All good blogs must come to a blend

Thanks for a great semester!


Good luck on finals!


Have a good break!


And... bye-bye, blog!  (Snf...)






Contra Baudrillard, I now declare this course to have taken place.

Unsurprising

I was taken aback when the helicopter pilot said that Timothy "got what he deserved. I found it horribly disrespectful for him to say that Timothy deserved to die at the hands of the animals he loved. However, I have tried to believe that this is not what the man meant to say. Instead, I believe that the helicopter pilot simply meant that he was not surprised by what happen. Moreover, he believed that Timothy should not have been out there in the first place, that by risking his life for so many years it was simply a matter of time before he was killed by the bears. In this aspect, I completely agree with the helicopter pilot. Sure, Timothy loved the bears. Perhaps it is true that bears have gotten a bad rep in the past. Still, bears are dangerous, as Timothy admitted, and his death was more or less inevitable.

As the movie progressed, I found myself finding Timothy more and more ridiculous. At the beginning I found him to be odd (I had a hard time not seeing him as an Andy Dick-esque person). Further on in the movie, I became convinced that Timothy was not well. His diatribes and antics bordered mentally ill and I found his needing to stay with the bears to be extremely unhealthy. Furthermore, his "protection" of the bears was not good for the animals. He did not belong in the wild with those animals, as he should have known from the numerous warnings posed by the government, and was only serving as a detriment to their lifestyle. It is unfortunate that those around him supported him in these actions, instead of helping him find help for, apparently, deep seeded problems that had plagued him his entire life.

Stuffed Animals

Whether or not Timothy's activities with the bears were moral is not something I can say, but I do feel that they were excessively unnatural. The museum curator made an excellent point when he said that Timothy was disrespecting the bears by remaining so close to them. He seemed to fail to understand that bears simply are not like humans. Many of the "discussions" he had with the bears involved human concepts and structures, none of which the bears would have been able to relate much to even if they somewhere were capable of comprehending English. Perhaps the most intriguing example of this took place right after the two male bears fought for the courtship of Saturn, the prized female. Timothy sets the shot up so that he is in the foreground while one of the male bears is recuperating in the background. He then proceeds to give the animal advice, often relating his own experience with women. Several obvious aspects of this little lecture make the bear's comprehension impossible as well as also offer a surprising amount of insight into Timothy's troubled personality. As already mentioned, he speaks a language the bear doesn't know, and he uses concepts foreign to non-humans. But even if these could be excused, the distance between Timothy and the bear is too great for the latter to even hear the former. Surely, Timothy must have noticed this, indicating that the chief purpose of his advice was not that it was to be understood. So why did he do it? I believe it, just like his time with the bears in general, was meant to fulfill a deficit in Timothy's own character. It was noted that he had always adored animals, especially at a young age. His favorite companions as a young boy were said to be a pet squirrel and a stuffed bear, and he may very well have a made a strong mental connection of animals with the innocence of childhood. His adult life seemed to have been marred by disappointment, alcoholism, and complicated relationships that always seemed to elude him (as evidenced heavily by his musings on why he didn't have a steady girlfriend). The most joy he appeared to derive came from interacting with children, whom he was willing to educate with no charge, and animals. The aforementioned connection he may have made with animals and childhood would also explain his behavior towards the animals of the Alaskan woods. He often speaks to the bears as if they had the cognitive and emotional capacities of young children, which, in my opinion, is a false assumption borne out his desire to return to a happier time in his life. It is this false assumption that failed to acknowledge bears for the wild animals they truly are, and unfortunately, it may have also led to Timothy's untimely end.

Grizzly Man

Did Timothy ‘get what he deserved’, as the helicopter pilot who helped retrieve his bones a few days after he died said?

I think that was a horrible thing for the helicopter pilot to say, and I was actually offended by it. I don't think it's ever okay to say someone "deserves" death, especially someone who hasn't harmed anyone else. In Timothy's case, he was just someone who was very passionate about what he did. He wanted to protect and raise awareness of the importance of protecting the bears. Though sometimes he may have seemed a little crazy, thinking he was a bear and such, he was harmless to them, and it was a really sad thing that when he overstayed the summer, a grumpy bear got angry. It was sad that his girlfriend died with him, but that too wasn't his fault. She chose to stay with him, and it was just accidental and tragic that they both died.

I'm even one who believes in karma - what goes around, comes around. In Timothy's case, though, though he may have put himself in a situation in which it was possible and even probable that he'd get hurt, it is unfair and very ignorant to say he deserved such a fate.

Did he deserve it?

I completely disagree with what the helicopter pilot said about Timothy Treadwell. I do not see how anyone could say that about a person who truly loved the bears and was not harming them in any way. Some argue that it was unfair to take the girl along. I highly doubt that Timothy forced her to go, so it was her decision. I just do not think it's right to say that anyone deserves to be killed. Especially if the person did nothing to cause harm to someone or something else. Yes, he did something that was dangerous but he did it in order to learn more about the thing he was passionate about. I am sure that some people would say that flying a helicopter is dangerous, but would they really said that the pilot "got what he deserved" if he were to get into a crash? Probably not. I guess I felt bad for Timothy. He found something that he loved. Like he said, it was his life. The bears gave him a life. I do not understand how someone could say a thing like that when these trips meant that much to him.

That is no arrow. We just imagine the arrows because we fear them. -Gavin

I was unaware that I would be watching my second Herzog film this semester. I think for some, two Herzog film's may be far too many. However, I digress. For fun, if you can call it that, I watched Aguirre the Wrath of God earlier this semester. One of the themes prevalent in Aguirre is man vs. nature (Already a link to Grizzly Man!). German explorers seeking riches in the 'New World' are consumed by a hostile and chaotic jungle. The jungle seems to bring out the worst in everyone. Where in the eerie lull between battling cannibals and starvation there is betrayal, slavery, and every sin of man conceivable. In the end, Aguirre is left mad with lust and grandiose delusion only to begrudgingly die an untimely death. This is the world of hostility, chaos, and murder that Herzog claims to be the common character of the universe. It is interesting to note that Timothy “finds himself/ his purpose” in nature where as in Aguirre the Wrath of God, man loses himself in nature. I don't claim to know the nature of the universe, but I think in a film like Grizzly Man ,where Herzog and Timothy come together, there is a bittersweet dissonance that seems so right to me. Like a zen type of thing ya know...

The Maintenance of Sanity

I don't think that Timothy is insane, by any means whatsoever. I think that people find it easy to label and judge him as crazy because his passion is unorthodox and largely unrelatable. However, Picasso was very passionate about art, and no one thought of it in a negative or condescending fashion.
I think that Timothy definitely had a drive in his life that was selfless. I don't know whether it was necessarily "moral" or "immoral" but I also think that its all irrelevant predicament. Timothy was doing what he was doing for his personal joy as well as for the betterment of the conditions of the animals. Timothy stated, "Thank you so much for these animals, for giving me a life – I had no life. Now I have a life." I think this reflects on the fact that he was living for a purpose larger than himself. Thus, I think that his decision was moral on an individual level.
This idea of a purposeful life is also supported by the fact that he never shot his girlfriend on film. By trying not to present his personal life as truly connected with his goal of helping animals, it is obvious that his intent was to try and continue to portray an individual, pure approach to his life in nature. If his intent is to keep his message powerful, then he must sincerely care about his work.
This does not sound like the work of a crazy or immoral man to me.

People are Crazier than Bears

Grizzly Man… I am not sure how to even express my thoughts on this. This was the second time I saw the movie, and not only did I not notice any deeper meaning to the film (besides what I had at first glance), I was just increasingly irritated. In my opinion the movie itself has a fantastic premise, and I love how it is a topic that not many have explored. Unfortunately, the main character/narrator of Timothy… Is nothing more than that. To me, his portrayal in the movie is just downright strange, to the point where it takes away from some of the wonder that could have been provoked in the film. His irrational actions, senseless commentary, and overall demeanor just ruin the film for me. I agree that the point of the film is not to be a nature film and not meant to express the wonders of the Grizzlies, but the story of Timothy is just a sad tale.
On that note, reading the quote of whether Timothy got what he deserved… I definitely say he did. There comes a point where a director cannot expect to provoke sympathy by focusing on the failings of the film’s character. When dealing with something as dangerous as Grizzly bears, which is pointed out in the film no less, you have to wonder how Timothy did not get killed earlier. While Timothy did end up “succeeding” in his quest to “be a bear”, he did so (hopefully) realizing that the cost would be his life.
Though, I can’t make this wholly negative. The main aspect of the movie I enjoyed, for the second time as well, was how the film is a great example of good usage of raw films. Ignoring the presence of Timothy, I was able to thoroughly enjoy the raw, seemingly uncut footage of the Grizzlies in their natural habitat. Though understandably not the focus of the film, I just was unable to connect with Timothy and his plight at all, so this served as a useful subplot for myself.

Living With Godless Killing Machines!!!

I feel that Timothy is uncomfortable with his normality--in a way that comes from a dissonance between the self and the ability of the self to either manage, tolerate, or succeed an environment. I believe Timothy possess the will to achieve greatness but for various reasons has never reached it. Timothy's angst against human society is derived from his expectations with himself versus what humanity can offer him. Such an example is when Timothy almost got an acting job for cheers. This is why Timothy ended up befriending the waitress who had also fallen short of her own expectations when attempting to create the extraordinary. I believe the key difference between humanity and nature is the inherent indifference that exists in nature. Timothy is attracted to this indifference as if he is not judged, than who is to force him into metacognition? Who is there to provide tangible evidence that he, for a given facet of talent, is not #1? To Timothy, this indifference much outweighs the positives of humanity such as a stimulating conversation or relationship with another human. Timothy is attracted to nature because it does not see his failures or successes and because of this, Timothy's will to succeed allows him to learn to live with bears. By living with Bears, Timothy's self is satisfied along with, ironically, his interaction with others as he is proving that he can, in fact, be "the best" which would explain why he is so vindictive towards those who tell him he is crazy. These animals have given him the life that makes him extraordinary, something that I believe has needed all his life.

grizzly

The question of Timothy Treadwell's sanity is something I find very interesting and I spend a lot of the time viewing the movie thinking about it. I think the movie greatly manipulated the footage to make him seems crazy. Although, there may be some truth behind it all. After all he spent more than a decade just living with Bears in Alaska with almost no real other human contact for months at a time. I think that prolonged absence from the rest of humanity must have had some effect on him. That is probably why he grew to love the bears so much and felt so strongly about becoming a bear or least close to the bears. Or maybe he wanted to be a bear his whole life, who knows. This is something I would find very interesting to have studied in the beginning, before he set out with the bears as well as when he was out with them. I think Timothy deserved a better director. I think a lot of the footage was apart of his personal diary. Since Timothy was on his own out in the wilderness he was free to express his thoughts such as when he openly spoke about relationships and insecurities he had. I think it was wrong to show all of that in a way. He had no one to talk to but that camera and the footage of his thoughts seems to me to be a bit exploited.

Herzog's film that "Bears" all

I find it funny that both Ebert and Dargis see to compare Treadwll to Kinski's character of Fitzcarraldo from another of Herzog's films appropriately titled Fitzcarraldo. It just so happens that through the duration of the film I was thinking the very same thing myself. Having not previously been exposed to Herzog's non-fiction work I found it profound that a lot of similar themes run through not only his fiction but his non-fiction features.
Herzog is notorious for doing character studies that follow characters who search for an impossible end without always rationally considering the means. Treadwill is not exception but I think presenting him as insane in the film is very biased. Time and time again we hear Treadwell remark on how dangerous his expedition is, and how he will die for his goals, but at the end it seems as if we don't get a good sense of what Treadwill sees in the bears. Treadwill was making a film about the bears but most of their footage has been cut out entirely.
Having watch the Grizzly Man diaries, a TV show on animal planet based around the same set of footage, I can tell you that Treadwell spent time running with bears, wrestling with the bears; he had reason to call them his friends. In the film he is portrayed in crazy, but I think in reality he is far from it.

Grizzly Man: Things to consider

•  Did Timothy ‘get what he deserved’, as the helicopter pilot who helped retrieve his bones a few days after he died said?

•  Was Timothy committing a moral wrong by trying to ‘be a bear’ (as seems to be suggested by the curator of the museum, Sven Haakanson)?

•  Manohla Dargis, in her NYTimes review: Grizzly Man ‘makes you want to grab its maker [i.e., Werner Herzog] and head off to the nearest bar to discuss man’s domination of nature and how Disney's cute critters reflect our profound alienation from the natural order.’

•  Dargis: Timothy ‘traveled a familiar American path shaped by boundless optimism and an almost religious belief in the self’.  Is Timothy’s story quintessentially ‘American’?

•  Dargis: ‘For some, Treadwell’s death confirmed that animal activists and environmentalists are dangerous wackos’.  Can you see how Timothy’s behavior and death might encourage this picture of ‘animal activists and environmentalists’?  If so, is there something problematic about the making of this film (which, for a documentary, has been very popular)?

•  Timothy: ‘Thank you so much for these animals, for giving me a life – I had no life.  Now I have a life.’  In what sense did the animals ‘give’ Timothy ‘a life’?

•  Herzog, the director: ‘I believe the common character of the universe is not harmony, but hostility, chaos, and murder.’  Does Herzog’s attitude surprise you, coming from the director of (what many might consider) a ‘nature’ film, or at least one about an iconic ‘nature’ figure like Timothy?  Is Herzog right about nature/ the universe?

•  Roger Ebert, in his review: ‘The documentary is an uncommon meeting between Treadwell’s loony idealism, and Herzog’s bleak worldview.’  Does Timothy ‘deserve’ Herzog as a director, as Ebert says (and what might this mean)?

•  What do you think about the fact that Amy – Timothy’s girlfriend, who died with him – rarely appeared at all in his films?

Why we think what goes up will come down..

Hume is arguing that there is no inherit reason in how we view the nature of reality. This is because cause and effect are essentially two distinct parts. He argues that it is by experience and habit (the predictable repetition) of cause and effect that allows us to make some connection. Without this experience we wouldn't even have the simple concept of “what goes up must come down”. These types of commonsensical knowledge is impossible to know a priori. I believe that the kind of thinking Hume is doing right now is still beyond many today. Although, in the realm of philosophy it has had it's effect and we've certainly progressed a ways from there. The significance is in how we come to certain conclusions about what we know. Instead of focusing on the destination, that is the knowledge, we are focusing our gaze on the means to knowledge -how we get there. This is important because the how effects the what. This serves only to further cloud truth. Over time truth has become less about whats out there and more about whats in us. It's almost as if reality would be formless without some conscious observer to give it order. The mind is fascinating in how it structures a seemingly overwhelming amount of stimuli. It seems to me that cause and effect is the prime structure for any film, especially documentary. Truth is broken down within the context of the film. It is clear then, all most total control over what is true, or at least perceived to be true, is in the hands of the director.

Hume

Hume's rationalization of custom and human expectation are, what I feel to be, a more specific and concise stance on how we as people are naturally programed to function. We are not only creatures of habit, but creatures that perpetuate habit. It is the relationship of cause and effect which for a long time, drove our species to continue to exist. Fundamentally, cause and effect is a scientific way of drawing conclusions but where Hume interjects is that even our most accurate cause and effect relations are limited by the scope of expectation. I do agree with Hume that custom is not and should not be definite as the statement "a scientific and rigid approach to a situation is the only accurate method of observation" is in itself, unscientific. The issue is that to abandon custom is, like Hume also states, usually foolish. Realistically, we have seen the sun rise and fall on the horizon before--it is documented in our minds as habit. Just because this phenomena is habit, however, does not guarantee its perpetuation. I can expect the sun to rise and fall tomorrow, but that does not make it fact.

Postings on Hume extended

Postings on Hume extended until Monday after break (30 November) at 5p.  This is to account for any confusion caused by the strike, etc.  So if you haven't made either a post or a comment by then, do so to obtain credit!

See you after break.  Have a good one!

On Hume...

For me, the opening quote of the article really struck me. I feel this really gives a good summary to the article, and properly describes one of the most interesting phenomena, that of the aspect of memory. Of all species, the ability of humans to look back to past experiences, and learn from them (or at least apply some concepts of them), is seemingly unique and very useful.
Hume separates his main ideas into two branches, that of the thoughts and the other impressions. In my opinion, this relates to thinking, and analysis. In this way, memory is a great application of this, allowing a “recording” of a moment, which can be repeated and analyzed later. Moreover, he seems to question the idea of assigning definitions to items. To address the point of what is truth I feel he does not really reach a conclusion, as that in of itself is assigning something, and thereby creating a flaw in the argument.
His basic points still ring true as introducing fundamental concepts, such as that of memory. One of his more confusing arguments is regarding cause and effect, in the sense that every single cause can have virtually an unlimited amount of effects. This directly is derived from his argument on the human imagination, as it is due to this cognitive reasoning skill that so many possible solutions are calculated and possibly expected.

The hue of Hume

I think Hume is making a lot of arguments but one that sticks out particularly to me, and how I interpret much of what he is saying is that their is two ways to understand the world. One is a philosophical way. We can philosophize and hypothesize about the nature of gravity, or life, or science but at it's core we can never truly understand these things as we only sees them as the minds sees them, as humans. On the other hand we claim to understand fire, water, rock, and earth and yet we are barely able to grasp the surface of what these things mean. We assign numbers and names to the things that we do not understand to mask our inability to really grasp the true forces of nature that guide and control these things. While I disagree about the inability to grasp science, I do agree that the realms of science and philosophy are very different and are both much easier understood when they do not cross.

On the Power of Reflection

I can't help but agree with Hume's assertion that one's memory of a feeling is not as strong as the actual feeling itself, but only to a certain extent. When he claims that the strongest memory is duller than the weakest feeling, I feel compelled to disagree. This may seem very odd, but it is something I have experienced strongly on countless occasions: certain perceptual cues can elicit feelings and emotions from my past. For example, last winter there were a few pieces of music that I listened to almost ad nauseum , and when I listen to them now, I instantly experience a kind of deja vu; just about everything I felt during the winter when listening to the piece I suddenly feel again. Memories and emotions will reappear, and I'll even be reminded of physical perceptions, such as the feeling of the biting cold on my skin, or the taste of hot chocolate. These memories may not be as strong as the originals, but they do possess a superior quality (at least in my opinion). When I listen to a piece of the music, the result is a compression of everything I felt at the time into one big, unified feeling. The memory combines everything from that era and creates a nostalgia that simply cannot be described in words.

Hume: Memories as Inferior Perceptions

I have a hard time agree with Hume's assertion that "the most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest perception." While I do agree that generally there is a loss in "quality" when a perception is commuted to a thought, but I do not think this to be always the case. I believe that this supposed superiority arrives from the complements to the perception, such as adrenaline that is released when a person is confronted by pain. Therefore, it is not truly the perception that is being compared to the thought, but the manipulation by the human body that amplifies the perception that is being compared. If this bare perception is compared to the thought, I believe that a thought can indeed become superior to the perception. This occurs when a thought exaggerates a memory. While Hume is correct to say that a thought will not be the same as the original perception, in that it may not be the same force or vivacity, he is not correct to say that the thought cannot invigorate feelings stronger than the original perception. For example, if a relatively mundane experience, with little perception, is for some reason converted to a rather important memory in a person's mind, the recall of this memory should become stronger than the original perception. If the recall is strong enough, I believe that the same reaction that usually accompanies perception can arise again, like with the adrenaline example. This way, the memory will invoke a greater reaction than the original perception. I have known this to occur in my own life on a few occasions, when an event takes on greater significance later in life.

Hume

I think that these quotes are trying to say that the mind can in no way recall a situation and have the same effect as the initial experience. Thinking about a particular feeling or event does not even compare to the actual incident. Not to say that thinking about certain things cannot evoke emotion, but I believe that the mind has limitations and cannot recreate an occurence. I would say that I agree with him almost one-hundred percent. With the example of heat and pain, I think that it is very obvious that actually feeling these two things is different than experiencing them. If you are badly burned, heal, and then think about being burned the sensation is not going to suddenly reappear as it used to feel. You may remember that how much it hurt, but you will not feel it again. I suppose the only part that I disagree with is remember emotion. If someone in your life were to die, thinking about it could be just as painful as when you found out. I would say that this could have an effect on how people portray a situation in a documentary. If they are recalling information, it may not be entirely true because they are not actually experiencing it again. They are just remembering. And as I said, the mind has limitations so it seems almost impossible for someone's depiction of a situation to be completely accurate.

Hume

I think what Hume is trying to get at is that our minds are not capable of observing the world as it truly is and recalling our feelings, emotions, and senses to their full extent later. There is something that inhibits our senses from observing the real world and recalling that information. I really like the way the first quote posted stated it as many of the others did as well. I think this is a valid argument. I don't know if this is exactly what he is talking about but I thought of how our minds can make memories that we don't actually remember. I know personally I do it all the time as do all members of the human race. I have been friends with my best friend Jenny since we were two. She has told me the story of how we met so many times that even though when she first asked if I remembered and I had no idea, I can now vividly relive it like it were this morning. This happens a lot as well when people witness a crime and they are called in for their testimony. We learned about this in my psychology class, people will swear on their lives that person x was there or event y happened even when it is not true proven later by videos and such. Our minds are capable of changing our perceptions and that brings up so much more debate on reality. I think this all relates to what we talk about in class because making a documentary should capture reality. We have discussed it for weeks, and if even our minds don't know what is real, how can a filmmaker present that to the world? It is all very interesting to think about. Sorry for rambling.

Strike!

I'd love to see you guys have a forum to discuss your views on the GEO strike.  So have at it!  I hope you don’t mind if I on occasion post my own reflections (this is not class-content-specific), should you guys get a discussion going.  Some disclaimers here:

-  You are NOT required to post anything here.  This is not a class assignment and will not be graded.  It is just here to get you guys thinking about what all this means.

-  Any views that you post here will in no way be considered in grading for the class, nor will they be held against you personally.

So, what do you think about the strike?  Do you feel like you understand why it is taking place?  What do you think is happening to this University or universities in the U.S. in general?  How should universities spend their money?  Is there anything we can learn from this experience?  Are unions a good thing or bad thing?

If I may, here is an example of what some people regard as poor uses of money (money that the University perpetually claims doesn’t exist, despite perpetually rising tuition): an investigative report I just came across about the UI Research Park:

www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2009/11/15/a_decade_later_jurys_still_out_on_ui_research_park

Hume

I think that Hume is trying to imply that the mind has limitations. He mentions how he believes that although one can remember his/her experiences, the true feeling of the experience can never again be felt. The later quotes bring up other limitations of the mind, like not being able to truly grasps certain concepts or understand entities.
I remember Hume from my philosophy class teachings as very skeptic of the mind and body’s ability to truly perceive the world for what it is. I’ve never really supported the philosophy regarding the limitations of the senses, as it has always seemed very impractical and in a way, neglecting. I think that it is enough to say that we do feel things and that we can interpret and consciously analyze and understand those sensations is fascinating enough to me. And as for being skeptic of the power of the mind and of thought, I feel that one should focus more on the amazing reality that we are sentient beings than on the fact that we can’t mentally accomplish everything. The fact that we can ponder about pondering is definitely enough for me.

Feel/Think

‘Every one will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination. These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment… The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.’

I think his point is very clear here: feeling something is infinitely more powerful than just thinking about it. With that said, I think I agree with him point. He uses the example of heat and warmth, but if you think about a time when you've been in pain - the time when you actually felt the pain and it was inflicting your life right then will be more significant and more powerful a sensation that recalling it later or telling someone, "I had the worst calf cramp last night," because you're not feeling it anymore. The physical sensation combined with our emotional reaction exerts so much more energy than mentally recalling said event. The same can be applied to something pleasurable. How many times is the phrase, "I can't even describe to you..." used when saying how you felt in a wonderful situation? The reason we can't describe it or use words to portray what it meant to us at the time is because it's no longer that moment, in that situation, and we're no longer having that wonderful feeling.

I think it makes perfect sense. If I didn't do a good job of explaining it, let me know, because I know I have problems with that, but I think this is a really good point of him to bring up, because even if we see it to be true when it's explained, I don't think it's something we necessarily think about and think about why it happens.

Week 12: Hume!

Here are some central quotations from the David Hume selection, from An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.  Use them in answering the following questions:  Can you spell out what his argument is?  Is it a good argument?  What is the significance of his argument?  How does it relate to the discussions that we have had of ‘truth’, and how we can know it, in documentaries?

Believe it or not, this argument, or set of arguments, and their implications have had a huge effect on philosophy from the 18^th century onward!

•  ‘Every one will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination. These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment…  The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.’  (1)

•  ‘All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact.  Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain…  Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would for ever retain their certainty and evidence.’  (3)

•  ‘It may, therefore, be a subject worthy of curiosity, to enquire what is the nature of that evidence which assures us of any real existence and matter of fact, beyond the present testimony of our senses, or the records of our memory…  If we would satisfy ourselves, therefore, concerning the nature of that evidence, which assures us of matters of fact, we must enquire how we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect.’  (4)

•  ‘But the same truth may not appear, at first sight, to have the same evidence with regard to events, which have become familiar to us from our first appearance in the world…  We are apt to imagine that we could discover these effects by the mere operation of our reason, without experience.’  (5)

•  The mind ‘must invent or imagine some event, which it ascribes to the object as its effect; and it is plain that this invention must be entirely arbitrary. The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination.  For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it.  A stone or piece of metal raised into the air, and left without any support, immediately falls: but to consider the matter a priori, is there anything we discover in this situation which can beget the idea of a downward, rather than an upward, or any other motion, in the stone or metal?’  (5)

•  ‘But if we still carry on our sifting humour, and ask, What is the foundation of all

conclusions from experience? this implies a new question, which may be of more difficult solution and explication.  Philosophers, that give themselves airs of superior wisdom and sufficiency, have a hard task when they encounter persons of inquisitive dispositions, who push them from every corner to which they retreat, and who are sure at last to bring them to some dangerous dilemma.’  (6)

•  ‘In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. Their secret nature, and consequently all their effects and influence, may change, without any change in their sensible qualities.’  (7)

•  ‘And it is certain we here advance a very intelligible proposition at least, if not a true one, when we assert that, after the constant conjunction of two objects – heat and flame, for instance, weight and solidity – we are determined by custom alone to expect the one from the appearance of the other…  No man, having seen only one body move after being impelled by another, could infer that every other body will move after a like impulse.  All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning.’  (9-10)

When Going Crazy Might Be A Good Thing...

I have to say that the movie was far more interesting than I initially expected. The whole idea of rumspringa was an intriguing concept, and one that I assume is one of the more well-known aspects of Amish culture.
In regards to my opinion on it, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I understand the context behind it, in allowing the youth to truly decide whether or not they wish to continue the Amish way of life or rather to adapt and move into the real world. Unfortunately, since the kids have been “held back” for so long, they subsequently become absolutely ridiculous, to the point of being dangerous, in trying new things. To them, I feel it must almost be a feeling of doing everything that they have missed in the last four years (or will miss the rest of their life if they return to the Amish). In that sense, they may feel it justifies their actions, which include extraordinary things such as binge drinking, extreme drug usage, and in general, complete disregard. I almost think it can be related to those kids who end up in college, and have been prevented from doing anything they may have wanted to in the past. They are the ones who gain the misfortunate label of “crazy partiers”, etc, in all, causing lots of harm to themselves.
I think it is slightly difficult for us to interpret the purpose or success of rumspringa. For us, the Amish are just an entirely different religious sect, one that is hard to relate to. They have their advantages and disadvantages, but what these actually may be is entirely subjective. Each person will interpret and understand the culture differently. In that sense, one has to be neutral towards rumspringa, and while I do feel it is an incredibly dangerous tradition that promotes very bad habits (if they choose to go back into society), it also gives the youth a chance to evaluate their religion and choose whether or not to follow it. Religion is one of those few things that is incredibly powerful and controlling, and allowing a 16-year-old to determine their own ways is at least better than being indoctrinated for life at birth.

Sweet 16

While some may think that 16 is too young of an age for rumspringa to begin, I don’t think this is the case. In Amish culture this is the age where they believe that individuals become adults. It does not make sense to impose a different age that corresponds to when the “English” world thinks people become adults. It is quite possible that Amish teenagers are more mature than English teens. They have been raised to be modest and hard workers. Hard work requires discipline and responsibilities that can mature a person quickly. Also it is important to remember that rumspringa does not necessarily end when a person turns 17. It can last for several years if needed. So someone who entered rumspringa at 16, could be in his/her 20s when he/she decides to enter the church or leave the church. People change and it can take years to do so. So it may be pertinent to start rumspringa at a rather early age in order for a person to decide what he/she wants to do and start his/her life, whether it is Amish or English.

Exposure Therapy

The idea of rumspringa is a very dangerous one, but for that reason, it is also strikingly effective. When Amish children turn 16 and are allowed to live like the "English", the reality is that they will do so in a hyper-real sense. A life of restriction will lead them to heavily experiment with those vices they had previously been forbidden to engage in. Several consecutive nights will be consumed by the consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, and illegal drugs, a pattern of behavior that would exhaust even the most rambunctious American teenagers. For those Amish teens who copiously abuse substances, an inevitable association between rumspringa and heavy partying will be created; they may even begin to see this as the dominant activity in the "English" way of life. And more often than not, this association will be a very negative one, due to the unpleasant after-effects that drug-intake can engender. They may supply the user with a highly elated mood, or even a state of intense euphoria, but this will ultimately come at a cost, be it in the form of a hangover, an unfulfilled drug craving, or withdrawal symptoms. This new way of life compared to their Amish counterpart is surely like night and day, and rumspringa is probably a huge shock for them. It is true that some do choose to leave, but it seems that their reasons go beyond desiring the freedom to party hardy. For those who really had no qualms with the Amish faith and just wanted to experience the "English" lifestyle, rumspringa will most likely be a fun yet ultimately undesired way of life.

How old is too old?

The question posed is, assuming that rumspringa is a good idea, at what age should it occur? To me, it is a question of when a person comes into their own sentience but has not yet solidified their world views. In this view, I see 16 as a perfectly acceptable age for rumspringa. I can see arguments the could be made to push the age a little bit older, so that actions taken may be committed by legal adults, not minors, but his sort of definition of person is an arbitrary age mark set by another culture. If the Amish believe that 16 is the age at which personal development is at a crossroads, when questions about the ways of life are forming, then 16 is the age at which rumspringa should take place. In my own mind, I liken rumspringa to a b'nai-mitzvah for a Jewish adolescent. It is an event or ceremony that takes place to recognize an adolescent as an adult member of the community. If the event is completed, then that person shall be seen as an adult. B'nai-mitzvah's occur at 13, generally, and this age has always seemed a bit antiquated to me. Rumspringa, is comparison, is not only more informative for adolescents but it occurs at a much better age. The main point is, if rumspringa was for people under 16, they would be unable to act independently and experience the outside world; if rumspringa was for people over 16, there beliefs would be more concrete and less open to the outside world.

To be or not be... another ghastly misquote (Gavin)

I do think that rumspringa provides a 'vaccination' against modern 'english' life. The 'vaccination' is only effective when certain qualifications are met. By these qualifications we can then shed light on the proper age for rumspringa. The qualifications are: complete independence, the ability to grasp complex ideas and relationships, the ability to attain any desire. Surprisingly, rumspringa is strikingly similar to Siddhartha Gautama's teaching, from at least what I believe it to be. This is that in order to truly live as an ascetic and enjoy the life without you must first fully experience a life of luxury. The reasoning is that without this experience you will always question what it would be like. Of course, Siddhartha also goes on to reject ascetism opting for the “middle way”... but I will return to my main idea of qualifications. These qualifications require a more mature individual. It is my belief that 16 is too young, because at this age they have a false understanding of what rumspringa is. It is not a time to consider their salvation, but rather a time to party before they live Amish. This would explain the high return rate. At age 16 you are not able to be fully independent, nor are you able to fully grasp the complex ideas and relationships of life. A person who would meet these qualifications would need to be 20+ and continue to receive some schooling past age 12 (this is necessary because lack of schooling forces them to rely on the Amish way of life). I would wager that if they did this the rate of return would fall, so perhaps it is not in their best interest.

Running Around

I believe that 16 is an appropriate age for the "vaccination" of the side of English life that the Amish kids miss out on but not an appropriate age for the Amish teens to experience English life. I do not believe that the Amish teenagers are likely to experience real English life however, as 16 is much too young to want to seek out a more modern adult life with a job and responsibilities. Even though I say that 16 is too young for one to seek out a true adult life, I do not believe Rumspringa is about this. Rumspringa translates to running around and because of this I do not believe that the true intention of this rite of passage is to be properly introduced to a life in which one can prosper in the long term. Rumspringa is made to cope with the energy of youth so that the youth can understand that a life of partying is no long term substitute for the void filled by the deep seeded Amish values that would be revoked should they not decide to commit to the church. Amish teens are schooled insufficiently should they prospect to get a serious career and by default are almost pulled back to a life they have been so accustomed to.

It's Gotta Be Sweet 16's, Not M-16s

I think that the Amash practice of waiting 16 years before baptizing a person is a very honorable and respectable idea. I don’t want to tip my toe into the argumentative world of religious discussion, but I definitely think that waiting for someone to choose to join the Church and Amish practices cannot hurt, and I’d go as far to say that it is a more sensible, fair, and individual way of approaching the decision of belonging to a faith.
However, I do not think that rumspringa is necessarily a “good idea.” And I certainly wouldn’t call it “honorable.” I do think that, in idealistic principle, letting Amish teens rummage through the world in order to better understand their decision to shelter themselves from it benefits them in allowing them to make a more knowledgeable decision about baptism, as well as giving them valuable life experience. But the practice isn’t as sensible, controlled, or benevolent as one would hope.
Rumspringa falls short of being honorable when the temporary becomes permanent. If teens are hardly given advice and then are forced into situations where they have to choose between fighting the mob mentality of hundreds of other hormonal and frenzied teens, they will undoubtedly make some mistakes, and in theory, that is necessary. However, getting addicted to crystal meth isn’t something that “goes away” when rumspringa comes to an end. And the possible effects of a criminal record are no joke either.
Believe me, I’m not going to say that people can blame their decisions on outside influences while neglecting the fact that they had the power of choice the whole time. But I would not say that a force that can tarnish good souls and delineate future goals should be called entirely “good” or should be considered honorable. ‘It is what it is,’ out of tradition mixed with modernism, but perhaps the modern world has changed enough that, in some ways, rumspringa needs to be relooked.

The world is a Devilish Place

The Devil's playground certain brings a number of intense of deep rooted issues to light. At it's core it is a story of rebellion, of choosing your path in life. Of course, in today's society when a young adult rebels it is only after years of learning of learning the rules and customs of todays society, and in most cases because the societal folkways and mores are so deeply set we only possess the ability to drift so far. On the other hand the Amish do not know much of what "English" society as OK, or not OK. They seem to believe that by doing a trial run of being "English" at 16 they must drink every night, do drugs (pretty extreme drugs in some case) and possibly even leave home. Of course, they would most likely know little of alcoholism, drug overdoses, and addiction. One may question why it is the retention rate is so high. It is not because more people like Amish society than "English" society, rather it is because they do not truly experience "English" society. They experience a hyped-up version of "English" society that is sure to be exhausting to anyone, and so eventually why they see being Amish as the only alternative, they eventually go back to the church.

Kelly Larkin

I'd have to say the idea of rumspringa is a really smart idea. I think by allowing teenagers to choose which life they want to follow, those who actually choose Amish really want to be there, really believe in the faith, and really remain loyal to their family and the church (in most cases). In opposition to a religion like Catholicism, one I have much experience with, there is no "deciding period" or anything for someone to decide to leave or join. Most of the time, baptisms are performed as babies, and if the parents are religious, the child usually grows up religious. Not having this choice and exploration, I feel, leads to a lot more rebellion later on, and a lot more skepticism of what's been taught all their life.

The easiest opposition to make against rumspringa is that by allowing children to explore the "english" world, they are therefore allowed to do illegal and immoral things. Should minors really be allowed to do that, and then just allowed back into the church and forget about all those things when they decide to come back? Can methamphetamine drug-dealing be forgotten and forgiven that easily?

I feel like 18, fully legal, might be a little more appropriate of an age for something like rumspringa, especially if the kids are living on their own and everything, but 16 isn't too bad. It's definitely old enough to be able to make decisions and take responsibility for those and for their actions.

Oh the Amish

The statistic that 90% of Amish kids choose to join the church is not surprising to me. Religion is something that is a big part of people's lives especially when the faith is a lifestyle as well. Children who grow up Amish have only known the Amish lifestyle. And that is saying more than it sounds. They are taught and raised on the foundation that the lifestyle of the Amish is the way to get into heaven, and that getting into heaven should be all that they work for in life. The lifestyle has to be difficult, as many of the people in the movie openly admitted. But they find it satisfying, as the one man said they just grow used to not having cars and television and such. People typically go with the ideas that they were raised on as children, and that is why 90% of people raised Amish join the church as adults. There are some who find it is not for them, but for the most part it is part of our nature to stick with what we know. I think it is really good that they have a choice in the matter because joining the Amish church is joining the lifestyle, I don't believe it is right for someone else to make that choice for you. Although I do feel bad for the kids in the time of Rumspringa because there is so much pressure on them to join the church from basically everyone they know and love in their lives. 16 is a very rough age for any person. They have a very big life decision to make at this fragile age, but then again so do most "English world" kids. We had to decide where we wanted to go to college, or if we even wanted to, where we would live, what our future career would be, and the list continues. I also feel bad for them since they are forced to leave school after 8th grade. This has to make the decision much less informed because they do not have a lot of the knowledge that comes from higher education, nor are they very capable to obtain in. Overall, I can see that is it tough, but I am glad they have a choice.

Also, the Amish church is not the only Christian church that baptizes later in life opposed to at birth.

16?

I would definitely agree with the idea of rumspringa. I think it is only fair to let each person decide whether that is the kind of life they would want. In order to make that decision they must know what is it like both inside and outside of the Amish community. However, I do not believe that they should be set out into the world at 16. In the 'english' world we are considered adults and 18, and I find that a stretch. I do not think that they are capable of making a decision that important at that age. As we saw in the film, growing up as an Amish child means you are sheltered from things that 'english' teens are exposed to everyday- even things like cars and cigarettes. After being kept from these objects and opportunities their entire lives they feel the need to experience it all. Often times it leads to reckless and self-destructive behavior. I do not think 16 year olds are mature enough to make good decisions. I agree with the concept of rumspringa, but I think it should take place at an age of about 20.

'Devil’s Playground': Things to consider

•  In the context of Amish life, is rumspringa a good idea?  Is it ‘an honorable idea’ (Christopher Null)?  What might be some arguments against the practice?  Why does it exist in the first place?  Evaluate the Amish practice of waiting until 16 years of age or older to baptize a person (as opposed to most Christian denominations, which do so near birth).

•  Assuming rumspringa is a good idea, is 16 a good age for commencing it?  Is it a good age for providing a ‘vaccination’ (as one participant put it) against modern ‘english’ life?

•  Are you surprised that, apparently, 90% of the kids go back to Amish life?  This retention rate is apparently also the greatest ever seen in the tradition; does this surprise you?  Why might it make sense?

•  Null’s review: ‘a lot of Playground is really familiar, treading dangerously close to Jerry Springer and Girls Gone Wild material.  After about 30 minutes, I’d seen enough to get the drift – it’s a hard choice, and about 10% of kids decide not to “go Amish,” but the vast majority do.  Amish kids are just as rotten as regular kids.  Amish families face the same challenges you and I do, buttons or no.’

•  What is a fulfilled or flourishing life and how do we figure out what it is?  Does it lie in the ‘freedom’ of ‘english’ life, the close-knit family life of the Amish, or somewhere else?

The Basis for Nonfictoin

I certainly agree with Godmilow when she claims that all nonfiction works have the plan to change the minds of viewers at their bases. Furthermore, I'd argue that any publication has this plan at its basis. I strongly believe that when a person places something in a public forum, for viewing of some sort, they are looking for people have an idea portray unto them. In portraying this idea, the artist, in any form, is looking for people to either gain a better understanding of something, to change a previously held belief, or simply find entertainment, thereby changing their present state of mind in someway. Some may say that they present material for their own benefit, but I have never bought into this idea. If a person puts a piece of work into the public spectrum, they are looking for others to view it, judge it, and, in judging it, reevaluate some previously held belief. While some pieces are certainly more effective than others and bring about larger changes, all pieces have at least a minimal effect. So, non-fiction is no exception to this rule. Godmilow is right, when a film maker presents a work of non-fiction, the purpose is most certainly to present an idea to change previously held opinions. This is the base, the reason to be held about all others, no matter what claims may be made.

Convincing is the Name of the Game

To me, this was the most striking quote from the Godmilow document. I feel that it underlies one of my own preheld (and confirmed) conceptions about documentary and, to widen the perspective, nonfiction films in general. As we have previously said in class, all directors come at a movie looking to express some point or perspective on an issue. Since society looks at documentary films and nonfiction works especially in regards to “telling the truth” and revealing something about a possibly unknown topic, it really is in the director’s hands to “change people’s minds”. In my own personal opinion, every type of movie shows some kind of message, which can be interpreted as what Godmilow expresses; a change in people seeing things. In this case, nonfiction should entirely rely upon fact and upon revealing facts, which in many ways, it does. Society looks at, and defines nonfiction as that which DOES change people’s perceptions on a topic. What one must keep in mind is that a change in perception can either be in opinion or in fact. We can see this in a comparison of say, Fahrenheit 9/11’s affect on a viewer verse the effect of a nature film on some exotic penguin in Antarctica. In these cases, each has a different effect on a viewer, but both change some aspect of their mind (perception) and therefore, succeed in Godmilow’s point.

Closure and Compassion

Godmilow brings up a good point when she says that the films she respects the most are those that do not come to closure. I can relate to this part of her statement. I think it is important for films, especially documentaries, to provoke thought in the viewer past the credits. If a film does not bring closure, viewers might be more inclined to learn more about the subject of the film and draw their own conclusions. I think this is what Godmilow wants from documentary films. She wants people to think more instead of just falling into a comfortable, easy thought process.
However, I do not necessarily agree with Godmilow’s view that documentary films should not provoke compassion or sympathy. It depends on the topic and the filmmaker whether or not the film should produce these types of feelings. In the case of Dear Zachary, it was clearly meant to evoke strong emotions in the viewer to mirror the feelings of those affected by the tragedy. Compassion and/or sympathy can drive people to act and think more about a subject just as much as the lack of closure in a film.

Surreal Demands of Perfection

Godmillow touches on a consistent theme of documentaries in stating that the audience's role can be minimalized to that of a position of warship on behalf of the hero, to that of compassion for the attractor of tragedy. This is evident in almost any movie but also in a well-executed documentary. There is something about being a member of an audience which exempts one from "the responsibility either to act or even to consider the structures of their own situation". It is difficult to break this mold sometimes as a documentary can exploit a seemingly three-dimensional window of reality but only give one interpretation of it--such as in "Dear Zachary". It is because of this that, when behind the lens, the audience's true judgment, as it would manifest in a real life application, is "not implicated". My favorite application of this logic is from "The Bridge" where the man behind the camera lens filming the woman about to jump off the bridge expressed a sense of detachment from what was occurring. I believe he was under the influence of a fragmented reality perpetuated by the organic bias of his hands and the mechanical bias of his camera lens. This is essentially what I believe Godmillow is arguing. In real life, I believe there exists no perfect hero or a true tragic figure and with all other extremes on the personality spectrum implicated, the only environment in which is cohesive to their surreal demands is one which is flattened and therefore, perpetually incomplete.

Sensational Documentaries

Godmillow and Shaprio make an interesting point concerning the type of documentary commonly produced today; many of them are sensational in their subject matter and presentation, and many of them portray their "characters" in both tragic and heroic shades. While their effectiveness depends more on the subject matter, I don't believe this to be an inappropriate practice, necessarily. Like any good piece of literature, a movie must be based on an interesting framework or structure, and documentaries are no exception. And there is nothing wrong with the idea of creating a documentary that uses the framework and devices of a fictional story. The best example of this I can think of is a film entitled "Protagonist". Created in 2007, the documentary examines the lives of 4 very different men whose life stories follow the course of Euripides' dramatic structure with remarkable similarity. The story has a plot framework and all four men are portrayed in "tragic" and "heroic" terms. This is what makes the movie so fascinating; the fact that these real-life accounts so closely-- and unknowingly-- resemble a dramatic structure created thousands of years ago. It's help to reinforce the idea that drama should reflect real life, and vice versa. Here, nothing is being manipulated or altered, and the borrowed outline helps to illustrate and important point.

The age old need for closure. -Gavin Owens

I would wager that any American off the streets would rather have closure at the end of the film than “to feel uncomfortable”. I think a statement like this reveals a graveness in Godmilow's take on documentary. In the interview, Godmilow avoided the negative connotations of making an audience “feel uncomfortable” with film because of her conviction that this was the responsible way to present a documentary. Still, I would have to agree with Godmilow in her statement. To illustrate using an example... I also respect the talented Jazz musician (a form of music that often doesn't come to complete closure). It is incredibly difficult to be a great Jazz musician as there is a wide range of variability. In other words, it's complex. Why do I have to fiddle around, for god knows how long, simply to find the nearby low-range public radio station whenever I desire Jazz? Meanwhile, the myriad of stations I brush past keep blaring a steady flow of Lady Gaga. The masses do not appreciate complexity. They do not want to be challenged. They are not interested in watching some esoteric film about “the most abject peoples in the world” only to be harassed by a cynical anarchist wielding a camera. Godmilow certainly has a point when she scolds mainstream documentaries for catering to their audiences. I do not believe, though, that Godmilow's favorite films should necessarily become the norm for what it means to be a documentary. The best way to mobilize the masses and to have the broadest impact is to appeal to these “traditions”. Ken Burns is more successful for it and that is something Godmilow will have to deal with.

Life: A Thing that Cannot be Captured by a Camera

I think we have focused a lot in this class about what can be trusted of documentaries and what power a documentary has. I still retain the belief that it is simply impossible to argue that one method of approach is more "true" than another, they are just true in different way in accordance with different purposes. If a documentary is trying to show a third-party perspective on something and succeeds, I would respect its success. And if, like in Dear Zachary, a documentary is trying to fully illustrate one side to a situation, then as long as it holds true to this intent, I would consider it to be worthy of respect.
However, I do agree with the idea of respecting documentaries for not "coming to closure" and not "producing audiences of compassionate spectators of the dilemmas of others." The idea of not "producing identification with heroics or sympathy for victims," as American tradition usually does, is a fascinating observation and one which has changed my view of documentaries. I can understand how one could see documentaries as leading audiences to feel "exempt from the responsibility either to act or even to consider the structures of their own situation." I am definitely a person who believes in being outgoing and being a force of change, so I will personally be considering this idea of the proper execution of the power of a documentary when judging the ethics behind its creation.

Respectable Documentaries

'The documentary films that I most respect don't come to closure and don't produce audiences of compassionate spectators of the dilemmas of others. They don't produce identification with heroics or sympathy for victims, both of which are dominant strains in the American documentary tradition.' (85)

I guess I would just like to start off by saying that I do not agree with this statement at all. The documentaries that I most enjoy and respect are ones that move me or elicit sympathy and compassion for those involved in the film. If a documentary does not have the ability to draw in a viewer and produce some kind of emotion I find that they are incredibly dry and ineffective. I do not understand why identifying with people in the film would make it less respectful. If a documentary film is unable to provide something for the audience to relate to, I feel that they cannot make a strong connection. I find that when I cannot make a connection to the film I become less interested and the information does not stick with me. I guess one could say that documentaries that do not produce compassionate spectators could be viewed as more respectable if they are effective for the audience. But with saying that, I woud not say the reason is not because it does not provide a chance for identification or emotion, but because it is a better documentary as a whole.

"Fantasy World"

‘To me, whether it’s a feature-length film or it’s a 30-second commercial, you are trying to create a kind of mental landscape, a fantasy world’ (74).

Though we've discussed in class the reality of films and of documentaries, I agree with this statement, even in the case of documentaries. We've established that many times, even "reality"-film makers alter or stage the 'reality' they portray on film. To me, even the candid camera catching people doing exactly what they'd do any other time, completely unaware of the filming, shows us this "fantasy world" Morris refers to. If you think about it, any time you're watching film, it's a recreation of the world. Even if it's not a reenactment, per se, it is still not the exact moment that was captured; it's a replay of it. In this sense, it's not real life at all. This may be too nit-picky of an opinion on reality of films, but when considering the statement above my Errol Morris, I think it's applicable.

Besides the recreating fact, any person making a movie is doing it for others to see. When others see it, the filmmaker wants them to take something out of it, and they create the movie they want in order for it to convey what they want. In this way as well, the movie creates a sort of "fantasy world" that may contain truth, or be even completely true, but is still a creation of the filmmaker. Does that make sense?

Entertainment

Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control ‘took literally years to edit and, at one point I gave up on it, completely, because I just could not edit it!… the presumption with every single film that I’ve made is that it’s going to be in theaters. And, given that fact, it’s essential that it works for people who are actually paying money to see it, actually going to see it in a theater.’ (65, 68)

I think this quote brings up an interesting point that we have touched on in class. People liked to be entertained. That fact changes people's opinions on many documentaries. I am sure there are many documentaries that are disliked because they are not entertaining. How many times have we said in class that we did not like a movie because we were just bored. I think it was Adam who said it, but we liked Dear Zachary because it was just like a traditional story line, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. It is this pattern that people are drawn to which is why it is a literary technique used throughout the ages. It has to be difficult for documentary filmmakers to present whatever they are trying to and keep interest. Documentaries have to compete with action films and dirty television for viewers. It is true, they have to make a film that people will want to see and I think that definitely has to have an impact on the final product. It is one thing when you see a film for free and don't pay attention because it is boring, but he brings up a great point, people are going to be paying their hard earned money to see this film potentially. They definitely have to make something worthwhile and with the way our minds work, something entertaining.

A dichtomy

I think the two articles that we look at kind of present a dichotomy of sorts. One articles talks of the ideas of how a documentary gets sold. We look at the fact that we can no longer simply present the facts, but rather have to analyze them. For example, you'll never see a film about the Iraq war without some sort of debate over whether some part of the war is morally correct. Yet, the other article talks of this idea of cinema verite. A "truth cinema," the idea that we just leave the cameras rolling and then just talk walk away and these two ideas can not exist simultaneously, how can anyone even try to present reality, if their is a discussion over what that reality is. If and when we live reality we don't debate this, so why is it that when it comes to a film of reality this debate is included.

Week 10: Things to consider

Week 10: Things to consider

Below are some quotations from the Godmilow & Morris interviews to which to respond.  Both of them are highly provocative interviews, so there are a lot of quotations and a lot to talk about!

Godmilow & Shapiro, ‘How real is the reality in documentary film?’

•  Do you agree with Godmilow that ‘to change peoples’ minds or ways of seeing is always there at the basis of all non-fiction’ (82)?

•  Godmilow claims that documentaries should ‘put their materials and techniques in the service of ideas not in the service of sentiment or compassion-producing identification’ (83).  Why does she say this?  Doesn’t the latter description sound a lot like Dear Zachary?

•  Godmilow claims that ‘The real contract, the more hidden one, enables the viewer to feel: “thank God that's not me”’ (83).  Do you think that this is an accurate depiction of the contract between most documentaries and their viewers?  If so, is it a problematic one?

•  ‘The documentary films that I most respect don't come to closure and don’t produce audiences of compassionate spectators of the dilemmas of others.  They don’t produce identification with heroics or sympathy for victims, both of which are dominant strains in the American documentary tradition.’  (85)

•  ‘Today, you can’t get a feature documentary about the cartoonist, R. Crumb, distributed if it simply examines Crumb’s art.  You have to psychologize the artist and visit with the bizarrely distorted members of his family “to understand” what his art is all about… that’s what makes Crumb sexy, and a minor box-office hit.  In moments like the present when everybody is quite fearful of social disorder, it is sensational stories about deranged parents who keep their children tied to a chair in a basement for seven years that are consumable.’ (87)

•  ‘By producing their subjects as heroic and allowing us to be glad for their victories, or by producing them as tragic and allowing us to weep, the audience experiences itself as not implicated, exempt from the responsibility either to act or even to consider the structures of their own situation.’ (87)

•  ‘Even in the first scrap of motion picture film ever shot – Lumiere’s Workers Leaving the Factory, a forty-five-second “documentary” shot of about 100 workers leaving his family plant in 1895 – you can see clearly that Lumiere had his workers collect just inside the factory gates and wait there until he got his camera rolling. It's also pretty clear that he had instructed the workers not to acknowledge the camera, to just keep walking past it as if it wasn't there.’ (92)

•  ‘Now here [The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl] is a classic case where oral history produces bad historical documentary, and where reenactment would have made a much more interesting and honest piece of history.’ (98)

Errol Morris (Cunningham, Art of the Documentary)

•  ‘Morris has taken the uninspired talking-head interview and transformed it.’ (48)  ‘“It’s the difference between faux first-person and the true first-person,” says Morris.  “The Interrotron inaugurates the birth of true first-person cinema”’ (49).

•  (Morris:) ‘When The Thin Blue Line came out, the use of reenactments was considered heretical’ (50).

•  ‘The Thin Blue Line is unusual.  It may even be unique.  It’s not telling the story about a murder case, it’s not about an investigation.  It is an investigation!’ (52)

•  ‘Interviews often take the form of a set of questions that people ask, and they already know the answers that they’re looking for.  They are not investigative.  And I try very, very hard t0 make the interviews that I do something other than about the things that I want to hear, or expect t0 hear, or think I’m going to hear.’  (53)

•  ‘I’ve been accused of having created reality television with [The Thin Blue Line]…  What’s interesting is, in The Thin Blue Line the reenactments are never purported to show you what really happened.  They weren’t a way of illustrating reality.  They were telling you something quite different: that reality often is ineluctable.  That it’s very hard to grab ahold of.’  (56)

•  ‘The Thin Blue Line is a reminder – and I like it as such – it’s a reminder that the claims of cinema verité are spurious.’

‘Why?’

‘It shows that style does not guarantee truth.

‘…  Gates of Heaven was very much a reaction to verité…  [I thought] instead of not staging anything, I’ll stage everything!

‘…  Style is not truth.  Just because you pick a certain style does not mean that you somehow have solved the Cartesian riddle of what’s out there.’  (57-8)

•  ‘I believe the movie [The Fog of War] was fair to him [Robert McNamara].  Maybe it didn't describe him, in every way, the way he wanted to be described.  But the movie was not unfair, and he realizes that…  By the very nature that it does involve one man, I saw the movie as a collaboration.  Not that I allowed him to completely push me around, but that somehow I was trying not to create a brief against him for some imagined war crimes tribunal, but I was trying to uncover how he saw the world.’  (62)

•  Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control ‘took literally years to edit and, at one point I gave up on it, completely, because I just could not edit it!…  the presumption with every single film that I’ve made is that it’s going to be in theaters.  And, given that fact, it’s essential that it works for people who are actually paying money to see it, actually going to see it in a theater.’  (65, 68)

•  ‘I’m very suspicious of documentaries that you can describe with a topic sentence’ (69).

•  ‘To me, whether it’s a feature-length film or it’s a 30-second commercial, you are trying to create a kind of mental landscape, a fantasy world’  (74).

How Fast Can One Make Cutscenes... Severe Problem with Dear Zachary

I do not think I could have worded my thoughts on the movie any better than DeBruge; the movie so considerably altered the sequence of events that it was almost unwatchable at times. I for one was not able to attend class, so I simply rented the movie from the Allen library and saw it. Since I could not finish it in one session, I resumed the second half today. Now, despite the small lull in time (only one day between sessions), I was completely unable to follow a significant part from chapter 10. The fact that the movie had little continuous storyline, instead focused on showing and setting up the murder from all angles, proves the amount of “jumping” around the storyline.

The film itself is full of twists and turns, and never do they seem to fit together into proving some “bigger” picture. This moves into the point that there was little footage of Andrew Bagby, and that almost random footage was strung together to prove a point. I have to draw on an erroneous example from some CSI episode from the weekend, where a man is framed by having a string of his answering machine messages “put together”. In this way, a totally random set of data was combined to form a threatening message. This is part of my opinion of the movie, which does not draw on any long strings of evidence but rather short clips that are botched and placed together. In this way, the filmmaker is able to directly force a point, and when coupled with the fact that (I felt anyways) the movie lacked a complete focus (throughout the entire movie), Kuenne is able to force his opinion upon the audience.

One more point. The way this movie seems to FLY through the evidence; capitals do not express what truly was happening (cut off sentences, weirdly animated figures and pictures, extremely fast narration, quick cuts all over the place). To me this is completely unacceptable, and really causes me to question what is going on in the movie. Why, I must ask, are they trying to rush so fast? Is there something to hide? Something that would reveal “too much”. The argument stays in mind as incomplete, unjustifiable, and entirely aggressive.

Dear Zachary -Brendan Colon

"Dear Zachary" is hands down one of the most emotionally appealing movies I have ever seen. The intimacy of the viewers to the families touched by the murders of Zachary and Andrew Bagby is near impossible to emulate due to the rare circumstances they occurred in and the medium by which they are presented--the documentary. One of the strongest points of this film is its ability to outrage. The story alone is depressing however when paired with the heavy yet very careful manipulation on behalf of Kuenne it becomes surreal. The manipulation used in Dear Zachary was interesting because it did its absolute best to say that it is indeed the truth and that all nay-sayers would subsequently become heartless in the eyes of the believers. Yes, the trial is extremely one sided however the evidence is presented in such an overwhelming manner that to consider an alternative to the story presented would seem to trip on some ethical boundaries. One is not supposed to feel outraged towards the end though. By comparison to the subject matter of the film, the end is uplifting because the body of the movie is simply not.

Dear Zachary

It can't be denied that Kuenne shows a bias in his film, and I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with that. The manner in which he presents the events leading up to both Andrew Bagby and his son's murder are meant to be very emotionally powerful in order for us to better feel the torment and rage felt by all who knew the two, especially Andrew and Kathleen. After viewing it, I didn't feel as if my emotions were manipulated, or that Shirley Turner was unfairly portrayed; it's difficult to imagine a way in which her actions could have been shown in a positive light. By the same token, if there was some aspect of the story that Kuenne omitted that would have changed my opinion about Dr. Turner, I can't possibly imagine what it would have been. She was very likely mentally unstable, but Kuenne addressed this in the film, and the judge had deemed that since her single target had been taken care of, she was sound enough to remain a member of society. Where the film may have been somewhat unnecessarily manipulative of its audiences' emotions was in the title. For most of its duration, we believe that the letter he is writing is to Andrew's son, Zachary (he even states this several times). Logically, everyone assumes that since a letter is being written to him (and an entire movie made for him), then he must still be alive. Indeed, the emotional climax (for me, at least) was when Zachary's murder was presented. By having the audience make a basic assumption, the young child's death is even more painful to learn about. Not until the very end does Kuenne state that the letter is no longer for Zachary, but for his grandparents, meaning that the title "Dear Zachary" exists to mislead and manipulate us. Kuenne could have easily mentioned Zachary's death early in the film (as he had done for Andrew), but this would have made it less powerful. By withholding that knowledge from us, he allows us to relate to those who knew Zachary, for they undoubtedly were unspeakably surprised by the child's untimely end.

Philosophy since the dawn of man has now culminated into "What!?"

In response to “the growth of personal documentary”... When I look at this question, it breaks away from the bounds of documentary and fundamentally becomes a more general question. That is, “is there truth?” However, I will not attempt to answer that question directly. My thinking begins with, “where else do truths exist in context?” The personal point of view is a partial reality created by a partial understanding. Every person attempts to find truth from this paradigm. Applying this to the original question... The distinguishing difference is that a personal documentary does not feign omniscience. It does not pretend to be unbiased. This is what Aufderheide means by a personal documentary calling attention to the partiality of our understanding. Dear Zachary is a perfect example of this. The viewer is strung along point by point as if the film were live footage and every part of that film centers around the Bagby's. Our knowledge is constrained by time while the truths we're given are in the context of the Bagby's world. I think the Bagby point-of-view is easy to see with the image of Andrew contrasted against the image of Shirley. This type of bias is not perceived as a flaw, but rather something that creates an intimate connection. I would say it's probable we perceive it in this way due to its near similarity to the bias applied on to our own reality.

-Gavin Owens

Dear Zachary

Both Dear Zachary and The Bridge left me emotionally drained in different ways. While The Bridge left me completely depressed, after watching Dear Zachary I felt a whole spectrum of emotions. Although outrage was a prominent emotion that I felt, it wasn’t the only one. In my opinion, Kuenne creates this feeling of outrage in the viewer so that he/she can experience what he and all of Andrew’s loved ones felt during this whole ordeal. Perhaps if you feel strongly enough, he hopes that you will join the cause that Andrew’s parents are fighting for. He does an incredible job of doing so. The techniques that he used in the film do a great job of inducing these feelings in the viewer. I think that the manipulations in the movie are justified. This film is being told from the side of those who knew and loved Andrew very much. The emotions and facts presented are those that Andrew’s family and friends believed as truth. It is just as much a grieving process for them as it is a story about Andrew and then Zachary’s short lives. Knowing that this film was finished after Zachary’s death, I wonder if Kuenne would have made the same film since originally it was simply supposed to be for Zachary to learn about his father. If this film were not going to be released to the public, would it have had the same tone as it does now?

Shamelessly Manipulative?

I disagree with critics who claim that Dear Zachary is too aggressive or shamelessly manipulative. My feeling is that the film was obviously biased but the bias is clear. The film was made to make a clear cut case about a situation and to state facts, then to follow them up with opinions. The film was obviously supposed to be loaded with emotion. I do not think that convincing someone of one's case should be called manipulative simply because there is a great deal of emotional support. I was exhausted by the end of the movie, overwhelmed by the sadness of the situation and the shock I felt with the events. In the end, I feel that the aggression that is seen and the manipulation that one may feel are entirely justified, so as to make the film appropriately biased. While that may seem to be a contradiction on itself, there are times and places where bias is necessary and because of this I feel that Kuenne was right in making the film as he did, as it was the most effective way to portray his view of the events of a horribly unfortunate series of events.