The film fits the documentary genre, but Sontag “considered it her most personal film” because it is derived from her previous works on literature and politics.

Even though she did not believe she was primarily a critic, Promised Lands is more clearly and fully a work of cinema.

Before Lim goes into reviewing the film, he goes into a brief review of Sontag’s life and career so that the audience may get a clear idea of perhaps why she does what she does in her films. Lim also wants to establish that maybe he was confused about some things in the film, and this brief synopsis about her life cleared up some questions he had, so he wanted those questions to be answered for us before we get a chance to ask them.

The first three paragraphs establish that Susan Sontag’s view on her films weren’t first identified as a documentary film. These paragraphs reflect the personal opinion that Sontag thinks about Promised Lands.

As I discussed in my journal and you also commented on, it’s important to make sure the reader is getting a sense of the film that’s being the reviewed, not the opinions/life of the person reviewing. The first three paragraphs of this review could have been written by anyone. Instead of giving a subjective point of view, Dennis Lim is giving a somewhat factual, and useful overview of the filmmaker. Understanding where the filmmaker comes from helps the reader to understand the filmmaker and film on a very important level.

This ties into ‘Promised Lands’ because Sontag, much like Lim, somewhat removes herself from the film. There is no ‘voice of god’ commentary; actually hardly any voice over at all. Sontag’s film is almost strictly observational. The first three paragraphs discuss how she is not primarily a documentary filmmaker, which helps make sense of the way that she is able to remove herself from her own commentary, the way a true reviewer does.

To give us a background on her film career. Since she’s been a film critic and has wrote novels, essays and plays, she know what she’s doing in Promised Lands. Althrough the contents seems unorganized, she has her point based on her film experience.

people trusted and a voice people wanted to hear.

Lim is trying to show that Sontag is a veteran of the film industry because she is a film buff, film critic, and film maker. He is trying to explain the circumstances under which the films were made and the locations to show Sontag as a well-rounded individual and that her documentaries deserve to be watched.

I think it is interesting that Sontag can stick to this film still being a documentary even if it has the touches from her other work.

The first three paragraphs show the diversity in her film career.

Dennis Lim gives the reader some information about Sotang’s previous works in order for us to understand where her views stand and where she is coming from in creating this film. This information makes the audience understand the film better

The first three paragraphs of the review written by Dennis Lim mentions Sontag’s accomplishments in her film career. It then begins to speak about her independence as a film maker. Lim makes it seem like Sontag’s work was good yet unaccessible.

Considering the fact that it was a very personal film, she feared that it would be too restrictive to label her movie a documentary. Fearing that people might choose side, when in fact the movie is just showing the everyday life of Palestines and Israelis.
The other two movies she made were fiction, and bear influences of Bergman’s reflections about the impossibility of human communication, which is also the case/theme in “Promised Lands” because the Palestines and Israelis didn’t – and still to this day don’t – know how to communicate.

Being a writer with many publications makes Sontag values personal message as a very important element of films. She wants her idea and creativity to be recognized directly from Promised Lands instead of people regard the film as an mutual reflection of Israel.

There are certain expectations placed on documentary filmmakers and their films. But for Sontag events and characters are purposely kept underdeveloped, in order to generate lamentation.

When people hear words like that, they have a clear idea of what is to be expected. If they get something else otherwise, then instead of embracing the art, they ridicule the lack of understanding of the concept of "documentary’. Sontag wanted to avoid that, so she gave her pieces a broader name “literary analogues” that gave her much more creative room without misleading the audience.

The word ‘documentary’ has a certain connotation to it. For the most part, the general public sees a documentary with this idea of learning/being educated. In addition, most people think that documentaries try to be as objective as possible (even though this is clearly not the case).

Maybe Sontag did not want the connotation of what a documentary is perceived to be to be attached to her film. That way, if the connotation changed in the future, her film wouldn’t be confined to represent a specific style.

Sontage resists the term documentary to describe the type of films she has created because it feels narrow. I think Sontage felt that by labeling the film documentary would take away from the literary elements to the film.

She wants the audience to feel her perspective of Israel while watching this film. Therefore, she think the film is not a documentary because its subjective.

even saw it. So, calling it a documentary outright might have allowed people to make assumptions or arguments about the film before they could truly digest the entire thing.

Sontag, on the other hand, wants the viewer to know that she understands there are different interpretations of this situation that it happening. To call a film like this a documentary would mean that Sontag has all the answers on how to proceed with the situation and her truth and interpretation are the only ones that are correct and accurate. By calling it a lamentation, which I feel is the best word she could have used, she allows more room for the viewers own interpretation.

Sotang refrains from using documentary because it limits her personal views. She didn’t want the audience to persive it as just a “documentary”, because it was way more personal to her. I guess she wanted the audience to create their own interpretation of the film and just view it for what it was.

Sontag would resist the term documentary because it seemed too cookie cutter. In other words it restricted the real essence of her films. Documentary films are about documentations of events or people, whereas this film is more creative, and expressive. Especially with the use of audio, and imagery.

“Promised Lands” managed to outrage both the pro-Israelis and the pro-Palestinians at the time of its release. The effect is rather more powerful due to the lack of voice-over. In the beginning of the documentary we see burned bodies and abandoned tanks, which says more than a voice could do. She makes the viewer perceive her work in their own way, and by not painting the picture for the viewer it becomes a more open-ended movie that can be interpreted in various ways and lead to interesting discussions about the conflict.

Sontag may believes that her visuals are powerful enough to elicit viewers’ emotions and sympathy on empty lands. Without a guiding voice, I did feel a little lost in context at the beginning, but it adds up the sense of lost tremendously as I focus entirely on what is being showed on screen.

This treats both sides of the conflict with something approaching empathy and fresh intellectual engagement for the viewers.

The lack of voice allows the audience to grab what they need from the film and interpret it into their own opinions. It leaves unlimited space for inferences.
Sometimes, when a narrator has a strong presence in a film, it tells too much of the story, the audience starts to rely on it, and it becomes easier to miss key moments in the film because we think the story is being told to us. Without a narrator, Sontag allows people to see what she saw

I personally think the lack of a narrator allows a viewer to become more engrossed in the film. With a narrator, one is constantly reminded that she is being spoken to. A voice presents certain information, and the viewer is supposed to accept that information and take it in.

The lack of a narrator allows the viewer to make her own conclusions about the things being presented.

I think the lack of narrator gives the opportunity for the audience to draw their own conclusions about the film. The film can have a stronger voice and that is one of they elements to a social documentary film.Sontag wants the audience to think and react on their first impressions and without being told by the narrator.

Both Sontag and Reifenstahl’s films chronicle war times. Though their films are different, the lack of commentary forces the viewer to really think about the impact of the images/film presented. Reifenstahl’s lack of voiceover was powerful, simply, because the power of the following behind Hitler was enough. Since Reifenstahl’s film was commissioned, she was showing one side of the war through her film, and did so affectively. Sontag’s film is different in the way that she was not trying to instill some higher voice or reason into the viewer. Sontag gives equal power to both sides of the war. She doesn’t take sides, but rather, silently, shows both sides via the images she captured. The power is given to the land itself, not her opinions of it.

the viewer that Sontag did not necessarily want audiences to be exposed to. She wanted people to see the devastation and form their own opinions about the war as a whole. Not who was right and who was wrong.

However, what this does it “show rather than tell”. Instead of making her argument with the use of people’s words, she makes it with the use of footage. This documentary is more modern so there are more clear ways for Sontag to make her argument. She can simply show the burnt bodies and the man reading from the book, and we already know how to feel about what is happening and how Sontag feels.

Not having a voice over really give the audience the opportunity to create what is happening in their minds and to think deeper about it. It also gives the opportunity of discussion. To see what others have to say about something they are viewing and not what they are being told.

I believe that Sotang’s vision is clear enough without the use of a voice over. Sometimes the voice over detracts the view of the audience, by not having a voice over the audience creates their own interpretation of the film. The images are just as impactful as Riefenstahl. yet the films are different because Riefenstahl gives the audience the sense of propaganda and Sotang’s does not.

The lack of narration allows the viewer to think for themselves. It also allowed Sontag to really be creative with the audio sounds, which seemed to evoke an emotional response from viewers. A narration would definitely make the film seem more documentary, and we know from this review that Sontag was clearly avoiding the documentary style of film. With a narration is would be harder to keep a viewers attention throughout the entire movie. However, without narration a viewer can really absorb the images and the interviews.

In “Man with a Movie Camera”, the music brings energetic and rhythmic atmosphere of the Soviet reality.“Triumph of the Will” demonstrate the discipline, organization and unity of the Nazi Party of Germany. Hitler delivers his speeches with the power of expression was somewhat mesmerizing. A scene in" Listen to Britain" where their were soldiers on a railway carriage singing along to a guitar, and women at work singing to the radio helps emphasis that the people of Britain are setting to their work fearlessly and in good spirit. It is music which unites them even though wartime.

In Man with a Movie Camera is energetic and has a sort of tempo to it in regards to what is shown as we see a multitude Russian industry, infrastructure and employment. Triumph of the Will is much more dramatic and powerful in its music. This type of music is used to highlight the NSP’s rigorous discipline and charisma as well as adding to Adolf Hitler’s deity-like persona. Listen To Britain used more of the actual sounds that are being made by people and machinery and focused mainly on upbeat popular music that was being played on radio’s and parties at the time. Promised Lands does more of what Listen To Britain does then the other two. There is no real upbeat music like Man with a Movie Camera because this isn’t meant to be an upbeat film. Same can be said for the dramatic and powerful music used in Triumph of the Will. Promised lands uses the actual sounds that are being recorded along with the visual and when they do use music, it sounds like they are using the audio of someone that they recorded actually singing.

Listen to britain had more of a lighter but subtly serious tone as it was also talking about war but also relying how people still live daily with singing and such. Promise Lands had very warlike sounds, guns and tanks and fires, which promoted a darker serious movie interpretation.

As a viewer there is a feeling of peace and unification in “Listen to Britain”. The comparisons between quiet scenes from everyday life and the manic, unreal struggle of the war effort shows a balance between harmony and chaos without directing showing war. The war aftermath, shows the assembly of people in “The Way We Live” had emphasis on integrating continuity and changes a community coming together for a brighter future.

In Listen to Britain and The Way We Live, the horrors of war aren’t really touched upon. Instead, it is shaped in a more promising, hopeful light. Even though bad things happen, people still go on and prevail and live. In Promised Lands, Sontag shows war as the nightmare that it is – destruction, death and suffering.

Listen to Britain highlights a country that seems indifferent to the severity of their current predicament, which in a way showcases the country’s defiance to their enemy’s agenda. The Way We Live showcases how the drawdown of war affects individual’s perspectives on their community in regards to real estate, infrastructure and political policy. Promised Lands delivers more of the horrors of war by showcasing its potential for destruction and death while also showing the negative effect it has on those who are still living after it is over.

downfalls is dangerous to the people who innocently watch without understanding the impending destruction that manifest of such circumstances.

So we know that Sontag was a witness to horrors like tanks and corpses, and I think this is what makes this such an incredible film. Its raw and vulnerable. She risked her own life to capture the desert combat. I really like how Lim included her quote "Anything about any war that does not show the appalling concreteness of destruction and death is a dangerous lie. " This reassures us that she was willing to pay the cost of risking her life to get to the truth.