I totally appreciate our initial discussions of the film, as we exposed a dichotomy I've not noticed prompted by any other film we have watched this semester. I am eager to learn more about it. You can start such conversations here.
I just find it interesting that we grow up going to the theater to watch something that will entertain us, even with documentaries. Documentaries almost always have some sort of structure if they have something they are trying to teach us, etc. Documentaries like Grey Gardens are mostly observational but there is never anything that lets you know there is a point to the documentary. When did we get so interested in other peoples lives to the point we just follow random people around with no point to it or watch "reality" t.v.? If I want to see reality I'll walk outside and watch my neighbors or hang out with friends and family. Film, to me, is something to entertain and take us away from the everyday life; why would we want to watch everyday life when we already live it?
Grey Gardens just emphasized to me more that life sucks and there are crazy people everywhere even if they have money. It also made me want to go home and scrub my already clean house again because it was so gross. I guess the point in something like that is to make you feel better about yourself, maybe. I don't know just still trying to wrap my head around the concept of following someone around that doesn't really do anything except bitch and complain all day.
Those are just thoughts that come to my mind, I realize that they are just me rambling but just something to think about.
In response to Ashley, I think that the point of this observational approach is just to see how another person lives. I found the people in Grey Gardens to be extremely annoying, to the point where I was going to leave, but what it showed me is that everyone does not live neat and quiet like I do. I also think that reality t.v. (although most of it is scripted) is still a distraction. I watch it because it lets me think of someone else's problems, it's like drinking except I can still drive afterward. I think a lot of people like watching these shows because it allows them to live vicariously through other people. They get to see the inside of houses and expensive restaurants that they would never see otherwise and visit locations they can afford to visit right now. It is a way to escape or be distracted.
A few people mentioned overacting in class, and as much as I like to hope that the mother and (especially) daughter in the film were exaggerating their lifestyle, I don't think that's the case. The filmmakers could have easily set up a tripod and/or made the film more artistic, but they chose not to. What occurred on camera occurred just as if the camera was a friend or family member. The filmmakers probably realized that no matter what they could artistically do, their efforts would no more create a story than that that actually existed. And pretty much the only story was that of a bickering mother and daughter and an old house. It did get tiresome after a while and I thought if I heard someone else sing my head was going to explode. But I appreciate the efforts of the filmmakers for bringing something nobody else would have ever seen or cared about to the world. It's like they were saying: "Hey! This happened! Bet you didn't know this happened but we got it on film right here. Wanna see?"
I certainly agree with Ashley that life can absolutely suck at many points in life, and there are undoubtedly crazy people everywhere. But I don't think the film was trying to emphasize this. It was really amazing that the daughter, despite saying how much she wanted to leave, stayed and cared for her mother. There was a deep love there through all the yelling. The daughter even said at one point that she was really worried about her mom, that's why she decided to come and live with her. I thought to myself if I would be able to do the same thing and control myself from simply walking away when the worst came to worst. I thought the realistic nature of the film showed just how strong both of the women were.
...But then again I guess the house could have actually been part of a loony ward and the filmmakers just withheld that bit of info. At least that would provide a better explanation for that weird guy that kept showing up.
It’s no secret that I really like Grey Gardens. Out of everything we've watched this semester it’s the one film I will definitely watch over again. That being said I get why people found it annoying and irritating. And while I despise reality television for its fakeness and pointlessness (although I do have a guilty pleasure for crap like Flavor of Love...don't judge me), I think Grey Gardens was more than just following two crazy old bats around.
People have always been interested in others lives, that's why biopics are made. We always want to see how someone came to be who they are or why they are who they are. With Grey Gardens both Edie's were already the talk of the town and plastered all over national newspapers because of the way they lived. I think the Maysles’ just decided to give them their own voice and speak for themselves instead of just pictures and stories about how the compassionate Jackie Kennedy came to their rescue.
The film gave them substance and I found it truly heartbreaking. They were just two extremely lonely women who only had each other, barely any money, and the only thing going for them was their relatives and unfulfilled fantasies. After being unhappy together for so long and with the deep co-dependence they had on each other, I just think they became disassociated with reality and the film was just a reflection of that. My question is, in theory what makes Grey Gardens different from films that try to evoke realism like Gummo besides their approach to the filmmaking process?
Grey Gardens was interesting to me for the same reason people on I-75 all slow down or simply stop to stare at a car accident, or when people watched that Soulja Girl video on Youtube, or the same reason during the Great Depression people went to watch dance marathons that went on for months. Sometimes reality is greater than fiction and it can sometimes be more interesting to watch people worse off than you either out of pure curiosity or just spectacle.
i do not think that Grey Gardens was just about following two eccentric ladies around. I think the problem that many of us had with the film is that it "seemed" to have no meaning. I often kept trying to "figure it out" and tried to make out a cohesive, chronological story but kept failing. Even though it was difficult to figure out i was drawn into the film right away and I did find meaning in it.
I like the way in which it was shot (although it gave me a headache). For me this is what i think of when i hear the word "documentary" ....rather the rawest form of documentary. It is akin to a home video which i think makes it very personal.
I believe that the maylses' brothers choice to shoot the film in this manner emphasized the lifestyle that these two women have lived and are living. their life to me seemed carefree, childlike, and sentimental yet also tragic, especially for edie.
The way in which the film was layed out intrigued me. The film didn't really develop much of a story but the bits it did tell were interesting. it made me want to know more about how they got to be the way they were, it made me want to actually be in the house with them and observe them or ask them questions.
While watching Grey Gardens, I wondered what the directors' were actually thinking when they were making the movie. Was their intention to bore the viewer with an emotional void narrative and characters with whom it is impossible to identify? Or did they really want to prove that observational documentary works? I thought the film was terrible and had it not been for the technical qualities of the movie, I would have walked out.
As mentioned in class, I thought I was watching a home video - a good looking one - about two old women. In class, I thought the subject was decent and execution ineffective, but I've changed my mind. It is the complete opposite. If the directors had picked a more interesting subject - perhaps, for example, a mother and daughter in complete poverty, as opposed to them being rich - I think it would have worked. All in all, technical stuff, good; subject, not so much.
Truth be told this documentary was pointless but at the same time very interesting. Interesting becasue it is different. How often do we get invited into peoples lives with nothing staged and just observe their everyday activity.
Goodroger I will have to disagree with you on the notion that it would have been more effective had the director used a mother and daughter in complete poverty. That choice will FORCE us to feel sorry for them. But in this case we dont feel sorry for them because they're poor but because they are lonely. They have no one but each other. This documentary is different and that's why it works. We dont see this type of doc. everyday. I think most people dont like it because they see it more as a reality show than a documentary but when you think about it, this is what documentary is.
Where do I begin? I must admit I was not ready for this film. But when I let a little time pass after watching it, I realized that not only did I enjoy it, but I’d like to see it again. Just two points I’d like to share:
I’m not sure if this is typical of the filmmakers, but I liked the lack “talking head” interviews. For this film, that set-up wouldn’t have worked. More powerful were the scenes with Little Edie was whispering. Very intimate. It later reminded me of the “direct address” article. Her whispering to the filmmaker (and to us) helped to solidify a memorable quote: that films can offer spectators “the practical experience of perceiving from different perspectives…and temporary immersion…in someone else’s value system or ethical orientation”. We not only dove into the lake of their lives, we “cannon-balled” in. I remember wanting to see more of her whispered comments, to get inside her brain even more.
To GOODROGER’s point, this film, I think, was about a mother and daughter in complete poverty: small box of groceries; canned food, candles at night, makeshift clothes (a skirt made out of a sweater and safety pins?). These were not well-to-do people. Let’s try something. In your mind, think of a struggling mother, facing poverty, alone with her child. Got it? Now, place that picture alongside a mental picture Big and Little Edie. It’s really not the same is it? I believe a reason Grey Gardens is so neat, is because in one sense it is a story about a mother and daughter in poverty, but because they aren’t surrounded by or the products of “typical” poverty, it makes their story all the more interesting. Just an idea.
Regarding the way in which the film "Grey Gardens" is strictly observational, I think that there is alot to be said about the structure that the film follows, without having a conventional structure. In most documentaries, the audience is sort of guided along a specified path that the director constructs. Unlike fiction films, which put the audience in a thempark-like cart and take them on a predetermined journey, documentaries tend to lead the audience along a path in which they walk themselves. The audience believes that they are free to examine the content of the presentation, yet the director subliminally defines the key points and main purpose of the film through his or her own structure.
In contrast, I find it interesting that the Meysles brothers filmed in such a way that the audience is left asking, "what is the point of this film?". In so doing, I find that through this unstructured production, they encourage the audience to interpret their own meaning. Through this, it can be said that there are many different meanings presented in "Grey Gardens" and each one that pertains to each individual audience member encourages individual interpretation.
I saw a story within the film. Though it seemed observatory, there was a story about the daughter, her past life and what her future could have been contrasted with her present life and what she is.
It wasn't at all a meaningless film. It wasn't provocative,and leading or truth seeking as most documentaries, which is why it can make one uneasy. The apparent absence of verbal interrogation of the subjects further takes away from the spoon feeding documentary style. We aren't given point A or B, and then expected to make a decision, everything seems to be left open for us to digest.
Grey Gardens isn't completely observatory, since we see many performances from the daughter, which could have happened at the request of the filmmakers. The filmmakers don't seem to provoke or instigate actions or statements(which made the film interesting), however that appearance can easily be attributed to editing and not the filmmakers ethics.
The film stands out because the reality or realness in the film is not about the truth we as an audience tend to look for in documentaries. In fog of war, I paid less attention to McNamara, the aesthetics, his personality his past, I was interested on the information about the crimes committed in Vietnam. In Grey Gardens, you are not given this clear road to anywhere, it is left open for judgment, taste, you need no background or facts in order to appreciate what you see or judge its authenticity. As Rachelle said above it encourages individual interpretation and I agree.
I just find it interesting that we grow up going to the theater to watch something that will entertain us, even with documentaries. Documentaries almost always have some sort of structure if they have something they are trying to teach us, etc. Documentaries like Grey Gardens are mostly observational but there is never anything that lets you know there is a point to the documentary. When did we get so interested in other peoples lives to the point we just follow random people around with no point to it or watch "reality" t.v.? If I want to see reality I'll walk outside and watch my neighbors or hang out with friends and family. Film, to me, is something to entertain and take us away from the everyday life; why would we want to watch everyday life when we already live it?
ReplyDeleteGrey Gardens just emphasized to me more that life sucks and there are crazy people everywhere even if they have money. It also made me want to go home and scrub my already clean house again because it was so gross. I guess the point in something like that is to make you feel better about yourself, maybe. I don't know just still trying to wrap my head around the concept of following someone around that doesn't really do anything except bitch and complain all day.
Those are just thoughts that come to my mind, I realize that they are just me rambling but just something to think about.
Ashley N. Smith
In response to Ashley, I think that the point of this observational approach is just to see how another person lives. I found the people in Grey Gardens to be extremely annoying, to the point where I was going to leave, but what it showed me is that everyone does not live neat and quiet like I do. I also think that reality t.v. (although most of it is scripted) is still a distraction. I watch it because it lets me think of someone else's problems, it's like drinking except I can still drive afterward. I think a lot of people like watching these shows because it allows them to live vicariously through other people. They get to see the inside of houses and expensive restaurants that they would never see otherwise and visit locations they can afford to visit right now. It is a way to escape or be distracted.
ReplyDeleteA few people mentioned overacting in class, and as much as I like to hope that the mother and (especially) daughter in the film were exaggerating their lifestyle, I don't think that's the case. The filmmakers could have easily set up a tripod and/or made the film more artistic, but they chose not to. What occurred on camera occurred just as if the camera was a friend or family member. The filmmakers probably realized that no matter what they could artistically do, their efforts would no more create a story than that that actually existed. And pretty much the only story was that of a bickering mother and daughter and an old house. It did get tiresome after a while and I thought if I heard someone else sing my head was going to explode. But I appreciate the efforts of the filmmakers for bringing something nobody else would have ever seen or cared about to the world. It's like they were saying: "Hey! This happened! Bet you didn't know this happened but we got it on film right here. Wanna see?"
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with Ashley that life can absolutely suck at many points in life, and there are undoubtedly crazy people everywhere. But I don't think the film was trying to emphasize this. It was really amazing that the daughter, despite saying how much she wanted to leave, stayed and cared for her mother. There was a deep love there through all the yelling. The daughter even said at one point that she was really worried about her mom, that's why she decided to come and live with her. I thought to myself if I would be able to do the same thing and control myself from simply walking away when the worst came to worst. I thought the realistic nature of the film showed just how strong both of the women were.
...But then again I guess the house could have actually been part of a loony ward and the filmmakers just withheld that bit of info. At least that would provide a better explanation for that weird guy that kept showing up.
It’s no secret that I really like Grey Gardens. Out of everything we've watched this semester it’s the one film I will definitely watch over again. That being said I get why people found it annoying and irritating. And while I despise reality television for its fakeness and pointlessness (although I do have a guilty pleasure for crap like Flavor of Love...don't judge me), I think Grey Gardens was more than just following two crazy old bats around.
ReplyDeletePeople have always been interested in others lives, that's why biopics are made. We always want to see how someone came to be who they are or why they are who they are. With Grey Gardens both Edie's were already the talk of the town and plastered all over national newspapers because of the way they lived. I think the Maysles’ just decided to give them their own voice and speak for themselves instead of just pictures and stories about how the compassionate Jackie Kennedy came to their rescue.
The film gave them substance and I found it truly heartbreaking. They were just two extremely lonely women who only had each other, barely any money, and the only thing going for them was their relatives and unfulfilled fantasies. After being unhappy together for so long and with the deep co-dependence they had on each other, I just think they became disassociated with reality and the film was just a reflection of that.
My question is, in theory what makes Grey Gardens different from films that try to evoke realism like Gummo besides their approach to the filmmaking process?
Grey Gardens was interesting to me for the same reason people on I-75 all slow down or simply stop to stare at a car accident, or when people watched that Soulja Girl video on Youtube, or the same reason during the Great Depression people went to watch dance marathons that went on for months. Sometimes reality is greater than fiction and it can sometimes be more interesting to watch people worse off than you either out of pure curiosity or just spectacle.
i do not think that Grey Gardens was just about following two eccentric ladies around. I think the problem that many of us had with the film is that it "seemed" to have no meaning. I often kept trying to "figure it out" and tried to make out a cohesive, chronological story but kept failing. Even though it was difficult to figure out i was drawn into the film right away and I did find meaning in it.
ReplyDeleteI like the way in which it was shot (although it gave me a headache). For me this is what i think of when i hear the word "documentary" ....rather the rawest form of documentary. It is akin to a home video which i think makes it very personal.
I believe that the maylses' brothers choice to shoot the film in this manner emphasized the lifestyle that these two women have lived and are living. their life to me seemed carefree, childlike, and sentimental yet also tragic, especially for edie.
The way in which the film was layed out intrigued me. The film didn't really develop much of a story but the bits it did tell were interesting. it made me want to know more about how they got to be the way they were, it made me want to actually be in the house with them and observe them or ask them questions.
While watching Grey Gardens, I wondered what the directors' were actually thinking when they were making the movie. Was their intention to bore the viewer with an emotional void narrative and characters with whom it is impossible to identify? Or did they really want to prove that observational documentary works? I thought the film was terrible and had it not been for the technical qualities of the movie, I would have walked out.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in class, I thought I was watching a home video - a good looking one - about two old women. In class, I thought the subject was decent and execution ineffective, but I've changed my mind. It is the complete opposite. If the directors had picked a more interesting subject - perhaps, for example, a mother and daughter in complete poverty, as opposed to them being rich - I think it would have worked. All in all, technical stuff, good; subject, not so much.
Truth be told this documentary was pointless but at the same time very interesting. Interesting becasue it is different. How often do we get invited into peoples lives with nothing staged and just observe their everyday activity.
ReplyDeleteGoodroger I will have to disagree with you on the notion that it would have been more effective had the director used a mother and daughter in complete poverty. That choice will FORCE us to feel sorry for them. But in this case we dont feel sorry for them because they're poor but because they are lonely. They have no one but each other. This documentary is different and that's why it works. We dont see this type of doc. everyday. I think most people dont like it because they see it more as a reality show than a documentary but when you think about it, this is what documentary is.
Where do I begin? I must admit I was not ready for this film. But when I let a little time pass after watching it, I realized that not only did I enjoy it, but I’d like to see it again. Just two points I’d like to share:
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure if this is typical of the filmmakers, but I liked the lack “talking head” interviews. For this film, that set-up wouldn’t have worked. More powerful were the scenes with Little Edie was whispering. Very intimate. It later reminded me of the “direct address” article. Her whispering to the filmmaker (and to us) helped to solidify a memorable quote: that films can offer spectators “the practical experience of perceiving from different perspectives…and temporary immersion…in someone else’s value system or ethical orientation”. We not only dove into the lake of their lives, we “cannon-balled” in. I remember wanting to see more of her whispered comments, to get inside her brain even more.
To GOODROGER’s point, this film, I think, was about a mother and daughter in complete poverty: small box of groceries; canned food, candles at night, makeshift clothes (a skirt made out of a sweater and safety pins?). These were not well-to-do people. Let’s try something. In your mind, think of a struggling mother, facing poverty, alone with her child. Got it? Now, place that picture alongside a mental picture Big and Little Edie. It’s really not the same is it? I believe a reason Grey Gardens is so neat, is because in one sense it is a story about a mother and daughter in poverty, but because they aren’t surrounded by or the products of “typical” poverty, it makes their story all the more interesting. Just an idea.
Regarding the way in which the film "Grey Gardens" is strictly observational, I think that there is alot to be said about the structure that the film follows, without having a conventional structure. In most documentaries, the audience is sort of guided along a specified path that the director constructs. Unlike fiction films, which put the audience in a thempark-like cart and take them on a predetermined journey, documentaries tend to lead the audience along a path in which they walk themselves. The audience believes that they are free to examine the content of the presentation, yet the director subliminally defines the key points and main purpose of the film through his or her own structure.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, I find it interesting that the Meysles brothers filmed in such a way that the audience is left asking, "what is the point of this film?". In so doing, I find that through this unstructured production, they encourage the audience to interpret their own meaning. Through this, it can be said that there are many different meanings presented in "Grey Gardens" and each one that pertains to each individual audience member encourages individual interpretation.
I saw a story within the film. Though it seemed observatory, there was a story about the daughter, her past life and what her future could have been contrasted with her present life and what she is.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't at all a meaningless film. It wasn't provocative,and leading or truth seeking as most documentaries, which is why it can make one uneasy. The apparent absence of verbal interrogation of the subjects further takes away from the spoon feeding documentary style.
We aren't given point A or B, and then expected to make a decision, everything seems to be left open for us to digest.
Grey Gardens isn't completely observatory, since we see many performances from the daughter, which could have happened at the request of the filmmakers. The filmmakers don't seem to provoke or instigate actions or statements(which made the film interesting), however that appearance can easily be attributed to editing and not the filmmakers ethics.
The film stands out because the reality or realness in the film is not about the truth we as an audience tend to look for in documentaries. In fog of war, I paid less attention to McNamara, the aesthetics, his personality his past, I was interested on the information about the crimes committed in Vietnam. In Grey Gardens, you are not given this clear road to anywhere, it is left open for judgment, taste, you need no background or facts in order to appreciate what you see or judge its authenticity. As Rachelle said above it encourages individual interpretation and I agree.