I've been having some thoughts as we have been going over the whole documentary section. While I've liked most of the films we've watched in class, I feel like the readings have touched on some ideas that have made me a little uneasy. The first two readings really empasized getting people to think and feel and even act a certain way as a result of the film. Not that I think this is always a bad thing, but isn't this a bit contradictory to what we were learning earlier this semster, as far as the goal of film being not to show people the "right" way (because we somehow have it all together) or to draging people into thinking and acting like we do, but simply to show people what we see. The thing is, documentary film can do the "showing what we see" thing really well, but when the goal is to get a certain action/reaction from the audience, that's where I start to feel uneasy about it. I feel like a lot of documentaries/documentary-ish tv shows i've watched have had really manipulating tones because I can see right through to what they're trying to get me to feel and think and it ticks me off. When documentary filmmakers show a true story but then claim they know what's going on and exactly what to do about it, how is that different from a narrative filmmaker telling people what to think?
You make some great observations Megan and I think the distinctions can be subtle between manipulation and a call to action.
ReplyDelete1. Ultimately fiction and documentation are different tools in the hands of an artist and are perceived differently by their audience.
2. Shining a light must be the emphasis. I too was uncomfortable when the article seemed to suggest that "Born into Brothels" was falling short be cause it didn't call to action.
3. Sometimes the urgency of a situation requires a call to action but most of the time problems are way too complex for a single response from a film audience.