Grizzly Man came out in 2005, and is a 104 minutes documentary film; made by a German filmmaker named Werner Herzog. Herzog combines Treadwell’s footages with his own. Treadwell had a deep passion and love for the wild grizzly bears; he wanted to be able to form a deep connection with them, and protect them. Treadwell went away for 13 summers to an Alaskan reserve to live with the wild grizzly bears and for 5 did he bring a camera with him to film. They mentioned that Treadwell did not have a good past, and also mentioned that, because of it he did create different personas. His love for wild grizzly bears helped him find himself, and change for the “better.” I put quotes because, there are different opinions regarding if he was actually doing himself a favor or not. Treadwell did pass away due to a vicious bear attack, and there was also an audio recording of when the incident happened. In the documentary they did not let us hear the actual audio recording, however they did tell us briefly what they heard. Not saying I would enjoy hearing the recording, but I wished they included it in; it would be interesting, and it would fill my curiosity. I respect their choice however of not including it. People have said that Treadwell dug his own grave or did it to himself; my opinion on this is, Treadwell did fall into a dark hole in his past, and he did what he needed to do to get out of it, whether it is changing personas or living with the wild grizzly bears. He made a choice, it was his own decision, and as long he felt better, and happier with what he was doing, that is all that matters. We should not judge a person, when we do not know the whole story.

i found the documentary “iron triangle” to be very interesting. specially because I live in queens and even been to Wilets point for car repair. I found the quote “clean up Wilets point” to be very deep. I forgot who said it but it was an asian bureaucrat. Its really interesting to see people like him just lie to people’s faces. Obviously they could “clean” up Willets point, rebuilding the roads and literally cleaning the area but the they didn’t. the quote is really about cleaning that neighborhood of the poor to bring in the rich.

In his article, “Play it Again Sam,” Errol Morris describes different uses of re-enactment in documentary film. He uses The Thin Blue Line as an example as well as other films where the re-enactment is meant to look more “real,” where the filmmakers have tried to make the new footage look archival. He wants readers to think about where we draw the line for what kinds of re-enactments should be allowed – especially when considering prestigious awards like the Oscars. For this week’s blog assignment, please choose one of the three quotes from his essay below, and write up your reaction to it in a comment to this post. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree? How do we see these ideas in his film? You should include a reference to his movie or to others of the movies we’ve watched so far. If others from class have posted comments already, you may react to their points too.

1.“Is it appropriate to use re-enactment that the audience does not know is re-enactment?” (5)

2.“There is no mode of expression, no technique of production that will instantly produce truth or falsehood … There is no … cinematic truth.” (6)

3.“Perception is endlessly colored by fantasy and belief …” (8)

Grizzly Man, Werner Herzog(1942) With it’s down to earth yet crazy images and footage of Timothy Treadwill, grizzly man has came to be my favorite documentary. With Werner Herzog editing, he brought some flaws and great moments Tredwill experienced while entering alaska .With just the footage alone i came to my own opinion of Mr Treadwill. Although obsessive, Mr. Treadwill was not selfish. I firmly believe he did his actions to relate to bears and gain exposure of the animal to further come up with ways to help the species. Being an animal lover i came to understand Mr Treadwills obsessive  behavior of his beloved bears. Nobody saw what he saw and nobody felt what he felt. One can only imagine what was going through Treadwills head but not judge negatively upon it. In the future i would like to take action to be a animal conservationist to help the endangered species. We live in a reality that  most humans are the ones either destroying the animals habitat or causing harm to the animal for our selfish wants. This document shed light on some problems us humans can cause or face when it comes to the animal kingdom.

Recently i watched a docuseries on Netflix named Five Came Back. The series focuses on five directors, Frank Capra, George Stevens, John Huston, William Wyler and John Ford, who enlist in the United States military during World War 2 to offer their skills. These directors made numerous documentaries throughout the war in order to document and draw support for the war effort. In the series i saw how Frank Capra directed Why We Fight and saw the issues that arose during production. Capra explained how he was very inspired by Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the will and tried to emulate an American version of that. I also go to hear the story of another director featured in the series, William Wyler, who flew with the bomber crew of the Memphis Belle and made the documentary Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress .William Wyler recounts the terror of flying in a bomber during the war and how if another bomber got shot down the crew would just watch and count how many were able to get out, he also explained how the bomber would be so loud you could barely hear yourself think. This series reminded me how dedicated filmmakers can be to complete their films. One of the cameramen on Wyler’s team died after the bomber he was in was shot down and Wyler himself was knocked unconscious during one of the missions. I highly recommend this series to anyone with an interest in World War 2 or history in general.The series gave me a behind the scenes look at the earliest war documentaries and the issues that arose during production. The series offers a number of interesting stories about these directors and their films. Netflix also has the documentaries they mention in the film for streaming so i was able to watch some of the films they focused on.

The Gleaners and I by Agnes Varda  was a very interesting film to watch and I really enjoyed it. It shed a spot light on what many people ignore throughout the day. The way we waste many thing, when people are picking things up off the sidewalks or whatever the harvesters left behind, or homelessness if I may say. I never knew there was a term for this before watching this film. Many people may think if they see someone picking something from the sidewalk like furniture they are homeless or poor. For some of the people we saw it was sad because that was their only source of food and if they didn’t find any they really couldn’t do much. There are people who don’t like for anything to go to waste and some even hoard things. Someone else can create something beautiful with someone else’s  scraps. There were artist in the film that used recycled items to make pieces, like the man who used old car parts. I relate to the film in a way because when I was younger my mom would pick up furniture off the sidewalks. It’s a little similar to going to a second hand stores and buying used furniture the only difference is one is free and the other isn’t. The man with the rubber boots from the film said he was an activist. He doesn’t have to pick off the streets but he does it because people waste so many good things. The film really got me thinking and should get everyone thinking how much food, cloths or furniture we throw away. I know that I  waste a lot of food and feel guilty when doing so. It was nice to see the involvement of the director. She wasn’t just behind the camera filming them do what they do she was also a gleaner and filmed herself picking up heart-shaped potatoes and of things she found on the streets.

Bill Nichols , author of Introduction to documentary explains how 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.
Nichols defines an observational documentary as one that the filmmaker gives a sense of what it is like to observe the topic at hand rather then being active in front of the camera. As in letting social actors do as their own will without interrupting more of observing. Where as participatory the audience gets to see how the filmmaker reacts to given scenes. Even with their own personal experiences. The two modes are important because most documentary films choose one to illustrate their own ideas and choice of method for their film. In my essay I will be discussing which one I feel leads to stronger formed opinion from the audience.

I watched this documentary called the Nightmare during the weekend. The film was about people talking about their experience with sleep paralysis. When somebody is in a sleep paralysis the person can’t move their body, they try really hard to move but just can’t. It is a terrifying thing to go through you can see terrifying black figures voices everyone has a different experience. Truthfully the film got me a little paranoid to sleep because I felt that I was going to become temporarily paralyzed in my sleep that night. There was a story with one of the people that his girlfriend had sleep paralysis, that same night it was his first experience having and episode with sleep paralysis. This was frightening to me because how when the girlfriend told him about it he then had it as well. Was it because he then started to think about it too much and researched about it that it brought out this interest in his mind then it happened or was it bound to happen? Some of the “dreams” they would have are so intense it felt like the dark shadows are touching them and hurting them. A girl had a episode where it started out with a noise. A loud noise that sounded like “spirits or demons screaming at you” then she could sense a presence standing over here as she played in her bed. Again she felt the really sound noise it felt as though it was right in her ear. She could sense that what the figure was wearing was red. “Every centimeter of her body feels like a ton” this means to me that you can’t move at all like as if there were a bunch of bricks on you. She tried to look at the face “trying to move and I want to see it and I am straining to look up, I could barely move my head.” She had gotten rid of the presence by saying Jesus a multiple times she said it felt like a “victory”. For other people it’s not that easy to get out of their sleep paralysis. To some people it can feel like their in their episode for hours but it would actually only be for 2 mins.

The Quotation I choose is the interviewing, participatory documentary and power.. “the interview stands as one of the most common forms of encounter between filmmaker and subject in participatory documentary. Interviews are a distinct form of social encounter. They differ from ordinary conversation and the more coercive process of interrogations.. these forms all involve regulated forms of exchange, with an uneven distribution of power”. I believe an interview is more distinguished than the others because it’s more sympathetic and relatable. Think about it, if you hear about something from someone that never experienced or witnessed something you would Actually feel compassion for the story ; but will not sympathize like how you would be with the person that actually went through or experience it. Also in an interview it’s more intense emotional wise because people tend to speak more with passion whether it’s with the facial, voice or body language, It tends to be more powerful. A interview is different from a regular conversation because interview tends to only seek answers for specific questions, while on the other hand a regular conversation tends to go wherever the speaker wants it to go ( there is no one to direct the topic/subject or to get certain points across.

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.

Last week in class, we watched the documentary The Gleaners and I by Agnès Varda (2001). As part of our chapter and for a test in my french class, I was surprised I had watched another French Documentary so soon after. The name of the film was Être et Avoir by Nicolas Philibert (2002). Être and avoir translates to to be and to have. They both took place in a rural setting in France and both were in French throughout the whole film. I found both of the documentaries styles very appealing to me. They both had a sense of beauty and patience, and a touch of their own personal personality within it. Varda’s film had a reflexive approach in her film since herself and her voice were in it. In Être et Avoir, it was styled more like an observational documentary. The main teacher in the film, George Lopez, was not the actual film maker. I found Varda’s film educational because I personally learned about gleaning for the first time. Watching Être et Avoir feels almost like a mix of The Gleaners and I and High School by Frederick Wiseman. It was very entertaining to watch and to see how the children and the teacher reacted. Instead of including a trailer, I entered a small clip from the film so you can kind of get a feel for the style.

 

When I began reading the Introduction to Documentary by Bill Nicholas, I really understood his perspective on film making. “Reflexive documentaries also tackle issues posted by realism as a style. Realism seems to provide unproblematic access to the world ; it takes form as psychological, and emotional realism through techniques of evidentiary or continuity editing, character’s development, and narrative structure. Reflexive documentaries challenge these techniques and conventions.”(195) This quote reveals to the audience that in a reflexive documentary the film maker is in front of the camera providing a narrative in the story that is being presented. This makes the issue or problem more obvious the viewers. This method reminds me of the Tongues Untied. The film maker was involved in the film so much, you clearly felt the burden that the gay black community carried in that time period. At some point in the film, the film maker started zooming into the men’s faces, they were chanting; “from brother to brother” and “we’re just a ****” Marlon Riggs made it clear that the gay black community was confronting racism, homophobia and marginalization. It had a pathos effect on the viewers emotions. Riggs used his personal experiences to influence the emotions of the society by saying that they are being labeled but they are still parents, children of others, brothers, sisters, cousins of, they are just human beings. Riggs definitely made me sympathize this community because I saw it as we are all humans with the right to express our feelings in a respectful manner. I definitely agree with Bill Nicholas. In addition this film proves that it was a success.