Before this event, I hadn’t heard about Brooke Gladstone but she surprised me with her insight on all sorts of topics. When she talked about distractions and how they feel good to our brain, I remembered this article I read about likes bringing stimulation to our brains and how it’s like a drug. We hate to be bored, it’s painful for us to be bored, so we are addicted to distractions like social media. I liked her advice about deleting an app we are always on. I still haven’t done it but I will before the semester is over. I also agree with her about how if we were to use our phones less we would be able to make more eye contact, increase interaction and our empathy for others would grow.

       I also loved what she said about how to convince people or try to make them care. It can only be achieved by associating it with something in their life and showing them what’s at stake for them. That reminded me of the first article we read in my Poverty in America class which was about why we should care about people living in poverty, and how it’s in our self-interest to care. It’s crazy to think that we need to know why it’s in our self-interest to care about the poor rather than helping them because of the situation they’re in.

     When she started talking about DACA I immediately started thinking, ”oh no,” because I’m used to people being misinformed and even allies having misconceptions about what it is. However, she surprised because she talked about how DACA was not good enough and it didn’t provide much for recipients. This is a point only some people can understand. DACA provided basic rights for immigrants who came here as children but limited most of our choices. It didn’t provide a path to citizenship or residency. The sad part is that that tiny amount of protection was taken away. It was wrong to take away this program that gave a small amount of protection to people who aren’t doing anything wrong and leaving them completely vulnerable, and with the risk of being deported. A lot of people can’t understand that. I was truly impressed by Brooke Gladstone and I look forward to picking up one of her books.

I love how Brooke Gladstone opened her talk discussing the mass shooting in Nevada- focusing her discussion on current events strung me in from the start. This was a good point to open up with, and was the same tactic used in a performance I saw a week later.

In the following week, I travelled to New York with my dad to watch a dance performance at BAM called “A Letter to my Nephew.” The choreographer, Bill T. Jones, focuses on the political landscape of the present to create meaningful and emotional scenes. This performance also opened up with the Nevada shooting, which instantly brought me back to the Brooke Gladstone talk. I really enjoyed how performers and speakers really talk about these things with us and try to address these current issues that our society has.

My favorite moment in her talk was when someone asked, “How do you focus on your life?” Her response was almost immediate, “Don’t use your phone when getting places (cars, walking).” She said that this was a strategy she often did on the subway; by making more eye contact with people and having less phone time, you will have a more intimate connection with the people around you. When I was working in New York this summer, almost every single person was focused in to their phones on their commute. It annoys me when people walk and don’t look up and just stare at there phones because i KNOW that they are not doing anything of any importance. When I would commute in the mornings, I would try not to look at my phone too much and try to enjoy the city around me. Sometimes I would have my headphones in, but I would create a playlist so I could just keep my phone in my pocket as I walked to work and looked at all the places around me. This is really great advice from Brooke, and if  everyone started to do this, our society would be a lot more observant and conscious of each other.

I have really enjoyed reading “Directing the Documentary” by Michael Rabiger so far. I appreciate the style of the book: I like how there is figures to explain what he is saying. He also makes the text easy to read and understand but in an extremely knowledgeable way. My favorite part in this chapter was when he focused on how to get a good education. Rabiger lists bullet points on how the reader can plan their future. His advice included listing your key experiences, and reminded readers that life has “marked you”. I think this book can really be beneficial in anyone’s life that wants to continue film in their future because it gives a ton of advice for the young filmmaker.

Rabiger also touches on the importance of creativity. He says its getting harder and harder to find unique content because so many films are being produced. I learned that it is important to gain as much experience as possible, and to lean on friends and colleagues about ideas because it will help any filmmaker in the long run. I really enjoyed this chapter and look forward to reading more!

Before I viewed The Thin Blue Line (1988), I read the synopsis on Google and realized that it was a crime documentary which are my favorite. After I watched the film, I realized it wasn’t what I thought it was going to be. To be quite honest, I was a little disappointed. I feel like the film was kind of slow. I also felt like through the entirety of the film, the same information was portrayed throughout. I found myself at some points being a little bored, because I thought that I already had heard the piece of information that was being said in the past. However, I really enjoyed the interviews between the eyewitnesses. Although they did not witness the actual crime taking place, it was interesting to hear their take on the story. All of the witnesses provided some really in depth detail that made me seem like I was actually at the crime scene, which I enjoyed.

My favorite shot in the film had to be towards the end, when the popcorn was popping in the machine. There was also a close up of the clock ticking, which I found very enticing because it makes the reader anxious for the characters in the film. This film also brings up the conversation of how police officers are treated. I definitely want to hear everyone’s opinion on this film and I look forward to discussing it!

I’m not sure what the message is about for this film. If there is one it isn’t explicit in a way that highlights “this is bad” or “this is good”. That might be the point. The message could be an attempt to start a conversation about surveillance, getting people to think. The man speaking about god adds to this because it offers a point of reference for similarities between the US and a place the US thinks as being so different from it. The young boy enjoying the ferris wheel represents an innocence of every child and makes you wonder why he is being watched. A look into the day to day lives of people working, walking, shopping, and playing is meant to offer insight into the lives of people in Kabul doing the same things people do in the US. This might change perspectives on whether or not Kabul should be watched, it might make you ask why they are being watched, and why it is classified. Are these people in danger of whatever threat the US is trying to protect them from, or does the US think they are the treat? What are we missing?

The story is introduced with just the blimp over the mountains. It is a beautiful sky-scape. Generally blimps are a cool thing to see so without any further insight into, The Above, we are left with lightheartedness and awe of the beauty of wherever the blimp is. When we learn the blimp is over Kabul, we begin to wonder why and all presuppositions of the US and middle east are at stake. As the story progresses, we see the daily activities of a city, while we as the audience are still searching for “why Kabul?”, only to not receive an answer. The balloons carried by the boy also mimic innocence and similarity and act as motive for asking questions because of the unexpectedness of those colors in that landscape. A blimp is shown in Maryland, in a place clearly more affluent than Kabul. Text tells us this is to detect long range missile attacks. The text itself acts as a paradox to the normal lives of people in Kabul, as if they would be the attackers. The introduction of the blimp over a development of houses (a typical perspective from which we have previously seen blimps, which replicates my initial thoughts in the first shot of he film) was perhaps used to change our perspective the next time we see a blimp in the US.

I am left feeling unsure still, feeling uneasy, which could be just what KJ’s intentions were; to evoke in us a sense of uneasiness that the people of Kabul feel.

I was looking forward to watching The Thin Blue Line because I quoted Errol Morris in my reflection from a reading a couple weeks ago. Here’s the quote: “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”. After watching, it is easy to see how to some, this can read as just another murder investigation show, but what made it different for me was intentionally watching it with a particular eye for production and post-production choices. There were elements that made the film more artistic than any murder investigation show you would see on television today. For instance, the X’s at the end of the statement Randall Adams signed were highlighted by a close up of the X on the typewriter. This illumination of a key on a typewriter insinuates a human is in fact responsible for pressing that key. It breaks down the inhuman, overly broad, ‘not to be reckoned with’ category, “the officials”, normally brings to mind; “the officials”, being one general persona of many actual people who were both inadvertently and directly prosecuting Adams. To further that point, the X’s additionally serve to represent and highlight the murder itself, and potentially spell out the sentence that will be Randall Adams fate.

Another notable aspect of this doc was their way of introducing the suspects. They are both in prison uniforms so we know they are charged, however Adams is still defending his innocence and David Harris seems so nonchalant that neither of them seem like criminals. After learning that Adams was guilty, as the audience I immediately started to doubt my judgment about his character. Harris’ demeanor affirmed my suspicions of his innocence (although initially I thought they were both innocent and they got the wrong car). The police who interrogated Adams were introduced careless and disinterested as to whether or not Adams actually committed the murder, just wanting to quick close the case by calling him the criminal. Once I learned how Adams’ was being treated by police I began to question their authority and their ability to honestly and thoroughly do their jobs. This also made me question how many innocent people are treated this way and it highlighted how one person can cultivate a following of people who believe one thing over another. Then I began to be suspicious of David Harris once again, hearing of all the strangeness of him, of his criminal history, of his potential motive for murdering the cop, etc., and it seemed more clear that he was the perpetrator, in the interview still recalling the events of his innocence from that night. I was left to wonder why he was now in prison if they called him innocent and Adams guilty. I suspected he was not actually innocent and that they had picked him up for another crime. My suspicions were confirmed and then we hear of what potentially contributed to Harris being a criminal and I felt for him and could begin to understand why “the officials” wanted not to prosecute his regardless of evidence pointing his way. After all, they did say they didn’t want to convict a young boy, yet it got another man murdered.

Overall, the film was a bit dull, but it did take me on a rollercoaster of questioning and investigating the case at hand given all the evidence. It paralleled KJ’s discussion of power as the cameraperson, in this case as part of the post-production process, when choices are made as to how to introduce new information across the sequence of the film. This definitely gave me food for thought.

When I was in high school, my history teacher showed The Fog of War, another Errol Morris film and it stuck with me throughout my education. I really liked the content of the documentary, because it focused on a widely known issue (The Vietnam War), but portrayed it in an entirely new light by using a different point of view (Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defense). He does this again in Thin Blue Line, using points of view to convey a specific message about an event in history. This documentary reenacts the murder investigation of a police officer in Texas, Robert Wood, and the wrongful conviction of Randall Adams from his own point of view, exposing the corrupt justice system in Dallas County.

Morris uses the composer Phillip Glass in many of his documentaries. After I watched The Fog of War, I started listening to Glass’s work, mostly when I was doing my homework. I listen to a composition called “Metamorphosis: Metamorphosis One” often when I’m doing my homework, and I noticed a similar composition in the film, which I was able to pick up on. I really like Glass’s music, and the score for Thin Blue Line is no exception.

I spent my fall break mapping a section of the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming. Large-scale deformation here shaped the landscape and allows geologists to ably observe and study exposed rock layers on ridges, plateaus, and in valleys. As I hiked the terrain with my field team, my mind often wandered to a comparison: geology as documentary. It’s what the science is, really; geologists attempt to tell the story of this planet, on a large scale or in smaller sections. We find some product in the field and we use all resources and knowledge we have in order to tell its story.

There are many ways in which it is unexpectedly similar as well. Bias and perspective are both very real in this type of fieldwork. I read once in a book by John McPhee that the place where a geologist learns the basics, influences what they initially think of any area for their entire career. My main exposure to geology has been around Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and so Appalachian-type geology will most likely warp my vision of outcrops. However, I have also been on interim courses in areas such as Iceland, so hopefully a wider geographic beginning will help diminish my bias.

I think that perspective is as different from bias in geology as in documentary. Perspective is formed by not only where you studied but also what exactly you learned there, perhaps who your professors were and what they taught. It is formed additionally by your individual character and mind forming judgments on what you are seeing, your own nature and nurture and personal experiences.

The tangible end result of this Wyoming mapping project is a paper on the history of the studied area: in what ancient environments the rocks were laid down, and during what subsequent events they were deformed. Both of these questions are those of documentation. The paper that will exist is documenting the area.

On the surface, these two remarkable women might not be considered similar, as they are in such different fields of work. If you look past their job descriptions, however, they deal with many of the same things.

I was riveted the entirety of Cameraperson, completely invested in the people and events; they were real, and I cared. Gladstone began her talk with Las Vegas, and included other recent incidents as well, and I was once again invested; they were real, and I cared.

Filmmakers document. I interpreted Johnson’s work to be largely based on perspective; she intentionally allows viewers to understand that she is behind the camera. The people and places she films affect her just as she does them. She attempts, to the best of her ability, to tell their story.

Reporters also (should) pursue truthfulness. Gladstone discussed those who do not do as Johnson did in Cameraperson: those who skew the truth, skew the news beyond what is real. She instructed us to be wary. Gladstone, too, attempts to tell the stories of others.

The juxtaposition of Johnson and Gladstone’s talks may have been intentional or a matter of circumstance, but definitely was a productive lesson in proper documentation.

It was not until reading various people’s comments on the blog that I realized that there was a great deal of connection between what Brooke Gladstone said during our class last week, and what was driving the murder mystery in Thin Blue Line. That connection is the whole “he said/she said” argument and relates to how Brooke talked about the inaccuracy of media and reporting. A story can change, and there is always the issue of the reporter/observer’s bias or preconceived set of notions that cloud the “objective” report of what’s happening. This was evident in the Thin Blue Line, especially with how the female police officer’s story kept changing drastically about what went down the night that her partner was shot. I loved when Brooke read a bunch of news articles and showed tweets with pictures that were completely falsified information, because just like she said in class, a lot of the information and news I get is from my friends sharing articles or posts on social media. The fact that a lot of the articles and “news” we see is because of a computer program that knows what we might be interested in is just completely terrifying! Brooke was right when she said to put down our phones and our computers sometimes and after doing so in just one week, I already could feel more of a mental relief from a constant bombardment of notifications and news (mostly negative).