I agree with Joshua as he says that the "cheating/staging" is acceptable if it helps reveal the "higher truth". Of course to a certain extent but it's like what McNamara said in todays documentary we screened, "sometimes we must do evil in order to do good" or something like that. As with the scene in 'Land without Bread' with the goat falling, some will see it as cruel and unusual while other view it as "doing good" for the purpose to the film.
The article also says that "documentaries, while they generally aspire to act honorably, often operate under ad hoc ethical codes." Then it says "That often means manipulating “individual facts, sequences and meanings of images,” said the report, if that might help viewers to grasp the documentary’s “higher truth.” Ultimately in the end I believe it's all "for the purpose" of the film.
I agree with both of you to an extent. Like Joshua I believe that a documentary loses its emotional impact and to me even its credibility when its discovered that parts of it were staged or manipulated. However like Micheal's quote of McNamara a part of me feels that sometimes "cheating" the circumstances in order to make a bigger point is necessary.
I say this of course with Michael Moore in mind. I admit to being pretty ignorant when it comes to why his films are so controversial and I'm too lazy to read the wikipedia article on the controversy of "Fahrenheit 9/11" but I do know that controversy also comes from his film "Roger and Me." Many critics (Pauline Kael for one) pointed the fact that Moore exaggerated the impact of GM's closing and edited many of the scenes out of order thus maniipulating the truth. However I don't see how that makes him a less effective documaentarian.
Whether exaggerated or not, the images he presented in "Roger and Me" were real from the strikers, to the interviewees who discussed being personally affected, to the before and after shots of a once large and booming city to a decrepit almost ghost town after the closing of GM. Also the facts he presented where simply facts. So while some see a problem with how he presented the facts, to me that didn't make them any less "true" therefore fulfilling his point of the film which was to show the effects of GM's downsizing on the town and its people.
What is the surprise NYTIMES suppose to be factual and objective and critical, is it ever? When it should have been presenting truth to the public, it was busy sanitizing stories to appease war-hawks. Now the rich have a mouth piece who have fabricated and presented fabricated stories to reach a greater goal.They managed to fabricate RACISM to achieve the greater profit.
Now documentary film makers are just men with an objective which is almost always subjective, like those with power.Unless they are infallible beings working with equipment which are also infallible, what is the big surprise that they will tweak something here and there to fluff up their point. Tweaking can be understandable sometimes if its not telling a blatant lie.
This just goes back to our desire for truth in documentaries. And the verdict is, just watch with a critical eye, do not swallow his truth as the truth.In terms of ethics and honor, well that is left up to the film makers discretion, he wields the power, it is his domain. Should he sacrifice his goals or the effectiveness of his film to be ethical by someone elses standards?
If documentary film is a voice for those with less power vs those in power, then the question is going to be, who is telling more truth-since we cant ever truth either 100%.
This article greatly reinforces the ongoing debate this semester. Does a documentary really exist? Or are they just the manipulated vision of the filmmaker? If supposed documentary filmmakers let crew members "break the leg of rabbits" in order to present better footage of the an animal in the wild hunting its prey then it robs the viewer of objectivity and raw emotion. As for "higher truth." Truth is ultimately found in the eyes of the audience and opinions always vary. Pictures do not lie, however we as a participating audience are not there during the acutally filmming or in the editing room after. So how do we really know what is intended?
Micheal Moore for example is a well known far left wing liberal documentary filmmaker. A first time viewer may not be aware of his films. This can create obscurities. I am not criticizing his films or robbing them of its goal. He is a very good filmmaker and good at persuasion. What I am saying is that he manipulates reasoning to present his left wing view of politics. His manipulation can be seen in the way he juxtaposes images. For example in his documentary Roger and Me he films a shot of a closing Ford factory forcing numerous layoffs then cuts to a woman being evicted from her home. She worked at the factory so we assume because she is now out of work that it is Ford's fault that she is being evicted. However, we have no idea why she was evicted. The shot manipulates the viewer into thinking that the Ford plant closing down is the real reason for her eviction.
I agree with Joshua as he says that the "cheating/staging" is acceptable if it helps reveal the "higher truth". Of course to a certain extent but it's like what McNamara said in todays documentary we screened, "sometimes we must do evil in order to do good" or something like that. As with the scene in 'Land without Bread' with the goat falling, some will see it as cruel and unusual while other view it as "doing good" for the purpose to the film.
ReplyDeleteThe article also says that "documentaries, while they generally aspire to act honorably, often operate under ad hoc ethical codes." Then it says "That often means manipulating “individual facts, sequences and meanings of images,” said the report, if that might help viewers to grasp the documentary’s “higher truth.” Ultimately in the end I believe it's all "for the purpose" of the film.
I agree with both of you to an extent. Like Joshua I believe that a documentary loses its emotional impact and to me even its credibility when its discovered that parts of it were staged or manipulated. However like Micheal's quote of McNamara a part of me feels that sometimes "cheating" the circumstances in order to make a bigger point is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI say this of course with Michael Moore in mind. I admit to being pretty ignorant when it comes to why his films are so controversial and I'm too lazy to read the wikipedia article on the controversy of "Fahrenheit 9/11" but I do know that controversy also comes from his film "Roger and Me." Many critics (Pauline Kael for one) pointed the fact that Moore exaggerated the impact of GM's closing and edited many of the scenes out of order thus maniipulating the truth. However I don't see how that makes him a less effective documaentarian.
Whether exaggerated or not, the images he presented in "Roger and Me" were real from the strikers, to the interviewees who discussed being personally affected, to the before and after shots of a once large and booming city to a decrepit almost ghost town after the closing of GM. Also the facts he presented where simply facts. So while some see a problem with how he presented the facts, to me that didn't make them any less "true" therefore fulfilling his point of the film which was to show the effects of GM's downsizing on the town and its people.
What is the surprise NYTIMES suppose to be factual and objective and critical, is it ever? When it should have been presenting truth to the public, it was busy sanitizing stories to appease war-hawks. Now the rich have a mouth piece who have fabricated and presented fabricated stories to reach a greater goal.They managed to fabricate RACISM to achieve the greater profit.
ReplyDeleteNow documentary film makers are just men with an objective which is almost always subjective, like those with power.Unless they are infallible beings working with equipment which are also infallible, what is the big surprise that they will tweak something here and there to fluff up their point. Tweaking can be understandable sometimes if its not telling a blatant lie.
This just goes back to our desire for truth in documentaries. And the verdict is, just watch with a critical eye, do not swallow his truth as the truth.In terms of ethics and honor, well that is left up to the film makers discretion, he wields the power, it is his domain. Should he sacrifice his goals or the effectiveness of his film to be ethical by someone elses standards?
If documentary film is a voice for those with less power vs those in power, then the question is going to be, who is telling more truth-since we cant ever truth either 100%.
This article greatly reinforces the ongoing debate this semester. Does a documentary really exist? Or are they just the manipulated vision of the filmmaker? If supposed documentary filmmakers let crew members "break the leg of rabbits" in order to present better footage of the an animal in the wild hunting its prey then it robs the viewer of objectivity and raw emotion. As for "higher truth." Truth is ultimately found in the eyes of the audience and opinions always vary. Pictures do not lie, however we as a participating audience are not there during the acutally filmming or in the editing room after. So how do we really know what is intended?
ReplyDeleteMicheal Moore for example is a well known far left wing liberal documentary filmmaker. A first time viewer may not be aware of his films. This can create obscurities. I am not criticizing his films or robbing them of its goal. He is a very good filmmaker and good at persuasion. What I am saying is that he manipulates reasoning to present his left wing view of politics. His manipulation can be seen in the way he juxtaposes images. For example in his documentary Roger and Me he films a shot of a closing Ford factory forcing numerous layoffs then cuts to a woman being evicted from her home. She worked at the factory so we assume because she is now out of work that it is Ford's fault that she is being evicted. However, we have no idea why she was evicted. The shot manipulates the viewer into thinking that the Ford plant closing down is the real reason for her eviction.