The aesthetics of filmmaking - particularly cinematography - can be crucial to the success of any documentary. To explore this further, we watched Cameraperson in class, and I want you to watch Cartel Land on Netflix - a film which won the Best Cinematography Award at Sundance when it premiered there in 2015, and went on to receive an Oscar nomination last year.
Write whatever you'd like in your post, but please be sure to address as specifically as possible what you think of the cinematography work in both films - taking care to highlight at least one moment or scene from each film to support your critical assertions.
Has watching these two films inspired you to think further about the role of the cinematographer in documentary? If so, what are your thoughts?
Are these films ethical? For example, are the Cartel Land filmmakers being responsible in the way they portray those who are involved in the Mexican drug wars? Most critics (like this one at The Hollywood Reporter) really loved the film, but others (like this one at the NY Times) did not. Who do you agree with? What do you think?
I hope you enjoyed Cameraperson, I hope you enjoy Cartel Land, and I look forward to reading what you post here about both films and how they inform your appreciation for and understanding of documentary cinematography - by no later than 5pm next Tuesday of course!
Cartel Land / Cameraperson (1/2)
ReplyDeleteI loved Cameraperson so much. I’d been wanting to see it for a year, so I was very lucky to have finally watched it. It made me extremely happy and emotional because it captures moments that meant the most to the person behind the camera; moments that truly mattered, not for the story, not for the director, but for themselves. These are experiences that happened during shooting, but may or may not have made it into the film. The authenticity of the camera movements are what’s most beautiful about this film to me. As someone who is an aspiring cinematographer, it’s heartbreaking sometimes when you have captured a cathartic moment, either for a subject or yourself, but can’t necessarily include it in the film because of a) aesthetically, the way the shot looked, or b) may be unethical or unnecessary for the story. There are so many times where I come across a certain shot that is so beautiful and personal to me, but am reluctant to use it because I think the audience may not feel the same way I did, or do when I see the image.
I loved how this film really told a story about the cinematographer themselves. Although I’ve never spoken to Kirsten Johnson, it was through the film where I could get a sense of what kind of person she was, and what types of things were important to her. I don’t have to know her entire backstory to be able to relate to the events that took place in the film. For example, when she’s spending time with her mother, and we see shots of her standing in the field, we understand that they have a good relationship, and that Kirsten still cares deeply for her mother although she’s a travelling filmmaker. The unchronological order works, because it’s like the filmmaker is telling their personal story through multiple events.
What resonated with the most in Cameraperson was the scene with the nurse who was trying to save the babies life. I love when the cinematographer is involved with a story happening in real time, and we are recieving there perspective and intuit in the situation. Johnson is filming the baby, and notices it starts breathing. Quickly, she runs to get the nurse and she comes back. It’s crazy thinking about capturing a moment like that. I don’t know what I would do in that situation. Do I film or do I help? Should I even capture this moment? These are some questions I had while watching, and hopefully will learn through my own experience how it feels to be in a situation like that while shooting. What also touched me was how the family reacted to her showing them the film she made while spending time with them. I know from my experience, that people connect to the material you shoot in all different ways, and your work may mean more to them than you think.
Cartel Land / Cameraperson (2/2)
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to this nostalgic, euphoric type of film that Kirsten Johnson made, I felt a different kind of emotion and tension while watching Matthew Heineman’s “Cartel Land”. I think the cinematography of this film is just as powerful as Cameraperson, just in a different way. Following the two perspectives of the members of the two vigilantes groups, Heineman’s point of view gives us the inside scoop of what it’s like to be involved in the Mexican drug cartels, and the fight against them. The film wouldn’t have felt so intense if it weren’t for Heineman’s involvement in real time events, just like Johnson’s. Had it been back and forth talking heads informing us about the experiences, we wouldn’t get a sense of the message he intended to show audiences, which was that all sides of the drug war can be messy and dangerous, and understanding how people’s lives operate are one of the key factors into understanding what truly happens in Mexico. I think it’s important that he was filming when the subjects were literally in the middle of fighting for their lives. I felt bad for the little girl in the scene when the Autodefensas pulled over a man who was accused of shooting at them, and she was crying, begging them to not take her father away. It struck me when she said she wanted to take her own life if they took him away. At that point, I felt skeptical on whether or not the choices Heineman made were truly ethical, because immediately following that scene, they’re in the car with a gun pointed to his head, urging him to speak up, but also making fun of his super smooth skin. How can you follow such an emotional scene with such a nonchalant moment like that? I don’t know. Maybe people are sensitive.
I liked the film, and it was beautifully shot. There were some intense moments but they were let loose by the aerial shots of the border, the mountains, etc. The two films definitely made me think more about a cinematographer’s role in the filmmaking process. They made me want to go out and just shoot anything--not that I already don’t--but I want to start putting myself in situations where I may feel vulnerable and out of my comfort zone, but could ultimately end up being a moment I will never forget.
Honestly, I didn't pay much attention to camera person, but I did watch cartel land. I absolutely loved the cinematography and I want to get the camera that made it. The cinematography in the film really got us up close and personal to the frightening events that occurred. I loved the overdrawn shots with a drone as well. There is one moment where El doctor is speaking to everyone saying how they should unite and it is very powerful how everybody in the village saves them from the army who disarmed them earlier, I almost cried with joy, and the cinematography really helped with the moment and never lost its momentum. I have been inspired by all of this film to work on my cinematography skills in order to tell a story a lot better and I will use this for the future films I make. I had no problems with the ethics of this film I think that people need to see what is going on out of their country and realize that they are very fortunate that this isn't happening to us. Sometimes you need to get uncomfortable in order to realize what's really going on, and I think that this film does that perfectly. Being in the crossfire made my heart pound even though I wasn't even in the film because it seemed like I was due to the cinematographers position in the events. Can see how some might not like this film do to people's beliefs and what not, but I think this film deserves the awards that it received and I hope that there are more like it.
ReplyDeleteI fell in love with the cinematography in Cartel Land. I found myself focusing on that more than the story itself. I thought it was visually fascinating and aesthetically pleasing. I fell in love with the shots of the smoke in the dark.I think what made this film different from other documentaries was how close and personal we got with the overall drug cartel and their whereabouts. Honestly, I felt myself getting anxious when I was watching any scene where gunfire shots went off. I did feel like there was a lack of ethical integrity regarding the overall safety of the camera people. I know that documentaries can be made from impussilve thinkers like myself, but I think their is a fine line between safety and wanting to get the perfect shot. One of the scenes that resonated with me was when they arrested the man with the family. I am not too sure of his name, but I remember how his daughter sobbed her eyes out and even wanted to stab herself with a knife just to get her dad out of trouble. I thought this scene was extremely personal because the way it was shot made the audience seem like they were part of the crisis that was occurring.I honestly would feel so uncomfortable filming an emotional toll like that Even with the scenes where we get a close up of El Doctor or riding in the trucks, I thought it was uncanny almost. I did enjoy the beauty of the scenery because I always fall in love with long shots of landscapes and sunsets. Overall, the social injustices caught on camera from both sides of the border was an intense concept to document.
ReplyDeletePersonally I really enjoyed Cameraperson. It is unlike any other doc, or film in general, I’ve ever seen. It’s more than just a bts footage compilation; it’s intimate moments of this woman’s life. Also, since I’m an aspiring documentary filmmaker, I was very intrigued because this is the kind of life I want to live. It felt as if I was going through her memories.
ReplyDeleteMy personal favorite shot is the opening scene with the storm. The moment when lightening strikes and she gasps- beautiful. It captures what’s so cool about documentary and getting footages that amazes and surprises you. It’s special moments that happen in life, unexpected and often can’t be repeated. Cameraperson is filled with these.
I loved the fact that these are all clips that she’s compiled over the years that she loves but they probably didn’t fit into the films she was working on, but she found a way to share them. As I said before, the way the cinematography is makes it feel like you’re pulling these private memories out of her mind. The film gave me a strong feeling of nostalgia.
Cartel Land was starkly different than Cameraperson, obvi. The cinematography was compelling in both films but in different ways, and they were both very intimate. With Cartel Land, the viewer is basically thrown into the lives of these different vigilante groups and we witness terrible moments of their lives. The sequences that really stuck out to me was when they were capturing the two leaders of Templar and when they were taking that man away from his panicked daughter. It’s almost as if I was in some kind of first-person shooter game at some points.
Ethics is super tricky with this film because how could the filmmaker actually help in these situations? I feel like exposing the truth is the best they could do. This film just shows that you really have to put yourself out there to get the footage that matters. Maybe I won’t be filming people literally shooting each other anytime soon, but it’s a good lesson. It’s also so wild how even though what’s unfolding onscreen is terrible, it is shot beautifully. It really almost feels as if it’s a narrative/fictional film.
I was not present in class to watch Camera Person, however Cartel Land had a big impact on me. I absolutely loved the style of filming done. The story told here feels more like a fiction narrative rather than a true life account, due to the camera work. Having the victims/family members of the victims talk directly into the camera during their interview made it feel much more personal. Also, having the shot close up to their face gave us a close up look at the imperfections and scars on their faces. I really enjoyed how the first 30 minutes of the film was treated like a propaganda piece, however when the Doctor is injured in the plane crash the story gets turned on its head. Focusing on the angry civilians during papa Smirf's speech shows the beginning of the end. One of my favorite aspects of the film was showing the same drug cooking scene in the beginning and the film and the end of the film. It truly represents that all things circle back to the cartel. All things are controlled by the cartel.
ReplyDeleteCameraperson:
ReplyDeleteAt times it was hard to watch because I felt bored but overall I enjoyed the film. Even with no narrative, the footage related to each other by showing different sequences with the same subjects. I appreciated how the director, Kirsten Johnson, captured life simply as it is, which made the film both ethical and authentic. One of my favorite scenes from Cameraperson was towards the end, where the midwife is in the process of getting the baby to breathe. It was fascinating to watch the baby take its first breath. I am usually not a fan of babies but this sequence gave me a new appreciation for life being brought into the world.
Cartel Land:
Matthew Heineman put himself in harm's way to get the footage he did, making his role crucial in the film. If he did not take the initiative to dive head first into the subject matter, certain stories would not have been told. I do agree with one comment made in the NY Times article. The film is fast paced, which made it confusing at times for me to differentiate characters. Regarding the article from The Hollywood Reporter, I agreed with the article’s statements which praised the film’s cinematography, editing, and sound. I felt that the director was being responsible by showing different perspectives on the story, but it appeared that Heineman had more access to the vigilantes and town people than he did with the cartel. Heineman solidifies this film’s authenticity by capturing raw footage filled with life and emotion. One example is around 1:08 when a young girl is seen screaming for her father as he is being taken away to get questioned. As the scene continues, footage displays the mother and daughter becoming hysterical. Soon after, the daughter starts threatening to kill herself. Overall I liked the film.
Documentary cinematography is an interesting inversion of the craft from my point of view. In a documentary, I don’t really care about types of cameras, lenses, frame rate, or lighting, although all these factor into composing a great image. What really fascinates me is the act of adaptation. How a director and cinematographer adapt to new situations on the fly and almost without thinking in order to capture these new events in their entirety. Because my primary focus is fiction filmmaking, I like a considerable amount of planning for shots and images but I also appreciate the skill it takes to capture events in the moment.
ReplyDeleteCameraperson is a film which shows the process and the growth of this skill. Kirsten Johnson has been honing her craft year after year, documentary after documentary in a constant act of fixing her shots while filming, discussions with her director about how this sequence will pan out in the final edit, as well as the personal ramifications of filming her mother while she lives with Alzheimer's. Taking all the moments that we sense a presence behind the camera breathes a life into the previously useless shots. Johnson, through this method of filmmaking, has made probably one of the most mainstream experimental biopics ever. You can see how she feels about her craft and reflect on how she has constantly refined and perfected her methods of working.
Whilst Cameraperson is the method and progress, Cartel Land, is all about the final product and the end result. Working in an environment like this, this idea of adapting to one's surroundings is put right up front. In a war zone, a bomb is set to go off at any moment. Gunfights between the vigilantes and the cartels occur almost out of nowhere in the film and the filmmakers throw themselves right into it. Through editing and expert camera work, you feel as if you are holding a gun and ready to charge into the crossfire. You’re there in the interrogations, you’re there when they cook the drugs, and you’re there when they capture the “bad guys”. Moments like adjusting the light balance and zooms feel natural at points in the narrative because they are like our eyes adjusting constantly to new situations. That previous sentence sounds good as a description for how a good documentary cinematographer should operate.
I found Cameraperson surprisingly interesting considering it was basically just little clips of other projects that she had worked on. What made it interesting, however, was how it was structured. The film sort of breaks down into little segments, where the shots of various projects are all played after one another because they have some kind of similarity. The beginning of the film was a bunch of beginnings, with the sheep herder starting to move, to the baby being born. The other section that really stood out to me was the aftermaths, or soon-to-be sites, of various disasters, with the World Trade Center sticking out the most to me.
ReplyDeleteCartel Land was okay, interesting enough, I'd say. The best part for me, is that sometimes I forgot I was watching a doc. Heineman got so many different perspectives from so many people that it felt it hit a lot of major and differing viewpoints, but surely not all of them. From an ethical standpoint, I don't really know what to say. Nothing, for me, really jumped out as completely unethical, at least not in a way where the filmmaker could do anything but document the situation, i.e. any kind of shootout or things of the likes.
Both films were fantastic, and the cinematography made them even easier to enjoy. I think what really made these films great was the use of meaningful imagery. Being able to use a camera to show a story is pretty easy, but using that same camera to tell a story and evoke emotion is art. The beautiful color, light and framing that was in Cartel Land really helped me get a feel of what life is like in certain parts of Mexico. I watched a short interview with the DP of Cartel Land. He shot the film on Canon digital cameras, however he was saying that they are only a tool and that they were the tool for this job. A camera is a tool and when used to the best of its ability with a great filmmaker the results can really stand out. Being right in the action for both films was a huge part of why the cinematography worked. The filmmakers were able to capture beautiful work while in small tight locations with little preparation.
ReplyDeleteI liked Cartel Land a little bit more than I liked Camera Person. Both films were beautiful and both were able to bring out emotion in imagery, but camera person was boring to me. I appreciate the film for what it is.. but I was just bored. It felt like it was trying too hard to be different. Cartel Land was fantastic, fast paced with endless beautiful images. It kept my attention and really told a more complete story in my opinion. Over the last few years of shooting my own work from Fiction, Commercial to Documentary I have enjoyed making all of them for different reasons, but as a cinematographer it always comes back to picking the right tools for the job. Images can be made on many devices, but what device will make it easiest to capture that moment beautifully.
I think that these films are defiantly ethical, just because they have a touchy subject does not mean that they should be ignored or censored. Filming someone with Alzheimer's in this case isn't taking advantage of them, it’s creating a story about how the filmmaker felt with her mother. Being too PC or walking on egg shells won't make you heard in any form of art. Art is loud, mean, loving, challenging. This doesn’t give people excuses to be shit heads, but you cannot be scared to tell a story because people might get upset. This goes for Cartel Land as well. This film brought a ton of attention to this part of the world and informed a lot of people. I think they well portrayed and made an impact with lots of people.
I plan on finishing this blog post later tonight but wanted to post at least half of my thoughts seeing as I have only 20 minutes left of Cartel Land and will not be able to finish until later this evening. I will go through as much as I recall about Camera person for now...
ReplyDeleteCamera Person:
As a whole, I thought the film was unexpectedly entertaining in that as the film went on, it sucked me in through the snip its of story that were there and they all began to resonate as time went on. There was no story carried throughout the film except the story of this camera woman's career. I loved how she used clips that she felt stuck with her the most and some were so visually appealing that I still think about them. The shot of her on the ground in the grass filming as the herder on his horse rounded up the sheep (i don't remember the animal just the shot) was spectacularly done with the camera peaking through the grass and the full view of the sky plus the animals and herder heading in the direction of the camera as they soon took over the shot.
Watching this film I almost started to pick up on a story only because of the way she used the camera and the way she tried to capture the most authentic shots of her subjects. She obviously tried to get multiple shots without posing people (as far as i can recall anyways) and the order in which this was edited helped to make it feel as if they was or could be a story. I could be wrong in my recollections but it almost seemed as though the more mundane shots that included very little dialogue or action was towards the beginning and everything escalated as time went out. It got more and more interesting of me. I realize this is a bunch of jibberish currently and I apologize that I don't remember more specifics of this film.
Peiheng He
ReplyDeleteI really like the doc “Cartel land”, it reached a very high level in the structure, editing, and the cinematography. “If not me then who?”, this is the sentence that most impressive me in the doc and it comes from the member of the Arizona border recon. I really like this sentence because the Arizona border recon is a team of volunteers that wanna to project their family by fighting against the criminals. They provide the safety of the country by gambling their life, they are the hero. The drug dealer also said something similar, but in an opposite way “If I am not doing this, others will do it”. And the reasons that they producing drug are because they are poor and can’t find other legal jobs. Bullshit! The real reason that they do this illegal business is because it earns a lot in a really fast way. These people are just lazy and don’t wanna to do hard working. It’s ironic that the doctor who is willing to help the people was ended being locked up in the prison by the government, but the criminals are still doing whatever they want outside. Even the militia started to produce drug after accepted by the government. The ending really touched my soul and I really feel angry about the Mexico government, but what can I do? I can’t do anything.
The cinematography in the “Cartel land” works very well. Similar to the “Cameraperson”, the cinematographer in the “Cartel land” shows us some very dangerous but precious shots. For example, when the self-defense team driving the car on the street, the sudden gunfire made all the people became disorder and tension, but the cinematographer was so braved that he shot the entire scene in such a dangerous situation. This kind of dangerous situation happened all the time in the doc and the cinematographer did the shots really well. The cinematographer is the soldier using the camera instead of the gun, they protecting the people by showing the fact and they are the hero.
Sarah Roston
ReplyDeleteI felt when I was watching Cameraperson that my attention span wasn’t fully there the entire time. It came in waves. Sometimes I was interested in the film because of certain scenes that caught my eye. For example, the scene of the filmmaker’s mom in the house. It was interesting to see their relationship and how her mom was maybe sick ( i think with maybe Alzheimer's?). Just to document that part and how the filmmaker, Kirsten Johnson, incorporated that particular scene into her film was really special, I thought. Again, I feel kind of awful because I didn’t watch the entire film how I typically watch Doc’s or other genre of films where I am engaged 100%. The cinematography from what I remember seeing, I thought was really good for someone that was traveling around and filming herself. I was impressed! Also, I think the role of cinematographer in documentary is important, but not the biggest part. Overall, it’s the message that you trying to send to your audience that matters.
After watching Cartel Land, I have to say that I thought the cinematographer was amazing. I am happy to say that this film kept my attention...how could it not though? What I loved about it was the risks that were taken to get certain shots. The bravery and dedication it took to get those astounds me. The film was really fast paced, so at certain times I felt kind of lost but overall I really enjoyed it. It felt at time likes a narrative and/or fictional film, which was something that I said when I saw Casting Jonbenet. Cartel Land inspired me to take action and to not be afraid when wanting to film something. To have the courage and stamina to get what you want done.
For me, 'Cartel Land' is a very beautiful blend of narrative filmmaking craft and the rugged realism of a documentary. The cinematographer as storyteller allows for an emphasis on the most fundamental aspect of film, visuals, as well as effective editing. I really love the parallel storytelling between the Autodefensas and the Arizona militiamen. While the long-form editing in the doc is really good, some of the short-form editing seems a little too quick, specifically in the first half. For example, the scene where the Autodefensas square off with the Mexican Army felt a little too easily resolved, as if the doc was more concerned with hitting a story beat rather than immersing the audience in a real moment. This is probably the biggest downside to making a documentary feel as much like a narrative film as possible, as regular documentaries are already manipulative enough. Luckily, this is not a recurring problem. Later on we get really great moments like when the car is shot at, and the cameraman leaps out and adjusts his exposure mid-gunfight. It's great that 'talking heads' are kept to a minimum, and that the visual beauty (and ugliness) mostly drives the story. The "across-the-border" transitions are especially effective in bridging the gap between the Mexicans and Americans, limiting the use of on-screen text.
ReplyDeleteBeginning the film with a scene involving the cartel members and their process and motivations is a very smart move. It casts a shadow on the events of the rest of the film. We see what may have driven these men to do the things that they do, and we see they may not have been very different from a young milita member. We get the sense that there is a thin line separating a paramilitary group from a gang, and all the divides the two is the choices we make. The choice to end the doc with the same meth-cooking scene as it began with suggests a cyclical nature to the violence, suggesting a never-ending state of bloody war that many people are all too familiar with. This is another example of the brilliant visual storytelling and long-form editing that makes 'Cartel Land' stand out. In my opinion, Matthew Heineman has excelled in his craft.
I want to start off by saying, I LOVED 'Cameraperson'. I believe every person needs to see this film if they are interested in documentaries and documentary filmmaking. It is an homage to documentary filmmakers. What made 'Cameraperson' an enjoyable documentary was simply her use of cinematography. From complying dozens of little clips from her other projects, the filmmaker was able to create a beautiful almost dream like documentary. It included outtakes, offhand moments, snatches of time when the camera just happened to be running. “These are the images that marked me,” she says in an introductory note, and she wove them together into a unique and beautiful film. Cinematographers truly are invisible artists, especially in documentaries. I felt surprisingly emotional while watching this. I don’t know if it was the story with her mom and family or the drastic and sudden changes of landscape and story. From how we are in her living room one moment and the next in an Iran market square. Every shot was simply enchanting and mesmerizing. These are the kinds of documentaries I enjoy the most because I relate and find it almost relaxing to see the pre rolling shots. I'll post my 'Cartel Land' response shortly!
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to believe 'Cartel Land' is a documentary. If this doc hadn’t won best cinematography, I don’t know what would. I also have to credit the sound editing. Both sound and camera work were so crisp. I agree with Sarah's point and many others about how far the cinematographer went to get the shot. The courage they must’ve had. But then I’m also thinking, how are you not dead? How are you able to go into these places and get this footage. It’s both remarkable and questionable. We are there standing with each person, with each side. The world needs more cinematographers like Matthew. Ones who take the chance and initiative in getting what they need and want for the story. But when is enough enough. Is it worth risking your life to get a shot? Maybe. Maybe not.
ReplyDeleteSean McGann
ReplyDeleteI thought Cartel Land was compelling to a point. It was certainly interesting to be in the middle of the action most of the time, and it felt very cinematic with several camera angles in real-life situations. I noticed in the opening credits that Kathryn Bigelow was an executive producer, and it felt very fitting, as the cinematography and story of the film felt very much like The Hurt Locker or Zero Dark Thirty.
My biggest complaint about the film is how unfocused the film feels at times. I feel the parts with the Arizona vigilantes could have been scrapped. Every time it cuts back to the Autodefensas, their story is so much more interesting and given more screen time. Then, that momentum is lost when it cuts back to Arizona for a hot minute. These jarring cutaways really brought the movie down in my opinion.
Other than that, I like the voyeurism of the film and its cinematography (well deserved win at Sundance, though I feel the story could have been a lot better had it focused solely on the Autodefensas and Dr. Mireles. I give this film a 9 out of 10.
As for Cameraperson, what a relaxing documentary! I love this idea of taking alternate takes from movies you've done, piecing them together, and creating this beautiful reflection on what your life has been up to that point. As the film was made by a skilled cinematographer, the film naturally looks exquisite, from beautiful Bosnian landscapes set to an orchestral score to first-person Ferris wheel rides. While it does have a semblance of a story (Johnson's mother suffers from and succumbs to Alzheimer's), the non-linear structure reminded me of films like Samsara, making it all the more chill and immersive. I definitely give Cameraperson a 10 out of 10.
# 8 Blog Cartel Land/Cameraperson
ReplyDeleteCartel Land
My favorite part of this film is the quote in the beginning by Mr. Foley , when he mentioned that we all feel like we are doing something good. How we all feel that we are fighting evil. I also think it’s interesting the phrase of vigilante and how people that are concerned vigilantes are portrayed by the media. The idea of people who are not waiting around for someone to save them, and taking action into their own hands is an interesting concept. I appreciate that the director Matthew Heineman showed both sides of the border, the Arizona Border vigilantes and Michoacán México vigilantes. I think that ethically it was important to show both groups of vigilantes. The director switches from Mr. Foley and Dr. Mireles, in doing so,he showed that they both wanted the same things. In addition it was important that the director Matthew Heineman did not generalize all Mexicans , as if all Mexicans are all working for the cartel which is not true. Instead he showed the audience the diligence of the people in Mexico fighting to protect their families from the cartel. I was very disappoint upon hearing that the . Autodefensas we infiltrated by the cartel and the government knew about it. I agree that Dr. Mireles, imprisonment was connected to a government conspiracy in hopes that he doesn't regain his motivation and stop the cartels again. I believe the film was very authentic because it tells the stories from both sides. I also felt that the film had great evidence to support the claims presented in the film. Cartel Land is both entertaining, informative and riveting. The stories if the survivors who had been captured by the cartel and stories of people whose family members had been affected by the cartel. I really appreciated that director Matthew Heineman humanized the cartel people and not just showing them as these evil monsters who want to hurt innocent people. Instead he gave insight as to why they do what they do and if given a choice they probably would do something different. I felt that the film was well shot and functioned much like a narrative which what I think I enjoyed most.
Cameraperson.
I really didn't like the film camera person. I read that her film was suppose to be a memoir of all the films she has done, which l kind of figured. To me it was a little slow in pace for me and I didn't really care for all the random images. I do feel that some of the images she displayed were very beautifully shot . For instance I loved the images of the children dancing , and her kids with their grandfather. I do feel that the director was trying to tell a story , there were several connections to the images in each frame . For instance the connections she made to death and how people react to death. I also found the information about the man who was dragged by a chain and how that again connected to death and people’s reaction to death. I felt that in someway she wanted to tell a story about her mother, possibly her mother’s death from Alzheimer's. It seemed that way from what I could see from the images she presented of her mother in the film. I thought she made some interesting connects; however, I prefer Cartel Land. I prefer a narrative rather than have a series of images and try to find the connections. Then later figure out what the director wants me to understand from the images given in the film.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would like to start off by saying that both these films excite me greatly because I want to become a documentary cinematographer. To me the films Cartel Land and Cameraperson are very different in style and approach, but I believe they have two major things in common: they are both visually striking/verite and were both made by people who I believe have a great desire to make films with an activist/expose edge.
ReplyDeleteIn Cameraperson, Kirsten Johnson becomes, in a way, the protagonist of her own film. Even though her face only appears once and very briefly towards the end of the film, her voice (as captured by the in-camera audio) is present throughout. At its core, Cameraperson is a film about perspective and observation, told through the lens of a lens. The role of the documentary cinematographer is brought to light through this film - from the beginning scene where Johnson pulls out the grass that is blocking her shot of the sheep herder, to the questions she asks the blinded Afghan boy, to the bravery and devotion to her subjects she shows in following the testosterone-leaking boxer through the halls of boxing stadium.
This devotion to the subject cinematographically is equally as present in Cartel Land; director Mathew Heineman is equally or perhaps even more willing to step into a dangerous situation with his 7D to capture the rawness of a scene, as shown in the shootout scene between Autodefensas and the Cartel member's hideout.
A critique that I read in the NYT article of Cartel Land was that it did not elaborate on the policies and broader societal context on the War on Drugs in the Mexican-American border region. I have mixed feeling about this critique. I know that when I first saw Cartel Land over a year ago I was completely blown away by it, and it inspired me to do more research the subject of Mexican drug violence. (Narco Cultura is another controversial yet illuminating documentary on the subject) While I agree that the film falters a bit in providing context for the events it showcases, I also believe that doing so may detract from its effectiveness.
These were two very different documentaries from a narrative standpoint. Cameraperson felt like a nostalgic film reel, while Cartel Land was an intense and political piece. I enjoyed the structure of each. Starting with Cameraperson- the long silent shots were not too dominating in the film. Each shot was carefully spread out so as not to bore the viewers. Enough footage from different events is used, but not enough to focus on any one issue, other than the Bosnian family she revisited. It felt like a reel, but under the surface of that I felt like I was experiencing what it would be like to be a documentary filmmaker, from planning shots to working in highly dangerous situations. With Cartel Land, I was also given an up-close experience. This film was far more complex than Cameraperson, however I felt that same level of risk. Having Mexican family, I was a mazed to find out that this was a reality near the boarder and how dangerous the country was as a result of the drug cartels. Even without my personal connection, the film made me feel for the people and take more interest in the issues and politics of Mexico. The cinematography for both was beautifully composed and used meaningfully throughout both pictures. Even when the equipment wasn't all that nice, the filmmakers tried to maintain good, appealing composition in their documentaries. As superficial as it is, even for documentaries the look of a film can make of break it, viewer-wise, and they managed to look good and tell interesting stories.
ReplyDeleteIan Roozrokh
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I had to miss class last week and, therefore, missed the viewing of Cameraperson. However, Carel Land was very interestingly complex documentary which made me constantly think both about the ethics of the film and how the cinematography played such a major role in the story Matthew Heineman wanted to tell. Although the aesthetics of this film played as key component to the believably and understanding of the stories, which were a relatively new to me, the plot kept me more invested into what was happening within the dynamic of what was being shown and when.
Through the cinematography, and the tightness of the two plots, I was anticipating a personal connection between the two stories being told, but it never got to that point; only the comparison was being shed light on. Yet the cinematography also gave me the perspective I needed to make that comparison more clearly within myself. It allowed me to think freely as an individual and make my own decisions by using, for instance, handheld work following a protagonist (or antagonist in this case), or point of view shots from crowds from speeches; I felt as though I was there experiencing all of the action.
Overall, I enjoyed the film, although some prior knowledge of the terminology used in Mexico could have been helpful, I believe the filmmaker told the story in the most ethically responsible way while also capturing a real, point of view of both stories with his beautiful cinematography.
Wow. What I felt during Cameraperson I can’t really explain. There is something extremely visceral, personal, and profound about this film. The cinematography off it all was just as beautiful as the organic moments they caught. It felt to me like the feeling of nostalgia you get when looking through old photos and videos of nonsense from your childhood but with so much more meaning and perspective. There was such a variety of environments caught on camera, all remaining organic and pure while being beautiful. What struck me the most was the shots that were shaky, moving, and adjusting. To so many DP’s these are mistakes (and for any other film, they would be) but for the purpose of this film they reminded the audience of Kirsten Johnston’s presence. It might not have been imperative to the film for casual viewers, but wanting to be a documentary filmmaker myself, made me almost weepy. Her awe, her wonder, and her presence and understanding with her mother all hit home so hard. This film couldn’t have been compiled more beautifully and, frankly, I could have watched hours more. When the credits rolled I was actually upset.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Cartel Land, I was shocked. I feel like I have seen so many interpretations of cartels and drugs wars in Hollywood films as well as documentaries but none have struck me quite like this one did. I want to say it was because of the graphic imagery, but it wasn’t. It was the sincerity of it all. The beauty of the cinematography shed a light on what an incredible place Mexico could be; The juxtaposing shots of blood running down the sidewalks and suicidal children, though, are what added so much reality to it all. The fact it wasn’t a focus on the cartels themselves and more on the opposition is what pleased me the most. It principalized how the Autodefensas were being portrayed in the media and that added conflict for me. It had me wondering what I should believe but I was always pulled back to support of Mireles and the Autodefensas because of how genuine and beautiful the imagery of them was. I never doubted them and their plans until the end when they realized they were in over their heads. I am shocked by how seamless and beautiful this film was for being shot in such a volatile place. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been.
Trina Mulligan
ReplyDelete“Cartel Land” was definitely a weirdly powerful film for me to watch. Initially, I wasn’t sure if this was a recreated documentary or if it was actual footage because the cinematography was so epic and incredibly composed from shot to shot. I think this was the first documentary where I was actively noting the cinematography choices within each shot which was awesome! However because the cinematography and situations seemed too good to be true, I found myself doubting the authenticity of the film. Matthew Heineman definitely had to jump through some hoops to be able to film this story and as the film progressed, it began to feel more authentic and real, especially with the use of photographs depicting the violent murders of cartel victims.
I think that what struck me even harder than the cinematography was the actual story behind the cartels. I felt incredibly uninformed and idiotic going into the film thinking that I would see something similar to Sicario. The amount of violence that the cartels inflict is insane and the fact that I never see anything about it on the news is even more insane. I think a lot of this has to due with the racism and stigma against Mexico for crossing our borders. Matthew Heineman did a great job getting the amount of footage and leeway to film that he did! He also kept the film seemingly unbiased by showing the different perspectives of each side of the story: the cartels, the villagers, the government and police, and the U.S. vigilantes.
I definitely found myself liking “Camera Person” a lot more which isn’t surprising because I generally tend to lean toward the more experimental type documentaries. I honestly believe that Kirsten Johnson has the ideal life that I am striving to get at. The amount of footage and incredible things she witnessed on her travels is exactly what I want to find. It was definitely a story about herself rather than the subjects she featured and I found it most powerful when the camera finally flips and we see her with her mother. I am definitely more interested in creating documentaries about universal truths and larger ideas rather than focusing in on smaller stories though they interest me as well.
The cinematography of both films however, blew me away and made me want to get out there and film film film!
I happened to enjoy both Cameraperson and Cartel Land’s narrative and storytelling styles, but I have mixed feelings about their cinematography.
ReplyDeleteCameraperson is much more willing to allow the audience to be conscious of the fact that this is just being filmed by a person- like you or me. Hence the title. There’s often a lack of stability, ever-changing focus, awkward framing, and off-screen chatter. It feels authentic, and it absolutely makes high-risk situations (like getting caught filming the entrance of the supermax prison that held Al-qaeda members) so much more engaging. But how did I feel watching it? For the most part, frustrated.
For what Cameraperson is, it’s still impressive that we can watch a full film that was made this way and still be able to comprehend what is happening. But unless the moment was tense enough, I’d grow tired of the “shaky-cam”. I sometimes found myself unable to focus on what was even happening because the movement was so distracting. That’s where Cartel Land prevailed.
Cartel Land allowed me to live in the moment of the dangerous excavations throughout Mexico by keeping these “first person” scenes to a minimum, and only saving them for the most heart-pounding moments so as to not let the perspective lose impact. I maybe would have cared less about an Autodefensa slowly peeking around a fence while gunshots boomed behind it if I were following him from behind the whole film anyways. Luckily, this technique was used sparingly, and it forced me to notice when something was a big deal. It also helped that Cartel Land incorporated regular B-roll and talking heads as a contrast for those scenes that are more introductory or informative.
As far as Matthew Heineman’s ethics go, I’d say that there’s only a possibility of this being unethical because of possible exploitation of the dead used on camera. I’m not sure how I feel about that.
But a scene in particular that I loved was the outdoor Autodefensa meeting where the townspeople asked the leader questions, gave him warnings, and even volunteered to join. The discussion recorded painted such a telling picture of how there were so many opposing views and worries about this situation. Moments like these made me feel comfortable that this story was being told properly, and it sounds like the New York Times was just upset about the lack of foundation information about the vigilantes and less about ethics, anyways.
CAMERAPERSON was exactly as the filmmaker intended it to be-- a memoir of her life's work as a documentary cinematographer. I believe that the filmmaker created this doc for herself first and an audience second, wanting to make a self-reflective piece in which she could really evaluate and cherish her work and why she loves what she does. Because of this personal approach, it became a unique and authentic experience for anyone watching and willing to participate in her story. I enjoyed how the film was very raw in the way that she deliberately and constantly reminded the viewer that she was there-- active and involved with every shot. I'm sure that displaying her process was a vulnerable and brave thing to do, but it gave us a behind-the-scenes glimpse to making a documentary that you never get to see.
ReplyDeleteI am not a big fan of Kirsten Johnson's cinematography itself, and perhaps I just don't understand it. It seems that for every single movie and situation she was filming, she shot it with the same camera and the same shaky and spontaneous hand-held style-- making most of it feel run-and-gun and not as premeditated and meaningful and it could be. There is definitely a time and place to film in this way as the story calls for it and to evoke certain feelings and emotions, but to have the same style for every film seems amateur. Or, perhaps that is her style set in stone and she's only hired onto films that like that style? I guess I am more of a fan of still, steady, and carefully composed shots rather than her style, but I'd like to watch some of her films in full to gain a fair opinion. Maybe in the context of the greater story, my mind will be changed!
Moving onto CARTEL LAND, I enjoyed this film even more and was not expecting it to be as intense and cinematically crafted as it was. Some of the shots they were able to get baffled me, and the amount of coverage and quick-thinking to create such cinematic imagery made it feel as if it was a full camera crew shooting a controlled narrative film. For instance, there was a conversation in the back seat of a car, and the videographer managed to capture all of the dialogue, each person talking, AND insert shots of what their hands were doing-- all without missing anything or breaking continuity. This coverage they were able to get under such pressure-- riding in the back of a pick up truck, ducking behind cover, breaching houses, meeting with the actual cartel-- impressed me even more than the beautiful imagery, lighting and shot compositions, and I think the award for best cinematography was well deserved.
I think the question of ethics comes down to the choice of the filmmaker at the very beginning of a project. Going into making a documentary, you must decide for yourself early on what your approach will be and where your lines will be drawn. Will you be 100% hands off and film everything without interfering, or do you draw the line when your life or another life is at stake? Will you rat out your subjects of you personally think what they're doing is wrong, or will you force yourself to remain unbiased? These are decisions you have to make at the start, because you wouldn't want to wait to get involved in a situation where you have to make such a big and important decision on the spot and possible ruin the intention of your film and what you needed to capture.
Cameraperson was one of the most beautiful pieces of art I have ever seen. Not one bit was boring to me, which speaks to my focused interest in the visual aspects a documentary has on me. Something about having no real clarity of what the meaning was throughout made this film so powerful and intriguing. The varieties of footage alone is remarkable in every way, just thinking of the adventures she had to go on gets my heart beating a little faster in the form of pure jealousy. Her experiences are something I would die to hear about and only could dream of to even experience myself. Something about raw footage in its purest form is so infatuating, I love the effect it gave to the story she was trying to tell about the cameraperson. There is no flaws in that documentary besides I wish to see more of the footage she didn’t put in!! In Cartel Land the story alone is captivating, I mean we hear so many stories told over and over again of this topic and we see it exaggerated throughout entertainment. That paired with the eye opening cinematography brought something so unique visually. For both films, it’s simple they share remarkable visuals, so remarkable it shocks you to actually think about the extensive work and risks they took to get the shot. Ethically, they both had a duty to shed light and tell a story at the end of the day- I don’t believe they were in the wrong for exposing a certain experience. Morally? Yeah that could be tricky to say, but at the end of the day it was an artistic risk that ultimately created a bigger effect.
ReplyDeleteZoey Danielson
ReplyDeleteCameraperson is something that I have never experienced before. I honestly had to watch it again after I watched it the first time because there was just so much to take in I didn’t know what to think of it.
Between Cameraperson and Cartel Land, I felt like there was this quite way about Cameraperson that Cartel Land didn’t have. It seemed like the person filming in Cameraperson had all the time in the world. They were present and they had time to experience, there was nothing rushing them. It’s very intimate and very beautiful quite cinematography. We get to see how an experienced cinematographer views the world, which was really exciting.
Cartel Land had a sense of urgency about it. It seemed to be on a bigger scale, there was more weight put on this documentary. It was bigger than itself. The cinematography in this seemed very fast, there was always something going, something happening. I guess that’s to be expected when you are filming vigilante groups who are going up against the drug cartel. Just another Sunday afternoon, am I right?
I think the main take away from these documentaries is that the cinematographer is everything. You have to have a cinematographer that is ready for anything. One that is flexible. One that is able to think quick on their feet and decide which shot is more important than the other. What is more valuable to the doc, and so on.
I think that these films are both ethical. Some subjects are questionable, but just because they are doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be documented or noticed or acknowledged. Filming people in dangerous situations or people with disabilities isn’t a negative thing as long as you mindful about it. I think as long as you go into something with the right intentions and are respectful and are there for good reasons, it’s ethical. Is something ethical is such a loaded question anyway, it’s definitely hard to give a definitive answer. I do think that these doc’s were made for the right reasons and therefore were ethical.