Thursday, August 7, 2008
idea: we don't know what connects these men until late in film. Life stories going back, lives go from normal and regress into the madness of war and ultimately the crash. Who are these men why are they all in this film together becomes a natural discovery by the audience. We dig pass the years of trying to readjust to society after a war experience. Some readjuSt and their struggle is concealed the rest are swept under the rug. We are forced to hide these experiences so that they can happen again.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
faults of my smoking doc
creating a film without a preconcieved intention.
Do I agree with smoking in general?
Do I agree with a smoking ban on campus?
These were decisions that should have been made at the inception of the film.
Do I agree with smoking in general?
Do I agree with a smoking ban on campus?
These were decisions that should have been made at the inception of the film.
viewing of "Salesman"
Direct cinema
Conflict:
If I don't buy a $50 bible right now, I am going to hell. (figurative hell)
vs.
If I don't sell a $50 dollar bible right now, I am going to hell. (literal hell)
who's hell is more real?
neither. Both sides are connected with financial problems yet pitted against each other because of the need to maintain a comfortable living. The Boss implies that if they do not sell it is their faults, while family pressures and the threat of serious debt makes the buyers feel the same vulnerability. both have to answer to some higher authority, whether it be an asshole boss or the IRS. Both sides feel contempt for each other because of this manipulation.
"hardworking people" vs "hardworking people" <--yet they are not aware of this connection because of the creation of opposing teams in a sense. Manipulation.
A Binary Opposition
What is the salesman thinking during a sale vs the customer?
(yes! commission vs yes! salvation)
(no! i've robbed this person vs no! i'm buying this out of guilt)
Antagonist is ambigous- the salesmen? the maliable customers? the bosses? christianity? American consumerism? God???
... the film raises a larger question
Narrative voice
-absence of narrative voice
--salesmen tell their own story. Because of this they create two personalities. 1. The perfect American Salesman and family man and 2. the frustrated and bitter failure. The mask vs. the reality of body language. Time and space plays a large role within these two points of personality within direct cinema the same way hollywood cinema utilizes city vs. wilderness. The buyers home vs. the sellers refuge (mostly hotel rooms.)
--display their own faults/strengths
---implication of drunkenness (almost always when in the previously mentioned sellers refuge.)
-filmmakers' voice transparent through editing
--protagonist/antagonist never established
-mashing of scenes (almost in a russian structuralist sense. added meaning through the contrasting of immediate scene changes.)
--conversations constructed through editing
voice of filmmakers concealed yet present
language entirely defined by subjects
-filmmakers language comes only in editing
--Catholic, irish, british, CPB...
---we become familiar with these terms without definition
Atmosphere of film
-exists entirely within itself
--film establishes its own territory, limits, boundaries (bible salesman's world)
---out of context, these scenes, fragmented convos would mean nothing. within... everything.
-setting is vague, transient, universally american
Characterization
-characters remained unnamed...faceless (they don't. first thing we get is actual name and nickname. Later explained through one character. Although I do believe actions are more prevalent than names. could be a great thing to test within our story.)
--actions more prevalent than names
--more about situation than individuals (great. especially within our story. could possibly reveal that they are different people late in the films arc to show the unity they were unaware of for 30 years.)
---sin is greater than man
---the situation is on trial, not the individuals
Camera work
balance between:
-body language
-speech
-reaction
FOCUS ON SOLITARY MOMENTS- What is this person thinking? (could be anything depending on context)
a ton of off screen space is used as well. creates the contemplative audience because we are often focusing on the people that are not creating the action in the scene. We in a sense are forced to identify with the people and react as if we were being sold an overpriced bible as well.
Editing
FLAGRANTLY MANIPULATIVE
Juxtapositions are
-contrast between strengths and weaknesses of main characters/salesmen
--leaves judgment to audience (goodness juxtaposed with equal evil) <<---yee yee
Questions raised by this film for the audience:
who are these men?
what are they doing?
why are they doing it?
...are these questions answered within the film? (of course but it is not obvious... a good documentary film creates the illusion of objectivity. Each juxtaposition is contrived but they are so closely balanced that it seems that the conclusion is left to the audience) objectivity is this close balance. reality is different within everyone and allowing the audience to give the film it's ultimate meaning is a huge reason i love the docs i do. we should discuss this further.
Questions raised by this film for the filmmaker:
-how many cameras are used on each scene? according to the end statement only one. which adds hugely to the importance of good editing and connections of different settings into one conversation (the different hotel rooms in which one monologue is created.)
-was the creation of this film incited as a statement or an exploration?
(did they think bible salesmen were hypocrites or was it an honest discovery? how much of this was the salesmen doing what they do versus how much was contrived by the filmmakers through camera perspective, scene selection, shot juxtaposition... etc. How much of this statement was contrived before the making of this film?) (I believe it adds to the delicate balance of the ambiguity of a defined antagonist. I feel we will have an opinion of what we want to do by the time of shooting due to the factual research; at the same time we must never allow this idea to manipulate the possibility of learning more. We must try and have both. the balance between preparation without losing the interest in the possibility of things we do not know creates a great story. This idea makes me think of the Thin Blue Line and the idea of detective filmmaking.)
-how does the camera not seem to affect the scene, characters? How does it remain seemingly invisible and honest? Editing I believe. Depending on the amount of time we have to shoot will directly effect the comfort levels of our subjects. On the same note, it comes down to the brilliant editing of different times to form one conversation as mentioned earlier. Some of these cuts were as short as five seconds. and immediately returned to the set up shot.
- how are we captivated by a repetative scene? (guys selling bibles) Brilliance of the character development with the salesmen who eventually gets upset in front of the customers. I reacted to his character the most because he had more time in the film. finding the more intriguing subject and implimenting this can add wonders to the story arc.)
CAMERA ACTS AS A STENOGRAPHER
-we
reflection of more than just the subjects... we notice subplots... sub-themes: sexism (men making decisions), racism, nature of salesmanship (not about the product, about the sale), family power dynamics of the fifties. these seem like honest discoveries made by and threaded throughout the film. voice of filmmakers shining through simulated "objectivity" yee yee agreed
Conflict:
If I don't buy a $50 bible right now, I am going to hell. (figurative hell)
vs.
If I don't sell a $50 dollar bible right now, I am going to hell. (literal hell)
who's hell is more real?
neither. Both sides are connected with financial problems yet pitted against each other because of the need to maintain a comfortable living. The Boss implies that if they do not sell it is their faults, while family pressures and the threat of serious debt makes the buyers feel the same vulnerability. both have to answer to some higher authority, whether it be an asshole boss or the IRS. Both sides feel contempt for each other because of this manipulation.
"hardworking people" vs "hardworking people" <--yet they are not aware of this connection because of the creation of opposing teams in a sense. Manipulation.
A Binary Opposition
What is the salesman thinking during a sale vs the customer?
(yes! commission vs yes! salvation)
(no! i've robbed this person vs no! i'm buying this out of guilt)
Antagonist is ambigous- the salesmen? the maliable customers? the bosses? christianity? American consumerism? God???
... the film raises a larger question
Narrative voice
-absence of narrative voice
--salesmen tell their own story. Because of this they create two personalities. 1. The perfect American Salesman and family man and 2. the frustrated and bitter failure. The mask vs. the reality of body language. Time and space plays a large role within these two points of personality within direct cinema the same way hollywood cinema utilizes city vs. wilderness. The buyers home vs. the sellers refuge (mostly hotel rooms.)
--display their own faults/strengths
---implication of drunkenness (almost always when in the previously mentioned sellers refuge.)
-filmmakers' voice transparent through editing
--protagonist/antagonist never established
-mashing of scenes (almost in a russian structuralist sense. added meaning through the contrasting of immediate scene changes.)
--conversations constructed through editing
voice of filmmakers concealed yet present
language entirely defined by subjects
-filmmakers language comes only in editing
--Catholic, irish, british, CPB...
---we become familiar with these terms without definition
Atmosphere of film
-exists entirely within itself
--film establishes its own territory, limits, boundaries (bible salesman's world)
---out of context, these scenes, fragmented convos would mean nothing. within... everything.
-setting is vague, transient, universally american
Characterization
-characters remained unnamed...faceless (they don't. first thing we get is actual name and nickname. Later explained through one character. Although I do believe actions are more prevalent than names. could be a great thing to test within our story.)
--actions more prevalent than names
--more about situation than individuals (great. especially within our story. could possibly reveal that they are different people late in the films arc to show the unity they were unaware of for 30 years.)
---sin is greater than man
---the situation is on trial, not the individuals
Camera work
balance between:
-body language
-speech
-reaction
FOCUS ON SOLITARY MOMENTS- What is this person thinking? (could be anything depending on context)
a ton of off screen space is used as well. creates the contemplative audience because we are often focusing on the people that are not creating the action in the scene. We in a sense are forced to identify with the people and react as if we were being sold an overpriced bible as well.
Editing
FLAGRANTLY MANIPULATIVE
Juxtapositions are
-contrast between strengths and weaknesses of main characters/salesmen
--leaves judgment to audience (goodness juxtaposed with equal evil) <<---yee yee
Questions raised by this film for the audience:
who are these men?
what are they doing?
why are they doing it?
...are these questions answered within the film? (of course but it is not obvious... a good documentary film creates the illusion of objectivity. Each juxtaposition is contrived but they are so closely balanced that it seems that the conclusion is left to the audience) objectivity is this close balance. reality is different within everyone and allowing the audience to give the film it's ultimate meaning is a huge reason i love the docs i do. we should discuss this further.
Questions raised by this film for the filmmaker:
-how many cameras are used on each scene? according to the end statement only one. which adds hugely to the importance of good editing and connections of different settings into one conversation (the different hotel rooms in which one monologue is created.)
-was the creation of this film incited as a statement or an exploration?
(did they think bible salesmen were hypocrites or was it an honest discovery? how much of this was the salesmen doing what they do versus how much was contrived by the filmmakers through camera perspective, scene selection, shot juxtaposition... etc. How much of this statement was contrived before the making of this film?) (I believe it adds to the delicate balance of the ambiguity of a defined antagonist. I feel we will have an opinion of what we want to do by the time of shooting due to the factual research; at the same time we must never allow this idea to manipulate the possibility of learning more. We must try and have both. the balance between preparation without losing the interest in the possibility of things we do not know creates a great story. This idea makes me think of the Thin Blue Line and the idea of detective filmmaking.)
-how does the camera not seem to affect the scene, characters? How does it remain seemingly invisible and honest? Editing I believe. Depending on the amount of time we have to shoot will directly effect the comfort levels of our subjects. On the same note, it comes down to the brilliant editing of different times to form one conversation as mentioned earlier. Some of these cuts were as short as five seconds. and immediately returned to the set up shot.
- how are we captivated by a repetative scene? (guys selling bibles) Brilliance of the character development with the salesmen who eventually gets upset in front of the customers. I reacted to his character the most because he had more time in the film. finding the more intriguing subject and implimenting this can add wonders to the story arc.)
CAMERA ACTS AS A STENOGRAPHER
-we
reflection of more than just the subjects... we notice subplots... sub-themes: sexism (men making decisions), racism, nature of salesmanship (not about the product, about the sale), family power dynamics of the fifties. these seem like honest discoveries made by and threaded throughout the film. voice of filmmakers shining through simulated "objectivity" yee yee agreed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
