What I took away from Pumping Iron is that a quick zoom in on a person's face accompanied by scary music will really make that person look evil. This occurs more than once with the guy that is opposing the "good" teacher/father bodybuilder. As if the audience really needs to see that technique more than once to establish the hero and the villain. The film strongly comes off as good vs. evil, and the director is quite content with his subjectivity, possibly more so than any other director I've seen this semester. It felt like there was a lot of information left out from the interviews with the various bodybuilders, and the editing (like that between Arnold and Lou working out) created contrast that felt overly exploitive instead of observant. The director really pushed the limits on what documentary is. I saw a story form in front of my eyes that's comparable to that in Rocky or any variety of sporting films. Arnold and Lou (and the two bodybuilders shown before them) aren't shown as just people, but rather good or bad people. I applaud a director that makes something possibly rather boring into a funny and interesting story. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on the viewer.
I agree with Patrick and would also agree with what many of my classmates said. I thought that the movie was trying to make Arnold look fascist but I found myself routing for him. It's probably because I come with my own bias to the movie of what is confidence and what is arrogance because they walk a very thin line with one another but I thought Arnold was showing in confidence in his ability. The film does try to make its argument around good vs. evil but in this case I appreciated the villain more. As I was watching it I thought that in shooting a film such as this, and the stereotypes that come with body builders, that being the dumb jock syndrome, I felt the director probably didn't have much to go off of and took the dynamic character of Arnold and ran with it. I think he made something out of nothing, that being he took footage that could have been boring to viewers and made a funny/interesting story out of it. In addition to that the viewer also learns little details about body building that they otherwise may not have had the chance to know. I believe that that is was makes a documentary or even films period really good, when you can distract the viewers from learning what you may be trying the teach them by giving them something to focus on. Then later on after they discuss the movie amongst themselves they speak about much of what they learned as well as the distractions.
Like Patrick said, this film turned the characters into good and evil people. I do not like Arnold and I was hopoing he lost the competition. To me, Arnold was definitely the evil character and Lou was the good character. And I agree with Ameer that the director took a rather boring topic and turned it into a really funny documentary. The director also did a good job working with the ideas that audiences have of body builders and exaggerating them for the comedic value.
As Ameer said everyone watching this movie comes into it with personal bias from already seeing other Arnold movies, most of us have not seen many Lou movies other than the Incredible Hulk tv show. This makes us have a bias for just knowing more about Arnold in the modren times so we find ourselves cheering for him because he has this name fame of being the Governator. If we never knew who Arnold was and this was truly the first time we saw the film we might have a different opinion of who is good and who is evil, even though the films opperates in a fashion where Arnold is more charasimatic than Lou
I just found it very interesting how so many people rooted for Arnold for this movie which I can understand why but I didn't care too much for him. It made me feel more sympathy towards Lou Ferrigno. I see the the cockiness in Arnold and I can understand that it draw certain attention to him and because of his confidence he appeals to people but I think that he should be deflated. His egocentric style did not appeal to me. I think he was too fake and Ferrigno was just new and instead of beating him down, Arnold could have been more supportive towards him but I guess that's the way of sports.
This film seemed to have a underlying tone of good and evil, as everyone keeps pointing out. Lou is shown as the quiet, shy, underdog and Arnold is the bully in the body building world. The film seemed to try to tell a story but also had cinema verite' style as well which was confusing at times. It would focus your attention on a certain character and then cut to someone flexing in a mirror or Arnold being an asshole. The film definitely changed my views on the body building world, which I didn't know too much about to begin with, and both the personalities of Lou and Arnold. One time I saw Lou at Dragon-Con and yelled "Hey" to him. I didn't know he had a hearing problem, so when he didn't respond I thought he was a jerk. Now I know who the real jerk is thanks to this movie.
Creating drama is a very though "excecutive" decision to make. In the documentary I am working on we have more than enough quotes that, if taken out of context, could make one of the band members sound like a backstabbing traitor. He says things like "Kyle is really talented, but I've written more songs that he has, but in the end it's a collaborative effort." I could use the "I've written more songs than him" part of the quote, but is it worth it? In pumping iron they made a decision similar to the one I'm facing, but they decided to go ahead and use hollywood cues like framing (low angle camera shot of the "bad" guy to make him seem more eminent), low key lighting, and of course music.
"Pumping Iron" is a good example of the power of editing. Even though there is little drama to the actual story, editing allows for a pretty dramatic plot. Like Patrick said, all they had to do was show the "bad" guy a couple of times and put an "evil" score under it all of a sudden we have a good vs. evil plot line.
I'm sure they had a lot of footage to choose from. Arranging different clips and quotes would have caused a different result. The truth is they were all in the competition to win, but the editors had to create a conflict between two of the characters in order to create drama.
The way in which the filmmaker presents Arnold in a vibrant, visually aesthetic lighting and Lou in a low key, darker lighting gives the audience a "David vs. Goliath" or "good vs evil" thematic undertone. For example, when Arnold is on the beach coming out of the water the sunshine is transposed upon on him as if he is a Greek God like Poseidon rumbling out of the sea. Lou, on the other hand is constantly surrounded in dark light which is most noticeable when he trains with his father in a basement gym.
Arnold is almost always surrounded by beautiful women. Lou, not so much. In fact, I do not recall if Lou is ever in the presence of even one woman at all because he is always with his father. Arnold has great confidence and a charisma about him that the audience cannot help, but follow. Lou, on the other hand, lives at home with his parents, does not talk much [added to the fact that he talks with a lisp brought about by his partial deafness] and is not a very confident person so naturally the viewer feels obliged to root for Arnold.
As far as this movie contributing to the facist machine I would yes and no. Yes if you believe the constant showing off of male masculinity through shirtfless posing and an internal audience cheering each competition. No if you realize this is a film about bodybuilding as a competition and certain aspects of male posing are a large part of the competition. Either way you look at it the film choses who the winner is [Arnold] simply by his lighting scheme and his attitude throughout the film.
What I took away from Pumping Iron is that a quick zoom in on a person's face accompanied by scary music will really make that person look evil. This occurs more than once with the guy that is opposing the "good" teacher/father bodybuilder. As if the audience really needs to see that technique more than once to establish the hero and the villain.
ReplyDeleteThe film strongly comes off as good vs. evil, and the director is quite content with his subjectivity, possibly more so than any other director I've seen this semester. It felt like there was a lot of information left out from the interviews with the various bodybuilders, and the editing (like that between Arnold and Lou working out) created contrast that felt overly exploitive instead of observant. The director really pushed the limits on what documentary is. I saw a story form in front of my eyes that's comparable to that in Rocky or any variety of sporting films. Arnold and Lou (and the two bodybuilders shown before them) aren't shown as just people, but rather good or bad people. I applaud a director that makes something possibly rather boring into a funny and interesting story. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on the viewer.
I agree with Patrick and would also agree with what many of my classmates said. I thought that the movie was trying to make Arnold look fascist but I found myself routing for him. It's probably because I come with my own bias to the movie of what is confidence and what is arrogance because they walk a very thin line with one another but I thought Arnold was showing in confidence in his ability. The film does try to make its argument around good vs. evil but in this case I appreciated the villain more. As I was watching it I thought that in shooting a film such as this, and the stereotypes that come with body builders, that being the dumb jock syndrome, I felt the director probably didn't have much to go off of and took the dynamic character of Arnold and ran with it. I think he made something out of nothing, that being he took footage that could have been boring to viewers and made a funny/interesting story out of it. In addition to that the viewer also learns little details about body building that they otherwise may not have had the chance to know. I believe that that is was makes a documentary or even films period really good, when you can distract the viewers from learning what you may be trying the teach them by giving them something to focus on. Then later on after they discuss the movie amongst themselves they speak about much of what they learned as well as the distractions.
ReplyDeleteLike Patrick said, this film turned the characters into good and evil people. I do not like Arnold and I was hopoing he lost the competition. To me, Arnold was definitely the evil character and Lou was the good character. And I agree with Ameer that the director took a rather boring topic and turned it into a really funny documentary. The director also did a good job working with the ideas that audiences have of body builders and exaggerating them for the comedic value.
ReplyDeleteAs Ameer said everyone watching this movie comes into it with personal bias from already seeing other Arnold movies, most of us have not seen many Lou movies other than the Incredible Hulk tv show. This makes us have a bias for just knowing more about Arnold in the modren times so we find ourselves cheering for him because he has this name fame of being the Governator. If we never knew who Arnold was and this was truly the first time we saw the film we might have a different opinion of who is good and who is evil, even though the films opperates in a fashion where Arnold is more charasimatic than Lou
ReplyDeleteI just found it very interesting how so many people rooted for Arnold for this movie which I can understand why but I didn't care too much for him. It made me feel more sympathy towards Lou Ferrigno. I see the the cockiness in Arnold and I can understand that it draw certain attention to him and because of his confidence he appeals to people but I think that he should be deflated. His egocentric style did not appeal to me. I think he was too fake and Ferrigno was just new and instead of beating him down, Arnold could have been more supportive towards him but I guess that's the way of sports.
ReplyDeleteThis film seemed to have a underlying tone of good and evil, as everyone keeps pointing out. Lou is shown as the quiet, shy, underdog and Arnold is the bully in the body building world. The film seemed to try to tell a story but also had cinema verite' style as well which was confusing at times. It would focus your attention on a certain character and then cut to someone flexing in a mirror or Arnold being an asshole. The film definitely changed my views on the body building world, which I didn't know too much about to begin with, and both the personalities of Lou and Arnold. One time I saw Lou at Dragon-Con and yelled "Hey" to him. I didn't know he had a hearing problem, so when he didn't respond I thought he was a jerk. Now I know who the real jerk is thanks to this movie.
ReplyDeleteCreating drama is a very though "excecutive" decision to make. In the documentary I am working on we have more than enough quotes that, if taken out of context, could make one of the band members sound like a backstabbing traitor. He says things like "Kyle is really talented, but I've written more songs that he has, but in the end it's a collaborative effort." I could use the "I've written more songs than him" part of the quote, but is it worth it? In pumping iron they made a decision similar to the one I'm facing, but they decided to go ahead and use hollywood cues like framing (low angle camera shot of the "bad" guy to make him seem more eminent), low key lighting, and of course music.
ReplyDelete"Pumping Iron" is a good example of the power of editing. Even though there is little drama to the actual story, editing allows for a pretty dramatic plot. Like Patrick said, all they had to do was show the "bad" guy a couple of times and put an "evil" score under it all of a sudden we have a good vs. evil plot line.
I'm sure they had a lot of footage to choose from. Arranging different clips and quotes would have caused a different result. The truth is they were all in the competition to win, but the editors had to create a conflict between two of the characters in order to create drama.
The way in which the filmmaker presents Arnold in a vibrant, visually aesthetic lighting and Lou in a low key, darker lighting gives the audience a "David vs. Goliath" or "good vs evil" thematic undertone. For example, when Arnold is on the beach coming out of the water the sunshine is transposed upon on him as if he is a Greek God like Poseidon rumbling out of the sea. Lou, on the other hand is constantly surrounded in dark light which is most noticeable when he trains with his father in a basement gym.
ReplyDeleteArnold is almost always surrounded by beautiful women. Lou, not so much. In fact, I do not recall if Lou is ever in the presence of even one woman at all because he is always with his father. Arnold has great confidence and a charisma about him that the audience cannot help, but follow. Lou, on the other hand, lives at home with his parents, does not talk much [added to the fact that he talks with a lisp brought about by his partial deafness] and is not a very confident person so naturally the viewer feels obliged to root for Arnold.
As far as this movie contributing to the facist machine I would yes and no. Yes if you believe the constant showing off of male masculinity through shirtfless posing and an internal audience cheering each competition. No if you realize this is a film about bodybuilding as a competition and certain aspects of male posing are a large part of the competition. Either way you look at it the film choses who the winner is [Arnold] simply by his lighting scheme and his attitude throughout the film.