Most recent public comments by Deja Washington https://nowcomment.com/users/19194 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499607 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499607 Riefenstahl focused alot on the human body in this film, to the point where the actual sport became somewhat irrelevant. Her shots were very detailed of the athletes arms and legs. Riefenstahl was more concerned with how beautiful they were, opposed to how good they were at the sport. The nationalism really came from the scenes displaying the crowds. They were proud and chanting and in awe. Similar to a beauty pageant. Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:31:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499606 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499606 From the beginning of the film, Riefenstahl created a universe of her own. She presented Ancient Greece with the statues, lying in ruins, yet displaying emotional and strength. We then saw the statues be reborn in human form and display strength and beauty through movement. The ruins also transformed into a peaceful garden. Last but not least, the beautiful and strong travel from the peaceful garden to the battlefield, aka the stadium, where they compete. The entire sequence of these shots in the beginning of the film portrayed the athletes as immortal and god like. One could even say we were getting a peek into the heavens. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:26:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499605 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499605 Riefenstahl really wanted to create an image opposed to just tell a story in this film. The subject of the film is the 1936 olympics, which was presented to us in it's raw form. However, Leni also made it her business to create snapshots and slow motion movement in the cinematography. I believe the purpose of this was to recreate the ancient greek statues that we saw in the beginning of the film. Sat, 19 Mar 2016 08:06:30 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494780 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494780 The focus of the film was Germany restoring its pride again. Germany was broken but now they will rise again. Didn't matter if the entire country wasn't with the Nazis, they wanted you to feel proud to be German again. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:47:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494772 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494772 Any scene with hitler showed dominance. He did not prefer any less. He was saluted and recognized in every scene. In all of the shots involving hitler, you were either behind him or below him. The Nazis filmed were either excited or focused on the Nazi mission. There was no other option presented. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:57:13 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494770 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494770 The shot selection was rather brilliant because the shots were taken as if we, the audience, were accompanying Hitler. A key scene was the shot of the car tour. The camera was to Hitler's back most of the scene as he was waving, as if we, the audience were waving too. When he conducted his speeches,we were forced to look up, as if we were soldiers. Riefenstahl captured the emotions of her subjects and forced it upon us. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:52:00 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494764 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494764 The film glorified mindlessness and surrender specifically in the boys camp scene. The boys were alive, free, and playful. They also wrestled with each other and pinned each other down, showing playful, yet competitive behavior. As for glamorizing death, I would say the flyover and Hitler's speech did the trick. The film in beginning with the plane were scenes of surrender and triumph. They were reminiscent of planes dropping bombs. Hitler's scene took a turn in the film because this is where the film is no longer playful or artful. Those men looked as if they were prepared to die. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:58:49 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494751 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494751 The film's portrayal of the Nazis varied between a documentary and an ad campaign. We, the audience, saw a country who was proud and happy to be Nazis in this film. While watching the film, one of course begins to wonder how they could be so happy in starting a world war and committing hate crimes. If it were not for what we know now, the film could be considered a beautiful masterpiece. That will never be the case because one's good conscience would not allow it to be held in that regard. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:55:27 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=487978 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=487978 I'd like to think documentaries are similar to a lawyer presenting their case to a jury. Documentaries tend to present a case and the evidence they collected to prove that case, depending on which side their on. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=487969 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=487969 How a documentary is filmed determines the reality, in my opinion. A good example of that is the eskimo documentary, Nanook. The activities of the eskimos were not at all fun or exciting. The director presented that reality however, when he filmed them smiling and enjoying the moment at hand. That is the reality of the film, not of actual eskimo life. Fri, 20 May 2016 17:22:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=487960 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=487960 Documentaries actually document when they go directly to the source of an event or statement they're trying to present. Documentaries tend to tell us a story and then present evidence to confirm that story. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:48:57 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474569 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474569 I think manipulation was necessary in this film because if their true emotions or uncoordinated scenes could have caused a feeling of pity among the audience. That was not the purpose of the film. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 08:07:11 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474567 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474567 I don't like to use the word savage. I believe it is offensive even in this case. Nanook was noble because of what he did to feed and take of his family. It took more than being accountable and responsible for others, it took bravery and courage to keep his family alive. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 08:01:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474563 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474563 I was personally amazed by their journey. The images didn't suggest at all that they wanted sympathy. The brilliance behind Flaherty's directing is the movie expressed pride and content, despite their conditions. Those feelings transferred to myself as I watched, and I therefore respected the eskimos for their lifestyle. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:54:10 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474558 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474558 I believe the message of the documentary film is that modern society could learn alot from eskimos who survive off of very little necessities. The message is subtle because I don't feel that it is presented in a blunt way. By showing us the eskimos' travels for food and ignorance to modern technology, Robert Flaherty simply presents images that allows the audience to come that conclusion themselves. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:46:44 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470708 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470708 Law and Order SVU always shoots on the raw streets of New York City but it is still very clear that the show is dramatized scenes of actual crimes. Films not shot in studios only become more real when there are no actors involved as well. A great example is Michael Moore"s Capitalism: A Love Story. When he was shooting on wall street and approaching brokers asking about wall street terms, it seemed very raw because he was approaching actual brokers. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:01:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470707 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470707 I think the term getting around refers to the selectiveness and creativity in putting together a story in films that reality generally doesn't grant us. Life gets exploited because it is searched and ripped apart for its vital components and then transformed into a new and improved art form. Even the Lumiere brothers were able to achieve that when filming the factory workers. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:55:02 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470705 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470705 That statement is the same as seeing is believing and the reason why the statement is problematic is because views are constantly altered. Sight is not always clear and therefore can not be accurate at all times. A good example is news programs which is somewhat similar to documentary films. News programs have an agenda to present the most important, scandalous, and exciting events in 60 minutes. The limit and pressure of timing alters the way we perceive it, however because it is received and understood, it is considered as fact. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:51:34 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457174 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457174 The Lumiere brothers goal was to record life in the new industrial era that took the world by storm. Even with little added effects, such as the horse and newly invented bicycle placed in front of the French factory, creates drama but, expresses another fact: evolution in transportation. Everyday life was exciting enough to film with the new changes of the world. Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:23:48 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457160 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457160 Many documentaries I've seen tend to provide the audience with a load of information, wether about a war, celebrity, or natural disaster, followed by personal experiences about that subject. Because those personal experiences, are told to us at face value, we, the audience, tend to automatically feel the connection that it is real and truthful. The data of the documentary (time/date of events, casualties, etc.) may be presented as fact, and even that can be false. But, the experiences of those involved cannot be defined as fact because they vary from subject to subject too much. Thu, 19 May 2016 17:54:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457150 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457150 The dishonesty takes place as far as the dialogue being an illusion of a conversation between the speakers. The speakers words aren't altered, their setting is. Putting the speakers altogether to create a false productive conversation expands the agenda of the documentary. However, their words are still fact in the sense that it is not hearsay (spoken from someone else). Therefore, changing the context of the supposed factual dialogue creates dishonesty and drama; instead, the documentary pushes an agenda instead of facts. Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:04:01 -0500