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! 

Week 5: Land with out Bread, Blood of the Beast & Little Dieter Needs to Fly

Lot's to talk about from this weeks screenings.  I've emailed you all the 3 readings but I'm pressed for time so I'm not able to write more now, but I recommend getting started as soon as you can on the readings and make some comments, impressions, etc about the works.  I'll try to chime in more soon! - Jeff

Week 4: Nicolas Pereda & "Summer of Goliath"

It was fascinating to listen to Nico talk about his work last week.  I am really curious to read your responses to "Summer of Goliath" and his comments to you all.

Remember that the forum is meant to be an additive discussion that continues throughout the semester and builds upon itself.  You don’t have to stick only to comments about “Goliath”.  You should feel free 9and are encouraged) to integrate ideas from any films watched, articles read, and discussions had throughout the semester..

With that, here are a few things to think about and elaborate on.

THE QUESTION OF HONESTY

The problem of authenticity and honesty seems to lie at the heart of this new non-fiction conundrum.  The great editor and theorist Dai Vaughn states aptly in his essay called The Space in Between, “For those who bewail its absence, honesty is a moral problem.  For those who try to achieve it, it is a technical one.”

What do you think about that in regards to the films we’ve looked at this semester?

CONTEXT & THE CONTINGENCY OF THE VIEWER

The question of the context of the screening in a non-fiction class came up last week and how that impacts the reading of the film as documentary or fiction.  This is an interesting question to me and one that I think should be extended beyond the classroom to look at the subjectivity of the viewer and their role in the construction of meaning.  I’m interested in how ambiguity can work productively in a film to allow the viewer to operate in a more open space within the film.

Again I quote Dai Vaughan who writes “The space opened up by the mismatch between record and signification is precisely the space in which the viewer’s choice operates.  Every hunter reads the spoor in his own way.  The danger of documentary lies in anything which restricts the film within a set of institutionalized norms and erodes that power which the image takes from the viewer’s sense of its contingency.

So what are your thoughts on context and contingency?

THE PERFORMATIVE DOCUMENTARY

Bill Nichols defined the Performative Documentary in the article I gave you last week.  He contends that works in the performative mode deflect the documentary from what has been its main purpose, which is the creation of a persuasive argument about the historical world.  

“Performative documentary marks a shift in emphasis from the referential as the dominant feature…This shift blurs yet more dramatically the already imperfect boundary between documentary and fiction.  It also makes the viewer rather than the historical world a primary referent. The performative documentary engages the spectator with an aesthetic that de-emphasizes reference to an empirical reality. It creates subjectivity in the spectator that connects an abstract aesthetic to an ontology rooted in the abstract. As such, its ontology is an experiential truth rather than an empirical one. The expository qualities of the performative documentary seem, not so much to reject the empirical as to engage that world in a felt, experiential, poetic movement.”

An additional quote from Robert Carl Craig who further explains Nichols’ ideas.  “The Performative documentary… gives the viewer an ‘empowered eye’ allowing the spectator to indulge in association and memories of their own.  These are possibly individual, conceivably collective, or perhaps constructed within a space between filmmaker and viewer.  We can understand this as a temporal space of possible shared knowledge or private thoughts.  It is a privileged space of ambiguity, not the obscurity of psychological motivation, but the abstruseness of movement across space and time.  It is the ambiguity of opening possibilities of what could be rather than what might be. It is a world of possibilities in which the act of spectatorship becomes activated.”

So does “Summer of Goliath” work for you as a Performative Documentary?  Any other films we’ve watched thus far?

Week 3: Danube Hospital & The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes

Hey gang,

So it's Monday night and the NNF forum hasn't exactly been sizzling with discussion about these two films and the articles.  So let's get going!

Since we didn't have much time to talk about these films i'm very curious to hear your responses to them.

So obviously the content was at times overwhelming, and the idea of seeing the normally invisible or even of taboo things that we shouldn't think about is interesting but what else?
How about some of the formal strategies employed by Geyerhalter and Brakhage?
How does it feel as an audience member to experience either of these films?
Can you discuss more about Brakhage's active camera vs. Geyerhalter's static camera?
What about proximity?  How does that function in the films and effect the viewer?
What do you think of Sicinski's description of Danube hospital as functioning metonymically?  What does that even mean?
What do you think about Geyerhalter's non hierarchical approach to documenting a hospital?
How does narrative function in these two films?  Is there a narrative arc or has narrativity taken a different form in these works?

Ok.  Onwards!

See you Thursday. - Jeff

Kossakovsky

I really enjoyed the insight and context that the reading provided on Kossakovsky’s ideas, and his experience with “The Belovs.” I’m impressed that the way it is made is painterly, and surreal, while at the same time, it is observational of the everyday-mundane parts of reality- but in such a universally profound way. I love the refusal to tell a “journalistic,” factual, story while still leading the viewers to experience the drastic emotional arcs of the characters throughout the film. Remembering how I reacted to different points of the film: I laughed several times, felt frustration and compassion at others, and always felt displaced in space and time. Kossakovsky ingeniously refuses to hand the viewer an explanation or context for the subjects. He beautifully plays with tensions of the banality, despair and non-sensical humor of –-well, the beauty and woes of life and humanity as a whole(-with the risk of sounding totally pretentious). And he conveys all this through the visuality and sound of every scene. In the way he frames and holds still shots- that become almost moving paintings- puts the audience in the eyes of the observing camera—making you feel as though it is an authentic account of what is happening. But at other times, it is clearly a cut-and-edited stream of intentionally ordered moments and scenes.  Kossakovsky said that the scene with Anna listening to the recordings and dancing was “the most important part of the film,” and was intentionally put at the end, in anticipation of how the audience would “read” the character if it was placed elsewhere. So I guess in a way it is “biased towards her,” as we questioned in class. Also Kossakovsky plays with the interviewer by claiming that some things were not artistically intentional, but choices made because of technical limitations (such as: the family dinner discussion being replaced with the family photo; the sound cutting out at the pinnacle of Anna and Mikhail’s argument, and when the old man is giving his monologue over a black screen). He’s clever to remind us of the intentionality that there is vs. the potential intentionality that we, as viewers, read into—and that such instances could very well be from both.

Another thing is how the film highlights (by universal characters and de-contextualized soundtrack) our own situated cultural perspective as we watch the film. Kossakovsky references the bollywood ballad over the river scene, saying that in Russia, it was a familiar and popular song.  What came off as a deliberate, almostly humorously strange choice of visuals for me, could be perceived as a natural or conventional choice elsewhere. Because different music triggers different associations of mood, perhaps the bollywood music set a tone for the film that I couldn’t even culturally perceive.

In "No Lies: Direct Cinema as Rape" Sobchack really interestingly  touches on voyeurism as a pleasure of film viewing. I was drawn by the way she writes about films that narratively portray rape and are therefore about rape, but not necessarily committing violence/rape on the viewer. There is a safe distance between the narrative violence. Yet in Block's No Lies, because the rape is happening in several different places, there is no exit or safety for the viewer, which is both really violent/aggressive but also not passive, which can be admirable.

No Lies recalled for me this video of Rupaul speaking about being a go-go dancer in 1988. It documents a small slice of his life at the time and also speaks about that kind of violence both passively/not passively.

This blog is becoming an interesting bridge between academic culture and internet culture. That being said, I have observed that most of us are using, appropriately, academic language to talk discuss these films. I believe this is appropriate and has naturally evolved this way because we are in fact in academia and are indeed discussing points that deserve this language. However, I want to propose using some methods that are more common to internet culture as tools to navigate through this thick discourse. Feel free to let me know if you think this is inappropriate or not needed:

I propose we use TL;DR at the end of really dense comments. TL;DR is short hand for 'too long; didn't read' and on many internet forums it is used as a summarizing tool to propel conversation. For example, after a long and well written post (that many of you have provided thus far, merci!) at the very end I would put:

TL;DR, Kossakovsky keeps his camera removed from most of the scenes, thus allowing us to read the scenes as authentic documentary. His use of sound however, takes the film in a fictional direction and takes away from this authenticity of image.

It is basically just laying out your thesis or the main bullet points of your discussion so that conversations can bud more quickly. It isn't meant to prevent people from delving into or reading your whole comment, but mearly provides a conceise launch point for discussion.

Let me know your opinions!

Kossakovsky and Belovs

I really enjoyed this reading and thought it provided great insight into how Kossakovsky went about making the Belovs, and about his working process in general. I think to know that he went about filming the Belovs in such a hands off kind of way, allowing the characters to be themselves, enhanced the organic feel of the film. I really enjoyed the movie and was quite taken with the characters and Kossakovsky's story telling style, and while I generally don't care much whether a film is "real" or not (the degree to which it is staged), in this case, I think it made it better.

I also really liked Kossakovsky's "Rules of Documentary." I think understanding the filmmaker's personal set of regulations gives a better idea of what makes his work so interesting. He is working in his particular style and clearly has figured out what he needs to do to make his point in the most effective way.

Belovy and No Lies

I really liked the small snippets of concrete information we had about the Belov's past to help shape their personal characters, for example when Anna brings up that her drunken brother, Mikhail's, wife was right to leave him and take their child with her - in my opinion this gives us a level of insight as to maybe why he drinks so much or why he seems so abrasive at times. Anna crying when she mentions that she lost her farm to Mikhail, reveals a bit about her and what she finds solace in. For Anna it appears that her entire life is consumed with the farm and the animals contained within it, some of those animals that exist outside of her farm in the wooded areas are also important to her (as seen when she is trying to take the hedgehog to safety). The idea of her loosing that solace to someone who we are to perceive doesn't deserve the land, seeing as she takes the most care and consideration of it (it IS hers), leaves us with a bit of a frail view of what she still has to call her own. In some ways, I interpreted the film to be hers almost in response to the loss of her ownership. That the filmmakers gave her the only thing they could, which is to film her life and expose aspects of that life to viewers who would otherwise not know who she was or that she was alive at all.

One of the aspects of the film that I personally felt drawn to was the tension between the aspects of place and non-place demonstrated in the film. The idea that this was identifiable as being transcendent beyond a specific time period or even location, the daily tasks they had (like milking the cows and pulling the potatoes), and living so remote from everyone else - gave them a sense of being anyone, everyone or no one, this could be the 1930s or it could be the 1990s or even the 19th century.  

It added an aspect of timelessness to the film.

But the snippets of conversation about technological advances, the Czar coming, and even comments regarding what life was like outside of their corner of the world ( a little of which was touched upon when Vasili and Sergei came to visit) helped us to determine when this film actually took place.

I also really enjoyed the conversations, finding that many of the same issues that they were fighting over of regarding education, religion, and this strained idea of people being "passed" by technological advances or otherwise "unable" to really utilize the material, but of their children having all this potential - are the same conversations we hear again and again.

It added to that air of indefinite time for me and I really responded to that.

I also found this to be a common thread between this piece and the "No Lies" film we watched.

The way she was fighting against the allegations of the camera man regarding her rape, wasn't unlike the same questions and comments that are argued about now.

Those consistencies of conversation I find to be really really interesting.

One thing that has struck me through the pieces that we've looked at so far is the tension between respecting the privacy of the subjects and providing viewers with an accurate and complete portrayal of their stories. 
In Belovs we talked about the possibility that certain parts were left out, and that the subjects were censoring themselves for the camera.  The director respects this, choosing not to give his audience the complete truth in favor of protecting the privacy of Anna and her brothers.  No Lies originally struck me as more "real" and unfiltered than Belovs. This was probably due to the disrespect that seemed to be shown to the subject- it seemed unlikely that the director had cut parts out on an ethical basis. 
Finding out that the woman was an actress made me question the entire concept of a documentary.  Can documentaries have actors? Can a documentary actually be more honest and effective if it takes real life stories and uses actors to portray them?  I think the fact that documentary filmmakers have to respect their subjects' privacy can actually take away from the impact of the film. 
The line between documentary and interpretation is becoming more and more blurry from my perspective.  I found No Lies to be extremely powerful in its message, and finding out that it's not quite as candid as I thought hasn't really changed its impact.  We all know that the story is true somewhere, so maybe it doesn't matter if it really happened to that specific woman.  Maybe the fact that we believed for a few minutes that it was real is enough to convince us of its message.  I think the use of documentary tropes was all the director needed to achieve his desired impact, and whether or not it is actually a documentary becomes kind of irrelevant.

Ambiguity of the camera. – is it a doc or is it a fiction film?  I think this is a really interesting platform Glawogger gives the viewer. The viewer should also question why New York City? Why not China, Paris, or somewhere else?   Is it solely because as Americans we are familiar with New York City or is Glawogger trying to say something more with this move? I think he is trying to say something more because of the choices of the two other places. Yes, all three locations are set up, planed, and staged but the contrast of hardcore labor and poverty in two locations (Mexico and Bombay) compared to the New York’s scene, which involves a drug addict scammer makes a statement about how America is exploiting these countries. Showing the levels of poverty.

The Documentary was beautifully shot. Just in the first few minutes of the film there are so many “wow” shots that I noticed something was different about this documentary. The train shots showing different people working, the crow landing and eating food, the chicken scene, the man of color, the drunk men’s clothing with out them in it, and the list can go on and on. The camera movements were very still (using a tripod often) and compositionally tight, on point with nice alternative shots, multiple angels of the same thing, bird’s eye views, time lapses, etc. Everything looks beautiful and visually seductive. I as a viewer allow Glawogger to manipulate the scenes and tell me they are pure reality even though I question them. This is the line Glawogger wants the viewer to dance. He transforms the shit of the world, and the people that work twice as hard as any American, into amazing beautiful portraits of life and its struggles. Then New York comes out of left field crashing into the picture.

Sound is another aspect of this film I really enjoy. Glawogger layers and mixes together sounds that make the film flow from scene to scene very nicely. I don’t have much to say about this besides that I really liked it. It added another level of trusting the filmmaker that was really pleasing.

Also, last thing….        Anyone notice the use of American clothing and brand names subtly put throughout the film. I also started to question if Glawogger had any say in this, since I think every location has this at some point. Is this another link to why New York City?  

Welcome to The New Non-Fiction blog and discussion forum! 

We dove head first into the trenches of documentary film on Thursday with the screening of Michael Glawogger's Megacities (1998). This film brought up lots of questions surrounding the quest for true 'documentation.' The most pressing questions it brought up for me was, how does the audience's role function differently when presented a documentary film? How does our expectations and definition of the documentary set up a lens in which to view the events on the screen? 

In particular to Megacities I was thinking about how as a viewer our experiences in life can validate or vaporize the 'truth' presented to us in a documentary. Someone in class remarked how the New York scenes in the movie felt more staged than the scenes shot in Mumbai. I have to wonder, are these scenes truly more set up? Or do they appear more staged to an audience who is far more likely to have experienced New York city than Mumbai and thus our personal connection vaporizes the 'truth' in that footage?