here are my ques/comments on this week’s readings:
1) Hampe stresses the importance of using still photographs in documentaries; what kind of effect do still photos have versus video-recorded footage? Is using still photographs more “moving” than using real-time footage? Why?
2) Hampe also stresses the importance of having a direction in mind while planning and before starting a documentary, but how can this direction influence the validity of the film? What if the director’s direction includes the director’s bias (ever seen a Michael Moore film??). How can one combat the ever-present problem of biases? Or is biased opinions part of the directing/editing process (i.e. what shapes the film and forms its final presentation)?
3) Even though nowadays we have a multitude of “reality” shows, the question arises as to how realistic they really are, given the editing process and demand for entertainment value that is placed on them. For example, person A is badmouthing person C to person B. The camera will shoot back-and-forth between persons A&B talking and person C, as if they are only a room apart and person C could easily walk into the next room and hear the insults… and then when person C does get up and enter the room that persons A&B are in, luckily they have just finished their talk and did not get caught by person C (but it was super close to becoming a huge fight – drama!). However, in reality, these two shots are filmed on completely different days or different times, and are just pasted together by the editing crew to create drama/entertainment. So if that isn’t how it really happened, how can the show be dubbed “reality”? Does the same thing happen in other types of documentaries (like historical?). If the documentary has to have a “point of view,” as Hampe says on page 5, and we can’t let the footage speak for itself, how do we, the audience, know we are getting the truth?
