The Documentary Film

 

I don't know what truth is. Truth is something unattainable. We can't think we're creating truth with a camera. But what we can do, is reveal something to viewers that allows them to discover their own truth.

—Michel Brault

Every cut is a lie. It's never that way. Those two shots were never next to each other in time that way. But you're telling a lie in order to tell the truth.

—Wolf Koenig

We are really only successful in finding out anything when we are filming somebody who is more concerned with what he is doing that with the fact that we care filming him.

—Richard Leacock

Of course there's conscious manipulation! Everything about a movie is manipulation ... If you like it, it's an interpretation. If you don't like it, it's a lie — but everything about these movies is a distortion."

—Frederick Wiseman 

 

 

For projects two and three, we will embark on the study of the documentary form as argument. In project two, we will study the form and its context. By observing some landmark documentaries, we will create criteria together for what we think makes a "good" documentary. Then you'll choose a documentary and evaluate that film by the criteria we have created. In project three, you'll be conceiving, directing, filming, and editing your own documentary which we'll screen in an in-class film fesitval. You'll be keeping a detailed production log and providing director commentary to help us understand the intention of your work. 

 

Let's begin by reading a short introduction to the documentary. Head over to the ASU library website  and perform a search for an eBook called The Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction by Patricia Aufderheide. Read Chapter One: Naming & Form, pages 1-25. Then choose a short documentary to watch from this website.  In a comment to this blog post of at least 400 words, draw connections between the reading and the short film--for example, what features mentioned in the text do you see playing out in the film? I would also welcome a very short summary and your reaction to the film.

For Thursday's class, be prepared to discuss film techniques discussed in this helpful primer on filming a documentary.

Reality TV stakeholder rough draft

Reality TV Producer Stakeholders

Producers: Producers want what’s best for the show and what would get the most ratings. Although they may sometimes put the participants at risk they are just in it for themselves. If it’s new and dangerous and something the competitors are scared to try, they are more likely to do whatever it is. However, no matter how crazy a stunt that may be performed is there’s a point to which producers wont interfere. “Producers also must be wary of overzealous talent -- those who approach producers and ask, "What do you need from me here?" They want to deliver the story points we want and go home. That's when a show loses its credibility with the audience. As Odgers puts it, "If you try to get them to be actors, then you get crappy acting."” (Berger)

Participants: Reality TV has morphed from radio game show and amateur talent competition to hidden camera stunt show to dating show to documentary-style series. The genre now encompasses unscripted dramas, makeover sagas, celebrity exposés, lifestyle-change shows, dating shows, talent extravaganzas and just about any kind of competition you can think of (and a few that you probably can't). People who believe they have something to offer the world, whether they do or not, want to get their 15 minutes of fame off of these shows. Whether they participate in these shows for the money or popularity their looking to gain off of it. This means that no matter how crazy the stunt or environment they’re in, their more likely than not going to do it so it improves their chances of reaching their end goal.

Rule of Ethics: “If a production companies creates a show with the explicit intention of trying to make money from the humiliation and suffering which they themselves create for unsuspecting people, then that seems to me to be immoral and unconscionable. I simply cannot think of any excuse for such actions - pointing out that others are willing to watch such events do not relieve them of the responsibility for having orchestrated the events and willed the reactions in the first place.” Should people really watch these shows based off of ethical behavior? Some may say no but the vast majority does not mind since these shows have been airing for so long. There is tons of unethical behavior in these shows but until someone stands up against them, they’re going to stay.

Rough Draft: To Be or Not to Be

Stakeholders Map:

 

Stakeholders and Their Arguments, and the Rebuttals:

((Not all of the rebuttals are my personal opinion. My understanding of the assignment was to give rebuttals for everything, including things we side with.))

Death-row Inmates:
Argument: Death-row inmates would want to be able to donate their organs because they want to save a life before they die.

Rebuttal: Death-row inmates are not trying to help others; they are just trying to extend their life before being put to death. To harvest organs from inmates, doctors would have to go against their oaths and do a surgery that may also be against their moral and/or ethical values. Also, for the organs to be usable, they would have to be harvested from an inmate who was only executed in certain ways. For example, decapitation.

 

Inmates’ Families:
Argument: Our family member (the inmate) should be allowed to donate their organs so they can help us, as well as other people who need organs.

Rebuttal: While family members may be in need of organs, they would have to be a match and they would also have to be prepared for immediate surgery at a nearby hospital. Also, there is no guarantee that the organs from the inmate would be viable.

Organ Donation Receiver (Transplant Candidate):
Argument: We would like to receive these organs, and we do not care where they come from because they can save our lives.

Rebuttal: The organs from the inmates may or may not be viable. The receiver would have also have to be at a nearby hospital due to the time constraint on organ donations.

 

People for Organ Donation:
Argument: We think that death-row inmates should be allowed to donate their organs because they can save lives and do something good before they die.

Rebuttal: Once again, there is no guarantee that their organs will be viable. (I will repeat this often.) Also, the process of organ donation is a lot more difficult than just making a yes or no decision. And to top it all off, if they wanted to do something good, they could go back in time and not do what they did to get into the position they are in.

 

People against Organ Donation:

Argument: We think that death-row inmates should not be allowed to donate their organs because they shouldn’t get an opportunity to make themselves look better. They aren’t trying to do something good, they’re trying to extend their lives. They should continue to wait for their penalty.

Rebuttal: There are many people in the world right now in need of organs, so inmates could save a few lives. Whether or not they are actually trying to get some form of penance for their actions will remain unclear unless an inmate states this themselves. Also, whether or not they donate their organs, they will still be executed.

 

UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing):
Argument: As of today, February 19, 2014, there are 77,305 active transplant candidates on the waiting list. Any donation helps.

Rebuttal: While donations could help a number of people, there is a question that would be whether or not the number is significant. Also, there is difficulty in saying that each and every inmate would have viable organs. While every donation helps, the donations have to be able to happen to be helpful. 

 

Doctors:
Argument: We do not want to be a part of harvesting organ donations because it goes against our moral and/or ethical values as well as against an oath we took as doctors. In order to harvest the organs, the inmate would have to be executed in a way that would either be inhumane or caused by our hands.

Rebuttal: As doctors, you should want to help transplant candidates and perform necessary surgeries to do that. (I can’t even think of anything opposing this argument that would make sense.)

 

Governor of Ohio:
Argument: My decision in allowing Ronald Phillips to donate his organs will cause more harm than good. Or my decision to deny him this privilege will also cause backlash.

Rebuttal: If you choose to allow Ronald Phillips to donate his organs, you can expect that most, if not all, death-row inmates will have the same request. Also, once you say yes to one inmate it may be difficult for you to say no to another with the same request. If you choose to deny his request, you will have to deny the requests of all other inmates that ask to donate their organs. However, you will not be the first to deny inmates of this privilege.

 

 

 

Rough Draft: Jahi McMath

Jahi McMath, a 13 year old girl that had complications after tonsil surgery is declared “brain dead”. They put her on life support where she was in an induced coma. Doctors then made the decision that Jahi McMath should be taken off life support as to she was “brain dead” and the only thing keeping her alive was life support. Her parents, wanting to believe that with a little more time she would be alive when taken off life support made the decision to keep her on life support. As we can see, this may have caused controversy and disagreement among family members and outsiders whether or not Jahi McMath should be kept on life support.

The first stakeholder I want to establish is Jahi’s parents. After doctors have come to the conclusion that Jahi was brain dead and was no longer living or able to live, Jahi’s parents still believed that she was. They saw her heart beating and muscle spasms as a sign of life and didn’t know the true meaning of “brain dead”. The parents had hope that their daughter would survive even though neurological professionals had proved that wrong. In their eyes, their daughter was still alive and fighting for their life and wouldn’t want to jeopardize that by taking her off life support.

Another stakeholder we have to consider is the doctors. After multiple tests and tons of experience, they know that Jahi McMath is brain dead and should be taken off life support. From past experience, they knew that no patient has ever survived after being diagnosed as “brain dead”. The doctors are the most reliable source because they are first hand working with the patient and know what is in the patients best interest. Although its hard for the parents to believe the doctors after a previous surgery malfunction that put them in this position, the doctors are only thinking about the well being of their daughter. And even though its hard to grasp that your daughter is no longer living anymore, the doctors believe its unnecessary to keep a dead human being alive by a machine.

Stakeholder Rough Draft

• Stakeholder 1 

The victims family

The victims family in my opinion would most likely not want to see the man that killed their daughter able to be an organ donator to his family. They would prefer to see Ronald Philips brought to justice. He was days away from dying and then all of a sudden wants to become a hero? Does not sound right to me and I could not imagine how the victims family feels. It would have to take a lot of pathos and logos to change their mind and convince them that this is right. They need pathos to give them an emotional appeal to somehow feel that it is right to preform such actions. They also need logos to have some of the actual facts of why something like this could be logically just. If this process if approved its not only hard for the victims family but also the judge, doctor, and the governor. 

• Stakeholder 2

Organ Receiver 

The family member who would be receiving the organs of course would want the judge to rule in favor of the organ donating procedure because it would be saving their life. They obviously are not thinking about what the procedure consists of. The details of the procedure are gruesome because the organs would be taken out while he is still living which is unethically correct. The organ receiver should logically look for other ways of being cured instead of going to a murderer. That may sound harsh but it is the truth. I don't believe the criminal is seeing any good in this situation, I believe he is simply trying to prolong his life. I can see the good in what he could possibly be trying to do but it is just so hard to believe someone who raped and murdered his girlfriend and also killed his daughter. This puts a lot of people in a rough place because it is so controversial. 

WP1 Rough Draft

      Reality television can be a deceiving thing. Viewers of reality TV shows such as Here Comes Honey Boo Boo or The Real World watch them simply because they want to know how these peoples’ crazy lives work. Who wouldn’t want to watch a loud family of rednecks living in Georgia or a group of young adults drunkenly fight with one another in an expensive resort style house? The truth of it is, there isn’t much truth behind reality television at all. The producers of these shows tend to have much more control than some like, causing controversy amongst the viewers as well as the cast members themselves. The main stakeholders that are involved in this issue would be the producers, the viewers, and the cast members. Each one of these groups of people is affected by this idea that there’s really too much scripted text behind a reality television show. 

      Those who consider the producers to have too much power in their hands all tend to make at least one solid argument; rigging the outcome of a reality television show is manipulative and unfair. The cast members as well as the audience of the show are both directly affected by this statement. Take the show X Factor, a singing competition show that allows hopeful contestants to sing their way to an expensive recording contract. Every week, the audience votes for who they want to stay on the show and the singer with the least amount of votes is kicked off. Many faithful viewers of the show may like to think that the bright future of their favorite competitor is in their own hands, but that’s not exactly the case. Lorna Simpson, a competitor for the show’s tenth season over in the UK, revealed that the show automatically chooses a winner from the start. Simpson stated after being eliminated from the show, “It’s unfair. X Factor set me up to go out in the first week. They underplayed me… it was set up. They know the outcome of the whole competition. It’s prepared. It’s TV and they have to be ahead.” This goes to show that most competition shows, those including American Idol and The Voice. But singing competition shows aren’t the only ones. On the eighth season of The Bachelorette, Bachelorette Emily Maynard had recently lost her racecar driver fiancé to a plane crash when she was pregnant with his child. Sources state that one of the contestants, Arie Luyendyk Jr., was chosen to last so long in the season because he was a race car driver himself, claiming that the producers wanted that to upset Emily and get her to cry and create some drama on the show. Producers really have no concern with the contestants’ feelings; they just want their shows to get as many views as possible and to please their audience.

      On the other hand, a reality television show wouldn’t receive many views if it the producers never stepped in and forced action. If a reality television show were to film a cast with no interference for a week, the audience would most likely get bored and stop watching the show. Producers are the ones responsible for the story of the show and which way it is supposed to go. David Rupel states that people tend to expect a beginning, middle, and end, and producers have to step and cut footage to create a story if there isn’t one present (Rupel). In most cases, there isn’t a connecting story present in a few days worth of footage, so producers find it necessary to cut the footage in a way that tells a story or creates a problem that the cast now has to deal with. Producers also typically step in and confront the cast members when there’s no action or drama present amongst them, planting seeds in their minds and giving them the idea that something is going on when really, nothing is. But with this method, producers don’t need to be in there long before a full-fledged war breaks out amongst the cast members. Their job is simple; tell someone that their cast mate was giving them a funny look earlier and then step back to watch the sparks turn into a fire. Yet again, the cast members and contestants are the ones that are being affected by this, rather than the audience or the producers.

      When it boils down to the root of a reality television show, producers are in full control. The producers have too much of a say in a show for the show to actually be considered reality, but without that power that they have these shows we see on television today would not have been created or shown.

Rough Draft

Stakeholder 1:

Family of the Prisoner:

Belief: They would probably believe that preforming new drug cocktails on the prisoners is wrong. Even though their relative is sentenced to death, they wouldn’t want them to suffer any more than they have to. They would probably have sympathy for their relative and want them to be treated as humane as possible.

Persuasion Techniques: In order to change the opinions on the relatives, you would probably have to mainly use logos. You would have to make them sympathize with the victim’s family. You would probably have to convince them that their relative will be ok and that the new drug cocktails are not going to make them suffer any more. A little bit of ethos might be helpful to show them that these mixtures are designed by professional scientists to help put their mind at ease. However, over all I think pathos is the way to go.

Stakeholder 2:

Family of the Victim:

Belief: The family of the victim is going to sympathize with their relative. They are going to want the prisoner to be punished for what they did. They wouldn’t have a problem with testing new drugs on the victims even if it risked them suffering more than they have to.

Persuasion Techniques: In order to change the opinions of the victim’s family members, you would probably have to use a mixture of pathos and ethos. Pathos would probably be the more dominant technique though. For example, you would have to get them to sympathize with the prisoner and tell them that they shouldn’t have to suffer any more than they already are. 

Stakeholders Rough Draft

Jahi McMath is a 13-year-old girl who was admitted to the hospital for a routine tonsillectomy. After she had awoken from the surgery she started bleeding, seizing, and went into a coma. After 3 days of this, doctors concluded that Jahi was officially brain dead and therefore, should be taken off of life support. The parents, not wanting to let go of their daughter, took the situation to court where the judge ultimately decided to let Jahi be kept on life support for an extra week, giving the family time to file a petition. Ranging from family members to doctors to end of life experts, there were varying opinions of why Jahi should or should not be kept on the machines that keep her blood pumping.

            The first and most obvious stakeholder that can be identified in this situation is the parents and family members of Jahi McMath. Even after test have concluded that their loved one is legally brain dead, the family still firmly believe that their daughter is “alive”. They see her heart beating as a sign of life even though the machines are held responsible. They also have seen and felt the twitching of Jahi’s muscles which they claim is yet another sign of definite life. They fail to acknowledge that this is merely a muscle spasm and that nothing is truly going on inside of this little girl. To them, Jahi is still clearly alive and they don’t understand why someone who is alive and trying to recover should be taken off of life support.

            The attorney of the family also believes that Jahi should be kept on life support, but for much different reasons that the family themselves. The attorney does not seem to openly state that he is fighting for this issue because he believes that Jahi has a chance at recovering, however, he states “I am fighting for the right of parents to direct the health care of their child and for them to make the choice.” This is a very interesting point of view because he seems to genuinely care about the well being of the family. The family will be at peace with whatever decision feels right to them. If the state ends up taking the girl off of life support and the family does not agree, they will most likely always be unhappy with the outcome.

            The power of prayer is also another stakeholder that can be seen in this article. The family continually states that they want to public to pray for their daughters’ recovery. They also state that they strongly believe that God will heal their little girl and she will someday wake up and be fine. This claim seems to give the family of Jahi a secure sense of false hope. They do not seem to grasp the concept of brain death because if they did, they would understand that it is not scientifically or medically possible that any circumstance could change the outcome of their loved one.

            I found there to be two main stakeholders that are against keeping Jahi on life support. Their claims and reasoning behind such claims seem to be similar although their backgrounds are much different. The first is the doctors that were directly treating Jahi’s case. They preformed the neurological tests that prove that she is definitely brain dead. Once they presented this tough information to the family, they were asked to go against protocol and preform the test again. After multiple more tests all concluding the same outcome, the doctors believe that the only next step is to take Jahi off of life support. The doctors know from history and years of experience that there has never once been a case where a brain dead person has recovered. Since tests have proved the finality of her brain death, the only logical conclusion is to remove such unnecessary measurements to keep a dead person alive.

            End of life experts have the same thinking and knowledge of these doctors without the background of being an actual doctor. Their whole professions revolve around what the end of a life actually means. To avoid any question between being in a come and being brain dead they state “no one has ever recovered from brain death, as it's not a coma or vegetative state.” They know from their studies that “brain death is just as final as cardiac death.” When a person’s heart stops beating, the finality of this death is not usually in question. Brain death is the same thing but in a different part of the body so it should be treated in the same manner. These are the assumptions that end of life experts work off of and what they have determined in the case of this young girl. She is dead; whether is be because of cardiac failure or brain death, the outcome is the same. Therefore, it is only logical to take a dead person off of life support.

Faith healing parents charged with murder for refusing kids' medical care

I chose the article regarding the faith healing parents who refused to use medical protocol for their sick children. As I glanced at the article I assumed that it would be easy to set apart each side of the arguments until I noticed that this controversial topic seemed to be one sided. Pretty much everyone agreed that these parents should have sought medical attention for their children but at the same time most people agree that prayer does heal. Prayer healing over medical treatment can only work to a certain extent. I believe that children who are extremely ill should first seek medical attention and then the prayers will help with the healing once they are under the supervision of a doctor. I searched the web for similar incidents of prayer healing and mostly found that most parents admit their children into hospitals and then they perform prayer healing. Prayer healing has worked countless times but medical attention is required. I came across some articles where parents were charged with manslaughter because they did not seek medical attention for their children. It was very difficult to find arguments that were in agreement with prayer treatment over medical care. As I searched deeper into the web I found arguments stating that people have religious freedom and it should not be infringed upon. To make each argument more valid I will definitely have to get some new thoughts on how to approach arguments in favor of prayer healing. This map helped give me an idea of what I need to focus more on and will help with the rest of project one.

The Untested Drug Cocktail/The Death Penalty

For my stakeholder map I decided to just include the posts/articles that I thought had the main points of each side of the arguments. Originally I picked this topic because it was the one that I thought was one of the more controversial, therefore easier to find information to argue both sides. Unfortunately to my dismay it was a bit harder then I had expected. After going through the blog post on this topic and all the comments I realized that there were only a few people who actually had valid arguments "for" this topic and no concrete "against" arguments were made. Most were conflicted and chose to stand somewhere in the middle. So with that I read the original article and ran into similar problems, the majority of the comments were made in favor of the death penalty and the drug cocktail, but I was unable to use a lot of these comments because they weren't really developed thoughts and more like just people putting in there opinions. Then I ventured out to the web and found an article that was an argument against the drug cocktail, using references to the article given to us. This helped a bit, but the same issues popped up with the comments on that article as well. I chose these specific comments/pieces to be on my map because I feel that in each of them they contribute to the overall problem. What surprised me about doing this assignment was the amount of digging I had to do in order to come up with valid points for both sides of the argument. Another issue that I had was trying to distance myself from my own opinion to get decent information on the argument that opposes my own. Overall I can now see in which ways I can make my argument stronger for Writing Project One, and the importance of mapping it out because it can be fairly easy to get off track.

stakeholder map

Making this stakeholder map wasn't very difficult in the sense of extensive thinking, it was more difficult because of the fact that it was tedious. I personally think that the construction of the map and the process of obtaining the information were really simple and easily obtainable. In my opinion the hardest step of gathering information for this map was the fact that I actually had to sit down and want to read and wonder why each party sided the way that they did. On the other hand the easiest step in this process was comparing the views that I had with each side in order to obtain an unbiased view on the subject. 

The first step I took in making this map was reading the initial article, the blog author’s article, and multiple articles I found online. These steps were necessarily easy because all I had to do was read the separate articles and compare the view points of each in order to make categories. The second step I took was breaking the positive and negative views into multiple categories and putting peoples views in the corresponding sections. The next step was finding the people that would have the strongest viewpoints on the matter and would be most affected by the decision. I did this in order to show the most “radical” viewpoints that were either being proposed or thought of. The final step was connecting each viewpoint and combining them with the thoughts of each person that was being directly affected by this decision. 

A couple of things that really kept me interested in making this map were the highly differential opinions, the multiple parties that could be affected, and the very controversial subject. In almost every article that I read concerning this decision there were multiple different reasons for why it should be approved or disapproved. Also in this article many people had the chance of being affected, this ranged from doctors, to the donor, the organ receiver, and the person making the decision. In at least one or two of these cases there is bound to be something that will go wrong. One of the main reasons this kept me interested was the fact that it was such a controversial story. On one end, this man murdered and raped two people and shouldn’t have the chance to play hero now and donate his organs, but on the other hand if they do allow for him to donate his organs he could be saving a life of maybe even multiple lives in the process.