When I was watching Man with a Movie Camera, a thought struck me changing my entire perspective of the film’s intention(s) and how I would continue to watch it till its end. This thought of mine turned into a puzzling (and rather broad) question: ‘What is the purpose of film?’ And what was the purpose of (this) film as a product of modernity? This query of mine arose from Vertov’s introductory imagery; A miniature of the movie maker himself standing on the top of his camera.
Initially, I found this humorous and comical. Then I began to wonder whether this was a film (for the purpose of entertaining) or a documentary (capturing some aspect of reality and the movie making process) that I was watching? In terms of being a doco, it seemed to have the basics down pat; where the action was happening the camera man went; adapting into every environment, branching out into every nook and cranny of this concrete jungle. To emphasise this movie making experience, the camera man juxtaposed close-up shots of the camera itself to the film it was taking. We see how the camera sets up the shot, and what it looks like before, during, and after the filming sequence. However, this film is also far removed from the documentary genre being silent with no characters, narrative or plot. As well, that it features people as a product of their environment – a characteristic of the avant-garde and the modern era. At one point, when scenes are fast forwarded the imagery appears surreal, people and the cityscape become incomprehensible and chaotic. To narrow down the answer to my puzzling question, I did a little web-browsing and you Tubing, till I found this brilliant clip that was not only completing inspiring, but it also raised a lot of interesting interpretations and experiences of documentary film-making, that helped me to understand my initial query into the purpose Vertov’s film; whether this was a silent documentary film – a portrayal of city life in Odessa and other Soviet cities in 1929, or whether there was a little fiction and an agenda to entertain audiences who had all the flexibility and freedom to interpret it as they wished. Because this was an experimentalist film, this freedom was all part of the process of its creation, function and value.
This You Tube clip entitled ‘Capturing Reality: The Art of Documentary Film-making’, interviewed a series infamous documentary film makers on their experience, response and attitudes to their own art practice; responses that I questioned alongside the type of film Vertov had made. Jennifer Fox said “[Documentary] is about being inspired by the moment; it’s about the joy of letting something affect you and respond, whether it’s with your camera or yourself as a person.” I responded both to Vertov’s camera that he used as a prop, and as a film maker in regards to the action and effort he made choosing what moments to capture. Scott Hicks was correct that such an experience of film can trigger ones “emotions”. He says, “It [documentary film-making] is an emotional medium, not about intellectual engagement.” It was emotional for me because it drew upon many of my senses without my understanding of the true nature of their occurrence. For example, Vertov’s use of freeze framing shots of men performing high jump, hurdles and shot put, capturing the awe of that moment was an awe of human movement, as well as the capability of his camera and film technique. In expressing this it seems that my understanding of each films purpose – in one way to entertain – is related to one’s emotional engagement and attachment that documentary films evoke. “When you see a film and you have good reason to think that it’s the truth, than your knowledge of the real world has been increased.” (Albert Mayseles) This quote to me was particularly striking, not only because it is beautifully imagined, but in the context of Vertov’s film, watching the real people in this real city, conducting daily rituals that (as well) they would do every other day, I was in many ways experiencing their reality, and thus, as Mayseles says, “increasing our [my] knowledge of the world [at a time of modernity].”
Even if Vertov’s film does not evoke a certain purpose it does not mean it doesn’t have one. And does it even have to have one? We accept his images of everyday life that simultaneously reflect the conventions of film and documentary rituals during this time. I just thought it would be interesting to travel down this road of questioning what we see, rather than just accepting it for what it is. If I were to come to any conclusion, it would be that Film is to be seen, and that is its ultimate purpose.
Watch 'Capturing the reality: The Art of Documentary' and be inspired.
Hey Clare,
ReplyDeleteI too found myself in a position where I was unsure as to whether this film was better suited to the documentary mould, or one of a more entertainment-based nature. I guess that because when I think documentary I tend to think David Attenborough and others like him, Vertov's work struck me as at the very least, a documentary film that exists well outside the conventional box, due to the absence of any real agenda (aside from his some what intangible desire to create an "international absolute language of cinema"), and his almost over indulgent use of cinematic techniques.
But I suppose that what you concluded, about film being made to be seen, can be deemed as this film's ultimate purpose, and thus can be dubbed a documentary of sorts.
Clare, (and Adam) I too had a similar quandary of how to receive, or just to watch Vertov's work. I think the main thing with film is not to think so much when viewing, but afterward, and in the moment of screening just surrender to the work, clear your mind and just enjoy it...at least that's what I told myself when I watched it haha But ultimately, everything we make (write, film etc) is made to be watched, or read, or perceived in any medium by another person/s, regardless of whether we dub it a 'documentary' or not, it's all entertainment in one way or another.
ReplyDelete