Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of Ball State Daily's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
205 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Representation is important. This is a simple statement but an often ignored fact. People are judged more harshly based on stereotypes presented on screen. An article posted by The Guardian elaborates on this idea:
As I discussed last week, short, primitive documentary films have existed for some time, but it wasn’t until 1922 that the first feature length documentary was born. Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North is somewhat similar to modern travel documentaries: a filmmaker embarks on a quest abroad and films the local residents to detail their culture and customs. Unlike these modern docs, there is no host explaining the events onscreen, well at least not in physical form. Title cards inform the viewers what is happening, not dialogue. In fact, there is no dialogue! Just title cards and background music. What fun.
By Emily Reuben The opinions and views expressed in Documenting Docs are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of Byte or Byte’s editorial board. Representation is important. This is a simple statement but an often ignored fact. People are judged more harshly based on stereotypes presented on screen. An article posted by The Guardian elaborates on this idea: “These portrayals, constantly reinforced in print media, on television, the internet, fiction shows, print advertising and video games, shape public views of and attitudes toward men of color. They not only help create barriers to advancement within our society, but also “make these positions seem natural and inevitable” So obviously media portrayals can have a substantial impact on how African Americans are viewed by other races, but how do these stereotypes, often perpetuated by white people, impact African Americans themselves? This is the premise of Thomas Allen Harris’ documentary, Through a Lens Darkly. The film is incredibly upfront in detailing the misrepresentation of African Americans by white artists and doesn’t shy away from showing the negative impacts of these depictions. But for African Americans, or any minority group, these negative portrayals can carry a different, equally dangerous meaning. The article in the 71st volume of the Journal of Social Issues titled "Where We Have Been and Where We Can Go From Here: Looking to the Future in Research on Media, Race, and Ethnicity" tells us that “...Both the systematic underrepresentation as well as the abundance of stereotypical representations of racial/ethnic groups in the media have detrimental effects on the depicted groups’ psychological well-being; increasing their feelings of self-consciousness and harming their collective self-esteem.” While a good chunk of the documentary discusses the importance of representation, even more impressive is that the film gives African American photographers a platform to show their work and talk about their experiences. It puts the power of representation back into the hands of the people being represented. To put it simply, this is an incredibly important film. Zeba Blay describes the it’s importance eloquently in her review for Indiewire: It shows us the disturbing lynch photographs and minstrel illustrations in all their startling, horrific detail. But it also counterbalances them with countless photos of black people by black people, pictures from family albums all the way to the professional work of some of the most seminal black photographers in America. There’s an understanding that the lynch photos, the regal pictures of Booker T. Washington and Sojourner Truth, the images of Carrie Mae Weems staring straight into the camera in her Kitchen Table Series, all lie on a continuum. They’re happening now. And its through these images we’re privy to a secret history of the black photographer and the black subject, a history reaching far back into the past and shining a light on those who paved the way for everyone, all of us, to affirm our own identities through the images we take of ourselves and each other. For such an important topic, this film really should be a staple in film courses, but alas I rarely hear it talked about. Now, you may wonder what the big deal is. We know stereotypes exist, but we rarely give the subjects these stereotypes are based off a voice to define their own images. The article from Stanford, Portrayal of Minorities in the Film, Media and Entertainment Industries leaves us with a clear warning about representation, “These stereotypes and misconceptions become ingrained in the psyche of American children, they become self-perpetuating. Being unable to combat the effects of this phenomenon, we could essentially create an environment that is every bit as hostile as Jim Crow America and the segregated South. Granted these are extremes, but without changes in the media there is the plausibility of such a disaster.” If we want to fight racism and prejudice, we have to also fight stereotypes. It seems the best place to start is by actually giving people a voice, a chance to represent themselves. Can we please start doing that? Honestly, the film has so many great personal experiences and perspectives to offer, the best recommendation I can give is to go watch the film. It’s definitely an eye opening experience. Be sure to check back next week as we cover another one of my favorite (but incredibly long) documentaries, Spike Lee’s three parter, When the Levees Broke. Sources: Stanford University, IndieWire, Thought Catalogue, The Guardian Images: YouTube, Mental Floss, Film Forum
By Emily Reuben The opinions and views expressed in Documenting Docs are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of Byte or Byte’s editorial board. As I discussed last week, short, primitive documentary films have existed for some time, but it wasn’t until 1922 that the first feature length documentary was born. Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North is somewhat similar to modern travel documentaries: a filmmaker embarks on a quest abroad and films the local residents to detail their culture and customs. Unlike these modern docs, there is no host explaining the events onscreen, well at least not in physical form. Title cards inform the viewers what is happening, not dialogue. In fact, there is no dialogue! Just title cards and background music. What fun. Don’t fret modern viewer, the film isn’t as boring as you would think. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not exactly a thrill ride, but it does have some interesting qualities. There really isn’t a “story” per say. Instead the film advertises itself as an exclusive view of the day-to-day life of an Inuit man, named Nanook, and his family. The point of the film isn’t to tell an interesting narrative but to show how difficult surviving in the Canadian Arctic can be. Though dangerous and remote, themes that showcase the beauty of the wilderness as well as familial love and codependency are present. “Wow!” You may be thinking, “A documentary in 1922 that presents non-white, non-Americans in a good light? That sounds really progressive!” I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no. Nanook of the North is a disingenuous film. Yes, it established the feature length documentary as a genre. Yes, it showcased a non-western culture. Yes, it does attempt humanize Nanook and his family in some respects. Those are all good things. Sadly all of these positive attributes become muddied by scenes that are purposely staged to make the Inuit people appear more primitive to Westernized audiences. Now to be fair, staging does have a place in documentary film, in fact it is often a necessary component. The problem is that Nanook of the North was created before documentary ethics were established. We now know that when reenactments are done to disclose that what is being shown is not an actual portrayal, be it in the film description on the box or through some lower third on screen. While not every documentary is ethical and there are definitely examples of blurring reality and fiction in modern documentaries, there is an expectation of truth. Flaherty did not have this modern standard to go by, resulting in scenes with questionable presentation. One that stuck out to me is Nanook and his family leaving a canoe to go to a trading post. This is a simple enough premise, but the way the scene is shot presents the family more like clowns exiting a tiny car than a family embarking on a trip. Okay, not a big deal right? After all, it’s very likely that multiple people did have to fit into one canoe resulting in some funny imagery. Doesn’t this make them more human, more relatable? Well I disagree, but sure, I see your point. But let’s look at this scene of Nanook hunting a seal. It is definitely made to make Nanook into some Charlie Chaplin-esque comedy character. And let’s not forget the gramophone scene (excuse the poor video, it’s the best I could find): Isn’t it cute? Nanook has never seen that newfangled invention before! Only, that’s a lie. The man playing Nanook knew what a gramophone was. Even the beginning of the film sets up Nanook as a child-like, inferior being by referring to him as the “happy-go-lucky Eskimo”. Probably the most egregious lie told by the documentary are the subjects themselves. Nanook himself is a lie! His real name is actually Allakariallak and his “family” are actually the wives of Flaherty himself! That is an irredeemable, despicable misportrayal on Flaherty’s part, considering the film was marketed as the true experiences of Nanook and his family. These examples are all definitely not ethical by today’s standards, but what about simple reenactments? A commonly debated aspect of the film involves Flaherty’s construction of an igloo for filming. The actual igloos built by Nanook didn’t provide enough light for interior filming. Keep in mind cameras were much more limited in the early 1900s, so it is fair to get a bit creative. Flaherty had half of an igloo constructed, with one side exposed to the outdoors allowing for natural light. The igloo was then dressed to look authentic. Is this an example of poor documentary ethics? No, this is a harmless set construction done in many documentaries today. It is unreasonable to expect on-site filming in every situation. Obviously Flaherty’s point wasn’t to give an accurate-in-depth look into a culture’s lifestyle. Nanook of the North feels more like a docudrama, which is problematic for many reasons. The false portrayals make Nanook seem like a primitive being, something Western audiences can observe similar to animals in a zoo. They don’t emphasize with Nanook, they are entertained by his antics. With all of this in mind I pose this question: Is Nanook of the North worthy of praise today? Roger Ebert, one of my personal heroes and renowned film critic, offers us this: The film is not technically sophisticated; how could it be, with one camera, no lights, freezing cold, and everyone equally at the mercy of nature? But it has an authenticity that prevails over any complaints that some of the sequences were staged. If you stage a walrus hunt, it still involves hunting a walrus, and the walrus hasn't seen the script. What shines through is the humanity and optimism of the Inuit. -Roger Ebert I strongly disagree. Yes, for establishing the documentary genre and at least attempting to capture the lives of a foreign culture, Flaherty does deserve praise. Similarly, some of the shots really demonstrate the savage beauty of the wilderness and give us a glimpse of just how hard survival can be. The scene showing the construction of an igloo is truly mesmerizing to watch and certainly stands out in this regard. But the film is also condescending, largely based on falsities, and purposefully manipulates its audience. No Mr. Ebert, the walrus scene is definitely problematic in its portrayal. Do you really want to sit there and tell me Nanook stumbling around dramatically wasn’t influenced by the director? That was a purposeful choice to make Nanook a sort of funny racial caricature. If that isn’t enough I’ll simply reiterate: Portraying the film as non-fiction then having the director’s own wives act as the main subject’s actual family is completely inappropriate. I truly don’t see how many of these directing choices can be labeled as “authentic”. Many herald Nanook of the North as a historic marvel, and it certainly deserves mention and studying in film classes, but I think it deserves more criticism than praise. After all, how many people probably saw this film and based all of their knowledge on the Inuit people off of the false information shown? For a lesson in documentary history and footage can be manipulated to portray people and stories in ways that fit a director’s agenda, Nanook of the North is well worth a watch. Just don’t expect it to be completely ethical or accurate. I also highly recommend watching Nanook Revisited, a 1990 documentary which outlines all of the staged events and misrepresentations in Nanook of the North. Good luck finding it, the only copies I’ve been able to track are VHS tapes at local libraries. Ready for more documentaries? Ready for more old documentaries? No? Well you’re in luck. For those of you that like film history, don’t worry. After February we’ll jump back into older films, but for the next few weeks we are going to celebrate Black History Month! Join us next week for one of my favorite documentaries, Through a Lens Darkly. Images: YouTube, Metal Culture
Documentaries are great. They offer tons of information through narration and visual techniques, often while making a compelling argument. While there is no set definition of what exactly constitutes a documentary, Scottish documentary filmmaker and critic John Grierson defined the documentary as “a creative treatment of actuality.” Generally speaking, documentaries are non-fiction films that attempt to document reality in some way.
by Emily Reuben The opinions and views expressed in Documenting Docs are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of Byte or Byte’s editorial board. Documentaries are great. They offer tons of information through narration and visual techniques, often while making a compelling argument. While there is no set definition of what exactly constitutes a documentary, Scottish documentary filmmaker and critic John Grierson defined the documentary as “a creative treatment of actuality.” Generally speaking, documentaries are non-fiction films that attempt to document reality in some way. Though the term “documentary” did not exist before Grierson coined the term in 1926, the documentary film (previously known as “actuality films”) has captivated audiences since genre’s conception. With roots in primitive animations, newsreels and chronophotography, the documentary has taken many forms from short snippets of a train arriving at a station to in-depth glimpses at various people and cultures. Documentaries are fascinating for the nearly infinite amount of topics they can cover and their ability to create propaganda, convey new facts and information, give more depth to a person and their achievements, or simply take the viewer to new, unheard of places. Modern documentaries often contain beautiful cinematography, meaningful interview subjects, visual aids, and clean editing, but documentaries were not always as intricate. The first documentary films arose in the late 1800s and were focused more on showing an event rather than telling a story. Because film was still a somewhat new innovation at the time, directors such as the Lumiere Brothers captured sequences of seemingly mundane events that are likely to bore modern audiences. These primitive documentaries were typically around a minute long and showcased life as the camera rolls. This simple point and shoot formula didn’t develop much further until the 1900s when documentaries began to focus more on biographical tales and reenactments of life. In the 1920 the documentary film became more of a recognized genre with the release of the first feature length documentary, Robert J. Flaherty’s Nanook of the North, which offers a glimpse of the life of a group of Canadian Inuits. Though Flaherty’s works have caused controversy due to their ethnocentric nature, Flaherty is often cited as the “father of the documentary film,” and the term “documentary” was first used by John Grierson to describe his film Moana, so it’s safe to say that Flaherty has had a huge influence on documentary filmmaking. Since Flaherty first established the feature length documentary, the genre has grown beyond far beyond simple newsreels. For example, we now have an array of nature documentaries, dramatizations, documentary series, reenactments of true events, animated documentaries, and the list goes on. Documentaries often capture unstaged events, so they can show viewers parts of reality that they’ve never been exposed to. While traditional narrative films may also expose audiences to new experiences, the documentary carries with it an inherent trustworthiness since it portends to show the truth (often merely representing the filmmaker’s vision of truth). Even if a filmmaker isn’t exactly truthful, the audience can see varied perspectives based on what the director choose to point the camera at and what realities they leave out of the frame. But have documentaries really had an impact? Yes! The Paradise Lost trilogy helped release three inmates from death row. Triumph of the Will romanticized Nazi Germany and aided in the spread of Nazi propaganda. Food Inc. made people face and contemplate how food gets on our plates. Blackfish showcased the cruelty faced by marine life at SeaWorld causing massive backlash towards the park. All of these documentaries changed public perceptions towards the subjects being discussed on screen. From changing eating habits to rallying for the systematic enslavement and destruction of the Jewish people, documentaries can drive viewers to action in a persuasive, engaging way. Without documentaries, tons of historical footage would be lost. We’d be unable to see the impact of wars, natural disasters, and human greed. We’d never be exposed to various cultures oceans away. We would lose thousands and thousands of interesting personal accounts. Many unsolved crimes would lose public interest. Awareness of mental health, racial injustice, and religious intolerance would not be as fully explored. Without documentaries, we would lose a large part of our reality. Must See Documentaries: Nanook of the North (1922) Man With a Movie Camera (1929) Triumph of the Will (1935) Olympia (1936) The River (1938) Night and Fog (1955) Shoah (1985) The Thin Blue Line (1988) Paradise Lost (1996) Bowling for Columbine (2002) Capturing the Friedmans (2003) Grizzly Man (2005) When the Levees Broke (2006) An Inconvenient Truth (2006) Jesus Camp (2006) Dear Zachary (2008) Food Inc. (2008) Man on Wire (2008) The Imposter (2013) Blackfish (2013) Life Itself (2014) Who Took Johnny (2014) The Jinx (2015) Mommy Dead and Dearest (2015) O.J: Made in America (2016) 13th (2016) I Am Not Your Negro (2017) The Keepers (2017) With such a long list of important documentary films and series to explore (and there are many more not listed above), discussing and criticizing documentaries is crucially important. In fact, these pieces are so important that we need to talk about them. Every week we will dive into the world of documentaries and analyze various works, their controversies, and their impacts. Interested? Next week we will explore the first feature length documentary Nanook of the North and discuss the ethical responsibilities when creating a documentary film. Be sure to join us on our quest to document the docs. Sources: TCM, The New York Times, The History Place, The Guardian Images: YouTube
