Blog Entry Number 4

A picture is worth a thousand words... but does it really represent reality? We all take pictures... family gatherings, birthdays, holidays, vacations...but we never stop to think of it as documenting our life. I have literally thousands of pictures and yet never realized I was making a story, a documentation of my life. We take pictures for so many reasons. Whether it is to remember a funny time, keep our relatives up to date of our lives, or just to add to our collection. We are capturing the real and presenting it to those who want to see it. But is it really the real? Do pictures really capture all that happened at that moment in time? I would argue that it does not. When we look at a family picture, we don’t see all the hassle that went on to get everyone together and to smile and look nice. We don’t see all the fighting that probably took place, the baby crying, and the frustrated parents. All we see is one happy family standing in a picture. It is a representation of what we WANT to be real; a sort of fantasy family. “Our memory is never fully ‘ours’, nor are the pictures ever unmediated representations of our past” (Family Snaps, pg 14). It’s that picture perfect family that everyone strives for but in reality there is no such thing. Only those who were there can faintly remember what actually went on, but as time goes on that fades away too and all we remember is that picture perfect family.

The camera has become part of the events now. “There is no attempt to conceal the process of picture-taking – participants present themselves directly to the camera in an act of celebratory co-operation” (Family Snaps, pg 4). Hardly ever do we go somewhere that we are not bound to be capture on camera. Everyone wants to preserve the event as long as they can. And now with the introduction of the digital camera, people can take thousands of pictures at a time, go back and look at them and choose what to keep. We now have this ability to edit the pictures on the spot to get the best image. But is this then a representation of the real? Again I’ll argue against it. How are we representing what really went on at the moment in time when we have deliberately posed for the picture, taken it many times and then gone and edited it??? Back before digital cameras the pictures used to capture reality because you could not change or edit the picture. They told a story, showed reality and truth. The pictures were chosen carefully because a roll of film only had so many pictures whereas with digital cameras now you can take thousands of pictures.

But the camera is good in representing our past. It is here that we “gaze at layers of our past being” (Family Snaps, pg 2). We don’t really remember much of when we were younger, but looking at picture albums (from a time when digital cameras were not around especially), we can begin to piece together our past. We see pictures of family events, family members that maybe have passed away, things we did when we were younger etc. Although it does not represent the entire past, it gives us a sense of who we are. I’ll look back at pictures from when I was a baby all the way until the age I am now, and that is how I put together my past. I remember things based on the photos I see and it helps me realize who I am today. “We invest our own album with the weight of childhood experience, searching it for information, pouring into it our unfulfillable desires” (Family Snaps, pg 2). It helps you to see who you are and where you came from. Without the camera, we would not have this ability to remember the past as well as this.

Not only does photographs help us to remember, but it allows us to keep our relatives that live far away up to date on our lives. Many of my family members have blogs which they post images of their new babies, events and different chapters in their lives. It allows us to somewhat experience it with them from a far. Pictures are also used to help prove someone was somewhere, as well as the images help to make sense of the world around us. “Snapshots are part of the material with which we make sense of our wider world” (Family Snaps, pg 10).

Many times we add captions to our photos when we put them in an album. We talked in class about how a photograph needs to have some sort of caption to explain the context because everyone will have a different interpretation based on their own subjective opinion. Adding a caption to photographs helps to make it a little easier for others who are looking at the picture to understand what was going on at that time and see the image the way the photographer wants it to be seen. Adding captions to our old photographs helps also give more context to our life because it helps explain what we are seeing and explain that moment in time. I could look at my baby pictures and interpret it how I would see it; however my mom may have written a caption to it that gives me further insight into her view of the event since she was there at the time.

They say pictures are worth a thousand words and can help to remind us of the past. Not necessarily of exactly what happened at the time, but we can use these images to piece together from our memory the rest. With every picture taken, you are adding to the documentation of your life.

Blog Entry Number 3

While reading this book, my initial reaction to be honest was that I was bored out of my mind. I didn’t know much about the jobs that were first being explained and I was rather bored hearing about some of them. However, as the book went on, the jobs became more interesting and I became fascinated with what people had to say about their job. His collection of stories had such a powerful effect on portraying the reality of the work force. He chose people that HE found interesting, and these people opened up their lives to the reader, allowing them to join in their work experience. I was surprised at how much personal information these interviews had, with such detail that you don’t normally hear about a job.
I found Studs Terkel has an interesting approach to documentaries. He uses the interviews to portray truth in the work force, and truth through so many different people. Instead of just simply hearing about the basics of a job, he works to find out what many different people like and dislike about it. The jobs are not sugar coated, but rather the truth is portrayed to the reader. I like how he has organized his interviews by certain categories, or chapters and subtitles such as communication, cleaning up etc. He groups his interviews in such a way so that you get to see different people’s viewpoints on similar jobs. Although it is a little outdated, it allows you to see how the life back then was; both the good and the bad times. Studs Terkel says that a job is a "search of a daily meaning, as well as a daily bread" (pg 11), and these interviews allow you to see how back then (and even today in a sense) people weren’t just looking for a paycheck but also meaning in their job and a sense of fulfillment.

This book is exactly what it says... people talking about what they do all day and what they like and don’t like about their jobs. They talk about their daily tasks at the job, what they enjoy and dislike, and issues that arise (sexism, racism etc). It seemed that in some cases many felt they had the worst or hardest job and felt trapped within it. Jim Grayson tells Terkel that on the assembly line “you’re nothing to any of them (the foremen). That’s why [he] hate[s] this place” (pg 167). Louis Hayward, the washroom attendant, says “no, I’m not proud of this work. I can’t do anything heavy. It would be hard to do anything else, so I’m stuck” (pg 108). On the other hand though, many felt they had the best jobs and wanted to show off their abilities. Phil Stallings says “I don’t mind working at body construction. To a great degree, I enjoy it. I love using my hands – more than I do my mind. I love being able to put things together and see something in the long run” (pg 162). This book allows you to see how working means so much to many people and how it is a big part of life. With many of the people interviewed it allowed you to see how meaningful work was to them and how it gave them a sense of purpose. Serving others was all these people needed to be happy. Seeing the end product and the gratitude was all many of these people cared about. I liked how the book was not just straight question and answer type interviews because this allowed the person to dive deeper into what interests them and reveal certain truths about their jobs and see how some were very passionate and emotional about what they do (such as Maggie Holmes, the house cleaner who was so upset that the white family expected her to do things that they never would such as get down on their hands and knees and clean the floor. Maggie states in her interview “now this bugs me: the first thing she gonna do is pull out this damn rubber thing –just fittin’ for your knees. Knee pads-like you’re working’ in the fields, like people pickin’ cotton...I ask her where the mop is. She says she don’t have no mop. I said. ‘Don’t tell me you mop the floor on your knees. I know you don’t’” pg 114). This quote not only shows the emotion Maggie feels for her job, but because Terkel wrote the book in the dialect of the employees, it allows you to feel like they are actually talking. Instead of correcting her speech when typed up, he kept it in its form so you get a better picture of the person he’s speaking to.

This was neat to learn more about different jobs and hear about them from the actual workers point of view. It allows you to see many of the realities of the workplace. With some jobs I felt such sympathy for the workers. Many of the workers went through so much and put up with so much, while at the same time taking care of a family on such a low income. Their employers had no idea what the people were dealing without outside of work, what it was like to be sick and still working, or having lost a loved one and still return to work; but at the same time didn’t care. To them their employees were like robots, just there to get a job done. If they had a problem, they began to phase out humans and replace them with machines because machines would not need time off. Many were older men doing hard labor and talking about how it has caused them long term pain. Some were talking about how their jobs were degrading and depressing. When some of the women were talking, you could see how they were subject to sexism, many talking about how they either did not get paid as much as men even for the same job, or some talking about how the men would hit on them all the time. Take for instance Terry Mason, an airline stewardess. She tells Terkel that “even when they pinch us or say dirty things, we’re supposed to smile at them. That’s one thing they taught us at stew school. Like he’s rubbing your body somewhere, you’re supposed to just put his hand down and not say anything and smile at him” (pg 46).

I noticed to that many of the older employees mentioned that they are such hard workers and will work overtime, long hours, never show up late and never take a day off in years because their job means so much to them. Frances Swenson, the hotel switchboard operator, states “the kids today don’t work like the older women. They take a job as it comes. If they want to work, they work. If they don’t they fool around…the older women are more loyal, they’re more conscientious, they don’t take time off” (pg 34). Hobart Foote, while talking about his job as a utility man, states “I think one reason for our absenteeism over here right now is the second shift. We got this young generation in here. Lot of ‘em single, and a lot of ‘em…They’re not settled yet, and they just live from day to day” (pg 170). Many of the older workers comment about how they are not making much money but to them it doesn’t matter because they love what they are doing. However with the younger people, they leave when they want, take days off when they want etc., because to them it is just a job. You can notice here the generation gap and how working has changed over the years already. Because this book is out of date we can really see how work back then, and for the older generation today, was so different then it is today.

Terkel adds in his own observations throughout the introductions and interviews, about what he sees and the workers reaction to what is going on around him. He also comments on certain things about the worker, whether it be their appearance, background information about the person and just observations made. This allows you to sort of draw a mental picture and learn a little about the person. It allows you to be in the spot that Terkel is in.
This book gives you a further insight into the lives of so many. It has made me look at people differently. I realized that when I go out for dinner or to a store, I don’t know anything about these people serving me and sometimes I won’t be as nice as I can be. But now I find myself a little different. Just the other day a telecommunications worker called me from Capital One. This company calls me at LEAST once or twice a week and I usually get so fed up. But after reading about the switchboard operator and how they say no one understands how hard that job is and how for once they would just like a hello how is your day going, I couldn’t just say “sorry I’m not interested”. This book was not only interesting but educational and it helped me gain insight into the workforce and have a lot more respect for many people in many different jobs. There is no such thing as useless little jobs. There is no such thing as little people; all people are equal and contribute a service to society in their own way. All these jobs link together like a chain and without them the chain would fall apart.

Blog Entry Number 2

The second film, The Act Of Seeing, really pushed my comfort zones over the edge. You are almost literally staring death in the face. My first initial response was to look away. I have a very weak stomach and so at first it was hard to watch the film. However as the film went on I became adapted to the images and I was ok to watch them. I found it funny that everyone was so grossed out by the film yet all it was showing was the insides of a human being, what’s inside each and every one of us. It made me wonder why everyone responded to the film that way. Why is the human body something that makes us all so uncomfortable? I guess because the obvious fact that what we were looking at was dead, but the insides of the body were the same as what’s inside all of us. My guess is that because we don’t see these things every day (whereas a doctor would probably be ok sitting through this film), it makes us uncomfortable. But we become so desensitized to blood and guts from movies we watch so why is this any different? Is it because we know its real and not just makeup? I think the way the movie was filmed also played a role in making us so uncomfortable because it was just so in your face and seemed like raw footage just thrown together.

Brakhage really did a good job of making you feel like you were in the room while the autopsy was taking place. He took the act of seeing ourselves and human beings to a new level, and turned it into something that we found so hard to watch. "It is a film rigorously about seeing. It remains at a literal level of confrontation with a truth" (Testa 171). Yet because of human’s desire to watch, it was hard to look away. You don’t want to watch but yet you can’t pull yourself away. t’s almost as if he took the act of seeing, something we all enjoy doing so much, and forced us to see something we don’t want to.

I personally began to find the film interesting because you could see things that you never really get to in every day life, and learn more about the body. Brakhage’s film was a very good example of realism in the sense that it was a live autopsy portraying real life as it happened. He’s forcing the reality of death on the viewers, a topic that is so scary to many people, and that can almost be scarier then the images themselves. It gave you the sense of actually being there because we were able to see all the body parts so closely. “Brakhage's films are usually silent and lack a story, being more analogous to visual poetry than to prose story-telling” (http://www.wikipeida.ca/). This is an interesting technique to use in documentaries because it portrays truth in a different sense then many other documentaries. You were forced to watch the images and your head filled in the blank space where the noise would go. Because there is no noise there is nothing breaking your concentration and nothing to distance you from what you are seeing. All you hear is the reactions of people around you. The lack of sound prevents you from knowing what is coming next. The idea that he is not telling a story is rather interesting because you as the viewer has to take it for what you think it to be. The fact that the film was silent really amplified the fact that the film goes so far out of our comfort zone because it kept the connection between you and what you are watching, whereas dialogue seems to distance you from the images. The film gave you almost nothing BUT these shots of blood and guts which the director framed strategically so that the audience would perceive the film a certain way. The part of the film that I found the most rough was the fast edits that were made. The camera did so many cuts that it became to make me dizzy and sick (though the cuts the director threw in such as the coroners coat etc., was a good break from all the blood and guts). I could clearly see what the readings this week were saying, about the contrast between red and white (the blood and the covering up of the body with the sheets, or the blood then the shot of the coroner’s lab coat).

What struck me a little though was if this film went overboard. Just as Titicut Follies it raised a few ethical issues. Was it right for Brakhage to film these dead bodies? Although the faces are so ripped apart it would be hard to try to identify them, they are someone’s sons, daughters, mothers or fathers. It would be so hard for those family members to watch this film. Know one wants to have to deal with seeing their loved one ripped open after they already have to deal with the loss of that family member. It just pushed so many boundaries and really did push the comfort level of what we are used to seeing, which I gather is the point Brakhage was trying to go for.

In this film, along with Titicut Follies, the directors used quite a bit of extreme close up and close up shots, I think to make a point and emphasize what they are showing. In Titicut Follies I think that the extreme close ups on the faces and the mouths of those talking helped to emphasize what the inmates were saying and their emotions. His filming technique allows you to feel as if you were actually there when all this was taking place. “The "rhythm and structure" of Wiseman's films pull the viewer into the position and perspective of the subject” (http://www.wikipedia.ca/). In The Act of Seeing, I think the close ups were to really emphasize what we were seeing and further push us out of our comfort zones. He zooms in uncomfortably close to the bodies to give the viewer a totally different approach then just passively watching the autopsy take place. By going so close it forces you to really see the body, since the parts are completely filling the screen. I did find it neat though that at some points Brakhage would frame a shot so that only part of the body was shown just beyond the coroner’s lab coat, so to maybe give us a break from seeing so many close up shots of blood and guts. Similarly, Wiseman used this technique of framing one of the inmates on half the screen singing and the film the inmate was watching behind him on the other half of the screen. In both films there was a wide variety of different types of shots the directors used which both contributed to the effect the directors were going for and helped to emphasize the sense of the real.

Blog Entry Number 1

The first film, Titicut Follies, I found a little dry. I found it hard to watch because it was hard to understand some of the people talking, the camera moved around a bit and the story line was a little dry. It was hard to see what Wiseman was trying to get at, especially because at parts it was hard to tell who was an inmate and who was a guard. Also the part where they shove the tube in the one man’s nose made my stomach turn and I had to look away.

By the end of the film I could sort of tell what Wiseman was trying to go for. As stated in Barry Grant's article, "the idea of the movie came out of the absolute sense of shock about what Bridgewater was about...and the film works to evoke a similar response in most viewers" (Grant 239). I was appalled by the fact that the doctors kept saying that the cure for the inmates was more medicine, especially when the doctor said "we should increase his tranquilizer dose". I was appalled by the fact that the patients kept trying to tell the doctor they were fine and all that the doctor could say was that they must be crazy to think they are sane and so their medicine dose should be increased.

The movie did a good job of portraying truth in the institution, and showing what we, as outsiders, do not see on a daily basis but what is going on behind the walls of the institution. However one is to pose the question of ethics here and whether or not Wiseman had the right to film these patients who could not give consent themselves. "...Titicut Follies typically shows us disillusioned and shattered people treated impersonally and disdainfully...the image of Jim being forcibly shaved metaphorically suggests the conforming pressures of institutional processing" (Grant 251). I feel that the patients were exploited in this film because they were shown at there most vulgar point, many stripped of their clothing and taunted by the guards. "The force-feeding of Malinowsky and the insistent filming of the naked Jim are particularly vivid instances of this 'tactlessness', so pronounced in Titicut Follies" (Grant 249). Although yes this is a good film because it brings awareness to the issue, I feel that consent should have been given by family members etc. (I may be wrong and Wiseman MAY have gotten consent not sure). Also, the article we read said that there were several suicides later that year so it makes me wonder if the film did anything to bring awareness because nothing seemed to have changed.

We also talked about how the film undermines the expert (doctors etc). I feel that it did a little because at times I couldn’t even tell who was a doctor or guard and who was a patient because they patients seemed so knowledgeable (talking about the war, politics etc). “Wiseman has a unique style of filmmaking. His films seldom utilize any predictable or overt narrative structure. He does not interview his subjects, nor does he narrate or comment on what happens. This style of filmmaking is often referred to as the observational mode” (http://www.wikipedia.ca/). His style is just that, an observation of what is happening in the institution that people are unaware of. Direct footage that is shown as it happens displaying real life without any interuptions. I think that Wiseman has an interesting film style, and his lack of interviewing and commenting on the events allows the truth to unravel in real time without any interuptions, and allows you to draw your own conclusions because he does not himself comment on the footage. Because Wiseman just went into the institution and started filming with no set agenda, he was able to capture real life events as they happened, thus portraying truth in its entirety. Although Wiseman edited it out of order and probably manipulate the footage to his advantage (edited in a way that makes the doctors seem worse then maybe they are?), the film overall did display the truth of the institution to the world. Wiseman has been quoted in an interview saying “I think I have an obligation, to the people who have consented to be in the film ... to cut it so that it fairly represents what I felt was going on at the time in the original event” (http://www.wikipedia.ca/). In this sense we see how the film was a representation of what he saw when he was in the institution and how this documentary is a portrayal of realism. He didn’t force an idea on you but rather allowed you to draw your own conclusion (although yes he may have given us limited footage to work with). Although I think that interviews could have been beneficial to give the viewer some back story and, as some people in class said, humanize the inmates, I feel that his approach was a good technique to use in a documentary that is meant to show truth as it happens.