Most recent public comments by Raymond Urrutia https://nowcomment.com/users/13056 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339871 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30609?scroll_to=339871 The film is about people, both victim and perpetrator, whose whole lives have changed due to texting while driving. Personal stories about kids, sisters, brothers and every other sibling, always strikes a cord with an audience, because the audience members can always relate to having some sort of family member in their lives that they would not want something like this to happen too. I also like how he didn't overdue the statistics or the written messages about texting and driving. I felt this made the movie even more real than it already was. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338956 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338956 I found it extremely enlightening, probably more on the grounds that he must having been eating healthier than the average person given that his girlfriend was a Vegan. It made the results of his experiment even more disturbing given that he was a lot healthier than your average person when he started it. In fact, I researched his girlfriend and found out that the diet she created for him for when he finally got off the McDonald's diet, was the basis for a dietary book she wrote years later. Also how they mentioned it took him like 14 months to get back to where he was after only one moth of this. This story continued on after, not only affecting him, but his loved ones as well. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338940 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30608?scroll_to=338940 The film's main story is about a man taking on this challenge to eat nothing but McDonald's for 30 days. It's a personal narrative that highlights what the film is trying to say about McDonald's food. Ebert himself had been overweight for quite a number of years before he lost weight. This movie makes people take a personal look at themselves and their choices when it comes to food. By explaining everything that he did and has done when it comes to dieting and McDonald's, Ebert is highlighting that exact fact. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338244 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338244 The mentioning of both how he used the location in this film in another film, and his explaining of the key not symbolizing anything besides it being a key, I feel, is kind of an allusion to the fact that this isn’t your average Orson Welles movie. At the same time, the mentioning and use of these things also lets the audience know that yes, this is an Orson Welles film. This is a very different type of movie then he had ever shot before, and that’s even after the fact that this was his first time directing a “documentary.” There's also a very personal feel to it by the use of the location as well as him being himself and acknowledging the audience outright, especially the part about the movie, and by extension him, being filled with trickery and deception. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338239 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338239 Welles states within the film that “for the next hour everything you hear from us is really true and solid facts.” At the same time the first thing mentioned before this was that this movie is about trickery and deception. He says one thing and then says another. That’s what a magician does; they make you look at one thing when the real thing you should be watching is happening away from your focused eye. Honestly, I don’t think this movie takes itself seriously and that’s the fun of it all. I would say Welles is accountable for the film as a whole, after all this is what he shot and edited to be presented to the viewer, but I don’t really think Welles really cared about the accountability of the facts because in the end, this movie is about the deception and that’s what makes it so much fun. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=337143 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=337143 I think it’s more along the lines of how unbelievable these events were and how they managed to be showcased on such a grand scale as this one. There’s a metaphoric saying on how everyone likes watching a train wreck. This is a prime example of that metaphor. As McCarthy dug his hole deeper and deeper, I found myself getting more interested in how the other officials were gonna respond and how McCarthy went about digging his hole deeper. When McCarty started personally attacking that young lawyer in the opposing councils firm I was like “Wow, he actually went that route, somebody’s officially desperate.” It was surprisingly good entertainment; I’m still surprised this actually really happened. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:06 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=337120 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=337120 Documentaries are used in conjunction with showcasing a specific perspective of the filmmaker. This film is mainly about the theatricality of this hearing and its participants then it is a communist and/or anti-communist propaganda tool. He does not mention it because the film isn’t made for that reason. It is made to showcase the downfall of a highly influential political figure and his moronic and unfounded acts to somehow circumvent his already dwindling power. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:06 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=337119 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=337119 This is essentially the beginnings of the death of a major politician’s political career, shown and highlighted for all to see. Watergate and the McCarthy hearings both showcase a politician overstepping their rights as public officials and paying for it in a severe enough manner that they never recover from it. The theatricality of it all to, adds to its appeal. Like you said professor, everyone was watching these hearings at the time, the same way everyone was watching as Watergate unfolded and when it came out that Clinton was having an affair. Although that one didn’t do as much damage to Clinton’s career like everyone thought it would. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:06 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=337112 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=337112 He’s highlighting the pointlessness of it all. The documentary highlights the absolute absurdity of it all by highlighting the more redundant, but entertaining, parts of it. The photo, the fraudulent letter, the acquisition, it literally all led to nothing, besides the burying of McCarthy’s political career. As for Monica Lewinsky, all you really need to ask yourself is what does what she reads in her own personal time have to do with her affair with Bill Clinton? It’s a pointless question that leads everyone no where when it comes to an investigation of their relationship. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:06 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337071 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337071 In Man with a Movie Camera is energetic and has a sort of tempo to it in regards to what is shown as we see a multitude Russian industry, infrastructure and employment. Triumph of the Will is much more dramatic and powerful in its music. This type of music is used to highlight the NSP’s rigorous discipline and charisma as well as adding to Adolf Hitler’s deity-like persona. Listen To Britain used more of the actual sounds that are being made by people and machinery and focused mainly on upbeat popular music that was being played on radio’s and parties at the time. Promised Lands does more of what Listen To Britain does then the other two. There is no real upbeat music like Man with a Movie Camera because this isn’t meant to be an upbeat film. Same can be said for the dramatic and powerful music used in Triumph of the Will. Promised lands uses the actual sounds that are being recorded along with the visual and when they do use music, it sounds like they are using the audio of someone that they recorded actually singing. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337069 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337069 Listen to Britain highlights a country that seems indifferent to the severity of their current predicament, which in a way showcases the country’s defiance to their enemy’s agenda. The Way We Live showcases how the drawdown of war affects individual’s perspectives on their community in regards to real estate, infrastructure and political policy. Promised Lands delivers more of the horrors of war by showcasing its potential for destruction and death while also showing the negative effect it has on those who are still living after it is over. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=331184 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=331184 I felt like, although there was a pretty clear and concise plan in the works for the redevelopment, the bureaucracy of it all was pushed in a way that was having a detrimental effect on its possible approval. Some government officials approved, while others did not, and this deadlock of opposing opinions was a means of both showcase how the redevelopment plan was never going to go anywhere in the hands of the government and also the power of the local populace. By making it clear that nothing was going to get done on the political side of things, when they finally showed the parades of youth who approved of the plan, it let the audience know that this redevelopment depends on what the people want, not the government. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:54 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=331182 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=331182 In Triumph of the Will, they spend a significant amount of time on the Hitler youth and their ability to make improvements to an already powerful Germany. They were used as a means to focus on a hopeful future. In showing the parades of youth carrying those signs about their approval for the redevelopment plan, the movie does the same thing. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:54 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=331181 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=331181 The movie is a semi-documentary that uses actors and staged events and was meant to help push the proposals that were being put across for the urban reconstruction of a town named Plymouth in the United Kingdom. This situation of a single town dealing with a major problem would have made for a great documentary if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s mostly set-up and isn’t actually a legit documentary. In fact in all the documentaries we’ve seen, this feels like it’s the least documentary-like of the bunch. It kind of feels like a giant commercial that’s trying to push this idea on you and not a well thought out documentary that explores all sides of the matter. Yes, there are parts where people are shown to not be absolutely on board by what is being planned (mainly the adults), but by the end most have come to terms with the idea of this redevelopment and this is done in a rather rushed manner. I can see why Davis might have considered that it wouldn’t be very appealing to audiences. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:54 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323412 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323412 I don’t know how exactly World War 2 was fought, but I’ve been deployed to Iraq and it was (for me at least) 5% war, 95% waiting. War isn’t a continuous single fight, but a strategic set of fights spread out amongst a period of time. Yes, planning and travel are vital to the outcomes of these fights, but so is moral. Between the very few moments where something actually happened, I played cards, wrote letters home and bullshitted like I never have before. It’s important to be able to act somewhat normally during intense times of stress like this, if only for one’s own sanity. I believe this film caught this idea adequately, by heavily showcasing on the “calm” before the “storm.” Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323407 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323407 The focus on women helps personify the changing times of war in which women were encouraged to step up in the face of it and the sudden absence of men. They were asked to take on more manual based work and pull their own weight in aid of the war effort. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323405 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323405 I like how they used joyful songs such as “Roll out the Barrel” and “Home on the Range” to personify a sort of indifference to the harsh times of that point in history. The film reinforces this idea by playing these types of songs when showing the British populace during times of leisure, play and work. There are some moments where you see people singing along to the songs that are playing while they go about their jobs in the factory's, of which they are making parts and goods that are certainly aiding the war effort. The music used creates this idea that all these activities have a similar enjoyment to them and personifying a sort of brave indifference in the face of war. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323399 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323399 Compared to both Triumph of The Will and Why We Fight, Listen to Britain was "subtle" in comparison. Triumph of the Will showcased the organization and power of Germany and the NSP through its grand spectacle and powerful speeches. Why We Fight firmly illustrated the will of the British populace during a time where the war was literally at their doorstep. Listen to Britain is much harder to pin down. If it wasn't for the opening narration, the few views of people working in military factories and the few images of troops they show, you wouldn't really have been able to pin down that this was a war propaganda film. It subtly shows the will of the populace by showcasing the life of British citizens as if it were just a normal day and not a period of intense war. Their will to continue on with their lives while also dealing with this war exemplifies both their bravery and their resistance to the Axis’s attempt at domination. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:43 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321638 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321638 Both Triumph of The Will and Why We Fight, are extreme examples of a films potent potential to promote Nationalism. Triumph of The Will, although heavily focused on its deity-like figurehead, promoted a unified Germany thought the speeches and organization of the German populace and its leadership. Although Why We Fight isn’t as grand in its words and spectacle, it does exactly the same by showcasing the will and work ethic of a British populace who are caught in the mix of an intense war that has come to their doorstep. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:34 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321586 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321586 Proto fascism is the “prototype” of fascism i.e. a model. It’s a set of political beliefs or practices that can potentially become full blown fascism. The practice of having a governmental figurehead (which most, if not all, governments have) is an example of this because figurehead’s have the potential to become dictator’s, (an essential component of a fascist government) if their power is not checked in some way. Collectivism is a belief system which emphasizes a collective interdependent mind set. Everyone depends upon everyone else in order to make the system work. Capra’s documentary sanctions a major component of both proto-fascism and collectivism in how much it emphasizes how the British are all working together toward a singular goal. Both of these systems emphasize this idea, a united power working together toward a common goal and Capra must have really believed in this to have nailed it into the film as much as he did. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:33 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=315993 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=315993 Transubstantiation is when a substance is, metaphorically, converted into another substance. An example would be how the Catholic church considers bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ, respectively. In the context of the passage, Hitler was basically considered a God by the German people. Obviously, he wasn't actually a God, but he was so renown that people actually considered him to be a mighty deity. The movie's opening scene, where he descends from the clouds is representative of him descending from heaven. The movie transubstantiates his being, in representation of the German's belief that he was their savior/god. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:31 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=315992 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=315992 In putting me amongst the crowds of spectators and also giving me crane views of the NSP's gatherings, it thoroughly showcased the discipline, organization and unity of the NSP of Germany. Also, more surprisingly, the way Hitler's speeches are shot helped me kind of understand why the German people decided to follow that psychopath in the first place. Yes he was a horrid person, but he had a certain demeanor, presence and speak that screamed leadership and knowhow. The way he delivers his speeches (both in his words and his body language) was extremely powerful and somewhat mesmerizing. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=315991 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=315991 The legend of the Gordian Knot involves a knot that was so tangled up, that nobody could untangle it. Alexander the Great eventually did, but only by taking his sword and cutting the knot in half. An ethical Gordian Knot is a interlocking of opposing morals and principles about a specific subject matter. Each one has their merits and shortcomings, and because of this there's no right or wrong viewpoint. Because their is no right or wrong (i.e. no correct answer) the "knot" cannot be undone. The ethics behind Riefenstahl's reasons for making this movie are extremely debatable, making it an ethical Gordian knot. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315558 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315558 There's absurdity in Carey's advice to Wayne about stopping through every sentence because he thought the audience wouldn't be able to catch what he said. He thought this new mechanism of film needed to be dumbed down in order for the audience to understand it. He didn't know what actually to do with it, so he gave it a form of controllability. Whether he honestly did this for himself or the audience is inconsequential, what matters is the fact that it's absurd to think we wouldn't be able to understand somebody talking on a screen. The same can be said about Vertov's ASL's and the critic figuring nobody would understand Vertov's movie because they wouldn't be able to concentrate due to the quick changes. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:22 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=314739 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=314739 The process of which this cameraman is capturing this Russian metropolis is simply the work of another Russian resident going about their job. As we see the job of the coal miners, traffic cops and switchboard operators, the cameraman’s job is to capture them doing their job. In filming the cameraman in his unique predicaments, Vertov is simply making a point that he and the cameraman are simply doing their job, making them as much a part of the city, and a character, as any other person filmed within the movie. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:21 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=314738 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=314738 The shots are conjoined together to represent the goings-on of living in a Russian city. It shows people traveling, working and playing as well as capturing some of the mechanisms of the inanimate machines that keeps it going. People and machinery are the major subjects of the movie because they both keep the city going as well as give it a personality, something I think Vertov wanted to represent. Mon, 09 Feb 2015 13:30:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=314726 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=314726 That even people who are accustomed with the environment, of which something new is being attempted, sometimes don’t know how to handle such a radical change. They will try to dumb it down or control it in a manner that allows them to accept and/or feel comfortable with it, even if that change is absurd in its rationality. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:20 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313865 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313865 In representing Nanook in biographical form, it both documents his life and the life of the Inuit people. Nanook is meant to represent this specific society and in documenting his struggles, he documents the Inuit’s struggles. You also have to consider Flaherty’s decision to give him a family that was not actually his. This is a way of having the audiences empathize with the character. A lot of people understand what it’s like to toil for their family, although maybe not to this degree. In fact, in that last comment alone, it also brings up a form of humility in the audience seeing what Nanook must go through for his family. Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:49:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313864 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313864 When Ebert talks about the “…courage and ingenuity of its heroes”, he’s talking about not just Nanook, but all the Inuit Eskimos. Flaherty’s original work documented and introduced the world to a people who live in a way that is different than anything most people knew and resourceful to a degree that most would not think possible. Why would you want to attack a man who manages to do something like that? Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:37:27 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313852 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313852 I believe Ebert believes what I believe after watching this film. There is an authenticity in filming the daily rituals of the Inuit Eskimos, even when there reasons for doing such rituals boils down to having them recorded. The rituals are things these people actually do in real life, away from the camera. What's the difference if they do it for sport, hunger or for purposes of documentation? Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500