For the interview assignment, I plan on interviewing Louise Frazier an operation manager at the admissions office at Lafayette. My purpose is to get insight on how she selects kids that are a good fit for Lafayette. The acceptance rate for the class of 2020 was 28.2 % I’m going to ask for clarification on the ethnicity chart online for the 2020 class profile.

Pitch:

This is a film about Louise Frazier, an operation manager of admissions who talks about making tough decisions on whether she believes a student is a good fit for Lafayette College

Questions:

Describe what are some of your tasks as the operation manager at the admissions office?

What characteristics do you look for a student to be a good fit for Lafayette?

Have you had to fight for a student you wanted and other people on the committee didn’t agree as much?

Is there enough diversity at Lafayette? If not, do you feel like you are an agent in changing that?

With the college expanding has that made your job harder?

B roll:

Louise’s office + desk

Louise on her computer, making a phone call + her everyday tasks + walking into Markle Hall+ talking to a student

Admissions booklet

Markle Hall

Quad

Prospective students – Our Beloved Community

Working Title: Not like You

Growing up as immigrant DACA students didn’t know what it would mean for their future. For many of them when they applied to college, they realized they were not like everybody else. DACA gave them some protection and now that it has been rescinded, their life is in limbo. We will talk to several students in the Lehigh Valley about how they have been affected by DACA being rescinded. What does this mean for them and their family? What were their hopes when DACA was intact? And particularly how do they feel studying for a degree that they won’t be able to use if they can’t work legally after they graduate?

          Michael Rabiger “Directing the  Documentary” was truly an enjoyable read. I learned so much already by simply reading the first two chapters. He mentions how the best type of work comes from,” valuing the primacy of your own life experience. By learning to notice how you receive and process powerful impressions, you will learn how to use the screen not only personally, but effectively, universally, and accessible.” It can be intimidating when getting into this field because there are already so many documentaries out there and you question what will make your films different. However, by bringing my own life experiences I can make films that haven’t been done before. When I was doing the project 1-1 I wrote, “Growing up as an immigrant, I had no idea what it would mean for my future. When I applied to college, I realized I was not like everybody else. DACA gave me some protection and now that it has been rescinded, my life is in limbo. It feels like no matter what I do, I don’t have control over my life.” While doing project 1-1 and 2-2 I was able to take a short amount of time to reflect on my life.

        I like the way the book is written it’s easy to understand and starts off very relatable like when he mentions,“ your reward is to move hearts and minds – and maybe change the world a little.” This has always been my goal before I even started studying films and was just making videos with my webcam in middle school. Also, a lot of the things he mentioned reminded me of what Kristen Johnson talked about like,”I shall emphasize throughout this book how important certain kinds of self-knowledge and self-inquiry are to the aspiring director, and will show you how to begin…you already have a formed and focused inner drive ready to lead your work.”(page 5) It reminded me of when Kristen said we all have films we are meant to make and we need to make those films more for ourselves than anybody else. Another line that also made me reflect on my future work was the pledge she told us to make,”I will not put anything on the screen unless it reveals something, however small, that I have discovered for myself about the human condition.”(page 6) This changed my perspective on how I want to approach future projects because I’ve done things that I didn’t feel like I was bringing anything new, and it’s unfilling. However, staying close to this pledge will guide me.

        Another part that guided me was the section about “characters with goals” it made a distinction about how to pick your characters for films,” look for people who are trying to get, do or accomplish something..If, however, you try to work the other way around – by seeking characters to illustrate your favorite issue – your film will refuse to come alive.” It took me a moment to fully understand this. I realized that your characters need to have this drive/goal instead of you imposing a drive you want them to have. Under the subsection “When you lose your way” it stated something I want to do,”In the face of criticism and well-intentioned suggestions, you can lose sight of your intentions. Your best defense against this is an articulate, resilient set of beliefs that help you hold onto the central purpose behind this particular work.” When you start filming you can forget why you even started this process and when you have people criticizing your work it can be discouraging. However, if you have this set of beliefs it will make you stronger when people have something to say because you know why you are doing what you are doing. I can’t wait to continue to read on and not only learn more about film but also about myself.

       When I first started watching The Thin Blue Line (Morris, 1988) I was caught off guard because I had never watched a movie like this before. I thought it was interesting how there were scenes of actors recreating the crime scenes. That made it partially fictional to me. However, I also enjoyed it because I was able to see what went down from different perspectives. In A New History of Documentary Film, by Betsy A. McLane, it mentions how Morris has answered ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to his films being documentaries. I like how he doesn’t fit them into one category. Morris further discusses his style,” I investigated a murder with a camera – an oddity in and of itself, it  was not telling a story about a murder investigation, it was the investigation – and evidence was accumulated with that camera.” (page 344) That accurately describes the movie, because it makes you question who’s the real murder as you find out new evidence through interviews. Instead of presenting facts like a story about an investigation it keeps bringing up new evidence which makes the film the investigation.

        I also enjoyed the pictures and B-roll used to show the story. For example, for B-roll they zoomed into the Dallas map or the clock hand swaying back and forth. It added character to the story and the interviews. Also, the music guided us on how we should feel and it added to the drama of the story. The music, B-roll, and pictures helped carry the narrative. It took what could’ve been a boring film with back to back interviews to something exciting, and entertaining,

        By the end of the movie, I was confused/annoyed/outraged that Randall Adams was in jail. It didn’t make sense because Harris seemed like the murderer based on the film. It also left unanswered questions about what happened to the woman police officer who kept changing her story? Does nothing happen to her? What made her change her story? Some parts were ambiguous. The Thin Blue Line (Morris, 1988) made me further appreciate the endless possibilities of documentary and how there are always new ways to make a film.

         Before this event, I hadn’t heard about Brooke Gladstone but she surprised me with her insight on all sorts of topics. When she talked about distractions and how they feel good to our brain, I remembered this article I read about likes bringing stimulation to our brains and how it’s like a drug. We hate to be bored, it’s painful for us to be bored, so we are addicted to distractions like social media. I liked her advice about deleting an app we are always on. I still haven’t done it but I will before the semester is over. I also agree with her about how if we were to use our phones less we would be able to make more eye contact, increase interaction and our empathy for others would grow.

       I also loved what she said about how to convince people or try to make them care. It can only be achieved by associating it with something in their life and showing them what’s at stake for them. That reminded me of the first article we read in my Poverty in America class which was about why we should care about people living in poverty, and how it’s in our self-interest to care. It’s crazy to think that we need to know why it’s in our self-interest to care about the poor rather than helping them because of the situation they’re in.

     When she started talking about DACA I immediately started thinking, ”oh no,” because I’m used to people being misinformed and even allies having misconceptions about what it is. However, she surprised because she talked about how DACA was not good enough and it didn’t provide much for recipients. This is a point only some people can understand. DACA provided basic rights for immigrants who came here as children but limited most of our choices. It didn’t provide a path to citizenship or residency. The sad part is that that tiny amount of protection was taken away. It was wrong to take away this program that gave a small amount of protection to people who aren’t doing anything wrong and leaving them completely vulnerable, and with the risk of being deported. A lot of people can’t understand that. I was truly impressed by Brooke Gladstone and I look forward to picking up one of her books.

I noticed that at the beginning the sound of metal against metal was sudden and rough. Besides that, there was only a couple of moments of sound throughout the film. I think the lack of sound makes it more thought-provoking so you can raise questions about the blimp yourself. By showing the blimp next to an old man fixing wires, carrots, church, a sidewalk of houses, children and women shopping it makes the blimp have an active presence. No matter what’s going on the blimp is always present and active in the film. A film like this could’ve easily become boring because it’s about something in the background. It’s not something most filmmakers would make a film about because it could be seen as something trivial and easy to ignore. The shots are unique because the composition and angles are ones you wouldn’t typically see. That’s what makes it interesting. The handheld shots add more emotion and diversity. For example, the shot of the kids on the Ferris wheel was unexpected and at first, I questioned why the shot was there. However, I saw that throughout the commotion the blimp was still hovering over everything that was happening. That’s what added to its active presence. There’s also a shot of a person walking underneath the huge blimp which makes it seem powerful and makes her look powerless. As I mentioned, the composition of each shot is what makes this a great film and it’s something many wouldn’t have been able to pull off.

After spending nearly the whole day with Kristen Johnson in my “Women in Film” class, visual learning workshop, and the screening and Q&A of Cameraperson (Johnson, 2015) I was amazed at her work and who she is as a person. She taught me so much about cinema during her short hours in Lafayette. I went back and watched All These Sleepless Nights (Marczak, 2016) and I’m still blown away by every single aspect of it. As a striving filmmaker if I was in her position I would be like,”wow I did that.” I hope one day I can travel the country and make films I’m proud of. The visual learning workshop was incredibly insightful and her attentiveness to her surroundings and things like hand gestures blew everybody away. As she mentioned being able to listen, connect, and talk is one of the best skills you can have as a documentarian. She has mastered that skill and you could clearly see that in her film. During the workshop and Q&A, I liked how she would expand on every answer and she was very blunt as well. She didn’t hide anything and you could see that transparency in her film as well.

When I began watching Cameraperson I had no idea what I was getting myself into and that’s how I usually like seeing films. That’s why I avoid seeing trailers, especially long ones. One of the very first things I noticed was the sound. It was very in your face and added to the different stories she was telling. She also focused on hands a lot and used them to show emotions. For example, the girl in the women’s clinic who was going to abort her second child was telling her narrative with her hands, more than with her words. Through her hands you could tell how scared, insecure and anxious she was. It made me want to hold her fidgeting hands and tell her that everything would be okay. There were moments that made me want to look away because I felt like they were happening right there and then. For example when the child was using the ax or when the nurse was delivering babies and was putting the child upside down. In our culture, those are things that we don’t see every day and I was in shock by seeing some of those things. When the kid was using the ax my heart was racing and I wanted to jump into the screen and stop him. Two other stories that reinforced the idea that as a documentarian you put yourself in very uncomfortable and unexpected situations was when James lost his boxing match, and when the woman was grieving her mother’s suicide.  Like some people mentioned the woman’s unexpected rage left us with our mouth opened. I never thought that she would start acting like that so quickly, but you could feel the rawness in her emotion. It is something she needed to let out. Also, when James lost his match you could feel his rage coming out of the screen and it personally worried me if Kristen Johnson was okay. It seemed like he was ready to punch the camera any moment. Those are the type of situations that as a documentarian you have to be ready for but you can also never be fully ready for them. You have to be good at reading people’s body language and cues. Kristen is truly amazing at doing that and more.

         Cameraperson (Johnson, 2016) director’s statement included some ideas I have thought about but never put down on paper. One of her challenges being a documentarian is,” The people I film are in immediate and often desperate material need, but I offer little to nothing material.” This is something I have always thought about when I watch documentaries or think about making my own. For example in my poverty in America class we watched a documentary about multiple families living in poverty and as the audience, you want to help them and know if the filmmakers did something to aid them after filming. Filming people in need is sensitive because you are using them for your benefit and then leaving. However, I do think that by filming their story and giving them a voice, you are giving them something invaluable and raising awareness about their critical situation. Another bullet point said,”I can and will leave a place I film (a war, a refugee camp, etc.) when the people I film cannot.” Reading this is heartbreaking but it’s the harsh reality. Filmmakers sometimes go to locations where the environment (like extreme heat) damages their cameras, yet people have to labor in those conditions the whole day. At the end of the day the filmmakers can get up and leave, with equipment and all, but the people they film cannot. Johnson also mentions,”My work requires trust, demands intimacy, and entails total attention. To both me and the people I film, it often feels like a friendship or family, but it is something different.” This reminded me of how someone in my class said that they went to take photos/videos in a women’s shelter, but before they even introduced the camera they volunteered there for a couple of weeks to build a relationship with the women there. I think that’s the right way to do things because if you just pull out a camera on a stranger you aren’t going to have that “intimacy” with them, it won’t feel raw or real. Lastly, I checked off the bullet point that states,” My work can change the way my subject is perceived by the people who surround him/ her and can impact reputation or safety for years in the future.” As a person who has been behind and in front of the camera I know how powerful documentary can be. There are lots of complications and precautions that come with documentary because like Johnson says you can portray someone in a way that they’re unhappy with, or that can cause negative outcomes in many people’s lives. You can’t just go over your edits once but you have to go over them a million times and think of how it will be received by multiple people. A documentary has so much power and with power comes responsibility. As a filmmaker, my goal is to make a positive change or raise awareness about the subject I’m about to record.

Some of the stories I would love to work on are “Borders of Belonging”, “Lead in the Lehigh Valley”, “Criminal at the age of 5”, “Urban Desert” and “Bad to the Bone.” Everyone came up with amazing ideas that it was hard to narrow it down to five stories. “Borders of Belonging” is something that I rarely hear people talk about, especially in the Lehigh Valley. I believe the Latino voice needs to be heard in a place where you don’t see an abundance of Hispanic and Latino communities. “Lead in the Lehigh Valley” is a good topic because I’ve never really heard about it and some Pennsylvania cities have some of the highest levels of lead poisoning in the country. Lead poisoning greatly affects people living in poverty and worsens their living conditions. It’s a factor that keeps them in a cycle of poverty which is something that could be further explored in a film. “Criminal at the age of 5” is a pressing issue that needs to be talked about now. We need to have the voices of DACA recipients heard because unlike citizens who can vote for the next Senator or voted for the current President, we couldn’t. It’s a minority group that didn’t need to be attacked in the first place and should be given a platform to talk about the complexity of this issue. We need to put faces and stories behind just “DACA.” “Urban Desert” and “Bad to the Bone” are topics that are necessary to keep talking about but they need to be narrowed down. What about the food scarcity in Bethlehem? As we get further into the semester I think we need to focus each topic so every narrative could be more powerful. We could create a change with all of these stories.

Our group, Shreya, and Lisa had a lot of ideas about how to go about this assignment and we recorded multiple sounds for each category. For the bad interview sound, we recorded at Lower when everybody was leaving and chatting by the front doors. Shreya was asking me a question and Lisa was recording on her iPhone. Our bad interview sound was made “better” because we had somebody turn on their radio and play music. This was a coincidence that made it almost impossible to hear me. For the human world, I suggested the sound of me eating an apple because I had casually brought an apple with me, and I love the sound of biting into a good apple. When we played it back it had a satisfying feel to it and we went with it. For the nonhuman world sound, we used crunching leaves and wind. When I heard the audio back it sounded like a saw to me. Nature sounds are tricky to work with because they can sound like various things, and they’re out of your control. For the made world sound we put a plate into the microwave and let it heat up. I wasn’t sure how the sound would come out because I thought it might be too much or get distorted. However, the sound ended up great and I could imagine someone warming something up. When you can imagine it in your head, you know it’s a success.