Wednesday, March 23, 2011
my best Bavarian accent here
Whereas Waldo may not be dynamic fodder for intellectual investigation, the existential question of the bearded man who follows him in every scene not withstanding, Werner Herzog's general approach to documentary should well be (fodder, that is) here. Post like my best fiend!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The things that strikes me most about Elizabeth Henry's article, is the difference she notes between Timothy Treadwell's aim in filming his expereince with the bears and the ways in which Werner Herzog puts his own spin onto Treadwell's expereince, and in doing so changes the viewer's experience with Treadwell. This discrepancy between the filmmakers' goals and the methods they use to reach the viewer, show that when a documentary film maker inserts himself into the subject, it distorts the subject they mean to document. The author highlights, that the only time the viewer gets a real sense of nature are the scenes in which neither Herzog nor Treadwell commentate. When I saw "The True Meaning Of Pictures," I think I was less against this authorial imprint because it achieved a positive effect for viewers, but after examining "Grizzly Man," I'm beginning to understand that the only way to present a true picture of a subject is for the filmmaker to remove himself completely from the frame.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannahbelle. When the filmmaker becomes involved with the happenings that take place in front of the camera, the meaning of those happenings changes. However, is it possible to be COMPLETELY removed from the subject that one is filming? Does the presence of camera equipment and a crew alter the behavior of the people (or bears) in front of the camera, thus not giving a 'true' documentation of how things are? I think the instant someone approaches the potential subject of a documentary and asks if it's cool that the film them, the status quo changes. I think it becomes less of a documentary and more of an impromptu performance. However, this is a very generalized statement and different subjects act differently to being filmed. The ideal way to capture the closest thing to a 'real' documentary is to film your subjects completely invisibly "Candid Camera" style.
ReplyDeleteHerzog most definitely has an agenda with Grizzly Man. He explains that Treadwell shot 85 hours of footage during the last five years of his life, yet Herzog chooses exactly which bits of footage he wants his audience to see. Herzog makes his opinions of Treadwell known, not only based on his narration, but also in how he edits the pieces together.
ReplyDeleteI think it was interesting what was said in class the other day about how "the initiative" to make a documentary implies that the filmmaker already has somewhat of a view or opinion on the subject merely by his or her decision to film it.
ReplyDeleteIt got me thinking about how true that is for documentaries like Chris Rock's "Good Hair" or "Supersize Me." Both of those documentaries seem as if it is their intention to discover some kind of unknown truth about their subject. But with both of these examples, the filmmakers end up just reinforcing their own opinion about their subject.
In "Good Hair" Chris Rock was motivated by a conversation he had with his daughters about their hair. He already had a negative view of the black hair industry and put together a documentary of confirming evidence to support his claim. There was no pure discovery. He didn't present facts and allow the viewer to form their own opinion. He constructed the film so that the audience had no choice but to come away feeling that relaxing their hair was a bad thing.
Isn't any sort of film started in this way? There always has to be some sort of initiation to begin any kind of project. just a thought
ReplyDeletehttp://silhouettemasterpiecetheatre.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/01wildlifephotographer.jpg
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this documentary, all I felt was that Herzog most likely wouldn't have made the documentary had Timothy not died, but not only that..but the way in which he died. Because of the fact that this man died by the likes of a bear, maybe not the same bears that he had been living around, but the fact that he loved the bears, and that's what killed him...this is the reason the documentary was made anyhow.
It was just a matter of who decided to pick up the camera and right to the footage first.