Network… 1976

MEDI 311 – FILM ABOUT MEDIA

Trevor Olafson

 FILM DIARY #9 – Network

 ”We lie like hell – we’ll tell you any shit you want to hear! We’re all you know!”

Howard Beale (Network)

The thing that struck me as I watched Network, was that each character in the film played a part that was not only required of the story line, but they each represented a facet of the television/corporate structure – or those who are enraptured or disenchanted with it. As we see in the film for example , Diana is more than a network producer – she embodies the dispassionate television executive that is only able to think in terms of ratings and profit, these being derived proportionally from content more often than not exploiting the misfortunes of others (if it bleeds it leads). After the initial set up in which Max Shumacher has told Howard that ‘he’ is being cancelled, we are taken to a production meeting set the next day – for that nights’ news. The stories are being timed and slotted for the show, they consist of terrorist threats, oil embargoes, sports scores, and ‘kitty rescued from tree’ viewing fodder.

Things don’t go as planned however, the producer in the control room is distracted by an assistant and does not notice the deviation in Howard’s segment that night – however we hear the first of what will become a complete manifesto, confession, condemnation and shockingly, at the end – submission, supplication to, and finally blood sacrifice by ruthless power in control, or in the words of Arthur Jensen, “the primal forces of nature”.

 It is very easy to forget that the film is structured as a satirical comedy, other than the narration at the start and end that plays against the split screen of different TV stations, I think the film could have worked just as well as a straight drama. The reason? I am quite sure that the portrayal of the vulture-like television/corporate executives and producers is not far off the mark, the assassination of Howard was coldly decided in an ‘emergency meeting’, this has surely been done in reality the same way in boardrooms across the land.

 Howard’s first ‘rant’ and subsequent backlash from his implying that he will ‘blow his brains out’ on next weeks show, gaining a ‘fifty share at least’ – darkly foreshadows the message being delivered by this film, we live with manufactured fear and societal breakdown (to allow control), and I believe the producer who missed it (allowing it to go to air) during this first of the five ‘Howard’ diatribes – is symbolic of those of us who hear, but don’t listen – in this case comprehending that something was actually ‘out of order’, only after having to be convinced by others that it happened.

 While watching, it is important to note the ‘five rants’ prior to meeting with Aurthur Jensen, and then how strangely Howard was affected by his ‘sales pitch’. This is I feel one of the most powerful scenes – Howard has what is to him a pseudo religious epiphany, seeing the face of ‘God’ in Jensen. This is the turning point of the film, Howard is no longer telling people that they matter, instead he now preaches a new kind of societal apathy – telling them to basically expect the worse and they won’t be disappointed, a complete turn around from his previous platform. Howard was kept on the air in this new ‘format’ until his death despite poor ratings – by the powers represented in Arthur Jensen. Interesting, because in this case profit was not a factor in the corporate formula, it was replaced with a message which I would read as – “Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here”.

There is a man… a certain man

MEDI 311 – FILM ABOUT MEDIA

Trevor Olafson

FILM DIARY #10 – Citizen Kane

 Given the task to analyze how Orson Welles constructed Citizen Kane, both technically and thematically as a statement on power, corruption and loss is not an easy one – but we will explore it here, however briefly.

First I must confess, this was the first time I had seen this film in its’ entirety – my knowledge had consisted up to this point of twenty or so minute snippets caught at two in the morning (waking up to the late show, falling asleep again) – or references made to the film in the Simpson’s for example, sad but true. So, with that out of the way let’s talk about Citizen Kane.

 Brilliantly shot and edited, Welles used every method available at the time to construct this classic. The film opens with a posthumous newsreel about the fictitious Charles Kane, it effectively sets up what will become the story line as told by the people in his life through flashbacks – appropriately triggered when being interviewed by a tenacious reporter who is tasked to find ‘Rosebud’ (Kane’s last words) dead or alive, it is material the producers of the newsreel want to add to it before release. It is through this mechanism of an investigative reporter that Welles’ takes us into the life of Charles Kane and the people affected by it.

 A major part of the effectiveness of this film are the fantastic sets, and the intricately woven soundtrack, both music and background sounds are used to set each scene and the mood in it. Transitions between the story as the reporter searches for ‘Rosebud’ begin with the introduction into the life of Charles Kane as told in a memoir written by Walter Thatcher, the man who is the catalyst for change in boy Kane. Being read by the reporter ‘Thompson’, the scene itself begins with the manuscript having to be pulled from a secured vault, and as with each successive flashback it begins with a narration which dissolves into the point in time being referenced.

Kane’s story of loss is recurrent from the start, and as we jump from the period in time when young Charles is taken to Chicago by banker Walter Thatcher from the family homestead, to the end when he dies alone in the unfinished and by then derelict monument Xanadu – never finding fulfillment through the accumulation of objects and people as objects. I feel Welles makes this statement beginning with a literal and allegorical parental rejection – the parents being a representation of western society, which through its’ very nature has created generations of people cut-off yet seeking to attain a kind of ‘parental approval’ from the same power on the other hand that works within to keep us cut-off from our rightful inheritance.

By the end of Kane we become privy to the secret of ‘Rosebud’ – the sled represents the loss of innocence, and that it really was ‘just a simple thing’. The implied irony of the fiery destruction of ‘Rosebud’ is that we are living in a system that institutionalizes from birth, separates us from our joy, and grooms us to play our role as decided by our handlers.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

MEDI 311 – FILM ABOUT MEDIA FILM DIARY #8

Trevor Olafson

 The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

 While viewing this film I found that throughout I was continually drawn closer to identifying with Hugo Chavez and his supporters as they are portrayed in what I feel is one of the best examples of Cinema Verite that I have seen to date. The film-makers accidental presence during the short-lived attempted coup of the Chavez government in April of 2002 gives it a very succinct and thus memorable, easily documented time line of the events as they occurred; since it took place over a period of only 48 hours, unlike other films documenting events which occurred during a relatively much longer span of time.

 The film at several points does take us into the inner sanctum of Chavez and exposes what seems to be a completely genuine, thoughtful and fair minded man. This seems very apparent during one interview with Chavez in which he explains how as a young man he was compelled to investigate the allegations of murder against his grandfather – made by Chavez’s own mother. He is incredibly compelling as a story teller while he describes his journey of discovery into the past of his grandfather, and how he was not a murderer, but a fighter; and how Chavez himself became a fighter in the revolution because of how this knowledge changed him. One can feel a sense of the true pride and conviction in his beliefs when hearing the man speak so intimately on film.

 Throughout as in the beginning of the film Chavez is shown to be a man of the people. First shown in the parade and his opening address in which tells his followers that he would “go to the gates of hell to defend them”. We see the use of mainstream television from the US Venezuelan television stations and how they obfuscate and confuse the real issues that Chavez is trying to address. We are shown talking heads giving jumbled explanations of what the US is concerned about with the Chavez government. The film maker then explains to us his interest and reasons for being in Venezuela to film Chavez, who luckily is granted total access starting with the presidential plane, taking us with him as he films the first of many daily activities of Chavez and his aides.

 In the film we are shown that support for Chavez came from a huge portion of the population, 80%; the other 20% of the elites were in control and reaping the benefits of the countries wealth. Predictably they are against Chavez and rally against him calling his supporters terrorists and describing Chavez on television as a mentally ill, sexually deviant dictator. He clearly is not and his speeches to the people continually speak to the oil profits that the campensinos have never received and how he wants to change it through the constitution through which all of the people have rights that they need to be aware of. His speeches also contained messages about the importance of education and in the film we are shown how he makes himself accessible to the people through a weekly call in radio show called ‘Allo Presidente’, as well as responding to every single note or letter that is sent to him with requests for help. Chavez faced powerful enemies throughout his 3 year term up to this point but he had the loyalty of the troops as he was in the military as a commandeer and knew instinctively how tho gain the loyalty of his troops.

 The filmmaker shows us how well Chavez understood how important the media was to his government and its’ support by the people. The five private media outlets were railing against him and his policies, Chavez used his only channel of addressing the people which was the state run Channel 8. His impassioned response to the people that he is standing against the US and Venezuelan oil interests as a matter of principle. He explains in his speech that he is against terrorism, but does not support it Carte Blanche as he show photographs of dead Afghan children, the result of US bombing. I felt sorry for the victims in the photos and Chavez at this point – here is a feeling person truly trying to give peace and prosperity to his people and having to fight off the US Military/Media complex that are trying undermine both in Venezuela.

 The coup unfolds and Chavez supporters rally to support him at the presidential palace, however a counter march by a much smaller group move towards the palace; the army is used as a buffer between the two factions until shooting starts and several people within the Chavez group are killed or injured. As panic ensues we see people from the Chavez side shooting back with pistols at rooftop or balcony positions they believe the shots are coming from. What was then incredible was how the footage was manipulated through editing to look like these people who were defending themselves were actually shooting into a crowd of unarmed Chavez protestors, the camera angle did not show that the street below was actually empty at this time – they further twisted the scenario by blaming the deaths on Chavez and calling for his immediate removal. I definitely felt a sense of confusion as well as the apprehension of the people within the palace, becoming even more palpable as first the main state television and then remote stations signals are cut off. Finally the palace is surrounded and Chavez receives the ultimatum to give up or be bombed, he agrees to be leave but not step down to avoid bloodshed, he is a given an emotional farewell by his staff as he is led away at the end of this powerful scene. The next day, even as the new officials swear themselves into office word has gotten back to the people that Chavez did not resign but was secretly being held captive. Their righteous indignation and demands that Chavez be returned to them as President climaxes with the secret plan carried out by the palace guard to retake it and arrest the coup organizers – finally leading to the cathartic return of Hugo Chavez to his rightful place as leader of the people of Venezuela.

 The films title is itself the statement being made – given the way in which this event was hidden and minimized in US and Venezuelan television markets. It also alludes to the power that mainstream media wields when it wants to build up or tear down governments. By using manipulated images and omitting events that would provide context rather than being used to obfuscate the truth, it show us just how vulnerable we all are to being lied to by government when we willingly accept whatever version of it is spun – as long as it comes through the television. The filmmakers have attempted to provide us with this insight with the systematic filming and breakdown of these events as they unfolded and fill in possible knowledge gaps that we as viewers may suffer from – induced by the mainstream media.

 I feel that this film falls into a category unto itself in that it exposes the corruption and manipulation of opinion and ultimately behaviours that we as societies impose on ourselves; through our own sometimes wilfully induced ignorance as to the way things really are, and that everything we see on television is deigned to illicit the correct response by the viewer, Unfortunately this type of film is not made more often as it rates extremely high in my opinion as a benchmark example of committed independent documentary film-making for these very important, high-level reasons.

Control Room

Medi 301 Film Write-up #1

Trevor Olafson

Control Room

The first impression of the film Control Room is one of foreboding. In the offices of Al Jazeera we are introduced to the producers and reporters who are on high alert and afraid of the coming American invasion of Iraq in 2003. They are going about the business of reporting in the best way they can, while cooperating with CENTCOM and its media intelligence officer Lt. Josh Rushing. This included running translated broadcasts of American political speeches or opinion pieces during the run-up to the attack on Baghdad.

In North America we have a collective memory of it as seen through the eyes of FOX, MSNBC, ABC etc. that is very devoid of the kinds of nightmare images that are the reality of armed conflict; this is especially true when the victims are civilian. In the film we see evidence that one of the first missions of CENTCOM is to create the correct atmosphere and context to justify an invasion of Iraq. In contrast to the types of localized human interest counter-narrative of the Al Jazeera reporting, in Control Room American media is in the process of de-humanizing the citizens. Their stories do not focus on how much we have in common. They are not showing the people in Baghdad going shopping, taking their kids to school or going to work. As we see in the film, footage of a screaming mob is quite effective at winning the sympathy of those ready to just ‘nuke em’.

To portray the citizens of Iraq as ‘like us’ is one way that Al Jazeera tries to provide a counter-narrative. They go further however and portray the true face of suffering and death, and take flak for showing the real human cost. It makes for a laugh when we see Josh Rushing argue with Hassan Ibrahim about how this is minimal and just one of the by-products of conflict. He still believes the military rhetoric about ‘smart weapons’ and ‘surgical strikes’. The missile strikes on Al Jazeera and Abu Dabi TV etc. were evidence that ruffling the feathers of some birds can be deadly.

Al Jazeera’s mission statement is presented in the film as “The Opinion and the Other Opinion” this is a very good definition of what a democratic model of journalism should be. In the film we see one instance of the producer Samir Kadher say that “We at Al Jazeera play the American propaganda as if it is news”. We also see him admonish his reporters to remain objective as possible while carry out their duties. This is in contrast to American claims that Al Jazeera is Osama Bin Laden’s mouthpiece, followed up by Josh Rushings’ admission that there is “ incredible bias” with the CENTCOM reporting.

The biggest difference between Al Jazeera and the American style media is the fact that reporters are local to the region. They understand the people and their problems, foreign reporters do not have the same insights. Whether Al Jazeera really is a contra-flow of news is brought into question in the film. The scenes of the statue of Saddam being demolished in the center of Baghdad were not covered by Al Jazeera. In the film we saw as they could only comment on the feeds they were getting from the embedded media as this event unfolded. It became clear that the mob that had ‘spontaneously assembled’ to topple the despotic edifice were in fact not even Iraqis’. The producer at Al Jazeera gave evidence of this by saying that they did not have the correct accent. He then pointed out that the whole thing was “not right”, there were no women or children present in any of the shots, nor were there any Iraqi soldiers or Republican Guard. He raised suspicions that the event was staged – one of the mob had an Iraqi flag pre 1991 with him (deemed unlikely). These aspects of this event were not heard on FOX or MSNBC, instead it was spun as the Iraqi people embracing democracy and freedom.

During the film,
Al Jazeera ended up not able to truly provide the ‘other opinion’; due to damage to infrastructure as well as political pressures.

News From The Holy Land: Theory and practice of reporting conflict

Medi 301 Film write-up #2

Trevor Olafson

News From The Holy Land: Theory and practice of reporting conflict

The central question in regards to understanding conflicts, is how we hear of them. The news in the West usually focuses on a war and violence angle in their stories and leaves out important information as to the cause of the it. An effect in perception of news watchers towards the unrepresented side of a conflict manifests as a them and us mentality; which helps win support for military actions against the ‘enemy’ or ‘terrorists’. Most of us have been duped at one time or another by this kind of reporting, and simply gone on with our lives. While war atrocities and genocides were taking place – we slept.

News stories based on a Peace Journalism perspective would for example, be constructed differently than the traditional pieces. The order of the shots in the segment can change perception of the context, this lack of context feeds polarization; Peace Journalism is a counter to this aim. Knowledge of what created the conditions in which people feel driven to become ‘suicide bombers’ is often lacking. A culture (Palestinians) that has had to endure persecution and hardship would have much more support in the West if we were shown the checkpoints, barbwire and soldiers they contend with on a daily basis. Questions that ask why, don’t happen without wanting to know who and what. In the case of the Israel – Palestine conflict, the tradition is not to ask about this structural violence. Understanding people and the landscape in which they live is the goal of Peace Journalism. Giving a voice to those on both sides would help to end patterns of mutual mistrust and begin reshaping attitudes which dictate behaviour.

For example, stories about a peace talk or summit often include a line that there is little chance of a successful meeting. The alternate version would focus on how to create conditions for successful peace initiatives, such as empathy and understanding of those who have been affected. It is easy to turn a blind eye to something that you cannot see. Without inclusion of the facts, opinion is misshapen and contradictions are ignored, allowing the same conditions to continue.

Certainly I would have a deeper understanding of the plight of Palestinians if the major news reports included stories about how they have been displaced from their land and forced to live in a enclosure. The ‘Apartheid Wall’ symbolizes and enforces daily injustices against the Palestinian people, who are literally caged and at the mercy of their colonial masters.

Approaching these issues in the spirit of ethical journalism requires that they be brought to light by showing real instances of the frustration of Palestinians; blocked from farmlands, harassed and killed. The truth of the background issues would become transparent as previous cover-ups are exposed by journalists who are not foreign to the area.

Without a drastic change in the amount of foreign news reporting(local journalists) getting their stories out to the mainstream, they will remain ‘alternate’. At this time, viewers in North America see a small percentage of reports from journalists based in the region, and those must meet the ‘gatekeepers’ approval before being allowed to go to air.

The typology of violence in a troubled region will continue as long the attitudes and contradictions that cause and perpetuate it remain invisible to those outside the conflict. Let us all hope that those seeking to tell the truth are allowed, I for one still want answers.

Un Poquito de Tanta Verdad

Medi301 Film write-up #3

Trevor Olafson

A Little Bit of So Much Truth

The film by Jill Freidberg, Un Poquito de Tanta Verdad(A Little Bit of So Much Truth) documents the teachers strikes in the Mexican state of Oaxaca. In this sympathetic look at the popular uprising, the film-maker focuses on how radio became a vital part of making it possible. In May of 2006 over 70,000 teachers went on strike fighting in defense of public education. They had spent years voicing their concerns about the poverty of the children they taught and the lack of funding for even the most basic of school supplies. In a bold move, the teachers went to the capital city of Oaxaca where they set up a camp known as a ‘planton’. For the first time the teachers also used radio to organize themselves, and set up what became known as ‘Radio Planton’. Unlike previous years the government refused to negotiate with them, threatening instead to use police action to break up the strike and evict them from the capital.

The immediate response by main stream media outlets in Mexico was to begin to paint the protesters as being a mob that was not only causing traffic jams, but causing huge economic losses and violating the rights of all Mexicans to move about freely. The counter to this was Radio Planton, it was the only way the protesters were able to get critical information passed amongst themselves and their supporters. Through call in shows, people were able to add their voices and support to the teachers in the struggle. Police action against ‘Radio Planton’ galvanized people to defend it. Calls to the citizens to come out of their homes and help as the police entered the radio station mobilized most of the population, who later drove the police out of the city center. Two days after the attack on the teachers over 300,000 took part in a protest march in solidarity with them. The teachers and the population came together to form APPO, they had one demand, the removal of Ulises Ruis Ortiz from power. This uprising grew through the continual updates given on Radio Planton with calls to people in various regions to support blockades and defy military action. Mass resistance against government forces would not have happened in the same way without the use of media outlets taken over by the protesters throughout the state of Oaxaca.

The government countered and used it’s own television to try to frame the protesters as ‘radical groups’. By using the postponement of a yearly celebration known as the Guelaguetza, the government thought that they would be able to turn public opinion; it was the fault of the protesters that they must cancel the event because of fears that members of the public or even tourists would be hurt. Celebrations went on as normal, despite the official statements on television. People had listened to their radio which they trusted. The radio was used to further incite the protesters who wanted to disseminate ‘a little bit of so much truth’ to eventually take over a TV station when they were refused some air time. The police moved in after three weeks and destroyed the transmitter equipment, because of the impact broadcasts were having on the people, who continued to call for Ortiz to step down. They did not let themselves be silenced however, and instead the same morning took over 19 commercial radio stations and continued to broadcast critical strategic information to keep themselves organized. Main stream TV was calling the protests and takeovers violent clandestine guerrilla actions, not reporting that the violence that happened was against the people by the police.

Once the people had the media in their hands they were changed by it. Having this control allowed them to be able to mobilize and resist government forces, information about possible attacks against roadblocks or troop movements could reach a large number of people who could know when and where they were needed to fight back. The radio became their main defense. The power that the people began to wield changed the way they identified themselves, having control of the media was the turning point, from which they did not want to go back to the way things were.

Despite a huge organized march supported by people throughout Mexico and many parts of the world, thousands of police were used to attack and break up the teachers resistance movement, government television was used to whitewash these attacks in which at least 100 people were ‘disappeared’. One of the last stands of the movement was made at Radio Universidad when people were urged to bring their barricades to help preserve ‘the voice of the people’ and establish a new planton from which to continue the struggle. Unfortunately a campaign of propaganda instituted by the government against the movement was eventually able to negatively affect public perception. Once this was accomplished the government was able to completely break up organized protests without public resistance. Fear of being involved in supporting the protests grew as some were be
aten and arrested. With the eventual loss of Radio Universidad the protests died and the movement never quite recovered it’s support.

Seeing is Believing: Handicams, Human Rights and the News

Medi 301

Trevor Olafson

Film write-up #4:

Seeing is Believing: Handicams, Human Rights and the News

If knowledge is power, then being able to disseminate that knowledge is more powerful still. In the film we see the evolution of the technologies and resulting use in documenting the struggles of marginalized and oppressed people. In each case, available technology ranging from a simple photocopy to modern cell phone gave ordinary citizens the ability organize themselves and air grievances against political and corporate tyranny.

With new technologies came new possibilities for human rights awareness and change. The advent of the handicam in 1985 heralded the age of a new type of journalism, anyone could potentially be a reporter and record first person accounts of events that otherwise would not be caught by usual network news cameras. The amateur video of the 1991 police beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles caught the attention of broadcasters and was subsequently shown around the world, angering many in the process. After the officers involved were acquitted of all wrongdoing massive riots broke out in a large 20 block area of the city that left 54 dead and more than 2,000 injured. This would likely not have happened without the combination of damning video evidence seen by all and outrage following the courts verdict in the trial.

The cell phone and internet have also been used to organize grass-roots campaigns for change. Texting and e-mail became the catalyst of a political revolution in the Philippines which forced the resignation of then President Estrada. He had been found not guilty on trial for charges of corruption, bribery and breach of public trust despite a considerable volume of evidence against him. Through texting and e-mail were people able to communicate and organize in large numbers and within a short time frame. In this case, the following four day protest was successful in its goal. According to Alex Magno, a sociology professor in Manila, most of the political upheavals of the last two decades have had a definitive link to communications technology. Audio cassettes, photocopiers, and fax machines have all been used with varying degrees of success or in cases such as Tiananmen, failure.

The risk of retribution against those using technology to organize human rights campaigns is very real concern. In the video, we see the account of the Nakamata people of the Philippines as shown by late journalist Joey Lozano. During the Marcos dictatorship, tribes all across the country were forced off their land which was then taken over for corporate use. After several failed land claims by tribe members they became more vocal and organized, the result is that they are targets of violence. In the film, Joey follows the Nakamata tribe as they move to a location awarded to them as ancestral land, his video camera likely was a factor in preventing armed thugs from interfering with the tribe that day. A few days later the tribe moves again, without the video camera present. Two of the tribe members were shot by guards as they moved past a demarcation fence, Lozano himself feels guilty for not being there when the tribe was decided to move the second time. This motivated him to provide the tribe with a video camera and trained members in shooting and editing footage, so that they might be empowered to defend themselves with it. They recorded their grievances and gave visual evidence of the conditions they faced, after this footage was aired locally, tribe members who had spoken on camera were injured and killed by gunfire and beatings. The Nakamata recorded the funerals of their members who had been murdered, there was enough interest by the major network in the Philippines and these graphic and emotional images were aired on national TV. Within one month of receiving the video camera, the images they captured resulted in large numbers of people aware of their plight. They had gained the interest of a top rated investigative show with national television exposure, resulting in a prime-time report about the Nakamata that relies heavily on the footage by the Nakamata themselves. Although technology had given them a voice there was an immediate violent response by corporate thugs trying to silence them, a continued risk that will be only end when the land claims are settled, if ever.

Witness campaigns for awareness of human rights focus on exposing the circumstances or issues behind them to those people who are part of the general population and to those with the influence to actually change policy. They also have been active in campaigns that focus on bringing justice to those who have lost their lives in genocidal slaughter. Providing forensic video evidence of mass graves of thousands of murdered Muslims to prosecutors helped greatly in the conviction of war criminal Slobodan Milosevic. In the Congo, a slaughter of over three million gained little attention until footage of horribly maimed and dead victims were shown to national news agencies who picked it up. It was seen by many but most importantly acted upon when an outraged Nelson Mandela contacted the head of the United Nations to intercede. Witness continues to organize and provide support for various human rights movements around the world, with the goal of affecting change through the power of video and its’ ability to tell a story in a way that words cannot.

FILM DIARY #5

MEDI 311 – FILM ABOUT MEDIA

FILM DIARY #5

Trevor Olafson

Charles Chaplin: The Great Dictator

Three years in production, The Great Dictator was released in 1940 – at this time Hitler was at war in Europe, and the United States was not yet directly involved in the conflict. Chaplins’ film depicts the rise of fascism in Germany (Tomania), and parodies many scenes from Leni Riefenstahls’ Triumph of The Will; the nature of its’ construction exposed in darkly comedic fashion. The Great Dictator is itself an early example of and warning against propaganda(113) featuring the them and us( evil/good) dichotomy, many of the news reels (propaganda) to come later in the war would be framed this way – however Chaplins’ film came under scrutiny.

 

The existing appeasement and isolationist (looking the other way) policy in Britain and the States was in place to render films politically innocuous(117), Chaplin was pressured to remove images and messages in his film that would have been offensive to Hitler and Mussolini; both of them in the process of spreading fascism across Europe. Chaplins’ message – Germany under Hitler was a real threat to the Jews in Europe and world peace as a whole.

 

The film had been made as a comedy to create sympathy for the Jews, and Chaplin was criticized for doing so – later he would admit that he would not have made it this way if had known the extent of the horror inflicted by the Nazis’ at the time(118). The language of the film drives the narrative; editing, juxtaposition of people and place, sets, costumes, characters – all contribute to the portrayal of good(Jews) being victimized by evil (Hitler). There is first the physical differences of the people, those in the ghetto are relative to each other in size, are poorly dressed and underfed – they furtively go about their business. However, the SA troops that terrorize these people are very large in comparison, well tailored and obviously well fed – ironically, the business of the former is centred on the disruption of the business of the latter.

 

The impoverished ghetto that the Jews inhabit is in stark contrast to the opulent lifestyle enjoyed by the ‘fictional’ Adenoid Hynkel and his cronies, we are reminded of this callous inequity many times during the film. The banquet table that is poked at with indifference by Hynkel is contrasted with the meagre meal taken with thanks by the Jews. This point is most effectively made during the ordered burning of the barbershop sequence – the image of Hynkel playing a grand piano in his marble palace, is superimposed over the humble wooden building engulfed in flames, it serves both as warning and historical reminder. The pathological nature of evil incarnate is not constrained to a period in history, it will manifest time and again to consume and gleefully destroy anything that it is not – the way madmen seek to destroy other empires first, but always finish with their own. In the Hynkel dream sequence, he plays with the world as if it were a balloon- it eventually pops – the emphasis is that ‘Hynkler’ will never realize his conquest of the world or the redemption he seeks(121), and in Chaplins’ final 6 minute speech he addresses the film audience directly with the message – hold on to hope until the final passing of the age of evil and slavery into a new age of love and liberty which will be waiting to recieve those who seek it.

Sources

Cole, Robert. Anglo-American Anti-fascist Film Propaganda in a Time of Neutrality. Medi311 Course reader 110-125 Ed. Debra Pentacost

 

Dziga Vertov: A Man with a Movie Camera

Medi311- Film About Media

Film Diary #3

Trevor Olafson

Dziga Vertov: A Man with a Movie Camera

Born Denis Abramovich Kaufman, Dziga Vertov would become known as the father of Cinema Verite’. During screenings of and in his groundbreaking film ‘The Man With The Movie Camera’ we see audiences were amazed by the photography, editing and portrayal of man living in concert with machines; each requiring the other in order to move towards a not so distant utopian future.

 

Vertovs’ ‘experiment in cinematic communication’ begins with images of silent streets, peasants sleeping on benches, in parked carriages – regimented row houses, and rows of newborns soon to be regimented within them. Silent artifacts and machines rest while man does, not disturbing the sanctity of sleep – when it is time to wake both do so in similar fashion. A comparison is made between the human and camera eye during this awakening process, reminding us that we are seeing what the camera does, and later in the film understand that we are also seeing through the eyes of the editor who chooses what we see and when to ‘blink’. As the film progresses, this ‘awakening’ continues and shows the reciprocity between man and machine and a sharing of traits and ethics that portend synchronicity and symbiosis with the machine (mannequin using sewing machine, riding bicycle).

 

Modes of transportation – especially trains seem to convey a number of themes. It is not only the idea of movement afforded by machines which rely on the hand of man to operate, direct and maintain them; but also of the machine ‘eye’ which we are seeing through. The trains are directed (switched) by the hand of man, which send it in another direction – just as the camera man and film editor do when working on their ‘tracks’, the film stock itself. Still images of film stock are juxtaposed with the finished segments from which they were taken, leading to the portrayal of life (our directions) as seen by both the machine (camera) and human eye. This is shown with the reflection of a human eye within the lens of the camera which documents the places (stations) and roles in society that we arrive at (girl working in factory, girl who is pampered for example). Continual shots of Vertov taking his camera to various factory and street locations are a reminder to the viewer he is providing a new way of seeing with his machine eye. Subsequent slow motion, freeze frame footage of leisure activities and sports are romanticized as being the benefit result of machines in our lives – providing us with carousel rides , motorcycle races and music (radio broadcasts), and the free time to enjoy them. In the final minutes of the film the focus is shifted to the theatre audience who are reminded by the ‘character’ of the tripod camera (machine) that has made the film possible (camera takes a bow), and then through a montage of ‘life facts’ which builds to a crescendo.

 

The first of Vertovs’ twelve commandments is seen in the film several times, his assertion that the human eye must be assisted by the camera in order to make sense out of the visual chaos is shown by movement of man and machine movement – breaking them down into smaller constituent pieces through still and slow motion images; something human eyes cannot do. The second commandment states that the cameraman does not possess extraordinary powers, and is an ordinary person who knows how to use a tool and dares to take it where necessary, in the film we see Vertov scamper up the girders of a bridge, have himself cabled across waterfalls, hang outside a moving train or stand in a car to get the shot. All of these are a requirement of commandment three which states that ‘life facts’ should not be filmed with a stationary camera so as to create a greater impact when viewed – number five is much the same adding speed and dexterity are the most important skills a cameraman possesses in order to keep up with life’s events. Not all twelve of Vertovs commandments may be relevant or practical today(eleven states that the cameraman is expected to support a revolutionary attitude), however credit must be given to him for originating many of the camera angles and movements seen in film today.

Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, by Alanis Obomsawin

Medi 311

Trevor Olafson

Film Diary #1

 

Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, by Alanis Obomsawin

 

The introduction to the film which is entirely narrated by Obomsawin, wastes no time in establishing the background story which led up to the 1990 armed standoff in the Mohawk village of Kanehsatake, near the town of Oka in Quebec. It should be clear to the viewer within the first five minutes that Obomsawin (herself of native ancestry), is very sympathetic in her portrayal of the Mohawk protest at Kahnasatake, there is no real pretense of objectivity in this documentary style film.

 

Here, the Mohawk warriors and peoples are represented very differently than the media had been doing at that time, as in other uprisings around the globe protesters are painted as lazy, greedy, or the cause of disruptions/economic troubles. In this case there was a valid point about the blocking of a major bridge and the inconvenience and economic losses because of it. The film tries to counter this stereotype and give a human face to the residents of Kanasatake. For example the death of police officer Lamay shot during the fire-fight was talked about by two interviewees. They both relay the message the tragedy has saddened the ‘People in the Pines’, who are also worried they will be blamed. Subsequent interviews with witnesses describe in their words what could likely have been an accident on the part of police, speculations by these people on what happened are added to the record. Network stories gave a completely different treatment to the coverage of the incident overall; Obomsawin makes a token attempt at being objective but her sympathies are clearly with the Mohawks behind the barricades.

A lengthy, emotionally charged history lesson near the beginning of the film gives a good insight into Obamsawins’ view of the Oka Crisis. She effectively provides background and context for the viewer that is needed to understand how the crisis reached critical mass. Against a background of tribal drums and singing still images and injured voices tell stories of deception and betrayal by those they trusted, one story in particular being the description of the wampum belt made in faith – showing the boundaries of their land as agreed to by the whites, and the subsequent theft of the land by the church. This history is to provide evidence to justify the uprising – described in the film as a noble fight against another injustice in a long line of many against the people of Kanasatake.

Obamsawin has created a film that uses images that were not available to other journalists covering the crisis. Her unique perspective allowed her to interview those directly involved during the time the stand-off was taking place, and get images from the viewpoint of the ‘others’ (Mohawks) that would never have been captured otherwise due to the military – who did not allow journalists in or out during the blockade of the Treatment Center in the heart of the reserve. As supplies on the inside ran low, we are shown a simple request being made to a soldier on the blockade to pass on a food list to the commanding officer, and is refused. In a subsequent segment we are shown footage of a military air raid at a peace camp at Kahnawake. Obomsawin describes the action not only with her narrative, but provides a musical soundtrack which brings to mind a campy comedy skit; when juxtaposed against images of heavily armoured combat soldiers using Chinook helicopters to confiscate cases of beer, it effectively implies absurd waste of resources by our military in reference to this incident.

However- there is a darker, and demonstrably frightening force felt from the military and police during arrest scenes. The underlying theme of being helpless to stop authority is shown in the most literal sense – the weak are at the whim of bullies who abuse and mock them.

When residents left the reserve for fears of a military attack, the convoy of 75 vehicles was stoned by towns people from Oka while police stood by and watched – allowing the assault to take place. Obamsawin sadly describes the death of an elderly man (the weak) who is hit in the chest with a rock and dies as a result of his injuries which could have been prevented by the authorities who should not have let it happen. The incident is made all the more powerful by a clip of the mans’ grieving daughter immediately after it happened.

In Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, Obamsawin is clearly an advocate for the people affected on the Mohawk side of this conflict, and makes little attempt at being objective in the editing of her footage. In this instance, an objective viewpoint is not the reason for the film – the title itself gives this away. I feel that the film-makers background and motives remove “objective” from the table as she is compelled to produce an advocacy piece that brings to light her feelings and viewpoints regarding the Oka Crisis and native land issues in general. To be ‘objective’ in this sense would not be nearly as useful towards creating empathy for her cause, which is the goal of the film – I  feel that her approach in this case works.