Havent done this in a while.
How many big filmmakers say, watching movies is the best way to learn. The first time I watched a documentary on my own it was about Maradona, and a couple years had to pass until I watched another one, that was also about Maradona. This kinda shows that documentary watching isn't somenthing I spend a lot of my time with so it was kinda useful to later make somenthing good...
Doc #1
Their stylistic choices like color for graphics, and animation for the tittle sequence were standed out. Being very unique and to an extent worked as inspiration for parts of our documentary. Since it made the production feel a lot more approachable. This I believe was benefitial for our doc since it was such a dense topic.
Doc #2
This doc was a very shocking one. How raw and real it felt, made me develop such a real connection towards its characters. This feeling was enhaced by visual and audio techniques. A lot of handheld shots, moments filmed on the middle of the street with a lot of ambient sound from the city. The documentary wasn't only making us see the life of this two kids, but making us feel it.
The interviews from this documentary where the best. Seeing how the kids get addapted to them, to talking to a camera, at the same time as they gain more awarness of their problems makes their conflict hit so hard.
I also think it portrays an interesting dilema even within the piece. I remember a lot when Ms. Stoklosa paused the documentary after the mother interviewed herself (sinse she is one of the directors) and it was pretty much just to make herself look better after calling up his kid. Its an interview that gives important information to why she acts like she does, therefore how she raises her kid. But its timming makes it feel as an excuse. Parenting is full of mistakes sinse parents are still just humans. Many times their mistakes can affect their kids due to the power dynamic intrinsic to their relationship. How this relationship is defied or reinforced through the making of this documentary was somenthing interesting to watch, and at the sme time a little conserning. Because I just think my parents are here just telling me what's best for me, and pretty much if I don't do it, Hey it is just going to be in a movie for everyone to watch!!! It's a pretty complicated situation that I feel many times gives lot of power to the parents. And somentimes they abused of it, like that one time they got him crying in pure dispair.
This was a very very interesting piece that made me think a lot...
Doc #3
Banksy, Banksy, Banksy... I kinda love this guy. This documentary has such a nice structure. The image that the documentary portrays on Thierry Guetta changes a lot. Almost like him and Mr. Brainwash are two different people. At first he is presented as a passionate man, capable of giving his life a 180 degree change to follow a passion. He dives into a long trip where all he does is start filming street artists for a passion project. The first half almost is just showing him getting footage and preparing his film, so I found it hilarious when Bansky just said it was kinda ass, that it was actually really ass, that it was unwatchable.
It is like they construct a whole myth around Thierry, a man who abandoned his life for art but he isn't really an artist. This is later reinforced on how Bansky speaks about Mr. Brainwash (his artistic name as a "street artist") Where he pretty much says he sold out and doens't represent the values of an artist.
This is contrasted with Bansky who is one of the few people in this world that you can call a true ARTIST all capital letters. His art is political, defient and he values for what it is, not for what it could get him. I remember this video Mr Berna showed me, it was a piece of Banksy that was going to be sold in a Museum and the moment somenone bought it a mechanism out by Banksy just destroyed the piece.
Loved this as well.
Op Doc #1
Will you look at me was amazing. The doc had footage very independent of what is being talked about. There are particular cases like when he is talking about his mom having plants on the rooftop, or when he is talking about his friends. But this mainly because the footage is mundane, from his daily life, which aligns with the rest of the footage of the doc. This footage is usually just what he gets with his own camera as he walks around the city. It is raw and handheld, very contemplative. The contemplative side of it contrasts, while the raw of it accompanies a straight narration where events are described almost like facts, rather than memories. “She was the main actress for my thesis he works in commercials to pay the rent, they broke up”
Another aspect to analyse would be the “interviews”, between quotation marks because they aren’t truly interviews. His conversations with his mom are recorded probably without her knowing. The audience feels almost like spying a moment of the director's life. But this is done to enhance the rawness of the documentary. This has an especial impact on scenes such as the climax where the director and his mom are crying after their conversation.
I really liked this documentary. As I mentioned it has a very contemplative and slow pace to it that I really enjoyed. Many aspects of the director's life are portrayed that may seem unnecessary like just showing his dad likes going swimming on the lake, or that his mom likes plants. But they serve to humanize these figures. As they have a very opposing ideology towards its son’s identity. This gives a lot of nuances to the dilemma that is being presented and makes it very human. I felt really captivated as these elements were presented. I actually enjoyed the footage, it made me really focus on their conversations.
And I gotta say I cried during the final conversation, As mentioned due to the way the audio was recorded, the rawness of it portrayed emotion in a way that just made me feel I was there.
On another separate note, the author also connects the contemplative pacing of the beginning to himself as he questioned if he has become just like the 25 year old man from the story he told. Is a question which the viewer can’t give a clear answer as they don’t know much about this man, raising a final question to contemplate and think about what one just saw
Op Doc #2
The whole documentary is animated. This gives the directors more freedom on how they desire to use visuals. A lot of high saturated colors are used to match the style of the narration which in some moments addresses a very serious topic with humor. Music is used to balance these comical narrations. As for the major part of the documentary a slow and kinda sad piano is used to maintain things within a more reflective tone.
Some symbolic and exaggerated animations are used to enhance the meaning of certain moments. A particular example would be when the subject goes to the show and the head of the presenter becomes a hand with a mic. This showcases how his main focus was just getting her to talk about what he wanted. Taking away the human characteristics of his face, matching the poor human behaviour that was exploiting a highschool student for a tv show.
The aspect that catched my attention the most was the animation. It is interesting how it is used to portray a person how’s reality was being shifted due to other people's perception about her. Animation is perfect for this as it grants the ability to portray reality in a very subjective way. This boosted the narrative of the documentary. Allowing me to connect a lot with the subject whose experiences could be hard to really understand from the position of many members of the audience, who probably not in bad intentions and maybe not even conscious, may act in a similar way and look down on her because of how she looks.
No comments:
Post a Comment