Home Movies/Capturing the Friedman's

If I, or any other outsider for that matter, were to view any of Michelle Citron's "Home Movies" without any of the background information that she provides in this piece, I would assume that everyone in the videos are happy. I would also have been wrong.

To each viewer, a home movie can have a different effect. This is especially true between a viewer with no ties to the images on the film, and a viewer with ties. Take "The Promenade" video for example. To an outsider like me, this video shows nothing but a happy family parading around for the camera. But to Citron, these images remind her of a dark past. She mentions that at the time this video was shot, she wanted to die. To me, what I see on this video is what I get. But to Citron, these images bring back all the behind-the-scenes drama taking place in her life at the time.

It is evident that even before viewing this video, Citron does not think kindly on this era of her life. She states that her memory of her family at the time is different than what the images show. What she recalls is that her mother is overweight and depressed, her sister is pretty, and that she, herself, is ugly. The images show something different. In the video, Citron and her sister are both pretty, and the mother is happy and in good health. I believe that the reason Citron had such a sour memory of her and her mother at this specific time in her life, is because of how she felt psychologically. Since she was so depressed at the time of "The Promenade," and since she wanted to die, her memory of herself is negative. This is why she remembered herself as ugly when it wasn't true. The same goes for her mother. Citron states that she resented her mother. This is why her memory paints a negative picture of her as well.

Citron's point is that although home movies are usually made for the purpose of fond memories and pleasant recollection, sometimes they can cause the opposite emotions. As we have seen, home movies can do this on their own. But the impact can be greater when they are used in this light by a filmmaker purposely trying to attain that effect for dramatic reasons.

In Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedman's," home movies are used to help illustrate the story of the Friedman family from Great Neck. Arnold Friedman and his three sons are shown in most of their home movies as a loving family. The mother never seems to be part of this tight group (as she, herself, later states). In the films, everyone is roughhousing around and having a good time. But what these certain films can't show, are the disturbing secrets of Arnold Friedman and his son, Jesse. This is where Jarecki goes for his dramatic effect. He plays the happy moments onscreen, while the family's voice over commentary tells their grim tale. It is a very effective form of film making. One of the most well done scenes is when there is a still shot of the four Friedman men smiling with their arms around each other. While we see this, we hear these same four men arguing vehemently about their family's new criminal situation.

Like Citron's movies, viewing this footage alone without any background information doesn't give the total picture. We see a man with his children having a good time. Only Arnold Friedman knows what else was going on at this time. And I wonder if, like Citron, viewing his happy family footage brought back negative memories.

This is a comment on "pushgently"'s blog for "Jupurrurla"

Every culture wants to be represented equally. It is hard, though, to represent accurately any one given culture if there are restrictions. In the case of the Warlpiri, this is certainly an issue. The Warlpiri are very strict about how their history is told. Throughout the existence of their culture, as the person whose blog I am commenting on mentioned, the Warlpiri have passed down stories from generation to generation orally. Any documented information about their existence, whether it be written word or in visual form, cannot present an accurate description of Warlpiri culture. The reason for this is that once a Warlpiri dies, he ceases to exist in memory as well. The Warlpiri go so far as to never mentioning the deceased person's name, or any name that even sounds like it, ever again! If there exists any photo of the deceased, their likeness is removed from it. So how can a culture be accurately represented if its stories and experiences are passed down through words alone, and every member of it has their memory totally wiped away? In my opinion, Jupurrurla is acting almost as a historian for his culture by making his tapes. And since the elders have agreed that any deceased that may appear in these tapes are "in the background," it seems as though a more accuarte history of Warlpiri culture may be preserved.

this is a comment on "xanga.com/readallabout" blog for Nov. 30

The thing that I get most out of reading this piece is the fact that everything in the life of a Navajo is motion oriented. What really stuck out for me is how in the Navajo language, everything is spoken as if it "moves into" something else (i.e. "move into safety"). This is very evident in the examples given of their filmmaking. Motion seems to be the most important thing. It doesn't matter what the ending of the film is, what counts most is how you get there. In other words, how the story travels or moves from beginning to end. There is also the "journey" factor. In almost every film they make, the human subject of the film is always going on a journey. Just like the person whose blog I am commenting on, I find it very interesting how a cameraman can hold a camera so still while filming movement. And the fact that the Navajo filmmaker can master such fluid motion in their films at a level that even Hollywood professionals find difficult, is just amazing.

I also found especially interesting how structured the Navajo lifestyle is. Everything has to equal out. This was pointed out in the part of this reading when it was mentioned that if there are three male students, there must be three females as well. It is also worth pointing out how concerned the Navajo are with the origin of things, which is partly evident in the way they make their film subjects go on their aforementioned journeys. Furthermore, the Navajo seem to feel that their mere existence might affect the world negatively, as portrayed in Al's film about how he sees himself as an "intruder."

Putting all of this together, I find it very interesting that the Navajo lifestyle seems to be very obssessive compulsive. They are very concerned with order, as evidenced in the one film in which the filmmaker had to start on one side of the lake and work his way around, and worried about the effect that their existence will have on the world. More evidence of this is how all things must be even. Since this is how their lives are led, this is also how their films are made.

Omar Gatlato

While watching "Omar Gatlato," I couldn't help but feel a little confused. First of all, it seemed as though the first half of the film was documentary, while the last half was more in the style of a narrative film.

For the first 45 minutes or so, Omar narrates his own story as the camera follows him around. We pretty much see every painstaking detail of Omar's day to day life. This is good for the sake of realism. With this kind of filmmaking you get an uninterrupted look at the film's subject and his surroundings. Then the second half of the film takes a slightly different direction. The narration stops, and the whole "realistic" feel seems to vanish from the film. The filmmaker goes from a documentary depicting the life of an Algerian male in the Casbah, to telling a narrative story about the same man trying to locate a mysterious girl. Obviously, realism can be depicted in any kind of film, but I just wanted to get this out of the way.

As far as realism itself is concerned, I can only really see certain generalities of it here. Some of the women are dressed in a traditional style and gangs run wild trying to rob men and women alike. Omar and his fellow Algerians find pleasure in simple things such as the movies and music. The cassette player that Omar owns is pretty much his version of complete luxury. And the movie drives the point home that they live in a harsh and dangerous world. I know the realism in this film delves much deeper, but I find it difficult to pinpoint. From what I have read about the film, I know that it is supposed to show men as being inferior to women. This is how realism is related to gender in this film. I don't see it. I do see that Omar finds it hard to sleep in the same room as his sister seeing as they are now both adults, leaving Omar to feel out of place in his own home, but this can't be all there is. Realism related to self-determination is a little easier. Omar becomes obsessed with the female voice he hears on a tape and will not rest until he finds this girl. We can all relate to that type of motivation regardless of the motivating factor. But again, is this all there is? I also have the same problem with realism related to the post-colonial situation in Algeria. To me this film is certainly meant to be sympathetic to the formerly colonized people of Algiers. I believe it is meant to show that although they are "free," they are still colonized within the Casbah.

All this is what I can clearly see while watching this film. This fact leaves me with an uneasy feeling. I feel as though I am missing the whole point of why we viewed this movie. But to be absolutely honest, I don't see anything much more than this.

Response to "Fate of the Cinema Subject"

In "The Fate of the Cinema Subject," David MacDougall introduces questions that never usually enter a film viewer's mind: What becomes of a film's subject once the film is complete, and what the experience of being filmed is like for the subject. MacDougall then proceeds to go into great detail analyzing the relationships between the filmmaker, his subject and his audience. He also explores the many ways in which a film can be misinterpreted or a film's subject viewed in the wrong light.

While reading this piece, two things, among many others, stood out for me. Firstly, I came to the conclusion that it is very hard to rely on a film for facts. The reason for this is, as MacDougall points out, that a filmmaker can't help but mold his film into what he wants it to be. MacDougall makes a point of mentioning the "unconscious rearrangements" that filmmakers make to their films. Who can tell the difference between the truth and lies just by viewing footage that is given to them? How can a viewer be sure that the filmmaker didn't edit his footage in order to push across his point of view alone? If a filmmaker really does develop such a strong bond with his subject, whether positive or negative, how can he maintain an unbiased attitude? All this is crucial to how the cinema subject is portrayed, and could certainly help in deciding his fate.

The second thing that stood out for me in this piece, is how a film can be looked upon so differently depending on the party involved. This is especially true of the filmmaker and his audience. MacDougall points out that for the filmmaker, his film is a smaller version of something much bigger. The filmmaker shoots hours and hours of footage, but most of it winds up on the cutting room floor. Therefore he looks upon it as a sort of memoir of his total filming experience. MacDougall then continues to say how the film is something big for the viewer. The film viewer doesn't know anything about the footage shot, and therefore viewing the film is like discovering something new.

I think that MacDougall's overall point is that no matter what your goal is through making a film, it can always be misinterpreted, or just viewed differently, by others. Everyone has their own opinion, and if people can get opposite messages from the same film, they can view the film's subject in opposite ways. This leads me to conclude that although not always possible, the best way to get the facts about something is to seek them out yourself.