Analysis 2-Trystin Killer

A.)

The central subject of this film is focused on the life of an Inuk man named Nanook, where he and his family live in the northern Canadian Arctic.
The film uses title cards to explain some of the details, but mostly visuals show the hardships they face. Shots that show how cold it is, the clothing they wear just to protect themselves, and how different their average day is compared to ours.
A few of the close-ups to the people really stand out to me. The people seem to behave much differently than us, the way they eat, dress, smile, everything. It’s unusual to be exposed to different types of cultures like this and becomes quite interesting. The shots of the frozen dogs are brutal. It’s always hard to see something living die when it’s mostly the fault of the humans. I enjoyed the shots of the villagers kayaking. That’s most likely their main source of transportation and again is so interesting because of how different it is to our society.

B.)

I watched “Interview with a Serial Killer”, which is pretty self-explanatory. A couple of people got together to interview an older man about the murders he had committed when he was younger. Broken down into five sections would be: How was his home life growing up, how school and adolescence were, the first round of murders by the river, and when he killed a couple of young kids.
The transitions between each section were based chronologically. The next sections would be stages through the progression of the serial killer’s life.
This film is a Narrative that starts with the killers upbringing and progresses through his life like chapters in a book.
Again, the focus of the documentary is to hopefully come to a conclusion of how this sort of behavior originated. It’s more of an examination of a case study than an interview. So, by talking about individual but critical moments of the killer’s childhood, it’s a chance to surface the root of their intentions.

C.)

The person being interviewed was sitting down with a black background and a close-up shot, to bring all of the attention to them. Lighting wasn’t jarring at all, stayed the same throughout the film. The interviewee was placed on the two-thirds line of the shots.
Shots were actually surprisingly long. Not more held than 10 seconds, but most were around that long. However, lots of animations and scene reconstructions allowed the focus to be brought to something else every so often.
Sequences are presented as a narrative throughout the film progressing the life of the serial killer. Sequences of animations made sense and always had to do with what was being spoken about.

D.)

Yes, by having visuals and recreations of actual events that took place over the killer’s life, the reader/interpreter can understand more clearly, how these events unfolded. More details filled in by animators give us more information than just the speaker. This clearly allows you to see the goals of the killer and the people interviewing him.
I would select reporter because of the people interviewing him genuinely wanting information about the killer, for the audience. The reporter was responsible for leading each question and deciding what to talk about and what needed to be elaborated on.
Towards the end of the film the serial killer kept saying that he did not want to talk about the events where he killed the little kids, but the reporter was hammering him with questions about it, trying to find more information. It seemed rather immoral to keep asking him about something he didn’t want to talk about, regardless if he’s a serial killer or not.