1. Helpless Gaze (the filmmaker is prevented from intervening) One scene in Born into Brothels was particularly disturbing to me. It was the shot of a man and a little girl walking toward a back room. Of course the moaning music, the grainy lighting, and the context told us this was not a father and daughter planning to read a bedtime story. The filmmaker bore witness to this scene, knowing a child was about to be raped. Is the Helpless Gaze justified here? Could she have chosen the Interventional Gaze and actively confronted the situation? Would it have changed the course of events?
2. The Humane Stare Our text discusses the Humane Stare in a ground-breaking documentary about a couple who are filmed dying of AIDS. Our text goes on to say that the Humane Stare can be applied to far less tragic subjects. It poses the question, “Shouldn’t every human subject be framed from this vantage point, even when (perhaps especially when) filming those we disagree with or have conflict with?” How do you feel about that? What about documentaries dealing with divisive or controversial issues? Is it possible to do a meaningful documentary on a controversial topic while framing the opposition in a Humane Stare? How could Loose Change have been done through the gaze of the Humane Stare?
3. The Endangered Gaze (the filmmaker is in physical danger while recording a scene) While the filmmaker of Trouble the Water was not shown to be in danger, at one point we see a reporter hanging onto a mailbox for dear life, undeterred from reporting the story. This was in striking contrast to the perfectly coiffed newscasters back in the studio who seemed out of touch with what was happening on the Gulf Coast. How do you feel about filmmakers putting themselves (and possibly their crew) in harm’s way? Does their motive – whether for profit or out of a genuine interest in getting the true story – influence how you feel about this?
"Is it possible to do a meaningful documentary on a controversial topic while framing the opposition in a Humane Stare?" Very good question. I think not. I think there is a difference between acknowledging, even respecting, the opposition's positions and then refuting them, and framing them in a Humane Stare. The Humane Stare engenders a sympathy and a complicity that works against argument. We do not need to vilify our opposition to win an argument, but we should not sympathize with them either. I feel that doing so only undermines our argument in the eyes of those we are trying to convince.
In response to question 3, I think part of professional, commercial newscasters are looking at dangerous situation as an opportunity for money, but I think a lot of reporters care to get the true story and do care about the topic. It's important for many people, the reporters and their audience, to see the truth of a story, and for Katrina that means going into the thick of it. The endangered gaze is an important one, I think, because the filmmaker must put themselves in some horrible positions to get the story they want to cover, and sometimes that's the only way to get the piece. If their motive is for money, then I don't feel as keen about it, but I feel more cheated than worrying about their safety.
Cathy, I did not notice the shot of the man and the little girl, but if I did see it then I'm not quite sure if the Helpless Gaze is justified here. I would like to think that I would try and stop them from going in the back room, but it is possible that the filmmaker was not in a position to help. She could have chosen the Interventional Gaze and confronted the situation but that might have been an extremely dangerous thing to do. I feel like the filmmaker did everything possible to help these kids, while also staying out of harms way. In the film the viewer is mostly concerned about the safety of the children and feel that the filmmaker is a safe haven for them. However, if the filmmaker were to intervene then the tone of the film would change because the viewers would see how dangerous it is for everyone, including the filmmaker.
1. I didn't catch that part of Born Into Brothels, but if I did, it would have changed my entire perception of that film. Born Into Brothels is probably my favorite documentary we have watched so far for so many reasons. I think if the filmmaker would have intervened she would not have had access or her access would have been limited at that point. I think the situation could have escalated if she decided to intervene and the relationship with the children could have changed.
The book discusses the idea of "the inherent kinetic energy one throws into a situation by turning a camera onto it" it could be "perceived as a recording device or a gun; whether you are met as a guest or an intruder." Had the filmmaker decided to react and protect the child, she would have been perceived as an intruder, a western intruder no less.
I think it helps to understand your documentary's function and purpose to anticipate the boundaries you may have to cross and know your own tolerance levels and what you're willing to endure. But on the flipside it's really difficult to pinpoint one definitive function. Like with Born Into Brothels she intended to tell one story and ended up telling a whole different story. It seems like every shot a filmmaker takes so many questions have to be asked and answered immediately.
1. How do you feel about the ethics (or lack thereof) of ambushing, shame, ridicule, and public performity filming tactics such as the ones Michael Moore tends to use? Do you think there are situations where this is warranted? Is it unfair to the subjects portrayed or interviewed? Do you think Moore's reasoning of this being one of his nonviolent tools to make things better is valid?
2. What practical information did you gather from the section about Approaching the Other? Did this spark thought on how you would carry out your own documentary in terms of logistics? What hurdles do you think you may face?
3. What do you think about the filmmaker of 'The Bridge' who put down the camera and saved the woman who was going to jump? Do you think this interventional tactic was the right decision both in the realm of ethics and in the interest of the film? What would you have done and why?
To answer question 3, I think the photographer made the right decision in this case. If he hadn't been able to reach the woman in time to save her, but still had footage of her climbing and jumping, that would create another ethical issue, but being there and having the ability to save her, without risking any danger to himself, it was his responsibility. It kind of reminds me of the pulitzer prize winning photograph of the starving child with the vulture; the photographer, Kevin Carter, took a picture and chased away the bird but did not help the child, who was trying to crawl to a feeding center. While he may not have been able to ultimately save the child, he received a great deal of public criticism, later expressed his own deep regret, and ultimately committed suicide (granted, we don't know how much this incident factored into that). Of course, what's interesting in the bride case is that the film crew did not personally intervene, though they did call the bridge patrol when they suspected a jumper. The interventionist in this case was an amateur photographer.
I think filmmakers do have an ethical obligation to help their subjects when possible and when it doesn't put them at risk, but this doesn't supersede getting the shot, if they can. The story of the famous Vietnam photograph exemplified this--the photographer took the picture of the girl as she was running towards him, but then he put down his camera and helped her. While this may not always be possible, it does represent the best outcome--an iconic image that can change and influence public perception, without the emotional costs faced by those who did not intervene in similar situations.
I thought about your question 1 when watching the K-mart scene in Bowling for Columbine. That scene felt really artificial and contrived when he "got an idea to return the bullets" back to K-mart. Although this ambush helped K-mart change their gun and ammunition laws, I think Michael Moore set those kids/victims up for severe disappointment and possible rejection.
I also thought Michael Moore's ethics with the Charlton Heston scene. Heston was portrayed really badly in this film, but he did invite Moore to his home and allowed him access to a private part of his life and Moore pounces on this opportunity. With that being said, I think the interview between Moore and Heston was framed beautifully with the Hollywood pictures in the background and Heston’s director’s chair; this shot just complimented the difference between the surreal world Heston lives in and the middle America he tries to present himself as being a part of.
These two scenes made me question Michael Moore's ethics and his desire to do whatever to get the shot. This made me question Moore’s scruples. When Heston was walking away and Moore showed the picture of the 1st grade victim, I thought that was a little over the top, not because I thought it was unnecessary, but because I didn’t think it was genuine on Moore’s part. In the previous scene Moore is rubbing the back of the principal at the elementary saying, “It’s okay. It’s okay,” expressing authentic sympathy for this woman and the situation, but when he lays the picture down on Heston’s driveway, I thought it was too much.
1. Which gaze presented in our book caught your attention and can closely be connected with the films we viewed in class? Please name the film, specific gaze, and example from the film.
2. One might say that using particular camera techniques manipulate truth claims. If you were the filmmaker, isn't the purpose to make the film feel as real as possible while capturing reality? Does pre-planned camera positioning change reality and make the information any less real?
3. Outside of films viewed in class, name films that have pushed ethical boundaries.
2. I think this goes back to the objectivity argument. Editing, camera techniques both can play with our perception of reality. I think coming into this class, I did not believe I had to worry about that so much with documentaries but I have definitely learned different. The purpose of the film is to make it feel as real as possible, as we have seen film makers and their opinions lack objectivity and we as viewers are subject to this lacking. I do not think pre-planned camera positioning changes reality nor do I believe that editing techniques changes it, but I do believe it changes our perception on the topic, which is our own perceived reality through the viewers eyes.
1. Helpless Gaze (the filmmaker is prevented from intervening)
ReplyDeleteOne scene in Born into Brothels was particularly disturbing to me. It was the shot of a man and a little girl walking toward a back room. Of course the moaning music, the grainy lighting, and the context told us this was not a father and daughter planning to read a bedtime story. The filmmaker bore witness to this scene, knowing a child was about to be raped. Is the Helpless Gaze justified here? Could she have chosen the Interventional Gaze and actively confronted the situation? Would it have changed the course of events?
2. The Humane Stare
Our text discusses the Humane Stare in a ground-breaking documentary about a couple who are filmed dying of AIDS. Our text goes on to say that the Humane Stare can be applied to far less tragic subjects. It poses the question, “Shouldn’t every human subject be framed from this vantage point, even when (perhaps especially when) filming those we disagree with or have conflict with?” How do you feel about that? What about documentaries dealing with divisive or controversial issues? Is it possible to do a meaningful documentary on a controversial topic while framing the opposition in a Humane Stare? How could Loose Change have been done through the gaze of the Humane Stare?
3. The Endangered Gaze (the filmmaker is in physical danger while recording a scene)
While the filmmaker of Trouble the Water was not shown to be in danger, at one point we see a reporter hanging onto a mailbox for dear life, undeterred from reporting the story. This was in striking contrast to the perfectly coiffed newscasters back in the studio who seemed out of touch with what was happening on the Gulf Coast. How do you feel about filmmakers putting themselves (and possibly their crew) in harm’s way? Does their motive – whether for profit or out of a genuine interest in getting the true story – influence how you feel about this?
"Is it possible to do a meaningful documentary on a controversial topic while framing the opposition in a Humane Stare?" Very good question. I think not. I think there is a difference between acknowledging, even respecting, the opposition's positions and then refuting them, and framing them in a Humane Stare. The Humane Stare engenders a sympathy and a complicity that works against argument. We do not need to vilify our opposition to win an argument, but we should not sympathize with them either. I feel that doing so only undermines our argument in the eyes of those we are trying to convince.
DeleteIn response to question 3, I think part of professional, commercial newscasters are looking at dangerous situation as an opportunity for money, but I think a lot of reporters care to get the true story and do care about the topic. It's important for many people, the reporters and their audience, to see the truth of a story, and for Katrina that means going into the thick of it. The endangered gaze is an important one, I think, because the filmmaker must put themselves in some horrible positions to get the story they want to cover, and sometimes that's the only way to get the piece. If their motive is for money, then I don't feel as keen about it, but I feel more cheated than worrying about their safety.
DeleteCathy, I did not notice the shot of the man and the little girl, but if I did see it then I'm not quite sure if the Helpless Gaze is justified here. I would like to think that I would try and stop them from going in the back room, but it is possible that the filmmaker was not in a position to help. She could have chosen the Interventional Gaze and confronted the situation but that might have been an extremely dangerous thing to do. I feel like the filmmaker did everything possible to help these kids, while also staying out of harms way. In the film the viewer is mostly concerned about the safety of the children and feel that the filmmaker is a safe haven for them. However, if the filmmaker were to intervene then the tone of the film would change because the viewers would see how dangerous it is for everyone, including the filmmaker.
DeleteCathy you bring up so many good points.
ReplyDelete1. I didn't catch that part of Born Into Brothels, but if I did, it would have changed my entire perception of that film. Born Into Brothels is probably my favorite documentary we have watched so far for so many reasons. I think if the filmmaker would have intervened she would not have had access or her access would have been limited at that point. I think the situation could have escalated if she decided to intervene and the relationship with the children could have changed.
The book discusses the idea of "the inherent kinetic energy one throws into a situation by turning a camera onto it" it could be "perceived as a recording device or a gun; whether you are met as a guest or an intruder." Had the filmmaker decided to react and protect the child, she would have been perceived as an intruder, a western intruder no less.
I think it helps to understand your documentary's function and purpose to anticipate the boundaries you may have to cross and know your own tolerance levels and what you're willing to endure. But on the flipside it's really difficult to pinpoint one definitive function. Like with Born Into Brothels she intended to tell one story and ended up telling a whole different story. It seems like every shot a filmmaker takes so many questions have to be asked and answered immediately.
Here are a few more questions to consider:
ReplyDelete1. How do you feel about the ethics (or lack thereof) of ambushing, shame, ridicule, and public performity filming tactics such as the ones Michael Moore tends to use? Do you think there are situations where this is warranted? Is it unfair to the subjects portrayed or interviewed? Do you think Moore's reasoning of this being one of his nonviolent tools to make things better is valid?
2. What practical information did you gather from the section about Approaching the Other? Did this spark thought on how you would carry out your own documentary in terms of logistics? What hurdles do you think you may face?
3. What do you think about the filmmaker of 'The Bridge' who put down the camera and saved the woman who was going to jump? Do you think this interventional tactic was the right decision both in the realm of ethics and in the interest of the film? What would you have done and why?
To answer question 3, I think the photographer made the right decision in this case. If he hadn't been able to reach the woman in time to save her, but still had footage of her climbing and jumping, that would create another ethical issue, but being there and having the ability to save her, without risking any danger to himself, it was his responsibility. It kind of reminds me of the pulitzer prize winning photograph of the starving child with the vulture; the photographer, Kevin Carter, took a picture and chased away the bird but did not help the child, who was trying to crawl to a feeding center. While he may not have been able to ultimately save the child, he received a great deal of public criticism, later expressed his own deep regret, and ultimately committed suicide (granted, we don't know how much this incident factored into that). Of course, what's interesting in the bride case is that the film crew did not personally intervene, though they did call the bridge patrol when they suspected a jumper. The interventionist in this case was an amateur photographer.
DeleteI think filmmakers do have an ethical obligation to help their subjects when possible and when it doesn't put them at risk, but this doesn't supersede getting the shot, if they can. The story of the famous Vietnam photograph exemplified this--the photographer took the picture of the girl as she was running towards him, but then he put down his camera and helped her. While this may not always be possible, it does represent the best outcome--an iconic image that can change and influence public perception, without the emotional costs faced by those who did not intervene in similar situations.
I thought about your question 1 when watching the K-mart scene in Bowling for Columbine. That scene felt really artificial and contrived when he "got an idea to return the bullets" back to K-mart. Although this ambush helped K-mart change their gun and ammunition laws, I think Michael Moore set those kids/victims up for severe disappointment and possible rejection.
DeleteI also thought Michael Moore's ethics with the Charlton Heston scene. Heston was portrayed really badly in this film, but he did invite Moore to his home and allowed him access to a private part of his life and Moore pounces on this opportunity. With that being said, I think the interview between Moore and Heston was framed beautifully with the Hollywood pictures in the background and Heston’s director’s chair; this shot just complimented the difference between the surreal world Heston lives in and the middle America he tries to present himself as being a part of.
These two scenes made me question Michael Moore's ethics and his desire to do whatever to get the shot. This made me question Moore’s scruples. When Heston was walking away and Moore showed the picture of the 1st grade victim, I thought that was a little over the top, not because I thought it was unnecessary, but because I didn’t think it was genuine on Moore’s part. In the previous scene Moore is rubbing the back of the principal at the elementary saying, “It’s okay. It’s okay,” expressing authentic sympathy for this woman and the situation, but when he lays the picture down on Heston’s driveway, I thought it was too much.
1. Which gaze presented in our book caught your attention and can closely be connected with the films we viewed in class? Please name the film, specific gaze, and example from the film.
ReplyDelete2. One might say that using particular camera techniques manipulate truth claims. If you were the filmmaker, isn't the purpose to make the film feel as real as possible while capturing reality? Does pre-planned camera positioning change reality and make the information any less real?
3. Outside of films viewed in class, name films that have pushed ethical boundaries.
2. I think this goes back to the objectivity argument. Editing, camera techniques both can play with our perception of reality. I think coming into this class, I did not believe I had to worry about that so much with documentaries but I have definitely learned different. The purpose of the film is to make it feel as real as possible, as we have seen film makers and their opinions lack objectivity and we as viewers are subject to this lacking. I do not think pre-planned camera positioning changes reality nor do I believe that editing techniques changes it, but I do believe it changes our perception on the topic, which is our own perceived reality through the viewers eyes.
ReplyDelete