EXTRA CREDIT > DOC10 (THURS MARCH 30 - SUN APRIL 2)

Some super fresh documentary films are coming to Chicago this Thursday through this Sunday, and I will give you extra credit if you go see one of them and post an inspired critique detailing what you saw and how you felt about it.

Please check out the incredible schedule, choose the film you want to see the most, grab your discounted ticket (students get 25% off), and post a thorough, thoughtful response here which lets us know the following:

• The title of the film you saw and why you chose to see it
• A 1-2 sentence logline describing the film 
• What you thought of the film conceptually/dramatically (in terms of its Authenticity, Authority, Ethics/Responsibility, Evidence, Argument, etc.)
• What you thought of the film aesthetically (in terms of its use of camera, editing, sound/music, etc.)
• Any additional details about the experience you had of going to see the film (in terms of audience response, the screening venue, etc.)

To receive extra credit, be sure to upload your reflection here by no later than 5pm next Tuesday April 4.

I'm planning to go myself, so here's hoping I see you there!

LET THE FIRE BURN

I'll keep it short for this week's post, in part because you've all been working so hard. That said, and as we prepare to discuss the use of archival footage in documentary-making when we return from break, I would love for you to watch Let the Fire Burn - available on iTunes and Amazon for $2,99, and on YouTube and elsewhere for $3.99 - and let me know what you think of this film, particularly about the way it uses archival footage to tell its thoughtful and ultimately potent story.

Write whatever you'd like this week, but please remember to support your assertions by referencing specific moments, scenes or sequences from the film. And if in your reply you can address concepts of Authenticity, Authority, Evidence, Responsibility and how they relate to your understanding and appreciation of Let the Fire Burn - all the better.

Good luck, have a wonderful break, and please remember to post your response here by no later than 5pm on Tuesday, March 28!

TABLOID

John Grierson famously defined documentary as "the creative treatment of actuality," and for this week's post, I want you to watch Errol Morris's Tabloid on Netflix and consider all the weird and wonderful ways in which Morris creatively treats the truth, as well as how he uses visual display to generate meaning. And do the film's style and sensibility - as well as its main nonfictional performer - contribute to your understanding of its theme (which is...)? How?

Errol Morris (The Thin Blue Line; Fog of War) is one of the most influential directors working today. Before his death, Roger Ebert wrote, "After twenty years of reviewing films, I haven't found another filmmaker who intrigues me more...Errol Morris is like a magician, and as great a filmmaker as Hitchcock or Fellini.”

Write whatever you'd like, but please be sure to address your feelings about the way Tabloid utilizes the aesthetics of filmmaking to tell its story - Morris himself says Tabloid is in many ways a story about the way stories are told. Is the film authentic? Was the filmmaker responsible to its subject and main character? Would you have made it differently? If so, how?

Finally, do you think the film's main subject Joyce McKinney was right to file a lawsuit against Morris (article here) and travel around the country attending several screenings in protest (even more amazing article here)? Needless to say, this story is a hoot, Morris is a genius, and I look forward to discussing both with you in more detail when we next meet.

In the meantime, I hope you enjoy Tabloid and can't wait to read your thoughts about the film and its aesthetics - by no later than 5pm next Tuesday of course.

ROOM 237

There are two types of non-fiction films: those that use dramatic conventions to tell their stories, and those that, as one of your recommended texts Crafting Truth states, "aim at developing experimental or poetic ways of arranging story information."

Some documentaries - called "essays" - contradict the assumption that the world can be known in a definitive way. The "essay" film shifts the focus from the end product of the investigative effort to the process by which knowledge is created. To speak metaphorically, it is the movement, not the destination, that matters the most.

Consider this as you watch Rodney Ascher's fascinating film Room 237 on Netflix. What specifically about the story - poetically or otherwise - resonated with you? Is the film dramatic? Is it poetic? One thing's for sure: Ascher's film draws attention not only to the various theories and hidden meanings in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining but goes further to reveal the subjectivity of the documentary maker and the subjective nature of knowledge and understanding itself.

I look forward to reading your answers to those questions, along with the rest of your comments by no later than 5pm next Tuesday.

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.