I found this short series, which focuses on the challenges surrounding adopting/fostering a child in foster care, to be really impactful. Personally in my life I have little exposure to the foster care system. Any information I knew regarding foster care before this film, was from the news and focused on issues with the system. All I have really heard about was worse case “scenarios”, as Jillian Lauren a mother of adopted children from foster care and best selling author of “Everything You Ever Wanted” talks about. In her interview she try to bust open some of these stigmas. This interview (in episode 3) was both moving and profound, obviously her openness in regards to her and her husbands fears right before becoming parents, and love for her children from that point on brought me to tears.

Fears and this urgency that surrounded the desire to do what is best for child was carried throughout the film. Whether it was the discussed in the interview with Johnny Symons director of “Daddy and Papa” and his husband William, when talking about his son original foster mother giving him up because she knew she wouldn’t be able to provide him with all the support he needed to flourish; or, the multiple instances in which Nicole and Kristan thought they would be adopting a child and the situation didn’t work. Everyone just wanted what was best for the child at the end of the day.

I really respect both Nicole and Kristan choice to document such an emotional and personal journey in their life. Their story and journey that allows for people who have never experienced adoption to connect to the topic, and appreciate it in way that they could never fully grasp on their own. Watching both their disappointment and joy, made the film and the film’s journey genuine. The film focuses on a serious topic, but the overlay of the cartoons, colorfulness, and goofiness of the film made it a feel good film. I enjoyed the film series, and I am interested in seeing how everything turned out for Nicole and Kristan. I really believe that deserve a family, and that a child or multiple children deserve parents like them.

We are attempting to determine whether or not students who are’t in a gifted program are worse off.

-Donterrius, Mekhi, Lauren

As soon as they filmed ended I had to google the characters names to see what happened to them. I felt as though the film could not end this way. How could an innocent man sit in jail for the rest of his life? I shocked to learn that film help to bring about a retrial for Adams and eventually exonerate him. To think that documentary has enough influence to free an innocent man from a life in captivity, is a powerful thing.

Beside that I found the film to be very captivating. It kept me engaged and critically thinking throughout. There were a few things that I thought could have been done better. I felt as though some of b-rolls were somewhat cheesy and felt as though were unnecessary place holders. For example when talking about hypnosis of the female police officer there was this b-roll of a pocket watch swinging. I felt as thought this was very cheesy and unnecessary.

I felt like the film and storyline was choppy, and didn’t always flow. And at times, I found it difficult to follow the storyline. It almost felt like Morris was stretching out the story to make the film fit a certain length. This choppiness mostly refers to they way he cut interviews with witnesses and officers. My least favorite part of the film was the choice to react the scene in the officer was killed and play in again and again throughout the film. I understanding portraying the act allows viewers to better appreciate the brutality of the act, but just the way it was acted out and the constant replay of this scene almost made it feel insignificant. Each time I watched I felt as though I began to loss the appreciation that innocent man killed point blank. If I was the film maker I think I would have focused a bit more on the police offer who was killed and his story. I don’t think I would use this imagery again and again.

But overall I think the creative choice to leave the confession and later conviction of Harris till the end of the film was powerful and made for a great story. The film focussed on an interesting story and told it well for the most part, and given the film is almost thirty years old I think the overall film was a great success.

Page 335 of the book, “A New History of Documentary Film” by Betsy A. Mclane, describes Werner Herzog as “a force, a genre, a mode, a style, a voice, a type all his own.” Herzog has a desire to put his audience back into a position where they can trust their eyes and ears. This is something I think all documentarians should strive to achieve as well. The audience should trust both the filmmaker and the film.

When watching Grizzly Man, I really admired and valued Herzog decision to narrate the film and insert himself into specific interviews. In Grizzly Man, there was so much footage from Treadwell and I feel as though without Herzog narration the significance of the footage might have been lost on the viewer. I also found that Herzog inserting himself into the film at times made the situation feel more genuine and real. The terrible circumstances surrounding the death of Timothy Treadwell and Amie Huguenard in Grizzly Man, made the film a difficult story to tell in certain scenes. I think Herzog narration and insertion of himself made the film more powerful and respectable. We could feel the impact the story had on Herzog.

I was surprise when reading that Herzog generally narrates his all documentaries in this way, asking questions of himself, and appearing on camera. Obviously I found this approach to be moving and valuable in Grizzly Man, but I wonder if it has the same effect in his other films. The book talks about Herzog 1997 film, Little Dieter Needs to Fly, where Herzog takes the main character back to where he was taken as a prisoner of war. Herzog goes as far as hiring locals to play the part of his captors to renact the events and retraces the main characters steps together. Herzog enters this man’s life and makes him recite and experience his own horrors again for the camera. I feel like I would have to see the film to make any real moral judgements about it, but it seems as if Herzog approach in this flim may probe a bit far. As a film maker, I don’t think I would be willing to pay people to “recapture” a prisoner of war just for a good shot, even if he agreed to it.

To be honest, before the talk I wasn’t familiar with Brooke Gladstone or any of her work. When I googled her, I was impressed by how much she has accomplished throughout her career. Regarded as “an expert on press trends” and published author, I was slightly hesitant in how her talk regarding her book would actually relate to anything we were doing in DOC 150.

I was completely mistaken in this assumption, and I found her talk to not only be interesting, educational, but also useful in regards, to my work as a documentarian. I never really connected documentary to reporting, which was very naïve. Documentarians are reporters too. It is important to understand how the media can portray an issue, and how to sort the fiction from fact.

I think it was important that she discussed the tragedy in Las Vegas, and how it exploded in the media. Unfortunately, information always gets twisted, especially in a crisis situation like an active shooter. It’s hard to find the truth, and in most instances, what information is first released usually wrong. This is dangerous. Media has so much power. After listening to Brooke Gladstone, I definitely think media should be managed and consumed better.

Before the talk I never really thought what type of media consumer I was. To be honest most of the news I consume daily comes from Facebook. I was not aware that Facebook sorts through stories and feeds me with what they think I would find most interesting based on what I have previous read. If I never realized how biased the media I was consuming was.

Obviously, there are unreliable sources that no one should be getting their news or information from. But as Brooke discussed, it is important that we read the information from sources that don’t always align with our views.

I agree with Brooke and I am going to make conscious effort to read articles that from sources that maybe tend to lean in a different direction as myself. To go further than my Facebook feed. To be a more educated news consumer, I need to consume the full truth even if that comes from sources or authors that in principle I disagree with.

In reality to only read information that fuels the opinions I already have isn’t helping myself. This idea goes hand and hand, with the principles associated with being a good documentarian. In documentary to uncover the full story, a documentarian needs to be educated to expose the full picture. This could involve people and opinions that I do not always agree with.

hi guys!

On monday I talked about the LV topic, Lead Posioning in the Lehigh Valley. I was think more about it.

I know a documentary can’t just fix the problem of lead paint posioning of children in the Lehigh Valley, but a dcoumentary can bring light to the issue. Informed people can take action, and there are programs availabe to Lehigh Valley residents to help better prevent lead poisioning and understand how they could or their children could be at risk.

I have done some more research and found some information about a program known as the:

LEAD HAZARD CONTROL PROGRAM
The LHCP is a lead abatement program intended to protect the residents of the City of Bethlehem from the harms of lead poisoning. Income-qualifying residents with children in the home under the age of six years are eligible to enroll in the LHCP to have their homes tested for lead and, if needed, abated for lead. For more information about this program, please contact the Bethlehem Health Bureau.

And I think the Bethelehem Health Bureau would be a good place to start when trying to uncover the full story of why lead posioning especially in children is such problem in the Lehigh Valley.

There is also this hotline provided by the PA health Department: http://www.health.pa.gov/my%20health/infant%20and%20childrens%20health/lead%20poisoning%20prevention%20and%20control/pages/default.aspx#.WdVpILGZNPM

The are ways to uncover the story of lead paint posioning in the lehigh valley, and I think it is important that community memebers and our peers are aware of what is going on in this community.

I think it is an issue that should be talked about and I just wanted to make another pitch for the project before everyone submits their preffered scenarios since there are so many good ones!

Thanks! Lauren

I feel as though the message of this film questions the morality of an invasion of privacy by the United States government. Bringing to light a possible mistrust in the true intention of these blimps. Whether it be in Kabul, Afghanistan or Aberdeen, Maryland, the film is designed to make the audience question things further.

I also really enjoy the play on words with the title of this film, the idea of a field of vision. The film is shot in a way that makes us feel as though we are both seeing the blimp from the ground level vision of people, and seeing the world from the eyes of the blimp. Stylistically I think it is clear that this done on purpose with both high angle shots that feel as if we are looking down from and sky, and low angle shots as if we were sitting on the ground with the blimp in the background. There also this constant reinforcement of a single detail, the blimp. Almost every shot incorporated the blimp whether literally we see the blimp in the far background, or symbolically like shot with the colorful balloons. Sound throughout the film is also significant with the constant almost buzzing noise that reminds one of something hoovering above. Nowhere in the film can the audience escape the presence of the blimp. And this seems intentional.

Overall the story is constructed through sound, changes in perspective, a single narration of a man, and the juxtaposition of the two blimps in Kabul, Afghanistan verses Aberdeen, Maryland. Someone seems to be always watching, leaving the audience wary and some uncomfortable. It seems although the blimps are beyond just unnatural, they feel almost unmoral when juxtaposed next to the cross and against the idea of god expressed by the man’s narration.

I absolutely loved Cameraperson, but I am sure this isn’t surprising for anyone that was there. It felt as though the entire screening room was experiencing the same emotions and interest while watching, and then the feeling were even further confirmed during the QA when everyone gushed over the piece. It was truly incredible.

Once leaving the cinema I couldn’t stop thinking about the film. I drove up the hill with Margie and we discussed things even further. We couldn’t stop talking about empathy.

What do I mean by that? Documentaries have the power to make people feel and see something, someone or an event, in a way so distinct. That is why I love them because they allow an audience to really grasp what is happening, and understand it in a way that is unlike anything else. They are powerful and can leave a lasting impression.

But I guess I never fully appreciated how making a documentary can affect the person making it. And as discussed in the QA and even in film these stories and these experiences become a part of a documentarian’s life too. I never really thought about how that could take such a toll on someone. Traveling the world and exposing the human experience in its purest sense, is an incredible experience no doubt, but is also a difficult one.

`        The essence of Cameraperson, is to make the audience feel what the filmmaker felt. KJ has an extraordinary amount of empathy towards others especially those who she films, and that is what makes her films so incredible and moving. Her empathy and connection is truly translated across the film, and you can see her passion for others when she discussed her filming process. During the QA i was moved when she spoke about wanting to return to places she had been and how difficult it is still for her to watch the film. Her passionan for what she does is moving. I truly admire KJ dedication to her craft and respect for other human beings.

Specifically when looking at the film itself, I really enjoyed KJ decision to insert herself into the shot from the very beginning whether it was pulling the grass out of the shot or sneezing, the audience knew she was there and was going to be with us throughout the movie. The decision to include the footage of her mother and children made the film feel real and genuine. The overall rawness of the film and footage is what made each story and each person so easy to empathize with.

Two quotes jumped out to me when reading Cameraperson Director’s Statement.

One being:
“The people I film are in immediate and often desperate material need, but I offer little to nothing material”

And two being:
“My work requires trust demands intimacy and entail total attention. To both me and the people i film it often feels like a friendship or family, but it is something different”

After hearing my classmate read this outline, I had to stop for a second and really take in the significant of these words. To offer nothing to someone who is suffering, but a platform to be heard is difficult to digest but a true part of most documentaries.
Most documentarians, do not fix the issues that they are portraying, whether it has to do with overall feasibility or resources it is just not possible. That is what makes documentary important because it can address the issues that we must come together to fix. Documentary is not the solution, it’s a platform for it and mechanism to bring about change.
The second quote also stuck out to me because the people who share there story with you are entrusting you to be truthful and respectful. There not just the subjects of your film they are people. The relationship you build with them is significant on and off the camera.