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.