Torture Docs

Yesterday’s excellent discussion briefly touched on a topic that I’d like to explore further in the blog: the issue of time and documentary. Both Julia Lesage and Alex Gibney (in his interview with Gary Crowdus) mention in the assigned reading the question of documentaries presenting information, knowledge, and/or an argument in a limited amount of time. Lesage writes: “What is the relation of all this [torture epistephilia] to the documentary films about torture? Well, they are a short way to sift through all this information and come to an understanding of the situation in about ninety minutes. The viewer may gain only a provisional understanding but it’s a beginning” (p.14 of the PDF). Later, she notes, when discussing the limits on torture epistephilia: “Feature-length documentaries have to edit to an approximately ninety-minute length. So a director’s pursuit of knowledge cannot be replicated in the film" (p. 15). Meanwhile, when Crowdus expresses his desire to have American documentaries be in a longer format (for ex., 5 hours long), Gibney responds: “The frustrating thing is that you get to a certain point where you need to be able to tell the story, and you tell it properly at a certain length. Inevitably, during the editorial process, if you step away from the film for a while, and then come back and watch it, you see huge places where it just sags, and you start to lose viewers” (p.36).

Their statements lead me to ask you your opinions on this issue of time and documentary. Do you think that there is an “ideal” length for a documentary, so that the filmmaker is able to present the information and arguments (s)he wishes to convey but, simultaneously, does not lose viewers? Do you believe that filmmakers will always have to choose between these two possibilities - either the documentary sacrifices knowledge in order to stay within a 90-120 minute format and appeal to a wider audience, or the film is far more comprehensive in scope but risks a narrow spectatorship because of its length? Which approach should be endorsed and why? Is there a “happy” medium? How does a documentarian achieve it?

Screening Scandal

Yesterday’s class discussion led me to continue thinking about two, related issues. First, Deliver us from Evil is the second film we’ve seen this semester that discusses religion. How would you compare and contrast Deliver us from Evil and Trembling Before G-d? How do Berg and Dubowski represent their respective religions? What are their relationships with the film subjects? Do these two films have anything in common?

Second, the mid-2000s seemed to be quite a popular time for documentaries on topics relating to religion. For example, there’s Kirby Dick’s 2004 documentary Twist of Faith, a film that also examines the clergy sex abuse scandal, as well as Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s popular documentary Jesus Camp from 2006 (a documentary about children and Evangelical Christianity). In 2007, Daniel Karslake made For the Bible Tells Me So, a film exploring homosexuality and religion. There’s also Lake of Fire, Tony Kaye’s 2006 documentary about the abortion debate that devotes a considerable amount of time to the role of religion within this controversial issue. Moreover, this is just a sampling of the works created recently that address religion. This makes me ask: Why? Why so many docs about religion at this particular time? Is it, as Carl Cannon suggested in his article assigned for this week, that the 2000s have been a time (i.e. the “post Monica Lewinsky” period) when the media are more willing to tackle controversial, previously taboo issues? Or can this phenomenon be explained by something else? Why do you think that religion seems to be a popular preoccupation of recent documentary cinema?

Transnational Visions: Docs from the “New Europe”

Yesterday’s class discussion raised some provocative issues about how to understand cinema from the “New Europe,” and I think that many of you offered some excellent insights about the films from Latvia and Lithuania and about transnational media. I particularly enjoyed hearing your readings of the two films, and having you engage in debates about their possible metaphoric and political meanings (or lack thereof).

One question that we talked about briefly at the end of class that I would like to explore further is whether this framework of transnationalism is useful when considering American documentaries. Have Iordanova’s ideas changed the way you consider the American documentaries you’ve seen? Why or why not? For the filmmakers in the class, do you see her formulations of transnational cinema as potentially useful to your own practice? Why or why not? What do you think are the advantages and the disadvantages of examining documentaries through a transnational lens?