Reflection & Film
This blog is part of the courses on film, art, literature, and media
given by Dr. Hudson Moura, Toronto, Canada.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Friday, December 08, 2017
Reinforcing National Pride Through Hindi Cinema
Review of chapter 32: "Nationalist Geopolitics and Film Tourism in India’s Hindi Cinema," Peter C. Pugsley. Routledge Companion to Cinema and Politics, ed. Yannis Tzioumakis and Claire Molloy.
by Sumaiya Javed
Introduction
As India competes with other countries on a global platform, its goal is to strengthen the nation’s economy and promote a sense of national pride among its citizens. India continues to leverage the power of Bollywood, its flourishing cinema industry of Hindi films, to promote various geopolitical agendas surrounding nationalism. Bollywood is commonly known for its storytelling through its vibrant musicals that emphasize cultural and traditional values of India. In his article titled “Nationalist Geopolitics and Film Tourism In India’s Hindi Cinema,” Pugsley examines how Bollywood filmmakers are now using film tourism and cine-geographic approaches to satisfy larger political agendas, that aim towards stimulating nationalism among Indians (Pugsley, 2016, p. 398). Through his analysis, Pugsley does a fine job defining Bollywood, provides effective film examples to illustrate cine-geographic approaches used by Bollywood filmmakers, and does well in highlighting the geo-political differences within India. However, he falls short to give substantial evidence to support how Hindi cinema has helped increased film tourism in India in recent years.
Reinforcing National Pride Through Hindi Cinema: Development
In the first section of the chapter, Pugsley does an effective job in illustrating that Bollywood is a multifaceted industry that does more than merely portray emotions in a melodramatic manner. Pugsley mentions that Bollywood not only contributes “billions of dollars” to the nation’s economy, but it also plays a huge role in influencing the “public psyche” (Pugsley, 2016, p. 399). Hence, he states that filmmakers can use Bollywood as an “unofficial” (Pugsley, 2016, p. 399) tool to transmit nationalism to the audience by showcasing both urban and rural locations of India through their films. Moreover, Pugsley emphasizes that Bollywood has been useful in exposing Indians to different cine-geographies. For instance, he illustrates that as the socioeconomic standards improved in India during the 1990s, people developed an interest in travelling abroad. Hence, Bollywood films gratified that interest by showing narrative based on the “free-floating Non-resident Indian[s]” (Pugsley, 2016, p. 400) or NRIs who migrated to Western countries. However, Pugsley does not give concrete examples of Bollywood films that helped transmit strong ideological messages and had a significant impact on changing the perspective of audiences. He could have given examples on films prior to the 1990s to illustrate what ideological messages were being sent before the globalization of India.
Next, Pugsley illustrates that many Bollywood films use foreign locations not only to offer a visual allurement or an “escape” from the realities of a developing nation, but to spark national pride in the diasporic Indian audience. He writes about Yash Chopra, an influential filmmaker, who incorporated foreign locations to primarily improve the “glamour quotient” of his films (Pugsley, 2016, p.400). Later, Chopra started using foreign locations to create narratives around migration of Indians to other countries that appealed to both local and diasporic Indian audiences. In reference to Rini Mehta, Pugsley argues that DDLJ (1995) played a pivotal role in exploring conflicts between traditional and modern values and recognizing NRI protagonists as the best representation of Indians (Mehta, 2010, p.1). In addition, Pugsley mentions that seeing familiar locations in Bollywood films offers a sense of pride for diasporic Indian audiences. Pugsley states that when Chopra’s Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (DDLJ 1995) released globally in 1995, it “exotically romanticised images of foreign locations” (Pugsley, 2016, p. 401). However, Pugsley fails to mention that Bollywood films also glamorize rural locations in India. For example, Yash Chopra’s DDLJ (1995), romanticises the rural mustard fields of India and sparks nostalgia and attraction for the diasporic Indians towards India (DDLJ, 1995). Furthermore, Pugsley indicates that films such as Delhi 6 (2009) used foreign cities to contrast between Indian cities creating a resemblance that illustrates India’s transformation into modernity (Pugsley, 2016, p.402). In contrast, Pugsley fails to mention that along with indicating the transformation of modernity, the film also focused on showcasing the traditions and cultures still present in Indian cities as they continue to become modern. For instance, it showcases traditional vehicles called rickshaws beside cars and Indian street food sold near fast food restaurants, (Delhi 6, 2009), illustrating the overlap between the modern Western lifestyle and the traditional Indian lifestyle. Additionally, Pugsley reveals that the fascination with the West is not only present in Hindi cinema, but also in other regional cinemas in India. However, he states the impressive imagery of these western locations is also available in the local areas of India. Pugsley’s research on the geographical landscapes of India is done well and he has effectively identified what foreign locations resemble India’s regional locations. For instance, he states that the mountainous regions of the north can be used as replacements for the Swiss Alps, creating the same foreign experience with reduced shooting costs (Pugsley, 2016, p. 402).
Moving on, Pugsley states that recently there has been a shift where many filmmakers are using Indian locations as a setting for their stories, which helps satisfy a geopolitical idea to generate national pride for Indians. Pugsley says this shift to India became more noticeable after the Indian currency weakened, however he does not provide any statistical evidence to illustrate the return to shooting in India was merely on the decreased value of the rupee. Moreover, Pugsley uses Chennai Express (2013) as an example of a recent Bollywood film that features the experience of a North Indian protagonist surrounded in South India, a region that is unfamiliar to him in terms of culture, language and traditions. In contrast, Pugsley lacks to focus on how Chennai Express (2013) generates nationalism among Indians by creating unity among North and South Indians as it focuses more on similarities, instead of differences between people living in different regions (Chennai Express, 2013). Furthermore, Pugsley does well in representing Mumbai as the modern city of India where filmmakers can shoot films, like Inkaar (2013) and Kaanchi: The Unbreakable (2014), to illustrate cosmopolitan stories revealing the “promises” and “ills” of an urbanized city that challenge the long held Indian traditional values (Pugsley, 2016, p. 402).
Furthermore, Pugsley illustrates the geo-cultural differences that exist within rural areas of India. For example, he states that rural India has been illustrated in two contexts in Bollywood. The first context is featured in films like Kaanchi: The Unbreakable (2014), where rural areas are shown to be clean and villagers are innocent and patriotic (Pugsley, 2016, 403). The second context is featured in films like Gulaab Gang (2014) that depicts unpleasant landscapes and shows a patriarchal society encompassing gender differences, which still exists in some rural areas of India (Pugsley, 2016, 403).
Moving on, Pugsley states that in recent times, Bollywood filmmakers are creating stories like 2 States (2014) that illustrate mobility of people within India, which contrasts with films like DDLG (1995) that illustrated mobility of Indians to foreign countries. Pugsley argues that technological developments in India have enabled this kind of movement within different states of the country. However, Pugsley does not elucidate how this mobility can help create a sense of unity or nationalism among the Indians. Instead, Pugsley highlights that 2 States (2014) focuses on the lack of acceptance between people from different states in India.
Lastly, Pugsley focuses on how the “Indian government wants to capitalize on the increased interest in heritage, culture and environmental consciousness in the recent years” (Pugsley, 2016, p. 405) by pushing Indian filmmakers to show local tourist destinations in their films to improve tourism to those regions. In reference to Martin Jones, Pugsley notes that Bollywood films have contributed significantly to the tourism industry in Scotland by showing its local destinations in their movies (Jones, 2006). Although shooting films at home reduces the production costs and enhances investment in India, Pugsley fails to demonstrate if there was in fact an increase of tourism to places captured in movies such as Chennai Express (2013) that showed the natural beauty of Tamil Nadu.
Lastly, Pugsley concludes by stating that reduced shooting costs at home is not a strong enough incentive to prevent Hindi filmmakers from filming in foreign locations. Shooting films in foreign locations will continue to occur as India grows on a global level and production houses from different countries collaborate with Bollywood filmmakers to make content that is attractive for a global audience (Pugsley, 2016, p.407)
Conclusion
Overall, Pugsley explores the significance of cine-geographic approaches in Bollywood films and that it is not only used for aesthetic, but also to capture socioeconomic and political images of India. In addition, he argues that Bollywood is an instrumental medium in showcasing Indian landscapes to reinforce a sense of pride among the Indians, help improve investments and tourism to India in the long run. He further effectively explains the use of foreign locations in Bollywood films and the increased tourism gained by foreign countries through these on-screen portrayals. In addition, he demonstrates strong knowledge on the geographical differences within India and provides excellent film examples to highlight these differences. To conclude, Pugsley does well in his explanation of Bollywood and Indian nationalism and provides reasonable examples to support his argument, however he fails to effectively showcase evidence of increased tourism in India due to these cine-geographic approaches.
Bibliography
(1) Pugsley, P. (2016). "Nationalist Geopolitics and Film Tourism In India’s Hindi Cinema," In Y. Tzioumakis, & C. Molloy (Eds.), Routledge Companion to Cinema and Politics. (pp. 398-407). Routledge.
(2) Mehta, R. B. (2010) “Bollywood, Nation, Globalization: An Incomplete Introduction” in Mehta, R. B. and Pandharipande, R. V. (eds) Bollywood and Globalization: Indian Popular Cinema, Nation, and Diaspora , London: Anthem Press, (pp. 1–14).
(3) Martin-Jones, D. (2006) “Kabhi India Kabhie Scotland: Recent Indian Films Shot on Location in Scotland”, South Asian Popular Culture 4:1, (pp. 49–60).
(4) Chopra,Y. (Producer), & Chopra, A. (Director). (1995). Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayange [Motion Picture]. India: Yash Raj Films.
(5) Screwvala,R. (Producer), & Mehra, R. (Director). (2009). Delhi 6 [Motion Picture]. India: UTV Motion Pictures
(6) Khan, G, (Producer), & Shetty, R. (Director). (2013). Chennai Express [Motion Picture]. India: Red Chillies Entertainment.
(7) Johar, K, (Producer), & Varman, A. (Director). (2014). 2 States [Motion Picture]. India: Dharma Productions
(8) Sinha, A, (Producer), & Sen, S. (Director). (2014). Gulaab Gang [Motion Picture]. India: Alumbra Entertainment
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
The Documentary Defined by Interactivity
Review of chapter 40: Interactive Documentary: Film and politics in
the digital era," James Lyons. Routledge
Companion to Cinema and Politics, ed. Yannis Tzioumakis and Claire
Molloy.
by Kiersten Depina
Throughout recent decades, society has been advancing
technologically at an accelerating rate. While acquiring many new forms of
technology, we find ourselves entering into an era of digital landscapes in
which social and political ideas originate.
The new technology that is presented changes the different processes and
the nature of political and social interaction.
One way in which humankind has been able to portray political ideas and
messages is through the medium of documentary film. As we continue to digitize politics, new
forms of documentary are being released that not only increase interactivity
and participation from the audiences, but also question the meaning and
understanding of ‘documentary’ itself. In
chapter forty of the text, “The Routledge Companion to Cinema and Politics,”
author James Lyons describes the ways in which documentary adapts to maintain
political function as the world digitizes, specifically through digital
interactive documentary.
Lyons
begins by discussing the definition of political documentary. In this introductory section of the article,
Lyons demonstrates that the definition of political documentary is very broad,
and encompasses a wide variety of different films with different political
agendas. He quotes John Corner, who
states that documentary should be “socially useful storytelling” (Lyons, 2016,
pg. 492). In reference to Michael
Chanan, he says that documentary has “become more individual and personal” (2016,
pg. 492). Drawing upon Debra Zimmerman, she says that if a film causes its
audience to perceive an issue differently, than it can be seen as political (2016,
pg. 492).
In
addition to the definition of political documentary, he describes the definition
of specifically interactive political documentary. Lyons explains how there is a group of films
that sits in between films focused directly on politics and those that include
political undertones of everyday life. He
describes how this middle ground is covered a lot in a new wave of digital
interactive documentary. This middle
ground includes discussion about control of resources and the exercising of
social powers, and more specifically, poverty, racism, the environment,
etc. As a result of the rapidly
developing areas of cultural production, many issues related to terminology and
classification, are debated. Lyons quotes
both Galloway and Mandy Rose, saying that interactive documentary is “any
documentary that uses interactivity as a core part of its delivery mechanism (2016,
pg. 493), and that it “opens up to participation...participation in terms of
making” (2016, pg. 493). With the advancements
in technology and the increasing digitization of media, many new forms of
documentary are being released. These
forms of documentary push the boundaries of traditional forms of cinema,
forcing the industry to question what the term “interactive documentary”
encompasses. Lyons points out how Nichols
says that the “textual authority shifts towards the social actors recruited” (2016,
pg. 493) and their direct contact with the filmmakers. In contrast, more recent definitions differ
from this idea, saying that the ‘social actors’ do not need to have direct
encounters with the filmmakers. Due to
the abundance of new digital mediums, interactions are no longer restricted to
the filmmakers and their subjects, and interactions no longer have to be direct
contact or encounters. The interactivity
of the documentary can also include the actions that the audience or viewers
take in response to the documentary.
Throughout
the rest of the article, Lyons references Gaudenzi in order to explain the
different types of interactivity that exists under the label of ‘interactive
documentary’. Gaudenzi’s work focuses on
the ways in which participants interact with and encounter the documentary. Lyons describes how Gaudenzi categorizes
these interactions into “four dominant understandings of interactivity” (2016,
pg. 493) and that each “create a different dynamic with the user, the author,
the artifact, and its context” (2016, pg. 493), as well as raise specific
issues pertaining to documentary politics.
These four modes include: hypertext, conversational, experiential and participative.
In
the first mode that Lyons discusses, he claims that it is arguably the most
prominent, and is titled ‘hypertext’. This
mode is described as a documentary based on a series of selections created from
options that are generated by a database.
This type of documentary is often found on the Internet – as it is
designed for that specific platform – and is referred to as a webdoc. Lyons gives an example of a webdoc: Journey To The End Of Coal (2008). This webdoc addresses the viewer in the first
person, and simulates an investigative journalistic environment. The viewer makes choices from a list of
selections, leading from one webpage to another, with each webpage containing
text, photos, and short video interviews.
This type of narrative scheme differs from a traditional film, by
allowing the viewer to view the documentary under a time scheme that is not
restricted. Lyons once again references
Gaudenzi as he notes that this particular structure puts control in the hands
of the audience, as they are given the opportunity to visit different sites
found within the webdocs database.
Although
the first mode provides the audience with a more investigative approach to the documentary,
Lyons describes how this interactive option distracts users from questioning
the argument that is presented in the content they are viewing. He is correct in saying that the choices are
a form of distraction, as they lead the viewer to feel as if they are in
complete control of the narrative. In
reality, the viewer has no control of the content, but rather a control over
their individual view of the static content.
In contrast to Lyons idea, the film immerses the viewer in not only a
full screen investigative environment but provides the opportunity to go back
and view the documentary multiple times, each time selecting different
options. Although the underlying argument
of the documentary stays the same, each time the documentary is viewed, a new
narrative is formed based on the selections.
Through the presentation of multiple narratives, the audience is forced
to question the argument as a result of questioning their own choices and
decisions. In this instance the audience
is not distracted, but forced to construct a deeper understanding.
The
second interactive mode that Lyons discusses is referred to by Gaudenzi as
‘conversational’. He explains how this
mode has a goal of creating 3D interactive worlds that viewers can navigate
seamlessly. Two examples that Lyons
provides of conversational interactive documentaries include Unconstitutional (2004) and Project Syria (2014). In Unconstitutional
(2004), the documentary focus was on Guantanamo Bay and the detainees held in
the prison camp. Using the website Second-Life, the world takes the viewer’s
avatar through the experience of being incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, through
3D simulation and point-and-click option selection. Lyons quotes digital artist Peggy Weil as she
comments on the purpose of the project: “we do not torture your avatar, so
rather than a torture chamber, we elected to build a contemplation chamber, a
series of spaces to contemplate the practices going on in Guantanamo” (2016,
pg. 493). These spaces include real
footage, news stories, photos, audio recordings, poems from detainees, and
interrogation transcripts read by actors.
Another
example that Lyons describes is the documentary Project Syria. The project
uses a 3D system to simulate a rocket shell attack in the streets of Aleppo,
Syria, and being transported to a Syrian refugee camp in Iraq. The audio and visuals were rendered using
real video and photos, and Lyons discusses how this provides the audience with
a personal experience of the event rather than receiving information from a
secondary source.
A
question that Lyons poses in response to these documentaries is the political
effectiveness of the works. The main
positive aspect of these simulation and virtual reality systems is that it
creates new political dialogue that stems more from experience and virtual
immersion rather than being based on the experiences and stories of others. In contrast, Project Syria was shown at the 2014 World Economic Forum, in order
to compel leaders to act. Lyons explains
that due to the project’s limited circulation, the producers can only hope that
the project receives attention from the right individuals. Being only accessible by a small portion of
people limits its political effectiveness and opportunity to provoke
action. One idea that Lyon does not
address however is the opportunity for virtual reality documentaries to be
formatted for widespread accessibility. The
first project, Unconstitutional, was
released on a website that is accessible to anyone with access to the
Internet. Documentaries like Project Syria that are only available as
an installation, might be able to be reworked in the future, to be viewed from
home on more modern devices such as the new Sony PlayStation VR.
Another
question that Lyons poses is a documentary’s ability to provoke its audience to
act in response to their individual experiences. He explains how, due to the growth of
locative technologies, many different innovative projects have utilized these
technologies to document events and issues occurring around the globe in
specific settings. These projects are
labeled ‘experiential’ and are the third mode of interactive documentary. Lyons provides a few examples of this type of
documentary. The first example is Eyes on the Prize (1987-1990). The documentary was created by students who
documented social justice problems in their neighborhood and tagged these
narratives to their location using Google Earth. Handheld GPS devices geo-tagged the stories
so that individuals who were in those specific locations could play them
back. A second example is Coffee Deposits: Topologies of Chance
(2010). This documentary was
situated in Istanbul, and attempted to chart the lives of everyday people in
the city through “in-situ coffee shop encounters” (Lyons, 2016, p. 497). Lyons describes how this particular project
was halted when it was confronted with how Islamic politics impacted certain people
in the city – a mobile encounter with a transsexual person revealed a story of
harassment and discrimination, relating to the use of laws to take LGBT
individuals into police custody.
Both
of these examples demonstrate what Lyons describes as how “eliciting
participant testimony can lead in unexpected geographic and discursive
directions” (Lyons 2016, p. 497) and how these documentaries can evolve into
works of “foregrounding issues of political and social justice” (2016, p. 497). Coffee Deposits in particular, resulted in
the dialogue of an extremely political happening in the city, and due to the
controversy, forced the project to shut down.
Both of these projects give voices to those who would otherwise not have
one, and as a result, many different narratives can emerge. These examples in particular demonstrate
Lyons earlier reference to Chanan, when saying that filmmakers are trying to
make work that shows the “politics of identity” (2016, pg. 492). Another example is the Quipu Project (2014 –) that aimed to share stories of indigenous
women affected by the sterilization policy in Peru in the late 90s. This project uses a toll-free telephone
number to allow women to record personal testimonies, and then uploads these
testimonies to their project website.
The importance of the project is that it gives a voice to those who were
previously unable to communicate their experience with the rest of the
world. In the words of co-director
Rosemarie Lerner, “for the first time they can actually become part of a wider
dialogue” (2016, pg. 497). Lyons states
that the point of this particular documentary is not to recreate the event, but
to “make conditions for the story to emerge” (2016, pg. 497), and that the
documentary addresses the underlying conditions of isolation and
disempowerment. What Lyons does not mention is that not only does this
documentary allow for the story to emerge, but it also allows for multiple
narratives that can be perceived as both separate and as a whole. The director
is no longer the sole voice of the project, and many different people are given
the opportunity to become directors of their own narratives.
Another
important point about the Quipu
project is that it is through the participation of the women that this
documentary exists; and it is through this form of documentary that new forms
of collaboration can occur. This leads
into the final category of interactivity that Lyons discusses: the
‘participative’ mode. Lyons explains
that the participants contributing to the creation of a project can be viewed
as both the creation of the content and to connect with others who share their
experiences. The example he gives of
this particular mode is 18 Days in Egypt (2011
–), which described on their website is an “interactive, crowd-sourced
documentary project about the ongoing Egyptian revolution” (Lyons, 2016, p. 498). The project focuses on the protesters of the
Egyptian uprising in 2011, by aggregating their social media content through
the hashtag #18DaysinEgypt. Lyons
describes how an interactive platform called GroupStream was launched in 2012
“crowd-source, contextualize, and archive photographs, texts, tweets and video
clips” (Lyons, 2016, p. 498). Lyons
argues that this documentary contrasts other forms of documentary as it is
“designed to collate and document participatory experiences through an open and
evolving database of user-generated content” (Lyons, 2016, p. 498), and that
this form of documentary is a response to the original political catalyst using
an interactive format.
Lyons
is correct in saying that this form of documentary contrasts other forms of
documentary, due to it being open and continuously evolving. What Lyons does not discuss is that unlike
other forms of interactive documentary, the content does not go through a
secondary source before being released.
The uploaded content is directly inputted into the database by the
creator and is not edited or censored in anyway. Even if the content is not directly featured
on their website, the hashtag #18DaysinEgypt is still sorting the content into
the same database and exists for the world to see. This once again disrupts the definition of
documentary, as the project itself can be perceived at its core as simply a
hashtag. In this way, new forms of
interactive participatory documentary changes its ‘social actors’ into
directors and narrative creators.
In
conclusion, the majority of the article provides a brief glance into the
ever-expanding world of interactive documentary. The article provides an in depth look at each
of the four modes of interactivity in a simple and accurate way, and describes
the spectrum of interactive documentaries in an unbiased manner. Lyons arguments are based upon information
gathered from those working in the documentary industry, but do not expand on
the impact of the projects he describes.
He remains very neutral on the subject of interactive documentary as he
mainly explains the different kinds, but where he interjects with personal
opinion, he briefly argues his points leaving them to exist more as shallow
facts.
One
overarching argument that Lyon presents is that none of the documentaries that
he presents in the article allow for the audience the input of information as
well as input structural ideas. This
argument can be combatted due to the structure of the 18 Days in Egypt documentary.
All of interactive political documentary arguably relies on the
relationship between the audience and filmmaker, as they would not exist
without that relationship. The
relationship determines how the documentary is structured, for example, the
entire 18 Days in Egypt documentary
is created and structured based on the content of what the participants
submit.
Overall,
interactive digital documentary breaks the mold of what a documentary is
traditionally understood to be.
Documentary adapts to the changing digital landscapes in society by
incorporating different digital platforms and mediums, in order to find new
ways of storytelling. This type of documentary focuses predominantly on the
relationship between the audience and the creators, and blurs the line between
consumer and producer.
References
Lyons, J. (2016). Interactive Documentary: Film
and politics in the digital era. In Routledge Companion
to Cinema and Politics (pp. 491-499). Routledge.
Unmet Expectations
Chapter 36: "Twenty-First Century Political
Documentary in The United States," Betsy A. McLane. Routledge Companion to Cinema and Politics, ed. by Yannis Tzioumakis and Claire Molloy
by Alexander Cybulsky
Betsy
A. McLane (2016), author of “A New History of Documentary Film”, introduces her
article on twenty-first century, American political documentary film as “a
cumulative examination of specific trends in cultural norms, problems,
political affairs, and experiences” (p. 447). However, rather than providing
the reader with an examination of the genre, as promised, McLane (2016) offers
more of a summary of specific filmmakers and their works, which she, admittedly
through her own personal judgement, deems to have had “significant influences
on American democratic processes” (p. 447). Although informative, the article
unfortunately fails in analyzing the common themes and connections in political
documentary films of this period. By the end of the chapter, the reader’s understanding
of twenty-first century political documentary in the United States as a genre
or subset of film is not any greater than before having read this work. The chapter’s introduction identifies some
common attributes of twenty-first century documentaries such as “a cynicism and
a sense of apocalypse” and the fact that solutions to the problems presented in
these films “often seem unreachable and the optimism for creating a better
world that characterized earlier documentaries has dimmed” (McLane, 2016, p.
448). However, the socio-economic, political, or historic factors that are
responsible for such shifts in the nation’s “mood” are never addressed despite
McLane (2016) stating in her introduction that “this chapter considers the ways
in which technologies, economic factors and artistic choices reveal how …
documentarians see their country…” (p. 448). Due to the lack of a clear
intended audience, the absence of original idea and critical analysis, and the failure
to identify and explain overarching themes, the chapter is not a successful
overview of twenty-first century, political documentaries in the United States.
McLane
begins the article in a logical manner by establishing criteria as to what
constitutes a political documentary and which films she will focus on in her
work. However, the body of the work does not follow suit with the same concise
organization. McLane introduces significant filmmakers and proceeds to
summarize film after film, by providing a brief rundown of film style, and focusing
on net proceeds and marketing methods and challenges. In her summary, McLane touches
upon concepts such as “documentary ethics” without providing any form of
explanation on the topic, which suggests the article may be intended for a
reader with an extensive knowledge on the subject of documentary film. However,
one could also argue that such a reader would already be familiar with the
films McLane discusses and would find the rushed and repetitive summaries
uninteresting. Furthermore, a person well versed in the subject may be less
inclined to read the article as it does not assume a position or present any
new information on the topic of twenty-first century political documentaries.
The lack of original idea in the work becomes especially clear through an
examination of McLane’s sources. Much of the cited works are articles from
newspapers and magazine such as the Hollywood Reporter, The Guardian, Variety,
and The New York Times. Rather than presenting her readers with original
thoughts and supporting them with facts from primary sources, McLane provides a
summary backed up by opinion pieces. To a reader less familiar with political
documentary, the chapter does not prove any more useful as it fails to explain
or elaborate on important concepts and does not identify any thematic
commonalities. The recurring summaries and lack of original idea and supporting
factual evidence fail to captivate a novice reader. Without having seen a filmmaker’s
work, statements such as “technically and artistically well crafted, these
films look and sound good on the big screen” do not carry much weight (McLane,
2016, p.450). McLane’s oversight of writing without an intended audience in
mind, makes the chapter less successful as neither a novice nor an expert would
find the work particularly stimulating or thoroughly interesting.
In
her topic summaries of various films, McLane (2016) makes statements such as
“the … administration covered up the truth of what had happened” and “…deals
with government secrets and the way that information is disseminated and
distorted…” (p. 450 & 451). However, the author essentially fails to
identify government secrets as an overarching theme in twenty-first century,
political documentary in the United States. McLane (2016) also comments on individuals
who were “…intent on breaking walls of secrecy around what they perceived as
unjust …”, but falls through on introducing the reader to the concept of a
whistleblower – an individual who reports insider knowledge of illegal or
unethical activities occurring in an organization; an important term in the
context of twenty-first century politics (p. 451). Here especially, the author
misses the opportunity to elaborate on how twenty-first century technologies
and socioeconomic factors influence the relationship between the United States
government and its citizens. Modern technologies give the individual a voice,
and stories, which could not have been told and shared in previous centuries
can now be shared with thousands of people instantaneously. The digital age
facilitates journalism to act as the fourth branch of government more than ever
before, holding public officials accountable and informing citizens of
prominent issues; a notion coined as the Fourth Estate by Edmund Burke, a
British parliament member in the seventeen hundreds (Crichton, Christel,
Shidham, Valderrama, & Karmel). It seems that instances of governmental
institutions depriving the country’s citizens of their basic human right to the
freedom of information are the stories twenty-first century political
documentary filmmakers are keen on telling (Norris, 2008). As McLane has
mentioned, the early twenty-first century has been considered the “Golden Age”
of political and social-feature length documentaries, but the author never
explains how modern journalism and technology are the causes to this
phenomenon. Rather than providing summary, McLane’s knowledge on the topic
would have been particularly useful here in explaining why documentary
filmmakers have collectively undertook bringing awareness to these issues
through their works.
Another
aspect of contemporary American political documentaries that McLane (2016)
points out but does not follow up on is the fact that a majority are made from
a left-leaning perspective and that “…politically conservative documentaries have
not tended to attract significant attention or feature in major film festivals”
(p.454). Rather than providing an explanation for this important characteristic
of twenty-firm century political documentary, McLane (2016) goes on to
introduce “one conservative film that did get a large amount of attention…” (p.
454). Although relevant, the reader is not any more informed on the topic and
left wondering what is the reasoning behind the facts presented. Jim Hubbard, a
film and festival director, has speculated that there seems to be “a huge
disconnect between conservatives and film” and “conservatives tend to shun the
arts (Anderson, 2006). Filmmaker Michael Wilson holds that “film, to a large
degree, has long been considered in the realm of liberal thought” and “the
conservative movement has been about talk radio, maybe books” (Anderson, 2006).
Whether these explanations are entirely accurate or not, the presentation of
facts without any kind of support or explanation results in confusion and
frustration for the reader who wishes to understand the topic put forward. It
seems that McLane’s focus is on introducing works that she herself finds
interesting or significant and is less concerned with informing the reader on
the topic or presenting new knowledge.
In
a sense, McLane (2016) sets up the reader for disappointment by promising one
thing in the introduction and delivering another in the body of the work. The
chapter does not read as a “cumulative examination of specific trends” (p.
447). In fact, “technology”, a topic
promised to be “considered” in the introduction, does not get mentioned again
until the chapter’s conclusion. McLane’s conclusion does not serve as a
conclusion at all, but rather presents new information that seems out of place.
McLane begins the subsection by providing a brief historic summary of the last
120 years of documentary making – information that would have likely proved to
be more useful near the beginning. The conclusion then goes on to discuss the
popularity of documentary in contrast to other types of film. However, the
ineffectiveness of the conclusion is not surprising as no original or
structured thoughts were presented for the author to conclude. The majority of
McLane’s chapter was a summary of information without much critical connection.
The reader becomes aware of specific filmmakers and important works.
Unfortunately, this awareness does not translate into useful knowledge on the
topic of contemporary American political documentary. McLane’s failure to
consider who the intended audience for her work should be, to provide original
thought and critical analysis, and to establish and analyze common themes and
connections in the genre make her chapter an unsuccessful overview of
twenty-first century, political documentaries in the United States.
References
Anderson,
J. (2006, July 15). An Uprising on the Right in a World That Leans Left.
Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/movies/16ande.html
Crichton,
D., Christel, B., Shidham, A., Valderrama, A., & Karmel, J. (n.d.).
Journalism in The Digital Age. Retrieved March 12,
2017, from
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/Journalism/
McLane,
B. A. (2016). Twenty-First Century Political Documentary in The United States.
In Routledge Companion to Cinema and
Politics (pp. 447-457). New York, New York: Routledge.
Norris,
P. (2008). Driving democracy: do power-sharing institutions
work? Cambridge: Cambridge
university press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)