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.

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.

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.

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?”

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

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.

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.

(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.

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.