Watch the beginning to learn about a film maker's take on new technology's effect on documentaries.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson directed by Ken Burns
This film in my mind is a stereotypical documentary film. It was created for PBS and thus assumes an air of historical exploration about the life of Jack Johnson. The documentary was detached and presented the information rather than pointing the viewer in one direction or another. It was long to watch in one sitting (4 hours) and I do not recommend it. The material was interesting as it was about a black boxer and his striving for his dream through discrimination. It was an inspiring story about Jack’s indifferent attitude towards racism and the white man’s goal to keep him from achieving the Heavyweight Champion of the World title in boxing. Johnson succeeds by winning many matches and never gives up his belief that he is equal to any white man.
The music, interviews and footage told Jack Johnson’s story objectively. Ken Burns’ role was removed from the film and he presented the information without assuming a position on Johnson’s life. There were no re-enactments of the situations but rather the film used archival footage and shots of old newspapers and photographs from the time period. Photographs were zoomed in on by the camera and then the camera would zoom out and to the side to give the viewer a fuller vision of the picture. This type of camera work occurred many times in the film. I enjoyed seeing the old footage of Johnson’s boxing matches. The old black and white footage made Johnson come alive as someone who did exist. The interviews were artificially lit and were done mainly, if not completely, inside office spaces. I did not hear the interviewer ask questions, which made the director appear even less involved. Music was provided by the jazz musician Wynton Marsalis, and was a mixture of swing and jazz. It seemed like era music and blended in with the film. Marsalis is a successful black artist, which adds to the idea that Jack Johnson helped pave the way for others to pursue their passions in life. Narration provided a string throughout the entire documentary; it informed the audience of the events and drove the plot. Quotations from Johnson were read by another voice and allowed the audience to learn some of Johnson’s own thoughts. The director used these elements of narration, interviews, and archival footage to create an unbiased documentary about Jack Johnson.
I think Burns’ agenda is to tell the historical truth through presenting the available information and facts. Early in the film, a story is told about how Johnson went to New York and threatened to jump off of the ship. The passengers then gave him money so that he would not. Though this story is fascinating, Burns addresses Johnson’s tendency for exaggerating his childhood. This and other stories must be taken lightly since they may not have happened the way Johnson claimed. Burns does his best to sort through the facts and give the audience plausible truth. Through his objective view, the director documents the story of an amazing man whose life surmounted expectations.
This film in my mind is a stereotypical documentary film. It was created for PBS and thus assumes an air of historical exploration about the life of Jack Johnson. The documentary was detached and presented the information rather than pointing the viewer in one direction or another. It was long to watch in one sitting (4 hours) and I do not recommend it. The material was interesting as it was about a black boxer and his striving for his dream through discrimination. It was an inspiring story about Jack’s indifferent attitude towards racism and the white man’s goal to keep him from achieving the Heavyweight Champion of the World title in boxing. Johnson succeeds by winning many matches and never gives up his belief that he is equal to any white man.
The music, interviews and footage told Jack Johnson’s story objectively. Ken Burns’ role was removed from the film and he presented the information without assuming a position on Johnson’s life. There were no re-enactments of the situations but rather the film used archival footage and shots of old newspapers and photographs from the time period. Photographs were zoomed in on by the camera and then the camera would zoom out and to the side to give the viewer a fuller vision of the picture. This type of camera work occurred many times in the film. I enjoyed seeing the old footage of Johnson’s boxing matches. The old black and white footage made Johnson come alive as someone who did exist. The interviews were artificially lit and were done mainly, if not completely, inside office spaces. I did not hear the interviewer ask questions, which made the director appear even less involved. Music was provided by the jazz musician Wynton Marsalis, and was a mixture of swing and jazz. It seemed like era music and blended in with the film. Marsalis is a successful black artist, which adds to the idea that Jack Johnson helped pave the way for others to pursue their passions in life. Narration provided a string throughout the entire documentary; it informed the audience of the events and drove the plot. Quotations from Johnson were read by another voice and allowed the audience to learn some of Johnson’s own thoughts. The director used these elements of narration, interviews, and archival footage to create an unbiased documentary about Jack Johnson.
I think Burns’ agenda is to tell the historical truth through presenting the available information and facts. Early in the film, a story is told about how Johnson went to New York and threatened to jump off of the ship. The passengers then gave him money so that he would not. Though this story is fascinating, Burns addresses Johnson’s tendency for exaggerating his childhood. This and other stories must be taken lightly since they may not have happened the way Johnson claimed. Burns does his best to sort through the facts and give the audience plausible truth. Through his objective view, the director documents the story of an amazing man whose life surmounted expectations.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
a MURDER which may have been solved inaccurately. Can you say documentary?
The Thin Blue Line (1988), directed by Errol Morris, examines the murder of a Dallas police officer through interviews of suspects, witnesses, officers and lawyers as well as re-enactments of the events. The story of what happened the night of the murder slowly unravels as the viewer discovers there are two sides to the story. Randall Adams and David Harris are the murder suspects who were driving the car that was pulled over. One of them shot an officer, but both tell a different story as to who the killer was.
Morris’s style and techniques did not strike me as new and innovative in the way the film addressed the topic. I believe this is due to the fact that since the film’s release there have been many other films which have emulated his techniques and made them commonplace for my generation. I loved how the re-enactment of past actions added to this film. However, I felt the police scene was replayed too much towards the end and could have been replaced with other footage. Errol Morris’s invention the Interrotron enables the interviewee to look directly at the camera and see the interviewer. This places the viewer in a similar position to the director since s/he is experiencing it from the director’s point of view and sees the interviewee looking at her/him. As a viewer I felt submerged in the content of the film and was not sure of which story I believed. I think I felt this way because the interviewees were looking at me and made me feel as if I was there with them which made it hard to remove myself and feel like a spectator. The submersion feeling was also achieved through the different points of view and bits of information slowly being fed to the viewer making the viewer work to piece the story together.
The viewer slowly puts the story together of what happened the night of the murder through the interviews, but Morris does not force his opinion of the truth upon his audience. In fact the portrayed truth is often turned on its head. One of the beginning scenes is an interview of Randall Adams claiming that the police were very pushy in an interview with him and the next scene is of the police officer saying that it was a casual conversation. From the very beginning there is a clash in memory and/or truth. One or the other is telling the truth, but which one? Randall Adams is wearing white and David Harris wears orange which suggests that David is the one who committed the murder and is now in prison for it, but later you find out Randall was convicted. The difference in opinions is confusing in the beginning and it is as if the viewer is a detective sifting through the different accounts to find the truth. Morris suggests truth can be overlooked by justice through the conviction of a non-guilty man and that it can be hard to determine who is telling the truth. Truth is a sticky word. The truth to one person may not be the truth to another because memory can be faulty and lies can be told to cover it up. The viewer was not at the scene of the crime and so does not know the truth of the situation. All the information the officers have to determine the killer is from interviews and witnesses who saw the scene as they drove by on a dark night. One eyewitness couple claims they saw Randall Adams shoot the officer but a woman who knew the couple believes they lied in order to profit from the position. This seems to be the case since the wife’s daughter had been arrested before the crime and was released after the couple’s testimony. Interviews pile on top of other interviews leaning the viewer in one direction and then back in a new one.
Morris ends the film with a strong scene full of evidence indicating Harris to be the murderer. The shot is of a tape recorder playing and there are subtitles to what is being said. The tape is of David Harris answering questions and his statements lead me to believe that David and not Randall had murdered the officer. Here Errol Morris does choose to end with his own point of view and give the viewer a slight push in the same direction. Morris’s documentary provided an insightful glimpse of how the justice system can err and that the truth is not always clear.
Morris’s style and techniques did not strike me as new and innovative in the way the film addressed the topic. I believe this is due to the fact that since the film’s release there have been many other films which have emulated his techniques and made them commonplace for my generation. I loved how the re-enactment of past actions added to this film. However, I felt the police scene was replayed too much towards the end and could have been replaced with other footage. Errol Morris’s invention the Interrotron enables the interviewee to look directly at the camera and see the interviewer. This places the viewer in a similar position to the director since s/he is experiencing it from the director’s point of view and sees the interviewee looking at her/him. As a viewer I felt submerged in the content of the film and was not sure of which story I believed. I think I felt this way because the interviewees were looking at me and made me feel as if I was there with them which made it hard to remove myself and feel like a spectator. The submersion feeling was also achieved through the different points of view and bits of information slowly being fed to the viewer making the viewer work to piece the story together.
The viewer slowly puts the story together of what happened the night of the murder through the interviews, but Morris does not force his opinion of the truth upon his audience. In fact the portrayed truth is often turned on its head. One of the beginning scenes is an interview of Randall Adams claiming that the police were very pushy in an interview with him and the next scene is of the police officer saying that it was a casual conversation. From the very beginning there is a clash in memory and/or truth. One or the other is telling the truth, but which one? Randall Adams is wearing white and David Harris wears orange which suggests that David is the one who committed the murder and is now in prison for it, but later you find out Randall was convicted. The difference in opinions is confusing in the beginning and it is as if the viewer is a detective sifting through the different accounts to find the truth. Morris suggests truth can be overlooked by justice through the conviction of a non-guilty man and that it can be hard to determine who is telling the truth. Truth is a sticky word. The truth to one person may not be the truth to another because memory can be faulty and lies can be told to cover it up. The viewer was not at the scene of the crime and so does not know the truth of the situation. All the information the officers have to determine the killer is from interviews and witnesses who saw the scene as they drove by on a dark night. One eyewitness couple claims they saw Randall Adams shoot the officer but a woman who knew the couple believes they lied in order to profit from the position. This seems to be the case since the wife’s daughter had been arrested before the crime and was released after the couple’s testimony. Interviews pile on top of other interviews leaning the viewer in one direction and then back in a new one.
Morris ends the film with a strong scene full of evidence indicating Harris to be the murderer. The shot is of a tape recorder playing and there are subtitles to what is being said. The tape is of David Harris answering questions and his statements lead me to believe that David and not Randall had murdered the officer. Here Errol Morris does choose to end with his own point of view and give the viewer a slight push in the same direction. Morris’s documentary provided an insightful glimpse of how the justice system can err and that the truth is not always clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
