Most recent public comments by Daniel Kvist https://nowcomment.com/users/12962 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339842 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339842 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:47:05 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339841 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339841 Another thing to look at, especially in the year of 2015, is all the pedestrians who cross the street while having their face buried in their smartphone. Is it safe? Absolutely not! In a city like New York where people j-walk all the time and cross red lights it becomes even more dangerous. Is making a film about how bad dit is to text and drive really going to make a difference? In the short run yes, but you can pass all the laws in the world that prohibit texting while driving, and you'll still see people doing it. If we look at it on a broader scale, is there much difference in texting and how we operate our navigation system in the car? Today's cars are very high tech, and everything is controlled by the screen in the middle of the car, from music stations to navigation and how you want the suspension of the car to be. Now, they even make cars that will break automatically if you don't break in time. Thu, 21 May 2015 21:13:22 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339840 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339840 If you're a person who is emotionel, it's very hard not to feel the pain and guilt these people have to live with. The fact that Shaw is still so touched about what he did 7 years ago just shows that he is a person who cares, but weren't thinking about the safety of others while driving the car. Does it make him evil? Some would argue yes, others no. You genuinely feel that he is sorry for what he did, but there's no way he can make up for what he caused another family, so he has to live with the guilt for the rest of his life. It's hard not to feel sorry for him. Fri, 15 May 2015 11:01:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339839 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339839 The opening paragraph of the review of "One Second to the Next" is very dramatic. Vince decides to take the last of the 4 stories in the documentary, and emphasizes the horrific aftermath of texting and driving. It's a great way to catch a reader's attention and making the reader continue reading. Without watching the documentary, I imagine the opening paragraph to be filmed in slow motion with sad music (which there actually is) playing in the background. He describes it in pictures so you can imagine it yourself without watching it. Thu, 14 May 2015 21:04:19 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338800 Now it's possible to go to McD to order a healthy meal, e.g. a salad, but even the healthy options are being questioned if they are healthy at all. McD wants to satisfy it's customers and have a good reputation. Maybe one family member is on a diet, but the rest of the family really craves the Big Mac. In that way it's still possible for families to go together and get what ever they desire. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:47:02 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338799 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338799 I guess in order to come across his point, Ebert includes this many stats to highlight/emphasize the negative effect it has on one's body to be living off of fastfood. The technique is sort of irrelevant in this documentary. We follow a person whose main goal is to prove that your health is at risk if your diet mainly consists of fastfood. He includes his personal story to let the reader know that this had happened to him before, so he supports the stats as well as Spurlock's experience. I used to work at McD for 6 years in Denmark, and over the course of those 6 years I gained 100lbs. I was in physical bad shape because I would eat at least 10 meals at McD per week. for 6 years. I managed to lose 65lbs after I quit in 2006. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:47:02 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338079 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338079 F for Fake is a documentary on the topic of trickery. Much of the film is in fact drawn from other sources, most notably an unfinished documentary by Francois Reichenbach on the notorious Elmyr de Hory, whose extremely skillful fakery of famous paintings caused scandals amongst art collectors and experts. In an additional bit of irony, de Hory's interviewer is author Clifford Irving, who became infamous due to a forgery of his own: a falsified autobiography of Howard Hughes. Welles openly re-edits and manipulates this footage, using it as a spine for his own commentary, arguing that there is an extremely close relationship between art and lying, and citing instances from his own career to prove the point. Through a combination of documentary and staged footage, Welles attempts to illustrate the artifice behind all filmmaking, even that of a supposedly non-fiction variety. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:47:01 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338078 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338078 The reviewer loves to portray his own opinions about the film, and not paying too much attention to what he thinks of Mr. Welles. He's mainly concerned with the film and not his own personal opinion about Mr. Welles. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:47:01 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338072 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338072 I get a sense that he is very sneaky. The fact that he is open about his fakery makes it even more difficult to figure him out. You can easily tell if a person is being manipulative and crazy if they don't say so themselves; but Mr. Welles is fully aware of his fakery, so you get a feeling that you dont know where you have him. He sure is a master of disguise - a man with multiple identities that adapt to his surroundings. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:47:00 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=336311 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=336311 The conflict has been going on for so long that it's now a matter of stubbornness. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is over who gets what land and how it's controlled. The statement sort of implies that it is an endless ridiculous fight with no winners and no losers. The land was promised to whom? It's and ongoing debate and it'll probably never be solved. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:57 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=336310 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=336310 Sontag knows how to relate to the logical discussion of opinions and ideas. With the Palestine/Israeli conflict it's all about opinions, ideas, and what side you choose to support. She is skilled in the sense of mastering a philosophical debate without taking a stand/side but leaves it to the reader/viewer. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:57 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=336309 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=336309 "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. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:57 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=336307 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=336307 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. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:57 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=335742 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=335742 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:56 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=335741 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=335741 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:56 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=335740 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=335740 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:56 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=327680 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=327680 In extension to what another student wrote (Jing Zhang). I also believe the reason why people would boo the film was because of the way the City Center would wipe out any other competition. Businessmen who ran small markets/delis/etc. would no longer be able to stay in business if the center would open. Everyone would simply go to the City Center where they could find everything they needed. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:51 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=327677 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=327677 The plans/ideas that were suggested by the city planners didn't offer what the people of Plymouth wanted as a whole. Maybe Rank decided to halt the production because he felt unsure whether the film was turning out to be a success or not. After all, he was financing a film about a city that was severely hit during WWII, and what he was contributing to, was the documentation of how the city was going to get rebuild. Furthermore, the film was also a mix of real footage as well as actors and actresses, and maybe it wouldn't come off as believable and appealing. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:47 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323289 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323289 As you've already mentioned, the movie acknowledges women. Women are perceived as independent and strong, who can perform any task a man can do, for example, operating heavy machinery. The question is whether or not the film is projecting a false image of how the life of women during - as well as after - the war really was. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:38 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323288 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323288 Jennings makes the point that despite all the sounds one recognizes/connects with wartime there is also the "everyday" noise/music. Just because there's a war going on doesn't mean that the life of millions of people stops. I also think Jennings uses the word "music" as a metaphor. Music could also refer to "life", for example, the music/noises playing/are heard during wartime is also the life of those living in the middle of it. It is perceived as chaos and evil. On the other side, the people living in a world/place with no war will hear the music/noise that we associate with a normal everyday. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:38 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321645 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321645 First we need to understand what proto fascism and collectivism mean. The prefix "proto" means something that develops into something. An egg, for example, is a proto-chicken. The evolutionary ancestors of man are called proto-humans. A proto-fascist is someone who advocates political ideas that could become fascism - like a president who imprisons people without habeas corpus, or who believes the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper." The definition of fascism is to be living under a dictatorship; living oppressed and under someone else's beliefs without having your own freedom and limited rights. Collectivism, however, is any system/society/belief/etc., which holds a group to higher importance than the individual. Capra could thus be both a proto fascist and a collectivist, because he strongly believed in American ideas and culture, but he did not forget his Italian roots. He is a nationalist patriot that believes in freedom, who in his college years believed he had transformed from an alley rat to a cultured person (the journey from Italy to the U.S.). This is very well reflected in the way he executed or begins his film “how we fight” with the statement: “this is a fight between a free world and a slave world.” The fact that he on one side showed what was going on in Europe (where Germany was in war with France, Britain, Russia etc., and Japan – ruled by a dictatorship), and on the other side showing how America, during WWI, improved the lives of the working man by passing laws that would give them such opportunity to do so, shows that Capra could be both a fascist and a collectivist. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:34 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319907 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319907 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:31 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319906 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319906 We can also use photoshop today to alter an image or a picture. We can even create landscapes that doesn't exist. I believe that's what he meant by saying that she used a plastic style. She altered the picture or moving image, and created something that was only seen in moldings or sculptures. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:31 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319186 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319186 I admire his ability to lead, not him as a person. One could argue that people had to obey him if they valued their lives, but the fact that he had people right where he wanted, is - to me - a sign of great leadership, but the worst kind of leadership, of course. One should not fear for his/her life. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:30 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319185 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319185 "Plastic" was used to describe Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:30 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=318165 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=318165 I admire Hitler. And I know it is taboo to praise such an evil man, but no one can take away how great of a leader he was. I admire Hitler because of his ability to lead people. I got goose bumps while watching his speech. I didn't necessarily perceive the film as propaganda. It had a very compelling structure and the speeches were very powerful. I sort of felt like I was a part of it, and I could see myself root for him. I got carried away, and I'm a little ashamed of admitting that. In hindsight I would never have been rooting or believed a single word that was said. This film is very powerful and very frightening. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:29 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=318142 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=318142 Propaganda is usually, if not always, related to biased information. The fact that Riefenstahl's cinematic style was perceived as being "plastic." It's is understood that plastic means that something has been altered to look a certain way, and maybe that's why it is important to know who she was as a director in order to understand that Triumph of the Will is pure propaganda. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:29 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315666 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315666 The term "jump cuts" has become popular among YouTube producers in recent years. News vloggers use this method to transition between the story and their take, often to humorous effect. Some movie genres don't necessarily use the humor effect, but rather as an unexpected shocking effect. Jump cuts haven't always been used as a good thing. For example, an actor in the middle of a sentence will appear with different hand or body positions from one camera to the next with no middle shot to break continuity. In this case, jump cuts are a bad thing. What we refer to as jump cuts now are intentional and intended to make up for the single-camera style so many vloggers on YouTube use for their videos. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:23 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315665 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315665 The stories that the first directors wished to record might run near half an hour, or in Vertov's case nearly 70 min.; but, it is known that their cameras could only hold a few minutes worth of film. To solve the problem, they must have shot scenes in short sections, and spliced the separate film strips together. While we know that the "scenes" in "Man with a Movie Camera" aren't very long, I believe one could justify the argument of why Ebert refers to "shots," and not "scenes." Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:23 -0600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313767 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313767 In today's time - when we think of realities being assisted in various medias - we may think of certain shows such as Big Brother, MasterChef etc., where people behind the scenes have an outline or agenda of what they want to capture, but doesn't necessarily have a script. The same goes for "Nanook of the North," with Flaherty having an agenda/outline for what he wants to achieve with his documentary, but he doesn’t exactly know how the end result will look like. In some sense, one could argue that all documentaries have assisted realities. Why? Well, the director has an idea of what he wants to portray, and what he wants to achieve with the documentary, but he/she doesn't necessarily know how it will turn out. A great example is when Nanook is catching the seal. Ebert wanted to capture Nanook in a vulnerable moment while trying to provide food - and maybe clothes - for his family. It's literally a matter of life or death. Ebert knows that he wants to capture Nanook fishing, but he doesn't know how the actual fishing part turns out. According to IMDB and Wikipedia, the documentary is classified as a docudrama, and dramas are all known to be pure fiction, thus it is a mix of some reality as well as some fiction. That's maybe also why Ebert is trying to point out that not everything one sees in the documentary is original, meaning that the film is not shot randomly. There will always be retakes or more takes on one scene, for example, Nanook fishing more than once. The one that is most dramatic is most likely to be chosen for the documentary. Ebert is not too critical in his review of the film, and he gladly uses words as: “magnificently projected”, “masterpiece”, and “father of documentaries.” Ebert also justifies the reality of Nanook really having a seal on the other end of the line. This proves to me that he is trying to defend Flaherty, and that he supports his way of making films. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:46:16 -0600