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."
Citizen Koch
ReplyDeleteIn the past, the Supreme Court of the United States has made some landmark decisions that have polarized the citizens of our country against one another in ways that seemingly is impossible to bridge the differences in our opinions. When the SCOTUS made the decision that corporations could essentially be considered citizens, I was dumbfounded and knew that it would be an unprecedented decision affecting the outcomes of future elections, especially in the amount of money spent on ads aired on television.
With Carl Deal and Tia Lessin’s Citizen Koch, I was astounded at the sheer volume of cash that corporations, namely Koch Industries, are able to pour into these political PAC’s to fund the candidates or movements that they find favorable yet can say they are not influencing the vote. The people that Deal and Lessin focused on in Wisconsin that felt duped by the tea party were real eye openers for the working class, at least in my opinion, especially as they thought they were going to get one thing with Governor Walker and he essentially stripped public workers of so much once he came into power, taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions.
I think the message of the film is that money has had quite an impact on the political system in the Unites States and that perhaps it is no longer a government for the people elected by the people, but a government for the corporations elected by the Koch Brothers and their billionaire friends. I do think that they present quite a bit of evidence that is severely damning of the Koch’s and their friends/super PAC’s that certainly boosts the filmmakers’ point, but of course, they really didn’t have to do much for that as the tea party has had quite an alarming loud voice in the most recent past and not been afraid to share their extremist points of views. I did find it interesting at the end of the film they included the information about the film originally slated for airing on Public Broadcasting, so I did some follow up. Of course, David Koch at the time had served on the board of the public television station that the film was originally to air on and donates to it, and I found out $150K was pulled from the funding of the film on behalf of Independent Television Service as reported by Jane Mayer of the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-our-sponsor).
It is unfortunate that as the Republican turned Independent 2012 Presidential candidate Charles “Buddy” Roemer put it, “Money is a weapon.” In my opinion, as long as corporations are able to have their “voice” in the voting process, we will continue to see the interests of the 1% represented more than the majority, with tax cuts for businesses and the super wealthy increase that the middle and lower classes have to subsidize, taxing the downtrodden to the brink of despair.
Citizen Koch is an emotional documentary about the struggle between money and American democracy. The movie starts off with silence and the use of white words on the screen. The white words represents knowledge and purity from my perspective. The words said, “The colored man looms large in the communist plan to take over America.” Colored men do not have the same goals in taking over America, and women was not included in the quote, which immediately made me lose interest in the documentary.
ReplyDeleteBecause the documentary is involves the reality of a Presidential election, the White House, conferences, and advertisings were seen. I did not care about was doubted that he could ever become President simply because of his race. The messages that the patriots were saying was different from people believing in communism. Some of the characters in the documentary disliked how America wastes money on getting the rich richer without helping the poor. Democrats are not of much help, which is why innocent citizens think of the American system as a joke. Footage of an audience was shown on the date April 2011 in Madison, Wisconsin. The audience are listening to Sarah Palin speak.
By critics, Obama was doubted that he would ever become President simply because of his race. I disliked that news cast members would even yap about such a topic, because from my perspective, that partly influences ignorance. Buddy Roemer said, “The politicians don’t run the country. The major corporations do.” He also stated that money is a weapon and that the rich has more guns than anybody.” I agree with Roemer’s words because with money, almost anything is possible. Then, a United States citizen was shown saying that Scott Walker was a bully, and if he was not for the Union, he would not retire. A militant man said that the Tea Party should not vote for Walker because he took out 1 and a half billion dollars, and gave it back to state interests groups. People in Wisconsin make $10 dollars an hour, and they struggle to own homes. A man in an auto shop even spoke about making his own cigarettes because of the troubling cost of living.
55 percent of African American males and 49 percent of females in Wisconsin have no photo ID. In order to fly on an airplane, a photo ID is necessary. Lower-class citizens need the benefits of healthcare for children, and the Union allows the weekend off of work. It is a shame that many United States citizens have to be selfish if they are not living in the low-class. Many hardworking citizens struggle to provide money and food for themselves as well as their family.
When Wisconsin was open for business, $117 million worth of tax breaks was selfishly given to wealthy people. The governor was not even trying to keep a budget and seemed confused when he was questioned about how much money the provision saves for his state’s budget. He admitted that the provision had no effect for his state’s budget. I feel like the the governor cannot comprehend how it is to live in poverty, but does not care. I felt like Sarah Palin was using key words just to win the audiences attention without meaning what she said. During a recorded speech she says, “she refers to her supporters as patriots, but what word would she refer to Obama’s supporters? At the end of the documentary, Union voters finally gave Obama his victory for a second term in Presidency.
As I’m sure I’ve mentioned in a previous blog post, I simply don’t do well with politics. I find it all just too confusing and overwhelming to follow, and when I finally do come around to breaking the facts down piece by piece, the state of affairs we are left with simply don’t inspire much confidence, so why bother with the headache? Unfortunately, my reaction after viewing Citizen Koch was no exception to that disenchantment. Politicians are corrupt, and people with money are the ones in charge. Who knew, right? Can’t say that message is much of a shocker to me at this point, so I kind of had a sense for what direction this film was heading in from the start. That isn’t to say that I didn’t enjoy the film. It was fairly engaging with a good command on tone and authority on behalf of effective editing, pacing, and sound design. Was it a bit bias against the Republican Party given the obvious imbalance of campaign coverage and propaganda ads? Sure. There’s always going to be some of that. But given a topic like this, I’d say that the bias is at a fairly modest quantity. And this doesn’t necessarily deter from the film’s weight because what was essentially being explored here was the relation between one of the world’s most prosperous corporations and the underhanded diplomacies of a particular U.S. political party. And hey, if the shoe fits, right? It was informative, organized and factual, but it also had some heart on account of testimony from some of the townspeople, as well as how Roemer’s story tied into this whole ordeal. And that, I did appreciate. All in all, although there were some evident redeemable qualities towards the efforts presented regarding Obama’s union backed reelection, to what end, may I ask, does it even continue to matter for “the little people” in the grander scheme of things given the current political state of affairs? Citizen Koch doesn’t end on a particularly high note for me.
ReplyDeleteAs someone often bored by figures and numbers concerning politics, I found this documentary surprisingly educating. Some spectacular shots were fired at our past candidate’s campaign finances. Where does the money come from, and what promises are to be granted once declared president? What kind of power does money grant you?
ReplyDeleteQuite a lot, Citizen Koch informs us. Focusing much on the Koch brothers—republican billionaires— who wrote any sized check in order to have a say in the laws passed during the next term. It’s both astonishing and maddening just how powerful the dollar can be in our electoral system. This Doc seemed to establish the idea that when there is money to throw, us average joe’s all but lose our ballot power.
This Doc could most certainly be taken as activist propaganda, it is also more. It is a hard fought argument, supported with both evidence and authority. The directors used real examples from our not so distant past and our present to show just how corrupt the system has become.
Authentic? Yes. Convincing? Sure. Although, lacking any real personality or flavor, I would argue that the Documentary’s tone made the film and the issue itself, exhaustible. As a student I will admit there is a lot going in the backstage workings of the government that I am not aware of. And although I am sure the meanderings of politicians and billionaires should be a concerning one, it is hard to see what it has to do with me. Yes, the string-pullers may be pulling the country in a way I don’t want it to be pulled, but what is it that I’m supposed to do about that? Horribly boring and admittedly dull, this Documentary, while evidenced and official, fails to give me a solution or a call to arms. The american government is corrupt. I could have gotten that message without the hour+ lecture Carl and Tia.
A documentary generally expresses its opinion through the facts it chooses to include and how they are presented to the audience. In Citizen Koch the filmmakers choose to show us whiney tea party republicans and ignorant one, like the man who shrugs off the amount of money the Koch brothers spent on the race with a “I don’t believe the liberal media” bumper sticker. The filmmakers also show us well informed and previously dedicated republicans to balance out these extremes.
ReplyDeleteThey also show us a former republican Presidential Candidate, Buddy Roemer, to further their point about the damage the Tea Party and major corporations are doing to the political system.
I didn’t feel like the film was particularly educational, it felt like a piece of propaganda, just like the films they bash. They didn’t do any real questioning or searching for answers with the party they were attacking. It is easy to get the opposing party on film and get the opinions you want, and the footage to make an entertaining film, but it didn’t register as authentic to me. In this respect I think they also lost some of their authority.
I thought the movie was done really well. I knew our government was corrupt and big business ran a lot of things. This documentary opened my eyes to the Koch brothers I never knew about them because honestly I try not to pay attention to government stuff as much as possible. I do feel its wrong how the little guy cant have a fair run for election without getting millions of dollars to compete against the big boys. To me this country every day falls off of its original ways of doing things and becomes closer and closer to becoming a complete shit hole. Its wrong how our country looses jobs everyday because of major corporations ran by big money. One thing I learned last semester was how hollywood is no longer what it used to be. Each major production company is ran by a major corporation. Its wrong I feel how money can get someone in this country places. I feel like this is a very authentic thing. It gave all the evidence of why people in this film say what they do. They showed many aspects from many different parties and etc and still show how much Koch brothers put into this and how almost every thing in any election there as they had major contribution towards. The argument seemed to be structured very well. Building up main points to each issue. I enjoyed this film even though I'm not a fan of political things. Showed very good points.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Koch was a hard documentary for me to watch and I had to take a few days to compose a response. It wasn't particularly gruesome or disturbing in the normal manner but it showed me how little I know about American politics. It was difficult for me to actually understand that just a few years ago all this happened and yet at as a freshman in high school, I was completely oblivious. I believe that the directors of this film not only wanted people like me to actually visualize and understand what’s happening in America but also call these “average folk” to take a side and make a stand.
ReplyDeleteIn their obviously anti big business doc, Dean and Lessin showed both sides of the political drama happening over a period of years that made republicans turn away from their party and made democrats question the person they put in office as president. I am not necessarily very well educated on American politics but I was surprised as how many people in this documentary were. It seemed that all these people knew what was going on and either were fighting for change or fighting to keep things the same.
My main concern while watching the film though was not whether some governor would get recalled (which seemed to be the main fight in the film) but whether Buddy would get on a debate. This kinda supporting character guy really stole the show for me. I don't think this was the directors intent but it strikes me somehow. This guy did everything he could to get on the debate and when he finally had that 2% they told him he hadn't raised enough money. I do know that money means everything in America but give the guy a chance!
This isn't really on topic with the film but as an American I don’t feel like I have much to complain about; I have had the privilege of growing up in middle class America where I could go to school and eat every day and buy new shoes without much worry. That doesn't mean that I am oblivious to others out there who go without these privileges, but it does seem that some big shots in the American Government are blind to this fact. Spending millions on political campaigns and fighting whether or not certain people or corporations can give you however much money is just stupid. I think Citizen Koch really exploits how awful these corporation people are and how they are making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
This documentary opened a floodgate of emotions and opinions in me and I think thats what its supposed to do. Citizen Koch showed its audience the hard truth of what happens behind the scenes in American politics and doesn't leave you questioning if you saw the truth or not which happens a lot in political docs.
“Citizen Koch”, directed by Tia Lessin and Carl Deal, unfolds into somewhat of a hectic conversation of politics, rights held by the people, unions and money. If you don’t really understand or take time to understand politics, such as myself, then this film can get pretty confusing. I believe this film, however, is structured very well. From the beginning, the filmmakers present videos and facts to us so the general audience can get a better understanding of what is happening. A somewhat parallel structure was used in this film, I believe: showing one side and then showing the other. However, this film was an activist-style of documentary filmmaking. By showing people their argument through the film’s structure, directors Lessin and Deal showed a lot more emotional and heartfelt interviews and footage of the side that was hurting opposed to the somewhat emotionless, stubborn interviews of the Tea arty and Scott Walker supporters.
ReplyDeleteThis film, when it comes down to it, is about money; it is about how, like Buddy Roemer said in the film, “money is a weapon.” Unions are one of the biggest and most powerful supporters of Democrats. So, with the Koch brothers backing people like Scott Walker by giving away millions of dollars, the push to bust unions is fairly easy. This, in turn, gives way to an easier path towards a wanted vote shared by heads of corporations, even if the people don’t agree with it, and even if it hurts the middle-class workers and even the environment. “Global warming is bullshit!” was screamed out over and over at a Tea party meeting in the film. This film, along with other activist films such as this, shows me just how greedy and in denial many people are in this country. It is actually pretty frightening. This film, to me, didn’t just show the corruption with the Republican party, but politics across the board. At the beginning of the film, it shows how the Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporations having the right to spend limitlessly just as private citizens do to help or hinder a candidate. In other words, the Supreme Court saw corporations as people.
Lastly, on dealing with this film presenting authentic evidence, it has to be said that it could not be verified easily while watching the film. Yes, there are “facts” flashed onto the screen, but there is no citation below them showing where the filmmakers got this information. Also, one part in the movie that almost made me laugh was the prank phone call that a journalist made to Scott Walker posing as David Koch. I thought it was an interesting little part in the film, but at the time, I could not verify what I was hearing could actually be true; I could not really confirm if this really was Scott Walker and some journalist, or if it was just two actors having a scripted conversation. The majority of films usually have an argument in them, or a theme. They usually have a way of persuading their audiences. By leaving out or creating false facts or footage to help support the film’s argument, the director will usually do it. This is why I never truly trust any film. I can only observe and come to my own conclusions.
Citizen Koch managed to make me feel upset and annoyed the entire time. Our government and politics is so corrupt by money and big businesses, it’s just infuriating. This film was trying to get across the message of how big money and corporations are influencing our media and government. I had never heard of this Buddy guy running for the Republican presidential candidate. I liked him more than I liked any of the actual Republican candidates, but then again the movie could be shaping him to be a likable guy. Regardless, I’m surprised I had never heard of him before. What surprised me even more though, was having never heard about Walker and all the stuff going on in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is right next to us, yet somehow I never heard about them trying to recall this guy. I’m not necessarily always with it when it comes to politics, but this is something that I feel like I definitely should have heard about. It makes me wonder how much news we don’t really get to hear about since the media is so corrupt. I think this was all great evidence, at least for myself, of how money and businessmen are able to shape the influence of things and the outcomes. The title itself appears to be a remark towards the movie “Citizen Kane”, which had to do with a man becoming very greedy and practicing yellow journalism. This relates intensely with the Koch’s, and is quite a clever name. I think the film and title are trying to say that we aren’t always fed the truth and that things aren’t always done fairly. Money and corruption are controlling things and we have to keep trying to fight it and show it’s ugly face in order for good and truth to persevere. I think Walker not being recalled showed that we need to keep trying, and Obama’s reelection shows that we can succeed. It does seem to be a very democratic based view point, but I think it has a lot of supporting facts and does focus a lot on Republicans being divided in some cases, like the Walker recall, so it’s not necessarily a one sided documentary.
ReplyDeleteAs Buddy Roemer stated in the film, Money is a weapon.
ReplyDeleteFor a quite some time the American government has not been concerned with it's working class citizens and their rights. This documentary shows that the government and the people who financially back them make decisions with their best interest in mind. This doc presents us with so many facts and figures on spending and donations, that it becomes a bit overwhelming when you realize just how much money is spent backing Republican candidates and running their campaigns. It's so upsetting to see that 33 million dollars were spent on campaign ads, and then have Republicans turn around and blame the president for the poverty and the current economic state. Then those same politicians such as Walker then attempt to pass bills that continue to hurt the working class citizens.
I could not believe that he tried to pass a bill that would take away their collective bargaining right even though that wouldn't save the state any money. Then he gave 117 million dollars in tax breaks to the wealthy folks of Wisconsin but cut the earned income tax credit which doubled taxes for poor parents. It's obvious that Walker and his big money friends from Wisconsin would benefit from the tax breaks, and I think it's very safe to assume that he would not personally know anyone affected by the cutting the income tax credit.
As mentioned in the film one of the rights of the American citizen is the right Vote. Even though I am a person who is not associated with any political party, I do believe voting on the smaller level is where the change starts. But in reality the United States is a business, and in it's eyes if you aren't financially contributing to it you might as well not have rights...so in clearer terms in American if you're not a wealthy citizen with a valid ID your vote is probably not considered important.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI often struggle with the question of authenticity and comprehensiveness as it pertains to political documentaries. While films like Citizen Koch are necessary and important in their exposition of potentially obscured information, I find it difficult to trust their voice, even if I agree with what they are saying.
ReplyDeleteThe argument of Citizen Koch focuses on the corruption of our government through the power of corporations' financial contributions to elections. As we see with the unsuccessful recall of Walker, elections are no longer about passion and legwork at a social level, but rather about which campaign can raise the most funds from massive corporations.
The film is a collage of statistics, political soundbites, militantly delusional Tea Partiers, hot and heavy protestors, and folksy champions of a holistic citizen-driven electoral process. The filmmakers arrange these elements, making quite clear who the “good” and the “bad” participants are, and crafting their argument within the framework of aesthetically and behaviorally down-home citizens doing "patriotic things." These characters express (seemingly) simple, unarguable capitalist opinions (people should choose their government, the government should serve the people, etc.). Buddy Roemer is a primary player in this debate, but, as further proves the film's point, his voice is weeded out by corporate dollars and inflated, almost commercial, campaigns.
The central reason why I approach the authenticity of political films such as this with a slightly cynical eye is because the very nature of documentary storytelling (or any storytelling) relies heavily on elimination and manipulation. But with this in mind, Citizen Koch draws attention to an element of our electoral process that, due to the film's very argument, has been swept under the rug. Even at its conclusion, we learn that the film's own visibility is jeopardized due to PBS being held at financial gunpoint by none other than Koch. This, to me, is the most straightforward evidence that we are provided with to support the filmmakers' argument of money dictating the unavailability of that which should rightfully be available.
Citizen Koch ~ Dalton Homolka
ReplyDeleteI wouldn’t really consider myself to be a lover of politics, but for some reason films like this always get me really fired up. I think our government system is extremely corrupt and inhumane, specifically the views and opinions shared by the members of the Tea Party, and it makes me wish there was something I could do to change things. I had already heard a bit about the topic covered in this documentary, and I’m sure by now most people are aware that corporations control most of politics, and ultimately our country. This film however gave me a better understanding of it all, taking it into grave detail and by putting it into the form of one story versus separate events in the news.
I do think that it was a little biased against the Republican Party, but because all can relate to the topic, I didn’t find that it was really an issue. I also don’t think the directors were inappropriately harsh towards the Republican Party because their points seemed to be backed by solid evidence and footage. It mostly shared factual information, introducing many viewers to the truth behind how our political system has been run that last few years.
I also found it intriguing that it only happened a few years ago and is still continuing today. It just amazes me that this exposure exists but so does the problem – and it’s a massive problem. It is an extremely important message if we as a nation want to progress at a necessary rate. With this being said, I enjoyed the film’s message because I believe it to be very important to get across to the masses. Of course, being an informative, political documentary, it could get a little boring or confusing at times, but it made up for it with the honest and authentic exposure of the Koch brothers and their team of greedy politicians.
I really get lost in politics. I feel like there are ways to make anyone look corrupt with and camera showing rallies and interviews of people with opposing issues. I become very wary of being shown so called facts. I see the conflict of wealthy outside contributors having the power to shape our country. The Louisiana senator/governor Buddy Roener was using guns as a metaphor for money. He said, "Gun work two ways, you can shoot someone, or you can just show them the gun. And whoever has more guns typically wins." I think that is the basis of this film. I think documentarians could make Mother Teresa look bad if it was their job. Because the Koch brothers have money they are able to have an ample voice through a political party. They become puppeteers of political representatives just because they have money. I think this piece was more to show perspective than to be on the offensive for one side or another. They focus on the greed, and corruption in politics but they could have made this much more biased and hateful.
ReplyDeleteWhen the subject of politics comes up in a social setting I take no part in the discussion. I prefer to listen rather than talk. It’s a subject I have low confidence in. The first ten or so minutes moved too fast for me. While I was having this information hurled at me I had no time to understand what it was! Ok Supreme Court…..One retired….new one took over….Citizens United case…Tea Party. I gathered all of this information but I was confused as to what was going on and what it meant. Once the film moved past the fast moving parts I was able to settle in. I wanted to know more about the Koch brothers. Although, it seemed like they are very private people and getting an interview longer than two minutes proved to be difficult. Anyways, the film is arguing about how money and how it is unfair for out of state organizations to fund another state without a limit to what they can donate. There’s more than just issue the film brings to light. While they are important issues I think they use the screen time unwisely and the films ending is as sudden as pulling a cord from a wall outlet.
ReplyDeleteI thought I would be the only one stating how exhausting politics are, so I’m glad to see I’m not the only one. I would like to be educated, but then the question arises am I even being educated by the right people? Who do I believe? Citizen Koch was easy to follow and I feel like I took information away, but I can’t say whether it was authentic. I think anything dealing with politics should be questioned because again, am I being educated by the right people? I believed in what they were saying because I identify with the people in the film struggling, but I’m sure there is some other side of the argument about why Koch is actually awesome and that would probably be pretty persuasive too. The over arching theme of this documentary was the “what happens behind the scenes in America”. I think to some level society understands that the rich have the upper hand, but I definitely didn’t realize how much money actually influences everything. I was cheering for Buddy, who I thought was more than qualified for the position as well as having solid points. His heart was in it for the people, not the power. Even after reaching the qualifications they asked for, he was still denied because he doesn’t have the supportive backing of some big corporate funding. I think this film addresses a few arguments, but mainly I think it is arguing that we need to exercise our right to vote as citizens. I never thought voting was important until they said “vote because they don’t want us to” and “the only time the wealthiest person is equal to the poorest is when you can vote”. I think that is a very powerful message, and for that I think I will begin to take politics more seriously and try to conjure up my own stance for elections. It is scary to think how flawed the system is, how stripped of rights people are becoming, and how the importance of what another candidate cannot do trumps what someone can do.
ReplyDeleteOh hey I’m in the end of this film. I’m amongst the giant crowd of protesters in the end when they show Michigan’s Right to Work protest at the capitol.I found this film very interesting and educational. I think this was very well put together because it took the complicated politics that can be hard to understand and made it digestible for the viewer. I was very excited about this! When the Right to Work protest occurred, speaking for majority of the people I spoke to and myself, we didn’t know why they were trying to put the act in place simply that it was a bad thing. We knew that it was a step toward union busting but not why. This film clearly laid out for me the reasons why. I even passed it along to those I was at the protest with.
ReplyDeleteThis film definitely feels like it is sending a cautionary message. It feels like a warning for where the government is headed if we let corporate america run the elections simply because they have the ability to provide big checks. The cautionary message comes out of the interviews and the editing style. Where it shows the fast clips of the tea party rallies, that editing style is following the Soviet montage propaganda style. When we see political footage edited in this way it can create this unnerving feeling. This is because of the history associated this style. This is the way that it shows the people that support the corporations and the parties being founded by them.
But when it shows the people who are against it and see it as a problem it shows how it’s a problem in their daily lives and interviews with them. It makes it hard to not sympathise with them. It shows the effects of this issue already taking place to warn us of the future.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with this film the fact are heavily backed up by that structure. The film does show news clips with facts, polls and things that really happened. These are important to the film because it makes it credible. I think if it relied solo on facts they wouldn’t mean as much to the viewer and it would be easy to miss the point. But by using the structure they did they were able to present their message with authority and leave the viewer with a powerful warning.
First off, I'm really not a politics type of person, which does pose an issue because that's why so many government officials get away with what they do, but this documentary really took what seems complicated about politics and made it easy to understand to someone who isn't so political savvy like myself.
ReplyDeleteI think the film's argument is that the government doesn't run America, big businesses do and that citizens have the power to change that. The way the film is set up it shows that without powerful and wealthy companies like Koch Industries funding officials that are running for office, then they wouldn't be elected or even allowed to be a candidate such as Roemer stated when he was running to be the Republican candidate for president. Let's be honest-- money rules the world and these huge companies have most of it and that gives them power. The way this documentary left me feeling was like government officials are just puppets and shields.
This documentary made me realize that not wanting to really delve into politics and to sometimes just not talk about it is the reason so much corrupt shit is happening. Of course politics is an intimidating subject...if you don't know about it. So much of the public, including myself is afraid of sounding/looking foolish and dim-witted of the subject and that is the problem. But then there are some people who are probably do not possess a great political intellect but they will talk your ear off about how "this bill will put more money in the rich pockets" or "this bill will only tax the poor" even if they really have no clue what they are talking about. We just roll our eyes, but that has to stop. Like we as regular citizens, the majority might I add, really truly possess the power to change what is going on, but we'd rather not. I'm speaking for myself too. That John Mayer song, "Waiting on the World to Change" comes to mind. I'm not gonna post the whole song, but here are the lyrics that I feel best suit the theme of this documentary:
"Now we see everything that's going wrong
With the world and those who lead it
We just feel like we don't have the means
To rise above and beat it......
And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want........
It's not that we don't care,
We just know that the fight ain't fair
So we keep on waiting
Waiting on the world to change"
Like if this isn't some of the truest words ever spoken in a song, then tell me what your playlist is looking like. But seriously, this documentary really made me feel like I need to take action, but like most people I feel like in the end it might not work, so what's the point? I feel like if everything is going right for me then it's all good. But that's not the case because it is so much bigger than just ourselves. It all just leaves the question: What can I really do and where do I start? This is a really tough question and there isn't a simple answer. I don't know. This documentary just really made me think and it ignited a fire in me that just makes me want to get off of my ass and do something because I hate seeing shit that is just flat out wrong, but I hate even more that I'm not doing much about it except complaining.
Excuse my little tangent there but I really did find this documentary interesting. At first I was skeptical because it was about politics, but the way it was presented to me, it was watchable. It didn't present evidence so much with authority. It was more so, "Here's a TV clip, here's this recording, here are some interviews, and here is some commentary on the screen-- make of it what you want." And that is what I did.
I was surprised that not too many people in class enjoyed this documentary. I thought it was interesting and brought light to a subject that I haven't given much thought to. I think Citizen Koch said that corporations in America control more than you think and their influence in politics isn't right. I think the directors did a good job at finding who to interview, everyone had something really interesting to say. A lawyer was interviewed and explained the law that they were talking about and basically explained why the defense was wrong, furthering my idea that the point of Citizen Koch was to exploit the wrong doings or corporate America. Citizen Koch often using real audio of the supreme court talking about the case and the image being shown during that was of the court room, which made what they were talking about seem more serious, for instance if they were to show images of flowers during that part the impact wouldn't have been that strong. While there was footage of tea party campaigns and speeches playing, the background music would be harsh metal, which immediately makes a person tense and maybe scared. Which is good on the filmmakers because it helped further their point. There was one part in the movie that really stood out to me, they flashed a bunch of logos of the corporations that donate to political parties then immediately showed a republican symbol of the elephant, then the democratic donkey. Which made me associate the corporations with the republican party. I know that the democratic party also receives donations from corporations, but from those images it made me think "oh republicans are the bad guys, they are the ones manipulating the system." Which I think the directors of Citizen Koch did purposefully because this movie was leaning towards the left in terms of political ideology. There was a part in the movie where there was a phone call between an impersonator pretending to be David Koch and Scott Walker I was wondering if that was found material or if the directors hired someone to do that. Either way is it okay to use material in which one of the subjects is talking under false pretenses unbeknownst to them?.....I'm not too sure how I feel about it yet. I'm glad that the film makers exposed who Scott Walker is and what his intentions are, however....could they have done that by being honest people? The fact that they're lying to someone just bothers me.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that not too many people in class enjoyed this documentary. I thought it was interesting and brought light to a subject that I haven't given much thought to. I think Citizen Koch said that corporations in America control more than you think and their influence in politics isn't right. I think the directors did a good job at finding who to interview, everyone had something really interesting to say. A lawyer was interviewed and explained the law that they were talking about and basically explained why the defense was wrong, furthering my idea that the point of Citizen Koch was to exploit the wrong doings or corporate America. Citizen Koch often using real audio of the supreme court talking about the case and the image being shown during that was of the court room, which made what they were talking about seem more serious, for instance if they were to show images of flowers during that part the impact wouldn't have been that strong. While there was footage of tea party campaigns and speeches playing, the background music would be harsh metal, which immediately makes a person tense and maybe scared. Which is good on the filmmakers because it helped further their point. There was one part in the movie that really stood out to me, they flashed a bunch of logos of the corporations that donate to political parties then immediately showed a republican symbol of the elephant, then the democratic donkey. Which made me associate the corporations with the republican party. I know that the democratic party also receives donations from corporations, but from those images it made me think "oh republicans are the bad guys, they are the ones manipulating the system." Which I think the directors of Citizen Koch did purposefully because this movie was leaning towards the left in terms of political ideology. There was a part in the movie where there was a phone call between an impersonator pretending to be David Koch and Scott Walker I was wondering if that was found material or if the directors hired someone to do that. Either way is it okay to use material in which one of the subjects is talking under false pretenses unbeknownst to them?.....I'm not too sure how I feel about it yet. I'm glad that the film makers exposed who Scott Walker is and what his intentions are, however....could they have done that by being honest people? The fact that they're lying to someone just bothers me.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Koch seemingly illustrates how close-knit money and politics have become. It seems the director wanted us to feel threatened and/or forewarned about the way our political candidates enter the ballot. Citizen Koch also suggests that voters are being duped in terms of electing officials. Since there are many financial needs in the process of running for office, and the campaigns are heavily funded by corporate contributions, it's safe to assume the directors wanted us to feel our votes are not as important as we may think.
ReplyDeleteI think the directors were really able to drive this point home by depicting interviews from all categories of politics. They had candidates of both parties, voters, and media reps speak about their different premises in regards to this money and politics marriage. These methods were brilliant because they helped show opposing sides of same argument, which brings a sense of well-rounded coverage.
After seeing so many documentaries using techniques across the spectrum, I'm unsure if I can identify what's authentic or not, let alone determine where Citizen Koch falls. The evidence used to present him as such was presented assertively however.