> the comic first-person routine of filmmaking & social incompetence one sees
> in the films of Michael Moore, Nick Broomfield, etc. The concept of
> "epistemic hesitation" has to do with the various ways that documentary has
> tried to create more "open" forms since the advent of the observational
> style in an effort to avoid "prefabricating" knowledge through a
> heavy-handed, authoritative voice over, etc.
Would this be in contrast to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Osama/Hussein/NRA
narrative in terms of prefabricated knowledge?
Perhaps you know someone else besides the South Park folks who graduated
from Columbia High who were there and have something to say? Or perhaps
individuals who have experienced something beyond parents who worked in a
missile factory, whatever their rank?
It did seem to me that Michael Moore's forum was based on uncomfortable
facts and hardly prefabricated. Are you prepared to go to Canada and compare
the friendliness of Princeton to that of Toronto?
Who exactly is being heavy handed these days? Hardly the voice of a
documentary film maker who happens to have struck a cord along a string of
FACTS. Try creating a narrative that would hold up as well with the current
"regime" in DC.
Have you any information to contradict anything that was presented in
Bowling for Columbia? Would be glad to hear it.
Susanna Chandler
> I have enclosed full bibliographic citations for posterity's sake.
>
> Regards,
> Matt N.
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Arthur, Paul. “Jargons of Authenticity (Three American Moments),” Theorizing
> Documentary. Michael Renov, Ed. New York: Routledge: 1993. 108-134
>
> Plantinga, Carl. Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film. Cambridge:
> Cambridge UP, 1997.
>
> Gary MacLennan. “Beyond Rhetoric (and Scepticism): A Critical Realist
> Perspective on Carl R. Plantinga.” Film-Philosophy. Vol. 2, No. 5. March
> 1998. <http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol2-1998/n5maclennan>.
|