BORAT : DOCUMENTARY OR MOCKUMENTARY ?

            "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan"(2006), is a highly controversial movie and has been since its release in 2006. The movie has been defined as a comedy, documentary, even mockumentary. Whatever category you put it in, there's no doubt that people hail it as a comedic treasure. I do agree that it's a funny movie with hilarious interactions with unsuspecting citizens (much like the TV show candid camera) however; I also believe that what is revealed throughout the movie is also quite tragic. The things that Sacha Baron Cohen gets these social actors to reveal about themselves are often hard to watch. From the homophobic general manager of the "Imperial Rodeo" to the southern college kids who have no respect for women, Sacha reveals truths about the American public that while unacceptable to some, are truths that need to be revealed if we are to understand the true nature of Americans.  These revelations are why this movie is positively a documentary and is thus worthy of the documentary title.

           
              Mockumentary , I believe, is not the right word to use when describing Borat. One of my favorite mockumentarys "Spinal Tap"(1984) can be used to distance Borat from the "mocumentary tradition". Spinal Tap (which embodies all that is mocumentary) is a fully scripted movie that contains no social actors. The band, management and fans are all scripted actors who know they are involved in a work of fiction. It's a work of complete fiction only presented to the viewer in the form of a documentary. If for instance, the audience was completely made up of social actors, their reactions to a completely fabricated band would be a useful examination of the public's ability to identify a performance as not genuine. This “hypothetical Spinal Tap" would represent an actual documentary. It is in this sense I believe that Borat holds documentary value. Even though Borat is not a social actor, the real social actors he comes in contact with believe he is and act accordingly. Borat the character is nothing but a device, a tool if you will, that is employed to pry into the taboo stereotyping, racist, and homophobic tendencies Americans often have but lay hidden from view unless provoked. This is ultimately what the movie is about. The subject is also helping to further the voice of the film. What better way to experiment with Americans capacity to accept others than to have Borat become lost, traveling aimlessly through America at the mercy of its citizens.

                Sacha’s use of Borat can be thought of as a type of investigative journalism. Just like Nellie Bly who disguised herself as an insane person to infiltrate the unruly world of the insane asylum in the late 1800’s. Sacha is conducting himself in a similar matter, which is, using untruthful devices to uncover real truths that lay hidden from plain view.

Bill Nichols defines documentary film as a work that "speaks about situations and events involving real people (social actors) who present themselves to us as themselves in stories that convey a plausible proposal about, or perspective on, the lives, situations, and events portrayed. The distinct point of view of the filmmaker shapes this story into a way of seeing the historical world directly rather than into a fictional allegory."  (Nichols 14) The interactions Borat has with the social actors (however premeditated) are "situations and events involving real people who present themselves as themselves". Sacha’s "plausible proposal" in this case could be that Americans will be offended and disturbed by any foreigner who lives in very different ways no matter how polite they are. This is ultimately the character of Borat. He can be defined as a foreigner who means well but just has different ethical values that Americans will surely find strange and absurd. The absurdity of his character is a mirror of the absurd Americans who are reluctant to accept others who are different.

The scene in the gun store is a clear depiction of this absurdity. When Borat asks the worker; “which gun would you recommend for killing Jews?” The employee simply answers; “I would suggest either a 9mm or a 45.0”. In a perfect world the employee would have responded to Borat’s question by saying; “None of these guns here are for killing any type of person”. His quick response and eagerness to supply a gun knowing Borat’s intentions reveals a shared hatred for those of the Jewish faith and (to me) boarders on hate crime. The general manager of the “Imperial Rodeo” is my favorite example of how ignorant some people are of their deep seeded racist tendencies. He says something to the effect of; “shave that gosh darn mustache off so you’re not so gosh darn conspicuous. So you look like maybe an (eye)talion. When you wear the mustache I think ;there goes a Muslim I wonder what kind of bomb he’s got strapped to him” Through the lens of the film the quotation reads more like this; “shave your mustache off because you look much too different from what we look like. If you looked like an Italian, you would be more palatable to us and we are more apt to accept you. You should change who you are so that you can fit in with us”. There are not many things in this world I hate, but this man’s oppressive statements are surely one of them. Especially when talking about homosexuals; “take them out and hang them, that’s what we’re trying to get done here”. This not only reveals this man’s bigotry but hints to the fact that he’s trying to advance policy against people with a different sexual orientation. This is something that is very scary to me and hints to a future I do not want for my children.  In these instances, Borat’s outlandish actions have produced the reactions he was intending to produce. There are parts of the movie however, that do not help further his argument.

Some people within the move that rise above their discriminatory urges include Borat’s comedy coach, His driving instructor, the yard sale woman who he calls a gypsy, and the former congressman who eats the cheese made from human milk with the utmost respect. The Jewish family who take him in for the night is nothing but kind and caring to their foreign friend. It is almost painful to watch as they bring up slices of chocolate cake to Borat in order to make him feel welcome and accepted.

The dinner party at the upper class home is a perfect example of how Sacha has intentionally provoked the people to act in extreme ways. The beginning of the meal started off great and even included one of the women commenting that he is a great guy and it wouldn’t take long for him to be assimilated into American culture. Everything takes a drastic turn though when Borat returns to the dinner table with what looks like a bag of his own feces. The cordial report speeds downhill when Borat’s prostitute comes to the door (which in Borat’s culture is perfectly acceptable). The magical night soon ends when the hosts not only kick Borat out (for engaging in activities that are not acceptable to their social norms) but they call the cops on him. I would hate to think that the situation would be different had Borat’s prostitute been white. Although within the south, you never know.

One thing that moved me about the movie and that made me realize aspects about myself (as documentaries often do) was when Borat met the group of black men at night who were gambling on the street. When he was walking up to them I was scared for Sacha. I immediately thought that these guys are not only going to be unaccepting but might hurt him. My own preconceived notions about black, inner city men and their affinity for violence were proven wrong when they are seen laughing and joking with Borat. One of them even takes an interest in him and asks him what kind of music he likes. Others tell him how to dress cool. In this instance the movie taught me about my hidden semi-racist tendencies that I would have never said was present at all but were there whole time.

            If you don't believe that Borat is a documentary, you still must agree that it shares the same struggles concerning ethics that documentaries often do. The ethical dilemmas associated with the production of this movie are numerous. Some of them include the misrepresentation of the nation of Kazakhstan as a borderline third world country (when in fact it is a highly developed country). Also, the amount of information given to the social actors relating to the scope of the project could have made them act in very different ways. However many ethical problems, one (that when examined) has the power to shed light on the validity of Borat within the documentary tradition.

The Question is not; Are these reactions of ordinary Americans useful evidence of their true nature?" They are (some of them). Instead, do the actions of Sacha's over stylized and outrageous character (with his ultra-provocative and acutely offensive dialogue) work to discredit or overshadow these real reactions as to not be an accurate representation worthy of documentation. No doubt the purpose of this well developed character is to get a rise out of people but the fact that they are oblivious to this makes the social actors responses genuine. His outlandish actions are completely warranted when given is investigative intentions. This is the value Borat has within the documentary tradition and should be respected as such.  

The Observational mode of documentary vs. The Participatory mode

         In  documentary filmmaking, there are many ways a certain subject can be documented. Documentaries on similar subjects can end up being very different, depending on who’s directing the project. Different styles, approaches, and messages are inevitable when you have two different people editing footage, giving varying amounts of agency to their social actors, and making their own decisions in regards to ethical engagement with the social actors.  To understand the differences between the styles of two different documentarians, it is useful to consider how each person would document the same subject.

            

                 Two documentarians that exemplify distinctly different styles of film documentation are directors Jennie Livingston and the directing duo Albert and David Maysles. Livingston, who is often associated with the participatory mode of documentary film, often engages directly with her social actors. She sets up interviews with them and asks them specific questions in an attempt to hear their side of the story. The Maysles brothers on the other hand are more closely associated with the observational mode of documentary film, stemming from the “cinema verite” approach of the Italian neo-realists.  Their films consist mostly of capturing subjects in their natural state, unguided by interview questions and staged scenes. The Maysles brothers prefer to take a step back and not influence events in any way in an attempt to document reality as honestly and as truthfully as possible.

My hypothetical documentary centers on a high school student (Charlie) who is obsessed with politics. Charlie’s obsession with politics is a result of the loss of his father (a congressman) who was killed in a fatal car accident. The documentary emphasizes Charlie’s attempts to create a “political issues club” in his high school. The main conflict in this documentary becomes apparent when nobody in the school seems interested in political issues. Although this is the main conflict within the narrative of this documentary, the two different directing teams will have very different methods of presenting to the audience the footage they’ve captured and thus creating different voices and messages.

 Before we get into how each director would structure this documentary, we first need to establish exactly what the different methods consist of. We also need to determine how much agency is given to the social actors and the ethical issues associated with each portrayal. In Jennie Livingston’s film Paris Is Burning (1990), she gives the social actors a large amount of agency. We can see evidence of this through the way she conducts her interviews. She allows the social actors to address the camera and speak for themselves. They directly administer to us their testament. Whether or not the audience wants to believe their tales is up to them of course  but agency is given to the social actors (I believe) to correct misconceptions. There is much evidence to support this claim of the social actors having a large amount of agency. We see it in an interview with Pepper Labejia. “The house of Labejia is the most legendary house above all of them”. “New York City is wrapped up in being Labejia”. Are these claims true? We don’t know for sure but Livingston is giving them the freedom to choose whether or not they want to be truthful. That act of allowing the social actors to decide for themselves is a clear depiction of granted agency. We are being informed at the whim of the speaker. In another interview, Venus Extravaganza tells us about a date that went horribly wrong. “He said you’re a freak, you’re a victim of aids”. I would think that if someone is angrily passing judgment and insulting a person, they wouldn’t take the time to call them a “victim”. In other words the man most likely said “you have aids”. Venus’s inclusion of the word “victim” is strong evidence that she is manipulating information. That being said, it is safe to assume that in a Livingston documentary, the social actors act as the gatekeepers of information. They are deciding what and what not to tell. Is this ethical for Livingston to do? Since the social actors are all giving their own tailored stories, one can say that the act of allowing them to give us false information is actually hurting the integrity of the documentary. All these concerns maybe relieved once one realizes that Livingston decides ultimately what gets put into the movie and what gets left out. In Salesman there are very important ethical concerns on how the brothers acquired their footage. “We told the customers that we were doing a human interest piece on Paul” (DVD interview). There is speculation that these people Paul is selling to aren’t completely aware of how big their role is in this film. I believe that the Maysles brothers unfairly understated the roles of these customers to them, in order to invade their homes.

In salesman, the social actors don’t privately give their statements to the camera. In fact, most of the social actors act as if the camera wasn't even there. Since the subjects aren't giving us information directly then who is the gatekeeper of information? In this case it is the Maysles brothers. Their authority of government over the amount of information that is presented to the audience is created through the editing and scene selection done during post production. This manipulation of events in post production also obviously calls attention to ethical concerns.

The scene when Paul is talking to his wife on the phone, for example, is a scene that I did not feel comfortable watching. When he starts talking to her in the beginning, he repeats some things she says to him for the guys in the room. This indicates that Paul thinks that nobody can hear his wife on the other end of the line. David Maysles’s sound recorder can hear her though. The moment I knew that this voyeurism had gone too far was when you hear his wife say faintly “this is costing us a lot of money”. Paul panics, rushes to say goodbye and hangs up. The guys in the room don’t know any better because they can’t hear her. But David has revealed (through the taping of Paul’s wife) that Paul is dismissive of his wife’s concerns with the welfare of their family. This reveals a lot about Paul and in my opinion I think goes too far and reveals too much. I immediately had a feeling that I wasn’t supposed to hear that. Whenever we have that feeling we know that we have arrived at our ethical threshold. Nobody is on the phone in Paris is Burning. I would imagine that if Willie Ninja got a call during an interview, Livingston would respect his privacy, stop taping and allow him to take the call. 

(Livingston on the far left with the subjects of Paris is Burning)

 However, we mustn’t look over the fact that in 1969 there was a very different mass media culture. I would imagine that cameras seemed less intrusive to people because the potential of mass media to make someone look idiotic was less understood by the general public given the young age of cinema verte. The subjects of Paris is Burning understood the potential of mass media to reach a large number of people given the times that they lived in. We can see this in an interview with Freddie Pendavis. “If Roy Rogers changes its ways by the time this comes out I will be so upset”. His statements convey to the viewer that he is concerned about exposing his dishonest tendencies to a large number of people. This large audience may include in it, some Roy Rodgers restaurant executives who have the power to change things at the restaurant so they can’t steal food.

In order to make the differences in the two documentarian’s voices clearer, I’ve developed a formula much like Nichols. This hypothetical voice is being spoken by the director and addressed to the audience. For Salesman the voice is saying; “let’s observe them as if we weren’t even there so we can make our own conclusions about them”. For Paris Is Burning the voice says; “Let them tell us about it so we can learn from those who are authorities on the subject”. The first statement boasts that the viewer has the capability of being an authority. The second paints the audience as submissive and totally reliant on the gospel of (for instance) Pepper Labejia.

In Livingston’s version of my hypothetical documentary, I picture interviews with Charlie. He might tell us something to the effect of “kids my age don’t care about politics”. Livingston would grant him agency and respect his opinions on the subject. Shots of Charlie sitting in an empty room during the clubs meeting times would also convey the same message of political illiteracy in today’s youth to the audience. Interviews with kids who don’t care about the club will only prove Charlie’s claims of his casemates’ disengagement with politics. Also, interviews with teachers who say they don’t have an explanation why kids at this age think that this stuff is not important. Interviews with everyone involved will highlight the central conflict because questions that Livingston will ask the subjects will be geared toward that conflict. The film is shaped by the conflict.

The Maysles brothers more intrusive camera, I believe, would capture a very different kind of documentary. Charlie’s more personal problems which are products of his traumatic loss of his father would not go unrecognized by the Maysles brothers. I Picture Charlie and his mother sitting down at the kitchen table for dinner when they talk about dad and how hard it is without him. I can see the mother struggling to make Charlie realize that he doesn’t need to follow in his father’s footsteps if he doesn’t want to. She encourages him to try new things on his own so that Charlie isn’t always reminding her of his father. The message of this film will put more emphasis on how children cope with traumatic events that happen early in childhood. A crowd watching this film would most likely conclude by themselves that “of course he has problems fitting in at school; his father was taken from him in such a horrific way”. In this film the political youth conflict will take a back seat to a more interesting and voyeuristic look into the private lives of Charlie and his mother.

These two different approaches to the same subject of Charlie and his politics club will ultimately result in two very different movies. On one hand we have a social commentary on the small role that politics have on young people’s lives. On the other hand, an expose’ on the lives of those who have been effected by traumatic experiences. Both versions varying in the ethical concerns associated with each and ultimately varying in their perceived validity. Although we can’t speculate too much on what the social actors would say, by dissecting these two films made by the two different directors, we can be confident in our predictions of how their movies about Charlie would turn out. Susan Sontag once said something to the effect of: a camera and a gun are similar in that people act differently when standing before them. Livingston subjects consciously conduct themselves in the way that they want to be seen. The Maysles brothers subjects are not and I believe this has much to do with the cultural understandings of mass media at the time. I’m sure the subjects knew that they would be seen by an audience, but I can damn near guarantee that their subjects did not think they would still be watched and studied by a group of students in upstate New York in the year 2012. These two directors differ in the way in which they use their camera; passively and interactive. In the movies that were made by the directors, you could say the same about the social actors exchange with the camera. 

  Bibliography

1.)    Flinn, Caryl. "Containing Fire: Performance in Paris is Burning." Documenting the Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Eds. Barry Keith Grant and Jeanneatte Sloniowski. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998. 429-445.              
2.)    "Interview with Albert and David Maysles." Interview by Jack Kroll. Salesman DVD Special Features. The Criterion Collection. 1968. Television.
3.)    ""Paris Is Burning" Director & Drag Queens." Interview by Joan Rivers. The Late Show with Joan Rivers. 1989. Television.

DOCUMENTARY FILM

Two Extremes of the Documentary Tradition

                  Within the documentary tradition, there are many different approaches to presenting reality.  Dark Days (2000) and Koyaanisqatsi (1982) can be used to illustrate the endless possibilities when presenting "truth" .Utilizing aspects of the performative mode of documentary film-making, Dark Days uses the explicitly gritty reality of homeless people living in underground tunnels to heighten the audience's responsiveness to the issue of human rights and the mistreatment of those from lower social classes . More closely related to the poetic mode, Koyaanisqatsi “emphasizes visual associations and formal organization (31)” to help the viewer look at the world in a new way. Dark Days is an immersive experience for the viewer, bringing you into the miserable underground world of the Amtrak tunnel dwellers. Koyaanisqatsi on the other hand puts the whole world into perspective and allows for the audience to subjectively look at the whole of human existence from a distance. Both belong to the  documentary tradition because they both are “tangible representations to aspects of the world we already inhabit” . That alone gives us reason to study these records of history. Given that they are now part of our history, a closer look at the ethical issues presented within the films is necessary if we want to figure out what the directors are trying to tell us.

(Street art found in the Amtrak tunnels where the homeless "moles" live)

To better examine the ethical issues associated with these two films in the context of the documentary tradition, we need to look at the different relationships between the filmmaker, the subjects, and the audience. Using the verbal formulations that Nichols introduces, Dark Days can be described as an “I speak about them to you” relationship. That is, I (Marc Singer) speaks about them (the mole people) to you (the audience). The formulation serves this movie well because of the indication that Marc Singer is not a part of the group or population he is filming. Marc acts as a representative for the homeless people living in the underground tunnels. They themselves are not financially (among other things) capable of making a film about their struggles so Marc acts as a surrogate. The distance between the filmmaker and his subjects that the verbal formulation implies can also help us find the overall voice and message of the film.

(director of "Dark Days" Marc Singer)

Often throughout history we find stories of people from a higher position in society fighting to improve conditions for or to serve the needs of those who belong to lower classes. The fact that Marc did not share the “tunnel hut” lifestyle of the mole people who he was filming illuminates his humanitarianism and his desire to help those in need of assistance. As a result, “going out of your way to help those in need” is a theme that is unmistakably present throughout the film. Whether it is an interview with Mike Harris at the coalition for the homeless or Greg fixing a home cooked poison meal for his resident rats to help his neighbors. When Dee's house gets burned to the ground, Ralph takes her into his hut and gives her a temporary shelter. The films emphasis on helping the needy is inescapable. “The sense of speaking about a topic or issue, a people or individual lends an air of civic importance to the effort ” - Bill Nichols

(The Amtrak tunnel system)

 "why would I leave? There's free electricity down here" Greg

(Julio and lee reminiscing about old pets)

(Ralph ans Dee argue over a plastic cup )

Marc gets the audience to feel sympathy for the mole people by highlighting aspects of their lives that are similar to the lives of the audience members. For instance, most of the audience knows what it feels like to lose a pet. Most know what it feels like to flip through old photos of pets from the past and attempt to describe in words the love they had for that animal.  Roger, Rusty, Miss Peaches and Miss Bleaks connect you to Julio through your mutual love of animals. “Hey, Julio is just like me”. Julio also connects with us through how he stresses the importance of a home safety system. He exhibits a universal desire to be secure in one’s home, wherever that may be. When we realize that these people are just like us in so many ways, we have a tendency to imagine ourselves in their position. The overwhelmingly filthy damp, miserable conditions of the tunnels that are explicitly depicted on film serve the agenda of Marc Singer. ”The ability of the photographic image to reproduce the likeness of what is set before it, its indexical quality, compels us to believe that it is reality itself represented before us, while the story or proposal presents a distinct way of regarding this reality” -Bill Nichols. He wants to make you feel bad for the mole people because the worse it seems to the audience, the more likely they are to help change their horrible conditions in some way. His emphases on the explicit meanings of the images help to give his argument validity. Using the words of Greg “it beez that way”.

(Screenshot from  Koyaanisqatsi)

            When talking about Koyaanisqatsi however, this threefold relationship between filmmaker, the subject and the audience becomes a bit more complicated. It seems as though there might be more than one formulation that can describe Koyaanisqatsi. “I speak about it to you” is a valid formulation because the “it” represents an all-inclusive look at the human existence. The incredibly expansive variety of things that are depicted in Koyaanisqatsi leads the viewer to take a holistic view of the world around them in its entirety. The “it” is all that is our reality. “It speaks about it to you” is another good formulation that implies that the movie itself is an entity of its own, a creation of our reality. Since there is no commentary of experts giving their opinions, and trying to persuade us to think a certain way, one can argue that the images alone are speaking to us. The images alone are speaking about our reality to us. 

(An elderly man is forgotten by the bustling youth and cast aside)
(This often happens in today's world when we become so quick to forget about our elderly in assisted living homes throughout the country)

Although this is a valid formulation, I believe it’s still not the best one. It is true we don’t hear commentary from the director that can give us clues about the message of the film, but his opinions and feelings are still absolutely present. The reality is that Reggio is speaking to us through the images. We can hear the voice of the director through the way in which he has constructed the movie. What he chooses to film, what is juxtaposed to the images he shows and also the length of time he spends presenting each shot. These are all are tools Godfrey Reggio uses to convey his message and provoke the viewer to think in certain ways. For instance, the sequence of the tall mushroom cloud rising up from a surely horrific epicenter immediately followed by a family lying face down and motionless on a beach tells us a hypothetical story. This family is probably relaxed and having a great time at the beach, but shown immediately after a bomb exploding, the audience cannot help but to equate the motionless family to possible victims of this horrible bomb. Reggio is bringing reality into perspective for us. He is saying “bombs kill people” and that we must think twice before unleashing such a devastating instrument of death.

(Beach scene directly following the atomic explosion in "Koyaanisqatsi")

I believe a new formulation must be created for Koyaanisqatsi. “I speak about us to you” is the best formulation for this movie not only because it explains to us that “I” (Reggio) is speaking to us, telling us of his “nightmares and dreads” through images and music. But also, the “us” implies that Reggio is himself included in the human existence he is depicting on screen. Unlike Dark Days, where Marc Singer is removed from the population that is depicted, Reggio is exhibiting the human race as a whole and must be included because he is a human who lives within the world just like his subjects. He himself is a working cog in this big machine called the human existence.

(The shuttle that explodes at the end of  Koyaanisqatsi was actually an unmanned shuttle carrying supplies to the international space station. Even though nobody was hurt , the message still gets across : "Technology is a great power that can become very dangerous very quickly")

            Even though both movies are representing a part of our reality, the two movies deliver their messages to the viewer in two totally different ways.  When examining the variations in their method of delivery we have to realize that there are certain expectations that an audience member has when going to see a movie. Directors often like to tell their cinematic stories in a way that is most palatable for the viewer. Over the years certain cinematic techniques have been developed to ensure the audiences connection to the story and its characters. Rules (most obviously in fiction films) like for instance the 180 degree rule are designed so that the action feels natural, mimicking reality. The way in which Marc presents his story is closely related to the structure of a fiction film with designated scenes, dialogue , monologues (Dee) , an antagonistic force (Amtrak officials) , round characters (social actors), establishing shots and multiple plot lines .

(Dark Days , a buddy movie?)

           One can easily look at Ralph and Dees living situation as a fresh new revival of the odd couple. Wackiness ensues when Ralph accidentally throws away a mermaid cup that belonged to Dee. Their bickering is reminiscent of Fred and Ethel Mertz from “I Love Lucy” (1951). Tito and Ralphs conversation is filmed by Marc as he sits on the ground just like his subjects are. The profile shot of Greg walking while turning backwards to look behind him reminded me of the opening sequence of “The Graduate”(1991) when Dustin Hoffman is being transported on a people mover while shot in profile. All these cinematic techniques make the movie easier for the viewer to watch and understand. Strangely, the deep shadows of the tunnels and the industrial landscape even give the movie an accidental film noir feel to it.

(This screenshot from Dark Days looks very similar to the film noir detective flicks of the 30's)

            Koyaanisqatsi differs greatly from the use of time tested cinematic techniques to tell a specific narrative. Reggio is rather disturbing our preconceptions of what to expect of the structured plot of a movie. Scenes like the 10min long single shot of a plane slowly rolling toward the camera seems so out of the ordinary we can’t help but to comment on it. The shot provokes us to think twice about this painfully ordinary sequence. Images of speedy clouds and lightning fast people depict time in a way that seems foreign to us. The long gaze of the Las Vegas waitresses into the lens of the camera makes us feel uneasy. I felt as though they could see me. I was no longer a passive observer eavesdropping on the lives of others. I was directly addressed by them and they acknowledged my presence. Again, steering away from common expectations one would have about a movie.

(The camera lingers on these ladies for close to a full minute . They just stare into the lens and occasionally blink. What else is being said here? Is it how artificial their appearance is with huge hair and excessive makeup mimicking the florescent background? Is the shot commenting on the lowering of the magnificent human to a cheap gimmick?are they simply products of their environment?)

The unorthodox techniques used by Reggio allow for an audience to find implicit meaning within the shots. The long shots give us time to reflect and to cultivate a commentary within ourselves about the meaning of the shots. Reggio is stressing the implicit meanings of the shots he has gathered. Yes there is explicit value within the frames but since there is such a minimal input from social actors (who are often used to sway people’s feelings about a particular problem) the audience is left to their own devices to figure out for themselves what the message of the film is. The for instance do not have the help testimonials from social actors or statistics recorded on a fancy graph that plots the rising rate of mole people in each major city.

(The long stare of the jet pilot makes us uneasy , but why?)

When comparing these two documentaries, we can get a sense of how expansive the documentary tradition is. Coming from two different ends of the documentary spectrum, each exhibit methods of storytelling that are very different. When we examine the content of each film, we get a better understanding of the context from which the stories came from and vice versa. If there is any question about what the documentaries are about or trying to say, we need only to look at the content and analyze it. We must take the images at face value in order to understand the implicit meanings that may lay hidden. Like Greg says “it beez that way”.

           

CHINATOWN 1974

Screenwriting and cinematography analysis for "Chinatown" (1974)

            At one hour and 38min, JJ Gittes arrives at the home of Ida Sessions to question her about her role in deceiving him at his office in the beginning of the movie, only to find he is too late. Gittes arrives at Idas’ door and discovers that not only is her doorbell broken, a section of the glass on her door has been shattered. The shattered window on Ida’s door is already illustrating to us that a forced entry has occurred and creates an unsettling feeling of extreme caution. Someone has already paid her a visit, someone who was not welcome.

(some behind the scene shots of director Roman Polanski working with the actors)

       As Gittes swings the door open, he surveys the room from outside, again conveying a sense of caution. Throughout the whole movie there is a reoccurring technique that Roman Polanski and Robert Towne use to put you in the shoes of Mr. Gittes. Often we see Gittes filmed from the back. The camera follows him from behind, observing what it is he is discovering.  The clues are presented to the audience as Gittes is discovering them. This gives the audience the feeling that they are (like Gittes) a private investigator working with him to help solve the crime. We feel as though Gittes is bringing us along for the ride so to speak as a master craftsman would do for his apprentice.  As he enters the still room, the camera follows close behind mimicking the point of view of Gittess’ phantom partner (the audience). Gittes opens the bedroom door and leans forward to peer in. The camera copies his leaning motion and it too surveys the room from behind him as a partner would. Gittes then walks into the hallway and discovers a head of lettuce lying motionless on the floor.

                 The image of the lettuce on the ground is also illustrating some things for us. For one, it seems to be a very unusual place to keep produce. Sitting on the floor, it tells us that something unusual has happened here. Most people do everything they can to see that produce never touches the dirty floor. This situation presented before Gittes and the audience was clearly out of the ordinary. Second, the lettuce has become wilted. This conveys time using the simplest of indicators, degeneration of organic material. The fact that the lettuce has become brown tells Gittes (and the audience) that he is way too late. A significant amount of time has passed since the lettuce came to be on the floor.  The camera follows the scattered groceries and reveals to us what we’ve been expecting. Ida is dead and Gittes is far too late.

(The majority of the producers did not agree with this silly bandage
over Nicholson's face. It took a lot of work to nail down a great actor for the part
and they didn't want to cover his face for nearly half the movie)

         Gittes picks up Idas’ wallet and shuffles through it. The camera angle while the wallet is in the frame mimics Gittess’ point of view. Again, you are discovering the clues as they are presented to Gittes. The bright sunlight that envelops the wallet is helping reveal the clues that the wallet contains, bringing “to light” the secrets it contains. As he puts back the purse where he found it, Gittes peers across the room and takes interest to something that is out of the frame. The camera swings across the room racing to discover what it is Gittes has noticed. As Gittes pushes on the partially open door, the darkness is cut by an intense flashlight beam. The piercing and imposing beam of light illustrates to us “there is a real threat in here”. Gittes has been caught. He hasn’t committed any crimes, but little does he know, the man behind the murder has been manipulating events in such a way that again brings Gittes face to face with the police.

      The discovery of Gittes at the home of Ida by the police is very incriminating for Gittes. This illustrates to us that the police are suspicious of Gittes and you can’t blame them. As Gittes flicks on the light the two officers are revealed. Guittess’ old friend Capt. Lou Escobar steps forward and meets Gittes in the doorway. Here we see a screenshot that is split into two very different lighting arrangements. On one side we have the officers occupying a room flooded with light. On the other side we have Gittes presented to us in neutral colors. The officers no doubt represent the law, justice, etc. The pairing of the bright room and the presence of the law embodied by the two officers is undoubtedly alluding to the biblical metaphor of “the shining light of justice”. One could argue that Gittes is in a “grey zone” presented in neutral colors because he indeed represents a halfway between the law and private citizens. That is, he used to be a policeman but has since built his own private investigation firm. If there was any question that this shot is conveying Escobar’s role in this matter as “the shining light of justice”,  the concrete evidence comes from the beam of light bouncing of the top of Escobar’s’ hat. This is the best depiction of the word “shine” one could hope to capture. The refracted light is not a mistake at all; it’s a tool to help stylize the shot.

       Since the majority of the light is coming from behind Escobar, it creates a shadow that falls on his face. This too is conveying some things to us. We need to remember that Escobar and Gittes have a history together. They were both on the force together in Chinatown long ago.  In order to become a good police captain, Escobar must relinquish any reservations or feelings of friendship he might have with Gittes. In order to find true justice he must let go of his preconceived notions about Gittes, in effect, just like lady justice, becoming blind. The shadow on Escobar’s face is a clear representation of the popular metaphor, “justice is blind”.

     Escobar emerges from the room and walks across the Kitchen with Gittes. As they get to the phone, we see another officer (representing the law) appearing in the living room. The officer turns on the living room light, flooding the room with the same type of artificial light we saw in the bathroom. This combination of the bright light and another policeman is instrumental in mounting the tension. Gittess’ exit is now blocked. He now must comply in the name of the law. When they get to the phone, Escobar completes the ambush by flicking on the kitchen light enveloping all the men in the symbolic light of justice. Gittes no longer has the upper hand, and for the first time in the movie is completely helpless and at the mercy of someone else.

                   These stylized cinematic elements are enabling Roman Polanski and Robert Towne to convey this story to us in a more effective way. They do this by putting on the surface the deeper meanings that lie beneath. In this scene, visually, Escobar is the embodiment of justice, and that’s what Robert Towne wants you to feel. We must in a sense look at everything in movies on a literal level. “Very little in a movie is left to chance”.