Unfortunately, I found the film, Night and Fog, very hard to watch. I’m sure this is generally a tough film for pretty much anyone. Yet, for me, it felt significantly more difficult. Through the entire film I was reminded of the movie, which was originally a novel, Roots by Alex Haley. There is a plethora of scenes that can easily relate to Roots which made the film a hard watch.

For instance, the Jews were given identification numbers with letters while the slaves were branded with scorching hot metal. They were stripped of their own identity and only seen as a number. The Jews, in one scene, were lined up completely nude. I am not sure what the purpose of the line was but similarly, the Africans were changed up and transported and then sold, oftentimes not wearing any clothing either. Additionally, the Jews were thrown into the train cars, and I can only imagine how uncomfortable and congested that might have been. The slaves were thrown onto ships and they, too, were travelling in unreasonable conditions that were not comfortable. We also saw scenes of the malnourished Jews where you could see all the way to their bones just like the slaves that were not on a healthy diet. Finally, there were scenes of how the deceased were treated, whether it was burned, or just dumped into a pile with everyone else. There wasn’t any respect given in that regard and the slaves were treated in that way.

On another note, perhaps a more positive note, although it was hard to watch I did appreciate the way the film was done. It was a silent film, well not dialogue, but the music added another element. It sort of made you have to pay attention and you could not turn away for even a second. If you did, you would probably miss something. Thus I like how the film was done, even though it did bring great thoughts when I walked the film.

Here is the link to the rough cut of my interview:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1O0xULdLAqBTmROMXhUUGNQcjg/view?usp=sharing

I have always found Holocaust Documentaries very interesting. I really liked that there was a reading paired with the documentary. I felt like the reading helped me understand the documentary’s goal and message. I noticed how old the style and quality of the documentary was which did not appeal to me at first, but after reading that it was one of the first Holocaust documentaries to ever be made, I had a new found respect for it. I had this respect because it did do an excellent job of portraying the significant facts. Since it was only 32 minutes long, I felt like it was useful since it portrayed very concise information, just the important information people would need to know about the Holocaust. The reading did an excellent job explaining the meaning and message of the film, but also some significant points about the Holocaust. The film did an excellent job organizing the information. There was a clear beginning, middle, end which is sometimes challenging to see through a documentary.

I plan to interview Ana Meyerson, the geology department secretary at Lafayette College, later this afternoon. I will film the interview in the style that has Ana addressing the audience, responding to questions I ask her. I will not have my voice or self in the shots. If necessary during the interview, I will ask questions in different ways so that she incorporates them into her answers. This will allow the audience to more fully understand the flow. I plan to interview her in her office in the department, as it shows how central she is to running the show. I want the interview to convey how important her work is to the department’s success. In addition, her office area is also always full of plants and photos and books and positivity, which shows a large part of her character.

In terms of B-roll, I plan to film a few things: the outside of Van Wickle by her office, possibly a few shots inside the building, and hopefully a few shots of Ana and students participating in an upcoming geology lunch event held for upper-class majors. I will run this by the department head before filming anything.

In terms of the actual interview, I have a few things I want to make sure we touch on. I first want to discuss how she became involved at Lafayette and in the geology department here, and what she does in the department. Ana goes absolutely above and beyond, so I want to bring to light how helpful and enthusiastic she is. I want to talk about how she takes classes here and overall how hard she works.

I interviewed Tamar Kay, a documentarian from Israel and a graduate from the Sam Spiegel Film School in Jerusalem. In finding my subject, I knew I wanted to interview someone I didn’t know who would be able to talk about something the audience (me and you) could engage with.

I found out on Monday that Tamar Kay would be screening her film The Mute’s House at Muhlenberg the following night, so I knew I had to ask her if she would sit for an interview. I asked, she said yes, we exchanged numbers, and the next day she texted me in the morning with a time that would work for her. I left work early, set up and interviewed. I knew I wanted to talk to her about her film, but my intentions were to ask her about being a new film student in search of any advice that might help alleviate some of the anxieties associated with creating a film for the first time (for a lot of us). Especially because some of us (me) have never done anything like this ever.

She was wonderful, polite, helpful, and insightful. I was extremely nervous to interview her. I didn’t sleep at all the night before. All I could think about was how I’ve never set up a tripod, filmed, or interviewed anyone in my life. The technical issues and preparation of questions were anxiety provoking, not to mention how I just decided to jump right into it without even thinking about how I didn’t know what I was doing on almost every level. Luckily I had help setting up and I prepared many questions, knowing well I wouldn’t get through them all. Needless to say the interview went well. There were some issues with slating, but nothing unresolvable. The worst part is playing it back and hearing myself!

I set up in a professor’s office on campus. Locations were limited because both of us were on a tight schedule (she left for Pittsburgh right after our interview and I went back to work).

How can you not love the literary voice of Michael Rabiger? “Filmmaking is a beautiful and involving art form, one that synthesizes practically every other art form invented, and that makes learning a lifelong adventure. Most significantly, making documentary means you are learning about yourself, and becoming a fuller human being”. What a seductive claim. How are more people not chomping at the bit the instant they read this? This book is about being human and that is the best kind of book to read. The best part is how it reads like a documentary is watched: observe, feel, understand, challenge, learn, and probably more verbs I am not mentioning here.

But it’s true, what he says about us humans, about what we are made of, about what drives us, not our physical matter. We all have some pain, some excitement, some conflict in our lives. We are bound to see that in others. Don’t we expect it? This is the passion that ignites the need to investigate a story. He says strive not to put anything on the screen unless it reveals something. What story will best reveal what drives me, and what will engage others in that revelation?

We seek to preserve, to attach to, to remember, to ask. We are seekers, he says, by nature. Why are we living in this time and place, or at all? Film seems to bring some sort of insight into this question. It seems so perverse to ask. People like to make light of existential phenomena. But when faced with it on a screen, it is nearly impossible to look away. I have something to say. I might not know what it is yet, but I think I have to believe that it’s there.

Whatever conflicts I face throughout my life, I know I am not alone. There is another human on this planet who will want to know and understand it from my point of view. The “social art” is one of the present, but for the future. History is a promise kept and documentary film is the secret handshake declaring a “forever-ness”.

When watching a documentary, the general conception is that people are not watching a fictional movie. Rather the purpose is to inform, not to fantasize, a different kind of entertainment. People are fascinated by documentary’s apparent inherent ability to capture reality. And while it can do this to some extent, ultimately documentary is to tell a story, to relay a perspective of information.

As we know, sometimes it is difficult to find the words that will best articulate what it was like to be ‘there’. No matter how wonderful and poetic a description of events, there is some missing element, something that prevents the audience from ever fully grasping the reality of the situation, the truth as it unfolds before their eyes. Film works the same way. To make up for this, it seems documentarians try to do their best to shy away from the old adage “you had to be there”.

Nevertheless a film is something to be entertained by. If anyone is like me and finds real life more interesting than things which are made up, documentary seems the perfect form of entertainment. What Linda Williams has to say about that, in terms of her analyzation of The Thin Blue Line, might be that regardless if the sequence of events are true to form, if the story is accurately portrayed, and if the people are real and not actors, it is just that, a portrayal. Because the viewer is not one who was witness to the actual moments being discussed in a documentary, they need a story they can follow. The audience wants to trust the filmmakers on getting it right. They want to not be lied to, and so what they are exposed to they will most likely believe and pass on. Therefore, it is the filmmakers’ job to be apart of the social and cultural interpretation of the issue which will tell us something about what the past way really like. The “reverberations between events” harnesses the power of truth. Sounds like what Professor John Caputo argues in his book Truth.

Watching The F-word web series was seriously helpful in getting to thinking about what you can do with a 10 minute documentary. It is a story about a specific couple with a specific goal from which they are starting at a certain socio-cultural position. It is engaging because of this and because the motivation and passion to love a child are so palpable. The obstacle here though seems to emphasize the difficulty in the waiting to foster. Wanting a child so badly and knowing there are so many children that need a loving home makes it hard to wait.

I really liked the explanations used to identify certain terms like concurrent planning, home study, disclosure meeting, etc. This was helpful to include because otherwise there would be confusion on my part for the duration of the video. Of course I can google what I don’t know, but the time it takes to do that takes away from my current investment in the episode. Actually, it’s as if I am tranced. I am too engaged to find out what is going to happen next that I don’t even think about pausing to do a google search. Instead, I am hopeful that the film will anticipate my illiteracy in fostering and will address these questions for me. If these confusions were not addressed, I know I would have kept watching until the end and if I was still confused, I’d google it then. How amazing though, the power a film has to be so engaging that even with the ability now to pause, we almost subconsciously choose not to because of how visually and emotionally invested we are. The expectation of a film for our confusions to be resolved is incredible. Not to mention how endearing this couple is for their persistence in wanting to love something so badly. Admirable, to say the VERY least.