I recently watched a documentary style video about someone who became homeless. He did this because he felt comfortable where he was, especially in his faith. it wasn't quite a documentary about other homeless people in the Dayton, Ohio area, but it was about the challenges of being homeless and what homeless people face everyday. The video starts with seeing him getting to become homeless. He goes to goodwill to purchase some warmer clothes, shows the life that he is leaving for this experience, and then by the end of part 1 he is walking towards downtown Dayton. Throughout the videos it is mostly open frame shots because he is shooting by himself. He has no one helping him. It is truly a one man project. Also the camera in which he uses is a handheld camera. You get a glimpse of it right before he goes to leave. Some of the challenges in which he faced throughout this experince was he didn't have a plan. He didn't know where he was going to sleep at night and he was seeing how the homeless struggle with the places that they go. He was kicked out of college after pretending all day that he was a student. He also didn't know what he was going to do everyday. He walked a lot espically once he realized how far downtown Dayton is from where he started. he also saw the challenge in carrying all of his belongings. At the end of the video he comments how much of a humbling experince it was to become homeless and see how they must live and the struggles that they face everyday.
What qualifies this as low budget is that it was a one man project. He shot the entire video himself. He also edited it as well. Yes, he used a Mac for the whole process but the onyl money taht he spent was for clothes, food, and batteries. I would taht he spent around $100 or less. This video shows that even the ordinary person can shoot a documentary that raises awareness about a specific subject or group of people.
As I watched this documentary, I was truly moved by the images taht he captured and the comments taht were made. He did show how the homeless have to live. It makes me appreicaite everything that I have more and I know that the next time I encounter someone who is homeless I will have more compassion for them. It also makes me realize that God has blessed me in an amazing way by just providing a place for me to live. This documentary is something that every Christian should see and I hope that it changes perspectives about certain things we have and about the people taht really are homeless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAVTpf_S0w
Friday, April 23, 2010
interviews
I read two interviews with different filmmakers and learned how they felt about doing documentaries, as opposed to a film that is more planned out. The first interviews was with French filmmaker Laurent Cantet. He followed students in a junior high school of different ethnicities and looked at how they reacted to certain material they were learning. What was different in this documentary though is that some of the students weren't actually students at this school. He used their basic story and put them all in one setting together.
I found it interesting that he did this instead of casting the kids in their normal setting. When asked why he didn't just capture the kids' real lives in the documentary he responded with, "when you make a documentary, you don't control what happens or how it appears on the screen. You can't determine the outcome of the story and what becomes of the characters. I prefer to have the control when I make a film." This is a strange way to do a documentary. I always thought the point of a documentary was to catch things and people in their natural existence, without planning things out. That's the beauty of a documentary, seeing things how they really are.
The next interview I read was about an Australian director who had done several movies, which won awards. He later did a documentary about the life of a composer to commemorate his 70th birthday. He was asked what he thought the differences were about doing these two different types of movies. Was there a different approach to a documentary than another film? He didn't seem to think the process was any different, like I would have thought it was.
Hicks said, "In the end, a film is a film, and it is either truthful or it is not. My background is in documentaries, and after making a number of big narrative features [...] I was very comfortable returning to my documentary roots". He went on to talk about how with a movie, you have to plan everything out and have a script. You don't do this for a documentary. You have more raw materials in documentaries and may capture things on film that you don't really want.
When he was filming this at first, he didn't have the money to have a big crew or cameramen. He said that when he finally hired them, the whole attitude of the film changed. Before they came along, he could chat with Philip Glass (the composer) about life, family, art, and just himself as a person. After there were more people working on this film, it seemed like he became just the subject for a film, explaining music and the process he went through when composing. I think this shows that money doesn't make a great documentary. This film would have been find without the extra people on the crew. The closeness and rapport the director had with Glass had disappeared.
$2 million an episode?!
I came across two articles that talked about costs of making a documentary. One deals with the television show "Planet Earth", while the other talks about lesser known documentaries, "The Living End" and "Laws of Gravity".
"Planet Earth" was an 11 part series, filmed in Britain that premiered on the discovery channel in the United States. This was filmed in high definition, took over two years to complete, and $22 million to create. They traveled all over on three eight-week journeys that allowed them to explore the habitats of different types of animals, as well as observe nature in the desert, mountains, jungle, and more places as well. They advertised for this well and got their name out there so people knew what it was about and were very likely to watch it when it premiered. The producer of this show had done another documentary, titled "The Blue Planet", before this one that cost $10 million for an eight-part series. It took 20 camera teams, five years, and was shown in more than 50 countries. There were different types of camera techniques used and lots of people on this crew.
 |  |
In the second article, it talked about three filmmakers using a very low budget to create films. They did not have any of the fancy supplies like those who did "Planet Earth" had, but they still had the passion for their project and knew they would somehow figure out how to find people to help with this, cameras, writers, etc. They had been planning their movie "Laws of Gravity" for a while, found some actors for it, and found the supplies they needed. It was all filmed with a handheld camera. They had one set for the movie, so that already saved a ton of money by not traveling like most filmmakers do. This only took twelve days to film, unlike the years it takes most movies. The entire movie, with props, equipment, production, etc., only cost about $38,000. Another movie they did, "The Living End" was done on a budget of about $22,000. They were just smart about who they had working on the film, what equipment and props were actually necessary, and where they filmed. They didn't need the effects like other movies did. They were still able to do their job and complete the task of creating a low budget film. These two movies didn't get all the hype that "Planet Earth" did, and it wasn't advertised like the show on the Discovery Channel, but they still did the same type of thing. Three filmmakers wanted to make a movie, but had little money for it. In some ways, they had to actually work harder because they had to cut back on things they may have wanted, since they didn't have funding for it. I think there can still be some great movies and documentaries done without having a huge budget and tons of advertising and well-known actors/narrators. You just have to look a little harder to find these ones. http://www.nextwavefilms.com/ulbp/abc.html | Fred Olivier/Discovery Channel and BBC Image |
Bolivia: Lens on Latin America
Documentary filmmaking has grown to become a widely used method for promoting social justice issues. In order to produce an effective documentary focusing on social justice, it is important to know how the whole documentary making process works. Ismael Saavedra, a documentary filmmaker from Bolivia, understands this concept. Saavedra is the Academic Advisor of SIT Study Abroad’s Bolivia: Lens on Latin America. This study abroad program gives students the opportunity to collaborate with Bolivian film students to produce a documentary on a topic of their choice. Students are encouraged to focus on life and social justice issues within Bolivia. The program includes classes on video production and gives students access to the school’s editing suite. Students are provided with only minimal equipment consisting of a small video camera, laptop, and an external hard drive. This program is helping students to learn their craft and become effective filmmakers. Saavedra says, “I want my students to realize the importance and potential of working with the language of the 21st century and, in doing so, I want them to learn and produce quality and moving short documentaries as a result of their research.”
I watched three short films produced by these students. The first film I watched was titled “Los Hombres Del Lago” (The Men of the Lake). It focused on a people group who live near Lake Poopó in Bolivia. For thousands of years, these people have relied on the lake to provide them with food and other resources. They ate sea plants and fish and drank water from the lake. They fished the lake to make money to support their community. They lived peacefully until the 1930’s when people from other countries arrived to take advantage of their rich soil and farm their land. In 1970, a mining company moved in and started taking over their land as well. Pollutants from the mine began to seep into the lake and contaminate it. Many of the sea plants and fish died off. The water also became sour and unfit to drink. The native people were left with little resources to survive. They requested help from authorities, but were ignored due to their poverty and lack of education.
This film was very artistically produced. It was shot in black and white and featured beautiful shots of lake scenery such as wildlife, plant life, and water. The documentary was also narrated by the 89-year-old ex-leader of the lake people.
The second film I watched, “Rio Mamore Beni-Bolivia,” focused on the community of Santa Maria Del Pilar. Although this documentary had no narrator, it still managed to effectively get its point across. The film gives the viewer a look into a beautiful native culture. Images of plants, animals, and village life set to native music provide us with a view of a wonderful culture that is threatened by the pressures of westernization.
The third film I watched was titled “Para Comunidad Desde La Comunidad” (For Community From The Community). This film itself was an example of what this program is all about. It focused on a group of indigenous Bolivian filmmakers that produce documentary films to promote their lifestyle and give them a voice within the country. Several different filmmakers explain that the ideals of westernization are starting to creep in and take over Bolivian society. In order to preserve their unique way of life, they use media to reach out and advocate their cause. Producing their own television shows and films helps to give them a voice within politics and culture.
For more information on Bolivia: Lens on Latin America and/or links to these films visit: http://www.sit.edu/studyabroad/sss_blv.cfm
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Orchestra of Piazza Vittorio
I watched a movie titled "The Orchestra of Piazza Vittorio". This movie was filmed in Rome and deals with the formation of an international orchestra during a time of protesting in Italy. People had been protesting about immigrants coming into their country illegally. This is shown some in the film so the audience has an idea of what is going on in this area and why it might be hard to start an orchestra up.
As stated in the film, this area in Rome had changed a lot throughout time. Music had kind of died out a little and now there were many more immigrants in the city, plus products were being shipped there from China (which was making some people act crazy!). The older people especially did not like these types of changes. As music and the arts were dying out, the government couldn't think of a need to keep the Apollo theater around, since attendance wasn't very high anymore. They were planning on turning it into a bingo hall. This is where the idea to invite musicians from all over to come together and form an international orchestra occurred.
It was a much bigger challenge to find musicians than I thought it would be. They searched for months and months to find musicians and singers as well. There were struggles with visas too, since one man came from India and traveled for the first time to Italy. There were conflicts among the musicians at their first practice because everyone had their own way of doing things. Everyone is unique; every instrument is unique. Bringing this many different sounding instruments and people together to try and create good music seemed like it was going to be real difficult to me.
By the end of the movie though, the musicians had come together (after providing their own funding for this project and hoping they would succeed and start to accumulate some money) and performed at a concert in the fall. The crowd looked like they enjoyed the music a lot and everyone seemed pleasantly surprised. I really liked the sound they had; it was a very different style of music than I've heard before. There were traditional Indian vocals and instruments, but then there was also a trumpet player and a bass player, which added some variety to the sound.
This group is still together and playing more shows now, after they were able to keep the Apollo theater open. I love hearing stories like this and it was very interesting to watch this story unfold. The film wasn't made of the best quality and it was dull at times, but the story itself was good. It showed how to overcome a challenge and stick with an idea once you set your mind to it. This whole process took over a year, and then a few years after that till the group got their name established.
Here is one review to give a little more information about the film:
Oh, Leonard Nimoy, how I miss the days of old, when you would grace my television screen with your presence.
So, after a few hours of stumbling around the internet, I've unearthed a few interesting links to share with the lot of you, dealing with the technical aspects of low budget & independent filmmaking. Are you ready? Yes? Are you sure? Excellent.
Although $750,000 may not seem "low budget," the average American made film cost around $5,000,000 to produce in 1973. And it was with this modest (modest, you say? I'm a college student. I get excited about finding quarters on the ground.) budget that George Lucas' American Graffiti was produced that year, eventually landing itself at number two on Cinematical's top seven- fancy that. Blaire Witch also made the cut, what with its $25,000 budget, as did Clerks, Kevin Smith's debut into the directing world.
A few interesting folks from Finland got together and decided to make a "feature-length sci-fi parody," entitled Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. Then they put together a website with the thought in mind that anyone should be able to make the movies they want to make, whoever they may be. Their slogan? "Enthusiasm over professionalism." A major motivator for them is the marriage between the internet and filmmaking, and the concept that, through the internet, niche films can find their audiences much more easily, and be that much more successful. You know, niche films kinda like a Finnish Star Trek parody...which took seven years to make, by the way, with an unspecified, but tiny, amount of funding.
Number one: Lights Film School Blog
Lights Film School is an online film school (!!!), and, in an effort to keep the world updated on the happenings in the movie-making world, they have created this splendiferous blog, in which they ramble on about tips for independent filmmakers. There's plenty of practical advice: how to write a documentary treatment (what's a movie treatment, you may ask? Do I dare willingly dole out the secrets of the industry? Okay, it's not actually mysterious. It's basically just a synopsis of the story, anywhere from 2-10 pages -or longer, depending on your definition of "brief outline"- that filmmakers use to pitch their movies to would-be funders), how to light interviews, how to write casting notices, and other things that the majority of the population don't think about when they watch movies, but that are essential to the movie-making process. Fascinating stuff, kids. Fascinating. Stuff. (And things!)
Number two: Cinematical Seven: Best 'Ultra-Low Budget' Films Ever Made
Although $750,000 may not seem "low budget," the average American made film cost around $5,000,000 to produce in 1973. And it was with this modest (modest, you say? I'm a college student. I get excited about finding quarters on the ground.) budget that George Lucas' American Graffiti was produced that year, eventually landing itself at number two on Cinematical's top seven- fancy that. Blaire Witch also made the cut, what with its $25,000 budget, as did Clerks, Kevin Smith's debut into the directing world.Number three: Wreck a Movie
http://www.wreckamovie.com/
http://www.wreckamovie.com/
A few interesting folks from Finland got together and decided to make a "feature-length sci-fi parody," entitled Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. Then they put together a website with the thought in mind that anyone should be able to make the movies they want to make, whoever they may be. Their slogan? "Enthusiasm over professionalism." A major motivator for them is the marriage between the internet and filmmaking, and the concept that, through the internet, niche films can find their audiences much more easily, and be that much more successful. You know, niche films kinda like a Finnish Star Trek parody...which took seven years to make, by the way, with an unspecified, but tiny, amount of funding. Le fin!
Creating a Budget
For a low budget documentary the creating the budget for the film will be the most important thing that will happen. The writing of the story will be dictated by the financial burdens of little money. The writer must keep in mind that the film has a very limited budget. Now this does not mean that the story line of the documentary is going to be bad. It just means that with each and every scene that the writer puts into the documentary, they must realize the budget issues facing the film. This will mean cutting back on difficult camera angles and locations. But once the documentary has been written the budget must be determined and reviewed.
There are three very important aspects to determine before the budget of the film can be planned. The first is the amount of time that will be given to research the topic of the documentary. Every documentary will require research on the topic at hand and this will take time and money to complete. The second thing that must be considered is the amount of days it will take to film the documentary. The cost will obviously go up with every day of filming. The third thing that must be considered is the amount of weeks that the filming process is spread out. Therefore, your final statement will look something like this: there will be one month of research, with 20 days of filming over a 4 week period. These things must be considered in the budget because each and every one of them adds to the final cost of the film.
The next step in forming the budget is to set the dollar amount for every aspect of the documentary. Here are the costs that go into a documentary: research, director, producer, story and other rights, archival photographs and stills, stock footage and film clips, music, production staff, editorial staff, talent, production expenses, travel expenses, post-production, insurance, office and administrative costs, promotion material, and professional services.
Research - This is the cost of all the research such as books, interviews, and other expenses required to research the project
Director, Producer and Writer - This is the cost to get a well run documentary.
Story and other Rights - This is the cost of securing the legal documentation for making the documentary and all rights that are connect to it.
Archival photographs and stills - This is the cost of getting the rights to any still photography that is used in the documentary.
Stock footage and film clips - This is the cost of the film used to make the documentary
Music - This is the securing all the rights to any music for the film.
Production staff - This is the cost of the staff that actually shoots the documentary.
Editorial staff - This is the cost of the staff that edits the documentary
Talent - This actors within the documentary.
Production expenses - This is the cost of the cameras, sounds, lighting, and crew meals.
Travel expenses - This is the cost of traveling to and from locations. It will include airfare, hotel rooms, unloading and loading the equipment.
Post-production - This is the cost of fixing any mistakes that are made during the production of the film.
Insurance - This covers anything from actor getting injured to a cameras getting broken.
Promotional material - This is the cost of getting the general population excited about the documentary.
Professional material - This is the cost of attorney to protect the documentary.
A director of a low budget documentary must go through each of these categories and determine what is needed to maintain the story line and what would just enhance the story line. For this the director needs to create two budges; the first is the professional one. This is the budget that includes everything that the documentary needs and everything that will enhance it. This first budget will be given to everyone that is thinking about funding the documentary. The second budget is the bare bones, it include one the things that the film needs. This budget is the one that is used by most low budget documentaries.
It is not easy making a budget but it does insure that funds will last as long as possible and insures the best quality of documentary possible.
www.doculink.org/Downloads/IntroDocBudgetBahar.pdf
There are three very important aspects to determine before the budget of the film can be planned. The first is the amount of time that will be given to research the topic of the documentary. Every documentary will require research on the topic at hand and this will take time and money to complete. The second thing that must be considered is the amount of days it will take to film the documentary. The cost will obviously go up with every day of filming. The third thing that must be considered is the amount of weeks that the filming process is spread out. Therefore, your final statement will look something like this: there will be one month of research, with 20 days of filming over a 4 week period. These things must be considered in the budget because each and every one of them adds to the final cost of the film.
The next step in forming the budget is to set the dollar amount for every aspect of the documentary. Here are the costs that go into a documentary: research, director, producer, story and other rights, archival photographs and stills, stock footage and film clips, music, production staff, editorial staff, talent, production expenses, travel expenses, post-production, insurance, office and administrative costs, promotion material, and professional services.
Research - This is the cost of all the research such as books, interviews, and other expenses required to research the project
Director, Producer and Writer - This is the cost to get a well run documentary.
Story and other Rights - This is the cost of securing the legal documentation for making the documentary and all rights that are connect to it.
Archival photographs and stills - This is the cost of getting the rights to any still photography that is used in the documentary.
Stock footage and film clips - This is the cost of the film used to make the documentary
Music - This is the securing all the rights to any music for the film.
Production staff - This is the cost of the staff that actually shoots the documentary.
Editorial staff - This is the cost of the staff that edits the documentary
Talent - This actors within the documentary.
Production expenses - This is the cost of the cameras, sounds, lighting, and crew meals.
Travel expenses - This is the cost of traveling to and from locations. It will include airfare, hotel rooms, unloading and loading the equipment.
Post-production - This is the cost of fixing any mistakes that are made during the production of the film.
Insurance - This covers anything from actor getting injured to a cameras getting broken.
Promotional material - This is the cost of getting the general population excited about the documentary.
Professional material - This is the cost of attorney to protect the documentary.
A director of a low budget documentary must go through each of these categories and determine what is needed to maintain the story line and what would just enhance the story line. For this the director needs to create two budges; the first is the professional one. This is the budget that includes everything that the documentary needs and everything that will enhance it. This first budget will be given to everyone that is thinking about funding the documentary. The second budget is the bare bones, it include one the things that the film needs. This budget is the one that is used by most low budget documentaries.
It is not easy making a budget but it does insure that funds will last as long as possible and insures the best quality of documentary possible.
www.doculink.org/Downloads/IntroDocBudgetBahar.pdf
The Hidden Costs of Documentaries
The most dangerous hidden cost for a low budget documentary is that of legal fees. Legal fees have to potential to double or even triple the cost of a low documentary. A director can still face hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees under the copyright laws "fair use" doctrine. The "fair use" doctrine is aimed at protecting artists' First Amendment rights. In theory the "fair use" allows authors to reference and build upon someone elses work without facing legal liability(Hennefeld, 4). there are four things to consider before determining if a something falls under the description of the "fair use" doctrine.
1) Is the purpose for commercial use or nonprofit education
2) The nature of the copyrighted work
3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
These four stipulations create a catch-22. They allow artists' to build on others work but the legal cost of determining if the artistic work falls under the terms of "fair use" is beyond the budget of low budget documentaries. The cost to determine if the artistic work falls under the"fair use" doctrine can be hundreds of thousands of dollars and if the claim loses the director can face up to $150,000 id damages for each copyright infringement. Due to the outrages cost of determining if an artistic work falls under the "fair use" and the fear of losing a claim, many directors are forced to give up their dreams and abandon their documentaries.
To avoid using the "fair use" doctrine a director has to clear all the material in the documentary that is not his own work. This is a very expensive process that can drastically increase the cost of the documentary. A good example of this is with Jonathan Caouette's "Tarnation." This was originally edited at home on the young man's laptop for around $218. After a distributor picked up "Tarnation" and improved the quality, cleared music rights, and the cost for post-production the cost came to $460,00. Half of this cost was clearing the rights. $230,000 where spend on one film to to clear the rights this is far more than the budget that is given to most documentaries.
These are just some of the legal fees that any filmmaker has to face. These fees can make or break a low budget documentary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/movies/16rams.html?_r=1
Hennefeld, Margaret. Fair Use in Independent Documentary Filmmaking. CUREJ - Undergraduate Research electronic Journal. University of Pennsylvania, 2006.
repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=curej
1) Is the purpose for commercial use or nonprofit education
2) The nature of the copyrighted work
3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
These four stipulations create a catch-22. They allow artists' to build on others work but the legal cost of determining if the artistic work falls under the terms of "fair use" is beyond the budget of low budget documentaries. The cost to determine if the artistic work falls under the"fair use" doctrine can be hundreds of thousands of dollars and if the claim loses the director can face up to $150,000 id damages for each copyright infringement. Due to the outrages cost of determining if an artistic work falls under the "fair use" and the fear of losing a claim, many directors are forced to give up their dreams and abandon their documentaries.
To avoid using the "fair use" doctrine a director has to clear all the material in the documentary that is not his own work. This is a very expensive process that can drastically increase the cost of the documentary. A good example of this is with Jonathan Caouette's "Tarnation." This was originally edited at home on the young man's laptop for around $218. After a distributor picked up "Tarnation" and improved the quality, cleared music rights, and the cost for post-production the cost came to $460,00. Half of this cost was clearing the rights. $230,000 where spend on one film to to clear the rights this is far more than the budget that is given to most documentaries.
These are just some of the legal fees that any filmmaker has to face. These fees can make or break a low budget documentary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/movies/16rams.html?_r=1
Hennefeld, Margaret. Fair Use in Independent Documentary Filmmaking. CUREJ - Undergraduate Research electronic Journal. University of Pennsylvania, 2006.
repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=curej
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Put Every Penny on the Screen
Making a low budge documentary is very difficult due to the fact that the director must use their money very carefully. Every penny that they have must show up on the screen to ensure the best documentary possible. This means that a director has to cut back on locations and difficult camera shots. With each location costs emerge that do not show up on the screen such as traveling, unloading equipment, rigging lights, and if the budget is available laying dolly track. This is a very expensive process, which means that the director must constantly ask if the location is needed to add to the story. If the director can cut out one or two locations from the original script, it will save money without compromising the documentary.
Budgeting for a documentary is much like building a house. A house can be built for a million-dollars or it can be built with fifty thousand dollars. The one million-dollar house will have all the bells and whistles possible where as the fifty thousand dollar house will only have the basics. The final product is still a house. It is important to remember that the house is not defined by all bells and whistles that it has but by the quality of the story that it produces. One can make a quality house for fifty thousand dollars just as one can make a quality documentary on a low budget.
It is often feared that with a low budget comes low quality documentaries this is not true. If a director can cut extra expenses such as unneeded locations he will be able to add to the quality of the documentary later in the production process. A low budget documentary does not mean low quality it means that every penny is put on the screen and not waisted on behind the screens expenses. (Learning Filmmaking Online)
http://www.2learnfilm.com/producing.htm
Budgeting for a documentary is much like building a house. A house can be built for a million-dollars or it can be built with fifty thousand dollars. The one million-dollar house will have all the bells and whistles possible where as the fifty thousand dollar house will only have the basics. The final product is still a house. It is important to remember that the house is not defined by all bells and whistles that it has but by the quality of the story that it produces. One can make a quality house for fifty thousand dollars just as one can make a quality documentary on a low budget.
It is often feared that with a low budget comes low quality documentaries this is not true. If a director can cut extra expenses such as unneeded locations he will be able to add to the quality of the documentary later in the production process. A low budget documentary does not mean low quality it means that every penny is put on the screen and not waisted on behind the screens expenses. (Learning Filmmaking Online)
http://www.2learnfilm.com/producing.htm
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
ABC Africa
I recently watched a documentary titled "ABC Africa". It's about the AIDS crisis occurring in Africa. In this film, a man by the name of Abbas Kiarostami travels to Uganda with an assistant. They go as a favor to the UN, who requested they go and film what is going on in Uganda so people can see it and start to have a better idea about the extreme problem of AIDS in this area.
The movie opens up by showing a group of orphans and talks about the women who are taking care of them. There are 1.6 million children who have lost one or both parents. This number astonished me; it's crazy to think how many kids are living over there without parents. Parents also have to deal with the loss of their children as well. There was one woman shown who lost all 11 kids to AIDS.
Some of the images are tough to watch and think about that lifestyle. There are shots of teenagers and young children, even babies, walking and crawling on the ground. They have little clothes on sometimes and no shoes, with all the disease-infested bugs flying around. Mosquitoes are a real problem and carry malaria a lot of the time. I can't even imagine living like this. I freak out if I see a spider in my house; I can't even start to think how I'd handle that many diseased insects flying around.
One scene that will stick with me is a section in the film where it is just complete darkness. The power is cut off at midnight so they have no light at this point. The director kept filming with his small handheld camcorder. You just hear some talking and then you see the flashes of lightning in the sky. It is such a different way of living. We're so used to coming into our warm homes at night, having the ability to control whether or not we want light on, and not usually worrying about our house flooding any time it rains. In Uganda, this problem happens to them frequently.
This film was shot with a small video camera that the director carries around with him. There is no voice over in this film, in fact there are scenes that go on for a while without any translation of conversations, or just no conversation at all. Sometimes in this film, there are still images of certain people that seemed to catch the director's eye. These images remain in my head as I think about the film. There are so many other films like this that deal with huge issues, but not many people have seen. I think we all need to start looking a little harder to learn about these types of issues that happen everyday.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Short Films for justice
Most low-budget films are made to bring awareness of injustices or wrongdoings within the country it is filmed in. Sometimes it is the best way to communicate with people. I viewed a series of short films that deal with just that. I viewed 4 short films all about different countries and injustices taking place.
The first was from Eastern Burma. Now, Burma is not a country that many people know what it is. It is also know as Myanmar and is bordered by China, Laos, Thailand, Bangladesh and India. The film that was made, Shoot on Sight, deals with the offensive that the government is taking against its own people. It is not clear to why the government is killing its own people. As i was watching this film, I noticed a similarity to a modern day conflict and that was to the Holocaust. Of course we all know why Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews, but this present day Holocaust (as one might call it) is similar. It is similar because it is the government of the country targeting the people, not some foreign government. Also the people are forced into hiding (just like Jews) If they are found, they will be killed. other similarities include leaving all things behind, and constantly moving so that they are not caught. For more information about the issue at hand you can visit www.burmaissues.org.
The second film that I watched was based in Honduras (Garifunyas Holding Ground- film title). There is a local tribe of people called Garifunyas and they are not taking too kindly to globalization. This is a topic that is affecting our present world today and can be seen in these other movies (not low-budget, but about globalization): The Gods Must be Crazy, and Whale Rider. In this short film, the people of Honduras show the viewer the road that is destroying their land and discuss with the filmers that new natural damages are happening because of this road, i.e. floods, no clean water, and erosion. For more information on the illegal road and globalization of the Garifunya people visit, www.witness.org.
the third film i viewed was called Equal Access and dealt with an issue that the US dealt with about 50 years ago: Integration. This is happening in Bulgaria for the Romani (Gypsy) children. before the Romani children were not educated in the Bulgarian schools. most of the Romani people only have an education to 5th-8th grade. They had to leave because there was no proper school and their families needed the help of all members. If you are having trouble understanding to how this is similar to a US situation, think of the Romanis as the blacks, and the Bulgarians as the whites. the older Bulgarians are not for having these gypsy people in their schools. They feel like they live immoral lives. The Romani people just want their children to grow up to be able to do something better than they could; they want to give them a better opportunity to succeed. Now, the US did not take to lightly to the integration of the schools, as seen by many riots, protests, etc. But that is not the case for the Bulgarians. Now, most of the people accept the Romani children in the schools because they actually are getting to know them through their own children becoming friends with them. The students becoming friends is part of an intentional plan by the staff of the schools. Hopefully things will continue to progress and full integration can occur.
The last film I watched was "Bound by Promises"; a film about the contemporary slavery in Brazil. Farmers a taking men from their families and homes to work their land, but they charge for everything, transportation to farm, essential living supplies, food, etc. to where when the men earn money they cannot pay the farmer for boarding and end up staying there for years. Some have been liberated from these ranches, but others are still there working. The Brazilian government has gotten complaints about escaped workers, but also about the injustice of the slavery. Today, more and more investigations take place and punishments have been put in place for the farmers found with slaves that would hurt their profits, but none have been criminally charged and some investigations go untouched.
As I watched these films, i noticed several things about the way the film was made. One is that all the shots are open frame when shooting landscapes and everyday life to capture the essence of actually being there with the people experiencing what they are experiencing. another thing i noticed was that the shots are always shaky, which indicates that someone is holding the camera. Since it is low budget, one can obviously know that the person can't afford a dolly for the camera to get perfectly still shots. By having shaky filming, it gives the feel of being there. I feel like this is a main goal of most documentaries, is to make the viewer feel like that he/she is actually there with these people. They are trying to give a first hand experience. Another thing that the filmers do, i have noticed is that they tend to ask everyone the same questions, almost expecting to get different answers. Yes, everyone's experience is different and has a different perspective, but sometimes the answers are all the same to where it can become dull and too repetitive. One thing I realized that most people could tend to forget is that the film makers are putting themselves in danger by finding these people and talking to them especially the ones who are in hiding so that they can live. If the film makers are found with the people, they would most likely be killed as well. this is something we take for granted as viewers. we need to remember that these people are putting their lives are risk to bring the injustices to the worlds eyes.
The first was from Eastern Burma. Now, Burma is not a country that many people know what it is. It is also know as Myanmar and is bordered by China, Laos, Thailand, Bangladesh and India. The film that was made, Shoot on Sight, deals with the offensive that the government is taking against its own people. It is not clear to why the government is killing its own people. As i was watching this film, I noticed a similarity to a modern day conflict and that was to the Holocaust. Of course we all know why Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews, but this present day Holocaust (as one might call it) is similar. It is similar because it is the government of the country targeting the people, not some foreign government. Also the people are forced into hiding (just like Jews) If they are found, they will be killed. other similarities include leaving all things behind, and constantly moving so that they are not caught. For more information about the issue at hand you can visit www.burmaissues.org.
The second film that I watched was based in Honduras (Garifunyas Holding Ground- film title). There is a local tribe of people called Garifunyas and they are not taking too kindly to globalization. This is a topic that is affecting our present world today and can be seen in these other movies (not low-budget, but about globalization): The Gods Must be Crazy, and Whale Rider. In this short film, the people of Honduras show the viewer the road that is destroying their land and discuss with the filmers that new natural damages are happening because of this road, i.e. floods, no clean water, and erosion. For more information on the illegal road and globalization of the Garifunya people visit, www.witness.org.
the third film i viewed was called Equal Access and dealt with an issue that the US dealt with about 50 years ago: Integration. This is happening in Bulgaria for the Romani (Gypsy) children. before the Romani children were not educated in the Bulgarian schools. most of the Romani people only have an education to 5th-8th grade. They had to leave because there was no proper school and their families needed the help of all members. If you are having trouble understanding to how this is similar to a US situation, think of the Romanis as the blacks, and the Bulgarians as the whites. the older Bulgarians are not for having these gypsy people in their schools. They feel like they live immoral lives. The Romani people just want their children to grow up to be able to do something better than they could; they want to give them a better opportunity to succeed. Now, the US did not take to lightly to the integration of the schools, as seen by many riots, protests, etc. But that is not the case for the Bulgarians. Now, most of the people accept the Romani children in the schools because they actually are getting to know them through their own children becoming friends with them. The students becoming friends is part of an intentional plan by the staff of the schools. Hopefully things will continue to progress and full integration can occur.
The last film I watched was "Bound by Promises"; a film about the contemporary slavery in Brazil. Farmers a taking men from their families and homes to work their land, but they charge for everything, transportation to farm, essential living supplies, food, etc. to where when the men earn money they cannot pay the farmer for boarding and end up staying there for years. Some have been liberated from these ranches, but others are still there working. The Brazilian government has gotten complaints about escaped workers, but also about the injustice of the slavery. Today, more and more investigations take place and punishments have been put in place for the farmers found with slaves that would hurt their profits, but none have been criminally charged and some investigations go untouched.
As I watched these films, i noticed several things about the way the film was made. One is that all the shots are open frame when shooting landscapes and everyday life to capture the essence of actually being there with the people experiencing what they are experiencing. another thing i noticed was that the shots are always shaky, which indicates that someone is holding the camera. Since it is low budget, one can obviously know that the person can't afford a dolly for the camera to get perfectly still shots. By having shaky filming, it gives the feel of being there. I feel like this is a main goal of most documentaries, is to make the viewer feel like that he/she is actually there with these people. They are trying to give a first hand experience. Another thing that the filmers do, i have noticed is that they tend to ask everyone the same questions, almost expecting to get different answers. Yes, everyone's experience is different and has a different perspective, but sometimes the answers are all the same to where it can become dull and too repetitive. One thing I realized that most people could tend to forget is that the film makers are putting themselves in danger by finding these people and talking to them especially the ones who are in hiding so that they can live. If the film makers are found with the people, they would most likely be killed as well. this is something we take for granted as viewers. we need to remember that these people are putting their lives are risk to bring the injustices to the worlds eyes.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Fear not, weary traveler, for here you may find a place to rest.
Good morning! Hey! And hello!
The introductory blog posts in most blogs I've read are almost always awkward, rather halting, and somewhat unclear in their meaning. However, you, dear reader, have the great luck of stumbling upon a blog written by students in a college world cinema class, which means our goals have been clearly defined, and - should we stray from our path - the consequences may be...severe.
(Okay, they wouldn't actually be severe. But my friends and I have been indulging in a little Harry Potter love lately, so my room is always filled with the melodies of John Williams and the oh-so-very quotable voices of those beloved Brits- even Umbridge.)
Now, without further ado, may I introduce to you the current contributors to this blog, which has been aptly named, for the time being, "Stuff and Things," because of a lack of focus and concern during one particular Saturday morning meeting, but whose name I am supposing we will change when the mood strikes us.
First, there is Jess! Jess is a junior youth ministry major, who recently, out of the goodness of her heart, hacked off the majority of her usually waist-length golden mane to donate to Locks of Love.
Next, we have John! A soccer star since infancy, he usually starts at the right bench, and has played on the field for a total of a whopping 3 minutes in the entirety of his collegiate career.
Cameron, the second of the three males which comprise the group, can play a snare drum and run a sound booth at the same time- a talent which comes in handy more often than you'd think.
Jenna, who hails from our own beloved Canton, enjoys driving to and from school every day, and hanging out with the wee ones...or, you know, "children," as some people might call them.
Jeff, the silent but deadly type, is the jokester of the group, and functions amazingly well for the three hours of sleep he averages per night.
And I, the omniscient voice behind this, the first of our many blog posts, am Deanna. I was recently reminded at a conference I attended that "sarcasm is a viable form of communication," a piece of advice I have obviously already heartily implemented in my life. (That quote is from Susan Isaacs, by the way, and the conference was Jubilee.)
Thus concludes our own dear, awkward, stumbling introduction. More to come!
The introductory blog posts in most blogs I've read are almost always awkward, rather halting, and somewhat unclear in their meaning. However, you, dear reader, have the great luck of stumbling upon a blog written by students in a college world cinema class, which means our goals have been clearly defined, and - should we stray from our path - the consequences may be...severe.
(Okay, they wouldn't actually be severe. But my friends and I have been indulging in a little Harry Potter love lately, so my room is always filled with the melodies of John Williams and the oh-so-very quotable voices of those beloved Brits- even Umbridge.)
Now, without further ado, may I introduce to you the current contributors to this blog, which has been aptly named, for the time being, "Stuff and Things," because of a lack of focus and concern during one particular Saturday morning meeting, but whose name I am supposing we will change when the mood strikes us.
First, there is Jess! Jess is a junior youth ministry major, who recently, out of the goodness of her heart, hacked off the majority of her usually waist-length golden mane to donate to Locks of Love.
Next, we have John! A soccer star since infancy, he usually starts at the right bench, and has played on the field for a total of a whopping 3 minutes in the entirety of his collegiate career.
Cameron, the second of the three males which comprise the group, can play a snare drum and run a sound booth at the same time- a talent which comes in handy more often than you'd think.
Jenna, who hails from our own beloved Canton, enjoys driving to and from school every day, and hanging out with the wee ones...or, you know, "children," as some people might call them.
Jeff, the silent but deadly type, is the jokester of the group, and functions amazingly well for the three hours of sleep he averages per night.
And I, the omniscient voice behind this, the first of our many blog posts, am Deanna. I was recently reminded at a conference I attended that "sarcasm is a viable form of communication," a piece of advice I have obviously already heartily implemented in my life. (That quote is from Susan Isaacs, by the way, and the conference was Jubilee.)
Thus concludes our own dear, awkward, stumbling introduction. More to come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)