NON-FICTION
FILM THEORY
222-301
Instructor: Dr. P. R. Zimmerman
Spring 2002, Ithaca
College, Ithaca, New York
This Spring, our course is dedicated to Erik Barnouw (1908-2001).
Without his writing, lecturing, producing, archiving and curating,
documentary would not be taught in colleges and universities.
A Discursive Tour Guide
"I was surprised to find that many people
automatically assumed that any documentary film would inevitably
be objective. Perhaps the term is unsatisfactory, but for me the
distinction between the words document and documentary is quite
clear. Do we demand objectivity in the evidence presented at a
trial? No, the only demand is that each piece of evidence be as
full a subjective, truthful, honest presentation of the witness's
attitude as an oath on the Bible can produce from him."--
Joris Ivens, from The Camera and I
"A post-modern ethnography is a cooperatively
evolved text consisting of fragments of discourse intended to
evoke in the minds of both reader and writer an emergent fantasy
of a possible world of common-sense reality, and thus to provoke
an aesthetic integration that will have a therapeutic effect.
It is, in a word, poetry - not in its textual form, but in its
return to the original context and function of poetry, which,
by means of its performative break with everyday speech, evoked
memories of the ethos of the community and thereby provoked hearers
to act ethically."--Stephen Tyler, from "Post Modern
Ethnography: From Document of the Occult to Occult Document"
"The documentary is not a step to fiction
film but a step to freedom. Commercial fiction film is only real
estate. When real auteurs, the Harvard Business School graduates,
produce films, their concern is neither art nor ideas, but money.
Maximize rents for a space called a seat. In documentaries, I
confront our history on my own terms. Brecht said that only boots
can be made to measure. He was right."--Emile De Antonio
"Both realist and experimental documentary
forms have been politicized by feminist filmmakers who see their
work as coming out of and having an audience in the women's movement.
And in return, the exigencies, methods, and forms of organization
within that ongoing political movement have profoundly affected
the aesthetics of documentary film."--Julia Lesage
"This false outburst of racist discourse gives us the opportunity
to grasp both ends of the ethnological process: a process of global
liquidation; a process of generalized exploitation. It must be
repeated: ethnology is colonialism and the absorption of the
civilizing mission of the West, the mechanical adjustment of cultures,
the mechanical readjustment of the processes of industrialization;
in other terms, urbanization, education, brain washing, violence,
and theft. There is no scientific discourse in ethnology. This
much we know. Well done propaganda, ethnology is the day book
of the
white man on assignment in the field; the white man, mandated
by the historical sovereignty of European thought and its singular
vision of mankind."--Stanilas Spero Adotevi
"...although the universal juridicism of modern
society seems to fix limits on the exercise of power, its universally
widespread panopticism enables it to operate, on the underside
of the law, a machinery that is both immense and minute, which
supports, reinforces, multiplies the asymmetry of power and undermines
the limits that are traced around the law. The minute disciplines,
the panopticisms of everyday, may well be
below the level of emergence of the great apparatuses and the
great political struggles."--Michel Foucault
These quotations sketch the analytical contours of
this course. This course investigates the history, sociology, theory,
and technique of documentary film within specific political, social,
cultural, technological, economic, artistic, and historical contexts
of the 20th century. Just as the witness' evidence is bounded by
the context of the crime and the trial, so too is film. It is not
isolated within the four walls of movie theaters. Documentary film
is even more dependent on the history and culture in which it operates
because it seeks to refine, inform, reform, change, reinforce, or
stabilize politics, cultures and our minds.
This course assumes several postures in its approach
to documentary. The first is that the history of documentary film
creates standards of technique that are perpetuated, embellished,
and resisted through the decades. The second is that, along with
Joris Ivens, this course also argues that there is no such thing
as objectivity in regards to documentary film. Each film will be
viewed as both a deliberate aesthetic construct (practice) and as
a repository of cultural and historical values, beliefs, ideas,
and events (discourse). And third, the course deals with American
and European film exclusively. To adequately study the development
of documentary cinema in Africa, Asia and South America is another
course, which may emerge as a senior seminar in the future.
Because this course deals with the intersection of
theory and history, it employs a wide range of films and books to
ground students. Lectures and discussions will expand, develop,
and criticize texts and films, but will not rehash the written texts.
To this end, it is vital that students read the assigned texts prior
to the lecture so that they will share a common basis with the instructor.
The more students read, the more this class can run like a seminar,
with less lecture.
Texts:
Erik Barnouw, Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction
Film
Clifford & Marcus, Writing Culture
Karl Heider, The Ethnographic Film
Phyllis R. Klotman and Janet K. Cutler, Struggles for Representation:
African American Documentary Film and Video
Bill Nichols, Introduction to Documentary
Paul Rabinow, Foucault Reader
Michael Selig & Patricia Zimmermann, International Cinema
(special issue of UFVA Journal)
Patricia R. Zimmermann, Reel Families: A Social History of
Amateur Film
Patricia R. Zimmermann, States of Emergency:Documentaries, Wars,
Democracies
Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States
Suggested Books:
Foucault for Beginners
Erik Barnouw and Patricia R. Zimmermann, editors, The Flaherty:
Forty Years in the Cause of Independent Cinema
Deirde Boyle, Guerrilla Television
Christine Holmlund and Cynthia Fuchs, editors, Between the
Sheets, In the Streets
Todd Gitlin, The Whole World is Watching
Grant Kester, editor, Art, Activism and Oppositionality
Annett Michelson, ed: Kino-Eye The Writings of Dziga Vertov
Mark Poster, Foucault, Marxism and History
Barry Smart, Foucaul
Grading:
Your grade for this course is based on five components.
--Three one-screen email posts in response to Cinema
on the Edge or Park School special events with visiting documentary
makers, scholars, or festivals 15%
-- Two five-page critical analysis papers
(20% and 25%)= 45%
-- 1 Mid-term Exam 20%
-- 1 Cumulative Final Exam 20%
TOTAL 100%
Students are required to participate in the intellectual
and artistic public sphere of the Roy H. Park School of Communications.
Three events beyond the ones scheduled for official class time,
such as Cinema on the Edge events or other Departmental or School
guests. Responses/analysis of programs should analyze the relationships
between readings, theory and films in this courses with event, posted
on e-mail in an organized, coherent argument in one screen within
three days of the event.
Papers:
Paper topics are included in this syllabus so that
students will be prepared for critical viewing. Please note that
many films are not available for subsequent screenings, so it is
important to keep good notes on the films for future reference in
discussion and your own papers. Because these papers ask for argumentation
and theoretical criticism, it will be difficult to write a good
paper in less than 5 pages. If you have problems formulating an
argument or position, please make an appointment with the instructor
for assistance. A good strategy would be to write on films on tape
or CD Roms in the library.
Film Study Guide to Prepare for Discussions:
1. What formal devices does the film/program employ
to position itself as non-fiction? This will include sound, composition,
editing, pace, music, etc. Be sure to analyze the significance and
impact of these choices: don't just enumerate these instances, explain
how they position the viewer towards a certain reading.
2. What does the content choice and selection and
presentation of "factual" information reveal about the
ideology of the film/program? What is included? What is excluded?
What do these choices reveal about the political assumptions of
the program?
3. Describe the social and political context of the
film/program. What other cultural factors contribute to its position?
How does it frame current issues? What is its significance and impact
at this particular historical moment? To adequately answer this
question, you may need to do some research in popular magazines
and newspapers to support your arguments.
Tips for Success in this Course
1. Keep copious notes on the lectures. Material included
in the lectures will not be covered in the readings, and may be
useful for papers.
2. Read carefully. Don't just read for content. Read
for the author's argument, point of view, and use of examples. Barnouw
is historical, so read him in terms of how he places the films within
their own historical dimensions. Barsam is a collection of essays,
some written by theorists, others by filmmakers. All the articles
in this book deal with documentary theory. How does the author see
documentary? What is the work of the filmmaker? How are films financed?
What are their purposes? Faucault and Clifford are theoretical:
read for argument!
3. Take notes on the films. The paper topics will
combine your readings and lectures with a close analysis of the
films. You need to note important details such as how the film is
constructed, what comes where, the stylistic devices, what the film
is about, and how the film is put together. You will need to draw
upon your notes for evidence to support your arguments in the papers.
4. Write your papers carefully. Be sure that you
have evidence to support your ideas. Check your grammar, punctuation
and spelling. It is not important to write voluminously; a short,
concise, well-argued paper often drives a point home more forcefully
than a rambling long paper. Study the attached paper sample for
clues.
5. Ask questions. No question is too dumb. To remain
silent is to inhibit intellectual exchanges with others.
Requirements for all Non-Fiction Theory Papers:
1. 3 theoretical footnotes to demonstrate command
of theory
2. secondary sources (writing about the film but
not from the period)
3. an argument that develops out of concrete evidence
from the films
4. Clear, detailed analysis that explicates the argument
5. Mechanical Requirements:
A. avoid passive voice
B. avoid is verbs
C. avoid run-on sentences
D. write with details and specifics not generalities
E. avoid unsupported assertions
F. footnote all ideas and evidence from sources other than
your own
G. correct grammar and spelling throughout
H. correct word usage
6. Proofread before turning in
Caution:
No late papers accepted. Papers must be turned in
at the beginning of the due date class. Anything submitted later
is late and earns an F. NO EXCEPTIONS!
PAPER #1
DUE FEBRUARY 26
Choose one question outlined below. Write a concise, precise, 5
page paper. All papers must be typewritten, or they will not be
accepted. No late papers will be read. It's not the length, but
the insights that interest me. Good grammar, syntax and punctuation
will be rewarded as well.
Be sure to organize your paper and use concrete evidence
from your book, lectures and films to support your arguments. It
is not enough to say something like "Flaherty was a romantic.
His films show it." Rather, you should say "Flaherty's
films, through their use of close-ups and narrative editing, exhibit
subjectivity and artistry. For example, in Nanook, Flaherty's camera
follows Nanook as he builds his house through a series of medium
shots and close-ups which make us more sympathetic to his plight."
Back up arguments with concrete evidence from films and precise
analysis of the implications for theorization.
1. The history of industrialization, technological
change, and capitalist economic relations provides an illuminating
discursive context for early documentary film. Select two different
films, but be sure to justify and explain your choices. Explain
how Foucauldian history can illuminate the multiple discourses surrounding
these films by explaining the significance of his essays on history
and authorship for documentary film studied. By conducting additional
historical research following Foucault into the period's "genealogy,"
establish the various threads of their discursive context. Then
compare and contrast how these films work to either subvert or maintain
that discursive context. How do they organize the various discourses
and practices on industrialization and technological change from
their respective time periods? Do these films support or critique
industrialization? You must refer to other readings assigned for
this course, as well as original research.
2. Many discussions of documentary are mired in misconstructed
assumptions about "objectivity" as something knowable
and unassailable, without analyzing its more scientifically based
assumptions. Compare and contrast Heider's traditional, social science
view of ethnographic film with the more postmodern version of ethnographic
critique offered in the book Writing Culture. What are the philosophical
assumptions of each position? What do they have in common? How do
they differ? Which one provides the better model to analyse the
"ethnographic relationship?" Then discuss two films that
each illustrate these different approaches. Analyze how these films
can simultaneously conform to and contradict these tenets.
3. Dziga Vertov critiques the question of "documentary
objectivity" with a contention that all documentary is informed
by ideology, a specific political purpose, and a relationship with
spectators. However, many critics group Man with a Movie Camera,
Berlin, Rain, and A Propos De Nice together as examples of avant-garde
cinema and city films. A more fruitful area of analysis may be in
how these films--through camera work, relationship to subject, structure,
form, regulation of bodies, demarcation of space, and spectatorial
relations--connect knowledge to power relations.
Drawing on Foucault's essays on regulation of bodies,
control of space, panopticism, marginality, and regulation, define
and analyze how three of these categories can illuminate the complex
power relations of the city documentary. Select two films with distinctly
different approaches to the city, and analyze their differences
with respect to at least three categories outlined by Foucault.
5 pages maximum
PAPER #2
Choice A
Due April 15th
Choose one of the following paper topics and write a concise, precise,
insightful 5 page paper. As usual, no late papers will be accepted.
Papers must be typed, double-spaced and well-written. Please, if
you need help, visit the Writing Lab or me. Insight, clarity and
style will be rewarded. Make certain all of your papers present
an ARGUMENT that is developed coherently, logically, analytically
and with adequate support.
1. Propaganda film has always generated interest among
documentary scholars because it foregrounds the relationship between
sponsor, media and the spectator. However, propaganda is bound by
its own historical and institutional context. Pick two different
groups of films (for example, Nazi films or Regional Cinema) and
analyze the institutional context of their production and how it
worked within/around the historical context and cultural discourses
of the time period. Then, zero in on two specific films from each
category and analyze how the film's construction and formal design
conforms to or subverts the agenda of the sponsor. You must draw
on materials assigned for class as well as additional historical
research.
2. In any analysis of documentary film, a discussion
of politics is unavoidable. Compare and contrast Polan's theory
of the spectacle to Foucault's position on politics as outlined
in "Politics and Ethics," and "Polemics, Politics,
and Problematizations." How does each define politics within
culture? What are their differences? What are their implications
for documentary film theory? Then, select two films and analyze
how they illuminate each of these theoretical positions on politics
and power. You will need to link your work to appropriate documentary
writing such as Barnouw, Winston, Zimmermann, or Nichols. Be sure
to analyze the textual form and spectatorial relationships of each
piece.
3. In this course, we have deployed a variety of documentary,
social, and political theories to understand how various documentary
films construct either overt or covert political positions. Unlike
narrative films which depend on spectator identification and psychoanalytic
pleasure for suturing, documentary depends on argumentation and
analytical pleasures.
Select three films that offer three different political
arguments. First, justify your choices by first defining the different
political ideologies expressed and their significance for your argument
by linking them to theoretical work we have studied. Then analyze
the differences in the construction of the various films in terms
of narration, compositional style and relationship to bodies and
geography, music. How do these formal strategies contribute to the
organization of the film's argument? What kind of evidence and explanation
is proffered? You must use Barnouw, Winston, Zimmermann, Heider,
Clifford and Marcus, Foucault or Nichols, to support your contentions.
You may use the following films for any of these questions:
Land Without Bread 20's Newsreels
Night Mail Careers for Girls
Housing Problems Movies March On
Song of Ceylon Coal Mining Women
Industrial Britain Taylor Chain
Film & Photo League Black Delta Religion
Handsworth Songs Work
The Good Fight Night and Fog
March of Time Triumph of the Will
Plow that Broke the Plains Ties That Bind
The River Ethnic Notions
The Spanish Earth Feathered Warrior
Hands
5 pages maximum
PAPER #2
Choice B
This paper allows you to choose a topic of your choice to explore,
mine, and probe. As usual, papers will be graded on their argumentative
rigor, exposition, and clarity of ideas. You should confine yourself
to topics that we have investigated in the last weeks of class,
so that you are dealing with more current theoretical and historical
issues. You may do a paper on a specific historical period, aesthetic
style, or social context. Papers on documentary theory or specific
political problematics issues should be supported with evidence
from specific films. Listed below are some suggested topics. However,
you are not limited to these topics.
Digital Imaging Technologies and Documentary
CD-ROM, Digital Technologies and Foucault
Representation and the War in Bosnia (or Rwanda, Myanmar, Chechnya,
Afghanistan)
War and Censorship
U.S. Government News Management of the New War
Problems of Historical Discourse in Documentary
War Films: World War II , Vietnam, the Gulf War, and Afghanistan
Distribution and Exhibition Economics of Documentary: HBO, ITVS,
PBS
Cinema Verite as Ethnographic Film
Gender and Sexuality in Documentary
Net.Art and Documentary Production
Public Television and Documentary Filmmaking
The Political Economy of Documentary
The relationship between form and argumentation in documentary
Ethics and Documentary
Web-based documentary forms
Films as Social Protest in the Vietnam Era: Use vs. Art
Cinema Verite as Narrative Texts on Reality
The Role of Controversy
The Economics of Television Documentaries
The Discourse on Sexuality in Documentary
Marginal Cinemas
The Anti-Globalization Movement and Media
History and the Construction of Documentary
Nature Films as Spectacle
The Docile Body in Documentary
Television and Documentary in 50's America
Abortion and Documentary Representation
Cable Access As Democratic Television
Democracy and Documentary in Eastern Europe
U.S. African American Documentary
Of course, papers should not be limited to these topics. If you
have an area of burning interest, please talk to me to carve out
a more customized topic.
In summary, these papers should employ the theories
you have learned this semester, and should present some new insights.
Papers with historical footnotes will be rewarded: you will need
to do research to do this paper. Look in periodicals of the time,
reviews, and other film histories for leads. Make certain you argue
from a position you can support with evidence and explain with vigorous
analysis. Good luck.
5 pages maximum
Course Outline
January 21
Topic:
Deconstructing Documentary: Discourse, Practice, Marginality
Screening:
LA Christmas
911
Wittengentstein’s Tractatus (Patty Collection)
Rock, Paper, Missile
Six O’Clock News
January 22
Topic:
Industrial Capitalism and New Technologies
Screening:
Lumiere Reel
Readings:
Rabinow: “Nietzche, Geneaology, and History,” pp. 76-100;
“Truth and Power,” pp. 51-75; “What is an Author,”
pp. 101-120; “Docile Bodies,” pp. 179-187; States of
Emergency, Chapter 1; Struggles, pp. 1-34
January 24
Topic:
Apparatus and Industry in the Late 19th Century
Screening:
Glass Jaw
Readings:
Zinn, pp. 290-313; Reel Families, pp. 1-55; Barnouw, pp. 1-30; Winston,
pp. 127-142; Nichols, pp. 1-19, 82-98
January 28
Topic:
Ethnographic Film
Screening:
Dreamkeeper (three channel installation by Philip Mallory Jones)
Nanook of the North
Letter from Siberia
Readings:
Barnouw, pp. 31-51; Heider, entire book; Clifford, pp. 227-98; Rabinow,
“Means of Correct Training,” pp. 188-205; “Panopticism”,
pp. 206-213; “Space, Power, Knowledge,” pp. 239-256;
Ruby, in International Cinema; Winston, pp. 1-10, 19-23, 99-103,
170-204; Nichols, 20-41; Struggles, pp. 298-314; Struggles, 269-298
January 29
Topic:
Robert Flaherty: The Patriarch of Documentary, or Film as Imperialist
Exploration?
On Cannibalism
January 31
Topic:
Form and Function of Ethnographic Film
Screening:
Tongues Untied
February 4
Soviet Cinema: Vertov and Kino-Piloting
Screening:
Man with the Movie Camera (please send LD version with the soundtrack)
Sonic Outlaws
Readings:
Barnouw, pp. 51-71; Rabinow, “Complete and Austere Institutions,”
pp. 214-225; “Illegalities and Delinquency,” pp. 226-233;
Clifford, pp. 122-140; Winston, pp. 164-169; Zinn, pp. 314-349;
Gurevitch, Muratov, and Zimmermann, in International Cinema; States
of Emergency, Chapter 5; Nichols, pp. 42-60
February 5
Topic:
The Historical Perimeters of Film Practice
February 7
Topic:
Film Reception and Politics: Textual and Ideological Discussion
February 11
Topic:
City Films
Screening:
A Propos de Nice
Rain
Berlin: Symphony of a City
The Nation Erupts
Readings:
Barnouw, pp. 51-81; Zinn, pp. 350-367; Reel Families, pp. 56-89;
Nichols, pp. 61-81
February 12
Topic:
The 1920s: Art Movements versus Consumerism and Commercial Cinema
February 14
Topic:
City Films as Technical Experimentation and Artifice: Discussion
February 18
Topic:
Subjectivity/Objectivity: The Nation State and John Grierson’s
Documentary England
Screening:
Industrial Britain
Housing Problems
Night Mail
Take Over
Readings:
Barnouw, pp. 85-100; Nichols, pp. 168-178; Winston, pp. 11-18, 24-68,
120-123; Rabinow, “The Body of the Condemned,” pp. 170-179;
States of Emergency, Chapter 2; Struggles, pp. 122-150, 211-249;
315-328
February 19
Topic:
Nation State, Citizens, and Victims
February 21
Topic:
The Discursive Construction of the Nation in State Financed Film:
Discussion
Screening:
Mickey Mouse in Haiti
February 25
Topic:
American Cinema of Social Commitment: The Depression
Screening:
The Plow that Broke the Plains
The Spanish Earth
The Good Fight
Readings:
Barnouw, pp. 11-139; Winston, pp. 69-73, 79-96; Zinn, pp. 368-397
February 26 PAPER #1 DUE
Topic:
The Documentary Explosion in the Arts and the Question of Power
Screening:
Film and Photo League Program I
Ephemeral Films: 1931-145 to New Horizons
February 28
Topic:
The Voice of Authority: The Position of Narration
Screening:
March of Time: The Great Depression
March 4
Topic:
Representing Nazis
Screening:
Triumph of the Will
Night and Fog
Ties that Bind
Human Remains
Polan, “Above all else to make you see: Cinema
and the Spectacle,” handout; Barnouw, pp. 100-110; Winston,
pp. 74-78, 113-119; MacDonald in International Cinema; Nichols,
pp. 99-138
March 5
Topic:
The Question of “Art” and the Obfuscation of Political
Ideology
Screening:
Olympia Diving Sequence
March 6
MID TERM EXAMINATION
SPRING BREAK
March 18
Topic:
Imaging World War II
Screening:
Listen to Britain
Prelude to War
Japanese Relocation
History and Memory
Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945
Readings:
Barnouw, pp. 139-182; Winston, pp. 104-112; Reel Families, pp. 90-111;
Zinn, pp. 398-434; States of Emergency, Chapter 3; Struggles, pp.
34-70
March 19
Topic:
The Collusion of Propaganda and Social Science Theory
Screening:
Battle of Midway
Bugs and Daffy: Wartime Cartoons
March 21
Topic:
Difference and Intervention in War Imaginings: Discussion
March 25
Topic:
The Fabulous Fifties: Network Television and Cinema Verite
Screening:
Report on Senator McCarthy
Primary
Point of Order
Readings:
Struggles, pp. 99-121; Reel Families, pp. 112-142; Barnouw, pp.
198-240; Zimmermann, “Independent Documentary Producers and
the American TV Networks,” handout; Winston, pp. 143-158;
Nichols, pp. 139-167
March 26
Topic:
Historical Recoveries of the Marginal
Screening:
Eyes on the Prize: Ain’t Scared of Your Jails
March 28
Topic:
Resistance to Corporate Standardization: Cinema Verite versus the
Cinema of Outtakes
April 1
Topic:
Cinema Verite and the Construction of the Self: Independent Documentary
and Youth Culture
Screening:
Les Racquetteurs
High School
AKA Don Bonus
Jon Alpert on Marcos
Readings:
Barnouw, pp. 240-262; Zinn, pp. 493-528; Zimmermann, “Public
Television, Independent Documentary Producers, and Public Policy,”
handout; Winston, pp. 159-163, 205-241
April 2
Topic:
Cinema Verite’s Congruences with Ethnography
Screening:
Trip Through Brooks Home
April 4
Topic:
The Benevolent Panoptican: Discussion
April 8
Search for a Common Ground Film Festival
Readings:
States of Emergency, Chapter 4; Hess and Zimmermann, Transnational
Documentary: A Manifesto (handout)
April 9
Search for a Common Ground Film Festival
April 11
Search for a Common Ground Film Festival
April 15 Paper #2 Due
Topic:
Vietnam: War, the “Third World”, and Cinematic Intervention
Screening:
The Selling of the Pentagon
US Technique and Genocide in North Vietnam
Red Squad
Amerika
Readings:
Barnouw, pp. 262-288; Zinn, pp. 460-492; Winston, pp. 242-247; States
of Emergency, Chapter 3; Struggles, pp. 71-98
April 16
Topic:
Press Blackouts: US and Them
Screening:
Interview with My Lai Veterans
April 18
Topic:
Multiple Articulations of the “truth” of Vietnam and
Memory
Screening:
Smothering Dreams
April 22
Topic:
Documentaries for the 21st Century
Screening:
Gate of Heavenly Peace
Readings:
Zinn, 529-584; Winston, pp. 251-261; Rabinow, pp. 258-272
April 23
Topic:
Documentaries for the 21st Century
Screening:
Nobody’s Business
Readings:
Reel Famlies, pp. 143-158
April 24
Topic:
Documentaries for the 21st Century
Screening:
Calling the Ghosts
Readings:
States of Emergency, Chapter 3; Boyle, International Cinema
April 29
Topic:
Documentary as Theoretical Inscriptions
Screening:
Who Killed Vincent Chin?
Cannibal Tours
Readings:
States of Emergency, Chapter 4
April 30
Topic:
Documentary as Theoretical Inscriptions
Screening:
Free Fall (distributor: EAI or MOMA)
May 2
Topic:
Documentary as Theoretical Inscriptions
Screening:
Obsessive Becoming
Readings:
States of Emergency, Chapter 3
NON-FICTION FILM FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE
Spring 2001
The final exam will be held in our regular classroom. The exam will
consist of four essay questions. These questions will ask you to
discuss four films you have seen in the last two weeks of class.
I will select the films. You will be required to answer all four
questions.
A good answer will deploy both the theory and history
of documentary film to probe the question. You should write a coherent,
well structured argument. I will look for an understanding of documentary
theory and history, as well as an ability to apply both to contemporary
work. Probing analysis, good use of concrete evidence, and an ability
to understand the significance of a particular film's interventions
are crucial. You must use theory and history or you will only receive
50% credit.
A sample question would look like this:
Discuss how The War Game employs or subverts:
a. conventions of the interview
b. conventions of cinema verite
You will need to answer both parts of the question.
Of course, you could argue that the film both employs and subverts,
or you could argue it does only one. The point is to make an argument.
You should be sure to deploy ample evidence from the film; generalizations
will not do you any good, neither will cliches or truisms. You should
always place these films in their documentary context by genre or
by technique. You should be able to argue why they are significant
interventions in documentary, and what tradition they are related
to.
One way to study for this cumulative final is to review
all of the films we have seen and analyzed in addition to the theory.
The following is a list of terms that I will draw
on to formulate questions. They are designed to help you review
some of the key concepts of this course.
active spectatorship
agitational film
agitational filmmaking
argument
atonal music to heighten viewer awareness
attitude towards subject
avant garde technique
carnival
city films
class issues
collective identity
combination of documentary and fictional techniques
compilation documentary
compilation film
composition
construction of objectivity
construction of the exotic as chaos controlled through filming
critique of dominant ideology
critique of government through opening up of the public sphere
cultural differences
deconstruction
deconstruction as a political strategy
deconstruction of structured absences in the text
deployment of evidence in documentary
deployment of information to mobilize public sphere
deployment of narrative construction (build-up, rising action,
climax)
development of alternative media
direct address interview
discourse
distance from subject
distribution
docile bodies
editing: style, structure, continuity, disruptive, montage
empiricism
ethnography
exhibition
experimental technique
explicit point of view
feminist documentary
fictional devices
formal devices
framing of shot
gaze of panoptican
gender stereotypes
genealogical history
generalizations versus specificity
governmental interference
governmental policies
historical argument
history from private sphere
ideology
individual characters
industrialization, technology, social relations, history
linear history
low-tech production style
micro-practices
mobility of the camera versus the immobilization of subjects
moving camera
multiple discourses
music
narrative conventions
network TV codes
new technology
panoptican
political filmmaking
political usage
position of speaker
position of the spectator
power relations
presentation of enemy
propaganda film
proximity
public sphere
racial stereotypes
reconstruction of the public sphere
recontextualization
regimentation
regulation of bodies
regulation of information
representation of chaos
representation of marginality
representation of "the other"
resistance to dominant ideology
resistance to domination
retelling history from margin
self-reflexivity
science as ideology
sexual politics
social context
social movements
sound effects
spatial relations
spectacle
structure of film
subjectivity
subversion of codes
surveillance
testimony from participants
travel ideology
use of color versus use of black and white
use of formal abstraction
use of humor
use of traditional music for editorializing
victim in documentary
voice of authority
voice over narration
war documentary
war iconography
who speaks
|
