Comments by Charles Parietti Most recent public comments by Charles Parietti https://nowcomment.com/users/12966 The director choses to focus on the aftermath of families who lost loved ones due to an accident caused by a driver texting. By doing this it creates a more lasting impact on the viewer as they my be more likely to try and avoid texting, https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339824 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339824 if they see the problems and the agony that families go through after they lose someone due to a texting accident. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:05 -0500 I did not feel as if this was a sufficient review of the documentary. The author very briefly discusses the what the film is about, while focusing mostly on the impact this film has made and the dangers of texting while driving. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339823 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339823 Horiuchi really fails to comment on the filmmakers style and approach used in the film in order to deliver their message. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:05 -0500 For being considered a review of a film, up to this part the reviewer has said little about film itself and has focused more on the impact it has made. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339822 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339822 Fri, 15 May 2015 11:12:59 -0400 This documentary has the potential to make a serious impact in society about the dangers of texting while driving, but people should be aware that texting can also be dangerous while walking around cities, like the example the Professor provided https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339821 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339821 of the woman walking in the street and being hit by a car. Texting while driving and walking seem to a have similar effects on an individual's awareness and/or motor skills that alcohol could lead while one is driving or walking. Fri, 15 May 2015 11:03:06 -0400 Vince Horiuchi, decides to start this review of the documentary, One Second to the Next by telling of an emotional and compelling story in order get the readers attention, right from the beginning. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339820 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339820 Thu, 14 May 2015 13:13:11 -0400 The review is full of statistics in order to help the viewer understand the amount of fat, calories, sodium etc.. that McDonalds food has so people can better understand and make a connection to how unhealthy the food at McDonalds is to their health. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338699 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338699 His personal story kind of shows his basis towards the film, because he went out of his way to make sure he was healthy and in shape from working out and eating healthy, and since he is about his health he he has a stronger connection to film since it is showing the side effects of McDonalds food. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:02 -0500 I feel as if the reviewer said this because the film itself is the journey of this one man eating McDonalds everyday for a month and the results that took place, rather than actually educate the people with what is wrong with the food they https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338697 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338697 and himself are eating. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:02 -0500 I enjoy this question becuase it does make you look at both sides of the argument, but before this documentary was made, McDonalds did not really have healthy options in terms of meals, as they do now, but even now most people don't go to McDonalds to get https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338693 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338693 a healthy meal Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:02 -0500 I can see why people would find a problem with this part of the investigation, because even before this documentary was filmed, I find it hard to believe that anyone would even think to eat McDonalds three times a day, it might have been more realistic https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338691 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338691 if it was once a day or maybe twice on some. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:02 -0500 This was the one problem I had with the documentary, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that most customers would super size a meal every time they are asked, so to do it in the documentary might make the results a little over exaggerated, https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338689 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338689 especially since he was asked a good amount of time. It is one thing to eat McDonalds 3 times a day for a month, but to super size every time asked is a little over kill and could be used as a point to discredit his findings. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 Welles is interested in Irving because they both used trickery in their films and he wants to compare himself to Irving as well as Mr. de Hory. The reviewer is not as interested in the two of them because as he states "they are small potatoes," https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338031 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338031 so his only concern is with Welles with whom his review is about. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:00 -0500 F for Fake is a documentary film about fraud and fakery told over six stories (each one having a different character) which coves fraud, charlatans, fraudsters and conartists as well as the making of the film itself and https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338029 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338029 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:00 -0500 The reviewer contradicts himself, becuase although he has his own views as to Welles himself perhaps being fake he is still doing his job as a critic and writes his opinion of the film itself; which we can see that he enjoys. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338028 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338028 While at the same time removing his thoughts and opinions of Welles Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:00 -0500 The first four paragraphs tell me that Welles is a man that we need to keep under certain scrutiny when we view his film. He uses "old" pieces of work in certain parts of his new films which makes the reader think that more of the film can be staged https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338027 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338027 as well as being "fake." Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:59 -0500 Since their is some controversy over Welles being the one who directed the film, along with the film being fake itself then Welles is just as fault of being "fake" just like the people that he interviewed and who the story is about. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338026 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338026 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:59 -0500 The reviewer accepts the documentary's point of view the documentary shows the reviewer in an entertaining way that the investigation was ridiculous and should have not be conducted, much like the investigation with Lewinsky. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336046 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336046 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:56 -0500 The reviewer is comparing the two events McCarthyism and Watergate as both had negative impacts of how U.S. citizens viewed the United States. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336045 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336045 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:56 -0500 The reviewer is almost stating that McCarthy becomes so ridiculous in the hearings that it's almost as if he's over acting as a fictional character in a movie, rather than himself. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336044 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336044 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:56 -0500 Maybe the reviewer did not want to spend time focusing on all the details of the case and the issues around it, and just wanted to give the reader general knowledge of what the film was about in order not to take away from the review of the film itself. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336043 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336043 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:56 -0500 Kenneth Starr was mentioned because the reviewer is making the claim that both McCarthy's claims and Starr's investigation are unreasonable and perhaps even humorous. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336042 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336042 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:56 -0500 The film's treatment of the two, was the idea that the experts and the locals need to work together in order to make a better community. The experts need to look after the locals, as well as give them a say. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=329287 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=329287 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:55 -0500 People booed the film because it was played in cinemas "traditionally hostile to documentary or 'serious' films." The audience must have felt the picture to be boring so they booed the documentary. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=329284 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=329284 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:55 -0500 The people marching in this film are marching to fight for something, a believe they have. Now the same could be said for the people in the mass rituals, however the people in "Way We Live" did it to support the idea of having their own voice. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=329281 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=329281 While the mass rituals supported one voice. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:54 -0500 The film could be considered insufficiently commercial because it is only based on one town and that one town's problem. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=329280 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=329280 Although some issues could be nation wide, since the film is only based on Plymouth one consider the film to not have a lot of national interesest. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:54 -0500 It allows the viewer to see that they don't need to just pick up a gun and fight to make a different, but that they can also help make an impact by carrying out a "normal" or "ordinary" life while still making an impact at war. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323293 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323293 Because wars are not just won on the battlefield, but back home as well. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:38 -0500 By focus's on the individual woman, it helps in bringing two elements to the film. One element is that is shows woman being just as vital to the war efforts as men during a period of gender equality. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323292 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323292 It also helps creates a larger audience that the film can speak to, as it provides women viewers a better chance to relate to the view, since they can see another woman being an important figure during the war. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:38 -0500 The point that Jennings is making about sound during wartime is that war is not just associated with the sounds of gunfire and explosions on the battle fields. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323291 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323291 But it is also the sound of ordinary citizens working in factories and carrying out their days in a "normal setting" even though its taken place during war time. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:38 -0500 Listen to Britain focuses more on the citizens as a way of propaganda, rather than the beliefs of a government party like in Triumph or focusing on the reasons why soldiers should fight (Why we Fight). https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323290 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323290 Listen to Britain shows the viewer the life of the ordinary citizen in Britain during WWII. It targets itself towards the ordinary citizen and tries to persuade the ordinary citizen to help the cause, just like those in Britain who have already started helping out. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:38 -0500 Unity is joining together based on an agreement, but without the individual sacrificing their own uniqueness. While uniformity is unification based on a similarity, and destroys the uniqueness of the individual. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321921 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321921 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0500 Perhaps Carpa's choice to use narration in the film. Riefensthal might be objected to this style, thinking that in her film it was not needed to help tell /show the story. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321920 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321920 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0500 Is it because essential both of these practices have a ruler or rulers who make the laws that all the people must follow https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321919 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321919 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0500 The comparison that is being made between the two is that Capra like the Axis's power was anything but subtle when making a point. Both would use powerful and direct points to show their views and get the support of the people who the film was made for. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321657 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321657 Capra wanted the American people to unit together and by showing what the axis powers have done and what was going on at the time. The axis power wanted to establish the same unity for their people as they fought the allies. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0500 Capra borrowed Riefenstahl's style for making a persuasive piece of propaganda. Capra would use the same type of shot movements that made Riefenstahl famous and unique during her time. He would also take her ability to make a powerful propaganda film. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321656 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321656 That was able to gain support of the people in the United States. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0500 I agree with your point. Any film about history is created with a certain subjective view of the events. It is normally one sided and tries to persuade the viewer to think a certain way. It is rare to see a documentary that shows or takes multiple views. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321655 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321655 Thu, 05 Mar 2015 19:51:50 -0500 Looking back on history, it's crazy to think the type of impact that films would have over people during this time period. How a film would make the audience believe see what is happening and believe whatever the film wanted to show the people. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321654 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321654 The overall point that the filmmaker was trying to make. Now a days, its the internet and social media that makes this sort of impact on people. Films are not used the same way as they once did when they would bring people knowledge and views on a specific topic,. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0500 Proto-fascism is the ideology that influences and forms the basis for fascism. The belief that the government should be run by a dictator who has all the power. Collectivism is the practice of putting a group ahead of an individual. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321653 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321653 Capra could be both believe in both of these because they both contain similar notions. In both proto-fascism and collectivism the leader or leaders make decisions that are "supposed" to benefit the community and the individuals all together. When the person or people in charge make a decision the people in society have to follow it for the "good" of everyone else. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:37 -0500 I apologize once again, I was only going with the what the article gave. Now that I know more of the situation with Riefenstahl I would like to change my answer. I feel like Riefenstahl said that as a way to help her image as a director. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320503 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320503 Although she was never rehabilitated by the German film industry, perhaps she wanted people to look past the Nazi side of her and just wanted them to focus on her art. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:32 -0500 I apologize for not backing my point without actual facts. However, in order for Hitler to get to power in the first place, if he still forced his way to the top he needed to have people that supported him and his cause. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320493 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320493 He had to be pretty persuasive to get these people to follow him. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:32 -0500 Then I was mistaken, this is the first time I have heard about her and the article didn't state her feelings, so I was unaware of her feelings. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320476 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320476 Which is why I think the author of this article did not tell the readers of Riefenstahl's feelings on the Nazi power, because the author wanted the readers to see her more as a film maker rather than a Nazi who happens to be a director. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:32 -0500 However, not all people in Germany who didn't support the Nazi power left Germany. Maybe there was a reason why Riefenstahl couldn't leave Germany. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320019 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320019 We're not sure, which is why when she said that quote, I felt she wanted people to look past the politics of film and focus more on her filmmaking. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:32 -0500 One would have to assume that he had to have been persuasive in order to get an entire country to follow in his beliefs and party, as well as the passion the people gave him during his speeches. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320015 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320015 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:32 -0500 Be so sure on which part? Her feelings for the party? I mean I can't for a fact say that she didn't support the Nazi party. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320014 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=320014 However, when I read Riefenstahl was imprisoned by the Allies after the war, and then released, partly because no one could figure out if a film could be an instrument of war. Riefenstahl was adamant; she had been concerned with matters of form, not politics, so we are not sure what her feelings towards the party, from reading this article. Which is why I think Hagopian started with her background, so the reader/viewer does not dislike Riefenstahl for making a very good propaganda film for the Nazi party. He wants the reader/viewer to she her as the "golden girl" of the film industry who brought a new style to the cinema industry. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:32 -0500 She meant that she was only concerned about making the best film that she could make, because that was her profession, her lively hood. She was not involved in the politics behind it, just to take what was given to her and make the best film possible. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319203 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319203 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:31 -0500 By the people responding positivily to Hitler's speeches it shows the viewer that maybe what he is saying actually makes sense and deservers to at least be heard out, based off of the way that the crowd "loses" themselves over him. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319202 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319202 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:30 -0500 From watching this film, I can see why it is that people followed Hitler. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319201 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319201 Now I am not saying that I believe in anything that Hitler or the Nazi party stood for, all that I am is saying is that from watching the film I can see how persuasive and passionate he was about his cause, and why people ended up supporting him. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:30 -0500 Mass rituals supported the Nazi's race mythologies because the party saw Hitler as a "God" and worshiped him like one. People would gather to see him speak much like people in church listen to their priest or reverend. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319200 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319200 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:30 -0500 It allows for us to see the background Riefenstahl has had before filming Triumph. By telling us the type of director she was, it allows us to be prepared of the type of film she was going to make for Triumph. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319199 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319199 People who watch the film now or back then might have negative things to say about Riefenstahl for how she portrayed Hitler and the Nazi power, however that was just a testimony to her work, not her feelings of Hitler or the party. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:30 -0500 Lets say a character is having a great day, the music could add to it/enhance the feeling that we feel seeing the character and hearing the up beat music. Then lets say something tragic happens, the music switches tones/feel which then changes how we feel https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=316349 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=316349 Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:26:47 -0500 Could do both https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315858 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315858 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:25 -0500 I was trying to establish that the beers were empty to show passage of time, from the subject have just one beer on the table to having several empty beers on the table https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315854 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315854 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:25 -0500 Other directors/producers https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315853 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315853 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:25 -0500 It creates the mood. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315732 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315732 Music and/or sound can single handily change the entire atmosphere of a film. From creepy to spooky music setting a ton in scary movies, to how the sound of lasers screams sci-fi films. Sound changes the feel of a film. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:23 -0500 It would be a shot of some one sitting down with one beer then a cut two the same shot and the subject now has several beers drank on the table, and the subject is drunk at the table. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315728 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315728 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:25 -0500 Because they are two completely different things. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315726 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315726 A shot is the angle, and or movement from which the footage is filmed. A scene is duration of action or dialogue that was captured on film, it can be made up of one shot or several shots. This is what separated Vertof from others, he chose to use several shots to tell a scene. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:25 -0500 Before this revolutionary film, other films were shot as if you were sitting at a play. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315723 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315723 In "Man With a Movie Camera" the audience gets to see a film from different shots from different angles in a shorter period, which gives them a different perspective for the film overall. Other films would have long shots from the same angle which at times can make someone feel like they are sitting, watching a play because each scene is shown from the same angle and it doesn't allow for a scene to be shown from a different perspective. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:23 -0500 People are thrown off by new and creative styles. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315720 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315720 At the time Vertof was trying a completely new style one that, Mordaunt Hall was "horrified" by seeing. A lot of the time people are scared or thrown off by new ideas, even though they might lead to changing the entire landscape of the entire film industry. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:22 -0500 Man Vs Nature, like Ebert suggested https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=314013 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=314013 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500 I think it has to do with Ebert's overall respect for Flaherty. Just because he is not a fan "Nanook" does not mean that he does not have the utmost respect for Flaherty, and it is seen by Ebert recognizing Flaherty's other great works. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313662 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313662 As well as calling his work "masterpieces" and calling Flaherty the "father of the documentary." Ebert would not have stated that if he was not of fan of his wok. Paragraph 4 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500 I love the fact that Flaherty wanted to go back and film the Eskimos after his initial footage was destroyed. If he never had the urge go back then documentary might not be where it is at right now. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313659 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313659 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500 But if it was it was becuase of time consuming that he did not show the end of the fight, then I feel as if they would have cut some of the beginning or at least cut to the end when they are able to get the seal and finally kill it. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313658 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313658 I think it has more to do with the actual footage not adding anything to actual story, or maybe it was what Ebert suggested, and Flaherty did not want to show Nanook shooting it. That could possibly take away from Flaherty's overall image. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500 Elbert is trying to grab the attention of the reader to continue reading about this incredible story. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313601 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313601 It is very possible that if Elbert decided to start with the story of building the igloo or Nanooks family then it might not get the readers attention as much as Elbert talking about the battle scene between Nanook and the seal. It would have the same effect if it were a trailer, because by showing that scene first, you grab the viewers attention. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:15 -0500