Analysis of the Documentary ‘The Cove’

From training dolphins for the famous American TV series ‘Flipper’, to now being an activist for these mammals, Ric O’Barry has been playing a major role in trying to uncover a dirty secret that is performed by the Japanese fishermen. ‘The Cove’, an Oscar-winning documentary, directed by Louie Psihoyos shows the motives and passion that O’Barry had going into filming the truth on how dolphins were being captured and slaughtered in the city of Taiji. The film was made to be an entertaining film that also tries to enlighten everybody about the dolphin hunting that was so covered by the government that even their own people had no idea what was happening in their waters. ‘The Cove’ is filled with breath-holding suspenseful music, gruesome up-close scenes, and passionate activists, that entirely circle around the plan to uncover the killings of these mammals to spread awareness without being captured first by the Japanese police.

The film took place in Taiji, Japan, where dolphin-shaped buses, signs, toys, and infrastructure filled the entire place, creating the illusion that the people here loved the dolphins. When the cast tried to stop the fisherman and asked why they killed dolphins, they say that it was a tradition for the people that lived there. However, when the casts went to the streets to interview people and asked about their traditions, the only reactions that were received and shown on their faces were only of shock and disbelief. This closeup interview scene represents the first audience that this issue has been introduced even without the film’s release which helps promote the cause and proves that it doesn’t have only the casts’ support, but also the people of Japan, to reveal this atrocity to the world.

The cruel methods used during dolphin hunting is considered mentally torturous, due to the high sensitivity sonars that dolphins have. In order to capture and lure them to a certain area, which is a cove in Taiji, that is covered by high cliffs on three sides, makes it the best place to kill these creatures without the view of the public, the fishermen use poles and hammers. By beating them together, the vibrations from the pole vibrate in the water, distressing the dolphins and causing them to frightening swim away from it. This tactic is highly useful but extremely harmful to the mental health of the dolphins, as they then spend the entire night in the cove with little space to swim around in. These actions were caught on footage by using drones that flew over the waters during the day, however, once night hits, drones are no longer an option. The majority of the film is focused on how to catch these slaughterings to use as proof for the public and scenes of camera making and camouflaging technology was displayed to show the work the cast did to promote this cause.

In order to obtain the day of slaughter and what exactly was going to happen, the team snuck in during the night and placed expert-made high-definition cameras camouflaged as huge rocks as well as underwater cameras to capture the events that were going to occur next morning. During this scene, the capturing cameras switched from one to another, showing the different angles of how the killing took place. Soon the audience could see that the entire cove’s water turned red with blood as the injured flailing dolphins struggled to breathe. This scene was first portrayed by the underwater camera as you see the color of the water turn from blue to red in a split second. This created a moment of horror as you see the water turn red and where once dolphins chirped at each other, grow silent and calm, as the waters prepared themselves to take the next day’s capture.

The usage of pathos is shown in many parts of the film. In one of the scenes, it showed the capture, transportation, and training towards a group of dolphins that would later star for the show ‘Flipper’. These dolphins were all trained under Ric O’Barry who said: “I spend 10 years building this industry and spend 35 years trying to tear it down”. From the film, interactions between the dolphins and O’Barry were shown, which had a negative effect as the main cast was showing that he himself had participated in the capturing and holding of dolphins for human entertainment. O’Barry later states the guilt he held within him when he explained the suicidal action that Kathy, a dolphin, did when she went in his arms. This created sympathy and remorse from viewers as the narrative was going on, a scene of a deceased dolphin rolling over onto its belly was playing, choreographing with the voice. “I spent ten years building, and the next 35 trying to tear down”, O’Barry says this to express his own fault for not realizing soon enough what he was doing, which was helping to build up this dolphin amusement industry where wild dolphins from Taiji are being captured, sold to amusement parks, and then slaughtered for their meat. This creates an ironic emphasize on the film because here O’Barry is trying to stop the cycle of capturing dolphins that he had helped grow. He had realized during the times of his training with the dolphins for the show, they showed him that they were sensitive intelligent creatures that understood what was going on around them.

Documentaries are usually used to teach and inform its audience of a major issue, however, the way ‘The Cove’ was written and filmed, it was more to inform but to express the propaganda movement from Taiji. In the film, scenes of people buying meat and children eating dolphin meat in their school lunch were displayed to show how much of an influence this ‘movement’ was to the Japanese economy. However, the government did not inform the public of the high concentration of mercury that exists in dolphin meat, which will cause many neurological and behavioral disorders. When the cast told this to two Japanese councilmen, they were instantly emotional that they have been allowing this meat to be fed to their children that were in school. This scene also showed rallied support from just not the cast but the higher-ups of Japan as well.

Another reason that the Taiji fishermen used to support their cause was that they need to control the number of dolphins, or ‘pest control’. They express this by showing footage of the IWC (International Whaling Committee) meetings that showed the agreement of other countries that approved of this ‘pest control’. However, the filmmakers took it a step ahead to find out why these countries would agree to these monstrous actions and found out the reason as to how allies are made; money and recognition. During the uncovering of these secrets, videos of the whaling areas in the countries that supported Japan showed low fishing activity and instead of whaling industries as they said during the IWC meetings, the only thing that was plentiful was the poultry running around. This shows the corruption of government trying to prove their point and continue their practices; through the usage of power and money, as in return for their vote, they get a seat on the committee and a voice on an international issue.

Just as O’Barry obtained the footage of the slaughtering of the dolphins from the hidden cameras, he snuck into the IWC conference with the video of the bloody red blood and bleeding dolphins strapped to his body and stood in front of the entire committee to show what was actually going on. The filmmaker included this part because it showed the first step of standing for what’s right and to raise awareness for a wealthy industry that is widely known and participating in unethical movements to gain their assets.

The audio of the film is very important and crucial to the buildup of the issue that is being broadcasted. ‘The Cove’ can be broken down into three different audio parts that make up the whole film: narration, actual footage, and dialogue. During the narrator’s storytelling, there will either be sinister or calm music playing in the background supporting the storyline and helping to express the mood of the events occurring. Also, as interviewers spoke during the film, the music would go along as well with their speech. If it was a serious conversation or question that was being asked, the silence or low music would immediately start playing, helping to represent the mood of that particular scene. However, during moments of actual footage, you can hear all the background audio that the footage has which makes it more realistic to the audience, and in turn, makes it better for them to believe.

The scene that caused the most emotional trauma was captured by hidden cameras from the morning of the slaughtering the cove. Starting from that scene, the clicking and the vocals from the dolphins amplified off the film audio filling it entirely up from the start of the killing to the silence after, when only bloody red water can be heard and seen from a far distance. These actual live footage sounds show the truly horrifying actions of these ruthless Taiji fishermen, that kill these beautiful sensitive creatures so brutally just for their meat and to make a profit. The usage of these sounds, live footage, and people will make this documentary an unforgettable film and hopefully a call for action to all people so that the waters of Taiji shall never turn red again.

Essence of Neo-Colonialism in the Documentary ‘Life and Debt’ and Kwame Nkrumah’s Essay ‘Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism’

Kwame Nkrumah in his essay ‘Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism’ unleashes two different dimensions where in theory a neo-colonial state seems independent and sovereign but in reality, that state’s economic system, political policy, cultural practices are influenced/controlled by external powers. In the documentary ‘Life and Debt’, directed by Stephanie Black, the director has carefully presented how external power such as the IMF entered Jamaica to save its economy from the financial crisis, but in reality, it was just exploitation of less developed countries like Jamaica. This clearly depicts the theory/reality approach taken by Kwame Nkrumah to present neo-colonialism.

The documentary ‘Life and Debt’ right after riots/crisis like situations start with a speech by the director of the International Monetary Fund, Horst Köhler, who said: “The issue is to make globalization work for all. There will be no good future for the rich if there is no prospect for a better future for the poor”. This substantiates Kwame Nkrumah’s idea in his essay where he mentions how great powers wait for a threshold crisis moment in less developed countries to gain control over the economy. Neo-colonialist control is exercised through economic or monetary means which was clearly depicted in the documentary, where Jamaican leader in 1970’s, Michael Manley, when visited Washington for a loan, the IMF dictated terms and conditions for loans, where they said they will provide only short-term loans under their conditions, but would not entertain any discussion about long-term solutions.

Kwame Nkrumah explains in his essay how foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world, which can be related to Manley’s speech, where he says: “In Washington, they just looked at us and said: ‘No, no, no. Your inflation last year was 18% and we are not allowing you to lend to your farmers at 12%. You must charge 23%’”. This clearly explains the slow and steady future plan of the IMF to cripple the domestic economy of Jamaica and in the long-term leading to establishing a footprint of developed countries through the vehicle of free markets.

The short-term loan to save the economy came with a huge packet of burden and immense restrictions on the state of Jamaica on all fronts. Jamaica’s post-independence struggle to rebuild was not in its own hand anymore. Jamaica’s continuing financial crises, high unemployment, lawlessness, and social turmoil have to be seen against the background of IMF/World Bank policies that successive governments have been forced to pursue for well over two decades. ‘Life and Debt’ depict how those policies have impacted different sections of Jamaican society in general.

The story of local farmers where they used to make a decent living selling by their products to the local market before the IMF insisted on the removal of tariffs on imported goods. In this documentary, the IMF had couple policies that Jamaica had to follow in order to receive the money from them, which were that Jamaica had to cut off funding their education programs, unemployment benefits, and finally to the local Jamaican industries. The IMF did not handle the Jamaican situation fairly nor properly because their poor decision just kept on bringing in more trouble and problems for the Jamaican economy to handle. Throughout the entire documentary, Black portrayed a variety of examples about how the IMF’s poor decision actually made the Jamaican economy worse. Now they cannot compete with cheap imported onions, carrots and potatoes from the USA. The same story is told in the documentary when dairy unit pours the milk down the drain, because they cannot compete with the cheap imported subsidized milk powder from the US. We hear similar concerns from the chicken farmer, whose business is no longer viable, because his 50-cents-a-pound chicken cannot compete with the 20-cents-a-pound chicken parts from the US. There are also testimonies from banana farmers, whose industry has been devastated by the US-instigated WTO ruling that robs them of their secured tariff-free markets in Europe. These stories remind lines of Kwame, that is, “obligation of the neo-colonialist state to take manufactured products from imperial power through the exclusion of competing for products from domestic markets by liberating checks & balances, i.e., tariffs, etc.”.

In ‘Life and Debt’, a huge disconnect between what Jamaica is commercialized as to those outside its borders is shown, and also how life in Jamaica is really like for its natives. The gap between the two is so large, that one wouldn’t even think that they coexist. By showcasing these two different perspectives and placing them side-by-side, Black was able to create a major contrast between the two, which in essence made them easier to compare. We see Jamaica through the eyes of the tourist where whites pass through customs easily at the airports while the natives were checked intensively before they were allowed to pass through. Antiguan novelist Jamaica Kincaid’s essay ‘A Small Place’ is aptly adopted to provide a poetic narrative in the documentary, Kincaid says, “You move through customs easily, you move through customs with ease. While your bags are not searched”. We also see in documentary that the tourist rarely encounters, i.e., slum dwellers watch themselves on news footage of riots, political violence, and industrial unrest. Footage of the slums of Kingston is underscored by reggae and ragga music and dub poetry, lyrical meditations on the state of the nation. “I and I want to rule I destiny”, chants Buju Banton. This reality from the documentary can be backed from Kwame’s theory where he says an ideal neo-colonial state will be wholly subservient to neo-colonialist interests. In the documentary actions like the ease of customs access difference to whites/natives, one-sided picture of Jamaica which portrays it as a paradise on the earth clearly cements Kwame’s thoughts where the state is working for benefit of their neo-colonial masters, not towards the welfare of the people.

In his essay, Kwame mentions lines quoted by Karl Marx, i.e., the growing gap between the wealth of the possessing classes and the workers it employs would ultimately produce a conflict fatal to capitalism in each individual capitalist state. The documentary shows numerous examples of class conflict in Jamaica where laborers started attacking/vandalizing properties of factories when they were shutdown. It quotes examples of Jamaica Broilers Spring Village plant attack and frustration of beef farmers from several pastures of Jamaica who staged a protest near McDonald’s, which is importing cheap meat from the USA.

The documentary ‘Life and Debt’ and Kwame Nkrumah’s essay both clearly explain the genesis of neo-colonialism, the essence of it, different forms it has taken to achieve its end goal, impact it has created on economic/social/cultural landscape of Jamaica. Even though the context and interpretation of neo-colonialism are different, but the approach adopted to give essence was similar. The essence of neo-colonialism was outlined and connected from different themes in both works.

“I Am not Your Negro” Versus “Chisholm ‘72”: Comparative Analysis of Documentaries

1. Compare and contrast, evaluate and critique, the use and effect of archival footage in the nonfiction films we have studied across weeks 9-14. “I am not your Negro” vs. “Chisholm ‘72”

Beyond the presentation of archival documentaries, it has fallen into two unfortunate groups. There’s the conventional variety of “archival doc” that consists of basic talking head interviews intercut with old footage and photographs, much of it rather randomly selected and presented. Much of these films are stiff and tend to lack cinematic innovation. Then there are films that are entirely or almost entirely made up of archival material, and for many years these were deemed so unconventional as to be thought ineligible for consideration by the Oscars. There are many films within the define section of an “archival doc”. Films that uncover, recover, resurrect, or present for the first time are among the archival doc that allows a lot of film material shot by the same cinematographers for the same purposes. Among the films that presents archival footage are from newly shots and interviews of other people and so other freshly filmed scenes disrupt the flow of the archives just as stationary interview shots can interrupt an otherwise observational “verité” documentary. Comparing and contrasting the use of archival footages in documentaries, there are many key elements of films that is entirely relevant to the term. Although there are other films that show little or more key factors of archival ]footages, such films of archival footage can be seen in, “I am not your Negro” and “Chisholm ’72: Unbought and Unbossed”, is arguably more compelling upon motion pictures and cinematography that set of photography of historical material.

A lot of today’s archival docs have noteworthy or at least just more noticeable music scores, which can indeed help to guide the audience through the material with a singular element that is steady and persistent. In I Am Not Your Negro, it shows refreshing images of the black community in other ways, choosing to colorize the majority of civil rights movement footage to ensure audiences see them freed of the monochrome trappings of the past. It is possibly one of the most insightful and prescient visual documents on civil rights and race that has ever been committed to screen. The images and sound of the film shows a great vital documentary of a gripping and deeply upsetting essay on the American racial divide, and essentially the images on screen is the perspective-altering the view of the film. These type of documentary footages and recordings from historical events that happened in historical reality are created or staged, such as fiction footage. The indexical bond between the footage and the event it represents is what gives documentary its truth claim. In I am not your Negro, The recorded image becomes a piece of historical evidence that is demonstrating the physical look of a historical event in a way no fictional likeness can ever duplicate.

Vaughan writes, “a film “documentary” is the way we look at it; and the history of documentary is to see its meaning as pertinent to the events and object which passed before the camera: to see it, in a word, as signifying what it appears to record”.

Through this we see the archive material and footage of the directors aim to confront the past and the present by examining the position of how black man holds in American society. The clash between old and contemporary clips and images in I Am Not Your Negro correlates the racial tensions of the mid-1950s and late 1960s as well as the murders of the three central figures of the Civil Rights Movement.

Moving on comparing to Chisholm’72: Unbought and Unbossed, the archival footage rom her campaign trail, tells an important story about how Chisholm’s amazing presidential run changed America’s political landscape forever. Watching American history through the eyes of Chisholm ’72 means one will never see racism, sexism, and politics quite the same way again. Through the eyes of Shirley Chisholm, it engages a greater aspect of archival documentary and within both films. We see the aspect of Black African Americans fighting for their freedom, that allows viewers to see beyond the screen. Both films entirely show how great historical events can change within the record of random tapes put together. Tapes that compel the audience of such historical events leading to montages of such great people. Much of both the films show a montage sequence that conveys ideas visually by putting them in a specific order in the film. In both films, the narrative montages involving the planning of sequence of shots are used to indicate changes in time and place within a film. The idea in I Am Not Your Negro shows the historical events of the Civil Right Movement and the murder of three heroic individuals. The random tapes of the places and time within the montage positions us to believe a certain theme presented by the documentary and this the documentary presents its view much more persuasively to the viewer. This acts as a pre-view to the rest of the documentary and sets up the true meaning behind the records of the tape and the subtext beyond the screen. As of the presidential run of Shirley Chisholm the ideational montages are linked together by her actions with words and how the film persuasively tells the audience she is the main star in the film which is often used in archival documentaries. This visual representation of the characters thoughts helps position the viewer in the story, and helps the viewer better understand what the character is saying. It visually presents a progression of ideas on a screen. Both of these films are viewed upon within a photo or sequence of montages that convey the audience in the same fashion of compelling storytelling.

I argue that what makes footage read as “archival” is the effect within a given film generated by the juxtaposition of shots perceived as produced at different moments in time. In both these films, some shots are perceived and produced different in time, though it connects various examples of other recordings within the film. In these pictures below, I Am Not A Negro and in Chisholm ‘72 show the compelling speeches of these great individuals.

It shows the production of temporal disparity which often produces archival effects within a film, but also creating a “archival affect”. The archival effect of the images of both films are confronted by the epistemological effect but also an emotional speech among the film. Which is one based in the revelation of temporal disparity. In other words, not only do we invest archival documents with the authority of the “real” past, but also with the feeling of loss and power among the speeches. Certainly, there is always some temporal gap between the moment of any film and its receptions. Indeed, much of the older films make us particularly aware of the difference between the “now” of the film in time and the audiences view of the “now” then.

Contrasting to the both films, viewers and audiences recognize the films as such in an appropriation film. Thus, it generates a sense of multiple contexts and double meaning of the films. Even if these are vague and indeterminate, the fact of the recontextualization of the found documents and tapes set it as an appropriation film that creates the opportunity for multiple readings of the documentaries. The use of archival footage in I Am Not Your Negro is inevitably seen as of the kept tapes of the Civil Right Movement while in Chisholm ’72 shows a period in time of interviews with supporters, opponents, observers, and Chisholm’s own commentary all that illuminates her groundbreaking initiative speeches, as well as political and social currents.

In one of the clips where Shola Lynch used archival footage in Chisholm ’72, Shirley Chisholm says by discussing the ideas of how black woman can be in power and how her speech conveys the audience and the people in the film to appreciate her. A sentence that she says during the scene around the thirty-minute mark of the film, she proudly conveys her audiences and supporters by saying “she is the candidate of the people of America” (Shirley Chisholm), while footages of the Civil Right Movement and other correlation of woman being in power, plays a huge role in the aesthetic view of archival footages within her speech. Though contrasting to I Am Not Your Negro, photos of racism plays a huge role in this archival footage.

Through the eyes of the audience, we see flashbacks of racism within the black African- American community and the white. We also see the captures of various landscapes within the film of a city or place in time. These types of variations that play among the film moves in such a credential way that allows us to see the past and the future beyond the screen.

Although, there are similarities but there is also a lot of differences of the film I Am Not Your Negro and Chisholm ’72: Unbought and Unbossed, they both have archival footages that are indeed fascinating. The types of cinematography of montages of photos and sequences play among by visually persuading viewers to see through the eyes of the past. Archival documentaries are just about presenting comprehensive histories and not, in that sense of film cases, but more expressive and limited to the point-of-view that mixes history and art together. As if it is the idea of artistic and experimental archival documentary within both films.

Work Cited

Articles

  1. David. “Jones, David Vaughan (1933–2012), Dai_Vaughan_Aesthetics_of_Ambiguity_1992 (87)
  2. David. “Jones, David Vaughan (1933–2012), Vaughan_What_1986 (108)

Video

  1. (I Am Not Your Negro, 53:05)
  2. (Chisholm ’72: Unbought and Unbossed, 30:54)

Life and Death of a Serial Killer: Critical Essay

Many documentary narratives are heavily influenced by the unique relationship present between documentarian and their subject. Whether friendly, professional, neutral, or intimate, this connection ultimately skews the product’s position upon its’ subject matter and poses difficulties in exploring the subject matter in the manner intended by its’ documentarian. The choices in how each of the following documentarians presents their product in both narrative form and point of view, their relationship with their subject, and their subject’s agency in the final product each impact the ethics of the documentary and the perception of its audiences. The films to be discussed, Errol Morris’ 1988 ‘Thin Blue Line’, Albert and David Maysles ‘Gimme Shelter’, and Nick Broomfield’s ‘Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer’ each feature distinct relationships between documentarian and subject, and the effects of such may have gleamed through close analysis and comparison of the aforementioned films.

Vital to consider in the construction of the documentary is the amount of agency the subject has in the final product. This may be seen most profoundly within the context of ‘Gimme Shelter’ in that the subject, the band The Rolling Stones, has almost total control over the direction of the film. As Aaron Taylor surmises, “Zwerin and [the] Maysles were quite aware of the band’s power … [to] exercise legal control over the use of its image” (Taylor A. 2014). Such power would explain the many omissions within the film as well as the directorial voice of neutrality, and Taylor further claims that this relationship forces a “tacitly critical [view] of the Stones’ role in the disastrous concert. This veiled power dynamic presents ethical implications for the film as a whole, as it may be interpreted as adversely impacting the honesty of the product. The extent to which “Gimme Shelter” is able to implicate the Stones is far more nuanced, and most apparent during the final shots of the film. The directors had opted to end the film with a shot of Jagger, the group’s leader, in an intimate close-up still directly after presenting the group’s escape from the anarchistic crowd and right before slow shots of the sunrise purview of the aftermath of the concert. This implication of guilt is the extent to which the directors can effectively frame the Rolling Stones as having a part played in the “disastrous free concert” (Cheshire G. 2009). Whilst it cannot be claimed definitively, it is plausible that given the angle the directors had taken throughout the film, that had they more agency in their own product then they would have made a more damning piece on the Rolling Stones.

This level of control on behalf of the social actors is contrasted within the film “Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer”, which features an incarcerated and mentally ill subject. Furthermore, this level of control is furthered due to Broomfield’s subject being deceased at the point of the film’s release, as well as his maintaining a positive relationship with his subject, as opposed to the purely professional relationship present in Maysles’s film. This relationship is especially apparent within Broomfield’s film, as he is eventually left as the only person with access to Aileen Wuornos, depicted visually by the almost empty interview room on the day prior to her execution. Portrayed through her morbid statement to director Broomfield that ‘I love you, man’ as she is taken away handcuffed, is the interrelating balance between trust and helplessness; Wuornos is physically unable to control how Broomfield portrays her, save her own conscious choices to look damningly into the camera lens, as much as she is unwilling to do so on account of her apparent faith in the director. Yet during this same scene the problems apparent in this relationship are shown, as Broomfield discreetly records Wuornos disclosing clearly private information to him, he arguably becomes ironically a culprit of what Wuornos abhorred most: someone who ‘[used her] for books and movies and shit’.

Thusly, by opposing Broomfield’s ‘Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer’ to ‘Gimme Shelter’ the great importance of a social actor’s agency can be viewed. Whereas the almost total agency of the Rolling Stones forced a subtle and implicative critique of the band, the contrary total lack of agency on behalf of Aileen Wuornos resulted in the director effectively having the total ability to use, and arguably to abuse, his subject’s image.

A further important feature to note from each documentary is how audiences’ perceptions of the social actors and subjects are impacted by each film’s perspective. In each documentary, the documentarian utilizes specific film techniques and principles in order to frame their narrative in an effective way, and this is perhaps most perceptible within Morris’ film. Morris’s narrative is built in such a way that it introduces consequences before actions: the film opens with Randall Adams and David Harris in prison uniforms. The sincere expression of Adams opposes the relaxed and unconcerned portrayal of Harris, and Morris gradually tells audiences more and more about the crime that was committed, and through this highlights the inconsistencies present throughout the case. The visual presentation of the diverse and changing testimonies are presented, as Özlem Kaymaz claims, “[using] fictional narration style to manipulate actuality” (Kaymaz, Ö, 2012). As Kaymaz continues, “Morris dramatically recalls details of witness’s explanations demonstrating the incompatibility between almost all [of] the versions”, ultimately concluding that “with the aid of editing [Morris] allows us to hear all the versions of the truth, and decide on our own”. It should also be considered that Morris’s style of filming does not neatly align with any given mode of documentary-making, but instead employs fictional narrative conventions, such as presenting conflicting stories sequentially that counteract one another, in order to provide a story that “reads like a modern crime [drama]”. Through presenting his documentary almost as a drama, Morris ultimately succeeds in breaking down the established truth of the case and in doing so is able to best highlight the erroneous nature of the case.

Juxtaposing the unorthodox style of Morris’s documentary is that of ‘Gimme Shelter’. Originally shot in order to detail the events of the Rolling Stones’ 1969 tour, Maysles’s documentary largely adheres to observational contexts, most likely due to them having been unable to know that they would eventually capture a killing on film. Like Morris’s work, ‘Gimme Shelter’ is also portrayed non-linearly, and the film opens on a shot of the Rolling Stones standing in the editing room, reviewing the footage, which later evolves into the group listening back on a radio studio recounting the chaos of the concert. Whilst in ‘Thin Blue Line’ this nonlinear format was used in order to break down the events that transpired, in Maysles’s work it is instead used to imply a sense of retrospective reflection. Long and quiet close-up shots of the group members build a sense of intimacy and deep thought, adding to the mindful contemplation. This is further supported as later in the film the group is portrayed in a sweeping close-up, listening to their pre-recorded song, where the slow movements of the camera and the long time spent focusing on their faces add to the air of melancholy. Through generating a tone of thoughtfulness and portraying the Rolling Stones as if they are reflecting, the Maysles simultaneously suggests that the band is both mature yet also partially at fault. This careful construction of the Stones’ image as reflective effectively frames them throughout the entire piece as thoughtful and requires considerable contemplation on the audience’s behalf in order to understand the critical lens of the Maysles brothers.

Whereas ‘Thin Blue Line’ utilized a narrative-style perspective and lens to draw attention to the logical fallacies present in the case, ‘Gimme Shelter’ uses its traditionalism to frame the Rolling Stones on the surface as commendable for their maturity despite the outcome of the free concert. In spite of the wildly different techniques used, both documentaries ultimately utilize deliberate perspectives in order to frame the social actors in a favorable manner.

Furthermore, the documentarian’s objective, and how it impacts or was impacted by their relationship with the subject, is an important consideration when discussing each product. Broomfield’s product displays a particularly distinct relation between his intention and his subject, for he attempts to criticize the state of Florida’s choice to execute Aileen Wuornos, and by extension critiques the death penalty as a whole. Broomfield’s intent becomes clear when considering the documentary’s voice; Broomfield’s investigation into Wuornos’s situation is not made to absolve her of any guilt, but to instead confirm her mental instability, hence condemning the decision to execute her. Broomfield’s tone is best described as rational, as he primarily attempts to deal with facts, being reluctant to appeal to the audience’s emotions, save for when he discusses Wuornos’s childhood. His ever-present narrations are almost tone-deaf themselves and set a mood for the documentary as a whole. Likewise, Broomfield places an emphasis on Wuornos’s detachment through long, intimate close-ups of her recounting the conspiracies and manipulations of the government during her final press conference, heavily implying that she is a deranged individual. Through these techniques, Broomfield concludes that Aileen is a mentally incapable individual, thusly damning her execution as a political and exploitative choice.

Because of Wuornos’s death by the time the documentary was released, the film had no ongoing effect upon the documentarian and subject’s relationship, but it is nonetheless important to consider how Broomfield reached his contention with the subject in his mind. Ultimately, Broomfield’s film neither directly supports nor undermines Wuornos’s position as a serial killer, but instead uses her story to discuss the morality of the death sentence, having it been used upon a person not sound of mind. In this sense, considering that Wuornos herself appeared to have trusted Broomfield, as well as the film using her image to denounce capital punishment and not its subject, it may be suggested that Broomfield’s film was not an ethical breach of confidence to his subject.

Errol Morris’s documentary features some shared similarities with ‘Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer”, but there are also notable points of differences, with special regard to the outcome of the documentary. Of the similarities, the most notable is the initial relationship with the subject. Much as Broomfield was privy to Wuornos’s private life because of the mutual trust shared between the two, Morris was able to produce his film because of his amiable relationship with Randall Adams. In this regard, Morris’s contention may have been impacted by his relation to Adams, much as Adams’s relation with Morris may have been impacted by his documentary’s contention: it is likely that as Adams and Morris shared the goal of pardoning Adams, cooperation would have benefitted both documentarian and social actor. As both parties, therefore, may be attempting to push an agenda, the reliability of the product may be summarily skewed. This may be seen as contrasting Broomfield’s product, in which he is depicted having to pry information about the truth of Wuornos’s killings from her, as opposed to the common agenda present in Morris’s film.

However, where the two products majorly differ is in the aftermath of the film’s release. Randall Adams’s death sentence was ultimately overturned, but he subsequently attempted to fight Morris in court to regain the rights to his story. Although an agreement was reached outside of court that effectively returned the rights back to Adams, Morris addresses the innate ethical question here with a statement made to Wisconsin Public Radio, that “[Adams] felt as though I had stolen something from him.” (Morris, E. 2004), regarding his life’s story. Adams claimed that he did not sue for any money, and the “matter was resolved before having to go before a judge. Mr. Morris reluctantly agreed that I had the sole rights to my life”. Had such a dispute occurred prior to the film’s release, it may be considered whether or not the product would have eventuated in the manner it did, if it were completed at all. Both referenced documentarians share a few key features, most notably a willing cooperation with their subject. In either case, the documentarian’s product is only possible because of their relationship with their subject, although while in the case of Morris’s work, there is a shared goal that may result in overt bias, whilst Broomfield is forced to, at times, pry information out of his unstable subject.

In conclusion, a vital aspect to consider when discussing the ethics, stylistic choices and documentary style, perspective, and the ultimate goal of documentaries is that of the documentarian’s relation to their subject. The power dynamic and general relationship shared between the two parties impacts a multitude of components of the resultant documentary, ranging from impacting how the social actors are portrayed, the perspective taken by the film, how the documentarian reaches his conclusion, and how that conclusion is made apparent. ‘Gimme Shelter’ is highly affected by the degree of agency of its subject material, which ultimately shapes how the narrative is formed and how the Maysles brothers reach their objective. ‘Thin Blue Line’s willing subject may have resulted in a biased agenda being present, affecting the ethicality of the project, whereas the mentally deranged and deceased social actor in ‘Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer’ presents its own unique ethical complications.

reflective Essay on Extraordinary Tale of Harriet Tubman’s Escape from Slavery

One film that I’ve seen recently, which I think deserves merit is the movie Harriet. According to IMDb (Internet Movie Database), this film is based on the thrilling and inspirational life of an iconic African American freedom fighter. Harriet tells the extraordinary tale of Harriet Tubman’s escape from slavery and her transformation into one of America’s greatest heroes. This film was released on November 1, 2019 and has a 6.5/10 rating on IMDb. Harriet Tubman was born into slavery in Dorchester, Maryland, and she escaped enslavement and made her way, alone and on foot, over 100 miles to freedom in Pennsylvania. Her original name was Araminta Ross but she was called “Minty.” When she escaped slavery, she changed her name to Harriet Tubman. Over the years, Harriet risked her life often by making a total of thirteen trips back in Maryland and the southern United States to rescue dozens of other slaves. One of the strengths of this film is that it tells Tubman’s story in a straightforward, unembellished way, without sermonizing or pity, condescension or scolding. This film was written by director Kasi Lemmons in collaboration with Gregory Allen Howard, who’s also the screenwriter behind the fact-based inspirational drama “Remember the Titans” in 2000, “Harriet” draws its enormous emotional power by depicting the harsh and often difficult historical facts in a serio-documentary style.

This film is important to history because it’s based on a real person and events and teaches our younger generation about the struggle our ancestors went through. However, this movie has gotten a lot of mixed reviews and at first, I was skeptical about watching this film, but I must say, after reading up on Harriet Tubman thoroughly before going to see this movie, I’m glad that I didn’t pass on this. This movie has a lot of passion in it and really shows who Harriet was as a person, it details her accomplishments, and does a great job of being an entertaining film. Some people may say that this movie glorified one race more than another, but, in my opinion, it showed that Harriet was fighting for humanity with both black and white allies. There are white slave owners that are depicted realistically and I found myself disgusted at the horrific mindset they had and how they abused their slaves, but also there are black slave catchers who help the slaveowners retrieve their slaves with brutality that was hard to watch at times, but it goes to show again that this movie is trying to show that the Underground Railroad and the anti-slavery movement was supported wholeheartedly by both races. During hard times in my life, I would always compare my life to that of my ancestors as slaves and found gratitude because I cannot imagine how my ancestors did not become extinct with the horrific conditions they endured. Harriet Tubman was an amazing woman and every time I hear of her it’s unbelievable how much she accomplished to be from such meager means. I really enjoyed this movie because it highlighted her strong faith in God. It changed the common narrative that Christianity was only valuable to white slave owners to subdue slaves, but actually despite what intentions slave-owners had when introducing Christianity to slaves, it backfired because faith in Christ and his suffering provided the narrative that gave the slaves hope. I believe Harriet had spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit, because she did things that were humanly impossible, but with God all things are possible. It is believed that she started seeing these visions after an angry overseer threw a two-pound iron weight at a slave trying to run away, striking Harriet in the head by accident. I hate that many blacks don’t know our history very well and the pieces they know are used to keep them enslaved versus using these stories to empower them and give hope.

The overall appearance of this film is extraordinary. The antebellum backdrop is detailed and authentic, perfectly capturing the scenery and tussling moods of a nation locked in the unyielding struggle between freedom and bondage. According to an article written by Collen Curran of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, this movie was filmed in Virginia last year from late July through November, during some of the most challenging weather conditions. In my opinion, this movie was a natural fit for Virginia because of its historic settings. Everything in this film felt so real, especially the scene where Harriet is seen crossing the river. Being in an environment that had the tragic history and presence of slavery made this film immeasurably authentic because the cast did such a good job portraying those characters. Also, there were so many night scenes and I was astonished by how the director came up with the proper lighting. Much of the film takes place in heavily wooded areas, portraying the routes that escaped slaves probably took to avoid capture.

Although this film is an exceptional piece of work, I do feel that the name of the film should be different. The reason being is because this film focuses more on Harriet Tubman’s escape and doesn’t go into debt with her life story. This film portrays Harriet as a real-life action hero rescuing dozens of slaves. After seeing the movie I decided that I needed a lot more information, in order to find out if some parts of the film were real or fabricated. Based on what I’ve learnt from documentaries and history books, I can agree that some parts of the film were fiction. In my opinion, this film should have been named the underground railroad because much of the film is taken up with Harriet’s attempts to rescue her family members. Movies like Harriet, Lincoln and Hidden figures deserve merit because they educate the viewers. There may be a few downfalls with the film, but the message is still being delivered. According to an article written by Scott Mendelson, “Harriet is a good story, well-told and handsomely staged in traditional Hollywood biopic splendor with an attention to different details that makes it more than just a Mad Libs “based on a true story” drama.”

The cast of this film deserves a stand in ovation for a job well done. In my opinion, this movie deserves an Oscar for best picture and Cynthia Erivo deserves an Oscar for best actress. Cynthia Erivo wrapped and intertwined her very essence into this role to present a convincing portrait of one of America’s greatest heroes. According to an article written by Anne Thompson of IndieWire, she states that “Casting directors have long considered Broadway’s Erivo as a rising star and she has already taken home a Tony, an Emmy, and a Grammy for performing “The Color Purple.” She is now eligible to receive an Oscar for her role as Harriet Tubman. There are many other slave movies out there that are excellent and have received merit, but none I’ve seen so far compares to Harriet. I like how they incorporated a fictional character by the name of Bigger Longer who has never been mentioned in history before. Maybe the director, wanted to depict that archetypal black traitor in history that always aligned with white interests to prevent black progress.

Importance Of Education Based On The Documentary Surfwise

Up to eighteen years of age in the life of a typical American teenager, completing high school studies is mandated by the US government. However, this raises a crucial question. Is the education provided by schools enough to make one ready for the real world? In backward countries, where not every child has the privilege of attending schools, children usually learn from what they see happen around them. It is their surroundings and experiences that teach them what they know. For instance, even in small villages, children know that a balanced diet and daily exercise are the fundamentals for a healthy life. In reality, education is not only reading off of books, answering questions, and getting good grades in tests, rather it is a combination of that and the real-world experience one acquires. Both these aspects together justify the true meaning of education.

The documentary Surfwise is about a family that chose to make unique decisions in their lives. The head of the family, Dorian “Doc” Paskowitz gave up his successful career of practicing medicine as a physician, after graduating from Stanford, to pursue the adrenaline of huge waves as a professional surfer. Doc shared that he was not happy with the profession and even took a trip to Israel to find his true calling. After returning to the States, in a much happier state than when he had gone there, Doc married his third wife and for about twenty-five years of his marriage to Juliette, the couple with their nine children were on the road, traveling left and right the latitudes of United States. All of his children never received any formal education since Doc did not believe in the education system of the country. But, he still instilled the importance of wisdom in them. Doc told his kids that he would give them a dollar a day and they could surf all day long but they would work for him. Later, the Paskowitz family opened the “Paskowitz surf camp”, and since then he and his family have been given the title of “the First Family of Surfing”.

Throughout the lives of the Paskowitz kids, they have had nowhere close to a formal education even though their father graduated from one of the prestigious ivy leagues. Doc believed that the education system was not useful and true wisdom came from real-world experiences and meeting new people. Despite being a Stanford graduate, his views on the education system were often vastly different from others and it was under those ideologies that his nine kids had to spend their childhood. However, Doc made sure that he imbibed them with the pivotal knowledge of healthy living, comprising of a healthy mind and body. According to the eldest son, David Paskowitz, they would wake up at the crack of dawn, exercise, and be expected to practice surfing all day long, improving day by day. One of his other kids also mentioned how he advocated natural low-calorie diets, such as eating multi grains for breakfast, in addition to heavy exercise. As a result, several of the Paskowitz children became professionals at the sport and even won many contests. Doc and Juliette chose to raise their kids in an unconventional manner, but they made sure to instill the basic knowledge of healthy living in all of them. Now, almost all of them are in some part of the entertainment industry, be it a member in a band, actor, producer, director, and others.

This documentary provides us with a unique look and makes us question what true knowledge really is. Is it what we learn in school and choose never to apply, or what we experience but decide not to completely understand? I do believe that Doc and Juliette Paskowitz had fulfilled their parental responsibility to educate their children for adult life. I take from this documentary that education is not merely just going to school and being textbook ready, rather having real-world experiences too so we achieve the best of both worlds. In the documentary, Doc said, ‘education means wisdom; wisdom you get from experience living, people that you meet and an everyday kind of life and that is what my children had a lot of’ (Surfwise). Paskowitz kids were given the valuable education of commitment, dedication, discipline, and self-dependency. ‘My children may not be as wise in the ways of the man,” Doc said about the way he raised his kids. “But they are wise in the ways of Mother Nature and how the world works. It’s more important because, in the long run, education wears off” (in Haro). Navah, being the only girl amongst her eight brothers also have been taught these values. Matter of fact, “from the age of 15 and without any formal education, Navah supported herself by singing in a band with her brother Adam (now the lead singer of The Flys and Jetliner), modeling swimsuits, designing a women’s wetsuit line, and working summers at her family’s surf camp on a beach near San Clemente, Calif” (in Ghert-Zand). All nine Paskowitz children, even though they never had formal education, have grown to become professionals in their own specific fields in the entertainment industry, such as singing, producing, directing, and even modeling.

Watching the story of this family reminds me of the countless children that are never given the opportunity to study in a school in villages across India. However, they still struggle and choose to live healthy life. I often see many people walking out with big macs on a daily basis preferring to eat in an unhealthy fashion even though they are educated enough to know how bad it is for their bodies in the long run. In contrast, villagers who have no formal education, practice a healthy diet plan and choose to exercise daily to maintain a good lifestyle. This difference makes me realize that it is not just how much education or knowledge one acquires, the key is whether or not they can put that knowledge to good use. An excellent example is Narendra Modi, the current Prime Minister of India. Modi had very humble beginnings and lacked a college education, however, he persevered and earned his degrees at a time many his age already have real estate investments. But now, Modi has broken all stereotypes, proudly standing as the fourteenth Prime Minister of India. His achievements show us that it is not gaining the education that matters, rather putting that education to use to help people around you.

Education is pivotal in our lives, but the way one receives it is not of much importance. Doc and Juliette chose not to send their kids to formal schooling because they believed that their children needed to have the vital knowledge that schools did not provide. Even then, they fulfilled their parental responsibility of educating their children by making them experience a wholesome life and teaching them the art of commitment, dedication, discipline, and self-dependency. From this assignment, I have learned to think about life as a school, where one has to pass each test by using their own wisdom and knowledge and the experiences one has gained along the way.

Documentary Analysis on Blue Gold: World Water Wars

I have seen the Blue Gold documentary movie and enjoyed watching it. It was directed, co-produced, and co-written by Sam Bozzo. He is also the editor of the movie. It is made in the United States. This documentary is based on the book Blue gold: The fight to stop the corporate Theft of the world’s water by Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke. People are fighting with nature for living on this planet.

In this whole movie, I saw the journey of Pablo Valencia from Mexico to California for the search problems of gold in 1906. He survived without drinking water. He faced a lot of problems during that period. He was facing the problem of breathing as his saliva becomes thicker and a lump formed in his throat which cause many problems for him. His skin starts shrinking up and was looking very dull. His lips almost disappeared. His eyes were also expressing an unsuccessful start. We can say that this movie is generally not based on saving our environment but on saving ourselves. Jim Olson also speaks about the environmental effect on our life. This is a very genuine and critical issue in the concern of access to water. It destroys the sustainability of the ecosystem. He said that people need water for survival, but water is wasted for other purposes which are very harmful to our environment. All the above, people need water to survive in this world. The blue planet is also known as harbor life. The only planet to be flowing with water.

Water management is very essential for all humans because it is the only water on which all the other known life forms exist. The Egyptians were dependent upon the Nile. Also, the Romans expanded the boundaries of engineering to use gravity in bringing water to their cities. Ancient societies molded their lives around the pool and even they worshiped it like a god. However, farmers were forced to extend their agriculture towards the jungle forest to grow food. In the jungle area, the amount of water was very low for both crops and trees. The soil eroded that’s why some of the forests died due to less amount of water. As well as because of this, the air humidity and the amount of food decreased. Some Mayan leaders prayed for the rain because the regular rain season brought a little amount of water for them. The hydrologic cycle was been damaged. Life in the cities becomes less civilized as their main focus was on providing food and water. It was difficult for the people to survive but they still hope for the best. Now, we enter into a new era with some new technologies with the demand for global economic traits. “Water” is the main source of living because we all depend on it and we cannot survive without water. Tony Clarke said that profit is made by delivering water into communities for people. Water is given to those people who can pay but people who are not able to pay for it will not able to have good water facilities. Therefore, it was the worst problem in concern water. 97% of our water is salty and we have only 3% of fresh water and much of which is also being polluted beyond human use. There are many reasons why our water is being polluted.

Chemicals are used for agriculture to increase the amount of farming productivity. These chemicals pollute the groundwater. Automobile gas emissions also pollute the clouds. But perhaps the most damaging culprit is industry. Water pollution is linked to the rising miscarriage rate in women, and it also affected sperm in men. Various laws were imposed against those who were found contaminating the water. Agents use 18 different shots to fall into the water to keep safe from contracting. Our wastewater is returning to us in the form of food. We can see water bubbles in the rivers which shows that these are losing the amount of oxygen. Water pollution and contamination create Cholera which results in various water diseases. Because of the contaminated water, children are killed by diseases like AIDS and Malaria problems. Over 60% of wetlands in the world have been destroyed in the past 100 years which is very dangerous for human life. The water hits the ground and infiltrates into the soil for collection underground which is known as aquifers or groundwater. As there is no reliable measure to accurately measure which is why our growing dependence on groundwater is such an urgent concern. Mexico City is an example of an oasis of water. These days the government made some laws to use water qualities. When we pump water for irrigation, some of the infiltrates returned into the ground which is called returns flow. Further, our soil is eroded because of grazing, winds, and flooding also damages the top layer of soil. Deforestation is the main reason for soil erosion. We should stop these harmful reasons which are destroying our environment and our water.

Maude Barlow said that it is not too late as our earth is the most amazing and elastic in terms of coming back. The best way to fight the privatization of water is to ensure there is enough water around our houses then there is no demand to market the water too. The solution is very simple to return water to its natural cycle and irrigate the land with rainwater. This approach is important to rebuild our groundwater system. We should move towards decommissioning the dams. This trend is very important. As we expand in urbanization to meet its growing population many alternatives allow rainwater to enter the subsoil. Even with these advancements we can conserve our water sources.

To put everything in a nutshell, I would like to say that water is very important to survive in this world. It is difficult to live without it as it is used for different purposes like cooking, bathing, drinking, washing clothes, watering crops, and fruits and even aquatic life isn’t anything without water. So we need to take care of our water resources. We should not contaminate the water as the wastewater return back to us in the form of new food. The rich people are surviving well because they can purchase and use purified water as compared to poor people. We should save water so that we can’t beg for water in the market.