Week 6: Reflecting on the class, teaching, & learning

What do you like most, and what do you dislike most, about the class (so far)?  Is there anything that you would you like to see done differently?  How should a class on documentaries and philosophy be taught?  How would you teach it if you were the instructor?  How, if at all, has the class changed your thinking so far either about documentaries or about philosophy?  In your time at college so far (however short that may be!) what do you think you’ve learned about the most effective ways to teach or to learn?

Man becomes Camera(man)... Gavin Owens

I find it interesting that the talk with Richard Waters was a part of "the Bridge", because it feels like a comment on the film as a whole. The parallel of the man behind his camera and the directors behind their camera’s is striking. It’s as if the director is trying to tell us something about his own film through Richard...
Reality is a creation of the mind. I see the camera lens as a barrier; it is like a dampening field. When you are observing through a lens life is caged in your viewfinder. The camera makes you feel almost incapable of reaching into the situation as you are simply a detached observer. This tendency fools the mind into believing a temporary reality. In this reality you cease to be yourself and you take on the role of the camera. I think that this has been a common ethical issue when filming sensitive topics such as “the Bridge”. “At what point do you step back into reality to intervene?” is the contentious question. I don’t have a definitive answer. However, I believe most filmmakers and photographers are aware of the question and form their own opinion.

The Bridge

First of all, I would just like to say that watching this film was an extremely difficult. I didn’t know anything about the film and was seriously surprised when I realized what it was about. I honestly couldn’t wait until it was over.

I do not believe that “The Bridge” is a snuff film. This film was not very entertaining for me. I was, in fact, thoroughly disturbed by it. At first, I was not sure if the footage of the people jumping was real. While watching the film, it became apparent that the people being filmed were the ones who actually jumped. I do find it slightly exploitative of the filmmakers to secretly film such a sensitive subject. A 2005 article from the San Francisco Chronicle says, “Eric Steel initially told officials he planned to spend a year filming the "powerful and spectacular interaction between the monument and nature…”

After reading this, my initial instinct is to say that the director’s intention to videotape suicides is wrong. Not only is he filming an incredibly delicate topic, but he also lies about his objective. However, the more I think about I wonder what his true intention was with this film. Was it to only talk about the suicides themselves? Or perhaps it was to open the door to discussion about mental illness? According to their family and friends, most of the people who jumped struggled with depression, bi-polar disorder, or other mental disorder. If this was his purpose, was the actual footage necessary? Or did it make the film more effective?

Hannah Knechtel

I had no idea what this documentary was about, so it was quite a bit of a shock. While the subject was very depressing I enjoyed watching the film as a whole. I like looking into the minds of humans, whether they are completely "normal" or have some kind of issue. It held my attention the whole time, but I left with a sad feeling in my stomach. That was my general take on The Bridge. Anyway, in the film Richard Waters is shown photographing and eventually stepping in to help a potential suicide victim. I honestly couldn't believe it took him that long to take action. I do not think I would have removed myself that far from reality. He acknowledged the fact that he thought something was strange about the girl and her actions, so why would he wait so long to pull her to safety? With that many suicides occuring at this particular location, don't you think you would be more likely to recognize that something is wrong and find a way to help them? I don't think I could just stand by and watch someone climb over the railing. I don't care if I had a camera. I think any person behind the lens needs to realize that what they are filming is real- not just an object you are documenting. I just thought it was strange.

If You're Going to San Francisco....

I'm glad I looked up "The Bridge" before we watched in class, for I was able to mentally prepare myself. Nonetheless, the film was not easy to watch and a recurrent thought in my mind concerned those who witnessed someone take their lives as it happened. What thoughts and emotions were they experiencing before and after it happened? According to the photographer, it was difficult to identify the situation as real, and he felt like a spectator lacking the ability to prevent the woman from jumping. This reminded me of the diffusion of responsibility, a theory in social psychology that attempts to explain why people sometimes fail to offer assistance even when it is obviously and desperately needed. For example, a woman under attack while on a crowded city street may not receive help because that responsibility has been diffused throughout all the pedestrians. Their anonymity allows them to merely ignore the situation because they cannot be singled out and blamed. Everyone assumes that someone else will lend a helping hand, but why does no one want to help in the first place? Are they too shy? Are they uncertain as to whether or not aid is needed? Do they think that their service would be unwanted or futile? Walking on the bridge, these very well could have been running through peoples' minds when presented with a person about to jump into the water. For most of the suicides, they were of a most ambiguous character, and I'm sure many failed to recognize them for what they truly were, which is understandable. Bystanders may also have thought that talking the person out of it would have been pointless, and that attempts at physical restraint would have just made things much worse. Finally, it's entirely possible that people were frozen with trying to comprehend a reality they may have never considered before. Despite the fact that suicide is no secret, very few have actually witnessed one before their own eyes, and therefore have given little thought to how they would behave if they did. When actually faced with these kinds of situations, people can be so mentally and emotionally unprepared that they simply have no idea how to react.

The bridge

I would not call this movie a ‘snuff film’ and I agree with Erbert when he said Ebert ‘“The Bridge” is neither a well-intentioned humanitarian project, nor a voyeuristic snuff film. It succeeds because it is honest about exhibiting undeniable elements of both.’ It was a very powerful and moving movie but did not try to shove a message down your throat. Only presented the information on the screen. I do also think that the film is exploitative and that it was wrong for the directors to have set up the cameras around the bridge for the purpose of filming a private matter as one's suicide. I think it was a very inappropriate film. I also can't think that any of those people who ended their lives on the bridge wanted the world to watch or wanted to be filmed while doing so. It is horrendously rude to take advantage of a person in that frail of a state of mind. I think that the film makers took the ending of a life to their advantage. The movie did not seem to be in remembrance of any of those people. It seemed to rekindle awful memories for the families and friends of those who took their life on the bridge. Although those living were able to chose to be in the film or not, I would be interested to know how they picked which people to show as they jumped and what had to be done in order to show the act. Just as the one photographer had to snap out of his trance behind the camera to do what he could to help, I think the film makers could have done a lot more to help these people than to show their death to the world.

The Bridge

While I watched the movie, I had a very strong reaction to the Richard Waters piece. As I watched him speak of his interactions with the woman he found on the bridge, I was not only aghast as I listened to his initial apathy. His statements of being "behind the lens" and thinking that "he could do nothing to help her" hit me quite hard. My mind was cluttered with disbelief as it sounded as though Waters would watch this woman jump to her death, without so much as an attempt to help her. This then led me to think about the movie as a whole. Again, as we watched, I thought of what it meant that the film makers were doing nothing as they watched people kill themselves. While it may be true that the police were contacted whenever an attempt seemed apparent, I still find it hard to come to terms with the fact that we watched film of people killing themselves. Of course, this means that the camera people all watched, "through a lens," as this happened live. I had a hard time deciding if this footage was real at first and I wonder what it must have been like to watch these people in reality. Perhaps they all felt like Waters, that because they were behind a lens the reality was subdued. If this is true, our watching the film through the lens and the editing room leads us even further from reality, depositing us as some place between perception and opinion.

Bridge is a Bridge. Not Really, but it Would Make for a Good Title.

A lot of what I have to say about this film is in a comment I left under Brendan’s post.
On a different note, I think that the idea of not being able to really connect with life from “behind a lens” is very critical to understanding our limitations as human being to truly connect with the world. In an essay by Martin Buber, it is argued that the greatest downfall of humanity is that we all lack to ability to truly empathize with things. He describes the relationship as “I-it, I-thou” where instead of being able to “become” something and understand it for what it is (I-thou), we have an endless drive to label things and inevitably see everything as just a “word” or a “label” or a “thing” (I-it).
The event with the camera man explains this. From behind a lens, we cannot empathize with what we see and experience. Watching a news story about Darfur does not make us understand what the pain and suffering of thousands truly feels like. Not even close. I think we have moments where for an instant we may get close to truly empathizing with something, but I think that these moments only occur when we experience them firsthand. For example, I like to think that if we were all tied to a polar bear and every time we rode on a bus, our polar bear slowly died, we would care a little more about how using fossil fuels for transportation contributes to global warming and the effects of it (dying polar bears, for one).
If we could open-mindedly, see and spiritually experience something firsthand, then perhaps we can empathize with it, “become” it, and have an I-thou relationship. But as long as we are behind a camera lens, we are doomed.

Kelly Larkin

I would not begin to call "the Bridge" a 'snuff film.' It is not grotesque for entertainment purposes, it is not bloody and gory for the sake of being so, and it is not Hollywood-ized at all. That being said, however, I do think the film is disturbing, and I left class Tuesday feeling surprisingly and outrageously shaken up. All I could think about was why we were allowed to watch these people literally ending their lives - real footage of real suicide victims jumping off the bridge. I understand it may have been legal for the filmmakers to continually film the bridge and thus the suicide victims, but I don't get how the people behind the camera could zoom in so far and watch these people without doing anything about it, or at least turning the camera off for the split second that they jump. I understand that they might say that those people would have committed suicide with or without their cameras, and so turning them off or calling for help wouldn't've helped the situation, but I just have a hard time grasping the idea in the first place. The movie was definitely powerful, and I think even more powerful because there wasn't a blatant argument being made, and all the viewer saw was actual footage and testimony of victims and survivors and their families. It's just really hard to realize and grasp that we just watched death occuring, for real, people's lives ending, and someone had planned it out to catch it on film....

Crossing A Bridge...

Richard Waters...

I really like the discussion brought up by this quote from Richard Waters, the photographer in the film who stopped the one woman. While I was watching, I really could not believe that he was simply taking pictures rather than anything else (i.e. proactively stopping the person from even climbing over the rail). But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it is an extremely difficult situation to deal with, especially on the Golden Gate. The fact that he saw it as not reality it something almost unreal to bring up, as this ties in with society believing pictures as "snapshots of truth". Moreover, one has to wonder what is considered reality then, for as he looks through his camera, it is truly almost like seeing a film on it (similar to us watching The Bridge itself), and thus, hard to feel that one must react. Should be always be expected to react directly and immediately to issues brought up? No... We usually don't go lead a revolution or uprising after watching a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 (even if Moore wanted us to). So how can it be expected that a man looking through a camera, which is basically film, be expected to act on an act of suicide. In the end, he does help her out and prevent the suicide, which is beyond benig a hero in the situation. In all, the tendency for viewers of films and other media to blur their reality is vast, and therefore, it is difficult for one to distinguish between actual life and the "fake reality" of the media.

The Bridge to Nowhere

This film in general leads to a lot of tough questions but in terms understanding what it is in the realm of film, I believe it falls somewhere in between Ebert's and Phillips' reviews of the films. It does a lot of times play out as being very much like a snuff film. When thinking practically the only reason this film had the distribution that it did is the fact that their is actual footage of people dying; however morose that is I can't see the truth in any other way.

On the other hand their were sentimental interviews playing up the "humanitarian" side of the films but these seem only to be supplements to the actual footage. It would seem to me that this film fell short in so many ways and in the end seemed to lack purpose of meaning. It was neither particularly insightful, moving, or entertaining and so at the end of the day I think Phillips was right. It was a glamorized snuff film.

2 Bridges - Brendan Colo

It seems to me that the false romantic promise spoken about in regard to the Golden Gate Bridge suicides does not accurately justify the mindset these jumpers are in. A romantic promise, even if it be false, insinuates that the action of jumping off of the bridge is one of a type of showmanship. That the act of killing one's self in such a way is about ending one's life in a manner that is either beautiful or daring, but ultimately, memorable. "Bridge" made it clear that these people were not killing themselves because of attention. I will not deny the complexities of the case on suicide by stating that wanting attention is not a motive for suicide--because it is, but I disagree that it is a main variable in the decision to commit to jumping in these specific cases. I believe it is not the act of jumping off of the bridge, or rather, the final dramatic gesture, but the bridge itself that attracts these jumpers. The bridge is not only grand in its aesthetic, but grand in its promise to the jumpers in the means that it will end their life--not for them to be romanticized but for the termination of suffering. Staring down the bridge into the water is not like staring down a barrel, at a knife, or at a wall from the inside of a noose. The bridge serves as a physical embodiment of the promise of a release, and in other words, both a literal and figurative relatively "safe" passage. It is important to remember, that for one to view the bridge as an escape from life--that individual must have gone through considerable suffering to view jumping as an escape and not a death trap--from this point, I think showmanship is irrelevant.

'The Bridge': Things to consider

•  Richard Waters, featured in the film as the photographer who helped pull a potential suicide from the ledge of the Golden Gate Bridge, said: ‘When I was behind the camera, it was almost like it wasn’t real ’cause I was looking through the lens.’  He added, ‘I had to break out of it to help her.’  What do you think he meant?  Have you ever noticed such an effect being behind a (film or still) camera, and if so, why does it occur?  And why should we be aware of this tendency as photographers or viewers – how might it influence our understanding of ‘reality’?

•  Roger Ebert writes in his review: ‘the grandeur of the bridge, as the iconographic setting for a final dramatic gesture, has an allure for some that's as strong as the currents in the waters below. The bridge “has a false romantic promise to it,” observes the friend of a man who jumped. “But so what if his story has that at the end? He's gone.”’  It is both taken for granted that the bridge is a ‘romantic’ place to end one’s life, and a mysterious fact, given that one will presumably be dying there (the woman continues in the film: ‘He doesn’t get to benefit from the romance’ of the bridge).  What does this say about how we conceive of our lives – lifespans, what makes a life, and so on?

•  Michael Phillips writes that The Bridge is ‘morally dubious’, and that ‘after a while you may feel you’re watching a particularly scenic snuff film.’  Ebert concedes some ‘element’ of this, but writes: ‘“The Bridge” is neither a well-intentioned humanitarian project, nor a voyeuristic snuff film. It succeeds because it is honest about exhibiting undeniable elements of both.’  What do you think?  Is it a ‘snuff film’ – i.e., a filming of deaths for the entertainment (at root, this is usually meant in a sexual sense) of viewers?  Even if you don’t think this, do you feel that the film is exploitative – either of those featured in the film, or of the viewer?  Do you think it is morally ok for the director to have set up cameras around the Golden Gate Bridge with the express purpose of observing suicides?

•  Is it ever ok to let someone commit suicide if you have the power to stop it?  If so, when and why?

'Tea Party' protests

There isn't time to show this in class, but it might be of interest to you to watch this video of the 12 September ‘Tea Party’ protest in Washington: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y -- in the context of how we as citizens get our news, what we're willing to believe, and how it meshes with the beliefs that we already hold.  We might be more willing to believe Fox News about Obama's 'death panels', for instance, if we already don't like him or his policies...

The Gulf War Did Not Take Place

All those journalists who set themselves up as bearers of the universal conscience, all those presenters who set themselves up as strategists, all the while overwhelming us with a flood of useless images. Emotional blackmail by massacre, fraud’ – we would do well ‘to discuss the threshold of mental tolerance for information.’ (76)

Journalists are supposed to show the public the truth. They are supposed to expose the public to things that they might not know or are not able to learn about on their own. Journalists are responsible for what they tell the audience. The phrase “bearers of the universal conscience” strikes me. It seems Baudrillard is saying that the media takes it upon itself to make the public to feel a certain way by the way that they present material. They want everyone to feel the same way about things, like the Gulf War. By calling journalists “strategists”, Baudrillard implies that they are purposefully selecting what they want and don’t want to tell us. I think this point is relevant today. Look at different news outlets. A very obvious one is Fox News. They clearly have a conservative point of view that they are trying to get across. They have very definitive opinions of which they try to convince the viewer. Other news outlets, even reputable ones like CNN, pick and choose what stories they report. Is the media responsible for informing the public of ALL news? Or is it about getting ratings?

Deterrence as a means of rationalization - Brendan Colon

I seem to have posted this in the wrong area as a comment rather than a blog...

Baudrillard discusses deterrence in a manner that parallels the Iraq war and would support Moore's acquisitions on Bush. For Bush to justify a war which, according to "Fahrenheit 9/11", is unjustifiable, Bush would have to idealize the American war effort to some degree. Here, the claim of weapons of mass destruction elevates Iraq to a more "even" playing field with the United States as the dissemination of said WMD's subsequently makes Iraq a threat and distances our attack on them as the big bully on the playground threatening the small kid with allergies for lunch money. Deterrence is a great way to gain power from fear--and after all, Baudrillard does state ‘the ultimate end of politics… is to maintain control of one’s own people by any
means’ (71).

Descartes

Hey, sorry that this is a little bit late, I got caught up questioning my existence, stopped thinking for a bit and fell out of being. Needless to say, I am having to catch back up with things.

As far as I can see, Descartes is struggling with the same concept we all struggle with: what is all of this? The difference between Descartes and many of us is that he did not question what it was but what could be "real." I think Descartes was doing this because of his scientific mind, thinking of the world as purely logical, meaning that any question he had could be solved through near mathematical equivalence statements. I find his questions and ideas extremely intriguing. The questioning of existence, of what it could possibly be, note that he does not speak of what it means, is something that I have thought very little of. The method by which Descartes forms his arguments, that if everything is taken as false until a truth reveals itself seems, to me, to be the most efficient method of reaching a basic understanding. This method of arguing by contradiction, assuming until a contradiction of a known truth is found, reveals to Descartes that while senses may be misleading, as their irrationality lends them to be, thought, in its essence, is the only reality man can every truly know.

He thinks, therefore he doubts

The first thing I noticed upon reading Descartes' meditations was the parallel between his logical philosophy and the inquisitive nature of the Scientific Revolution. Years of history classes have taught me that the Scientific Revolution was a time of extensive expansion in physics, biology, chemistry, and the like, as well as a reliance on observable that could be put through what would later be deemed the Scientific Method. It was no longer acceptable to believe in doctrines that failed to provide proof for their claims. It's interesting that this skeptical and curious mindset was so strong that it seeped into the era's philosophical output. Descartes takes this critical examination to an extreme, suggesting that there may be "...absolutely nothing certain". He claims that our senses can often mislead us, and there is certainly truth to that. Optical illusions, for example, exist in abundance, all of which manipulate the faults within our visual system. If our hearing becomes impaired, sound localization and distance perception become more difficult to ascertain accurately. Often, the case is not faulty senses per se, but unique senses. Color is a good example of this. Since everyone's eyes are different, we don't really see colors in exactly the same way. A shade of green could be lighter or darker than how another person perceives it. The difference is not very large, but it exists nonetheless. The objects around us may in fact exist, but they exist differently due to differing perceptions. Several factors influence our perception other than our senses, including where we see the object, how long we see the object, and our prior knowledge of the object. Accordingly, no single, universal definition can be given to anything because we all see the world through a different lens.

Wailing about uncertanties cont. -Gavin Owens

"Physics, Astronomy, Medicine, and all the other sciences that have for their end the consideration of composite objects, are indeed of a doubtful character; but Arithmetic, Geometry, and the other sciences of the same class… contain somewhat that is certain and indubitable: for whether I am awake or dreaming, it remains true that two and three make five, and that a square has but four sides; nor does it seem possible that truths so apparent can ever fall under a suspicion of falsity [or incertitude].’ (2)  Do you agree that there are some things that simply will always be true (or false)?"



I see what Descartes is saying here. Anything that relies on something outside of ourselves is subject to the infallibility of our senses. Things like Arithmetic, Geometry, and -”hey!”- even Philosophy... These don’t need to necessarily exist anywhere but in our thoughts. If you start to think about the makeup of mathematics, and some of these sciences, you realize they don’t really exist anywhere except in the minds of men. Something I find profoundly interesting. These sciences are difficult to argue with since you know your own thoughts exist, and numbers (any system of reasoning) seem logical to any “rational person”. I would have to ask Descartes, at this point however, how well he could trust his logical mind. Ultimately, I disagree that there are some things that will always be true. It is possible to use logic in such a way that it "undoes" itself. You can bring doubt to what are seemingly apparent truths by undermining the mental process used to arrive at whatever conclusions. If you can successfully do that, then one would have to assert even sciences which seem so apparent may indeed be another deception.

Cold War (s) - Kelly Larkin

"Strangely, a war without victims does not seem like a real war but rather… a war even more inhuman because it is without human losses."

In regard to this quote I'd have to say Baudrillard makes a lot of sense. I'll just take this quote out of context to analyze it as a general statement unspecific to the Gulf War because I think it is politically and socially accurate. For example, if we think of the Cold War, which was not even a declared war at all, it seemed much scarier and and more real than any war fought physically overseas. Though no one was hurt, the constant threat of devastation and the unknown is scarier than anything, I think. I believe that the "cold"ness of that war, and any war "without victims," comes from the fact that it's not passionate, patriotic bloodshed and fighting that goes on. It's an almost emotionless mental battle between parties, and I believe that makes it seem robotic and metallic, and therefore, cold. In my eyes, that's what Baudrillard is trying to say in this quote from his article.

The Gulf War Did Not Exist

First off I would like to say that I did not really enjoy either pieces, but I guess I will write about The Gulf War Did Not Exist. I feel that Baudrillard was very repetative and I got kind of bored while reading it. Also, forgive me if I make an incorrect assumption because I do not feel that I know a lot about this war.

'The Iraqis blow up civilian buildings in order to give the impression of a dirty war...'

'Strangely a war without victims does not seem like a real war but rather..... a war even more inhuman because it is without human losses.'

The first statement that we look at is stating that buildings were being blown up. He says it himself. He may say that it is a disguise to make it seem like a dirty war, but none the less it happened. I am not positive, but I am pretty sure that there were human losses and victims in those bombings. And I also disagree with the statement that it is more inhuman because there were no human losses. People were affected by this war, so I think it is unfair to say that there were no actual victims.

'the ultimate end of politics... is to maintain control over one's own people by any means.'

I would just like to say I think that statement is really disturbing. I cannot even imagine this ever happening. This idea kind of scares me in a way. I don't like thinking that one person or group can have complete control over all. I don't know.

Descartes-Shannon Stanis

I agree with Descartes that the senses can be misleading. What we often feel is right can lead us to mishap. A big example of this happens everyday. We see people get caught up into pyramid schemes or tricked into giving away their personal information. People feel that they can trust others when they should have been more skeptical. We are taught as children to be careful of strangers but at the same time that all people are basically good inside. It is a paradox that leads to trouble. I don't think we should not be trusting of others, but we all should be careful. I know that there is much more to his project than this, but this is what I thought of when reading that section. We, as humans, rely on our senses and intuition to lead us through every day life. Concerning ‘constrained at last to avow that there is nothing of all that I formerly believed to be true of which it is impossible to doubt.', I think we must always be searching for answers. It is in our nature, we are curious beings. Also, knowing that something could possibly be false, but still believing in it is an incredible trait. This faith is beautiful in my opinion and something to be admired. We must always believe and be curious.

I think therefore I am, so if I don't think am I not?

Descartes's perception on the world are very interesting. At base of his argument, “I think therefore I am” there is a subtler point of the idea of truth, what do we presume and what can we actually know. If our sense can deceived, both in the obvious of chemicals in Gatorade tasting like juice, and in a fantasy film appearing almost lifelike, as well as in the deeper sense of our instincts not being correct, then who is to say our sense of logic can not be deceived as well? Descartes claims that there are certain universal truths that are always existent, but the basic truth of who we are, comes to down to thought, thought which can be changed and altered, than who is to say that things such as gravity, or mathematics, do not only exist in a set way because we believe they do?

So why try to find truth if our entire existence is only based on logic which we have created? Humanity itself is tied to this truth. If we ignore this truth we ignore civilization, we ignore humanity, and we die. An ugly truth but while one can logic ourselves clear out of existence, it is tough to implement this knowledge and so we must grasps and live within the confines of society.

Decartes the Doubtful

I think that the Decartes reading was interesting in that it helped me realize that there was a lot of thought behind a very famous quote. I think that Decartes invests a very peculiar problem: if everything we know is based off of information from our senses, do we really know anything at all? I think the inciting incident to the meditations has a lot to do with one’s slow realization of the falsely accepted truths that are accepted from one’s youth. Decartes seems to have overcome a lot of philosophical obstacles so it seems natural he would end up on this question.
As far as for this topic, I would say that there is definitely some skepticism when it comes to trusting one’s senses. They can definitely be deceived sometimes, but I think that dwelling on the issue is a bit unproductive and sometimes silly. Whether it is or is not reliable to trust our senses to tell us what reality is, we will never fully know, and even if we did, there would be little to nothing to do, as trusting our senses is a basic requirement for survival and day-to-day life. Thus, although I am glad one intelligent philosopher analyzed the issue, it is not for me to ponder upon.

The Question Isn’t if the Gulf War Took Place, but Rather how it Affects Us

Quotes I chose...

"The Iraqis blow up civilian buildings in order to give the impression of a dirty war. The Americans disguise satellite information to give the impression of a clean war. Everything in trompe l’oeil [i.e., visual illusion]!" (62)

"Information has a profound function of deception. It matters little what it “informs” us about, its “coverage” of events matters little since it is precisely no more than a cover: its purpose is to produce consensus by flat encephalogram… And if people are vaguely aware of being caught up in this appeasement and this disillusionment by images, they swallow the deception and remain fascinated by the evidence of the montage of this war with which we are inoculated everywhere: through the eyes, the senses and in discourse." (68)

"There are ironic balance sheets which help to temper the shock or the bluff of this war. A simple calculation shows that. of the 500,000 American soldiers involved during the seven months of operations in the Gulf, three times as many would have died from road accidents alone had they stayed in civilian life.* Should we consider multiplying clean wars in order to reduce the murderous death toll of peacetime?" (69)

The most important part of these quotes to me is the “visual illusion” portion. With the advent of technology and the expanded scale of modern warfare, now more than ever war seems more distant to everyone. No longer is there a direct fear of “the British are coming” (i.e. enemies invading the US directly and taking over our cities) but rather the constant threat of small terrorist acts. In this case, Baudrillard makes a point as to the nature of modern combat, and its ambiguity. Information can mean multiple things, and we must rely totally upon interpretation (an extremely subjective manner) of data to discover patterns. Moreover, she makes the point of altering information to one’s wishes, in this case the Iraqis making the war “dirty” and the US making it “clean”. This proves another reference that due to the distance that modern war is fought on, and the fact that the target audience/citizens do not all directly participate (only a small subset of the population), people rely upon an authoritative source to inform them of the “truth”.

This ties in with the second quote (information alteration), and with the example of photo fakery that we saw before. In summary, these are some of the most effective methods of public control, and the subtle shifting of public opinion is one major part of modern society (and thus, modern warfare).

On the final quote, I think Baudrillard has a very interesting point that brings into play the ac fo statistics. It is in fact true that the very act of driving somewhere is going to be the most dangerous part of your day. So I can see where she says that 3x times as many would have died simply from driving than combat. Yet, her statistic only includes actual mortality. In modern warfare, the biggest “causality” is the mental state of those involved. Everyone who returns from war has some kind of psychological damage, and this also does not take into account the large number of injuries, all due to the shifting nature of war to a more guerilla style combat, rather than all-out skirmishes where waves of soldiers died. With this taken into account, it is hard to agree with her point that military action brings people out of harms way. It is clear to me that it may not necessarily be increasing their harm, but rather just changes the source. In today’s society, the society itself is by its very nature dangerous to all involved (everyone), and there is nothing that really changes except for the very source of the danger; i.e. danger is always present no matter where you are.

-Miheer

9/19/09

Week 4: Things to consider

Descartes, Meditations:

•  What reasons might Descartes have for engaging in his project?  Here’s what he writes about this; what do you make of it?: ‘Several years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation…’ (1)

•  ‘All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us…’ (1)  Presumably you agree with Descartes that our senses can mislead us?  What are some other examples of this?

•  ‘Physics, Astronomy, Medicine, and all the other sciences that have for their end the consideration of composite objects, are indeed of a doubtful character; but Arithmetic, Geometry, and the other sciences of the same class… contain somewhat that is certain and indubitable: for whether I am awake or dreaming, it remains true that two and three make five, and that a square has but four sides; nor does it seem possible that truths so apparent can ever fall under a suspicion of falsity [or incertitude].’ (2)  Do you agree that there are some things that simply will always be true (or false)?

•  He writes that he is ‘constrained at last to avow that there is nothing of all that I formerly believed to be true of which it is impossible to doubt.’ (3)  If this is true – if we can doubt anything that we believe – why should we even try to find out what is true?  Should we give up looking for ‘truth’?

•  ‘Archimedes, that he might transport the entire globe from the place it occupied to another, demanded only a point that was firm and immovable; so, also, I shall be entitled to entertain the highest expectations, if I am fortunate enough to discover only one thing that is certain and indubitable.’ (5)  Does this seem to follow?  That is, if he’s right about the next point (‘I think, therefore I exist’), then can he build everything on it from there?

•  ‘Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something…  this proposition I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me, or conceived in my mind.’ (6)  What do you think of this argument??

•  What is the wax example (p. 9) supposed to show?

Baudrillard, ‘The Gulf War did not take place’

– comment on any of the following passages:

•  ‘The Iraqis blow up civilian buildings in order to give the impression of a dirty war.  The Americans disguise satellite information to give the impression of a clean war.  Everything in trompe l’oeil [i.e., visual illusion]!’ (62)

•  ‘Saddam Hussein’s decoys still aim to deceive the enemy, whereas the American technological decoy only aims to deceive itself.’ (64)

•  ‘We cannot even say that the Americans defeated Saddam: he defaulted on them’. (66)

•  ‘Information has a profound function of deception.  It matters little what it “informs” us about, its “coverage” of events matters little since it is precisely no more than a cover: its purpose is to produce consensus by flat encephalogram…  And if people

are vaguely aware of being caught up in this appeasement and this disillusionment by images, they swallow the deception and remain fascinated by the evidence of the montage of this war with which we are inoculated everywhere: through the eyes, the senses and in discourse.’ (68)

•  ‘There are ironic balance sheets which help to temper the shock or the bluff of this war.  A simple calculation shows that. of the 500,000 American soldiers involved during the seven months of operations in the Gulf, three times as many would have died from road accidents alone had they stayed in civilian life.*  Should we consider multiplying clean wars in order to reduce the murderous death toll of peacetime?’ (69)

*[As far as I can tell, this is false – according to the statistics I found (subject to internet wrongness), a liberal estimate of deaths for the troops in road accidents would have been something on the order of 80; 148 Americans were ‘battle-related deaths’ alone in the First Gulf War.]

•  ‘deterrence itself:  It only functions well between equal forces.  Ideally, each party should possess the same weapons before agreeing to renounce their use.  It is therefore the dissemination of (atomic) weapons alone which can ensure effective global deterrence and the indefinite suspension of war.  The present politics of non-dissemination plays with fire: there will always be enough madmen to launch an archaic challenge below the level of an atomic riposte – witness Saddam.  Things being as they are, we should place our hopes in the spread of weapons rather than in their (never respected) limitation.’ (69)

•  ‘the ultimate end of politics… is to maintain control of one’s own people by any

means’. (71)

•  ‘Strangely, a war without victims does not seem like a real war but rather… a war even more inhuman because it is without human losses.’ (73)

•  ‘All those journalists who set themselves up as bearers of the universal conscience, all those presenters who set themselves up as strategists, all the while overwhelming us with a flood of useless images.  Emotional blackmail by massacre, fraud’ – we would do well ‘to discuss the threshold of mental tolerance for information.’ (76)

Moore is the Angriest of them All...

Well, this is probably the fourth or fifth time I have seen this movie, and every time it has gotten the same reaction from me. Honestly, I love the way the film is structured; it does try to hide the opinion of Moore, and it definitely does not strive from its main points. Nor does it have any qualms about NOT stating the opposing side, or mixing together pieces of fact from actual news (the speeches) or Moore's experience (his time outside of the embassy).

Anyways, focusing on a specific example of the opening of the film (WTC attack), the way Moore portrays it is interesting to note. He does not show any of the visual cues, nor the famous video imaging of the towers being hit one by one. In my opinion I greatly thank Moore, as for all of us that were watching the news that day (me) or had the misfortune of being in NYC (also me), seeing that clip over and over again was not only repetitive but also unnecessary, both in terms of sadness and in the fact that they should "stop showing it" [sorry, I just cannot think of the word I need now]. Moreover, because of that very fact that the sounds are now so ingrained in our society, it is superfluous to show the scenes again.

With that I will wrap up my post for now, but I will say more in class... For me, I see this as one of the most important documentaries (in addition to An Inconvenient Truth, even if it has factual errors) as it exposes a critical side to an event that everyone is trying to put past them, which though it can initially be bad, is always a good thing in the long run.
-Miheer

You Know What Time It Is? Its Business Time.

As many others have also, this is the second time I have seen this documentary. It was so over the top both times, I couldn’t help but laugh. There is, of course, a lot of criticism of this film, it being very controversial. And although it doesn’t surprise me that there is a lot of negative criticism of Moore’s style and arguments, I do not think most of it is deserved.
I see Moore’s style in this film as a kind of counter-propaganda propaganda. I don’t think that it is supposed to be taken apart and looked at in pieces, because it isn’t constructed to have such a detachable structure. Instead, the documentary’s power lies in its genius method of sheer relentless force. Thus comes the idea of counter-propaganda propaganda. The news, in my opinion, uses manipulative tactics that are obvious in a lot of senses, but still carries a battery-ram of force that ends up convincing the masses. Michael Moore’s tactics may not gain the respect or approval of critics or people who have a careful eye for the messages they encounter through the media, but in terms of the amount of people his documentary will have an impact on, I’d say his techniques are undoubtedly successful in intent.
In terms of what he’s trying to do, I would say that he is simply trying to get as many people to hate Bush and the Bush Administration as possible. Perhaps his own views are too complex or just too specific to really convince the masses of, but I’m sure it is enough for him to get that emotion across at least. And in terms of what this movie reveals, I think that yes, its true that it may reveal the flaws of Bush (Administration), but I think it really shows (even firsthand) that the messages all parties and groups try to get across are way too skewed, dishonest, and manipulative today.

Farhenheit 911

Honestly, the both times I have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, I have felt bad for George W. Bush. I am by no means Bush supporter, but on the simplest, human level I sympathized for him. It must be humiliating to be portrayed in such a manner. In the beginning of the film, Moore portrays Bush as a cartoonish, lazy, imbecile. He shows Bush vacationing and enjoying other leisurely activities. Quick cuts of Bush and his trademark verbal bumbles also add to the image of a “stupid” Bush. I think in the context of the film, this is fair. This is the image that Moore wants to portray to his audience. He is trying to make the viewer think about how this man was "voted" into the highest office in the United States. Given the message that the film is trying to present, I think this portrayal is fair. However, I also think that it is disrespectful to the office of the president, no matter who holds it. Are these conflicting ideas? I'm not quite sure...

In regards to Bush’s 7 minute delayed response to the news of the second tower being hit, I think that it is understandable. Understandable, but not acceptable. I agree with what Shannon said about Bush only being human. Was he supposed to run into a telephone booth and emerge as Superman?

Music and Faces, No Planes - Kelly Larkin

What do you think about Moore’s technique in showing the World Trade Center attack? For example, the screen is black as the planes hit, and then we see only faces of observers, accompanied by lyrical music.

I think that by purposefully leaving out the actual footage of the planes striking the towers, and instead showing people who had just witnessed such an attack, Michael Moore effectively portrayed the emotional blow on the American people. If he would have shown the crashes and everything, it definitely would have been a different kind of sad. The viewer would be forced to recollect and think of their own experiences, maybe of when they first saw that footage, and how they felt the many times they saw it after that. By showing random people in New York that the viewer hasn't met and doesn't know, it forces us to be sympathetic and empathetic, and feel sad for them and for our country as a whole. The "lyrical music" definitely is effective in portraying a certain mood as well. In any film, the music in the background contributes to the tone of the piece, and can shift the feelings from humorous to serious to sad to angry and back to happy, just depending on what song they choose. Michael Moore's sad music was able to pull and the heartstrings of the viewer and combine with the sad, silent, fading images of the devastated people on the screen. It was extremely sad, eye opening, and for his purpose, effective.

Michael Moore: fashion disaster or unmitigated genius?

GAVIN OWENS

After watching this film for a second time, I was surprised at how my perception of the arguments had changed. I have been thinking about this, and I believe that Scott’s retort may shed some light here. I believe it is partially due to a shift in national mood, rather than only a shift in my views. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 when it was in theaters because I was curious about what all the hype was for. Michael Moore seemed like an idiot, his arguments were theatrical and marginally based in what I believed to be reality. His attack on our government at a time when we needed unity was maddening. On top of that, after the show people were clapping -I wasn’t. After watching it in class I have to say I can no longer remember what my outrage was for. Sure, some of his arguments are pretty thin but the film is still compelling. Tobias concludes his article saying, “By the time Fahrenheit 9/11 ends, it's abundantly clear that arrogant, neo-con pipe dreams have real human costs.” Seeing as this was my conclusion the second time around I have to wonder why I did not see this the first time. I believe that the success of this film is largely due to it’s timing. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a perfect looking glass into the national mood during that crisis. Having a more conservative background may have forced a conditioned reaction in me. Also, it is easy to believe my naive and immature mind simply could not grasp the complexity of the film. Even now it is difficult to see where there are real connections and where Michael Moore is just being contentious, staying true to his obnoxious character, as always.

-Gavin Owens

Shannon's post on 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Posting on behalf of Shannon (Blogger's giving her a hard time!):

I agree with the article in The Onion that it was an unfair hit on George Bush when the film made him out to be a fool for staying in the room with the schoolchildren.  As much as he is our president, he is still human.  Time is needed to think through a situation and develop the best way to handle the chaos.  Also it is hard to imagine that he could know the magnitude of the situation.  I think his staying with the schoolchildren was understandable.  He was able to think, remain calm and keep others, especially the children, calm.   

I thought the portrayal of the attacks was well done.  It showed the raw emotion of those who witnessed the attacks without showing the buildings.  It was a very artistic move that made my heart feel like it was falling apart.  Even though I had obviously known about the attack and had seen the footage time and time again, it was a new version, almost like seeing it for the first time again.  Moore assembled the footage in this way to do just that, and he did a good job at it.

Examining Fahrenheit 9/11

There is an interesting phenomenon that seems to be happening to Moore's film: the older it gets, the more criticism it receives. Obviously, there were abundant critics upon its release, but more and more people seem to be pointing out faults with it, and less are seeing it as the wonderful documentary they originally hailed it as. A possible explanation for this may be that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a well-constructed anti-Bush film. Upon watching it, most people, who have limited knowledge of the government's actions concerning September 11th (myself included), find it hard to disagree with Moore. The manner in which he presents his arguments, and the various techniques he employs have mesmerized and persuaded many an audience member. A perfect example of this occurs toward the beginning, when he presents footage of the World Trade Center shortly after being hit-- but leaves the screen blank. By removing this important element, he enhances our perception of the screams and cries for help, the same way a blind person's remaining senses become augmented. Moore also uses humor effectively throughout, especially when pointing out the faults with the Bush administration. He throws a lot of information at the audience, but he keeps viewers interested by utilizing numerous comical devices, such as the Gunsmoke reference and his use of rock songs (particularly the Go-Go's "Vacation"). Also, Moore focuses on a lot of flaws inherent in the government, including Congresses' inability to read the bills it passes, and the dubious Threat Level. Finally, Moore's on-screen presence is a significant contribution even though his stunts are somewhat illusory in proving a point. For example, it is unlikely that anyone would sign their children up for military service if suddenly approached on the street, and it really is not surprising that the Congressman Moore talks with are standoffish. However, his point is obvious and the way he expresses it is unique and effective nonetheless.

Moore may very well have misrepresented aspects of 9/11, but he made a damn good film. He set out to convince people of his beliefs, and the countless techniques he employed helped to achieve that goal.

Fahrenheit 9/11 -- Ethan Feldman

First off, I'd like to say I love the way that you keep bringing in the perspective of The Onion, very interesting source. I am in partial agreement with the comments made by Tobias regarding the validity and style of Fahrenheit 9/11. He states that the documentary is "a mixture of speculation and low blows," and I could not agree more. While the points made by Michael Moore strike deep and many are very important, his presentation of information bothers me. That is, Moore presents information, at times, without giving credentials for how true it may be. He states information and seems to believe that his saying it should be enough for it to be believed. Moreover, I was particularly bothered by one of the early scenes, in which more lambastes President Bush for staying in the classroom and reading to the children while the attacks were occurring. While I do agree that it may have been better if he had cut the conference short, or at least taken a moment to speak the the people with him and what was happening, it may be going overboard to insult the man's intelligence by painting him as a plain faced fool who sat silently. In all, I felt that while some of the film seemed accurate and strongly portrayed, there was too large a sentiment of "let's all hate President Bush." I'm not one to go out in support of the man or what he did but the situation is much larger than him and all of the blame should not be left on his shoulders, at times Moore even made it seem as though the President was at fault for 9/11, a claim which is beyond absurdity to me.

Brendan Colon - Fahrenheit 9/11

Upon revisiting "Fahrenheit 9/11" mentally, from Tuesday night to now, I can honestly say that I am having difficulty sorting out what is considered a fair and unfair criticism in this film. I think one of the strongest points of this film is also related to its heavy criticism--it's card stacking of one-sided attacks and facts. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a bombardment of information from many different sources and because of this, I feel that much of its strength comes from the ubiquity of criticism it offers. Ubiquity in many mediums blurs the normal line of judgment of its target. This is why food is often advertised in mass quantities, why supermarkets are organized as they are, and why people who eat facing a buffet table eat, on average, about 30% more than those who eat facing away. Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore's very own 12-foot-tall pyramid of 7-Up, states so many facts, that he creates an argument by not allowing another to exist. Moore makes his documentaries with criticism in mind--he expects people to be weary. For this very reason, Moore purposely shuts down or discredits opposition before it is even stated. One tactic I noticed Moore employed was the de-emphasis on himself. It seemed like in many of the scenes where he did not talk or comment, it was like his very absence stated how Bush did not need any verbal criticism because without a guiding voice (Moore's very own), Bush could get himself into obvious trouble--which he did multiple times at press conferences and such. I believe these scenes are the lowest blows as many of Bush's verbal blunders are irrelevant to the condition of the United States.

As we have stated previously in class, documentaries allow people to artistically express their opinions on a certain subject. Michael Moore may have portrayed Bush in a way that might seem offensive or unfair but he was just presenting his thoughts on the subject. If someone chooses to eat up his point of view, then it's their fault for not being able to think on their own. Michael Moore just offers a view and hopes that people will agree with it. I think that he was completely justified in showing how Bush reacted after he was told that the Trade Center had been hit. The Onions Scott Tobias said that said that it would be hard to process the news before knowing the actual magnitude of the event. And I completely agree. But as president, don't you think Bush should had investigated a little more to discover the extent of damage? I would hope so. Instead of finding this out, he let the minutes pass on by while reading to children. I don't think that Michael Moore was unfair at all. He just shared his point of view with the public.

-Hannah Knechtel

Adam Dreyfuss - Farenheit 9/11

First off, I think Michael Moore's intention need to be laid out on the table. He is not trying to tell the story of the first term of the Bush presidency, he is not trying to tell a story at all. There is not artistic intention in any way. The one point that Moore has is to get people mad. To get people to ask themselves, who let this guy into office? More importantly then that, who let him do all these “horrible” things that he did? Then, when come to the realization that it was us, the voting public, we will be compelled to vote against him for a second term in office.
That said, Moore does an excellent job of pulling off. He keeps us questioning Bushes actions to the point that we don't have time to stop and wonder what Bush's intentions are. Every we stop to think about what something means, Moore retorts with an so expertly crafted, that we can't help but accept it as fact. This film genius as long as you don't know any of it before stepping into the theater.
As for the structure of the film, there are two distinct halves. The first half we Bush as the blithering idiot who goes on vacation and reads children's books rather than do real work. Once, the events of 9/11 unfold, an act believed to be too grotesque to show on screen, Bush becomes the evil mastermind, using scare tactics to do as he wants around the world. Of course, while these two halves are very much contradictory, in the heat of the film we are to on edge care.

'Fahrenheit 9/11': Things to consider

Quick reminders:  Blogposts are now due Mondays by 5p.  Comments on posts may be made any time up until classtime on Tuesday.  Keep in mind that in order to receive credit, you must publish a post and post comment(s), and that blogging takes place every week that we have class (not just film weeks).  With that said...

There is a lot to chew on with this film!  Here are a number of considerations that you might respond to:

•  What do you think about Moore’s technique in showing the World Trade Center attack?  For example, the screen is black as the planes hit, and then we see only faces of observers, accompanied by lyrical music.

•  What do you think about the portrayal of Bush early in the film (August 2001 until the planes hit)?  Is it fair or not (think of the choices Moore makes in what he shows, the music, and so forth)?  How does it affect how one sees the rest of the film?  Regarding the shots of Bush reading to the children in Florida, The Onion’s Scott Tobias does think that they are unfair: ‘How could anyone be expected to process the news before witnessing its magnitude?’ he asks.  I.e., is seven minutes of frozen uncertainty really so damnable or not understandable?

•  Tobias claims that the film offers a ‘mixture of speculation and low blows’ and is ‘sloppy as cinema and dubious as journalism’.  Why do you think that he says this, and do you agree?  Is Bush simply an easy target?  Even if the film’s claims are warranted, are they cheap shots?  Is the attack one worth forging?

•  A. O. Scott in The New York Times writes that ‘Mr. Moore uses archival video images, rapid-fire editing and playful musical cues to create an exaggerated, satirical likeness of his targets’ – though he continues, ‘The president and his team have obliged him by looking sinister and ridiculous on camera.’  If Scott is right here, is this a defensible strategy for a documentary?

•  Most reviewers complain that the film is not cohesive enough or clearly-enough argued.  Scott suggests this possible retort: ‘The film can be seen as an effort to wrest clarity from shock, anger and dismay, and if parts of it seem rash, overstated or muddled, well, so has the national mood.’  It is worth wondering, however, whether the average American viewer has the patience for the intricacies of the ties being suggested in the film – it is complex.

•  Scott claims that the film offers ‘an extraordinary collage of ordinary American voices’.  How do you think Moore picked these ‘voices’?  How does he portray them?   Is he successful in giving voice to the ‘ordinary’ person?  If so, why might that be an advantage for his film?

•  Speaking of ‘collage’, the film often exhibits extensive pasting together of images and sound – think, for example, of the comedic visual of Bush administration heads affixed to ‘Gunsmoke’ bodies.  Do such techniques make the film less realistic or truthful?

•  What do you think of Aufderheide’s analysis of the film? – Documentary Film (7): ‘Fahrenheit 9/11, a sardonic, anti-Iraq[-]war film, addressed the American public directly, as people whose government was acting in the public’s name…  Moore is not a minion of the powerful as propagandists are.  He was putting forward, as he had every right to, his own view about a shared reality, frankly acknowledging his perspective.  Further, he was encouraging viewers to look critically at their government’s words and actions.  (Potentially weakening this encouragement, however, was his calculated performance of working-class rage, which can lead viewers to see themselves not as social actors but merely as disempowered victims of the powerful.)’

On the nature of reality and photography, but mostly reality - Gavin Owens

Photography or documentaries will always be taken as some form of reality, but I would suggest it is impossible to capture the world ‘as it is’ (reality being the absolute truth). As I was reading the Gulf War Did Not Take Place by Baudrillard, who in my opinion is as much of a genius as he is a pest, I began to think about how we perceive information in any form.
“Information has a profound function of deception.” this quote in particular is what sparked my thinking.
This is simply the nature (or danger?) of information! If something is presented in a convincing manner, like “reality media”, then it is simply perceived as real even though it need not be remotely true. We can then assume that living in this ‘photoshopped’ age tends to produce a more deceived public, rather than a skeptical one. The slide show by Time magazine is an elegant illustration of this problem.
On a personal note, I find that as I look back into the history of thought I see a paradox taking shape. As we we understand more it becomes shockingly clear that nothing is clear. This has culminated in the madness of relativism and post-modern thought. If I am skeptical of photos and documentaries then I am no more skeptical of what I myself perceive to be reality. Baudrillard illustrates where we stand as modern man. His quote, “What I am, I don’t know, I am the simulacrum of myself” is profound, or maybe profoundly absurd. I believe the issue with “reality media” to be a microcosm of the larger debacle taking place. For now, we will have to continue trusting “reality media”, though I/we may not necessarily believe it true.

photo fakes-Shannon Stanis

Because it is so easy to manipulate images, the public has to be wary of the information placed before them. It would be nice to say that we could trust film makers, politicians and the like, but as we have learned you cannot believe everything you see. The brief history of Photo Fakery was not news but still eye opening. In my experience, I am be aware of something but still shocked to see it in practice. There are always reasons to doubt a photo or film but that does not mean that none have any merit. Often these medias are our greatest source for the truth and expose situations to the world. I think the most important element is to be cautious. If all sides of the issue are taken into account and all factual imformation found, a proper opinion can be formed.

Miheer Munjal - On the Nature of Vegetables and Adapted Photography

Interesting analogy with the vegetables, but one that I find is incorrect. I see two ways to look at this. One, that there was some point in time where the mediums used to express facts rather than fiction was inherently boring (on account of their content). Two, that each person has their own perspective, and that this is why some people see (for example) a documentary as boring, while others see it as informative. I tend to lean towards a compromise between the two, in that both apply equally for everyone, and that something that is supposed to be "good for the viewer" can be boring or interesting, depending entirely upon the viewer and their personal opinions. On a side note, I do agree with the second part of the analogy; there are some examples that are better at informing the audience of something than others (this is always true --> nature of competition).

On the "adapting" of photography, I had actually read this article when it was originally published (on the NYTimes) and found it extremely interesting. I had heard and personally seen some of the so-called "photoshop effect", and I am not sure exactly how I feel. I do feel critical of the news mediums using this method (or at least when they label something as a "true" story), as manipulating a photograph is not actually showing the truth. As we discussed in class, it is really ingrained in our culture that photos are simply a "shot of the past", as in, they are exactly a particular moment of a specific event that happened in the past, a "snapshot". Anyways, relating to documentaries, I do feel slightly betrayed, if you will, as this is a complete manipulation of the truth. For example, if one were to photoshop a political figure into an extremely incriminating situation (such as a strip club or something), it could easily destroy their career, whether or not it actually happened. As it stands in today's society, it is very easy to say something, but very hard to "take it back". This brings up a question of ethics, which is much too long to add to a blogpost... Maybe we can discuss it in class...

Textbooks and Veggies- Hannah Knechtel

I do not necessarily agree with the textbook and vegetable analogy. Textbooks and vegetables provide us with things we need- knowledge and nutrients, but have the reputation of being horrible. Like most things there is always going to be the good and the bad. There are poorly written textbooks, yucky veggies, and documentaries are the same way. Some people might look at them as the bad textbook or the vegetable because they have only seen ones that are made purely for the purpose of informing people. There are plenty of documentaries that have good information and are incredibly entertaining. And even if you do come across a slow moving documentary, I find that they are more entertaining that a textbook. Instead of just using your eyes you must listen, too. I find that using both of these senses makes the experience much more enjoyable. But maybe that's just me. I guess I don't really know what else to say about this because it's completely based on opinion. There is no way that anyone can actually say that documentaries are like textbooks, or that they aren't. It's all based on your learning/entertainment preferences.

Oh yeah, and I would have done this earlier but I wasn't aware that we had blog posts for weeks without movies until like.... 10 o'clock last night. Ooops!! Now I know :]

Textbooks/Vegetables? Kelly Larkin

I'd just like to start by saying how much I enjoyed the vegetable analogy :).

I'd like to continue by saying documentaries are not the textbooks or the vegetables of film. Well, if you're like me and you really enjoy yummy vegetables, I guess you could say they are, but in the sense of the prompt, I'd disagree.

A textbook must be read, and the reader is purposefully reading it to obtain the information within. Stereotypically, vegetables are only eaten for their nutrients, and I guess a lot of people eat them just for that purpose. In a documentary, I feel at least, the viewer absorbs information just by watching, even if they just watched for entertainment or interest purposes. I grant that there are going to be arguments like, "People read text books because they're interested in it; people eat vegetables because they like them; people know that a documentary will be informative going into it; etc," but I think that a documentary is a different kind of informative. The experience of watching a movie is much more invasive and appeals to more senses that just reading a textbook.

I'm not sure how much 150 to 300 words is, but I think that's about as concise as I can be and still feel like I've made my point....

The Imperfect Nature of Communication

I was not surprised that photography has been manipulated throughout the years, even in most recent, famous photographs; even if not known, it’s still expected. However, I think that to really analyze what photography is, one must look at the more general category in which photography lays: communication. Communication is the key to a society, as it shapes not only the spread of ideas, but also the development of an individual. But it is never perfect. News broadcasts, magazine articles, commercials, and other modern forms of media give people impressions of how life exists on the world and how it is “supposed” to be. Because of this powerful amount of influence, one would think that the messages should be as factual and unbiased as possible. Realistically, however, it is well known that such sources of information often as purposefully skewed for entertainment, monetary, and political reasons.

But is photography different? Well, no. Framing comes into question, color, angle, etc. What about what's happening behind the camera. There's countless issues. Even word of mouth, which is and has always been regarded as one of the most trustworthy forms of communication, suffers to flaws that exist even in speech. The game of “telephone” has taught us that certainly sufficiently. Even a mechanical issue like background noise or stuttering could affect the message.

The bottom line is that all forms of communication fail to work. One could even point out that converting an idea or emotion into words or expressions is, in itself, faulty. What we need to focus on more than whether or not something exists as a perfect representation of reality is how to critical think and judge ideas and opinions to get the best grasp of reality for ourselves.

Adam Dreyfuss - Perspective, the gulf war, and bad vegetables

I don't think that analogizing the documentary to a thing generally associated with distaste is apt in anyway. The documentary is an art form just as an other form of film making is an art form. Bringing it to the level of textbooks or vegetables assumes a negative connotation that the documentary can rise above, rather than a high platform for it to fall from.
Documentaries do present reality from one perspective. Of course reality is something differing from every perspective and way of viewing the world. One persons reality may be different than another, most likely the documentary is true to only one such perspective of the world but in that sense it is true.
Baudrillard is not arguing that their was never a conflict but rather that their was never a war. A war implies to foes on sound footing who attack one another but the conflict in the gulf, according to Baudrillard, was rather a US assault on a foreign entity. In the end it was a showing of US strength, not of war.

Documentaries and Textbooks -- Ethan Feldman

I would agree with the idea of documentaries being the textbooks of film. The premise behind documentaries is to present not only the facts, but certain opinions, in a clear and concise fashion, while giving the audience the preconception that the information they shall receive is both factual and important. Textbooks, in my mind, fit the same format. Some textbooks focus more on listing facts, some focus on numbers and analysis, and some could even follow a topic on a more "interesting" route, such as a biography. I suppose that the main connection in my mind is that I take both sources to have factual basis, at the least. That is not to say that other movies or other books must be resolved to be entirely fiction, just that documentaries or textbooks are of greater merit. As Auderheide points out, documentarians often manipulate and distort reality to fit their works. Textbooks are much more subtle with this, however, each textbook is inherently biased by the author. Everyone who puts out information, be it film or writing, has opinions that come out in the presentation (Even if for the simple fact that they are putting out the information and highlighting it as especially interesting or important).

Documentaries and the Aristotelian Model of Argument - Brendan Colón

I think one of the most compelling topics we touched on last week had to be the nuances of documentary styles and their comparisons to other works of the genre. I also found that the different interpretations of what a filmmaker believes to suit a documentary become much more tangible when placed before the Aristotelian model of argument where a statement or message is defended by logos (appeal to logic), pathos (appeal to emotion), and ethos (credibility of the speaker). The model states that equal attention to these three outlets of appeal will create a more applicable and universal argument. Interestingly enough this model highlights the key difference between Michael Moore and the part of his film crew that did Trouble the Water. I've found that Moore appeals strongly to logos but, to me, his "card stacking" of facts and numbers without regard to opposition is deleterious to his ethos. It is a bit ironic, but I think a lot of his pathos comes from the aggressive nature of his appeal to logos. In direct comparison to Moore, I believe the directors of Trouble the Water appeal evenly to all outlets of this model. Pathos and logos are established by the same question, why? Why are American citizens being deserted in such a manner and why are the safety measures failing? The question cites logos but the journey to the answer is what cites pathos. Ethos is established by what the film portrays as real life. There is no visible narrator and because of this ethos, credibility, is established by a visual proof of occurrence. So to me, I would classify Trouble the Water as a better “statement”. This model even confirms my general dislike for the news documentary where ethos and logos is only established by the news source name and pathos is exulted beyond my taste as a way to keep viewers.