Having attended various Jewish schools for all my life until high school, I have been exposed to the events of the Holocaust extensively. Relatives of friends experienced it, I took a course on it in eighth grade, I read books such as Night and heard Elie Wiesel speak about it. Throughout high school, my participation in Hillel allowed me to stay close to the subject. Recently, however, I have not engaged in any activities directly causing me to think about the Holocaust. The acute emotional nature of Night and Fog did just this. On a purely personal note, I am so glad to have been assigned to watch this film for this reason. One of the most important things we must learn from the events of the Holocaust is to remember, so that history does not repeat itself. It is a terrifying thought for humanity to forget this genocide, and it’s scary when a period of time goes by in which I do not think about it to an extent of more than just a few minutes.

It is easy while watching this film to be so focused on the content itself that you ignore the documentarian. You watch the film and are so shocked and horrified by what you are seeing that you barely think of the person who actually put it together, who had to go through that footage over and over again. And not only that, he travelled to those places. Pieced together exactly what had happened at each bed, in each building, where he stepped. If the film can have such a capability to influence viewers, it is hard to imagine the emotional toll it could have taken on the filmmaker. This shows a similar kind of bravery to that of Kim Snyder, and how far it is sometimes necessary to go for telling truth and teaching morality.

Yesterday, Luke and I filmed our first major interview for the Opioid documentary.  We were filming a local Emergency Physician about her experience working in the Lehigh Valley. The interview overall went really well, and our interviewee said a lot of GREAT points that I know we can use in our documentary. The difficult part is that she just talked  A LOT in general, and it is going to take a long time to really cut down on the film.  After waiting two hairs for her to come, she finally showed up, and I can definitely attest that I was pretty exhausted before it even began because of that. However, the actual shooting went really smoothly, and it was lovely getting to use the studio room with the professional lighting. We only had one mini-hiccup; the cameras both turned off after a certain time of filming, so we did lose some footage which is disappointing because we were certain everything would be perfect! It was definitely a good learning experience that no matter how times you film, you need to prepare for at least something to go wrong. Luckily, even though I was the one doing the interviewing I was within arms’ reach of the camera, so I could quickly reach over and get it started again. I just hope that this will not disrupt the flow too much!

Like others I have learned a lot through trial and error while doing our interview assignment. I ended up switching the subject of my interview a few days after our pitches were due. The main reason for my switch was a lack of accessibility to the necessary B-roll to tell my story the way I wanted.  My new subject Miles Davis, is a graduate student at Lehigh who has been an active social entrepreneur on and off Lehigh’s campus.  I saw it as a better idea because of the ease of access I had to my new interviewee, which would allow me to have more freedom to go and re-interview my subject or correct any other issues that may arise. I conducted my interview this past Saturday and it went well. One thing I learned is how important it is to have a good idea of the direction the interview will take as an interviewer. Because I switched subjects after the pitch assignment I failed to have a solid idea of where exactly I wanted to take our conversation, even though I did have prepared questions. I am currently editing my video and a theme is starting to appear slowly, but I could have saved myself a lot of time if I visualized the end product more more effectively.

I also had some camera trouble like others. I had to deal with some audio issues but I think I did well in adjusting on the fly. I appreciate this assignment because it has forced me to put what I have learned in class into action even if I didn’t believe I was ready at first. I am excited to show you all my finished product.

As you might know, I chose to do my interview project on my computer science professor. I reached out to him via email and planned to meet on a certain day for his office hours. Already I was hesitant because he would not be able to leave his office. At that point I was just hoping his office looked pretty cool. I decided to get the camera immediately before I went to him, which was probably not the best idea. When I went to the digital media studio they said all the cameras were already lent out. So obviously I couldn’t do the interview then. Still, I went to his office to get help with the coding assignments.

His office was, in fact, extremely boring, so I began freaking out a bit. I no longer wanted him to be my interview subject because this wouldn’t make for a great video. He was not going to be as helpful as I would have liked so I needed a new plan. I began thinking about other people I could work with. I never really thought about talking to any of my friends in the first place, only teachers and faculty. After some thought, my friend Raahil popped into my head.

Raahil overall is a pretty interesting guy so I figured it might be cool to talk to him. We were already friends, so I knew a few things about him. He hails from Tanzania, avid cricket player, dancer, and just a friendly cool guy. Looking forward to seeing how this video turns out.

To say the least, the B-roll project was no easy task. One of the main issues was the fact that we had very little time. Considering some of us in the group have extremely busy schedules we had to find a way to work around that. It was nearly impossible for everyone to be involved in every single part just because of our busyness. We ended up meeting on a random day during the week after classes. The first set of shots were all done at Lafayette and after we got going the idea of the video was coming together. I was in a time constraint but we left with a decent amount of footage. Turns out that wasn’t so true after all.

We met again on the weekend to edit and that was when we realized. We just didn’t have enough for a long enough video. So we had to go back out but luckily the Bacon Festival was that weekend. We managed to get quite a few shots of the people around there and some of the building we walked by. After getting enough footage we went back in to put it all together.

For some odd reason, I was under the impression that the editing would only take an hour and some change. That obviously wasn’t the case. After about three hours I was complete. I was very happy with the way it came out. I feel as though, with the idea we have in mind, the b-roll shares that story very well.

Last week, I started shooting my interview with Tina Yerdon, a friend and a cancer survivor. I made a few mistakes which I was absolutely freaking out about. I had two cameras to get two shots: a close-up and wide shot of Tina. The close-up camera had the ISO set way too high, the White Balance at a terribly yellow setting, the f-stop at some wild number, and the shutter speed – I don’t know. I wasn’t thinking. It was a great interview but once I looked at my footage, this close-up shot was grainy. It is an interesting aesthetic that could work but also annoyingly grainy. I was stressed for the rest of the week but then spoke to one of my professors who told me these mistakes do tend to happen while filming and that this is the beauty of doc filmmaking. It’s not going to be perfect. The audio should be decent and it is what the interviewee is saying that is important. The audio of the interview is good and I think I will be okay. I can cover up most of the close-up shots with some good B-roll.

I initially had thoughts of re-interviewing my subject but I think it is extremely unethical. I asked her some deep personal questions and she cried. It was very sad and I don’t want to put her in that vulnerable position again. I think this will be a great challenge for me to test how well I will deal with this interview and still make it as good as I think it is.

It is difficult for me to meet with my interviewee often because she is barely on campus. She goes home for 4-5 days a week because of her doctors’ appointments. She managed to text me yesterday, telling me that she was available for a few hours. When I visited her at home, I could tell she was not having it. Tina was miserable and in a bad mood because she had a feeling that the doctor wouldn’t take off her stitches this week and she might have to have another surgery in December (her seventh surgery). Before I could think of pulling out my camera, I felt the urge to cheer her up. I decided that we get her out of her stuffy home and go for a walk. Tina grabbed her crutches and quietly started walking out of her home. As soon as she stepped out of her house, the color of her face changed. She was smiling, commenting on the smell of the freshly cut grass and the cool air hitting her face. She was so happy. I started filming her and she was responsive. I hope that my interview b-roll captures this excitement she had. The purpose of me writing about this is to say that we will develop intimate relationships with our interviewees and might be put in awkward situations when they’re in an off mood. I tensed up when I saw her sad.

I am also questioning my intent with this interview : what am I trying to show the audience? what is my goal? what am I trying to add to the table?

Being from Connecticut and knowing the events that unfolded in Newtown, I anticipated that Kim Snyder’s film would be difficult to watch. But like so many of the best documentaries, being hard to watch means it was all the more thoughtful, powerful, and above all, necessary. I have often been simply considering that the best documentarians are those who best seek out and bring to light the unbiased truth. Kim Snyder taught me that the best documentarians also require yet another intangible thing: courage. The best documentarians try to not only educate the world but to teach people bravery, to teach people morals and what should or should not be done in specific situations.

This can happen through three ways that directly come to mind. First, the documentarian educates through the subject of the film. What will the viewer directly learn? This includes information: the story, the actual events that unfolded, names involved, dates that things occurred. The second method of viewer education is less direct, and beautifully done by Snyder: she teaches through what she allows to be seen on screen. Her conscious choices artistically and ethically (sometimes overlapping) teach the viewer how to handle certain situations. Of course, this is technically debatable and cannot always be known; while I love and praise the way Snyder made her film, others may say she did not handle both art and ethics as well as she could have. I think, however, that she set an example for how to approach telling these types of stories. Thirdly, the viewer is taught through content once again but less obviously than in terms of just the story. Yes, you learned the facts already, but a good documentarian will teach through their film why the issue in the film is right/wrong/important/biased/etc. In the case of Newtown, for instance, Snyder teaches people about gun control.

I would like to elaborate on one point specifically: ethics. As I sat down for the film, I was apprehensive about how Snyder could possibly have handled ethics well. How can an outsider, someone not from Newtown, possibly just invade and make a film about such a sensitive issue? As I watched the film, however, I quickly understood and my wonder for Snyder skyrocketed. She was absolutely incredible- she was sensitive to the people of Newtown, to the families of these children, and made it so clear to them that she wanted to help. It truly amazes me that she was so wonderfully capable and brilliant.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Night and Fog is a secret order under which “persons endangering German security” in the German-occupied territories of western Europe were to be arrested and either shot or spirited away under cover of “night and fog” (that is, clandestinely) to concentration camps.

Night and Fog is unlike other Holocaust films I have seen. The problem with Hollywood Holocaust films is that they attempt to make the audience vicariously live through the characters experience with such a staggeringly incomprehensible experience, which then reduces such an experience to a sentimental melodrama. Instead, Night and Fog resembles the anti-documentary: how can we document such a harsh reality? Resnais did not presume to speak for the victims and survivors of the camps: he chose as his screenwriter the novelist Jean Cayrol, a man who had actually been imprisoned in one.

Resnais and Cayrol do not attempt to offer a comprehensive guide to the concentration camp universe. On the contrary, the voiceover is filled with skepticism and doubt, and a sympathetic awareness of the viewer’s resistance to grasping the unthinkable. The voiceover narration says things like “Useless to describe what went on in these cells,” and “Words are insufficient,” and “No description, no picture can reveal their true dimension.” Meanwhile, the viewer is calmly given information about the Nazis’ extermination procedures. in Night and Fog, there is a clear dichotomy between the necessity of remembering, and the impossibility of doing so.

Something that was very powerful throughout the film was the discontinuity between sounds and visual. The score of the film is a light, airy tune which completely contrasts the images of limp, dead bodies being bulldozed, thrown into pits, and dismantled. The most disturbing part of the film, for me, was the footage of materials that were made from the dead bodies, like cloth made from hair, manure made from bones, soap made from bodies, and paper made from skin. This scene is an example of Resnais’ attempt to show rather than tell.