Manufacturing Dissent

After watching Manufacturing Dissent has your opinion of Micheal Moore's films changed?

My opinions of Michael Moore's films have not changed, however my opinion of Michael Moore has changed. I understand all documentarians decide what footage is going to be placed into their films, and editing is a key process of this, however I feel as if Moore has left out some key components he discovered while making some of his documentaries. I still enjoy his films as they are very entertaining and send a very powerful message, however after watching Manufacturing Dissent I feel as if Moore is keen on leaving out some very powerful opinions and facts he discovered while making his films.

1. Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed. Describe an element from the film to support your opinion.

 
I feel as if the writers of this documentary were all ganging up on Michael Moore. They all believed he was stretching the truth or lying about numerous facts he had found and put in his documentaries. An example was when the filming crew was going to Moore's pep rallies in which he wanted the president George Bush removed from office. He was very adamant about his opinions of Bush which was made very clear in his pep rallies. In the documentary when they were showing these rallies, they would constantly cut to pedestrians opinions of Moore. Most of the pedestrians who they interviewed, and decided to show in the documentary were either against Moore or in general didn't particularly like him.
 

2.  How much do you agree or disagree with the ways in which they behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed? Explain your feelings and point of view by describing an element to support your opinion.

I think the people in the documentary behaved as would be expected. They all made a film about Michael Moore and the different things he has done after he has become famous as a result of his documentaries. Those things being good or bad were all expressed in the documentary Manufacturing Dissent. I personally think the writers of Manufacturing Dissent didn't think very highly of Moore, as throughout most of this documentary they were constantly finding faults in his actions. This was very clearly shown in the documentary, which I think is fine because I believe everyone is entitled to have an opinion

 

3.  Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think things may have been left out.

There was some biased opinions in the documentary. Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine (the people who made this film) also had to edit their documentary. How do we know if they are leaving out key facts or opinions from this documentary? The answer is we don't. I don't think they should be running after Moore saying he is a liar and leaves parts out of his documentaries (editing, which all documentarians have to do), because we don't know what parts they are showing us and which parts they decided to cut. Now I am not targeting Debbie Melnyk or Rick Caine I am simply countering their argument, by asking them the same question they asked of Moore in this documentary.

Bowling for Columbine

1. Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed. Describe an element from the film to support your opinion.

 
 Some people in the film displayed their distaste for the American gun laws, while others believed the gun laws that were set in place were necessary. The people of America are fueled by fear and this leads them to believe the only way they can remain safe, or to protect their family is by owning a gun. The director of the film Michael Moore indicated throughout this documentary how opposed he was to the gun laws of America. He also showed his unsatisfacation regarding the enormous amounts of shootings in the USA. When Moore went to Canada he discovered how much more Canadians trusted each other in their community and how little fear they had of criminal offences. He interviewed a few Canadians regarding guns in their community. He discovered that Canadians had a similar amount of guns in their communities as Americans did, however the shooting rate was much lower than the USA. This inspired Moore to take action, by showing America that fear of the unknown is not necessary. By doing this I believe he hopes the shooting statistics will be lower.
 

2.  How much do you agree or disagree with the ways in which they behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed? Explain your feelings and point of view by describing an element to support your opinion.

 
I thought for some aspects of the film Moore overstepped his boundaries a little bit. For example at the end of the film when he was criticizing Charlton Heston, he kept blaming him for having a pep rally (advertising the NRA(National Rifle Association)) after the shooting of the 6 year old girl at a school in Flint, Michigan. This man had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting and his only intentions was to make a profit from the NRA who he was advertising for. Moore decided to keep chasing him around his own home to gain answers from him about his intentions about the pep rally that happened later that afternoon (The afternoon when the girl was shot). I agree with Moore's opinion of the gun laws. I don't believe it to be necessary and it is only aiding in the violent acts of people within the different communities of America.
 

3.  Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think things may have been left out?

Yes there were some biased opinions in the documentary. Moore was obviously very against the gun laws that were established in the United States and this was very evident in his film. I'm sure he isn't the only person in America with this opinion, however in a documentary you want to gain insight into both sides of the argument. Moore however (for the most part) gained insight into people who had the same beliefs as he did. I think he left out more opinions of citizens who are for the gun laws because it would be contradictory to his own opinion. Since his documentary is based on the outrageous gun laws of America it wouldn't be very fitting to have more than half your interviewees agreeing and supporting the law, which is the very thing that this documentary is disagreeing with.

Spellbound documentary

1. Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed. Describe an element from the film to support your opinion.

Most of the kids in the film knew they were very smart, but  they appeared to be very timid and shy. From watching Spellbound I don't think  the kids were used to getting so much attention, just by the way they acted in front of the camera. An example of some of the beliefs they showed was when almost none of the kids believed they could win the spelling bee, however their parents have absolute faith in their children's abilities. 

2.  How much do you agree or disagree with the ways in which they behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed? Explain your feelings and point of view by describing an element to support your opinion.

 

I think the way the people behaved was very normal. The kids are probably very nervous and excited about making it on to the national spelling bee, therefore they have every right to act like that in front of the camera. For example at the beginning of the film when the kids were first being interviewed (back ground information on the children and how they came to be in the spelling bee) most of them were very shy and didn't talk very loudly or say a lot. This is understandable because from watching the first part of the documentary which was solely based on one of the eight kids, most of them appeared to be a little bit timid and shy and this never changed throughout the documentary.

3.  Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think things may have been left out?

The only thing I think they left of the documentary is the back story of a couple of the kids. They explain the back story for some of the people in the documentary, but not everybody had their back story completely explained. I don't think there was any biased in this documentary because all the kids were vey smart and had an equal chance of winning the spelling bee.

4.  How did things like music, lighting, editing, statistics, expert opinions, news footage, celebrity opinions, testimonials (characters directly addressing the camera) and the various conventions of documentary affect your opinion of what you were viewing? Describe an element from the film that demonstrates one of the conventions of documentary film making.

The different conventions of a documentary added to Spellbound by creating different atmospheres. During the national spelling bee the different types of conventions helped to display the grandiose of the competition, as well as showing the nervousness of each kid. The grandiose was displayed by the fading to black and back to colour again, and by having expert opinions about the competition. The editing was done in such a way as to keep the documentary moving and to specifically focus on the eight kids they had selected to follow on their journey through this competition. The opinions of past people who had won the competition before added to the overall effect of how large and prestigious this competition is.
 

5.  What is the overall message of the documentary? Is the message effectively conveyed to the audience? Choose one point in the film that demonstrates effective communication of the overall message.

The overall message of this documentary is be the best you can be. The message is effectively conveyed to the audience. Throughout the documentary the kids constantly put their best effort forward.  An example would be when all the kids made it through the first day of the competition. After that only a few of them made it on to the final rounds but they were competing against children who were some of the best spellers in America, however they never gave up and always showed confidence in their selves.



   



 

Ivory Wars

1. How did things like music, lighting, editing, statistics, expert opinions, news footage, celebrity opinions, testimonials (characters directly addressing the camera) and the various conventions of documentary affect your opinion of what you were viewing? Describe an element from the film that demonstrates one of the conventions of documentary film making.

The different elements effected the way I viewed this documentary because it helped to keep my interest in the documentary and effectively conveyed their message. Without the conventions of a good documentary I would still have found this documentary interesting because I care about this topic and have an interest in learning more about it, however adding the conventions of this documentary overall made this documentary more appeasing and in my opinion it captivated the audience. An example of one of the conventions of the documentary that was used in Ivory Wars was statics about where elephants travel to eat the fresher and more abundant sources of food. It showed how when the elephants left the reservation, their numbers started to automatically dwindle. Hunters and poachers would attack the elephants for the ivory that is in their tusks, but the only way to obtain the ivory is to kill the elephants when they are travelling to a place where their food sources are abundant at certain times of a year. The statics showed how the elephant numbers are decreasing every time they leave the reservation for a different/more plentiful source of food. The statics are used to help relay the message help protect the elephants for poachers and hunters.

  


This is the link to the documentary:
  http://mediastorm.com/publication/ivory-wars-last-stand-in-zakouma