One topic that we briefly discussed during yesterday’s discussion was the question of history. The representation of history is a key concern for documentarians, and many of these filmmakers (including contemporary ones) have struggled with the issue of how to show the past. In the History of Documentary course that I teach, this question of how to represent the past (particularly a traumatic past) always arises when we screen Alain Resnais’ reflection on the Holocaust, Night and Fog (1955). In Resnais’ case, he was faced with two problems in particular: how does a filmmaker portray an event from the past where (s)he was not present, and how can anyone adequately represent the horror of something that defies representation? While Ari Folman was not attempting to illustrate the Holocaust in Waltz with Bashir and he *was* present at the Sabra and Shatila massacres, I do see Folman’s film as grappling with the problems of how to represent the unrepresentable (in this case, the internal, the subjective, memory, trauma, dreams, and the psyche). What do you think - was Folman successful in his quest to represent the unrepresentable in Waltz with Bashir? Why or why not? What are the advantages and disadvantages of Folman’s utilization of animation to document emotion and history, and to illustrate the relationship between the past and the present?
I think that Folman made a wise decision by using animation to reflect the parts of our brains (i.e. memories and subconscious) that are often hidden from our view. Animation offered him filmic techniques, viewpoints, perspectives, and creativity that wouldn't have been possible with a physical camera and therefore gave him more access to his own subconscious. Though there are methods and ways that he could have used film to tell the same story and try and access and assess the same past events, they wouldn't be as easily manipulable and well-designed as they are in the malleable medium that is animation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this becomes a tricky situation in regards to portraying real events that really took place (as opposed to memories, visions, subconscious representations, etc.). In regards to history, I don't know if the animation aided telling that story, at least on top of the technical liberty to tell that story. I think that's possibly why Folman chose to include live action footage at the end of the film of the massacres.
I agree with Lowell that Folman made a wise decision in choosing to animate this journey through his subconcious, memory, and the memories of others. Aside from the aesthetic affect of conveying the abstractness of it all, there would be no way to show all of this in the actual, physical world, without relying so heavily on re-enactments. And wouldn't that do more injustice to the historical accuracy of the story?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, how much can we be concerned with historical accuracy in Folman's film? To me, this documentary was not a documentary about the Sabra and Shatila massacres, but about Folman's (and his friends) memories of what occured. Even if those memories are not 100% historically accurate (and they probably aren't since xeveral people in the film admit to having blocked certain things out), they are still the memories that these people have, and that is what this film is about.
I liked the animation, and I think it was a great way for Folman to tell his story. "His story" I think are the key words to this question. If someone is making a historical documentary about events they have not experienced themselves... animation may or may not be the way to go. But when one is making a film about their own personal experiences, from memories that are not entirely clear I think animation works very well. Far better than a film made up of stock footage and re-enactments could do.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out with me when I watched this film, was how many of my own bad memories from the years I spent in the military, things that turned into a PTSD problem, exist deep down below the conscience mind in the sub-conscience mind and those memories only come out in your dreams. Ari Folman created the dream/nightmare like aesthetic that PTSD dreams have. I think animation is one of the only ways to illustrate the dream/memory aspect to looking back and trying to make sense of what you experienced in a situation like the massacres Folman's film depicts.
Waltz with Bashir illuminated and even in itself answered various questions that are now associated with contemporary documentaries. As the first feature length animated documentary, a new set of questions and criticisms emerge as this film and the filmmaker are presenting the story, themes, arguments, and persuasions in an alternative manner that most viewers are not accustomed to. Although relating real events and memories of real people who were involved in the massacres and conflicts, the nature of this animated documentary forces people to question its authority, honesty, and overall validity. For years, people have associated animation in general with cartoons – silly, fabricated, and childish, not in any way a suitable means of informing, persuading, or even conveying political information and certainly not to represent war-time events which is why Waltz with Bashir successfully breaks barriers that have disenabled animated work to migrate and amalgamate with other cinematic forms like documentaries.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the vast criticism that surround Folman’s Waltz with Bashir due to its animation and the way he represents truth and peoples experiences with rediscovering their repressed dark memories or wartime and the massacres in Lebanon that occurred in 1981. Ari Folman creates and eerie mood of memory omission and disremembering that he uses as a general foundation to build his story off of, one that uses the relocation of lost memories but has many subsequent tangents. All in all, the animation is what it is and is not unchangeable. Whether people like the style and animation and perceive the information, stories, memories, and events (or dreams of) as truth and reality is ultimately dependent on the viewer and how they individually feel about this rare approach to such a riveting and serious documentary.
Folman's employment of animation in Waltz with Bashir was refreshing to me. The notion of conveying something (e.g. dreams, memories) that could never be represented in a traditional way (live-action recorded on film), presents an opportunity for creative license. Inaccessible footage has long been recreated through reenactments, can be retold through other means. Reenactments can often be limiting, especially when considering the potential for a skewed reality or stream of consciousness. Interestingly enough, animation and reenactments call attention to the fact that the representation of the situation has been manipulated. In many ways, I see this as a good thing because we as the audience accept that. Other live-action footage may be interpreted under the delusion of objectivity and truth, while other techniques negate this possibility.
ReplyDeleteThe name Documentary is just a label. Call it whatever you want, classify it however you wish. I see it as a film that is trying to convey a feeling about a realization of several events. Events that did actually happen.
ReplyDeleteI think Folman just wanted to make the movie. It's evident that he changed its genre a bunch just trying to get it funded. It didn't seem like he cared all that much whether it became a doc or not. He had something huge to get off his chest and this is how he wanted to do it. I can't blame him, the film is really good.
I think he was definitely successful using animation. He conveyed his feelings and memories quite well. I think one alternative would've been to do reenactments, but without a big budget, the scenes Folman wanted to show us would've been hokey. His ambitious attempt thru animation allows my mind to see his memories and interpret the reality much better than if I was just watching him talk about it or something. That's what makes the live action at the end so jarring, that suddenly when reality bursts in, there's no more hiding from it. I like Danielle's thought that it's not really a movie about factual events, but more about people remember them and how they remember. The animation style fits very well with that.
I think the necessity and success of Folman to utilize animation for telling his story is well illustrated (oh snap, no pun intended) by the film’s opening and final scene. It seems important and deliberate that we are introduced to Folman’s vision by way of a dream and that the film is resolved with the only live action footage in the film.
ReplyDeleteIt becomes immediately apparent that the film isn’t your usual “documentary” with the film’s opening dream sequence, and it’s hard to imagine this scene being done through live action means. The advantages of using animation to address the film’s subject matter are best shown through this recollection that was the film’s genesis, as it shows the intensely personal and emotional at hand. These issues are of the inner-world and psyche, and likewise it is not exactly appropriate to try to capture them by capturing the outer realm.
Likewise, aside from perhaps Folman’s own dreams, this opening scene is the film’s most surreal or “unrepresentable” image the film presents. The rest of the piece then can be looked at as the gradual working towards the re-attainment of clarity and memory for the filmmaker, resulting in the shock of the final scene’s live action footage. At that point, the dullness of Folman’s memory we have seen until that point is shown and the true meaning of the use of animation is revealed. For me, the success of the animation is only in its contrast to these final shots, as its meaning is fully realized by what it isn’t.
I thought the animation was a very unique and also effective way for Folman to get across one of the major points of Waltz With Bashir, which is the vagueness of memories and emotions. Using animation, Folman could appropriately illustrate the main character phasing in and out of memories, as one does in real life. For example, the scene in which he is riding in a cab through a field, and suddenly is reminded by his surroundings of something that happened during the war. Without animation, Folman couldn't have accurately depicted the strange muddiness of vague memory and of lost or repressed memories. Using animation, Folman could repeat scenes over and over, much like one does when jogging through memories, revealing more and more little pieces that don't quite fit, all without the repetition becoming boring. I feel that the animation can only help, and live action footage would actually hinder Folman's attempt at acquiring this element of vagueness.
ReplyDeleteIt seems generally agreed upon here, and I would concur, that Folman's decision to use animation is commendable. I honestly can't imagine the film being presented in any other medium. It would completely change the impact, in my opinion. The animation has a quality that immediately signifies subjectivity so we never question it beyond that and can become fully engaged with the material on an emotional level despite the very questionable "reality" that is presented. So many of the films we've watched in this class have been torn apart and over-analyzed, beaten to death on the question of "was it real?" That never really happened with this film and I think that can be attributed to the animation which we immediately identify as fabricated. We're always aware of the subjectivity of the material and sense we don't sense any deception we're more apt to accept what we're given. I think this discussion has done little to address the negative effects of Folman's decision to animate the film though. The biggest of these is that it has been relegated to the realm of animation instead of documentary. While I agree with Sam that Folman probably doesn't care what the film is labeled, to me it is disheartening because I feel that without that stamp of "Documentary", the film will not be taken as seriously as it should be.
ReplyDeleteWhat is TRUTH? Why is live action more truthful than animation? Personally, Waltz with Bashir was the documentary that has hit me hardest this semester. Memories are so hard to capture. In any form, they are renegotiated over and over again so that the truth of it is eventually so skewed and far away.
ReplyDeleteI found Folmans tactics wonderful. I loved his interpretation his own memories, but moreso, his take on what others where going through. Memories are nothing more than a cartoon anyway...in some ways I feel that Waltz With Bashir is the most truthful documentary I've ever seen.
Also, i feel that this achieves more truth because it doesn't try to saturate it's own truth with 'reality'. The audience knows immediately that it is an animation-- a creation of someones memories. Not actual war footage.
Folman's use of animation was successful. It allowed the filmmaker to recreate events and memories that he had no footage or images for. That's the beauty of animation; it allows you to recreate virtually anything. And as someone noted in class, the audience recognizes animation and accepts it to be a subjective recreation. The audience does not encounter an internal conflict about whether or not they should believe if what they are seeing on the screen is real or fake. In Burma VJ, a film that did use live-action recreations, this was a challenge the audience encountered. Folman's animation demonstrates that in recreating events or sequences of events, audience accept recreations if they know about them upfront (as in the case of Folman's undeniable, recreated animations). While Burma VJ did tell viewers that the film used recreations, you never knew which images were real and which images were fake. For me, this was frustrating and prevented me from fully absorbing the film. And for a film that was based upon the video footage gathering process, the recreations were especially problematic.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason Folman's animation was successful is it drew audiences in and created the appearance that you were watching a narrative film, not a dry documentary. When thinking about why the class was a little resistant to discuss the film and didn't have much to say about it the following Monday, I came to the conclusion that most of us were deeply affected by the film, but because it felt like we were watching the personal narrative of Folman, there really wasn't much too discuss. Would you sit around and discuss a war drama like Saving Private Ryan? Maybe, but maybe not as much as you would a fact-driven documentary. While Waltz with Bashir didn't garner as much discussion as other films, it did, in part because of its use of animation, attract a lot of viewers both within our class and all over the world.
Katie, I definitely agree with your analysis of the animation, but for different reasons. All I could think about when watching Walz with Bashir was how emotionally connected I became with characters who I had never seen in "real" video. Connecting this to Standard Operating Procedure and Thin Blue Line is definitely a useful correlary - he is not set on interpreting history like a history book, recreating exact facts and figures, but instead draws on the emotional truth, which is probably more accurate than a chronological memory could ever be.
ReplyDeleteI am starting to grapple with the idea that the only "real" truth is the emotional truth human beings experience day-to-day, that truly stick with us, because what truly affects decisions that have historical significance? The emotional connection to people, place or something of importance...