A. Content (trailer)  (TONY BLAIR)

1. In one sentence, describe the central subject of the documentary trailer.

A man being taken from his home due to war and invasion, and tortured by soldiers.  

1. What provides information to the viewer about the topic of movie? List the types of footage and visual and sonic elements of the documentary.

They use old footage to provide context from the past, and also text and voiceover to frame the story. They also use graphics to visually represent ideas and places from the story. There is some public, news-like footage, and a document from the military. They also use sound effects and graphics to portray him being tortured, because there was no actual footage.

1. Pick three moments from the film trailer that stand out to you. Why are they important?

I like the transition into the shots of tanks, Also the shots of him going why why me, those two shots in my mind provide good context for the transition into him being taken out of his normal life during very bad times, most likely war.

I also like the scenes of the soldiers describing the situation, which frames it like they may not know why they’re doing such bad things.

B. Structure (full length)

1. Choose one documentary film and view the whole film. If you were to break it down into three to five sections, what would be the parts? Describe them briefly (one sentence or less each).

I watched Fyre on netflix, its broken up into i’d say

Introduction

Background info

Interviews

Actual event (footage)

Conclusion

1. Looking back at how you divided the documentary, what happened at the transition points between each section?

Each transition would be broken up by a quick introduction as to what was happening at that point in the process of the festival happening. There would be some voice overs to help transition if there was a physical change in scenery.

1. Is the documentary narrative or non-narrative? Or do you see it somewhere in between? Why?

I see this documentary as a combination of the two, leaning or towards the narrative aspect. I say that because I was lucky enough to see both documentaries made about the festival, and there was definitely some information about the event left out by the netflix version.

1. In either case, how does the documentary structure the images so that they are understandable?

C. Cinematic Style (full length)

1. Describe the cinematography of the documentary, including use of movement, framing and depth, and qualities of light, dark, and color.

The filming and editing was very clean for this documentary. The use of voice over and interviews were placed very perfectly to help tell the story. I think they did a good job lighting the interviews very bright so you can read all the emotions the people talking about it are conveying because they were very true emotions.

1. What is the pace of the editing? Are many shots held for more than 10 seconds? Note if those shots are interviews.

Editing is rather slow, there is quite a bit of b-roll, but I think it’s very necessary because it’s a huge story with a lot of details. Probably the only shots that exceeded 10 secs, were in fact, interviews.

1. Do sequences move forward in terms of a straightforward narrative or presentation of clearly progressing images, or is there an alternative pattern to the arrangement of shots?

There is a little bit of a alternating pattern to how the documentary uses interviews and different sides of the story, to help tell the story of whatever moment they’re specifically trying to capture.

D. Documentarian Stance (full length)

1. From your answer to the question about “what provides information” (A2), what are the perspectives offered about the topic during the documentary? Is there any way to determine the goals of the filmmaker from the presentation of information? Explain.

I think the goal of the filmmaker was to show that the men in charge of the festival, Billy McFarland and Ja Rule, were, and still are pretty much out of their minds. There are definitely way more interviews used in the film where people are talking negatively about Billy and Ja, but they don’t sell them short. I felt like the director and editor did a fantastic job painting exactly the type of people Billy and Ja Rule are, making sure to include interviews of positive impacts they’ve had on people.  

1. From the following descriptive terms (from Erik Barnouw’s book Documentary), what one would you select for the person (or people) responsible for this documentary: reporter; prosecutor; promoter; observer; poet. Explain your choice with examples from the movie. If you think that two terms are necessary or if you want to use a similar noun not on this list, do so, but explain your choice.

I think observer would be the best option. The film got interviews from pretty much every type of person that worked with this people at some point or another. This really offered variety, and a sense observation of all the different circumstances the two may have behave certain ways in.

1. From our discussion of the ethical issues often faced in documentary filmmaking, do you see evidence of proper or improper methods or approaches in the filmmaking?

There is definitely evidence of proper methods of filmmaking. All the material and people used seem very involved and committed to the interviews, shots, ect.

• Saved: A2
• Tagged: Fri 1pm