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!
Watching this documentary was most certainly restorative for me. I understand that this may be somewhat ironic given the bleak subject matter, but the tone of the film felt very different than what I have come to expect a film of this nature to entail. For example, unlike in The Square which primarily focused on the subjects experiencing these socio-political injustices firsthand, the subjects of the film felt spaced out evenly between the various members of the E-Team and the numerous victims of political warfare being represented. For me, this gave the film a different sense of urgency and tonal appeal that read more like a practical call to action from a foreign standpoint. It was relatable, for me, in that more removed sense. I really appreciated getting a personalized sense of what drives these individuals to risk their lives daily in the name of truth and justice by being welcomed into their individual worlds and life experiences outside of their work in the field. The cinematic imagery of Anna, in her quaint French home, speaking with political officials regarding the mass destruction she’s documented in the Middle East, all the while her activist husband and young son are faintly seen in the background washing dishes after a family dinner sums up this psychological duality perfectly. I think that it speaks volumes for a filmmaker to be able to shine light on such an evocative topic while also keeping it grounded and tangible to a mass audience that may not be as conscious of these daily happenings. The pragmatic swiftness in the way these activists operate brings some much needed affirmative energy to an otherwise convoluted issue.
ReplyDeleteThis film was hard to watch, not only because of some of the disturbing scenes and the sound of fighter jets flying overhead, but because of the fact that the work that these great people are doing seems to be endless and their success seems to be unobtainable. Saying that, it was difficult to see these people, especially Anna who is pregnant, walking around the rubble with death all around them. However, that was also the part of the movie that I loved the most. Anna really stood out for me in this film. Her being pregnant while being surrounded by violence and death seemed to me that she was the light in the darkness. She was doing God’s work by making these killings known to the public and attempting to shed some truth on the situation that would hopefully and eventually cease. The scene in the car with one of the Syrian men and Ole talking about their wives being pregnant with smiles on their faces and then cutting away to rubble was one of the most powerful parts in the movie for me. Also, the cinematography in the shots leading up to and following the Syrian man talking about who he had just lost in the recent bombing was fantastic. Backgrounds of rubble and destruction in focus with the citizens up close and out of focus really worked for me. There were many shots that were just as powerful standing alone as they were attached to others. As far as ethics go with this film, I believe the filmmakers were indeed ethical. They portrayed all of the people suffering from this war in an ethically sound way. This is just my opinion, though. I don’t believe they overshot anything and it did not seem voyeuristic. The camera really showed the suffering these people were going through and did not use sentimentality to provoke its audience. I thought this film was fantastic, and I see it winning awards in the future.
ReplyDeleteI’m not really sure if I liked this film, as I watched it I couldn’t help but to be reminded of the Square and Control Room. I think what I like about those films was that while watching it I felt immersed in the conflict. That feeling of being immersed helped build an emotional attachment to the characters. With this film we see Anna and Ole arriving after the conflict has already taken place it was hard to build an emotional connection to these characters. I was more interested in the individual stories of those who lost family members and lost their homes.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see how their interview process works when it comes to getting information about the terrible events that have occurred, and how they report that information back to the media. I think the interview that stuck with me the most was the one of the mother who spoke of her two sons Yousef and Bilal who were killed inside their home and then burned by the military. That close-up interview of her face with no cutaway scene was just so powerful. I’m really glad that I watched this doc because it brought awareness to another group that is doing their best to help other who are essentially helpless. Very glad to know that this group exists and that there are people in the world who continually fight for the freedom and justice of others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteE-Team, sounds like one of Tom Cruise’s mission impossible code-names. This Doc was probably my least favorite of the ones we have watched so far. Tragedies of war and genocide one would expect a seriously toned filmed but instead we get a lovely-dovey couple and their quaint home in Paris. Ole with his hearty laugh questions about his wife’s last menstruation, Anna preps for another press conference with red lipstick and hair spray. Men gawk at Anna’s bare skin on mission in Syria. The film is more about the E-team members and their extravagant travels than the people they’re investigating.
ReplyDeleteWhile the film did show an insight into human rights watchers and their contributions to war-torn civilization’s voices, it glamorized their lives more than anything else. At the airport we see Fred as he buys his $50 breakfast, and Peter taunts about how he often gets massages prior to flying. On sight, Peter gives us a DL on the weapons found like a giddy schoolboy.
Yes, the E-team gets the word out, they tell stories that often go unheard, they sit with victims and persecutors, and they get the story. Unfortunately, to me at least, that story becomes tainted with their journalistic ambitions and bragging smiles, all the “I did that,” and “my name is on that article”s.
I would still agree that this film was ethical, for it did tell stories of those harmed effectively. I just don’t like the glamour-glitzzed way in which it was done.
As far as cinematography, the shots were none the less beautiful and telling. Probably the films most intense scene, of Ole and Anna “hoping” the border, was high-intensity and played on my horror movie conceptions, however, like the rest of the film, to me, the scene came too with a sense of self-positioning and narcissism.
From the documentary "E-Team," I saw four Human Rights Activists, but I felt like they did not help the citizens suffering in the bombed countries. It was said that the "E-Team" risked their lives, but they were not murdering all of the enemies. They were not giving the innocent citizens of other countries' locations to live or therapists to alleviate their pain. The "E-Team" investigated abuse around the world. Anna's husband, Ole Solvang was playing the keyboard while she was happily reading a newspaper in one scene. The sunlight was in the background. While Anna was recorded living a joyful life, other people never get to have such an experience.
ReplyDeleteIn Syria of 2013, a man is interviewed by two people at a house about the brutal attacks. The military bombed nearby so much that most people unfortunately got used to the sound. In total, more than 200 kids and adults were injured. Two of his family members were killed by the military. I noticed the color red in the scene, and it made my eyes pause. The guy who was being interviewed had a red sweater, and there was a red couch in the background. A plane then fired cluster bombs, and the people were being recorded worrying about dying. I believe that the film directors, "Katy Chevigny" and "Ross Kauffman" wanted to film the witnesses in an emotional state. While the witnesses were in an emotional state, more viewers of the footage can have sympathy for them. The filmmakers are being responsible in the way they show the victims in the countries because they are not laughable or viewed at as having one traumatic experience.
Anna Neistat disguised herself when traveling to another country, and it was risky that she could not speak the language of the Sylvilians. She was a busy woman and barely had time to spend with her family. Her father was upset when she accepted a phone call from her job at his house, but she calmed his nerves by hugging him. The researchers found where civilians were executed in multiple countries. For the victims in Anna's investigation, blood was shown after they executed in a room. In Peter's investigation, he spoke in front of the camera as he watched 5 to 6 houses on fire. He discussed how he did not want to grow up and be a Human Rights Activist. Peter is too busy searching for weapons to make a safer place for the innocent to truly stop the aggressive enemies.
ReplyDeleteIn the "Washington Post," the victims being tortured and killed are viewed as angels and the four members of the "E-Team" are praised. In the "New York Times," the "E-Team are viewed as a lazy team dodging the action of the war. It is Anna's choice whether or not her son should have vacations, however, the son is not seeing the real world. The real world is not full of happiness. While Anna does indeed have caring parents, civilians in Libya most likely do not. I agree that the "E-Team were attempting to protect the people and showcase awareness of the problem, but they could not possibly know how the victims feel. In order to truly help the victims, I feel like the "E-Team" should know how they feel first.
Fred went to Gornji Obrinje to see villages on fire and saw 10 dead bodies. He interviewed people for the names of the murdered victims and the evidence of what occurred. 5 women and 4 kids were killed, and he wanted to report the information in New York. I feel like the photographer was disgusted with the crime scene. Fred visited an abandoned house where the military fired bullets, which showed evidence across the entire area. He interviewed a survivor who survived by hiding under dead bodies. The victims have a vulnerable weakness to the military.
ReplyDeleteE-Team was anti-climatic and had no conclusive statement. The documentary had my attention teetering in and out as I waited for something more impactful to happen with the E-team. I think perhaps my expectations for the film were too high, therefore it was hard for them to be met. I wasn’t looking for a resolve, because with an ongoing issue you don’t expect one as a viewer. What I did expect though was more closure, other than the birth of Anna’s baby and an interview set up as the film dissipated from the screen. I was observant to the elements of cinematography, and while I did think they held a artist approach, more so than other documentaries, I also didn’t think they were anything extraordinary. They played with depth of field which helped spotlight our attention as the viewer while looking nice, and they had a variety of extreme close ups. The use of the extreme close-ups was intimate and appropriate. I also liked that the camera stayed on a character while they were telling their story or giving an account. The camera never strayed from the subject and it felt very personal as the shot lingered for almost too long. I think the cinematography had its highlight moments, but it wasn’t consistent enough for me to think anything more. Maybe that’s what good cinematography is in documentary, when you don’t notice it too much, but I guess again I was expecting more.
ReplyDeleteThe authenticity, for me, is all within the editing of the story. The only thing I found fishy within the story was when they found the entire list of names of soldiers who raided the house that was left with blood stains. I felt like that was a “too good to be true” event, but I would wonder why anyone would ever make that up. Anna and Ole were following events as reporters and I think there is honesty in what they experienced. I do question the directors decision to include so much personal story of Anna and Ole’s. I don’t care about their marriage. I don’t care about their baby. I agree much with what the New York Times article said about how “the directors dilute the gravity and peril of the work itself”. The human rights work that is being done through out this film should be on a respected platform, and I think the work is selling itself short by capturing so much of this couples relationship. I wouldn’t go as far as saying this film “plays as a portrait of a rather glamorous marriage”, like the New York Times did, but I found the back and forth of serious issues and baby issues rather distasteful for a problem of such magnitude.
E-Team is compelling because it follows human rights activists who aren’t just looking for a story, they are looking to make a difference. Furthermore the activists that the film follows are likable characters in themselves. Ole and Anna are the most memorable characters probably because we see their life at home and follow their personal journey slightly more than the other activists.
ReplyDeleteI think the film accomplishes a lot in an hour and a half, but perhaps too much is trying to be said. There are a lot of different elements and stories that seem to come in and out in no particular order. The audience is being asked to consider the emotions of Anna’s twelve year old son, and later her brand new baby, while also giving the same amount of attention to the murders and war crimes being committed against civilians in Syria. I was left feeling like the whole film was a bit shallow, even though there were many beautiful moments that I wanted to hang on to. The human rights group has a fantastic way of communicating with the people in these terrible circumstances and seem to have a lot of power to create change, but because the film jumps around it never feels like we got the complete story on any one “mission”.
I could have spent ninety minutes with Anna and Ole. Their story was the main focus, I feel that the filmmakers should have decided between showing their personal lives in Paris or the other activists’ stories. There wasn’t enough room for all of it. I wanted more details in how their work made an impact, but I wanted it to come from the characters themselves, not from archival news footage.
As far as the cinematography goes, the film was beautiful. Even in the midst of these outrageous crimes and tragedy the filmmakers portray the places, and more importantly the people, in a genuine, human, caring light. It would have been easy to focus on the brutal, negative aspect of the story. Even though there were some gruesome images I felt they were balanced by images such as: wide shots, especially when they are on the roof and the water is behind them, the choice to allow the people to speak freely and closely to the camera, and smaller things like including the tree that is still standing in front of the twenty some fallen houses.
E-Team was kind of heard for me to watch. Not because it was any more tragic or disgusting than the other films we’ve watched but because I think I disagreed with the director’s opinion about the E-Team. Obviously they are doing good work and changing lives but I couldn't see them as these huge heroes that the director wanted us to think of them as. They still had homes and children and happy lives outside their work when the people we saw from Syria didn't have anything close to that.
ReplyDeleteAs cinematically beautiful as E-Team was, I couldn't help compare it to The Square. The Square’s footage was absolutely breathtaking and brought tears to my eyes. E-Team was definitely well shot but there was some points where the cameraman just didn't get a good shot and it shouldn't have been used or used in moderation. For example, the running across the border to Syria footage gave me motion sickness. They could have shot getting out of the car and then the start of running and cut to some footage of the actual border.
Something that really bothered me was the footage of the man who was killed and burned. The cameraman took footage of the crying family and close ups of the burned body and I’m not sure if that was an appropriate time to whip a camera out.
Though the underlying story about the horrors the people of Syria went through is sad and compelling, I was not so interested in the E-Team’s story. I’m not saying that their story is uninteresting but the way they were portrayed in the film was not as enthralling as I expected from a story of international heroes trying to change the lives of war victims.
I didn't feel like the film had a very clear through line/ending and it left me kind of hanging. The one redeeming factor of E-Team was it had real people’s stories in it that needed to be told. Like the man whose 5 year old daughter was killed and the woman who broke into tears as they heard planes overhead. Those are the real heroes.
Having been a regular viewer of programs like Nova, Frontline, How We Got to Now, and Cosmos, this documentary felt more like a setup for a possible series than it did for a one time feature. Although I didn’t have as much of a negative reaction as some of my classmates about this film, I must say that there is a lot that is in this film to have to digest. Personally, I think the filmmakers crammed way too much into 90 minutes of a film and could have made this into more than just one feature. With the stories of the multiple Human Rights Activists and the way it ended as Anna is contacted about an interview the day she gave birth, it didn’t feel like they are ending this story as it just being one feature.
ReplyDeleteThe cinematography was shot beautifully. Some of my favorites were the extreme close ups that transitioned into wide shots, the close up interviews that really expressed the emotions the interviewed were feeling, the group shots after the bombings that captured the intensity and gravity of the situation, and the times that the filmmakers did cross what is often considered a line of appropriateness to show just how terrible things were like that of showing the burned body.
The editing and graphics also made this feel like it was more for a series or that it was headed towards becoming a series. I personally didn’t mind it nor did I think that any of it persuaded me to think of it as not being authentic or ethical. The subject matter is very heavy and I think that the filmmakers were also trying to show that the E-team members are not only trying to make a difference but they had their own personal lives, that they were just ordinary people with families, and it didn’t bother me that the filmmakers chose to show that side of them.
This was very reminiscent of, "The Square". I think a lot of the imagery was strong. They were interviewing a Syrian woman about her three sons which were murdered and she spoke in such poetically anguished language. It was sad but it was beautiful. You could see the tears coming down her face and she was crying out to God and there was a little boy over her right shoulder. The cameraman chose to show a bit of the woman in this powerful moment then to pan over to a very young and innocent boy. I felt like that was a powerful choice. I felt very conscious about how this little innocent boy could easily be another fatality. I am appreciating some of those choices the cinematographers are using. The woman is talking about how rockets were shot into the neighborhood they were staying in while she is putting on lipstick and she and her husband forgot their own wedding anniversary because they are so occupied with their cause. I think that's great. With a piece like this I feel like the philosophy of shooting can drastically change. I'm sure exposure and trying to get the best shot can't be the main priority when there is total chaos and danger going on around you. I'm sure very shaky footage due to running with screams and apparent danger surrounding you, heard through sounds around is the best shot and paired with the right music the most tense shot of a doc like this. For example, after the bombs were dropped and there was a man who gave a very powerful interview they are walking away talking about trying to make the place a no-fly zone and the frame is completely black. It's a terrible shot but in context, it works.
ReplyDeleteThis film was captivating, to say the least. The way that they would drive over to newly bombed areas was very risky and I found it a bit surprising. Especially when, hello, the woman is pregnant! Haha but it definitely showed how serious they were about showing, exposing, and sharing the truth about what the Syrian government is doing to its people. It's absolutely disgusting. What really stunned me the most were the shots of the dead people from the gassing. They weren't bleeding or anything, just dead. And then there were the clips of the few who were still dying from the gas. I believe it was a mother and son that they showed. How fucking emotional. They couldn't do anything to help them as these people slipped away painfully. These kind of atrocities make it so important that the E-Team does what they do to help capture people's testimonies and footage of what is happening in this foreign land. The cinematography, being a cinematography major myself, was beautiful. The way they captured people's emotions and some of the lighting they used, like the glow of a fire, made it very visually appealing. I felt like the film itself was very truthful. There weren't really any instances where I felt like I needed to second guess what was being fed to me. The way that they'd conduct several interviews with different people who all were part of the same situation helped keep things factual. They even mentioned in the film how they do interviews that way so they can fact check what other people said. What really kind of threw me off with this film, was the ending. It seemed unnecessary and a bit random. It might have made more sense and fit better if it wasn't so long. But it seemed very out of place. It suddenly brought in this new story that didn't have to do with Syria, it dragged, and that's basically how the film ended. To me, that was disappointing.
ReplyDeleteI remember someone saying something about this being a series instead of a movie and I agree because I feel like there was so much to be said and so much to see but you can only do so much with an hour and 29 minutes. I did enjoy the film but I do wish it was a little longer.
ReplyDeleteThe cinematography was wonderful. The close up shots really captured the emotion in the subjects face so much so that you could feel their pain. I myself (maybe because I'm emotional already) was crying along with one of the subjects when she was describing how her family was being targeted and how she lost everything. It was quite moving.
Also the archival footage was kind of disturbing, but I liked it. Seeing all those dead bodies and how they were mangled became a bit much, but that’s real. This stuff is really happening and I’m glad it wasn’t sugar coated.
As far as ethics, I believe these people were completely ethical in their approach of telling these stories. The way I saw them was as journalists and with journalism comes freedom of the press and it’s not like they were exploiting these countries and their issues, but rather making the world aware of them. They also collected both sides of the abuse so that it was balanced and wouldn’t seem bias. They were just recording what they saw and put footage together in such a way that the audience could understand that it wasn’t to showcase “under priviledge” countries, but to show that a right that we take for granted a lot of the time is being abused in these countries and it isn’t right.
Overall, I enjoyed this documentary
I did not care much for this film. I was kind of surprised to read that this film won an award for best cinematography because nothing in it really stood out to me as being anything more than standard documentary cinematography. However, there were moments where I was very interested in what was on the screen because the cinematography was excellent. The best example I can think of is a brief moment in Libya where one of the human rights workers being highlighted is driving along a dirt road and comes across an area of land littered with boxes filled with surface-to-air missiles. The hot sand background contrasted with the dark greenish brown boxes, and the relatively large amount of them was frightening to see because all of these seriously dangerous weapons were just laying out in a field somewhere, completely unprotected. Which basically implies that anyone could use them to shoot planes down and could obviously cause a devastating amount of damage if used by the wrong people.
ReplyDeleteAgain like in The Square I felt an intense feeling of actually being present while these rather upsetting and sometimes very dangerous events were taking place, but it did not seem as engaging as The Square. It felt to me like the film jumped around way too quickly and didn’t allow enough time for the viewer to be able to get invested in the characters it was attempting to portray. I would have liked to have seen the filmmakers tell each individual story one after the other instead of mixing them up so you can watch continually watch each story from start to finish. I ultimately thought the film was ethical in showing the civilians as they opened themselves up to complete strangers and told them all of the horrible things that had been done to them as well as their families. It never seemed like anyone was taking advantage of these peoples’ situations to get some kind of emotional angle for the film or to exploit the victim’s misfortunes and pass them off as entertainment. Even though a lot of documentaries that have an upsetting or controversial subject are usually especially entertaining, because quite frankly no one wants to watch a boring documentary.
It is easy to judge E-Team based on what it fails to do. As discussed in class, we expect documentaries that explore tragic subject matters to focus on the perspective of the victims. In fact, it is almost regarded as unethical when an opportunity to lend voice to the voiceless fails to make the victim's story its focus.
ReplyDeleteWithin this context, it becomes difficult to digest E-Team by nature of the fact that it simply focuses only on the members of Human Rights Watch's Emergency Team and not on the people they are working to assist. But the mission of the Emergency Team workers is to bring visibility to those who are oppressed in order for those who oppress them to be held accountable for their actions. It is a job that involves fascinating components simply because the team members are humans with lives outside of their work (how do you eat at a cafe or raise children when your job involves dealing with mass suffering, oppression, and tragedy?)
While E-Team may have some structural flaws (ending on a childbirth feels awkward and inconclusive – almost like it was such an important moment in the characters' lives, the filmmakers felt the need to include it, despite its irrelevance to the story), its focus is fascinating, shedding light onto the lives, psyches, and motivations of people with incredibly intense and necessary jobs, much in the same way they hope to shed light onto the crimes committed on national levels.
I liked E-Team's hand-held camera usage.It made the subject matter more believable and I felt like I was there with them particularly in scenes where the characters were running, and when they were going over the fence to enter the Syrian border. I like the overhead of the character going up the stairs just after arriving to Syria....leaves a feeling of suspense.
ReplyDeleteE-Team has a heavy usage of news/media footage. They do a lot of wide to close, close to wide shots on the newspapers and the crowds. I like how the the camera captures the civilians hanging outside while catching Anna and Ogles conversation about being pregnant off-screen, before panning right to show them on screen. .
After the first 40 mins, the story got a little two complex. I couldn't tell exactly what angle the director intended for viewers to follow. It seem as if he wanted us to see the complexity behind the processes the Eteam had to carry out on their missions, and to simply illustrate that this is how life goes. I think they are trying to bring awareness to all that can be going on around you without you even knowing, in hopes to encourage involvement.
It's as if they're showing it's power in numbers...there's so much going on....the proactive people have lives too......no matter how many activist groups we start up....we still can't fix all of this in the numbers we currently have.
I think the choice to include blood and dead bodies challenges politics and media to not be so quick to portray America the great and everywhere else as boundary-free animal cages. 99% of the time these types of things happen, the depicted town's civilians are painted as suspects terrorizing the land, but the raw footage shows how they are really victims and prisoners in their own homes that are tired of being abused and lashing back.