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
I was intrigued by Franju's definition of documentary filmmaking, namely that "The documentary is a biased and unreserved form of cinema. An equivocal documentary is insignificant and there is no place for it. One can be ambiguous in one's sentiments, but not in the expression one give's them. In the depiction of one's sentiments one must be clear, direct." I took this to mean that he endorses the polarization of ideas, a clear, well-articulated point behind a film. This is ironic because, especially after reading the articles, there is quite a bit of gray area concerning the direction of all three of the films we watched last week. Bunuel's biased narrator encouraged distrust (was this really his intention?), the dark humor of Blood of the Beasts rendered the shock and trauma of the film ambiguous, And Werner Herzog made a Werner Herzog.
ReplyDelete