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.