Engaged

The Bill Nichols piece titled, Engaging Cinema: An Introduction to Film Studies, introduces the reader to some concepts about documentary films in chapter three. What is the purpose of documentary films? How do they work? What are the various modes and how are they different?

Documentary films are not works of fiction. They address the real world. And real-world issues. Nichol states that, “Many documentaries make frequent use of poetic and narrative storytelling techniques as well as rhetorical ones” (Nichols 99). Narrative storytelling is exactly what it sounds like. It is driven by narration either without or outside of the documentary. The poetic is pieced together differently and will be discussed later. In Nichols’ view, there are elements of a rhetorical emphasis in most documentaries. According to Nichols, “rhetorical film discourse serves to move or affect, persuade, or convince the audience.” (Nichols 100) With this in mind, I wonder if there is a rhetorical element in Herzog’s, Grizzly Man? There is the element of a documentary inside another documentary in Grizzly Man. How does this shape the type and mode of this documentary film? These are questions to consider in class. There are two ways, at least, that documentaries function. We engage emotionally or intellectually and sometimes both ways with documentaries. The modes of engagement will be discussed later.

To persuade your audience it is important to understand who your target audience is. As Nichols points out, we are all different, shaped by our experiences. What may have a desired affect of one person may have the opposite on another (this may be your intent). So how can one sway another’s opinion or viewpoint. One way to do this is to use syllogisms. Nichols define them as ways to state premises and draw conclusion; some valid but some only appear valid. This is a come rhetorical tool in politics. Nichols give us the dog example of valid and faulty syllogisms. Decisions to leave out or focus on certain aspects in the documentary can help sway the viewer in the desired direction of the filmmaker. One example given is the documentary, The Plow that Broke the Plains, by Pare Lorentz. This documentary focusses on the dust bowl in the West and Midwest in the 1930s. The way that it is filmed makes it a very pro-government film and thus pro democrat. The government is the hero of the film saving lives with innovation. It uses a narrator to push its agenda and sway the viewers in a particular way. A film by Spike Lee, When the Levees broke does just the opposite and paints the government as an institution that failed the people of Louisiana. This documentary used a different strategy. Instead of a narrator it captured, sync sound, the words or the people effected directly from their own mouths. Sync sound is when filming and the sound or voice is recorded at the same time. This is what Timothy Treadwell does while documenting his life with the bears. Herzog uses this footage masterfully to give a true sense of Treadwell’s life, as he sees it. Sync sound used in conjunction with certain filming techniques can be very powerful! Lee’s closed-framed portraits of his interviewees opposed to the wide- open framed shots of then President Bush and Vice President Cheney paint two very different powerful picture. Like, Treadwell’s synched sound of the rushing water, the bears, the sound of the insects and Treadwell’s voice, the framing of the interviewees telling their stories provide an affect that moves the viewer. Another example can be seen in footage used by Michael Moore and many other documentarians of President Bush’s response when he was told about the 911 attacks at the 4:55 mark  ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suB5wNSNBjs ). I can explain more in class but the short story is that it outraged many people. I think this was in part due to the distance of the filming, synch sound and detachment from the situation. One question to consider in class is on page 106. Concerning The Plow that Broke the planes and When the Levees Broke, Nichols states, “neither film finds a community-based or indigenous organization to channel this suffering into a collective action…neither film can be said to exhibit a radical political perspective.” Do you agree with this? Does Grizzly Man, exhibit a radical political perspective? Is Nichols forgetting what he said earlier about a persons background and experience having a determining factor in how the film is viewed?

Six Modes of Documentary film

  1. Expository – Uses a narrator to speak to the audience. This voice can be an outside announcer that guides the viewer through the film or in inside the film that takes the viewer through the film. Many times this narrator represents the voice of the filmmaker and can thus express the filmmakers views. This is not always the case. Sometimes they can help the viewer navigate difficult terrain of the film. The choice of narrator can influence the viewer in many different ways. Imaging a children’s story being narrated by Samuel L. Jackson as opposed to Morgan freeman.
  2. Poetic- This mode “stresses form or pattern over explicit argument. (Nichols, 116) It looks to give a poetic rendering of the world not the logical, rhetorical method. There is a focus on the artistic. There is a use of patterns and continuity editing, “that stimulate the look and feel of real- world activities and processes. This type of film doesn’t rely of the verbal but more on the visual.
  3. Observational- This is exactly what it sounds like. A direct cut. There is a continuity that captures the image and the sounds at the same time. one example is seen in, The Bear Man when Treadwell is talking about the bear in the background and finishes his shot. He lingers a while and the fox comes by with its pup right behind. They seek the authenticity of events as they unfold in real time
  4. Participatory- This is the “interactive”(Nichols, 118) documentary. This style uses direct questioning. This style also uses synch sound. The filmmaker is directly involved more in front of the camera. She can influence the film with this direct interaction. No Narrator is needed but can be used. In Grizzly Man, Herzog can push any agenda he has by directly interviewing people in the film. Again, I as, is he seeking to influence the viewer?
  5. Reflexive- This mode is considered more “abstract” (Nichols, 122) that the other modes. The film maker challenges the viewer to consider the fact that this is a documentary that is controlled by the director and others and can be altered according to their whims. The warm sunny day that you perceive on film may in fact simply be a close-up of a painting. The authenticity of what is viewed come into question. The film may not be the desired focus on the director. It could be the chaos surrounding the filming representing the chaos in a riot for example.
  6. Performative- The emotional opposite of the Reflexive intellectual mode. The viewer is directed towards an emotional involvement. The goal is the experience of an affectual performance. There is more than an intellectual approach and this type of film is there to provide it. It could be the visceral display of the carnage of war or the violent responses to civil rights peaceful protest. It is meant to be felt not to simple inform or teach

Fargo2

Fargo2

(Setting the Scene)

 

I am going to riff a little about written narrative settings and the problems of analyzing “settings” as proposed by James Phelan and Peter Rabinowitz. How do the rules change/translate to film/tv? I am specifically going to look at a scene from Fargo’s Rhinoceros episode and a scene from the movie. I will insert questions that can be discussed in class.

The first scene starts at about the 8:23 mark and ends around 9:51. This is the conversation between Simone Gerhardt and Mike Milligan. Simone calls mike at the hotel from her house. The scene opens with him being handed a ringing phone. The “setting” here that I am focusing on is how the shots of the characters framed and what does it add if anything to the storyline. The conversation starts with 2 separate shots of each person talking. The sound is also instrumental here as it changes. As soon as Simone says it’s my body, the screen and the audio split. Mike is on the left as is his audio and Simone is on the right. He is the only one in his side of the screen however she shares some of her screen time with the maid/cook. The camera also changes angle at key points. For example, the camera angle changes when the name Luverne is mentioned, we go from a profile shot of Mike to a straight shot. I believe this is to punctuate the name and place importance on what is now being said. Immediately after Simone says, “and I want… You’re gonna…” the split screen goes away and in a single shot she tells the maid/cook to, “get the hell outta here.” The maid leaves. Mike asks, “did I lose you there sweetheart?”   then with a ¾ shot on here she says, “You’re gonna kill him for me!” Mike asks, “your dad?” “He’s not… Ozzie was a dad, on the tv, shit, Mr. French is more of a….” she responds. The screen splits once again and the conversation continues until the end of the scene which once again focusses on her with a last message for her dad, “Tell him… kiss my grits!” The scene then ends with Mike hanging up and immediately reciting Jabberwocky, by Lewis Carroll. The scene is filled with subtle audio that helps to frame the setting.

The second scene is from the movie, Fargo. This is the conversation between Officer Olson and Mr. Mohra. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-XEHwUBubk

This conversation takes place outside in the cold but could have taken place on the phone. Phelan and Rabinowitz quotes Evelyn May saying, “Function of the setting is to furnish, in the best possible way for any given story, the conditions of time and place and characters which shall make the story possible and actual.” (85) Does this scene accomplish this goal? I believe it does. It does so in a way opposite written text. If Mr. Mohra and officer Olson stood there minus the dialogue, I think we would still get a feeling of the importance of the conversation, a direction pointed out, the weather, time of day… and more. What do you all think? I think it moves the story along but in a different matter. Some questions to consider are:

  1. “How do we determine the range of setting and the nature of it’s borders?” (84)
  2. “Setting is often conflated with “description” and hence serves as the portal through which a number of vexed issues enter the field.” (85) In trying to translate “setting” from the written pages to the screen am I “Blurring” the line between setting and description?
  3. Please consider the synthetic, memetic, and thematic components of setting as used in my examples above

 

One last thing about Narrative that I would like to explore with me is the Idea of Narrative Cinema. We may have discussed this in a class that I missed but if we have not, I think it warrants consideration. Martin Scorsese recently said at the BFI London Film Festival concerning Marvel and superhero films, It’s not cinema, it’s something else. We shouldn’t be invaded by it. We need cinemas to step up and show films that are narrative films.” -From, The Hollywood Reporter.

What are your thoughts on this? I think this is a conversation about what make a film, Narrative and can only narrative films be considered cinema? Just something to think about.

For those unfamiliar:

Jabberwocky

By Lewis Carroll

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

 

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!”

 

He took his vorpal sword in hand;

Long time the manxome foe he sought—

So rested he by the Tumtum tree

And stood awhile in thought.

 

And, as in uffish thought he stood,

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,

Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,

And burbled as it came!

 

One, two! One, two! And through and through

The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head

He went galumphing back.

 

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?

Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”

He chortled in his joy.

 

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.