7-49 and Up: First reality program
I came away extremely impressed with the 7 and up series and felt the guest speaker asked some interesting questions, such as whether this could be achieved in the united states. I personally think there is no way this could happen in the united states because our society tends to vault reality cast memebers to a celebrity status. I am constantly amazed at the staying power of some of these reality "stars" and it seems like many of them have been able to bounce from reality show to reality show. This makes me ask, just what heck do these people do for a living besides appear on reality shows? Mtv is a prime example imo, if you get selected to road rules or real world you are almost guaranteed to appear on the gauntlet or the inferno. Virtually all of these shows shower cast members with luxurious accomadations and gifts, again reinforcing that the viewer is watching anything but reality. People may argue that it is still reality, but I think its more like watching someone who has just won the lottery rather than watching someone function in society without any assistance from the reality show itself. Perhaps what I liked the most about the 7 and up series is that the people were left to live their lives without any assistance. Some of the people said they had gained popularity and their appearance on the show did open some doors, but it seemed minimal compared to what happens to our reality stars.
Salesman
Yesterday in class it was brought up that this film could have brought the ire of the catholic church. While I'm sure the catholic church wouldn't be thrilled about the film, I'm not sure what they could really do about it. The aim was to display that these bible salesman were no different than any other salesman and the bottom line was making a profit. The salesman were visibly stressed and often depressed when they struck out on sales. If this job was purley about the joyful endeavor of selling bibles and spreading the word of god, then why were so many people incredibly stressed out? When the Badger said he sold zero bibles you would have thought someone just died by the reactions in the room. I was amazed by the tone of the meetings/briefings with all of the churchs bible salesman present. If I didn't know they were selling bibles I would swear I was watching a police chief talking tough to his beat cops. The red headed bible salesman/manager commented on getting rid of sour apples and essentially threatened his coworkers. The documentary did have some humorous parts, such as that crazy florida couple who busted out some beatles jams in the middle of a sale, but there was a lot of depressing moments as well. Regardless of Maysles "making ammends" comment I felt the film stayed objective to showing the reality of bible salesman being no different than regular salesman. Do you think this film was objective and showed the truth?
Label Shmabel
As we can all tell by the previous posts, many view American Nightmare as a poetic mode. Honestly I could sit here and tell you why I agree with this but my classmates have already done that many times over. So instead, I will just throw in my two cents about these modes in the first place.
I agree with my classmate Palmer in saying that I don't really "buy" Nichol's categories in the first place. Why it is humans feel compelled to label and organize everything is beyond me. I am almost against classifying all documentaries because I think that takes away from there original beauty. I'm fairly confident when I say that I doubt many documentary film directors set out to make a "poetic mode" documentary or any mode for that matter. No, they don't... they set out to tell the truth (as they see it) on a topic and hopefully enlighten the masses. I don't think there is any reason to try to classify these documentaries. Art is not meant to be confined or classified, that almost goes against everything creativity stands for, therefore, if filmmaking is truly considered art then let it be and quit trying to label it. Thank you and goodnight!
twooooo pock.
in the class discussion, i found it curious to find out that Paramount didn't want to label Resurrection a "documentary." then i looked at mtv films filmography of production on imdb and wasn't so curious anymore. the quote from laura lazin in the hand out that talked about how tupac would tell his own story "...lets just let him do it. let's trust him to do it." and then to hear the fractured audio and spliced monologue of tupac "telling his story" was kind of humorous. i don't really care to discuss what is and isn't a documentary, that's a trivial argument. that's in congruence with the argument of what is and isn't art. instead it seems more important to analyze the gaze of the film. who's point of view are we seeing this from? tupac's? afini shakur? laura lazin? mtv films? fans of i want a famous face? honestly, i couldn't really figure it out. it seems to me that if tupac were alive, he'd allow for a totally different film to be made. of course, they wouldn't make a film like this if he were still alive (not to mention sell as many records*.)
*Tupac has released 10 albums since his 1996 death, all of which have gone platinum. he also has a film coming out next year that he wrote in 1995, executive produced by Afeni Shakur and Preston Holmes. (imdb.com)
David Kennard Documentary workshop
who went? what did you think? i personally enjoyed the hands on aspect of having to come up with an idea and pitch it to a panel, but i would have like to have instead learned more about the HOW of a documentary (production modes, legalities, etc) and less of the how to sell documentary. that's not to say i didn't benefit from the workshop, just that it wasn't what i expected i guess.
Have a look at these High School links...
...a
review of a screening in the area of the school from a local (weekly, I think) paper from August 29, 2001.
You also might want to look at
this PBS site, which has some interesting tangents on the film.
It includes this exchange, from the Wiseman interview:
P.O.V.: Any interesting or funny stories related to the making of this film?
F. Wiseman: The students at NE High School, who had not yet seen the film, wore T-shirts saying "Fred Wiseman was right."
Bodies in high school space...
We have hit on an interesting point, and I was wondering if it would come up. Many of the sequences in "HS" fragment space; some go so far as to fragment people, parts of people, etc. We get mouths, hands on hips, pointing fingers, and in the gym sequence we get miscellaneous body parts...But they are bodies moving in a conducted rhythm. The song underneath is a pop version of "Simon says."
BTW...later in the film, we get a bizarre image of a boys gym class (they were all gender-segregated then). We see two teams...shirts and skins..trying to move an enormous ball (looks vaguely like a medicine ball, but huge) against each other. Is it Earth? Is it progress and discipline? Is it Sisyphus rolling a rock up the hill?
What else would you make of the fragmented bodies in "High School"?
Please Read this - it's important
I have said before, probably five or six times since the beginning.
For the sake of
this course, saying that something is "good" or "bad" or that you like it or that you don't like it is not relevant.
Please adjust your comments to say something substantial. Please, please, please. I know that I've been clear about this.
We have discussed several relevant issue that should give you something to discuss.
I would be happy to discuss the topic of aesthetics and apprecaition in specific detail, but it still does not relate to whether you liked the films or not. Our quest should always be deeper understanding.
If you have any questions about this...if you are not clear why your value judgment is not helpful... please attach them as comments to this post. I think this is a subject worth discussing, but not as the center of the blog.
OK?
