1. Critics of The True Meaning of Love strongly believe that Shelby's photographs exploit the Applachian people, while fuelling stereotypes that challenge the concept of fine arts versus documentation. With this being said, do you feel that this form of photography captured by Shelby is purposefully intended to exploit Appalachians? Futhermore, what ethical concern do the photographs pose?
2. Briefly discuss what visual or audio strengthened this film the most. If this element was missing, what aspect would not be conveyed?
3. According to Critic, Vicki Goldberg, Shelby's photographs " need to be labeled recreation." Do you agree or disagree with this statememt?
4. If you were then filmaker, what would you add or remove from the film?
5. How do you feel incorporating Seperent Handling Religion aided or hindered the film?
In response to your first question, I think that the filmmakers did a great job in showing the audience who these Appalachians are and the true character behind the photographs. I also think that Shelby is a person I would never like to come in contact with, ever. As the photographer, who has lived inside and outside of this community, Shelby has a huge responsibility towards these people and fails miserably to uphold to it. Understanding the stereotypes of the Appalachian people, he does nothing in their favor to end such rumors. Shelby knows that the public will see his photos and feel that these stereotypes are validated, opposite of his stated agenda. Him knowing what people will see and continuing to produce such photos is an unfortunate flaw in his character. The filmmakers created an interesting story, Shelby did not.
Jasmyne, for me the visuals of the Appalachian peoples interactions outside of being photographed is what strengthened the film the most to me. By showing these interactions we the audience get a better feel for what the appalachian people are really like and without these visuals we would be reliant on Shelby's interpretive photos. I also feel that the traditional Appalachian and gospel songs which are so vital to the Appalachian people was an important element to include because it is not something that can be experienced through looking at a photo.
I agree with Sophia that the personal stories about the Appalachian people beyond their photographs created a realism to me. I think using their dialogue WITHOUT subtitles was very purposeful. It showed that they aren't speaking a foreign language that requires a translation.
Were the Appalachian people invited to the art exhibit? Because I would loved to have seen footage of them in the art gallery looking at their reactions to the Shelby's photographs.
I think watching Baraka and then reflecting back on this film makes me think about the need to tell stories about people we see as different or "other". This film captured their humanity and the beauty of their culture.
I certainly agree with Sophia and Tanya that the background stories of the people being photographed were so valuable to the narrative of the documentary. The photographs are rough, black and white, and harsh-- highlighting every wrinkle or tear. By seeing these people move, live and speak, I was so much more moved, and inspired to consider them beyond Shelby's photographs. I felt really uncomfortable with Shelby's staging of the photographs, especially the pig, which is something that they would not have done (the pig would not have been slaughtered by them at all) if he had not caused the event. However, seeing the loving way that these people interacted with Shelby made me feel a bit more kindly towards him.
In response to your last question, I was made sincerely uncomfortable by the snake handling as well. My first impression was one of surprise and a sort of disgust, or sadness-- snake handling to me at first glance seemed stupid, reckless, especially when the one man was bit and nearly died. This is just a guess, but these people have got to have other hobbies, and ways they spend their time-- their jobs, their music, their families. Instead of highlighting those aspects, or showing them only briefly or incidentally while talking about the photography. Instead, they (maybe the filmmakers? Maybe Shelby, if it was his footage?) chose to show what might be the most controversial and easily misunderstood part of Appalachian culture.
I think what helped me most was the video of how the pictures were formed. I think that made me feel like I could really see their personalities. It also showed the interaction between Shelby and his subjects. I do not think that I was bothered by the snake handling, but I think that my life experience does not allow me to be shocked by unknown practices after being overseas in Iraq, nothing shocks me. I think that Shelby may have just been fascinated with it and filming it may have been the only way he could experience this.
Something that the filmmaker did at the very end of the film, which really resonated with me (and which no one has mentioned in any of our discussions), was to slowly zoom in to the photograph of a close up of Shelby and the brother and sister with disabilities. All three are looking directly into the camera; the siblings are in the foreground and Shelby is between and behind them and most of his face is hidden by the two in front. The filmmaker zooms into the picture, the siblings fill the screen and then slide out of the shot as we get closer and closer to Shelby staring back at us and, just as his eye fills the screen, that image fades out and an image of his camera fades in -- its lens replacing Shelby's pupil.
This shot, while a bit overt, really clarified for me the message I felt the documentarian was trying to convey. Shelby stands with these people. He stands behind them. He challenges us to see them as he sees them, through the lens of his vision and of his camera.
Something about that shot felt a bit cliched, but I'm a sucker for that kind of unabashedly blunt statement.
1. Critics of The True Meaning of Love strongly believe that Shelby's photographs exploit the Applachian people, while fuelling stereotypes that challenge the concept of fine arts versus documentation. With this being said, do you feel that this form of photography captured by Shelby is purposefully intended to exploit Appalachians? Futhermore, what ethical concern do the photographs pose?
ReplyDelete2. Briefly discuss what visual or audio strengthened this film the most. If this element was missing, what aspect would not be conveyed?
3. According to Critic, Vicki Goldberg, Shelby's photographs " need to be labeled recreation." Do you agree or disagree with this statememt?
4. If you were then filmaker, what would you add or remove from the film?
5. How do you feel incorporating Seperent Handling Religion aided or hindered the film?
In response to your first question, I think that the filmmakers did a great job in showing the audience who these Appalachians are and the true character behind the photographs. I also think that Shelby is a person I would never like to come in contact with, ever. As the photographer, who has lived inside and outside of this community, Shelby has a huge responsibility towards these people and fails miserably to uphold to it. Understanding the stereotypes of the Appalachian people, he does nothing in their favor to end such rumors. Shelby knows that the public will see his photos and feel that these stereotypes are validated, opposite of his stated agenda. Him knowing what people will see and continuing to produce such photos is an unfortunate flaw in his character. The filmmakers created an interesting story, Shelby did not.
DeleteJasmyne, for me the visuals of the Appalachian peoples interactions outside of being photographed is what strengthened the film the most to me. By showing these interactions we the audience get a better feel for what the appalachian people are really like and without these visuals we would be reliant on Shelby's interpretive photos. I also feel that the traditional Appalachian and gospel songs which are so vital to the Appalachian people was an important element to include because it is not something that can be experienced through looking at a photo.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sophia that the personal stories about the Appalachian people beyond their photographs created a realism to me. I think using their dialogue WITHOUT subtitles was very purposeful. It showed that they aren't speaking a foreign language that requires a translation.
ReplyDeleteWere the Appalachian people invited to the art exhibit? Because I would loved to have seen footage of them in the art gallery looking at their reactions to the Shelby's photographs.
I think watching Baraka and then reflecting back on this film makes me think about the need to tell stories about people we see as different or "other". This film captured their humanity and the beauty of their culture.
I certainly agree with Sophia and Tanya that the background stories of the people being photographed were so valuable to the narrative of the documentary. The photographs are rough, black and white, and harsh-- highlighting every wrinkle or tear. By seeing these people move, live and speak, I was so much more moved, and inspired to consider them beyond Shelby's photographs. I felt really uncomfortable with Shelby's staging of the photographs, especially the pig, which is something that they would not have done (the pig would not have been slaughtered by them at all) if he had not caused the event. However, seeing the loving way that these people interacted with Shelby made me feel a bit more kindly towards him.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your last question, I was made sincerely uncomfortable by the snake handling as well. My first impression was one of surprise and a sort of disgust, or sadness-- snake handling to me at first glance seemed stupid, reckless, especially when the one man was bit and nearly died. This is just a guess, but these people have got to have other hobbies, and ways they spend their time-- their jobs, their music, their families. Instead of highlighting those aspects, or showing them only briefly or incidentally while talking about the photography. Instead, they (maybe the filmmakers? Maybe Shelby, if it was his footage?) chose to show what might be the most controversial and easily misunderstood part of Appalachian culture.
I think what helped me most was the video of how the pictures were formed. I think that made me feel like I could really see their personalities. It also showed the interaction between Shelby and his subjects. I do not think that I was bothered by the snake handling, but I think that my life experience does not allow me to be shocked by unknown practices after being overseas in Iraq, nothing shocks me. I think that Shelby may have just been fascinated with it and filming it may have been the only way he could experience this.
ReplyDeleteSomething that the filmmaker did at the very end of the film, which really resonated with me (and which no one has mentioned in any of our discussions), was to slowly zoom in to the photograph of a close up of Shelby and the brother and sister with disabilities. All three are looking directly into the camera; the siblings are in the foreground and Shelby is between and behind them and most of his face is hidden by the two in front. The filmmaker zooms into the picture, the siblings fill the screen and then slide out of the shot as we get closer and closer to Shelby staring back at us and, just as his eye fills the screen, that image fades out and an image of his camera fades in -- its lens replacing Shelby's pupil.
ReplyDeleteThis shot, while a bit overt, really clarified for me the message I felt the documentarian was trying to convey. Shelby stands with these people. He stands behind them. He challenges us to see them as he sees them, through the lens of his vision and of his camera.
Something about that shot felt a bit cliched, but I'm a sucker for that kind of unabashedly blunt statement.