In my opinion the documentary “The stories we tell” was interesting the last part that I got to watch explained a lot about the film which was basically  Sarah Polley trying to find out who her real father is. The film had a similar poetic tone as the other documentary we watched in class called “Tongues United”.  The part that made me feel this way was at the end when the father reading  a letter it sounds more like a song or a poem that he is reciting or singing. There is also another part of the film that can be seen as observatory just like the documentary we watched in class called “high school”  where the filmmaker does not interact at all. They just let things happen as they are that is what makes the film realistic. The part of the film that i found very interesting is at the end when you can tell Sarah Polly influenced the film even without wanting to. Or maybe these were her intentions to achieve a certain feeling or mood to the documentary. For instance, this is seen when the father has to repeat the line at the end twice. This can be interpreted as Sarah was trying to have the same affect that “Tongues United” captured. the effect that the film captured was it gave importance through repetition. Sarah did try not to influence the way people answered but since it was a topic that involved her and her life it was very difficult for her.

The film was very believable it had many key moments that tied everything together. For instance the man who was trying to make a difference by going to get these ex- victims and show them around. He seemed very affected about what happened to him he wanted to show that you are capable. He wanted to show these specific individuals that if he can do it they are able to do it as well and that they are not alone. The fact that these people get out and have no one to turn to is what i believe makes them fall into their old path. If someone is there to help you financially or even just the advice can help a person a great amount. The main person who is talking on the film he is sort of the narrator is an example of this. He went to prison he did his time and when he got out he was completely lost. He even states ” i would go in the shower and i would just cry”. He was suffering because it was hard for him to be isolated from society for so long and then just out of nowhere being thrown back in with no job almost no money and now a new problem which is a criminal record which does not help at all. The reason why is because these people will now have a difficult time finding a job and if they do find a job it may not be a good one because people do not trust ex-convicts especially if they have been convicted of murder or any other violent crimes. This is why it is a drastic problem now a days. It is a endless cycle of people that are unable to get ahead in life because of the chooses they make.

The quote I choose from Nicholas “Intro To Documentary ” is the following, “Observational documentary de-emphasizes persuasion to give us a sense of what it is like to be in a given situation but without a sense of what it is like for the filmmaker to be there, too. Participatory documentary gives us a sense of what it is like for the filmmaker to be in a given situation and how that situation alters as a result.” (181)

An example an observational documentary is “Highschool” by Frederick Wiseman. Wiseman acts like a fly in the wall, he tried to catch the students and teachers in a natural way. He did not take any part in the actual film. He went around just recording the students in different situations to make it seem more realistic for instance, he would film them when they would get in trouble. He would also film them when they were in class. The documentary did not try to make you change your way of thinking. It give you the tools and you had to construct your actual views of what was presented. Furthermore you don’t have the people talking directly to the camera they are more interacting with each other.
On the other hand, in a participatory film like “The Gleaners and I”.By Agnes varda. This a documentary about varda gleaners in France. Varda is a participatory film maker. What this means is that she herself is seen in the film. The filmmaker is also participatory because she approaches people. In some of the scenes she is seen joining some of the gleaners. In this kind of documentary the people are not just going along with their everyday life like nothings there. They actually aknowledge the camera and answer the filmmakers questions. This alters the film because the filmmaker is able to play the part of a puppet master and ask certain questions to get a certain answer. Or they can restrict themselves from asking a certain person something to make the film appeal in a different light.

This documentary was very interesting. It had many impactful moments. The documentary did give a sense of being observational but you could also tell that the students and teachers knew that there was a camera. The reason why I say this is because In some scenes of the documentary it seem acted. Furthermore they would stare right at the camera. Other parts of the documentary were very effective for instance the part where one of the girls wears a dress that is way to short to prom. The principle is talking to her and one of the teachers as well. The part that was realistic was what the teacher states. She explains that she doesn’t like to wear the long clothing either but she has to so that she can be an example. She also mentions that her husband just bought brand new suits but he isn’t able to wear them because it is not in the uniform code. The students may have also acted  rebellious because the camera was there. For instance the student on the phone he didn’t listen the first two times he was told to get off the phone. The documentary did feel real and I got a feeling of being in high school again. In this high school you can tell the students had many extra curriculum activities and classes. For instance the fashion class, typing class, language classes. This provides the students with a great chance to succeed that is probably why the students were all in all well behave. You didn’t see many fights unless the filmmaker decided to cut those parts out. If he did the reason why he would cut those parts out would be so that the ending would make sense that the school is united. The fights that were in the documentary were only talked about you don’t get to see them I think If he had gotten moments like that on camera it would have made a difference on the documentary but overall it was great to watch. It had many concpts that worked.

I recently watched a documentary on Netflix called long shot. I watched it because one of my friends told me to watch it. This documentary was very interesting that is why I also advice others to watch it. It is basically about someone who is convicted of a death but he is innocent. The documentary had a lot of key components of why this person was convicted for instance he had been a witness to his bother in which the victim was at that same court case as well. Therefore the law enforcement suspected he wanted revenge therefore he decided to take this women’s life. On the other hand he knew he was innocent and even though. The person that does the profile drawings had drawn someone who looked exactly like him. There were also witnesses so stated they had seen him murder this young 19 year girl. He knew in his heart he had not committed this crime.

As the documentary went on he stated that he knew about this lawyer who was amazing. He then hired this lawyer to help him with his case. The lawyer accepted after hearing his story.  The lawyer then went on to find out every little detail of the case and how to solve it. The person that was being accused told the lawyer that he had been at a Doggers game. He had not only been a doggers game by himself but he had take his daughter and friends. Then the lawyer had to get proof that his client had been at the doggers game at the exact moment the women had been killed. He went through camera footage but it wasn’t great quality. Therefore he noticed that there was a movie that was being corded that day with a famouse actor. So he contacted them to see if they would let him review the tapes to see if he could find this one person among so many people at the game. After he was able to find it the times did not coensist. But at the end the man was found innocent the officers that arrested him said they had persuaded the witnesses so that they could get money and so they were fired. This is a tragic story of what people do for money. They are able to put someone else of death row just to get cash in their pocket.

I watched this movie A few weeks ago. I had not watched the first one so I honestly didn’t know what to expect. I liked the fact that it was well organized and the characters were developed. I could picture what the child’s life was like based on hints that the filmmaker gave. For instance with the main girl character which I can’t recall her name at this moment. The viewer was able to tell she was going through a tough time her father was abusing her. Her way of dealing with it was her image she cut her hair like a boy at almost the end of the movie. This was her way of coping with the pain. Also the children were being over protective and not allowed to be children. Another concept that I enjoyed about the movie was that it wasn’t really scary it had a lot of comedy. For instance when the kids were throwing rocks at each other it had a voice over with a weird sound in slow motion. That is one of the ways the filmmaker played with the audience. It himself was very creative in the ways he would show up and scare the child for instance when they were watching the film he appeared as a women. Then when the women’s hair flew from her face you can see his face and he is smiling. Another way he appeared was when the girl character was cutting her hair and putting a metric meter inside the sink because she heard a noise. He threw blood all over the bathroom and then the girls father came in the room but he wasn’t able to see anything only the kids were able to see all the blood on the walls. They also helped her clean it up which was odd. I think “It” just wanted the kids.

 

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to express my feelings toward watching this documentary film. I want to start of by saying that it was very interesting the setting as well as the overall concept. In some parts it was very disappointing because it looked made up. For instance the fishing scene where he was trying to catch fish to eat. Another scene was the very first part where everyone is coming out of the kayak because it looks odd how can so many people come out of such a small kayak. On the other hand, there were some scenes that were great! and realistic. For instance when they are making the kayaks.