Documentary Film Feb 26
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
The Man With the Movie Camera is an essay on film truth, crammed into tantalizing ironies.
I think the irony is that is constantly warns you that the camera is there. You see it a lot of times and it shows you that you’re not looking at an unedited piece but that the film is structured. The irony is that by showing you this, you’re actually watching a film at the same time. So a film is teaching you about film.
Much like the way you put it I felt that throughout the film I found myself forgetting the topic and just focusing on the landscapes and subject in the certain shot. So in a way it was ironic that it was trying to be critical of the manor of film itself but as a viewer I continued to forget that I was watching a film, when I knew the intent of the film was to put an emphasis of the process of creating the shot.
Exactly that’s why interpretation and analyzing is always helpful
One aspect I found ironic (other than the way the documentary was filmed) was the positive, upbeat vibes I got from Russia. When I think of communist Russia, I don’t normally think of people having a good time, and it almost seemed as if Vertov was promoting the city the way he shot this.
- The irony within itself. The title of the documentary suggest that this will be a playful film about the misadventures of a man with a movie camera. If someone comes to me with a title like that for a film, I would presume it is a home movie shot by a dad bored at home. However it is much more climatic with the center piece being Lennin’s 1920 Russia, a time in Russia fresh off of toppling a monarchy and seeking to refine their self-identity. But the biggest irony above all is how another camera man has encompassed that story line and created his own.
The flim has an awareness of its identity. The film knows it’s a film and doesn’t try to insult the audience’s intelligence.
Althought it is a film, there is no need for a plot. The images match together simultaneously creating such a connection that no words are necessary.
The images as they help our understanding and comprehsion
Could it be possible that some of what we see may be a perspective other than Vertov? Could he have incorporated another? Maybe one that he didn’t pay much attention to? but when we see how can we be so sure its his perspective? if what I am asking makes sense
I think one of the ironies here is that despite the feeling of this film – fun, upbeat and interesting to see and it is almost looking like an commercial, but that is not how you think of Communist Russia.
Like Woody Allen, Vertov is successful in making the audience aware that what is being seen on screen is merely a manifestation of the film maker’s objective and perspective on a certain topic.
For example, when the man with the movie camera is standing on the edge of a car, driving next to other cars to film the passengers. He is set up at a specific angle and having the driver keep up speed in order to capture this.
As an audience member, I personally thought, “if he is filming them, who is filming him. What else is going on at this exact time that is not within our lens? What can’t we see?”
This too is the particular scene that I thought of right away. First he deceives us to make us think the camera man gets hit by the train, and our immediate worry is with the camera man shown on screen rather than the one filming the shot. Afterwards he then shows us the technique in which he uses to provide us with what then was probably a stunning, curiosity driving shot.
You can really see how Vertov wants you to actively think about how film is made and what you are watching on screen. The medium is the message, so the medium is determining how we are going to deliver that message. Man with a movie camera is asking you to think about the medium (and most media do not do that).
The fast paced fluttering of the film lets us see each image only as long as what is necessary to the film maker, while staying aware of the music and tying it in with its rhythms.
I believe Vertov used clever tactics in his film such as fast and slow motion, freeze frames and even close ups. This allowed for it’s audience to not only stay engaged, but to realize and remind us that the film maker has the control of the messages being conveyed
Well what if I do opposite for whichever reasons? What if I purposely slow down a fast motion picture? will it be the same ?
I would hope any good director gives their intended audience the picture they sought to make.
In this documentary the film maker’s perspective is high. This being because of the simplicity of the two factors that are in the documentary. Music, and activities performed by people. He’d make the music fit what the film was showing. Even if the viewer wouldn’t immediately recognize what the director was trying to put forth with the music, after some thought the viewer could start to understand. The point of the film accompanied by the music in my opinion is to try to connect them both together, in the viewers own personal way. Not a single perspective’s the same.
High as in showing exactly what he’s personally feeling with the music and picture combined.
Yes and I would also like to add that it shows the camera as some sort of building and a person (who suddenly looks super small compered to that ‘building’) standing on it. I think in some sort of way it is showing you the power of the camera.
This film combines a majority of unrelated elements to create a bizzare effect, which is the definiton of surreal.
For example, the film maker shows a scene in which we see an empty row of seats and then another shot when they are being opened up to be sat upon. The speed in which this is shot creates a surreal mood. We can also say this when a shot is shown of pigeons flying backwards. These are all everyday activities but with the power of speed and angles, it is in turn a bit bizarre.
That’s not to say they are trying to say none of it happened, but that the stories also have different perspectives than we’ve become aware.
Vertov and Allen choose to remind the audiences that they really are watching a “surreality” and that the images projected aren’t as truthful as audiences may believe.
The Man With a Movie Camera is a documentary about documentaries.
(Or the shot for us.)
Additionally, we get to see the mechanics of it. The machines and film cutters. We see more than just the end result, we see the process.
The Man with the Movie Camera is a documentary about documentaries in the sense that the film switches from point of view to a view of the camera man actually filming things. We get a sense of the city through the camera mans camera while at the same time we get to see how he goes about getting these shots.
I agree. This film presents the ideas and craft that goes into creating a film while actually depicting a film. It gives you behind the scenes as well as the actual content.
The way in which I thought of this film was as if I were watching a documentary and in certain scenes just took several steps back with a second camera. Particularly in the carriage scene where we see the skills needed to set up the camera in the car driving next to the subjects.
In simplistic terms we are shown how evolved technology has come and that advancement is shown via the use of film and camera as it used by the director to portray lennin’s Russia in 1920. Previously techniques used in this documentary such as: filming another camera during a driving scenario, or capturing the landscape in ways previously before impossible shows the new caliber of possibilities the machine era has enabled to those whom wield it.
It is a documentary about documentaries because it shows you how documentaries are made. By constantly showing the camera it shows you how movies manipulate you. As you said in class: you’re suspending your disbelief. Art manipulates you. ‘Art is a lie that tells the truth.’ Even if you do not believe what you are seeing, you can still watch a movie and get a certain reaction/emotion as if it was true. Vertov wants us to realize that. I think Man With the Movie Camera shows us the power of the medium, the power of documentaries and the way it is directed.
It shows how influential documentaries can be and how in depth this goes. It shows that even a documentary can hold up a mirror to analyze itself. if that makes sense
It’s a rare form of viewing a documentary, but an interesting and aesthetically pleasing one none the less. “The Man With a Movie Camera” answers questions its audience might ponder about the filmmaking process before they even know what question(s) to ask.
The Man With a Movie Camera gives the viewers a look into how film is made. It shows how much effort is put into getting a shot, like when the cameraman digs a hole in the train tracks to catch a shot the bottom of a moving train.
Rather than taking the footage for granted we are made to appreciate the thought process behind producing a documentary, where the camera man angles his lens, and how clever camera angles can present distorted depth perceptions. But we are reminded that this is a painstaking process. Each scene is treated and set up like a still photograph.
It’s true that the man with the camera watching the world through the eye of the camera was the primary subject, but the music was so skillfully applied that it creates a set of reactions to what he is actually seeing. The music provides us with the man’s subjective feeling about what he sees which in turn influences our reactions.
I still have no idea how people relate The Man With a Movie Camera to socialist propaganda.
The Man with a Movie Camera gave us a sense of socialist Russia.
General Document Comments 0
As we see the man filming the train that is getting closer and closer to him, the music is suspenseful.
Also, when an action is repeated, the music also repeats.
Yes and I also think the music makes the point the director is trying to make or the message he/she wants to send, more powerful. It adds an extra level of empathy or a way how you can relate to the story. So in short: it serves as an extra tool to make the message more powerful.
I agree. As with most film/movies, the music is selectively chose to create a mood/feeling, or to further enhance an effect.
Feeling of interest, feeling of suspense, and feeling of wanting to know as soon as you can. The music is designated to do all of this. It may be different for others though
However, if this is socialist propaganda, I question the decision to include the people that slept outside. (i.e. the girl in the park or the boy in the wooden carriage.)
When the film was originally shown there was obviously a different soundtrack shown with the accompanying picture, which leads me to wonder if a different style of music or maybe depending of where the film is shown a different local genre of music would entirely change the way in which we perceive the documentary.
Yes, I think it shows that ‘life is good’ and it has a positive vibe through the whole documentary. It is indeed propaganda in some sort of way I would say because they leave the ‘bad’ parts out (but this could also be to just make some sort of point).
I agree we can only get a sense of what we see. That is how everything in Russia functions and how people relate to one another. Also, the film gives a little sense of their culture
No, not just a little. your right. But what I really meant is that we cannot experience their culture through a screen. we can relate to them in various aspects and we can understand how their human behaviors and so on but technically we just got a glimpse of their culture and how they live so that’s why I used a little
They are many senses. The sense of simply appreciating the film, the sense of observing how the crew works to visually document the lives and culture in Lennin’s Russia and ultimately the sense of seeing the gradual and apex of its time of the movie camera. All of the production was possible due to this machine that can do what was not possible beforehand. So essentially as a viewer we see a sense of awe on many levels, the most important coming from the title itself; “The Man with the Movie Camera” – The sense of awe at humanities new way of chronicling recording our lives no matter where in the world with no discrimination for who it may be and/or what.
I got the feeling of getting ti know Russia a little bit, at least in that period of time. You see the way people act, how they walk on the streets, in short: their normal day lives. You have the feeling you are there as well and in that way, you get a sense of socialist Russia I would say.
The music turns melancholy when showing scenes devoid of people and/or inanimate objects, but becomes upbeat in shots populated by humans. If not for the music, the documentary itself would be like a series of still photographs or montages, but the music gives connotations to these inanimate objects, buildings and unpopulated scenes.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments