Peter's Sections: Planning Assignment #2 Due Sun 10/15 by 10pm

His mother’s lithium overdose, the childhood abuse he went through, his dying grandmother, the realization of being gay, and later taking care of his brain damaged mother, and many more events are all a part of Tarnation. Jonathan Caouette reveals his heartbreaking, remarkable, and at times boring episodes of his life through his documentary. The film was quite shocking and a little haunting at first but later I started to grow into Jonathan’s extremely unique life-story. Although I didn’t really enjoy how it may have been edited to be “artistic” in a way, I realized that it was not just mere entertainment but a true portrait of his own life and the hardships that he had to go through. His documentary not only narrated his life but brilliantly took the audience to a journey through it by letting us see his experiences through his own eyes. He really seemed to hide nothing. There were many times throughout the film when I was disturbed by the creepy images but I was surprised at how locked my eyes and ears were becoming to his experiences. His determination to care for his damaged mother and be there for her pierced my heart. I was particularly touched when Jonathan admitted that he loved his mother very much yet how terrified he was that he might become like her in the future. I reflected upon my own relationship with my mother and realized that I also had a fear somewhat like his of how my life can be resemble hers later on. It’s amazing how a quite homemade (i-movie) film can be such a horrifying yet beautiful masterpiece and I truly respect his courage and bravery to relive the tragic moments of his life while making this documentary.

Generally, I find documentaries boring and uninteresting, but, surprisingly, I found Tarnation gripping. From beginning to end, it kept me at attention with its unusual third-person perspective about the director’s (Jonathan Caouette’s) own life and uncensored footage that, at times, may be too strong for some viewers. Starting with his mother as a child, she undergoes severe shock treatment due to an accident that left her temporarily paralyzed from the waist down. Jonathan uses shocking (no pun intended) images and sound effects that could send chills down even the most fearless persons spine. Moving on to points where his mother is sent to various mental hospitals and even raped in front of her own son, he keeps our nerves tense as the story continues. Jonathan did not have an easy life being constantly abused by his foster parents, moving from home to home, and discovering he was gay in his early teenage years. The mood does lighten up when Jonathan gets older. As an adult, Jonathan and his mom become very close and recover their lost relationship that never had the opportunity to occur. He even meets his Father who left without even knowing he had a son. Throughout, Jonathan uses old videos he had filmed from his teenage years to the present. He presents these to us, fearless of what we may think or how disturbing much of it may be. Overall, Tarnation kept me on the edge of my seat with its often disturbing visuals and story to tell about and uncommon life of an uncommon boy.

Since the beginning my group was oriented to use the documentary format to analyse people. Interviewing people and shooting them each in different environments and situations. The main idea was to focus our observation into the gap existing between the two sides that every individual has, one at school/work and the other in their free time. The same gap that divides our “public time” from our private one. We talked about the different habits that diverse people adopt to relax or have fun. We are now considering which of the two common solutions or “escapes”, within drugs and religion, would be more interesting to analyse. I think that the religion is a delicate, sensitive and difficult subject to document but at the same time, I feel that it would be more fascinating because it is a matter that is often in the center of the media’s attention. Nowadays religion is quite a big issue, in many regards, it is one of the main causes of the troubles and crisis we are seeing happening all over the world. Religion has always had positive and negative sides. In one side, it provides you an intimate and comfortable support, it drops you into a shared feeling of a sense of community and fraternity. But any religion and any god is potentially dangerous. The bad sides effects are always due to the exasperation and exaltations of the belief . Religion can exceed its boundaries and became a political and social expedient to control the masses. We assisted many cases where a faith started to dominate the individual thinking and intelligence. From this point of view I think it would be interesting to shoot our documentary within our university, considering it as a small microcosms where people from different countries and religions are living together, sharing culture, information, spaces, and ideas. The purpose of our documentary will be to zoom into this controversial subject by raising personal views given by different student from different countries and different (or none) beliefs. Our challenge will be to collect different ideas, experiences and information that can be added to the many normally profused by the media. In doing this we should remain as neutral and impartial as possible. The documentary is going to be an open format ready to became a mirror of a small but significant reality.

Jonathan Caouette’s “Tarnation” really stood out to me in the sense that it was a documentary, but not the kind of documentary that first comes to mind. Originally, my thoughts of a documentary would be of the History Channel or the Discovery Channel exploring how certain events in history developed or how certain animals survive in different environments. Fortunately, “Tarnation” is neither, but more of a mix of Caouette’s childhood recordings and personal stories to summarize his dramatic life. I most especially felt his “non-typical documentary” style when Caouette explored the phase in his life when he experimented with drugs. Caouette was able to use the effects in iMovie to literally put the audience on a drug trip with the flashing colors, scary dialogue, and random bits of video. Honestly it reminded me of horror film “The Ring” and thus it seemed hard to notice “Tarnation” as an actual documentary. Fortunately, as the story unfolded it was easy to be pulled in by the storyline that is Jonathan Caouette’s life. First of all, there are the many levels of struggle that Jonathan faces in his own sexuality, his own drug problems, and the mental state of his mother. Secondly, Caouette displayed these struggles in such an animated way by not just performing the typical one-on-one interviews with his family members, but simply showing them in their own context whether it be his mother be so easily amused with a pumpkin or his grandfather reminiscing of putting Jonathan’s mother through shock therapy while she rants and screams in the background. Despite how attractive this style of documentary is, I plan to make a more conventional documentary that doesn’t scare the crap out of its audience.

Truth. It has been a long debated issue whether such a thing even exists. But if we allow ourselves to accept that there is no one truth, and rather it is life and its infinite components that constitute truth. It is this philosophy of the 1950’s Beatnik filmmakers in combination with the 1960’s advancing technology of more portable recording equipment that inspired the rise of documentaries. In a more contemporary context, documentaries have become a beautiful medium through which filmmakers can convey a story in complete purity. These works have included Albert Maysles’ “Grey Gardens” and Frederick Weisman’s “Titicut Follies.” However, one documentary in particular that I found to be extremely influential both personally and artistically was Jonathan Caouette’s “Tarnation.” It is inspiring to me for several different reasons. The first of which is the fact that the entire production was created with the do-it-yourself program iMovie. This more or less astonishing fact not only demonstrates the capacity of iMovie to create a quality motion picture (despite its slightly tacky effects), but also the possibility of crafting a powerful story with a solid grasp of montage and utilizing mere home videos as material. Moreover, “Tarnation” was the epitome of “intellectual montage” and “the attraction;” phrases coined by Russian filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein to indicate a style of juxtaposed editing that allows innuendo to convey significant story points, and shock infused editing that has a direct and visceral impact on the viewer, respectively. I find this technique to be very attractive aesthetically and very effective in portraying the distorted state of mind and dream-like reality of Jonathan’s past. Some would argue that the documentary was composed of too much “shock-effect.” However, most people cannot identify with the sensation of being outside of oneself, and thus cannot appreciate or identify as closely as I can with what Caouette is expressing through his excessive use of “shock.” Furthermore, most people cannot identify with the tribulations of homosexuality. Thus, where the general public only empathizes with Jonathan, I am able to sympathize because I have first-hand experience paralleling the various aspects of that particular lifestyle. After experiencing “Tarnation” I am motivated to produce a documentary of my own that seeks to accurately represent the rave subculture of LA, a community that I have been involved in for the past year. Through a similar style of montage, I would be able to depict the rush, familial bond, and acceptance that are overwhelmingly apparent in raving that is too often given a misleading reputation.

At first, the ideas we had for our documentary were all over the map. After much discussion, we decided to do ours about relationships. Everyone has experienced them, everyone goes into them differently, and everyone loves to talk about them. Why else would gossip magazines be so prolific today? For our documentary, we want to draw on our personal experiences, and we will probably interview each other about past and current relationships and love interests, and also hopefully we will be able to interview friends and strangers around campus. I am really excited about this topic, I think if we are able to make people feel comfortable when we interview them and they really open up, we will be able to make a really meaningful documentary. Also it will be interesting because most people’s opinions about what a relationship should be and what effort should be put into it are different, and also most people feel very strongly that their way is the right way. A theme that I am interested in is what similarities will arise. I’m sure that throughout the interviews one characteristic or aspect of relationships will come up many times, and I am interested to see what it will be. One thing I am apprehensive about will be our ability to get people to open up and talk candidly about the subject matter. Because it is such an emotional topic, people may not want to put themselves out there enough for us to get good material that we can use.

After meeting with my group on Saturday afternoon, we ended up having two possible themes for the documentary project. Initially, we thought of making a serious and witty documentary on smoking and how it’s taking control of the world. By exploring different view points and interviewing people with various smoking backgrounds on the subject of smoking, the documentary would set a serious mood for the audience concerning the prevalent danger of nicotine. To make this film stand out from all the other documentaries and commercials on smoking, we decided to add a witty ending – by revealing that the director and film crew, who are producing an anti-smoking film, are actually smokers themselves. What a paradox. The group slowly regressed from the smoking theme and moved into a more controversial and thoughtful documentary on drug abuse. Our ultimate goal is to contrast a person’s private life to the life they reveal to the outside world. We weren’t sure if the media department would allow us to work with such a controversial subject, especially with footage of illegal drug abuse. So far all we’ve explored was serious topics that could end up having a profound or superficial impact on the viewers. Therefore we placed all these crazy ideas on hold until we received official word from Peter that we can in fact work around these themes. One of the group members brought up another idea that interested all of us. We talked about how many religious organizations there are established on campus and what purposes each of them have at the university. Exploring the theologies of every group and interviewing several people that are in favor of and against every group, we could organize an insightful documentary on religion in general. Obtaining footage of different religious services and documenting devout followers in their daily devotion to their religion can give people ideas of what religions there are and what purpose they have.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Peter for screening “Tarnation” in class on Wednesday. I felt that the film was an excellent example of the documentary genre. Initially I was turned off by the fact that the film literally revolved around the director/producer. However, as the story of Jonathon Caouette’s life began to unfold in front of the camera I became completely enthralled in the story. For one, I felt that his ability to create montage with home videos of his childhood was an extremely powerful addition to the film. Furthermore, because the director was so closely intertwined with the plot, the characters were extremely well developed. Additionally, the use of text was fitting in explaining some unclear issues, regardless of the low budget quality of the iMovie editing. I also liked that the movie began with his “current” situation and then went backwards to tell the story of how he got there. Caouette did a great job in establishing a connection between the audience and the emotional and physical trauma throughout the course of his life. I really liked the cinematography, especially the ways in which he spliced old footage into the storyline. However, the most beautiful part of “Tarnation” to me was how uncomfortable it makes a viewer feel. Although I have seen many films that deal with issues of unaccepted homosexuality, drug abuse, and schizophrenia, I feel that they come across as much more controversial when seen in a non-fiction medium. Another interesting aspect of “Tarnation” was that it seemed as though the film making process was therapeutic for the troubled Caouette. I feel this is exemplified when he unites with his father for the first time, on film. My only disappointment with “Tarnation” is that I didn’t get to catch the ending.

This documentary will introduce the video/ arcade game ‘Dance Dance Revolution’ as a late 20th and early 21st century American cultural phenomenon. The majority of the documentary will focus on the culture of DDR – the people who play it, why they play it, where, etc. Also, the documentary will discuss the socio- cultural aspects of the activity, the social impacts the activity has made on American society due to it’s nigh level presence in young Americans’ lives. The documentary will touch upon the technical aspects of the game. The origins of the game, from being a 13- track Japanese “gimmick” to a 400- track international success. The basics of how the game works will be demonstrated, as to make sure the audience is fully “informed” (e.g. what the game is, or, in some cases, what those hooligans are doing with those foot- buttons at the movie theatre) before continuing with the social analysis. The documentary will interview DDR-ers at various levels, from the novice at- home players to the advanced competition- (yes) level players, as to examine the broad social impact of the game. Also, the documentary will examine the impact of the game on a personal basis, e.g. lifestyle habits/ changes that accrue due to the game, etc. (Posted on behalf of Jason Slack, Matt Spencer, Kipp Trieu, Daniel Woo.)

A documentary I recently watched was “What the Bleep Do We Know?!” Originally planned as a regular indie movie interlaced with interviews that relate to the storyline, the filmmakers found that the topic of discussion they stumbled upon with the interviews made them realize that this was a much much bigger and interesting concept than the movie itself. The movie portion (scripted with actors) of the film focuses on a few days of a deaf woman’s life as she randomly discovers different ways of how an individual’s perspective of the world can change how one views the world, as changing one’s view of the world can in fact, have an influence on how one behaves. While the movie portion doesn’t have a particularly driving plot and hook point, (as the film is mainly a documentary) the interlaced scenes of interviews with quantum theorists and others give a bigger substance to the movie, as it provides proof and theories of how it may be possible for one to shape reality by changing one’s perception of it. While some parts of the movie make skeptical claims, most of the documentary is a worthwhile watch and worth thinking over. This documentary was different from the other documentaries I had previously watched due to the plotline/interview parallel the film draws. The movie and plotline sets the premise of what the interviews discuss, and vice versa, as the interviews lead to how the character slowly begins to apply the theories to her life, eventually leading her to a better life. The documentary focuses heavily on that the world should not be viewed as accepting on what we assume it is, but to see beyond what we assume it to be and for what it really is. (Come to think of it, this is very similar to last week’s reading of Medium as the Message.) I find this film interesting especially due to the use of editing than the film’s overall message, which I can appreciate but questionable. I’m hoping that there will be more films made using similar techniques, as I feel that the movie portions gave more depth to the documentary.

The documentary film “Tarnation” written and directed by Jonathan Caouette is by far the most interesting documentary film I have ever seen. I usually do not pay attention to documentary films that much but the film’s overall quality made me feel enthusiastic to watch it. Many things made the film provocative such as its attention getter, its plot, its graphics, and its sound. The film’s hook was very convincing because of the great emotional effect thrown in by the main character, Jonathan Caouette. His real emotions about his mother’s illness drew sympathy from the audience, making them pay extensive attention to the film. The plot of the film was remarkably organized. It all started with Caouette’s birth, and the story then moved along as he grew older and older, making no room for flashbacks. The film was also straightforward, making it easy for viewers to follow along. What most intrigued me while watching the film were the vast variety of visuals shown. The frequent exhibition of unusual images throughout the film made the film astonishing to view. They displayed Caouette’s feelings perfectly demonstrating how he evolved as a person through his undeniably difficult life experiences. The images used in the film also made a great impact in the film because they were used to fill in gaps that were present in the film. Whenever videos were not available, appropriate images were shown to make the film have a constant flow. For example, Caouette used his baby pictures to narrate his childhood stories. Lastly, the sounds used complimented the film tremendously. They added to the film’s general atmosphere, whether the ambiance is joyous or melancholy. I believe that the documentary film “Tarnation” is a film that extends to many of its viewers. It provides its audience the proper characteristics of a documentary film mentioned in this analysis, such as its complimentary attention getter, its organized plot, its unusual images, and its correlative sounds.

The documentary film is a format that has been important to filmmaking since the dawn of the motion picture. The truth inherent portraying non-fiction, whether straightforward or with recreations, is important in a world where often-times the truth of a matter can become bogged down in endless media spinning and deceit. Of the great documentary filmmakers, the one who has most asked us to examine that which makes up our American culture is Ken Burns. His greatest documentary to date, in my opinion, has been “Jazz.” Ken Burns’ “Jazz” is, much like his “Baseball” and “Civil War,” a documentary mini-series in many parts produced for PBS. As such, it’s most praise-worthy characteristic lies in its attention to detail and depth. With a 19-hour runtime, Burns covers’ every influential American jazz musician from the beginnings of the music until the present. It is only fitting that so much screen time be dedicated to jazz. In truth, no documentary ever before or since has attempted to analyze and uncover an entire genre of music to such an extent. More important is the style in which Burns portrays the artists. Wherever possible, he employs archival footage of bands and musicians, as well as the musicians themselves if still alive. Countless still frame pullback shots are used, highlighting the men and women of importance to each period of music covered. Moreover, extensive use of jazz historians and music celebrities is made, lending unprecedented credibility to the film. Many documentaries attempt to depict leading figures and important eras of a certain subject. Ken Burns’ films do not. His overarching “Jazz” does what is extremely difficult to accomplish: be extremely broad in subject and extremely specific in depiction. “Jazz” is truly one of the greatest modern documentaries, showing audiences one of the key influences of today’s American culture for all that it is worth.

All three articles attempt to describe documentary either from the filmmakers point of view or it’s basic principles. The trajectory of how Robert Frank’s films move and shift are explained to the reader . Hanhardt looks at how Frank uses his photography skills and creates “films that become intensely personal and improvisatory.” Hanhardt critically states that in regards to Pull My Daisy, the film’s intensity and rawness derive from its directness, which leaves one with the peculiar impression of having seen people acting like themselves and not simply improvising someone else’s story. The next article is an interview of Frederick Wiseman where Deirde Boyle gives an interesting account of how his films are funded and his interaction with his subjects. He claims to keep a space between his subjects and not to promise a “life long friendship.” Wiseman states that he does not like to make a film that sets out to illustrate a thesis and quotes Samuel Goldwyn “If you have a message, send a telegram.” The last article is Micheal Rabiger’s Elements of The Documentary. This is the cookbook of what ingredients one needs to make a documentary. This article explores various ways to shoot , observe and intercede among various points of view. When discussing time, development, and structure the event-centered film, Rabiger states this is an event that is the backbone of the film where the even film may be one of that rare occasions when more than one camera may be necessary. Rabiger explains the process film is where it “often will show more than one strand of ongoing present, each serving as a cutaway from the others where cutting between parallel stories allows each segment to be reduced to its essence. In Conclusion, all three articles poigniantly guide the reader through the ins and outs of what fundamental elements are needed to create a documentary. Rabigers article on its ingredients is so detailed one has a difficult time deciding what kind of documentary to make. Examples are given to aide in that decision. Frederick Wiseman’s interview exposed the politics of funding and a look into his work with his choice to represent mass populations by filming those in institutions

In the past I have seen many documentaries, most of which are historical and somewhat uniform in design. A narrator tells a story while pictures and random videos are layed out on a timeline. Is there a reason why we have no been focusing on these types of documentaries and film styles in class or do we watch “unique” filmmakers just to get a taste of something else? I would also like to discuss any limitations we may have using iMovie. Is it possible to crop pictures, and do pans, zooms, and pulls? Are the any limitations to the program we are using? Also, if a video is simply a lot of people giving interviews, is it still a documentary, or does it simply become a survey? Are there any boundaries we as film makers have to understand to make sure our videos are in fact, documentaries?

Group Idea: After meeting this weekend, my group and I plan to make a documentary about relationships. The documentary will consist of interviews with UCSD students, asking key questions (list of questions not complete). There will also be, intertwined with the interviews, information about relationships narrated over the video. Also, pictures and other videos of relationships will be added. Although the group has not discusses it yet, I had an idea when reading Rabinger’s piece. I think that a centered documentary would work well for this topic. Have one scene of a relationship, filmed in an aesthetically pleasing way, come back at certain points of the documentary and act as the backbone of the film. This is a tentative idea but I think that it would work very well for the topic.

The readings from the reader this week are aimed towards giving the reader a better understanding of filming and understanding documentaries. The readings by Hanhardt, Boyle, and Rabinger all give different insights to different means of filming and understanding cinema, and on a more specific level, documentaries. Handhardt discusses Robert Frank films. His documentaries resist formal order. He claims that he comes to terms with his life through a video camera. Films such as “Pull My Daisy’s” have become influential in the independent film world. The movie even sparked a meeting of independent film makers. From this meeting, many directors came to the conclusions that cinema is an individual expression, and a filmmaker must reject censorship, as well as inference from producers, investors, and distributors until work is complete. Overall, Pull My Day’s helped redefine American independent cinema. Boyle’s piece is in an interview format with Fredrick Wiseman, also an independent filmmaker. This filmmaker gives a different look to documentaries than Handhardt. He makes films up to six hours long on film instead of video. He claims that the because he knows film editing much better than video editing, and film looks better than video, that he will not make the switch. Wiseman believes that the purpose of any of his films is something he discovers as a result of the shooting and editing. Rabinger gives a much more technical look to filming a documentary. In the “picture,” everyone and everything should always be interacting with something else, and the camera presence must be unobtrusive. Questions of interviews should be edited out and re-enactments must be full accurate. As for sound, it is important to include a voice over or narrator, sound effects, music and even silence to enhance effects. The point of view (POV) of a documentary is also very important. There can be many different kinds of POV. Direct, which means the camera is inside of all the interactions and audience is a part of everything; observational, which means the camera looks on but remains outsider. There is also a single POV which is filmed mainly through one character. The omniscient POV is a free roving camera that is an all knowing conscious. Personal POV is the directors own point of view, and reflexive POV is when the filmmaking mirrors the film process and all of those involved. Rabinger continues to discuss event centered films (one main event is the backbone of the film), process films (chains of events that make up a significant process), Journey film (a film that takes place during some sort of movement), walled City Film (investigates small topics that are metaphors for larger criticisms), and Historical films (re-animation of what has already past). All of these authors and film makers give insight and ideas about what makes a good documentary, and why it is significant.

As documentaries go, the documentary that has captured and buried itself into my mind the most is Jonathan Caouette’s “Tarnation”. I believe the biggest element of the movie that caught my attention would have to be the visuals. As I first watched the movie I was hit with a barrage of scenes, flashes and disturbing images. Jonathan made excellent use of this element and, throughout the movie continued to expose his audience to image flashes and “radical” scenes. However Jonathan also made great use of sound adding tension, fear, paranoia and a horde of other feelings through the use of sound. The scene that was most memorable to me was when Jonathan, as an 11year old boy, started to narrate and act out the life of an abused wife, married to a drunken, abusive man. The movie, I must say, literally scared the life out of me and gave me the creeps. Yet, even as I try to look away I was curious to see what else would happen. I loved how Jonathan did his documentary in a timeline and narrating it with white text on a black background, then follow it up with his own homemade movies and edited scenes. He also added in voice recordings and photographs too. This truly made me felt as if I was going through his life, living every painful moment with him. It was intense and strange to see every moment of his life, even the gritty, and disgusting moments as well as a few happy moments. Watching the documentary, I could not help but feel great empathy with Jonathan. His grandmother, Rosemary, and grandfather, Adolph, both reminded me greatly of my grandparents, of how they are sometimes senile yet so caring. And as I watch Renee, Jonathan’s mother, I can relate to how stressed and worried he might feel for her. Just watching and listening to her dance, sing and joke, as her mind deteriorated, gave me a big headache and drained me mentally; and I could believe it did the same to Jonathan. However, as I placed my self in Jonathan’s shoes, here I am watching this crazy woman vexing me with her playing, I could not help but feel so mcuh extreme relief, geniality and deep affection for her. This woman gave him life, she raised him, gave her life for him, and though she vexes him, he could not feel anything other than deep affection for her. It did not matter to him that she was slight in the head or that she could be very vexing, all that did matter was that she was his mother. If she was my mother I would feel no different. That is the true reason why this documentary was important to me, because it made me respect, care and love my family more than ever.

VIS70 group proposal – Jonathan Wai, Michael Weinstock, Christina Huh, & Princess Engelbrecht Our group’s documentary will focus on the art pieces scattered throughout campus. Many of these pieces are unknown to students and even the ones that stick out, most students don’t know the background behind it so we would like to explore the ideas and messages the artist had in mind when making them. Depending on how we decide to film this, we might either ask students how they feel about certain art works and what they know about it or simple narrate the background on each piece through the entire film. Since the film will be between 15 and 20 minutes long, we’re probably only going to cover five to seven pieces. We’re drawing up a small storyboard on how to organize the film and have some other things to figure out before we actually start filming. In addition, since most if not all the pieces are outdoors, we’re hoping it doesn’t rain or be overcast while we film or else our lightning is going to be horrible. We’re also wondering about the editing stations and how those actually work because it is going to affect how we shoot and the content that we’ll be able to put in the piece. Our biggest concern is the limited amount of time we have to shoot and edit the documentary since we’re unfamiliar with the editing stations and techniques. Hopefully everything works out and we have a complete and informing film on the art on campus.

Our group will attempt to create a documentary shadowing an art professor on campus. We intend to create a film that can help viewers further understand the motivations behind his works and maybe even his philosophies. The idea started out with our group discussing possible documentary subjects, and came up initially with scientific research projects. This would have been fairly easy for us to accomplish since we just happened to be attending a highly accredited research university. After some more discussion the group decided that the subject was too dry and would have put our intended audience to sleep so we brainstormed for a more interesting subject; Jackie’s art professor. We will try to create a narrated documentary explaining the professor’s motivation behind his works and try to convey them as accurately as possible. The mood of the documentary will depend on his character since only Jackie has met him as of yet. The filming style will also vary depending on the camera-man and direction. I would like to try to use two or more cameras in order to cut between shots and use multiple views simultaneously. For a two week project, it definitely seems like time will be the factor against us, so I hope we can get enough filming/editing time.

John Handhardt's piece on the films of Robert Frank, "Connoisseur of Chaos" offers some analytical insights into Frank's work, but seems most insightful when discussing specific films. He begins the piece attempting to give us an overview of Frank's working style and point of view. It seems like he takes some liberties here in his attempt to explain Frank's style, as in the statement "Franks films are informed by ironic reluctance to record what he sees, owing to his fear of the camera's ability to capture it's subjects." Maybe he knows Frank personally and has discussed this with him, but as a reader I can only assume that he has inferred this from his familiarity with the work. He provides generous background on Frank’s role in establishing American independent cinema with Jonas Mekas, Clarke, and Cassevetes, among others, based on the use of cinema as personal expression and rejecting “the interference of producers, directors and investors until our work is ready to be projected on the screen”. Handhardt discusses Frank’s aesthetic approach to film extensively pointing out his rejection of “lofty ideas” and his focus on a “shifting terrain of personal experiences and interests. These include the issues of exploring “the self as artist seeking to shape one’s life” and exploring the “quality of disorder that exists in all our lives”. While I felt that the piece offered some insights on Frank’s motivation and historical achievements in film I also felt that Handhardt’s discussion and artistic assertions were somewhat overly esoteric. I really enjoyed the Dierdre Boyle interview with Fredrick Wiseman. Wiseman’s modest and revealing discussions of his work offered real insights into documentary film making, including his psychological interaction and relationship with his subjects, his personal working methods as an editor and the complex practicalities of film business and funding. Boyle’s intimate familiarity with Wiseman’s work allowed her to bring out in their interview subtleties and nuances in many of his specific films. Wiseman keeps the discussion away from esoteric generalizations. He refuses to offer interpretations of his movie sequences but is very revealing in discussing how the sequences function as elements of the movie, and how real details such as length of the movie and setting effect the quality of his films. In “Elements of the Documentary” by Michael Rabiger, what seems to start out as a fairly utilitarian analysis of the subject does offer some interesting insights to documentary making, particularly in discussing the subtleties of “point of view” and the differences between various film “structures”. In discussing what he calls the “reflexive” point of view, he explains the complexities and possible pitfalls in creating a point of view with examples such as ethnographic film making, where he questions whether we are “seeing not spontaneous life being captured by the camera, but something instigated by the filmmaking itself”. In the section on time, development and structure he creates various categories of films (event centered, process, journey, etc.), that he describes, as a way of demonstrating how these elements can be employed or abused in the creation of a film. He ends by encouraging the reader to consider the subtleties of these elements and avoid documentaries that have “the aura of the classroom or privileged traveler’s lecture slides”.

Although many different approaches to documentary exist, there are key elements that all documentaries must posses. The two basic elements to documentary are action footage and people talking. The documentary “Grey Gardens” was a healthy mix of the two. It offered direct dialogue and interaction between the two main documentees, Grey Gardens is not a formal, interview type of documentary, but more of an open look into the life of these two women. There is minor interaction between the cameraman and the main woman, but this is unscripted natural interaction that demonstrates the personality and characteristics of the main woman. This non-imposing style of limited interaction really demonstrates the fact that these women are really in a universe that is entirely their own. Although the lives of the women presented in this documentary may be difficult for some people to relate with on a personal level, it is still a moving documentary because we, the viewers, are offered a window through which we can see into the lives of these people whom we would never otherwise have known. Significance as well lies in the fact that these are no ordinary people, they live a very eccentric sort of life, as if though they were cut off from the rest of the entire world. In a secluded house, run down due to age and neglect, a sort of dementia has set in with these women. Their contact with the outside world is limited to a select few people, and they spend their time together going through memorabilia, reminiscing in nostalgia of times that must have been better. Times when they must have been a part of something bigger, times when hey must have been happy. It is this ability of the documentary to draw such strong emotion from the viewer that makes it an effective documentary.

Marie Mazur The documentary “Tarnation” by Jonathan Caouette had a lasting effect on my mind. I have not stopped thinking about it. I have had numerous conversations with people about it- mostly with friends outside of school, where I had to summarize and single out the most meaningful sequences of the movie. Imagery like I saw in class last Wednesday typically makes me feel uncomfortable and somewhat traumatized. In the case of truth, however, the affection is different. I was moved by his story. During the documentary I was afraid that I would have a very hard time getting some of the more disturbing images out of my subconscious (such is the case with horror movies, which is why I don’t watch them). However, because of the continuation of the story to Jonathan’s current situation, I felt a sense of closure. After the horrific childhood that he experienced, Jonathan is still alive. He is not living on the streets, on crack, or in jail. How amazing is it that he can still openly and unconditionally love his mom, grandma and grandpa? He even managed to find the heart to pull his father into his life (although I am still unclear if Jonathan initially knew that Steve was unaware of his son’s existence). Regardless of whether he blames his family for the pain he has experienced, Jonathan apparently realizes the importance of forgiveness and healing. I believe that creating art through film and video provided a wounded child with emotional catharsis. How would Jonathan’s life have turned out if he had never touched a camera? One other reason I appreciated viewing this documentary was its uncomfortable truth. The world we live in is often far from beautiful and inspiring. As a white girl from a middle class neighborhood, it took me awhile to understand how lucky I am. I go to class most days with a veil of ignorance over my eyes, as do many of my classmates. We forget that what happened to Jonathan Caouette is real, because a movie’s content is intangible, like a dream or nightmare. What’s disturbing is that people suffer, as Jonathan suffered, every day. We have not experienced it firsthand and so many of us do not truly believe it exists. Cheers to Jonathan for providing a wakeup call to those who are willing to watch.

My mother always advised me to “Follow my Heart.” As cliché as it sounds, I’ve come to discover that some clichés are wise to follow; that’s why my documentary will explore an idea that’s always been a constant concern: the media neglecting newsworthy stories like the ongoing genocide in Darfur, Sudan on the cutting room floor. To effectively ponder this issue, I will, first, air a United Nation sponsored commercial that raises awareness for the threat of landmines in war-stricken countries. The ad caused controversy amongst the Federal Commission of Communication that, ultimately, led to a censorship of the commercial on nationalized television. Immediately following, I will juxtapose a Carl’s Junior commercial that features Paris Hilton washing a car in an outfit that leaves barely anything to the imagination – an advertisement that was given the okay to be aired. By comparing the advertisements side by side I hope to evaluate what American media deems as socially important. Also, through interviews with professors of communication and media gurus I will record their response to the United Nation advertisement and answer the question: “What motivates the media to broadcast the types of stories they publicize on news mediums?” After, I intend to gather student opinion through polls and interviews of whether or not they agree with the media’s criteria. Furthermore, I hope to conduct an experiment that will measure American interest in world politics and “trash” politics. For example, I will ask students to rate on a scale of 1-10 what they feel is more newsworthy; either, 300,000 people dying in genocide or Michael Jackson’s lawsuit. In the end, I hope to reevaluate what we see on our news channels, and, hopefully, enable an audience to discern what is truly newsworthy. Since my primary target audience is college students, I will use an “MTV-esque” approach to editing and overall aesthetic style to keep a youthful flavor in my documentary. The editing will have quick cuts and music, like Hip Hop or Punk Rock, to enable a younger crowd to recognize and relate to each segment. By appealing to a younger crowd I hope to raise attention to an even bigger cause: the bigger picture.

Tarnation was a documentary that I found extremely powerful. Although it was difficult for me to relate to Jonathan based on his life experiences, it was certainly possible to relate to his emotions, confusions, and perhaps even thoughts about life. I think that because this was an interview based, impersonal documentary, but told the story of a man’s life, it was riveting. I believe this documentary was powerful because it was raw, he was unafraid to show every part of his psyche and discuss everything that was going on in his life. The audience was completely thrown into Jonathan’s mind with no fear or regrets of anything. The film itself was put together in a very deliberate and artistic manner. Of course it was a great benefit that Jonathan was filmed when he was a little boy too, thereby allowing him to show us the face of his early childhood. But even when film wasn’t available, the proper photos where chosen to help put a face to the name. The music in this film was always appropriate as well, taking the audience from great elation, to feelings of utter despair. It helped illuminate the complete farce that his mother became and showed his grandmother in a light of idiocy. The writing in the film was approached from a third person perspective, giving the film more of a storytelling quality. It was also appropriate as it was mostly used either before Jonathan was born, or before he felt he could speak. Overall I feel this was an incredibly successful documentary about the drama of human life. Although we may not all be able to share in Jonathan’s experiences; the feelings of loneliness, alienation, longing, desire, and everything else that goes through Jonathan’s mind, we can all relate to.