I am really not sure what this means. Materialist, I believe are people that care more about material things than intelligence or culture. So for documentary to evolve during that time makes sense but only because I think the people making documentaries had to have wealth in order to have the equipment they needed to tell other peoples stories.

If you were to see early movies or analyze plays from Ancient times to even the early 1920’s you will be able to see a stark difference in how these stories have changed compared to today’s. Epic poems and sagas were fueled by reasons by these heroes and heroines by the pursuit of immortality such as Homer’s Iliad. Today however it has changed to reflect society’s new reasons for advancing… the pursuit of materials things such as cars, houses and money.

It is quite commercial actually. Materialist reasons are finding ways to entertain the audience, to get a let of people to watch your film. It could be because a filmmaker wants to make a profit or earn a lot of money for a film, but it could also be just to have a lot of people watching your film or talking about it. Your film can be really good but when you do not care of the audience (materialistic reasons), they won’t pay and watch it.

The “materialist reasons” that cause documentary films to advance was purely because of the advancements in society, exactly like Jessica stated. In today’s films we constantly see monstrous budgets for special effects surpass records just because as an audience we are expecting to be wow-ed every time we pay money to see a film. Another way this could be seen is how many remakes have been made of older films just to inject the newest actors and style of filming in an attempt to better the story, or just to make a profit.

I believe that materialist reasons maybe an individual doing something for something in return. Materialists usually only care about the acquisition of things.

i think the meaning of materialist reasons here is that as our society evolved over a period, documentary film also had to evolve for a quality wise. Like we have better equipments and knowledge than before.

Yes it is the same as “seeing is believing” because people are more incline to feel something is believable when there is some sort visual in front of them. Viewers are witnessing evidence of a stance or of an event the has occurred.

I do agree that seeing is believing. Witnessing something horrific has a much larger impact than simply reading about or hearing it from a separate source. This can become problematic in film for many reasons, one of them being the desensitization of your audience. The once profound, awe-inspiring, scene or picture no longer has an effect on its subject because its been seen so many times.

film is concerned because an uneducated audience member will view that film as the truth, just as an uninformed consumer might buy a poorly made product from seeing persuasive advertisement. Selling a film as fact, even if it is opinion, can be harmful because it feeds bias information to audiences without them questioning it.

Based on my interpretation of the initial statement about the possible origins of our ultimate view/actions regarding the world I believe it is not exactly the same as “seeing is believing” however it is similar. The two statements are not the same owing to the fact that the interpretations of the two may vary and also because of the complexities of those interpretations that one is obligated to bring forth. For example when I read the two statements instantly I had thoughts and reasoning that separated or came between what the two statements meant to me. “Seeing is believing” isn’t so simple in some films because one can believe something is happening in a film yet that individual cannot see it being portrayed in that film. Also the writer of a film or documentary may tempt you or leave room for you to believe/assume things, events, or phenomenons you cannot even see and sometimes may never see in film or documentary.

“Seeing is Believing” but is believing, seeing?. In film we can see a story of a hero with countless accurate facts of the circumstance, time and people but it does not make the existence of this fictional character anymore real or the facts anymore concrete. Film shows what the lens captures only. Thus it creates a problem as far as film is concerned because much like history can be interpreted as “His Story” or even in addition, “history is written by the winner” it does not make the weight of the truth anymore heavier or lighter.

Yes, I believe it is the same. It might be a problem if you look at film, because film (and pictures as well) can also show you things that give a totally different impression than of what really happened or is true. I think that is the main point Woody Allen is trying to make in Zelig as well. He criticizes documentary and shows different ways in how something can look totally true (you see the person Zelig, you see him changing into other things and you hear experts talking about him) but are structured or false (Zelig does not exist). As long as the viewer knows that not everything you see is true or totally true, it is ok. It can be a problem when people believe everything they see because they might get the wrong impression.

This statement is not the same as seeing is believing. This statement is simply appraising the value of photographs— its ability to enhance its message. However, while photographs help enhance one perspective of something, it may not represent the full authentic picture of it. Similarly to film, film can depict images in a certain way as well.

The sentence holds the same meanings as “seeing is believing”. However, simply viewing a documentary, or any other visual work, at face value depletes possible themes and allusions the director intended. Just viewing a film is just scraping the surface. To fully understand and appreciate the full experiance, outside knowledge or research must be applied.

In some retrospect, I do believe that seeing is believing. However, I feel that this is only true to what you see happening in actuality. In terms of film, and in this case, documentaries, I believe that there is too much room for maipulation. Are events pieced together in the correct order? Are all aspects of an event being showed? I feel that unless you are watching it play out in person, there are too many different opinions that can be formed with film. For instance I could watch the same movie on film and have a completely different point of view, opinion, takeaway as someone else who watches the same film.

This is telling us that the best part of photography is the ability to capture the world from every single view and be able to hold these moments through images. This statement raises questions in terms of seeing is believing because a photograph, similar to a film, can emphasize what the artist wants you to look for which can be deceiving if you are biased.

That statement is the same as seeing is believing and the reason why the statement is problematic is because views are constantly altered. Sight is not always clear and therefore can not be accurate at all times. A good example is news programs which is somewhat similar to documentary films. News programs have an agenda to present the most important, scandalous, and exciting events in 60 minutes. The limit and pressure of timing alters the way we perceive it, however because it is received and understood, it is considered as fact.

I do not believe that seeing is believing. The illusions of visualization can easily distort our perception so that we see whatever we are being told to be “seen”. It’s so easy to trick your senses by altering images. This is a problem as far as film is concenered simply because the audience consumes whatever image and/or idea that the film maker wishes to portray. There is no room for the audience to make their or assumtions or judgements based on what they are viewing.

I think this is the same as “seeing is believing”. In regards to film “seeing is believing” maybe a problem because a the director of a documentary film is going to include what he/she feels should be included.

The statement does relate to seeing is believing. What an individual bears witness to is of absolute certainty. This might be a problem as far as film is concerned because for one, you simply can’t film everything. For example, a location in a film might be impossible to film for a movie, so the director would symbolize the area with an object. Also, sometimes a director would want to recreate a state of mind, and sometimes that would be portrayed artistically instead of literally. This would suggest a viewers mind to improvise and be creative, in order to understand what the director is portraying.

This statement is the same as seeing is believing. When watching the film and you see all of the preposterous things Zelig is doing you shouldn’t believe it. Its an issue for film because viewers need to know that what they are seeing isn’t necessarily true. I think this film is an extreme but even with the most ordinary documentaries a viewer should take everything he is watching with a grain of salt.

Not the same. Because a film can be a total lie. Is it productive to allow a lie to bear witness for what we believe? I don’t think so.

i think it is the same statement as “seeing is believing.” It is known that even if you hear it over a hundred times, it is always better to witness it once. But it is also problem when people think they can believe whatever they witnessed. Impression is always different depend on the individual.

can capture blocks and blocks of footage in one shot, (endless, almost.)

Films that “get around” are seen on a large scale by many different people, they are usually big budget feature films with exclusively white male actors as the focal point. They usually deal with "big world driven conflict that only their white hero can overcome. Films that do not “get around” are ones dealing with real world issues such as poverty, or abuse. They tell the story of the real people and include different races to share a complete truth.

Getting around is to infer something has ease of transportation and recognition. Films that portray very distinctive flaws in human character, or grotesque films such as “The Human Centipede”, films regarding human created disasters, even documentaries focused on poverty or war do not get much attention. All these types of films are have in common that they reveal flaws and cracks within the human psyche and most are not comfortable with seeing those cracks in their face.

Film is an art form that combines stories, visuals and sound. By being able to approach any topic from innumerable angles, new symbols can be discovered and eventually used to develop newer stories. Films that ignore this end up falling into cookie-cutter tropes that have been used till they lose any soul they had.

The beauty of film is that film has the ability to reach the masses, especially in today’s age of social media and things going “viral.” I believe that a good filmmaker will take a subject and make it appeal to the masses by taking topics that people do not necessarily have knowledge about and getting that message out there and making it interesting for people to watch. I believe that film get around for that fact. Films that do something new and innovative, new art forms if you will, only add to the appeal of that film. Now, films that I feel do not get around are films that do a poor job showing both sides of a story. Looking at documentaries in general, if the filmmaker clearly has a bias towards one side over another, this hinders the experience and motive of what a documentary is actually supposed to do.

A documentary film’s ability to get around can or cannot be limited by its subject. Any one subject can be as broad or vague as the creators wish. After choosing the topic, it will be seen by as wide an audience as desired while certain topics may be taboo in certain cultures. With the intent of a documentary to inform, it is usually in the interest of the film makers to get their message to as many people as possible.

I think the term getting around refers to the selectiveness and creativity in putting together a story in films that reality generally doesn’t grant us. Life gets exploited because it is searched and ripped apart for its vital components and then transformed into a new and improved art form. Even the Lumiere brothers were able to achieve that when filming the factory workers.

I think here, by ‘getting around’, the meaning is the way in which filmmakers and producers actually make the story in a film. So for instance when you see people walking on the street and laughing and all walking in the same direction, the filmmaker probably did this on purpose. He wanted shots of the people walking in a certain direction and laughing as well. Everything is structured in a way and even in you record and not ask people to do certain things, you still capture some moment, put it in a film and make it by that some sort of new story again.

i think it refers to the creativity of connecting each shots, sounds and effects. If you approach whichever subject from numerous angles, something you didn’t expect can be noticed and ultimately used for another stories.

I believe that things shot in the “raw” are more real than when they are shot in the studio. When things are in their original element it brings more to the film, its more authentic and the vibes radiating from the place or object can be felt through out the scene or entire film.

Nothing beats authenticity. Getting original emotion is priceless, as well is sound and visuals. Films that are able to capture real features make them more valuable in context. The latest push by cartoons and anime to both on televisions and gaming console add to how their vast upgrades in visual graphics are leading to breakthroughs as consumers demand more originality and closer appearance to reality.

I believe that you can have raw moments in both place. If you are shooting something on the streets, you are filming exactly what is happening in that moment. However, I believe you can have raw moments shooting in a studio. They will just be produced raw moments. What I mean by that is that if you are acting, you can have a really raw moment, but as I’ve acted many times in various shows, and you are I. The middle of performing a raw moment, it can be hard for you to control your emotions because you are so in the moment. So in that sense, your reaction/emotions are manufactured.

Law and Order SVU always shoots on the raw streets of New York City but it is still very clear that the show is dramatized scenes of actual crimes. Films not shot in studios only become more real when there are no actors involved as well. A great example is Michael Moore"s Capitalism: A Love Story. When he was shooting on wall street and approaching brokers asking about wall street terms, it seemed very raw because he was approaching actual brokers.

Just looking at it from a distance, people would easily say that shooting in the raw is more ‘real’ than shooting in a studio. That is true I would say because you use more ‘real’ materials (the nature, the buildings, stuff like that). However, for the audience who watches a film, it can give the same reaction. People could get so caught up in the story of a movie that is doesn’t really matter if it was screened in a studio or not. Maybe they sometimes even give more reaction with studio movies instead of the ones shot in ‘raw’ material. I think it just really depends on the fact how the filmmaker did his job. Shot in the raw or in the studio doesn’t really matter for the audiences reaction, the way a filmmaker tells the story does.

Films are more real whether in studio or on location. It just depends on the level of skills of the production team.

A native actor adds to perception/image/visual that contributes to the truth value. A professional actor can add to this well however a native actor will give the audience a more authentic feel or an emotional bond because the modern world, like many societies appreciates products of the past which they never experienced and can only imagine if possible. A professional actor can only make so many choices(directed or not) to differentiate themselves which can be successful whereas a native actor wouldn’t have to necessarily work as hard or as much

The native actor like the “raw” materials gives a sense of authenticity to whatever form of film is being directed. The native actor is a natural in the elements being protrayed on film whereas a professional actor has to tap into that kind of honesty.

Native actors are not actors. If someone asked you to act your life would it be acting, or would it be more like everyday life but just with a camera crew following your every move? Native actors provide a unique point of view and skillset because the cliche “Nothing beats the original” has never more been more right because it is first nature for that native to do what they do.

When a native actor is used to provide information about a topic or subject, they give off an aura of authenticity because of their knowledge on said topic or subject. Whereas a professional actor answering questions from a script is clearly just an actor saying words. There’s nothing compared to someone with firsthand knowledge vs one with secondary understanding.

Professional actors appear to fully fit the role, but they lack the feeling that is needed to give a documentary the final push. Regular feature films are different in that usually the stories they tell are altered. Documentaries though need to maintain an air of authenticity to deliver the impact that the director intended due to where the actor’s heart lies.

I think there are two reasons why documentaries will use professional actors. First off, I believe that having an actor that we all know and love adds a sense of truth to the documentary. It is comforting to watch someone we are so familiar with present this documentary. Also, I believe that having a big name attached to the project is a way of getting a film out to a large group of people. If George Clooney is attached to a small documentary, having him allows that film to get thru to his entire fan base, and so on and so forth. However, I believe that having a native actor is better in a documentary because that is what it is in “real” life. A native actor has experienced the real life events in the film, and to me, that is the greatest credibility of all.

A native actor would be better in almost every case because certain parts of the film that only a native could understand would make for a more convincing result. Also, there are certain things that you can’t teach certain things to someone who isn’t a native of wherever you’re filming. Put it this way, who would most likely be a better fit for an actor in a movie about kids growing on the streets of New York: A young adult who lived in New York their whole life and actually understands what the script means or a professional actor from California who has never been to New York in his life.

Just like we saw in Nanook of the North the natives being able to interact with their familiar environments gave us the feeling as if we were there going through the activities of everyday life. While a professional actor will have the skill and camera presence to perform, they will never be able to show the comfort and expertise a native would in selected realm.

When you shoot a documentary of a certain culture, choosing a native actor who actually grew up in that culture, knows it, lived in it for so long and so on, will understand the story a lot better than a person that didn’t grew up there. In short, it will give the story probably way more credibility.

Just as if you do not know who Woody Allen is, or pick up on some of the silly instances that take place throughout the film, dishonesty in a film can be overlooked on any topic a viewer is not familiar with.

When I had come to class late and for the first time I had believed the Zelig film was a film that was based on true event. Woody Allen incorporates many techniques that allow him as a director to illustrate as an artist the different techniques of his trade in order to produce work. Through camera useage to even lighting, Mr. Allen is able to capture his audience and dilute their knowledge due to the way he incorporates his skills and thus shows how if done right and with the right steps, anyone can be manipulated.

I think the purpose of Zelig was that just because shot on film doesn’t mean that it is necessarily true. With the right people, scenes, documents, etc. you can make anything seem real even if it isn’t. You also never know how true something is if you aren’t there in person to witness it and I think that I what the film was somewhat eluding too.

Almost everything in life can be manipulated: its the cold, hard truth. I think Zelig’s comment on the documentary form just sheds light on the ability to use basic techniques found in documentary towards an untrue subject matter. I think it’s less about being devastated and more about being aware as a viewer in terms of the truth value of actual documentaries.

The documentary techniques shown in Zelig are meant to open the audience’s eyes to the possibility that a film can be created with the intent to deceive. Proving how easy it is by constructing a completely false, but believable at times, documentary story about a fictional character.