AMERICAN PROMISE

I couldn't resist one more blog post, so here it is. I was bummed we couldn't finish watching American Promise during our class this past Wednesday, mostly because I really wanted to know what you thought. And although you're all super busy and this will not be considered a required post, if you do watch the rest of American Promise on Netflix Instant, I would love to read your comments - about the film, as well as about our visit from Margaret Byrne, the film's cinematographer.

Again, this is not a requirement, but if you do finish the film and have something to say about it, I'd be psyched so post away if you'd like.

No matter what, I can't thank you all enough for your commitment to watching all of the docs and posting your thoughtful comments about them throughout the semester. I'm going to miss this class and our blog, but I hope you'll continue watching - and hopefully making - more documentaries in the weeks, months and years ahead. Thanks again - and post away one more time if you'd like!

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO SEE?

Bill Cunningham New York

Happy Thanksgiving everybody! For this special holiday post - and considering we won't be having class this Wednesday - please spend some extra time looking through all of the amazing documentaries available on Netflix Instant and choose 5 feature-length docs on the site you still haven't seen but would like to.

• List the names of the 5 docs you chose, and provide a brief reason why you chose each one.
• Choose 1 of your 5 docs to watch and analyze this week
• Provide a logline of 1-2 sentences describing the doc you chose to watch
• Write at least 2-3 paragraphs explaining what you did and/or did not like about your chosen film and why 

Remember to support your critical view of the film you chose by referencing some of the general concepts we've been discussing throughout the semester (Authority; Evidence; Authenticity; Ethics & Responsibility), as well as the way the film used its aesthetics (Editing; Cinematography; Sound & Music; Graphics & Animations; Voiceover) to support the story being told - narratively, thematically and otherwise.

You have a bit more time than usual to complete this post, so I expect your comments to be particularly thorough, thoughtful and specific. And please remember to post them on this blog and on Moodle no later than Tuesday morning, December 2nd at 9am (24 hours before our next class).

I'm super excited to see which films you choose and to hear your thoughts about them. Enjoy watching and writing, have a delicious Thanksgiving - and we'll talk more about the assignment when I see you on Wednesday, December 3rd!

VIRUNGA

I was going to have you watch an animated documentary this week, and although I really do love the beauty and imagination behind acclaimed filmmaker Michel Gondry's Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy? (which I recommend you watch at least 10 minutes of on Netflix Instant), I don't think the film's clever and lively visuals are capable of supporting the conversation that serves as its backbone. Still, it's worth checking out so do it (even briefly) if you can.

Also, I have to confess I was wrong about Netflix buying just one documentary for this year's awards season. They bought two, and the one I want you to watch and post about this week (which I think is better than E-Team) was just released on Netflix Instant five days ago. It's called Virunga, and you can watch it here.

Yesterday, both Virunga and E-Team received Best Production and Best Cinematography nominations from Cinema Eye, a super respected non-fiction filmmaking organization. Virunga earned a nomination for the top prize - Best Non-Fiction Feature (along with Life Itself!) - as well.

For this week's post, critically analyze Virunga referencing some of the concepts and aesthetics we've been talking about throughout the semester. And if you can swing it, please let me know how this film compares (and contrasts) to the one we saw last week. Did you like it better than E-Team? Why/why not?

By this point, you know what to do, you know how to do it well, and you know when it needs to be done here and on Moodle - by Tuesday at 9am of course.

Until then, enjoy Virunga, and I'll look forward to reading what you wrote and talking about it more about it with you next Wednesday!

E-TEAM

For this week's post, please watch E-Team on Netflix Instant - a film which premiered at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival, went on to win the best cinematography award there, and then was exclusively picked up by Netflix in the hopes that it will garner an Oscar nomination at the end of this year (like their acquisition The Square did last year).

Write whatever you'd like in your post, but please be sure to address as specifically as possible what you think of the cinematography work - highlighting at least one moment or scene from the film that supports your critical assertion in the process.

Is the film ethical? Are the filmmakers being responsible in the way they portray those who are suffering in war-torn countries? Most critics (like this one at the Washington Post) really loved the film, but others (like this one at the NY Times) did not. Who do you agree with? What do you think?

I hope you enjoy E-Team, and I'll look forward to reading what you post here and on Moodle - by 9am on Tuesday of course!

THE INTERRUPTERS

I'm so excited we'll be able to watch Steve James' acclaimed documentary on Roger Ebert Life Itself together during our next class. Even more exciting is the fact that Zak Piper - who is one of the producers of the film, as well as its sound recordist - will be joining us after the screening!

In preparation for Zak's visit, please watch The Interrupters on the PBS/Frontline website. Zak was both a co-producer and the sound recordist for that film as well, and we'll explore in-depth some of the sound recording challenges he encountered during the production.

Feel free to comment thoughtfully about The Interrupters, letting me know what in particular you most liked about it. And as always, please support your assertions with direct references to the material.

Finally, be sure to include in your response at least one question you want to ask Zak about the film, about the sound in the film and/or about its making in general. I'm interested to know what you want to ask.

I hope you enjoy the film, and please remember to post your comments - and question(s) for Zak - here and on Moodle by no later than 9am next Tuesday, November 4th.

LET THE FIRE BURN

I'll keep it short for this week's post, in part because you've all been working so hard. That said, I would love for you to watch Let the Fire Burn on Netflix Instant, mostly because I'm curious to know what you think of this film, particularly about the way it uses archival footage to tell its thoughtful and ultimately potent story.

Write whatever you'd like this week, but please remember to support your assertions by referencing specific moments, scenes or sequences from the film. And if, in your reply, you can address concepts of Authenticity, Authority, Evidence, Responsibility and how they relate to your understanding and appreciation of Let the Fire Burn - all the better.

Good luck, and please remember to post your response both here and on Moodle by no later than Tuesday morning at 9am!

TABLOID

John Grierson famously defined documentary as "the creative treatment of actuality," and for this week's post, I want you to watch Errol Morris's Tabloid on Netflix Instant and consider all the weird and wonderful ways in which Morris creatively treats the truth, as well as how he uses visual display to generate meaning. And do the film's style and sensibility - as well as its main nonfictional performer - contribute to your understanding of its theme (which is...)? How?

Errol Morris (The Thin Blue Line; Fog of War) is one of the most influential directors working today. Before his death, Roger Ebert wrote, "After twenty years of reviewing films, I haven't found another filmmaker who intrigues me more...Errol Morris is like a magician, and as great a filmmaker as Hitchcock or Fellini.”

Write whatever you'd like, but please be sure to address your feelings about the way Tabloid utilizes the aesthetics of filmmaking to tell its story - Morris himself says Tabloid is in many ways a story about the way stories are told. Is the film authentic? Was the filmmaker responsible to its subject and main character? Would you have made it differently? If so, how?

Finally, do you think the film's main subject Joyce McKinney was right to file a lawsuit against Morris (article here) and travel around the country attending several screenings in protest (even more amazing article here)? Needless to say, this story is a hoot, Morris is a genius, and I look forward to discussing both with you in more detail when we next meet.

In the meantime, I hope you enjoy Tabloid and can't wait to read your thoughts about the film and its aesthetics - by no later than 9 am on Tuesday of course.

ROOM 237

There are two types of non-fiction films: those that use dramatic conventions to tell their stories, and those that, as one of your recommended texts Crafting Truth states, "aim at developing experimental or poetic ways of arranging story information."

Some documentaries - called "essays" - contradict the assumption that the world can be known in a definitive way. The "essay" film shifts the focus from the end product of the investigative effort to the process by which knowledge is created. To speak metaphorically, it is the movement, not the destination, that matters the most.

Consider this as you watch Rodney Ascher's fascinating 2012 film Room 237 on Netflix Instant. What specifically about the story - poetically or otherwise - resonated with you? Is the film dramatic? Is it poetic? One thing's for sure: Ascher's film draws attention not only to the various theories and hidden meanings in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining but goes further to reveal the subjectivity of the documentary maker and the subjective nature of knowledge and understanding itself.

I look forward to reading your answers to those questions, along with the rest of your comments, here (and on Moodle) by Tuesday morning at 9 am.

CITIZEN KOCH

How do we understand the "message" a film is trying to give us? How does a documentary organize its "facts" and structure its "argument"?

For this week's post, please watch Citizen Koch on Netflix Instant and let me know what you think. In particular, let me know what you think the film's argument is, and please provide details about how the directors Carl Deal and Tia Lessin structure that argument. What is the message in the film? Is Citizen Koch authentic? Does it present its evidence with authority?

Have fun watching and writing - and make sure your comments are posted by no later than Tuesday at 9 am!

ous thugs free reign to preen their atrocities and then fobs it all off as some kind of exalted art thing. This is more than an aesthetic crime; it's a moral crime."

THE ACT OF KILLING

In the coming week, we will explore what are possibly the two most important concepts related to documentary making: Ethics and Responsibility. In preparation for the in-depth discussion we'll have during our next class, please watch the visceral, shocking and truly unforgettable The Act of Killing on Netflix Instant and let me know what your opinion is. And trust me: you will have an opinion.

In writing about this "documentary of the imagination" here, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges called The Act of Killing "an important exploration of the complex psychology of mass murderers," saying "it is not the demonized, easily digestible caricature of a mass murderer that most disturbs us. It is the human being."

But there are others who were outraged and disgusted and called the film "repellant," like the Christian Science Monitor's Peter Rainer, who wrote in his review, "Oppenheimer allows murderous thugs free rein to preen their atrocities and then fobs it all off as some kind of exalted art thing. This is more than an aesthetic crime; it's a moral crime."

For this week's post, please tell me as specifically as possible what you think the director Joshua Oppenheimer's approach to the material is. Is he being Responsible and Ethical in his portrayal of the atrocities committed in Indonesia? If so, how? If not, how not? And how does Oppenheimer show Authority in this film - or does he? Please answer these questions and remember to provide an example of two from the film itself to support your claims.

Additionally, I'd like to know what (or whose) interest you think this film serves. What impact might it have on those watching it (like you)? Does it take into account the welfare of the people represented? If so, how?

Finally, and just in case you'd like more information about The Act of Killing before we meet, here are few additional links:

• An interview that provides some context, background and aesthetic insight from the director Joshua Oppenheimer (here)
• An excerpt from a feisty and condemning piece about the film written by BBC producer and doc expert Nick Frasier titled "We Love Impunity" (here)
• A report showing the incredible impact the film has had on Indonesia, where it triggered the first public debate of its kind around the country's past and inspired the Human Rights Commission of Indonesia to call the film "essential viewing for us all." (here)

I look forward to hearing everything you have to say about this polarizing and provocative film, especially in terms of Ethics, Responsibility, Evidence, Authority and Authenticity - by no later than 9 am on Tuesday morning, of course.

STORIES WE TELL

The beginning of Chapter 3 in Crafting Truth (one of the recommended texts on our syllabus) states that "Authority forms part of the complicated ways by which documentaries represent nonfictional reality."

For this week's post, please watch Sarah Polley's critically acclaimed and incredibly complex documentary Stories We Tell on Netflix Instant and let me know what you think, especially in relation to how successfully (or unsuccessfully) the film has been authored. In particular, explain as best you can what the director's approach to her story is, and please let me know if you think her chosen approach makes her story more - and/or less - convincing and why. Do you appreciate what Polley's done aesthetically with the film or not? Is this just another self-absorbed, indulgent personal memoir or something altogether fresh and inspired?

I look forward to reading how you sort this film out - what you liked, what you didn't like, and what it meant to you. Write whatever you'd like, just be sure to address the concept of authority and how it impacted your feelings about this piece of work.

And remember, your in-depth, inspired comments about Stories We Tell need to appear on this blog (and cut and pasted into Moodle) by no later than 9 am on Tuesday morning.

Have fun!

THE SQUARE | CONTROL ROOM

The most successful documentaries claiming to represent socio-historical experiences successfully convince us that what we're seeing on the screen really happened. How do they do this? What kind of evidence do they use to persuade us to accept them as truthful and accurate? Why do we believe the evidence?

Please watch Jehane Noujaim's 2013 documentary The Square on Netflix Instant and let me know what you did and/or didn't like about it. What primary kinds of evidence did the director include? Did you believe the evidence was accurate and truthful? Why?

I promise I won't do this again, but for this week I really want you to watch another film as well: Ms. Noujaim's 2004 documentary Control Room on Netflix Instant - a film which offers an even more powerful attempt to engage with questions surrounding evidence. Control Room looks at the way the American-led invasion of Iraq was represented by al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite channel which recently began broadcasting programs in the US. The war itself serves as the underlying context of the documentary, but the real subject of the film is the media battle that was fought alongside the military conflict.

Control Room makes us think about the way the news media handle information, how evidence is used by media producers, and what consequences their choices may have. It asks us to to compare factual information presented by the Arab news channel with material gathered by Western TV. Watching the film, we realize that "evidence" of the same event can have significantly different meanings when seen from dissimilar sides of the political spectrum.

Noujaim's documentary, too, involves an effort to gather and present evidence, and it, too, uses that evidence to support a particular point of view, a more positive opinion of al-Jazeera than Western audiences might have expected in 2004.

I look forward to reading how you sort this film out - what you liked, what you didn't like, and what it meant to you. In general, I encourage you to write whatever you want about The Square and Control Room, just be sure to discuss the concept of evidence and how it impacted your feelings about these two pieces of work.

And please remember: your in-depth, inspired comments need to appear on this blog (and cut and pasted into the assignment on Moodle) by no later than 9am on Tuesday morning.

Happy watching and writing!

THE IMPOSTER

Welcome to our class blog everybody! For your first post - and as a lead-in to our conversation next week about truth, authenticity and evidence in documentary-making - please watch The Imposter on Instant Netflix. I encourage you to write whatever you'd like in your response, but please specifically address the following questions in the body of your comments:

• What visual and aural techniques does the director Bart Layton utilize to draw the audience into the story he's telling? Explain what those techniques are, and let us know whether or not you thought they were effective and why.
• Some of the most compelling films we watch, be they fiction or non-fiction, allow us to form our own impressions of the truth of actual events. That said, tell us what you think happened to that missing boy Nicholas Barkley. And why do you think his sister Carey recognized Frédéric Bourdin as her brother and continued to do so even after she was told he wasn't?
• How did the director combine fictionalized elements and recreate interviews with "real" interviews and actual footage that was recorded over thirty years ago? Was it seamless or did the interplay draw attention to itself? Please explain.
• Furthermore, was the juxtaposition of "real" and recreated images compelling to you? Were there any flaws in the approach that took you out of the story? Or, considering this film is largely about lying and deception, was the director just letting "form follow function" by using the aesthetics of his craft to challenge the viewer to always think about the variety of ways we as filmmakers try to capture "the truth"?
• Finally, can something that's been recreated still be "authentic"? If so, how? If not, why not?

Feel free to do some research on your own to inform your opinion about what you saw. For example, you can read the New York Times review of the film here and a really interesting feature about it here. 

Remember to write your response in a separate document and then cut and paste it into the comments section of this post. Sometimes longer comments get cut off here, in which case you might have to post your thoughts in two parts. Be sure your post shows up here no later than 9 am on Tuesday morning - and have fun putting your response together. I really look forward to reading what you write!