A. For the two trailers i watched “Baraka” and “WALTZ WITH BASHIR” where very visual. Starting with Baraka, the central subject i would say for that was war and salvation. The visuals are big, you can see praying going on, different people around the world with their own way of life. The beginning was strong with the start of the trailer had a deep voice narrator bit short lines. Sound was intense, so it made it that something sound troubling or intense. the things that stood out to me was the waterfalls. They symbolized great power and strength form planet earth. They showed it three times so the visual effect of it was meant to be in a large scale aspect. Next is the people in the weird looking hats. But they put them together to symbolize the place where there in and need prayer to help them out. so you knew there was a purpose why they where doing it. it then leads into the barb wire, hundreds of shoes, skulls, and USA aircraft c17’s. All this tied up to the war and death. You got a better understanding when it showed the praying first then the war, death, destruction scenes, that made scenes why they where praying. Also the narrator gave three words in the beginning so that helped too. Waltz with Bashir was interesting in its own way. So the core subject of this film was war and trying to get someone back. The viewer has the visuals of money, power, fame. Showed lot of war scenes with weapons. They showed this specific person on a flyer so you know who they are trying to get someone, because every flyer is either for the persons political side or against it. The scenes make it clear not to forget the past which tells up that there is war and their fighting back. The visuals are very nice with cartoon look to it. The soundtrack is intimidating to hear it puts it in the right scenes. Three scenes that stood out to me was the rocket coming right at you. I thought that was a cool 3D look of it. Another one is the people playing in the arcade which symbolized war so that got me more aware and a hint of getting back at someone. Finally the tank crushing cars because its fun to look at and also means that they don’t care.
B. The full documentary is choose was “Baraka”. I would break the film into three parts which would be religion, cultures, and the environment. Religion depended on the meaning of why, culture defined the how of the people, and environment showed the different parts of the world some people don’t see or know. In the beginning you start with religion and it gives a good start to why. you start wondering why they are praying or doing these weird moments, each one is different. After that going into the cultures was a big point looking at these people and who they where, what are they doing, and what parts are different from others. lots to compare and contrast which is good because the film forces on many and not one so you can get a taste of the world that we live in. Last translation is the environment scenery. many places, buildings, and landscapes, with different angles and styles. It gives a good representation of what are you going to see next and the realization of different forms of life. The whole movie consist of non-narrative aspect, because of the environment scenery and you have to figure out what the people are doing so you have more of a mystery and its simple so very easy to understand without explanation. The documentary does a good job of structuring the images by moving to the small things to the big. you start off with a forest tribe that’s very independent and underdeveloped to a city where lots of people are moving and is developed with specific routes.
C. The cinematography of the documentary was very visual. Everything had color in it, even the people where colorful. Lots of angles of wide, close up, over the head. Showed the life style of different people with different behaviors. For the environmental scenes, where longer but gave you the setting of clam or intense. Gave a different story between the people and the environmental scenes. I would say there was a pattern from small and simple to big and complex but also each scene had “why” in it.
D. For the film, i think the filmmaker wanted to represent the beauty and the life of the people who live on this earth. Lots of interesting but different situation that describe reality on many levels. The best person responsible for this documentary would be the observer. The film was looking at people and their habitats, with the environment in the background. Film observes it and makes all these questions of why, what, and who. So with the observer it ties back to the film being non narrative to only tell a observational story. There are proper methods that tell whats wrong and whats different so it can relate to things but also argue.
Comments