Week 10: Sheep Rushes by Lucien Castaing-Taylor

Sheep Rushes (2001-2005) by Lucien Castaing-Taylor

I think we can take many different approaches to our discussion this week:

Discussing the readings in relation to the work.

Discuss the line between anthropology and documentary work, where do we draw this line? Is this piece a anthropological document or a documentary film? Or both?

We could talk about Taylor's approach compared to Luis Bunuel's Land without Bread.


Also, feel free to discuss Philippe Grandrieux's Un Lac (2008) that we saw at the HFA. Now that we all have seen the beginning and have had some time to "live with" the film, I'd love to hear what you all have to say about it

I'll post some more questions / prompts if things don't get rolling here soon. 

Tangent: CIRCUMSTANCES

Just found an article about this movie, haven't seen it yet, I think her comment on the process of scripting the film is relevant to the on-going conversation regarding "truth" and "truth-telling"

having limited knowledge of her intention with the film, would you consider this a documentary?

"Keshavarz told Reuters that the scarcity of coverage on the topic inspired her, saying, "I've seen very few films that address women's sexuality -- in Iran, in the Muslim world, at all. As much as some people are upset about the film, there are other people who are like, 'Finally! Something that's us!'

In a Wall Street Journal interview, Keshavarz explained her reaction to criticism of the film: “It’s usually Iranian men in their 50s and 60s. Often, the questions are framed in terms of authenticity. Like I don’t have the right to speak because I don’t live in Iran. But I’ve always been very upfront that I go back and forth, and I have a different perspective than a filmmaker from Iran would. But I also have a difference perspective than an American filmmaker would. And because I go back and forth, I see change in a different light.”

Early versions of Circumstance were not so forthright on the intimate nature of the relationship between its two leads, Keshavarz notes: “everything was implied; nothing was shown." But as she continued to refine her vision at the Sundance Writers she realized that honest portrayal of her subject was essential: “as I started writing more truthfully and the characters became more real as opposed to symbols, I really started to strip away my self-censorship, and I realized that if I was going to make the film, I had to make it as truthfully as possible, and once I got that in the script, I would never be able to return to Iran.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/new-film-circumstances-ex_n_936891.html

Tangent: LIVE DOCUMENTARY "THE LOVE SONG OF R. BUCKMINSTER FULLER"

Alex and I caught a presentation of it at the ICA a few weeks ago.
1. who doesn't love Yo La Tengo
2. Fuller's a pretty fascinating character

Here's an article, and podcast, about the documentary:

http://radioboston.wbur.org/2012/10/19/buckminster-fuller-documentary


Green's pretty adamant about not recording the performance (which makes sense, it's a live "documentary") so I can't share any actual footage

but I hope this is entertaining for some of you.

Week 8: Models (1999) by Ulrich Seidl

Hi Im sorry that I'm posting before Morgan has a chance to introduce some questions. I just wanted to blog my immediate reaction to the film. Was anyone else as upset with the documentary as I was? My first issue was that the title seemed to include multiple models and technically there were four but I thought it really only focused on one and for some reason that bothered me. Also, the involvement of the camera bothered me more than the previous films we've seen. It seemed manipulated but not with a poetic intent or some kind of genuine nature behind it. This was the first time in the class where I  really asked myself if this was right. I want to know if anything was scripted because at times it felt that way. Is there any way to get some info on that Morgan? That being said, I hope I don't upset anyone that really liked the film. I didn't even hate it I just felt like it was skewed somehow. I'm sure once I think more about the film I will be able to find its merits I just immediately feel like this documentary was made already knowing everything that would take place. If anyone disagrees please let me know why. I'm very curious about someone else's thoughts

Let's keep this conversation going!! I'd like to know more opinions on this controversy over the film. As for the script, I haven't been able to confirm that it was scripted, however, Seidl lists himself as a writer in the credits so that leads me to believe that parts may of been in fact scripted. 

Week 7: 66 Scenes from America and 8 1/2 x 11

66 Scenes from America (1982)
Jorgen Leth

8 1/2 x 11 (1977)

James Benning

Some questions to mull over:

Some things brought up in the debate: 

Is Leth's use of stereotypes and American 'tourist' towns problematic? 

Do Americans become a 'spectacle'? 

Does the narrative quality of Benning's film take away from it functioning as a documentary?

Simply, is his film boring?

Other questions:

How does Leth's NYC compare to Glawogger's?

How do we feel about Leth using Warhol's film?

We could move away from these films and discuss whether Warhol's film functions as a documentary on its own, and how it changes (if it does) when it is put in the context of another film. 

With Warhol and Benning we start to get into the discussion of the durational documentary. A whole conversation could be sparked around this genre. These filmmakers take the physical limits of film (the 3 minute roll, ext) and let that dictate the time structure within their film. What does it mean to do this as a documentary filmmaker? Is durational filmmaking somehow more of a document? Or less? 

As always feel free to discuss any other ideas or questions you may have. Or go off on a tangent! Let's just get the blood flowing somehow. 

Week 6: Los Angeles Plays Itself

Thom Anderson's video essay Los Angeles Plays Itself (2003) presented the duality between fiction and non-fiction. In the beginning of the film the narrator declares;

"If we can appreciate documentaries for their dramatic qualities, then we can view fiction for their documentary qualities."

This brings me to present to you for thought some of the questions he presented to us:

How do fiction movies shape our reality?

Do they then become our reality and thus become documentary?

What about when fiction works grow old and then become historical documents for a period in time?

Between the research-based nature of the film and the fact that it was almost 3 hours long, I think there are many avenues for discussion here. Feel free to ponder one of these questions, or explore this documentary in relation to the others we've seen, delve into thoughts about the city itself and how it is presented to us (tone, pov), discuss the 'white male' perspective that he delves into towards the end of the film, anything! Let's here some awesome discussion this week! Let's crash the site from all the traffic and enthusiasm!!!

Let's get rollin'!

Land without Bread (1933) Luis Buñuel

 Blood of the Beasts (1949) Georges Franju

 Little Dieter Needs to Fly (1998) Werner Herzog

Hello Everyone! 

I'd really love to get the blog rockin' and rollin' within the next few days since we most likely won't have time to discuss these three great films in class this week. Don't feel like you have to have done the readings first to post on the blog-- in fact I'd love to hear what people's face-value impressions are before reading deeper. 

Some topics I would love people to delve into:

Narration (What is problematic about the narrator in some of the films? What about when we are presented with multiple narrators? ext.)

Dramatization (Do we have a problem with Buñuel staged scenes such as the dead horse and the goat falling off the cliff? What about Herzog's approach to reenactment, as well as adding quirks to Dieter such as his compulsion to open and close doors?) 

Historical Context (How does viewing Blood of the Beasts and Land without Bread change in the context of now? Or does it? Is time and relevance a problem for documentarians?) 

Food (This is something I would love to write about and will if I have time, but food plays a central role in all three films-- Buñuel uses bread as a token for a privileged and healthy society, Franju shows us behind the scenes of what happens (used to happen?) to our meat before it hits our table (in a very neutral way?), and Herzog shows how food can offer comfort for anxiety and I way to deal with the past (in hoarding), its necessity  and the polarity of abundance and scarcity.)

Feel free to use one of these topics as a jumping off point, or choose many of the other points available to discuss. This is just scratching the surface!