nandininegi97

[nandininegi97]

Cinema and Montage

The technique of montage in the history filmmaking has been used to create symbolism, most especially by Russian filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein. What follow below are three scenes from the iconic film Battleship Potemkin (1925) where I felt the use of Montage was highly influential to the film and the technique.

Scene 1

I think that the scene after we are shown the cook on the battleship trying to cut the meat is very interesting and wonderfully juxtaposed. The scene starts with the sailors cleaning the big guns on the battleship. Then a set of cuts lead us to another set of sailors scrubbing another part of the battleship. The cuts progress and lead us to a third set of sailors cleaning other parts of the ship and then to another set of sailors who are working on something else. The sound suddenly changes and a cut leads us to a close up of the borscht that is being cooked. Then another fast set of cuts lead us to the sailors arranging the dinner in all their discipline. Then another set of cuts alternates between the cooking of the borscht and the sailors arranging dinner.

I felt that the scene was great because of the irony it portrayed. Some shots showed us the hardworking sailors cleaning, scrubbing, working and the other shots showed us the borscht which was spoiled with the worms and was the food for the sailors. I think the fast cuts in this scene added a kind of build up to it and the change in music during the shots of the borscht sounded almost satirical. The alteration between the shots of the sailors and the borscht added irony and deepened the narrative of the scene.

Scene 2

Another scene which I found interesting and symbolic was the scene where the sailors break out into a fight against the officers. In this scene, the cuts were kind of medium and fast paced and the shots mostly alternated between medium wide shots and close ups with fewer wide shots. The scene starts when a few sailors are about to be shot and Vakulinchuck decides to question the army that is shooting them. The officers and the priest get angry and the entire ship turns to revolt. The shots are mostly of the officers and the sailors fighting amongst themselves but the scene does contain some interesting and symbolic shots.

One such shot is the shot of the flag on the battleship soaring high in the wind which is placed amongst many other shots of the sailors and officers fighting. The shot of the sailors fighting against the officers while they step on top of the canvas cloth they were about to be executed in is another symbolic shot. After a few cuts, we are shown an officer being wrapped in the same cloth like the sailors were before. A lot of shots in this scene are shots of just feet running, climbing and kicking. These rushed shots add anxiety to the scene. In most of the fighting shots, we see that the fight sequences are generally between one or two officers and a lot of sailors. I feel those shots are greatly symbolic as they add to the narrative of togetherness in the film.

When the doctor is being dragged away by the soldiers, in the middle of that sequence there is a shot of the priest opening his eyes, looking around and then closing them again. This shot placed between the shots of the doctor being dragged heightens the juxtaposition of the scene because we are shown the soldiers working together for each other and on the other hand we are shown the priest and the officers worrying about their own safety rather than helping each other.

Again the shots of the doctor being thrown into the scene, the shot of the worms on the meat and the shot of the doctor’s glasses dangling off from a rod are placed together very cleverly.

The wide shot of the sailors celebrating and the close up shot of the ruined piano and candles are also placed together wonderfully.

In the sequence where Vakulinchuck is shot, there is a close up of the officer’s eyes which look around before he shoots Vakulinchuck. The shot highlights the personality of the officer. The shot of Vakulinchuck being shot is also from behind and that further adds to the previous shot of the officer looking around before he finally shoots Vakulinchuck. The two shots, one after another, add satire to the image of the officials.

This scene is a turning point in the film and it not only adds symbolism to the film but also contributes hugely to the narrative.

Scene 3

The scene before the final battle of the film is another scene I found very interesting because of the buildup that it contributes to the final scene. The scene starts with a sailor spotting the other battleships on the horizon. The shots from then onwards build up the anxiety really well. The shots starts with footsteps running around and then fast paced cuts show shots of people suddenly waking up.

Then there is a shot of a sailor rushing up in an officer’s dress when another sailor stops him and makes him take off that uniform and gives him a sailors cap. I felt that the sequence was very symbolic.

Throughout this scene, there are a lot of shots of people climbing up ladders, rods, stairs which contribute almost directly to the build up in anxiety that the viewers experience. Placed amongst these shots are also shots of them trying to spot the other battleships which too contribute to the anxiety of the viewer as he wonders what will happen next. The combination of these shots with each other really add up to the buildup. Then a few fast paced cuts show sailors blowing into whistles and trumpets which speeds up the tempo of the scene. The music also contributes to this.

Shots of people running around, turning dials and throwing around orders also adds to the finality and haphazardness of the situation.

The music then suddenly speeds up and there are shots of machines pumping, the chimney emitting smoke and the ship piercing the waters. The alteration between these shots really adds up to the buildup.

I think the buildup in the scene is really well executed and sets the stage for the final scene in the film.

[nandininegi97]

The line between documentary and fiction

In its most basic principle, if a film is a representation of something, then in a lot of fiction and non fiction films, in fact amongst the various categories of non fiction itself, the differences amongst them only lie in the degree of reality they represent. Amongst these, “documentaries” are often entrusted with representing reality most accurately with little to no manipulation of it or as John Grierson more rightly called them the “creative treatment of actuality”. However, if pointing a camera at something and filming it inevitably alters reality to an extent then is it right to assume that “documentaries”, even being as close to reality, are only merely a representation of it?

When Nanook of the North first released in 1922, it became a pioneer of what we today know as modern documentaries. Before this, documentation footage was common but when Flaherty took footage and edited it and gave it a sort of narrative structure, he made Nanook of the North which easily became recognised as the first feature length “documentary”. Later though, Flaherty was criticised for the film’s strategies of representation, which included a certain level of staging, casting, and editing of events. But if a “documentary” is anyhow only a representation of what is real, then what remains in question is the extent to which Flaherty’s methods are justified.

What Flaherty did when he created Nanook of the North is that he provided narrative to a life which otherwise may seem uninteresting. He even calls it “A story of life and love in the actual Arctic”. Here, by calling it a “story” he makes no claims about the “story” of Nanook being exactly how it is in reality as a “story” is mostly always just an account of something that once happened.

The film is frequently criticised for staging and showcasing Nanook and his family far behind their “actual” time, Flaherty’s instructions to build an igloo with a missing side, casting actors in place of real Inuits and editing out parts where guns and pistols were used to help stage the hunts. However, in Flaherty’s defence, these only help one build a clearer picture of the struggle and beauty of survival in the “actual” Arctic. Set against the bleak beauty of the Arctic, the film is an attempt to recreate the past in the undoubtedly real space. Flaherty may have used traditional tools and staging but the cold was still real, the animals were still real, the people and igloos were still real, they still butcher a real seal and really eat it. As Robert Ebert puts it more concisely, “If you stage a walrus hunt, it still involves hunting a walrus, and the walrus hasn’t seen the script”. With help from this staging and editing coupled with inter-titles and beautifully composed shots, Flaherty is able to provide a dramatic narrative to otherwise observational footage. Although, it must be noted that even observational documentaries which represent reality as it is, have narrative in them, which if not provided by the director, is provided by the interpretations of the viewer. In such a case then, when narrative becomes inevitable, narrativising “Nanook’s” life is only adding another layer to something which is a representation of reality. As Bill Nichols said, “Documentary operates in the crease between life as lived and life as narrativised”, the “story” of Nanook of the North is still very much a “documentary”. If Flaherty had never built an igloo with a side missing, we still wouldn’t

know what the inside of an Arctic igloo looks like and if Flaherty had not forced the use of harpoons for the huntings, we wouldn’t know how the Inuits used them to hunt. It must also be argued that even though harpoons were not used as frequently during the time of filming, one can clearly see how the hunters, including Nanook, knew how to use them. Since the film does not make any historical claims, it does not matter if these traditional tools were used in everyday life because a certain way of living and struggle was still being portrayed and by the people who knew the best about it.

However, it is also true that in this struggle between representation and reality, Flaherty compromises on reality for the purpose of representation. What is true though is that the film does capture the harshness of life in the Arctic. Under any condition, any excessive criticism of the film is not very well grounded because when Nanook of the North released in 1922, there was no clear “documentary” genre anyway. There were no rules that a “documentary” had to satisfy. Even if it was not a completely unstaged documentary, it was not complete fiction either. It was in between, it was reality but also representation.

[nandininegi97]

The “truth” in documentary - Chronique d'un été (Chronicle of a summer)

Filmmaking, I believe, has always been a road full of many questions about how things should be. Entrusted with the responsibility of representing “reality” as closely as possible in the case of a making a “documentary” film, these questions of how things should be become even more relevant. In an attempt to show the “truth”, “documentary” films often employ different ways but as Ralph Lee once said in an interview, “The idea that there is a truth that you discover is like chasing the end of a rainbow”. He states here that there is an important difference between a true story and the true story. One such film, that I believe not only attempts to construct a “truth” but also question it is Chronique d'un été ("Chronicle of a Summer”).

Chronique d'un été is a 1961 French documentary film shot during the summer of 1960 by sociologist Edgar Morin and filmmaker Jean Rouch. Shot in Paris at a time during the Algerian War, the film is a curious exploration of the form a documentary itself. Jean Rouch was sceptical that “reality” was inevitably compromised in the presence of a camera yet using a camera to capture uncompromising reality was what he wished to attain. The experiment thus resulted in an innovative film around happiness, human nature and life in the city which not only attempted to construct uncompromising reality but also questioned and introspected it. In many ways, the film became one of the first experiments in the field of Cinéma vérité, “truthful cinema”.

Using the cinéma vérité style of “documentary” filmmaking, filmmakers Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin interacted with their subjects directly and the audience was made aware of the obvious presence of the camera and the filmmakers. Many followers of the cinéma vérité school of thought have often argued that the filmmakers often acknowledged this presence as “the only way to reveal the truth behind cinema”. In this film itself, the filmmakers hold active discussions with the subjects, question them and even introspect and ask for their feedback. At many instances there is a silence between the filmmaker and the subject where there is nothing left to say and that reveals their bond and the “truth” behind the film.

The film opens up with Rouch and Morin speculating whether what they want is achievable and if they really could film the “truth”. Also a part of this discussion is Marceline, who is later revealed to be a holocaust survivor, and together they wonder if it is possible to record a conversation naturally in the presence of a camera. They then request a small favour of Marceline and the film moves to the streets of Paris where Marceline asks a simple question to passers-by, “Are you happy?” The varied range of responses coupled with the interviews

of the other participants make up for the thematic “truth” of this film, which Morin puts directly in the beginning of the film as a film about “how people live”.

The film later includes more intimate interviews with other subjects, few of which include insights into the life of a factory worker Angelo and a young student from Africa managing to get by France, a married couple and their adjustments and Mary Lou and her vulnerability. The film also includes a scene where Marceline is overcome by memories of her father and talks to herself on the road, walking away distraught. Many of these scenes question the nature of happiness, life in a city and even a foreign city, isolation, the simplicity and complexity of routine and things and ideals one must hold onto to get by. Many of these scenes are extremely intimate and make one question the bond between the filmmakers and the subjects and how does one decide what must be included in the film in order to represent “reality” as truthfully as possible, especially so in the scene with Marceline. Although, the “truth” in the “reality” of this film can also be argued as even though the scenes are unrehearsed and the people real, despite Morin and Rouch’s efforts, the camera has somehow still managed to alter the nature of the conversations as sometimes the people come off as highly self-conscious.

However, that again brings us back to Rouch and Morin’s awareness that a camera inevitably alters “reality”. As Bill Nichols says, “Documentaries always were forms of representation, never clear windows onto “reality”; the filmmaker was always a participant witness and an active fabricator of meaning, a producer of cinematic discourse rather than a neutral or all-knowing reporter of the way things truly are.” In some ways in reference to this definition, even if Chronique d'un été fails to highlight the “truth” it really hoped to attain, in many ways it still constructed its own truth, questioned it at the end of it and then also disregarded it.

Regardless of its thematic “truth”, Chronique d'un été was true and aware of its process and its limitations. It felt close to “reality” in ways with the handheld camera, however it did bot particularly use long takes which are generally associated with the style of observational cinema. The sound hardly included any external soundtracks except for the opening scene. In this self reflexive method, the film included no re-enactment of events, no casting and the people were their true selves, including Marceline, interaction with characters like who hardly existed before. The discussions were generally allowed to take their own shape and were intimate and conversation like, almost making them seem like everyday life where friends sit down to introspect and reflect on their days. However, I feel, that it can also be argued that questions presented by the filmmakers already carried the weight of the answers they were bound to receive. Anyhow, despite the probable influence of the cameras on the subjects, the filmmakers undoubtedly attempted to be truthful. They exposed their vision to help the audience understand the purpose of the film. Consequently, in the same self

reflexive method, they not only took the viewers through the experience of making the film but also through the experience of watching and criticising it.

In a film as intimate as Chronique d'un été, what is also critical is the choice of including or not including something in the film. One can wonder if the film makers while editing the film realised the probability of certain scenes coming off as rehearsed or even dramatic. The inclusion of these scenes along with the scenes where the subjects watch the film and criticise it, along with Rouch and Morin themselves criticising it brings forth another different kind of “truth” which certainly validates the “truth” in the process of making such a film.

In its attempts of constructing a “truth” close to the reality and questioning the same “truth”, Chronique d'un été also wonders if it is possible to construct such a “truth”. In many ways, it comes very close to to the same “truth” and its process - taking the audience on a journey where the film makers doubt their own desire, attempt to construct it, have people and themselves question it and then also admit their failure to do the very same. If the purpose of a “documentary” is to attain “truth” along with, as put by John Grierson, “the creative treatment of actuality”, does something like Chronique d'un été become a lesser “documentary” because it fails to achieve the hoped “truth” and is also not creativised enough?

However in many ways it is also a brave film as it acknowledges all of its shortcomings. As Bill Nichols says, many films “disavow the complexities of voice, and discourse, for the apparent simplicities of faithful observations or respectful representations”. Chronique d'un été breaks these and engages with its own “reality”, constantly attempting to make it and break it and at the same time realising and admitting why it fell short. But it does attain is own “truth” of representing the “reality”, if not of happiness, then of filmmaking. As Edgar Morin says in an ending shot, “I thought the audience would like the people I liked”, it really could not have gotten any closer to representing the “truth” than that.