A couple of weeks prior to the screening of Cameraperson, I remember reading in Bernard’s book about the selective process of manipulating footage into a story or an argument. I took a stab at this myself during the Instagram video assignment, where I compiled some of the random shots I had taken in the last few months into a movie about my summer. Doing this gave me a special appreciation for Kirsten’s work in her film. As a person who is very interested in documenting life as it happens, I was truly astonished at her decision to make this movie. More specifically, I was really drawn in by her idea to turn seemingly unrelated footage that she had recorded for other purposes into a new film that offered a unique perspective. And her execution was perfect. The movie was nicely balanced as she countered intense moments of anger and sadness with funny and more light-hearted content. For this reason, I believe that this movie was in many ways a refreshing reminder of life and what it means to be human. Overall, I think my main take away from watching Cameraperson was encouragement to keep trying to document my life and my experiences. I look forward to the different stories that my footage will reveal.

Brooke Gladstone’s talk focused on the construction of media in our lives. While she mentioned that she had a different opening to her speech, I think it was fitting that she opened with a brief study of the mass shooting in Las Vegas. She questioned how reliable the information we receive is and challenged us to question ourselves about where we seek out our information.

In one part of the talk, she printed tweets from Twitter that had gone viral about missing family members, which were all in fact hoaxes and were spreading false information. She also dissected TV news and radio news stories that imply they have not yet received confirmation on what’s going on, which essentially means they aren’t sure what’s happening. Gladstone’s talk overlapped with Kirsten Johnson’s film screening, as they both explored the ways in which stories are constructed and how we, as the creators, are responsible for creating and “construing it in the best way we can”.

As I reflect on Kirsten Johnson’s talk, I seem to think about what Michael Rabiger explores in his book “Directing the Documentary”. Chapter 4 focuses on developing your ideas, and one section specifically focuses on using the medium of documentary film. He writes, “A tough test of any idea is to imagine that you must make it as a silent film. This lets you discover quickly whether you are thinking like a journalist or a filmmaker. Choosing the latter forces you to create with the camera instead of the microphone” (Rabiger 49). If Rabiger were to watch Cameraperson, I think he would understand and see that Johnson is able to create with both her camera and microphone. Her cinematography and action are extremely strong, but I think it’s her voice (her actually voice that we hear from behind the camera and the general choices she makes about sound in the film) that makes her film work as something not only worth watching and admiring, but worth studying as a critical piece of documentary film. I think most of us can agree that Kirsten Johnson and her film Cameraperson challenge Rabiger’s notion. How would Cameraperson differ had she only focused on making the film with the camera as her primary tool for storytelling instead of using both camera and microphone (sound) as ways to explore her role behind the camera and the significance of the stories we decide to tell. One thing that was striking from her talk after the screening was when she stated, “We want the audience to learn how to watch the movie”. Lastly, her advice to think of filmmaking as a full body experience/action will be helpful for us when we began filming our projects. She said that breathing affects how we hold the camera, and ultimately the places we can move to/see next. So, being mindful of our breathing and the way we carry/position our bodies will help dictate what we are able to represent and how we do so.

I find it interesting the ways in which people choose to tell their stories or even choose to represent themselves. I felt KJ choose a really unique way to sum up some of her most important and influential moments of her career, in a way that also reflects who she is. I was also captivated by the use of montage and how she paired images and sequences together for new ideas without even developing a formal plot line. I think the editing was breathtaking for this and really emphasized her talents as a cinematographer.

A lot of what I saw and heard from this screening I have taken into account for my own work as a filmmaker and really made me think about the art of our experiences and even if we use our experiences to tell a compelling story for the sake of awareness and activism, we can still make art of it. I never really saw my story as something I could make beautiful even if it is not the happiest of times for my country. This really made me want to apply montage style editing and filmmaking to a documentary I am currently working on and I’m glad I was able to use this film as an example and to build on what I would like to do.

Lastly, I love speakers such as KJ, because it shows how cool filmmakers themselves can be. I feel the way we look at film itself vs the people who create it are on different sides of the spectrum, but obviously if something as cool as filmmaking is someone’s passion, they’re bound to be dope!

I’ve been thinking about the role documentaries play in shaping important conversations. I was listening to Serial from NPR in my car and wondering if a criminal case was reopened on public airwaves, would it make a difference? Or, would this man stay in prison without a retrial? I had read A History of Documentary Film earlier and remembered a section on films that shape social discourse. (I had to re-read it for examples) Filmmaker Stanley Nelson made films that exposed under-represented issues in popular culture. His film The Murder of Emmett Till reopened an inquiry into the brutal murder of 14 y/o Emmett Till in 1955. The Paradise Lost trilogy created public support for the release of the “West Memphis Three”, falsely accused of the murder of three young boys. The directors of Paradise Lost, Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are excellent examples of filmmakers who allowed their film to evolve from a story about poverty and the legal system into an investigation using cameras. This evolution was also noted by Errol Morris who said “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.” I googled an update on Adnan Syed (the prisoner in Serial) and he’s been granted a retrial.

I wanted to talk about events that have occurred in the news recently. So many sexual assault allegations have been appearing in the news, and each time I view the stories they become harder and harder to watch. Harvey Weinstein was such a surprise to so many people, however it did not shock everything because of how frequent sexual assault is on the news. I also read an article today about McKayla Maroney, a 21 year old Olympic gold medalist and how she recently came forward about being sexually assaulted by team doctor. Last year in my Women in Film course, we watched a documentary called “The Hunting Ground” which was one of the most powerful films, let alone documentaries, I have ever seen. It is on Netflix, and I strongly encourage everyone to watch it. It talks about sexual assault on college campuses and it truly opened my eyes to so much. I hope some of you view this and find it as powerful as I did.

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.

The Thin Blue Line directed but Errol Morris, depicts the story of a man sentenced to death for a crime that he did not commit. Since this film was created in 1988, all of the other films and shows that come after it are probably modeled after it. One show that directly ties in with this film is Making a Murderer. It is essentially the same idea as The Thin Blue Line, yet set in modern terms. The Thin Blue Line uses only one on one interviews and reenactments to tell its story, which makes it very dramatized. I did not particularly enjoy the reenactments of the moments being described because they made the story seem fake. Making a Murderer does a better job at telling the same sort of story because rather than reenactments, it uses evidence-like old pictures and journals that relate to what the interviewees are talking about.

I am not sure that I can say I enjoyed The Thin Blue Line because it felt too over the top for me. During our discussion with Kirsten Johnson, she mentioned how she did not like to include unnecessary background music because it that directs the viewer in the direction on how they should feel. I agree with this because in this film the music was too dramatic for me and I would have liked it better without any background noises.

I can appreciate this film because it seems to be one of the first crime documentaries that all other films and shows shown now are modeled after. I found the film to be very repetitive in what it was saying, but overall was a great mold for the crime documentaries today.

          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.