I came into class excited to watch some quality documentaries.
Not only did I feel that they were poor quality, with poor storylines, I should
have known Leeper was going to try to make the conversation about animation. I
have issues with this for the following reasons. As for the documentaries
screened I felt that they did not represent quality documentaries. For
instance, the first film had poor camerawork and editing. The story was
somewhat interesting, but that doesn’t do any good if I get bored watching the so
called “documentary” in the first place. “Indie Game” was more of a documentary
than the ones we watched in class. This brings me to the question, why didn’t we
watch any National Geographic or other types of documentaries that have a much
better cinematic quality and story line. Mainstream or not, these documentaries
tell quality stories with an even better story. And the reasoning to use animation
to have a less emotional affect on people is flawed. If you are watching a documentary
in the first place, it is supposed to be shocking and emotional. You want to
feel the struggles of those in the film itself because it connects you more to
the story and allows you to sympathize with the topic at hand. To cover up or
lower the amount of emotion we get from a film, is almost as bad as censorship.
By this point, every animation kid in the class is most likely raging about how
they think I have no idea what I am talking about and how I do not understand.
Rest assured that I do know what I am talking about, and if you would like to
see a quality documentary, let me know and I’ll send you a link to one. Thank
you. Rant over. Tuesday, November 17, 2015
A Good Attempt But Not
I came into class excited to watch some quality documentaries.
Not only did I feel that they were poor quality, with poor storylines, I should
have known Leeper was going to try to make the conversation about animation. I
have issues with this for the following reasons. As for the documentaries
screened I felt that they did not represent quality documentaries. For
instance, the first film had poor camerawork and editing. The story was
somewhat interesting, but that doesn’t do any good if I get bored watching the so
called “documentary” in the first place. “Indie Game” was more of a documentary
than the ones we watched in class. This brings me to the question, why didn’t we
watch any National Geographic or other types of documentaries that have a much
better cinematic quality and story line. Mainstream or not, these documentaries
tell quality stories with an even better story. And the reasoning to use animation
to have a less emotional affect on people is flawed. If you are watching a documentary
in the first place, it is supposed to be shocking and emotional. You want to
feel the struggles of those in the film itself because it connects you more to
the story and allows you to sympathize with the topic at hand. To cover up or
lower the amount of emotion we get from a film, is almost as bad as censorship.
By this point, every animation kid in the class is most likely raging about how
they think I have no idea what I am talking about and how I do not understand.
Rest assured that I do know what I am talking about, and if you would like to
see a quality documentary, let me know and I’ll send you a link to one. Thank
you. Rant over. 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Speaking as an "animation kid" I understand where you're coming from completely. Leeper may have picked the films he did just because they were very short, but I'm not sure. I did find "Indie Game" somewhat more interesting and closer to what I expect from a documentary.
ReplyDeleteAs for the matter of emotional effect, I think it depends on what the filmmaker wants to do. I don't think a documentary necessarily needs to be shocking. I think the makers of that particular film were trying to make the theme go down easy. It makes sense to me that a film about coping with death would try to lighten the mood and avoid depressing the viewer any more than it needs to.