Monday, September 14, 2009
The Ineffable and NIGHT AND FOG
Given our (good) recent discussions about the nature of meaning and its creation in the viewing process, Night and Fog is the perfect film to follow up with in terms of meaning creation and memory. I know that you've not watched the film (perhaps you have for another class, but I don't assume such), but you will have read the article before class (on 9-14). Take a close look at the first full paragraph on page 205. There we find a thoughtful but also arguable position taken regarding the ways in which documents (generally) work. Can you take this discussion to another film we've watched this semester? Or, if you've seen Night and Fog previously, can you extend this conversation some? Is there another way to discuss the article's claims about the tension between meaning, history, and audience involvement in such? What of the tensions of cinematic strategies for representing the past (as with Night and Fog) or others (as with Th True Meaning of Pictures and Reassemblage)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As we said in class Night and Fog has a specific way in which it opperates by use of voice over and images. The way that this is received by the audience is a graphic and horrific display of what humans can do to one another. This way of production makes the documentary involve the audience much like we discussed how the Vietnam Memorial does. Night and Fog is also closely related to Reassemblage in that they both depend on lack of sound in certain aspects of the film to build the significance of the scene whether it be weaving a basket or looking at the fingernail marks on the ceiling of the gas chambers. Another comparison between these two documentaries is the use of close ups, both films use this to the fullest potential to show the raw emotion of the people being captured by the camera. In my opinion these types of documentaries make the audience more involved because it is easier to see one's self in that persons shoes verses Supersize Me. The viewer can almost feel what those people felt through the images that are shown.
ReplyDeleteI have previously viewed Night & Fog before in my Film History class. I think that this documentary is much different than others. I think in a way it captures the viewer differently. There were two different types of meaning distinguished in the article we read regarding Resnais film. Those meanings were observing and witnessing. The camera only observes and records the facts, but the voice-over narration on top of the old archival footage makes the audience feel like they're witnessing the horror. It engages the audience more in a way that they feel like the past events they're witnessing is happening in the present. This is because the voice-over uses verbs in the present form. I think a message is also sent throughout the film. Example of that is though the Holocaust is in the past, the footage remaining makes it unforgettable and unescapable. It's telling us that even though the world has moved on from that period, we shouldn't be fooled by the illusion we're living in today. Many might choose to deny that the Holocaust took place, even the officers and German witnesses of the camps, but those archival footages don't lie. We can't deny nor lie to ourselves that something like that won't happen again or even occured. Another documentary such as Reassemblage by Trinh Minh Ha also has the same observer/witness effect. Both documentaries have scenes where there is no audio but picture. It enables the viewer to be captured in that moment; that time and space.
ReplyDeleteI was tempted to pull a Kanye West during Night and Fog,my comment would have been to the effect of "how do we know everything this guy is saying is true?"I can trust the images which were powerful as is, but I at times I found myself being critical of the god voice. I did not feel involved I just felt something happened and this guy is telling me what and I should just believe. The choice of images were effective in showing horror, however I the detachment between I the viewer and the narrator(Mr Know it all) makes me become critical of what he is saying- not specific to this documentary, just any that leaves little room for question, no separate voice, no background. If a viewer has no historical knowledge of what took place what would this film be to such a viewer? I understood the dead bodies, the scalps, the malnourished prisoners,the burns, then I have to surrender my critical eye to believe what the narrator said went on in the latrines. That very segment also functions as a way to make the viewers mind more active, we are given images of lines of toilets, he is telling us what is going on, we have to create that image in our heads.
ReplyDeleteTheir is also level of discomfort and the silence in the film allows it to simmer and the lack of resolution or vindication just leaves the viewer uncomfortable.