It’s a non-fiction documentary. The director said that he intended to film this movie for the first time. The Indonesian farmers tried to film this fact because they were dealing with powerful herbicides with their bare hands and were dying because they were under 40 years old. So I went to Indonesia and took pictures of them, and I feel this strange absurdity in this society. I wanted to know what it was like to travel all over Indonesia, and then the Indonesian paramilitary organization blocked the film production. In the process, the director found out that there was a massacre in Indonesia half a century ago and the film created by commissioning a filmmaker to lead the killing. The old man who was the main character of the massacre was proud of the history of the massacre. So, he was very excited to accept the proposal as a movie. He said that he would include some facts without any doubt then explained how people died in a casual way. The old man was a gangster. The gangster became a paramilitary organization today in Indonesia. In the past, Indonesia was also at the crossroads of capitalism, communism, and alternative. Perhaps the vested interests were capitalism. They used gangsters to kill 2.5 million people in a year. Gangsters claim that the root of ‘gangsters’ is ‘free man.’ and thought it was patriotism to take away the Communist Party, which is the people who adore freedom and obstructs freedom. At the time, Indonesian gangsters were earning money through Hollywood movies. The Communist Party said that they should reject American films, but I think they just cut their profits.
It was hypocrites who freed themselves. The old man said he learned ‘how to murder’ in an American gangster movie. It is a great metaphor. Creatures from the country of capitalism are involved in human life. Gangsters would have appeared cool in the country of freedom, so they were seen as ‘free men’? The Indonesian society seen in the movie was very uncivilized. The power of capital flourished, but the contents were impossible perfection. They talk about intimidation, public broadcasting broadcasts stories about genocide like a heroic story, supports the genocide convention, and justice justifies their massacre by the winners. They did not have the words to express except the word “uncivilized.” It was a disgust itself.
The more the film produced, the old man became more strange. When he saw the reproductions of the massacre in the eyes of the third person, he realized that it was incredibly violent. So he began to have a nightmare and even feared that he was guilty of sin. Nevertheless, he gave the medal to the dead in the surreal scene of the film and put the line of “Thank you for killing me to go to heaven.” No such absurd rationalization could be read in any fiction.
To make history, we know that countless people have been sacrificed. The reason for the massacre in that history was inevitable because people applied for the “making history” role by themselves.
The flow of history is similar. The old man in the movie made himself a role of ‘free man,’ so he was able to avoid the terrible slaughter. When I first saw the work, I thought the people behind the frame were simply victims. But now I believe that there are some perpetrators behind wherever.
Finally, we reminded the plainness of evil. The old man in the movie is a man who loves grandchildren and is full of joy. Nevertheless, he was proud of the massacre. Then, after seeing the killings with the eyes of the third person, and acting the victims, he realizes how evil my actions were. In the end, it is not usually easy to say that we often say ‘live well.’ It is simply not enough to do well to the people you like and do what you need to do. Through self-objectification, we must always react sensitively to the absurdity of human beings. And you should not put on your part. We give too much of a role in our daily lives. ‘I have been in charge of this role, so it is natural and reasonable to do this!’ We should not forget that we also found this kind of role in fiction. Perhaps goodness may be the perfect self.
This documentary was different from the rest of the documentaries that we have watched in this class. Compared to the recent ones we have watched this one has a lot of dramatizations. This film seemed more of a crime story rather than a documentary. There was interviews with different people which is documentary type. But also a lot of reenactments. I find it hilarious that people actually think that the director was there at the night of the shooting conveniently holing a camera while filming this crime happen. They were obviously reenacted to show the viewers how the crime went down. Out of all the films so far I think this had the most reenactments and they were pretty obvious. I found the film very interesting. It was the type that makes you sit on the edge of your seat trying to figure out who did it. Back to the reenactments. This film was half interviews of real people and half reenactments but the director kept showing the same ones over and over again. It wasn’t and new ones. I also like how the director helped the other man that was innocent get out of jail by making the shooter admit that he did the crime. I still find it messed up that the man spent over 10 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit and didn’t receive any money for the governments mess up. He should have received something from this film for doing it also.
Yesterday I was on facebook, and I saw one of my friends post a trailer about the second season of 13 reasons why, and its crazy how my girlfriend said that if there was gonna be a second season of the show it was gonna be about another character doing exactly what Hanna the main character did. I find it interesting how social media can be use in all kinds of ways, now I know that the new type of bullying is through social media, basically cyberbullying, but the reason why social media was created was to link up with past friends, relatives, and also to make new friends. Now a days anyone can really get hurt because of what people post about that person. For example in the trailer its focus on 2 conversations, one is on snapchat and the other one is on Instagram, now a days is very rare to see bullying face to face, like insulting someone to their face or pushing them to the wall and asking for their lunch money, everything now a days is mostly focus on social media, because is easier to talk bad about someone when they are not next to you. This is the sad reality we have to face everyday. I despise bullying, and if I am able to help someone who is being Bully at the moment I will do it in a blink of an eye. If someone would ever need to talk I will always be there no matter if you are a stranger or a friend. See you later.
This documentary shows how our own people could turn so evil. An army man Timothy McVeigh turn into a domestic terrorist by murdering 168 people which included kids. This massacre occurs in April 19 1995 at Alfred P Murray Federal building in Oklahoma City. This specific date is on the anniversary of the people who die on Waco Texas who where part of this white supremacists group that heated the federal government. They allowed polygamy and the leader was treating to attack the federal government in so many ways. The cult had young teenage girls who got brain wash with this ideology of white race coming back. As this group was treating the government action was taken. The FBI had this plan of putting gas in the building to take out visibility and for them to capture the rest of them who where on the premises. But everything went down hill when it’s leader already pure gasoline in the whole building 76 people die including five young kids this occurred on April 19, 1993. For the white supremacists and Timothy McVeigh who was a witness of the Waco incident said that the police set fire to the building. Timothy was raised by his grandfather as a gun lover. He joined the army to pursue his passion of gun loving but after fighting in the Gulf war he was uneasy on killing innocent people. Then he went back to be a normal citizen and no one hire him then he took this searching soul trips where he went to gun shows and white supremacists who he felt as something in common for heating the federal government. He was at Waco selling stickers when he witnesses the fire. In his mind that was the last straw of the evil institutions of the federal government. In his mind he had to attack them back where it hurts the most with lives of people that are part of the institution. He created this bomb with fertilizer and other chemical as it described in the book The Turner Diaries which was his bible on overthrowing the government. In his mind he thought he was going to be the spark that will start a revolution. But instead nothing happen and he got people’s heat in return for murdering all those innocent people. Even though there was the office that sends the attack for Waco Texas in the building there were other office institutions and a daycare center. He didn’t feel any remorse and did such a horrific act. People could not belief that a USA citizen could do just that. He dies in 2001 on the lethal injection which was nothing compare what the victim suffer.
“Stories We Tell” was such an odd documentary. There were people who felt kind of tricked when they see that most of the old footage wasn’t actual footage, it was just reenactment, and I was one of those people. I completely assumed they were real home video clips. I’m assuming a lot of viewers had a negative feeling towards the director doing the documentary in such a way when the film first came out, but at the same time, I feel like you need to do certain things to make your film different. In the beginning of the film, the filmmaker’s sister asks why she is even making a film about their “stupid family”, who would be interested in watching it, and she’s right, if it was a film about just her family, perhaps it would be boring. I feel like her “tricking” the audience was one of the most memorable parts of the film, and isn’t that what most people want, something they made to be memorable, for people to keep talking about it? Another thing I wanted to point out was when her dad was narrating, or reciting the voice over script, she would have him repeat himself only on certain lines. Maybe some people thought she didn’t like the way he said the lines, or he didn’t say it clearly, but based on the specific lines she made him repeat, plus her facial expressions, I feel like it was more of a personal reason behind it. I feel like she really wanted her dad to feel certain emotions and think about the lines he was saying, she didn’t want him to just do a voice over, but also have him open up to her without directly doing so. My favorite part of the film was the ending, when her mother’s co-actor admitted to sleeping with her mom, it was like icing on this mad family cake.
The thin blue line is a documentary. And it is a film that makes a documentary about the genre. I know the documentary contains the truth, but this film makes me wonder if the documentary contains the truth.
When you look at the movie, you can see that Morris loses his iniquity and Harris, the actual criminal, has escaped the judgment of the law. And thanks to this film, Morris was found not guilty and released. But there are parts of the movie that I can not believe, as the story of a film. Witnesses in the film and those involved in the case testify. However, the testimony of one person is subsequently denied by another. According to their words, the scene of the crime scene continues to repeat, and the real situation becomes blurred. In the end, Harris listens to handcuffs as he talks. I doubt whether the story he has been doing so far has been reliable. Thus, the film takes the form of a documentary that conveys the truth and makes us think again about whether it contains the truth.
The difference between people’s statements is that the memories they depend on when they testify are incomplete. Memory can be erased or configured differently over time. It may or may not be memorable to see the same thing at the moment of remembering something because the individual experienced it. Or they can reorganize their memory to suit their interests and circumstances. But people have no choice but to rely on such memories when they want to know the truth. I have no choice but to rely on my perspective. So I think that human attempts to possess the truth are impossible.
But why are people thirsting for truth? Is it because it has the scarcity that there is only one truth unlike the fact that every individual has? Or is it because we can not possess the truth in the end? If you can have the truth if you pass it through movies and other media, will not it be reproduced? There is a gap between the real and the reproduction. There is a small but dark space between them. People try to catch but never catch.
As the testimony of the people involved in the case comes out, the real case goes on. One voice does not lead the film with the initiative, and many voices make a sound, make up the event and change it. The audience focuses on their individual voices and seeks to verify that they are right. The audience who believes and follows as the voices heard is confused with this form. Which of the many voices is real, or is it really in the movie? For those who believe and follow the narrative, the film questions whether the narrative of the film is reliable. And this is evident in the final scene of the movie. Harris’ handcuffs show his handcuffs and ‘Morris’ has been sentenced to unjustifiable imprisonment, and ‘Harris’ is a criminal.
So thin blue line is documentary real? Can you believe the narrative in the movie? I think they played a role in asking questions and thinking about movies.
Last week’s film stories we tell was a very interesting film. From the beginning of the film you saw the film maker getting involved having her father read some linesort. At first I thought this film was going to be about how the film makers mother who’s died of cancer but it gets deeper than that. I found some of the family members to be extremely funny but also some where very emotional. As I watch this film i start to see how the film makers face changes when they begin to reach certain parts of the script specifically around the parts of her mother. What I found to be interesting was how talented everyone said that the father was but never did anything about it. That’s really what you call wasted talent but not only being a waste of talent he was also not the best husband or father. We all know how death can affect us different I felt mostly bad when he lost his wife due to cancer. Already being anti-social and only befriending flies the death of his wife made him even worse it put him at a distance between him and his family. As the film maker looks more and more into her mother because she passed away when she was very young. As the film went on the filmmaker did include a lot of flash back videos almost always matching everything that the father read off the script. They did mention that the mother was anot actress in Cananda so I kind of figured that she had people usually always filming her every where she went. In reality towards the end of the film the film maker zooms out of onevery of the flash back scenes only to be directing the actor that lookshe like her real mom. I couldn’t even tell the difference.
<Stories We Tell>is a documentary film interviewing Canadian actor and director Sarah Polley’s family. The beginning of the movie begins with Sarah Polley, Diane, the mother who died of cancer when she was 11 years old.The story gradually goes on and takes the way of releasing the secrets of Sarah Polley’s birth. Of course, the answer to the secret is already known to everyone, but audiences are curiously interested in family stories and interesting stories about the family, as well as the stories of families and relatives who remember one truth. At the beginning of the film, one of the sisters of Sarah Polley told me about the documentary. ‘Who cares about this stupid family thing?’ At first, I thought so. But not at all. Somebody’s family is bigger, bigger, deeper, interesting, and unusual than you think. <Stories We Tell> confuses the boundary between life and movie.
One hour and 48 minutes of family history interviews, which may have been boring, were interesting because the colorful characters differed in the angle of remembering one person, Diane, and other events. Sarah Polley expertly maximizes these points in the film, and the film naturally shows the differences between unique characters. Does the question “Truth” exist as the film moves to the second half? ‘Facts’ seem to exist. But everybody’s idea of it is distorted and transformed, and eventually, it changes slightly depending on the life they have lived and their thinking. The idea of what happens between every person in the world and that person will maintain its objectivity only as ‘fact.’
In conclusion, the film conveys a story of a family in a casual way, an interesting story, and more. Of course, for a static documentary, the timely presentation and the use of OST is also good. I did not know, but Sarah Polley and his parents, Diane and Michael, are all celebrities, so maybe it was not easy to bring out their family story (personal) to worldwide. However, it will be longlasting on audience’s mind and director Sarah’s mind too.
This film follows a prison, the seven five prison. Which is notorious for being in one of the best-divested and scandalous parts of New York City. During the late 80’s and early 90’s there were a lot of crimes, a lot of drug activity, and a lot of violence. In that time cops were known for being quit dirty in that part of New York. Michael Dowd, a former New York police officer was the main character. The documentary tells us about how he was probably known as one of the dirtiest, corrupt cop known. In the documentary, it starts at the time when he left the police academy, in 1982, up until 1993, were he got arrested for selling drugs, and taking bribes, working with drug lords, and giving them protection. The documentary follows in chronicle order, from the beginning till the end of his police career. In the beginning at first he takes money from an eighteen-year-old girl that was driving above normal speed. He told her to give him 100 dollars and she would be off the hook. Suddenly, it got worse and worse. He just wanted to make money and think of his family. He was also thinking about himself and all the good things he would buy. After, he got himself to the drug activities. Were he worked along side with drug lords and offering protection. He convinced his partner at that time, that he should get into it, the police officer; Michael’s partner ended up getting into it. As the documentary continues, it starts to get pretty bad, and both got into some deep trouble with authorities. They ended up getting caught. Michael Dowd goes for a jail for a very long time, 12 years to be precise. I think in todays society were seeing all these stuff, like kids getting shot, more murder rates. We all witness cops that get out of control and I think what happens is the power they have on being a cop, that they forget how to use it well. Because of these I think cops could get a little bit crazy. You got nobody checking on that power. We should not tolerate lies or cover-ups under any circumstances, and we certainly should expect that those who are charged with enforcing the laws will them be the models of obeying the law. And we should expect that if they do not, they will be penalized at least as severely as any criminal they caught doing the same thing.
In today’s society I don’t think what Michael Dowd did, would ever happen to the NYPD. It makes me think what actually happens in the police force. I really liked this documentary it opened up my eyes to see how police corruption was actually happening.