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