Jesus Camp

Ahhhhh yes, Jesus Camp, one of my favorite documentaries. I watched this for the first time a few years ago, and recently revisited it. I think that this documentary is well done in a lot of ways. Whenever I watch this documentary I feel like it flies by. Some of the documentaries that I've watched this semester (most of the war ones) have kind of dragged, but this one keeps me interested from beginning to end.


For those of you who have never seen this, Netflix's synopsis is: "This documentary follows three kids at a controversial summer camp that grooms the next generation of conservative Christian political activists." So, these "Christian political activists" are extremist members of the Evangelical Church who run a controversial summer camp for young children. The woman at the forefront of this camp is Becky Fischer. 

Fischer thinks that God is assembling an army, and children are the answer. She starts recruiting kids as young as 4 years old. She is also very hateful towards Muslims and associates them all with terrorists. This camp is held in the Mid-western United States. 

One of the most promising recruits is Levi. He wants to be a preacher when he grows up, and he is very passionate about Jesus Christ. Fischer recognized this in him and had him preach a sermon at the camp. These sermons involve a lot of yelling, screaming, and crying. 

I think that brain washing children is unethical, so I was kind of disturbed while watching this, but there was one part of this documentary that disturbed me more than other parts. They brought in a guy that was pro-life and had him show the children little dolls of unborn fetuses and told them how other people kill babies before they're born....I don't think that a 7 year old is mature enough to handle this type of information, let alone form a solid opposition to the pro-choice side of the argument. They took some of the kids to D.C. and had them protest with duct tape over their mouths (Levi being one of them)

.

The Anderson Platoon

Documentaries hold a unique and tricky place in the world of film. If you were to ask somebody: “What makes a film a documentary?” They will usually respond with a remark about “truth,” “facts,” or “representing reality.” When Henrik Juel, a Dutch film professor, is faced with these answers from his students in his film classes, he retorts by asking them if his “cousin can be justified in claiming that he is working on documentary films, when in fact what he does for a living is to install surveillance cameras at gas-stations and supermarkets,” (Juel). Juel goes on to explain that his cousin is “representing reality” and doing so “without the use of actors” therefore his cousin’s “films” would be considered non-fiction. This poses a problem for the previously stated idea about what makes a film a documentary. Juel goes on to argue that, “As a rule of thumb, a film is hardly a film without camera work, cuts or editing, and it is neither a fiction film nor a documentary if it is nothing more than a "re-presentation" of what happened to be in front of a lens and a microphone” (Juel). This is true about documentary filmmaking; in fact, I would go so far as to say that the editing of a documentary film is the most important and influential piece in the filmmaking process. What is left out of the documentary is arguably more important than what was included in the documentary. There is an element of manipulation to documentary filmmaking; that is, the filmmaker usually takes a political, ideological, or ethical stance while making the film. This stance that is taken by the filmmaker is usually the reason for making the film in the first place. A filmmaker will often feel passionate about what they are taking the time and effort to film, and their stance on the matter will be voiced through the editing process.



It is because of this element of documentary filmmaking that viewers must not take a documentary film as an absolute truth. When viewing and interpreting a documentary film, the viewer must keep in mind that every frame that is featured in the film was put there intentionally for a specific purpose. It is also important for an audience member to keep in mind that the documentary film that they are viewing is only voicing the one opinion of the filmmaker who has produced this film. If an audience member wants to get a better understanding of the event they should not rely solely on one documentary, but rather extend their outreach to other documentary films along with feature films about the event.


The Anderson Platoon was produced in 1967, but was shot in the heat of combat battle in 1966 by a French veteran of the Indochina war, Pierre Schoendoerffer. The film is shot using entirely raw footage of men in Vietnam, and is accompanied by voice over which gives context to the grainy black and white images on the screen. In his article, “The winning and losing of hearts and minds: Vietnam, Iraq, and the claims of the war documentary,” Tony Grajeda points out that the film, “Relies on the ‘voice of authority’ of the filmmaker that, along with a soundtrack mix of diegetic and post-production music, rhetorically arranges what is seen and heard within a seemingly ‘objective’ view of soldiering.” 

However, the film does take an anti-war stance by including gruesome scenes of soldiers and Vietnam civilians injured or dead as a direct result of the war.

Restrepo

Restrepo was released in 2010, and follows the men of the Second Platoon, Battle Company, 173rd Airborne Brigade. This unit was deployed in Afghanistan and constructed an outpost in the Korengal Valley. The men and women deployed in the Korengal Valley saw the most combative action of any that were deployed in Afghanistan post 9/11. 

Here's the trailer:

When I began to think about what I was going to do for my documentary, I assumed that there would be a lot of other people that have done what I'm trying to do. But when I started looking, I couldn't find much of anything that was following a soldier and his family throughout his deployment. Restrepo is the closest thing that I could find, and I think it has shed a lot of light on my research project. 

I really like that there is no narrator in this documentary. I think that by not having a narrator it makes the viewer forget that they're watching a documentary, and feel like they're actually there. There were times when the boys were under fire and my heart was pounding because I was afraid that there would be casualties, which sometimes there were. 

The soldiers featured in the film completely attribute their survival to the construction of Out Post Restrepo, which they named after Doc Restrepo who was a medic that died right after the unit arrived at the Korengal Valley. 

OP Restrepo sits right above the Korengal. This is what it looks like:

Because the soldiers were able to get the higher ground, they were able to maximize their productivity while reducing their casualties. 

This documentary really opened my eyes to what life is like for a soldier once they're deployed. I think the follow up interviews were what really made this documentary stand out. The filmmakers would ask them questions about what it was like being over there, or coming back, or losing one of their comrades. The responses were counter intuitive because a lot of times they would laugh while talking about something horrific, but the editors didn't cut the shot right when they were done talking about it, and the viewer gets to see the effects that this part of their life had on them. 

This makes me uneasy about my friend's deployment, and continuing with this project once he returns home, because I think I may be too close to the subject, which could take a toll on the final project. But we will see. 

This Is Not a Film

OK, so This Is Not a Film isn't the most cinematic or riveting documentary out there, but the concept is pretty awesome. Jafar Panahi is an Iranian filmmaker, who was arrested by the Iranian government for the content of his films. Panahi had had a long standing battle when it comes to Iranian censorship, but he was able to get away with exporting a lot of his films outside of the country for screening. It was when he attempted to make a documentary film about the unrest after a controversial re-election of an Iranian president. According to Wikipedia (scholarly, I know), he was charged with "assembly and colluding with the intention to commit crimes against the country's national security and propaganda against the Islamic Republic." He was sentenced with 6 years of jail time, along with a 20 year ban from filmmaking, interviews, screenwriting, directing, and leaving the country. So while he was awaiting his trial he decided to be the subject of a documentary. Well, he didn't know what was going to happen, if anything at all, with the footage, but he felt the need to document it anyway. His friend came over and filmed him.

The whole film takes place inside his apartment and for the most of the time he is acting out the most recent screenplay that he has written, or he is on the phone with people talking about his situation, or interviewing the custodian. But it's still powerful stuff.

Here's the trailer:

The film was shot over four days, within a ten day period. The film was actually smuggled out of the country and screened at a film festival. It is a very critically acclaimed film. I think it's powerful and poignant because it speaks to the effects that extreme censorship has on a society by pinpointing Panahi's story. I was surprised at how well Panahi was able to carry himself while filming this. There were a few moments where he would have to collect himself, but if I were under strict house arrest for months I would be a very uneasy. The trailer starts in a spot where he is having one of these moments. Panahi had just been acting out his screenplay, but then comes to the realization that, "If we could tell a film, then why make a film?" He then goes on to say that what he is doing by acting out the film is "a lie."

After Panahi says this he has to get up and walk away from the camera. There is a lot of truth to what Panahi is saying there, he pulls out scenes from some films that he has worked on and showed us places where the actors are directing the film, or where the location was directing the film. Panahi realizes that what he is telling us the film will be could never be what the film actually is.

I would really like to watch some of Panahi's films because his passion is so well displayed in this documentary. You really see it in those moments when he loses his composure for just a second. He also begins to film things on his iPhone because he is so very bored and hasn't been able to make a film in months. I think at one point he says something along the lines of "if I can't make a film I will pretend to." 

Also he has a really cool iguana that likes to climb on things. 

The Thin Blue Line

The Thin Blue Line, directed by Errol Morris, takes viewers through the murder case of Robert Wood, a Dallas police officer, that was shot point blank when he pulled over a car which had its headlights off in 1976. Randall Adams is currently serving a life sentence in prison for this crime. Morris utilizes archival footage, reenactments, and interviews to make a case for Adams' innocence, and David Harris' guilt.

Trailer from YouTube

This documentary was very cinematic. I think that the way the story line was laid out helped with this, but the reenactments helped it feel cinematic as well. There were times, however, when I was watching this and thought that the reenactments went on too long, or were too dramatic for my liking, which distracted me while I was watching it. I really did enjoy the cinematic feel of this documentary though, and it is something to strive for when I am filming. 

One thing that I did not enjoy about this documentary was the lack of lower third titles. I have no idea why a filmmaker, would produce such a polished work and neglect to put in lower thirds. I just want to know who is speaking! Once I was catching on to the story line I was easily able to identify David Harris, Randall Adams, and the female lawyer, but other than that I was kind of lost for the first few seconds when a new talking head came on screen. 

I was also frustrated that they didn't explain that David Harris was in prison for another crime while they were filming. He is seen in an orange jumpsuit the whole time, while Randall Adams is in a white collared shirt, and since there are no lower thirds I was thinking that David Harris was Randall Adams for the first quarter of the documentary. 

Who's who? We don't know because there are no lower thirds! 

(For the record Randall Adams is on the right, and David Harris is on the left)

Something else that was hard to swallow from this documentary was that the authorities believed this lady. 

Maybe the filmmakers did a really good job of making her seem crazy to help prove Randall Adams' innocence, but I think she's actually kind of bat-shit crazy. The fact that her testimony was essentially what put Adams in for life is a hard pill to swallow. 

In terms of how this relates to my research project, which is a documentary on a soldier who is about to be deployed, I want to strive for the cinematic feel. However, I don't think I have the the capabilities to do reenactments: 1. Because I don't have money to pay actors, 2. Because I don't have access to military supplies or guns. I will be relying very heavily on interviews, like in The Thin Blue Line, mainly from my main subject Tyler. I will also be relying heavily on B-roll, archival footage, and photographs from his family and friends. I will also be including lower thirds in my documentary. 

American Experience: JFK

American Experience: JFK is a docu series that was put out by PBS in 2013. This four-part series describes itself as taking, "a fresh, objective look at President John F. Kennedy, from his strengths and weakness in office to his personal relationships"(Netflix description). The first episode, "Part 1," focuses on Kennedy's formative years and his rise to American political power up until his rise to the US Senate.

John F. Kennedy as a young boy

John F. Kennedy Senator Campaign

It was interesting to learn about JFK's past and upbringing, especially his medical history and his relationship with his father, Joe Kennedy Sr. Joe Kennedy was a prominent political figure in the US and provided his eight children and the rest of his family with a very privileged upbringing; however, Joe expected nothing but greatness from his children, especially his boys. This competitive environment created tension between the siblings to essentially one-up each other in everything that they did. There was a lot of archival footage of at home competitions, and it was evident from the film that the level of competitiveness was high, especially between JFK and his older brother Joe Jr. Their competition was most evident after JFK returned from WWII a war hero due to the sinking of his naval vessel and his heroics as he lead the survivors of the wreck on a three mile swim back to shore. There was a letter written to JFK from Joe Jr. that "subtly expressed his jealousy" of JFK's newly gained status as a war hero. It is believed that it was because of this jealousy towards his brother's achievements that Joe Jr. volunteered for a dangerous bombing mission, even though he had fulfilled his duties and was able to go home, it was on this mission that Joe Jr.'s plane exploded and his body was never recovered. 

JFK's medical history was brought to light for me in this documentary. I was unaware of the extent of his health issues. His life was threatened by illness at as young as 3 years old; these issues continued to follow him throughout the rest of his life. The documentary mentioned that he attended Choate, a boarding school in Connecticut, but failed to mention his time spent at Canterbury School, also a boarding school in Connecticut (which I attended). This was a disappointment. I was able to recover his report card from 8th grade though. He had to withdraw from the school due to health issues. It is rumored that we occupied the same dorm room. 

WWII In HD

In 2009 The History Chanel released a docu series called "WWII In HD." When I came across this in my Netflix browser, I thought it was a feature length documentary, and was surprised (and a little excited) when Netflix prompted me to play the next episode. I only watched the first episode, but fully intend to finish out the series over spring break. The series utilizes recently discovered first hand footage, shot in color,  from the war; along with personal accounts from survivors of the war. The voice over talent includes notable actors like: Rob Lowe, Amy Smart, LL Cool J (yes, LL Cool J), and Gary Sinise. 

Click Here For Awesome Video

It was interesting to see footage from the late 1930s and early 40s in color, because I am used to seeing film from this time period in black and white. I've seen my fair share of WWII documentaries, but because the images on the screen are in color it evokes a different emotional response for me. The archival footage featured in this series is often on the front lines of battle, and seen through a shaky camera. These factors come together to give a new understanding of the war. 

Most of the American documentaries about the Second World War that I have seen start off with Pearl Harbor in 1941, but this first episode started in 1939 with one of the survivors of the war giving an account of what was going on with his life at that time. Jack Warner is Jewish, and originally from Austria, but fled to America after the Nazis invaded Austria in the spring of '39. He went to Hollywood to be an actor, but ended up taking a job in a flower shop in '41.  He reflected on how care-free Americans were, while back in Europe life as people knew it was drastically changing. The editors of this episode did a really good job using archival footage of American families and friends enjoying their time while the war was begin fought overseas. Warner even said that he would find himself forgetting about the war because Europe seemed so far away. Starting in a time of calmness in America before Pearl Harbor, especially from a perspective of somebody who had experienced the injustices of the Nazi party during this time, gave a more profound understanding of America's involvement in the war. This also made Pearl Harbor have even more of a resonance with me. 

Jack Warner (Present Day)

Jack Warner (c. 1941)

When the United States got involved with the war, our army was the 17th largest in the world (for comparison purposes that's smaller than Romania's was at the time), which was not nearly large enough to fight the Axis' power house that had taken over 1/3 of Europe. The few troops that the States did have were equipped with dated equipment left over from The First World War. It was because of this that, "at the onset of the Second World War, the nature of documentary altered to reflect the interests at work in that conflict" (Saunders 51). Filmmakers from the documentary, and fiction worlds came together to put out work that they thought would, for lack of a better term, rally the troops. It was interesting to see so much archival footage, especially in color, because I'd imagine it is very similar to what was being featured in these documentaries. 

I really enjoyed the first episode of this docu series, and I am excited to follow it through till the end. I'm also excited to see how LL Cool J does in a historical documentary. 

LL Cool J (c. 1987)

Hawking

Hawking is a documentary about Stephan Hawking's life. I chose this documentary because I have seen the critical success that The Theory of Everything has received, and I've been meaning to watch it. However, I did not have much grounding in the life and works of the beautiful mind that is Stephan Hawking.

The documentary is narrated by Hawking, who suffers from ALS. Because the disease has left him with minimal control over his muscles, he utilizes his computer that is mounted on his wheelchair to communicate. The computer allows Hawking to scroll through letters, and commonly used words that he can select in order to form sentences. He has an infrared switch on his glasses that can read the movements of his cheek muscle in order to operate the speech system. 

(Hawking with his computer)

When speaking about his formative years, Hawking pointed out that his home was always a place in which his mind was constantly stimulated. Childhood friends and family members commented on the never-ending piles of books that were left around the house, and the ongoing chess games. Hawking credited his parents for encouraging such mental stimulation, because they were both intellectuals as well. His cousin remarked that young Hawking would often times spend hours trying to fathom the limitlessness of the universe. She said that it nearly drove him mad that something didn't have a definitive end. The documentary utilized reenactments to represent Hawking in his younger years. However, these shots were almost entirely extreme close ups of the actor's eyes, or hands; the producers also utilized lighting to blur the identity of the actor. 

(Hawking as a young boy)

Hawking, like his father, went to Cambridge University where he studied the natural sciences. He was a member of the crew team, where he served as a coxswain. It was during his final years at Cambridge when Hawking was diagnosed with ALS. After his grim diagnosis, which left him with an estimated 2-3 years life expectancy, Hawking fell into a deep depression, which effected his work greatly. It was the introduction of young love that pulled Hawking from his depression and motivated him to finish his theories on black holes. 

(Hawking and his wife, Jackie, on their wedding day)

While earning his PhD at Oxford University, Hawking essentially proved that there was a beginning moment of the universe by identifying a cause for the Big Bang Theory. This discovery made him very reputable in the science community. His next huge discovery gave scientists an even deeper understanding of black holes. 

He goes on to talk about his research and all of the awesome things that he has done; along with the not-so-awesome things, like divorces and complications with his disease. In short I'm glad I watched this documentary, because he truly possesses a beautiful mind and is one of the most important thinkers to date. Also he has a good sense of humor. 

Also fun fact: He's friends with Jim Carrey