Most recent public comments by Jake Bennett https://nowcomment.com/users/18811 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636323 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636323 The scene with Vardaman and the fish he found is particularly amusing because the serious talk on the porch is just interrupted by a boy struggling to carry a fish as large as he is. It is just something about how the boy struggles with the fish that brings to light how that character seems to struggle with grasping the concept of death. Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:52:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636322 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636322 I think that in a way you feel as if something is missing when half the screen goes black, but it may also be a signal to the viewer to pay attention to what is being shown because it is important. Almost using it as a focus method for the shot. Mon, 12 Dec 2016 07:14:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636321 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636321 The film enhances the general clarity of the novel. There could be certain things and events that were hard to place like in the opening scene of the movie, immediate it is clear who is in the room with Addie. Sat, 10 Dec 2016 19:57:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636320 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636320 I think that he could absolutely try to make the film but actors then did not get paid as much as they do now and he most likely would not have been able to fund the project without the help of a big studio. Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:49:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636319 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636319 The use of interior monologue expands the range of description that each character can use for his or her emotions. This allows Faulkner to touch on the wide range of emotions surrounding people when it comes to death of a loved one and describe the interactions between the characters. Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:51:44 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636318 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636318 Perhaps the black humor sensed in the novel disappears when adapted to film because the reality of the situation at hand sets in. We can read the novel and be somewhat removed creating the imagery in our head but one actually put in front of our own eyes the gravity of the story becomes serious. Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:48:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636317 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636317 It would still be able to be used in a typical film just not as much. In todays cinema world we see a lot of independent films experimenting with filming methods while still trying to maintain the classic story. One that comes to mind is the film shot entirely with a hand camcorder, Cloverfield. Sun, 11 Dec 2016 16:08:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636286 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636286 Even though Franco uses this film to explore new techniques and style, by putting himself in the lead role he may have inadvertently drawn some attention to his film. Not to mention there is some rooting interest for the family as a whole to safely continue their journey. Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:46:01 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636285 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636285 I think in this case both the film and the novel benefit from a 2nd time through. It brings smaller details that you may have missed the first time to the forefront, especially if you watch the film or read the novel in between. But the details missed may not necessarily be major key concepts but minor things that only further enhance the story. Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:53:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636284 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=636284 In Franco's adaptation he decides that some shots should disorient the viewer on where to look and confuse them as to what exactly is going on in the frame at first. However much like the novel once you get used to it, it become understandable and enhances the story. It would be interesting to see if anyone else would have their own personal adaptation to it that would differ from Franco's. Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:45:18 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=629639 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=629639 Could this maybe this be an exception to the Hollywood structure because it was only a short story and not a full length feature film? or was it promoted as a regular film? Mon, 05 Dec 2016 18:40:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=629619 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=629619 It is easy to sit in todays world and call him evil but there is also a chance Faulkner was making a statement about what could be done about the racist culture. Perhaps he was evil but he was the necessary evil needed to advance to where we are today. Fri, 09 Dec 2016 19:44:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=629616 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=629616 This is interesting because Hollywood made a film where the character is tough to root for. Much like Intruder in the Dust, at the time I'm sure there was a cultural rift and ethical dilemma viewers found themselves in when watching the film in certain parts of the country. Mon, 05 Dec 2016 18:40:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=629614 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=629614 The use of children in Faulkner's work makes you realize how well children can be used to develop other characters around them. They provide an innocence that can contrast the other characters in a way that almost makes them a control as if in a science experiment. Tue, 06 Dec 2016 07:25:17 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=627295 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=627295 Was the novel censorship as strict as film censorship at the time? I am interested to see which it would be easier to get around versus today where there are essentially cultural censors that disallow certain topics to be mentioned in Hollywood cinema. Thu, 01 Dec 2016 06:36:11 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=627289 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=627289 Relating this to the comment about how Faulkner was experiencing writers block while writing another piece this is the perfect example of how easy it must have been for him to relax and write about something he knew so much about, not to mention the credibility it brings to a work when the writer is knowledgeable on the subject. Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:03:31 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=627259 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=627259 Perhaps relatable in this sense is supposed to refer to the main characters feeling of down-to-earth? I would imagine that a working class audience would be able to relate themselves to the reporter more so than other characters such as mayors or police chiefs. Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:57:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621617 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621617 Even with the limited censorship of novels I feel like there were certainly some or some parts of novels that could slip under the radar where as films had groups of people watching them over several times before release. I feel it is unfair to compare the success of his novels and their film counterparts because society has changed since then and not only has lessened censorship but different topics have become more acceptable in film. Tue, 22 Nov 2016 05:39:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621616 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621616 I know we see a Hollywood cast of stars that control all the fans in the industry today, even sometimes being the producer or director of films that they star in but were actors considered artists in the same way they are today? Rather were actors ever seen as more than stars in films or merely as acting restrictions when writing the scripts? Tue, 22 Nov 2016 05:41:28 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621615 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621615 Much like the comment about how he constantly used abnormal characters as his protagonists, his style of writing had differences in detail but remained true to structure throughout what we have looked at. Also of note is the fact that the discussion of censorship continuously comes up, leading me to believe that he was a particularly adult oriented writer if his novels were continuously censored when being turned into films. Thu, 01 Dec 2016 06:36:11 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621493 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621493 Perhaps writing about something he was as interested in as much as flying gave him an opportunity to take a break from a tougher story to let his mind wander on a familiar topic. It may also be the case that in his time flying he had thought of several stories to write about, creating a process for developing novels. Thu, 08 Dec 2016 21:07:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621491 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621491 Also playing a role in this feeling from Faulkner is his experience in converting novel to film and the difficulties you come across. Not only is censorship at play but artistic differences and style requirements from the studio can influence how you have to film certain scenes. Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:45:11 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621490 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=621490 My point was more that Hollywood never used unconventional characters as their heroes during his time, and just by his style of writing and innovative organization of thought the films that were made did not follow the conventional film guide to a T. There is no doubt his films would do well today without censorship but to be fair his novels were not censored so in a sense they would be exactly the same today, it would just be the filmmakers that would take a different approach to converting them to the big screen. Tue, 22 Nov 2016 05:39:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620183 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620183 I think this is a very interesting comment now that we have seen a few of Faulkner's novels and their film counterparts. In what would seem like a popular film today, characters that are against the norm have become more accepted and is most likely responsible for the reason Faulkner's novels were so difficult to convert, the biggest barrier being the conversion of non-regular characters into hollywood typical ones. Tue, 22 Nov 2016 05:39:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620182 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620182 To add on to what I said about honesty, Faulkner may have also meant that the film makers did their best to do the same as he did with his novel but due to censorship, Faulkner knew they could not exactly recreate his novel in its entirety. Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:45:11 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620166 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620166 To call a film honest does not necessarily mean that it was accurate, in this particular case Faulkner was clear that he didn't recognize anything he wrote but what he possibly meant was that the film was successful in creating the feeling he too was trying to draw from the audience in the book. In the same way that Stephen King novels and movies may not be very similar but both accomplish the goal of horror and leave the audience in suspense. Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:45:11 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620162 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56428?scroll_to=620162 Much like the films we have already discussed censorship perhaps is used to keep a wide audience receptive instead of including explicit details which may further intrigue some audiences but turn off a far larger part. Further more seeing a main character or hero figure do things that would be censored will indefinitely make them harder to root for, making an argument that censorship and the requirement that films have someone to root for seem like they go hand in hand. Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:47:13 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615286 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615286 I know that we have talked about character actors sort of being stuck playing the same role over and over again, but wasn't there also the same thing with races? Actors that take on the roles like we see Samuel L Jackson take on today that sometimes put his choices under scrutiny, particularly in Django Unchained. Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:28:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615277 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615277 Seeing what modern film can do with setting it would be interesting to do a comparison of the costs today of CGI vs shooting on location. For example Peter Jackson has used his hometown in New Zealand as a stand in for New York City in his 2005 King Kong remake, but I would like to see if it could be done in actual New York City and what it would cost in comparison with the authenticity of each option. Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:11:10 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615274 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615274 I think one aspect lost in all of the analysis is the fact that Chick may have some innocence and simply does not know any better than to try and thank an individual for helping him. Child characters tend to be able to break color and gender barriers in films because of their innocence. Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:26:36 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615271 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615271 Evident is the fact that novel were more widespread at the time the film was released and not every town had a movie theatre. Not everyone could afford to go to the movies at that time and I think as time passed people lose interest in going back to watch certain movies because of remakes and spinoffs when the original novel tends to stay exactly the same throughout time. Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:25:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615261 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615261 We can still see things like this today where if a movie doesn't have a big star it can be seen as uninteresting if character actors are using the project to try to break their typical roles and expand. Trying to break the notion of being background character in other films can be difficult especially if you jump right to the lead role. Wed, 07 Dec 2016 18:05:14 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615231 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=615231 It is definitely interesting to see what movies were popular at the time they were released versus which ones took time to be appreciated due to changes in the social norms. For example films about the war may have been like beating a dead horse at the time but in todays world we can be engrossed in the topic because we have no concept of what it was like to live during that time. Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:23:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=610702 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=610702 At the time the film was made race and racism was a topic that wasn't really acknowledged as a major problem even though among the races it was evident. The comment Richard Wright makes paints a picture in my head that the Harlem movie audience realize that things like this happen everyday with the exception that Lucas would not have been saved. A white audience may chuckle at the goofy men running out of the barber shop at the beginning because they have no perception of the circumstances at which the town is gathering. Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:51:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=610680 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=610680 This plays into one of my previous comments where I was wondering if the predominantly racist parts of the country would react negatively to a film in which a young white boy ends up helping an elder black man accused of shooting a white man. The fact that the whole story takes place in a southern state may have been insulting to the southern white population whos belief go against everything that happened in the movie. Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:49:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=610675 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=610675 I think that the role of Hollywood in America at that time was a distraction from the global happenings of the country. The extravagant film premieres and films themselves provided a few hours in which the American public could escape whatever issues they faced in their lives to watch the film. Because of the "hoopla" it seems like many people who were keen in the art of film making may have been reserved in putting their knowledge on display because of possible negative connotations that would come with it. Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:23:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=610672 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56418?scroll_to=610672 Perhaps what makes this the best movie yet is just the overall completeness of the cast and aesthetics of the story. There is a cast of characters ranging ages and ethnicities, the use of aesthetically pleasing and involving camera angles refresh the audiences senses, and in the end it is a feel good story in terms of todays morals. I would be interested to see if this film did well in parts of the country that still had predominant racism during the time it was released. Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:11:10 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=605555 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=605555 Just a combination of certain personal characteristics tend to be intriguing as they normally aren't seen together in personalities. One that comes to mind is actually a recent crime noir film called The Nice Guys in which the main character is as you described a sort of weak and stupid lead role who continuously succeeds in his tasks. Sat, 10 Dec 2016 00:15:50 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=605548 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=605548 Perhaps in this case Hawks was worried the flashbacks would be seen as an answer to the mysteries. Although this would clear up the story line, flashbacks would provide insight into the character's personality that the audience is to figure out for themselves via the timeline of the film without flashbacks. Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:49:54 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=605535 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=605535 Perhaps the use of increased dialogue is meant to shift the audiences attention to the physical and visual hints at the detail of the film. Almost as the other senses pick up the slack for lack of one, with minimal dialogue the focus is to pay attention to whatever is said, however when dialogue is increased physical and social cues become less used and must be paid attention to with more importance. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:32:43 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56415?scroll_to=598693 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56415?scroll_to=598693 Especially in todays films and TV shows I think it would be fair to say that censorship isn't even used. Rather we should call it aesthetic discretion as showing too much violence or too much nudity may deter a major part of your intended audience who may not be able to handle. I think a good example of this is Quinten Tarantino who teeters on the line of too much and not enough constantly but backs up his lack of discretion with little things like the sound effects and music that accompany his films. Here is a clip that shows some of the little things that may keep an audience intrigued. https://vimeo.com/118431867 Wed, 09 Nov 2016 07:28:02 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=598692 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=598692 By depths I mean the extent to which a film includes every little detail from a scene in the novel. In the novel an entire scenery may be described down to the blades of grass, however in the film they may show a wide angle shot and just pan across the horizon, letting the viewer take in as much or as little details as they see fit. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=598690 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=598690 Possibly the film makers might cut to black just before an action takes place and let the viewers mind imagine what happened. Or in another way have the narrator or a third party (like a policeman) describe vaguely what took place and show a shocked emotion when doing so. This way the viewer knows exactly what horrifying event took place and through the emotion of a third party would be able to tell just exactly what kind of horror it was. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56415?scroll_to=584898 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56415?scroll_to=584898 Perhaps this isn't what the question is asking but I have noticed that Faulkner likes to adapt the dialogue to fit the style of the picture he is trying to paint. He uses improper grammar when writing conversations in a way that allows the reader to get an idea of what different cultures are like whether it be the short choppy British dialogue or the unmistakable cliché southern speaking style. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56415?scroll_to=584867 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56415?scroll_to=584867 When a Faulkner novel, and in most cases any novel, is adapted to Hollywood it somewhat loses some of its character when the star roles are cast to big Hollywood names. I think that the excitement and anticipation of seeing a popular novel put on the big screen masks the loss of the novelty. When the actors are cast their previous and sometimes typical roles are wrongly cast on a film, taking away from the feeling you et about the character from the novel alone. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56415?scroll_to=584866 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56415?scroll_to=584866 One example of Hollywood censorship I have seen is in the novel and film Fight Club. In the Chuck Palahniuk novel the protagonist, who remains unnamed throughout, has a hole in his cheek through which you can see his teeth throughout the entire story. In the film however, Ed Norton, who plays the protagonist, has no such hole in his cheek at any point in the film. I think that Hollywood had decided it would be too graphic to display such a wound throughout the entire film. And while the film itself is rather graphic in nature, this is just one of the few things that Hollywood felt was too much for the public to have to deal with the entire time. Wed, 09 Nov 2016 07:28:02 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=575336 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=575336 I think this is a very thought provoking description of censorship in films. During the time of Temple Drake I think this would be a very accurate description as many intense emotions and actions were in a sense blurred and left to the viewers imagination but I cant help but connect it to films today and ask if it is still the case. With many films selling on the basis of nudity, bloody violence, and drug crime I cant help but wonder if perhaps the censorship was different in a time when society was not as open with what today would be the norm. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=575334 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=575334 The depths are the descriptions used by Faulkner to "paint the picture" for the reader, per say. The film merely follows the shadows, or the basic outline, of the novel because it uses visuals and sound to tell a story rather than needing the intense vocabulary description to depict a scene. In most cases the film will chose to include or forget certain 'depths' of a novel on purpose in order to benefit or aid the aesthetics of the film. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=575332 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=575332 In this case the film ends up being less sinister than the novel because of the Production Picture Code. Using a basic comparison checklist we can obviously see that the novel has a more descriptive depiction of the details of the rape than the film. I think less obviously the use of handsome and popular movie actors, Jack La Rue in this case, separates the belief that the character is evil from the audiences' belief. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=575330 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=575330 I think this comment on censorship relates to suspension of disbelief and that when watching a film the audience shouldn't have to remember the actual cruelties of life. In the case of Temple Drake the audience will not miss a beat in the continuation of the story but will be spared what would have been a depiction of a brutal and horrifying act. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=515906 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=515906 I think that even if a documentary is staged and reenacted the truth value can be preserved. So long as the general emotions and outlook on the subject are translated efficiently, a fictional documentary can remain truthful to the topic at hand. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=515905 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=515905 I find it interesting that every year there are new documentaries on the same topics and continuously interest me. I have slowly realized that it is the new takes and new facts discovered every year that inject new life into topics that have been retold countless times throughout history. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=515904 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=515904 I think drama is more of a genre and style of scripting whats filmed while aesthetics can be opinion based. More so aesthetics should be pleasing to look at and creating a desire in the viewer to see more or give them the 'can't look away' feeling. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=515903 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=515903 I think the word you were looking for is civilized. The way Flaherty asked his subject to hunt in the traditional manor rather than use the rifles they had acquired through trade preserved the namesake and spectacle he was trying to capture. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=515902 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=515902 A documentary can absolutely be an escape if the topic is particularly intriguing to the viewer. While the topic may be interesting to the viewer that does not automatically make it a definite escape. A new interview or viewpoint may allow a viewer to be enveloped in the documentary. The basic elements of a documentary will in most cases be maintained although a documentary that contains far fetched theories and ideas may also hold an audiences' attention particularly well. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=511200 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=511200 This comes more into play when there are various interviews with individuals involved may have different opinions regarding the politics surrounding whatever event the documentary reports on. Of course these interviews can either be included or excluded by film makers in order to keep their argument strong. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=511188 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=511188 When determining the credibility of a documentary you can almost get a sense from the first few minutes of whether or not it will be believable. Just the quality of the editing, montage and so on will allow one raise flags and be aware that the facts presented may not be truthful. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=511165 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=511165 I think it is interesting to compare the propaganda films we watched in class and to compare them to the medias portrayal of the presidency candidates. The media today can twist and blur the truth in their reports the same way the documentaries do by showing only what they want and with the upcoming election nearing we will see more and more of this in the news. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=511164 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=511164 Well just in general a male narrator sets a different tone than a female narrator. In what we have seen, the documentaries on world war II have a very serious, deep voiced narrator while Zelig had a goofy, fake news anchor type voiced narrator. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=509459 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=509459 While explaining the scenes and clips on screen, the narrator also sets an overall tone for the film. In other words the narrator is used to explain emotions and feeling attached to certain topics that may otherwise not be obvious . Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=509453 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=509453 The objectivity of a documentary will end up hinging upon what facts and included and left out. Perhaps due to time, budget or just general knowledge restrictions a documentary may not be able to provide full detail, thus leaving an unintended bias. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=509452 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=509452 Truth value in a documentary will depend on the subject and the group presenting it. Like we have seen now several times there is wording in the beginning of these films that ma raise some red flags when watching a documentary such as who is funding it and if it is upon the order of anyone(Hitler). Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=504923 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=504923 Why We Fight is a time capsule that contains clips and examples of what everyday life was like during World War II in England. It covers all aspects of life and is like a time capsule because it feels as if this was a recent occurrence in Great Britain. The shot that makes it seem like it will stick with me for a while was the one of the backyard that slowly panned around to the fighter plane hidden in the bushes. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=504922 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=504922 Why We Fight was a much more watchable and down to everyday life style that was very factual. Triumph of the Will took a more artistic approach to documenting its subject with artistic cuts and long panning shots. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=504918 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=504918 While in certain films the narrator is used to sway the opinion of the viewer, in this case I feel it is used to just explain the images and reenactments. Although Riefenstahl would say that the images and reenactments speak for themselves. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=504913 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=504913 When looking at documentaries that are of subjects that have taken place a long time ago it is certainly difficult to put yourself in the situation being explained. For example it is difficult to imagine how regular the wartime life became. In the same way today we have difficulty fully understanding documentaries and just news in general on subjects taking place in other countries. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=501477 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=501477 I believe she intended to have no agenda although from our modern viewpoint it would be tough to tell if there was a hidden one or not. Just based on some of her clips themselves it seemed she was more captivated with the subject at hand like the grandeur of the Olympic games, and experimenting with styles of film than promoting the Nazi propaganda. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494734 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494734 Not only were his speeches powerful and motivating but also captivating the masses was the fact that his propaganda made it seem as if everyone he spoke to immediately supported him. It was this classic case of conforming just because everyone else was when in reality there was a large portion of the country looking elsewhere for leadership. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494728 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494728 Th e more interesting aspect to Hitler and his rise to power was how during his political campaign he was just another candidate running, though much more influential. Having a family that comes from Germany it is eye-opening to see photos of Hitler in parades as just another photo in the album. Which shed light on just how much propaganda and his pure persuasion through public speaking made it seem as if the whole country were behind him. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489370 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489370 Personally I do not believe there can be an objective documentary. In order to learn the facts about a certain topic objectively it is best to do your own research and read up on the events on your own rather than have someone gather what they believe to be important and present them to you with an agenda. Regardless of personal opinion there can be generational or cultural bias that comes into play naturally. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489369 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489369 The truth value of documentaries is dependent on the viewer’s openness and prior knowledge of the subject. For example Nanook of the North is as far as I can think of believable and truthful. Hearing the background of the film maker, with little prior knowledge of Inuit people and their lifestyle it did not seem to me that there would be any reason for the film maker to distort the truth value of what he had to present, allowing me to find everything in the film reasonably truthful. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489368 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489368 Films create their own reality by submerging the audience in the images and clips shown. We tend to forget we are watching a film and become so enveloped in the subject at hand that the film makers can begin tweaking and editing certain shots to trick the viewers without the viewer even thinking it is possible. We see the behind the scenes methods used to capture certain seemingly impossible shots in Man with a Movie Camera, particularly when it looked like the camera man was going to get hit by the train and then didn’t. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489367 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489367 Documentaries are actually document in the sense that they show visual aids in the process of explaining their topic. For example in Zelig there are newspaper clippings police reports and interviews that are shown documenting the events that supposedly took place. Fake or not they are physical documents that can be explained from certain points of view in order to persuade the viewer. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=487190 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=487190 1. Documentaries are actually document in the sense that they show visual aids in the process of explaining their topic. For example in Zelig there are newspaper clippings police reports and interviews that are shown documenting the events that supposedly took place. Fake or not they are physical documents that can be explained from certain points of view in order to persuade the viewer. 2. Films create their own reality by submerging the audience in the images and clips shown. We tend to forget we are watching a film and become so enveloped in the subject at hand that the film makers can begin tweaking and editing certain shots to trick the viewers without the viewer even thinking it is possible. We see the behind the scenes methods used to capture certain seemingly impossible shots in Man with a Movie Camera, particularly when it looked like the camera man was going to get hit by the train and then didn't. 3. The truth value of documentaries is dependent on the viewers openness and prior knowledge of the subject. For example Nanook of the North is as far as I can think of believable and truthful. Hearing the background of the film maker, with little prior knowledge of Inuit people and their lifestyle it did not seem to me that there would be any reason for the film maker to distort the truth value of what he had to present, allowing me to find everything in the film reasonably truthful. 4. Personally I do not believe there can be an objective documentary. In order to learn the facts about a certain topic objectively it is best to do your own research and read up on the events on your own rather than have someone gather what they believe to be important and present them to you with an agenda. Regardless of personal opinion there can be generational or cultural bias that comes into play naturally. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480536 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480536 When the film was originally shown there was obviously a different soundtrack shown with the accompanying picture, which leads me to wonder if a different style of music or maybe depending of where the film is shown a different local genre of music would entirely change the way in which we perceive the documentary. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480534 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480534 The way in which I thought of this film was as if I were watching a documentary and in certain scenes just took several steps back with a second camera. Particularly in the carriage scene where we see the skills needed to set up the camera in the car driving next to the subjects. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480533 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480533 This too is the particular scene that I thought of right away. First he deceives us to make us think the camera man gets hit by the train, and our immediate worry is with the camera man shown on screen rather than the one filming the shot. Afterwards he then shows us the technique in which he uses to provide us with what then was probably a stunning, curiosity driving shot. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480527 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480527 Much like the way you put it I felt that throughout the film I found myself forgetting the topic and just focusing on the landscapes and subject in the certain shot. So in a way it was ironic that it was trying to be critical of the manor of film itself but as a viewer I continued to forget that I was watching a film, when I knew the intent of the film was to put an emphasis of the process of creating the shot. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=472296 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=472296 When Nanook's entire family climbs out of his canoe is one particular scene that stuck in my head. Whether edited to seem as if they all fit or not, it captivated the audience and allowed them to enjoy an otherwise meaningless task of climbing out of a canoe simply through film. A certain shot or clip must draw the viewer in and hold their attention while creating desire to see more, whether there is more to see or not. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=472279 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=472279 Flaherty's personal search for the spirit of the Inuit people seems to be separate from the creation of the film. His findings may have been such a feeling that was not comprehensible through film so it was his job to manipulate the characters and scenes in a way that he thought would evoke the same emotions and feelings from an audience who could not visit and interact with Nanook in person. It was also Flaherty's job to select which activities and actions to capture as living with someone for every minute of every day will hold countless moments of spirit whereas you can only fit so many into a documentary. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=472274 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=472274 Skimming through various definitions of noble savage, most make reference of an individual who is not corrupted or influenced by civilization. Perhaps Nanook is portrayed as more of a noble savage than in real life since Flaherty wished to see the Inuit's act and live in the historic manor that their ancestors did rather than the modernized lifestyle infused with more advanced tools. In the films realm though, Nanook appears as the noble savage being in control of his family and responsible for their travel and general well being. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=472269 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=472269 The way in which Flaherty portrayed Nanook and his family was in such a way that the audience could not feel sad for them unless some prior knowledge of the portraits or general idea of the Inuit lifestyle would allow them to. The simplistic and perhaps comedic life of Nanook and his family was only the side that Flaherty decided to show, as an audience our first thoughts are of being entertained and amazed at this different culture rather than curiosity at the struggles that come with such lifestyle. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=472268 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=472268 Viewing Nanook of the North today rather than at the time it was created perhaps makes the moral lesson of manipulating small details of a documentary more visible than before. As we spoke of in class, the decision to have Nanook and his people hunt and behave in traditional manors rather than use the guns and other modern technology available to them in order to preserve the natural spectacle that was seeing this way of life for the first time. The way the film tried to captivate the audience was through exposing this unknown culture to the rest of the world, and have modern and familiar technology at use in the film by the natives would take away from the curiosity that brought the audience in. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470631 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470631 I think with the advancements we have seen recently with virtual reality there is good reason to believe a time when there is no more advancing to do is far off in the future. Another form of technology on the horizon is augmented reality, which in theory would put the viewer in the middle of the documentary and would allow them to experience the events as if they were actually there. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470627 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470627 If the film maker is trying to convince the viewer on a certain topic than the above may very well be true. Some documentaries are created for informational purposes and used merely to alert the audience of an issue and allow them to draw their own conclusions and form opinions based on their own understanding. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470624 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470624 Right. The perceived truth value of a film will be dependent on the viewers beliefs and prior knowledge to the subject. The reason it may or may not be truthful is based upon the actual facts presented in the film and if there is a hidden agenda to persuade the viewer. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470623 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470623 The documentary techniques shown in Zelig are meant to open the audience's eyes to the possibility that a film can be created with the intent to deceive. Proving how easy it is by constructing a completely false, but believable at times, documentary story about a fictional character. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470622 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470622 Just like we saw in Nanook of the North the natives being able to interact with their familiar environments gave us the feeling as if we were there going through the activities of everyday life. While a professional actor will have the skill and camera presence to perform, they will never be able to show the comfort and expertise a native would in selected realm. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470621 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470621 The realism of a film will only aid the film in proving its' point as well as connect the audience to the film. Although shooting the film in the raw may enhance the realism of a film it may not totally capture the shock or awe or whatever emotion that is trying to be conveyed. Scenes created by the director in some cases may be the best way for the story to be told, just like we questioned with Nanook of the North. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470620 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470620 A documentary film's ability to get around can or cannot be limited by its subject. Any one subject can be as broad or vague as the creators wish. After choosing the topic, it will be seen by as wide an audience as desired while certain topics may be taboo in certain cultures. With the intent of a documentary to inform, it is usually in the interest of the film makers to get their message to as many people as possible. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=468345 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=468345 When something is seen in a documentary it is taken into account along with the rest of the facts and images being shown. The truth value of a particular documentary is entirely dependent of the individual in the audience and his or her own beliefs. This dependent can be ignored though if a film is particularly convincing and provides several opinions and views on the subject at hand while displaying as many factual documents as possible. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=468321 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=468321 The "materialist reasons" that cause documentary films to advance was purely because of the advancements in society, exactly like Jessica stated. In today's films we constantly see monstrous budgets for special effects surpass records just because as an audience we are expecting to be wow-ed every time we pay money to see a film. Another way this could be seen is how many remakes have been made of older films just to inject the newest actors and style of filming in an attempt to better the story, or just to make a profit. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454829 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454829 The truth found in the Lumiere Brothers' films is more of a sense of reality that a point proven truthful. The fact that their clips capture a busy street with people and transport moving around quickly shows a reality that people were accustomed to, which in turn made them believable. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454803 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454803 The new advancements that allowed for the moving pictures to be created allowed for a new art form to be created and developed. The aesthetics of the moving picture did just what it sounds it would do. With a whole new field of expression created, film makers began experimenting with different angles, lighting, and all the other styles we see today to develop their own individual style of aesthetics. Along with a new genre of aesthetics came a new set of morals to be tested as the previous arts could not have possibly captured such events. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454776 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454776 The slow progression of camera techniques used begins with the straight on angle of the workers leaving the factory. Squared up with the building the camera capture the angular movement of all the workers moving throughout the frame. They then move to a wide shot of the busy street and to shots of train platforms with trains coming and going. They eventually begin to experiment with shots from the train while moving throughout the city. It is easy to see how this quick development of techniques can be described as a breakthrough Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454743 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454743 The films were a breakthrough in a sense that it was an entirely new art form that could be used to show the range of human emotion and actions that had been recreated through arts and photography to that point. Today we may see these clips as boring but back then it was a way for people to see what other cities were like without going through the rigors of travel to visit them. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454715 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454715 I was not bored although I can see why some might have been. The clips shown were merely of everyday happenings, though groundbreaking for the time and a view into what the great cities of the world used to look like there is no significant event occurring in the clips. With this in mind the angles at which the clips were captures created depth because of the various diagonal and angular paths used by the moving subjects. The respect is created through the fact that almost instantly the Lumiere Brothers grasped the art of the motion picture and slowly developed a guideline for filming subjects in the most aesthetically pleasing fashion. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454676 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454676 Documentaries tell a story by presenting a series of facts and descriptions in accordance with visual documents and evidence that complete the story. However, the film makers may choose to purposely leave out certain important points that are crucial to the structure of the actual event but would be detrimental to the point they are trying to make. This is why when watching documentaries we reserve some of our belief until individual research has been done. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454674 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454674 Depending on how the editing is used by the film maker, it may or may not be used dishonestly. If the sequence is constructed in a way that the actual speeches and views of the individuals portrayed become changed or distorted then the film maker will lose credibility. But if the hypothetical conversation created does not change the intended reactions of the clips used, it can be to the editors advantage. Also playing a role in the honesty is the overall mood of the film itself because such a sequence may not be anything more than a device to mock those who the documentary is aimed at. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454439 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=454439 Montages can be used in several different ways to portray an array of meanings. A montage could show a slew of various video clips that depict a characters emotions throughout a lengthy event. Another way to use montage is to have a slideshow of images showing the growth or change of a character over a significant amount of time. A montage could also be a way to fast-forward through an event or occurrence that is too complicated to cover in complete detail. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400