13TH

How do we understand the "message" a film is trying to give us? How does a documentary organize its "facts" to structure its "argument"?

For this week's post, please watch one of the most talked-about movies of the past year - Ava DuVernay's Oscar-nominated documentary 13th on Netflix. 

"Powerful, infuriating, and at times overwhelming" is how Manohla Dargis of the New York Times describes 13th in the opening sentence of her rave review.

I can't wait to hear what you think. If you've already seen it, watch it again. Hopefully, you will be able to approach it with different eyes and see different things the second time.

Once you've seen it, please check out Oprah's recent interview with the director here. You can watch other interesting interviews with the director here and here, too. As always, write whatever you like. Just be sure to articulate what exactly the film's argument is - and please provide specific details about how the director structures that argument. 

Is there a message in this film? If so, what is it? Is 13th authentic? Does it present its evidence with authority? Is there something the film could have done better to get its message across?

I look forward to reading your comments - by no later than 5pm next Tuesday, of course.

THE ACT OF KILLING | THE LOOK OF SILENCE

In the coming week, we will begin explore what are possibly the two most important concepts related to documentary making: Ethics and Responsibility. 

This week in class we watched the visceral, shocking, and - at least for me - truly unforgettable The Act of Killing. And in the coming days, please watch the director Joshua Oppenheimer's follow-up The Look of Silence. It's on Netflix and, along with Winter on Fire, it received an Academy Award nomination last year for Best Documentary. 

I really look forward to knowing your opinion of both films - and trust me: you will have an opinion - especially in terms of ethics, as well as in terms of how the two documentaries compare and contrast thematically, aesthetically, and narratively. Which one did you like more? Why?

In writing about The Act of Killing - which he refers to as a "documentary of the imagination" here - Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges calls the film "an important exploration of the complex psychology of mass murderers," saying "it is not the demonized, easily digestible caricature of a mass murderer that most disturbs us. It is the human being."

But there are others who were outraged and disgusted and called The Act of Killing "repellant," like the Christian Science Monitor's Peter Rainer, who wrote in his review, "Oppenheimer allows murderous thugs free reign to preen their atrocities and then fobs it all off as some kind of exalted art thing. This is more than an aesthetic crime; it's a moral crime."

For this week's post, please tell me as specifically as possible what you think the director Joshua Oppenheimer's approach to both films are. Is he being Responsible and Ethical in his portrayal of the atrocities committed in Indonesia? If so, how? If not, how not? And how does Oppenheimer show Authority in The Act of Killing and The Look of Silence - or does he? Please answer these questions as they apply to each film, and please remember to provide at least an example or two from both to support your claims.

Additionally, I'd like to know what (or whose) interest you think these films serve. What impact might they have on those watching (like you)? Do both films take into account the welfare of the people represented? If so, how?

Finally, and just in case you'd like more information about The Act of Killing and The Look of Silence before we meet, here are some additional links:

• Joshua Oppenheimer's Documentary Manifesto (here)
• An interview that provides some context, background and aesthetic insight about The Act of Killing from Joshua Oppenheimer (here)
• An excerpt from a feisty and condemning piece about The Act of Killing written by BBC producer and doc expert Nick Frasier titled "We Love Impunity" (here)
• A report showing the incredible impact that The Act of Killing has had on Indonesia, where it triggered the first public debate of its kind around the country's past and inspired the Human Rights Commission of Indonesia to call the film "essential viewing for us all." (here)
• A VICE interview with Joshua Oppenheimer about The Look of Silence (here)
• A short Deadline interview with Joshua Oppenheimer addressing the complications of making The Look of Silence and why he made two documentaries about the subject instead of one (here)
• An interview in the New York Times from this past Friday, February 12, with the main subject of The Look of Silence, Adi Rukun (here)
• "Daring to Disturb the Sound of Silence: Oppenheimer Returns to Indonesia" - an interview by the International Documentary Association posted on February 2 (here)

I can't wait to read what you write about these polarizing and provocative documentaries, especially in terms of Ethics, Responsibility, Evidence, Authority and Authenticity - by no later than 5pm next Tuesday, February 21. Go deep and good luck!

BLOOD BROTHER

The beginning of Chapter 3 in Crafting Truth (one of the recommended texts on our syllabus) states that "Authority forms part of the complicated ways by which documentaries represent nonfictional reality."

For this week's post, please watch Steve Hoover's critically acclaimed documentary Blood Brother - available on iTunes and Amazon for $2,99, and on YouTube and elsewhere for $3.99. Let me know what you think, especially in terms of how successfully - or unsuccessfully - the film has been authored. In particular, explain as best you can what the director's approach to his story is, especially based of the information, or evidence, he chooses to include about his main subject Rocky Braat. Does this approach make the story being told more - and/or less - convincing? How? Why? Do you appreciate what Hoover's done aesthetically with the film or not? Is the main character Rocky just another self-absorbed, indulgent narcissist, or do you find the inclusion of his story to be the thing that makes the film more dramatically compelling?

Also, and before writing your response, please read this piece about the film by Tom Roston titled "Is a Filmmaker's Personal Life Relevant to a Film? Another Look at Blood Brother. Then read the article titled "Blood Brothers Director Responds to Questions about His Documentary's Openness" and let me know your opinion on the matter.

I look forward to seeing how you sort this film out - what you liked, what you didn't like, and what it meant to you. Write whatever you want, just be sure to address the concept of authority and how it impacted your feelings about this piece of work. And finally, be sure to comment about Roston's article, as well as Hoover's response. Whose side are you on?

I look forward to reading your in-depth, inspired comments about Blood Brother on this blog by no later than 5pm next Tuesday.

WINTER ON FIRE: UKRAINE'S FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

The most successful documentaries claiming to represent socio-historical experiences are capable of convincing us that what we're seeing on the screen really happened. How do they do this? What kind of evidence do they use to persuade us to accept them as truthful and accurate? Why do we believe the evidence? And what in particular about the way the evidence is presented makes us respond emotionally?

For this week's post, please watch Evgeny Afineevsky's Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom on Netflix and let me know what you did and/or didn't like about it. What primary kinds of evidence did the director include? Did you believe the evidence was accurate and truthful? Do you think the film deserved the Best Documentary Oscar nomination it got one year ago at this time? Should it have won? Why or why not?

I look forward to reading how you sort Winter on Fire out - what you liked, what you didn't like, and what it meant to you. Write whatever you want - just be sure to discuss the concept of evidence and how it impacted your feelings about the film.

And please remember: your in-depth, inspired comments need to appear on this blog by no later than midnight next Tuesday.

Happy watching and writing!