Comments by Basil Lyons Most recent public comments by Basil Lyons https://nowcomment.com/users/19137 Yes, It all lies within the intention of the filmmaker at the end of the day! https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=522289 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=522289 Thu, 19 May 2016 07:08:39 -0400 Right, but digital mediums have advanced much more and are easier to distort now-a-days in my opinion. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=522277 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=522277 Thu, 19 May 2016 07:07:44 -0400 Maybe not so much in printed press because the medium has stayed the same throughout time for the most part, but in terms of technology techniques and way of editing and filming have become much more advanced, no? https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517942 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=517942 Thu, 19 May 2016 07:07:44 -0400 Same. Often I am focused on a specific person, place or thing that has nothing to do with the plot of the film. This is the beauty of filmmaking and playmaking, you have the freedom to focus on what you choose to focus on. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=515935 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=515935 Thu, 19 May 2016 18:21:41 -0400 The more advanced media and society gets, the easier it is to twist and blur the truth! https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=515934 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=515934 Thu, 19 May 2016 07:07:44 -0400 They are a creation of the film, but I don't think entirely. The events in the film still happened in real life and the documentary can only change what happened to a certain extent! https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=515933 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=515933 Tue, 03 May 2016 08:17:43 -0400 Agreed. Truth value lies in the intention of the director not if the documentary was staged or not! https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=515932 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=515932 Tue, 03 May 2016 08:16:53 -0400 Very interesting to me as well. The same story can be told millions of times all in different ways based on what meaning you create from the event https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=515931 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=515931 Thu, 19 May 2016 17:18:59 -0400 The winners of the events are not as important as the beauty of the footage shot. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=510365 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=510365 Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:31:44 -0400 Not irrelevant, but to me the actual storyline (who won and who lost the events) of the olympics seems like it's there to compliment the artistic aspects throughout the documentary. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=510364 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=510364 Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:31:44 -0400 It also attempts to justify actually fighting the war. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508229 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508229 Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:48:17 -0400 The narrator also provides context as to what's going on, and creates a certain tone to the film and events occurring throughout the film. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508228 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508228 Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 The beauty and strength suggests that sport is a form of art. Deja is right in this case: winners of the event kept the story line going but were somewhat irrelevant. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508224 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508224 Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:31:44 -0400 Angle* The low angle shots of Jesse Owens and others glorify Owens and the other athletes. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508221 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508221 Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:35:54 -0400 I feel like the tone is more subtle than extreme, especially during the events which sort of leave you on the edge of your seat. Very suspenseful. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508210 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508210 Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:33:12 -0400 Yes. There is something about their bodies being pushed to their limits that is so pure and elegant. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508205 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508205 Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:26:59 -0400 Almost the entire film. The way that the entire film was shot with elegance shows this idea of propaganda. There was not one scene that I was through that showed a flaw in their society. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508203 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508203 Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:32:35 -0400 The body being pushed to its limits is not only natural (this is way before performance enhancing drugs I assume), but it also shows an extraordinary amount of passion which results in a unique form of art through film. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508201 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508201 Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:31:41 -0400 There are definitely elements of propaganda throughout the film because it did a good job of promoting Germany but I think Riefenstahl would have created a similar piece of work no matter what country the Olympics were held in. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500246 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500246 Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:32:35 -0400 Olympia portrayed Germany as this grand place almost as if it was the mecca of the world: this must have given Germany a great deal of attention and publicity. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500245 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500245 Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:14:28 -0400 Whats the difference between art and pure art? Olympia is definitely art but I don't understand the need for the word pure. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500244 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500244 Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:13:36 -0400 This was very well said. The idea of the human body being pushed to its limit (in a graceful way) is the human form at its finest. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500243 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500243 Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:31:41 -0400 This question goes back to the idea of a film being able to create its own reality. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500242 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500242 It can be more exciting than the event it covers by the way its edited together. The pole jumping scene was so dramatic, much more dramatic than actually being there and watching the entire event I'm sure. This question goes back to the idea of a film being able to create its own reality. Fri, 20 May 2016 19:15:50 -0400 This film created the idea that the Olympics are more than just sports: they're majestic, grand and have aspects similar to art and the idea of german romanticism https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500241 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500241 Wed, 06 Apr 2016 06:58:55 -0400 There are definitely connections that can be drawn with the way Riefenstahl shot the film and the greek statues in the lengthy introduction to the olympics. This film was shot as if the humans were with one with nature. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500240 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500240 Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:06:30 -0400 Nationalism and Human Form https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500239 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=500239 Although the subject of them film is the Olympics, the dramatic and patriotic way he shoots the events, the way he edits the events together and the way he glorifies the "greek god like" human body are ways in which the film is less about the actual olympics and more about nationalism and the athletic human form Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:10:40 -0400 Very similar to the way Trump " conducts" his speeches: All eyes are on him. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=495254 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=495254 Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 I agree. The keyword here is scripted. It didn't portray the actual 1936 olympics, it glorified them (and hitler as well). The quotation marks signify the inaccuracy of what is being shown https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=495253 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=495253 Tue, 03 May 2016 08:17:43 -0400 Agreed. The positive attitude throughout the film (with the help of the upbeat added sound) makes this seem as if promotes a socialist lifestyle. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=478476 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=478476 Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 Another example of this is the camera filming him attempting to film the train coming towards him on the tracks. In a traditional documentary, what you see is only through what the film maker chooses to show you: his perspective. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=478470 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=478470 Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 One aspect I found ironic (other than the way the documentary was filmed) was the positive, upbeat vibes I got from Russia. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=478465 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=478465 One aspect I found ironic (other than the way the documentary was filmed) was the positive, upbeat vibes I got from Russia. When I think of communist Russia, I don't normally think of people having a good time, and it almost seemed as if Vertov was promoting the city the way he shot this. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:35:23 -0500 The Man with the Movie Camera is a documentary about documentaries in the sense that the film switches from point of view to a view of the camera man actually filming things. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=478443 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=478443 The Man with the Movie Camera is a documentary about documentaries in the sense that the film switches from point of view to a view of the camera man actually filming things. We get a sense of the city through the camera mans camera while at the same time we get to see how he goes about getting these shots. Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:14:40 -0500 I was more so responding to this idea of being able to captivate the audience through meaningless tasks. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=475089 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=475089 I was more so responding to this idea of being able to captivate the audience through meaningless tasks. I don't believe what is dramatic is aesthetically pleasing but these are two aspects of a filmed (related in my opinion) seen through Nanook of the North that makes the film successful and easy to watch. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 12:05:12 -0500 Your right, evolutionism does not apply to this time period at all but this break up in society (savage, barbarian and civilized) was once the main classification of people in western civilization. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=475088 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=475088 Your right, evolutionism does not apply to this time period at all but this break up in society (savage, barbarian and civilized) was once the main classification of people in western civilization. I learned this in my Anthropology class this week and it was the first idea that came to mind when asked about the term "noble savage". I guess that split up of society is not that relevant in this case but I was trying to draw connections between time periods. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 11:58:47 -0500 Agreed. Flaherty creates drama in what would normally be considered normal tasks. These "meaningless tasks" captivated me creating a very aesthetically pleasing documentary. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474445 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474445 Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 Evolutionism broke up society into three different types of people: savage, barbarian and civilized. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474443 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474443 Evolutionism broke up society into three different types of people: savage, barbarian and civilized. A noble savage is a good way to describe to Nanook because every primitive task throughout the movie he completes with class and courage (two qualities I believe making up a noble savage). Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 Also the soundtrack played throughout Nanook of the North during throughout almost the entire movie is generally upbeat, which implies that Flaherty wanted to portray Nanook and his family as "happy" https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474441 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474441 Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:49:43 -0500 If the bias is true then yes, real can emerge through the film of an event. The issue is through the film of an event you might be force fed a view point as opposed to watching the real event in which you can create your own opinion. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470614 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470614 Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:22:16 -0500 I think Zelig's comment on the documentary form just sheds light on the ability to use basic techniques found in documentary towards an untrue subject matter. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470609 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470609 Almost everything in life can be manipulated: its the cold, hard truth. I think Zelig's comment on the documentary form just sheds light on the ability to use basic techniques found in documentary towards an untrue subject matter. I think it's less about being devastated and more about being aware as a viewer in terms of the truth value of actual documentaries. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:04:05 -0500 There are certain things that you can't teach certain things to someone who isn't a native of wherever you're filming https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470607 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470607 A native actor would be better in almost every case because certain parts of the film that only a native could understand would make for a more convincing result. Also, there are certain things that you can't teach certain things to someone who isn't a native of wherever you're filming. Put it this way, who would most likely be a better fit for an actor in a movie about kids growing on the streets of New York: A young adult who lived in New York their whole life and actually understands what the script means or a professional actor from California who has never been to New York in his life. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:57:07 -0500 I believe that more often than not, they are more "real" but the point of a documentary is to create a piece of art and comment on a topic not make your film as "real" as possible. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470604 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470604 Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 This is telling us that the best part of photography is the ability to capture the world from every single view and be able to hold these moments through images. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470602 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470602 This is telling us that the best part of photography is the ability to capture the world from every single view and be able to hold these moments through images. This statement raises questions in terms of seeing is believing because a photograph, similar to a film, can emphasize what the artist wants you to look for which can be deceiving if you are biased. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:50:56 -0500 Also question: Do you think there will ever be a time where documentaries can't evolve anymore for materialist reasons because we've done everything there is to do? https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470601 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470601 Also question: Do you think there will ever be a time where documentaries can't evolve anymore for materialist reasons because we've done everything there is to do? Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 Yes documentaries evolve as society advances in terms of film technology, but can't one argue that they also stay the same in many ways? https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470600 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470600 Yes documentaries evolve as society advances in terms of film technology, but can't one argue that they also stay the same in many ways? The definition on the screen may be a little more precise but there are elements of documentaries that are timeless. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:45:15 -0500 This is for the most part true but i think it depends on the reason a film maker puts out their documentary. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470599 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470599 This is for the most part true but i think it depends on the reason a film maker puts out their documentary. Often the more powerful ones are the ones that don't aim to do well in the box office. The perfect situation for many film makers is to do well in a commercial way and at the same time be proud of the work they put out. Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:39:43 -0500 It's crazy though because if you watch a documentary today, I'm sure you can draw a number of similarities between film making then and film making now. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457064 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457064 It's crazy though because if you watch a documentary today, I'm sure you can draw a number of similarities between film making then and film making now. The progression of camera work must have been very interesting over time in terms of quality and technique, but similarities can definitely be drawn between todays film and the first documentaries even made which I find great. Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:45:13 -0500 How we view ourselves and other societies was completely changed with this ability to document through movement and not only still frames. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457045 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457045 How we view ourselves and other societies was completely changed with this ability to document through movement and not only still frames. Humans are not sculptures, so how can a photograph or a painting accurately document an event that can't be told in just one picture? The Lumiere brothers created an entirely new medium. Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:39:09 -0500 Bored? / A sense of respect https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457042 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457042 With the advancements that we have made since the Lumiere brothers created this whole new category in the arts, I understand why someone who is not interested in the history film making might be bored watching their film. However, seeing the craft behind the pioneers of documentary, where it all started and how the Lumiere brothers went about it given the tools that they had creates this sense of respect. Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:28:00 -0500 The Lumiere brothers did their best to stay true to the event they were filming. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457026 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457026 The Lumiere brothers did their best to stay true to the event they were filming. Timing their shots created a sense of art as true as one can make through film, although the point brought up that a camera transforms reality is a valid one in the sense that people might act different when being filmed. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 Depending on how biased the "presentation of facts" were within the documentary, a film maker could hypothetically alter the entire outcome of an event. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457009 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457009 This is a good question and one that may not be able to be answered. Depending on how biased the "presentation of facts" were within the documentary, a film maker could hypothetically alter the entire outcome of an event. Without individual research you either have to trust the film makers reasons behind making the documentary or remain skeptical. Thu, 19 May 2016 17:51:29 -0400 I don’t believe this is dishonest, but I do believe this has a chance to influence the viewer based on the phrases chosen. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457000 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457000 I don’t believe this is dishonest, but I do believe this has a chance to influence the viewer based on the phrases chosen. A Documentary is a form of reporting, and reporters often have opinions. It’s up to the viewer to understand that film makers may have an agenda. In order for the viewer to have an entire view of a person or event, one documentary often isn’t enough. Writing this made me second guess my answer, but I would have to watch this documentary to see the actual reason behind this false dialogue! Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:02:07 -0500 Expanded technological resources made film makers able to focus on the points that were meaningful to them, creating different ways to tell the same story. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=456988 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=456988 Expanded technological resources made film makers able to focus on the points that were meaningful to them, creating different ways to tell the same story. The moral implications are that you can play with the storyline of a real event to make it fit within your point of view. This challenges the truth value of documentaries. From an aesthetic stand point, technological resources enhanced creativity within documentaries, offering new techniques within the field and turning film making into an art. Fri, 05 Feb 2016 07:58:06 -0500 A single event can be seen through many lenses with the help of a montage. https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=456977 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=456977 Different montages of the same event can create completely different meanings of that event based on the style and editing of the film. Depending on what your purpose of the shot is, a montage can enhance your point of view on whatever event you’re “reporting” on. Using the example Jake brought up about using a slideshow of images showing the growth/change of a character, depending on what type of change the director is trying to show/the point trying they’re trying to make, he/she can show this change in many different ways. A single event can be seen through many lenses with the help of a montage. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400