Zeitgeist Critical Viewing Questions

1) Even if you have seen films like "Loose Change", did the film segment make you question or challenge your beliefs about 9/11? Explain.

This film definitely challenged my beliefs about 911. However, for some reason I find that I really want to believe it, but I can not. There are just too many things to take in to account and I think I need to see a movie just like this one, but for the conventional thinking of the attacks before I make any kind of final thoughts.

2) What documentary conventions did this film employ?

This film included many documentary conventions. These conventions included, archival footage and photographs, talking heads, (although they weren’t really talking to him) jiggly camera, narration, and real people.

3) What aspects of the film make its assertions seem true? List three facts that support their claim that 9/11 was authored by the US.

Parts of the film does seem true and the filmmakers has a few very interesting points. Part of the reason it seemed more truthful was because he was using clips and pictures from actually news reports and it’s not just him talking. There were three main facts that stood out for me. First the part about the buildings collapsing. It did look an awful lot like a controlled demolitions and it is hard to imagine how a plane crashing into the top would make it collapse from the bottom “pancake style”. Another interesting point was all the meetings with the Bush’s and the Bin Laden’s and their involvement with the Carlyle Group. A third point was how they got the money for the operation, it came through Pakistan, which is an ally of he U.S, and the official report of 911 said it wasn’t important where the money came from. I think that would be one of the most important parts about the investigation.

4) What would make you think that the film's assertions are false?

For one thing we don’t actually know anything about who made the film so right off the bat it seems a bit unofficial. Also there are always parts of a theory you can pick apart. One thing I found strange was his arguments about the planes crashing in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Was he suggesting that the planes didn’t actually crash there? That doesn’t make sense because there were many people that would have seen the planes crash. And if they didn’t crash then where did they go?

5) Why are critical thinking and research skills important when viewing a film like Zeitgeist?

Films like “Zeitgeist” are out there to try to convince you of something that goes against the conventional way people think about a topic. They are not called “conspiracy” theories for nothing. Critical thinking and research skill are important for picking out how much truth there actually is in the film. There is a reason that most people think the same way about what happened, because it’s quiet possibly what did happen.

Deborah Scranton "War Tapes" Ted Lecture

What does Deborah Scranton mean by the “disconnect” she hopes to “bridge” with her documentary?

There are many American and Canadians living normal lives at home and the war in Iraq feels very distant. It accomplishes what many feature films try to do, it creates it’s own world. These events seem happen in a different world and it is hard for the average citizen to relate. Deborah wants to bridge this gap. See tries to accomplish this by getting very personal stories. Instead of just facts its shows more of the emotional side and that is what humans can relate too.

How does media (television, news, documentaries, film) contribute to creating this disconnect?

The media adds to the feeling that it is happening in a different world form ours. It does not focus on personal feelings. It is very broad and just lists facts such as, “A car blew up”, and doesn’t talk at all about some one who may have actually been in the car.

How can a documentary like "War Tapes" help remedy or bridge this disconnect?

“War Tapes” uses real stories of real people who experienced real things. It sent video cameras with soldiers out into the field. This leads to showing more personal elements on screen. The audience can relate and see how human everyone was in those situations.

Hearts of Darkness Review

Hearts of Darkness

By: Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper and Eleanor Copola

The title of the film for this review is “Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse”. This documentary was written and directed by Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper, and Eleanor Copola. The documentary was made to show the magic and madness of making the film “Apocalypse Now” which was directed by Francis Ford Copola, Eleanor’s husband. This film explores everything that went into the making of academy award winning, “Apocalypse Now”. It shows everything from minor inconveniences like going over production time, to real disasters like Martin Sheen having a heart attack or Copola considering suicide. This film is structured in chronological order and this helps to emphasize how crucial things were when they went wrong. We all know now that “Apocalypse Now” went on to win two Oscars, but this film tries to show what it was like to feel almost certain failure and showing it in chronological order helps to build up all the different problems.

This documentary was an expository documentary. There were many different aspects of expository documentaries that were used in this film. The film was from the perspective of Eleanor Copola. She shot hours of footage during the production of “Apocalypse Now”, then many years later, with the help of Fax and George, made it into a documentary. Some of the things that they added later which made it an expository documentary were, lots of narration, archival footage and interviews.

I thought this film had many strengths. Since we are enrolled in a media studies class, we are all generally interested in Media. One thing I really like about the movie was that it gave great insight into how movies are made and what a complex and frustrating process it can be. It was also pretty entertaining and it made me want to see “Apocalypse Now”. One of the scenes I found particularly interesting was the one with Willard (Martin Sheen) in the hotel room. The clips it showed from this scene were very intense and Sheen wasn’t really following any script. The line between actor and character was broken many times during the film and this is one of the scenes were Sheen and Willard are pretty much the same person and the amount of actual acting is at a minimum. I also enjoyed the scenes with Copola and Dennis Hopper. Hopper has no idea what is going on and isn’t making any sense at all. Copola is trying to explain what he needs to do in the scene but Dennis isn’t even hearing what he is saying. These scenes demonstrate one of the many trials that Copola and all filmmakers have to deal with while making a film.

I thought the film was great, but it did have a few weaknesses. One of its problems that most documentaries share is that it is not extremely entertaining, however entertainment is not the main goal of a documentary. Documentaries set out to inform, teach or express and “Hearts of Darkness” definitely accomplished that. Also, there may have been too many clips from the actual movie. Eleanor apparently shot hours and hours of footage so there must have been many important clips that were not included. However, many of the clips were there for good reason, to show what the film ended up as even with everything that went wrong so that was necessary. They also added to the entertainment factor, which isn’t necessary, but it doesn’t hurt.

The movie “Hearts of Darkness was very good and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who has seen “Apocalypse Now”, or is interested in the film industry.