A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Street Fight documentary
How does the inclusion of the filmmaker as a subject in the film alter how the film is made? Does this hurt or help the subject matter?
The film is given a more defined direction with the inclusion of the filmmaker. The audience can see the perspective of the filmaker very clearly. However, the fimmaker manages to avoid being too influential and still lets the footage speak for itself -- he just explains what is happening, the footage elicits the emotion. The narrations allows for clarification without getting in the way of the story. Because the film is fast paced and the action happens quickly, the narrration is useful to help explain what is going on. In the interview after the film, (part of the DVD version) the fimmaker explains that while editing, he added the narration to help explain who the voice behind the camera was especially in the scenes where the police try to take it away from him.
I believe that the narration, along with the interviews, helps the subject matter. There is just so much happening in the film that it would be very vague without it. We need context for the struggle.
I think including the filmmaker as a part of the film was a brilliant choice. He acts as a narrator, explaining his side of the story while using powerful footage that proves the point he is trying to make. The narration isn't intentionally persuasive but rather serves the purpose of clarifying what is happening visually and guiding the narrative of the story. Without the inclusion of the filmmaker, a lot more interviews would have had to been conducted to explain the background of events and the timeline of when things occurred to make the film make sense. This would have taken much more time and would not have provided that personal element that including the filmmaker does. This is a story of his personal journey to become major of Newark.
In the documentary "Street Fight", the filmmaker is at times an actual character in the movie. We see this when he breaks the 4th wall by interacting with subjects he is filming. In particular, we see him having to deal with many local authority figures and law officials who demand that he stop filming the Mayor of Newark in the event that he might use the footage against him, which he did. But the filmmaker time and time again uses the First Amendment to defend himself. This not only creates a compelling story for the film, but it also alters the mood and audience reaction. When we in the audience see the filmmaker being forced to stop filming just because the mayor does not want to be filmed, we have even more reason to dislike him. These breaks in the 4th wall further establish Mayor Sharpe James as the antagonist in the film. To his credit, these interactions, whether purposeful or accidental, completely benefit the subject matter and help create an even more compelling film.
I think the inclusion of the filmmaker was a great choice in Street Fight. The narration gives the documentary a clear direction and we as the audience are able to understand what's going on more. I think the way that both Sharpe James and Cory Booker interacted with director Marshall Curry is a story in itself. When Curry arrives at Sharpe James's events and is constantly harassed by the "police", the audience is witnessing a real depiction of the shady nature in James's campaigning operation. The audience sees how open Booker is to cooperate, but also in moments like when Booker and his team had to have a private meeting to diffuse a scandal, we are reminded that the filmmaker is not necessarily 100% apart of this world. He doesn't have complete access and in this way, we are reminded that he might not necessarily hold too much bias. We as audience members are also kept at a distance to the story but are able to witness events as they occur and make up our own mind about the situation.
The inclusion of the filmmaker as a subject in the film gives the filmmaker the freedom to interact with subjects in front of the camera, as well as to make provocative choices such as continuing to roll the camera even after police and security tell him to turn the camera off. This freedom of interaction allows the filmmaker to really push the limits of access- so we as viewers are able to get many privileged looks: such as the interview with Cory Booker the day after his loss, as well as reaction shots of Booker campaign managers seeing new polls, or even inside the bus of hired campaign helpers for Sharpe James. For the most part, this style helps the story by giving us these extremely privileged looks and fearless quest for the truth. But other times it feels a bit distracting- taking us away from the story of Booker vs James and bringing us into the filmmaker's story. Many times we see the filmmaker being told to turn off his camera by the police and fighting back for his freedom of speech. Some of these instances felt like they were too focused on the filmmaker and took the emphasis away from the "Street Fight" between Booker and James.
The inclusion of the filmmaker as a subject in the film kind of takes away from us an audience feeling like we are experiencing the film and the drama in the streets. Since we can see Marshall Curry, we are taken a bit out of the first-person aspect of viewing. However, with that said, I also think having Curry actually in the shots helps the overall film more than hurts it. He isn't too obviously directing or manipulating anything, but he instead explains and narrates what is happening in the footage being shown. This helps us follow along more clearly and understand what is going on. When Curry is confronted for filming Sharpe James by the police, we see the assault and feel the emotions that he is going through during that whole ordeal.
With the filmmaker being apart of the film, we as viewers gain insight into all different aspects. The filmmaker is able to not only capture footage but interact with the subject of the film so that the footage we see can either support or contrast what is being said by the subjects, which is also an advantage for the filmmaker if he is trying to get a certain point across. His narration is also direct use of the filmmaker's voice. This can both help and hurt the subject matter, because the filmmaker is able to speak to the audience; however, the audience may see it as one-sided and resent the filmmaker's perspective or form a biased opinion.
The inclusion of the filmmaker (Marshall Curry) as a subject alters the way the film is made because I think it gives the audience one distinct point of view. The story is literally being told through his lens and we see only what he has access to. It alters the process because although the story of the film is about the campaign race, it is also in part about the filmmaker himself and his journey as he tries to cover the campaign. I think it was important for the filmmaker to be a subject of the film because it took the audience into the streets to show what it's like being in the middle of the race. The use of handheld camera also helps. You could tell Curry had the initial intent of covering both sides of the campaign, but this obviously didn't happen as he was denied access to Shape James' campaign. Not only was he denied access, but he was also targeted as an enemy from Sharpe's camp, which I feel caused Curry to shift focus and reveal that aspect of Sharpe and how he conducts himself and runs his campaign. Ideally the filmmaker would want to stay out of the film, but for this film he had to work with what he had access to and show his struggle as well because it is a part of the story.
I thought the film worked really well with the inclusion of the filmmaker. This way the story comes through very clear and the viewers can really understand what the filmmaker is trying to convey. The filmmaker can really gain great access to footage that most could not get their hands on. Some could argue that this way was persuading viewers towards his side of the story, yet that was somewhat the point. I do agree with some others here that I can also take away from really understanding the full 'drama' experience of the film, yet I think it worked well for this film. It allows to the views to connect much better with Booker and we understand his fight against the corrupt politics and tactics of Share James.
The inclusion of the filmmaker helps guide the film as a lived experience, putting the viewer in the POV of someone helping a Cory's campaign. This also makes his rejections more obstacles more prominent and off putting, as the viewer feels as if they are personally being attacked and denied by the security guards as well as a close friend of Bookers, still leaving a thin veil that keeps a certain mystery about him. I believe this helps the subject matter in the same way that The Cove used the same tactic, as it literally forces the viewer to take on the POV of someone on Booker's side and makes them experience the same difficulties and attacks by the other side.
Having the filmmaker as a subject makes it personal and also gives the audience a feel for how difficult it is to get footage/truth. So many people and obstacles get in your way, especially when it has to do with politics. Newark is a tough town with people who have been misguided it was nice seeing how this team of people lead by Cory tenaciously made a change as the underdog and made a change. The filmmaker made his point of view clear as he constantly ran into the corruption of Share James and his team. Sure, by having the film maker in the film it may seem that he was pushing for Cory to win the election but I feel that there was a bigger message, the message of politics. Having the opportunity to be filming this information from the inside was smart. And now the audience can be exposed to a great majority of what happens behind the scenes of politics and how tremendously difficult it is to want new, positive change. I enjoyed having the film maker narrate and be a subject in this film, because it connected the audience and made it more the situation more personal rather than a story to watch from afar.
The filmmaker being included in the film makes for us realize that he was as much apart of the journey as Cory Booker was in his campaign, except we get to see his point of view of everything going on in the campaign. When he went to Sharpe James first rally and was approached by the "police" it felt like we were also being pushed around and ordered to turn off the camera. We got to see how it was a corrupt situation that Sharpe James has created in the city of Newark. This type of film work makes relating to Booker (subject matter) that much more possible, especially seeing the situation he has put himself in to be more connected to the community by living in the Brick Towers and walking the streets.
With the inclusion of the filmmaker in Street Fight, the movie takes a more powerful narrative. The audience has a chance to connect with Marshall Curry and their perspective changes in a way that they really feel as though they are going through the same struggles. Some of the filmmaking elements reminded me of the Cove, because with the inclusion of the filmmaker, we physically witness events as they occur. I believe that this inclusion helps the film. Not only does it give the audience a personal connection, but it helps them understand the story more clearly.
14 comments:
The film is given a more defined direction with the inclusion of the filmmaker. The audience can see the perspective of the filmaker very clearly. However, the fimmaker manages to avoid being too influential and still lets the footage speak for itself -- he just explains what is happening, the footage elicits the emotion. The narrations allows for clarification without getting in the way of the story. Because the film is fast paced and the action happens quickly, the narrration is useful to help explain what is going on. In the interview after the film, (part of the DVD version) the fimmaker explains that while editing, he added the narration to help explain who the voice behind the camera was especially in the scenes where the police try to take it away from him.
I believe that the narration, along with the interviews, helps the subject matter. There is just so much happening in the film that it would be very vague without it. We need context for the struggle.
I think including the filmmaker as a part of the film was a brilliant choice. He acts as a narrator, explaining his side of the story while using powerful footage that proves the point he is trying to make. The narration isn't intentionally persuasive but rather serves the purpose of clarifying what is happening visually and guiding the narrative of the story. Without the inclusion of the filmmaker, a lot more interviews would have had to been conducted to explain the background of events and the timeline of when things occurred to make the film make sense. This would have taken much more time and would not have provided that personal element that including the filmmaker does. This is a story of his personal journey to become major of Newark.
In the documentary "Street Fight", the filmmaker is at times an actual character in the movie. We see this when he breaks the 4th wall by interacting with subjects he is filming. In particular, we see him having to deal with many local authority figures and law officials who demand that he stop filming the Mayor of Newark in the event that he might use the footage against him, which he did. But the filmmaker time and time again uses the First Amendment to defend himself. This not only creates a compelling story for the film, but it also alters the mood and audience reaction. When we in the audience see the filmmaker being forced to stop filming just because the mayor does not want to be filmed, we have even more reason to dislike him. These breaks in the 4th wall further establish Mayor Sharpe James as the antagonist in the film. To his credit, these interactions, whether purposeful or accidental, completely benefit the subject matter and help create an even more compelling film.
I think the inclusion of the filmmaker was a great choice in Street Fight. The narration gives the documentary a clear direction and we as the audience are able to understand what's going on more. I think the way that both Sharpe James and Cory Booker interacted with director Marshall Curry is a story in itself. When Curry arrives at Sharpe James's events and is constantly harassed by the "police", the audience is witnessing a real depiction of the shady nature in James's campaigning operation. The audience sees how open Booker is to cooperate, but also in moments like when Booker and his team had to have a private meeting to diffuse a scandal, we are reminded that the filmmaker is not necessarily 100% apart of this world. He doesn't have complete access and in this way, we are reminded that he might not necessarily hold too much bias. We as audience members are also kept at a distance to the story but are able to witness events as they occur and make up our own mind about the situation.
The inclusion of the filmmaker as a subject in the film gives the filmmaker the freedom to interact with subjects in front of the camera, as well as to make provocative choices such as continuing to roll the camera even after police and security tell him to turn the camera off. This freedom of interaction allows the filmmaker to really push the limits of access- so we as viewers are able to get many privileged looks: such as the interview with Cory Booker the day after his loss, as well as reaction shots of Booker campaign managers seeing new polls, or even inside the bus of hired campaign helpers for Sharpe James. For the most part, this style helps the story by giving us these extremely privileged looks and fearless quest for the truth. But other times it feels a bit distracting- taking us away from the story of Booker vs James and bringing us into the filmmaker's story. Many times we see the filmmaker being told to turn off his camera by the police and fighting back for his freedom of speech. Some of these instances felt like they were too focused on the filmmaker and took the emphasis away from the "Street Fight" between Booker and James.
The inclusion of the filmmaker as a subject in the film kind of takes away from us an audience feeling like we are experiencing the film and the drama in the streets. Since we can see Marshall Curry, we are taken a bit out of the first-person aspect of viewing. However, with that said, I also think having Curry actually in the shots helps the overall film more than hurts it. He isn't too obviously directing or manipulating anything, but he instead explains and narrates what is happening in the footage being shown. This helps us follow along more clearly and understand what is going on. When Curry is confronted for filming Sharpe James by the police, we see the assault and feel the emotions that he is going through during that whole ordeal.
With the filmmaker being apart of the film, we as viewers gain insight into all different aspects. The filmmaker is able to not only capture footage but interact with the subject of the film so that the footage we see can either support or contrast what is being said by the subjects, which is also an advantage for the filmmaker if he is trying to get a certain point across. His narration is also direct use of the filmmaker's voice. This can both help and hurt the subject matter, because the filmmaker is able to speak to the audience; however, the audience may see it as one-sided and resent the filmmaker's perspective or form a biased opinion.
The inclusion of the filmmaker (Marshall Curry) as a subject alters the way the film is made because I think it gives the audience one distinct point of view. The story is literally being told through his lens and we see only what he has access to. It alters the process because although the story of the film is about the campaign race, it is also in part about the filmmaker himself and his journey as he tries to cover the campaign. I think it was important for the filmmaker to be a subject of the film because it took the audience into the streets to show what it's like being in the middle of the race. The use of handheld camera also helps. You could tell Curry had the initial intent of covering both sides of the campaign, but this obviously didn't happen as he was denied access to Shape James' campaign. Not only was he denied access, but he was also targeted as an enemy from Sharpe's camp, which I feel caused Curry to shift focus and reveal that aspect of Sharpe and how he conducts himself and runs his campaign. Ideally the filmmaker would want to stay out of the film, but for this film he had to work with what he had access to and show his struggle as well because it is a part of the story.
I thought the film worked really well with the inclusion of the filmmaker. This way the story comes through very clear and the viewers can really understand what the filmmaker is trying to convey. The filmmaker can really gain great access to footage that most could not get their hands on. Some could argue that this way was persuading viewers towards his side of the story, yet that was somewhat the point. I do agree with some others here that I can also take away from really understanding the full 'drama' experience of the film, yet I think it worked well for this film. It allows to the views to connect much better with Booker and we understand his fight against the corrupt politics and tactics of Share James.
The inclusion of the filmmaker helps guide the film as a lived experience, putting the viewer in the POV of someone helping a Cory's campaign. This also makes his rejections more obstacles more prominent and off putting, as the viewer feels as if they are personally being attacked and denied by the security guards as well as a close friend of Bookers, still leaving a thin veil that keeps a certain mystery about him. I believe this helps the subject matter in the same way that The Cove used the same tactic, as it literally forces the viewer to take on the POV of someone on Booker's side and makes them experience the same difficulties and attacks by the other side.
Having the filmmaker as a subject makes it personal and also gives the audience a feel for how difficult it is to get footage/truth. So many people and obstacles get in your way, especially when it has to do with politics. Newark is a tough town with people who have been misguided it was nice seeing how this team of people lead by Cory tenaciously made a change as the underdog and made a change. The filmmaker made his point of view clear as he constantly ran into the corruption of Share James and his team. Sure, by having the film maker in the film it may seem that he was pushing for Cory to win the election but I feel that there was a bigger message, the message of politics. Having the opportunity to be filming this information from the inside was smart. And now the audience can be exposed to a great majority of what happens behind the scenes of politics and how tremendously difficult it is to want new, positive change. I enjoyed having the film maker narrate and be a subject in this film, because it connected the audience and made it more the situation more personal rather than a story to watch from afar.
The filmmaker being included in the film makes for us realize that he was as much apart of the journey as Cory Booker was in his campaign, except we get to see his point of view of everything going on in the campaign. When he went to Sharpe James first rally and was approached by the "police" it felt like we were also being pushed around and ordered to turn off the camera. We got to see how it was a corrupt situation that Sharpe James has created in the city of Newark. This type of film work makes relating to Booker (subject matter) that much more possible, especially seeing the situation he has put himself in to be more connected to the community by living in the Brick Towers and walking the streets.
With the inclusion of the filmmaker in Street Fight, the movie takes a more powerful narrative. The audience has a chance to connect with Marshall Curry and their perspective changes in a way that they really feel as though they are going through the same struggles. Some of the filmmaking elements reminded me of the Cove, because with the inclusion of the filmmaker, we physically witness events as they occur. I believe that this inclusion helps the film. Not only does it give the audience a personal connection, but it helps them understand the story more clearly.
Post a Comment