As I reflect on Kirsten Johnson’s talk, I seem to think about what Michael Rabiger explores in his book “Directing the Documentary”. Chapter 4 focuses on developing your ideas, and one section specifically focuses on using the medium of documentary film. He writes, “A tough test of any idea is to imagine that you must make it as a silent film. This lets you discover quickly whether you are thinking like a journalist or a filmmaker. Choosing the latter forces you to create with the camera instead of the microphone” (Rabiger 49). If Rabiger were to watch Cameraperson, I think he would understand and see that Johnson is able to create with both her camera and microphone. Her cinematography and action are extremely strong, but I think it’s her voice (her actually voice that we hear from behind the camera and the general choices she makes about sound in the film) that makes her film work as something not only worth watching and admiring, but worth studying as a critical piece of documentary film. I think most of us can agree that Kirsten Johnson and her film Cameraperson challenge Rabiger’s notion. How would Cameraperson differ had she only focused on making the film with the camera as her primary tool for storytelling instead of using both camera and microphone (sound) as ways to explore her role behind the camera and the significance of the stories we decide to tell. One thing that was striking from her talk after the screening was when she stated, “We want the audience to learn how to watch the movie”. Lastly, her advice to think of filmmaking as a full body experience/action will be helpful for us when we began filming our projects. She said that breathing affects how we hold the camera, and ultimately the places we can move to/see next. So, being mindful of our breathing and the way we carry/position our bodies will help dictate what we are able to represent and how we do so.
