the great divide: arguing for argument's sake?

The first reading for this week, written by Paul Ward (entitled Fiction and Nonfiction: The Grea Divide?) highlights an ongoing debate between the respective genres of doco and drama that has been simmering away in the cauldron for decades. Personally, I don't see why so many people get their knickers in a twist when one mode borrows stylistic elements from the other and appropriates them as it sees fit. To me, it's kind of like that whole naturalistic VS digital photography debate... it's old! And anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get with the times and move on, and accept the fact that technological convergence has given birth to a certain convergence in genres over the years, that is not nearly as much of a bad thing as the puritans would have us believe.

Take, for instance, Aussie filmmaker Murali K. Thalluri's feature length debut of last year - 2:37. Though it was a completely dramatised account of one girl's final day in school (the day the commits suicide), it contains several interview-style black and white sequences typical of documentary, but used in this case to heighten the sense of drama and conflict within the narrative. In this day and age, filmmakers don't just use these unconventional effects willy nilly, they're there to serve a particular purpose. And if blurring the distinctions from time to time makes anyone uncomfortable, I feel sorry for them!

In postmodern times, we should be revelling in the opportunity to experiment and borrow from other genres. We plan to use aesthetic elements from both naturalistic and experimental documentaries.. there's nothing wrong with hybrids, people! If you can balance one thing with another, then that is a work of genius - not madness. The fact of the mater is, documentary to modern audiences consists of far more than your average discovery channel polemic - it requires artistry and craftsmanship if it is going to succeed against its increasingly stiff competitors - yes, including drama.

flashback

Today's lecture brought back missed memories from the Writing Media Texts days... it was great to have Christine back in the lecture theatre, and a treat to have her share her expertise in this field with all of us once more.

The primary topic for today's class was focus: we were forced to ask ourselves what we want to hone in out, topic-wise, so that our documentaries actually say something and now just show. To illustrate the case in point, we watched a bit of a documentary made last year about a Commercial Dominatrix - fascinating subject matter, but it didn't really hit the nail on the head with regards to storytelling. Thus, it didn't reach its full potential.

I think it's all too easy to get caught up in the 'drama vs doco' mindset and end up discarding elements that could enrich the genre you are working with. In the case of 'Dominate', the aforementioned doco, the group really neglected to shape the documentary with a beginning, middle and end. It might sound like basic narrative structuing here, but that's because it is - just because documentary is not fictional by definiton, does not mean that we can just do away with the basic premises that govern all forms of filmmaking.

I guess it was like a 'beware' to the rest of us - know your subject, know your focus. And most importantly, know your audience and what you want them to walk away feeling after seeing what you have to show to them...

unedited notes on editing itself

So any Sopranos fan would have been in 7th heaven on my couch last night.

Mickey Blue eyes is a flatly linear narrative... not once is there a flashback, flashforward or memory sequence (the closest there is is a recurring snapshot of Mickey 'kissing' a ditzy blonde waitress). Each shot is constructed in a logical order. Many of the shots (esp at the beginning) are also rather long in duration - adding further to the one-dimensional feel of the movie, its fluidity and freely flowing capacity.

One very careful editing technique that stands out is the use of sound and the rhythmic ordering of shots to match its tempo. The film thrives on a seasoned buffet of alternately tense and jovial 80s Italian hit songs, not to mention a fair dash of romance thrown in for good measure. There are heavy uses of non-diegetic sounds, one in particular that stands out is the loud gong that introduces us to the Chinatown (fortune cookie proposal) scene. In fact, sound (and quite often, music) prefigures image in all of the location/scene transitions, suggesting a mood-oriented relationship between it and the film's visuals. There is one part where the music is even synched up with a series of gunshots, making for an rapidly unsettling sequence among the longer takes.

I found the shot-reverse shot sequence between Mickey and Gina's uncle to be particularly inlluminating. I love how the camera is angled looking down upon Mickey, whilst it points upward the uncle, an understood sign of the preeminence that longtime gang members these longtime gangsters were surrounded with. Think Citizen Kane on a smaller scale.

As for mise-en-scene, the smoke hovering above Gina and Mickey from her uncle's cigarette is a classic Hitchcockian prefigurement of their wedding day doom.. And, in the last five minute build-up toward the speeches, real time is utilised to heighten the sense of tension that is slowly erupting as Frank is expected to shoot his newly-pronounced son in law. For the most part, dialogue drowns out the rest of the sound, leaving an odd, lingering silence as the audience awaits the trigger being pulled. This is soon disrupted by a rather loud, abrupt turn of events that ends in momentary tragedy as Gina herself is shot..

Momentary, of course, because this is Hollywood, where restoration of love in imminent and a shiny resolution is unanimous. A highly entertaining watch, with a unique element of slapstick and darkness that one can only hope we are able to mimic to some extent in the coming weeks.