This posting is about the representation of history. In the past two weeks, we have screened 3 films (Boys Don't Cry, The Thin Blue Line, When the Levees Broke) that use the documentary (or docu-drama) form to deal with a historical event. Choose one of the films and read it in terms of the political intervention that the film attempts to make. What is the political message of the film, and how does it mobilize various techniques (interviews, historical footage, media footage, documentary evidence, fictionalized reconstruction) to make it's case? Why do the filmmakers choose to represent this specific event? And what political, cultural, or social impact did this film have?
You may wish to do some outside research on the history you are describing, or on the reception and impact of the film (using an internet search is fine for this.) If you find something interesting, feel free to embed a link in your post so that your classmates can see it as well.
350-500 words, and as always, make your post by commenting on my post.
Brendan
The Thin Blue Line uses the documentary form to tell the story of the murder of a policeman in Dallas, TX/Fort Worth, TX area. I think the film is incredibly political due to the fact that it seems somewhat biased. An example of this would be when David Harris scratched his hair while being interviewed. While scratching his hair, the audience was revealed that he was in handcuffs and a orange jumpsuit. Randall Adams on the other hand was portrayed as someone politically who didn't stand a chance to win the case. Errol Morris started the documentary with Adams stating that he was treated unfairly the whole case, starting with the first interview and the District Attorney wanting him to sign his name that he committed the murder. The interviews clearly give evidence about both Adams and Harris' characters. Adams seems more uptight and Harris seems more charming. Morris stands up for Adams and offers the insight that Harris isn't what everyone believes, especially in Texas. Morris makes the point that maybe Texans are crazy. The jury ruled 9-2 in favor of Harris in Texas but the Supreme Court ruled 9-0. Clearly there was bias from the police and local and state law enforcements. Which raises the question that perception is so political in our society. David Harris convinced others that he didn't do it even though he had a lengthy criminal record while Adams didn't. Furthermore, I think Morris wanted to tell the story the right way of the murder case. However, she had to be biased if she wanted to get her point across that Adams is innocent. This event changed Adams life as he was released from prison a year later. Maybe Morris wanted to get the real truth out of such a controversial murder.
ReplyDeleteThe film had political, cultural, and social impact on many. The political impact was that the government and law enforcement make mistakes. However, they need to be raised to a higher standard and not do "shady" things expressed in the film like forcing Adams to sign something he didn't do.
The cultural impact was everyone outside of Texas portraying Texans as people who value charm over the social awkward human being. Imagine if Adams would've been black, that would've made this case that much more controversial. Americans have to realize they're culture and that someone isn't guilty until proven.
The social impact on society was that this film raised a lot of questions on what a biased documentary can do to people, especially Adams who was in jail and was released just of this movie. Maybe it shows the power of technology today and the impact technology had to make life changes and decisions in this world.
In the film Boys Don't Cry the docu-drama filming is used to get across a number of different political messages. One of the main political messages is the lack of acceptence to individuals with a sexual identity crisis. The way that Brandon is forced to 'sneak around' without people knowing about her condition is perhaps the most complex and uncomfortable part of the movie. There are multiple scenes that create an enormous amount of tension between the viewer and the characters due to the fact that Brandon is deceiving the individuals around him.
ReplyDeleteAnother important political message is to make aware of the violence and prejudice shown towards someone with Brandon's condition. The final act of the movie is extremely violent and uncomfortable as we watch the harsh treatment of Brandon. The attempt by the filmmakers is to give this the 'real' documentary feal so that people will realize that we can treat them better.
The defiition of Sexual Identity crisis is another political message that is shown in the movie. The important idea is that the Sexual Identity crisis is not something that can be defined physically. It is a psychological issue that is much more complex than may be initially thought. The filmmakers want us to understand this complexity and be sympathetic to the situation.
I believe that the filmmakers chose this event because it is very extreme. It's violent, uncomfortable, tragic, emotional, and real. I think it does a good job of conveying the message of the filmmakers.
The film had a social and cultural impact. Over the past 10 years we have seen a great amount of growth in the equality of individuals with similar conditions. The film won an oscar for best actress showing how it was recognized by the film community for it's impact.
The movie Boy's Don't Cry was a docu-drama to deal specifically with sexual identity crisis. However, I believe the political message was much larger and also included homosexuality and discrimination of people that are different then the "average" person. During the time of this docu-drama there were a lot of hate crimes happening especially with homosexuality and sexual identity crisis because it was unknown since many people had kept it hidden before. This political message was focused on awareness of the problems and consequences that can happen if people are extremely close minded. The movie creates this connection and empathy with the main character Brandon, who is going through what they call a sexual identity crisis. Through this connection, it helps the audience to feel this political message and the horrible aftermath that happens because of this judgement. I also believe this political message is received differently depending on the time period people are watching it in. Now, this idea of homosexuality and sexual identity crisis is much more commonly seen and discussed. It is not as foreign as a concept to us now as it was back when all of these hate crimes were happening.
ReplyDeleteBy recreating Brandon's story of the hate directed towards him and his life eventually being ended by this hate, the directors are creating this emotional tie with him and the political message. The film is a documentary, however it is told like a story or another movie, so it is easier to feel this connection to Brandon and his story. The also show some of the horrifying and uncomfortable parts of her story which create an eeriness about the movie, but are extremely effective in showing this hate crime. If the directors would have just made this another documentary with people talking about the terrible things that can happen in these types of situation it would not have had such a strong impact on the viewers to the extent some people are willing to take these hate crimes towards a person being "different." The film makers use actual court reports, police reports, possible interviews of survivors, and actual documentation to create the script for this film. By using the research to make the script I feel like it is a more effective way to document this history in this case. The audience needs to connect to Brandon emotionally to gain the political message the film makers are trying to present.
I believe the film makers chose this event because it is one of extreme concern. Many people were being sexual, physically, and mentally abused because of the fact that they were "different." These hate crimes were reaching a new level, and it was important to let the public known about the horrendous things that were happening. It was important, especially at the time this was becoming more common, to show the outcome if people were not more open minded.
I believe there was an extremely strong political, social, and cultural impact. The film world in general accepted the movie which helped the cultural impact. The political impact was very blatantly shown about the treatment of homosexuals and people with sexual identity crisis. The social impact I also believe was extremely strong because just watching this movie really makes you think about socially if you have ever treated anyone differently and caused them emotional pain. I believe the film makers did an excellent job and creating a huge impact with this documentary.
Spike Lee portrays the chaos and destruction that occurred in New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina within his film "When the Levees Broke". Through a stream of news footage and interviews, Lee is able to convey the true power of destruction and the desperation that was felt by the citizens of New Orleans. Though the event of Hurricane Katrina is well remembered by many, because of its power and also the fact it is a fairly recent event, Lee brings it into new light by aligning it with human faces and their personal stories. These stories, along with the news footage, are able to illustrate and prove Lee's point that the disaster in New Orleans was preventable and was mishandled.
ReplyDeleteLee also utilizes the soundtrack as a way to strengthen his point. By having classic examples of New Orleans style jazz along with contemporary jazz composed by a New Orleans native, Spike Lee is able to deepen the audiences connection to New Orleans even if they have never been there. This music along with old footage of New Orleans, creates a nostalgia for the town that was destroyed and poorly rescued.
Criticisms of how the emergency that arose after Katrina hit were vocalized through the citizens and their own commentary. Ranging from stories of celebrities and foreign aid coming faster than federal aid to theories that the levees were poorly designed or were blown up in order to save wealthier neighborhoods; these commentaries may all be different but they all share the same theme that the government did not handle the situation well. Some points risen were actually being investigated or have been investigated when the movie had come out, like the question of if the levees were poorly designed and would never have lasted a regular hurricane.
Within "When the Levees Broke", a new view of Hurricane Katrina is displayed, not through a narrator but through the first hand accounts of citizens, politicians, and people who's homes and lives were destroyed by the storm. Without these stories this documentary would have lost a great deal of impact because it would lose the emotional connection that the audience has with these interview clips. This specific event was probably also chosen for the similar reason of the emotional impact and also the fact that the whole event is an example of appalling government mismanagement.
The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris is a very well made documentary that contains a strong political message. This film makes it political message very clear from the start of the movie. The film starts with Randall Adams being interviewed about when he was first brought in to the precinct as a suspect in the crime of the shooting of Officer Woods. When Adams was brought in to the station, he was mistreated, not allowed a phone call, a lawyer, or any breaks. The officer leading the investigation even pulled a gun on him and tried to force him to sign a document stating his guilt in the shooting. This was how the film-makers introduced their political message of the mishandling of this case by the police and the court system. As the film went along, more and more cases of the mishandling of this case were shown by the producers. They lead us to believe that the prosecution of Adams was only pursued because he was the only one old enough to be sentenced to death. Morris was only 16 at the time; therefore he could not be given the death penalty. The producers made it seem like maybe the police were pursuing the wrong man out of the want for revenge over the slaying of a fellow officer. People seemed to have it out for Adams from the start. I believe that the political message of this film is the mishandling and unfair prosecution of this case by the Dallas authorities.
ReplyDeleteThis film used interviews as the main technique of reconstructing this incident. The interviews were conducted in such a way that Adams seemed like a stand-up guy, while all the other characters seemed out of touch. For example, the people that drove by on the road and testified against Adams were made to appear like they didn't have a full recollection of the incident, and they even appeared to be fools in some cases. For example, the blond lady was made out to be a wannabe detective with a history of lying and crime, while the others were shown stammering and having to try very hard to remember the events of that night. Another person was interviewed saying that the three who testified had said that they would testify anything for money. Also, when the authorities were interviewed they were made to appear defensive of their actions, and the detective that interviewed Adams was made to appear like a sleaze ball while trying to put his own spin on the story. Fictional reconstructions were also done to show how unlikely it is that one of the officers or one of the "witnesses" could actually have a clear recollection of the incident.
This film had a significant impact. It arguably influenced the release of Adams from prison, and it punched major holes in the credibility of everyone involved in this case. It was well made and definitely strongly conveyed the views of the makers of this film.
The Thin Blue Line offered a very political message. The film was made with a purpose to prove the innocence of David Adams and not to just tell the story of what happened that night when the cop was killed. Documentaries are often biased to show the filmmakers opinion. The filmmaker chooses what information to give the audience and what to leave out causing a bias in the film. It is quite difficult to tell a story like a documentary without slanting the story in favor of one side. The director chooses to give the message of corruption in the judicial system in Texas. The director decided that Adams was wrongly convicted and portrayed it well in the movie. He was able to show faults in testimony by interviews and the accounts by Harris, Adams, and the “witnesses”. Through the interviews he conducted, the director was able to piece together and present us with what really happened that night. The director provided us with the corruption that was taking place at that time. The “witnesses” were shown to not really know what happened that night and possibly paid off. Without the interviews, it would have been nearly impossible to make a convincing argument for Adams innocence.
ReplyDeleteI think the filmmaker decided to cover this event because he saw injustice take place for Adams. It’s hard to imagine the director deciding to film this case without the intent to prove Adams innocence. Luckily for the director, the documentary was a large success and Adams was later released from prison by the US Supreme Court. I think the message and the potential change the director was hoping for was accomplished. I think this film made aware of the possible corruption that takes place in our government and how they might not always have it right. It also shows the possible implications of the death penalty because if Adams was killed, he would have died an innocent man. Unfortunately for him when he was released from prison, he received no money for his time in jail. This film raises a lot of questions about the judicial system and the possible consequences of the death penalty.
Spike Lee uses authentic evidence to portray the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina in When the Levees Broke. By using first hand interviews, real footage, and real news clips, the political message made by Lee is strong. By using diverse backgrounds of each of the interviewees (Lee interviews people living in various neighborhoods of New Orleans as well as politicians and police officers), Lee gives the viewer a chance to understand the disaster from multiple different lenses, although the film is sometimes very biased.
ReplyDeleteSpike Lee uses his evidence to define the “good guys” and “bad guys” (the good guys being the people of New Orleans and the Mayor while the bad guys are clearly George W. Bush and his cabinet and FEMA.) Although the film is biased, Lee’s evidence proves his point in great detail and thoroughly elaborates on why those blamed are blamed, which had a large social impact for me.
Although it seems like Hurricane Katrina took place so long ago, the issue of people helping people is still extremely relevant. By exposing the lack of care (for example, Condoleezza Rice’s day following the storm) our government officials took following Katrina, and then showing footage of common people helping others, I think the film, even though it was extremely sad, was somewhat inspiring. By pointing out the flaws in how things were handled, it makes people never want to same things to happen again. Looking at the flaws of the past is the only way to have effective change in the future.
It also made me a lot more inspired to see people helping people, and how big of changes even the smallest actions can make. Despite the negative treatment the people received from the federal government, and all of looters and those causing violence, Lee still displayed plenty of people who put their own lives on the line to help strangers. This made the movie very emotional for me, and also helped create a stronger hope in humanity.
The majority of documentaries that I have seen have one common goal behind them; sympathy. Documentaries definitely do convey political messages through the use, more so as misuse, of sympathy. The way that these types of movies often do this is by story manipulation. “Boys Don’t Cry” is a type of documentary that shows what is convenient to instill this sympathy and even going so far as to add segments of the story that did not actually occur.
ReplyDeleteThe chief political message of this film is that those who are different, or those that are not subject to a specific list of social standards, are not readily accepted into today’s society. The film does this by representing situations that have happened in real life in a more “creative manner.” One example of how they did this in the movie was to build up the love story between Brandon Teena (Teena Brandon) and Lana Tisdel. The relationship in the story, along with Brandon himself, was meant to be portrayed as the protagonist within this movie. It feeds the audience/viewer happiness and forces the viewer to empathize with the relationship. Then when Lana finds out that Brandon is actually female/transgender, the movie shows that their love for each other is set in stone. Lana accepts Brandon’s secrets and continues dating him. This gives any viewer, who doesn’t already know the conclusion to the story, hope. This did not actually happen though. This was fabricated to gain more sympathy from the viewers and it ultimately succeeded. The real Lana Tisdel discontinued the relationship after she found out. She still wished no harm onto Brandon and tried to convince the others, who wanted to hurt Brandon, that Brandon was male. When this inevitably failed, she did not try for any further attempts to save him. Brandon ended up hiding in Lisa Lambert’s house and, when found by the two ex-convicts, was murdered. The film took “Artistic Privilege” in the relationship between Lana and Brandon in order to gain more sympathy for Brandon. This later resulted in a lawsuit to the film by Lana herself.
Without having heard the full story, less sympathy would be expected from people. If someone were to hear that “A trans-gender female pretended to be a man and ended up getting raped and killed by some ex-convicts in Nebraska,” there is not an overwhelming sense of sympathy. Without being able to relate to the person, all of the hardships and relationships that inevitably define a person as human, there is very little sympathy. It would just be another newspaper heading. This sympathy that the movie gains by fabricating portions of the story helps to get to the heart of the message of the film. The main message being that even if a person is different, being behavioral, sexual, racial, or physical, they are still a person who has a life like “normal” people do.
In the documentary, Thin Blue Line, Errol Morris uses many docudrama techniques to tell the story of a man wrongly convicted for the murder of a police officer. Morris focused his energy on two political messages: the corruption of the judicial system, and that a person cannot always trust their eyes. Morris uses interviews, reenactments, and newspaper clippings to retell the story of Randall Adams and David Harris.
ReplyDeleteMorris quickly portrayed the police officers and detectives involved in the murder case as uneducated, irrational people running the judicial system of Dallas County Texas. They were so desperate to find the cop killer that they trusted the story of a 16-year old runaway named David Harris. The cop who continues to catch Harris for his criminal activities later in life makes Harris sound like a harmless, lost boy even though the cop knows his history of violence. The cops and the judge involved in this story would do anything to convict Adams of a crime that he clearly did not commit. The case was passed up to the court of appeals and ruled Adams guilty 9-0, but when the case moved up to the Supreme Court, Adams was ruled not guilty 8-1. The original judge said that he was still right because the ruling was now 10-8 in the judge’s favor. This statement summed up the attitude of the people with power involved in this story. Morris made the audience feel this way by using interviews and newspaper clippings.
The second message received from this movie was that people will see what they want to see in a time of desperation. There were multiple people testifying against Adams seemed to truly believe that they saw Adams alone in the driver’s seat right before the cop was murdered. The interviewees could have been lying to get the award money, but many of them believed that Adams was there. These testimonies placed Adams at the scene of the crime, and sent him to jail. By the end of the movie, we know that Harris was the one who killed the cop, and that Adams was never involved, so why did these people believe that Adams was in the car?
The documentary taught me a lot about the difficulties involved in a murder case, and after watching it, it is hard to have a lot of faith in law enforcement.
The film The Thin Blue Line is a documentary film about a 1976 murder case in Dallas Texas. The director creates reenactments of events that are relevant to the case. The film also contains interviews with investigators, witnesses, and suspects of the case. The political message of the film is to criticize the justice system. The main focus that the film brings to light is the fact that the evidence of the case points to the man David Harris, compared to the man who was convicted of the crime, Randal Adams. The films collects the evidence that investigators have brought to life previously and the point of views of the witnesses that protested to Randal Adams guiltiness. The evidence that the investigators present gives the idea that the judicial system of Texas has screwed up in the conviction of Randal Adams. When both suspects were interviewed on the night, Randal Adams recollection of the night lined up to his innocence with no involvement to the murder. However, when they interview David Harris, his recollection of the night of the murder has missing holes. Clearly, this gives credit to Randal Adams telling the truth and David Harris lying. Also, when the witnesses to the murder are recalled on to give their recollection of the night, they seem to be unreliable because their recall of the night does not seem to add up to everyone else's opinion. These factors of the case illustrates to the audience what the clear truth of the murder case seems to be. However, the justice system of Texas had missed all of the evidence that the audience sees and therefore the justice system of Texas seems to lose credit and value to the audience. This impacts society in the way of questioning the reliability of the justice system in Texas. Normally, one would rely on the justice system to find the truth and prosecute the guilty. In the case of this 1976 murder case of police officer, the justice system clearly screwed up. This will change the publics view on how reliable the justice system is in Texas and maybe even how reliable the justice system is in general. The way that the film brings in significant people from the trial helps give credit to the films truth and leaves the proper interoperation to the audience. This gives the film more credit because the truth just "sits" in front of you instead of it being pushed in your face. The truth of any matter should be clear and that is what this film does. It makes the truth seem clear. Another way the film helps the audience see the truth, is that they created fictionalized reconstructions of events relevant to the case. This helps the audience visualize events that were normally just told. This helps them visualize what really happened to help them see more clearly. The political message of this film is that the justice system is faulty. The Thin Blue Line illustrates Randal Adams's innocents and the justice system of Dallas's mistake in the murder trail of a police officer in 1976.
ReplyDeleteIn the film The Thin Blue Line, I believe that the political message of the film is in regards to the judicial system. One quote that stuck with me throughout the film was “the scale is not balanced.” The film covered the politics of trials, and basically covered why Adams was the ideal man to be convicted of the murder, rather than the young David Harris. One note that I wanted to cover is the fact that when talking to the two men, Harris was extremely likeable, while Adams was pretty weird. It seemed much easier to be able to convict Adams of Harris’ crime. I believe the filmmakers chose to represent this film because of that reasoning. Even though Adams seemed like a candidate to commit murder, all of the facts added up to making Harris the actual criminal. The impact of this film was great. Relatively soon after the film gained popularity, Adams was freed from the wrongful prison conviction.
ReplyDeleteAs we’ve discussed many times throughout the semester, all cinema is political, but it is much more noticeable in some films than others. A good example of political messages being shown through film is the use of the docu-drama style of directing that is used in “Thin Blue Line.” The way the information was presented from both sides of the argument made it seem possible that there was a good chance that either Adams or Harris killed the police officer. From my perspective it did not seem like the director was trying to focus on the two suspects and trying to figure out who did what. It seemed to me that the real message trying to be given was that police and investigators can often their jobs poorly. They have been known to miss or ignore very key details in their investigations of serious crimes. As the movie goes on, it becomes clearer that the innocent man was wrongly convicted and put on death row while the murderer was a free man, at least until his next crime put him in jail.
ReplyDeleteBut it was not just the outcome that made the law officials look bad. Interrogations were described by both suspects as very hostile situations. The officer threatened to kill the innocent one unless he signed the confession paper. Doesn’t sound too professional to me.
I think the filmmakers chose this specific event to base a film on because of the definite knowledge that the wrong man was convicted. We know for sure because at the end of the movie, the actual killer admitted that he did it, and if the innocent man had just let the killer stay with him at the motel he wouldn’t have blamed him for the murder. Showing an example of someone definitely being wrongly imprisoned is a much better way of representing the faults of the justice system than choosing a case that is not a definite misunderstanding.
I found Spike Lee’s When the Levees Broke really interesting. It was a documentary film about the devastation of New Orleans due to the failure of the levees during Hurricane Katrina. There was a lot of political involvement in the film. The documentary showed news video footage, and photos and videos of the before the hurricane, during it, and its aftermath. There were also interviews from politicians, journalists, and from many residents of different parts of the New Orleans area. They all told their story and explained how they were involved in Hurricane Katrina and how it has affected them. The stories that people told really caught my attention. A lot of people said they heard about it a couple days before it hit, but they just tried to weather it. Everyone recalls Hurricane Katrina being one of the worst storms ever seen, worse than Hurricane Betsy that had hit many years before.
ReplyDeleteA major political message that was portrayed in Lee’s film was that many people think they have been lied to by the federal government about the levees breaking. In the end, the levees weren’t built strong enough and the water and waves were strong enough to break through. The residents complain that this disaster cost a lot of people their homes and belongings, but also hundreds of lives. Interviews were used to show people’s thoughts on this disaster, which helped the viewers understand that it is a major problem and something that has disappointed many people.
Hurricane Katrina was a huge commotion and an event that no one will ever forget. It hurt many people and still has an impact on people’s lives today. I think filmmakers chose to represent this specific event because most people know the logistics about what Hurricane Katrina is, but they haven’t seen the real devastation that has come out of it.
It has had a political impact. Many politicians were interviewed for the film and they shared their thoughts on how everything was handled—both good and bad things. It has also had a social impact. Many people went down to New Orleans to help clean up the disaster and rebuild the resident’s lives. Hurricane Katrina has affected thousands of people, but has had an impact on even more.
I realize there will be a flaw in this analysis, as I have not seen the entire film, however Spike Lee's When the Levees Broke is something that occurred in my lifetime, and therefore is relatively easy to analyze. To me, the entire movie is almost a propaganda piece against the state and federal government for the lack of support received to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The documentary is almost entirely interview based, which makes it very powerful to the viewer. By having the entire documentary interview based, with flashes of footage of the damage Katrina caused, the viewer can instantly relate to the people who were affected by Hurricane Katrina. This is a very effective method to evoke emotions from the viewer and suck the viewer into this world. It is impossible not to be taken in by the complete destruction that flooding causes to a city. And one is forced to ask the question, "What is the cause of this? Surely a city that lies below sea level, right next to the Gulf of Mexico, should have some of the best protection available." And the film does a wonderful job of answering this question, while stirring up quite a bit of conspiracy, something I would term irresponsible filmmaking. The viewer finds out that the hurricane missed New Orleans, and the levees broke from essentially a category 1 storm. So what caused it? The city blew up the levees. Or if they didn't, then the levees and the city was neglected by the government because they don't care about it. And the film does a great job of making the viewer believe that the government failed at every level for the people of New Orleans, while glossing over the fact that a mandatory evacuation was administered. This point is continuously solidified by tearful interviewee voices over images of destruction of New Orleans.
ReplyDeleteMy issue with this film is that it is essentially a propaganda film, and I find it difficult to see it for much more than that. Caution needs to be taken by the watcher of the film. WIth this method, Spike Lee is only portraying half the story, coincidentally the half of the story that is extremely controversial, and makes it seem like the government ignored New Orleans because of race.
Spike Lee's “When the Levees Broke” provides a commentary about the federal government's slow response to the natural disaster. Spike Lee uses interviews with victims of the disaster, interviews with government officials, and newsreel footage. One moment that stuck out to me was an interview with a man who said someone came down and said he was here to help, what could he do. It was then revealed that he was from the Canadian mounted police in Vancouver. FEMA still hadn't responded by this point, several days after the actual hurricane. Another man mentioned that the Venezuelan government offered their aid, even more so than the American government. It amazes me that Canadian mounties got there before the United States response, and they had to come all the way from Vancouver.
ReplyDeleteThere was another section showing footage of the flood, and interviews with a pastor who talked about Sean Penn helping carry people out of the flood waters. They also interviewed Sean Penn himself, and he talked about how he wanted to help the people of New Orleans. He lives in the Los Angeles area. It subtly critiques the government by showing individual people coming out and helping, while the federal government doesn't do anything to help.
Another moment that critiques the federal government, was archived footage of George Bush giving a press conference three days after Katrina in which he said something like “I can understand people wanting help yesterday...I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.” This excerpt for the press conference came right after several interviews and videos from people sharing stories about family members dying because they didn't receive aid.
Another interesting moment was when one interviewee discussed the Coast Guard. He said that the coast guard was one of the few groups that actually helped people. The head of the Coast Guard said to throw out the rules. They ended up running shifts twice as long as usual and moved in right away. By complimenting the coast guard on their swift and effective aid, he was critiquing the agencies that didn't move in as quickly, like FEMA.
There was much criticism of the federal government's lack of response to the hurricane and resulting flood. The director of FEMA reportedly didn't find out that there were people at the convention center waiting for buses until four or more days afters the event--despite the fact that almost every major news station showed pictures and video of the people waiting to get out. Overall, the film portrayed George W. Bush and the director of FEMA at the time, pretty inconsiderate, ignorant, and oblivious to the people of New Orleans.
Spike Lee's “When the Levees Broke” shows how slow the government was to respond to a natural disaster within the U.S. There I a lot put on race in the film too and how race seemed to play a role in the slow response. It was a very hard film to watch at times and I learned some things I hadn’t know before about the hurricane and New Orleans.
ReplyDeleteThe major story that the film makes a case for is how slow the government was to respond to a horrible disaster on its own soil. The interviews and moving pictures talk about how President Bush was off doing other things in the days after the storm. It looked as if he didn’t care about the people at all, which I’m sure isn’t the case but that is what the film made it look like. I think that as in any film there is a direction the director is taking and Spike Lee is obviously going after the President and the government. If you want to get your point across on your feelings about something there isn’t a better way than making a film that is very powerful in its own right. All the interviews are attacks on the government, there isn’t much to find positive that the government or FEMA did. I’m not sure of the other side of the story but it was clear to me this film was going after the government and Bush.
Race was a big issue with the hurricane and the people of New Orleans as well. Most of the people shown are black and there are very few white people talking and shown in the film. I realize that most of the people affected were black so it makes sense that more blacks would be shown but at the same time it makes it an us against them. There is one part where the film is basically saying that the reason the response was slow was because it was black people down there struggling. If they were white there would have been a quicker response. I don’t know how true that is but that is the clear side the movie is making. It makes the white government officials look really bad.
I think the film was trying to make a change in how we look at the hurricane and New Orleans. There’s no doubt in my mind that some things have to be changed to make it safer, I think that the film is trying to show that to the country as a whole too. Hopefully things have changed and the city will be more ready next time something like this happens.
In the documentary The Thin Blue Line, Errol Morris uses many techniques to show multiple perspectives of the situation. These techniques that Morris uses are interviews, reenactments, and real evidence from the case. The political message of this film is the story behind the case of who killed a cop in Texas. It also touches on the fact that the judicial system anywhere is not always perfect and can convict an innocent person. The main way the viewer gets all the information of the case is through interviews. The most impactful interviews are the interviews with David Harris and Randall Adams. They give us the most details pertaining to the events leading up to the murder. The technique of using interviews about what happened that night shows the view of each perspective without showing a bias towards who the director believes killed the police officer, Robert Wood. Without the bias that many films show, it gives the viewer a chance to form their own opinions and who they truly believe to be the person that killed Robert Wood.
ReplyDeleteIn the technique of using reenactments, the viewer is more able to picture the sequence of events as they hear the information given to them. After most of the interviews, the viewer was given a new, revised reenactment that fit the description of the interviewee. Although this got tedious after a while, it was a good idea to help the viewer understand what was happening.
In this specific film and many documentaries, the director wants to show the facts and the information in the most unbiased ways to let the viewer make their own opinions. Although this is very difficult to achieve, I believe that Morris did a very good job trying to hide the fact that both Randall Adams and David Harris were in jail. This fact that both of them were in jail was hard to keep an unbiased opinion about both of them. It was harder to tell that David Harris was in jail because his pant suit was white but had his last name printed on it. This is something that the director couldn’t have fixed but the viewer could tell that Morris tried to hide the fact that both of them were in jail since the viewer only sees Adams in handcuffs when he goes to scratch his head.
There are significant political and social impacts that resulted from this film because it is about a cop that was murdered. The point that this documentary shows clearly to the viewer is that the witnesses that helped convict an innocent man were not the most reliable people. This had an impact because it should not be acceptable to the judicial system to convict a man who didn’t have a criminal record with the testimony from a teenager with a long criminal background and some other questionable witnesses.
Boys Don't Cry speaks a strong political message that can be read historically. Through docudrama style it portrays a community perfectly. The representation of a small town family in the movie was powerful. Obviously the viewer expected such a small community to be less accepting than an urban setting. Though the events happened, I give major kudos to the actors for embodying the spirit (sometimes negative) of the real people. Kimberly Peirce did an excellent job of motivating our emotions at the correct time. Personally I was left astounded after many scenes, especially the murder scene. Through this strong emotional manipulation Peirce was able to enact a strong political message about the acceptance of sexual differences. We are astounded that anything like that could happen, yet we as ourselves would it happen again? Now? We sure do hope not, but none the less Peirce does fantastic work in causing contemplation.
ReplyDeleteSpike Lee's "When the Levee Breaks" is the most up to date and easiest to respond about. Not only was it in my lifetime but it was also the center of attention for myself due to joining the military months prior. Lee seemed to make a stance on the film by showing mainly one side of the story. Of course the hurricane was intense and caused millions in damage, not to mention the hundreds that lost their lives. But one thing that I did not see was a balance of blame. One of the main political views that I got out of the movie was that the government did not respond fast enough to the disaster and in doing so, caused many more people to parish. Part of the documentary even had people in New Orleans saying that the government intentionally blew up the levee in order to save the "white (rich)" neighborhoods. I haven't seen the rest of the film and hope to watch it in the near future, but I hope the film doesn't continue to follow on the lines of one side. There is a great story behind the rescue of people stranded and the unity that the people of the area had to pull through this horrible storm. It would make for a much better documentary if this side is also shown in the film. I don't want to say the government acted perfectly in the response to the storm, but I do remember nearly a week prior to the hurricane that buses were already loading people to take them further inland. As well as assistance if you needed help getting away from the levee. The back story to the actually disaster could show parts of this and it would seem a lot less biased in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion of what took place in New Orleans was that the government did everything they could have done prior to the storm reaching the coast. Evacuating people and warning them that if they stayed, no help would be able to come for you. Even some of the people that were interviewed said they knew they should have left but chose to stay since they have always done the same. How I look at it is, it's yours and everyone else's decision whether to stay or not. Me personally, probably would have stayed in the city but moved to higher ground...
Overall, the documentary was very good in how it was organized and shows the hard times that the people in New Orleans were going through. I will watch the rest of the movie in the near future in case Spike Lee does change the perspective some.
I had never seen When the Levees Broke prior to the showing in class, but I had definitely heard about it. The two other documentaries had equally strong political messages, however, the style of When the Levees Broke portrays the political message in a different light. It isn’t simply documenting the devastation of Katrina but more the response to this event and the actions preceding it. The documentary uses news footage, accounts from survivors and those involved to explain the story of Hurricane Katrina’s preventable destruction. The history provided of New Orleans in the beginning of the film helps connect the viewers to those impacted by the hurricane by creating a foundation. It makes the audience realize that this wasn’t just a town destroyed but years and years of history. The film continues to make the audience feel for those involved by showing their community and asking them about their lives. And then the storm hits and the devastation is shown. Now that the audience is almost emotionally involved in these people’s lives and mad at Mother Nature, they drop this bomb of, oh hey, maybe these levees weren’t engineered properly or maybe even blown up to protect the affluent neighborhoods. And now the blame is shifted and the viewer begins to notice more flaws in the way the devastation was handled. The documentary calls attention to crisis handling and the involvement of government. It makes the audience question the intentions of the government. The ultimate big picture idea is this one of valuing life. Why is it that a levee may have been intentionally exploded to save another neighborhood? Why is it that they predicted this to hurricane to be catastrophic but lacked adequate relief efforts? Why was the levee not built strong enough? This wasn’t the first hurricane; this wasn’t the first go around. Those are the questions left with the audience.
ReplyDeleteThe best film to dissect in an attempt at finding a filmmakers political views, is the film A THIN BLUE LINE. In the movie; we the audience are led through the investigation and prosecution of a murder case. The filmmaker interviews everyone involved. From the supposed murders, their lawyers, sheriffs, the prosecution, and even supposed 'eye'-witnesses. The interviews act as a safety net, they hold together the film and offer it it's narration.
ReplyDeleteThough throughout the film the director interposes original photos, courtroom files, even actual footage and some reenactments. These are all done in phases, these phases take the audience on a ride. They have the viewer looking at the case from different points of view throughout the film. We side with prosecution, then the defense. We feel pity for the all different parties, then share in mocking them with the directors approval(show-tunes are played behind their interviews).
Though we, the audience are taken of a wild goose chase, the director finally clues us in to his point of view. The convicted man is innocent, the other party guilty. And we see everything come together, we root for the convicted party to be saved, be let out of the prison they intern him in.
The prominent political message in “Boys Don’t Cry” is social discrimination. The filmmakers used the life of Brandon Teena to create a historical fiction docu-drama. The eventual results of the plot, and the reasons leading to it are mostly true; the ending of the film strayed slightly from the actual events in order to develop a stronger emotional appeal. The events and actions throughout the majority of the film are “space fillers.” The filmmakers do not use nor recreate the actual, exact events that Brandon went through. Instead, the events were constructed in order to give the audience an idea of Brandon’s life leading up to his murder.
ReplyDeleteBecause it is a docu-drama, and not an actual documentary, historical and medial footage could not really be used. Actual evidence such as Brandon’s court documents are used in the film, describing why Brandon was arrested, and how Lana bailed him out of jail. The director, Kimberly Peirce, tried to interview as many people related to the story as possible. She managed to interview Lana, Lana’s mother, and most of Brandon’s friends. The information that Peirce was able to procure was placed into the movie.
In the end, the film uses emotion in order make the viewer feel sympathy for Brandon Teena. Brandon’s death forces the viewer to see how discriminative today’s society is. The audience sees the social injustice and hopefully wishes for it to be eradicated. The audience knows that this will not happen in the near future, even fourteen years after the film’s release. The film shows that if you are not “normal” according to the standards of society, you are going to be judged, discriminated, or worse. “Boys Don’t Cry” shows just how far some people are willing to go to “take care of” people who don’t fit into their idea of society.
The film The Thin Blue Line describes the 1976 murder of Dallas police officer Robert Wood during a traffic stop. The film depicts the story of Randall Adams, a man who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for Wood’s murder. Morris uses his work illuminate the corrupt nature of the police and government and its failure to protect the innocent. The two most influential techniques used in the documentary are the use of interviews and the reconstruction of the crime. Through the use of interviews, Morris is able to subtly reveal the inaccuracies of the case made against Randall Adams. He does this through the use of the people that claim to have witnessed some aspect of the crime ie the people who were driving by the scene with their car. However, aspects of their character come into question, for example the woman from the car appears to be blatantly lying about the scene that she actually witnessed. The other two interviews that are crucial to creating the political message is the testimonies of David Harris and Randall Adams. They give the most details about the events surrounding the murder. Throughout the film, subtle conflicts are presented in Harris’s story that cause the audience to question the validity of his story.
ReplyDeleteThrough the use of reenactments, Morris allows the audience to visualize the events leading up to the murder and the actual murder itself. The reenactments start with the most basic of information about the crime. As the film progresses, however, more and more information comes to light and the reenactments become more detailed. Combined with the interviews, the audience comes to realize the inaccuracies in the case that was built against Adams.
Another minor, but still important technique Morris used in the film was the presentation of documentary evidence. By showing that both Adams and Harris are in jail, the audience is left to form opinions about them and their involvement. Morris is exceptionally good at using this technique as he waits until the film is well underway to reveal Harris was in jail as he scratched his head and his handcuff were revealed. Morris also used official documents throughout the film that allowed the audience to use these facts to form their own opinions.
This film creates significant political and social commentary as it calls into question the validity of the justice system. Judges in the film were shown to be corrupt and more concerned with their own appearance and reputation than actually helping Adams. It also shows that the people in the film were more likely to help the younger, more likable character of Harris than the outsider Adams.
The film Boys Don't Cry attempts to call attention to the discrimination of LGBT people through the dramatized recounting of the events leading up to the death of Brandon Teena. This film was important because it brought the issues and discrimination of LGBT people to center stage and intervened on the general ignorance of these issues perpetuated around the country. Had director Kimberley Peirce not decided to recount the events surrounding Brandon Teena then it is likely that many people would never have heard his story or given an ounce of thought to him or the people who cared about him. This film was extremely effective in giving exposure to an issue that often does not receive very much.
ReplyDeleteBoys Don't Cry doesn't use any interviews or historical footage to tell Brandon Teena's story, but instead uses actors and testimony from people involved in the story in order to dramatically reconstruct the story in a "docu-drama" style. I think that for this particular story and film, this style worked well. While watching the movie it can be hard to remember that the events in it are based off of ones that occurred in real life. The events of the story are so compelling and violent and shocking that the film seems like any other Hollywood drama. A significant moment in the film came for me when the final scene fades out and the audience is given some text about where the people in the story are now. That text snapped me back to reality in a way and made me remember all over again that the story I had just watched was based on truth. This was especially significant after having just viewed the murder scene. I think that the docu-drama format was very effective for this film. The director made the film enthralling and exciting just like a big Hollywood movie, but used it to highlight an issue and a story that she was greatly invested in. It was an interesting retelling of the past and an effective one in terms of accomplishing the film's political goals.
The film Boys Don't Cry sends a strong and thought-provoking political message through its use of a fictionalized reconstruction. The story is based on the real-life documentary The Brandon Teena Story, which is about the events surrounding Brandon Teena's death in 1993.
ReplyDeleteThis film brings up many political and social issues about the sexuality of individuals and those going through a "sexual identity crisis", as Brandon Teena was referred to having in the film. By making this story into a "docu-drama" using famous actors and actresses, the message was able to spread to a wider audience and get the attention of people across the world. Since it doesn't contain any interviews or historical footage, things seen in normal documentaries, some people might not even realize it is based on a true story. The fact that it is, however, makes the film that much more important. It is one thing to watch a film about something horrible that happens and think how that would never really happen or how nobody could have such hatred. By using a real event, the film sends a much stronger message about hate crimes in today's society.
And that is what I believe is the overall political and social message in the film. The message of how we need to accept people regardless of sexuality. The message of how hate crimes are still prevalent today. How you can’t judge someone based on their sexual preference alone. Brandon Teena’s murderers were his friends at first, but the minute they found out he was actually a she, they flipped and resorted to killing multiple innocent people.
By presenting this true story in the form of a “docu-drama” in a big screen adaptation, this film was and still is able to show a strong political and social message that needs to be heard even today, almost fourteen years after its release.