When beginning this project, I had no idea where to begin. I wanted to addressed something I knew, something that I at least had a moderate amount of interest in. It took a long time to find that something. I almost thought that I wasn’t going to find it all until my subject matter sort of fell nicely into my lap. Actually, i stumbled upon it on my Facebook Newsfeed, and I had no idea why i hadn’t come up with the idea before. This documentary is about up and coming, or even the very present , hip hop group Magna Carda.

I knew from beginning this project that the film would be at least slightly participatory in nature simply for the fact that I am well acquainted with my subject matter. I  first met Megz Kelli my freshman year at St. Edward’s back when I lived at East Hall and she was a dorm away at Theresa. Back then, I only knew her as Megan but she was still a writer, already an artist in the making. This girl wrote a full novel by the time she was 18, she was bound to do something great with her words. By the time we reconnected again, she was already part of Magna Carda an Austin based hip-hop conglomerate, fronted by herself and Mix Master Chris Beale, better known by his stage name Dougie Do. I just call him Chris. Megan is in charge of the rhymes while Chris produces all the beats, plays the keyboard and handles things from a business perspective. Magna Carda also has other band members, including a bassist, guitarist and drummer and sometimes a singer or two. It’s when Magna Carda comes together that magic truly happens. When making this documentary I didn’t want to soley focus on my involvement with the band, or it’s members. Rather, I wanted to focus on the two most prominent members Megz and Dougie Do, and how their personal philosophies had shaped their approach to music, artistic insight and inspired their passions. While I act as a force in the documentary, asking them some tough questions, constructing certain scenes etc. I am not the driving force behind the film. I wanted to let their words and responses shape the film, and what direction it went rather than the other way around. This is a movie about Magna Carda.

I decided to draw from a variety of different documentaries and techniques that I had watched and learned about over the course of the semester. I wanted to use a combination of interviews along with music and pictures to bring the film to life.

My main purpose here was to exploit reflexivity. While I did edit the footage rather extensively I wanted the audience to be aware that they were watching a documentary, something that was made and extremely personal to me as a director. In the film Man With a Movie Camera this is done by exposing the audience to the editing and filming process itself. While I didn’t do this so much visually, I certainly reflected the aspect through the audio and the candid method of questioning.

Stories We Tell by Sarah Polley was also a large source of inspiration for my documentary. I really admired the way she used the reflexive mode to tell her story, which really added a more intimate feel to the film. This film is an autobiographical film which tells the story of Polley’s mother as well as how she herself came into being. Polley uses many different techniques in order to depict the story of her rather large and dysfunctional family. She uses a combination of home movies, clever re-enactments and interviews expertly weaved together to tell her tale. Drawing from this, I used a combination of home shot footage, photogrpahs and videos made by the band to create my film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ytq4VZ2Nyxg

I have to admit that I felt just like Polley when making the documentary. Because it was so constructed, I found myself asking my subjects to repeat questions clearer. I remember in the film when Polley would say “Dad can you say that again more like…” I used similar words with Megan who at one point even declared herself,  “Can we record that again? i started it all wrong.” There was definitely a very specific story and message that I worked to portray in my film, and I believe that Megan and Chris picked up on it immediately. I wanted to show the audience that Magna Carda is a unique hip-hop act worth checking out. Thus, I constructed my story accordingly, asking specific questions of the band members as well as using certain clips to highlight my main theme throughout the film. I also wanted to capture the different essences of the band members. I did this by using contrasting film situations and photos. I had shots of them in their home settings, which in retrospect are totally different than their stage personas. By doing this I wanted the audience to see two sides of the story, the artist at home and the artist at work. It reminded me of how Polley utilized the different perspectives of her family members to capture the entire “truth”, or at least a certain one. Similarly, I hope that the documentary I created portays a certain truth about the band, Magna Carda and it’s frontman/woman Dougie Do and Megz Kelli.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBvGbVMDYOY

I decided for my Doc. Mode 2, to create a comic chronicling my journey through the end of the semester and finals. While I am sure that my finals experience was not unique to only me, by using my own perspective, the story is slanted. It is quite possible that many students did not have an extremely stressful finals season like I did, but since I am the film maker, this participatory documentary serves to represent my own experience. Nichols states that in the participatory documentary the film-maker’s interaction with the piece is actually celebrated and even exploited a little. This adds directly to the film-makers subjective view of the subject he is interacting with. In the case of my particular documentary, though I could not render the situation completely accurate via the comic book medium, the other individuals who I would be interacting include my fellow classmates, my professors, and any innocent bystander who happen to come across me during this trying time. In other participatory documentaries, such as in the film we watched in class Complaints of a Dutiful Daughter , the audience sees director Deborah Hoffman interacting with her subject, her mother who has Alzheimer. The film is decidedly slanted to Hoffman’s point of view, showing only a minority of the mother’s own sentiments. But without the mother’s personal participation the film wouldn’t have had the same emotional effect on the audience. Another film with similar characteristics is Ross McElwee’s Photographic Memory which not only chronicles his journey to reconnect with his son, but also his own midlife crisis to rediscover himself. While this film would have still been interesting as say an observational piece about the relationship between a father and son, it takes on a different level with McElwee’s personal involvement in the movie. The audience truly is able to understand the perspectives of both men on a higher emotional level. It is the same way my comic attempts to depict my struggles during finals week.

(I realize now that I probably should have used ‘I’ instead of “Aryelle” throughout the comic, so this limits it’s effectiveness, but please imagine that I did this from the start. I hope you can feel my pain.)

Since we are allowed to choose our own topic for our final blog post, i have decided to write about one of my favorite documentaries The Queen of Versailles by Lauren Greenfield. I’ll admit, I am a sucker for movies that explore the lives of the rich and famous, simply for the fact that it is so extraordinarily different from my own lifestyle. When I began watching this film, I expected to see luxury embodied (how could you not with a title like The Queen of Versailles). It was almost too good to resist. But what started off as a film about those who reside in the lap of luxury, turned into something else entirely. Something decidedly unexpected.

The movie starts as a glimpse into the lives of David and Jacqueline Siegal, one of the richest couples in the United States. The film started off as a story of how the couple “accidentally” built the largest house in America. It is a sickly sweet story full of excess that almost makes yous sick to your stomach. You see the couples cars and glamorous lifestyle, filled with celebrity and designer clothes. But then something happened that neither the Siegal’s or director Greenfield could have expected: the economic recession of 2008. The market collapsed and the world of the Siegal’s changed forever. No longer are they able to afford their lavish lifestyle but are forced to “cut back”. Not only does this film, which at it’s start seems totally frivolous, provide an interesting perspective on how the lives of the upper-crust were affected by the recession, but also the lives of those around them.

We see the desperation of the folks who the Siegal’s have impacted. Their company is forced to lay-off thousands of employees, who at the start of the film were enthusiastic and ready for business. We see empty offices that were once filled with workers, now turned into ghost towns. The family which consists of 8 children goes from having 4 nannies to one nanny, who cares for the children out of love and receives no payment. The most interesting part of the film is how the Siegal’s have worked so hard to maintain their public appearance of wealth. We also see the deteriorating state of a marriage, which went from so-called bliss to utter annoyance. The previously sunny movie ends up quite bleak and rather tragic.

The film calls into question the nature of documentary and it’s ability to truly represent the reality of a situation. This film could be categorized into two different modes, the first being Participatory and the 2nd being Reflexive. We often hear the voice of the director asking different questions of the participants throughout the film. It is also possible that the individuals being filmed, since they are aware of the nature of the camera, are behaving differently than they would if there was no film crew around. The documentary could also be called Reflexive in that it is partially constructed. Many of the scenes depicted seem to be for the sake of the audience and film purposes. This causes the audience to call into question the truthfulness of the documentary.

The Queen of Versailles is a tale about the modern American dream and how easily it can come crumbling at your feet when least expected. This film shows that this is not a dream sacred only to the very rich, but deeply embedded in the minds and hearts of all Americans. It makes you wonder whether or not this dream is attainable any longer, or simply a memory of the past.

Either way, this film is worth a watch even if solely for entertainment purposes. Check it out on Netflix.

La Voz Alta Take 1

This piece follows aspiring artist Paula Rivera into the recording studio as she cuts a single with jazz band Voz Alta as they cut their first CD. This form of documentary uses little to no commentary, and is shot spontaneously. The creator honors the organic nature of the film in the editing process as well, using no re-enactments, interviews, music interludes or additional supplements. this documentary mode is exactly what it says, totally observational.

This is in contrast to films such as Nanook of the North which uses organized scenes, reenactments and stylized editing in order to convey Robert Flahtery’s message. Using this message allows him to construct the story to his pleasing, eliciting specific emotions from the audience by composing stylized scenes. An observational documentary is content to let the film speak for itself. In my opinion, observational documentaries are very concerned with the nature of truth, wanting to have the film stand alone.

A great example of a observational film is the movie High School (1968), which uses footage of a high school in Philadelphia. Rather than setting up scenes in order to convey the oppression that the students feel in their environment. While the filmmaker is given permission to view many different interesting interactions between the students and the faculty, none of the scenes are orchestrated specifically for the purpose of showing how rough high school is.

I decided to use a photo essay along with a recording of the session to fully encapsulate the observational mode. I didn’t edit the footage, so that the entire process seemed more raw and real. I didn’t want to show just the good parts of the recording as this would not capture the entire truth of the situation. I also included what photos I could of the scene. It took place in a small room and I couldn’t get any footage of the actual recording booth. However, I believe that the two pieces put together create a decent storyline.

I didn’t know what to expect when beginning Sarah Polley’s The Stories We Tell. What began as a simple look into the life of a family, became so much more. Through her film, the audience was given intimate insight into the most secret part of family life, the skeleton’s in  the closet if you will. The Polley family was left raw and exposed under the eye of the viewer, who by the end of the film was still wondering if they had in fact gotten the entire story. The theme of “what is the truth” or “who holds the actual truth” was central to this film.

Polley introduces the audience to so many different characters from the start of the documentary, it makes it difficult for the audience to keep straight who is who exactly. We are introduced to family, friends, friends of friends, acquaintances publishers and some folks who…we aren’t quite sure what role they play. Each of them are retelling the same story, that of Sarah’s mother Diane, from their own perspective. Not one character has the same tale to tell. Rather they each put their own personal spin on how they remember things. We see the children of Diane, Sarah’s brothers and sisters, reaching far back into their memories, attempting to recall how exactly things went. At one point, Harry Gulkin, Polley’s biological father and a documentary creator himself, mentioned that he was not a fan of Polley’s desire to represent all view points of those involved in her dramatic story. He stated that this would compromise the truth, that in fact the real truth would never be revealed because of too many conflicting accounts. However, I believe that though Gulkin makes this assumption, Polley’s method of recording the story of everyone she knew, reveals more of the truth than simply depicting the point of view of only one individual.

By using this style, Polley is allowing the audience to see her mother’s story from all angles. From that of a child, an abandoned husband, a tortured lover and confused family and friends. Contrary to Gulkin’s claim, the way Polley constructs her film leaves little room for bias. Stories We Tell would have been a much different film if it only shared the story of scorned lover Gulkin. Everyone has a chance to retell it the way they remember, giving the audience a more encompassing view of the dysfunctional family life of Diane. From my vantage point, this is a more accurate depiction of “the truth”, than simply a single person documentary.

While there are many different modes of documentary film making, two of the most prominent modes discussed by Bill Nichols are the Participatory Mode and the Reflexive Mode. The Participatory Mode “welcomes direct engagement between film maker and subject.” It leaves room for the literal personal voice of the film-maker, who can exercise this ability to persuade the audience, provide context and even establish an easily identifiable tone for the viewer. In contrast, The Reflexive Mode “acknowledges the constructed nature of the documentary and flaunts it- conveying to people that this is not necessarily ‘truth’ but a reconstruction of it- not the truth but a truth.” Different films we have watched as a class this semester embody both these types of film making.

Ross McElwee’s film Photographic Memory is a great example of the Participatory mode. in this film, McElwee becomes both film-maker and subject. The documentary is about McElwee’s personal relationship with his teenage son, as well as his own journey into his past. The reason this film is such a perfect example of the participatory mode is that the audience is not only privy to the observational aspect of McElwee’s family life, but actually sees him playing the active role of father and film-maker. McElwee uses narration throughout the film to establish tone and context. he often describes his personal feelings towards his own family as he shares his opinions of his father, son and daughter. By doing so, the audience gains deep insight into the perspective of the director rather than simply looking at the family through the lens of a camera. The film becomes much more personal than if we were simply watching an outsider film the day to day life of McElwee, the emotional aspect of the film would be much less intimate.

In contrast, the Reflexive mode of documentary focuses on the constructed nature of the documentary. One of the films that can fall under the reflexive category is Nanook of the North by Robert Flaherty. This film retells the tale of Nanook an Eskimo. In the film Flaherty portrays the arctic lifestyle by means of various scenes concerning Nanook , his family and his hunt for film. While not explicitly stated, though, the entire film can be said to be a creation of Flattery’s vivid imagination – a truth but not the truth. This is due to many different artificially created elements such as staged scenes depicting Eskimo life as sweet and fanciful. Flaherty focuses primarily on the entertaining parts of the story, rather than exposing the entire truth. The Eskimo’s name is not even Nanook, and in fact he met a much grimmer fate than shown on camera. What the audience saw was an adorable depiction of an almost fantasy foreign lifestyle, rather than reality: this is a man who daily struggles to provide for his family. Instead the audience becomes endeared to a cute little Eskimo man, and is left with a less than honest interpretation of their true lifestyle. Instead of objectively portraying native life, the film served Flaherty’s  main purpose of entertaining.

While this is not the case in all Reflexive films, all of them are not so blatantly orchestrated as Nanook, most of them do rely on some form of constructed effort in order to make a point. But these films, like participatory films, use this as a means of garnering a particular response from the audience, whether it be emotional or a call to action.

Consider the film Stranger with a Camera.  How does this film fit into Bill Nichols’ definition of the expository documentary mode? Compare it to other expository documentaries we’ve watched this semester.  (This can include the clip from the Corporation or not).  Last, discuss the five elements of rhetoric (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery) in relation to Nichols’ idea of “voice” (pg. 77-93) vis-à-vis Stranger with a Camera.

The expository documentary mode seeks to enlighten or persuade the audience by means of different rhetorical strategies. Bill Nichols discusses several elements included in the definition of an expository documentary. The film Stranger with a Camera is a prime example of expository mode.

First, this particular mode commonly makes use of a narrator in order to convey a particular message, sometimes using the voice of god technique, where the narrator is never seen but only heard. This documentary relays logic through the commentary, apart from the presented images. Rather than explaining the visual, the narrator acts a supplement to organize different ideas promoted in the film. It also serves to illustrate the perspective of the film and filmmaker.

Another part of the expository film is it’s use of editing. Rather than using editing to establish a pattern or rhythm, it instead progresses the argument of the filmmaker. The expository film is not subject to following chronological order, allowing the filmmaker a larger degree of freedom. In Stranger with a Camera, director Barnett took liberties with the editing in order to fully capture the story of Hugh O’Connor’s murder. Rather than moving chronologically, she instead focus on the presentation of the incident. She transitions between the past and the present weaving the film together. She effectively uses footage from the past in combination with present day interviews. By doing so the audience is able to understand the opinions of the citizens of Letcher County in retrospect. She also includes images of her own life in Appalanchia, which lend to her credibility with the audience.

Nichols also emphasizes the need for an expository film to appear objective. Similar to the news media, the expository film is meant to present information to the audience and let them, ultimately, decide for themselves what to believe. However, just because a film is presenting itself as objective does not necessarily render it as such. Various aspects of the film such as the voice, or the decision to include certain footage, or present the materiel in a particular way, could in fact lend to the film’s overall persuasive argument. Thus, while the audience may believe that they came to a conclusion on their own, they were in fact presented the information in a way that was meant to persuade them. In the case of Stranger with a Camera, Barnett show both the side of the people of Appalachia as well as that of the film crew. She does not present on side as better than another. In fact, she gives them both fair representation. However, by including particular interviews such as those with the daughter of Hugh O’Conner and his companions, as well as interviews with people sympathetic to Hobart Ison, she encourages sympathy towards both parties. The audience is left to decide whether Ison’s action was “justified” by lending to their overall understanding of the incident.

In comparison, the expository film The Corporation, uses narrative in a different way than Stranger with a Camera. While Stranger with a Camera relies primarily on ethos and pathos, by means of sentimental interviews and compelling footage,The Corporation uses logos to appeal to the audience. The film presents hard data, facts and examples to persuade the audience towards it’s critical view of the corporation. This can be likened to the approach taken by the new media, who rely on the objective approach of the news anchor and hard facts to back up the story.

Leni Riefenstahl changed the face of documentary film forever.  What was her contribution to the documentary genre and how is her film, Triumph of the Will unique? How does this film differ from other films during that same time period?  What can be learned from her representation of Adolf Hitler?

Leni Rienfenstahl revolutionized documentary, managing to create one of the most influential propaganda films of the age. She was requested to make a film documenting the rise of Hitler, portraying him in a positive light.Through a series of dramatic scenes, numerous cuts and brilliant editing, she delivered the character of “Hitler” and achieved her ultimate goal of glorifying the Nazi Party.

Previous documentary films by renown directors such as Flaherty and Grierson had very different feels about them. A Flaherty film, such as Nanook of the North, focused on a particular group of people familiarizing the audience with them and presenting the individuals involved almost as stylized characters. Flaherty was notoriously fluffy, Barnouw even noting in A History of the Non-fiction Film that Flaherty was negligent of the social climate when documenting the Aran Isles, in favor of depicting his method. Grierson on the other hand took a different approach to the documentary film, using commentators to clearly present a point of view with little room for interpretation. Leni Rienfenstahl, though, took a very different route when creating Triumph of the WIll.  She used no commentary; Rather, she let the material speak for itself. The message was clearly communicated, the Nazi party was solidly unified and their head was the Fuehrer.

While Rienfenstahl herself noted in a personal interview that, in person, Hitler presented himself as a quiet and reserved person, this was not the persona that came across on screen. By means of her filming Rienfensthal captured Hitler’s charisma and showed how he captivated the entire nation of Germany. Many of the scenes deify Hitler, placing him above all others literally. On screen he seemed larger than life, as many of the scenes with him focus on him only. There is no where else to look except for at Hitler, and his presence is overwhelming. Rienfenstahl made sure that there was nothing to distract the audience from his message. In contrast, Rienfenstahl had many scenes of German citizens in different states. Some of these included frenzied admirers craning to simply get a glance at their leader. Others showed the intense order of the Nazis, perfectly lined up and waiting to hear Hitler’s words.  One thing is clear though, the Nazi party is extremely unified and solid, ad Hitler comes forth as their commander. 

Eric Barnouw states that Rienfenstahl did not present the film in chronological order. Rather she edited the film in order to capture the pomp surrounding the Nazi party focusing on many of her choreographed scenes. The rallies appear extremely exciting and the swell of feeling amongst the audience is undeniable. By taking this creative liberty, she ultimately accomplished her ultimate purpose of painting a glorious picture of the Nazi party. Whether or not this was an accurate portrayal of the Nazi party remains to be seen. But it cannot be denied that Rienfenstahl did what she set out to do: create a propaganda film worthy of the third reich.

What can be said about Rienfenstahl’s portrayal of Adolf Hitler? I suppose it is that even one of the most unappealing characters in history can be made into a charismatic leader through a series of cuts and edits. Through her film, Rienfenstahl managed o show the entire world what the German people saw exactly in Hitler. While many just viewed him as a small, unassuming man- by means of the documentary, Rienfensthal captured Germany’s Hitler, a fierce and captivating individual who led an entire nation like never before.

One of the defining factors of documentary, according to Bill Nichols, is that documentaries are about real people. He goes on to note that the characters are “playing” themselves, in that they presentation may reflect the influence of the cameras presence. Nichols also states that an actor in a stage play or fictional piece must subdue certain aspects of himself in order to present the growth of the character to the audience. He also says that the act of self-presentation allows an individual to reveal as much or as little of himself as he desires, and that as a situation evolves so does the individual. This was apparent in the documentary The Act of Killing by Joshua Oppenheimer.

The film highlights the after-effects on the lives of the men involved in the Indonesian Killings of 1965-1966. In the film, we see that each individual has developed their own way to cope with what they have done. Some feel pride in their actions, seeing no moral blurred lines. Others choose to submerge the memories deep into their subconscious, and do not see any reason to dwell on the past. But the film’s most compelling character is Anwar Congo, former executioner of over a million accused communists. Anwar, though appearing to be a typical elderly man indulging in retirement with his grand-children, is plagued by nightmares of his past. Over the course of filming, the audience is privy to a transformation of Congo as he becomes more familiar with director Oppenheimer and is forced to confront his inner demons that have been festering for years.

Nichols argues that as a situation changed between an individual and the film maker, so does their response to the camera. “Friendliness prompts a friendly presentation, but an introduction of a sarcastic remark may prompt guardedness” (Nichols, 9). We see this in the act of killing in a number of different scenes. For instance, during a drive with one of Anwar’s “gangster” buddies, Oppenheimer begins to ask what can only be described as difficult questions. He began with an inquiry of the man’s moral compass and later asked him if he was haunted by the same guilty memories as Anwar. The man comes off as abrasive and arguably displays no sense of regret, at least not on camera. In contrast, Anwar, as his relationship with Oppenheimer develops, we see a change in him. He opens up to the camera and relates his true feelings to Oppenheimer and the audience. Such a honest revelation is a rare thing to be captured on the screen. By the end of the film, we see Congo dry heaving in self-loathing. This is the definition of self-presentation, and as Nichols says is not something that could have been devised by director.