Week 10: Things to consider

Week 10: Things to consider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Errol Morris (Cunningham, Art of the Documentary)

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Why?’

‘It shows that style does not guarantee truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Zachary -Brendan Colon

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

Dear Zachary

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

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

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

-Gavin Owens

Dear Zachary

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

Shamelessly Manipulative?

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

No way

As we can see in the movie, the counterargument to the prohibition of bail for those charged with premeditative murder is that if the crime is a "specific crime," the charged person is not a danger to the overall community. Now, I see this as incredibly ridiculous. Anyone who plans out another's murder may be planning out someone else's, and the court system just doesn't know it. How can someone who has already planned and executed murder not be capable of just doing it again? Thinking about it aside from the emotionally powerful film and this specific case of Shirley Turner, my opinion still doesn't change. Before being proven fully innocent, someone charged with premeditative murder, specific or not, should not be allowed out of prison on bail or for good behavior, or for any reason.

Manipulative Yet Natural

I agree that it is nearly irrefutable that the filmmakers wanted the film to produce outrage in viewers. After watching the documentary, I personally did feel emotionally exhausted and was left both saddened and angry, at what I’m not even sure. This feeling was purposefully and tactically created by the filmmakers to enhance the purpose of conveying the events as emotionally near how the family members felt at the time of their occurrence. In a sense, this is a very manipulative method of approach.
One aspect of this approach is that we are not aware of many facts until the moment where they are most critical and/or shocking, important, or useful. For example, we are not aware of Zachary’s death until after the heartwarming moments of the meeting of uncle and nephew; thus, when the sudden and shocking events occur, we are left in pregnant suspense as our emotions are rapidly twisted and toyed with. Also, an element of manipulation may be that we see the dramatic mood shift of Andrew’s father when the clips show him shouting and vulgarly cursing Shirley.
However, although we are led on by a string and are aware of only as much as needed before larger events completely change our emotions and opinions, I think that this may be the most logical and honest way to create the documentary. The emotional response is constructed to mirror the family members’ own, and in this way, we really do get to know Andrew and Zachary without labels and in an unbiased (with respect to time) way. And the events that occur are unfamiliar territory, as they rightly should be when they occur, leading me to conclude that although we are left outraged due to the filmmakers’ effective approach, it is the most natural way to experience the tragic events.

Yo Zachary

This film, in a word, I thought was brilliant. The style of film making served the plot well. A good documentary should be story, and like any great or even good story, theirs needs to be a conflict fueling the push forward. most documentaries lack a story ark. A clearing rising action, climax, and falling action but this film does that very well. You truly are in suspense to see what happens next. If we are to call this film manipulative it is only in the creating of a powerful story.

In terms of seeing this film as trying to portray a message, I did not see it that way. The emotional journey is a depressing one that by the end I am not fired up to make a difference, but rather I am sad. I see the films ending as not a call to arms but rather a further unfolding of the actions Zachary's grandparents took after his passing.

Dear Zachary

I would say that this documentary outraged me. However, I would not that that was the prodominant emotion running through me. I do not usually cry while watching movies, documentary or not, and I could not hold back the tears. This definitely struck something within me. I left the room feeling drained and a little depressed. I actually went and talked to my friend about the film and how it affected me. I started crying again. The way that Kuenne pieced together the story really got to me. It was not just a murder story. It was a story about relationships, love, and loss. It went into the lives and emotions of these people and it allowed the viewer to see how deeply this affected them. I believe that Kuenne would take this approach so that the viewer would feel the need to become involved in the matter. If someone watches this and feels a strong connection with the family I would think that they would be more likely to take part in their cause.

Dear Zachary

It is clear to me that the film provokes outrage toward what horrible things happened to the family. The outrage he wanted to build in viewers was intended to gain support for the cause set out by the family and to support them in their efforts. People do not generally take a stand for or against something unless their feelings on the subject are very strong. With strong feelings comes strong action. I am sure that the film was very successful in sending aid to the cause Andrew's parents were/are working so hard to see obtained. But, I do not feel that was the predominant feeling I was left with after watching the film. The story was so touching and so very sad. It was very nice to me to see all the support that was giving to Andrew's parents and all the love that was given to them. It was also so nice to see all the people that truly cared about him and we got an insight into what a wonderful person Andrew was. He had such an impact on so many people in his short life. One of the most touching parts to me was the amount of people who wanted Andrew to be their best man at their wedding. I felt such sympathy for his parents and everything they went through.

Project proposal!

Remember that your proposal (1-2 paragraphs to sketch your argument or documentary) for your short paper or documentary film is due at the beginning of the next class (the 27th).

You have 2 choices for the project:

•  a short essay (1200-1500 words, or ~4 pages) that will examine one ‘outside’ film (such as one from the list of reserve films that I provide you) and include discussion of at least one work of philosophy that we cover in class; or

•  a short documentary film may be completed, pending my approval.

Satisfactorily completing one of these two options is required to receive credit for the course, regardless of how many additional points you have.

'Dear Zachary': Things to consider

•  Stephen Holden, in his NYTimes review, writes ‘It is impossible not to be fired up by Kurt Kuenne’s incendiary cri de coeur… it wants to provoke outrage.’  It’s hard to disagree that the filmmaker intends to create outrage, but is that the predominant feeling you leave the film with?  Did you feel ‘emotionally exhausted’ (DeBruge) by the film?  If you did feel outrage, what was Kuenne’s purpose in creating that in you?

•  Peter DeBruge writes in his Variety review that ‘Kuenne would probably be the first to admit he’s crafted a shamelessly manipulative version of events, one that works best for audiences who know nothing about the case’; he ‘transforms his personal tribute into a full-blown polemic’.  Do you agree that Dear Zachary is a ‘shamelessly manipulative polemic’?  If so, is it justified in this case?  (Why might it not be?)

•  Do you think that Kuenne’s ‘aggressive style’, as DeBruge puts it, is effective, or does it harm its message in any way?  The film obviously manipulates the order of events substantially – the effect making the film full of twists and turns, at times a cliffhanger; is this justified?

•  Consider how much film there was of Andrew Bagby during his short life; do you think that this film could have been made with all of that (unusually plentiful) footage?  If so, would it have been as effective?  If not, what does this say about the films that get made and the films that we see?

•  David and Kathleen (Andrew’s parents/ Zachary’s grandparents) put forth strongly the claim that those charged with premeditative murder should not be allowed bail.  What might the counterargument be?  Is their argument affected by the context – i.e., Shirley Turner’s release, the film itself – and would you have reacted differently to their claim if it had not been made in this (emotionally powerful) context?

•  Aufderheide writes about ‘the growth of personal documentary’ – like Dear Zachary – that ‘such films challenge viewers to recognize that truths exist in a context, in relationship to lies, and are selected from other truths…  Such films posit that there are important truths to be revealed and that they can be revealed in spite of – or even by calling attention to – the partiality of our understanding’ (105).  Can you explain Aufderheide’s point here?  Would you call Dear Zachary a ‘personal documentary’?  If so, how does it do what Aufderheide claims this type of film does?

Manipulating Nature

People often forget that documentaries are not always the absolute truth. They can show what the filmmaker believes to be true or what the filmmaker wants the audience to believe. However in the case of nature I think that filmmakers should try to keep as close to reality as possible. That said, if a filmmaker needs footage of a certain natural process that will not take place during the time that he/she is filming, I think it would be acceptable for the filmmaker to recreate this process without manipulating the authenticity of the process itself. Disney’s “White Wilderness” does not follow this because the entire story was fabricated. According to the article, lemmings were not native to the filming and were bought from kids in a different area. If Disney’s argument is that they confused dispersal with migration, then they should have done more research. Even in 1958, I’m sure it was possible to look further into a strange occurrence like mass lemming suicides.

"Cheetah on the Prowl", Take 5

Attenborough makes a really good point about manipulation in nature documentaries. I had never before really thought about filmmakers needing to more or less reenact scenes of nature rather than capture them live, but it made much more sense considering time and budget constraints. It would make even less sense if film crews were lucky enough to be at the right time and at the right place for each natural phenomenon caught on tape. Considering that this is a common practice, it can be said that nature documentaries are not entirely "realistic", and that's just fine by me. For me, manipulations and set ups are reasonable as long as they are of events that would naturally occur anyway. If a family of cheetahs would naturally eat a dead gazelle, then there really is nothing wrong with a gazelle carcass being artificially located near the cheetahs. The reenactments become unethical when they depict events that do not occur in the wild, such as the Lemming suicides, or those that wouldn't happen under normal circumstances, such as a bloody battle between a hippo and a shark. Obviously, film makers should also try their best to film an organic act of nature, and use manipulation only as a backup plan. I've always thought that the main endeavor of a nature documentary is to teach, and therefore reenactments should be allowed in order to teach viewers about the wonders of nature

There is No Logical Way to Write "There Are Three Forms of the Word 'Too'"

I don't think there is a definite line that can divide the morality of the validity in the recreation of life in documentaries. Realistically, however, there is no need to argue on where this line may exist because there is no case that will come close to it. One needs to look at the pros of a documentary in light of its portrayal of true life and decide if they outweigh the cons; every one I have seen achieved this.
Take the documentary of the "suicidal" lemmings. Sure, lemmings don't really jump off cliffs. But even though I may have been deceived in one aspect, I also got to see what lemmings look like, how they run around, what they must live like in the wild, etc. In their attempt to make a big deal out of one thing, the filmmakers ended up naturally educating and portraying much more than just one ‘feat.’ And let’s be honest, without one inciting incident that really gives the film an ‘edge,’ the documentary wouldn’t have as much appeal and wouldn’t be very interesting. I damn well wouldn’t have watched it if not for this idea of seeing “suicidal lemmings.” So I did, and was tricked, and hey, I learned a pretty good amount about lemmings because of it.

On Altering Nature Itself...

I think it’s a very difficult question to decide whether altering nature for a more film-friendly setting is ok or not. One must keep in mind that the film-based media, especially the ones that are released to theaters or specifically to thrill (i.e. things on the Discovery Channel for instance), are intended to present as a visual medium some great excitement or drama. As Attenborough states, if one just showed a film of a lion just sleeping all day rather than it chasing say a gazelle during a hunt, its far less entertaining for the audience. Filmmakers know this, and that is one main reason why they feel the need to provoke nature, and to entice a normal, everyday reaction, just a little bit faster. Where one should draw the line is possibly where the actions that are provoked are ones that are completely out of the ordinary, or ones that give a totally false perception to an animal. The best example I think of is the shark, specifically the great white. Thanks to movies like Jaws, it has a horrible reputation as an animal that is bloodthirsty and just after humans to kill. Moreover, even the “documentaries” on Jaws, even from credible, “unbiased” sources such as National Geographic, they are still somewhat presented as a hunting animal that lives for the kill. For someone who is actually educated on sharks, they know this not to be true, and thus, this would be a good example of how a filmmaker’s choice of “directing direction” can alter an audience’s opinion forever.

Reenactment as Reality

I am conflicted over whether is acceptable to manipulate reality in a documentary. The example we discussed, specifically concerning nature films, had me thinking that it would be alright to manipulate a situation. It certainly makes sense to me that the documenter wants to have some kind of product and therefore must find a way to obtain it. Some films work very diligently to capture actuality, I know the Planet Earth spends a good deal of time discussing how they often searched for weeks, months, or years to capture specific scenes, but I sympathize with those who do not have the funds or ability to have this patience. I feel that it is acceptable to recreate a situation, as long as the recreation is verifiable as accurate, perhaps by an accredited expert in the field. If this is done, there isn't really a difference between recreation and reality, for the events occur in the same fashion. My struggle arose when I had to keep telling myself that I would not feel jilted by being told something was real, when it truly was not. My expectation for reality seemed to be overriding my curiosity for simple visuals or truths. Somehow, I cannot seem to put the fact of manipulation out of my mind, even when I logically believe that there is no real difference between the recreation and the events that may occur naturally. I suppose my conflict just will not be settled.

The Case for the Ethical Use of Reenactment in Documentaries

Last weekend I saw Paranormal Activity which sparked my intrigue about the assumptions of a documentary. The entire movie is filmed with a hand camera and unfolds like a documentary but the film is, unlike real documentaries, not the actuality or approximation of real life, but rather, its imitator. Documentaries filmed with a hand camera consistently insist upon their truthfulness as the audience has access to such a mean of film but does not readily recognize the possibility for manipulation. The grit and grain of the hand camera and its seemingly untrained and unprofessional "guerrilla" hand directing its movements assumes honesty rather than a 35mm camera shot placed and pointed by a director with a shot in mind. It seems interesting to me when movies posing as documentaries use the mostly inherent and innocuous assumptions of truthfulness to convey a sense of realism while documentaries borrow from film's expected use of reenactment to convey that same sense of realism when first hand footage is not available. It seems that if films of all types are attempting in different ways to capture the same sense of true immersion and truthfulness, and no single technique alone can always bring the sense of truthfulness that the creator is seeking, then techniques such as reenactments in documentaries should not undermine the effect or "ethics" of a documentary so long as these techniques are employed with the intent of achieving the film's attunement to such a reality.

Can reenactment be like paprika? -Gavin Owens

I think that reenactment in film can only be about as accurate as historical fiction. Personally, I love the reenacted scenes because it adds a breath of life into what otherwise might be a “stale” kind of documentary. It makes sense that the History Channel, which is still a business, wants to create something that will appeal to a wide audience.
A historical fiction can portray famous figures in history, historical vernacular, customs, settings, events, etc. It can only portray these things using the present day knowledge of what happened and who lived it. Naturally as a writer you will have to make-up a lot to fill in the knowledge gaps. You may add some interesting side plots that never really happened, but are quite “plausible”. Yet, everyone seems to know they are reading fiction when they read a historical fiction. When you have a reenactment in video form, which is fiction wrapped in reality -just like a historical fiction, then you may run into trouble. It's quite possible that as we approach mediums of communication increasingly similar to what we perceive as reality then more people are likely to accept it as true. This is the danger of reenactment. It's not true, it's a good guess with a spice of dramatization. I don't think I have to convince everybody that rewriting history or misrepresenting history is a terrible thing. Reenactment can be relatively benign or it can be devastating on a persons perspective of history. I would say staying in the “benign” zone is where most people stay and where it is acceptable to stay.

In and out

I feel that it is very important for filmmakers to present the truth and reality of whatever they are trying to present to the viewer. I don't feel that if the goal of a film is to present reality, absolute reality, that it is alright for them to set up for something to happen that maybe normally would anyway. Just because a snake normally eats a certain kind of mouse doesn't mean you should set the mouse in front of the snake in order to make a film about snakes in a certain area. And as for leaving things out, it is just as vital to realize what is not there. In many strongly biased political films tons of information is left out or changed to make their view point seem stronger. Without being informed fully on a situation it is very easy to be misled. That is why I feel it is important to stay informed and I wish that all mediums could be reliable. It would be very nice if political documentaries and public figures gave all the information on a subject but alas, it is not so. I guess that is why I feel filmmakers should present the actual capture of what is happening instead of something planned out by them.

Leave In? Take Out?

In asking how we should portray real life than perhaps we have spent too long analyzing what should and what should not we put in a documentary without remember that at the end of the day a documentary is a form of entertainment and self expression and can portray or not portray whatever they want. I think if people believe every thing they see and do not rather gather information from encyclopedias, newspapers, and other more reliable sources than perhaps it makes more sense not to criticize that film but rather to criticize the film goer. Disney can show what they want for we know we are watching Disney, family friendly, talking mice and singing lamp sticks Disney, and if we start putting too much stock into their facts than perhaps we are to blame.

On anther note I also think it is interesting to look at the points raised in this week's reading concerning the point of a documentary. What is the point of recreating a history that has already to happened, why recreate reality when reality is, well, real? Perhaps it is best to stick to fiction as reality is already covered by the records preservation of real life.

Film v. Writing

Seeing a documentary film and reading a piece on the same subject provides completely different experiences. Watching a documentary can play to your senses more than reading can. Devices such as visual effects and music can evoke certain emotions that the director may want the viewer to feel. This will make it more likely for people to see the subject in the light that they wish. I find it easier to understand a topic while watching a film about it rather than just reading. I suppose the advantage of film is that it is usually made for informative purposes, as well as entertainment. It is usually more enjoyable than sitting down and reading and article. I suppose an advantage of written word is that you have the words right in front of you. This makes it possible for one to look back and review what they have read. The Aufderheide stated that some filmmakers avoid consulting a wide range of experts. I am not sure what I think about that idea. I guess you have to take into consideration that both the writer and the director have a specific intention for their piece. They will consult who they find necessary while completing their piece. I do not think that we can say that it is only the filmmakers. It may be a different medium, but they are both expressing their thoughts and ideas.

What's Missing?

I definitely feel that considering what had been left out of a movie trying to convey "truth" can be even more important that considering what has been put in. A film maker definitely has the power to edit, pick, and choose which facts, scenes, and information are put into their movie. Obviously if they're trying to convey a certain point to their audience, they will use confirmation bias, and only show the audience things that will confirm the point they're trying to make. When analyzing a film, it is important to recognize that we may not have been shown all the facts, and consider what sorts of things might be left out. Once this is recognized, usually we can find the truth and additional facts to get a more well-rounded perspective of the situation.

Week 8: Things to consider

Darkness in El Dorado review

•  In the letter following the review, Richard Dawkins and a number of other quite eminent academics offer this criticism:

‘Tierney writes: “I gradually changed from being an observer to being an advocate…  Traditional, objective journalism was no longer an option for me.”  This rejection of objectivity came from the belief, endorsed by Horgan, that anthropologists’ documentation of the warfare of the Yanomami has been used by others to exploit them, and should therefore be denounced.  That is a fatal mistake.  Indigenous peoples have a right to survive in their lands whether or not they (like all human societies) are prone to violence and warfare.  Self-anointed “advocates” who link the survival of native peoples to the myth of the noble savage do nothing but harm, because when the facts show otherwise, either they have weakened the case for native rights, or they must use any means necessary to rewrite the facts.’  (p. 6)

What is the criticism being made here against the author of Darkness in El Dorado?  Do the letter-writers have a good point?

Lemming ‘suicides’; Aufderheide, Documentary Film, pp. 91-124; etc.

•  David Attenborough notes in Aufderheide that ‘a program “about a jungle where nothing happens is not really what you turned the television set on to see”’ (124).  With this in mind, is it ever ok for a filmmaker to manipulate nature in filming a nature documentary?  If so, when?  For example, what if the filmmaker moves a process along for the sake of filming it – say, releasing a mouse (prey) near a snake (predator) that normally eats that kind of mouse?  Or moving an animal to a slightly different location that is more filmable?

•  We talked a bit about manipulating information to include in a nature documentary, but what about what’s left out (which is a lot harder for the viewer to determine)?  For instance, Aufderheide notes about Disney’s films that ‘the sight of death was discreetly managed for general audiences…  For instance, Seal Island ignores the fact that seal bulls sometimes trample pups by accident’ (119-20).

•  Aufderheide writes that historical documentary filmmakers ‘struggle with the question of how much reenactment is appropriate and how it should be achieved’ (91).  While we have not been exposed to reenactment in the films we’ve seen for class, it’s a fairly widespread tactic for documentaries like those that appear on the History Channel.  Why are they used and why might they be a concern?

•  How is making a documentary film different than writing about the same topic?  Are there constraints that filmmakers have that writers don’t, or vice-versa?  Advantages that each holds over the other?  Aufderheide writes on the subject:

Filmmakers often avoid consulting a range of experts.  Too often for filmmakers’ liking, historians may be sticklers for precise historical sequences, discussion of multiple interpretations, and the need to insert minor characters or precise accuracies, all of which frustrate the clarity of filmed storytelling for broad audiences…  Unlike print historians who can digress, comment, and footnote, documentarians work in a form where images and sounds create an imitation of reality that is itself an implicit assertion of truth (92).

Quick yet Subtle

I think that the construction of the film is uncommonly effective at achieving purpose. Although I personally did not like (because it felt very manipulative) the quick pace of the cinematography, which includes relentless cuts during the interview, the fast slides, and the hit-and-run statistics, I think that they definitely give you the impression that you are “thinking alongside McNamara.” The documentary, due to this structure, attempts to portray its content as is true, which is understandable, but it neglects true contrast and thus lacks validity.
Furthermore, the quick pace contributes to the feeling that McNamara is thinking during the interview. However, with all of the film cuts and his seemingly manipulative nature, McNamara seemed untrustworthy and arrogant to me throughout the entire film.
As far as the idea that when asked a question to say an answer to a question that one wanted to have been asked, I think it’s a fair idea but that in a lot of situation its abused. In politics it’s abused to dodge questions and in this movie it was probably used to frame things how McNamara wanted.

On Interrotron, and a certain McNamara

Just a note, I wasn’t actually able to see what an Interrotron is… But I believe I have understood the general concept, and as such I will focus more on the effect rather than the setup. With that said, to me, this is an extremely effective technique that helps yield a humane quality to the person being interviewed. While one strategy of interviewers to have that “off-set” perspective, where the speaker never looks at the camera (due to the latter’s actually offset placement), having the speaker look directly into the camera forces the audience to focus on what that individual is saying, as opposed to showing the interviewer as a distraction. It also makes it seem like McNamara is directly talking to the audience, and not even to a filmmaker, and its as if he is in the same room as us sharing some personal advice. This is an effective method to get the film’s messages across.
Moreover on that point, McNamara himself is portrayed as the humble man who was just in the wrong place (in my opinion). Though he sharing some vital and valuable life lessons, it seemed that he was not apologetic for some of the things that he has done, justifying them by the same “fog of war” reference. In that sense, while he may seem like an honest character, he is not actually one who can be trusted. He is telling the “truth” perse, but offers no further explanation for his actions in response to threats. This only enhances the audience’s (possibly) pre-held notions about him, as a person and as a character, and can either heighten the former’s positive or negative opinion.

Interrotron is watching you - Gavin Owens

I think the invention of the Interrotron is a subtle change in how to capture an interview; this subtle change, however, can have a powerful effect on the audience and the interviewee. It may have been a little awkward for McNamara but, as someone else has mentioned on this blog, there is no doubt he is used to having all kinds of cameras in his face. For the audience, it's really a big difference to have the person being interviewed looking directly at you at all times. McNamara wasn't just talking to Morris but to the audience as well. This creates an immediate connection and grabs the attention of whoever is watching the film. It's engaging and draws you in. As for the interviewee I think that there is another strange effect. Chris found that quote on how Robert McNamara “didn't like” the Interrotron. I think of a hyper-rational man like McNamara and wonder why he didn't like it. It could have been because it is a little foreign to most people. But... I like to think he didn't like it because he understood what the Interrotron does to the person being interviewed. He is a man trained, for the camera, to be poignant at times and evasive at others. I don't care who you are, 20 hours in front of any standard camera and you get comfortable. Spend 20 hours in front of a camera designed not to look like one and that's a whole other ball game. I would like to see some hard research done with this kind of device. I suspect that the interviewee would reveal more than he would if he were “on camera”. Without any kind of research done it is impossible to say for sure.

The Fog of Human Nature

Upon reviewing Robert McNamara's Eleven Lessons, it seemed to me as if they could be easily summed up into one unifying rule: be prepared to be wrong. As he states himself towards the end of the film, war is an entity far too complex for humans to fully comprehend. All of the variables that go into it are astronomical in quantity, and therefore failure in one way or another is simple unavoidable. McNamara's rules help to show us the different ways in which we can be wrong, and these of course extend beyond the realms of warfare. His first lesson, empathize with your enemy, demonstrates how we can err when we fail to acknowledge perspectives other than ours, while his second lesson, rationality will not save us, shows us that even logical, cool-headed thinking-- the kind of thought processing considered to be the more fool-proof-- is not without its faults. Lessons three (there's something beyond one's self), five (proportionality should be a guideline in war), and 8 (be prepared to reexamine your reasoning) are all similar in some way to the first lesson: we come closest to success only when we look beyond ourselves and our reasoning, compare ourselves to other things, and question our own selves. Lessons 4 (maximize efficiency) and 6 (get the data) at first appear to contradict the second lesson. After all, being efficient and having data are ways of being rational, but if rationality will not save us, why bother? The answer to that, one must remember that McNamara said that we cannot be saved by rationality, but he did not say that rationality cannot help us. Failure may be inevitable, but it doesn't have to be common, and efficiency and data will help to minimize it, but can't rid humans of it. Perhaps the reason we fail is not attributable to the methods we use, but to those who use the methods, i.e. humans. As lesson 11 clearly states, you cannot change human nature, and as Alexander Pope once said, "to err is human". One reason we may fail so often may be explained in McNamara's seventh rule (belief and seeing are both often wrong). This again goes back to the problems of limited perspective: we can only possibly see the whole picture with a narrowed scope, and under these circumstances, what we see may only be a part of the truth. The rest of the truth often does not factor into what be believe, so even if we are efficient and have a lot of data on a certain subject, this is insufficient when our beliefs are inaccurate. In McNamara's ninth rule (in order to do good, you may have to engage in evil) he speaks of moral and ethical failure. If the goal of society is to be peaceful, then to engage evil would be considered a failure for that society. However, like failure, war is also inevitable, and engaging in evil will hopefully help to prevent its own existence later in the future. Finally, there is McNamara's more affirming rule: 10. Never say never. Considering this instruction, I should revise the unifying rule I presented earlier; instead of "be prepared to be wrong", McNamara would have said, "be prepared to be wrong, but don't let that stop you". Even though we humans are fallible, this is not n excuse to give up on any endeavor, for failure is a very instructive tool if we learn from it.

The Fog of War

I think that the use of the interrotron is a very interesting concept. As with most inventions, I can see it must have ups and downs. As a viewer, it was nice that McNamara had eye contact with his audience. It made his responses and stories seem much more like conversations which kept my interest. I can see how terrible awkward it must have been for him to have to speak to a screen with a face on it asking questions. I know that if I were faced with that kind of interview I would be very uncomfortable. But it was obviously effective as they got more than enough interview time to make the whole film. I suppose the use of the device would have to vary according to the person being interviewed and the topic.

I think the rule to answer the questions you wished had been asked it a good political tactic. This allows the interviewee to be in charge of the conversation. This causes that person to appear strong and capable. Although, this can at times make the person appear foolish. But just like everything in politics, it is all in the way you can spin something. A truly good speaker can get away with this tactic and be very successful with it.

Fog of War

I found this film to be interesting but too slow for my taste. I believe that this is a direct result of the style that Morris used. I found myself, past perhaps lesson 4 or 5, attempting to anticipate what the next lesson would be, rather than listening to the lesson at hand. Knowing that a lesson was to be named struck my interest more than listening to McNamara go on about his own life. I'm not saying that there weren't parts I found interesting (particularly regarding Vietnam), it's just that these sections were spread between lengths that I found to be uninteresting.

As far as seeing the film as "real" or "constructed," I felt as though what I was watching was quite real. Be it the use of the Interrotron, which I did think added a more personal level to watching, or simply the fact that McNamara seemed so honest, this film felt quite genuine to me. While it may be true that McNamara walked around answers, as he said he only answers the questions he wants to be asked, the words he spoke revealed a great deal about a time period that has been shrouded from the public eye (namely concerning Vietnam). He strictly stated he would not delve into topics that were too complex, perhaps to get out of answering but I do not believe so, and the clear statement of his thoughts lead me to get a better understanding of what could have been going on in his own mind. Previously, I had not had a very high opinion of McNamara, seeing his as the architect behind the Vietnam War, after having pushed through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but this film allowed me to understand a portion of his view, particularly through the use of stock pictures and voice recordings of his time in the Cabinet. All in all, while slow, this film was quite effective at depicting a man and allowing him to speak on his own behalf, clarifying his past.

The Interrotron

First off, I wasn’t particularly moved by this movie. I don’t have strong feelings of liking or disliking the film. It was very informative to me though. I did not know much about McNamara or details of the Vietnam War before seeing the film. Having seen the film now, I feel like I know more about the subject.

The interrotron is an interesting way to interview someone. It does allow for a more personal connection between the viewer and interviewee because it makes it seem like the person being interviewed is looking directly at the viewer. I think this helped me to pay more attention to the film. Even though the interrotron helps to create a bond between the person being interviewed and the viewer, I feel that it would be a very strange experience while the interview was in progress. It might feel like a camera is interviewing him/her. I feel that this would create a little bit of a false sense of intimacy between the interviewer and interviewee. Even though they are in the same room, they aren’t necessarily facing or engaged with each other. I do see how for the purposes for viewer that the interrotron is a good way to capture the audience’s attention right away. I found this interview with Morris about the making of Fog of War and thought this question was interesting.

Q: Did McNamara like it? (“it” being the interrotron)

A: Well, you have to remember that we are talking about someone who has been interviewed a thousand times. He walked into the studio and said, "What is that?" I smiled and said, "The Interrotron." He said, "Well, whatever it is, I don’t like it." But then he sat down, and we proceeded to record over twenty hours of interviews. I guess he came to like it, too.

The Interrotron

I think the Interrotron is a really smart invention. I think it's definitely clever to think of a way for the interviewee to never lose eye contact with the audience or the interviewer.

For the audience, I definitely think the Interrotron makes an interview more engaging. It feels more personal and much more intriguing to watch someone talk when they're actually looking at you, and not off to the side or something. In that way, I suppose it would make the film or interview more effective.

From the interviewee's standpoint, I feel like it would be really awkward to be interviewed and filmed via a contraption that basically looks like you're talking on Skype. It would make it feel not-very-formal to me, since there's no big camera and someone isn't sitting there taking notes on me, etc. In a way, it might make the person more honest and comfortable if they feel like it's less formal and there's less pressure. On the other hand, if they do feel awkward or weird, it might take away from the interview. I suppose it depends on the person being interviewed, since all people would react differently to certain situations like that.

Introspection of Recitation

The Fog of War truly is an entertaining piece of film-making but perhaps when we consider what it is we are made to think about the entire film begins to come apart. I think it's interesting that the Chicago Reader points out that the film is more entertainment that contemplation. For a film where you really should be hating McNamara for all his actions we seemed to be lolled into a false sense that we are watching and introspection rather than a recitation of history. The eleven lessons presented throughout, we are made to believe are those that McNamara presents when it fact it is the filmmakers approximation of what the life work McNamara sums up. The film uses introspective pauses and cuts out pauses at others, we are made to see an introspection when perhaps there is nothing there of the kind.

Fog of War

Personally I do not like this documentary. This is the second time I have seen it and I have had trouble concentrating both times. For some reason when documentaries are mainly composed of interviews I have a hard time getting into them. I found the graphics, moving titles, and other visual effects entertaining in this film. They helped me get through it. I do not think they made the documentary seem less real. Some clips seemed irrelevant at times, but I think a lot of them had a clear purpose. I never really knew how damage we caused in Vietnam. The flashing of the percentages of cities bombed showed me how extreme the destruction really was there. There were so many towns that were basically destroyed that they could only be on the screen for a split second in order to show them all. I found it very effective and it made the film easier to watch!

Not Entirely Ethical but Defiantly Sensible

This rule of answering the question that you wish was asked carries with it many implications that need to be considered before it is taken into practice. McNamara, in his term as Secretary of Defense, was expected to work on two entirely different fronts. A leader of military operations, and an official ambassador to the people of the U.S. of the military's status. While not directly answering the question that is posed as a student is defiantly less than ideal, for a man of significant status such as McNamara, nobody will force him to clarify out of respect for the position he holds. From here, not directly answering the question posed is a way to keep from misspeaking or having said something that can be ambiguous. McNamara is ahead of his time in his consideration of this because when politicians speak today, they literally are on a verbal tightrope where one mistake will result in a subsequent backlash from the media which, around the time of Vietnam, was just beginning to increase their coverage on the war. If McNamara answers the questions he wishes was asked, while it may not be entirely ethical, he will be able to swiftly respond and remain the "IBM machine with legs", and therefore, keep the trust invested in him by those who cannot read past a more subtle form of deflection.

'The Fog of War': Things to consider

•  Roger Ebert mentions Morris’ use of his ‘“Interrotron,” a video device that allows Morris and his subjects to look into each other’s eyes while also looking directly into the camera lens.’  (To get an idea, here’s a picture of what that looks like:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2113/1526404040_2df51d5847.jpg.)  What do you think of Morris’ technique – what are the effects for the audience, and what might the effects be for the interviewee?

•  Ebert remarks on Morris’ ‘ability to bring life to the abstract,’ using ‘graphics, charts, moving titles and visual effects in counterpoint to what McNamara is saying.’  Were these elements effective to you?  Did they make the film more constructed and less ‘real’?  Conversely, did they help you understand the claims and statistics better than you would have if you had simply read them?  For example, consider the howitzer/ atomic bomb visual construction: how does it affect you?  In what sense is it ‘real’?  Is it ok for Morris to include such constructions?  Or the analogizing of cities/ numbers (e.g., ‘Tokyo 51%/ New York 51%’); is it fair & useful, or is it misleading or manipulative in any way?

•  Ebert claims that ‘there is the uncanny sensation that [McNamara] is thinking as he speaks’.  Did you find this to be true?  Did you think of McNamara as honest, genuine, authentic in the interviews?

•  Conversely, McNamara says in the film, ‘I learned early on to never answer the question that is asked of you – answer the question that you wish had been asked of you.  And quite frankly, I follow that rule.  It’s a very good rule.’  Do you think it’s a good rule?  Have you ever noticed public figures following it?  Does this affect whether you believe he is making truthful statements in this documentary (of course, much of the time you don’t get to hear the actual questions)?

•  Jonathan Rosenbaum, in his review, responds quite differently than Ebert; evaluate his claim that the film’s ‘most impressive achievement may be its power to convince us that we're actually thinking (as opposed to brooding) along with McNamara, an effect achieved by Philip Glass’s throbbing score, rapid montages of charts and figures we aren't supposed to understand, and intertitles of 11 platitudinous lessons that structure and punctuate McNamara’s musings.’

•  Are the eleven purported lessons really lessons?  Here are the 11 ‘lessons’, on which you may comment if you wish:

1. Empathize with your enemy

2. Rationality will not save us

3. There’s something beyond one’s self

4. Maximize efficiency

5. Proportionality should be a guideline in war

6. Get the data

7. Belief and seeing are often both wrong

8. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning

9. In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil

10. Never say never

11. You can’t change human nature

•  Finally, if you wish to see a rebuke of several of McNamara’s claims, here is a critical article: http://www.slate.com/id/2092916/.

Sorry about the late post, I've been really busy today.

I've been happy with the class thus far. The discussions, especially lately, have been interesting and the films are certainly thought provoking, if a little grim. I have also been enjoying the readings thus far, and I have been reading them with more consistency than last year. As far as the blog goes, I think it's a really good idea. Last year, the mini-essays were not very interesting and I didn't find them to add a great deal to the class. The blog is a much more interesting way to write about class and I really like being able to see what everyone else has to say. As with last year, the small class size is a nice change of pace and the in-Allen feeling is awesome. It's a nice thing to look forward to every week as a break from work that is still productive, so it's ok to take. I really don't have any suggestions for improvement, I like the way the class is going thus far and I am looking forward to the remainder of the semester.

Being a Mirror... Attempting to Reflect.

My bad on the late post.

On the topic, I am enjoying the class of "philosophy of documentary films" so far. I wasn't quite sure what to expect, and honestly I had signed up so I could take an Allen class, one that wouldn't be like taking another calculus class. I'm glad I'm in it, documentary films are awesome.

Anyways. the best things I like about the class are the choices of documentaries themselves. I would probably not see a few of these movies on my own time if I was to choose them (I haven't even heard of a few), and this difference in perspective is good. I really cannot find something I dislike about the class. People are open in discussion, which is always lively even if the movie is not what is being discussed.

If I were the instructor I might focus more on the movies and letting people form their own ideas. While I feel the Aufrenheide text yields SOME extra knowledge, I do not see it as essential to the class, as compared to some of the short pieces we examine, and of course, the movies themselves.

The class has reminded me of how deep philosophy is, and how it can be applied to almost anything.

On effective ways to learn or teach... I guess I have learned that the more open and informal a class is, the more I learn (in my opinion at least). The structured, huge lectures are where I usually learn the least if it all. Also, reading the textbook is the key to the class most of the time.

Reflecting on Class

This class has a very relaxed atmosphere that I enjoy. I am learning a lot from listening to everyone's opinions. I'm constantly surprised at how much everyone knows and what good arguments they bring up. Sometimes I find it hard though to express my opinions (but that might just be my own problem). I agree with the other posts that have expressed an interest in more short writing exercises like the one last week. Even if we don't turn them in, which I might prefer actually, it gives us the chance to compose our thoughts before speaking. This would be helpful to me because often times I get so caught up in listening that I don't say what I think. Overall, I think that this class and the environment that we are in is very conducive to learning because we are not just being lectured to, but we are learning from each other.

A Reflection noitcelfer A

Thus far, class has been quite a treat. I've always enjoyed watching films and later discussing them, and Philosophy of Documentary Film allows me to do just that. However, I'm a very shy person, and have luckily found the environment to be a very welcoming and encouraging one. Out of all classes I am currently enrolled in, I find myself participating the most in this one, and it's very interesting to also hear the countless opinions others have about the films we watch or the philosophical principles we discuss. In no other class have I experienced such a diverse array of beliefs and ideals, and for this reason, I feel a sense of closeness to the other students. When I was in Philosophy of Film Noir, I sort of felt as if there lacked a strong connection between the philosophy and the movies we watched, but I don't get that feeling this year; there is definitely a stronger link between the art of documentary film and important philosophies. If I had to make a suggestion, though, it would be to include more writing exercises akin to the one implemented last week. Even if we don't turn them in, it seems to be a good opportunity to allow all the students to think critically about a certain topic and express it. I myself have been guilty of either not thinking too much about what we were discussing, or being afraid to vocally present my opinions, so a simple writing assignment could help with that. Bear in mind, though, that I still greatly appreciate the discussions we have.

A time for ...reflection... [Gavin Owens]

What I like most about the class is that despite it's relaxed structure there is a lot of learning going on. I would have to say that I don't dislike anything really. The time is kind of awkward since it's at night, but it generally isn't much of a problem. I would like to see more excerpts from philosophers relating to what we watch. I don't think that I have the background or the experience to say with any authority how this class should be taught. If I were pursuing this in my own time I would probably be focusing more on the philosophy aspect. I certainly respect documentary film as an art form more than I used to since attending this class. I appreciate the power of documentary film more as well. I would split up effective ways to teach and effective ways to learn. As a teacher, I think that engaging students in as many ways as possible helps them to remember. An example would be to have a power point that asks a question (visual), you read the question (audible), the students write their answers (interactive), then discuss (collaborative). As a student there are many good habits for learning. Keeping a positive attitude helps. Have some sort of flashcard program where you can constantly drill yourself (mainly helpful for retention). Focus on good study habits and good habits of the mind. The last is to form study groups, people form these for a good reason. I have spent the majority of this first semester trying to streamline the way I gather, masticate, absorb, retain, etc.. information! I don't think I will ever be satisfied until I can just directly upload into my brain. Until then, I'll will indefinitely refine over and over this process of learning.

class

I have to say that I like how class is going so far. It is a very open and inviting environment to be in where we can have a free exchange of creative thoughts. This class is very Allen Hall. I like that it is a smaller class and that we can see and hear from each other during discussion and get to know one another. Coming from my Biology lecture of about 600 or so, less than twenty students is very nice. I wish that we stayed on topic more about documentaries themselves. I feel that we get off into politics a lot. Politics is fine for some other time but I know I am sitting there a lot of times wishing we were on topic, or specifically talking about documentaries and the philosophy behind them. Also, the Michael Moore movies are really long which make things difficult. I love that the class is in our dorm which makes things easier when class gets out late since I only have to go up the stairs to the room.

Whose the Doc? The Documentary Is.

I really like the learning environment and teaching style of the class. The smaller class setting makes it so that everyone can speak and share when they feel like it without the class having to move slowly or feel redundant. The atmosphere is welcoming, as the discussion questions are thought-provoking and the class is open to each individual’s ideas. We also spend a good distribution of time between the speaking of the instructor, the speaking of the students, and the covering of materials.
The films are my favorite part of class, of course! I do like most of the other things about it. The blog posts are an interesting form of homework and the style of something like this makes it easy and simple to keep up with the class and participate.
My least favorite thing about the class is definitely that we watch only melancholy and grim documentaries. It truly feels like a downside to me, like we only are going to examine and appreciate one side of life (and my lesser favorite of the two, mind you). However, that, is that, as they say.

Kelly Larkin

The thing I like most about our class is the fact that it's so small and so open. It's really easy to just sit and discuss since there aren't a ton of people, and everyone participates regularly, which makes it an effective learning process. I have absolutely no critiques on the teaching style of the course; I think it's one of the most effective I've come across. We're always talking about something interesting and always challenging ourselves and each other to think deeper and keep discussing and learning from others' opinions. In my time in college, as opposed to in high school, the most effective classroom environment so far has been one similar to the Documentaries class. A small number of students and an open, helpful professor all who discuss openly and intelligently, where everyone participates and no one is put down, and everyone can get their opinions in. I definitely think that things discussed in classes like that will stick much better and a student can get more out of them than if they were just reading a textbook or being lectured at.

Class so far

Honestly, this is one of my favorite classes this semester and I do not have anything that I would change about it. I am very happy with the teaching style, the classroom atmosphere and the subject matter we study. The fact that the class is so small makes it more personal. We have gotten to know each other a little bit and it seems like that helps in discussion. The classroom always feels very relaxed and I believe it makes us more comfortable with sharing our thoughts. We discuss interesting topics and are able to express or challenge opinions- but not in a way that comes across rude or offensive. Also, I am not particularly excited to lead class discussion but I am glad that we have to do it. I think this will make me feel even more comfortable with talking in class. I like that we base our discussions off of different kinds of material. We discuss readings, films, and personal experiences and I believe that helps keep everyone interested during class. Like I said, I really enjoy this class. I think you should keep it the same way, Charles!

Recap

In my opinion, my favorite part about this class is the atmosphere. I really believe the environment is condusive to that of a creative learning atmosphere. Everything from the subject matter, documentaries, to the setting of Allen, to the freedom of our blog posts gives room for interpretation and creativity. I guess if I had to pick something I disliked about this class I would choose the constantly dark nature of the films we choose but, really, it doesn't bother me that much to the point where I would not recommend this class to a friend or speak any less of it. If I had to pick something to be done differently I would defiantly discuss some of the blog posts in class because I feel a lot of them touch on very good subjects and make exceptional arguments. This class has influenced how I view documentaries more than I view philosophy but the questions that are raised by my newly acquired knowledge of documentaries are philosophical in nature. I have found through this class just how different this is of an environment than high school and that the people here are excited to learn. Because of this, teaching is not only the teacher's job and I'm beginning to realize how much knowledge my peers possess.