Cathy's Sections Week 3 Readings (Grey Gardens)

In John Hanhardt’s “Connoisseur of Chaos,” Hanhardt explores the powerful effect that Robert Frank has had on independent cinema. Frank’s films delve into ideas of private and personal space and real and imagined worlds. In a fact, Frank uses his camera as a way to reflect his place in the world. As Hanhardt alludes to in the title “Connoisseur of Chaos,” Frank seems to infuse his work with an element of chaos and disorder. According to the author, “no secure relationship, exist between Frank and the world he records” (73). This idea was illustrated during the screening of Pull My Daisy as the movie tended more towards a sense of life’s random flow. There seems to be no aim, no meaning, only disjointed occurrence. The chaos of the film mirrors the turmoil of Frank’s characters as they travel through life. Being a key beat film, Pull My Daisy reflects the ideas underpinning the beat movement, a sense of anarchy, “a rebellious belief in language,” and “the restless spirit of the artist” (77). Frank’s film seem allow him to better understand the world around him but also himself. In the article “An American Inspector,” Deirdre Boyle interviews the documentary filmmaker Frederick Wiseman regarding his many years of documentary filmmaking. Referring to Wiseman as a “Lion of the American Documentary film,” Boyle looks at the way Wiseman sees his own films and explores the ways in which Wiseman makes films. Upon reading this interview, one comes to the realization that there is a hell of a lot that goes into making a movie. I found it really interesting when Boyle pries into the development of characters. Wiseman claims that truly knowing a character, for him, seems to be partially a function of the length of the movie. The longer the audience observes and sees a character, the more the audience seems to understand the character. However, the situational context in which the audience finds the characters can greatly affect the greater feeling of a character. A hospital where death, families, doctors, and nurses surround characters will translate into a greater knowledge of the characters. Having never taken a film class, I have been truly surprised by how important editing can be. According to Wiseman, editing is an “important part of the film’s rhythm” (81). In chapter 27 “Elements of the Documentary” from the book Directing the Documentary, Michael Rabiger attempts to break down the major elements that underlie documentaries. Rabiger begins by the different ways in which one could fill the picture. Beginning with action footage, Rabiger proceeds to outline people talking, re-enactments, library footage, graphics, and blank screens. After picture, the author addresses the different sounds one could use: voice-over, narration, synchronous sound, sound effects, music, and silence. By illustrating the basic ingredients of the documentary, Rabiger helps me to understand what tools I have at my disposal when it comes time to make my documentary. The following section on point of view is much more complex than just basic picture and sound. It involves the placement of perspective or ideas to give certain effects resulting in objectivity, reflexivity, and even subjectivity. The final section involves time, development, and structure, which in a nutshell refer to the different genres of documentary: the event-centered film, the process film, the journey film, the walled-city film, and the historical film. After reading this excerpt, I feel that I have gained a much deeper understanding of what a documentary truly is and some of the different techniques used to build a good documentary.

In Connoisseur of Chaos The Film and Videotapes, John Hanhardt goes over Robert Frank’s films and what he believes Frank is attempting to interpret. Frank’s films show the relationship between personal and private life, mixed in with real life and imaginary life. His work is almost a hybrid of both documentary and cinema. Believing that that film/life is “always doing the same images—always looking outside, trying to look inside. Trying to tell something that is true. But maybe nothing is true except for what is out there, and what is out there is always different”, his films depict his view of life, unsteady, unstable, and insecure. With the use of theatrical art, Frank voices his opinions through a camera to reflect his relationship and other relationships in the world. Through his films, Frank uses the camera movements to depict his feeling towards the world around him; he comes to terms with the world around him but feels that he is lost and restless, shown as he moves before and behind the camera wandering through a maze of the city or a field of Nova Scotia. A good example of his work, and not to mention his most famous piece of art, is Pull My Daisy of 1959. Not only did Pull My Daisy exemplify his creative works, but it also reflected its production process as well as a particularly artistic touch of beauty. His unique style of filming, such as spontaneously unfolding events that is not framed by a narrative gives the impression of natural acting, acting like themselves to tell the story rather than having a character to tell the story. Pull My Daisy was not only Frank’s most public film, but it also defined the beat movement and altered American independent films. The film’s popularity had risen around the same time as the new avant-garde, “a historical moment, a part of the unfolding discourse of an aesthetic that sought within its romantic origins and self-reflexive materialism a means to fashion a utopian present in the cinema world.” Ten years after its release, the committee of Anthology Film Archives deemed it as an “essential work of the art of cinema”. Frank’s unique style was based upon the ideology of improvisation and films about artists. He filmed what he was passionate about and filmed what he felt and believed in. He did not conform to basic cinematic structures of simply documentary, or film by plot, but his own creation. He did not rely on the plot to tell the story, but rather his different style of use of camera to add emotions and self-experience to the film. Because his films were so incoherent compared to one another, whether it was documentary or story telling, he never had a specific genre to classify himself under. His film making style derived from his personal relationships and conversations with his friends and family, thus his “genre” of filmmaking is simply believing in people. Frank used his camera his movements with the camera, and his personal relationships with people to convey his partially pessimistic view on life and his personal emergence as an artist, being of the outside world looking in.

*i'm reposting this because it was in the wrong week* In his article, “Connoisseur of Chaos”, John Hanhardt explores the life of photographer and filmmaker Robert Frank, a man who constantly struggled to discover his place in the world. To view the world, Frank used the camera as his eyes, recognizing but at the same time fearing its powerful ability to truthfully capture its subjects. Consequently, he was engaged in a relentless battle with the camera; feelings of pleasure and trepidation characterized the filmmaking process. In his quest to come to terms with the world around him, he realized that “[he was] always doing the same images—[he was] always looking outside, trying to look inside. Trying to tell something that’s true. But maybe nothing is really true. Except what’s out there. And what’s out there is always different” (Home Improvements, 1985). As Frank searched for truth, the notion of a secure world steadily crumbled, and what was made apparent was the restlessness he felt. Wandering around the vast city and fields, Frank experienced vulnerability, which enabled him to discover the chaos that is so pervasive in life. In the same way, he had “holes drilled into [his photographs], effacing the photographs as stillness. This process of change [violated] the defining stability of the photograph, allowing it, like Frank himself, to enter into the flow of life” (73). In the past, camera work was limited to creating cinematic productions that were stiff and polished. Frank’s film, Pull My Daisy, had “the beat sensibility of anarchic fun and self-parody, and of the trickster—the person who disrupts and throws into relief the world around him” (75). It seems that the aspect of uncertainty created a kind of strength, as there were no clear cut boundaries to define one’s capabilities. People began to find freedom and truth in unpredictability. Randomness was a more accurate portrayal of how life was supposed to be. While the actors in the film played themselves, exploring their place in society and in relation to other people, the media responded positively, recognizing a need for that kind of honest, pure cinema. However, Frank avoided the idea of film as art for the sake of art and instead filmed personal experiences and interests, creating a body of work that encompassed both elements of story-telling and documentary. What resulted was the binding of life and art as well as the rebuilding of self and society. Frank realized that there will always be artificial and constructed cinema despite efforts to break down its form. However, all he could do was acknowledge his own complexities, make connections with the people he loved, and use the beatnik, trickster nature to deal with life’s endless array of problems. His films were expressions of the drives and desires of artists; they essentially explored inner chaos and the inherent possibilities for change within humans. What really drove his narrative was his quest to establish an honest sense of identity and a stable sense of place. Ultimately, Frank’s quest ended not in a static sense of identity but in a conscious malleability.

In the article Connoisseur of Chaos, the writer, John Hanhardt, continuously makes references to Robert Frank’s Photography as well as his films. It occurred to me that many of the shots in Pull My Daisy seemed like they could be still pictures. The images of Alan Ginnesburg and the other guy drinking beer, the people sitting on the couch, and the girl lying on the bed, all make me think of them as still photographs. The way Robert Frank organizes actors and objects in the frame creates distinct and memorable images. Each movement of the actors seems deliberate, but natural. It is hard to tell that they have been directed in anyway. In Connoisseur of Chaos, John Hanhardt talks a lot about how Robert Frank films what he sees around him. The filming in Pull My Daisy exemplifies this theme a great deal. It gives a view of the beat generation from the perspective of Robert Frank and partially from Jack Kerouac because he is narrating the entire film. Their crazy conversations and actions provide Robert Frank with something to define through film. He places them in a house and they take it from there. Even though Jack Kerouac is narrating the movie, it is clear to see that he is not completely improvising what the actors may be saying. The relationship of the beatniks to the Artist and her husband seemed strange to me. I thought that a rail road working man would be less tolerant of the beatniks’ frivolity than an artist whose career is much more similar than her spouses to the lifestyle of the beatniks. The film proved my original hypothesis incorrect, showing how the film is as topsy-turvy as the lifestyles of the people it is trying to show. Within the movie the beatniks are trying to define their lives and the lives of people around them through seemingly nonsensical behavior and questioning, especially of the bishop. Robert Frank is simultaneously trying to do the same thing by using film. By capturing the lives of the beatniks in Pull My Daisy, Robert Frank is trying to define their culture and make sense of this seemingly disruptive and crazy world around him. He uses the camera’s lens to define the beatniks, a hard task, but one that he somewhat accomplishes. He shows their lack of propriety, their use of the nonsensical, and their tendency to create chaos. In the frame, Robert Frank is able to explain the beatnik generation.

Agee and Evans’ story of being strangers in a strange land, feeling unsure, awkward, unusual, and guilty depicted the difficulties that must be confronted by journalists and documentary filmmakers. I felt the same way when I went to Los Angeles last night. Everyone seemed to know that I wasn't from there. There was an adopted mindset and way of being that I could see but not have access to. There seemed to be a hook behind every kindness and smile and scowl. I encountered a strange mix of the most friendly and least friendly people. I would like to know what makes the city and it‘s people tick. When and how is it decided that the code of behavior, thought, and feeling of a place or region will be characterized by fear, mistrust, hostility, and insanity. I wonder how bad patterns begin and become the norm. I imagine that it’s a mix of heaven and hell similar to what Agee and Evans experienced in their time in the south. They were in a region rich in natural beauty but deficient in quality living conditions. The imagery described in the article was vivid and colorful. I felt that I could relate and understand the predicament they were in. the way they had to hide their true feelings and thoughts in order to be polite and not cause problems. The inequality of fate and circumstance resting heavily on their shoulders. The article on editing was full of helpful hints and reminders for the novice filmmaker. They labeled out the general concepts and accepted norms of editing and also provided examples of filmmakers that successfully broke these rules, Kurosawa for example. Editing includes a process of selecting, structuring, sequencing, and establishing a rhythm and pace. These ideas are important directions to consider when filtering through large quantities of film material.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ‘beatnik’ film prior to this past Tuesday. Actually, I don’t think I’ve even heard of the word. My initial reaction to the film was merely confusion. I understood it had a certain artistic value to it – that it was considered innovative and ‘fresh’ – but what? How? After having read Hanhardt’s commentary regarding Frank as the “Connoisseur of Chaos,” however, I believe I better appreciate the whole ‘beatnik’ scene – or at least Robert Frank’s interpretation of it. Looking through the eyes of this inventive mind (with the help of John Hanhardt, of course), I realize the disorder of the film had been, in fact, intentional. As a solidified expression of Frank’s innermost thoughts, Pull My Daisy serves as a window to his “vulnerability,” and the view of his “relationship to the world [as] fragile,” one being “constantly being remade and rethought.” (73) Not once have I been able to look at a situation in life and not be swayed by all the different perspectives – the interactions and shot glances between those with whom I interact. The choppiness of Frank’s piece, the camera’s jumping between the interactions, facial expressions, and surroundings in which the characters interrelate, seems to agree with this feeling. Frank utilizes this in his film – his rather simple, seemingly thrown together shots coming together to compose a film which emanates a sense of natural communication between its characters. This is a brilliant example of what I believe to be art in its truest form – an expression of the artists’ personal expression. It’s true that “we sense [Frank] is looking through the camera to see his life better” – and what better way to understand one’s life than to step away and see it in plain sight? Though the ‘beatnik’ poetry is not likely be something I’d experiment with myself, the style put into practice in this film seems intriguing, and a good life philosophy at that – to engage in a “constant artistic struggle to understand.” Of the documentaries we’d seen, the most personally influential to myself had to have been the Titicut Follies by Frederick Wiseman. The footage was just so bold in its honesty – I couldn’t get a grasp of what was going on. How could the workers at the correctional facility be so openly cruel, fully acknowledging the fact that they were on camera? It’s understandable that the film would be banned for some time from the public eye – what government would want to be portrayed in such negative light? This is most definitely a perfect example of a “walled-city film” as Rabiger stated in the “Elements of the Documentary.” Though showing only one example of a situation in which government systems empower individuals to make these poor choices, this particular example expresses far more as a symbol of all other circumstances in which such behavior is the case. In this manner, Wiseman’s goal – as well as the goal of most documentary artists who wish to make an influence on their audience – is achieved. Myself being no exception, I believe any audience member watching this documentary would be forced to question what other situations there are in this society where government institutions over exercise their power to an almost totalitarian extent.

For this week’s reading, I took a particular interest in Elements of the Documentary by Michael Rabiger. It proved to be a very useful resource to me considering our current project. Timely, I thought. As I agree that it is impossible to concoct a formulation for a documentary, I find that the generalities in the piece were very specific and provide an almost “checklist” for what is necessary to include in the film. Because we have such a stress on sound for this project, I found that the section on sound was very informative. I learned what is meant by synchronous sound and the difference between voice-over and narration. The issue of screen time and the bias a filmmaker can show with an individual that is “hogging” the camera was fascinating to me. By placing the characters in a symmetrical correspondence to one another, it can show an interaction between them subliminally and at equidistance from the camera, they are considered equals to the eye of the viewer. The many different viewpoints the camera can take when filming someone in an interview is surprising. I loved the concept of the perspective shot of a single point of view, like the viewpoint of an actual playing actor. This connects the audience quite well to the subject of the piece of film. It was interesting how by employing multiple characters within the film, none of them tend to dominate the film screen time. I will use that in my own experience. Each character can represent something in the film, thereby when that character is the subject, his views and opinions and the knowledge the viewer learns via him is on that singular subject matter. I must admit that for the Diagram representing the omniscient point of view, where the camera is able to move, I enjoy the camera moving, giving some “action” to the scene. Because the narrator has a similar verbal presence as the former mentioned camera angle, I feel that this camera angle would represent him, the god-like, nonphysical object in a documentary, rather well. The personal section in the Elements of the Documentary confused me a bit. I did not quite see how the director would not have a point of view in the film, always. He is the deciding factor for all shots, is he not? I assume this is the common perspective you get in most documentaries, so I will leave that issue to rest. I will definitely try to incorporate a mirror or reflective device into my documentary. I think it is a very neat gimmick and I have used it before in videos, so I know how it can turn out. I like the result. Finally, as a closing for the article, they analyze the various types of documentaries. This was unbelievably helpful. In a struggle to find a plotline and story to follow, these little synopses helped me to discover just what kind of film would appeal to my eye and style. I enjoyed this week’s reading tremendously.

After reading "Connoisseur of Chaos" I was confused. Hanhardt makes sweeping, general statements as to the nature of Frank's works, and the modis operandi by which Frank operates, yet rarely did I see cooroboration between the listed facts and the film "Pull My Daisy," Frank's most well-known piece. How is it possible that the most popular work by an artist is composed of elements beyond the artist's forte? After some consideration, one possible solution emerged--odd and atypical as the film may be, "Pull My Daisy" is still the most mainstream work that Frank has produced. This is not because he worked to release a mainstream film, but rather that at the time that this particular off-beat film was released, American beatniks were looking for an expression of art which they could understand and emulate in order to escape the mainstream, ironically popularizing the work in the process. Additionally, the film is an organized improvisation, rather than a more documentary approach as several other of Frank's works had been. Finally, it may be that the piece was a departure from Frank's typical style. This would account for the unprecedented success as well as anti-popularist support.

From the lectures, readings, and the new films we have watched, I have come to see the multi-dimensional aspects that define documentaries. They can be far more than the interviews or historical timelines we see on television. Titicut Follies, a film by Frederick Wiseman, is one of the most emotionally provocative documentary films I have seen; yet its approach is very different from other documentaries. It is a piece about the lives of the criminally insane. Wiseman pays close attention to the rhythm of the scenes, particularly the use of sound. One notable scene occurs when a patient dirties himself. The guards clean and shave him, but continue to provoke him by asking whether he will be clean the next day. The man screams that he will, and is sent to his cell, where he pounds on the floor with his feet, creating awkward beats that add to the disturbing and eerie feeling of the scene. This film is considered both a “process film” (Rabiger 101) and a “walled-city film” (Rabiger 103), meaning it follows the events leading up to a certain notable incident, yet it also examines an institution in order to apply the findings to the actions of all humans. This film is able to capture the mood and rhythm of the jail very well, and is able to convey a message without the use of dialogue. Wiseman does not intervene, instead he lets the scene play out in front of the camera. This observation adds to the film’s naturalness. Wiseman pays close attention to details such as sound, rhythm, imagery. It is an honest, beautifully rendered film that has a lasting affect on the viewer. The other film that caught my attention was Pull My Daisy, by Robert Frank. This is a film where one gets a peek into the lives of beatniks. Though it is not considered a documentary, its premise comes from the lives of its actors, who play themselves. John Hanhardt states that the film “oscillates between fiction and documentary” (Hanhardt 235). What is inspiring about this films, is that it was one of the first films made that rejected polished production and the Hollywood elements of the current movies of the time. In this film, Frank strives to “record and represent the quality and disorder that exists in all lives” (Hanhardt 77). This film made independent as well as experimental film highly respected. This film does not fall under a single category in many senses. Chances were taken in order to truly express the artistic pursuit of the beatniks, as best as possible. The improvisational aspect of the films is very fresh, even today. The fact that the film was made, and afterwards, while viewing the film, Jack Kerouac improvised the narration of the film, made the piece much more pure. Though these two films take very different approaches in documenting ‘life as it is’, I think that both did an amazing job at provoking emotion in the viewer about the film’s subject, as well as managing to artfully capture true life.

FYI, I posted this Sunday morning on a different topic since one had not been made yet for his reading. The date and time that I posted my response can be found here: http://va-grad.ucsd.edu/~drupal/node/86: I might as well do the same as Vivien. The admin can either make a new topic and transfer the responses on this topic onto them, or just convert this topic into the correct topic if possible. I am also in Ms. Delacruz's section: John Harnhardt’s piece begins with defining various aspects of Robert Frank’s character. The way Harnhardt describes the various incongruities and inconsistencies in Frank’s way of life goes to show artists are very complex, such as how Frank always seemed to be trying to portray the absolute truth, and he did it by the way of filming. It would have been nice, however, if he gave brief descriptions of the projects of the other artists and films he mentioned, or left them out entirely, because he seems to be writing to an audience whose members are highly informed of movies he references, and just mentioning them without any explanation just serves to confuse me. I so totally agreed with the New American Cinema group’ assertion about rejecting censorship, since an art form cannot truly be art unless it is expressed purely, without interference. It was interesting to read about the impact Pull My Daisy had on the population, and how its anarchy and freshness served to portray a new style. However, the writer is probably not informed that the film was actually carefully planned, rehearsed, directed and shot on a professionally lit studio set, since the author says that the film had “a story loosely constructed from improvised scenes” (75). As the author goes on, that Pull My Daisy had such significance in its meaning of being free and shaping one’s life. In short, the author connects Frank’s quest in life with his films very well, and shows how Frank tried to give meaning to the spontaneity and unpredictability of life. First of all, I’d like to say that the type for Deidre Boyle’s piece was very small and annoyed me. Also, I laughed when Wiseman said that he didn’t “like to offer interpretations of sequences in the movies” (79). Just goes to prove that a lot of things interpreted from art are not really what the artist intends. It also showed that a lot of art is spontaneous, and a lot of documentaries do just that: capture the spontaneity of life. It is also fun and interesting to find out what kind of things directors have to go through, such as the big job of editing films (9 months of editing?!). The search for funds for his films as well and his rejection of video is also interesting, in that he just wants to have enough funding to make his films on a film by film basis. Also turns out that getting the rights to filming is also a lot of work. Wiseman is a man who just wants to portray life, and does not care to really make any real point or take a particular stance on an issue. Elements of a Documentary, I found most interesting of all. It has pretty much all the basics and instructions as to how o make a documentary and which angles to use the camera. I am sure that it will come in handy when my group and I make our documentaries. In short, the piece was very comprehensive and informative.

(sorry this is late. i was out of town this weekend and had no computer access. even if this doesn't count towards my grade, i wanted to post a reply anyways.) In the first article, it was interesting to find that there was a filmmaker who instead of creating an imaginary world and making up a storyline, chose to use his own life experiences to mold his creating. Robert Frank took film as an opportunity to convey his own life struggles and to show how he related to the world and the many issues that surrounded his own life. It was good to know that someone dealing with Hollywood would be more interested in conveying the relationships with his family and friends instead of being superficial and focusing on less important things. Frank truly took advantage of the fact that he could use film as an outlet to portray his struggles through life, many struggles that people everywhere experienced. In reading the second article, I found it interesting that Frederick Wiseman chose to make his movies revolving around the same characters and the same setting. By doing this, he was almost guaranteed that people would be interested in viewing his films since they would already be familiarized with the character and background of the story. It was interesting to know that he still chose to make his films long although it may have turned some people off from watching them. That shows that he was true to his work and proud of the art that he made. Also, it was good to learn how some filmmakers got money to produce their various projects. Reading the article about the ‘Elements of the Documentary’ will be very useful next week when we begin shooting our documentaries. It gave me an idea of what I should be paying attention to when filming my documentary and also helped me to understand the different techniques used when filming a documentary. The different figures throughout the article helped to provide how different point of views can be captured in documentaries. It was also useful to learn about the different elements of a documentary such as the action footage, people talking, re-enactments, and library footage. The screenings in last week’s class were very thought provoking. It was good to learn the different ways in which documentaries could be shot. With the upcoming project, it was beneficial to learn that documentaries could be just as affective with and without interviews. Simply viewing a person’s life as we did in the various documentaries was very entertaining on its own. Documenting life unscripted is often times more entertaining and educational then viewing a scripted movie with makes believe characters and scenarios. In the documentary, “Gray Gardens” the content of the film was nothing special but that characters truly brought the film to life. The two women in the film created the humor and entertainment. It was inspiring to find that by simply filming two very colorful people, you could create such a captivating documentary. After watching the film, it left me wanting to know more about the two ladies lives and how they managed to live how they were living for so long.

What stuck out at me in the piece by John Hanhardt, Connoiseur of Chaos The Films and Videotapes, was how Robert Frank seemed to have a complex relationship with the camera. I thought that it was particularly interesting that on the one hand, he was scared of the power that the camera held, and on the other, he was intrigued by it. Cameras and films do hold a lot of power to show things that maybe otherwise remain hidden. It also was interesting how personal his films where. He seemed to take a keen interest in filming life unfold, and how people interacted, especially in a family setting. When he filmed his interactions between his wife and himself while she was sick, it must have taken a lot to be able to expose oneself before the camera in that fashion. I thought it is interesting how this idea bleeds over into the film of documentary. In the interview with Frederick Wiseman, in the “American Inspector,” Wiseman makes the comment about being fair to the people who have trusted him enough to allow him to capture their lives on camera. He says, “I feel an obligation to the people who have given me permission to record aspects of their life. They have taken a risk and have demonstrated a certain amount of trust in giving me access to their lives.” (83) I think that to a certain extent, being on camera exposes a part of you that might not otherwise be apparent. That seems to be a peculiar power that the camera has. It seems to have the ability to probe deep inside, where we might not normally want people to go. And it seems that for documentaries, that is part of the trick that the director needs to master, in order to have a emotionally successful film. It does not seem simply enough to just go behind the scenes and film, but there needs to be meaning in what you film, and how you film it, or present it. Another thing I found interesting that Wiseman made a comment on, was when he commented on how he likes to make documentaries, and how he felt that it was not worth the effort to try to survive in Hollywood. I somehow feel that many people might say the exact opposite. However, the fact that he felt that documentaries allowed him more control and satisfaction, and that creating works on fiction in Hollywood, works that perhaps he did not feel truly accomplished anything, is interesting. I wonder if that is why much of film today is continuously lacking in any sort of thought, and only meant to bring in money, and maybe to compete for an Oscar. On the topic of Oscars, I did not quite understand why films that were not in the theater would be disqualified. Can they perhaps be qualified for something else then? I guess I just thought that was slightly unfair, and gave an unfair advantage to those who had the resources for a theatrical release.

( Jennifer Ma) The first article “Connoisseur of Chaos” by John Hanhardt introduces to his readers one of the most influential American photographers and filmmakers- Robert Frank. According to Hanhardt, Robert Frank’s films are reflections of what he sees and thinks about the world around him. He captures the “vulnerability and vicissitude” where he gets inspirit from his real life experiences. Robert Frank’s best well-known film work, Pull my Daisy, was written and narrated by Jack Kerouac and starred Allen Ginsberg and others from the Beat circle. “This film’s action is centered around the idea of being an artist and free; the film is a poignant celebration of the beat lifestyle and anti-aesthetic philosophy” (77). The sense of anarchy and beat philosophy emphasized spontaneity in this film, and it also conveyed a particular aesthetic of having been thrown together or even improvised. Hanhardt states that, “this exploratory course opens out, as the actors assume and shed roles in the film in the same frenzied manner in which they explored roles in the world outside.” Robert Frank’s Pull my Daisy later was described as a contribution to the beat movement and American independent feature cinema (75). The author also mentions that Frank’s works become more intensely personal and improvisatory. Hanhardt cites from a modernist poet Wallace Stevens that, “I am what is around me.” Then he says that Frank is also what around him. “He looks to record and represent the quality of disorder that exists in all lives, no matter how orderly they ma appear” (77). The second article by Deirdre Boyle is an interview with an American documentary filmmaker, Frederick Wiseman. Wiseman talks about how he shoots senses without arrangements and thoughts about how to use them; he simply just follows his feeling and believes the things he shoots will be a key sequence. Frederick Wiseman also mentions that the way he finds a cameraman is by looking their previous work and determent who’s the most responsible person for him to work with. Wiseman talks about one of the most important phrase in documentary filming-editing. He says that he always started with the sequences that interest him the most without using any structure, because he thinks it is hard to get into the material in the beginning. One thing that he concerns very much is the rhythm of the film; that is why he cares a lot about the transitions between every sense. Frederick Wiseman states that the point of view for his film is usually the experience he had with that particular material or place. He believes his film’s point of view is clear, but he’d like to express it in a relatively indirect and ambiguous way; therefore, his audience can apply their reaction and definition to the film. He says in the interview that, “I try not to have ideological blinders on when I do a movie, because it seems to me you miss too much. I don’t like to make a film that sets out to illustrate a thesis” (82). In the end of this interview, Frederick Wiseman also talks about his opinion on the length of his films. He feels it’s his obligation to the people who gave him permission to record and share their story and life. He believes that as long as the content of the film is fully presented, it doesn’t matter about the time, because it is a commitment between him and the people who been dedicating for his film.

After watching some clips from several documentaries such as Grey Gardens by Albert and David Maysles, and Titicut Follies by Frederick Wiseman, I began to notice the components that construct a documentary. As stated in a selection from “Elements of a Documentary,” by Michael Rabiger, the primary basis of shooting a documentary is to make an observation and convey it in video format. These observations may be supported by interviews from the people recorded, action footage, and occasionally re-enactments. In Grey Gardens, I notice that the two directors often use voice-overs to tell the story instead of having a narration like Pull My Daisy, by Robert Frank. The cameraman becomes interactive with the people, asking questions while shooting the documentary. This intercession establishes a relationship between the subject of observation and the outside onlooker. Transitions can also play a big role in documentaries, creating montages that reflect the films’ various moods. Understanding the methods used by directors is one thing but analyzing the point and purpose of their stories is another. In John Hanhardt’s “Connoisseur of Chaos: The Films and Videotapes,” the author describes many of Frank’s films and his motive for each film, most notably Pull My Daisy. At first, I did not understand why anyone would have an interest in filming a congregation of a group of people. It was uninteresting and it made completely no sense at all. But after reading the Hanhardt’s critique on the film, I realized that there is more to its simplicity than I had thought. Frank created an innovative film that captures the realism of a group of people and their relationship among each other. The entire film is a narration delivered by Jack Kerouac whose charismatic voice keeps the audience’s interest. The characters do not speak a single word in the film, allowing the audience to follow only the characters’ actions and Kerouac’s words. This brings more emphasis on the characters’ expressions and their reactions to each other’s motions. The unfolding action in the film is spontaneous and there is no boundary as to what they can do. The characters seem to be acting like themselves instead of something rehearsed. In Titicut Follies, Wiseman let the people speak for themselves. There is no acting, false realism, and humbleness throughout the film. His observation of the crude inmates and their horrible reality is a powerful documentary. In an interview with Deirdre Boyle, Wiseman comments that people who watched the film will not be able to relate to the inmates because there are too many to consider. Unlike his other film, Near Death, there is no emphasis on certain characters. Shooting a documentary is the best method to bring up an interest or a problem in society. Often more than once, people takes these films into profound consideration and elaborate on what each one is talking about. Thus, a deep understanding within each documentary is created. - Khanh Luc

After reading “Connoisseur of Chaos: The Films and Videotapes” by John Hanhardt, uncertainty behind Robert Frank’s “Pull My Daisy” was a little bit cleared. When I first watched the film in the lecture, I was not sure about the greatness or the importance. I did enjoy the “freshness” and the style of the film. I said I enjoyed the “freshness” because I have never seen any film, which a single narrative speaks for all the characters – this approach reminded me the similar approach fairy stories take although Robert Frank’s approach is poetic. During the filming, I was wondering why the narrator stuttered a lot, so I was surprised to know that he was actually improvising instead of following a script. Although I did not quite understand the reason behind the improvisation, it sure does place the film in the category of the avant-garde because of this. As written in the article, I agree that the film shows the lifestyle of beatniks and presents it artistically and poetically. When watching this film, I think it is important to keep in mind that the time the film was shot in the ‘50’s and it was during the beats movement. Without knowing this, it would be hard to understand Frank’s intention behind the film, which was “the idea of being an artist and free.” As it happens to me every time when I read these articles, I am interested to watch the film again in the new perspective I learned from the article. The next reading, “An American Inspector,” an interview of Frederick Wiseman, by Deirdre Boyle, was not as interesting as the other readings, but I still found interesting points from Frederick Wiseman comments. I think the editing procedure Wiseman takes is interesting. It was surprising to know that he does not have an idea about the structure before shooting or even editing the sequences, so he edits the sequence first, and then thinks of the structure that goes with his theme. It’s also interesting to point out that he decides the point of view after shooting and editing the film. Before reading the article, I thought these elements were always decided during the preparation, but I found that different effects can have on the film when these elements are not exactly decided until or after editing. I also learned that transitions can serve purposes of “rhythm, geography, landscape, the class of structure, and silence,” as Wiseman says. Quite frankly, I was overwhelmed when I read all the different elements in documentary films in “Elements of The Documentary” by Michael Rabiger. Documentary is indeed deep and not as easy as it seems. The “Titicut Folles” by Frederick Wiseman takes an omniscient point of view, which I think is successfully chosen in order to show the “reality” inside the prison. If it was other point of views, the film would have included too much of someone’s opinions or perspectives. Therefore, by employing omniscient point of view, the film had an effect of objectivity and showing only facts. Although it’s not known whether it was scripted or not, I think it was not according to what I read in the previous article. Through learning all these elements, I can think of how to shoot and present the next documentary project. Also, I did not quite understand what a reflexive point of view is. I am thinking it’s a kind of point of view which the director is actually appearing in the shoots. I would like to have this clarified in the next discussion.

Robert Frank’s “Pull My Daisy” was an enlightening taste of a slice of the Beat Generation. It epitomizes the random energy and creativity that defines the Beat Generation. The narration by Jack Kerouac was improvised, which adds the perfect layer that completes the film. This broke many conventions of organized thought and film production when it was produced, which is discussed in John Hanhardt’s Connoisseur of Chaos: The Films and Videotapes. “Pull My Daisy” defied the set of rules set previously and was filmed just for the sake of the film. Before, the arts were sought in a systematic, organized method which this completely contrasts this with chaos. Throughout the film there are several scenes of chaos and the emotion exuding from it is of a beautiful chaos, largely supplied by the husband’s friends. It is there where the beauty of it lies. Dierdre Boyle’s An American Inspector was a little hard to get through and I was confused at times. Frederick Wiseman’s emphasis that film should not revolve around a statement or that it shouldn’t be about a thesis, but rather about everyday life is an interesting point. Although the interview made me understand him and his perspective better, I feel like it didn’t do as much as I expected. One of the most important things I got out of it was to learn how much actually goes into making any film. It is imperative that all the people involved in the production are able to harmonize and collaborate to collectively create something of substance; the responsibility goes beyond the director. Rabiger’s Elements of the Documentary highlighted so many different aspects a filmmaker can use to manipulate what is going on. This made me realize how differently the same scene or setting can be depicted simply by changing things such as camera angle, lighting, sound, editing, etc. Although the subject remains the same, the method of the documentary makes the film what it is and gives it its true value. When looking at “Titicut Follies” in this light, we realize the ingenuinity of Wiseman. Although from Boyle’s article we get the idea that Wiseman doesn’t like to tailor his work too much, the nuances of the cinéma verité documentary makes it so powerful. Wiseman brilliantly uses elements such as lighting and camera angle to portray the true cold and harsh life of these poor prisoners. Since it is shot in black and white, devoid of color, we immediately get the impression of how colorless the life of these hospital residents actually is. The action of documentary comes directly from its subjects, the patients. Wiseman did an excellent job of choosing interesting subjects so that without any direction the film is instantaneously made interesting, just like “Gray Gardens”. Wiseman stresses the importance of portraying life as it is and therefore the most important element of a documentary in “Titicut Follies” is his point of view. No matter how hard an artist tries to step outside of himself, it is impossible to do so because no art can be completely uninfluenced by the artist. --Priyanka Soni

Chaos, by definition, is a disorderly mass, a place of great confusion. Then, is it possible to be a “connoisseur of chaos”? If a filmmaker such as Robert Frank inserts the same effect of chaos into each of his films, is it still considered chaos? John Hanhardt explores the films of Robert Frank, studying the way that Frank has an “ironic reluctance to record what he sees, owing to his fear of the camera’s ability to capture its subjects.” It can be said that one of the most difficult things to do is to capture real life on film. Frank said in Home Improvements (1985) that he is just trying to “tell something that’s true” through filmmaking. Although that is extremely difficult, he knows that he is not altogether hopeless – through his cinematography and filmmaking, Frank can “come to terms with the world around him.” Looking through the lens of a video camera is Frank’s way of taking a new refreshing point of view to the world around him. After joining the New American Cinema group, Frank and twenty-two other filmmakers made the statement that, “we reject censorship” in their manifesto. These filmmakers were in love with the opportunity to make films the way that real life is and to say whatever they wanted. They longed to tell it the way it was – true and uncensored. This manifesto was a giant step for independent filmmakers, giving them control over production, distribution, and exhibition. But within this seemingly ordered manifesto, Frank was making films that had no form, and were simply chaotic – for lack of a better word. He has no signature shot, such as Scorcese or Coppola. The mark he leaves on his films is a line of chaos that runs from, “story-telling to documentary” from long shots to close up ones and everything in between. But the one thing that Frank is indefinitely attached to is the aspect of reality in all of films. The chaos apparent in all of his films is not there chaotically. He seeks to mirror the chaos and lack of order in all of our lives. Even when we think that we have everything under control, anything can happen (i.e. hurricane, death, etc.) that throws our life out of control. Robert Frank was one who strived to capture that chaos that flows in our daily lives. The ultimate observer, he wanted to record what he saw around him. Against censorship and any kind of posed media – fiction appearing as nonfiction, or a documentary that was in fact acted out and scripted – Frank simply and creatively put his films together with only one simple rule: that they captured everything as it was, or as close as he could. In doing that, Robert Frank became, “what is around him.” He was the connoisseur of chaos, able to seek out and find chaos, only to edit it together into a film of seemingly order, with an underlying theme of chaos and the way it binds together our lives.

In the excerpt “Connoisseur of Chaos” by John Hanhardt, Hanhardt explores in depth most of Robert Frank’s films. According to Hanhardt, when it comes to chaos in a film, Frank is an expert at it because throughout his films he portrays to the audience that our world is not as secure as some may believe it to be. Frank depicts life’s unpleasant moments of uneasiness, struggle, and vulnerability through his own experiences and daily life encounters. By filming and exploring the world through his camera, Frank is discovering his place in the world or his relationship to it. Frank tries/wants to tell/show something that is true, but he states that “maybe nothing is really true. Except what’s out there. And what’s out there is always different.” I found this very interesting and agree with Frank because we live in a world with many questions that cannot be answered and instead are referred to theories. “Maybe nothing is really true” and we will never find the answers. Frank’s films are based on his passion of reality and his films are not just one genre but two, story-telling and documentaries involving family, friends, a community, the poor, and others. For instance, in one of his films, Pull My Daisy, he illustrates a story about artists and poets who have fun and are searching for freedom. Frank is who he is by what he films, which is everything that is around him and in his life. In Deirdre Boyle’s article “An American Inspector”, Boyle interviews Frederick Wiseman, a documentary filmmaker, on his experience of making documentary films. I found this article very intriguing and informative because it explains all the joy and problems one goes through when making an independent movie. Also, the reader learns that within a movie there are many important aspects that make the movie great, which include characters, editing, and the length and flow of the movie. Not only do independent filmmakers have to figure out a way to pay for the production of a movie, but they also have to have a cameraman who they get along with and is able to work with at all times. There is a lot to making a movie and it is not as easy as some may think it is. Chapter 27, “Elements of the Documentary” from the book, Directing the Documentary by Michael Rabiger, describes the major elements required to create a documentary. It is very detailed and informative beginning with how a frame can be filled. Then moving on to how sound could be used and then explaining how important point of view is because there are many different kinds of points of view. Finally, ending with the elements of time, development, and the structure of the documentary which are all of importance because one does not want a film too long or too short, and definitely not a poorly developed or structured film. This week’s readings were very interesting and now I have a better understanding about documentaries.

Connoisseur Of Chaos,An American Inspector, and Elements Of The Documentary Connoisseur Of Chaos (John Hanhardt): The success of Frank’s films lies in the art of shaking the “symbols” for which we, as humans, stand to keep a sense of order in our daily lives. John Hanhardt perfectly depicts Robert Frank’s films as representing the enormous personal dilemma between the public and private spaces. The “Connoisseur of Chaos”, as the author calls him, based his art in the rejection of a formal order; he seeks for filming chaos and he finds it even in a very neat and organized life. He honores anti-aesthetics, John Hanhardt states. I think that one can either deny reality or accept it; therefore, Frank’s film can trigger disgust for chaos; his films can generate acceptance of reality; or they can drive us to ponder and measure if Frank is planning the chaos scenes, or if they are real. In his film, Pull My Daisy’s there is so much commotion that some scenes almost juxtaposed others with the same degree of chaos. The core of Frank’s films is commotion, and chaos is indeed everywhere. One could think then, that there is plenty of material for everybody to film; however, is Robert Frank’s approaching of chaos that makes sense of the chaos itself. An American Inspector (Deirdre Boyle) Deirdre Boyle’s article about Frederick Wiseman gives us the opportunity to portray him as a successful filmmaker, who still keeps film far from video; Wiseman emphasizes that only he would opt for video if he were not able to raise money for the film. Reading the entire interview, one can think of Wiseman as loyal believer in his own viewpoints. He is aware of his success as filmmaker, and his response about why he has not received an Oscar yet has almost a kind disdain. Wiseman has other priorities, for instance “the great subject”; Wiseman states that film should not illustrate a thesis, and rather reveals the uncertainty of everyday’s experiences. This is probably the reason for his success in portraying the French culture as accurately as he does with the American culture. Elements Of The Documentary (Michel Rabiger) In this chapter Michel Rabiger talks about the elements of a documentary such as Point of View and Time Development and Structure; it is a very didactic chapter that contains the relevance of a documentary at every stage; it also illustrates the possible upcoming and the approach to use depending on the conditions. Michel Rabiger also stresses the importance of looking for everybody’s understanding in a documentary, such as a film made by women and men that is delivered to their equals. He conveys in his conclusion that nowadays a documentary is made in a less complex language and therefore it is understandable by more people than back in the old days. I think that globalization has forced us to change in many aspects; for instance, the philosophy of a documentary has to change in order to become reachable to everyone.

Documentaries can a very creative and insightful piece of art. As mentioned in class, “all a documentary needs are actors acting”. Moreover, because there is no “set” way of making a documentary, it allows the director innumerable was to create a film. As seen in “Titicut Follies” by Fredrick Wisemen, we get to view a life of an insane criminal kept in a state prison. First we see that they are stripped till they are fully naked, then they are put in a prison cell. From this we can assume that these prisoners live a very cold and confusing life. Next we see how these prisoners live their life. In the movie, we see them do little funny performances, talk to themselves, get picked on by the guards, and scream whatever comes into their minds. I think the director may try to make the audience feel that they are living a harsh, cold, and gruesome life. Society has made it so that we treat the prisoners like animals. In a documentary like this, all the director needs to do is have the prisoners act normally. In doing so, we get the feeling as if we were inside the prison. In “Grey Gardens” by Maysles Brothers, we see a documentary of a woman in her 30’s or 40’s living with her mother (that is very old that I might add) in an old house. Here, the director is very patient in listening to their ideas and filming what they have to share. I believe the Maysles Brothers were trying to show a family that was living in the past. In living that way, they have their advantages and disadvantage. For example, in living in the past and not trying to keep up with much of the world, the daughter is not able to find the lover of her type and bases her love life off a horoscope book. At the same time, she doesn’t seem to go to town much and try to meet new people. Moreover, her attitude may seem very childish at times. She has not maturely “grown up” due to her lack of social life. One great example is when she ripped her mother’s photograph. Not only did she not apologize, but she also blamed it on her mother. As the documentary went on, the video showed the advantages of living in such a life. One example is their happiness. From looking at old pictures, dressing up in different styles, walking through the garden, and singing along with a few songs, they seemed content with life. They did not ask for much and did not need much. Their life was simple and easy. Although it was not said what they did for a living, they seemed very relaxed. At the same time, in being in the countryside, they don’t need to be worried too much about their health. They are away from the smog and pollutions of the city. The mother is living proof of this statement. She seemed well and had an incredible memory for her age. She could sing a whole song with the perfect tune and tell us the story of when her old life was like. In conclusion, a documentary can tell a lot about a person’s life. In watching 40 minutes of a person’s life, one is able to analyze life style, their personality, and their setting.

Week 3’s readings about documentary films, including John Hanhardt’s “Connoisseur of Chaos: The Films and Videotapes” and Michael Rabiger’s “Elements of the Documentary,” were very interesting. Hanhardt’s article discusses Robert Frank’s documentary films as having “a current of chaos” running through his films. In other words, Frank selects real life topics or subjects to cover with a certain rawness and intensity of an outsider looking in to a vulnerable situation, or a real life experience. His style of filming is described by Hanhardt as the following: “It disrupts the notion of a secure world; in fact, no easy answers, no secure relationships, exist between Frank and the world he records.” Frank’s film Pull My Daisy is delivered with “the beat sensibility of anarchic fun and self-parody” where Frank claims that everything and everyone being seen and heard are all real and that whatever is unreal is from his imagination. What was interesting to me was Hanhardt’s commentary on how it was this film, the avant-garde of its time, which defined the beat movement. Having watched the film in class, I thought it was playful and humorous, but I never saw it or thought of it as something so pivotal or monumental for its time. After reading Hanhardt’s analysis of all the different elements Frank uses and all the new innovative things he introduced to his generation of filmmakers, I have more respect for the film. The Deirdre Boyle article about Frederick Wiseman was an “okay” read for me. It was an article that wasn’t particularly interesting or thought provoking. So I’ll just discuss the next article. Of the three readings, though, the one that seemed most interesting was Michael Rabiger’s article about the “Elements of the Documentary.” He discusses the different elements that make up a documentary, listing things like action footage, sound, camera angles, points of view, etc. There are so many various ways that documentary films can be created. One of the things that caught my attention throughout the reading was Rabiger’s analysis on the different camera angles, or points of view, that can be used, like the observational standpoint, the single character’s point of view, the omniscient point of view, and so on. Depending on what the director chooses, the viewers can be included into the film, follow along with a character, be purely objective and observational, or be omniscient by following everyone’s story arcs. I also enjoyed reading about the time, development, and structure elements of film, like how they choose what topics or events they want to film, or how they want to edit it, or parallel the various storylines they followed. The article really reveals how complex the art of documentary filmmaking is.

“Connoisseur of Chaos: The Films and Videotapes” by John Hanhardt was a mildly interesting piece mainly discussing the film Pull My Daisy by Robert Frank. The article described Robert Frank’s techniques and thoughts and beliefs about making films and the way films should be. The piece was interesting in that it revealed that Frank filmed reality; he filmed his friends and his friends in turn also narrated the films. The chaos referred to in the title of the article by Hanhardt is that Frank breaks away from the mold of documentaries. He films what makes some people uneasy. He films what is real. The article also states that Frank is like an outsider looking in. He films his subjects without getting involved with them himself. The article asserts that Frank does not film for the sake of art, but rather films just to film. The second article, “An American Inspector” by Deirdre Boyle is a portion of an interview with Frederick Wiseman concerning his films and the way he makes his films. Honestly, I thought this piece was pointless and I found it quite hard to pay attention to the questions or the responses considering they were both excessively long. The questions were mostly related to Wiseman’s film Belfast, Maine in which he filmed the people of a small town (with a population of 6400) in Maine. It was interesting, however, to read about the way Wiseman went about filming this movie. Instead of the regular fashion of having a point or thesis and filming according to that, he filmed Belfast, Maine with no point in mind and let the people or characters to create a point themselves and make the movie interesting. The final reading for the week, “Elements of the Documentary” by Michael Robiger, was the one that I found most interesting. Although a bit lengthy, “Elements of the Documentary” certainly made me think more deeply about our documentary project that is coming up. It gave me ideas of what to film and how to film it. The article also was helpful in that it illustrated the different ways to film a documentary and how the director is or is not involved with the characters. I especially liked how Robiger conveyed the difference between cinéma verité (intercessional) and direct cinema (non-intercessional or observational cinema). However, the examples that Robiger supplied made the article very drawn out. It seemed as though three quarters of the article were examples while very little of it was actual explanations or descriptions of what a documentary is. For the most part, nevertheless, the article was a good introduction to the documentary and to the process of filming a documentary. Overall, the three articles of the week gave me a great insight into the world of documentaries and did a great job conveying the different ways to film a documentary and the different aspects of documentaries in general. Unfortunately, I have yet to read a piece that I truly enjoy reading. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the future readings in hopes that something will keep me intrigued throughout.

I found this week’s lecture rather interesting. I really enjoyed Robert Frank’s Pull My Daisy. I think that Pull My Daisy captures the topic of change, the breaking-down of established rules as well as the liberation of the artist’s creativity that occupied so many artists’ minds during the late 1950s and the early 1960s. By depicting, as mentioned by John Hanhardt in Connoisseur of Chaos: The Films and Videotapes, a story that is “loosely constructed” from scenes improvised by personalities such as Allen Ginsberg and Peter Orlovsky and narrated by Jack Kerouac, Frank successfully captures the ideology of the Beat Generation (234). Moreover, Frank rejects traditional methods of filmmaking and implements his own ideas. As mentioned by Hanhardt, the film’s camera work “effectively breaks with the accepted and 1000 years old official rules of slick, polished Alton & Co. cinematographic schmaltz (234).” Thus, Pull My Daisy fits clearly within the concept of the New American Cinema group, founded in 1960, in the sense that it allows for personal expression rather than following established rules. It is also interesting that while Frank merely records the world around him, his films become associated with certain moments in time. Today, Pull My Daisy seems almost like a historical document of an ideology, which, at the time of the film’s creation, was merely a feeling or a way of life that defined a group of people. Watching Titicut Follies by Frederick Wiseman on the other hand was rather shocking. I watched a PBS documentary a while ago with the title Frontline: The New Asylums, which deals with a state prison housing mentally ill patients in Ohio. However, Wiseman’s Titicut Follies is not comparable to this documentary! I was impressed by the way Wiseman combines black and white film, silent passages as well as scenes with dialog. The patients are observed carefully and depicted so that, for the most part, dialog is not necessary. On the contrary, it seems that silent passages intensify the message the film is trying to project (and I think that in some scenes this message is so intense that it becomes almost painful to watch). I don’t remember if this was mentioned during the lecture (probably it was), but the film's release was banned (outside of the field of education) in the United States from 1967-1992 (Wikipedia). Isn’t that even more shocking than actually watching the film? Anyhow, because Titicut Follies left a strong impression on me I could not wait to read An American Inspector by Deirdre Boyle. It was interesting to read about different aspects of the documentary such as editing, funding, as well as the illustration of a thesis – especially since it they were discussed by the “master” himself. Elements of the Documentary by Michael Rabiger, yet, provides further understanding of elements of the documentary. Rabiger’s discussion of the point of view as well as time, development, and structure in documentary film serves as a tool to describe and identify various types and characteristics of the documentary.