Most recent public comments by Mr. Jeremy Fillipp https://nowcomment.com/users/19196 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=524925 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=524925 Has she always been known as controlling or is that a trait she developed over time? Thu, 19 May 2016 18:32:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=524923 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=524923 After the film was aired, do we ever find out if she was happy and felt that she "cleared her name?" Thu, 19 May 2016 19:44:32 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=524922 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=524922 Was this something that she was okay with letting people see? If it were me, I am not so sure that I would want to be seen as being so difficult or is that apart of what makes her special? Thu, 19 May 2016 18:30:26 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=524915 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=524915 So is winning one of the main themes of the film and Hitler being there was just something that was lightly focused on? Thu, 19 May 2016 18:28:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=524910 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=524910 I think that is a sign that it was a great film. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:25:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=524908 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=524908 Was it true adoration or was it more adoration out of fear? Thu, 19 May 2016 23:27:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=524905 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=524905 How could this leave an intended bias if there are factors that can be out of the filmmakers control? Thu, 19 May 2016 18:20:10 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=524903 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=524903 I guess it is sometimes hard to distinguish between truth-values and beliefs. On person believes something and another person could believe something else. They both could be true. One could be true and one could be false, or they both could be false. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:13:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=524901 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=524901 This is true. Every documentary is different so I cannot attest to how most of them are shot, interpreted, presented, etc. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:12:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=524899 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=524899 Expanding on moral issues, I guess noble was also defined by dictionary.com as also meaning someones position in society or political status. I guess you can look at the overall nobility of Nanook here. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:06:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=520326 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=520326 So if a filmmaker leaves out other viewpoints, isn't that going against what the purpose of a documentary is? Fri, 13 May 2016 08:11:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=520325 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=520325 This is true; I never thought to look at it in that way. So in some ways, everyone involved could have a different account as to how things happen so how can we be certain that what we know of the past is actually true? Fri, 13 May 2016 08:10:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=520321 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=520321 That is one of my favorite parts about film. I believe that if a film has a strong enough topic where you are discussing it after it's over, or helping people grieve, of giving people confidence, then the film has done it's job. Fri, 13 May 2016 08:08:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=520320 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=520320 I believe that every good story has a beginning, middle, and an end. I feel that when stories, movies, documentaries, etc. are missing those three components, it takes away from the value of what you are trying to show. Fri, 13 May 2016 08:07:37 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=520319 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=520319 I think that, and drawing this from one students final presentation, is to have one long continuous cut without any editing. Now, you can't do this for a whole movie, but it would be a step in the right direction. Fri, 13 May 2016 08:06:09 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=520318 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=520318 Well I think that if the camera does not capture the truth's best, then viewers might not know if they are truths. Fri, 13 May 2016 08:05:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=501422 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=501422 I feel that this film does justify the defense of her because I think at that time no one really knew just how dangerous Hitler really was. I can see how people would think that she would be considered to be a Nazi or a Nazi worshiper, because of how close she was to him. Just because she was fascinated by him and his behavior does not mean that she fully believed what he was preaching. I think the film does support those actions. Thu, 19 May 2016 19:32:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=501421 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=501421 I think the film supports this statement and pretty well. First, you can take a look at her tactics in Olympia, where she would cry to get what she wants. Taking that knowledge and applying it to this film, it became especially relevant when the archive footage was being shown. The film also showed her to try and get what she wants when she was asked to walk and talk and she could not do that. She has never been asked to do that before and she couldn't do it here; so much so that she at one point shoved the director. I think this was very indicative of her always trying to get what she wants. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:32:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=501420 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=501420 I also believe that she had no part in the Nazi party. When she said that she wanted to make great films, I believe that she just knew where to find great footage for her great films. Obviously, during her time, Hitler was a topic to make great films. I believe that this film does promote that because she goes on to say that they were very dark times in her life and she had a very dark past. When she was talking about that, she seemed to have been bothered to have been considered apart of the Nazi party. Thu, 19 May 2016 19:44:32 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=501419 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=501419 It was very interesting to watch her be "herself" and also watch her in the behind the scenes footage. It was very obvious that she was acting, in a way, when they were filming the documentary. During the behind the scenes footage, it came off that she was very difficult, picky, and challenging to work with. It can be understandable, because this is her big shot to clear her name, So I feel this statement isn't entirly wrong because I think there are aspects in "both" sides to her that are true. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:30:26 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499334 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499334 I also feel that the real face of this Olympics was that if you are from Germany, you are a winner and you are powerful. That was the name of the game. You are number one. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:28:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499332 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499332 Is it considered propaganda simply because of who and where the film was produced or are there actual elements to this film that are propaganda? I am having a hard time finding what they are. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:32:36 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499329 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499329 I feel that she took only the interesting parts of that Olympic games. She was able to edit out all of the waiting and edit them to where it was one even after the other. Also, if many people in Germany had the same thoughts on people of color as Hitler did, she was able to show just how good Owen's was [is]. This excitement seemed to be more exciting than the actual film for me. While I was watching the film, I got roped into the events and asking myself, "Is this person going to make it?" Fri, 20 May 2016 18:41:11 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499314 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499314 I am still struggling to see how Olympia was a, or can be considered, a propaganda film. Even though this film was produced in Germany, she still shot and edited this film without a bias. This is shown thru the fact that she spent such a time filming Jessie Owens. Is it wrong to say that if this film was a true propaganda film that a large aspect of the film would not be someone of color? Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:40:13 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499310 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499310 I though the beginning of Olympia was pure art. Something that I noticed when she chose to have statues turn into the live, naked, models was the physique of the body. They way the body changes during the different movements and a look at what great shape these athletes keep their bodies in. I also think that this film was pure art in the sense that she was able to capture so many moments with her wide angel shots. Being able to get the crowds reactions while the games were going on was something that had never been done before. Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:36:06 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499303 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499303 I think it is interesting to look and compare the differences of the two even though they both involve Hitler. In Triumph of the Will, the focus on Hitler was much more prevalent than in this film. In Triumph of the Will, it was much more of a look at Hitler's personalty and how he acted and how people responded to his actions. It was also made to look Hitler look really good and empower him. However, this last film really didn't do that. This really was shown when Jesse Owens, was winning events at the Olympics and there were no reaction shots of Hitler. In a way I feel that they are similar because Triumph of the Will holds Hitler on a pedestal and this last film does nothing to harm his image. Fri, 20 May 2016 15:39:51 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499298 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=499298 Looking at the many different aspects of the film, I feel that the cinematography is the more central topic of the film rather than the Olympic's itself. I really liked how the film started out depicting the "history" and time leading up to the actual event of the Olympic's. This point in the film also really set the tome and really put you in the place of the event. Something that also set out this film from the rest is the amount of cameras and different angles throughout the Olympic's. She captured some really interesting shots. Fri, 20 May 2016 18:32:08 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494765 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494765 It is also interesting to see how Hitler would interact with people in the crowd. He would seem very welcoming to women and children, shake their hands, and a couple times even saw him smiling. Did people actually take a liking to Hitler or were most just afraid of him? Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:53:54 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494759 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494759 I don't believe that the Nazi's got to leave a carefree life. I think the film portrayed it to be that way but in reality it was quite the opposite. I think that death was glamorized here because they were "taught" to worship their country and their leader. Dying for their country and their leader meant that they were doing something right and I think this is how it came to be glamorized. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:47:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494756 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494756 I think that if you are viewing this film, its easy to generalize Germany into being a country where no one has an opposing viewpoint, a country where you worship the ideology of one man, etc. and it is hard to see everything else that Germany had to offer. Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:49:35 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494752 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494752 I think that if you do not know the history of Hitler, you would not necessarily see him in a bad light in this film. If you simply know him from this documentary, you would never know that he was responsible for all of the mass murders. However, sine I am aware of the history of Hitler, we are able to pick up on signs; his forceful nature, and his demanding personality. Eventually, you can see all of the signs coming out leading up to the person we know him to be. With that being said, I don't that you will ever be able to view him in any other way. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:27:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494745 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=494745 I think the word "conduct" is especially well chosen because that is in fact what Hitler did; he "conducted" his speeches. Hitler was able to get everyone to watch him, listen to him, and follow his every action. Hitler is the conductor and Germany was his orchestra. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489513 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489513 I think some people confuse the word evidence with opinion. Sat, 05 Mar 2016 22:48:06 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489512 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489512 I think it is true that a documentary can provide the topic and lead you into new information that you did not intend in initially presenting. This will obviously change the course of which the film would take. Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:55:47 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489511 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489511 I think regardless of whether it is a documentary or not, you are always going to be partial to one opinion over another. It is extremely hard to stay neutral. In regards to what Jake said, if you are going to make a documentary you have to do your research as if you were both parties and just present the research and leave opinions and bias' out of it. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489510 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489510 I think this is why some documentaries can receive such negative feedback. Some documentaries do not necessarily look for the truth in both sides of which ever story they are focusing on. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:13:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489509 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=489509 I think Documentaries only show a certain point of view and that is the point of view of the camera. I think that is why Triumph of the Will was so good was because it showed you all the different point's of view. In the car behind Hitler, two cars behind Hitler, on the rooftop watching Hitler drive past. This allowed you to get Hitler's point of view and the spectators point of view. However, I feel that most documentaries only show one point of view and it can be hard to show both, especially if they are opposing view points. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:12:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474725 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474725 While talking about a noble savage, it got me thinking more and more about what it means to be one. Really, I feel like to be a noble savage is to be able to feed and provide for your family. To provide shelter and safety and generally just to care for your family. I believe that Nanook is a noble savage as he did pretty much fulfill those requirements. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:06:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474723 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474723 Well I feel that pictures convey something completely different from the film. I felt like the film was presented in a very warm and playful manner. The film made it seem that their lives were not THAT hard. However, when you take a look at the pictures, to me it showed something completely different. Many showed looks of concern and sadness. Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:18:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474721 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=474721 While watching the film, I really did not feel sorry for Nanook and his family. I didn't feel sorry for him because the way it was presented was in a light and almost playful manner. Really that was done with the music in my opinion. We didn't really hear this sad music, but rather more playful and cheerful music. Also, that was just the way of life back then (where they were from.) Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:11:54 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470581 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470581 I think the purpose of Zelig was that just because shot on film doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. With the right people, scenes, documents, etc. you can make anything seem real even if it isn't. You also never know how true something is if you aren't there in person to witness it and I think that I what the film was somewhat eluding too. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:03:14 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470574 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470574 I believe that you can have raw moments in both place. If you are shooting something on the streets, you are filming exactly what is happening in that moment. However, I believe you can have raw moments shooting in a studio. They will just be produced raw moments. What I mean by that is that if you are acting, you can have a really raw moment, but as I've acted many times in various shows, and you are I. The middle of performing a raw moment, it can be hard for you to control your emotions because you are so in the moment. So in that sense, your reaction/emotions are manufactured. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:59:34 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470573 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470573 I think there are two reasons why documentaries will use professional actors. First off, I believe that having an actor that we all know and love adds a sense of truth to the documentary. It is comforting to watch someone we are so familiar with present this documentary. Also, I believe that having a big name attached to the project is a way of getting a film out to a large group of people. If George Clooney is attached to a small documentary, having him allows that film to get thru to his entire fan base, and so on and so forth. However, I believe that having a native actor is better in a documentary because that is what it is in "real" life. A native actor has experienced the real life events in the film, and to me, that is the greatest credibility of all. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:56:08 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470457 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470457 The beauty of film is that film has the ability to reach the masses, especially in today's age of social media and things going "viral." I believe that a good filmmaker will take a subject and make it appeal to the masses by taking topics that people do not necessarily have knowledge about and getting that message out there and making it interesting for people to watch. I believe that film get around for that fact. Films that do something new and innovative, new art forms if you will, only add to the appeal of that film. Now, films that I feel do not get around are films that do a poor job showing both sides of a story. Looking at documentaries in general, if the filmmaker clearly has a bias towards one side over another, this hinders the experience and motive of what a documentary is actually supposed to do. Fri, 13 May 2016 08:11:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470338 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=470338 In some retrospect, I do believe that seeing is believing. However, I feel that this is only true to what you see happening in actuality. In terms of film, and in this case, documentaries, I believe that there is too much room for maipulation. Are events pieced together in the correct order? Are all aspects of an event being showed? I feel that unless you are watching it play out in person, there are too many different opinions that can be formed with film. For instance I could watch the same movie on film and have a completely different point of view, opinion, takeaway as someone else who watches the same film. Fri, 13 May 2016 08:10:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457202 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457202 I believe that a documentary is a presentation of facts, however, that line can be blurred from time to time. Some things that we do not know when documentaries are presented, is the sequence of events. Is the film pieced together in the way that it was shot? Were comments showed before or after an event happened? I also believe that this can be inadequate in the sense that events of a film could be altered to look a certain way to fuel a certain outcome. This can be done by a bias from the filmmaker. I believe that documentaries are mostly factual but can be misrepresented from time to time. Fri, 13 May 2016 08:06:09 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457199 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457199 I think this film was considered to be a breakthrough in many aspects. First off, I think it was great that they were able to film different aspects over the country. Being able to see what life was like in New York and then being able to see what it was like in Chicago was a breakthrough to be able to compare lifestyles. I also believe that there was a breakthrough in the sense that they were able to capture the emotion and actions of people rather than just fifty seconds of film. So, in my opinion, this film paved the way for a lot of innovations in the film industry. Fri, 13 May 2016 08:08:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457194 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457194 I think this is a tricky question to answer, however, I feel that they were honest in this film. I believe what they captured was genuine. There were two parts in the film where the narrator raised some questions for me. First off, it was discussed how people were aware of the camera and may have worked harder than they normally would have (i.e. the workers at the train station.) Really, I believe this would have happened any day in age. It does not mean that the film makers were dishonest. Also, it was also discussed that the factory workers exiting the factory were "directed" in exiting either left or right due to the placement of the camera. I do not view this as dishonesty because if everyone came out and walked directly towards the camera, there would have been no decent footage that would have been captured. Fri, 13 May 2016 08:05:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457190 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457190 While watching the documentary, I didn't find myself bored, rather, having to watch it from a different point of view. I am used to watching documentaries in today's format and watching it in the Lumiere's format was different. I found myself watching more for the reactions and emotions of the people in the film. Also, since it was brought up in class, I found myself heavily focused on the angles they shot the scenes in. I cannot say that it is a documentary that I would watch to completion, but I found other aspects of the film interesting. Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:32:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457152 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=457152 It was interesting to watch their documentary in regards to timing. A new scene in the documentary always seemed to show something coming to an end. For example, all the factory workers exiting the factory (their train coming to an end.) It also showed a train coming into the station (their ride coming to an end.) I think by filming at these times, they were able to capture the reactions of the people as best they could. For example, they were happy to leave work. Happy to be getting off the train, etc. Fri, 13 May 2016 08:07:37 -0400