he once was. On the other hand, one of the upper class boys was certain he would be in a good job and wealthy when he was older, but for many years in his life, he was unemployed and barely making it. I believe that Apted did showed these differences purposefully to show that nothing is ever certain. This added to the documentary's label of a retrospective documentary becuase the children are recapping what has gone on in their lives for the past seven years in a short period of time.

Salesman

Salesman is a documentary that came out in 1969 and was produced by the Maysles brothers, Albert and David. It was also a part of the direct cinema movement. The Salesman documentary follows 4 men that are out selling bibles for a living. It seems to find a particular interest in the oldest man, Paul, who eventually loses his job. I think that the Maysles brothers wound up taking an interest in Paul because he would provoke emotion from the audience. This film was supposed to be strictly observational, but I feel that the man being observed sometimes aimed what they were saying at the camera, or somehow altered their actions because of the camera's presence. I think one major example of this is when Paul is singing to and talking to himself in the car. I don't think that Paul would have done this had he not been being filmed. Also, at one point, Paul takes the time to introduce each of the men and give a little background on each of them. This would definitely not be done if he were not being filmed. He aimed his statements directly at the camera.

There was little narration in this film, except for the very beginning of the film, and the rest of the time the men and their prospective buyers were the only speaking being done. I found that it was very hard to see and hear at some points in the movie when more than one person would be talking at a time. Also, I found the subject matter to be very dry, but very ironic because these men were out lying to sell bibles. They would pretend that they were in fact from the Church, when they were not at all. Overall, I felt that this documentary was a bit dry, and could have used a more interesting topic.

Sans Soleil

Sans Soleil is a film directed by Chris Marker. This film is very different from many other documentaries because the narrator is a woman and she is speaking for the male director. There seems to be an odd relationship between the woman and the cameraman, as if the woman is reading the letters the camera man sent to her. She begins every new thougt with, "He wrote me..." It is conisdered a post modern documentary. The film also borrows other peoples music. Three key themes to look for in this film are time, place and memory.




Sans Soleil in French means without sun. I feel that the director named this documentary accordingly because he looks into things that are often not given the light and recognition that many other topics are. It may also translate to the random images of horror movies throughout the film. I also feel like much of the movie was a bluish or gray tint, suggesting depression or melancholy. The narrator's voice also contributed to this feeling. She spoke slowly and almost coldly, like she was disconnected from the film, off in her own world. I didn't like or understand why much of the narration did not go along with the images on the screen. I'm sure the director had alterior meanings or motives behind the mismatching images and speech, but I am not sure of those. Overall, this was a very interesting and thought provoking film.

Edgar Berens

On February 12, 2010, our Honors English class was visited by filmmaker Edgar Berens. Edgar let us know that his preferred type of filming was cinema verite, and he liked to work on his own because he felt it was much preferrable to working with people you don't necessarily want to work with. His current project was a film about hospice care at prisons for prisoners that will be in jail for the rest of their life, or likely die before their sentence is up. The opening scene to his newest documentary was an older man sitting and speaking about his jail sentence. He told the camera that he had lost his son when he committed suicide at the age of 14 after using dope. He later shot and killed his son's dope dealer and that is why he was sentenced to life. He also let the audience know that he was sentenced 21 years ago.

Edgar later goes on to film Jack, the man mentioned above's, daily medicine regime. He also got a glimpse of the nurses' views of providing top notch medical care to prisoners that will be in jail for life. Although most of Edgar's film was objective and purely observational, I believe that he very subtly gets his opinion across to the audience. In one scene, he observes an elderly man attempting to get under his covers. This scene provoked a lot of emotion for me, and I think I can say the same for many of my classmates. Here I feel that it is clear that Edgar wants these men to be given hospice, even though they are prisoners.

Edgar also used word narration throughout the documentary, but when asked about it he said he might change it. I think that the word narration worked very well for this film because each phrase gave clue as to what would be seen next, and I often found myself waiting to hear the words that were in the phrase. Overall I really enjoyed this experience and would love to see the finished product.

The Times of Harvey Milk

The Times of Harvey Milk was a documentary directed by Rob Epstein, and narrated by Harvey Fierstein. In this documentary, Epstein seems to be trying to convey quite a subjective message. Although much of the information given in the documentary could be considered objective, the spin that Epstein put on it, along with his choice of sources is definitely subjective. Throughout the film, Epstein used the actor's voices for narration at points where interviews were being done. At other times, when no one in particular was speaking, Harvey Fierstein narrated. One point in the film that the narration really stuck out to me was when Senator Diane Feinstein announced the death of Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone. I feel like I can still hear her words ringing in my head. It seemed that there was no other noise at that point other than her words. Here is also another point where Epstein tries to convey sympathy for Harvey Milk. This scene is part of the opening scene, and is later replayed. I think that this was done to provoke emotion in the audience, which was successful.

Epstein created this film with a simple collection of archival footage, along with some eye witness interviewees and experts. I believe that Epstein's usage of the archival footage was well done and helped his ideas to seem objective. The eye witness interviewees, though, could be interpreted as objective and subjective. Many of the interviewees made the point that when they first came into contact with Harvey Milk that they thought he was very eccentric, but then all later went on to say what a great man he was. I feel that this was a smart move by Epstein to convey his message along with emotion. I also feel that his including of expert accounts was an attempt to add to the objectivity of the film. I think that Epstein didn't want to scare viewers off by shoving his opinion down their throats, so he did it in a much more subtle way. I feel that he did a good job of balancing objective and subjective, so that not to completely cast out a certain audience.

World at War

World at War is a 24 episode documentary, produced by Thamus (1973-74), and it is a victim of using the ever-so-controversial conventional voice of God narration. I found myself paying much more attention to the pictures than to what the narrator was saying, even though the words went along with what was happening on the screen. However, I do feel that the narration was valuable because without the narration, I would have had no idea what I was watching at each moment. I think the fact that the people on the screen had no voices, a characteristic of voice over narration, also played a role in why I found myself more intrigued by the images on the screen. I think that in a way, it challenged me to think about what was going on in the scene and what people were saying. Also, the authority of the narrator, another characterstic of voice over narration, was a factor in how I watched the film. I felt that the narrator did have a strong sense of authority and I believed everything he said. Again, the fact that we only know what the narrator tells us was present. Although in some documentaries this can be negative, I think that the information given was pretty objective and straightforward. Although I'm sure if the Germans had created the documentary it may have a different spin than the one it has. This film also fit the stereotype that the "voice of God" must always be a male. Overall, I thought that even though this was a World War II documentary, and I usually don't like historical movies, I liked something about it.

Millhouse: A White Comedy

Millhouse: A White Comedy was another compilation film from Emile de Antonio. It was more of a documentary comedy though. In this documentary, de Antonio clearly gives his views on President Nixon. This was also produced before the Watergate Scandal. The film opens with many teenagers singing songs about how good of a man Nixon was; I found this a bit ridiculous that these teenagers were willingly doing this. I think it also set a bit of a creepy tone for the film. The music was not calming. The music in the beginning could even be categorized as a mocking tone, which started the film off with opinions known. This was clearly a subjective film. Also, voice of God narration was used, and also went along with the images on the screen. In some clips though, the experts were their own narration.

One scene that was very memorable, and a point where de Antonio made his opinion very clear was when a wax dummy of Nixon was being lowered into the crowd. I think that this very clearly exemplified de Antonio's feelings on Nixon and his presidency. He made it clear that Nixon cared very much about his image. I think that de Antonio also achieved his goal of showing how creepy Nixon was, even though we only saw a few clips from this documentary.

In the Year of the Pig

In Emile de Antonio's film, In the Year of the Pig, Antonio is putting forth his attitude towards the government and their decision to be in the Vietnam War. This was another compilation film, but it was obvious that de Antonio had motive behind it. His goal for this film was to show the American people that the war in Vietnam was not one that we should have intervened in. He shows this with the images that he chose to use. He used images of the Americans being harsh and the Vietnamese civilians standing by helplessly. He also made point of highlighting the type of weapons in use by the American soldiers. One scene that really stuck out to me is when the American troops are plowing over the fields in Vietnam knocking down everything and anything that got in their way. The Vietnamese civilians watched as their back yards were destroyed right before their eyes. I think that this film was both subjective and objective because they were real events, but de Antonio's opinion was clear.

Male Eye as the Camera

It is obvious that the music video for "She Wolf" by Shakira was made in a way that the camera is a male eye. It is apparent through what she is wearing (spandex, stomach exposed, nude body suit, etc.). She is also acting as though the camera is a man in the way that she is acting, looking at the camera, and her dance moves. It is very clear that this video was made to appeal to her male fan base.

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

Point of Order

After watching Point of Order, I came to the conclusion that it was a mainly observational film. It is also a compilation film. I think that this was done critically and not illustratively though. Although there was a bit of narration at the beginning, that was only there to let the viewers know what they were going to be seeing. No opinions were given. This footage was only obtained intially to serve as a means of informing the public. It was originally just a record of what had happened. Then Emile de Antonio took it into his own hands and edited it. I also noticed that at first the editing was a bit choppy, but eventually it smoothed out. I think this was because longer pieces of the film were played before editing.

Zapruder Film & Rodney King Footage

The Zapruder film along with the Rodney King footage are both obviousy examples of accidental recordings. I believe that these two films can be put into the observational mode of filmmaking. These were not meant to be recorded, and the recorder never speaks or tries to influence the audience with their opinion, the viewer sees what happens and that is it. I do however think that both of these films can be looked at with maybe violating some ethical issues. In the Zapruder film we are witnessing an actual death of a human being, done right before our eyes, and in the Rodney King footage we see a human being that is being beaten repeatedly. People may feel that these films are not ethical, but without these films, how would we have record of what actually happened?

I also think that the combination of accidental, amateur, and historically significant is very interesting because normally when you think of something that is historically significant, you would have a very good quality product and usually done by a professional. However, this is not the case with the Zapruder and Rodney King films. It is extremely ironic that footage of such historical events were captured accidentally and by complete amateurs. I really think that this is an example of irony at its best. The Zapruder and Rodney King films are both very important examples of film as accidental record.

In-Class Experience (Related to Article)

After enduring the crazy events that happened in the classroom on January 13, 2010 I was in a bit of a state of shock. After Dr. Butters let us know that Aaron was an actor and that that whole scene was in fact planned, I was puzzled. He then told us to write down everything that had just happened along with everything that was just said. My mind began racing and trying to remember every little detail. I find that when you most want to remember specific details it is harder to remember than just letting it come to you. However, we had to write our script right then.

I can see how this event related to the Flashbulb Memory article that we were required to read. Flashbulb memories are exactly what we were having as we tried to record everything that had just happened. Specific words would trigger a memory or verbal exchange that we had forgotten. We could for the most part vividly remember what had happened, and this also related to flash bulb memories. Since the events had happened so recently, it was easier for us to remember without embellishing, as we sometimes do with flashbulb memories as time goes on. I think that this exercise was a great example of flashbulb memories and how they occur and are remembered.