Monday, August 31, 2009

Trouble the Water- Shannon Stanis

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.

3 comments:

  1. You raise some highly interesting and important issues, Shannon. One, you say that the film is not more or less 'true', but instead offers 'just a different viewpoint on the situation'. This seems entirely reasonable, but here's the thing: we don't want to accept every viewpoint as equally apt, do we? After all, Rush Limbaugh has a perspective on Katrina, one which would be painful to even hear. Second, you also say that 'lack of focus leads to an inability to send a message', which certainly seems true; but follow-up question I have is: should directors always *have* a message? Sometimes we see directors as having an 'ax to grind' when they try too clearly to present a 'message'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete