assignment 4

In my opinion, the movie “black mirror” is totally realistic movie. People in this movie live in like jail. Their life is very simple. They earn coin if they ride a bicycle. Cyber coin can buy foods, daily necessity, and even cyber costume.  I think that this movie compare people in the movie to people in real world. We didn’t expect that we use smartphones, but we are using it. We accustomed ourselves to cyber life. We are so friendly with technology items such as laptop, tablet pc, cellphones.

People in the movie also watched many kinds of TV shows. Most programs are lewd such as pornography, bullying fat people like that. This scene looks like us. Most media broadcast and publish provocative articles or videos to pay attention.

One scene that I am shocked was hotshot TV program. This show is only way to live better life than like jail with black screens. I thought woman character refuge their proposal, and finish the movie as happy ending. But she didn’t and man character also took their proposal. I think it describes human’s weakness of mind.

In this movie, most people on the bicycle became passive human who live in a closed, and formal life. In our real life, we are beginning to resemble that people.

Overall, I think this movie gave me us critical message of media effect.

7. The Paradox of Documentary

The documentary “The Unknown Known” by Errol Morris Errol Morris attempted to establish a personal link with us, the audience, to place emphasis on the conversation with Donald Rumsfeld and the themes of  “truth”, “known”, and “unknown” that occur throughout the entire film by employing personal camera tactics, utilizing real world news clips, articles, etc., and by utilizing dark ominous music.

Utilizing a personal camera style, Errol Morris attempts to establish connection with the audience by giving the documentary the feel as if the audience is participating in a conversation with Donald Rumsfeld. To this end, the camera is positioned as such that it appears as if Donald Rumsfeld is talking directly into the camera. This serves to cast a negative light on Donald Rumsfeld by highlighting his various gestures, facial expressions, and hesitations in his answering of various questions asked by the interviewer. Furthermore, Errol Morris brought a sense of skepticism by allowing the audience to hear the interviewer ask Donald Rumsfeld various questions with a sense of doubt present within the interviewer's tone of voice. This in combination with the themes of “truth”, “known”, and “unknown” result in the audience constantly questioning and doubting Donald Rumsfeld’s responses.

Donald Rumsfeld’s responses were subsequently placed in comparison to various scenes, and clips inserted by Errol Morris that depicted real world events, conferences, and conversations that Donald Rumsfeld actually had. One example of this was a news clip highlighting Baghdad in chaos which served to conflict with Donald Rumsfeld interpretation that Iraqi citizens welcomed American forces as a liberating force from the “feared” dictator. This tactic further causes the audience to doubt Donald Rumsfeld and to question whether he is actually telling the truth and/or trying to cover something up.

The music used throughout the film is consistently dramatic music specifically chosen to enhance the darkness of the film. After further investigation into the music employed through the documentary, I discovered the music was by composer Danny Elfman a master in dark, and ominous music. Understanding this, it becomes increasingly apparent the intent of the film may have been to simply create a theme of distrust. To this end, the documentary itself seemingly plays off of the public’s distrust of politicians and uses it to its advantage in order to subjectively cast Donald Rumsfeld in a negative light.

For these aforementioned reasons, the documentary rather than being objective is extremely biased in its casting of Donald Rumsfeld in a negative light. As documentary films are often used to explore an issue present in society and/or is used with the intention of uncovering the truth decoding the mystery surrounding an issue, the film causes me to question its classification as a documentary. I question how “true” and “credible” this film actually is in speaking about the reality of the situation it is exploring. As much as the film causes the audience to question the “truth” of Donald Rumsfeld it at the same time causes the audience to question the “truth” and “credibility” of the film itself.

7: The Camera Cannot Lie

Errol Morris' documentary film 'The Unknown Known' approaches it's topic with the intention to reach the 'truth'.  The camera that Morris used was specially designed to allow for a direct interview between himself and Rumsteld, whilst also filming his reactions in a way that makes it seem like he is talking directly to the camera.  I think the film was operating on a level of personal connection in an attempt to reveal some revolutionary information from Rumsteld, the secretary of defense during the Bush era, but aesthetically Morris failed in getting the information that he wanted.  Rather, Rumsteld relays his experiences and works through the thought processes that motivated his actions during the period of discussion.

The film is using this angle that tries to make the camera seem less noticeable in order to convey a sense of truth-telling.  The reactions that Rumsteld has to some of the questions, pauses, attempts at humour and gestures, are filmed and shown to the audience.  It is very obvious that the answers are contained in the mind of Rumsteld and he appears to be telling his 'truth', whether or not he has changed his opinions from the time of reflection.  However, Morris also cuts sections and inserts clips from TV programmes of the time, camera footage and news reports, so the audience is made aware of the production element also.  The genre of documentary film implies evidential 'truth' but I was also made aware of the ability of this to be manipulated to convey a specific ideological stance through the editing process.

Assignment 7

Collateral Murder uses truth by delivering an authentic look at a standard military air attack.  This film sees truth as the origin of a cause or an idea.  Imagine walking the street and a bomb drops and explodes in the street across from you.  Why did that happen?  Someone is behind this and they must've had a reason.  Who's that someone? What is the reason for their destructive action?  The answer to these questions deals with origin (of phenomena).  Origin is what Collateral Murder calls truth.  Rewind the incident and trace the bomb back into the plane, then see whose hand pushed the button, and why.  Why is the reason for dropping the bomb, it's also the origin of an idea that lead to an action.  This film operates truth successfully because it is a documentary with not only raw footage but behind the curtains footage.  The success of this is a product of the men working the attack.  We hear the eagerness in their voices to press the button.  No poise is felt, no chivalry.  As Americans watching this we are embarrassed and even more frightened to have 'emotionally unstable' savages licking their chops for blood.  Not only this, but as Americans we feel deceived by our entire government after hearing the thought process of our trigger-happy warriors.  Deception is felt also due to the manner of the attack.  Innocent civilians murdered from thousands of feet away.  We see their view and there was no sense of terror in the quiet plane cabin.  Chilling.

My theory is in this day, no snakes can survive.  There are more cameras than ever before, more recording devices, more monitors, more media that can be sent from Hong Kong to Iowa in less than a second.   You can't try to succeed with a faulty character.  If you do for a while, there will be a slip up.  You will be exposed and you will be a fool.  As far as contemporary war is concerned, I think we're at a point where a kill won't traumatise anymore.  There can be no connection felt between two men fighting to the death.  The opponent advanced from a creature to target.  I theorize serious military regulations relating to distance of kill.

What is "Truth"?

The documentary film the Unknown Known seems to do everything it can to cast Donald Rumsfeld in a certain light, that being negative, dishonest, and guilty. He always appears to be looking at the camera, and the shots of him are almost always uncomfortably close, highlighting his saccharine grin.  His grainy voice is ever-present. The music that plays is always dramatic, as if signaling impending doom. The b-roll either aggressively reiterates what Rumsfeld says, in a sort of jeering way, or it contradicts his words.

While I am no fan of Rumsfeld, I can't help but question the intentions of this documentary. I personally think the way it exposes Rumsfeld and his idiocy is brilliant; however, from an ethical perspective, I have questions. Did Rumsfeld know the film was meant to have this tone when he agreed to be interviewed? If not, I find this a bit problematic. Although he certainly deserves to be exposed for all that he's done, I feel it is the duty of the director to be upfront about his or her intentions with the film, even if those intentions change while filming. I just can't imagine that Rumsfeld would have agreed to do this if he had known it would make him look like such an ass.

In terms of truth telling, the documentary itself functions as an exposer of the truth, in a sense. It doesn't simply display the truth through its narrative, it uses certain techniques that cut right through Rumsfeld's words, showing us that he is erroneous in his claims and here's what really happened. One decision that made the film come off this way is the fact that the audience hears the interviewer ask certain questions and even engage in conversation with Rumsfeld. A lot of the time during interviews, we are only exposed to what the interviewee is saying while the interviewer remains anonymous to the audience. But in this film, it was like the interviewer brought this skeptical omniscience to the film, which only adds to its disdainful tone towards Rumsfeld.

Although this film is guided by historical facts and written evidence, I would still consider it biased because it uses fact to expose Rumsfeld's shady political career. And while I agree with the premise of this film, I do find it problematic that it is so biased. If society views the genre of documentary as a truth telling medium, then where is the line for directors when it comes to their own intentions? I think the notion of "truth" is already complicated and convoluted, and we should understand that documentaries reveal a truth as opposed to the truth.

7. The Known: “The Epistemology from Hell”*

Errol Morris’s film, The Unknown Known, about the 2003 Iraq war showed Donald Rumsfeld as arrogant, self-serving, evasive, ambiguous, word obsessive, and, often, untruthful. But that was know before the film by journalists, most of the nation, and even Bush administration neocons, who eventually booted Rumsfeld from his defense department position. Morris, however, effectively solidified that image through skillful use of Rumsfeld’s own words and existing news footage. For example,

• ·      Rumsfeld (mis-)speaks: Morris’s in-your-face interviews damaged Rumsfeld’s credibility. Rumsfeld, while trying to maintain his “trademark” stoicism, often denied making or reinterpreted statements extracted from his own memos and press conferences. For instance, Morris pointed out that Rumsfeld’s infamous “known unknowns” definition evolved from “things that we think we do not know, that we really do” to “things that we think we know, that we really don’t.” A befuddled Rumsfeld never explained that reversal. But Morris’s interview tactics hardly seemed those of an objective journalist. He was as much a participant of the interviews as Rumsfeld.
• ·      Photography records reality: A key element of this film was Morris’s adept juxtaposing of Rumsfeld’s on-camera statements with news footage that contradicted those statements. For example, news clips showing Baghdad in chaos invalidated Rumsfeld’s claim that Iraq’s populace embraced the invading Americans as liberators. Private photographs taken by prison guards discredited Rumsfeld’s matter-of-fact stance on prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Those revelations were potent forces in changing the dynamics of American’s attitude of about the Iraq invasion. (The latter confirms Susan Sontag’s observation that photographs, greatly facilitated by new technologies, are a powerful force in moving public opinion.)
• ·      Music underscores emotion: Finally, Morris’s ace in the hole to manipulate emotion during the news footage scenes was the music of Danny Elfman, composer of dark, mysterious scores for Batman, Edward Scissorhands, and other films. This music, unusual for a documentary, heightened the horror, despair, and human tragedy of the Iraq conflict. 

Morris’s The Unknown Known was a fascinating character study of Donald Rumsfeld. What else did I learn from the film? Not much. Journalists had already documented the contrived lead-up to and botched execution of the Iraq invasion. Perhaps that history might temper present-day, saber-rattling neocons advocating military action against Iran—but maybe not.

*The quoted title statement is that of Morris from his New York Times article, “The Certainty of Donald Rumsfeld.”

Restrepo

I want to focus on one of the scenes in Restrepo which I found very disturbing. It is the scene when one of the soldiers is exchanging fire with the Taliban while at the same time another soldier is looking at the high powered binoculars directing the shooter the position of the Taliban shooter. After the Taliban shooter is dead, the soldier was saying:


“That motherfucker is done. Fuck you bitches. Body parts falling apart. it was him running and then him blasting into pieces. There you go, motherfucker,
shoot at us again.”

“It was him running and blasting into pieces”

https://youtu.be/mT_Auf_v9LQ?t=1h19m58s

In general, Restreppo don’t have much scene of soldiers or Taliban fighters severely wounded or brutally killed.  I was expecting this kind of scenes since this is a war documentary.  It will give the impression to the viewer the agony of the war. Throughout the show, I don’t feel the tense of the war. The soldier seems having their routine as usual and everyone is so supportive and being treated like their own family members.  Also, most of the scenes were shown from the American soldier side.  The viewers do not have any idea what is happening on the other side, how much of their fighters get killed and injured, etc.

But this specific scene gave me a very painful and uncomfortable feeling. I personally think it is inappropriate to celebrate someone’s death like the way they did.  It shows disrespect and an insult to the deceased. But I do understand their tense situation, which forced them to react that way. They had a strong feeling of taking revenge for killing their fellow squad member.  This is one of the impacts of the war in terms of psychology. They were there to serve the army without really knowing the cause of the war. I am not on either side while watching this, but I do think this war is unnecessary. It involves a lot casualties and injuries. They forced a human to kill another human without clearly knows the real situation.  It gave me the idea of war should always be the last result of any conflict.  War forced human not to be humans.


But, I think the directors are trying hard to be as neutral as possible. I don’t think the directors are forcing the viewer to only seeing the American side. The lack of the coverage on the Taliban side is maybe because they can’t access their camp, interviewing the fighters and also safety issues. Instead, to give the Afghani perspective on this war, they covered the captain meeting with the villagers, interviewing the villagers and also provide the coverage of them when the American soldiers ambushing all suspected houses that shield the fighters.  But due to the language barriers, the scene was not really effective. The viewers are left with a lot unanswered question regarding the Afghani perspective of this war

Collateral Murder

In Collateral Murder, although it isn't a scripted film or even a planned film it still has the ability to captivate it's audience. The deception here is the reason for the death. The deception is in the eyes of the shooters. To us, the deception happens in the camera when it looks like a camera is an AK-47, but the camera is not what is deceiving the shooters.

I think that's what is interesting here. The camera is simply giving us a tool through which to watch what is going on, it is not purposefully set up to record the tragedy. It just happened and was caught on film.

The Murderous Truth

The film, Collateral Murder, exposes some form of the truth about murders that occurred in Iraq during the war and how horrible that event actually was. Though the picture is shaky, and not always clear it’s understood by the audience that this incident can’t be ruled an accident because of the lack of effort given to find the truth by the soldiers. What stood out to me in the film wasn’t the visuals but instead the audio. The way the soldiers approached the situation seemed unprofessional and like they were eager to kill whatever came in front of them. While the audience might be able to understand how it could be an accident because the distance could make it hard to see, the audio is a different story. The commentary gives the viewers the impression that the soldiers didn’t really care of feel the need to find out who they were about to attack. Comments made like, “Oh, yeah look at those dead bastards” and quoting South Park makes the soldiers seem to be almost villainous and I think the audio exposes more of the truth in this film or what seems to be the truth.

Although I believe the kills made as shown in the film weren’t just the video is sort of deceptive because it doesn’t show what these soldiers went through before and everything after. It only gives us a piece of a bigger story since it doesn’t show the events that took place in that area earlier on and also we aren’t shown how they handle every detail of the aftermath of the event. In war everyone is fighting for what they believe is true, so how can we decide whose reality is the actual truth? 

Truth in Restrepo

Restrepo to me is an interesting documentary.  It shows the American soldiers in the Korangal Valley, but it does not show the other side of the conflict.  I believe that the Hetherington and Junger wanted to make the documentary as truthful and objective as possible.  They are trying to portray the truth of the war and shed light on the experiences of the American soldiers.  Although it accomplishes at showing what the Korangal Valley could be like, I think it failed at being objective and showing the whole truth about the situation.  I don’t think that they accomplished without telling both sides of the story.  They attempted to do this when they showed the soldiers talking to the villagers, but there was a language barrier in the way of clear communication.  By showing these scenes, they were attempting to show another side.  However, I think that Hetherington and Junger failed at trying to show the other side of the story because they were always in the presence of the American soldiers.  If they filmed the citizens by themselves (with a translator) and asked them direct questions like they did with the American soldiers, then it would have been less biased.  It was clear that the citizens did not completely understand why the Americans were there and did not like that we were there in Korangal Valley.  I think that the villagers’ frustrations and opinions would have been conveyed more and have a greater impact in the film if the audience saw the villagers’ side of the story (interviewed without American soldiers).

Restrepo and Sontag

Restrepo was an interesting documentary film in that it presented an interesting view of the war in Afghanistan.  I state that it is interesting simply because the film really made no definite point to be either pro- or anti-war.  It is clear that Kearney is headed into Afghanistan and purposefully did not do any research into the area into which he has been assigned.  I find it interesting that his attitude is so optimistic; he seems to think that moving into the area and focusing on their mission will yield dominance over the area within two months.  However it becomes clear as the camera view out of the helicopter as they are being flown in that this is a difficult terrain in which to try and press forward quickly.  The optimism of the viewer fades, along with that of the company.

All too often we have seen photos of conflict zones and war zones and later found out that they were staged.  Sontag points out in 'Regarding the Pain of Others' that when we discover that war photos have been staged, that we, as an audience, are disappointed.  That is what I found refreshing about Restrepo.  There are certainly some things that could have been staged, but it appears that the fighting in the field is not staged and helps to make the movie more interesting as a viewer.  The same thing happens when the company gathers after the death of one of their men in the field and the death is acknowledged but the men are asked to honor their friend and be prepared to move on.  Seeing that this company of men is hurting because of their loss makes the film appear to be genuine and allows the audience to sympathize with the company.

Restrepo was also careful not to show footage that was too messy or ugly while telling the story of how war is not always an honorable or a pretty sight.  I thought that the filmmakers did an excellent job of using their photography skills to bear witness but to keep a safe distance so that it was not exaggerated. Sontag is correct when she says that art can easily become spectacle and Restrepo was careful to keep that balance; leaving the film to be informative, accurate and believable.

In contrast, I felt that Immersion, was the opposite of Restrepo in terms of believability.  While Immersion may have had an interesting concept and the software that was being developed could certainly have been helpful to our veterans, what the camera captured was too vague to carry its message through to completion.  Perhaps some background about why the software was developed, how the recreation of a memory might be helpful to those suffering from PTSD and whether or not beta blockers (a current therapy for PTSD sufferers) would be employed in conjunction with this new therapeutic option may have been useful messages to help the viewer to understand the films view a little bit better.  Immersion felt staged, almost like a software sales pitch, and thus did little to sway me that this was a viable option for individuals struggling with PTSD.  While the footage was not messy or difficult to watch, the final scene where the viewer is led to believe that the recreation of a battle scene in which a man's fellow patrol partner is killed and may just be a demonstration, really unraveled any credibility that the film had created.  It is possible that this was a group therapy session and that group therapy to recreate the stressful situation and to cheer the individual for their ability to talk through their recreated memory is the therapy.  However, the words of both the therapist and the 'patient' were confusing enough to lead me to think that this was simply a demonstration of how the software could be used.

Monsters

     Gun shots everywhere. In the midst of mayhem and confusion it is discovered that Sergeant Larry Rougle has been shot and killed and the camera watches as his his dear friends and comrades are left to react. This scene in Restrepo was one of the most impactful, chilling and emotional parts of the documentary. The film shows the harsh reality of battle: the play by play of a soldiers reaction to losing his friend in the middle of a battle and the struggle between being an American Soldier and a human man fighting loss and sadness. 

     The camera begins by focusing on one soldiers face and his labored breaths as he tries to discover who has been shot, the camera then moves towards the fallen solder Sergeant Larry Rougle then back to the solder in time to catch his emotionally gripping reaction. This film shows the truth of a soldiers loss by portraying it exactly as it is, it is not a soldiers depiction of what happened but a visual of what actually happened,the viewer just watches the soldiers reaction and can immediately identify a source of loss within his or her self that is relatable with the soldier. Since the film was a documentary depicting real events, the only opportunity for dishonesty would have been within the personal interviews of the soldiers stories retold in his point of view, or in the omitting of scenes via cuts.

This film demonstrates the realities of war and the cameras strong ability to depict the truth, the soldiers had good and bad times which the camera caught, it tried not to glorify the life of a soldier by catching the day to day realities but it also did not exaggerate, it simply captured moments and strong emotions. According to Sontag in Regarding the Pain of Others, "Not to be pained by these pictures, not to recoil from them, not to strive to abolish what causes this havoc, this carnage—these, for Woolf, would be the reactions of a moral monster." This statement infers that we as humans should be able to empathize with extreme emotions or pictures and that should cause us to take some action. In that same way, not to be moved by the emotions of the soldier as he weeps for his fallen friend depicts a monster. Overall, watching Restrepo was like being a fly on the wall in the lives of the solders who helped build Restrepo. Modern conflict involving war is so often glorified in movies like GI Joe and in video games like Call of Duty that getting a clear documentary on actual experience of a soldier and witnessing the mental and emotional harm that takes place long after the deployment of the soldier is extremely helpful in de-glorifying the battles that American soldiers participate in.

Objectivity of Restrepo

Restrepo is a great documentary which presents itself as objectively as possible. I think the form and style of the documentary allows for as objective of a representation as being embedded with an American platoon allows. It is obvious that due to the nature of the documentarians living with the American soldiers there are some limitations to how objective they can truly be, but I think that through the use of interviews and contextual communication with the Afghani people, Hetherington and Junger try to present the other side of the conflict as much as possible. Scenes where soldiers are shown talking with the locals through translators, the audience is able to get a feel for how the locals feel regarding the installment of foreign troops in their valley.

I think the idea of truth behind this film is that the camera does not lie. They are showing everything that happens; the good, the bad, and the ugly. Scenes where local children and women are killed by airstrikes, soldiers mourning the dead, soldiers burning their own feces, meetings with the local elders, soldiers dancing around listening to bad techno music. Hetherington and Junger attempt to show the audience what it was truly like for these soldiers on a day to day basis while living in the deadliest combat zone in Afghanistan. In terms of films that are deceptive, I think one of the best examples of that would be Reefer Madness, which tries to depict the horrors of smoking marijuana, by saying your son will go crazy and your daughter will fall in love with a black person. It truly has become a comedy film at this point, but back in the thirties people were really afraid of marijuana and its potential unknown side effects.

The camera has the ability to tell the truth without doing anything more than just aiming it at something. That is what i think is so great about Restrepo and Korengal, alot of the film is just that; Hetherington aiming the camera at something happening. On the other hand, in a more cinematic sense, the camera has the ability to deceive and make people see or feel something that isn't necessarily true. It can present the audience with a spectacle, something to be in awe of, but not something that is necessarily truthful to real life.

Group 4 - Mise-en-scene

Hello all, group #4 will be doing our best to answer the question, how does the form in the Royal Tenenbaums influence its narrative.  To do this, each member of our group is tackling one aspect of form and analyzing its impact on the film's content.  Once we've looked separately at aspects of form our group will discuss what our perceptions mean as a whole, and what total effect the form gives.

The aspect of form I am studying is mise-en-scene (decor, props, costume, acting, lighting).  To develop my own thesis I began looking at criticism that discussed the factor of mise-en-scene. Here are some notable critical reviews that I found.

In the antic, melancholy comedy The Royal Tenenbaums, the singular Wes Anderson (“Rushmore”) abandons his native Texas for a storybook vision of New York.
Newsweek (David Ansen)

 Underachieves in its own way by trapping an expansive, probing story in a brittle, highly artificial style that constricts character and emotional development. 

Variety (Todd McCarthy)


Potentially interesting character that end up so flat they feel as if they'd been cut out of paper, a plot that's all setup and no story.

Salon.com (Stephanie Zacharek)

I also found it useful to hear from the auteur of the film, Wes Anderson.

“I tried to be kind of relentless about getting all the details exactly as we planned them.” --Wes Anderson

“What it adds it up to be, is sort of always a surprise. Even if you’ve planned everything, it’s never exactly what you’d expect because you could never fully picture it.”

 -Wes Anderson

“I did want to have a storybook feeling, but I have always wanted to work in the theater, but I’d never done it since the fifth grade, but maybe theater is a part of my movie work.”

-Wes Anderson

After research, I understood the film as a cross between film, chapter book, and possibly some theater.  By pointing out elements of mise-en-scene like neat symmetry of costume, saturated colors, and fine detail of props, I will explain how the film uses mise-en-scene to achieve a precious estrangement that functions to remind the audience they're watching fiction and to contrast the seemingly bland, but painfully ralatable characters.