Most recent public comments by Richard Caamano https://nowcomment.com/users/21572 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525698 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525698 Maybe at the start of it, the movie was supposed to be a propaganda film. This can be seen with the German torch runners at the beginning coming after the Greek statues. This might imply that the Germans are just as important as the Greeks. The Greeks are an influences in many aspects of life and will always be. Germany is saying "we will do the same". They just didn't anticipate the turnout of talent at the Olympics. Maybe Riefenstahl didn't either. Fri, 20 May 2016 22:38:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525696 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525696 Fri, 20 May 2016 22:34:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525695 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525695 With the use of multiple close ups of different competitors, Riefenstahl is able to capture the expression on the faces of the athletes just as a competition starts. This creates a more engaging experience for the viewers and intensifies the anticipation of the start. Fri, 20 May 2016 22:31:01 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=525690 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=525690 Fri, 20 May 2016 22:13:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=525689 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=525689 Sat, 21 May 2016 06:59:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=525686 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43761?scroll_to=525686 The Man With a Movie Camera gives the viewers a look into how film is made. It shows how much effort is put into getting a shot, like when the cameraman digs a hole in the train tracks to catch a shot the bottom of a moving train. Fri, 20 May 2016 22:02:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525596 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525596 I think they could be seen as ideological opposites. Triumph of the Will emphasized German greatness by displaying the various advancements made under the rule of Hitler. Germany were in dire straits and Hitler helped fix that. Olympia on the other hand focused on the physical strength of man. Had athletes, like Jesse Owens, not been there to shock the public, maybe more German athletes would have been featured. This would've displayed the greatness of the German body instead of the human body. Fri, 20 May 2016 18:09:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525592 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43785?scroll_to=525592 I think Riefenstahl is following laws that emphasize the shots that focus on the athletes. Like the shot with Jesse Owens showing his leg muscles before a match. These scenes are aesthetically pleasing because they show the power of the athlete. As for rhythm, the music was chosen to build up each movement of the athletes as they compete. Like the choice of silence while the high jumpers did their event. Fri, 20 May 2016 18:03:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=525586 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=525586 I think a noble savage is someone is like saying a civilized animal. They way they behave outside of survival are noble. They help one another, don't go looking for trouble and are able to establish tribes. The savage part comes from the fact that they hunt and kill their own food. The Inuit don't live in cities or have day jobs, surviving is their job. Fri, 20 May 2016 17:58:29 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525481 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525481 We mentioned in class that the film shows Hitler riding in a plane at the beginning of the film to display the greatness of German engineering. The plane also comes in handy to show the architecture of Germany. When it flies over the town, you get a great view of all the houses and buildings in the town. Fri, 20 May 2016 16:19:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=525368 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=525368 I don't think it mattered that he manipulated scenes and characters because Flaherty was trying to catch the essence of the Inuit. He showed how different the conditions of life for the Inuit was compared to the average viewer and that the Inuit lived happily nonetheless. Flaherty seemed to think the Inuit people were a strong spirited group and that was what he portrayed. Fri, 20 May 2016 12:53:11 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=525364 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43758?scroll_to=525364 Fri, 20 May 2016 12:46:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=525358 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=525358 Fri, 20 May 2016 12:38:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525353 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525353 I think that documenting is just the same as making a normal film. Documentaries usually tell the true story of an event, but documentaries can lie just like any other movie. I think they are bale to document the basic events within a story, but when it comes to more subjective specifics, documentaries can't capture it. Fri, 20 May 2016 12:33:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525349 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525349 Hitler was like a conductor when he made his speeches. He stood in the middle, wagging his arm around, keeping the entire Nazi party focused on the goal. This is like a conductor keeping an orchestra on rhythm. Everyone has to be on the same page as the conductor. Fri, 20 May 2016 12:14:05 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525347 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43763?scroll_to=525347 "Hitler" and "1936 Olympics" are in quotation marks because in the film Hitler was shown but not image of Hitler we usually think about. Triumph of the Will shows the Hitler that was revered by his people, smiling and waving from his car, instead of the Fuhrer we know. As for the 1936 Olympics, Riefenstahl focused on the athletes of the Olympics, instead of the racial conflicts that society remembers the Olympics had that year. Fri, 20 May 2016 12:03:11 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=525268 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=525268 Within those 50 seconds, the Lumiere saw a medium in which they can show whatever they wanted. They used film as a way to show different sides of society. The people coming out of the the factory. A guy watering plants A baby eating with its parents. Different aspects of society were captured. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:25:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=525256 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=525256 A documentary can state facts that are general knowledge to enhance it's own credibility with the audience. Then it can go on to make it's points on a certain topic. With the initial credibility, the audience will have an easier time believing the film. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:10:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=525250 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=525250 Fri, 20 May 2016 10:07:02 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=525249 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43736?scroll_to=525249 Fri, 20 May 2016 10:04:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=525242 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=525242 Fri, 20 May 2016 09:59:59 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=525031 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=525031 Thu, 19 May 2016 22:16:46 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525019 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525019 Thu, 19 May 2016 21:56:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525017 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525017 Why We Fight is a propaganda film. It has this certain view of how the war is affecting the people of Great Britain. The damage and events of the German bombings are true, giving the film some truth to it. The effects it had on it's people were exaggerated. People may not have been just dusting themselves off after every bombing. It only showed you that to get you to believe in the strength of the common British person. Thu, 19 May 2016 21:52:46 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525013 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=525013 It could be an escape in the sense that it puts you in film. If a documentary were using interviews, it makes you feel you are there listening to the person speak in front of you. Thu, 19 May 2016 21:45:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=525010 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=525010 I think the intention of the film was to tell a story untold. She got to tell her own side of her story. I'm guessing Muller exposed her on her lies to tell the audience not to take her words for fact. Thu, 19 May 2016 21:43:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=525007 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=525007 I think the real Riefenstahl was just as much the person she was trying to portray as she was the person Muller was revealing. She was trying to show that she was this amazing, sweet person, but Muller showed she had this aggressive side to her. She showed you what she wanted you to see to seem more likable, but the combination of the two create a more honest picture of her. Thu, 19 May 2016 21:32:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=525005 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=525005 From the parts she directed, she makes herself out to be this innocent artists who became successful through the skills of her craft. The other parts that Muller chose to add shows exactly what the paragraph mentions "She knows what she wants and she gets it." Thu, 19 May 2016 21:26:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=515450 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=515450 Films shot in the raw don't always feel more real than one shot in a studio. A studio can create a very realistic scenario that a person can find themselves in. The reactions of the characters in that scene can be just as real as catching raw footage of the same scenario. Mon, 02 May 2016 14:56:09 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=515449 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43742?scroll_to=515449 The film of a real event is only a perspective of an event. It doesn't show the entire reality of the event. Fri, 20 May 2016 09:59:59 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=515261 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=515261 I don't think this film presents Riefenstahl as a liar, but as someone enthralled with capturing power. Control and Power had been the basis of her artistic career. Whether being a ballerina, rock climbing for a film, or making films herself, these two ideas are what represented Riefenstahl as a person. She seemed more ignorant of her own involvement and did not want to come across as a villain. Fri, 20 May 2016 18:01:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=515260 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=515260 I don't think politics and art can be separated. Triumph of the Will was like Riefenstahl showing the world the Hitler she saw. Someone strong and beloved by his people. Some of that admiration had to come from a place of sincerity. This film doesn't make that separation either. Muller knew what he was doing when making this film. Some part of him wanted to expose the real Riefenstahl and find out if what everyone thinks she was is true. Thu, 19 May 2016 21:32:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=515258 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=515258 The many scenes of Riefenstahl directing how what shots should be used, how she should speak and where they should film all show that Riefenstahl like to be in control. She wants a film to turn out the way she wants it to turn out. Thu, 19 May 2016 21:26:54 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=515257 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=515257 I think the film does a good job in defending Riefenstahl involvement with the Nazi party. She said many times that she did not admire Hilter because of his physical strength, but the strength of his presence when he spoke. Probably like many Germans did during the time. The scenes of her directing the film show that she likes to be in control and probably like to support those who keep control as well. Mon, 02 May 2016 14:49:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=515255 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=515255 Riefenstahl tried her best to try to hide her very controlling personality when making this film. It was the side of her that she didn't want anyone to know. Everyone hides something about themselves from the world. She was trying to sell herself as someone who wanted to give this new director his big shot, but was used instead to show film is only what the director lets you see. Mon, 02 May 2016 14:48:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=515179 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=515179 I don't think there can be an objective documentary because I think it's hard for a person to be objective. Directors are trying to make you feel a certain way in order to catch your attention. You're more likely to watch something that takes a stance than something that doesn't. Documentaries are films where you are seeing the directors' points of view. As long as the directors are not objective the films cannot be either. Thu, 19 May 2016 21:56:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=515178 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=515178 Documentaries want to make you feel a certain way about a subject. When there is a purpose of persuasion in your message, the truth the documentaries are claiming to be true is compromised. Therefore, documentaries do hold some truth in what they say, but it can only be considered one side of a subject. It holds some truth, but isn't the whole truth. Thu, 19 May 2016 21:52:46 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=515177 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=515177 A film's job is to provide an escape for some period of time in order to engage an audience. Storytelling, music, production, etc. all play a role in allowing the viewer's mind to forget the reality it lives in and make it pay attention to the reality the film creates. Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=515176 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43762?scroll_to=515176 Documentaries document some aspects of a whole story. Since most documentaries aren't full accounts of the said subject their films, they can't exactly be considered to be completely reliable. So in one aspect documentaries are able to display some truth of their subjects, but are not able to paint the complete pictures of those subjects. Fri, 20 May 2016 12:33:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=515175 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=515175 Sun, 01 May 2016 20:11:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=514982 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=514982 Triumph of the Will glorified Hitler. Hitler was the person who was making Germany great and he will continue to do so as long as you continue to follow him. Why We Fight on the other hand was glorifying the average citizen. We are fighting not for the government but for ourselves. We must rely on our strength. Triumph of the Will Hitler out to be something above the average person, while Why We Fight made people like Churchill and the Queen the same as the local baker. Fri, 20 May 2016 22:13:46 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=514981 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43791?scroll_to=514981 Riefenstahl would probably not like the voice over narration. She would think documentary film is first a film before it is a documentary. Having someone chronologically giving you the details of the scenes you're being shown, which could break the entrancing quality that movies should have. Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:19:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514980 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514980 The use of natural sound makes lets you believe your hearing what the characters in the film are hearing. Your not just a viewer anymore, but another worker at this fire station. It make you feel more invested in their fates. Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:18:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514979 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514979 By blurring the lines of what is scripted and what is reality, it makes the scripted scenes feel much realer. If "this" part is true why can't "that" part be. This helps the propagandist purposes of the film be more believable. Fri, 20 May 2016 12:38:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514978 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514978 When the fire station was bombed and the woman attending the phones went on to give her message is a good example of the British spirit. It shows that they will keep doing their jobs until their dead. As long as there is a chance they can keep going, they will still fight. Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:17:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514977 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514977 Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:16:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514975 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514975 I think heroism is in the sacrifice that people make for the greater good without the need of being asked. The men who went out to put out those fires during WW2 were not doing it because they thought they would be remembered, but because it was a job that needed to be done and it was a way to do their part during the war. Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:15:48 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514973 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514973 Singing songs in a quiet time was an easy way to pass the time as they wait for an emergency. Many of the songs were very upbeat to keep morale high. They are putting out fires during war time and know some of them may not come back after some jobs. The toll it can take losing a brother in arms can take a toll on each fireman. Keeping morale up, even if it's just singing a song, is a very important thing to do. Fri, 20 May 2016 10:36:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514970 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43792?scroll_to=514970 The film starts off boringly because these firefighters are just everyday citizens. Their lives aren't filled with 24/7 excitement. Instead, a lot of it is waiting for when they are needed. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:16:46 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=514968 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43790?scroll_to=514968 Although it seems very clear to us, I think she believes she had no part in the Nazi agenda. It's no lie that she wanted to make a great film, but it doesn't change the fact that her film help glorify Hitler. It's also mentioned many times in class about her gravitation to those with power, regardless of who they are. I think it is plausible to believe she would support a man who seemingly had Europe in his grasp. Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:13:34 -0400