Navy WW II - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdgPstNlfWQ
PETA undercover https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6zx0Oju8U4
Monday, September 14, 2015
Aufderheide's documentary sub-genres
Navy WW II - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdgPstNlfWQ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought the documentary on the Navy in WWII fit best with Aufderheide's definition of propaganda. The film was made in 1946, right after World War II had ended and the Japanese had surrendered after the United States bombed the country. I think the film was in part justifying the use of the bombs and also aiming to increase patriotism in the country after a long war. The Americans in the video were set up as far superior to the Japanese, all the footage showing American soldiers and artillery. It depicted the struggles of the soldiers but showed that they still managed to overcome every obstacle through team work and power. It describes the artillery very thoroughly, as if all of the weapons and gun powder equaled power. Instead of describing both sides, it focused solely on the Americans and referred to the soldiers as "our troops", in order to increase unity in the audience. At one point it said that the Americans used a strategy against the "already technically defeated Japanese." At the end of the video, the narrator wants the audience to admire the military and be gratefuly, saying that a certain action was "especially praiseworthy." This aligns with Aufderheide in that she says governments used documentaries as propaganda, especially in times of war, as is the case with this video. The video reminds me that history can be biased because it is often written by the winners. Propaganda is only effective when the power dynamic is in favor of the producers of the propaganda.
ReplyDeleteI would classify the New Orleans video as an advocacy piece. It is not produced by the government or a network and comments on a public issue, the fact that tourists could pay to tour the city and see all the devastation. The producer of the clip asks people to "speak up" and sarcastically asks if tourists are coming to see the wreckage, should it be rebuilt? The video discusses a social cause and advocates for the people of New Orleans.
The PETA video is also an advocacy piece. It investigates a big company selling monkeys to labs and for testing. It depicts the cruelty that the monkeys are subjected to and at the end addresses the audience by saying, "You can help stop this." This is an advocacy video because it calls for the audience to act to remedy a social justice issue. It causes the audience to empathize with the monkeys. As Kahana says, documentaries cause people to identify "with another sort of group" (4). While he probably was referring to groups of people, this can also be extended to groups of animals. It also "induces emotional effects in viewers...that correspond to the physical pain depicted in the film" (5). The audience feels the pain that the monkeys feel, and this causes them to want to act. Kahana says that documentaries such as this are intelligence work because they make "visible the invisible or 'phantom' realities that shape the experience of the ordinary Americans in whose name power is exercised and contested." (9). The clip from PETA exposes the cruelty that the monkeys were put through, and even though we don't see it happening, it is part of our society that shapes how we live. It should be a goal of documentary makers to expose the daily events of injustice that make the rest of our lives comfortable.
Thanks for bringing Kahana into the discussion. I'd also add to your thoughts about who writes history (the victors), more from Aufderheide when she writes, "History is not self executing, it’s written by people in the present searching for useable past, often written on top of or as revisions of earlier narratives, sometimes asserting a presence where previously there was only an absence."
DeleteIn watching the three videos, I would classify the Navy World War II video as propaganda. When I first viewed the film, it seemed as though this piece was a historical documentary. However, the ending swayed my perspective toward a different direction. The implementation of the United States of America Navy Department logo underneath “The End,” along with the phrase “Keep the Fleet to Keep the Peace” allowed me to understand the fact that there was this governmental motive behind this film that began during the wartime and that this work is considered to illustrate the U.S. naval efforts against the “japs” or “the enemy.” These efforts were displayed in such a way where the government was trying to illustrate that there should be a high degree of respect and admiration given by the public audience for the U.S. Navy.
ReplyDeleteThe New Orleans Post Katrina video represents in my opinion an advocacy documentary with propagandistic elements. The film utilizes signs such as “Help,” “We Are Still Here,” “This is what you paid to see right?” in order to convey that tourism and the entertainment value of New Orleans are the elements very much focused on as opposed to the destruction that took place resulting from Hurricane Katrina. There is an aspect of satire to this film as represented by the editing of the scenes to be in a rainbow filter, and also the music in the background creates an unsettling feeling for the viewer because in portraying the destitution that has consumed New Orleans, there is “more money to be paid in devastation then regeneration.” I think this quote borders on a propagandistic notion as that the viewer is being told what is wrong and is being exposed to a very manipulated view of New Orleans encouraging viewers to help rejuvenate New Orleans.
PETA undercover is an example of a public affairs documentary in that there is this problem oriented approach to the way that the monkeys are being filmed where caged monkeys are captured, there are workers grabbing these animals in a harsh and violent fashion, and the film just illustrates disturbing conditions in general. The filmmaker is pointing more toward the issue at hand than any editing or manipulation. The documentarian is acting as an investigative journalist, presenting an authority that hopefully can be a trusted one.
From Kahana, the notion that “publics are seen as scenes of self activity of historical rather than timeless belonging and of active participation rather than ascriptive belonging” is something that I thought of when I was watching the New Orleans post Katrina film because the piece was basically asking the audience to engage with the situation of destruction in this location and looking for action in the form of regeneration rather then just having those passively observe what has occurred. The atmosphere of uneasiness in my opinion is an integral part of the piece calling for “active participation.”
The post-Katrina vibe in NOLA was a period of enhanced division among poor minority communities and wealthier investors anxious to gentrify the area. Showing the "poverty" and heartlessness of capitalism was one way to shout for social action.
DeleteThe Naval Gun at Okinawa WWII video from 1946 was a definite example of Aufderheide’s definition of government propaganda. This video read as an educational and informational account of the Battle of Okinawa shown through interactive maps, photos, and video clips. The narrator downplayed the violence by stating what happened on the side of the American military in a matter-of-fact way. As Aufderheide included on subgenres, this short documentary is obviously used to influence public opinion on viewing the very violent attacks by the military on the Japanese soldiers. There was a clear agenda in the language used in this video by the narrator’s reiteration of the “control” and “coordination” the army had over their ammunition and the attacks themselves. In order to keep with their agenda, the video never showed images the Japanese, only of American troops “struggles”, and they spoke about the
ReplyDeleteJapanese soldiers in a distanced tone, i.e. “neutralized the japs.”
The post-Katrina video titled New Orleans For Sale is an example of an advocacy documentary. In this organization’s case, 2-cent.com are, in the words of Aufderheide, “promoting their own perspectives is regarded as contributing to a vital public sphere” (p. 77). They are using their freedom of speech in a kind of spoken-word trailer commenting on the touristy element of disaster aftermath areas, specifically New Orleans. This is an example of an advocacy type documentary because they are asking bystanders to “speak up” about this unsympathetic behavior. This video also connects to Kahana’s idea of documentary evoking different forms of public scrutiny. In this case, the “buses of white people” who drive through the rubble like a tourist attraction, doing nothing about the devastation they are seeing, are the ones being called out. This is shown through the signs held by the men that read “we’re still here,” “America did this,” “Tourism $$$,” and “you are also being filmed.”
The PETA Eye Witness Investigation: Inside the Hub of the Global Monkey Trade video shows the abuse of monkeys by laboratory dealers, which is a supported example of the public affairs subgenre. Aufderheide explains these as documentaries that normally deal with “an investigative or problem-oriented approach” and which make ample use of background footage, while focusing on representative individuals as they exemplify the issue at hand, which in this case are the abusive laboratory workers handling the monkeys. This applies to PETA representatives, who can be looked at as investigative journalists which work closely to undercover abuse of animals and act as Aufderheide stated, “a watchdog on power” (p. 57). This video could also be argued as an advocacy documentary due to PETA’s slogan “you can help stop this” that appears at the end of most of their videos.
PETA is an organization similar in mindset to other activists fighting against what they perceived as inhumane injustices impacting the public interest including the logging industry, petrochemical (e.g., fracking) industry, or Occupy movement, etc. Often their tactics are beyond protests to actual destruction, trespassing, human chains, etc.
DeleteThe first documentary, Monkeys Abused by Notorious Laboratory Dealer: A PETA Eyewitness Investigation seemed to have strong ties to an advocacy documentary. Aufderheide claims, “whatever the perspective, advocacy organizations and nonprofits are beneficiaries of the implicit pledge of documentary to be telling an important story about real life in food faith” (Aufderheide 90). Essentially, advocacy documentaries support a social topic that contributes to the public sphere and surrounds a topic that people care about. In this particular example, PETA is advocating for fair treatment of monkeys as they show footing of monkeys scared, cowering in fear, and they show workers violently handling the monkeys. The narrator’s adjectives also evoke a specific emotion and have specific tone that evokes sympathy within the viewer. PETA says “you can help stop this” by going to their website…but who is you? This can tie into the notion of a public, which Kahana talks about in his piece, The intelligence work of documentary. Kahana explores the notion of a public, explaining that there can be multiple publics and the word itself can consistently be redefined over and over again. This advocacy documentary can reach out to multiple publics, such as zoos, animal rights groups, the everyday person who feels sympathy for these animals, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe second documentary, New Orleans For Sale, seems to be a little more complicated in terms of fitting into one, specific subgenre as defined by Aufderheide. While there does seem to be advocacy in raising awareness for the devastation effects of Katrina that continue to exist for tourism, there also seems to be hints of propaganda in the documentary as well. The voice of the narrator doesn’t seem to hold much credibility on the matter other than his personal experience, which can give him some authority. However, it seems like he is finger pointing and being somewhat aggressive, which makes me believe the documentary to be more of a propaganda film. I think that there are subtle differences between advocacy and propaganda documentaries and a lot of the difference comes from tone and who is the voice of the documentary. This particular example seems to teeter on the edge between the advocacy and propaganda subgenres, as defined by Aufderheide.
When I first began watching The Naval Gun at Okinawa: WWII Documentary Film 83182, it seemed to be more of a public affairs documentary with its very expository approach. The expository mode is very cut, dry, forthright, and direct in its approach. The voice of the narrator is very logical in its explanation of the events that took place at Okinawa. However, as the documentary progresses, it becomes more and more of a propaganda film. Aufderheide says that there is a common association with propaganda documentary and government organizations. In this case, the government is justifying its use of naval guns by describing them as integral to the success of the army at Okinawa. The strongest evidence that this is a propaganda documentary is the summary at the end of the film with the music playing in the background. Aufderheide mentions, “viewers do not surrender easily to propaganda they can identify” (Aufderheide 73). At the beginning of this documentary, it didn’t feel like a propaganda film and perhaps that is how the government and the filmmaker drew the audience in.
Imagine watching the WW II film in your local theater as a young adult. The film worked to garner support at home for the war efforts and at sea for those on ships.
DeleteThe documentary film, “The Naval Gun at Okinawa,” definitely contains characteristics of a propaganda film. Autherheide explains propaganda film as being most prevalent in the time period before, during and after World War II. This film was released in 1946 which was in the same time period as the height of propaganda film. An interesting aspect of this documentary sub-genre is that it is designed to be highly influential on the audience’s thinking, yet it does so in an inexplicit way. Often times propaganda films don’t out right tell you to think a certain way, yet they present a glorified presentation that is meant to make you feel, think or believe a certain point of view. “The Naval Gun at Okinawa” presents aspects of propaganda film because it portrays only the positive skills and tactics of the U.S. military in WWII. The film only emphasizes the technological advancements and success of U.S. warships fighting in Okinawa. The music that was used in the beginning and end was motivating and uplifting. It gave off a sense of accomplishment. Through demonstrating only instances of U.S. military success and accomplishment, the documentary makes U.S. audiences feel proud and in full support of U.S. military operations. In our reading “Intelligence Work,” Kahana mentions a quote where Paul Rotha explains documentaries as having a purpose to not only persuade audiences for today but also for the future. This can be demonstrated in the film “The Naval Gun at Okinawa,” because you can see how watching it today invokes feelings of patriotism and pride in U.S. military operations in WWII. These are most likely the same types of feelings that it sought to invoke in 1946 as well.
ReplyDeleteThe film, “New Orleans for Sale,” highlights the twisted idea of “disaster tourism” in the setting of post hurricane Katrina New Orleans. I believe this film fits into Autherheide’s description of advocacy film. Autherheide describes advocacy film as an outlet for allowing many different people the opportunity to have their voices heard. She describes this as being “healthy” for a society. These advocacy films typically highlight issues and causes that often go against the status quo of mainstream media. In the case of “New Orleans for Sale,” we heard from the voices of people who had lived through hurricane Katrina as they demonstrated an aspect of post Katrina New Orleans that we don’t typically see in mainstream media. They highlighted the concept of people paying money to look at the devastation and the suffering of other people. This is an activist film in the sense that it wants people to stand up against this horrifying sense of “tourism,” and instead put efforts and use that money to help rebuild the city.
The last film we looked at titled, “Monkeys Abused by Notorious Laboratory Dealer | A PETA Eyewitness Investigation,” could best be described as an advocacy film as well. At the end of the film the narrator says, “you can help stop this.” These words fit perfectly with Autherheide’s description of advocacy films as “tools of an organization’s mobilization for action on specific issues or causes.”
Despite the fact that the above discussion places each of these films into particular sub genres, watching these three videos also reinforced what we discussed in class about the often blurred lines that exist when trying to categorize documentaries into specific sub genres. Many times films contain characteristics of various sub genres which makes it hard to define them as only fitting into one specific category.
I'd suggest considering how propaganda works today especially when we think about 1) the technology, social media, the hundreds of channels for our eyes and ears to consume and 2) the government's response to 9-11, to ISIS, and to other areas of conflict like Syria, Ukraine, etc.
DeleteShortly into New Orleans For Sale!, I realized that this short video fit Aufderhide's description of an advocacy documentary quite well. The government has not had any involvement with its filming, and the group of individuals behind it are using it to raise awareness of an important social justice issue, in this case the tourism of the ravaged New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Throughout the video, they hold signs with messages emblazoned on them such as "America did this" and "Help" while the narrator sarcastically describes the still devastated city as a tourist attraction, with distressing music playing in the background. All of this, as well as the narrator's urging of people to "speak up" provides a powerful message to viewers that something must be done to ameliorate the problem at hand.
ReplyDeleteAs for Monkeys Abused by Notorious Laboratory Dealer: A PETA Eyewitness Investigation, this also can be defined as an advocacy film. The documentary, which is an investigation of the global monkey trade, conveys both visually and verbally the abuse that the monkeys face on a daily basis, specifically at the hands of dealer Primate Products Incorporated. We see the monkeys being grabbed by their tails, left alone in tight cages, and cowering together in terror at the sight of their abusers. Somber music plays throughout. At the close of the documentary, viewers are reminded, "You can help stop this". This is clearly a call to action in an important and alarming social justice issue. As Jonathan Kahana stated in his piece, The Intelligence Work of Documentary, "the film... induces emotional effects in its viewers- sadness, pain- that correspond to the physical pain depicted in the film." (Kahana, 5)
Lastly, Aufderhide would most certainly brand The Naval Gun at Okinawa a propaganda film. The story of what happened during the portion of World War II detailed is told only from the perspective of the US Navy. We only get a sense of the progress of American soldiers, with the narrator practically applauding every victory over "the enemy" (the Japanese). If the tone of the film is not enough to convince one that it is propaganda, then the ending will; on the final still, the words "The End" are superimposed over the Navy Department logo, with the slogan "Keep the Fleet to Keep the Peace" underneath. Clearly, the makers of this film wished to incite patriotism in the American population and remind them of the importance of the country's navy in the victory of the war.
You note their signs that read "America did this" which illustrates the profound resentment of egregious way NOLA was treated. The feelings are felt most deeply by those former residents of the ninth ward.
DeleteThe PETA documentary is an advocacy piece in that it is appealing to its watchers to do something and take action to support the cause that produced the video. It is trying to get the viewer to think a certain way about animal abuse, the same way that the producer feels. While the producer is doing this though they are still leaving room for the viewer to make his own decision but is definitely trying to make the viewer feel a certain way. A giveaway that this is an advocacy piece is in the dramatic appeal to emotion at the end of the clip where it says “YOU can make a difference.” This kind of emotional appeal is what I think Kahana was talking about when he talks about Boltanski’s idea of “distant-suffering.” This idea talks about images, visual or otherwise, that evokes emotion of sadness and pain and helps us to identify with the victim being portrayed in the film. In this context, PETA is hoping to make us feel the pain the monkeys are in so that we help them.
ReplyDeleteThe World War II gun documentary is probably a propaganda documentary. For me, the first giveaway is that it was produced by the American government. The producers also do all they can to justify the actions of the Americans in killing the Japanese, in fact I think the overly zealous justification is what gives this film away as a propaganda film. As further evidence, this film is factual to the extent of my knowledge, but only gives the facts that make the Americans look good.
The New Orleans commercial is very similar to the PETA clip as the New Orleans clip would definitely fall into the advocacy sub-genre of documentary as well. Once again, this film is acting as a call to action as evidenced by the text on the screen saying “speak up!” This film is highlighting little known facts such as the fact that people pay to tour areas devastated by Katrina, to start conversation amongst the public.
Both the PETA and NOLA pieces use spectacle to touch raw emotions. Some scholars have been toying with the idea that it's like porn---as in riot porn, diversity porn, food porn, torture porn---using salacious or grotesque imagery to push a visceral response--not necessarily a solid argument.
DeleteWhat I found surprising about the Chanan piece was the fact that Zapruder's footage was highly revered for being simple and minimal. Even though his technique was considered amateur, the content of his films was quality rich. The raw nature of his filming could be taken as the equivalent to shooting from the hip in photography because Zapruder took the approach of filming where he was and not changing the camera angle. However, as I read further, one part of the piece that struck me related to the fact that truth is objective to what the lens sees, but is subjective to the partial point of view. What I am considering is that if Zapruder was spontaneous and somewhat sporadic in his filming could he be thought to obtain more of a level of objectivity if he was not manipulating the camera angle?
ReplyDeleteWhat I found confusing was Chanan's explanation of the notion that what appears on the screen is a sign and not a reality. What is perplexing to me is that in my head realities are created whether it be in photography, or film through the simple fact of taking bits and pieces from what is in the real world and creating something new from it. Is the sign that what which visually sparks the idea of a reality in the person interpreting the documentary? What is the actual way in which semiotics works as a process in terms of a documentary?