Watching "Trouble the Water" definitely changed the way I viewed Katrina and the aftermath of the storm. Seeing the events firsthand through Kim's footage opened my eyes to what the lives were like of the lower class living in New Orleans. I do not know how much more "true" this video footage is to say but it is an interesting perspective on the story. I would not say it is more true, just a different viewpoint on the situation.
The directors added facts to the movie in order to give the viewer perspective that Kim did not offer in her recordings. This allowed them to add more to the film and expand on what happened. The use of music and transitions gave the film more appeal to the viewer as much of the footage Kim shot was shaky and raw. The directors added more in order to keep the viewer from becoming ill from the shaking footage. (at least me) But at the same time I agree with the article written by The Onion that they did not focus enough on the human rights that were taken away from the people living through the hurricane. This is a huge issue that needed to be shown. In my opinion, more focus on this material could have made a bigger impact. I also agree that the film lacked some focus as it seemed to jump around from topic to topic without seeming to really discuss one subject. But I will say that moments in the film gave me goose bumps. Focus is not a good things to lack, especially in a documentary. Lack of focus leads to an inability to send a message, as is the goal of most film makers.
I really would have liked to see more footage taken during the storm as opposed to the post storm emphasis. As outsiders to the event we saw the aftermath, but what I wanted to see from this film was what happened during the storm, the footage not taken by news stations. The footage Kim shot during the time had the most impact on me.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Trouble the Water
"Trouble the Water" was nothing new to me, as I had previously viewed it at Ebertfest. The combined presence of both directors, Kim's family, and film guru Roger Ebert created a different viewing experience for me than the one felt last Tuesday. It was undoubtedly a real treat to hear Kim and her husband sit alongside Carl Deal and Tia Lessin and further discuss the entire ordeal, but an unforeseen side affect may be that my opinions were somewhat skewed in their favor. To be honest, my knowledge of Hurricane Katrina was far too limited and Trouble the Water was the only film I had seen that gave me a more detailed account of what had transpired. It was a very personal documentary, an appealing quality not often seen in other works of the genre dealing with similar major historical events. However, the added political commentary (which seemed sparse) didn't seem to fit, and resulted in a biased representation of the events proceeding Katrina.
I'm not saying I didn't like the film. It powerfully portrayed the tribulations undergone by the Roberts family, and their story is a truly remarkable one. I took a particular shine to Kim, whose matriarchal prowess helped not only her family make through the endless ordeals, but just about anyone she found who was in need of assistance. Along with her husband, the two did their best to keep spirits up, and they never took their frustration out on anyone. When one considers their past, a story of reform is revealed. Both Kim and her husband admit to selling drugs and stealing as a means to scrape by, and the fact that they were able to give it up shows that change is possible, and that a way of life free of illegal activity can be achieved.
The Roberts' journey is nothing short of incredible, and their many impediments are not to be acknowledged lightly. It was difficult to leave their house after flooding, it was impossible to find shelter in an unused army housing complex, and it took several overdue months to receive their FEMA relief check. On top of this, Kim had to endure the emotional pain of her grandmother's passing (as well as several of her neighbors), and the red tape brought on by getting her brother out of jail in time for the funeral was no simple task. The Roberts' journey is a wonderful true-life account that instills many values, among them patience, persistence, courage, and faith.
Where the film seemed to err was how it failed to adequately support its political arguments. Because it decided to focus the majority of its attention on the Roberts family, it left little room for commentary on the whole event. Their disapproving views of the government's actions felt unjustified because the evidence for it was too few and too vague. The total footage of government action could not have exceeded 10 minutes, and I don't recall seeing many actual figures; rather, they were substituted for weasel words like "thousands" and "several". They neglected to interview any actual government officials, and rather filmed only a handful of soldiers and a ditzy travel agent.
The result is an unbalanced film. Their decision to tell the story of a single group of victims was a great one, and the Roberts were a model family to choose as the subjects, but this artistic choice does have its downsides. Proper attention could not be given to the issue at large, and the added political commentary seemed too much like a footnote. I don't mean to say that the entire movie should have had Kim incessantly in the spotlight, but because of the narrative style, she and her family had to have been included in the majority of the scenes. If the directors had stuck to telling her miraculous story and left out the insufficient and somewhat biased opinions, Trouble the Water would have been even better.
I'm not saying I didn't like the film. It powerfully portrayed the tribulations undergone by the Roberts family, and their story is a truly remarkable one. I took a particular shine to Kim, whose matriarchal prowess helped not only her family make through the endless ordeals, but just about anyone she found who was in need of assistance. Along with her husband, the two did their best to keep spirits up, and they never took their frustration out on anyone. When one considers their past, a story of reform is revealed. Both Kim and her husband admit to selling drugs and stealing as a means to scrape by, and the fact that they were able to give it up shows that change is possible, and that a way of life free of illegal activity can be achieved.
The Roberts' journey is nothing short of incredible, and their many impediments are not to be acknowledged lightly. It was difficult to leave their house after flooding, it was impossible to find shelter in an unused army housing complex, and it took several overdue months to receive their FEMA relief check. On top of this, Kim had to endure the emotional pain of her grandmother's passing (as well as several of her neighbors), and the red tape brought on by getting her brother out of jail in time for the funeral was no simple task. The Roberts' journey is a wonderful true-life account that instills many values, among them patience, persistence, courage, and faith.
Where the film seemed to err was how it failed to adequately support its political arguments. Because it decided to focus the majority of its attention on the Roberts family, it left little room for commentary on the whole event. Their disapproving views of the government's actions felt unjustified because the evidence for it was too few and too vague. The total footage of government action could not have exceeded 10 minutes, and I don't recall seeing many actual figures; rather, they were substituted for weasel words like "thousands" and "several". They neglected to interview any actual government officials, and rather filmed only a handful of soldiers and a ditzy travel agent.
The result is an unbalanced film. Their decision to tell the story of a single group of victims was a great one, and the Roberts were a model family to choose as the subjects, but this artistic choice does have its downsides. Proper attention could not be given to the issue at large, and the added political commentary seemed too much like a footnote. I don't mean to say that the entire movie should have had Kim incessantly in the spotlight, but because of the narrative style, she and her family had to have been included in the majority of the scenes. If the directors had stuck to telling her miraculous story and left out the insufficient and somewhat biased opinions, Trouble the Water would have been even better.
Trouble the Water - Kelly Larkin
I found Trouble the Water an extremely eye-opening and moving documentary. I won't lie, in the years between Katrina's devastating hit and now, I haven't really researched or sought out information, film, or opinion concerning the storm, its repercussions, or the way it was handled by the US government. Of course, since I'm not blind or deaf, I knew that most people in the country were appalled and upset by how things were handled. Honestly, I think I was just ignorant enough to think something so far away wouldn't affect or concern me, so I chose to let it go.
Watching this documentary, I was shocked by all aspects of it - the storm itself, the treatment of the helpless and impoverished during the storm, and the lack of control in its aftermath, even months later.
As I read the review of the film on The Onion, I was surprised to hear that Murray found the film's "lack of focus" frustrating, and thought that the lack of footage during the actual storm, and the abundance of it afterward was disappointing. I could not disagree more.
I feel like the film did contain a focus. In my eyes, the focus of the film was to emotionally pull the viewers heart strings and cause them to feel empathy and sympathy for the victims of Katrina and the situation. Granted, I've never really tried to analyze a film, and I may not even have the right idea for what a focus of a film should be, but in my own opinion, that was the focus, and they achieved what I thought they were aiming for. In terms of scene jumping or idea jumping, I thought that it was completely fine. It followed everything chronologically for the most part, and were clear about it when it skipped around. I think that mixing Kim's footage in with real news footage and the director's own footage explored different angles of the disaster, and filled the film out.
In the same review, I found it frustrating that Murray was disappointed with the film's in-storm content. I feel like Kim's footage was plentiful, and it definitely showed enough of the storm for the viewer to realize how chaotic New Orleans was, and how scary it must have been to be in the middle of it. As to the "bulk of the film" being post-emergency, I disagree in that I feel it was not overpowering to watch. I also feel like Murray may be seeing the film from more of an entertainment standpoint than a political or social awareness-raising standpoint. To me, the biggest deal about Hurricane Katrina was the aftermath, the post-emergency time. The devastation, the poor treatment of victims, the helplessness of the city, and the negligence of our government were the most shocking things, and I feel that the directors feel the same way, which is why they would structure the film as they did.
In the end I approve 100% of Trouble the Water as an effective and thought provoking film. Though Murray may have his (her?) own critiques, I find them faulty; however, everything is relative, and I supposed it's just a matter of opinion....
Watching this documentary, I was shocked by all aspects of it - the storm itself, the treatment of the helpless and impoverished during the storm, and the lack of control in its aftermath, even months later.
As I read the review of the film on The Onion, I was surprised to hear that Murray found the film's "lack of focus" frustrating, and thought that the lack of footage during the actual storm, and the abundance of it afterward was disappointing. I could not disagree more.
I feel like the film did contain a focus. In my eyes, the focus of the film was to emotionally pull the viewers heart strings and cause them to feel empathy and sympathy for the victims of Katrina and the situation. Granted, I've never really tried to analyze a film, and I may not even have the right idea for what a focus of a film should be, but in my own opinion, that was the focus, and they achieved what I thought they were aiming for. In terms of scene jumping or idea jumping, I thought that it was completely fine. It followed everything chronologically for the most part, and were clear about it when it skipped around. I think that mixing Kim's footage in with real news footage and the director's own footage explored different angles of the disaster, and filled the film out.
In the same review, I found it frustrating that Murray was disappointed with the film's in-storm content. I feel like Kim's footage was plentiful, and it definitely showed enough of the storm for the viewer to realize how chaotic New Orleans was, and how scary it must have been to be in the middle of it. As to the "bulk of the film" being post-emergency, I disagree in that I feel it was not overpowering to watch. I also feel like Murray may be seeing the film from more of an entertainment standpoint than a political or social awareness-raising standpoint. To me, the biggest deal about Hurricane Katrina was the aftermath, the post-emergency time. The devastation, the poor treatment of victims, the helplessness of the city, and the negligence of our government were the most shocking things, and I feel that the directors feel the same way, which is why they would structure the film as they did.
In the end I approve 100% of Trouble the Water as an effective and thought provoking film. Though Murray may have his (her?) own critiques, I find them faulty; however, everything is relative, and I supposed it's just a matter of opinion....
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Trouble the Water -- Ethan Feldman
In response to both points made by Noel Murray:
I would agree that the documentary lacked some focus. While there was a storyline to follow, the events involving Kim and her family, I felt that there were times that the documentary focused too strongly on facts and not enough on weaving a cohesive plot. That is, it was a bit hard to see a story line when the movie focused ostensibly on exposition and little on explanation. Yet, I do not see this as a great detractor to the film. The documentary was made to exhibit the tragedy of Katrina, and explore the story of Kim and her family. I believe it was successful in doing this, despite my occasional confusion due to an abundance of facts being thrown about.
I would disagree with what Murray has to say about the lack of footage from Kim's time during Katrina. To begin, it is ridiculous to believe that a woman who is fighting for her life should be critiqued for filming too little. Moreover, I was satisfied with the amount of footage taken, as it clearly showed each event Kim described, be it the time prior to the hurricane's landing, the hurricane begin, the retreat to higher ground, or the escape from the attic. It is incredible to believe that this woman has the focus to shoot this footage at all.
In all, I was very impressed by the documentary, as it moved me a great deal. At the time of the hurricane I had very little understanding of what was happening. That spring I went on a service trip to work on homes in Alabama and Mississippi that had been damaged by the storm. The trip flew in through New Orleans and we spent a day driving through the city. Seeing the destruction first hand, even without a personal connection was incredible, for lack of a better word. The devastation of the city, outside of the French Quarter and other higher areas, was like something from a science fiction movie. This documentary did its job of portraying this destruction and going on to show the ways in which Kim, and those like her, were not only neglected but opposed. The fact that in this day and age, in this country, that citizens can be so greatly mistreated is something that should be known by every person in the country and the world. The placement of America as a greater country than any should always be put in question for reasons such as this. I feel as though the documentary did an excellent job in showing what happened to the citizens of New Orleans on a personal level, not the political level that was often shown on news shows. The fact of the matter is that the atrocities were committed against people, real people, and the documentary did an excellent job of showing how they lived through it and are still living through the aftermath, with or without the full support of the government.
I would agree that the documentary lacked some focus. While there was a storyline to follow, the events involving Kim and her family, I felt that there were times that the documentary focused too strongly on facts and not enough on weaving a cohesive plot. That is, it was a bit hard to see a story line when the movie focused ostensibly on exposition and little on explanation. Yet, I do not see this as a great detractor to the film. The documentary was made to exhibit the tragedy of Katrina, and explore the story of Kim and her family. I believe it was successful in doing this, despite my occasional confusion due to an abundance of facts being thrown about.
I would disagree with what Murray has to say about the lack of footage from Kim's time during Katrina. To begin, it is ridiculous to believe that a woman who is fighting for her life should be critiqued for filming too little. Moreover, I was satisfied with the amount of footage taken, as it clearly showed each event Kim described, be it the time prior to the hurricane's landing, the hurricane begin, the retreat to higher ground, or the escape from the attic. It is incredible to believe that this woman has the focus to shoot this footage at all.
In all, I was very impressed by the documentary, as it moved me a great deal. At the time of the hurricane I had very little understanding of what was happening. That spring I went on a service trip to work on homes in Alabama and Mississippi that had been damaged by the storm. The trip flew in through New Orleans and we spent a day driving through the city. Seeing the destruction first hand, even without a personal connection was incredible, for lack of a better word. The devastation of the city, outside of the French Quarter and other higher areas, was like something from a science fiction movie. This documentary did its job of portraying this destruction and going on to show the ways in which Kim, and those like her, were not only neglected but opposed. The fact that in this day and age, in this country, that citizens can be so greatly mistreated is something that should be known by every person in the country and the world. The placement of America as a greater country than any should always be put in question for reasons such as this. I feel as though the documentary did an excellent job in showing what happened to the citizens of New Orleans on a personal level, not the political level that was often shown on news shows. The fact of the matter is that the atrocities were committed against people, real people, and the documentary did an excellent job of showing how they lived through it and are still living through the aftermath, with or without the full support of the government.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Trouble the Waters - Brendan Colon
-This film did change the way I see Hurricane Katrina as I believe I have received a more holistic interpretation of its damage of New Orleans. I saw many parallels between Kim's neighborhood and the poorer neighborhood from Toni Morrison's "Song of Solomon" (can't find underline...). Both neighborhoods have a very close knit community where each member is treated as an extended family. Both neighborhoods also do not have much in the way of things and finance (Kim stating that she was not able to leave New Orleans because she could not afford the bus). This small community mindset is almost entirely alien to me and the most likely reason that I did not initially anticipate what kind of damage Katrina was doing.
-When I saw the news I thought of the damages in dollars and manpower to restore New Orleans but never did I consider the implications of a community being torn. I remember about halfway through the film upon reflection I considered the potential for a similar response in my hometown Naperville. To my disappointment I realized that I am much too attuned to the general Naperville mindset as I concluded the town would have a very similar response to such a disaster as I--a concern for possessions and things over the general survival of the community.
-I find it interesting how community is both the very thing being attacked by Katrina but also what ultimately keeps each member alive during the storm. During the film I was surprised over and over again by the general lack of concern for the condition of Kim's house as it flooded. Just yesterday my dorm room was threatened by not even an inch of water and I probably was more stressed than Kim over the well being of my possessions. I think this sets up an interesting transcendental-esque anecdote. It is both the possessions and the community that are threatened by Katrina, but it is the community that not only survives, but thrives and strengthens as a result of its being challenged. This is probably one of the only positive spins I've seen on Hurricane Katrina but due to my upbringing it is one that I would have never been able to understand without watching "Trouble the Waters".
-When I saw the news I thought of the damages in dollars and manpower to restore New Orleans but never did I consider the implications of a community being torn. I remember about halfway through the film upon reflection I considered the potential for a similar response in my hometown Naperville. To my disappointment I realized that I am much too attuned to the general Naperville mindset as I concluded the town would have a very similar response to such a disaster as I--a concern for possessions and things over the general survival of the community.
-I find it interesting how community is both the very thing being attacked by Katrina but also what ultimately keeps each member alive during the storm. During the film I was surprised over and over again by the general lack of concern for the condition of Kim's house as it flooded. Just yesterday my dorm room was threatened by not even an inch of water and I probably was more stressed than Kim over the well being of my possessions. I think this sets up an interesting transcendental-esque anecdote. It is both the possessions and the community that are threatened by Katrina, but it is the community that not only survives, but thrives and strengthens as a result of its being challenged. This is probably one of the only positive spins I've seen on Hurricane Katrina but due to my upbringing it is one that I would have never been able to understand without watching "Trouble the Waters".
Friday, August 28, 2009
Trouble the Water - Miheer Munjal
- No, the film did not affect my opinion of Katrina. Watching the news from the East Coast, I had already seen most of the different viewpoints on the event, mostly on (in my opinion) the failure fo the FEMA disaster response system and what many feel is indifference in President Bush's official resonse. From what I determined, the movie was focused on showign the so-called "unseen side" of Katrina, and how the hurricane thorouhly and permamently changed the lower classes, as in the Ninth Ward.
- Whether the movie is "truer" or not entirely depends on your definition of truth. In this case, I feel that it does give a better depiction of what actually is New Orleans, the real heart of the city. The city relies upon these lower sections of society, and one major problem of Katrina was the government's response in helping this group of people, and in the movie, this was portrayed extremely negatively (i.e. Kim's attempts to get the $2,000 relief check).
- The use of two concurrent stories, the one of Kim and her family's struggle for survival, and of the news reports and official breifings, allows the audience to constrast the two sides immediately following the other. Kim's home camera footage lends an extremely realistic tone to the piece, as now it is clear that this is not a prepared shoot of the devastation of Katrina, but rather a raw, uncut slice of the descrutction, seen firsthand.
- Again, as with truth, one must define what focus is. If we say it is the directors' pursuit of a certain idea, then Trouble the Water does succeed in this aspect, as the two storylines interweave to showcase the other side of Katrina.
- Whether a person needs a movie to have focus is entirely subjective, as each individual connects ideas in their own way. For Murray, he may be unable to see the bigger picture, or doesn;t want to connect the stories, or simply does not believe or understand the message. Personally, I extrapolate the information provided by Kim and her story, and relate it to my own personal knowledge to form a larger idea about the themes in the movie. Sometimes, having a movie witha lack of focus can e helpful, for while focus may help steer the plotline and guide the audience "through understanding", it can take away from the creativity and originality in the diretors' message. In that sense, Trouble the Water appears to have a little it of both concepts, and this allows it to be understood on multiple levels.
- As far as I am concerned, the fact that Kim's footage is mostly post emergency is fine, and I see no problem with this. In fact, I think this is almost a better way, considering that most people are acutely aware of the pre-Katrina perparations, and maybe not of the immediate impact of the storm.
- I do agree with Murray on the "lack of access" to the "lost rights of Americans". This angle would have been extremely complimentary to the film, andit is quite disappointing that it was not explored. This could have served as the final climax of the film, showcasing and elevating the sense of hopelessness in regards to the original disaster that strikes Kim and family.
- Miheer Munjal (8/27/09)
PS. I could not get copypaste to work on this for some reason... so sorry if there are problems in reading this.
PPS. New post... Yeah, sorry this is a double now
- Whether the movie is "truer" or not entirely depends on your definition of truth. In this case, I feel that it does give a better depiction of what actually is New Orleans, the real heart of the city. The city relies upon these lower sections of society, and one major problem of Katrina was the government's response in helping this group of people, and in the movie, this was portrayed extremely negatively (i.e. Kim's attempts to get the $2,000 relief check).
- The use of two concurrent stories, the one of Kim and her family's struggle for survival, and of the news reports and official breifings, allows the audience to constrast the two sides immediately following the other. Kim's home camera footage lends an extremely realistic tone to the piece, as now it is clear that this is not a prepared shoot of the devastation of Katrina, but rather a raw, uncut slice of the descrutction, seen firsthand.
- Again, as with truth, one must define what focus is. If we say it is the directors' pursuit of a certain idea, then Trouble the Water does succeed in this aspect, as the two storylines interweave to showcase the other side of Katrina.
- Whether a person needs a movie to have focus is entirely subjective, as each individual connects ideas in their own way. For Murray, he may be unable to see the bigger picture, or doesn;t want to connect the stories, or simply does not believe or understand the message. Personally, I extrapolate the information provided by Kim and her story, and relate it to my own personal knowledge to form a larger idea about the themes in the movie. Sometimes, having a movie witha lack of focus can e helpful, for while focus may help steer the plotline and guide the audience "through understanding", it can take away from the creativity and originality in the diretors' message. In that sense, Trouble the Water appears to have a little it of both concepts, and this allows it to be understood on multiple levels.
- As far as I am concerned, the fact that Kim's footage is mostly post emergency is fine, and I see no problem with this. In fact, I think this is almost a better way, considering that most people are acutely aware of the pre-Katrina perparations, and maybe not of the immediate impact of the storm.
- I do agree with Murray on the "lack of access" to the "lost rights of Americans". This angle would have been extremely complimentary to the film, andit is quite disappointing that it was not explored. This could have served as the final climax of the film, showcasing and elevating the sense of hopelessness in regards to the original disaster that strikes Kim and family.
- Miheer Munjal (8/27/09)
PS. I could not get copypaste to work on this for some reason... so sorry if there are problems in reading this.
PPS. New post... Yeah, sorry this is a double now
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Trouble the Water - Adam Dreyfuss
Let me start out by saying that when I first saw the trailer for this film post Sundance release I could already tell it was going to be a moving film. After watching it I was only reaffirmed in my intuition. That said I would like to point it that this was not a particularly informative documentary but that it not what it way trying to be. In order to understand any real tragedy one must first understand the stories of those who witnessed it and in this sense Trouble the Water is the truest telling of the story of Katrina I have seen to date.
This film allowed me, really for the first time, to truly sympathize with the people whose lives were destroyed by the tragedy. I was able to identify with the loss and the film's message of tragedy rang true.
It is important to note that this film is not only made up of raw first hand footage of the tragedy, it is interlaced with news footage, an outsider's perspective of what happened. Of course, the footage itself is matched with a musical track to stir emotion but it truly was the raw silence of the actual footage combined with the pounding of the rain in the background that truly was the most powerful.
Reviewers argue, when viewing this film, that it lacks focus. An interesting argument that I have to disagree with. The story is about a women and what happens to her. Most of the interwoven news footage only helps us to better understand what it is she went through. That said, there is an underlying commentary that repeatedly rears its ugly head that the troops overseas should have come home to help the Katrina victim. The argument is made so passively that it lacks focus and comes out as very one sided and narrow-minded. The film seems to play better as an emotional journey and should simply steer clear of a political agenda. That said, it is only a small part of the film as a whole and is not too much of a deterrent from the rest of the film as a result. Of course it is important for a film to have a focus, no matter how broad it may be. That of course is what separates a film, from simply a box of raw footage.
In retrospect, much of this film actually takes place after the hurricane itself. I think the question the journey of the film means to ask is not will the main characters survive the film (something revealed to us in the very first moments of the film) but rather what does it mean to have a life taken away and then having to work to rebuild it. The post Katrina part of the film is simply an act 2, not something to be scoffed at but rather something to be viewed a second chapter.
This film allowed me, really for the first time, to truly sympathize with the people whose lives were destroyed by the tragedy. I was able to identify with the loss and the film's message of tragedy rang true.
It is important to note that this film is not only made up of raw first hand footage of the tragedy, it is interlaced with news footage, an outsider's perspective of what happened. Of course, the footage itself is matched with a musical track to stir emotion but it truly was the raw silence of the actual footage combined with the pounding of the rain in the background that truly was the most powerful.
Reviewers argue, when viewing this film, that it lacks focus. An interesting argument that I have to disagree with. The story is about a women and what happens to her. Most of the interwoven news footage only helps us to better understand what it is she went through. That said, there is an underlying commentary that repeatedly rears its ugly head that the troops overseas should have come home to help the Katrina victim. The argument is made so passively that it lacks focus and comes out as very one sided and narrow-minded. The film seems to play better as an emotional journey and should simply steer clear of a political agenda. That said, it is only a small part of the film as a whole and is not too much of a deterrent from the rest of the film as a result. Of course it is important for a film to have a focus, no matter how broad it may be. That of course is what separates a film, from simply a box of raw footage.
In retrospect, much of this film actually takes place after the hurricane itself. I think the question the journey of the film means to ask is not will the main characters survive the film (something revealed to us in the very first moments of the film) but rather what does it mean to have a life taken away and then having to work to rebuild it. The post Katrina part of the film is simply an act 2, not something to be scoffed at but rather something to be viewed a second chapter.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
'Trouble the Water'
‘Happy’ anniversary of Hurricane Katrina...
Trouble the Water: Things to consider
• Did this film change the way you saw Katrina or its aftermath?
• Do you think it is a ‘truer’ depiction of what happened during Katrina than most other depictions – particularly given the use of Kim’s footage?
• In what ways is the film manipulated by the directors? (Consider the use of music; how the footage is edited and strung together; the use of news reports, etc., in addition to Kim’s or the filmmakers’ footage; and so on.)
• Noel Murray, in The Onion, claims that the film is ‘frustrating, because it lacks some focus.’ Do you agree? What would it mean for it (or any film) to have ‘focus’, and is it ever a god thing to lack it?
• The review continues: ‘It starts off being about the footage Kim shot, but she didn't shoot a lot, and anyone coming to Trouble The Water looking for an insider’s take on the storm and its immediate aftermath will be disappointed to find that the bulk of the film takes place post-emergency.’ Were you disappointed by the amount of footage we saw from Kim, or from the film’s ‘post-emergency’ emphasis?
• Finally, Murray writes: ‘Even more bothersome is how Lessin and Deal keep steering away from the most persistently unsettling part of the Hurricane Katrina story, having to do with the multiple ways the rights of American citizens were taken away, by the suspicious and the well-meaning alike. Given that the filmmakers' original idea for their project stalled out due to lack of access, it's disappointing that they didn't explore that angle more.’ Do you agree?
Monday, August 17, 2009
Philosophy of Documentaries: the blog!
Welcome to Philosophy 199: Philosophy of Documentaries!
I dunno about you, but I'm excited for a totally awesome semester, watching some pretty cool films and having some heady discussions about them!
So, about this blog. I want it to be a place for serious discussion about the films and readings, but also a place where you're a little freer to express creative thoughts and to hear your classmates' thoughts. Here are the guidelines that I expect you to follow:
1. First, a reminder about the 'grade-worth' of this blog: it is worth the majority of your grade, 55%. You're expected to post and respond once every week. Your posts (make them 'New Posts') should be on the order of 300-600 words: definitely no shorter, and, in general, try not to make them too long and avoid rambling missives. I will post prompts each week to which you may respond; or you may discuss your own topic, as long as it is related to the material that we cover that week (film or readings). While no elaborate style is required for the posts, and I encourage you not to sacrifice thoughtfulness and creativity, they should have some argumentative structure – i.e., you are making claim(s) that you defend. Posts should be proofread and spell-checked like any paper would be.
In addition, you should also read and respond (at any length -- though again, not crazy-long) to at least one of your classmate’s postings each week. I hope that you will be inspired to read many, if not all, of them, and respond if the feeling strikes you, but you will only be required to read and respond to one. Both your post and your response will be due before the start of the following week’s class.
2. Etiquette: No flaming, no name-calling, no rudeness, no personal attacks. I'm sure this won't be an issue, but it needs to be said. Be polite and be charitable in your responses, even if you disagree with someone (and I for one will be sorely disappointed if we all agree all the time!) This is, of course, a worthy rule to follow in most any circumstance, not just for this blog -- and thus good practice.
3. Please do not edit or delete posts other than your own.
4. Please tag your posts with your name. This will help me for grading purposes. You can also add other relevant tags, if you'd like, but need not. Please tag in all lowercase letters (blogger is case-sensitive, sadly).
5. Posting or commenting on this blog is closed -- restricted to those of us in the class. However, it is publicly viewable. All the more reason to be respectful, but don't be shy about sharing the content with your peers!
6. Please let me know if any part of this confuses you in any way, or you have any suggestions regarding the blog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)