Comments by Jessica Nieberg

Comments by Jessica Nieberg Most recent public comments by Jessica Nieberg https://nowcomment.com/users/18728 I think Olympia dealt with Hitler kind of objectively. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525078 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525078 If I remember correctly, they didn't show his positive/negative reactions, just gave him some neutral camera time. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:47:36 -0400 She definitely is attracted to the powerful. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525073 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525073 The film creates a reality that makes these athletes appear equal and respected. Whether Hitler wanted non-white competitors there or not, they were there, and the film gives everyone camera time. The (real) reality would be what we spoke in class- how Hitler was supposed to shake the hands of winners, however, since he didn't want to shake hands with Jesse Owens, he didn't shake anyone's hand. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:44:52 -0400 I think what Diaz is suggesting is the way the athletes were filmed- https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525061 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525061 For example, when they must jump over the horizontal pole. We see a handful of athletes doing it, each taking a different approach, jumping in different directions and contorting their bodies in different ways to make it over the pole. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:36:49 -0400 The synchronized music and actions taking place in the film follow these laws of aesthetics and rhythm. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525041 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525041 "Cut like a symphony," the elements compliment each other and work off of one another. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:28:19 -0400 Script- https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=521738 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=521738 I think a script also helps portray a single story line. Without it, an audience can easily get confused with conflicting messages. Sun, 15 May 2016 19:16:13 -0400 Women- https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=521715 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=521715 I think the importance of the individual is most seen through the women in this film. The scene in the dispatch office is one that is quite memorable, as the women took calls and then charted where the men were and where they were going. This one responsibility helped the entire work place flow more easily. Sun, 15 May 2016 18:18:58 -0400 While documentaries depict nonfiction... https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=521712 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=521712 they only capture some aspects of the subject. In Nanook of the North, the audience only saw the simple side of the life of the Eskimo's, because they were "simple" people. Not one time did we see them challenged,a very real aspect of life in any society. Sun, 15 May 2016 17:39:30 -0400 Films create their own reality... https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=521710 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=521710 because viewers loose consciousness of the possibility of any other type of reality. The suspension of disbelief comes into play here, like in Zelig. While we know it is highly unlikely that someone’s legs will be turned backwards, we don’t call it out or get hung up on it, we accept it and keep watching for the sake of the film. Sun, 15 May 2016 17:37:17 -0400 Truth value https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=521709 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=521709 Truth-value of documentaries can best be understood through The Man With a Movie Camera. The audience is able to take a step back from the typical point of view they experience when watching something. In this instance, they get to watch a film of a film being made. This allows the audience member to think about what they are seeing and how it was captured. Making a film is not simply shot out of a car window by capturing everything that passes by, but rather standing on the ledge of a car to get the desired angle. While the film maker is filming real-life footage, he is making his own decisions on how and what to capture. Sun, 15 May 2016 17:36:30 -0400 Facsist vs. democratic prop. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=505227 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=505227 Triumph of the Will was made to show the strength of the Nazi party. Their image and power was meant to be boasted. In Why We Fight, however, the film is used to persuade Americans about involvment in the war. These are two very different uses. Wed, 06 Apr 2016 06:57:36 -0400 While the propaganda is not the time capsule, I think it would still make up a portion of a time capsule of that period. While most of it would be the actual historical event for what it was, propaganda played a large role too. For that, it is a part of https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=505226 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=505226 The history. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:10:23 -0400 Reenactment https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=505208 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=505208 In efforts to educate viewers, there is reenactment. To the original question posed, this reenactment is understood to be a degree of realism. Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:55:22 -0400 Their flag is also part of the aesthetics of German culture. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494026 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494026 It is a symbol that is everywhere and represents power, unity and perhaps even surveillance. Thu, 19 May 2016 19:52:58 -0400 This is an interesting concept to grasp. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494025 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494025 So again we see the content playing a purely formal role in order to convey one story, like is Nanook of the North. Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:12:55 -0500 I believe the audience is free to view Hitler any way it wants because of the obedience he demands, like you mentioned, professor. I could not help but think of the Nazi's perspective while watching. Suppose one of the men did not agree with Hitler's https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494023 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494023 beliefs but was scared to step out of line and go against what seemed to be "the norm" because then he would become a target. So, while we watch these men follow Hitler, we also consider the reality that not everyone may have been on his side because they believed it was the the right thing, but rather, for survival. Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:36:31 -0500 Death is glamorized because of the "carefree" life the Nazis get to lead. They are brothers, together all day/night, they have food, water and get have a good time, with little to worry about. This is because they are taken care of, and if given that, https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494021 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494021 its seems logical for them to give back, no matter how/what they must do. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:47:57 -0500 1. While documentaries depict nonfiction, they only capture some aspects of the subject. In Nanook of the North, the audience only saw the simple side of the life of the Eskimo's, because they were "simple" people. Not one time did we see them challenged, https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=486778 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=486778 a very real aspect of life in any society. 2. Films create their own reality because viewers loose consciousness of the possibility of any other type of reality. The suspension of disbelief comes into play here, like in Zelig. While we know it is highly unlikely that someone's legs will be turned backwards, we don't call it out or get hung up on it, we accept it and keep watching for the sake of the film. 3. Truth-value of documentaries can best be understood through The Man With a Movie Camera. The audience is able to take a step back from the typical point of view they experience when watching something. In this instance, they get to watch a film of a film being made. This allows the audience member to think about what they are seeing and how it was captured. Making a film is not simply shot out of a car window by capturing everything that passes by, but rather standing on the ledge of a car to get the desired angle. While the film maker is filming real-life footage, he is making his own decisions on how and what to capture. 4. I don't think there can be such a thing as an objective documentary. Even if a filmmaker thinks they are being objective, every decision they make is because of their own bias. Perhaps the key to showing the entire truth is having additional footage. Again, referring back to Nanook of the North, while we easily see the "simple" life of the Eskimo's, additional portraits depict a more serious side to them, making it apparent that only one story line is being conveyed. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 08:31:33 -0500 it gives us a sense meaning it gives us a snip-it into their live. We only get "a sense" of socialist Russia because we only see a small part of it. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480416 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480416 Thu, 19 May 2016 18:17:40 -0400 Would "surreality" come into play when the large, building-like camera appears on screen at the beginning? https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480413 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480413 Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:40:36 -0500 Yes, definitely an enhancement rather than a crutch. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480412 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480412 Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:09:12 -0500 This is a documentary about documentaries because the audience gets to see how the man with the movie camera decides how he will angle his lens. We realize that he can only fit so much in one shot, and this is because we can only see so much in OUR shot. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=477569 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=477569 (Or the shot for us.) Additionally, we get to see the mechanics of it. The machines and film cutters. We see more than just the end result, we see the process. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:40:57 -0500 This can be used a socialist propaganda because the film makes everything seem pleasant, (which the music assists with.) The streets are filled with people going to work in the morning, everyone looks like they have somewhere to go, or somewhere to be. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=477568 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=477568 However, if this is socialist propaganda, I question the decision to include the people that slept outside. (i.e. the girl in the park or the boy in the wooden carriage.) Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 The music remains hand in hand with footage we are seeing. It acts as a crutch to the story we are being told, rather than the one the man with the movie camera is curating. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=477565 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=477565 As we see the man filming the train that is getting closer and closer to him, the music is suspenseful. Also, when an action is repeated, the music also repeats. Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:15:17 -0500 We can see examples showing that the film being shot is in fact only the film maker's objective when there are shots of the man with the movie camera filming specific subjects. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=477553 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=477553 For example, when the man with the movie camera is standing on the edge of a car, driving next to other cars to film the passengers. He is set up at a specific angle and having the driver keep up speed in order to capture this. As an audience member, I personally thought, "if he is filming them, who is filming him. What else is going on at this exact time that is not within our lens? What can't we see?" Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 Again, I agree with Jake in that it was Flaherty's job to manipulate the characters in a sense. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474336 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474336 As stated in class, the message would be confusing if viewers experience the ups and downs of their way of life. Viewers must walk away with something, and that may be difficult to achieve when given too much of an array of situations. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:22:16 -0400 I agree that small details were manipulated to convey the message of the Eskimo's way of life. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474335 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474335 Furthermore, it is so subtle that if the professor had not showed the photos that didn't make the cut, I would not have taken into consideration the hardships these people actually face. Thu, 03 Mar 2016 20:31:03 -0500 It is apparent that Nanook holds a high rank, thus showing nobility, and exemplifies primitive living, in other words, a "savage." He provides for his family, fishes with his bare hands and, to complete the term, https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=471134 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=471134 can be seen taking a bite of a fish right after pulling it from the water. Sat, 13 Feb 2016 07:53:13 -0500 For something to be aesthetically pleasing, it means the subject is attractive. People enjoy looking at it. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=471133 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=471133 An example of an aesthetically pleasing scene in the film is when the viewer feels as though they are in the water with Nanook as he is rowing his boat. Another example is when Nanook's son is sledding in the snow with a husky pulling him as Nanook works. While the first scene mentioned may be pleasing because of the unique camera placement, this scene differs. It is a nice shot because of the happiness and enjoyment projected from the characters. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 I don't feel sorry for Nanook and his family because they are portrayed as not only content, but happy. They are said to be simple people, and with food, clothing and shelter, what more do they need? Once seeing the portraits that were not included in https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=471119 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=471119 the film, I was able to see through the acting. Though these people are referred to as "simple," that doesn't mean they still don't face challenges. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:49:43 -0500 By using all the techniques of a documentary, Zelig is proving that the techniques can be so persuasive that even a mock-u-mentary can seem as if it is non-fiction. Zelig shows that any documentary will be persuasive because there is an agenda behind it. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466700 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466700 Just as if you do not know who Woody Allen is, or pick up on some of the silly instances that take place throughout the film, dishonesty in a film can be overlooked on any topic a viewer is not familiar with. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:24:31 -0500 For documentary purposes, a native actor could be better than a professional actor because they would bring real experience to the film. This would give credibility to the piece. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466696 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466696 Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:22:07 -0500 Technically, one could say a film is more "real" when it is shot in the "raw." However, this is not always necessary because viewers are accustomed to taking suspension of disbelief into consideration. This makes the studio as real as street footage. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466695 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466695 Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:30:56 -0500 Because it is not showing the entire event. While there can be first hand witnesses, it is never the entire story. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466692 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466692 Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 "Getting around" seems to be a term referring to the real world in comparison to a set. In a sense, there are boundaries on a set that is built,(ex. of film that does not get around,) where as filming on the streets, the lens https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466687 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466687 can capture blocks and blocks of footage in one shot, (endless, almost.) Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:27:40 -0500 I believe the meaning of the saying "seeing is believing" is in fact when we believe that what we see bears witness to the way the world is and it can form the basis for our orientation to or action within the world. It is a serious problem as far as https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466681 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466681 film is concerned because an uneducated audience member will view that film as the truth, just as an uninformed consumer might buy a poorly made product from seeing persuasive advertisement. Selling a film as fact, even if it is opinion, can be harmful because it feeds bias information to audiences without them questioning it. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:11:27 -0500 Documentary films have progressed for materialist reasons merely because of society's evolution. As technology enhances, so do people's expectations. For that reason, films must constantly find ways to improve in order to have an audience. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466677 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466677 Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:33:08 -0500