Reference no: EM133390321

Questions:

1. Bill Nichols asserts that a central function of documentaries is the act of representation. Broadly defined, representation means to stand in for someone else (whether it is an individual, a group, or even an institution) and to show them in a particular light. Although documentaries often seem to present unfettered access to someone else, the other's voice is always framed through the choices made by the filmmaker. In your opinion, who does Clarke represent in his film Portrait of Jason (1967)? Is it an individual, a group, or an institution? In what light or perspective does he show them?
2. Representation is never just a question of how to make a film, it is always also an ethical question. Whenever we speak in the name of someone else or provide a platform for someone else to speak, we enter into a specific ethical relationship with that subject and with our audience. Are we presenting the other's perspective accurately and truthfully? How does our perspective affect the other's speech or ideas? What is our ethical role in pushing the subject to confront their own fiction or performance with what we believe to be a deeper or fuller truth? Considering Portrait of Jason, discuss how the filmmaker constructs, colors, or shapes the speech and image of the people or groups he portrays in the film. Does he allow them to present themselves exactly as they want to be seen? Or does he in some ways change or challenge their self presentation? Select and discuss a specific scene from the film that helps you support your argument.
3. In Chapter 2 of the textbook, Nichols discusses the process of "informed consent." Define informed consent. Do you think informed consent should always be required when making a documentary? Why or why not?
4. On pages 59-66 of the textbook, Nichols discusses three different ways to describe the relationship between filmmakers, subjects, and audiences. List and briefly describe these three ways.
5. In the interview with the filmmaker of The Act of Killing assigned as a recommended film for this week, Oppenheimer states that: "I think I felt emotionally at risk being so close to Anwar. I never for a second lost my judgment of the crimes that he committed, but I insisted that I never judge him as an entire human being, as a monster. And I let myself become very close to him. That meant I was vulnerable to him when he told horrible stories. That was painful." In your opinion, did the director of Portrait of Jason stick to this rule to never judge Jason Holliday strictly for his past actions, but to treat him as an "entire human being"? Describe a scene or shot from the film that supports your position. Do you think this is the proper ethical position for Clarke to have adopted in this film? Why or why not?