Most recent public comments by Kim Brands https://nowcomment.com/users/19187 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524761 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524761 I think they've done that to make you slow down, listen and reflect. The silence is its power I think, because sometimes silence can send a stronger message then the loudest sound. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:41:29 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524760 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524760 To create togetherness. I think I've already kind of answered it in another question but just to mention it again: Before the fighting starts, the men are singing a song next to a piano, about dying. It's almost some sort of tradition, it has been going on for years. 'Don't miss me when I'm gone' they sing. It's some sort of togetherness, a community singing. They did it (I think) for strength and show that they were all in this together. Thu, 19 May 2016 14:06:41 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524759 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524759 I think it has to do with the 'observing' part. To stay as close to the truth as possible by showing the sounds of how it must have sounded during that time in the war, where people had to fight and had this fear and how that must have been like. Thu, 19 May 2016 14:04:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524754 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524754 It is a government financed film so it has to be propaganda in some sort of way. That doesn't necessarily has to be a bad thing but it's good to remember. It's scripted but it tries to be as faithful as in the way people used to talk (older English) and you can still call it a documentary I would say, because everything that's portrayed actually happened (and a lot of people in this documentary were or had been fireman, I heard). So I would say it's propaganda, but one that tries to stay as close to the truth as possible. Thu, 19 May 2016 14:02:11 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524753 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524753 In this documentary, they sing all the time, they talk with everybody, women and men are equal, people from different backgrounds are treated the same way, you can really see they are all in it together. So it really shows the British spirit, the togetherness during the war of wanting to fight for their country and their people. Thu, 19 May 2016 14:01:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524680 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524680 Everybody is doing their part, making their own decisions, playing their role. The men fight, the women fill out paperwork and they all take it extremely serious. You have this close-up of the hands of this woman and they are extremely feminine. They show that it's no problem to work and still be feminine at the same time. There is also a lot of inter-cutting in the film to show what the men and women are doing for work. They are responsible for their jobs and know they are part of this larger system where everybody plays their role. Thu, 19 May 2016 13:56:59 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524640 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524640 I think heroism is when you just do something, just because you want to rebuild something or help someone, instead of watching from the sideline and waiting for stuff to happen. They all did their part. For instance before the fighting began, the men are all together next to this piano and singing a song about dying. It's almost some sort of tradition, this has been going on for years. 'Don't miss me when I'm gone' they sing. It some sort of fraternization, some sort of community singing. They knew they could die but they did it anyway, because they felt like it was the right thing to do. For their country, but mostly for their people. For me, that's true heroism. Thu, 19 May 2016 13:54:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524613 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=524613 I think it is the fact that this film tried to stay as objective as possible, without giving its opinion or something. For instance: when one man is asking the other what he used to do for work before the war and the guy is saying 'writing, advertising and stuff'. They have different accents (the guy who asked the question probably never could do something in advertising). It shows that these two men did only meet because of the Second World War. Different people from different backgrounds came together because they wanted to do their part. It doesn't say 'look how different these guys are' or they don't judge each other for something, bit I think the viewer knows. I think that makes a documentary more objective and may help the audience to observe the film in a more objective way. Thu, 19 May 2016 13:51:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508168 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508168 Triumph of the Will focuses on the greatness of the leader, Hitler and his power. The others adore him. It shows the power of Germany under Hitler's power. Why We Fight shows the power of the people, the power of the nation, the Britains. I think that's a very different ideology since the first one kind of wants you to follow a person and the second wants you to think for yourself. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 07:49:31 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508166 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508166 The way the people in Britain were connected and all fighting for the same purpose: their brothers, their country. You have the scene with this persons from different 'classes' talking to each other (different in accents and the way they talk). I'm not sure but I think one of them used to be a writer, an advertiser or something. Now he's fighting too. Everyone was in it together. That solidarity is captured. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:44:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508164 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508164 Because it's the authority, 'God', a propaganda film for the people from Britain, telling them how strong and indestructible their country is. Again: it gives this feeling of solidarity, power, "we're all in this together". I think that's something that Riefenstahl achieved with her films as well. It's something a good propaganda film does. (Action, not standing still.) Sat, 09 Apr 2016 07:44:18 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508161 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=508161 I think the film shows really well how people all felt connected. They had the same purpose, a goal. The war build moral and was even an exciting time for some (for some women for instance, since they finally got to work instead of being home). They were all in this together. You see solidarity. So it is a propaganda film but in a great way, it compliments the people. Fri, 20 May 2016 14:44:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508152 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508152 Yes. She really wants to get her way. You can see it in the way she directs the director (in the behind the scenes footage) but also, ironically, in how she is directing the documentary itself we're watching, because she's trying to convince people to see this side of her. Fri, 08 Apr 2016 14:02:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508146 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508146 I think it's really straight-forward to put it that way, but yes, it does. They show the different sides of her, the film uses a quote and then shows something else by using her documentaries to show she's isn't speaking the truth. By showing these different sides the documentary gives a fair representation of Riefenstahl's life. I think she really was just a person that wanted to make great films, but she made some wrong decisions by doing so and working under the Nazi-regime and being so naive about it afterwards, are some of them. Fri, 20 May 2016 18:26:48 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508143 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508143 I don't know if this is the answer you're searching for but I think, you can separate it when you're making an independent film. For instance, if you're working on your own and you want to make a film about Nazi-Germany, that kind of makes sense (leaving the fact out that you probably won't get as close as Riefenstahl did but that's another point). When you're making a film about Nazi-Germany while you're working for the Nazi-Regime, it's not independent and you can't really separate the art you're making from politics anymore. There's always a connection because you made it in a certain way and by working for certain people and making a propaganda movie, it's more connected than it will ever be. So I do agree with the quote that it's inexcusable. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:10:26 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508139 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508139 I remember your comment in class that when she was denied something (I'm not sure what it was but I think it was filming the athletes from very close or something like that), she cried until she got her way. This is exactly the skepticism expressed in this statement that the film justifies I guess. Leni presents herself as being innocent and naive, but she isn't, which makes her very smart (by fooling people with it). Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:03:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508136 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508136 Well, in some sort of way it does. It shows Riefenstahl as true as possible. I think she's a smart woman, probably presenting herself more innocent then she is. She's a smart, powerful woman which kind of shows it in the stingray scene because in some sort of way, she's being dominant there. She knows what she wants so I guess Sontag has a point. By not following Riefenstahl's opinion or things she's saying but showing which direction Riefenstahl kind of wants the viewer to take, it automatically makes you see the opposite, so Riefenstahl being a smart woman that knows what she wants and how to get it (if that makes sense). Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:01:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508135 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508135 I think it's interesting how Riefenstahl is trying to compose this strong image of herself throughout the movie, giving the viewer a better chance to draw his or her own conclusions about it. I think the film does justify this defense of Riefenstahl because although it is trying to give a fair representation of her, it also shows, in my opinion, the mistakes she made (working for the Nazi-regime) and how naive and weird she acted about it afterwards. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:00:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508133 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508133 I think it's difficult. On the one hand I would say you can't judge someone his whole life for the eight years she worked for the Nazi regime. On the other hand, she did agree with making films that eulogized a man that was responsible of the death of so many people. It is hard to forget that. I think the film does not really promote such belief, since it also shows her working under the Nazi-regime but it kind of leaves it up to the viewer whether they should believe Riefenstahl or not. I don't know enough about this subject to say something about it I guess but I do think she had a part in it. If she shouldn't have paid for that her whole life, is another story. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:00:02 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508132 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=508132 I think that through this film, it is shown how Riefenstahl dealt with the repercussions of her early work. It is interesting to see how Riefenstahl talks about things and than also see behind the scenes footage of her. I don't think the documentary shows her 'better' or in some sort of propaganda way (which is ironic), but really like how she is. I liked it a lot. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 07:56:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508130 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508130 Because it shows the beauty of being strong and like a God. Again: the comparison of ancient Greece with Germany, their rebirth, their power, the strong bodies and fit, healthy people. I guess they wanted to portray Germany as healthy, strong and in power as well so it the ideal Nazi Fascist aesthetic. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:30:57 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508129 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508129 For many reasons. Simply by showing how powerful Germany was, how good and strong and 'reborn' the country looked but also because every publicity, is good publicity. Even when people didn't like Hitler or Germany in that time, I can imagine that Hitler wouldn't nothing more than people to hear from him and the new, rebuild Germany. So having the Olympics in Germany couldn't make more sense I guess. What amazes me more is that other countries allowed it to happen. Fri, 20 May 2016 19:55:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508128 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508128 Yes. I do, as I said in the previous answer, agree with the fact that Olympia is a disguise of the real face of Germany and in that way also propaganda. This film was also shown outside of Germany and made it look totally different than Nazi-Germany actually was (you don't see racism or 'bad' things Hitler does). So yes, I definitely think it's propaganda. It's not objective, it's not trying to stay as close as possible to the truth but leaving parts out (which isn't necessarily bad but definitely propaganda in some sort of way in my opinion). Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:28:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508126 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508126 I read that in the 2016 biographical film about Jesse Owens, Race, the filming at the Olympic Games is depicted with Riefenstahl constantly quarreling with Goebbels about her artistic decisions, especially over filming Jesse Owens who is proving a politically embarrassing refutation of Nazi Germany's claims about Aryan athletic supremacy. I think this is a great example of how Olympia is made to disguise the real face of Germany in a way. In Nazi Germany, the Aryan race was the only 'good race' according to Hitler and his followers. You don't see that in Olympia, although probably a lot of people knew. But it is definitely a disguise. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:27:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508125 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508125 I would agree, especially for that time. It wasn't common at all to see athletes in such a close-up shot or with slow-motion. It really highlights the human body and focuses on their muscles and strongness. By glorifying their bodies as a goddess body, it can be seen as a form of pure art. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:26:59 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508124 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508124 By comparing ancient Greece to Germany, like a rebirth. Also by focusing on Germany and by simple having the film being produces in Nazi-Germany. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:25:18 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508122 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508122 Nature, the strong, healthy body. Riefenstahl glorifies the goddess body, being one with nature, all natural. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:24:39 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508120 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508120 Because Riefenstahl left the 'boring parts' out. She focuses primarily on the dramatic, exiting parts of the movie and not all the parts where the audience is waiting for something to happen or stuff like that. The viewer only gets to see the most lively parts of the Olympics, which makes the film more exciting than the event it covers. Fri, 20 May 2016 19:16:28 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508119 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508119 Yes and no. I would agree by saying that Triumph of the Will indeed focuses on a single leader (Hitler) and Olympia celebrates the collective nature of sports, but I disagree because I think Olympia also focuses on one particular thing, which is the subject, the athlete. By all the close-ups and slowmotion, you really just focus on one athlete all the time and what he/she is going through so in that sense, it also focuses on one person. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:22:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508118 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508118 It shows the emotions of the athletes in some sort of way. By focusing on the athletes so much by emphasizing their bodies, slow-motions and stuff like that, it focuses on how they athletes might feel in that moment, more than just a sports event you're watching. Maybe it's so you start to wander what the athletes would be thinking or how much pressure they would be on (at least I thought of that). It kind of takes your focus away from the crowd or the event and really just makes you watch just one particular subject. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:20:57 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508117 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508117 The cinematography is emphasized because Riefenstahl could also just have shown the athletes running, jumping or the noises of the audience cheering. It would still be a nice film for that time that showed the event but no, Riefenstahl really showed the different forms of cinematography by using extreme close-ups and slowmotion. That's why the quality of the cinematography is more important than the subject itself, in a way. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:19:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508115 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508115 As I said in the previous comment, it really focuses on the human body, the goddess of the human body and how healthy and strong it is. By slowmotions when people jump are start running or showing extreme close-ups of their faces, it focuses on the human form but also the nationalism of wanting to win, for your country (also by showing the audience cheering and hearing their noises). People had never seen such close-ups of athletes at the Olympics before. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:18:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508114 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508114 I'm not sure but I think they mean the way the athletes are being portrayed. For instance with the high jumps, the athletes are portrayed in slowmotion. The whole film (starting with the ancient Greek) is about the body, the goddess of the body and the way it's healthy and strong. By slowing down the film or focusing on it constantly, you can compare it with a symphony, where also certain elements come back. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:17:23 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508113 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=508113 I agree with the above comments. The film indeed starts with ancient Greece and you see images of ruins and something that looks like a graveyard. It's almost to show as if Greece is gone but you can have a new Greece, which is Germany. At one point the sculptures transfer in a real person, so history becomes reality. You see the Olympics in Germany. I would also like to add that I think the least dramatic thing was that in a time where Hitler had a lot of power, it still focuses on the sports, the Olympics and not on Hitler. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:15:29 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488931 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488931 It shows Germany as a stable and organized country. A nation where there is no disagreement and everybody helps each other. Work is equal, Hitler is a winner, and so on. I think it really captures Germany's culture for a big part during that time. Examples would be the 'conversation' between Hitler and the people in the German labor camp with the shovels. They do not look like if they just made this speech up or arrived five minutes before it started. It looks solid and presentable and I think that is really how Hitler wanted the message of the film to be. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488928 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488928 I think now we do, because we know what happened afterwards. It is history. I think when the documentary came out, it was way more difficult to view Hitler in any way you wanted. It is a propaganda movie and it appeared in a time where the Nazi's and Hitler were very powerful already. I think this documentary did a good job in showing you Hitler's power and the stability of Germany. So I do not really agree, I think now it is easy to say what a bad man he was, but in that time, it might not have been as easy to recognize it already (not to say the people who choose Hitler's side were good people but just to point out that even if there is no narrative, there can still be a very well scripted story that can convince a lot of people). Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:53:54 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488924 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488924 The word 'conducting' is well chosen because that is definitely what Hitler did. He had control over everything, organized and carried out a certain message and vision. I think the documentary wants to show a good and stable country and that all because of Hitler. It wants to show that people love him, that Germany will never have problems again if you choose his side. In those speeches you see everyone listening at him, as one nation, all together, same vision, etc. It all looks very well organized (but propaganda is of course very well thought of). Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:47:31 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488923 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488923 I think the parts where Nazi's give a speech about Hitler at this huge conference or something like that. They talk about 'one country', 'a great nation for all Germans' and 'everything for Germany.' Also when Hitler is visiting this labor camp with all the people standing there with shovels, he names that every work is equal, it is all important. 'One person, one country' and you could almost add 'one mission' and 'one vision'. I think those examples, so the things you hear in the speeches and how you see everyone is cheering for the same leader/person, show how this documentary, this fascist art, glorifies surrender, exalts mindlessness and glamorizes death. Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:46:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488922 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488922 I think by this they mean because it is a documentary you could show at political parties or screenings at school or something like that. It is formal in a way that you see how Hitler behaves, what kind of powerful person he is and how people adore(d) him. You do not see shots of him getting ready to go to bed or struggling with his power or something like that. They show you a purely formal setting. Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:46:09 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488921 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=488921 I think it has quotations because the movie is propaganda. So it shows you Hitler in a very scripted way, almost like a God, by that creating 'Hitler' and not the real Hitler. Also because there is sound added which is not the original sound and because everything is very well edited (different shots, panorama/close-up/low and high angle), it creates a different kind of Olympics, making it the '1936 Olympics' instead of the real ones so to speak. By having shots of us being in the plane with Hitler or in his car, we get a different point of view then the people in the audience. Tue, 03 May 2016 08:17:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=488917 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=488917 Difficult. I would say no. You can try to be as objective as possible though but by showing some parts, you are also leaving other parts out, which is a choice, a subjective thing. Also by choosing words, you are automatically not choosing another word which is also a choice and subjective in a way. I think you can never be totally objective so I would say objective documentaries do not exist but scripted objective documentaries do (those come close I would say). Fri, 20 May 2016 17:24:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=488905 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=488905 I think the truth value is that it can show you places or topics you have never been to or never heard about. Documentaries can teach you something, enrich your view and give you more knowledge. In that way, that is the truth-value of a documentary. Although it is scripted, it can certainly teach you something I would say. Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:26:36 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=488904 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=488904 Yes and also because it is from some point of view, it is not the reality but maybe a form of reality or a part of it. By editing a movie or leaving some parts out (so the documentary not being unscripted), it creates a new form of reality, their own reality. Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:24:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=488903 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=488903 Yes, and I also think when they tell a story, it is always PART of a story. Of course a story has different sides and you can never tell everything and also by editing, you give a certain message, a certain way of how you want to show a topic. So it goes directly to the source but always in a scripted way. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:47:56 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488900 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488900 I got the feeling of getting ti know Russia a little bit, at least in that period of time. You see the way people act, how they walk on the streets, in short: their normal day lives. You have the feeling you are there as well and in that way, you get a sense of socialist Russia I would say. Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:43:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488899 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488899 Yes, I think it shows that 'life is good' and it has a positive vibe through the whole documentary. It is indeed propaganda in some sort of way I would say because they leave the 'bad' parts out (but this could also be to just make some sort of point). Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:42:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488896 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488896 Yes and I also think the music makes the point the director is trying to make or the message he/she wants to send, more powerful. It adds an extra level of empathy or a way how you can relate to the story. So in short: it serves as an extra tool to make the message more powerful. Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:41:37 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488891 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488891 Yes and I would also like to add that it shows the camera as some sort of building and a person (who suddenly looks super small compered to that 'building') standing on it. I think in some sort of way it is showing you the power of the camera. Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:40:36 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488889 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488889 It is a documentary about documentaries because it shows you how documentaries are made. By constantly showing the camera it shows you how movies manipulate you. As you said in class: you're suspending your disbelief. Art manipulates you. 'Art is a lie that tells the truth.' Even if you do not believe what you are seeing, you can still watch a movie and get a certain reaction/emotion as if it was true. Vertov wants us to realize that. I think Man With the Movie Camera shows us the power of the medium, the power of documentaries and the way it is directed. Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:41:10 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488888 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=488888 You can really see how Vertov wants you to actively think about how film is made and what you are watching on screen. The medium is the message, so the medium is determining how we are going to deliver that message. Man with a movie camera is asking you to think about the medium (and most media do not do that). Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:40:11 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=477973 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=477973 I think the irony is that is constantly warns you that the camera is there. You see it a lot of times and it shows you that you're not looking at an unedited piece but that the film is structured. The irony is that by showing you this, you're actually watching a film at the same time. So a film is teaching you about film. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=477866 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=477866 One example of where the film was aesthetically pleasing in my opinion, was at the beginning, when you see the water going up and down. It gives you the feeling that you're on a boat, in the scene. I also think there were beautiful shots of landscapes and stuff like that but at the same time, close-up shots from Nanook and his family. It really captures their lives and gave me the feeling that I was sitting next to them. I felt like in some way it was ok that you see that they know the camera is there. It gives some sort of security or something like that and all of this was aesthetically pleasing to me. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:33:14 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=477858 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=477858 I think in this context it doesn't. If Flaherty really was looking for the spirit in people, he did a great job in my opinion. He really showed Nanook and his family in their natural habitat and how almost 'simple' their lives where (not 'simple' as in without difficulties but I mean without tools from modern society). It gave me this nostalgic feeling and almost makes you think that his life, compared to ours, in some parts isn't that bad at all (without electronics, a lot of time for your family). Personally I'm not really a fan of manipulating certain scenes and make people act like they're less civilized then they really are (for instance with the harpoon) but I think I will actually make an exception for this one. He showed how Inuit people (used to) live and with that, made a beautiful portrait in capturing their spirit I think. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:32:43 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=477857 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=477857 Yes, he is. For instance when they bite and smell the LP record Flaherty brought. They didn't grow up with something like that and thus have no idea what it is. For them it's normal to smell and taste things if you're unfamiliar with it. I thought this was a great example of Nanook being a noble savage. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:31:17 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=477856 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=477856 I do not feel sorry for them because they look so independent. I have the feeling they're totally fine on their own and don't need the tools of modern society to have a nice life. They seem very happy and satisfied. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:30:49 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=477853 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=477853 I think a moral lesson of Nanook of the North is how you can be happy with almost nothing. The people are portrait very noble, it is almost some sort of nostalgia. As the professor pointed out as an example: we're not like that anymore. We live in the city. You can really tell the director wanted to give a certain image (for instance that they didn't actually hunt with a harpoon any more but he wanted it to look like they did). Flaherty wanted to give the people a certain feeling when looking at this Inuit people. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:28:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=477707 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=477707 Because it's always structured in some sort of way. For instance when you see the documentary about Zelig, it starts with a parade. It looks like this one was for him but it was probably for Charles Lindbergh, the first person to fly over the Atlantic Ocean. This was a shooting of a real event but it isn't real in the movie because it wasn't for Zelig. It's also not real simply because it already happened. You're looking at a parade of an event that already took place, it's not live (and even live television is always a few seconds later than the real world). Finally, even if you would want to make a movie about the life of Charles Lindbergh and you would use the same footage of the same parade, it still isn't real. It's structured because they took certain shots from that parade (why not different shots?) that gives a certain message. Other shots would maybe have given a different feeling. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:27:19 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=477699 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=477699 When you shoot a documentary of a certain culture, choosing a native actor who actually grew up in that culture, knows it, lived in it for so long and so on, will understand the story a lot better than a person that didn't grew up there. In short, it will give the story probably way more credibility. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:25:03 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=477698 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=477698 Just looking at it from a distance, people would easily say that shooting in the raw is more 'real' than shooting in a studio. That is true I would say because you use more 'real' materials (the nature, the buildings, stuff like that). However, for the audience who watches a film, it can give the same reaction. People could get so caught up in the story of a movie that is doesn't really matter if it was screened in a studio or not. Maybe they sometimes even give more reaction with studio movies instead of the ones shot in 'raw' material. I think it just really depends on the fact how the filmmaker did his job. Shot in the raw or in the studio doesn't really matter for the audiences reaction, the way a filmmaker tells the story does. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:24:06 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=477695 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=477695 I think here, by 'getting around', the meaning is the way in which filmmakers and producers actually make the story in a film. So for instance when you see people walking on the street and laughing and all walking in the same direction, the filmmaker probably did this on purpose. He wanted shots of the people walking in a certain direction and laughing as well. Everything is structured in a way and even in you record and not ask people to do certain things, you still capture some moment, put it in a film and make it by that some sort of new story again. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:21:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=467016 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=467016 Yes, I believe it is the same. It might be a problem if you look at film, because film (and pictures as well) can also show you things that give a totally different impression than of what really happened or is true. I think that is the main point Woody Allen is trying to make in Zelig as well. He criticizes documentary and shows different ways in how something can look totally true (you see the person Zelig, you see him changing into other things and you hear experts talking about him) but are structured or false (Zelig does not exist). As long as the viewer knows that not everything you see is true or totally true, it is ok. It can be a problem when people believe everything they see because they might get the wrong impression. Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:30:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=467015 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=467015 It is quite commercial actually. Materialist reasons are finding ways to entertain the audience, to get a let of people to watch your film. It could be because a filmmaker wants to make a profit or earn a lot of money for a film, but it could also be just to have a lot of people watching your film or talking about it. Your film can be really good but when you do not care of the audience (materialistic reasons), they won't pay and watch it. Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:39:43 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=467006 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=467006 You really see how the experimented with different shots and angles. They show people in their everyday lives and in different forms (at work, traveling, at home). The angles they used (people walking a certain way, the bridge) show that they did not just put the camera somewhere but were really thinking about it and even gave people instructions (do not walk towards the camera or look to it). Also the rewind of footage shows a technique. Not only do they want you to look at certain things (by placing the camera where they placed them) but also they want you to focus on some, by replaying it but in a different way. It is interesting because the film has been made so long ago but still has a lot of features of film as we know it today. Thu, 19 May 2016 17:39:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=467001 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=467001 The film was a breakthrough by showing things that have never been done before. As I have mentioned, the train arriving from far away and than coming closer to the screen is something which we still see today in a lot of movies. The people at the factory walking in certain ways, the lines from the bridge. The short scene with the kid standing on the hose was the first comedy, the people sitting outside in their garden with their baby at home the first home movie, the people laughing and drinking wine the first commercial, the wall collapsing and then showing it backwards the first special effects, and so on and so on. We can thank the Lumiere Brothers for a lot that we still see in films today and they made it possible for other filmmakers to continue with what they started. Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:04:19 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466999 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466999 I was not bored although I would probably be if they would make a film like this today. Since we are so used to special effects, a lot of action and great camerawork, we are kind of spoiled actually when it comes to film. But to know this was something totally new in that time and that we are still using a lot of things the Lumiere Brothers invented (people walking certain ways, the train arriving in a straight line, as also the lines from the bridge and stuff) makes it a really interesting film to watch. Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:02:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466998 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466998 I think timing was everything in the Lumiere Brothers' movie. It is structured (for instance when you see the people leaving the factory and all walking to the left or the right, not paying attention the the camera) but it still shows how everyday life went in these days I guess. To show all the people leaving the factory at the end of the day or showing how the wall collapsed (and showing it backwards as an extra effect and to emphasize it) has everything to do with timing. If they would have showed some footage of the factory while everybody was still working or when that wall would not have collapsed (or the train station but then without a train arriving, and so on), it would have been way less exiting to watch. Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:01:30 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466994 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466994 It is inadequate because a documentary filmmaker could never show the whole truth. Shots and images are always structured. Still, everything that is shown can be facts and the truth, but you always leave stuff out as well, thus creating a certain story and perspective. I think documentary filmmakers should know they can never fully capture a whole story but should always try to come as close to the truth as possible (so trying to stay as objective as possible). Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:00:21 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466992 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466992 I think that, even if a filmmaker does not falsify the footage, it could never be totally honest. It shows a truth but some form of the truth. As I said above, different footage can be used and create a whole different story. Both stories can show what really happened but have a different effect, although they are both kind of true. Still, it is not the whole truth. The viewer should keep in mind that it is always structured and subjective and can never show the whole truth. It is the same with newspapers or the news on the television I guess. Only by even choosing a certain word, you create a certain image. Shots do the same. They always show half of a story, structured by its maker. (I am not saying that this is wrong but I do think it is never totally honest and that a person should keep that in mind.) Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:58:48 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466976 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466976 Both aesthetically and morally I think film changed a lot. It made it possible to show images from different sides, thus creating different perspectives. For example, one filmmaker could show an event and made it look like it was very boring, while another one could use different footage that showed it was amazing. Shots that do not contribute to the story a certain filmmaker wants to tell, can be easily left out and thus create a different story. Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:55:31 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466950 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=466950 1) One example of montage is to show a difference in time. For example, you could show how the New York skyline changed from 1950 till now. 2) Another example of montage is to show a difference in place. If a person in a movie travels from New York to Amsterdam, different shots can show the viewer that the person is in New York, then on a plane, and in the next shot (that shows canals and houses in Amsterdam for example) arrived in Amsterdam. 3) A third example of montage would be to show what kind of emotions a person has. The example you used in the first class was with a shot of a sad guy, than a bowl of soup, than a shot of a happy guy, which suggests that the guy is happy because he wanted soup. The other way around (happy guy, bowl of soup, sad guy) would suggest that the person does not like the soup. In short I would say that montage can make things clear in a very short amount of time and can also change the story telling. Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:50:25 -0500