Most recent public comments by Wilde Diaz https://nowcomment.com/users/19915 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=509902 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=509902 Just goes to show how she was in the end adhering to the policies set forth by Hitler and consequently herself. There is no way Hitler would of considered the approval or funding of her film if it did not portray Germany in a glorified light. However this "light" I mention could not shine to much on Nazi Germany itself, lest becoming a full blown propaganda film that further highlighted Nazi Germany. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:43:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=509901 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=509901 That is true, he did like to say he was for world peace. But it is clear it would seek world peace under a Nazi World. In order to do this he controlled the propaganda and hence he controlled Riefenstahl. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:42:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=509899 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=509899 Thu, 19 May 2016 22:36:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=509897 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=509897 Depending on how you view the film beginning to end, one will be to see two views: the first the olympics and the second one that glorifies a nation and its people. The second view is pushed more than the first at times by Riefenstahl by her scenes that glorify Berlin and scenes such as when you have the sole Olympian in trousers ready to joust a pole while being almost completely naked. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:39:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=509892 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=509892 It is to make something more appeasing. By her editing she is able to sentimentalize Nazi Germany through both the music and physical traits of her country (buildings, monuments and the athletes themselves with shots portraying their muscles flexed and during events). Fri, 20 May 2016 15:31:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=509889 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=509889 The use of quiet, mundane scenes at the beginning should be interpreted as the tranquility that existed before Germany decided to bomb the living hell out of Britain. In a way how there is a calm before a storm, the same is shown in this film in order to build on the suspense and tragedy that occurs during the bombing. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:35:39 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=509885 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=509885 There is no doubt, what happened to Britain by the Germans did occur. Jenning's uses a script in order to provide a storyline of events even though this must of been one of many, many stories of the people of Britain. While not ascertaining hers is based on a true story, it is however based on real events. The characters used, such as the fire fighters, were real fire fighters which adds to the validity of the events that transpired. By combining both Jennings is able to create a video that shows the will and endurance of the British, thus remaining a constant reminder to stand the test of history of what the British are capable of under peril. Sun, 15 May 2016 19:16:13 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=509880 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=509880 Men and women risking their lives throughout the film show the endurance of the British Spirit. From the army personnel looking for German invasion and airplanes, to women working in buildings while under bomber siege to the fire fighters risking their lives in the dead of night with the fires they are battling as their source of both warmth and danger show how the British Spirit endures. The way that the Royal British Airforce, despite being outnumbered drastically, still took to the skies to defend their country goes to show that despite the odds the British Spirit endures and Jennings succeeds and capturing that to a degree. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:34:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=509877 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=509877 When one does mundane tasks such as picking up calls or filling out paperwork, one forgets the importance as to what they play themselves in the overall structure of the organization. From the radar detector personnel, watchers of German aircraft, to the women who would relay messages to the fire stations themselves, everyone played a part. Even when a bomb hit the building of one of these relay women, she dragged herself to her post and continued to do her responsibility. Her actions as an individual show how pivotal her role is in the overall structure of the system she is a part of. Fri, 20 May 2016 23:00:58 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=509875 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=509875 It is not an easy task whether it be for theatrical purposes or in the case Jennings tries to portray, the reality of the British firefighters that had to fight fires while defending their own lives from the bombs being dropped. The fact that these individuals had to go out and put out fires is an act of courage as is, but with the added element of the bombs, their perseverance to do what had to be done for home and country is even further elevated. Jennings recognizes this and seeks to capture and portray it in her film. Fri, 22 Apr 2016 07:12:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=506592 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=506592 The film adopted the use of a voiceover in order to fully explain and identify the scenes. I also feel the film used a narrator to explain what was going on. In Riefenstahl films, there had not been any story line just many shots that were self explanatory and open to interpretation. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:08:10 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=506590 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=506590 It is important to understand the predicament of the British people in order to be able to fully comprehend the reality portrayed in this film. In this context the people coming out and going back into the tunnels day in and day out whilst living their lives shows how durable the human spirit is, however in this case the British spirit. Even though it seems unrealistic to the audience, to them it was everyday life. It was either bend to the nazi reich or continue the lifeblood of their country. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:00:52 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502411 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502411 The film in its innocence, I believe was created to show her innocence and solidarity not with Germany but with humanity as a whole. She tries to appear as someone who was a victim and is only trying to advance her work by showing someone who is adamant of being innocent by circumstance and caring. But by releasing this film she only provides a benchmark of how to evaluate her and her claims, and thus crucifies herself. Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:07:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502410 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502410 Her claim that is politics and art are separable is like saying church and state are separate in the United States. Despite the U.S. tug of war between the two it still exists, you cannot be an elected official by not first proclaiming your faith in God. So the same on some levels applies to Riefenstahl. In an authoritarian and fascist government such as Hitler's Nazi Germany, the possiblity of work receiving recognition and national coverage would of never been possible unless she infused both politics and art, as evident by her works that show the glory and triumph of Nazi's. Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:06:39 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502409 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502409 Being an artist posses one self to try to do what they have to in order to create the piece of art the want to create. It is no easy task to create art the way she did but the way she went about obtaining it is questionable. Her ability to demand, question and put forth her ideas to the director and workers allows her to essentially control the way the film will be digested by the audience. Her refusal to claims by Goebbel's in his diaries and not apologizing for work goes to show how she truly did not want to be associated with the Nazi party because if she did admit Goebbel's claims it would show her true intimacy with the party and by apologizing for work also shows how she may of lied about all her other claims, especially in scenes where she tries to be innocent and humble. Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:04:52 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502408 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502408 From her directing the director to her putting her input into the shots being taken, it is clear she is used to being in charge and getting her way. By viewing her work and her personality you can tell she is not who she tries to present herself. Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:03:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502407 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502407 It doesn't matter if she did or did not commit any crime. The bigger crime was convincing the people of the importance of a nationalistic Germany under the regime of Hitler's "thousand year Reich". By using her talents she was able to persuade others to the glory that was being portrayed at the time in regards to both Hitler and the Nazi's. As someone with access to many aspects of Hitler's Germany she was bound to hear and witness more information regarding the state. Despite the previous claim not being confirmed, it should be implied and if accepted as implied, Riefenstahl was bound to also listen to the atrocities being committed and hence never spoke or acted on them. Instead she just distanced herself following the end of the war. Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:02:37 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502406 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502406 The film does not justify her comment. Any amount of hours and work on a documentary of Hitler would still not shed to light everything that Hitler is. The same concept goes with Riefenstahl, it is important to scrutinize the work she put forward because her work is a part of who she is. Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:01:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502405 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502405 I do not believe her stance regarding the nazi party. I believe she wanted to make great films and in order to do that she needed a great topic with even greater importance on the world stage. However in order to get this access she would of needed to be favored by the Nazi officials and more so Hitler who a long with Joseph Goebbels had final say on all things multimedia and propaganda. I can not say if she was proud of being associated with the party but it is clear she did what she had to in order to make a name for herself and pieces of work. Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:01:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502404 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=502404 Yes the film does support this conclusion. Throughout the film you see her many moods and requests. Often times acting the way she wanted to be portrayed on camera. This want led to a need and that need led to further witnessing how she wanted to be filmed. Thu, 19 May 2016 19:37:02 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495402 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495402 No such thing as bad publicity. By being able to show to the world that the new Nazi Germany he has built from the grown up, literally, he shows that they are able to compete with everyone else in the world no matter their origin. Obviously he would of liked to his champions to win all the events but by being able to show how this rising power can compete on the World stage after being stripped of its pride, economy and military. Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:38:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495401 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495401 Whether she glorifies both nationalism and the human form does not matter, all that matters is that she did not glorify a single nation such as Nazi Germany. She allowed herself to focus on more than one nation indiscriminately and I appreciate that. She could of easily cut out scenes that showed Jesse Owens or any other nation's Olympian winning and filled the film with just German wins - but she did not. So I do agree she does glorify nationalism and the human form. Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:37:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495400 1936 Germany had two faces. The first was a united and strong Germany of which you see in Olympia. The other was a evil Germany hell bent on capturing everything surrounding it and eventually conquering the Eastern Hemisphere in a display of prowess that the German people and more importantly, Hitler contained. Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:36:19 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495399 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495399 Art comes in many forms. Olympia is art because it is a sports film that incorporates new techniques such as timing audio with the film, which was difficult to do at the time, and as well shots and scenes that would of made any Director and producer at the time envious of the techniques used by Riefenstahl. Thus Olympia is art because it is different and exciting. Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:35:15 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495398 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495398 It can be considered a propaganda film because of who produced it - Nazi Germany. During the time of the third reich, propaganda was the game. Since it was being produced by Germany it is hard to believe that Joseph Goebbels, Head of Propaganda & Communications would've allowed the international release of a film that did not highlight the will and power of Nazi Germany. Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:32:36 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495397 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495397 She definitely fooled me. Now in the 21st century when we watch the Olympics on the TV, one can see everything, when the Olympians pause for water, take breaks and when they win or cry from losing. Leni Riefenstahl does not afford the audience this luxury because she only shows to the viewers all the cheering and medal presentations. Thus one believes the Olympics was full of nonstop events and roaring. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:43:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495396 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495396 In essence both films are different. Triumph of the will idolizes a man who has given "rebirth" to a nation that had been humiliated following the First World War whereas Olympia disregards any single man, nation or group and focuses on the unity of people as they cheer for their Olympians. Fri, 15 Apr 2016 07:42:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495395 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495395 If it were not for the shots of Hitler nor the decorations of various forms of Nazi propaganda around the stadium one would not believe this is Nazi Germany. Instead by suspending one's reality one travels through ancient greece through history into Modern (1936)times where all of the world's nations strive for one thing that is not war nor greed but instead Medals proving the physical achievements of their people. Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:31:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495394 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495394 Easily Riefenstahl could've just shot many images and scenes of the Olympics but she did not. She focused on shots that showed the unity among nations as they cheered on their olympians. Instead of taking simple shots of the olympians she instead took shots before they began their events and at the end when they crossed the finish line. By doing things like this with her equipment she took amazing cinematic shots that allowed for the viewers of this film to be really taken a back - sort of like an action movie. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:36:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495393 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495393 In a way this is true. The Olympics had been the glorified stage but the Olympians themselves were the main attraction. Shots covering large swaths of the stadium, low angel shots over Jesse Owens as he was at the racers line which showed his stretched muscles and steady posture shows how the people celebrated their perspectives country's olympians and the God like physiques of the men and women participants. Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:35:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495392 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495392 The film begins displaying the early beginnings of the Olympics, Ancient Greece. By the time it ends, Reifenstahl has portrayed a modern German society in which the 1936 Olympics is being held. By showing how great Jesse Owens and other Olympians had been by using high angel shots or shots of the entire stadium cheering on people regardless of race really shows how much enthusiasm the olympians exalted out of the audience. The least dramatic events were the minimal shots of Hitler which were cut almost immediately Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:27:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495389 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=495389 When you build something, it usually has a meaning and conveys a message. Much like bridges that allow for the connection between two points based on its architectural significance, films have to maintain and strive to achieve a sort of base format and in the end be successful in its endeavour. Riefenstahl formats the film from ancient greece and builds it up to display the new and modern Germany. Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:27:09 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489506 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489506 It is a culture of unity and progressiveness towards a bright and vibrant future Germany. Everyone in Germany at the time remembers the life their country lived following the first world war. Now you have Hitler who is portrayed to be a man that has taken Germany from its low point and is anchoring it up to a new time of prestige, unity and advancement. Sun, 06 Mar 2016 08:12:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489505 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489505 The audience is not free to view Hitler anyway it pleases. Simply, seeing the film, if you were against Hitler, how would you be able to go publicly against him? By seeing the film that he masterminded you would see how many people, politicians and workers support him and attend his events just to see him. The way he speaks to the German people, the German workers and the German Nationalist Socialist party all show that the majority of Germans are with their leader. And that leader is portrayed by this film to be straight forward thinking, loving of his nation and ruthless in the pursuit of excellence for the German Reich. Sun, 06 Mar 2016 08:10:39 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489504 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489504 They were many shots in Triumph of the Will, with each putting forth a message. "Conducting" is the appropriate verb to use because of what Hitler was doing when he gave his speeches. To conduct means to organize and carry out - and this is what exactly Hitler did. His speeches were organized to captivate and motivate the audience to such a degree that it caused them to blindly be filled with motivation to follow Hitler and the third Reich. By being in tune with the emotions of his audiences and how to move them to different mindsets is similar to the way a orchestra follows the conductor. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489503 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489503 Everything from the fly over of Nuremberg to the Olympics add substance to this last sentence. Displaying so many people adoring the “Hitler” image (a image that shows him as magnificent and the savior of the German people) at his parades, speeches and events show how it is not just a normal man but the idea behind the man. By having this man portray himself as a savior it allows for the idea of fascism to blossom and take root in the minds of the German people because they are coming from a period where inflation was high, they were humiliated and reduced to a nation that was obligated to repair the damages from the First World War. Sun, 06 Mar 2016 08:06:45 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489501 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489501 This can mean that the content (the substance and material that originates from the nazi movie) in its use creates and provides form to the movie. The content allows a form of rebirth and authority to both Hitler and his people. For Hitler it adds a right to rule due to what he is doing for his people, whereas for his people the authority to believe they are the best people on the world. Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:12:55 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=489500 Reading Hitler vs. "Hitler" can have different connotations. Without the marks you are speaking about the man, the person and the dictator that ruled with an iron fist. Whereas when you add quotation marks you almost add a sense of an ideal. "Hitler Youth", "Hitler's Final Solution", These are all things that create an idea that sprouted from the mind of this man but stemmed to other parts of society do this planning. When it comes to the "1936 Olympics" the same thing occurs. With the marks you are referring to a event in Nazi era where their ideal that the German purebred citizen was the greatest nationality in the world. Overall when you add the quotation marks you are referring to something in greater significance. Sun, 06 Mar 2016 08:03:50 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480736 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480736 They are many senses. The sense of simply appreciating the film, the sense of observing how the crew works to visually document the lives and culture in Lennin's Russia and ultimately the sense of seeing the gradual and apex of its time of the movie camera. All of the production was possible due to this machine that can do what was not possible beforehand. So essentially as a viewer we see a sense of awe on many levels, the most important coming from the title itself; "The Man with the Movie Camera" - The sense of awe at humanities new way of chronicling recording our lives no matter where in the world with no discrimination for who it may be and/or what. Sat, 27 Feb 2016 14:50:48 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480734 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480734 In simplistic terms we are shown how evolved technology has come and that advancement is shown via the use of film and camera as it used by the director to portray lennin’s Russia in 1920. Previously techniques used in this documentary such as: filming another camera during a driving scenario, or capturing the landscape in ways previously before impossible shows the new caliber of possibilities the machine era has enabled to those whom wield it. Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:14:14 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480732 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=480732 - The irony within itself. The title of the documentary suggest that this will be a playful film about the misadventures of a man with a movie camera. If someone comes to me with a title like that for a film, I would presume it is a home movie shot by a dad bored at home. However it is much more climatic with the center piece being Lennin’s 1920 Russia, a time in Russia fresh off of toppling a monarchy and seeking to refine their self-identity. But the biggest irony above all is how another camera man has encompassed that story line and created his own. Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:10:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=480731 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=480731 For something to be aesthetically pleasing it has to appease the senses, usually through sight or hearing. Flaherty in his attempt to portray the surroundings of Nanook as a whole, is able to shoot scenes of imagery such as the landscape and nature. Being able to see how the water interacts with the canoe or how the wind battles his home or the sun shines on his land is ways the audience can relate because that too occurs in their neighborhoods and homes by the same elements by nature. But despite being relatable the way the water or wind can be so calm at one moment or vivacious the next is aesthetically pleasing. Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:09:35 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=480729 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=480729 People have many elements to their lives. Very rarely if ever does the life of a person or culture can ever be interpreted in black and white. By Flaherty focusing on who these people were in a direction that displays to the audience a happy and survivalist culture he had to manipulated the footage he chose to take and already had shot. In essence it does matter because whenever you touch something with the intentions of changing something you have already decided to alter the storyline. But all history is “his-story” and that’s exactly Flaherty had done, he took this part of history in Nanook’s community and made it his for the people back home to see. Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:08:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=480728 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=480728 A noble savage is someone who is carefree, resourceful, instinctual and untainted from the evils associated with civilization. Nanook, the man and head of a family who hunts for their food and the demands of their environment create a culture of being highly skilled in multiple facets in order to survive. Nanook is a noble savage because his very life and family demands him to be skilled in order to stay alive, all without the aid of common civilization elements. Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:08:03 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=480727 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=480727 I do not feel bad for Nanook and his family because of the two ways I interpreted this movie. The first was in a way that I let myself to be ingulfed in the movie. Nanook and his family were in their environment with no disturbance by the outside world. No one was harmed, modern technology was absolved from being shown in the movie. In addition to this the family was shown eating, partaking in activities and free from most danger. This is their way of life and if that is their norm then no one can say they are any worse off if they do not know what could be better. On another note when you critically analyze what is going on I still do not feel sorry for them. Yes they are foreigners on their lands but they are not intruding. They are portraying their way of life a certain way and use upbeat music, angels and modern technology to show the world how simple a normal and happy life can be. Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:07:20 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=479639 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=479639 Flaherty pushes forward two lessons through his work. The first and foremost, the moneymaker, the essence of the movie itself. It shows to the consumer Nanook and how it is to be in his environment. That environment had been an environment that restricted any modern technology or ways of life in order to present the culture of Nanook and his people. By his ultimate goal he also lines his documentary with a subtle message. That message is the suspension of reality the consumer under goes as they are able to view the world of nanook as if they were invisible beings in that same location. That is caused by the way Flaherty is able to record his work in a way where himself or no one else is seen and the angels are the same as if your eyes were the camera. Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:29:32 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469688 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469688 For their time, experimenting with something literally "new" and "out the box" they did an amazing job. By analyzing how they direct and take shots of everything shows how they were so intimate with their work. This dedication and intimacy shows even today as some of the shots and directions you can see in films since. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:13:12 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469685 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469685 For many flying was not possible, so in a sense, the same concept of being able to film the world instead of just having a still image was revolutionary. No longer would people have to be confined to expressing one emotion but now an entire array of emotions and figures can be included and expressed. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:12:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469682 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469682 It was mildly borrowing. Mainly probably because I had to watch it on my own in the library. None the less it can easily be borrowing because most people do not like watching other peoples lives unless it includes violence, drama or both. The Lumiere film depicts simple lives and starkly contrastive to the lives fulfilled by figures in our times such as the Kardashians. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:11:25 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469679 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469679 Whether it be filming the horses, workers coming out of the factory or the bicycle, if the shots were taken a particular way at a particular time it would portray a completely different message to the viewer. When the bicycle was in front of the factory, yes it portrays the advancement of transportation but what if it was in the floor and damaged? It would easily portray a message that this form of transportation is becoming obsolete. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:10:32 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469656 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469656 In my opinion documentaries are a presentation of findings and not facts. When you say facts, these are statements that are supposed to be presented as they are for general consumption by the viewer. However more often than not filmmakers take these facts and manipulate them in a way that fits their story line in order to better portray their vision for their documentary. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:09:37 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469651 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469651 More often than not filmmakers that undertake a documentary project, whether it be intentionally or unintentionally, produce projects that are dishonest in nature. This is done because they want to convey a message that ideally is the thesis of their documentary. However with most things when you have a point of view on something they is always points opposite yours which makes the filmmaker decide upon whether or not he wants to discredit his claims [reporting]. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:08:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469650 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=469650 By being slow in pace, usually with music in the background, montages aim to convey a message. 1. Tracks a journey from one country to another. 2. Through many pictures, show the progression from the infancy of something to its full development in order to deliver a message. (Passage of time). 3. Portrayal of a scene from different angles. Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:07:07 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466745 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466745 When I had come to class late and for the first time I had believed the Zelig film was a film that was based on true event. Woody Allen incorporates many techniques that allow him as a director to illustrate as an artist the different techniques of his trade in order to produce work. Through camera useage to even lighting, Mr. Allen is able to capture his audience and dilute their knowledge due to the way he incorporates his skills and thus shows how if done right and with the right steps, anyone can be manipulated. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:25:36 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466744 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466744 An event can encompass many points of view and facts. Something can be real but it doesn't mean it has been afforded the respect to be explained thoroughly. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:26:28 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466743 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466743 Native actors are not actors. If someone asked you to act your life would it be acting, or would it be more like everyday life but just with a camera crew following your every move? Native actors provide a unique point of view and skillset because the cliche "Nothing beats the original" has never more been more right because it is first nature for that native to do what they do. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:23:33 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466742 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466742 Nothing beats authenticity. Getting original emotion is priceless, as well is sound and visuals. Films that are able to capture real features make them more valuable in context. The latest push by cartoons and anime to both on televisions and gaming console add to how their vast upgrades in visual graphics are leading to breakthroughs as consumers demand more originality and closer appearance to reality. Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:34:13 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466741 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466741 Getting around is to infer something has ease of transportation and recognition. Films that portray very distinctive flaws in human character, or grotesque films such as "The Human Centipede", films regarding human created disasters, even documentaries focused on poverty or war do not get much attention. All these types of films are have in common that they reveal flaws and cracks within the human psyche and most are not comfortable with seeing those cracks in their face. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:29:41 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466740 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466740 "Seeing is Believing" but is believing, seeing?. In film we can see a story of a hero with countless accurate facts of the circumstance, time and people but it does not make the existence of this fictional character anymore real or the facts anymore concrete. Film shows what the lens captures only. Thus it creates a problem as far as film is concerned because much like history can be interpreted as "His Story" or even in addition, "history is written by the winner" it does not make the weight of the truth anymore heavier or lighter. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:42 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466739 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=466739 If you were to see early movies or analyze plays from Ancient times to even the early 1920's you will be able to see a stark difference in how these stories have changed compared to today's. Epic poems and sagas were fueled by reasons by these heroes and heroines by the pursuit of immortality such as Homer's Iliad. Today however it has changed to reflect society's new reasons for advancing... the pursuit of materials things such as cars, houses and money. Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:20:12 -0500