Documentaries in America have always been a source for political investigation and criticism. Besides criticizing politics, documentaries have often been a target for criticism as well. Becoming more and more popular over the years, political documentaries have had a significant increase with their impact on people’s political opinions/stances. Civil Indigent and The Square are both great examples of a political documentary that received criticism or were viewed in a negative way. The Square was under some fire due to ignoring different perspectives from Egyptians in different parts of the country; the film mainly focused on the revolutionaries in Tahrir Square in Cairo and their struggle to revolt. Civil Indigent had multiple perspectives from all relevant subjects on the issue but did slightly support the side of the character being oppressed.
Both of the films were effective with their overall message. Personally, I liked Civil Indigent much more than The Square primarily because of the main character traits. For me, Pat was much more personable than Khalid but that may be because I’m just an American and fail to understand the problems going on in Egypt right this minute.
There is definitely a place for film in the realm of politics. Documentaries are needed in the political scope because they can provide visual aids for current and past social issues. There is a question, however The reading mentions how a film can be used to document political issues and sway public opinion. However, one author argues the true effectiveness of political documentaries. Political documentaries usually involve impassioned personal views. These views may not be widely agreed with across audiences. These efforts are also not partnered with larger organizations who could have a stronger influence.
Civil Indigent and The Square both do a good job at putting you in the midst of cases for certain human and civil rights. The visual aspects of the films are crucial because they can offer evidence and attitudes that you may not get from just watching your daily news. I think The Square is a lot more effective naturally because of its context and tone. The intense scenes and images make it impossible to not to come away without some sort of emotion. Civil Indigent is less traumatic, but still gets its claims across. The two films provide looks into very different political avenues. These looks or scenes, however, make all the difference and influence what we may take from a specific political situation.
Documentaries have become more popular over the years, but have also become more targeted with criticism when it comes to the ethics in the films. Political documentaries for example have become more criticized with its ethics when it comes to loyalty, honesty, and fairness. The last two films we watched, Civil Indigent, and The Square were both political documentaries in which I personally thought did an excellent job when it comes to the ethics. Previous documentaries we had watched in class were perceived more as a propaganda than a documentary, but The Square and Civil Indigent were 100% true documentaries. Personally, I think Civil Indigent did a better job in showing both sides of the story whereas The Square showed majority one side, which most of the viewers were on their side because of that.
I think that as the semester continues, my ability to pinpoint the ethics in the documentaries will become easier, and my critical eye will become better as well. All in all, I really enjoyed Civil Indigent and the Square, which made me more aware of the political issues that are going on all around the world.
I believe that documentaries that discuss problems in America or any other country are helping the viewers better understand politics as a whole. Although, a few of the films we previously watched want to sway us to think one way or the other based on who made the film. These last two films we watched, Civil Indigent and The Square, were great though because the filmmakers seemed unbiased and just stated the facts instead of expressing their opinion and why you should think the way they do.
The Square was very graphic in my opinion but I also believed that helped get the point across to the viewers. Civil Indigent told the whole story and was 100% factual which is how I think a documentary should be.
In the article, several critics discuss the importance of documentary on the current political spectrum. I must say I agree most with Michael Curtin, who argues not that old documentaries are better than new documentaries, as far as public acceptance goes, but instead that old documentaries and new documentaries are two entirely different beasts, conjured by the political spectra they cover. In the old days, documentaries were sponsored by big media corporations who legally had to show some form of educational material. Today, documentaries are more of a call to action in the realm of politics. Modern documentaries find a problem with a political idea and point it out as loudly as possible to the audience, who can then have a discussion based on their beliefs in order to find a solution.
The closest comparison I can think to make is with the muckrakers of the early 20th century. These documentarians are much like Jacob Riis, author of "How the Other Half Live," in that while they point out issues in the political realm, they suggest no ways to fix the issue the audience has spent their time learning about. I believe The Square is a prime comparison to make in these terms. While the film was excellent in showing the troubles in Egypt, it did little to suggest ways that the audience could either lend aid or offer a solution to the oppressed peoples of Egypt. These muckrakers are important to politics, as it keeps politicians on their toes and gives them a reason not to give in to corruption, as the consquences involve a lot of negative publicity and possibly career-ruining public attention.
This article discusses the role of documentary within the political arena. I took a real liking into two scholars and what they had to say, Jeanne Lynn Hall and Michael Curtin.
Jeanne Lynn Hall, I really respected how she had said that documentaries in a "present political American Political climate" had her "quite conflicted" and how this was a new feeling to her because she always tried to maintain the journalistic norm of "balanced reporting" despite the administrations lies being routine. She continues by saying the "renaissance" in documentary filmmaking was when there was a dramatic boom of nonfiction films achieving both wide distribution and critical acclaim especially around election season. She claims 2004 was the "Year of the Documentary".
Michael Curtin argues that it doesn't matter when a documentary is released, whether it is an older or newer piece and that it they shouldn't be compared on the same level. He says older docs (tv docs) had to retain some educational value and now the docs have more ability to be more free. Up until Civil Indigent and The Square, we focused more on propaganda in documentary film, our last two aforementioned docs, are anything but propaganda films. They are real documentaries, that try to deliver the most possible perspective of a specific individual or group, in particular politics.
Mixing the documentary form with politics is inherently controversial because of the massive influence a film can have. The Square attempts to use this force as a vehicle for social change, while Civil Indigent uses restraint and attempts to present both sides of a debate in a fair light.
If we define propaganda as a piece of media intended to influence one’s position on an issue by only presenting one side, I think the argument can be made that The Square is a stronger piece of propaganda than even Fahrenheit 9/11. I’d imagine Mubarak’s people, the Egyptian army, and to a lesser extent the Muslim brotherhood aren’t particularly keen on the story that The Square tells. However, it comes across as a much more honest and genuine work than Fahrenheit. Some might say this is because one is an inherently divisive political commentary while the other is a tale of hope against oppression and impossible odds. I think the reason is more simple - in Fahrenheit, you’re told the truth, in The Square, you’re shown the truth. This, in my view, is the key to making an ethical but biased work.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Civil Indigent makes a serious effort to remain impartial, but it’s perhaps impossible to tell the story of an activist without the narrative at least leaning slightly towards that activists’ point of view. The question of whether or not this is ethical I think comes down to what the purpose of a film is. If the goal is to tell an activists’ story, which I think Civil Indigent did very well, there’s really no issue. If the purpose is to raise awareness about a debate and present both sides evenly so the viewer can make up their mind in the end, then the inclusion of a second subject with the opposing view would be more effective.
You can definitely make a film about politics these days, if you do it right. Political films get more criticism because sometimes it can lean towards one side of an argument which would make viewers of the other side leave a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to the film. You also have to go with facts and honesty when it comes to making political films because a film based solely on your opinion its not going to be respected as much.
After watching Civil Indigent and The Square, I realized that these were actual political documentaries and they both do a great job showing it. Even though Civil Indigent did a slightly better job of staying unbiased by showing both sides, The Square was just as great as a film even if it was leaning towards showing manly the people defending their rights during the revolt. However, with The Square, I felt like I did not need to see the other side as much because just by seeing the peoples side of the story, you can see the negativity the government was doing to them. Seeing films like these open my eyes to whats going on in the world and I think thats a good thing because it's stops me from being so closed minded and only focusing on things happening around me.
I believe that Documentaries should be more involved in the political world and should have more films. Although it is hard to believe, it is still so secretive of what really goes on in the political world. America is lucky for the amount of say the citizens have but it is still very quiet. So where do documentaries come in? Documentaries capture real life. It captures what really goes on and the personal views of humans. With a documentary about politics, it shows not only the citizen side of the problem, but also the inside views of the government. It is so important to get every side of every story, and most documentaries can do that. It gives people a view that they would have never seen and it gives the audience a chance to see what is happening in the world. Today the news brings us stories, documentaries gives us life.
Civil Indigent and The Square both showed the human side of politics. Too often it seems that we only see the government side of politics, never seeing what the people want or the lengths they go to get it. Both of these films showed how real people fight to get their word out and fight for something they believe is right. They showed that as people we don’t always stand back and just watch we can take action too. Civil indigent showed how one man could stand up to a city, fighting for the homeless and not stopping until needs are met. It gives hope to people who believe it takes more than one person to make a difference. The Square was an eye-opening documentary. In America we tend to take for granted the troubles we do not have with politics. This film showed how one country could become so violent and affected due to politics; it shows how a group of citizens can dispute over not just each other, but also the government.
Documentaries in America have always been a source for political investigation and criticism. Besides criticizing politics, documentaries have often been a target for criticism as well. Becoming more and more popular over the years, political documentaries have had a significant increase with their impact on people’s political opinions/stances. Civil Indigent and The Square are both great examples of a political documentary that received criticism or were viewed in a negative way. The Square was under some fire due to ignoring different perspectives from Egyptians in different parts of the country; the film mainly focused on the revolutionaries in Tahrir Square in Cairo and their struggle to revolt. Civil Indigent had multiple perspectives from all relevant subjects on the issue but did slightly support the side of the character being oppressed.
ReplyDeleteBoth of the films were effective with their overall message. Personally, I liked Civil Indigent much more than The Square primarily because of the main character traits. For me, Pat was much more personable than Khalid but that may be because I’m just an American and fail to understand the problems going on in Egypt right this minute.
There is definitely a place for film in the realm of politics. Documentaries are needed in the political scope because they can provide visual aids for current and past social issues. There is a question, however The reading mentions how a film can be used to document political issues and sway public opinion. However, one author argues the true effectiveness of political documentaries. Political documentaries usually involve impassioned personal views. These views may not be widely agreed with across audiences. These efforts are also not partnered with larger organizations who could have a stronger influence.
ReplyDeleteCivil Indigent and The Square both do a good job at putting you in the midst of cases for certain human and civil rights. The visual aspects of the films are crucial because they can offer evidence and attitudes that you may not get from just watching your daily news. I think The Square is a lot more effective naturally because of its context and tone. The intense scenes and images make it impossible to not to come away without some sort of emotion. Civil Indigent is less traumatic, but still gets its claims across. The two films provide looks into very different political avenues. These looks or scenes, however, make all the difference and influence what we may take from a specific political situation.
Documentaries have become more popular over the years, but have also become more targeted with criticism when it comes to the ethics in the films. Political documentaries for example have become more criticized with its ethics when it comes to loyalty, honesty, and fairness. The last two films we watched, Civil Indigent, and The Square were both political documentaries in which I personally thought did an excellent job when it comes to the ethics. Previous documentaries we had watched in class were perceived more as a propaganda than a documentary, but The Square and Civil Indigent were 100% true documentaries. Personally, I think Civil Indigent did a better job in showing both sides of the story whereas The Square showed majority one side, which most of the viewers were on their side because of that.
ReplyDeleteI think that as the semester continues, my ability to pinpoint the ethics in the documentaries will become easier, and my critical eye will become better as well. All in all, I really enjoyed Civil Indigent and the Square, which made me more aware of the political issues that are going on all around the world.
I believe that documentaries that discuss problems in America or any other country are helping the viewers better understand politics as a whole. Although, a few of the films we previously watched want to sway us to think one way or the other based on who made the film. These last two films we watched, Civil Indigent and The Square, were great though because the filmmakers seemed unbiased and just stated the facts instead of expressing their opinion and why you should think the way they do.
ReplyDeleteThe Square was very graphic in my opinion but I also believed that helped get the point across to the viewers. Civil Indigent told the whole story and was 100% factual which is how I think a documentary should be.
In the article, several critics discuss the importance of documentary on the current political spectrum. I must say I agree most with Michael Curtin, who argues not that old documentaries are better than new documentaries, as far as public acceptance goes, but instead that old documentaries and new documentaries are two entirely different beasts, conjured by the political spectra they cover. In the old days, documentaries were sponsored by big media corporations who legally had to show some form of educational material. Today, documentaries are more of a call to action in the realm of politics. Modern documentaries find a problem with a political idea and point it out as loudly as possible to the audience, who can then have a discussion based on their beliefs in order to find a solution.
ReplyDeleteThe closest comparison I can think to make is with the muckrakers of the early 20th century. These documentarians are much like Jacob Riis, author of "How the Other Half Live," in that while they point out issues in the political realm, they suggest no ways to fix the issue the audience has spent their time learning about. I believe The Square is a prime comparison to make in these terms. While the film was excellent in showing the troubles in Egypt, it did little to suggest ways that the audience could either lend aid or offer a solution to the oppressed peoples of Egypt. These muckrakers are important to politics, as it keeps politicians on their toes and gives them a reason not to give in to corruption, as the consquences involve a lot of negative publicity and possibly career-ruining public attention.
This article discusses the role of documentary within the political arena. I took a real liking into two scholars and what they had to say, Jeanne Lynn Hall and Michael Curtin.
ReplyDeleteJeanne Lynn Hall, I really respected how she had said that documentaries in a "present political American Political climate" had her "quite conflicted" and how this was a new feeling to her because she always tried to maintain the journalistic norm of "balanced reporting" despite the administrations lies being routine. She continues by saying the "renaissance" in documentary filmmaking was when there was a dramatic boom of nonfiction films achieving both wide distribution and critical acclaim especially around election season. She claims 2004 was the "Year of the Documentary".
Michael Curtin argues that it doesn't matter when a documentary is released, whether it is an older or newer piece and that it they shouldn't be compared on the same level. He says older docs (tv docs) had to retain some educational value and now the docs have more ability to be more free.
Up until Civil Indigent and The Square, we focused more on propaganda in documentary film, our last two aforementioned docs, are anything but propaganda films. They are real documentaries, that try to deliver the most possible perspective of a specific individual or group, in particular politics.
Mixing the documentary form with politics is inherently controversial because of the massive influence a film can have. The Square attempts to use this force as a vehicle for social change, while Civil Indigent uses restraint and attempts to present both sides of a debate in a fair light.
ReplyDeleteIf we define propaganda as a piece of media intended to influence one’s position on an issue by only presenting one side, I think the argument can be made that The Square is a stronger piece of propaganda than even Fahrenheit 9/11. I’d imagine Mubarak’s people, the Egyptian army, and to a lesser extent the Muslim brotherhood aren’t particularly keen on the story that The Square tells. However, it comes across as a much more honest and genuine work than Fahrenheit. Some might say this is because one is an inherently divisive political commentary while the other is a tale of hope against oppression and impossible odds. I think the reason is more simple - in Fahrenheit, you’re told the truth, in The Square, you’re shown the truth. This, in my view, is the key to making an ethical but biased work.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Civil Indigent makes a serious effort to remain impartial, but it’s perhaps impossible to tell the story of an activist without the narrative at least leaning slightly towards that activists’ point of view. The question of whether or not this is ethical I think comes down to what the purpose of a film is. If the goal is to tell an activists’ story, which I think Civil Indigent did very well, there’s really no issue. If the purpose is to raise awareness about a debate and present both sides evenly so the viewer can make up their mind in the end, then the inclusion of a second subject with the opposing view would be more effective.
You can definitely make a film about politics these days, if you do it right. Political films get more criticism because sometimes it can lean towards one side of an argument which would make viewers of the other side leave a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to the film. You also have to go with facts and honesty when it comes to making political films because a film based solely on your opinion its not going to be respected as much.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Civil Indigent and The Square, I realized that these were actual political documentaries and they both do a great job showing it. Even though Civil Indigent did a slightly better job of staying unbiased by showing both sides, The Square was just as great as a film even if it was leaning towards showing manly the people defending their rights during the revolt. However, with The Square, I felt like I did not need to see the other side as much because just by seeing the peoples side of the story, you can see the negativity the government was doing to them. Seeing films like these open my eyes to whats going on in the world and I think thats a good thing because it's stops me from being so closed minded and only focusing on things happening around me.
I believe that Documentaries should be more involved in the political world and should have more films. Although it is hard to believe, it is still so secretive of what really goes on in the political world. America is lucky for the amount of say the citizens have but it is still very quiet. So where do documentaries come in? Documentaries capture real life. It captures what really goes on and the personal views of humans. With a documentary about politics, it shows not only the citizen side of the problem, but also the inside views of the government. It is so important to get every side of every story, and most documentaries can do that. It gives people a view that they would have never seen and it gives the audience a chance to see what is happening in the world. Today the news brings us stories, documentaries gives us life.
ReplyDeleteCivil Indigent and The Square both showed the human side of politics. Too often it seems that we only see the government side of politics, never seeing what the people want or the lengths they go to get it. Both of these films showed how real people fight to get their word out and fight for something they believe is right. They showed that as people we don’t always stand back and just watch we can take action too. Civil indigent showed how one man could stand up to a city, fighting for the homeless and not stopping until needs are met. It gives hope to people who believe it takes more than one person to make a difference. The Square was an eye-opening documentary. In America we tend to take for granted the troubles we do not have with politics. This film showed how one country could become so violent and affected due to politics; it shows how a group of citizens can dispute over not just each other, but also the government.