Documentary Film March 5
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
In what sense documentaries actually document?
1.Documentaries document what the documentarian wants to be portrayed. For example, Nanook of the North showed us how the director wanted to show Nanook and his family as “gentle savages” and he did just that by manipulating camera angles. He had an agenda and it was reached through his cinematography and direction.
2. Films generate their own reality by the concealing and manipulation of images revealed. We see different methods of manipulation in the scenes used to capture incredible shots like the one in Man with a Movie Camera. Specifically referring to the scene when it appeared the camera man was in danger of getting hit by a train but in reality it was a manipulation of camera angles.
3.Examples of truth-value in documentaries can be found in the film The Man With a Movie Camera. In this case the viewer watches a movie of a film in production. The viewer can then ponder about what they just saw as well as think about the creative process. The work that goes into a film is deeper than just what the shot looks like but actually the moments that lead up to the acquisition of the coveted scene and its requirements.
4.I don’t suppose there is such a thing as objective documentary. The process of creating a documentary requires one to do their own do their own research and recite the events by themselves as opposed to consuming someone else’s facts and beliefs with an agenda. Personal opinion comes along with flaws such as prejudice and unfairness.
Documentaries actually document when they go directly to the source of an event or statement they’re trying to present. Documentaries tend to tell us a story and then present evidence to confirm that story.
Yes, and I also think when they tell a story, it is always PART of a story. Of course a story has different sides and you can never tell everything and also by editing, you give a certain message, a certain way of how you want to show a topic. So it goes directly to the source but always in a scripted way.
I think it is true that a documentary can provide the topic and lead you into new information that you did not intend in initially presenting. This will obviously change the course of which the film would take.
A filmmaker has so much power within his job to control so many aspects of the film regardless of what the topic is. Whichever topic a filmmaker is working on he or she can choose to spin it in almost any way they choose.
Documentaries actually document when they present actual facts or sources of a particular occurrence. It is very important to note that although a documentary may actually be documenting, you want to make sure they are not omitting any of the documents that complete the story, which is usually the opposing side of the message they are looking to get across. I think it’s important for documentaries to remain objective and show the entire story and let the viewers decide on their own what they really saw instead of slamming them with scenes and evidence to one side of the story.
Documentaries are actually document in the sense that they show visual aids in the process of explaining their topic. For example in Zelig there are newspaper clippings police reports and interviews that are shown documenting the events that supposedly took place. Fake or not they are physical documents that can be explained from certain points of view in order to persuade the viewer.
Documentaries are never truly objective since there are limited ways in including everything into a film. Therefore, producers select the perspective they want you to see and continue building scenes that support this perspective. In Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl glorified Nazi Germany and romanticized the strength of the young aryan race with the happy scenes of ambitious and vibrant young German boys.
1.Documentaries document what the documentarian wants to be portrayed. For example, Nanook of the North showed us how the director wanted to show Nanook and his family as “gentle savages” and he did just that by manipulating camera angles. He had an agenda and it was reached through his cinematography and direction.
Documentaries document some aspects of a whole story. Since most documentaries aren’t full accounts of the said subject their films, they can’t exactly be considered to be completely reliable. So in one aspect documentaries are able to display some truth of their subjects, but are not able to paint the complete pictures of those subjects.
I think that documenting is just the same as making a normal film. Documentaries usually tell the true story of an event, but documentaries can lie just like any other movie. I think they are bale to document the basic events within a story, but when it comes to more subjective specifics, documentaries can’t capture it.
Documentaries bring the audience into new experience based on factual information about events, people, and places. Those elements support that Documentaries are actually document, and factual documents show reality.
they only capture some aspects of the subject. In Nanook of the North, the audience only saw the simple side of the life of the Eskimo’s, because they were “simple” people. Not one time did we see them challenged,a very real aspect of life in any society.
How do films create their own reality?
A balance of using factual evidence, through art and entertainment, while providing visuals representing a point of view.
Yes and also because it is from some point of view, it is not the reality but maybe a form of reality or a part of it. By editing a movie or leaving some parts out (so the documentary not being unscripted), it creates a new form of reality, their own reality.
I think some people confuse the word evidence with opinion.
I think Documentaries only show a certain point of view and that is the point of view of the camera. I think that is why Triumph of the Will was so good was because it showed you all the different point’s of view. In the car behind Hitler, two cars behind Hitler, on the rooftop watching Hitler drive past. This allowed you to get Hitler’s point of view and the spectators point of view. However, I feel that most documentaries only show one point of view and it can be hard to show both, especially if they are opposing view points.
This is true. Every documentary is different so I cannot attest to how most of them are shot, interpreted, presented, etc.
Films create their own reality through many different ways. What a viewer is seeing in the film has been created and altered by the filmmaker. He or she controls what you see and also what you don’t see. With a unique film that is created with so many different twists like angles, shot selection, character placement, voices, and sounds a viewer is watching a reality created by the director.
Films create their own reality by submerging the audience in the images and clips shown. We tend to forget we are watching a film and become so enveloped in the subject at hand that the film makers can begin tweaking and editing certain shots to trick the viewers without the viewer even thinking it is possible. We see the behind the scenes methods used to capture certain seemingly impossible shots in Man with a Movie Camera, particularly when it looked like the camera man was going to get hit by the train and then didn’t.
2. Films generate their own reality by the concealing and manipulation of images revealed. We see different methods of manipulation in the scenes used to capture incredible shots like the one in Man with a Movie Camera. Specifically referring to the scene when it appeared the camera man was in danger of getting hit by a train but in reality it was a manipulation of camera angles.
A film’s job is to provide an escape for some period of time in order to engage an audience. Storytelling, music, production, etc. all play a role in allowing the viewer’s mind to forget the reality it lives in and make it pay attention to the reality the film creates.
A documentary can absolutely be an escape if the topic is particularly intriguing to the viewer. While the topic may be interesting to the viewer that does not automatically make it a definite escape. A new interview or viewpoint may allow a viewer to be enveloped in the documentary. The basic elements of a documentary will in most cases be maintained although a documentary that contains far fetched theories and ideas may also hold an audiences’ attention particularly well.
It could be an escape in the sense that it puts you in film. If a documentary were using interviews, it makes you feel you are there listening to the person speak in front of you.
I don’t think a documentary film’s job is to create an escape for a viewer. With that being said, a viewer can view a documentary film as an escape. But the job for a documentary is not to provide an escape, rather to show a truth, a truth that a director or producer can manipulate if they choose to do so.
Filmmaker edits or shoots with factual elements by their own ways, and thus makes it truthful. In this regard, visual aids with different camera angles can be one of important materials to make films’ own reality
I think editing would probably lead down the path of distortion but its also creating a specific truth the film is intending to show. Editing is probably distortion but that’s not what most viewers of a film walk away with after a film. They walk away with a truth that the film created.
because viewers loose consciousness of the possibility of any other type of reality. The suspension of disbelief comes into play here, like in Zelig. While we know it is highly unlikely that someone’s legs will be turned backwards, we don’t call it out or get hung up on it, we accept it and keep watching for the sake of the film.
What is the truth-value of documentaries?
I’d like to think documentaries are similar to a lawyer presenting their case to a jury. Documentaries tend to present a case and the evidence they collected to prove that case, depending on which side their on.
I feel that the truth-value of documentaries the evidence that is obtained to prove that such and such situation actually took place.
Truth value in a documentary will depend on the subject and the group presenting it. Like we have seen now several times there is wording in the beginning of these films that ma raise some red flags when watching a documentary such as who is funding it and if it is upon the order of anyone(Hitler).
When determining the credibility of a documentary you can almost get a sense from the first few minutes of whether or not it will be believable. Just the quality of the editing, montage and so on will allow one raise flags and be aware that the facts presented may not be truthful.
I think the truth value is that it can show you places or topics you have never been to or never heard about. Documentaries can teach you something, enrich your view and give you more knowledge. In that way, that is the truth-value of a documentary. Although it is scripted, it can certainly teach you something I would say.
This comes more into play when there are various interviews with individuals involved may have different opinions regarding the politics surrounding whatever event the documentary reports on. Of course these interviews can either be included or excluded by film makers in order to keep their argument strong.
The truth value of documentaries can only be determined after watching the film and then doing a thorough analysis. You need to know the background of the film as well. If a documentary you are watching is about a particular event that you did not know about, you need to do your research and find out the facts about that event to determine its truth-value. Some documentaries do displays both sides and the complete story and others do not.
The truth value of documentaries is dependent on the viewer’s openness and prior knowledge of the subject. For example Nanook of the North is as far as I can think of believable and truthful. Hearing the background of the film maker, with little prior knowledge of Inuit people and their lifestyle it did not seem to me that there would be any reason for the film maker to distort the truth value of what he had to present, allowing me to find everything in the film reasonably truthful.
I think this is why some documentaries can receive such negative feedback. Some documentaries do not necessarily look for the truth in both sides of which ever story they are focusing on.
I guess it is sometimes hard to distinguish between truth-values and beliefs. On person believes something and another person could believe something else. They both could be true. One could be true and one could be false, or they both could be false.
3.Examples of truth-value in documentaries can be found in the film The Man With a Movie Camera. In this case the viewer watches a movie of a film in production. The viewer can then ponder about what they just saw as well as think about the creative process. The work that goes into a film is deeper than just what the shot looks like but actually the moments that lead up to the acquisition of the coveted scene and its requirements.
Documentaries want to make you feel a certain way about a subject. When there is a purpose of persuasion in your message, the truth the documentaries are claiming to be true is compromised. Therefore, documentaries do hold some truth in what they say, but it can only be considered one side of a subject. It holds some truth, but isn’t the whole truth.
Why We Fight is a propaganda film. It has this certain view of how the war is affecting the people of Great Britain. The damage and events of the German bombings are true, giving the film some truth to it. The effects it had on it’s people were exaggerated. People may not have been just dusting themselves off after every bombing. It only showed you that to get you to believe in the strength of the common British person.
I think the truth-value of documentaries is that documentaries deliver a presentation of factual information to the audience. Also, documentaries should reveal interesting or unusual stories by portraying actual images.
Truth-value of documentaries can best be understood through The Man With a Movie Camera. The audience is able to take a step back from the typical point of view they experience when watching something. In this instance, they get to watch a film of a film being made. This allows the audience member to think about what they are seeing and how it was captured. Making a film is not simply shot out of a car window by capturing everything that passes by, but rather standing on the ledge of a car to get the desired angle. While the film maker is filming real-life footage, he is making his own decisions on how and what to capture.
Can there be such a thing as an objective documentary?
Documentaries tend to rely on interpretations of real stories by the filmmaker. Through the creators point of view, content tends to be one-sided or even critical of an opposing view, lacking balance to the “truth” trying to be conveyed
There can be an objective documentary. I think it’s just hard to truly create. There are a lot of obstacles in the way of creating an objective documentary. Every single fact that pertains to the documentary needs to be included. Some people might think that a film missed a fact when others might think it didn’t. It is very subjective and opinion oriented to determine if a film is objective. It certainly can be done, but its just difficult.
Personally I do not believe there can be an objective documentary. In order to learn the facts about a certain topic objectively it is best to do your own research and read up on the events on your own rather than have someone gather what they believe to be important and present them to you with an agenda. Regardless of personal opinion there can be generational or cultural bias that comes into play naturally.
I think regardless of whether it is a documentary or not, you are always going to be partial to one opinion over another. It is extremely hard to stay neutral. In regards to what Jake said, if you are going to make a documentary you have to do your research as if you were both parties and just present the research and leave opinions and bias’ out of it.
The objectivity of a documentary will end up hinging upon what facts and included and left out. Perhaps due to time, budget or just general knowledge restrictions a documentary may not be able to provide full detail, thus leaving an unintended bias.
How could this leave an intended bias if there are factors that can be out of the filmmakers control?
4.I don’t suppose there is such a thing as objective documentary. The process of creating a documentary requires one to do their own do their own research and recite the events by themselves as opposed to consuming someone else’s facts and beliefs with an agenda. Personal opinion comes along with flaws such as prejudice and unfairness.
I don’t think there can be an objective documentary because I think it’s hard for a person to be objective. Directors are trying to make you feel a certain way in order to catch your attention. You’re more likely to watch something that takes a stance than something that doesn’t. Documentaries are films where you are seeing the directors’ points of view. As long as the directors are not objective the films cannot be either.
Directors have a lot of control but they cannot control everything you see on screen in a documentary. This is s because at some point they’re going to have show you actual documents of the event. Whether this harms their objective for the film or not they’re going to show you evidence. Now they can manipulate what they show you to a certain extent, whether it be through placement in the film or sounds that go over the evidence. Nevertheless they still are showing you the evidence which is something a director does not have total control over.
I think there can be an objective documentary. However, it is difficult to objectively capture the reality on the screen. For example, if there is a specific character involved in the documentary’s story, reaction from the audience can make some biased opinions or conclusions differently.
General Document Comments 0
a very real aspect of life in any society.
2. Films create their own reality because viewers loose consciousness of the possibility of any other type of reality. The suspension of disbelief comes into play here, like in Zelig. While we know it is highly unlikely that someone’s legs will be turned backwards, we don’t call it out or get hung up on it, we accept it and keep watching for the sake of the film.
3. Truth-value of documentaries can best be understood through The Man With a Movie Camera. The audience is able to take a step back from the typical point of view they experience when watching something. In this instance, they get to watch a film of a film being made. This allows the audience member to think about what they are seeing and how it was captured. Making a film is not simply shot out of a car window by capturing everything that passes by, but rather standing on the ledge of a car to get the desired angle. While the film maker is filming real-life footage, he is making his own decisions on how and what to capture.
4. I don’t think there can be such a thing as an objective documentary. Even if a filmmaker thinks they are being objective, every decision they make is because of their own bias. Perhaps the key to showing the entire truth is having additional footage. Again, referring back to Nanook of the North, while we easily see the “simple” life of the Eskimo’s, additional portraits depict a more serious side to them, making it apparent that only one story line is being conveyed.
1. Documentaries are actually document in the sense that they show visual aids in the process of explaining their topic. For example in Zelig there are newspaper clippings police reports and interviews that are shown documenting the events that supposedly took place. Fake or not they are physical documents that can be explained from certain points of view in order to persuade the viewer.
2. Films create their own reality by submerging the audience in the images and clips shown. We tend to forget we are watching a film and become so enveloped in the subject at hand that the film makers can begin tweaking and editing certain shots to trick the viewers without the viewer even thinking it is possible. We see the behind the scenes methods used to capture certain seemingly impossible shots in Man with a Movie Camera, particularly when it looked like the camera man was going to get hit by the train and then didn’t.
3. The truth value of documentaries is dependent on the viewers openness and prior knowledge of the subject. For example Nanook of the North is as far as I can think of believable and truthful. Hearing the background of the film maker, with little prior knowledge of Inuit people and their lifestyle it did not seem to me that there would be any reason for the film maker to distort the truth value of what he had to present, allowing me to find everything in the film reasonably truthful.
4. Personally I do not believe there can be an objective documentary. In order to learn the facts about a certain topic objectively it is best to do your own research and read up on the events on your own rather than have someone gather what they believe to be important and present them to you with an agenda. Regardless of personal opinion there can be generational or cultural bias that comes into play naturally.
How a documentary is filmed determines the reality, in my opinion. A good example of that is the eskimo documentary, Nanook. The activities of the eskimos were not at all fun or exciting. The director presented that reality however, when he filmed them smiling and enjoying the moment at hand. That is the reality of the film, not of actual eskimo life.
Difficult. I would say no. You can try to be as objective as possible though but by showing some parts, you are also leaving other parts out, which is a choice, a subjective thing. Also by choosing words, you are automatically not choosing another word which is also a choice and subjective in a way. I think you can never be totally objective so I would say objective documentaries do not exist but scripted objective documentaries do (those come close I would say).
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments