Experimental or Documentary
In chapter five of Film Art we looked at three different types of film. Of the three types presented, animated film is the most common; therefore, we will focus on the other two for this blog. Have you ever seen a documentary or experimental film? What was it about? Why do you think it chose the form that it did and to what purpose? Why do you think these are the two least common film types for general viewing? At what venues do these films thrive? What are the benefits to these two types?
posted by cmartin at 2/15/2006 12:32:00 PM
35 Comments:
I've seen a few documentaries in my lifetime...of course 39 Pounds of Love, then there is Supersize Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 911, and i guess in some strange way you can consider Jackass a documentary. As for experimental ive seen Blood of a Poet and Man With a Movie Camera. The differences between the two are quite shocking. Is that a good word? I love documentaries because they usually discuss an issue in ways you have never seen before. Sure, sometimes the ideas are biased (Michael Moore for instance) but its always interesting to see someones perspective. Experimental films are...different. I honestly feel like most experimental films are amazing ideas, but they just dont have it in them to captivate an audience for hours at a time. For instance, tonight we saw some short experimental films and i thought the concept of the H2O film was AMAZING. Think about it, we live on this tiny planet powered by the sun and made possible by simple little water, but have you ever seen someone just film it? Rain, waterfalls, puddles, lakes, rivers, streams, tears...whatever. I know that I take for granted the natural beauty of water and the phenomenon that makes life possible...so the idea of documenting water in its natural state seems like a genius idea...but as shown it wasnt that interesting.
Last night was the first experimental films for me. I must say I'm not a big fan, but I can appreciate the work that went into them, and how hard the director was trying. I have seen many documentaries. When I was growing up, I really like sharks, so I would watch as many documentaries on them as I possibly could (I was, and still am, a huge nerd). I also have seen other documentaries recently. Last semester in ENG1131, we watched "The Corporation" and it was a documentary on Corporate America and the negative impact corporations are having on this country and the rest of the world. It had a clear focus: to show that corporations are bad. It used testimonials from CEO's, former CEO's, college professors and other reputable sources. This was done to give the film credibility. It also used video of sweat-shops as well as video of factories dumping waste into water supplies. This was done to show and evoke feelings relating to the negative feelings the creators want the viewer to have about corporations. I think these are the two least common types for general viewing because neither experimental nor documentary films are very entertaining, and that is what most people go to the movies to do, be intertained. These films thrive in academic and other learining settings, like IMAX (or OMNIMAX) at a museum. They both also have benefits. Experimental films give the creator an opportunity to try new things, that might not have ever been done before, or even been able to be attemped before. The benefit of a documentary is that the creator can convey an point or idea and also persuade the viewer to take a certain stance. Because of this power of persuasion, there can be ethical questions raised about documentaries.
The only experimental films I've seen are the ones that were presented on Thursday in class. My friend showed me Super Size Me over the summer and I found it interesting at best. It was about a guy proving all of the health risks assosciated with eating fast food excessively. I think it chose the form that it did because it easily conveyed the ideas and points of ststistical and hard evidence concerning the effect of fast food on consumers, and America's fascination with it in general. It was informational, so a documentary type format would only be appropriate. I think that exerimental films are not so popular because they straight up suck from an entertainment perspective. Sure, they have deep meaning if you go to hell and back trying to inject some meaning into them, but for the most part, lets not lie. We'd rather watch things being blown up or car chases or something a little more blatant. Documentaries, although interesting, still are not fun in a traditional aspect. They dance the line between entertainment and education. People want to have fun when they go to the movies. Period. You're not going to find as much fun in listening to statistical figures, no matter how interesting, as much as you'll find in watching a dramatic or comedic plot unfold before your eyes. Honestly I have no idea at what kind of venue you could find an experimental film. Perhaps somewhere like the Hippodrome. Occasionally, a documentary will enter a mass media market and can be seen at your local cineplex, besides that I can't tell you much. The benefits of experimental films would seem to strictly serve that of the film-maker, seeing that its apparantly an 'experiment' for him/her and could help them realize what NOT to do since they tend to suck so badly. Documentaries are interesting and educational and can be used to inform the public of an issue or event that they should know about. Cheers to documentaries.
Sam -
You're deep thought concerning the water documentary is interesting. Not for one minute was "H2O" able to apark any kind of thought in my mind other than "please stop". Its good to know that you can find meaning in something so simple. It provides a refreshing perspective on something most people would never think twice about.
John-
haha i guess that after watching Man With a Movie Camera, the h2o experimental film didnt seem so bad....but i definately agree with you when you say "Honestly I have no idea at what kind of venue you could find an experimental film." i feel that experimental films are more like the stuff you would find on the shelf of a lab. okay that didnt make any sense...
I had never seen a documentary film until recently I saw Super Size Me. This film was shocking and inspirational to say the least. There are two kinds of documentaries, categorical and rhetorical, Super Size Me being the latter. Morgan Spurlock wore and directed this very persuasive and informative film about how McDonalds’ food is bad for you. He included charts, graphs, as well as interviews with professionals regarding the quality of food served at the big arches. This isn’t a very common film type because though it’s shocking, there isn’t much edge-of-your-seat excitement. This film was shown at Cannes Film Festival where it was received very well. These and other independent film festivals typically accept films that are not typical, Hollywood movies.
bobby- The Corporation sounds like an interesting documentary, Im definitely going to check it out...
I don't think I have ever really seen any experimental films. But, I have seen a few documentaries. Recently I watched one called Breaking the Da Vinci Code. It investigated all the claims that the popular book The Da Vinci Code makes about history and Da Vinci's art. The host of the documentary traveled all around Europe and visited all the famous sites talked about in the book. A documentary form was obviously the best choice for this subject due to the investigation aspect and the number of sites traveled to. Also, it is very fact heavy, like alot of documentaries. I think this is a less popular genre because it is not something you would necessarily see for entertainment value, which is why most people flock to movie theaters. I think that people sometimes loose site that these films actually have a lot to offer and teach if you give them a chance and go in with less expectations.
Sam, I have also seen some Michael Moore "documentaries". I put that in quotes, because sometimes I think that documentary filmmakers may go to far in trying to present their facts so that the audience sees their viewpoint. So then it really defeats their whole purpose in the first place.
The last documentary I've seen was the "Divinci Code: Decoded", directed by Martin Lunn. It was a blockbuster rental based on the book, "Divinci Code" by Dan Brown. I think documenatary's and experimental film are not as common as other typres of film because they represent the real world and the way it actually appears. The audience may not be attracted to what's real but more of what's not real like sci-fi or fantasy. The film was posed as a documentary to show the audience that the characters of the Bible were real and that Jesus was real, his life was based on reality. Because of that approach, the film had more credibility verses, just watching a film with some biased approaches. The advantages of getting to hear both sides of the story verses just one side from a film is one of benfits of a documantary. The audience gets to meet the sources and see both the good and the bad of these characters. The audience is given a chance to given a chane to form their own opion, because it's presented in an unbiased fashion.
Alana,
I would definately recommend you to watch a documentary. They are very educational and you get so much more of it than you would from a film because you'll learn so much. I haven't seen Super Size Me but I'll look forward to watching it.
In chapter five of Film Art we looked at three different types of film. Of the three types presented, animated film is the most common; therefore, we will focus on the other two for this blog. Have you ever seen a documentary or experimental film? What was it about? Why do you think it chose the form that it did and to what purpose? Why do you think these are the two least common film types for general viewing? At what venues do these films thrive? What are the benefits to these two types?
Most documentaries I've seen have been on channels like the History channel or National Geographic, where the purpose is not to persuade, but to inform the viewer on whatever topic they chose. An interesting documentary on the IFC channel is called Methadonia, which is following the lives of two heroin addicted couples trying to make it by on the streets of New York. I guess the purpose of this is to show the dangers and risks of drug abuse.
I love experimental films, and I thought the three we saw on thursday were and probably will be the best films we see in this class. Call me crazy, but I love a break from the norm. One of my favorites was this film that flashed and panned images to the beat ojf a modern opera. The composer and film editor worked together and made a song/film in three clearly segmented movements. It dealt with technology and humans, man and machine. One movement was called Dolly, which was about the cloned sheep, and strands of DNA melting into human faces was the main theme. I don't know, hard to explain in type.
These type of films thrive in alternative viewing spaces. I think they're not as popular because some people like to buy the jigsaw puzzle already pieced together.
Sam- I really agree with your synopsis on H20, I also found it amazing. I enjoyed how the film moved from clear, definite visuals of water's movement, and increasingly became more abstract as the focus became blurred. At one section in the middle of the film, all the viewer could see was what appeared to be just two colors dancing around each other, white and black. From the context, we deduce it to be water, which is a good effect as the film moves back to the tangible. Anyway, I liked it.
I've seen a lot of documentaries over the years...mostly political ones. A favorite of mine it Outfoxed which analyzes the ridiculous amount of conservative bias displayed by the joke that is Fox News. It used things such as memos by top Fox Execs to show that their employees are told to skew the news a certain way. The makers also interviewed former employees as well as guests of Fox News. The movie was broken up into parts with each part donating between 5 and 10 minutes to a particular topic. Ranging from the Fox News practice of just choosing NOT to report on certain topics to their constant saying they are "Fair and Balanced". The movie also takes a look at the way they choose the guests they will use on a particular show. A liberal guest is used 1/3 as often as a conservative guest and the liberal guests that are used are generally moderate if not leaning conservative, or they are just hand picked to look stupid. Documentaries are uncommon as a film type because they are often VERY controversial and are heavily opinionated. At the same time though they are informational often with less of a focus on entertainment value. Documentaries tend to do well at film festivals such as Sundance, but often never make it to the big screen.
Dan- Super Size Me was amazing. It always shocks people when I show it to them. I haven't eaten fast food in years. Haha.
I’ve seen all kinds of documentaries: both the Michael Moore films, March of the Penguins, recently Triumph of the Will (a Hitler propaganda film from the late 30’s for a class…interesting, but extremely boring…), Inside the X-Games, and countless Science Center Imax films on space, the sea, and all sorts of other things. I love documentaries, but I hadn’t seen any experimental films before Thursday. Documentaries allow people to present factual information through film. A cleverly planned and edited film can make information far more entertaining than if one was to simply read about the subject. Experimental films seem like they are made primarily for fun. The filmmakers understand that their film will probably not attract a lot of attention, making it pure and genuine, in my opinion. Most people do not prefer these types of films because they are looking to escape in the movies. They generally want movies that have defined plots, climaxes, and resolutions. Documentaries seem to be most popular on TV and at film festivals, although some do make it to the theaters. Don’t know about experimentals.
I have never seen an experimental film besides the one we saw in class. But, I have seen several documentaries. The most recent one I saw was March of the Penguins. This movie was awesome not only because penguins are the coolest animals but also because it is narrated by Morgan Freedman. The purpose of this documentary was to tell about the migration paterns of artic penguins. It shows everything from mating, to hunting food, and attacks by predators. I liked this movie because it shows how such small animals can survive in the harshest environment on earth.
I liked Super Size me also. The doctor had to tell him to stop eatting McDonalds or he was going to die! I didnt eat it for 3 months.
Sam and John- The experimental film on water did seem like a really interesting idea, and I liked parts of it, particularly the part you were talking about, John. I know that some parts of these films were somewhat boring.
However, I find most significantly older movies to be boring at times, even if I love the movie. Color, special effects, stunts, picture quality, and advancing technology in camera movements make present day movies very different from older movies, something we’ve grown accustomed to, and create standards that we impose upon older movies. What I’m taking such a long time to say is that I think the short on water, filmed today in high definition (and maybe some color here and there?) would be amazing. I’m very much interested in seeing a present day experimental film.
John g- I disagree with your statement about documentaries not being entertaining. Personally, I love documentaries, and I think education and entertainment can coexist quite nicely. And not all documentaries rely on one statistic after another. If done correctly, a documentary can spark your interest, and then with a statistic or figure, it can blow your mind away. If a movie can get to me to think about something I haven’t really ever thought about deeply, I consider that entertaining. I’d much rather watch a film about something like space with crazy photos and video clips than listen to a professor or read about it.
Ryan -
Here's a quote from my post.
"Documentaries are interesting and educational and can be used to inform the public of an issue or event that they should know about. Cheers to documentaries."
You agree with me for the most part concerning documentaries.
Its experimental films i said suck.
The last documentary I saw was Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. Recently I have also seen Super Size Me, Bowling For Columbine, Tupac: Resurrection, and March of the Penguins. I have never seen an experimental film before last Thursday's class. My favorite film of all of the above was definetly the one about Enron. I found this movie to be extremely informative. Before I saw this movie I didn't know a whole lot about what the top executives and stock traders of Enron did. I was completely amazed and enthralled that this group of individuals could completely undermine and scam America and walk away with over one billion dollars while investors and employees lost everything. If you have not seen it, or do not know much about the Enron scandal I highly reccommend you see this. I think that documentaries and experimental films are the least common type of film because the majority of them do not focus on entertainment. It is a shame because I think that documentaries are great and can be very entertaining no matter what subject it discusses, as long as you incorporate ways to make the film more entertaining while maintaining the educational purposes as well.
john savant- I definetly have watched documentaries about people on drugs. HBO does a lot of them and usually they are only entertaining because the people are so messed up. I saw this one where these people were addicted to crack and lived on the streets in NYC. It made me want to take a shower.
I have never actually seen an experimental film but I have seen some documentaries. Usually documentaries are made with the intention to either inform the audience about some subject, like those you would see on the National Geographic channel, or to persuade the audience of some viewpoint held by the filmmaker. The last documentary I remember seeing was Farenheit 911, which was quite a while ago. This film is definitely the more persuasive type of documentary. Even though I personally don't agree with Michael Moore's point of view, I thought the movie was interesting. I like documentaries because they are a good way to learn about something I'm not really familiar with or to look at a topic from a different point of view. I really would like to see Super Size Me because it looked pretty interesting in class the other day and I also want to see March of the Penguins. Also,I wish I had been able to come to class on Thursday so I could get a taste of what experimental films are like.
Laura,
I completely agree with you about documentary filmmakers sometimes getting carried away while trying to get their point across. If the information is so biased that you can hardly call it fact anymore, it ruins the integrity the film. Michael Moore is definitely a perfect example.
I don't think I've ever seen an experimental film but I've seen a good amount of documentaries including Super Size Me, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine and March of the Penguins. I think they're very entertaining and underappreciated. I think a lot of people are turned off by them simply because they may believe them to be boring or uninteresting. In a lot of ways, they're more interesting than a regular film, as they tell the story of real life events. I didn't enjoy March of the Penguins as much as most people say they do but it was still an enjoyable movie. I found all the other ones I mentioned to be incredibly interesting and entertaining.
Jonathan - I've heard about Outfoxed before. It sounds really interesting. I'll have to look into seeing it at some point. I've always thought Fox News reported from a very conservative viewpoint.
I’ve seen a bunch of documentaries over the years, mostly for various history classes and some that came to mainstream theatres. I haven’t seen too many experimental films, but one I distinctly remember seeing is Un Chien Andalou directed by Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali. It’s hard to explain, but it was about a man and a woman in an apartment building: (there’s chasing involved, insects, an eye-ball being sliced open, etc.)… As it is probably wholly composed of surrealist ideas, it could pretty much only translate into an experimental film… These are probably the least popular film types because the documentary teaches and the experimental requires abstract thinking in order for one to understand it… I guess the majority of people equate educational films with boring. I see experimental films as being art for art’s sake. They’re wonderful for those who love the challenge of trying to figure them out…not so wonderful for those who don’t care and gloss over them…
I doubt anyone will actually read this post since it's so far down on the blog, but here it is anyway:
Jon - I share your enthusiasm in liking experimental films. It's awesome that someone else in the class actually likes experimental films.
Ryan- I also think it would be cool to see a modern-day experimental film as you described.
Have you ever seen a documentary or experimental film? What was it about? Why do you think it chose the form that it did and to what purpose? Why do you think these are the two least common film types for general viewing? At what venues do these films thrive? What are the benefits to these two types?
Ive seen various documentaries but the first one to come to mind is Super Size Me because it was extremely funny yet informative at the same time. It was about a guy who eats McDonalds food for 30 days to try and see what exactly it does to your body if you eat it for every meal, every day. The results were staggering, to say the least, and it turns out that McDonalds and fast food restaurants are not good for anyone. I think they chose the form that they did because it was the best way for an audience to identify with this seemingly normal guy who was generally healthy. The audience was able to see how he was affected day by day and they also got a good sense of what goes on with behind the corporate scene. The fact that it was pretty humorous and easy to follow was good for the audience, especially because documentaries are somewhat notorious for being slow. I think that experimental films and documentaries are not shown as much as other films because they are usually of special and specific interests. I believe that these movies thrive in film festivals and in towns that tend to be more liberal. Places that have a certain underground cult following and universities are good for finding these types of films. The benefits of these films are to show non-commercial themes and cinematographical styles that arent the norm. They also cover issues and ideas that arent widely accepted in our society sometimes, and try to shed light on them from a different perspective.
Laura,
I completely agree about filmakers who are biased making their documentaries go their way and negatively portray the other side. A good filmmaker will leave it up to the audience to decide and should only show facts as they are.
I saw two documentary films last semester that are complete opposites of each other: March of the Penguins and Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices. I rented March of the Penguins because when I tried to go see it with one of my friends at the Hippodrome it was sold out for days. I think that proves that documentary films can definitely thrive at alternative viewing spaces. Although at times I found March of the Penguins to be a little boring, it was extremely interesting. I had no clue about the journey that penguins make every year to mate and how they survive the freezing cold. It brought back old memories of the kind of movies I saw at the IMAX theaters for field trips in elementary school. The other documentary I saw last semester was Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices. I saw the movie at a screening on the Reitz Union North Lawn. This is not the kind of thing that I would normally go out and see, but since there was a debate before the movie I decided to write a story about it for my reporting class. I had never seen a movie like the Wal-Mart one. It featured a lot of the same things that we saw in the Super Size Me documentary in class – graphs, re-enactments and testimonials. It also had a lot of interviews with disenfranchised Wal-Mart workers talking about how bad the company is. I didn’t feel like the movie was really that credible because it was so obviously biased against Wal-Mart. At the end of the movie they flashed up all of the towns that have stopped Wal-Mart from opening with dramatic music and sounds playing and people cheering, which I thought was a little over the top. While I think that documentaries like the Wal-Mart one can be informative, they would be more effective if they were less biased. I had never seen an experimental film until Thursday night in class. I could see the point of what they were trying to do with H20 and the other films, but that is definitely not something that I would go out to the theaters to see.
Tyler - I agree with you that the documentary genre is underappreciated and that people usually don't give them a chance.
Dan - The clip that you showed from Super Size Me was very interesting. I think I am going to have to rent that and see the rest of the movie.
lol John, in your comment to Sam I must say I agree. It's great to see at least SOMEONE took something from it, because I had a hard time watching it. I never thought it about it the way Sam mentioned it. Clearly she knows what to look for in a film
Yeah, sorry, John g, guess i missed the last couple lines
Good interaction on the blog. Sorry that we didn't get to discuss the experimental films last Friday in class, but thank you for continuing the discussion here. Maybe we will return to the topic in class one day when we have a free moment.
Post a Comment
<< Home