Which type of narration, silent or active, is most effective? Why?
In my opinion, despite preferring such documentaries as SiCKO, Inside Job, Supersize Me, An Inconvenient Truth, Food, Inc. and Fahrenheit 9/11, as a whole, silent narration is the most effective for documentaries. While I appreciate the actively narrated documentaries and opinions of such filmmakers as Michael Moore and Al Gore, I believe that their opinions can, and often do overshadow the documentaries they create. In the case of Moore, for example, most of his well-known documentaries begin with him having some sort of opinion. In creating the idea for SiCKO, Moore likely had some sort of negative experience, whether it be first- or second-hand, which fuelled his desire to create a film pointing out the inadequacies of the American health care system. With an already biased opinion, Moore never strays from his beliefs throughout the film and in the end, chooses to edit the documentary in a certain way and include only certain facts in order to make it appear as if his beliefs are 100% factual. With this skewed view of a documented topic, it entirely depends on the viewer’s personal opinions whether they will like the biased documentary or not. Essentially, actively narrated films primarily present the viewer with the opinions of the filmmaker and the facts they use to support their beliefs, meaning that viewers are not given much of an opportunity to formulate their own opinions.
Comparatively, silently narrated films focus much more on visual images, as well as the words and emotions of the people documented in the film. Without a constant narration by the filmmaker, viewers are afforded the opportunity to watch the film’s characters and view them as they w...
... middle of paper ...
... is much more difficult for me to be able to relate to the lives of the people shown in My Flesh and Blood. Conversely, I have had numerous encounters with North American and African (South Africa and Malawi) health care systems, thus allowing me to better relate to the stories within SiCKO. Having observed health care processes and conditions that run from one of the best (Canada) to one of the least resourced and funded (Malawi), I am able to understand many of the flaws pointed out by Moore in his film, as well as possessing my own perspective of what I would consider to be a poor health care system. Additionally, as one who consistently enjoys debating various topics, I am given a much greater opportunity to do so through the film SiCKO compared to My Flesh and Blood, likely reflecting my stronger emotional attachment to Moore’s film and the effect it had on me.
The film can be seen to appeal for interest emotionally, the way of pathos appeals but then it occasionally showcases scenes that engages us or simply throw us into disbelief and maybe even irritate us. Multiple scenes in the documentary had provided some laughable moments or few chuckles that would help relax the tense atmosphere of the viewers, despite the serious matter in discussion. The best aspect of film is truly the disbelief factor; refer to the textbook long list preexisting condition that denied health insurance to many applicants, basically, the need of a master’s degree to apply for health insurance. That and considering the emotional scenes, makes Sicko a much more impressive and captivating documentary than that of its
The film immediately sets the tone from the very beginning by presenting various interdisciplinary ‘experts’ who equally have part in narrating the film throughout. As the argument develops, however, the narrators seem to hav...
Dr. Paul Farmer’s vocation is providing healthcare to those less fortunate. He medically treats the Haitians for TB. Paul devoted his whole life to helping the Haitians with their healthcare problems and living conditions. He gave them proper medicine and was able to do this through global fundraising and fighting the large pharmaceutical companies. But unfortunately, with this came sacrifice. Paul had to stay in Haiti for months at a time; he was unable to see his wife and kids. Because of this, his wife eventually left him. But Paul was so devoted in his work in Haiti it appeared he did not care about his personal life because Paul’s work was his life. He considered the people of Haiti, which were his patients, his family. He wasn’t paid for his work; money didn’t matter. All the medicine and food he got was paid from various fundraising efforts. Because of this, he still did not receive eno...
Sicko is a 2007 documentary produced and directed by a well-known American filmmaker Michael Moore. The film investigates the United States healthcare system, focusing mainly on the pharmaceutical industry and health insurance. Michael Moore believes America’s health system is morally corrupt as he continuously argues the fact that the American medical system is aiming towards governmental funds rather than the rights of American citizens. Throughout Sicko, Moore claims that the U.S. should adopt a universal health care as he unfolds the deep flaws of the American healthcare industries and compares health care conditions to other countries. Moore supports his argument very effectively through the use of three rhetorical devices—pathos, ethos, and logos.
The film Sicko (2007), is about the misfortune and distress associated with the American Health care system and how it compares to those in several foreign countries where universal health care is the normal. The audience explores Moore’s rhetorical strategies and how he represents the issue of health care with the goal of gaining support from the rest of society for his cause. Michael Moore make this film that has the purpose to especially inform the American audience about the current health system in America and terrible system created in America that is sometimes deadly. The filmmaker used emotion, reason, creditable people, counter arguments and humor/irony to develop his argument that the American health system is terrible to citizens.
Mise-en-scène is a vital function in film which allows us to glean a deeper significance than mere action and dialogue can convey. We react to the signs, symbols, and icons within a film because they are imbedded deeply into our collective subconscious. Our history of visual storytelling predates language and it is a tradition that is innately human and universally recognized, even if the viewer is unaware of the elements of mise-en-scène and the way in which they are constructing the emotional and psychological context of a film’s story.
Modern day directors use a variety of methods to hold ones interest. Ethan Hawke and Kenneth Branagh’s created versions of Hamlet that shared some similarities, but ultimately had many differences in respects to an audience’s appeal. An appealing movie is one that has an alluring ambiance and an intellectual stimulus. With these two movie versions, a setting and a mood forced an audience to acquire specific emotions, but Ethan Hawke’s version generated emotions more strongly and effectively. Also, these movies had extremely different uses of music and visuals, but both movie versions incorporated them well for the ambiance it tried to obtain. Finally, both movie versions drew characters to captivate the audience; however in Ethan Hawke’s version, the characters were used so effectively that it was easy to feel involved with them. While both these versions of Hamlet had a captivating ambiance, Ethan Hawke’s version was more appealing due to the intellectual incentive that it offered.
Since the creation of films, their main goal was to appeal to mass audiences. However, once, the viewer looks past the appearance of films, the viewer realizes that the all-important purpose of films is to serve as a bridge connecting countries, cultures, and languages. This is because if you compare any two films that are from a foreign country or spoken in another language, there is the possibility of a connection between the two because of the fact that they have a universally understanding or interpretation. This is true for the French New Wave films; Contempt and Breathless directed by Jean-Luc Godard, and contemporary Indian films; Earth and Water directed by Deepa Mehta. All four films portray an individual’s role in society using sound and editing.
Film was not always as it is today due to the digital sounds and graphic picture enhancements of George Lucas's THX digital sound in the late 1970s to enhance the audience's perceptions. Sound was first discovered in 1928 and the first films before that were silent. There is a social need to heighten an audience's film going experience and it allows each person to color their own views of what they see and presents either directly or indirectly society's moral values.
With the discovery of techniques such as continuous editing, multiple camera angles, montage editing, and more, silent filmmaking developed from simple minute-long films to some of the most beautiful, awe-inspiring films that have ever been created—in only a few decades. In Visions of Light, someone alluded that if the invention of sound had come along a mere ten years later, visual storytelling would be years ahead of what it is today. This statement rings true. When looking at the immense amount of progress that was made during the silent era of films, one must consider where the art of film has been, where it is, and where it is
Lehman, Peter and Luhr, William. Thinking About Movies: Watching, Questioning, Enjoying. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.
I interacted with more people than I could count - all the while astounded by how many clinics were needed to give the underprivileged basic medical needs. This required participation in interviews on patient history and diagnostic discussions with supervising physicians. Daily, I saw the eyes of the little boy in young patients; I was reminded that it was possible to make a difference in these other countries. I had another opportunity that I did not with the little boy: I was able to form relationships with many of the terminally ill patients while serving tea and talking in hopes of boosting
Boggs, J. M., Petrie, D. W. (2004). The Art of Watching Films (6 ͭ ͪ ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gallagher, T. 2002. Senses of Cinema – Max Ophuls: A New Art – But Who Notices?. [online] Available at: http://sensesofcinema.com/2002/feature-articles/ophuls/ [Accessed: 8 Apr 2014].
“Entertainment has to come hand in hand with a little bit of medicine, some people go to the movies to be reminded that everything’s okay. I don’t make those kinds of movies. That, to me, is a lie. Everything’s not okay.” - David Fincher. David Fincher is the director that I am choosing to homage for a number of reasons. I personally find his movies to be some of the deepest, most well made, and beautiful films in recent memory. However it is Fincher’s take on story telling and filmmaking in general that causes me to admire his films so much. This quote exemplifies that, and is something that I whole-heartedly agree with. I am and have always been extremely opinionated and open about my views on the world and I believe that artists have a responsibility to do what they can with their art to help improve the culture that they are helping to create. In this paper I will try to outline exactly how Fincher creates the masterpieces that he does and what I can take from that and apply to my films.