'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)
I guess I would just like to start off by saying that I do not agree with this statement at all. The documentaries that I most enjoy and respect are ones that move me or elicit sympathy and compassion for those involved in the film. If a documentary does not have the ability to draw in a viewer and produce some kind of emotion I find that they are incredibly dry and ineffective. I do not understand why identifying with people in the film would make it less respectful. If a documentary film is unable to provide something for the audience to relate to, I feel that they cannot make a strong connection. I find that when I cannot make a connection to the film I become less interested and the information does not stick with me. I guess one could say that documentaries that do not produce compassionate spectators could be viewed as more respectable if they are effective for the audience. But with saying that, I woud not say the reason is not because it does not provide a chance for identification or emotion, but because it is a better documentary as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Godmilow does recognize, Hannah, that most people (Americans, anyway) feel as you do about what makes a satisfying film. I'm not sure if she's only intending to push buttons here, but it's at least some of what she's doing. But that doesn't mean we can't examine her claims seriously.
ReplyDeleteHer point is generally that American documentaries tend to be too *easy* on the viewer -- they let us sink into a kind of self-satisfied apathy. We allow ourselves to identify with the heroes of a film, but a film (in her view) should be making us think and testing our ideas, not allowing us to have easy heroes in the first place.
Perhaps there's a middle ground between these two ideas: entertainment and challenge. I agree that a documentary has to be able to provoke emotion and thought and also think that if it is not done in a somewhat entertaining way, then problems arise. I do think that a film can be emotionally challenging as well as entertaining and a "good documentary" that the masses can enjoy. For example, the movie "Schindler's List" is definitely emotional and entertaining in its own regard, but the ending scene (I think) where Schindler questions if he should have saved more people by selling his luxurious material goods causes the audience to question whether society is too focused on putting value on things that have no worth.
ReplyDeleteThe source for Godmilow's statement in the first place, I believe, stems from a deep sense of responsibility. Generally it is considered irresponsible to feed your children candy for every meal. In this statement, Godmilow is decrying these Documentaries for catering to an "American tradition" of sensationalism. A film may create a strong emotional connection, but in the end the final conclusion is "Poor thing!" and "Thank god that's not me." I believe a strong emotional connection allows for powerful effect, but this is just a tool for the filmmaker. It is a means to an end.
ReplyDeleteTo conclude my thoughts here..
Documentary film should incite action. Action is not possible without a challenge. Being challenged can get uncomfortable. Nobody likes being uncomfortable.. Success seeking filmmakers try to make people comfortable so that people will like their film. The film doesn't challenge them. There is no action -no lasting effect.