Paper Heart

The storytelling approach for Paper Heart is very interesting to me since it is a mix between Documentary and Mockumentary. The interviews are all real, but the story line between Li and Cera are fictional (even though they did date in real life). This sort of filmmaking may seem like a cop out, but it is, in my opinion, that choosing to have a fictional story in a non-fiction movie helped their overall theme: the situation is effected when a camera is present.

While the fictional love story grows throughout the movie, the camera becomes more and more present in their lives. Not only would they not have met each other if it weren't for their movie, but they wouldn't have broken up either. The camera effected their entire relationship, and because of that, the audience was able to recognize the camera more than just an average movie. It put the idea in the audiences head that there is an ethical boundry when it comes to filming. In the end of this film, the filmmaker decides that he needs to put down the camera to let Li have a happy life.

Then, when the camera was filming their non-fiction scenarios, the audience could pick out how the camera changes the situation in real life, too. If it weren't for the camera, some people wouldn't be as open, or as closed up. Most people wouldn't have stopped and taken the time to even talk about anything without the presence of a camera.

This was smart on the director's, Jasenovec, part, because he was able to have that control over the situation. Especially when it came to the ethical part in the end, if Jasonovek had chosen for this film to not be fictional, that would mean he would have to play with an ethical situation, and that itself wouldn't be ethical. I tip my hat to the Jasenovec in doing this because there are a lot of directors who would push the ethical issue in order to understand it more clearly, but this director steps back and finds another way to pursue this.

Scriptures

Last time I tried watching Scriptures on fitforthekingdom.byu.edu the internet failed on me.

A wonderful class assignment gave me the opportunity to finally watch it this week, so I did, and I loved it. This simple tradition, Mormon families strive to achieve as a daily practice, truly captures the innocence of children in religion. I believe that the filmmaker, Dean, effectively captured the meaning of this film by showing long shots of the children, and asking them simple questions.

Most of this documentary consisted of basic editing for longer shots, so the audience could just observe what was going on instead of feeling manipulated or scammed. The children in these shots seem used to a camera being around them, too, so most of the time they ignore it. We see them reading their part in the scriptures, fighting with the other children, and/or playing around and not paying attention to what's going on at all. The simplicity of these juxtaposed shots give the audience an understanding of how these children don't really care whether or not they have family scripture study. This reminded me of when I was a kid. I had no idea what that book was talking about, and my parent's didn't try too hard to help me understand what was going on cause I didn't care. In my mind, the director was using this to say, that to children, the important details of the Book of Mormon aren't very effective, and this is what caught my attention to this video.

At the same time, though, we have Dean asking the kids simple questions that bring out the innocence of their understanding. The basic questions were easy enough for the kids to understand and feel comfortable answering; this gave them the opportunity to show how they really felt about their family scripture time. We hear the kids fight and argue with each other, but when it comes to their religion itself, they are very respectful.

The scene that particularly stuck out in my mind was the one with the mother talking about her ideal scripture study. This is when I realized that the church expects a lot from it's younger generation. Starting at a young age will help them learn more about the gospel as they grow in their traditions. Yes, they attend the study begrudgingly now, but soon it will become a part of their daily habits.

Non of this message I received felt manipulated by Dean at all because I felt like I had to grasp for my own understand of the situation he placed in front of me. Obviously he had an idea of what he was going for, but he wasn't pushing it in my face. manipulation is playing with the mind to go a certain way, but I felt like this documentary was very open to interpretation.

Supersize Me.

Supersize Me was not just a viewing for me, but an event!

I gathered with friends at McDonalds and bought lots of delicious fried food, and then made our way to my friend, KP's, house to watch Supersize Me and devour our purchases. I had only seen clips of this film before, and this time, I was really able to see just how ridiculous this film is. I felt as if Morgan Spurlock was shoving propaganda down my throat. Maybe what he was saying is true, but at the same time, they are over exaggerated and manipulated. Of course someone would gain weight if they only ate McDonalds for every meal! Only an idiot would believe otherwise. The food is grilled in grease, smothered in sauce, and topped with cheese. The whole time I was watching this documentary, I was making snide remarks on the molded truth such as this, because his "facts" were flipped around to sound worse than it really is. Then, after finding one falsely put statement, you can't help but notice the rest.

There is one scene especially that sticks out to me, and it's the one where he pukes out his window. I felt especially manipulated here because I actually did feel sick at first. However, when I thought about it, I realized what kind of a wuss would throw up McDonalds just because they've had it for the past couple of meals. Even still, that scene manipulates me in feeling sorry for the chump for not exercising.

I think that these over-exaggerations had a positive and negative effect on Spurlock's overall objective. First, the positive. Because of this harsh, fast pace take on fast food, people did become more aware of the health hazards involved. McDonalds became so attacked that now, they no longer have the "supersize me" items on the menu, and they have even added salads to make them seem more healthy.

The negative, however, is a completely different story. To a lot of viewers, Spurlock's point backfired. This documentary became so popular because people realized how ridiculous Spurlock's points were, so now, people were going out and buying McDonalds to have Supersize Me parties (like I did). By the end of the movie, the audience isn't disgusted with McDonalds, they are craving it. They are more disgusted with the filmmaking; at least, I was.

I feel if Spurlock were to have given out facts more innocently, I would have been more repulsed with fast food. Maybe if he went behind the scenes and exposed how they made the food, I would have been less likely to eat it. Perhaps if he wouldn't have gone about it so harshly, or repetitively, I wouldn't have been so offended with his cruel analysis. In fact, I found this film to be so manipulated that it is unethical. I feel it is unethical to tell someone what you are saying is true, when in fact you are bending reality. That is the overall reason why I didn't like this film.