Sundance Documentary Panel--Working With Celebrities

                Listening to this Sundance documentary panel I learned a lot of good tid bits about making documentaries, though I feel like working with a celebrity in making a documentary would be far removed from where I am right now, there was still a lot of interesting information I gleaned. 

There was definitely an element of learning what to expect as far as the sometimes threads by which a documentary hangs, and also just some of the harder things that happen for a documentary to be made.

                Brett Morgen director of Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck talked about how he had a lot of issues with the family in what was shown.  He had to sit down and watch scenes of Kurt on heroin with his mother, and she was angry after watching it.  In fact a lot of the family was angry with him because they felt like Kurt was embarrassed about his heroin usage and he wouldn’t have wanted to have been represented that way.  Morgen said he was able to convince them by talking about how Kurt would have wanted to demystify heroin usage, and remove himself from the glorification of heroin use that had come to be a part of his celebrity.

                Another thing was just so many legal issues, which I’m sure comes more with the territory of the celebrity documentary, but it was interesting to learn about fair use law.  The only way to claim fair use is if the clip is used to inform, but not at all impressionistic and so a lot of clips that a filmmaker tries to claim fair use on may not be worth the hassle of inevitable lawyers breathing down their neck and so they had to use more budget for clips that they maybe could have fought for fair use on. 

                As far as structure and usefulness, I think these panels are great and I’m glad they are available, I want to listen to more of them.  They have interesting topics, the one thing I would say is, maybe at this point in what I’m doing, they are a little to minute in scope.  Meaning they are current and I’m not quite in the place where the panels are immediately applicable.  But that being said, they are for sure useful in getting a better idea of what is going on in the documentary world, and like I was talking about above, understanding more what it is like to be a documentarian. 

The Hunting Ground

                I found The Hunting Ground to be highly effective though I would not at all call it balanced.  There was no presentation of the other side of the issue, there were people in the film who were called out and that was about all that was presented of them.  Although that being said, I feel like sometimes it’s pretty common to jump on a film for being one sided, but if you look at it in a larger context, sometimes I feel like that is part of a dialectic, and also sometimes things just need to be said.  The appeals that were most stark to me were watching the victims tell their stories, but also the logic presented in the film was compelling.

                In the context of the larger conversation here, and I’m no expert, but with so little reporting done of rape on college campuses the lack of balance doesn’t disturb me.  And sure how do I know the stats presented in the film are correct?  I don’t but based on the sited research and the limited knowledge I do have outside of the film I do believe a lot of the statistics they presented.  But even that aside, sometimes something just needs to be said, and it doesn’t take all sides of the issue but adds itself to the national conversation or draws attention to an issue that needs it and stops there. In this case, I do feel like this approach is warranted for the reasons I already gave.

                What tools worked for me in the film? I think of Bela Balazs and how the human face is one of the most powerful tools of cinema.  So talking with the girls/boys and watching them tell their stories was compelling for me.  As was stated near the end of the film, something that started changing things was that people just started telling their stories.  We are given a taste of that in the film.  It is hard to come almost as close as possible to looking these victims in their eyes and tell them they are lying.  Sure I can’t completely trust what is shown, but seeing into these girls lives and hearing their stories, it is much more likely true than a fabrication.  Besides the point is to be a catalyst not prove absolutely.

                But that being said the way they present their logic is compelling.  Especially the common sense notions of what universities have to lose by reporting rape, from alumni donations, to fraternities, to privileging athletes, coupled with the women coming forward, it makes for a pretty compelling film.

                **One additional B-roll note, often when the girls talked about running into an indifferent system they would show a low angle shot of old campus buildings.  It evokes an image of a person standing proudly, but juxtaposed with the story it feels more like a whited sepulcher.  

                

EXTRA CREDIT Hellboy

Seeing Hellboy was interesting,  Sharon's lecture at the beginning was probably the most interesting part however.  I had never had the desire to see this film before and sort of counted it as a typical hollywood film.  What do I think of it now?  Probably a lot the same honestly.  I think the picaresque hero is interesting but Sharon talked about how he bridges the gap of human beings; while being partially good and partially evil.  I do see this but I don't understand the importance of the statement.  One thing that stuck with me is Sharon said that the scene with the umbrellas in the rain is when she knew Del Toro was a genius.  I thought this was a cool shot but I didn't necessarily get why she said that.  I don't wish to contest it just understand it.  So trying to figure that out has stuck with me. 

Fireside Chat

I have been realizing over the course of this last semester that I have maybe a bit of an odd belief. It is still something that I am figuring out and has been somewhat problematic to me. This is the belief that, at least for now, I really do hold that I do not nor cannot truly know anything. The experience of the fireside chat was good for me to reflect on this belief and think about how I came to believe this. 

In communicating this belief it was hard for me to think of artistic way of doing so since I thought the best way to communicate it in a clear way was through saying it. But there is the element of showing rather than telling that we talked about earlier in connection with the concerned citizen project. Because of this it forced me to dig a little deeper into this idea and think about how exactly I came to believe the way I do. I believe it has a lot to do with math and a lot to do with my mission; meeting so many different people and listening to so many different ideas it felt ignorant to me to say that I knew what I believed was right. But this was a good experience for me to think about how I have come to believe the things I do and also to see that this can often be a more powerful way of demonstrating what I believe. 

I guess it isn’t 100 percent about showing rather than telling but in looking back to where my idea came from I think I was able to demonstrate clearly that I really believe this without having to try very hard to convince people of that. That is what I noticed in many other performances too. When people told their story the beliefs or themes came through as well as where those beliefs came from which makes it more powerful and honest.

I suppose a little bit of explaining about the piece of art that I made is due as well. I took the proof that 2+2=4 and drew two fish + two more fish = four fish. What I wanted to represent here with the colored elementary school looking fish is that sometimes ideas seem so simply correct but really things are a lot more complicated. My experience with math has been believing a lot answers to be correct that have turned out to be wrong and it has taught me to reserve jumping to the conclusion of knowing something. 

On others performances, I think everyone did a good job and a quite a few people did a fantastic job. I was impressed by the creativity and talent that exists in our class. It was interesting how people’s different personalities and talents led them to present their chat in totally different ways. Many people presented their chats in ways I would have never thought of. I guess I say this just because I think that was the main thing I came away with. I had noticed this before but with everyone sharing, and with this type of assignment peoples unique styles and ideas came through and it was cool to see.

Concerned Citizen-Dan Bunker

Group Members
Mark Leavy
Sam Woodruff

“On the mountains of truth you can never climb in vain: either you will reach a point higher up today, or you will be training your powers so that you will be able to climb higher tomorrow.”

-Friedrich Nietzsche (from The Portable Nietzsche)

As members of a close-knit community, that is the Mormon community, a frequently faced and frequently scrutinized topic often comes to our attention: Gays and the LDS Church.

The current understanding and stance of the LDS Church on this topic is one of patience, understanding, and unquestioning loving acceptance. However, not all members are aware of this stance. For our Concerned Citizen we met with Dan Bunker, who about a year ago came out as being gay. He, in the face of immense misunderstanding, does what he can on a small scale to raise awareness of the LDS Church’s stance in the community of its members. He has found that social media proved to be an effective tool in boldly raising awareness of an important topic.

Though he may not even intend to be an “activist” his courage, honesty, and willingness to share has had an impact on his community. By helping his friends and acquaintances on facebook to understand better these important issues. Through his own story he is impacting not only his friends but his friends friends and further out. He shared with us that quite a few people have come to him seeking his help because they are struggling with similar issues as him.

In a recent address called “To Sweep the Earth as With a Flood” Apostle of the LDS church David A Bednar talked about how members of the church should use their social media profiles. He talks about how social media profiles should paint an honest picture of who we are. As Bednar says:

“First, we are disciples and our messages should be authentic. A person or product that is not authentic is false, fake, and fraudulent. Our messages should be truthful, honest, and accurate. We should not exaggerate, embellish, or pretend to be someone or something we are not. Our content should be trustworthy and constructive.”

Dan is a perfect example of doing this. By sharing things that matter to him in an honest way he is a catalyst for change.

We felt that this project--a short documentary--was another ideal way in which this message can be shared. Arlene Goldbard in an article entitled “From Datastan to Storyland” states:

“We understand that anyone who wishes to make significant headway on a social problem or opportunity must engage with people’s feelings and attitudes about it. For example, no financial intervention will save the economy unless confidence is restored. Challenges to social well-being must be addressed by cultural as well as practical means: whether it’s promoting safer sex, reducing the incidence of diabetes, treating addictions, promoting green consumer habits – these and countless other public aims are helped by artists’ skill at engaging people in considering their own views and communicating freely with others.”

We hope that this documentary is effective in helping promote Dan and other members of the LDS Gay community. Even more than this, we hope that it helps to show how influential one can be by presenting oneself in an honest way as well as honestly engaging with issue they care about. We wanted to highlight Dan’s courage in presenting himself honestly and his philosophies that have guided him in becoming an activist amongst his friends. Hopefully the video will inspire others to do the same with issues that they care about.

Sources:
https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/to-sweep-the-earth-as-with-a-flood?lang=eng
http://www.search4dev.nl/search?identifier=305654;docsPerPage=1
http://www.worldcat.org/title/portable-nietzsche/oclc/372806

Game for Change: Illegal Immigration

play game

Artist Statement:

“…it had become impossible for me to see them as anything else but poor.  Their poverty was my single story of them.” 

-Chimamanda Adichie

In this quote from Chimamanda Adichie’s Ted Talk “The Danger of a Single Story” how she viewed the boy who was her families live in domestic help when she was young draws a parallel to that of many United States citizens opinion on illegal immigrantion.  The single story of illegal immigrants seems to be that they are poor in Mexico and are here to do jobs that no one else wants because they can make more money to be sent back to Mexico.  But I would go further to say that many times the single story about illegal immigration does not even extend this far.  The single story told of illegal immigrants is often created by nothing more than hearing repetitions of the title “illegal immigrants”.  The extent of the story is that these people have come here illegally and are using our resources without having to pay for them.  The actual people are not discussed nearly as much as the problem, and legislation surrounding them.

For this project I was able to get the story of a student at BYU who immigrated to the United States illegally with her family.  Her story along with a second hand accounting of another story and a few posted on blogs that I found formed the basis for the game that I designed.   Mainly though it was the story of this BYU student.  Here are her words on the subject of being called an “illegal immigrant.” 

“Being called an “illegal immigrant”…makes me feel uneasy.  When people are objectified and stripped of their humanity is when we usually treat them the worst. When people call us illegal aliens, it makes it easier for them to deport the dad or mom and separate our families because we are so different to them that it is tough to relate to us. Also, when just the word illegal is used, I don’t like it because people associate it with negative things. I am a really good student, have a bright future, and have never stolen or done anything against the law. But when I am called illegal, people see me as a criminal.”

She raises some really good points which fly in the face of the single story told of illegal immigrants. Thus the point of this game is to dispense with these stories by realizing that one many illegal immigrants are not at all criminals, and along the same lines that they are people with legitimate reasons for being here. I think the game is a great platform for people to realize that they are probably going to make similar choices as many of those who have come over to the United States illegally.  I tried to do this by providing details only from real life accounts and moving the story in such a way that the person playing not only sympathizes with one who has crossed the border illegally but validates the decision to do so by doing the same thing themselves.  I think most Americans who play this game, if they are honest with themselves, will decide to come to the United States illegally.  And even if they do not, I hope they will at least understand more the motivations that one has in doing so. 

World Building: Game Shows > Democracy

Group Members:

David Heath

Keala Kendall

Michael Comp

Ammon Miller

Sam Woodruff

Presidential Games

Penny Shots

• Each candidate has an supply of pennies in a giant bowl
• Each candidate has an identical shot glass 5 feet in front of them (contestants must stay behind the line)
• Candidates have 1 minute to toss pennies at the shot glass
• Whoever gets the most pennies in the shot glass by the end of the minute wins!

Capture the Flag

• A classic playground game
• Candidates are presented with a row of potential team-mates
• Candidates take turns picking members for their team (coin is tossed to see who picks first)
• Once teams are picked and clearly marked as red and blue, they are lead to the arena
• The arena is clearly divided into red and blue halves
• Each team is given a flag that the candidates choose to hide
• Each team’s objective is to get the other team’s flag while protecting their own
• Candidates are in charge of team strategy
• When a team member crosses over into enemy territory, they may be “tagged” by members of that territory
• Tagged players must go to the clearly marked “jail” poles
• Players in jail may be freed if touched by a member of their own team that is not currently in jail
• Recently freed players may return unharmed back to their side before resuming game play, they may not try to capture the flag, however, on their way back
• Whichever team captures the flag ⅗ times wins!

Plunko!

• As seen on “The Price is Right!”
• Candidates are given 3 chips each
• Candidates must ascend the stairs to the top of the Plunko! board
• Candidates must take each chip, one at a time, and place them flat against the Plunko! board and drop the chips
• The chips will then fall down the Plunko! board until they reach a slot at the bottom
• Each slot is labeled with a different number of points
• The candidate with the most total points wins!

Who Wants to be the President?

• Candidates must compete in trivia questions in order to accumulate points
• Questions are multiple choice
• Questions get harder as the points get higher
• Candidates are given 3 life-lines: 50/50, ask the audience, and phone a friend
• The Candidate who is able to reach 1,000,000 points first wins!

Bouncy Slime Soccer

• Candidates are given sock’em boppers, and must wear them on each hand for the duration of the competition
• Candidates are given kickboxing helmets
• Candidates are escorted into an inflatable arena covered in green-slime, similar to as seen on Nickelodeon of old
• The candidates must remain in the area for the duration of the competition, exiting the arena will result in disqualification
• A beachball is thrown into the arena at the start of the game
• Candidates must get the beachball into their opponent's goal
• The ball may be kicked, carried, or put in the opponent’s goal by any means necessary (so long as the sock’em boppers are worn)
• Candidates can do whatever it takes to prevent their opponent from scoring a goal
• Whoever reaches 5 points first wins!

Artist's Statement:

For our World Building assignment, we created a world in which elected leaders, such as presidents, were chosen through game show competitions. This idea stemmed from our media’s oversimplification of political issues and the way that democratic elections often seem to boil down to glorified popularity contests. As we fleshed out our concept, we came to consider how the world we constructed and the world we live in reflects and influences our media aesthetics. Ever since the legendary Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960, the exterior appearance of a politician and their skill in front of a camera has seemingly become more important than their stance on the pressing issues of the day. Keeping these trends in mind, we went about creating fabricated media that would exist in this world—magazine covers, a middle school history report, and the games that might be used to select a president. Through this variety of mediums, we were able to present several different ideas and how this world would potentially function.

The catalyst for this idea was Mike Judge’s 2006 film Idiocracy, which paints a bleak future in which a consumer society obsessed with reality TV and energy drinks becomes astronomically dumber as generations go on. We at first considered a dark future like this, and there are certainly terrifying elements that a world such as this would present. We already seem to be moving towards a future in which a politician’s political experience and ability to “get things done” seems to be nonessential, and our world boils that down to its basest essence. In a game show, real-world skills aren’t important, but rather oddball talents, physical prowess, or a memorized array of useless factoids will win you the top prize.

As we discussed these parallels, we found ourselves drawn to the world—we could see the situation working, as silly as that sounds, but choosing a president based off of trivia pertinent to real world events could benefit the world. With this in mind, we knew that the “important” people of this world would be the familiar faces of TV game shows such as Bob Barker from The Price is Right and the people sought out, as political candidate advisors, would be the gaming gurus like Ken Jennings.

We aimed to represent this objectively by highlighting the draw and potential benefits that this change could have. On our Cosmo cover, we see potential progress via a female president. In Parenting Magazine, we see parents placing more emphasis on their children’s education from a younger age. The president is popular in a way he/she isn’t now—namely people want to be him/her. As a result our society is making progress by being less fat and ironically smarter. Our alternate future presents real potential benefits for society. But there is also a dark undertone to all this in that the progress probably isn’t real. The “progress” of having our female president on a magazine cover that is pretty basely degrading to women quite possibly represents a well masked digression. Either way that is up to the viewer but in the end the point is to explore this real social issue of appearances over issues and again as Bleeker says help us “think through matters-of-concern.”

In Bleeker’s essay he wrote that fiction follows fact. He explored how “design fictions” can provoke questions concerning the world. As Bleeker wrote; “Design fictions help tell stories that provoke and raise questions. Like props that help focus the imagination and speculate about possible near future worlds – whether profound change or simple, even mundane social practices.”

In our case, the design of our world followed fact in that it was based on the complexity America regards the election process and how presidential campaigns are invading late night television and common media. Our premise merely accentuated these problems and perceived interpretations of the progression of presidential campaigns.