I went out to frame the world just after 5:00 PM, as the sky was clearing from a day of inconsistent rain. I walked the blocks of the streets near my house. Some cars passed and a few people, but not many.

At first, I felt self-conscious with my carelessly carved cardboard frame. However, as time passed and I grew used to holding it, it felt increasingly familiar. I found myself comparing the world inside the frame to some piece of art, not a photograph or a film but something definite that was not quite reality.

The lines of the frame were relatively thick, so there was a definite boundary between what was inside the frame and outside. I found myself paying so much attention to what was inside the frame, that I was less aware of the periphery.

I began to invest a lot in the way in which I framed the world. I moved the frame to include certain things while I was walking, and to frame the path artfully. I tried to move everything I considered important in the scene into the frame. I found through this experience that adding a distinct boundary to ones normal view of the world changes perspective immensely.

I am always torn between the sciences and humanities. Throughout high school, my grades were typically slightly better in humanities, yet I found myself extremely interested in the natural sciences. I love writing, drawing and creative expression, and I love studying deep time and large-scale concepts. I have found a way to pursue many of my interests and discover new ones with earth science, as I am majoring in geology. I am a writing associate on campus, as I love helping others develop writing skills as well as further my own. I am undecided on a minor, considering anthropology, writing, or possibly documentary if I have enough time at this point. In terms of career goals, I hope to combine my passions for both science and humanities in order to become a science ambassador of sorts; one of the people I aspire to be like is, for example, Carl Sagan.

As I am largely interested in issues of earth science and bringing the scientific truth to the public, I think documentary is of utmost importance in the current climate. Especially after my research project on the Easton dam last semester, I have a few topics I would like to pursue in this area, such as the shad question posed earlier. I also would be interested in other topics of environmental concern in the Lehigh Valley that combine geology and anthropology, humanity and the natural world.

Documenting something means creating a record of it, in print or film or audio or other media forms, that tells its story in what is hopefully a truthful way. While I have little to no legitimate film experience, I did recently document my time studying geology in Iceland this summer. I brought my go pro camera along with me, and took videos of glaciers studied, trails hiked, volcanoes summited, and friends made along the way. I subsequently created a video compilation of the trip. I also documented our spring season on the crew team last year with a similar compilation, videos taken from the stand on the shells from spring training until our championship regatta. I enjoy filming and compiling such videos, and look forward to the one I plan to create this spring on my semester of sailing and studying marine science. Through these videos, I find I am able to express the emotions felt during the events, and the overall feel of the experience, in order to share it with others.

I also enjoy researching topics of local importance with global importance, and I wish to pursue more stories in this area. Thus far I have only done so for course assignments. Last semester, I wrote my final essay for my course Culture & the Environment on the Easton dam near the convergence of the Lehigh and Delaware Rivers. I did field research that included photography, video and audio. The culmination of this was a paper on the underrated danger of small-scale dams. I highly enjoyed this project, and wanted to pursue parts of it further; to what specific extent has this affected the shad in the rivers? That was but one of many questions I had at the end of my research.

In addition, I am an avid writer. While this method of documentation does not include any media other than print, I have kept journals and written of important thoughts and decisions my entire life. I solved many challenges in my life by organizing my thoughts by means of the written word; I had a speech impediment when I was younger, and so writing was the easiest and most direct form of self-expression.

As documentary is rooted somewhat in journalism and photography, it is to be expected that some bias exists. While the documentarian, journalist, or photographer attempts to bring to light the truth of an issue, their innate bias inevitably comes through somewhat in their art. In the preface, McClane states that this book focuses on documentary film of the Western world. She acknowledges her own innate bias, saying “I am bound by my own understanding of the world” (xiv.) McClane brings up as fact that documentaries are “limited to actuality” (3.) I personally have immense respect for documentaries because they are “purposive,” (7) not simply for entertainment and money. It is idealistic, however, to believe that because documentaries are intended for truth, they are entirely accurate.

I wrangled with Robert Flaherty during this reading, and contemplated two questions consistently.

First, what amount of Flaherty’s alterations were intentional, meant to help Westerners better empathize?

Second, is it at all acceptable for people like Flaherty to alter customs and lifestyles in this way, for what they perceive as purposed for education?

McClane introduces Flaherty as “an explorer” (21), an undisciplined potential “genius” “in love with the wilderness” (22.) She then discusses his struggle and hard work and dedication to bringing the truth to light. He is portrayed as different from the rest of the public who just sought “stars” (26) in their films. After reading this section, I held respect for Flaherty.

I quickly began to doubt Flaherty, however, when he decided what to disregard and to include, exaggerate, or even go so far as to create, in the construction of his films. His creation of the “nuclear family structured along conventional Western cultural lines” (29) in non-Western societies struck me. Flaherty also “revived” (27) a native Samoan custom solely for the purpose of his film. He changed their way of life for his film; it was not the entire truth. However, according to McClane this was (at least in part) intentional, in order to help the Western societies better relate to these cultures.

In addition, McClane says, “Flaherty may ultimately have been most concerned with the human spirit, but what he chose to show are its basic physical manifestations. He pays no attention to how his societies govern themselves, nor is there anything in his films about the spiritual life of the people” (31.)

McClane does say that Flaherty was never condescending to the subjects of his films (34.) She seems to almost dismiss his negative actions on the basis that he was not an anthropologist (34.) Documentarians can be many other things additionally, whether a journalist, photographer, student, or professional of some kind; when analyzing their work, however renowned, it is imperative to take bias into consideration.