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?