Comments by Eva Evans Most recent public comments by Eva Evans https://nowcomment.com/users/13040 Interesting that the reviewer talks more about dieting than the film itself. For me, the film is less about dieting, as it is obviously unrealistic, than it is about the detrimental effects of fast food. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338928 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338928 I wish that this film addressed matters of race and socio-economic status more directly, because it is most relevant when considering poorer people (who tend to be minorities). I truly believe that the fast food empire is yet another way to perpetuate poverty and, therefor, perpetuate the poverty gap. Fast food is cheap. It also destroys your body, as Spurdock illustrates. The people who would be eating a diet close to Spurdock's are poorer people, which means they are the people to be getting sick, in debt for medical bills or even just bogged down by daily lethargy. Such people also have less access to education about nutrition, making it harder to break the cycle. The fast food business is really another venue of oppression. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:03 -0500 I think that by focusing on an individual's story you can effectively educate a broader group, so it's less which is more important than how to do both, which I think this film does well. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338927 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338927 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:03 -0500 Alarming, yes. However, nutrition is also an emerging and constantly changing field in which "proper" and/or "excessive" amounts of fat/salt are constantly changing, so the validity of those numbers are also subject to question. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338926 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338926 That being said, I can't imagine the numbers are so off that the difference would validate McDonald's as a "healthy" or even passable choice. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:03 -0500 That is certainly a valid comment. However, Spurlock's point seems to be less about how possible it is to eat at McDonald's adhering to the 2000 calorie diet than it is about the lack of knowledge to strive to that and the encouragement to do the opposite https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338925 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338925 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:03 -0500 They also do not directly address healthiness, which could result in a lawsuit for false advertisement. They show appealing food to draw customers, who have to pay regardless of what is served. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338924 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338924 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:03 -0500 True, though I think you'd be surprised at how many "normal" activities or, in this case, diets would prove as disgusting or unhealthy. In fact, I think that that is Spurlock's point. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338923 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338923 Even eating one full meal at McDonald's accounts for most of the recommended (or maximum) amount of saturated fats, sodium, etc... Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:03 -0500 Some variables to consider... https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338922 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338922 Though he is trying to prove the effects of of eating McDonalds, he is also a) eating an excessive amount and b) drastically changing his diet, which would effect anyone's body negatively because there is no transition time, which does alter the legitimacy of the experiment. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:03 -0500 Both critics and the expectation of (and viewers' reliance on) critique. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338417 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338417 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 The reviewer sees Irving as talentless, rather than ingenious. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338232 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338232 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 F for Fake explores the ridiculousness of how art is received, authenticated, and judged. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338231 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338231 The film, through a sort of embodiment-method (as in, the film itself becomes its subject), is a piece of art itself and the manner in which it is received (scrutinized by critics, taken not at face-value but dissected in order to discover the secret of its conception to determine its artistic value) mimics the way that the art world receives artwork. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 The reviewer is less contradicting himself than he is highlighting the contradictions that the film asks us to recognize. These contradictions are central to the film, as the very point of the film is the very act of questioning its veracity (and falsity) https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338229 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338229 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 The paragraphs paint Welles as both a prankster and a philosopher. He wants his viewers to be challenged, baiting them to catch him in his trickery, and enjoys the idea of their struggle as they try to solve his riddle. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338227 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338227 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:00 -0500 By confessing, Welles is taking the coward's way out, in a way. He is freeing himself of accountability by direction the audience to observe him as untrustworthy. However, in doing that, he is becoming his subject, embodying his material. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338226 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338226 That embodiment of his material can make him hyper-accountable. He blurred the usual line between artist and subject. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:00 -0500 The comment shows how no one is really right in war. Both sides are as right as they are wrong. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337009 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337009 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:58 -0500 The philosophical meaning of "dialect" is a way of discussing opposing ideas to discover the truth. Sontag, then, is skilled at posing such debates. The film explores the oppositional relationship between Israel and Palestine. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337007 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337007 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:58 -0500 Riefenstahl focuses on the people, Sontag speaks through the land. Also, the tone of the films are very different. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337004 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337004 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:57 -0500 Sontag allows the images to adopt the role of the narrator. She makes the very land she documents tell its own story, essentially making it the protagonist. Sontag refuses to distract from the subject matter by utilizing voice over narration. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337003 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337003 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:57 -0500 Sontag resisted the term documentary because it can comes across as too definitive a term. Sontag didn't want to limit people's perceptions of the film before they saw it by assigning a genre associated with specific traits. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337002 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337002 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:57 -0500 The first three paragraphs establish Sontag as a filmmaker and an active mind in the art/intellectual world during the time of the film. This gives her a certain edge, proving her to be a reputable source. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337000 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337000 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:57 -0500 People booed because they didn't want to see a movie that reminded them of the weakened state of their country, they wanted to be entertained. Cinema was a way to escape their harsh reality, not to be forced to endure it during free time, too. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330654 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330654 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:52 -0500 Also, during post-war times, people tended to look towards cinema as a source of escapism and entertainment, rather than education. The subject of reconstruction hit a little too close to home to be enjoyable in the way people wanted. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330634 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330634 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:51 -0500 The film may have been considered insufficiently commercial because it focused on one town's logistical issues--subject matter that might not appeal to national audiences. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330633 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330633 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:51 -0500 Couldn't have said it better! I think Jennings does an excellent job of illustrating the odd balancing act that occurs when life is chaotic but has to go on "as normal." https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323386 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323386 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:43 -0500 By focusing on individual women allows, Jennings is able to create deeper characters for the audience to observe and empathize with. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323385 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323385 If he had shown a shot with tons of female workers slaving away, they would have all blended into a crowd, becoming a symbol of, for example, the monotonous factory as a whole or the grand scope of labor needs during the world, but they would each lose the power of the individual. Jennings ensures that the women show their unique toil in order to allow the audience something smaller and more accessible to relate and sympathize with. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:42 -0500 Jennings is highlighting how regular life (and even beauty) exists alongside the violence of war. The music he includes is meant to remind us of that beauty. War is here, but so it goes. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323384 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323384 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:42 -0500 Though this is true, I think it's also important not to discount the importance of more "objective" source material (ie public records) https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321665 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321665 Also, in order to utilize historical documentary, you would have to watch a range of films on the topic to get more points of view--more facets of reality--as well as read various other sources. Fri, 06 Mar 2015 01:24:58 -0500 Media, though it is often framed as "pure fact," always reflects the bias of the reporter (whether it is a documentary filmmaker, journalist, news caster, etc). https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319853 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319853 It is never devoid of opinion and therefore always intended to persuade. The manner in which the argument is presented can vary--from obvious to subliminal--and is usually posed as "the whole story," rather than acknowledging that whatever being reported only reflects one facet of reality, and therefor cannot entirely be "fact." It is difficult to sort through the vast amount of information to determine the "truth," especially when the first article you read or documentary you watch seems so convincingly TRUE. It is far easier to believe what you first hear/see--or even what you hear/see most frequently--which is often exactly what people do. So, while the media unarguably has great access to the power of persuading the general public, this power can be used both to increase knowledge and exacerbate ignorance (and the line between knowledge and ignorance when referring to information from the media is becoming increasingly blurred). Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:31 -0500 The power of the media is convoluted and multifaceted and impossible to pinpoint in a comment. However, in brief, the media can be used to influence the masses' perception of reality. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319656 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319656 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:30 -0500 It forces me to become a participant. The typical distance found in film (created by an inherent reflexive quality of the medium) has intentionally been bypassed. When watching Triumph of the Will, I feel less like a spectator and more like a participant. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319655 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319655 Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:30 -0500 They have a responsibility, certainly, that feature filmmakers lack. Documentary is positioned as truth or fact. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313531 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313531 There is a fine line, though, because sometimes truths are best portrayed when they have been manipulated (like in Nanook). I think that the responsibility of the documentary film maker lies less in portraying the "realest real," which can never actually be captured, but in being honest and forthright about how the film was made. For instance, a documentary filmmaker has a responsibility to resist passing staged situations as natural. There was a controversy in the theater world a few years ago when Mike Daisey lied about content in his show "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs" being true, when really it was embellished versions of the truth. After the scandal, the play lost a lot of the political momentum it initially had because of Daisey's lies. Because of his dishonesty, he became an untrustworthy advocate for the Chinese laborers he represented, which detracted from the truth in their struggle. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500 Film can never be devoid of assistance, as it can only portray reality. It is, by definition, removed from reality and therefor true realism can never be attained. https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313529 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313529 Elbert means that, though Flaherty facilitated many of the situations in the film, he did so in order to capture actual truths (he still calls them "realities"). While some might criticize Elbert, believing it unethical or dishonest to stage aspects of the film yet label it "documentary," Elbert views Flaherty's method as a means to achieving greater honesty. To Elbert, Flaherty was simply providing the situations that would allow for the Inuit's true essence to be captured. In doing so, he was documenting a reality better than had he simply sat back let the camera roll. Flaherty's intention, it seems, was to capture the Inuit's spirit, not their day-to-day actions. Elbert believes that this was achieved and allows Flaherty the artistic license necessary to best get the job done. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500