The Rules of Documentary Film
Documentary film different
with deep report news although both of them show reality. News report just
explain and describe fact and information. Documentary was explain, describe and
also tells story of the topic. Documentary has plot and narrative form. It needs
a deep preparation however it often different with the condition in the field
when shooting. But this preparation will help filmmaker to keep focus on the
topic. Filmmakers should create research before product the film. They have to
think about the synopsis, mode, storyline, and treatment. Three documentary
which was screened in the class, show the plot of film. There were
introduction, conflict, climax, closing and conclusion.
Capturing Friedmans tells
about Arnold Friedman and his son who guilty of child molestation. Arnold is a popular
high school teacher which has many award for his credibility. They love
children and teaching. Besides teaching at school, he has his own course class
at his basemen den of his home. Someday, there were parents of the student who
report him to the police for child molestation. Then they check Arnold home and
found child pornography magazine. Police bring him with his son, Jesse
Friedman.
This case is real happen
with a middle-class family in Great Neck, Long island. The spectators will
confuse about this film, because we do not know who was wrong and who was
right. His lawyer and the law make them guilty but we could see that they look
very innocent and like never doing that criminal activity. If we look this man
and his son from law, mainstream media, and
the opinion of child parent we could see them guilty. But when we see the film,
that’s different. Arnold is so vague about his
sexual conduct that sometimes we can't figure out exactly what he's saying. He
neither confirms nor denies. Jesse is too young and shell-shocked to be
reliable. The witnesses contradict themselves. The lawyers seem incompetent.
The police seem more interested in a conviction than in finding the truth.
Making film which have different opinion with us was very interesting. It
really shows spectator how little they truly care, and how little REAL
information they were getting about the issue.
Andrew Jarecki, the director
collaborate his interview video with the video memory which taken by another
son of Arnold. David capture all of the memory about his family after the case
begin. The film opened by an interview of David and his father. David said that
his father was a good man and a super dad. Father was the one and only one that
we have. Of course he loves his father and thought that he does not guilty. He
show us what his family chat a day before Jesse was sent to the prison. He also
show how angry her mother, but in another side how innocent his father and his
brother. Actually she would not like his son send to the prison, because he
still young. So, she did everything to save him however she have to ask her
husband to lie.
David filming with the
privileged position of a family insider. The video which David capture was very
emotional. From itself we could see another perspective of the case. By the end
of "Capturing the Friedmans," we have more information, from both
inside and outside the family, than we dreamed would be possible. We have many
people telling us exactly what happened. And we have no idea of the truth.
There were many video was not really good in lighting and angle, but the sound
was good enough. Spectators still know what they talking about altough the
visual was bad. It was proved that sound is more important than visual.
The rules of creating
documentary film was do not show something that already we know. So, Capturing
Friedmans was a great movie, because we actually do not know who was right. In
the law perspective, we see that they were guilty. In fact, from the
documentary film, they aren’t guilty enough. Michael Moore said that
if you want to make a political speech, you can
join a party, you can hold a rally. Here David as filmmaker could be a driver
of public opinion. He change public opinion to his opinion which show in the
film. Spectators did not care about the truth of the case. A viewer of film
just want to be entertained. Michael
Moore also said in his article that the
art of the movie is more important to me than the politics.
Capturing Friedmans has differentiate
with Koyaanisqatsi (life out of
balance) which screened in the class. This film mode is an experimental film.
Filmmaker capture all natural events of the world without
narration, character, story or dialog. Film which directed by Godfrey Regio is
composed the nature imaginary, manipulated with slow motion and fast motion,
double exposure or time lapse, juxtaposed with footage of humans' devastating
environmental impact on the planet Message of this film is how human destroying
environment. Life be out of balance. We can see it clearly. But actually Regio
was refused that. This film meant to offer the experience, rather than the
idea.
This film opened by a shot of an ancient rock wall painting, then move through sequences
depicting clouds, waves, and other natural features. And then into man-made
landscapes such as buildings, cars, and earth-altering construction machinery. Editing
of this film make the spectators feel like meditation. Flow of the film was slow,
although there were fast motion. This
film demands commitment, concentration and utter capitulation. The pace and
visual intensity picks up, as some transfixing footage of derelict housing
estates being demolished feeds into urban scenes of traffic, shown in either
slow motion or rapid time-lapse. Director want to make spectators interpret
Kotaanisqatsi by their own experience.
"For some people, it's an environmental film. For some, it's an ode to technology. For some people, it's a piece of shit. Or it moves people deeply. It depends on who you ask. It is the journey that is the objective." (Regio, 2002)[1]
Based on Michael Moore’s
article about the rule of documentary film, this film was a nice film. We do not
sure about the meaning of this film, it based on each experience. Koyaanisqatsi
make a spectators as individual. What they think about the film was personal.
Michael Moore present that it is important to make films personal. This film
offer new experience about nature which we do not know before and remind
spectators about their daily activity which destroy environment. Film was a
part of art, Rogie did not make a feature news but he create a film. The beautiful
shot of this movie entertain spectators. Filmmaker cut and edit the video to be
shorter. Say it with fewer words and fewer scenes. Although there were not
dialog or narration, spectators will know about that message, because they did
not stupid. They will know what the meaning of this film, only if they concentrate
to the film.
A cats of Mirikitani not
only show film as an art, but also make the art as an object of the film. This
documentary by Linda Hattendorf focuses on Jimmy Mirikitani, an elderly
homeless artist with Japanese roots. Living on the streets of Manhattan, he
sells his paintings, which are mostly of cats, but also include scenes of
imprisonment that hark back to his days in an American internment camp
during World War II. Linda invites Mirikitani into her apartment and finds out
more about his life during wartime. She help him found his sister which
separate from him when Japanese lose the World War II.
Linda follow the activity of Mirkitani who
paint and sell it on the park. Linda did not only being the director, but also
the actor of that film. She is a part of the story. So, the mode of this film
was performative documentary film. As the director, actually Linda’s eyes is
like the spectators. Linda already know the truth of Mirikitani and she want
spectators know about it. The opinion of
Michael Moore, the filmmaker is also the viewer.
“Are you crying? Are you cracking up so much that you are afraid that the microphone is going to pick it up? If that is happening while you are filming it, then there is a very good chance that's how the audience is going to respond, too. Trust that. You are the audience, too.” (Michael Moore, 2014)[2]
Linda present something that spectators never
know about it. It was very interesting because spectator need new information
and experience.
Capturing
Friedmans, Koyaanisqatsi and A Cat of Mirikitani was a great documentary film.
It was suitable with the rule of documentary film which told by Michael Moore.
It was tells another perspective of the public opinion, show the fact which
public did not know, and make them take their opinion by their self. It is just
tell the information and experience without being a teacher or being a
medicine. From Koyaanisqatsi and Capturing Friedmans we did not know the point
of the truth and right things. And from the film A Cat of Mirikitani we just
entertain by his picture, his plainness, his story about World War II and his
painting. Audio was important, even more than the image. Because from this
audio we could know the dialog, narration, or background sound which build the
atmosphere of the film. Documentary was about fact, but the filmmaker need to
arrange the story to be interesting by cut and editing. Filmmaker have to know
how to show the opening or introduction, conflict, climax and completion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Canby,
vincent. 1982. 'Koyaanisqatsi,'
back to psychedelia. http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9900efd8123bf937a35753c1a964948260
Catsoulis , Jeannette. 2007. Painting
Through the Pain. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/ movies/02cats.html?_r=0
Moore, Michael. 2014.
Michael Moore's 13 Rules of Documentaries
Filmmaking. http://www.indiewire.com/article/michael-moores-13-rules-for-making-documentary-films-20140910
Whaxman, Sharon.
2004. Victims Say Film on Molesters
Distorts Facts (Capturing Friedmans).
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/movies/victims-say-film-on-molesters-distorts-facts.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm&_r=0
Comments
Post a Comment
comment here...