Most recent public comments by Joshua Wolfe https://nowcomment.com/users/19127 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525121 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525121 I think editing would probably lead down the path of distortion but its also creating a specific truth the film is intending to show. Editing is probably distortion but that's not what most viewers of a film walk away with after a film. They walk away with a truth that the film created. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:54:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525114 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525114 I don't think a documentary film's job is to create an escape for a viewer. With that being said, a viewer can view a documentary film as an escape. But the job for a documentary is not to provide an escape, rather to show a truth, a truth that a director or producer can manipulate if they choose to do so. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:47:11 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525105 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525105 I think the majority of people at these rallies were dedicated and faithful followers/servants of Hitler. These were Nazi faithful, nevertheless it doesn't represent how the entire Germany felt about him. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:27:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525101 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525101 Thu, 19 May 2016 23:21:56 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525095 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525095 The film may not view his followers as just pawns but I do because these followers we know would die for Hitler and many of them did. Hitler must have known he had this control over them. Pawns are expendable and I think all of Hitler's followers were expendable besides himself and his main goals. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:14:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=517669 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=517669 This statement is the same as seeing is believing. When watching the film and you see all of the preposterous things Zelig is doing you shouldn't believe it. Its an issue for film because viewers need to know that what they are seeing isn't necessarily true. I think this film is an extreme but even with the most ordinary documentaries a viewer should take everything he is watching with a grain of salt. Sat, 07 May 2016 08:15:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=517651 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=517651 I think aesthetically pleasing in documentary films has more to do with something beautiful we see on the exterior and at first glance. A touching scene does not necessarily mean it is aesthetically pleasing. Sat, 07 May 2016 08:08:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517622 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517622 There can be an objective documentary. I think it's just hard to truly create. There are a lot of obstacles in the way of creating an objective documentary. Every single fact that pertains to the documentary needs to be included. Some people might think that a film missed a fact when others might think it didn't. It is very subjective and opinion oriented to determine if a film is objective. It certainly can be done, but its just difficult. Sat, 07 May 2016 08:07:26 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517617 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517617 Directors have a lot of control but they cannot control everything you see on screen in a documentary. This is s because at some point they're going to have show you actual documents of the event. Whether this harms their objective for the film or not they're going to show you evidence. Now they can manipulate what they show you to a certain extent, whether it be through placement in the film or sounds that go over the evidence. Nevertheless they still are showing you the evidence which is something a director does not have total control over. Thu, 19 May 2016 21:56:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517616 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517616 The truth value of documentaries can only be determined after watching the film and then doing a thorough analysis. You need to know the background of the film as well. If a documentary you are watching is about a particular event that you did not know about, you need to do your research and find out the facts about that event to determine its truth-value. Some documentaries do displays both sides and the complete story and others do not. Sat, 07 May 2016 08:05:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517609 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517609 Films create their own reality through many different ways. What a viewer is seeing in the film has been created and altered by the filmmaker. He or she controls what you see and also what you don't see. With a unique film that is created with so many different twists like angles, shot selection, character placement, voices, and sounds a viewer is watching a reality created by the director. Sat, 07 May 2016 08:04:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517603 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517603 Documentaries actually document when they present actual facts or sources of a particular occurrence. It is very important to note that although a documentary may actually be documenting, you want to make sure they are not omitting any of the documents that complete the story, which is usually the opposing side of the message they are looking to get across. I think it's important for documentaries to remain objective and show the entire story and let the viewers decide on their own what they really saw instead of slamming them with scenes and evidence to one side of the story. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:48:57 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517602 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=517602 A filmmaker has so much power within his job to control so many aspects of the film regardless of what the topic is. Whichever topic a filmmaker is working on he or she can choose to spin it in almost any way they choose. Sat, 07 May 2016 08:02:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517563 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517563 I think that since I am viewing this film today with knowledge of what actually occurred after the events of film, I can see their vulnerability. But if I was a viewer watching the film when it was released I don't think I would see the vulnerability of the Nazi party. In fact, I think Riefenstahl does a good job disguising the vulnerability of the Nazi party by overshadowing any signs of that with the grandness of the leaders of the Nazi party and Hitler, of course. What are the people attending the Nazi rallies supposed to do when they are witnessing such powerful and great speeches? Thu, 19 May 2016 23:21:56 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517014 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517014 I agree there is no denying the charismatic, manipulative skill set, and persuasive abilities Hitler possessed but he mainly came off as a positive person to Germany. They were vulnerable and Hitler took advantage of that. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:21:56 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517012 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517012 I think when you see the people of Germany standing and listening it shows the mindlessness they possess, despite how believable Hitler sounds, they should have been able to use their own minds instead of just acting like puppets to his words and commands. Since they weren't using their own minds, they were figuratively ready to walk through fire for this man. Fri, 06 May 2016 08:13:32 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517010 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517010 What is actually taking place in the film is serving a purpose to glamorize Hitler, the Nazi Party, and Germany, whether the viewer knows it or not. That is the formal role the scenes and content in the film is playing. Fri, 06 May 2016 08:12:18 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517009 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517009 I think it is the grandness of Germany that is represented in the film. When you see so many people attending the speeches by Hitler and cheering, it is sort of beautiful, especially seeing all of the soldiers. This is the aesthetics of Hitler and Germany's power. Fri, 06 May 2016 08:11:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517007 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517007 It’s interesting because the fact that their is no narrator might give a viewer the idea that okay there isn’t a narrator trying to lead you down the path of Hitler but in fact that is still what the film is truly doing. To say that the audience can view Hitler in any way they please is really not true because the way Riefenstahl orchestrated and directed this film was done in a way that leads the audience into viewing Hitler in a positive way. Fri, 06 May 2016 08:10:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517001 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517001 The shot selection, first you see the passionate, charismatic Hitler preaching his message to his country and then you see the people standing there, listening carefully and enamored by his remarks. Hitler is the conductor as he is in total control over his people, his pawns. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:14:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=516979 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=516979 In Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl sets out to show the political genius of Hitler and the Nazi party. This is before the war and probably added more power to Germany as she carefully showed the charismatic and attractiveness of Germany's leaders. In Why We Fight we see the "spirit of Britain" through actions and a voiceover that emphasizes these heroic actions by the British people. Fri, 06 May 2016 08:05:58 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=516977 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=516977 After watching this film you see that Capra directed this film to show a history of events that ultimately shows the resilience and successful tactics by the British. For every German attack, British did not surrender but they kept on fighting and responded with winning attacks of their own. This is what Capra wanted the viewer to see, the ruthless behavior of Germany, which resulted in their own eventual demise and Britain's victory. Fri, 06 May 2016 08:04:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=516976 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=516976 I think it is abundantly clear that the narrator in this film is used to set the pro British tone. Although Riefenstahl didn't use a narrator she was still able to set the pro Germany tone through her means of directing her films. Fri, 06 May 2016 08:04:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516697 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516697 I think that it is just a normal way to start a film. Even today we see it. Jennings understands that you don't just immediately jump into the action. You need to build up to that, which then makes those dramatic and action filled scenes even better. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:40:28 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516684 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516684 In the firefighting business it is not if you will be called to action, it is just a matter of when and I am speculating that it is usually sooner rather than later. Therefore with such a daunting task that is soon to come, it is just way for those gentlemen to calm their worries and enjoy time with their buddies. Despite it being a sad song, which the average viewer today will probably not pick up on, I think the emphasis should be placed on the way the song sounds, which is happy, a much better way to go into a dangerous task than being completely filled with nerves. Thu, 05 May 2016 08:15:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516682 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516682 I think the role of the natural sound strengthens the realism in Jennings' film. That being said what we are hearing in the film is not only natural sound, as there is music in the film which adjusts depending on the scene. Thu, 05 May 2016 08:14:36 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516681 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516681 The script here is that Jennings is still the director and he is in charge of putting the shots and scenes into a film. The arrangement, order, and character placement is still all his. The reality is these were real events that did take place and through his script he is able to portray these occurrences in a very realistic way. Since Jennings is able to masterfully orchestrate the script and reality, in my opinion his propagandistic purposes are achieved at the highest possible rate. Thu, 05 May 2016 08:13:41 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516680 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516680 The British spirit is the power of how all the workers kept doing their jobs despite being in life threatening situations. From bombs to heavy fires these workers kept on working. Thu, 05 May 2016 08:12:31 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516679 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516679 I think a key point here is the importance of the individual stems from the fact that this a time of war. Without a war a viewer could not really see how important each individual is. Since it is a dangerous time and situation Jennings is able to show how every action by every worker is highly valuable and has a huge impact to completing the overall task . Without war the importance of the individuls' actions would just be lost. Thu, 05 May 2016 08:11:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516678 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516678 I think that Jennings takes an interesting approach to heroism in this film. He first humanizes his characters and portrays them as regular people, ones you wouldn't think would be heroes. An example of that is when they are all crowding around the piano and singing upbeat songs. Then things shift in the film and you see them doing their jobs but not in a extraordinary fashion. Despite the commonality in their actions, as a whole they are still heroic nevertheless. Thu, 05 May 2016 08:10:46 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516673 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=516673 Having not been alive during the 1940's makes it more difficult to determine how normal and real these shots and scenes were. However I still feel a strong sense of realism to this film, like what we are watching is how life was in the 1940's. You don't get the sense that these are actors trying to perfect their lines and scenes, instead they're just normal civilians going about their normal lives, which is what they were supposed to represent. From the very soft and happy start to the film to the gradual shift to a more serious plot, Jennings doesn't put together scenes to excite and entice his viewers, rather he portrays something that can almost be interpreted as truth. Fri, 20 May 2016 14:52:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499528 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499528 I think "only" is too strong of a word to use. I think she may have partially used the olympics for propaganda but she also didn't. She could have solely focused on Germany's athletes when shooting but she chose not to, which means the film wasn't "only" used for propaganda. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:41:10 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499510 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499510 This is a question we will never truly know the answer to, as only Hitler himself would have known why he agreed to the film. However I strongly believe it could have been a small piece to his ultimate plan. Hitler was a brilliant politician. He understood the game and knew how to persuade people with his charismatic approach. This film was a way to show the greatness of his Germany which perhaps attracted more followers for him. It may have also fooled individuals and nations of what Germany was truly all about. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:42:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499265 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499265 The real face of Germany is based on what we know today, which is all of those inhumane actions Hitler and the Nazi party committed. The face of Germany was Adolf Hitler at that time and I don't think it was a gradual process that made Hitler want to kill and conquer. Once he became the head of the Nazi party, his beliefs became the face of Germany. The film shows no signs of hatred and violence thus it disguised the real face of Germany back then. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:38:09 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499256 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499256 I think Olympia was called a propaganda film for 2 main reasons. First it showed the aesthetically pleasing but also powerful arena, statues, and buildings that were in Berlin, Germany. Those shots were also slowed down to emphasize on the grandness of them. With a strong concentration on the athlete and the human form, Riefenstahl brings a humanistic approach to the film. It is known that the Nazi party also had strong ties to humanism (their own kind). Perhaps her focus on the perfect bodies and men in the olympics is like the Nazis focus on the perfect races of mankind and hate against anyone who does not meet these standards. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:34:13 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499245 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499245 It seems pretty simple that she took shots that would be exciting, dramatic, and enjoyable for the viewer to watch. She didn't shoot all the boring occurrences in the actual olympics that would not satisfy a viewer or fan at the event. Since the olympics cannot omit these unenjoyable or uninteresting parts and Riefenstahl can, the film is more exciting than the actual event. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:29:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499228 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499228 I do not agree that the two films are ideological opposites. I think Triumph of the Will directly shows the greatness of Germany and its leaders of the Nazi party. Olympia sort of indirectly does this as well and their main ideas do not necessarily change so much. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:28:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499227 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499227 I think the film creates a reality that these athletes who compete in the olympics are not like ordinary men. Perhaps she means to portray them as G-d like figures. Although this is definitely her focus, I can also see other athletes losing which in sense makes those athletes more human. However perhaps she means to say the top athletes are the ones who need to be greatly appreciated, the ones who win. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:44:52 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499226 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499226 The cinematography is being emphasized because of the way Riefenstahl orchestrated the film. Its not necessarily about the 1936 olympics rather it is the grand power of the aesthetically pleasing athletes and the greatness of Germany. The fact that she shot athletes training before the olympics gives you an idea that this is her area of focus. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:22:41 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499225 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499225 By analyzing the film you can see the film is more about nationalism and human form several reasons. Firstly many of the shots and specifically the more dramatic ones had to do with the individual athlete. Rather than show an array and bunch of competitors in a single shot, Riefenstahl chose to focus on the triumph and battle one athlete would undergo. The olympics in the film seem to me just as a platform that Riefenstahl used to display the greatness of Germany. Perhaps she believed Germany hosts and Germany wins, therefore Germany is great. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:20:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499210 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499210 The film begins by displaying the setting of where the action will take place, which is in Berlin, Germany the home of the Olympics in 1936. Olympia shows the GRAND buildings and statues in the very beginning of the film to set the extreme tone for the film. I think by the time the film ends you get a feeling that some of these competitors you are watching are being portrayed as more than men. There is also a sense of a unification of the different participating countries, although you can't shake off the perception that Germany seems to be in charge and portrayed as number one, The high points of the film are the shots of the athletes training and competing. The competition itself is highly dramatic which makes all other shots significantly less dramatic. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:33:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474618 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474618 I as well came across the idea that a noble savage is a human being that is "not corrupted by the influence of civilization." It is the idea that noble savages like Nanuk are naturally good people or born good and because noble savages like Nanuk are not directly connected to civilization, as they are nomads and are isolated from it, they cannot be influenced in any way, especially negatively. Flaherty indeed does portray Nanuk as noble savage, everything he does exemplifies that. From his many ways of obtaining food to creating means of shelter, Nanuk is a noble savage. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:56:58 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474521 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474521 Aesthetically pleasing is something beautiful that you can see and/or hear. There was one scene that I think definitely fits this category. When Nanuk warms his son's hands by rubbing them on his cheek, I thought was really touching, something everyone can truly appreciate. Sat, 07 May 2016 08:08:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474507 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474507 To a minuscule extent it matters that Flaherty manipulated certain shots but it is necessary and more effective to portray the characters and shots in the film in a specific way like Flaherty did, so that the audience sees the direction of the film, rather than seeing conflicting messages. That being said, the authenticity and truth to film is surely weakened by Flaherty's manipulation, however minuscule that may be. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 08:05:18 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474428 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474428 Watching the film today it seems apparent that yes Flaherty aimed and was quite successful in making Nanook and his family seem rather happy but despite all of that can you really shake off in the back of your mind that this is what a family and a large number of people had to go through back then just to survive? Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:51:46 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=465221 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=465221 Sun, 07 Feb 2016 11:12:30 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457298 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457298 What you see in a documentary is true but sometimes they can be manipulated to create a misrepresentation of what truly has occurred. Certain parts and angle of the story can be left out which is why you almost always never get the full story in a documentary. They may try and organize the film in a way which would make you think one way as opposed to another. This why when watching documentaries it is vital to grasp them with a grain of salt. Sun, 07 Feb 2016 11:12:30 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457296 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457296 I think the timing is the fact that they were capturing real footage of the working class people going about their everyday lives. The shots you are seeing are so straightforward, pure, and basic which gives them a strong degree of truth and honesty regardless if they are staged or not. Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:25:35 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457282 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457282 The films that they were showing were simple actions that did not seek to entertain a viewer. Back then, the Lumiere brothers were simply trying open a new aspect of filming that was never seen before, which was the way they shot their pictures in odd, unique and different angles, that created a higher degree of depth in their films. Most people respect the creation of something new. However someone watching the films during that time period may have been amazed or really impressed by this new way of filming but to people today this is just not entertaining enough. Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:35:23 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457266 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457266 Relatively speaking these films were a breakthrough because during that time period capturing a moving picture like that did not exist yet. It was the Lumiere brothers who sought out to create different angles, degrees, and positions to place the camera in order to illustrate much higher and sophisticated shots. Their films can be compared to the invention of the apple computers. They were both drastic modifications and improvements of previous technology that both ended up creating a whole new illustration that people didn't yet see. Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:38:30 -0500