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?
I think the idea of labor and where our products come from is really interesting and hugely relevant today, as people are finally starting to think about what it means to be a consumer. I really wish Glawogger had gone deeper with this idea, because I think it gets kind of lost in all the careful editing and fictionalization of the stories and footage.
ReplyDeleteI think one reason for the director's choice to edit and stage as much as he did was to make it more accessible to his audience. By making the film more aesthetically pleasing, he gives us something to hold on to as he takes us to cultures that we don't understand. The ways in which he does this mimic a lot of the techniques used in fictional films, which I find problematic. It may be a good way to sell a travelogue-style documentary, but I think it also overly romanticizes and contributes to exoticism in a way that is harmful to society, especially when what we're watching is supposed to be the "truth."
Supposing that the goal of a documentary is to promote social change or awareness, I think the film would have had a greater impact on me if Glawogger had focused his edits not on making the film more aesthetically pleasing, but on proving some kind of point such as the idea of labor and consumerism.
I think that Glowagger did have a point. Sure, he does admit to staging and arranging certain things, but this doesn't mean that the film is without truth. The characters in the film aren't lying about who they are or what they do. If Glowagger chooses to recreate certain situations that they have gone through and make them aesthetically pleasing I'm ok with that. In the interview Glowagger explains a lot of his staging has to do with logistical issues of the amount of people and their reaction to the camera. I think he was actually trying to make the viewing experience more authentic by limiting his subjects reaction to the camera. The scene with the train ride in India would have been less impacting with a group of people reacting to the camera rather than the extras he hired. It gives you a better feeling of what a crowded train ride there is actually like.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in term of Glowagger aesthetics I think he makes a fair point when he explains that he couldn't shoot something beautiful if there wasn't already something beautiful to shoot. These decisions don't seem to romanticize the subjects for me either because of how they are filmed. When I think of travelogues it seems as if the subject has the same curiosity for the camera as the viewer does watching the documentary. I don't see this in Glowagger's film.The interviews are short, almost monotonous, excluding maybe the hustlers in New York. The film is not didactic to me in the way that other travalogues may be. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Trinh T Minh-ha's film Reassemblage but I think it relates to this film because she is able to observe happiness in a culture that everyone else classifies as third world and underdeveloped. I think this is where Glowagger is coming from as well. Besides, in terms of informing people, its not really news to anyone that these countries are poor, but maybe viewers don't realize that these people must also have moments of pride, happiness, or self-respect for what they do.