In Closing...

In my final post I would just like to express how much this class really opened my eyes, and redefined documentary media for me. My previous experiences with documentaries were solely narrative based pieces such as Fahrenheit 911 (Michael Moore). From the direct cinema of Wiseman and Brakhage, to the home video presentation of Tarnation, my conceptions have been dramatically widened. Originally I thought all documentaries were trying to prove or create an intended message through a directly constructed diagesis. However, I found that the less explicit documentaries such as Titicut Follies and The Act of seeing with one’s Own Eyes were far more powerful, and made me much more inquisitive into what they had captured. It is almost as if mainstream documentaries, with narration and interviews, do all the thinking for you; They constitute their audience as passive viewers. Not only is the thinking done for the audience, but this type of documentary constructs point of views to follow.

The bias that mainstream documentaries present seem to go against the majority of the films that were presented this semester. In general, the main qualifier of all the material presented in class (with a few exceptions such as Outfoxed) is that all the films really tried to represent reality. For example, while there was a narration in Grizzly Man, it really felt like Herzog tried to give Treadwell the benefit of the doubt, but Treadwell’s insanity was inescapable and came through in the majority of the footage. I’m sure that with some extensive editing and certain omissions, Herzog could have portrayed Treadwell as a hero or as brave, but he didn’t, and I feel like his representation of Treadwell was far more accurate and authentic. Examples such as this definitely highlight just how much power editing has over what we take from the screen. Through this course I was constantly questioning what the main goal of a documentary should be, and I really believe that they should ultimately try to accurately represent reality. Truly, capturing reality on film would be to capture raw, uninterrupted footage. However, editing is definitely needed to condense material together, but there are ways to make its impact on reality less obvious. For example, adding elements such as music with politically or emotionally loaded lyrics can create a bias by overlaying the songs impact on top of the accompanied footage. Music can influence how the audience comprehends the composition of the footage. Bias should really be avoided at all costs in this genre of film to truly qualify as a documentary. Objectivity should be the goal of any documentary film maker.

It is getting harder and harder to locate reality in the media, and documentaries are no exception. At least pieces of fiction are identifiable as false; documentaries can be very misleading since the public conception is that they constitute reality. The majority of documentaries give the guise of reality when in matter of fact they could tilt their footage to come to a fabricated conclusion. One should hope that documentaries stay true to their purpose, rather than negatively impacting the public’s conception of reality.

In closing I would like to thank John Reed for an interesting course which finally broke some of the conventional moulds that many MIT classes fall into all too often.

Similarities

I was really impressed with Ana Deavere Smith’s performance in Fires in the Mirror (George C Wolfe). Every character she acted out had a great sense of authenticity to them. Her performance was incredibly believable. The presentation of these testimonies has great parallels between the Studs Terkel interview method that we studied earlier this semester. Just as Terkel gives his own direction and flow to his transcribed interviews, the editing and composition of Fires in the Mirror creates a discourse that is greater than the sum of its parts. That is to say that the director’s weaving of these interviews speaks on the riots on a much wider scale than any of the individuals who were interviewed ever could. Furthermore, the framing and order that interviews are presented in creates a subordinate narrative that the director has knowingly constructed to convey his own understanding of the event.

The movie covered all the varying point of views surrounding this dramatic period, these differing points of view seemed to be related to their race and clearly pointed out the racial tension in this period. Just as Terkel’s work can be used as a time capsule to capture the social attitudes of the time, this film (providing the interviews are in fact authentic) can be used to relive the social atmosphere present around the Rodney King Trial. In general it was very informative for me, since I was too young to really know or remember anything to do with the LA riots. Just as Ana Deavere Smith gave her voice as that of the interviewees, Terkel gave his transcribed interviews his own editorial touch. The question remains however, which method is more true to documentary style, and which method is more susceptible to having its’ messages tainted.

There is obviously reliance upon the representation that Smith and Wolfe present. Since this event has come and gone, there is little to withhold or disprove the accounts that were apparently recorded. Hopefully the interviews were acted out truthfully and respectfully or the history this film tries to capture is tainted and misrepresented.

Native Exhibitionism

I enjoyed how Cannibal Tours (Denis O’Rourke) both subtly and explicitly showcased the exploitation of the native people of Papua New Guinea. There was some very poignant moments in this film that seemed to almost happen by themselves, but really spoke to how ridiculous the whole situation is. One of these moments was when the cameraman was speaking to a native man and an American tourist slowly crept into frame, trying to grab a shot of the native. I just love how the tourists are taking pictures of them simply for being a native. The awkwardness of the tourist seemed to create a moment of mutual distain between the cameraman and the native towards the tourist, and in larger part the circumstances surrounding the sudden western infatuation with the ‘primitive way of life’ in Papua New Guinea. It is as if these tourists are living out a fantasy of taking a picture for their own personal national geographic magazine. Haraway would say that their intentions are the same as this magazine (if not fostered by it), “the people of the third and fourth worlds are portrayed as exotic; they are idealized; they are naturalized and taken out of all but a single historical narrative[..]”(89) The tourists were all trying to capture a shot which they saw as essentially native or exotic, similar to what the images of national geographic offer its viewers.

I remember seeing the native take being paid after being photographed, and it seemed like such juxtaposition-- as in why does he actually need it. The native’s facial expression even demonstrated this, not evidently showing any real motivation or happiness towards the money, seeming that he just needed it to live because that’s the new way of life. It seems like currency has also brought with it the depersonalization of labor, however, in this case, the depersonalization is on a much larger scale, since the native lives are essentially their labour -- being the object of the touristic gaze. I remember when the Italian tourists said they enjoyed viewing this ‘primitive lifestyle’, but that eventually technology and our forms of government will civilize them, as if the western way is the eventual evolution of any society, which is wrong and very ignorant to say. I think the underlying uneasiness of the entire film is how tourists treat these people as a commodity and an exhibition to be photographed. Unfortunately the native’s naiveté towards this new found ‘celebrity’ allows them to be taken advantage of. If any of us were being photographed for essentially being different or inferior we would be appalled, and wouldn’t stand for it.

I do understand that these people represent life in the old hunter gatherer sense, but to be put on display in such a way really doesn’t sit with me too well. The natives seem stuck in the hunter gatherer way of life, but are forced to earn money by essentially being a human freak show, or an exhibit in a museum—displaying ‘the old way of life’. If they need money to live then they are embracing our way of life and should adopt other aspects of it (if they choose to). They seem stuck with our quest for money, one of the least appealing aspects of our life, yet left without any amenities that currency can provide (ie medicine, better housing etc). Not only does the money they earn do little for them, but they barely understand it, obvious when one of the natives questioned where all the tourists get their money from, asking them if their government gives it to them. They are inadvertently being colonized by our way of life, and leaving theirs behind. In their lives before money or contact with the western world, there must have been at least a better sense of culture and purpose. It is obvious that currency has already impacted their way of life a great deal, since the natives were complaining that tourists don’t buy enough of their goods, showcasing their dependency and reliance on the currency. I doubt they had such complaints before this westernization. Before solely catering towards tourists, I’m sure their culture was more concerned with actual problems such as shelter and nourishment. They are relying on money to feed themselves as opposed to their traditional methods, leaving behind their traditional way of life for a fractional western substitute. The western impact is essentially making this culture cannibalize itself to a point where it will eventually not be alien enough for tourists to want to see; and then what will become of these natives?

Power of Editing

Taking a step back from the Rodney King case’s verdict, and the social circumstances surrounding the event itself, it becomes far too clear that even something as visceral as video can be distorted and interpreted to have completely alternative meanings. The amazing thing is that the Rodney King footage was un-edited, and was clearly not faked in anyway shape or form. The way the defense used this footage to their advantage through framing, really opened my eyes how editing, even in this crude form, can drastically influence public opinion. Goodwin made reference to this referring to coding schemas, “The power of coding schemes to control perception in this fashion was central to the defense strategy”(616). It was through the framing of the footage that imbued the defense with ability to slant the video to the defense’s favor. If this is the possible and accomplished through such minor editing, then imagine the amount of impact that editing has on a narrative based documentary such as Fahrenheit 911 (Michael Moore). A director can toy with any bit of footage to get across their desired message. Since we can assume that a Michael Moore film is never objective, exactly how much of it can we trust? I believe this points out a flaw in the very definition of documentaries. If we see them as works of realism or believe that they are in the search of objective truth, then we are mistaken. Through the very act of editing, the realism is automatically eradicated. The process of editing requires a vision or direction to be accomplished, so obviously a completely objective documentary is almost impossible. All the editing is deliberate, and all messages have been formed through this editing.

This same falseness applies to reality television, since the 3rd wall rule is never broken, we can really never know what is going on behind the scenes, or to what extent the behind the scenes work affects the protagonists of the show. Additionally, reality television has to compress days, weeks or even years into an entertaining timeframe, so editing has an even greater role to play in this genre, and is almost assuredly how these shows come across as entertaining. There is almost no limit to the amount of tinkering they can do, or what stories they chose to highlight. This editing can seriously affect how the individuals are seen, and can be miles away from even approaching a realistic portrayal. These factors all converge to create a hyper-real fabrication of reality. To see this in action, the wonder of youtube brings you the genius of the BBC. The Brits really like to take the piss on reality TV:

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

A confused Grizzly Man

I absolutely loved Grizzly Man, potentially for the wrong reasons, but evidently, through the vast variety of differing of opinion on Timothy Treadwell it could very well be justified. My opinions on Treadwell are almost identical to that of Paul Arthur, who critiques this film along with others from Werner Herzog’s portfolio in his article Home Video, Personal Confession, and the Archive. I would just like to make it clear, that I think Treadwell was a completely delusional child of a man. He lived in a fairytale land where he was the protector of the bears who apparently enjoyed his company and would respect him as an individual. I am not denying that Treadwell was brave (or just suicidal), even though I really question if he gave the bears any respect. I hate the fact that he thought his words did anything to defuse the bears, because evidently from his demise, if one really wanted to kill him it was only a slight inclination away. I believe that living with the bears gave him some sick pleasure, and an escape from his past drug and alcohol problems. Paul Arthur agrees with this in his article, “Like Other Herzogian misfits, Treadwell is plagued by inner demons which he attempts to exorcise through incredibly risky behavior”(43) Additionally, I believe Timothy was very confused with his sexuality, evident in how he tried to baby talk the animals, like a mother would do to a child. Herzog additionally implies this confusion through showcasing a long scene of Treadwell walking, where he claimed ‘ I wish I was gay’ and seemed to hint on past feelings that he had struggled with throughout his life. He really comes across as a very lost person. Through his self chosen isolation, he confronted himself through the camera. It was as if he felt it was weird to talk to himself, but the camera gave him an excuse to finally do some soul searching. Arthur touches upon this, commenting that, “Treadwell is a dogged self-dramatizer with a thirst for abject camera exposure”(43). He seemed to be his own psychologist through the camera.

His personal issues aside, through this film I can really give him no credit for his ‘work’, other than his impressive footage of the bears in their natural habitat. He constantly referred to his work as watching and protecting the bears, however, not in one frame did we ever see him actually do anything helpful to the bears…or for that matter see a frame where it was at all obvious that the bears needed anyone’s help. These were the beginnings of his clear delusions of grandeur. He saw himself as a hero or believed he was doing something very noble. As the native museum guide quite rightly points, he most likely caused more harm than anything else. He could potentially familiarized bears to humans, this could throw both endanger both species by bringing them closer together.

Furthermore, Treadwell tries to act as if he is an environmentalist when throughout the film it becomes painfully obvious he knows almost nothing about nature or the environmentalist practises. Arthur similarly pointed out Treadwell’s lack of knowledge, “Treadwell has little interest in conveying concrete information, there is hardly a whiff of animal biology or environmental science in the entire film” (45) He continually interferes with nature’s natural course. )This was most blatantly obvious when he attempted to direct the salmon through the stream by creating a path through the low water to feed his hungry bear friends. He sees the fish as the bear’s food instead of another organism, most likely because he didn’t have a fish for his stuffed animal as a child. He seems to have adoration for cute and cuddly animals ie: bears, foxes and even a bee, anything else he is simply not interested in. To interfere with nature and to show such preference is not the environmental way, since nature works by population control, it sometimes does not always favor the cute and cuddly animals. This highlights his idiocy and the childishness of his grizzly aspirations.

After all these factors, I still think the most disgusting thing about Treadwell was his hypocrisy. In one shot he would claim bears are misunderstood, but in another he would say that he is constantly in danger of being killed by the same animal. These conflicting statements indicate one of his many attempts to idolize himself. Additionally, he tried to make his living with the bears out to be for the animal’s benefit and protection; that he was selflessly in their service, when in reality it was all an act to get attention for himself.

I believe it was Herzog’s intention to show a steady decline in his personality throughout the film. Initially, Treadwell may come across as an adventurous and caring individual, but as the film progresses it becomes obvious he is just obsessed with the celebrity which had spawned from his insanity. He was clearly a different person during his speeches than when he was essentially off camera between takes, which was obviously never intended to be seen by the public. During planned footage, his character was calm and happy, out of this setting he was unstable and constantly cursing at society, and at one point even a fox. He created the false character of a lone outdoorsman, friends with all the cute and furry animals. He even lied to his audience in this regard because he pretended to be alone when in fact his girlfriend was with him during one of his expeditions. He created a likable character to get publicity, potentially to make up for previously failing to appear on the popular sitcom “Cheers” earlier in his life.

All in all, I loved the film for getting me so angry at this unfortunately pathetic person. Even though, I am sure Treadwell meant well, he just had absolutely no comprehension of reality, and eventually his luck ran out, it is just unfortunate that he took his girlfriend’s life with him.

[ TAKEN FROM DOCUMENTARY PROJECT 1 REFLECTIONS]




For the Interview I used the built in recording capabilities of my Mp3 Player, the Creative Zen Vision M. As is evident by the picture, it is a very unassuming piece of technology and did not require a microphone to record the interview. It was simply left on my grandma’s (Yvonne May) bed side table and left to record. There was a meter which showed how much sound the mic was picking up, I played with the sensitivity so that everything was audible but not overpowering. The device recorded the interview perfectly and encoded the interview as a wav file, which I could then refer to either with the player or through my computer. I was very happy with the recording function of the device. I believe that the unobtrusiveness of the device allowed the interview to go ahead very casually, as if it was just my grandma commonly telling me one of her stories from her past. The answers she gave me all seem very natural and unforced.

I am very pleased with the final product, mainly because I have a timepiece of my Grandma’s life, that will always mean something special to me. I was extremely interested in her stories, both personally, how she met my grandfather (who I have never met, he died of a brain tumor before I was born) and historically, learning about what the world was like in her time. I noticed some very interesting trends in how she looks at the world compared to how I would, along with some similarities between her day and ours. It was interesting how she refers to the English and allies as ‘we’ and never really separated herself from that. Throughout the interview and in her stories in general my grandma is very proud of her English heritage.
The transcribing process was not very difficult for me, since I could type her words almost as quickly as she spoke them. The hardest part was deciding on punctuation, since we do not talk with the same structure that we write.

Seeing as how my grandma is 91, she does repeat herself a lot, at points she will even repeat whole stories that she had just finished recounting. The rearrangement of her thought was the main focus of my editing to make the interview seem fluid and not confuse the reader through the constant repetition. She speaks in a very English manner, which includes of self reflexive comments such as “I think”, “I would have you know”. I had to take out a lot of those to make the piece flow. Additionally, she would ask herself questions after I asked a question, as if she was searching her memories for the answer. I had to take all of these instances out. Apart from that she is an incredibly eloquent speaker and a very good story teller.

Her life in Edinburgh seemed almost like a fairytale, especially her anecdote about how she met my grandfather. It seemed as if it was right out of a movie or novel. In fact, I really like this style of storytelling, it seems far more human than formal writing. I wish I could write how she talks. It was really fulfilling to shape a fluid story through the answers, it was a really fun editing process. I tried not to change her words or sentence structure as much as possible to maintain her presence in the writing. Through her age, she didn’t completely finish some thoughts, and I tried to finish them to the best of my ability.

The interview itself comes across as a comparison between a person from the mid 1900s to a person today. Particularly poignant moments in the interview were when she contrasted between then and now with regards to the media and news coverage. It was really amazing how cut off she was from the truth of the front line during the war. She has told me on numerous occasions that she had the time of her life during the war, when you would have thought times should have been tough. World War 2 was one of the biggest conflicts of our race’s existence, and had drastic consequences if Germany annexed Europe. It really surprised me that the situation did not weigh heavier on her conscience; she could have been invaded by fascists, who were not known to be the nicest of people. Today the public attitude and media landscape are completely different. I can only imagine the fear mongering that would be going on if we were facing an enemy as powerful as fascist Germany was back then. This is completely contrasted by our mediascape today, where we have images from the front line available 24/7 along with commentary from analysts and soldiers themselves. Furthermore, our media would underline every event, and make sure the general public knew, to some degree, what was going on. The world has clearly gotten a lot smaller through media technology. My grandma referred to Edinburgh as ‘her own little world’, to be so isolated from the rest of it seems really strange by today’s standards.

Another contrasting element to my grandma’s interview was how much she appeared to enjoy her job compared to some of the people in Stud Terkel’s Working. She seemed to have a definite feeling of pride for the work she was doing, something the majority of jobs are lacking in the book.

Not only am I pleasantly surprised with “Working” by Studs Terkel, but I definitely agree with all the acclaim it has obviously received, evident through the critic reviews plastered all over the front cover. Business Week wrote,“ Splendid…important…Rich and fascinating… The people we meet are not digits in a poll but real people with real names who share their anecdotes, adventures, and aspirations with us.” This reaction definitely captures what this book, and a Studs Terkel interview offer. This book is essentially a time capsule for the civic attitude and makeup of our current day society. This book does not censor the interviewee’s feelings in any shape or form (which is at all obvious). The people’s point of views, whether they are offensive or even racist are kept free of political correctness and censorship. Through this, Terkel achieves a sense of honesty with this book, and provides a window into the minds and attitudes of the western world. The way the interviews are presented is not meant to judge the individuals, but to showcase the worlds in which they have grown up in and are currently living. The interviews and anecdotes both explicitly and implicitly touch on society’s problems.

The majority of stories almost come across as if the people are beaten, that they are unhappy with their work (and lives) and are trapped with no way out. There seems to be a large degree of helplessness in peoples lives, these feelings seem to point out the economic and political shortcomings of our day. As a student I can relate to the struggles that the majority of these people face.

One of the characters who really hit home was Mike Lefevre, the steelworker (preface 1). Funnily enough this was the first interview that I read, and it sparked my enthusiasm for the rest of the book. I found that Lefevre represented the common labor class worker. He hates his job but needs the money to support himself and his family. He seemed very selfless, just doing his job, trying to get through his life…regardless if he’s particularly happy with it. His modesty towards himself and his quite poignant criticisms of the working world gave me a great deal of respect for him:
“You can’t take pride anymore…You remember when a guy could point to a house he build, how many logs he stacked. He built it he was proud of it…It’s hard to take pride in a bridge you’re never gonna cross, in a door you’re never gonna open”(xxxi)
In this response Lefevre directly criticizes Taylorism and is expressing his hate towards the dehumanization of labor. He goes on to constantly see his profession as pointless, claiming that a machine could do what he does, ”your doing manual labor you know a machine can do”(xxxii). It is one thing to hear these theories in lecture but to hear this first hand from someone experiencing it, really emphasizes that these things are real and are happening to people in the world.

I deeply enjoyed his theory that if the working class were not so beaten down, and if they had the money and the time to pursue their interests and educate themselves that they there would be more Albert Einstein’s, more revolutions in the world. However, he quite rightly points out that, the government probably would not want that to occur. This attitude touches on a general mistrust that the public has of its government, in current and past days.

Additionally I wholeheartedly agree with his outlook on workplace authority and rules.
“He was chewing me out and I was saying, “yeah yeah yeah” he said, “what do you mean, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, sir.” I told him “who the hell are you, Hitler?” what is this “yes sir bullshit” I came here to work, I didn’t come here to crawl” (xxxiii)
I love how Lefevre comes across as if he is the complete embodiment of Marxist theory. The line where he says he came here to work not to crawl, captures how ,in these type of jobs, workers are definitely proletariat slaves to the bourgeoisie. Workplace chain of command have always frustrated me. Most of the time your manager is just trying to make them self feel more useful or in charge by flexing their ‘power’. When the work is so menial, (Steelwork in his case, Walmart in my case) it takes you a lot of discipline to not snap on this manager who is just as frustrated with their job as you, but tries to feel better by pissing you off. Managers act as if the job should be the world to us, or that we should care about it, when in reality, all it is, is a pay cheque. Taking pride in ones work when there is no pride to be had is difficult, and robs individuals of their self confidence. Taking pride in that sense is being proud of being used and abused by the bourgeoisie.