For our last class blog entry this semester, I’d like for us to further explore two issues. First, in the assigned reading from Julianne Pidduck about citizen journalism, she quotes Graham Spry discussing the relationship between communication and community: “A society, a community, a nation, like any other organism, is a function of a network; society is organized, integrated and made responsive by information” (478). Do you agree with this analysis? Why or why not? Moreover, where does documentary fit into this schema? Yesterday in class, we debated the function of non-fiction films in (our) society, and there seemed to be a consensus that it’s acceptable (or even only possible) for documentaries to just provide information to the public. This assertion certainly conforms to the ways people have understood the purpose of documentary cinema historically (i.e., to educate, to inform, etc.). Yet, I can’t help but think that these filmmakers (especially the ones whose works we’ve screened this semester) want their documentaries to accomplish more (such as ameliorate some aspect of their society). What do you think? Can documentaries like Burma VJ do more than simply educate and inform? More importantly, should they aspire to do so? What do you see is the connection between communication and community, especially in the current era of new media?
Second, Burma VJ, just like Waltz with Bashir, considers the issue of the personal and the public. Arguably, all of the recent documentaries that we’ve screened in this course address the tension between the personal and the public somehow. Burma VJ makes the case that one should risk one’s own personal safety in order to support a greater, public cause (the anonymous cameramen in Burma are certainly not the first in film history to sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of documenting something they deemed important, nor will they be the last to do so). What do you think? Should the “public” always trump the “personal” in documentary cinema? Can you give examples of non-fiction works that privilege the personal over the public? Is it ever possible to find a compromise between the two? Why do you think this tension between the public and the personal is such a popular topic for recent documentary cinema?
Thank you for all of your thoughtful contributions to the course this semester, and I hope that you continue your explorations of documentary cinema long after this class ends!
In response to the first set of questions, I think it's very hard for one of anything, whether it be a documentary, a photograph, a writing, etc., to invoke an immediate physical/tangible reaction from an audience member. As much as documentaries may attempt a "call to action," at its core, the documentary format exists as a means to disseminate information. Although I wouldn't discourage any documentary filmmaker for trying to do more than "educate and inform." Perhaps they have more faith in humanity than I do, and I certainly don't think there's any harm in informing people and attempting to stir up a reaction. "Information is power," so the saying goes but more than that it is what one does with that information. I just wouldn't encourage documentary filmmakers who are looking to make a real impact on a particular situation to consider a film to be the be all and end all. A film is one step in the process of inciting change and it's not going to do all the work for you. It takes a bombardment of similar information combined with incentive to spur the average person into doing something.
ReplyDeleteI have to generally agree with Jamie. I think that it's absolutely acceptable for documentaries to do nothing more than provide information the public. I think looking at providing information as not doing enough to underestimate the importance of such a task. What is the point of news broadcasts and articles in newspapers and magazines? None of these mediums, documentaries included, can force any person to go out in the world and make a change. But the point is that there's not even a chance of anybody doing anything if they don't know what's going on. It all starts with information, and it needs to get out. And I do also agree that many documentary filmmakers probably do aspire to motivate their audience to actually go do something about the issue that they present in their work. I also don't think that is this a ridiculous goal or something that can never happen. No one ever knows who their message will reach and how it will inspire someone. After watching all of these documentaries this semester, maybe I haven't done anything to put an end to the injustices of the world, but I have learned a lot and I do think that it has strongly encouraged me to pay closer attention to the importance of my right to vote and who/what I'm voting for. And if I'm not alone in that, I think these documentaries have made a difference.
ReplyDelete1. I think the power information holds is well illustrated by Burma VJ, and likewise its importance for the functioning of a community. It can be assumed there’s a reason the government would go to the lengths that they do in the film to control information, and likewise the potential of information to do more than simply educate and inform is revealed. As the quote from Spry says, a community is an organism and an organism is a function of the information being transferred within itself. To me, the information available about a subject defines what it actually is, and if no one was there to capture evidence that a reporter was killed during the protests, did it ever actually happen? While, yes, it does seem most documentary filmmakers want to incite vast and tangible action on their surroundings through the making of their films, I feel information’s relation to society places the simple providing of that information at a very powerful level.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not simply educating and informing people, it is in part defining how a community feels, remembers, and believes about an event, and likewise, what occurred.
I thought an interesting connection between Burma VJ and Waltz with Bashir were that they both told greater stories from an individual standpoint. In waltz with Bashir, the characters are sharing information about the war by giving their own personal accounts, rather than having a screen rattle off statistics and other things that become convoluted quite easily. Similarly, Burma VJ is a documentary that tells about the oppressive government of Burma, but a large part of it is also about the documentarians themselves and the actual acquisition of the footage. This method of sharing information by also sharing the methods by which the information is acquired allows for a more realistic feel for the viewer, and it certainly left me feeling as though I had taken away from the films much more than I would have from a traditional documentary.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Spry's analysis because, as we have evolved, we've become more reliant on gathering information. The exponential advancement of technology can be attributed to the spread of information. That's just one example. Diseases are cured, help is given to those in need, etc. All thanks to free information. Of course, docs fit in quite nicely, as a primary or secondary source of info. I think it is within the filmmakers' rights to want to accomplish something with their films. Should they aspire to change lives? Sure! But it's not 100% guaranteed, is it? I think it's very possible for one film to change the minds of thousands, but it's all about free will, isn't it? One can only hope that a film like Burma VJ can influence enough change to stop all the atrocities it addresses. But all you can do is hope that someone out there will actually do something. You can't force people to do anything they don't actually want to do, or can't do, otherwise, we're no better than them (corrupt governments). We'll just have to keep trying until we make that one film that changes the world on its own terms.
ReplyDeleteFor me this issue of public vs. personal goes back to Born into Brothels. One of the articles spoke about how human responsibility reigns above all. I've learned this semester that my beliefs definitely fall in that arena. I don't believe anyone should risk human compassion, life, or danger for film. A camera is not a wall...it shouldn't divide people the way it does.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't know what I would do in the case of Burma VJ. Part of me wants to say that I would align with what I was just saying about human vs. camera...but the atrocities that were going on in Burma makes me believe that I would risk it. In a society as powerless as that, it seemed that filming was actually doing something. The world was seeing their footage and they were being heard.
I still have a hard time endorsing danger, though. Ultimately it should be up to the person filming...people have died for their craft before and have realized the risks.
Well, I think there's obvious challenges involved with subject matter here, where although the audience may want to help, they feel as if there isn't much they can do.So that's when people start getting cynical and depressed.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the point of it being "just" information IS the answer to that call. Because down the line if the circumstances are right for some kind of coup or intervention, these videos will stand as testament to the strength and courage of the people of Burma as well as the cruelty of its officials.
And when it comes to the personal vs. public, normally I would just say that I'm very obsessive about safety when I work as a director but there are times when there is simply no other way but to risk your own life to get coverage. I think these VJ's risked their lives out of necessity.
I think nations certainly are information driven. It's become almost a trite reference now, but so much of the mobilization in Egypt this past spring was due to Twitter and Facebook, which provided information for people to respond to. Documentary certainly fits into the role of providing information. After all, video, to me, seems like one of the most information-charged indexical signs we know of. So much can be translated with film, video, and, more specifically, documentaries. The great fear is that documentaries use their power to provide information erroneously, thereby providing false information. Our class over the course of the semester tends to lean to this assumption rather quickly for many of the documentaries we watched this semester.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, documentarians want their films to do more than educate and inform. As many of us are filmmakers ourselves, a lot of us in class seem to recognize that documentarians also want their films to entertain. What else would capture the viewing audience's attention for and hour or an hour and a half? And of course, many documentaries are intended to motivate the audience and inspire them to take action (e.g. The Age of Stupid). Personal, I think many documentarians have false expectations for their films whether they expect people to enact great change after viewing them of if the expect they, themselves, to be hailed as heroes for creating such powerful, impacting images. To me, the reality is that films can do more than educate, but that is what they're most successful at doing. Perhaps I'm being presumptuous, but I don't think anyone in our class has been motivated or inspired to make any great change. Instead, we've been educated and impassioned about particular topics. And I believe this should be the realistic expectations of documentary film.
I'm not sure how to respond regarding the public vs. personal debate. When I think of the films we've watched this semester, this debate doesn't immediately come to mind. I guess a lot of the films seems to demonize the public and esteem the personal. For example, individual homosexuals are the heroes of Trembling Before God, while the conservative, Jewish greater public was the "bad guy." In Deliver Us From Evil, the personal accounts of child molestation were empathized, while the Catholic clergy, on public display in Vatican city, fell under the attack of the director. I'm not sure if this is the struggle alluded to here, but these are examples I can identify where personal accounts are in controversy with a public group or ideology.
Burma VJs prompted various personal responses and interpretations of the film as parts of it were heavily dramatized and/or recreated. Although we’ve seen multiple films that use seemingly less than real techniques and visual representations to portray very real people or events, such as animation, recreations, reenactments, and other aesthetic approaches, this film seamlessly uses reenactments that are often hard to distinguish what was the ‘real’ and what was recreated for the sake of the film. Taking a second look, however, they were not as clandestine as I initially perceived when I saw the film in class, they became much more clear and apparent the second time around, especially after discussion. While we’ve been covering how documentaries represent truth, reality, and historical events as well as whether or not the filmmakers and their documentaries skew reality, but more importantly how their approaches and styles add or detract from their credibility and authoritative voices. Burma VJs, while using aesthetic and visual representations of real events, or what we are led to believe were real events that are heavily recreated, the general audience perceives them to be truthful despite the blatant difference in video quality as well as overall appeal. I strongly believe that for those viewers, like myself, who didn’t necessarily care for the reenactments, I do feel that it added to the real video that the ‘VJs’ shot during the marches and killings, giving them more emotional appeal and a sense of overall credibility.
ReplyDelete