Most recent public comments by Michelle Macauda https://nowcomment.com/users/13064 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338219 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338219 Welles is interested in Irving because they share them same interest in trickery. Welles trickery is in how he edits and composes his documentary films to trick and convince the audience. Irving as well has created documentary films to about how fake De Hory is. The reviewer isn't interested in the two of them because he only writes about his main interest, which is Welles. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338217 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30607?scroll_to=338217 F is For Fake is about how Welles' take on filmmaking is as a form of trickery and fakery. He does this by editing different parts of other documentary footage on a famous forger Elmyr de Hor. He interviewed with Irving. De Hory claimed that he never painted a picture by a famous artist, that he offered to a museum, that they didn't buy, and Irving was advanced $800,000 thousand dollars for an autobiography of the reclusive Howard Hughes which was completely false. Welles begins F for Fake by performing several magic tricks. H claims that filmmaking is prestidigitation and tricks the viewer into seeing something that the viewer willfully accepts.This is how Welles' plays a trick on the viewer to believe what is being shown in the film. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:47:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337057 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337057 I think the lack of narrator gives the opportunity for the audience to draw their own conclusions about the film. The film can have a stronger voice and that is one of they elements to a social documentary film.Sontag wants the audience to think and react on their first impressions and without being told by the narrator. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337056 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337056 Sontage resists the term documentary to describe the type of films she has created because it feels narrow. I think Sontage felt that by labeling the film documentary would take away from the literary elements to the film. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337055 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30606?scroll_to=337055 The first three paragraphs establish that Susan Sontag's view on her films weren't first identified as a documentary film. These paragraphs reflect the personal opinion that Sontag thinks about Promised Lands. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336180 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336180 The reviewer accept's the documentary's point of view because it is easier to poke fun at the ridiculous and absurd investigation. The reviewer might also agree with the documentary's point of view. The reference to Monica Lewinsky is to show how ridiculous and irrelevant the case was. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336178 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336178 During the Watergate case, the political figure Nixon, was exposed for covering up a break in where burglars attempted to steal government information.I think that the reviewer uses this analogy to compare McCarthy for being not trustworthy to our government. Political figures can't always be trusted and Watergate is a great example. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336174 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336174 It might have been the opinion of the reviewer to leave it out for many reasons. The reviewer might have felt that the communist subversion wasn't of high importance and the amount of space allowed to write this review may cause a restriction. Also, the reviewer may not want to shed light on McCarthy because he might not agree with his views. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336173 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30605?scroll_to=336173 Denby is comparing McCarthy to Starr in the sense that they both are comical and absurd. Both of these investigations are trying to prove more personal issues than actual harmful acts. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330780 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330780 Craigie wanted to reflect the views of the people of Plymouth and the struggle they want through. Craigie focused on the locals to express their will to continue on with their lives. Craigie wanted to include her views but, not take away from the locals. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330770 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330770 The audience went to the film to be entertained. The film focused on the reconstruction of the city but, the audience may not have expected the work and money needed to be put in effort. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330769 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330769 The assembly of people at the end of "The Way We Live" was organized to be a passionate march to bring together the people of Plymouth. The people of Plymouth are coming together after a time of suffering but, they are still showing that despite what had happened. In "Triumph of the Will", during this march they are organized in a structured forum. The Nazi party projected power and organization. The people of Plymouth showed community and pride. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:51 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330761 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30604?scroll_to=330761 The film was considered insufficiently commercial because it wasn't clear how the film would be understood on a larger level. The people of Plymouth were supportive of the film and wanted the film to be produced. The people of Plymouth went through the bombings and had a more personal connection to the film being created. It was a risky chance to be presented on a larger viewing platform, outside of Plymouth. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:51 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323439 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323439 There is a connection between the quite scenes and the manic wartime because it expresses how the world continues regardless of the war. Jennings uses this tactic to show how the chaos can coexist with the peace. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323438 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323438 The use of women in the film shows how the world must go on despite the war. The women were offered opportunities that they weren't a thought before. Women came into factories to take over for the men. This great change was in the movie to keep promoting positivity to the people of Britain. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323437 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323437 Jennings shows how the film invokes both unfamiliar war sounds and familiar everyday sounds. The film doesn't sound like just a war film. Jennings does this because the sounds are important to the film. The sounds takes away from the negative sound of the war by adding in sounds of music from the workers. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323425 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30603?scroll_to=323425 Listen to Britain is a propaganda film that doesn't have war written all over it. Compared to Triumph of the Will and Why We Fight, the passion and pride for the war was at the forefront of the film. Listen to Britain has more scenery shots which takes away from the film being about film. The film also focuses on the women at work in factories. The film promotes a more positive message. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:43 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321659 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321659 Capra borrowed from Riefenstahl the use of fascism in the films. The use of the group of people that run the state and have overall power is strongly used in both films. Capra also used this to give a sense of civilization in the film for the Americans. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:34 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321658 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30602?scroll_to=321658 The difference between proto fascism and collectivism is the value of ideas. In collectivism is the ideas of a group and the priority of each person in the group. Proto fascism is a movement that leans toward or imitates fascism. Capra used both of these ideas in his film to be able to convey his political views. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:34 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319838 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319838 Media is a powerful influence on the public. The media can project emotional feelings, thoughts and opinions on to the viewer. Film is a form of media and can used to portray a positive message for the greater good or to convey a revolt and rebellion in the public. During the war they gained the trust of the people, through propaganda, to join the war willingly. This same tactic could backfire. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:31 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319822 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30601?scroll_to=319822 The information on Leni Riefenstahl contributes to an understanding of Triumph of the Will because of the style of the movie. The different types of angles and shots that are compiled together to produce expression. The term "plastic" is used to describe that film can be made into any idea and c an portray them in any way. There is no mold, the use of sound, movement and scenery is flexible. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:31 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315736 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315736 The film is organized in a way that is seems sporadic. But, these shots are organized to flow like an ordinary film, having an establishing a setting and characters, having a conflict and through to a climax. Then the final shots ending the film to create a familiar ending. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:23 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315733 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315733 Modernism and surrealism refers conformity. These two terms are used to describe a era when doing things to resemble real time and every day life. In the film, Vertov used a different style to invoke a new style of film. The jump cut was used to do this by creating a sense of nuance. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:23 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315719 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315719 Ebert refers to them as shots and not scenes because they are shorter and faster compared to regular film scenes. Most scenes in films are much longer and from only a few perspectives. In these shots they are from different set-ups and angles. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:23 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315718 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30600?scroll_to=315718 I feel that Ebert is saying that the tradition of stage play was the typical type of set up of films. In this film the scenes are much faster and shorter, keeping the viewer intrigued. The scenes are sequenced similarly to how the brain works, creating idea after idea without stopping. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:23 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313988 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313988 Ebert's definition of authenticity is odd to me. I think he is saying that there is a sense of authenticity because the actions, like the walrus hunt, are real. But, the staging the scene to catch it on film and giving the direction for it isn't authentic. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313987 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313987 Ebert's definition of "the real" is the actions of what is being seen is real, even if the action was directed. The scene when Nanook and his hunters hunt the walrus was staged by being told to go hunt but the hunt was real. The killing of the walrus and the eating of it was real too. To be able to catch these scenes on film they need time and direction before shooting the realness. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313986 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313986 Ebert refers to the documentary having "realities admittedly assisted." I think he is saying that the film that is suppose to be based on truth and real life experiences isn't all that true. Ebert's attitude toward the documentary is negative because he sees the flaws of the truth in the film. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313985 https://nowcomment.com/documents/30240?scroll_to=313985 This being a form of a documentary, Ebert begins his review with a very rememberable scene. This scene portrays the realness that Nanook faces through his life. I think that Ebert began with this scene in the review to grab the attention of the reader. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:46:16 -0500