To me Triumph of the Will documentary promoted this sense of patriotism that the National Socialist German Workers party would bring Germany once again to its former glory. That the Versallies Treaty who the allied power made them sign and that made Germany weak. This film for the Germans was all about hope due to all a decade of suffering after WWI. Becoming part of the Nazi party meant to have many types of jobs, being army strong, and having food rations. This movie shows that this one man makes all come true as people solutes him as he goes around the old city of Germany. This film tells Germans that his Supreme Leader would bring Germany once again to prosperity. This is done with inspire speeches, the Nazi flag shown in every scene, and happy people shown all through out the film.

Why we fight documentary came out three years after WWII started in 1939. This movie tells the American viewers that some how we have to stop this three evil powers from the face of earth. If we don’t stop them they would rich their goal of becoming supreme leaders of this world. The geographical display of imperial expansion is amazing. The film demonstrates with map illustrations that Italy would be once again the Roman Empire, Japan and Germany will divide the rest of the countries equally. This film keeps showing war chaos, countless murder and blindly crowds of followers who adore these evils as gods. Then it brings this controversy of Americans debating if it’s a good idea of going into war. The film shows some protestors saying that we shouldn’t be involved they should solve it themselves. There were also interviews of Americans pro and against going into war.  It was logical this film was made to persuade Americans to fight. Even though they went trough harsh years of the great depression until 1939 were the American economy started booming again. This was due to factories creating weapons of mass destruction giving unemployed people work.

Both of these films to me are both a representation of a huge thirst of power. Triumph of the Will gives this sense of the power they lost and they will regain. The film Why we fight to me its not about keeping freedom is more of maintaining the United States in power. In the film there is not a scene for us taking the blame of building those war weapons. The film persuaded fear and it made its objective of going to war. Since human kind there have been always wars and after the chaos a sense of peace and manufacture freedom comes.

4.1 Miles by DAPHNE MATZIARAKI

Link to Film

As some of you may be aware, over many months now there have been refugees from wars in the middle east seeking asylum in foreign countries. The countries who feel the pressure of these refugees the most are those that share borders with neighboring countries. Greece, with its many islands near Turkey, has seen tons of refugees coming to its shores on unsafe boats and rafts, and local Greek coast guard forces are often the only ones who can respond to immediate problems these people face on the Aegean sea (that separates Turkey from Greece). This short film documents one day in the life of a Greek coast guard captain and his team as they attempt to rescue refugees from the sea. It’s a tough film to watch at times – they must take efforts to save the lives of children and adults who have gone overboard into the sea and at times they fail in their efforts – but it’s such an important issue to be aware of.

What I think is pretty interesting from the perspective of documentary aesthetics is the way the filmmaker embeds himself within the coast guard members. In the short film, you can tell that he’s got the camera strapped to him in some way while he assists the sailors in pulling people up into the boat and out of the frigid water. He doesn’t stand back and simply observe as if his presence there doesn’t affect things. In fact, in many scenes the number of refugees seem too many to fit even on the coast guard boat, so even one additional person taking up space without helping would be detrimental. We talked on Tuesday about ethics in documentary filmmaking, and I wonder what you all think of those conversations here? We talked at some length about disclosing to your subjects (the people you film) all of the possible outcomes of their participation in your film. In this case, these refugees are not being identified individually. So while I imagine this filmmaker discussed the project at some length with the coast guard members and the captain before they allowed him on their boat, the same discussions wouldn’t have been possible for all of those refugees (many of whom don’t likely speak Greek anyway). What do you feel is the filmmaker’s obligation to them? Or is the desire to make more people aware of how serious the refugee problem is so strong that it means the director can “use” these people in his film without explicit permission?

There are other shorts nominated for the Oscar this year – two them are available on Netflix: “The White Helmets” and “Extremis” I’ll be very interested to see which one wins!

 

After watching the film “Nanook of the North” in class, my first impression was not very interesting. In the beginning it was kind of boring, reason being due to the fact it was black and white film with only music in the background and periods of just text being shown to describe the scene. I must say after watching ten minutes into the film and before I had a chance to start to fall asleep, it started to seem interesting and I found myself enjoying it. For example, when the eskimos started hunting for walruses it was quite impresses, you can tell the eskimos had a solid strategy when it came to hunting. eskimos weren’t too aggressive on how they hunted the walrus they stayed stealthy as long as they could. Once on attack the eskimos showed remarkable team work on bring the walrus into shore. Another great scene in this film was finding of the foxhole, in the beginning of the scene I was confused just due to the fact I had no idea what the eskimo was looking for, after eskimo poked his head to what seem like to me a bunch a snow he comes out with a fox, me having no idea it was even a foxhole. The reason why I find this scene incredible and also impressive what looked like just like a regular bank of snow,  was really a foxhole, this shows how aware the eskimo people are to their environment. Even though I cannot stress how important the eskimo’s people survival skills are but there family life is what shows there no difference from you and me. One of the heartwarming scenes the family gathered together listening to music on a vinyl witch I believe was the first time for them or seemed like it because there reaction to record track was like they never used or had one even one of the eskimos tried to eat the vinyl.  All that being said for the time of the documentary being released I can see how it could be a big hit, showing the audience how other people around the world live, even if some people say eskimo people were acting  in front of a camera. It’s fair enough to say that this is what it would somewhat be like if you were an eskimo.

After viewing Nanook of the North in class last Tuesday, I was left with mixed feelings about the film. At times during the film I felt like the concept of the Inuit culture was portrayed because of the costumes they wore, the role of woman and children, and the environment of the film, but another part of me thought if it was a little bit over exaggerated or did Inuit’s really live like this? There were some parts of the film that I loved such as when Nanook was going to hunt the seal, the amount of suspense and intensity that scene caused for me made me feel excited of what was going to happen next. Even the music in the film would set a worrying mood. For example, thoughts would run through my head like, “Oh man, what is Nanook doing?” “What will happen next?!” and “I hope he’s successful”. In his attempt of catching seal Nanook and his crew looked passionate because those seals weighed a ton, but as courageous as they were that didn’t stop them, as their sense of survival is ongoing. I feel like Nanook represents a typical family man doing what he’s got to do in order to survive during difficult times. I felt that the hunting of animals scenes in the movie depicted how Flaherty THOUGHT Eskimo’s would obtain their food, but in one scene in particular where Nanook was catching fish and had to leap over a bunch of broken ice pieces, I felt that was overdramatic because of the way in which it was done and when Nanook caught the fish in his mouth at the end of the scene I liked that part because it showed that he was successful. Yes, He is very hungry and is trying to get food for his family and himself but Flaherty portrays the scenes where Nanook is getting food, as food being a hard commodity to obtain, but who knows if that was necessarily true for all tribes in generally or if Flaherty just wants it to seem like that on Nanook’s behalf. A concept of the film that I wasn’t too fond of, was the way that the white settlers made it seem like they were superior to Nanook’s race, I didn’t feel a sense of equality at all there. For example, when the white trader showed Nanook the record player, Nanook observes it by first hearing, then feeling it, than finally putting it in his mouth. The white man knew what Nanook was doing, but didn’t bother to tell him that a record player shouldn’t go in your mouth. Even though Nanook was testing out his senses, because he is living in a time period that hasn’t interacted much with objects and his curiosity is tested in this situation, the white man should’ve known better as to sit there and smile at Nanook doing so. I figure a normal reaction would be the man would have a shocked look on his face, but instead he was laughing at Nanook as if Flaherty told him this was bound to happen and he couldn’t control himself and let his laughter out.

Nanook of the North and about Director Robert. Flaherty.

After I watched ‘Nanook of the North’, I searched about director Flaherty. When the golden age of the film has yet to arrive, it has been interesting to work with such dramatic techniques and elements to make the material so interesting and sometimes suggesting interest, tension, and lyrical feelings. It is a work that has already changed in the century, but it is strange that it still gives the feeling of moving to the audience. Flaherty’s work, which can be said to have opened the pavement of documentary, contained people of the North Pole. Their struggle to survive in the cold of the Arctic is dignified and grander than ridiculous. While I searching about that era, many of the movies at that time were travel films. The traveling films at the time were works written in a very Western perspective. It is as if we go on a three-night, four-day trip today to take a picture or video and judge it. It was nothing more than a blog or on Facebook. After half of the last class, a discussion was held in the classroom. The footage of the Eskimos he shot made them look funny. I also remember that there were quite a few words saying that it would be fun for viewers to see these people, and look stupid. The films that were produced at the time were rather judgemental if you look at the life of Flaherty instead of the stories about the lives of white people. He learned to explore from his childhood through his father, admired the secretaries who lived in the unknown and longed for their lives. It was his video work that started with that kind of mind, except that he was told by the professor that he had a child among the women there and received a semi-shock.
I think that on his work, he wanted to communicate with them, to join in life, and to create a work that reflects their point of view. Before taking the picture, he wants like to talk to each other over the head and face to discuss how to film and the film to collaborate with the Eskimo. It seems that they wanted to record their traditional appearance on the film because the traditional appearance would disappear. So, I think Flaherty is more like a historian.

While watching the film “Nanook of the North” in class, at first it looked not interesting. It the beginning it was kinda boring , since it was black and white and the film was only with music track. After watching 10 minutes into the film, It started to seem interesting and I was liking it. For example, the walrus hunt, and all of the hunts , it looked so barbaric ,and so impressive. It was impressive to me, how these people can be living or were living in such a desolate region of the world? It proves, the indomitable force of the spirit and show to everybody that something to appears impossible is not, and that human species has some traits that even to many of us are unbelievable, hard to believe.  The picture that I posted explains, with the two dirty hands symbolizes how harsh and cruel life can be, especially for the Eskimos people. In the film the eskimo people , even if they were just acting , it seemed that they had difficult and different lifestyle. The yellow flower represents happiness. In reality, the yellow color in a flower symbolizes the bond and friendship, the taste of success and pride. Joy is  also one of the meanings of this flower, as for in the film, it gives hints about even though the people were noble savages. Noble savages that were being pushed towards civilization, and that would destroy them. The effort to survive and to see another day has been a problem since the first men walked the Earth. There are many obstacles that make living day to day a harsh struggle  and many reasons why some fail to meet the expectation of this struggle. In the film, theres a scene in where Nanook bites into a record. According, to chapter 9 from the book “Introduction to documentary” this is an act of playful hamming for the camera, this made me feel like at some point they Nanook didn’t understand what was going on, it was all part of Flaherty ideas and customs.  The picture that I posted explains, symbolizes how harsh and cruel life can be, especially for the Eskimos people. But the yellow rose is meant to stand for happiness, In where seeing then film ,it looked like if they were all fie living in the harsh cold weather and struggling for survival.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1aUoA99nmE

This is a documentary I saw in Discovery Channel one year ego even thought the documentary was made in 2012. I stumble on it days ego on You Tube. What is interesting about this documentary is the way it makes one think of life and the world. Through the deep investigation of scientists that worked for NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). In 2004 they where investigating the massive death of whales in Washington State on the Pacific Ocean shore. These scientists with bunch of test and cerebral tissue mass study determinate that the deaths of these mammals are due to the sonar blast and explosions under water made by the U.S Navy. Sonar blast are wave length like sound use to communicate from one ship to another. This type of vibrations can damage human lungs. In the case of whales and dolphins it led to straight hemorrhage on the brain, most of them were bleeding from the ears. They were able to find this by underwater recordings made while the navy was testing explosives and sonar blast. From these collective recordings they found sounds that whales and dolphins did not make. This unknown species had a different sound and the important piece was that they heard the same sound calibrated with twelve different pitches which showed this new species travel in herds. In South Africa they found this ocean life specimen that was hard to determinate which group it belongs to.  After putting together the scarce peaces they came to the conclusion it was a mermaid. It’s our earliest ancestor the Australopithecus some of them use the oceans as resource of food that might be a reason they took the initiative of making the oceans their permanent home. This led them to evolve into mermaids, half fish and half human. They have this theory they are humans because next to the unknown specimen in Africa it was found this type of weapon like a fishing spear manufacture with bones of whales. Also there were records of couple of fisherman catching fish with bone blades already inside them. This documentary makes you belief that this mystical creature does really exits. It changes the whole view of life with the questioning of realism. What I just describe here does not cover everything that the documentary is about. It’s a most see documentary that changes your perspective of life itself even makes you think why is the U.S navy hiding this discovery.

 

The one question that i hate being asked and yet i’m always being asked it is Who am I. That question is possibly the worst thing anyone can ever ask to another human being. That question alone gets me stressed out. The reason why is because when a person asks you who are you,  there are only 2 ways of answering it; your answer can either be very humble or you talk so good about yourself they think you’re lying just to make yourself look good. Now, when i say that here’s what i mean; when a person ask you who are you, you can say my name is John, i am a very hard working person and i never give up, im always happy and nothing can ever put me down (aka, i know what you might want to hear, so im going to just say good things about me so that way you can see that i am a good person). On the other hand, a person can sound so humble that actually he/she sounds like they’re not too happy or just satisfied with what they are in life. So, in my opinion even if your being one hundred percent honest; the person who asked you the question, is going to assume that you’re lying; because either you’re not telling them what they want to hear or the person just doesn’t care enough to even find out whether your being honest or not. The reason im bringing all this up is because in one of my classes i got asked who am i, and i just said my name is Robert, there isn’t anything else i want to say about me. If who ever asks me that question, they alone will realize who i am if they want they really want to get to know me. So yea i just wanted to vent a little and making this blog might actually help with that. Thanks for reading, see you Tuesday!

I found the film that we watched in class on Tuesday rather interesting. It was my first silent movie so I really didn’t know what to expect. I will admit that I did have a hard time following the story line if there was any in that film. I felt like the scenes where they showed the words on what was going on in the scenes where too short. It did interest me the way nanook was as a person. He was very helpful, he was there for his family and really was the definition of bringing food to the table. Now in our readings how they describe a documentary really has me thinking closely on what I call a documentary and what I don’t call a documentary. With nanook it was hard to tell for me. For the most part it seemed like nanook was doing his own thing hunting and helping one of his ekimo bros get set sale. On the other hand the producer did seem to also get involved in the film like in the scene with the disk player. I feel like if it wasn’t for the producer nanook probably would of never ran into one of those disk players. Even though he did get involve a little that isn’t the only reason why I feel a little on the edge about calling this film a legit documentary. In the beginning of the film the way nanook took out everyone from his canoe it seemed rather exaggerated. For starters I feel like there is no way that many people could of all fit in that canoe I would understand 2 maybe even 3 but he brought out a ton of people and a dog. I feel like at first the producer might of been trying to start the film off with a little comedy but not many documentaries have that sense of comedy it is mostly serious well the documentaries I’ve seen.

Welcome to CUNY Academic Commons. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!