Most recent public comments by Colon Greene https://nowcomment.com/users/19909 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=526039 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=526039 By splicing together the use of script and reality the film was able to create a sense of crediblity that would have been lacking from a completely scripted movie. Mon, 23 May 2016 13:28:17 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=525479 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=525479 The infallible "British Spirit" I feel is shown beautifully through women in this film. They are seen as having been patriots for their nation and refused to give up on more than one occasion throughout. They are seen continuously preserving in great oppositions. Fri, 20 May 2016 16:10:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=525476 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=525476 The individualism of the film only works with the back drop of war giving everyone clear cut signs as to where their roles were to take place. The men are soldiers, leaders in a foreign land,while the women ventured outside of the home and began to work in factories and textile plants. The war allowed for people to breakout of their everyday models an become people they did not know they were. Fri, 20 May 2016 16:01:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=525471 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=525471 Fri, 20 May 2016 15:51:01 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466714 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466714 The native actor like the "raw" materials gives a sense of authenticity to whatever form of film is being directed. The native actor is a natural in the elements being protrayed on film whereas a professional actor has to tap into that kind of honesty. Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:32:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466713 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466713 I believe that things shot in the "raw" are more real than when they are shot in the studio. When things are in their original element it brings more to the film, its more authentic and the vibes radiating from the place or object can be felt through out the scene or entire film. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:31:42 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466711 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466711 Films that "get around" are seen on a large scale by many different people, they are usually big budget feature films with exclusively white male actors as the focal point. They usually deal with "big world driven conflict that only their white hero can overcome. Films that do not "get around" are ones dealing with real world issues such as poverty, or abuse. They tell the story of the real people and include different races to share a complete truth. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:28:46 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466670 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466670 I am really not sure what this means. Materialist, I believe are people that care more about material things than intelligence or culture. So for documentary to evolve during that time makes sense but only because I think the people making documentaries had to have wealth in order to have the equipment they needed to tell other peoples stories. Sun, 14 Feb 2016 06:33:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466654 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466654 I do agree that seeing is believing. Witnessing something horrific has a much larger impact than simply reading about or hearing it from a separate source. This can become problematic in film for many reasons, one of them being the desensitization of your audience. The once profound, awe-inspiring, scene or picture no longer has an effect on its subject because its been seen so many times. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:10:18 -0500