I think we have focused a lot in this class about what can be trusted of documentaries and what power a documentary has. I still retain the belief that it is simply impossible to argue that one method of approach is more "true" than another, they are just true in different way in accordance with different purposes. If a documentary is trying to show a third-party perspective on something and succeeds, I would respect its success. And if, like in Dear Zachary, a documentary is trying to fully illustrate one side to a situation, then as long as it holds true to this intent, I would consider it to be worthy of respect.
However, I do agree with the idea of respecting documentaries for not "coming to closure" and not "producing audiences of compassionate spectators of the dilemmas of others." The idea of not "producing identification with heroics or sympathy for victims," as American tradition usually does, is a fascinating observation and one which has changed my view of documentaries. I can understand how one could see documentaries as leading audiences to feel "exempt from the responsibility either to act or even to consider the structures of their own situation." I am definitely a person who believes in being outgoing and being a force of change, so I will personally be considering this idea of the proper execution of the power of a documentary when judging the ethics behind its creation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's exciting, Gabe -- it's not often that we're given the impetus to question a fundamental aspect of our understanding even of something as seemingly simple as a film. Godmilow, while she is on the extreme end of things, helps us do this, I think, as you claim: she is pointing to precisely what is very hard for us to recognize and question, *because* it is so natural and easy for us. Of course, this is what philosophy, and college, are supposed to be about, right?
ReplyDelete