Every film makes an argument, even documentaries. I think we’re taught that good docs don’t, that they’re unbiased. But ultimately I think the notion of an unbiased documentary is impossible. Of course, I tried to make one.
When I first screened ‘”Clear Cut” in Oregon, a lot of people came up to me after the screenings and said, “Great documentary…but I know which side you were on.” And I’d say, “Oh really, which one?” And invariably they’d pick whichever side they were on. I took this as a good sign. When people ask me point- blank which side I take, my line now is, “My opinion is represented in the film.” Of course this is a total non-answer answer. There is some truth to it. I strove to make as balanced a film as possible (don’t worry, I won’t say “fair and balanced”) and in order to do that I think you really do have to see both sides’ points of view. But inevitably, you end up favoring one side over the other. I’m not going to say which one. It would spoil the film, I think , to know the filmmaker’s bias…ut good luck trying to figure it out.
In film school, my advisor and film professor, Jill Godmilow, and accomplished documentarian in her own rite, taught us to analyze every film we watched to break down the argument it was ultimately making. We broke a film into five statements, with the fifth and final statement being in the form of a philosophical conclusionary statement (If A, then B, therefore….C). It was a fascinating, rigorous, and challenging way to analyze a film, and it was also a little disillusioning.
Films aren’t always saying what you think they are saying, and this is their true power, and their true danger. They are meant to overwhelm our conscious mind with sound and image and experience, and in so doing they hide messages we often-times don’t realize we are receiving. Jill emphasized “the content of the form” and signed every email with a quote from Voltaire, “"If we believe absurdities we will commit atrocities."
As I was making “Clear Cut,” Jill encouraged me to analyze the film I was making in the form of an argument, to discern what it was I was actually saying, or at least going to say. This is a hard thing to do if your first priority is simply to tell the story in an compelling and comprehensible way, without the use of voiceover. I think ultimately Jill would want to see me make a formalist film, a deconstruction of the form and the conventions of documentary and perhaps of the film I ultimately ended up making. This would have been an interesting exercise, and maybe would have turned into a thought-provoking film, but it wouldn’t have been a great movie. So which to make, then? Obviously I went with the latter (at least the movie part). So I’m curious to know what you as a viewer comes away with after seeing the film. What messages slipped into your subconscious or conscious mind? What is the argument I’m ultimately making?
When I first screened ‘”Clear Cut” in Oregon, a lot of people came up to me after the screenings and said, “Great documentary…but I know which side you were on.” And I’d say, “Oh really, which one?” And invariably they’d pick whichever side they were on. I took this as a good sign. When people ask me point- blank which side I take, my line now is, “My opinion is represented in the film.” Of course this is a total non-answer answer. There is some truth to it. I strove to make as balanced a film as possible (don’t worry, I won’t say “fair and balanced”) and in order to do that I think you really do have to see both sides’ points of view. But inevitably, you end up favoring one side over the other. I’m not going to say which one. It would spoil the film, I think , to know the filmmaker’s bias…ut good luck trying to figure it out.
In film school, my advisor and film professor, Jill Godmilow, and accomplished documentarian in her own rite, taught us to analyze every film we watched to break down the argument it was ultimately making. We broke a film into five statements, with the fifth and final statement being in the form of a philosophical conclusionary statement (If A, then B, therefore….C). It was a fascinating, rigorous, and challenging way to analyze a film, and it was also a little disillusioning.
Films aren’t always saying what you think they are saying, and this is their true power, and their true danger. They are meant to overwhelm our conscious mind with sound and image and experience, and in so doing they hide messages we often-times don’t realize we are receiving. Jill emphasized “the content of the form” and signed every email with a quote from Voltaire, “"If we believe absurdities we will commit atrocities."
As I was making “Clear Cut,” Jill encouraged me to analyze the film I was making in the form of an argument, to discern what it was I was actually saying, or at least going to say. This is a hard thing to do if your first priority is simply to tell the story in an compelling and comprehensible way, without the use of voiceover. I think ultimately Jill would want to see me make a formalist film, a deconstruction of the form and the conventions of documentary and perhaps of the film I ultimately ended up making. This would have been an interesting exercise, and maybe would have turned into a thought-provoking film, but it wouldn’t have been a great movie. So which to make, then? Obviously I went with the latter (at least the movie part). So I’m curious to know what you as a viewer comes away with after seeing the film. What messages slipped into your subconscious or conscious mind? What is the argument I’m ultimately making?
