The following questions
were the three that I posed for optional final exam questions:
1) Nichols’ states on pate 143 that “Kino-eye is understood as that which the eye doesn’t see,…” Discuss what kino-eye is, its origin and how it impacts the documentary film genre. (Begins on page 143—obviously!)
2) Distinguish between fictional and social actors by defining and discussing each. Be sure to discuss “fabrication” by social actors and its impact on a documentary film. Site specific film examples in your discussion. (Nichols, begins on page 5)
3) Documentaries are effective because they relate to the world by representing it. Nichols (Ch. 1) discusses three ways in which documentaries represent. List and discuss the three types of representation and include specific examples of films for each respective type. (Begins on page 2)
My first answer
Question:
In part of our readings this semester Nichols poses the question “How should we treat the people we film.” He mentions that there is a classic formulation that is often used to answer this question. What is the formulation that he mentions? After listing this formulation break it down into its individual parts and discuss each part in depth. Finish your discussion of this formulation by discussing if you think this is a viable option for one could consider when trying to answer the question of how to treat the people we film. If you do not think this is a viable option explain why.
Answer:
In chapter one, Nichols discusses a three-way formulation about how filmmakers can represent others. Three different subjects are involved with this formulation “(1) filmmaker, (2) subjects or social actors, and (3) audience or viewers. (Nichols, 13).” Mixing these subjects into three different verbal formulations makes a big difference on how filmmakers treat people in films.
The first and most common formulation stated by Nichols is the “I speak about them to you.” I is the filmmaker and he/she can represent themselves in one of several ways. The filmmaker could choose to use a voice-of-God commentator or speak and/or appear personally in the film. Either way, the film portrays a more personal view that is more journalistic and sometimes rhetorical. These films are purposed more for representation rather than persuasion—that’s why they ‘speak about.’ Them is referred to as the topic or subject at hand. By speaking about them, and putting them in the third person it separates the commentator and the subject. This allows the audience to receive a sense of division between filmmaker and subject and allows them to view the film without judgment but with an open-mind free to accept information about the subject. You also implies a separation, but this time it is between filmmaker and audience. This also supports the idea of creating a non-judgmental environment for the viewer so that they can receive the information as just that—information.
The second formulation is “It speaks about them or it to us.” This type of formulation makes a distinct correlation between the commentator and audience. It addresses issues in an ‘at-large’ fashion by focusing on a large group of people, for example by demographics, nationality, profession, etc. Nichols states that it is “impersonal and unidentifiable (17)” This formulation tends to have a voice-over speaker or a voice-of-God commentator, this supports the impersonal style of the formulation but at the same time gives the film an authoritative power. The purpose of this formulation is to provide information, allocate values or give the viewers a sense of commonality about a topic by providing factual information or an emotional surge.
The third and final formulation is “I or We speak about us to you.” This type of formulation provides a commonality between the filmmaker and the subject(s) being represented. There is no longer a sense of separation between the two. When the filmmaker speaks about us, it builds a bridge between the filmmaker and subject. More eloquently stated, Nichols writes, “By speaking about an “us” that includes the filmmaker these films achieve a degree of intimacy that can be quite compelling (18).” This type of formulation is effective in getting an audience or you to understand us. One thing to keep in mind when viewing this type of formulation is that understanding doesn’t always mean agreeing, hence a classic and very controversial type of this formulation it Tongues Untied by Marlon Riggs.
I totally agree that the filmmaker should consider these three different formulations when making a film. There is a big difference between the three. A filmmaker needs to consider the subject, the relationship he/she wants to make with the audience, how the filmmaker wants to be portrayed and the purpose of the film and its content. Once these have been decided the perfect formulation will “make” the film, or the imperfect formulation will “break” the film. For example, speaking about cows and new ideas for their optimum growth and beef output to city slickers wouldn’t slide too far. But, present that to Mid-western farmers and you’ve created a hit!
My response to Bowdee
answering my 1st question:
I definitely agree with a majority of what Bowdee has written. As for the portion concerning fictional actors, I liked how he addressed the “value” of fictional actors. By placing a “value” on them, it makes them less impersonal and therefore draws the audience into the fictional story for entertainment purposes rather than educational, rhetoric or persuasive purposes. Don’t mistake this, though. Fictional films can be educational, rhetoric or persuasive. For example, “John Q” was a great fictional, rhetoric film about a father trying to get his son a heart-transplant, but the father has difficulty with the insurance company and hospital. Throughout the movie we are bonded emotionally with the father and the viewers are left with a sense of anger with insurance companies—full well knowing that this can happen. Most people know that actor Denzel Washington who plays “John Q” is a highly sought after actor in Hollywood. But, his performance draws us in so well, that at times, we feel like we are a part of the film.
As for social actors, I liked Bowdee’s statement that, “A director should not demand a certain performance by a social actor.” Demand is a powerful word, but to make sure that there is little to no fabrication within the film, this is exactly what must be done. A filmmaker should not demand certain characterizations from the actors. By doing this, the film loses its sense of authenticity and this is the major “value” of social actors. Once character directing takes place, the film’s purpose and intent is altered.
One point that Bowdee addressed with fictional actors but not with social actors is the idea that they can be dismissed or replaced at any time. I find this true for fictional or social actors. Obviously fictional actors can be dismissed or replaced because they are being paid and on contract. Failure to breach any contract is grounds for a dismissal. But, social actors can also be replaced and should if the filmmaker thinks they are “acting” rather than being themselves. Once social actors cross that barrier, it fabricates the film and once again it loses its authenticity. It loses the power of reaching the audience and having them relate to a realistic situation. The purpose and intent of the film could be damaged and cause the film to be a flop.