This is one of the most interesting films I have ever
been surprised by. For a long while, I
couldn’t tell what was real and what was scripted, and I still haven’t decided
which parts are “true documentary” and which parts aren’t, but I don’t think
that’s really the point. The point is
that this film was able to convey a meaning and tell a story that is important
and completely human. This film is
something that comes right out of a chapter of many, many people’s lives and
because it represents something so human, it is as true as it needs to be. I think that as long as you tell a story true
to the meaning, you are accomplishing a moral purpose.
That being said, I don’t think it’s really fair to
manipulate an audience without at least being clear what you’re doing. This film had a good balance, because it was
obvious that this wasn’t verite, but it still conveyed an important and real
message. It wouldn’t have been fair if
they presented it in a different format fooling us into thinking it’s something
that it isn’t. In the end, we all
learned something about love, which was the point of the film all along.
I really appreciated the combination of the very
different storytelling tactics that were used to drive the same points. I found the contrast of the puppetry
narratives and the in-the-street interviews to be a refreshing combination that
got me to think about what they were trying to do, and I think it was very
effective.
I haven't seen this film, but I remember hearing about it when it came out. I had no idea it was a documentary! Your response to this film has made me very curious. It was cool how you said even though you were a little confused by parts you were still able to understand the film's underlying message.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this comment that you made "as long as you tell a story true to the meaning, you are accomplishing a moral purpose." I think that is a true and thoughtful statement. I found it really interesting that even after watching the whole film you couldn't tell what parts of the story were complete fiction and what parts were "true documentary." I feel like I would be a little bothered by that as well. Why do you think the filmmakers wanted to leave the film so ambiguos? Do you think it would have been just as effective if it was more straight foreword?