Hi all.
I wanted to take a moment to mention my initial thoughts about the films we've seen so far. These are just my first impressions and not intended to be read as scholarly. Seems, though, that we should start getting the conversation going here.
1/2 Revolution
What struck me at first about this film was not the violence and rioting in the streets or the history of human tragedy that must form the context of any mass revolution. Instead, I somehow focused my attention to how stylized the film was. The way the main characters, the film crew, looked so cool. There's a particular scene where the crew is running out of their apartment to film a large group of protesters. During this segment, the film crew are all wearing these hip sunglasses. They look quite out of place when compared to the throng of people, dirty and with tattered clothing, who make up the mass of protesters.
To me, this seems like a trivial observation. But the more I think about it, the less I think it is trivial. I'm not sure why, though. Did anybody else notice this seeming disconnect? When I think about the film now, I don't see the protests in the streets or recall political injustices. Instead, I see a group of rather sexy expatriots smoking cigarettes. In your opinion, was too much visual focus placed on the group of filmmakers? Did this distract you from the larger issues of social injustice?
The Law in These Parts
I thought the filmmakers' overt attempt to deconstruct this film was pretty interesting. The filmmakers confession that all documentary film was a form of manipulation, that it was guided by the ideology of the filmmaker, was refreshing to see. But for all of the openness the filmmaker seemed to have, I still felt something was being hidden from me. For example, the filmmaker could have been even more open about why certain stylistic moves were made. What was the meaning behind using establishing shots of the interview subjects' profiles rather than the traditional head on camera angle? Why was the decision made to leave a chair and desk in front of a green screen to obstruct the view of old documentary footage?
At first I thought the camera angles regarding the interview subjects were intended to have a kind of alienating effect. Without being able to see into the interviewee's eyes, instead having to view them from the side, the audience must have an initial sense of detachment from the interviewee. Since this profile camera angle was consistently used as an establishing shot, it seems the audience was being psychologically primed to respond to the interviewee's in a detached way. This cinematography decision would have a definite influence on how the audience perceived the film. Yet, the filmmaker, who seemed so concerned with being open about methodology, chose to remain quiet about this tactic.
In regard to the obstruction of part of the screen by the desk and chair, I first thought that this was meant to distract the audience from accepting the documentary footage as objective truth. It was difficult for me to believe in the footage because I could not get it out of my awareness that there was a desk and chair in front of the screen. In other words, the spell of the image could not overtake my thinking. I thought, "this is obviously an incomplete account of the situation -- and the filmmaker intends to communicate this to me by placing a desk in front of the action. Still, it's quite annoying."
As I spoke with other members of the class I discovered that they had interesting takes on the meaning behind these stylistic choices. Steven responded to my thought that the interviewee's were being presented intentionally in an alienating way by mentioning that (and hopefully Steven will speak for himself as I am bound to mis-paraphrase him) this choice may have been made to get the audience to focus on a systemic problem, rather than one concerning individuals. In other words, the empty chair and desk symbolized a position within a system (in this case, Judicial) that could be filled by any number of individuals. The individual who held the position did not matter, though, as they were attached to a system that essentially confined their available actions. So, the audience was not meant to sympathize with the interviewee's because that would mean somehow sympathizing with the system: the interviewee's were merely placeholders.
I find this very interesting. Thoughts?
The Invisible War
I felt deeply angry when I left the theater after watching The Invisible War. And I thought that the filmmakers had intended that particular effect. This seemed like a form of agitprop -- intended to make viewers angry in hope that that anger might lead viewers to take action -- and I felt that this was justified considering the subject matter of the film. Unfortunately, I am not the sort of person whose anger leads to production action for social change. Instead, I empathize with the victims, internalize pain and suffering, and fall into a kind of depressed hopelessness.
Films like the Invisible War are crucially important as they can lead to progressive social change. But these kind of film also carry a unique challenge and set of ethical requirements. Audience members who had been victims of rape or sexual assault who see this film could potentially be triggered to have PTSD flashbacks. It seems the filmmakers are obligated in a case like this to provide information for crisis hotlines and victim outreach centers. I didn't notice any such information in this film.
Obviously, this film was meant to confine itself within the parameters of sexual violence within the U.S. military. Yet, sexual violence is a much larger cultural issue that really needs to be addressed on a greater scale. The filmmakers do not provide any real insight into the antecedent factors that influence sexual violence. I do not think that the problem of sexual violence is going to be solved without us developing a complex understanding of the phenomenon. This understanding would have to include discussion of domination/subordination mentalities as promulgated via gender roles and far-reaching cultural attitudes regarding both sexuality and violence. Unfortunately, the U.S. culture is producing representations (in film, video game, etc.) that are increasingly sexualized and violent, yet few people are willing to honestly and openly discuss sexuality and violence -- as separate entities but also as they relate to each other. We'll need to overcome social taboos about what can be discussed before we can really begin to change things, I think.
I wanted to take a moment to mention my initial thoughts about the films we've seen so far. These are just my first impressions and not intended to be read as scholarly. Seems, though, that we should start getting the conversation going here.
1/2 Revolution
What struck me at first about this film was not the violence and rioting in the streets or the history of human tragedy that must form the context of any mass revolution. Instead, I somehow focused my attention to how stylized the film was. The way the main characters, the film crew, looked so cool. There's a particular scene where the crew is running out of their apartment to film a large group of protesters. During this segment, the film crew are all wearing these hip sunglasses. They look quite out of place when compared to the throng of people, dirty and with tattered clothing, who make up the mass of protesters.
To me, this seems like a trivial observation. But the more I think about it, the less I think it is trivial. I'm not sure why, though. Did anybody else notice this seeming disconnect? When I think about the film now, I don't see the protests in the streets or recall political injustices. Instead, I see a group of rather sexy expatriots smoking cigarettes. In your opinion, was too much visual focus placed on the group of filmmakers? Did this distract you from the larger issues of social injustice?
The Law in These Parts
I thought the filmmakers' overt attempt to deconstruct this film was pretty interesting. The filmmakers confession that all documentary film was a form of manipulation, that it was guided by the ideology of the filmmaker, was refreshing to see. But for all of the openness the filmmaker seemed to have, I still felt something was being hidden from me. For example, the filmmaker could have been even more open about why certain stylistic moves were made. What was the meaning behind using establishing shots of the interview subjects' profiles rather than the traditional head on camera angle? Why was the decision made to leave a chair and desk in front of a green screen to obstruct the view of old documentary footage?
At first I thought the camera angles regarding the interview subjects were intended to have a kind of alienating effect. Without being able to see into the interviewee's eyes, instead having to view them from the side, the audience must have an initial sense of detachment from the interviewee. Since this profile camera angle was consistently used as an establishing shot, it seems the audience was being psychologically primed to respond to the interviewee's in a detached way. This cinematography decision would have a definite influence on how the audience perceived the film. Yet, the filmmaker, who seemed so concerned with being open about methodology, chose to remain quiet about this tactic.
In regard to the obstruction of part of the screen by the desk and chair, I first thought that this was meant to distract the audience from accepting the documentary footage as objective truth. It was difficult for me to believe in the footage because I could not get it out of my awareness that there was a desk and chair in front of the screen. In other words, the spell of the image could not overtake my thinking. I thought, "this is obviously an incomplete account of the situation -- and the filmmaker intends to communicate this to me by placing a desk in front of the action. Still, it's quite annoying."
As I spoke with other members of the class I discovered that they had interesting takes on the meaning behind these stylistic choices. Steven responded to my thought that the interviewee's were being presented intentionally in an alienating way by mentioning that (and hopefully Steven will speak for himself as I am bound to mis-paraphrase him) this choice may have been made to get the audience to focus on a systemic problem, rather than one concerning individuals. In other words, the empty chair and desk symbolized a position within a system (in this case, Judicial) that could be filled by any number of individuals. The individual who held the position did not matter, though, as they were attached to a system that essentially confined their available actions. So, the audience was not meant to sympathize with the interviewee's because that would mean somehow sympathizing with the system: the interviewee's were merely placeholders.
I find this very interesting. Thoughts?
The Invisible War
I felt deeply angry when I left the theater after watching The Invisible War. And I thought that the filmmakers had intended that particular effect. This seemed like a form of agitprop -- intended to make viewers angry in hope that that anger might lead viewers to take action -- and I felt that this was justified considering the subject matter of the film. Unfortunately, I am not the sort of person whose anger leads to production action for social change. Instead, I empathize with the victims, internalize pain and suffering, and fall into a kind of depressed hopelessness.
Films like the Invisible War are crucially important as they can lead to progressive social change. But these kind of film also carry a unique challenge and set of ethical requirements. Audience members who had been victims of rape or sexual assault who see this film could potentially be triggered to have PTSD flashbacks. It seems the filmmakers are obligated in a case like this to provide information for crisis hotlines and victim outreach centers. I didn't notice any such information in this film.
Obviously, this film was meant to confine itself within the parameters of sexual violence within the U.S. military. Yet, sexual violence is a much larger cultural issue that really needs to be addressed on a greater scale. The filmmakers do not provide any real insight into the antecedent factors that influence sexual violence. I do not think that the problem of sexual violence is going to be solved without us developing a complex understanding of the phenomenon. This understanding would have to include discussion of domination/subordination mentalities as promulgated via gender roles and far-reaching cultural attitudes regarding both sexuality and violence. Unfortunately, the U.S. culture is producing representations (in film, video game, etc.) that are increasingly sexualized and violent, yet few people are willing to honestly and openly discuss sexuality and violence -- as separate entities but also as they relate to each other. We'll need to overcome social taboos about what can be discussed before we can really begin to change things, I think.
