Monday, February 3, 2014
I Guess We Do Have To
I think it is accurate to call it a documentary because it is the same as a documentary where they do a reinactment of the scene. Those battles that they show of the American Revolution, they dont have a camera going during the actual revolution. What they did is they found a field and they shot a recreation of the battle. Just because it is animated doesnt take away from the fact that it is a recreation. The second question which is "What can you achieve by using animation instead of photographs?" It is more effective to use animation because i felt like I was there with him as I watched him fight in battle. I wouldn't of felt the same if it was just a photograph. Also there are somethings that you can't photograph that you can animate instead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I respectfully disagree with your answer to the second question because I do not believe Mr. Folman would have solely used photographs if he had not chosen to animate the film. It's likely he would have used more archival footage similar to the final shot, in addition to perhaps some still images and interviews. I would argue that this would have had more of an effect on the audience because the images they are seeing are from reality. However this goes against the fundamental purpose of the animation in the film which was to create a disconnect between the audience and the war. By deliberating creating this distance, the director is able to make the final shot more impactful and the viewer conscious of what they have been witnessing.
ReplyDeleteHad Ari Folman used archival, live-action footage to represent the battles in the film, he would not have done so with still photographs. I sense that you've confused Waltz with Bashir's intent with the intent of something like Ken Burns' "The Civil War," which DOES use still photos and narration for educational purposes. Waltz with Bashir has the very different goal of putting the audience inside the heads of the war veterans and glimpsing part of their emotional and psychological struggles with actions that they committed. On a related note, I find your idea of being "right there with him" slightly befuddling. As Zach so eloquently pointed out, one of the entire goals of animating the film was to detach the audience from war, not put them in it. While the visuals and sound design during battle were realistic, the ultimate goal (and the entire purpose of the final minute of the film) was to hit the audience with real life at the end.
ReplyDeleteIf possible, I'd like you to expound on your final point, "Also there are somethings [sic] that you can't photograph that you can animate instead." While I agree with you, I'm curious as to what exactly you had in mind. The shots of the flares falling through the city? The motif of the naked soldiers standing in the water? The giant mermaid? How does animating things that cannot be photographed help convey Folman's vision?
I don't really understand why you felt like you were there with him in the battle field because it was animated. I feel like photographs are the ones that actually achieve that effect because they're the images from the real world, and I think we can relate our selves more to the real world than to the animated world. Therefore, I don't think that was kind of an effect Ari Foleman tried to achieve by using an animation. Plus, as you could see at the end, Mr. Foleman did have non-animated footage of the devastated city. He chose what to animate and what not to animate on purpose; and I think that purpose is something beside to make audiences feel like they are at the battle field.
ReplyDeleteI think the reenactments to the battles are more than just reenactments. They're his archival memories, and just as truthful as the events itself, as he struggles to regain those memories. Additionally, I think you need to be more specific when you suggest that "there are somethings that you can't photograph that you can animate." What are those things? How does it approach realism in a greater sense? Folman makes the choice not to animate in the .5% of the film, and having the contrast has a greater effect had he ended it with the fomer sequence.
ReplyDeleteBrian, as you can see from the comments, your post raises a lot of questions. Better to explore the possibilities before taking a position.
ReplyDeleteYour point about reenactments was at the back of my mind. It's true that they are a part of documentaries, including some very good ones (Errol Morris's Thin Blue Line comes to mind) but if almost the entire film is a reenactment doesn't that change the game a bit? Plus, the animation isn't necessarily going for realism, which reenactments generally do.