See you guys around,

Brittany Washington

The documentary at times I felt could have come across as a laundry list of problems that need to be addressed. Several key issues were covered: coal factories, water conservation, and corporations’ deceit to name a few, all of which are a significant threat to the Hopi and Navajo communities. The manner in which they were addressed one after the other, traveling from county to county, state to state, felt somewhat forced, as though if the last issue didn’t hook the audience, the next one sure would. The editing, however, following certain characters in the last scene into the next, I believe helped the documentary flow much more smoothly. The audience is able to meet a new character, understand their plight (like the families who have lost multiple loved ones do to local coal plants), but then follow them as they try to fight the pollution and the corporations causing it (like the meeting to protest the construction of a new coal plant). This is not about an environmental group coming in to save the Hopi and Navajo communities. The change in Power Paths is catalyzed from within, which is more empowering for them and the viewer.

The documentary shows the history of the group as they started out as part of the SDS, and how they broke away from the organization, taking hordes of members with them, using their Bonnie and Clyde personas. The group wanted to end the atrocious war in Vietnam, but also to topple the United States government and instate a new system not based on capitalism and the decadence and brainwashing that came with it. The group felt that, in the sixties with several Third World countries throwing off the chains of colonialism, the whole world was about to experience revolution and the group wanted to be a part of, if not ignite, it in America.

The documentary follows the group as they go underground after police surveillance and abuse hinders their ability to fight the power. This boosts the groups infamy astronomically, but the documentary is able to remain distant from the groupie mentality that followed The Weather Men. At this point, the documentary includes interviews that do not rave about the rebellious nature of the group. A former president of SDS critiques their turn to violence and ability to enchant hundreds of members into following them. He critiques their motives, implying that the group was more interested in drugs, orgies guised as sexual freedom, and fame, more than they wanted the end of the Vietnam War. It is not my place to question The Weather Men’s motives, but as a viewer I appreciated the balance, the flipside to a culture and movement I have only witnessed through films and books.

The documentary even includes contradictory interviews from former Underground members, who describe the group as cultish and pretty much insane. Hearing these words spoken from a former member of the group greatly casts a shadow on their actions and causes the viewer to examine their motives more closely. In a sense, these contradictory words not only grant the documentary a sense of balance, but also takes the viewer out of the hysteria of the time: the scarring images of the Vietnam War blasting images of monstrous American brutality abroad into the homes of Americans via television news coverage, the death tolls broadcast on the nightly news, race wars being raged in the streets, and citizens feeling a part of the death machine of the American government, but feeling torn about their loyalties.

Being a part of a young generation, this documentary becomes completely relevant in terms of the war in the Middle East. I believe everyone with the ability to think for themselves is appalled by the war. The power of documentary gives a predecessor for a formative moment in our lives. The youth of the sixties was invested in protesting the Vietnam War, many of which were caught up in a violent, obsessive debate over its end. In comparison, many college students today still protest the war on “Terror,” but at the same time it is not equivocal to some of the actions of protestors during the sixties. Inadvertently, The Weather Underground becomes a strange mirror for the youth of today. Molotov Cocktails are replaced with blogs and, on the lower end of the spectrum, apathy and ignorance. I myself have not been involved as I would have wished to. I am not advocating violent protesting, but the comparison secondarily made between the youth of the sixties and the youth of today is stark. The Weather Underground powerfully shows how documentary has the ability to depict a certain time or story that has modern relevance and still has the ability to shape our futures, so that we do not repeat the past.

The short documentary follows Los Four as they create the exhibit. They are filmed creating their art, but also sitting in a circle playing guitar and singing Mexican folksongs. They have a few female companions, but in the documentary they remain unnamed. It is assumed that one woman in particular is a companion of one of the men; she helps them assemble their exhibit and even cuts their hair (in the middle of the gallery). In this manner, the group is able to break down the walls of the “superior” space of the gallery and bring everyday life of Chicanos into that space, but at the same time they become glorified. This manner of representation fixes them as rock stars of Chicano art, but at the same time relegates the female barber to a secondary position. By not finding it necessary to address or name her, her importance and identity become trivial. Los Four is portrayed as a Boys’ Club and converts the gallery to a very masculine space.

This portrayal of the woman as inconsequential, however, does not completely deter my admiration of the artists’ coup of the LACMA for one night. Instead of serving champagne and hors d’ouevres to the LACMA patrons, Los Four served tacos and Sangria. Los Four was able to bring Chicano culture into the gallery. Many of their fans attended, but, interestingly, many well-to-do LACMA patrons attended only to be turned on their heads. Instead of finding the posh (or white) art they were used to, they found an all-out fiesta! This clash of cultures resulted in a communal party, in which everyone dined on Mexican food and LACMA patrons enjoyed the art of a culture that had up until then been defined as inferior and outlawed from museums.

I find it interesting that a group that had been defined as second class, even though they were a forerunner of an artistic movement, still came off as chauvinistic. A twist in the story, however, comes when a rival Chicano art group, Asco (which means nausea in Spanish), crashed their opening night. Asco recently had been turned down by LACMA when they suggested more Chicano art should be exhibited at the museum (so they graffitied their names on the walls of the museum in protest and recorded it in a photo. LACMA, of course, whitewashed the walls overnight, so the disgrace would not last.) The founding members of Asco, however, consisted of a woman, Patssi Valdez, and a gay man, Gronk. The masculinity of Los Four is not found in Asco. This comparison creates an interesting discussion about what is and what is not accepted by “minorities” and “majorities”. Curiously, Los Four, a very masculine group, is allowed to show their work at the LACMA, but the diverse (and just as dynamic) Asco is refused. At the same time, however, the progress shown by Los Four’s take over of the LACMA was a milestone in the Chicano Art movement.

It covered a very large breadth.  I saw at least two stories here: first, the struggle of Navajo and Hopi to protect their land while creating jobs.  Second, the struggle of integrating alternative energy sources in the United States.

When discussing the power struggles within Navajo Nation, the doc bit off more than it could chew.   The relationship between the coal plant and  Navajo Nation was entirely confused.  For the first half of the film, the coal plant was painted as this wholly evil entity, which sucked away precious water and contaminated the air.  But when the coal plant was torn down, the removal of jobs hurt people even more. (Alethia talked a little about this in her post)

The relationship between the public and the governmental entities seemed a little fuzzy, too.  Activists were treated with respect and deference, whereas the elders were painted as corrupt.  But you don’t really buy it (More than a few of the audience members in the KLRU studio questioned this relationship).  The interviews with both the activists and the elders lack depth, and the audience doesn’t really get a firm grasp on the problem at hand.

In fact, a lot of the earlier footage outlining the water shortage invoked pity rather than genuine  sympathy, and I think the editing is to blame for that, and the lack of depth in the interviews.

I wasn’t expecting such extensive footage in Germany and the Netherlands, though.  There was tons of information about alternative energy there. Strangely, there seemed to be almost as much footage of international interviews as that in the United States.  The film did much better with its attempt at explaining the possibilities of alternative energies in the United States.

I think the real problem that all of this critique points to is that the filmmakers tried to cover too much in an hour.  There wasn’t enough footage covering  the Navajo/Hopi struggle, which is what audiences really care about.   There was no real central character whose life we successfully invaded in order to gain a greater understanding of the issue.

Unfortunately, since it was made for PBS, it had to fit within a very specific time frame.  With that in mind, I think it’s pretty remarkable that they were able to cover so much in such a short period of time.  But it lacked depth.

the audio is not mixed

the end is just filler; im animating some sketches to end the piece but they arent done yet. so basically the end will be nothing like that. eh, sorry. i already exported it.

thanks a bazillion!

http://www.vimeo.com/7861638 i’m vaguely sure that link will work

First, Jakob started with his life story/background. He did not receive any formal training and was completely self-taught. He is from Sweden originally, but moved to New York City. He eventually opened his own company, with about 15-20 staff members and various free-lancers, to create a very successful multi-media/visual arts company. He did a short presentation, about 10-15 minutes, on his childhood and interests. It was an interesting power point with various photos of his past, music, and artists that inspired him growing up. Then, he went into a presentation of all the work he had completed. It was about 45 minutes of impressive pieces, including commercials, opening film sequences, and animation clips. Lastly, Jakob took questions from the audience.

I can say that although Jakob was very dry and, at times, boring. (Note to Trollbäck & Co PR monitoring: sorry!) But overall, his presentation was very helpful and intriguing. It put me out of my normal space of narrative and doc, and shooting and editing. It showed me other paths I have the option of pursuing if I so choose, that my degree is marketable, and that my classes trained me very well for a multitude of paths. I really enjoyed seeing Jakob speak. Now the step: Take on Aftereffects.

So last Tuesday one of my friends posted a link on my wall to a trailer of a documentary done on my favorite rapper… Lil Wayne. The doc premiered at Sundance and was received pretty well. So after the trailer ended it was advertised that you could preorder the DVD before it was released the next day. Sitting in class I immediately ordered it.

Today I watched it and I thought it was great. The trailer claims the doc to be very cinema verite and it definitely is. The documentary aspect of the film allows it to feel personal. A hand held camera is often used and in some of the shots you can see other camera operators and boom polls. Still, heavily incorporated into the doc are very artistically composed and constructed shots. A lot of the scenes are lit intensely and very colorful. It was beautiful. The documentary also played had a music video component to it. At times his lyrics would appear on screen over images of him walking around or performing. It was unique and I think it worked well with the film.

There is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film which states that during the middle of shooting Lil Wayne refused to continue with the making of the documentary. You would not be able to tell watching the film. Despite the adversity, the documentary was still well put together. It was just a funny example to me because we all faced different difficulties in putting together our docs and it’s not different from what occurs in the real world. The director explicitly stated that he had difficulty in putting the film together. This probably had a large influence on the unconventional verite style of the doc and forced the filmmakers to be creative. I would recommend this to Chelsea. It might give you some ideas on your doc and your rapper. The lyrics and the music played a large part in the narrative of the documentary and I don’t remember it being as heavily incorporated in the samples you showed in class. I think it worked well in this and might be something you want to check out.

I feel the purpose of this film was to get the public aware of this problem but it gave me conflicting views of how to solve it. On the one hand Native Americans need jobs and complain that the nuclear power plants were shut down, while on the other hand they want clean water and energy for their land. The way it was portrayed showed that either way it’s a lose-lose unless someone comes up with a cheap way to create jobs and clean energy for this community. Overall it was a well made documentary but I would have liked to get more of a sense of the Native American community and what there day to day lives are like and more of how this effects their entire community and not just a few families.

This is the story of the development of the Barton Springs green belt that may have contributed to the clouding of the waters as demonstrated by underwater footage shot in 1996 and then in 2006. Laura Dunn had the support of Terrence Malick who proposed this film to her and rallied his friend Robert Redford to the cause. With a backing and Lee Daniel at her side she proceeded to tell a compelling story of partisan politics and the defeat of the Earth First community by the administration of Gov. Bush. At the same time there is the story of a muscular mustached developer who lost it all and eventually cries for the camera. After the movie she noted how Terence Malick gave her daily advise on the editing, yet oddly did not want to be mentioned in the credits. The movie was driven by talking heads, but big one like Robert Redford and Ann Richards and left the room stale for a good bit of the run time. There issues are big but this needed to be 20-30min. The poorly crafted filler scenes in this movie take away form the fragmented story of the developer and leave us wondering if Barton Springs was actually ruined by the development. We know George Bush is the Son of Sam. For all the hype this did not go far.

Lauren Greenfield at the blanton
This was eye opening. She showed her girl culture slide show as well her THIN work. This is the authoritative body of visual work on the struggles and entrapment of young women. This is true advocacy for redefining to value we assign to the bodies of young women. The work addresses reality while the solutions require the complete destruction of the social construction of women.

I watched HOOP DREAMs again as well which I is on my list as the greatest example of the craft of documentary. All documentary should be judged against this work.