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?
So far, in regards to the American documentaries that we've watched in class, I can't find a relationship that ties them all together under one lens. Even when I think of all the American documentaries I've ever seen, they seem to far apart and different to be united under a national pretext. However, I might also be too connected to American cinema to step back and see the bigger picture.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if I compare the American films I've seen in comparison to the European films we've seen so far, I can start to see a difference: mainly that American films ask more from their audiences. They seem to demand more when they pose questions and strike up viewers with their calls of action. They seem much more opinionated and are most definitely edited to convey that opinion in an organized and documented order.
I feel as though the article presents some useful ideas, ones that are going to become increasingly more relevant in such a growing global society. I do believe, however, that though it is a useful lens through which documentary can be observed, it should not be required to do so. Personally, I am fascinated with the idea that viewers have completely individual readings of the same film because of things like personality, context, background knowledge, location, etc. Much like "To Be and To Have", a viewing can vary depending on how much external knowledge an audience member has.
ReplyDeleteAs a filmmaker, I think it's great to be aware of this manner of creating and interpreting documentaries, but ultimately should allow anyone to convey the message they wish to convey.
I think the concept of examining documentaries through a transnational lens is valid in regard to American documentaries. Our classroom screenings of American documentaries have all been of post-9/11 films, which I think is the greatest contributor to America's transnationalism influence.
ReplyDeleteWhen speaking of Dreamland, the class came up with a couple different versions of how to read the documentary through a transnational lens. One was that life can thrive amongst the trash or seemingly destructed state of post-USSR countries. Another was that these countries are like a dump in which its citizens are burdened by the ill effects of outside influences. Like in these transnational readings, American documentaries can be examined as well. I would say that American documentaries are characterized by the subject of fear. For example, in Trembling Before God, homosexuals lived in fear of their religion and its followers. Michael Moors says in Bowling for Columbine that fear is responsible for America's gun violence. Deliver Us from Evil makes church-goers fear their religious leaders and legitimacy of the Catholic church. The Fog of War makes viewers fear that the War on Terror is quickly becoming analogous to the Vietnam War. All of these films utilize or present fear in a manner that keeps audience engaged with the film and represents America's continuous fear since September 11, 2001.
I really like the pureness of these films. In that I mean you're just shown the images without narration or overt "direction" by the director, and are there for challenged to create your own interpretations. The radical difference between these European docs and American docs is a great break from having someone beat you over the head with what they (director) are trying to say. Although, I think they be more appriciated by "film people" then the general public (for the most part).
ReplyDeleteFor the most part I agree with Matt. This is a valid way to analyze American films. America is a land of immigrants and American filmmakers come from many different countries with a variety of perceptions. As Lowell pointed out, finding a unifying trend, style, or outlook can be difficult. In this case the transnational lens is particularly useful because it explores the film as a product of global influences rather than national ones. It looks at all of the factors that birthed a particular film instead of limiting them. But there are certainly valid points to be made by exploring films through a national lens as well. As Katie pointed out, all of the American films we've watched in class so far deal with fear. This a very American sentiment post-9/11, and it is an insight we wouldn't gain if we did not look at these films as examples of specifically American documentaries. So there are benefits to each form of exploration. I think for a truly thorough analysis of a film, it would be advantageous to see the film from both angles rather than choosing one to be more important than the other.
ReplyDeleteTransnationalism to me is exactly the wrong lens to apply to American filmmaking. It works in the Latvian and Lithuanian films because Europe, fundamentally is trying to become a transnational force, and even as there are nationalist (intertwined with racism, anti-islamic sentiment, anti-immigrant sentiment, etc.) and interwoven ideas of what it means to be French, English, Latvian and European, depending on the power your state historically exerts over the others, Europe is essentially trying to work out its transnational identity.
ReplyDeleteIt's completely absurd to think the United States is in anywhere near the same boat - even from a policy perspective, and from overwhelming popular sentiment, as reflected through recent elections, we are becoming increasingly nationalist, isolated, and at odds with crucial players in the world community, with the notable exception of China, and similar export powers. We are also struggling with an identity. Every major documentary about a foreign event or idea has been viewed through an totality of exclusively American ideas - Standard Operating Procedure, Taxi to the Dark Side, any American Iraq War doc - we are concerned with our perception on the world stage as the nationalistic power we are.
Our ideas are NOT transnational, because 'trans' implies a traffic of ideas, a commerce of ideas, we only export our ideas for world consumptionb, so perhaps we should refer to the United States as possessing a supranational aesthetic, certainly not an equalizing transnational one.
I understand the validity of analyzing these films through the transational lens. Especially because where these films originate come from countries trying to define and negotiate themselves as European. The symbolism as shown in "Dreamland" definitely lends itself that that style of thinking. The landscape of a garbage dump juxtaposed with thriving nature can be read in a number of ways. Especially when placing trash with different countries labels near shots of a predatory snake, for example.
ReplyDeleteHowever, must we analyze these films through any lens? I believe these films have a more organic and natural purpose than any lens could define. I see "Dreamland" as an allegory for Earth. Despite all we do to it, nature thrives, and the other one (the name is slipping me at the moment), about lost childhood and innocence. Larger, more existential issues than analyzing it through a transnational, political lens.
I don't really think "transnationalism" in the sense it's being applied to these two movies, really works when analyzing American films because in this country we're so insulated from the rest of the world. We don't associate in any a way that is meaningful with the countries that surround us so how can we have any perception or expression of a "transnational" message. However, I do feel like there's a sense of regionalism in America that's very strong. In my opinion, Americans have a very different view of what this country is and should be depending on where they're from in the United States. This is something that I think should be explored further, beyond the current polarization of the simple left and right mentality.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly seems to me like most American docs are more oriented to social change or telling us to be better people. When compared to these films, I get the sense that European docs focus more on just showing the audience something real, and leaving it up to them as to how to interpret.
ReplyDeleteI think what Katie said is very interesting. Does it seem like fear wasn't implemented at all in these international films? I don't see it, but I'm sure someone could interpret them that way. (FEAR the trash dumps, FEAR terminal disease... whatever.)
However, I'm intrigued by what John P. said. Are you saying that recent American cinema pays no mind to other countries? It's a pretty funny idea that our largest export is our ideas, not goods or anything tangible. But I guess it makes some sense, the US is just trying to make the whole world think like the US, as has been going on for centuries.
So no, you probably can't look at American docs through the transnational lens. But with these films, they could represent something wholly different, a distinct way of seeing what's there, without trying to force ideals on the audience.
Although I'd like to say that America is part of the transnationalist "movement",I think that would be somewhat antithetical to transationalism itself because a large thing that makes these films interesting is how different they are and feel than most American documentaries.
ReplyDeleteI Think John Poullot's right to say that we export information, we don't totally transfer ideas back and forth. And I agree withSam that the international films are often much less rhetorical and allow the viewer to reach their own conclusions.