A.
- In one sentence, describe the central subject of the documentary trailer.
The central subject in the trailer The Prisoner is the prisoner himself, the guy who got kidnapped by the Americans.
The central subject in the other documentary, Baraka, is about Baraka itself and the meaning behind it.
- What provides information to the viewer about the topic of movie? List the types of footage and visual and sonic elements of the documentary.
In The Prisoner, the audio and visuals provide the information to the viewer. There is a good balance between the amount of information being told through the audio as well as the visuals. Prisoners uses an effective method of using archive footage as well as animations to make up for lost footage to tell the story. Interviews and graphics are used to tell the stories of what happened in the prison camps, as well as interviewing American officials to get two sides to the story.
In Baraka, the majority of the information is provided to the viewer through visuals. There is little commentary in the beginning to introduce the film and a little in the end as a catch, but nothing in between. This was a creative choice to have the audience interpret the film in their own way. There are primarily landscapes and long shots for scenery although there are also close ups of faces and animals. Time lapses, aerial footage, and other shots are effectively edited to the beat of the music.
- Pick three moments from the film trailer that stand out to you. Why are they important?
Three moments from The Prisoner film trailer that stood out to me the most are when he
said he thought the americans were like Rambo and Indiana Jones and that they were coming to help. Another one was when he was talking about how the Americans called him a liar and a terrorist and how they used an animation to describe the torture. The third moment that stood out to me was when the American said generally the Iraqi people were very helpful. This came as an alarm because of how the Americans treated the prisoners, being very forceful. These are important because they effectively help tell the bigger picture of the story.
Three moments from Baraka that stood out to me the most was when seeing the old Holocaust building through the barbed wire, the room filled with skulls, and the little chickens falling off the conveyor belt. These moments all stood out to me because they all have some relation to death. Many people died from the Holocaust, being a tragedy in history. Skulls in that room could be from anything, but it doesn’t matter why they are there as much as how they got there. The little chickens are probably falling off the conveyor belt into a funnel to be grinded up to be made into chicken nuggets. These moments are important because it shows that every good has a bad, every blessing has an evil.
B.
- 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).
The structure of the film Baraka could be broken down into a few different sections.
Starting with religion and showing different cultures and their homes / way of peace. Another section could be the deforestation and the mining and how it affects locals. It then transitions to cultures getting bigger and seeing people working and seeing the different ways of life from tribes to working to poverty to prostitution. Another section could be on war and death, before going back to religion, coming full circle.
- Looking back at how you divided the documentary, what happened at the transition points between each section?
The transition points were done through editing the film to the audio and cutting to relative footage. An example of this can be seen when they showed someone getting out of a hot tub / small pool with a lot of tattoos on their back, they then transitioned to a young child with paint of their face.
- Is the documentary narrative or non-narrative? Or do you see it somewhere in between? Why?
This documentary is non-narrative because there isn’t anyone talking describing what is happening, although it could be seen as narrative in a way because it is up to the viewer to analyse what they see and find a meaning in the story, the film is telling you to look deeper.
- In either case, how does the documentary structure the images so that they are understandable?
The documentary structures the images in a way where the viewer can interpret the footage and make sense of some kind of story without having a narrator.
C.
- Describe the cinematography of the documentary, including use of movement, framing and depth, and qualities of light, dark, and color.
The cinematography was very good throughout the film. There was a variety of moving pans and tilts used to give the scenery some life. The majority of the static shots were close ups and of faces. The film consisted of mostly landscape and long shots. The exposure and white balance was balanced in every shot, and the color correction looked incredible.
- What is the pace of the editing? Are many shots held for more than 10 seconds? Note if those shots are interviews.
The pacing of the editing was slow. There was never any fast pace editing unless it was a timelapse of cars or people moving. I would say the majority of shots were over the length of 10 seconds long, making this film feel dramatic and calculated.
- 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?
In this documentary, there is an alternative pattern to the arrangement of shots. The film cuts back and forth from shots previously shown to new shots. At times it can make it hard to tell which shots they took first because the order was not always chronological.
D.
- 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.
The perspectives offered about the topic of the documentary include a variety of shots about life, religion, culture, and humans functioning. Baraka is a kind of spiritual energy that can be felt through the presents of God. I think the filmmaker did a good job with the composition of shots by offering a variety of ways to visually show humans and their different methods of connecting to God.
- From the following descriptive terms (from Erik Barnouw 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 would select the observer because throughout the documentary, it feels as though I am there just watching what is happening. If this film had a commentator, I would say the people making this would be reporting, but because it is just the visuals, there is a lot of room for interpretation. One example that stands out to me the most is when there is a tribe sitting down doing a chant waving their hands in the air. The shots are so beautiful and smooth that it almost feels like the the filmmaker is simply observing what is happening. There aren’t any interviews or engagement of any kind, it’s just the camera capturing what the filmmaker sees.
- 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?
In this documentary, I see evidence of proper methods and approaches in the filmmaking. Although I cannot see how they made the film behind the scenes, it feels very natural and peaceful. To capture a spiritual presents they cannot disturb the nature of what is happening, they can only be observers and capture the moment which is exactly how it feels.
Comments