In response to Susanna Chandler, I would like to kindly suggest that you
_first_ read the three works I cited in my last post (Arthur, Plantinga, and
MacLennan), and once you understand that the discourse I was invoking is
about the rhetorical strategies of self-presentation that the filmmakers
_themselves_ deploy in the films they make, __then__ decide if political
polemics are in order.
My mail was merely summing up the concepts of "aesthetics of failure" and
"epistemic hesitation" as they've been discussed _by their originators_ in
the critical literature on contemporary documentary. I will apologize for
that _only_ if my shorthand synopsis was misleading for the uninformed.
My project (since you seem to be so interested into turning this into a
personal thing) happens to be a critical revision of _both_ ideas to address
what I perceive to be a number of heavy-handed ideological assumptions
underlying them. One of these, to which you seem to be reacting in part, is
indeed reflected the choice of the term "failure" to describe a
dramaturgical conceit of ineffectuality and incompetence that filmmakers
like Moore and Broomfield carefully cultivate in their on-screen personas
for a variety of reasons (e.g. humor, empathy, etc.). The end result is
anything but a "failure." AOF filmmakers have actually succeeded in making
_popular_ non-fiction films. In Moore's case, these are popular films with
a message, which I find that commendable.
That said, the dramaturgy of incompetence has _nothing_ to do with the
"factuality" of the phenomena it purports to be documenting. Moore's
schtick may be a response to the fact that he is dealing with powerful, and
often quite inaccessible people (cf. Arthur on this), but this strategy of
slipping into the role of the underdog is completely indifferent to whether
the target he is chasing is the chairman of General Motors, Walmart, or Bush
& Co.
Frankly, I haven't the foggiest clue how you might have construed my brief
expository mail as an attack on Moore's political project. The other terms
you seem to be reacting to (i.e. "heavy-handed" and "prefabricated")
actually refer to the film-historical discussion regarding attempts over the
last 40 years to find alternative rhetorical strategies to the construction
of authority in classical "expository" documentaries. Expository films
employed a style of commentary that typically formulated ("pre-fabricated")
what viewers were to make of what they were seeing, and has frequently been
characterized as "heavy handed" or "closed" by subsequent generations of
filmmakers and critics. This characterization of expository film is also
not without its problems. If this interests you, I recommend reading Bill
Nichols and then his various critics, including Stella Bruzzi.
As for who is making this sort of "heavy handed" expository film these days.
Go watch a film by Ken Burns. I'm not passing judgment (I thoroughly
enjoyed his "Jazz" films), I'm merely suggesting that you watch an
"expository" Burns film and compare it to Moore's less-candid construction
of filmmaking authority, and _then_ get back to me on the political
implications of their cinematic rhetoric.
I'll leave the critique of whether Moore manipulated the chronology and
context of his "factual" content in the Columbine film to the journalists
for the time being.
Think first, re-read second, _then_ post!
Matthew Niednagel
Princeton NJ
**********************************************************************
Susanna Chandler wrote:
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 compar=
e
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.=20
Have you any information to contradict anything that was presented in
Bowling for Columbia? Would be glad to hear it.
Susanna Chandler
|