TMA 273 Grey Gardens Response

This documentary has been criticized by many as being a voyeuristic look into the lives of two people who are incapable of taking care of themselves. However, I did not get a sense of that at all here. I found this documentary to be extremely effective in depicting the idiosyncrasies of the lives being lived at Grey Gardens in a way that still promoted empathy and and understanding of the characters. I think that there was a potential that a depiction of this subject could have turned voyeuristic, but there was one key element that prevented this from occurring. This element was love and empathy. There were several moments throughout the film that were particularly effective in showing the love that the Maysle's brothers had for Edith and Edie. One of these was when they are all in the bedroom, and Edie is singing, and Albert and David join in with her when she does not remember the words. This moment demonstrates a stepping outside of themselves on the part of the filmmakers, and showed how much they cared for Edie. They wanted her to be successful in the performance of her song, and they were willing to put aside their roles as filmmakers to help her out.

This film depicts these characters, and they are very quirky, but the film never depicts them as an other, or as less than the people around them. Albert and David are always extremely fair, compassionate, and benevolent towards the ladies. At one point in the documentary, it becomes clear that we are so close to the ladies that people who fall more in line with cultural normativity seem strange to us. This becomes especially clear during Edith's birthday party. One of the guests is depicted as being quite reserved, and extremely uncomfortable with the loud and pestering nature of Edith and Edie. At this point in the documentary, we have spent so much time watching Edith and Edie that they do not appear as "other" here. Instead, we are so familiar with their antics that it is the reserved woman who appears resigned and uncomfortable that we see as "other."

This documentary is an effective example of the presentation of two potentially off-putting characters in a way that makes us care about them. I think that the best way that this is combatted in this documentary is letting the two subjects speak for themselves. We just follow their lives, and the Maysle's brothers never speak for Edith or Edie. This is the most effective, as the most accurate way for a person to be presented is to let them do it themselves. Humans are complex, and this situation has many layers of complexity. To have Albert and David come in and try to interpret the situation would inevitably lead to an over-simplification of the Bouviers lives, their struggles, and the things that they love and value. Instead of being an exploitation of two people who are not the most capable, letting Edith and Edie speak for themselves allows us to value their idiosyncrasies, to understand how interdependent they are, and to even find value in the lifestyles that they lead.

TMA 273 New York Doll Response

This 2005 documentary directed by Greg Whiteley is perhaps the most accurate depiction of Mormonism that I have ever seen. This documentary follows a single subject, Arthur Kane, who was the former bass guitarist for the band New York Dolls, as he reunites with his band for a music festival. This character also happened to be a Mormon who worked in the Family History Center at the Los Angeles Temple. This is a combination that has never before been documented, a devout Mormon who also happens to be a talented rock star. These are two worlds that have been set up to clash. They are in opposition with each other in almost every aspect, and yet, Arthur Kane has found a way to navigate these worlds together. Although it would seem that he is no longer fully a member of the rock world, he still is knowledgeable and a well-known figure in the rock world. Additionally, Kane's primary forms of describing aspects of the church are based in the rock world. He describes feeling the spirit as an LSD trip from the Lord, and tithing as an agent's fee. This man has managed to bridge the gap between these two most opposite of worlds.

This documentary was a hallmark of empathy and understanding, mostly demonstrated through the diverse talking head interviews that were shown. There was a true sense of democracy here, as everyone who had something to say about Arthur, his career, or his religion got to speak their mind, even when they were saying negative things about the Mormons. The Mormon director definitely did not have to include these negative statements in the final documentary. They could have pretended that everyone said positive things about Arthur's religion. Instead, they chose to allow everyone to have a voice. The diverse spectrum of voices that are present here allow for a nice spectrum of views to be demonstrated. We have the rock stars and the rock fans that are not the most positive about Mormonism, as well as the older ladies and the Mormon bishops who are not the most positive about the world of rock and roll. Right in the middle, we have the views of Arthur Kane, who never speaks ill of either world.

This democratization of voices allows for us to have a fair view of both subjects, rock and roll and Mormonism. Instead of the quasi-propagandized version of Mormonism that are present in some Mormon media, this documentary allows for a discussion that is open to both sides. This democratization of voice accomplishes important things for both the Mormon and non-Mormon audiences of this film.

For Mormons, this film allows us to understand in concrete terms that there is not one right type of Mormon. Too often, especially in areas of high LDS concentration, we have limited ourselves to a perception of cultural homogeneity that is steeped in competition and a "keeping up with the Jones's" times one thousand mentality. This statement, of course, does not detract from so many genuine displays of religiosity and spirituality that abound in this church. This church does so much good in so many thousands of ways. It just happens that a potential area of improvement is the welcoming of more people who are so vastly different from ourselves. This depiction of Arthur Kane, who has done drugs, and has lived the standard rock star lifestyle, is one that we do not often see represented in the Mormon church. This documentary functions as a way of announcing that all types of people are welcome in the Mormon church. So often, the true diversity of the international LDS church is ignored in favor of perceptions that the Mormon church is just one thing. The I'm a Mormon campaign functioned in a similar way, to prove to the world that anyone, no matter what their background, can belong in the Mormon church.

For non-Mormons, this documentary accomplishes a similar, and equally important goal. The subject of Arthur Kane is accessible to the average person. He is a rock star who is seen as interesting and worth listening to anyways. The fact that he is Mormon is irrelevant to how interesting he is to the average viewer. This documentary, filled with Arthur's links from rock star to Mormonism make our religion accessible to the average person. This documentary demystifies Mormonism by discussing it in such a unique way.

TMA 273 Doc Art Mix Tape Sundance Forum Response

During the Sundance film festival, I had the opportunity to attend a panel that was being held by Ross McElwee and Sam Green. This panel was called the Doc Art Mix Tape, and dealt with different types of documentary filmmaking. At the beginning of the panel, the moderator announced that they had originally planned to have a more formal discussion on documentary filmmaking, but that they had noticed recently that much of the discussion around documentary film has become quite negative. The moderator said that Sundance views this as a problem, especially in the wake of the vast number of documentary films that are currently being produced. As a retaliation towards this trend, they decided that the panel would just be a discussion from Ross and Sam about their favorite clips from documentaries, and why these clips were their favorite. This lent itself to a rather disjointed and quite enjoyable discussion of documentary. However, within the disjointed and informal nature of the presentation, there were several key truths that were especially pertinent. 

The first of these truths is that the most important thing when dealing with people is to have empathy for the subject. Empathy allows you as a filmmaker to connect with the subject, no matter how foreign they are to you. The empathy that the filmmaker feels naturally comes across in the final project, and allows the audience to feel empathy for the subject. Empathy is what will connect your audience to the subject of your film. Having compassion for the subject of your film brings out their humanity, no matter how much you disagree with them. Having compassion and empathy for the subjects of your film are two of the most important things that can be accomplished in documentary filmmaking. These tools allow the filmmaker to depict subjects that are three-dimensional, and are fully developed. Having compassion for even the most ornery of characters acknowledges that the people around us are more complicated than we ever fully give them credit for, and that we do not ever fully understand the people that we come in contact with. Choosing empathy allows for a more full understanding of the subject, as well as an acknowledgment that there is probably some good in that person. 

Another key documentary principle was the idea that extraordinary things can happen within restrictions. This was discussed mainly in the context of a documentary called In the Dark, by Sergei Dvortsevoy. This documentary dealt with a blind man who mainly spent his time in his small apartment in Russia. Because of his physical restrictions, the filmmakers were restricted in space and interesting things to shoot. However, by adopting a fair dose of patience, they were able to create a documentary filled with an extraordinary amount of emotion and create something that was so much more than the perceived circumstances. So many documentary filmmakers are subject to restrictions. The main one is definitely money. Is there enough money to shoot what we want to shoot? There are also restrictions on time, access, and even freedom of speech in some parts of the world. However, the gist of this forum was that we should be embracing our restrictions, because they force us to be creative, to come up with solutions, and to create extraordinary things. This same concept can be seen across the documentary world. One pertinent example is that of This is Not a Film, a 2011 film by Jafar Panahi, who was banned from making documentary films by the Iranian government. Instead of submitting to the will of an oppressive regime, Panahi works around his restrictions, and ends up creating an extraordinary film.  

There were many other bits of wisdom that were shared through the course of this forum. The filmmakers encouraged everyone to give dignity to all of their subjects, to include as immersive imagery as possible, to have a clear artistic vision, and to above all be rigorously honest and as transparent as possible. Overall. the filmmakers encouraged everyone present to keep a driving curiosity about the world around us. In the end, there is no one right way to make a documentary, and we need to be engaged with the world around us if we are going to be successful in this endeavor.