“The police are the thin blue line separating society from anarchy” – Doug Mulder

Errol Morris’ style is quite unique in that he lets us follow these people as they re-tell the story from their perspective without any form of narration from the Morris himself or any form of appearance from him. His 1988 documentary The Thin Blue Line was this film that people either loved or hated it at the time of its release.

One of the reasons people would’ve either loved it or hated it, is that the story seemed to present itself as more fictional than a documentary with this new  style of re-enactment of the different accounts of those “involved” on the night of the police officer’s murder. Years later, the re-enactment has now become a staple for crime-drama shows and the documentary genre. Morris incorporated this into the film to provide the audience with a visualisation and a b-roll in case Morris wanted to remove a certain section in the interview.

For me, the film took a lot for me to invest myself in as it was confusing without any name titles at the bottom of the screen for the amount of those interviewed. However, Morris managed to make me invested into this case through his use of The Interrotron. Essentially, it felt like we were being personally talked to as each interviewee stared down at the barrel of the lens, as if they were piercing through our souls (well some of them).

Co-Design describes the technique perfectly:

“by shooting through a simple two-way mirror with a video monitor mounted under the camera lens, Morris can film his subject and make eye contact with him/her from the exact same angle… it’s a two-way street: the same mechanism gives the interviewee continuous eye contact with Morris, as well… the Interrotron’s subtle design genius humanizes the filmmaking process enough to break down the subject’s emotional barriers.”

Another thing that compelled me was how Morris cleverly divided each section up from Randall Adam’s and David Harris’ completely different recollections of that night, to the false testimonies from witnesses, and even the various authorities that were involved with the case over the 12 years. No wonder he was able to prove Randall Adams innocence! And how chilling was that recording of Harris’ last interview with Morris??

Although Morris’ proved Adams’ innocence, he also made a huge profit over his life story. Essentially, Adams would receive 0 profit from his life story if he were to tell his interview on a talk show for instance, while Morris would make a profit just from signing a Morris’ release form from this film. Thankfully, the case was settled out of court and Adams’ received sole use of all things written or produced about those 12 years of his life.

Morris responded to this incident by saying that “[Adams] became very angry at the fact that he had signed a release giving me rights to his life story. And he felt as though I had stolen something from him. Maybe I had, maybe I just don’t understand what it’s like to be in prison for that long, for a crime you hadn’t committed. In a certain sense, the whole crazy deal with the release was fuelled by my relationship with his attorney. And it’s a long, complicated story, but I guess when people are involved, there’s always a mess somewhere.”

Yes. There’s always a mess somewhere – especially when you try to profit from someone else’s 12 years of imprisonment and their innocence.

RESOURCES:

Pavlus, J. (2016), “Errol Morris’s Secret Weapon for Unsettling Interviews: The Interrotron”, Co-Design, Date accessed: 10/03/2018. https://www.fastcodesign.com/1663105/errol-morriss-secret-weapon-for-unsettling-interviews-the-interrotron

You do something for me, and I do something for you.

The first time I watched Crystal Moselle’s 2015 documentary film The Wolfpack, I felt this underlying discomfort throughout the entire experience – nothing changed when I viewed it the second time. This time I was conscious about these documentary ethics surrounding consent that Rohan mentioned during our Wednesday class – as Paul Byrne’s mentions in his 2015 Sunday Morning Herald review – the underage kids, their mentally handicapped sister, and their clearly delirious and drunken father. However, as Steve Thomas mentions in his article, Moselle was able to maintain much of the focus on the older siblings who are of age and are old enough to make their own decisions.

Throughout the entire documentary, it becomes obvious throughout certain scenes that the film were staged and the entire process was a collaborative between the older siblings and Moselle herself. For instance, the entire narrative is told as if it were a three act structure with the escape of one brother is revealed during the climactic stage of the story rather in a chronological order and the mother contacting her estranged mother. Moreover, the decision for the brothers’ to visit outdoor areas such as Coney Island and the first time they visited the countryside at orchard outside New York City seemed engineered entirely by Moselle. But does this collaboration makes this film to be more of a dramatization and fabrication of the film? Certainly not. Thomas further mentions in his piece that “as the old editing adage goes, you can cheat but you mustn’t lie. That is the contract”.

For me, the collaboration works in everyone’s favour where the brothers get to gain a production company named after the film and Moselle gains praise and profit from the telling and permission of their story. Their collaboration also provides this focus for their close relationship with their mother and the optimism for the brothers’ future despite their father’s abuse – the abuse having never been explicitly mentioned but hints of physical abuse towards their mum. It somewhat reminds me of this underlying discomfort with the 2015 film Room where the torture faced by the mother and child are distinct but the perspective remains on the child’s innocence throughout the entire ordeal and the strong bond he has with his mother.

The irony of it all is their dad felt misunderstood and his decision to shelter them in the apartment was a way to protect them from “the outside world which is the real jail, full of drug pushers, guns and muggers”, however, the brothers’ have shot to fame and are now part of such a public and exposed industry. Moreover, the film being sponsored by VICE – a publication known for pushing boundaries, left-wing and constantly questioning societal norms.

We must commend the brothers’ for having turned out alright despite what they have been through their entire life and using the one thing that no one could take away from them – their imagination.

Resources:

Thomas, S. (2015), “The Wolfpack and The Ethics of Documentary Filmmaking”, Pursuit. Date accessed 4/3/2018. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-wolfpack-and-the-ethics-of-documentary-filmmaking

Byrnes, P. (2015), “The Wolfpack Review: a confronting and confounding true story”, Sunday Morning Herald. Date accessed 7/3/2018. https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/the-wolfpack-review-a-confronting-and-confounding-true-story-20150826-gj7tys.html

So there’s a time to feel proud about what you’ve produced and then a time to cringe over it in a few years. I mentioned in my previous blog post that I’ve produced 3 interviews throughout my time here at RMIT and they all have completely different outcomes in both their style and their release.

I wish I could take this opportunity to analyse and mention one of the interviews that was particularly a huge learning curve for my craft in the documentary style and my boost in confidence as a filmmaker, however, I was not granted informed consent by the subject themselves. During our Wednesday class, Rohan stressed the importance of informed consent to be signed by every single person that appears in our films in the future and this wave of stressful memories clouded over me.

Informed consent: the practise of informing potential subjects, before the cameras roll, about the possible consequences of their participants.

But why didn’t this person decide to sign the form after the interview was conducted? First of all, this person is admirable and I have nothing but utter respect for them, however there were a few factors during production I wish I did and considered in order to have the outcome I desired.

Organise everything during pre-production. Rohan in our first class mentioned that in order to be considered for grant towards the making of your film you must have everything organised and documented from your pitch to your script. As an overexcited second year student with the opportunity to interview this highly regarded and established person in their field of expertise, I plunged into the production side of things and hoping to “wing it” until post-production comes along. Long story short, the disorganisation from the start kind of bit me in the ass as soon as post-production came along. You can never be too early to organise, research and document everything before going head first into the deep end of it all. Is it going to be in chronological order? Is it going to have some revelation at the end?

Stop. Collaborate and listen. One of the essential components of the studio is what I failed to even recognise throughout the entire process – collaboration. Sure, I collaborated with my fellow uni students in helping each other but I decided to embark on this journey solo without even consulting with my subject throughout the post-production side of it. I left everything to last minute where they weren’t happy with the flow and portrayal of their interview and work that I was purely fuelled by caffeine and lack of sleep throughout the remaining days until the due date. Most importantly, put egos aside and find a way to adapt your style into their story, never let your style overrule and dictate their story. The important thing to remember is that they opened up to you about their story and it’s only deserving for them to be openly allowed into the process as well.

Try and overcome that social hump. This one’s a tricky one for almost every one of us and most of it does come from experience, but we really do get nervous and awkward when it comes to initiating an interview with someone you barely even know. Firstly, I did an introductory interview in that is was candid and it was a recorded conversation between myself and them so that we were both comfortable and that I would enough content for me find a focal point for the main interview. I always have a set of open ended questions and back up questions to ask before the interview and group the questions that correlate with each other and separate them from the questions that are of a different subject in case they were needed as a filler. My mistake at the time was that the questions were too different and that I actually didn’t have a focal point that when it came down to post-production, it took me way too long to even condense the interview from 1 hour down to the required 5 minutes.

Film, film and film! Probably one of the only things that I managed to not mess up but it’s important to note that you can have enough footage. The b-roll kept rolling out throughout post-production and the exciting part is to decide which part of these shots are relevant for each section of the interview. Remember, you have the creative control!

Never neglect the technical stuff. If you’re using 2 camera’s make sure they’re on the same manual settings, everything is fully charged, you have extra SIM cards that aren’t at full capacity, lighting with correct white balance is key, clean audio that is recorded is key (obviously), lapel mic is on, everything is focused, everyone’s phone is on silent, and all mouth’s are shut unless necessary.

At end of it all, they were satisfied with what I produced. However, based on their experience in the past they were uncomfortable with the publicity of this interview in that they would rather keep it an educational level within RMIT instead of it blowing up all over social media. Certainly a huge learning curve for me but all in all, I was proud of what I was able to achieve what I was capable of both in my technical and social skills.

“One human looking another human in the eye through a lense”

Okay, so Wednesday 8:30am classes has suddenly become a time I am willing to sacrifice a sleep in for. Firstly, Rohan has such a great energy to liven up our Wednesday mornings and secondly, it’ll be my third time filming in the documentary style.

In my early years of high school, I never found myself interested in watching documentaries as I’m guilty of getting caught up in purely watching Hollywood blockbusters that lead to a “k-hole” of sappy rom-coms. It was until watching and studying Werner Herzog’s 2005 Grizzly Man in first year did I begin to appreciate and question documentary style in a broader sense. Even though documentary presents fact, the director still has the ability to control how you perceive or to what extent could Werner portray Timothy Treadwell’s life and death and the ethical debates that surround creating a film after the person has passed away.

We call this style non-fiction and often, people describe documentaries as factual content. But to what extent is a doco factual if it’s still in the hands of the director’s creative control?

“What types of ethical issues arise when we turn the camera on documentary participants, and, from a production standpoint, what creative and technical challenges arise whilst filming and editing interviews?”

The brief for They Film People, Don’t They? challenged my perception of filmmaking itself and particularly intrigued me about ethical issues within the finished product of a documentary film as a result of the production side of it all. It’s this idea of exploring that grey area portraying and condensing real life into a time frame.

Judging from the weekly schedule of our class time, I look forward to soak in as much of the fired up class discussions, explore the different documentary rhetoric’s and styles from a range of directors, and most importantly open my mind up to the various stories that encapsulates humanity as it. With that information soaked up, I hope to implement that into the next human story I tell and simultaneously gain more experience in my practical skills such as lighting and audio. But I guess the first step into making it happen, is finding that courage again to ask someone to tell their story – the need to overcome that social hurdle yet again.

According to freelance film critic Adam Cook, “being a “critic” is a natural extension of being a viewer. There’s a fine line between watching movies and thinking about them— and writing criticism”. I was confronted with this quote at the beginning of the semester because as a 2nd year media student plunging into Cinema Study essays and creating short films, I feel as if I haven’t delved into this idea of criticism enough. As Roger Ebert mentions “everyone’s a critic” in today’s digitalised and ever-evolving society that questions the legitimacy of a critic and blurs the definition of curating. Below I reflect on this studio as a means of defining what it takes to be both a critic and writer in today’s society.

Criticism is defined to be channelling your argument through providing evidence that includes the “how” explanation. Interestingly, there’s a hierarchy in film criticism where high-arts culture reviews are “snobby” and are stuck in the past that it doesn’t even appreciate the art of film. On the opposite spectrum are aggregated scored sites that lack the analytical aspect of criticism. Furthermore, issues like commercial liabilities that are often associated with media conglomerates limit a critic’s creative freedom and further jeopardises the role of a critic. On the other hand, the use of social media and the rise of bloggers further blurs this line of who or what is considered a legitimate critic.

On the other hand, curating used to only be exclusive to curators of Museum’s or art galleries for its audience. Nowadays, there are curators for mood board’s and flat lays on blogs that it becomes a personalised curating for themselves and has evolved to become driven by consumerism and is self-representing. The more I think about curating, the more I realise how much of my Facebook newsfeed and Instagram is all curated content based on the likes I give (mostly Broadsheet articles and upcoming events) or the people I follow and who they follow. To avoid this filtered and potentially biased content we’re consuming, it’s important to realise that we have to try and source information and content outside our echo chamber. As Jonathan Gold is shown in his documentary, he’s constantly surrounded by books, interactions with other writers and creatives, visits a restaurant at least 2-5 times before writing a review, and most importantly, never judges a book by its cover.

Film critic Alex Heller-Nicholas reassured us that “if you have time to think about art, then you are privileged”, a privilege that shouldn’t be taken for granted. In order to become a “great writer”, we need to be our own worst critic and the importance of surrounding ourselves with people “who will take the time to give a shit about your writing because there was one time that someone gave a shit about them” (thank you Yossi Klein). Additionally, we must always remember to always add in that story or quirk you have as a writer because that’s what makes your piece come to life and that’s what allows you to continue writing.

As someone who continually suffers from writers block, it was a sigh of relief to hear from both internationally acclaimed free-lance writers’ Philippa Hawker and Simran Hans as they openly discussed their way of dealing with such an affliction. Essentially, the way to overcome it is by distracting your brain and taking a break from staring at a blank page. More specifically, they advised us to:

• Try switching to pen and paper. Writing things down tend to stick or flow more
• Take a short break, get some fresh air like walking around the block
• Strict deadlines help in the process
• Remember that sometimes, in reality, done is better than good
• Just write the first thing that comes to your mind. Doesn’t matter if it is gibberish, it’s a start and anything is better than a blank page

They emphasised the need to “think internationally” in terms of what we write about as we may never know who it’ll attract at any given moment. As a freelancer writer, it’s about targeting the large media companies to earn what you deserve in that piece you write about, and it’s as simple as contacting them with a short email of your pitch once you’ve obtained their contact details (of course it’s not that simple at first, but it’s all in the language and your approach). In terms of finding a persona, it’s all about writing heaps and trusting in our own taste. Simran mentioned that even though you do write about a diverse range of content for different audiences, your actual persona is rarely affected.

Award-winning film critic Alex Heller-Nicholas also echoes this sentiment on taste by putting criticism into perspective as a means of taste, privilege and bias, audience, scale and detail, history, and context vs. opinion. The human trait of “taste classifies the classifier” and can become the trap for most critics as a review becomes an opinionated rant about a film without any analytical basis, but merely a reflection of that critic’s taste. Alex reminds us to constantly ask ourselves: why do people care about what I’m saying? It’s important for a critic to keep an open mind, speak confidently with self-awareness, and to trust your instinct to guide you but not govern you.

The most fearful part about being a critic is that you don’t want to be in that position where you can’t say anything about something. It’s a scary thought, especially in a world where political correctness is prevalent and where an open mind on both ends of an issue is essential to having an open discussion and to help understand one another. A fear I still need to fully conquer, but I’ve definitely noticed my gain in confidence as a writer in general beyond essay writing and more correlated with creative freedom.

(Remember to reach beyond (and more than) the stars!)

“If you have time to think about art, then you are privileged. Full stop.”

Another productive Monday from our guest: award-winning film critic Alex Heller-Nicholas. Alex put criticism into perspective as a means of taste, privilege and bias, audience, scale and detail, history, and context vs. opinion. More specifically, the human trait of “taste [as it] classifies the classifier”. Taste can become the trap for most critics as a review becomes an opinionated rant about a film without any analytical basis, but merely a reflection of that critic’s taste. Alex reminds us to constantly ask ourselves: why do people care about what I’m saying? It’s important for a critic to keep an open mind, speak confidently with self-awareness, and to trust your instinct to guide you but not govern you.

The next part of the workshop is to write a short review on the Australian short film I’m you, Dickhead and then read the reviews from others. It’s interesting to read the different perspectives people took but still conveyed the same message as you. Feel free to read mine below:

If you had the opportunity to travel back in time, where would go back to and what would do? One possibility is to convince your 10 year old self to master the guitar as a means of earning more action with the ladies – Richard, the main character of the short film I’m You, Dickhead does exactly that.

Yes, it’s one of those time travel narratives again, but its crude yet witty take on the sub-genre provides viewers with a refreshing take on the inevitable consequences of tampering with your past. Director Lucas Testro’s satire is with the exaggerated “futuristic” costuming and setting of the time travel institution combined with a nod to pop culture references from The Terminator to Transformers. Testro is aware of his target audience and with the help of the fast paced editing of Bill Irving and the tight to wide shot from Aaron Smith, he is able to condense such a complex topic into a ridiculously simple story.

Anthony Gooley’s portrays Richard accurately as the insecure boy-next-door “dickhead” – a character that everyone loves to hate as fast as his moustache continuously grow with his ego. Although, his reasons are absurd and superficial, the viewers can’t help but still empathise with his desperation and stupidity as it directs him into what he really wants – and plenty more.

If you’re a fan of time paradoxes filled with Aussie banter, then this is the film for you.

Monday is always better with a sugar / caffeine rush. Alexia welcomed us back into class with boxes of Short Stop donuts (thank you again Alexia!) and a class discussion about the critical piece we were planning to produce. Not only did we get a taste about what will soon to be some of our final pieces for E.A.C studio, but also a valuable feedback session to guide us to a focal point in our pieces.

Knowing me, I couldn’t decide between 2 ideas that I had been tossing up in my head during the mid-semester break:

• Analysing the evolution of music videos. Since when did music videos become so cinematic?
• Is there such thing as a Melbourne sound / music scene? Does it come from the location of Melbourne itself or is representative of the people who listen to certain music?

At this stage, it seems that the music video idea would be an easier route to investigate. However, judging by the discussion in class, it seems that the Melbourne sound idea has more questions that are left to be answered (challenge accepted I guess). If were to develop this as either a writing piece of video essay, I’d mainly focus on artists that have unexpectedly found international success such as Courtney Barnett and King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard.

Wednesday’s grammar session focused on the common errors we made during project brief 3. We recapped on the difference between passive and active voices, the difference between a colon and a semicolon, effect vs. affect, its vs. it’s, and the different types of dashes. As someone who struggles with sentences structure, it provided me with clarification and the importance of simply reading your work out loud can really bring out the editor inside you.

“So did anyone watch or do anything interesting over the weekend?”

Alexia always introduces the Monday session with the above question. Sometimes when I’m late I always seem to catch the class into some deep conversation about some film or latest episode of some T.V show (Twin Peaks usually). Alexia’s experience with Floatation really intrigued as she described it as if she slept for 3 days! (Something that we all really need once in a while).

The rest of the tute involved questioning the purpose of curating in the contemporary world. Historically, curating was only exclusive to curators of Museum’s or art galleries for its audience. Nowadays, there are curators for mood board’s and flat lays on blogs that it becomes a personalised curating for themselves. Someone even mentioned that it becomes driven by consumerism and is self-representing. Many of the modern curators include Oprah, Gwyneth Paltrow and even Martha Stewart. The more I think about curating, the more I realise how much of my Facebook newsfeed and Instagram is all curated content based on the likes I give (mostly Broadsheet articles and upcoming events) or the people I follow and who they follow. To avoid this filtered and potentially biased content we’re consuming, it’s important to realise that we have to try and source information and content outside our echo chamber. Expand and keep your mind open!

Our exercise on Wednesday involved picking a random show from the top our head and pick a prompt from a ~magic~ hat. The show was Scrubs and the word was body. Immediately you would think of dead or alive bodies in a hospital but my mind on a Wednesday did something weird as always:

“Everybody is a fragment of J.D’s imagination: the bromance that occurs between him and Turk, his romance with Elliot and the many incidences between him and the janitor”

Patrick added an interesting take on it; that J.D is in a coma and all of these interactions are happening in his mind. Perhaps one of the best conspiracy theories?

After our little chat about interactions with celebrities (I don’t even remember how this conversation came up), we then moved onto what is the difference between an active and passive voice?

Active: It’s all about action; who is doing what to what?
Passive: States fact at times but only use with short sentences.

Alexia recommends that active voice is preferred when writing a review as it gets to the point and has a better flow to a piece of writing. As someone who struggles with simple sentence structure, I found that it put my writing into perspective and something I’ll be more conscious about on my next critical piece.

“I woke up late this morning – as usual”

How does someone manage to keep a Monday class glued to our seats and entertained with 3 hours’ (even more) worth of stories and insight on their experience as a writer? Well, editor in chief and founder of Bread Wine & Thou Yossi Klein managed to do so.

Yossi made the point that in order to be a great writer, you need to be your own worst critic and the importance of surrounding yourself with people “who will take the time to give a shit about your writing because there was one time that someone gave a shit about them”.  He assured us that no matter what venture we may take (even if it means writing for Broadsheet for instance), always remember to always add in that story or quirk you have as a writer because that’s what makes you piece come to life and that’s what allows you to continue writing. Both Alexia and Yossi also encouraged us to explore other forms of writing such as poems as “there’s a musicality about them”. We also had the opportunity to hear one of his completed poems that could potentially be published sometime soon (seriously, keep an eye out for that)!

One thing that really struck me was the point that Alexia made that as a critic, you don’t want to be in that position where you can’t say anything about something. It’s a scary thought, especially in a world where political correctness is prevalent and where an open mind on both ends of an issue is essential to having an open discussion and to help understand one another.

_______________________________________________________________________

“I woke up late this morning – as usual” was the first sentence I selected to “fluff up” from the paragraph we were given (ironically, as every Wednesday morning, I did sleep through my alarm and arrived late to class). With only about 10 minutes to spare this is what was produced:

Shit, 7am. The snooze button had suffered enough of my exhaustion from the last 15 minutes and the many Wednesday hump days well before. I can’t help it. Why would anyone want to stop themselves from being served copious amounts of tequila sunrise? Served by –

Yeah, I had no idea how to end that sentence. Other than that, I really enjoyed this exercise as it put what I really needed to improve on in a different perspective. For instance, I found myself editing the piece throughout the 10 minutes rather than writing down what I was thinking and then editing it afterwards. This will definitely benefit me in my critical writing as it reflects how I were to describe a certain film / text to my readers.

“Think internationally”

Great Scott it’s already week 4! And probably one of the most insightful and enlightening Wednesday classes I’ve had in a while.

Internationally renowned film critics Simran Hans and Philippa Hawker graced us with their presence on Wednesday. On a side note, little did I know, until during the Q&A session that one of my favourite articles on Frank Ocean and about the film references in his songs was actually written by Simran herself! Philippa’s “Teen movies: familiar tropes of school, detention, love and growing up” review was not only a trip down memory lane, but also a thoroughly researched review that supports how Spider-Man: Homecoming embraces the teen movie tropes and executes as a highly regarded teen movie, like the ones we’ve grown up to love.

One particular nuisance I face with writing is writer’s block. Both Philippa and Simran openly discussed their way of dealing with such an affliction. Essentially, the way to overcome it is by distracting your brain and taking a break from staring at a blank page. More specifically, they advise us to:

• Try switching to pen and paper. Writing things down tend to stick or flow more
• Take a short break, get some fresh air like walking around the block
• Strict deadlines help in the process
• Remember that sometimes, in reality, done is better than good
• Just write the first thing that comes to your mind. Doesn’t matter if it is gibberish, it’s a start and anything is better than a blank page

They shared with us their life as freelance writers. Simran and Philippa both iterated to “think internationally” in terms of what we write about as we may never know who it’ll attract at any given moment. As a freelancer, it’s about targeting the large media companies to earn what you deserve in that piece you write about, and it’s as simple as contacting them with a short email of your pitch once you’ve obtained their contact details (of course it’s not that simple at first, but it’s all in the language and your approach). Remember, it’s not necessarily all about networking and at times commercial imperative can get in the way of your writing. Yes, and sometimes it gets to a point where you find yourself writing for the sake of earning an income, like for “trashy” lifestyle / celebrity fixated media outlets.

In terms of finding our persona, it’s all about writing heaps and trusting in our own taste. Simran mentioned that even though you do write about a diverse range of content for different audiences, you actual writing persona is rarely affected. Philippa and Simran told us it’s all a matter of faking it ‘til you make it as long as you know that you’re doing what you love and it’s what your passionate about (as cheesy and as cliché as it sounds, it’s true!)