film stand
"The Simpsons: Made in America" almost eschewed the evidence that could legally "excuse" Simpson, or acquitted him, and spent nearly 6 hours (the first four parts of the documentary) laying the groundwork to prove that Simpson was acquitted. An acquittal is an exit that the long-standing racial problem in Los Angeles needs to solve. It is not only about how Simpson's individual case is sentenced, but also a symbol of whether the black community is being treated fairly and reasonably. Therefore, the result of the Simpson case is also It has become a product of the development of the black affirmative movement to a certain stage.
If the film's meaning only stays on this point, the film will be no different from the media that chased after the case and reported the wife murder trial in every way, and this film surpasses the latter in the documentary. The fifth part is reflected. In the fifth part of the film, Simpson's life after his release is explained, and it is emphasized that the white society no longer accepts him, and in the subsequent civil lawsuits, Simpson was put together by a mostly white jury. Was ordered to pay $33 million in punitive damages. It's not over yet. Simpson was sentenced to 33 years in prison by the judge (a white female judge) in the 2007 burglary case - usually a small case with a sentence of several years.
So far, the film's meaning has gone a step further. It shows that the acquittal of the wife murder case is actually a coercion of a social movement, and the two other sentences against Simpson since then became the revenge of the white society for it, and it shows that the race The problem has distorted the judicial decision. It is not a condemnation of the black community for a dislocated satisfaction in the murder of a wife, but an indictment of the white world's revenge for it. It is intended to explain the racial shadows shrouded in history. In the question, if white people still rely on their own advantages in resources to treat black people unfairly-whether or not "revenge" is involved, then the gap between races will never be bridged, then the unjust judgment like the wife murder case-is it unfair? Let's talk - will come again. In the film's vision, Simpson does not appear as a person, but as a symbol, so because the racial issue cannot be bridged, the sentence for him has never been fair.
Leaving aside whether the film has any flaws in the presentation of arguments, as far as this film is concerned, it clearly shows the proficiency of the creator's creative skills. It is through these subtle techniques that the audience can be well immersed in the film. If the documentary is regarded as a way to interpret the world, then the interpretation method of this film is undoubtedly superb; if the audience is watching a documentary and hopes to be persuaded or moved by the documentary, then obviously this documentary can satisfy the audience. needs. The author tries to analyze what kind of skills and techniques it uses to achieve its purpose.
Although documentaries do not have as many elements as other feature films, several basic film elements such as photography, editing, and soundtracks are still preserved. As a documentary that takes into account historical events and takes into account the narration of the parties, almost half of the materials are directly obtained from the original video materials, so editing has become one of the few basic creative skills that the creators can use. But the editing skills alone have achieved excellent results.
The first is the structure of the whole film. In The Simpsons, cross-editing and parallel editing are the basic editing techniques throughout the film. The structure of the whole film is by first explaining a period of Simpson's growth and fame, and then parallelly explaining the events of racial issues in Los Angeles during this period, the development of racial movements, or vice versa. This approach has obvious benefits: through repeated reminders and emphasis, the audience can clearly understand the point of view the creator wants to express under the training of the first three parts-Simpson's exoneration is inseparable from the development of the racial movement in Los Angeles contact. Not only that, but this approach implicitly expresses the creator's position: Not only is Simpson's successful exoneration due to his race, but his success is also inseparable from his race. Looking at Simpson's remarks about his "super-race" and "weakening the race" selected in the film, this veiled position is obviously a refutation of the former. The establishment of this position takes Simpson as an example from the film's affirmation of black people's movement for their rights - just as Simpson attempts to "detach" himself from race. As mentioned above, the creator disapproved of the white man's revenge against Simpson in the fifth part of the film, and the juxtaposition of "Simpson" and "black group" also shows that Simpson lives in the black group—— Simpson's exoneration -- at the same time, pitting Simpson against the entire black community, what he wants to express is that white people cannot deny all progress brought about by the racial equality movement because the Simpson case did not achieve the expected results. Because of Simpson's despicable personal character, etc., it denies the efforts of black people to fight for the rights of their own race for many years.
The second is the handling of narrative paragraphs. Creators are faced with a vast sea of video materials. It is not easy to classify and organize these video materials into paragraphs with clear meanings. However, the effects of many paragraphs in the film are beyond expectations. The author will take the pursuit of Simpson as an example to illustrate. The hunt for Simpson appeared in the third part of the film, and the creator spent thirty minutes describing the process:
In the picture, the Los Angeles Police Department announced at a news conference that Simpson did not show up for the appointment on time and surrendered to the police station.
Interview with prosecutors, "Simpson is now a fugitive suspect."
On the highway, a voiceover "attempts to locate suspect 187, target surname 'Simpson'."
Simpson's lawyer read Simpson's letter at the press conference, in which he claimed that he did not kill his wife, and inserted pictures of Simpson playing with his family on the beach, Simpson's high spirits on the football field, etc. The content of the letter became a voice-over, and then the picture was cut back to release. At the meeting, the lawyer announced Simpson's whereabouts at the press conference, claiming that Collins was with Simpson.
A return visit to a childhood friend about Collins being able to work for Simpson: "OJ and Collins were on the court, we had starting guns, and everyone backed away in fear, and Collins stood in front of OJ and said, 'If you If you want to shoot OJ, you shoot me first.'"
The helicopter hovered over the highway, with a voice-over "...white wild horses come into view, followed by police cars."
The variety show on CBS was switched to a special report on Simpson's escape, interspersed with memories of the news reporter of the year.
The return visits to the operations captain and team members who were in charge of the pursuit and the prosecutor of the Simpson case were interspersed with live broadcasts.
In a return interview with the news reporter, talking about the unusual behavior of the police when they were chasing Simpson, cut into the scene of the police car intercepting and stopping the pursuit vehicle, the voiceover: "If Simpson was just a black man, this would never have happened, he would have been dragged long ago. Come out and kick ass." (alluding to the Rodney King incident)
A return interview with the officers mentioned that Simpson was going to drive home.
A return visit to a negotiator. "
A large number of people (mostly ethnic minorities) blocked the highway exit, holding signs "Release OJ, we love OJ", the voice-over was a return visit to the news reporter: "This is not a farewell to OJ, this is the biggest carnival in Los Angeles history. ".
Simpson continued to drive in the direction of home, interspersed with the interview with the prosecutor that year-the interview was over but the camera was still on, which the prosecutor found ridiculous, and the return visit to the police captain.
Simpson's car returned to the courtyard. In the picture, police cars, police officers, and the masses have surrounded the entire area. Interspersed with return visits to negotiators, captains, and police officers, they all said that they had to be handled cautiously. "We are recovering our reputation from the Rodney King incident. Whether this matter is handled properly is very important."
The crowd gathered outside the house, the police stopped them, and the picture cut to a black woman: "How do you know if you and the prosecutor have shaped the evidence and forced him to be like this."
Simpson got out of the car and yelled at the policeman at the door. The voiceover was the policeman's live recollection.
A return visit to the negotiating expert to discuss the details of the negotiation.
Simpson took the initiative to get into the police car. Police cars took Simpson away, crowds filled the road, black people slogan "Free OJ". The voiceover is the recollection of the negotiator. "After we set off, Simpson was surprised by the crowd outside. He couldn't believe how many people had gathered. He said: 'What are these old blacks going to Brentwood for'."
The return visit to the action captain summed up the whole incident, "The whole incident is very strange. I have seen everything in the law enforcement team, but there is nothing like this."
By editing more than ten different sources of material from three categories—video materials before the Simpson incident, news materials of the year, and interviews with participants, the documentary takes this process more easily than most feature films. Drama and tension. And while ensuring narrative and drama, we do not forget to intersperse the connection between the handling of this incident and the previous Rodney King incident, reminding the audience once again of the relationship between the Simpson case and previous racial incidents: not only the Simpson case During the trial, even Simpson was not "roughly" treated by the police during his escape, all because of the sacrifice of his predecessors. At the same time, it also used the memories of negotiators to re-emphasize Simpson's personal despicableness - when he benefited from his racial identity, his fellow races avenged him, and complained, his response was "these old blacks came to Brentwood (rich and rich). What are you doing?”, which repeatedly reminded the audience of an idea: the racial equality movement for many years cannot be denied because of Simpson’s personal despicableness.
The third is the arrangement and processing of the narrative paragraphs in the film. This film not only does a great job in the whole and large narrative paragraphs, but also in the handling of many small narrative paragraphs is worth pondering. For example, there is a scene in the passage that reads the results of the Simpson trial, which is filmed as the reaction of the crowd outside the courtroom. First of all, a parallel clip is used to express the tense atmosphere at the time: the people standing on both sides of the street were not talking to each other, the mounted police were walking on the street, and the police were very nervous. When the voice-over was announcing the result of the trial, the camera fell on this picture: the black group cheered, and the horses of the mounted policemen in front of them were frightened and retreated-the mounted policemen on horses were all white, and at this moment, the blacks won. . From a narrative point of view, the scene in the courtroom when the results were read out has been played before, so this paragraph has become a piece of idle writing that does not undertake the task of narrative, and arranges a piece of idle writing to make people nervous - just like putting people together The well-known cases are filmed as touchingly - the "results" of the completed narrative are recounted, and the delay and other techniques are still effective, and at the same time, this seemingly simple paragraph is very intriguing.
flaws
If only from the perspective of the completion of the documentary, "Simpson" has undoubtedly reached a very high level. The creators are very skilled in the use of techniques, so that this film is very convincing. Its success is largely due to It's a very simple point of argument with extremely abundant material, it doesn't arbitrarily branch out multiple meanings in nearly eight hours of text, and it doesn't intend to complicate the meaning of the film. Add in, everything is purified, just as genre films purify life to strengthen a certain idea.
If you compare "Simpson" to a genre film, it can undoubtedly be regarded as the top class in the genre film. It not only presents a tense and intensely oppressive action scene through hearty editing, but also uses high-intensity. The visual materials impact the audience's senses, and at the same time tell the story in a simple and easy-to-understand way.
"The Simpsons" is obviously desirable as an opinion documentary, or a social documentary. This kind of documentary has the creator's perspective on the world, or wants to demonstrate a certain fact, expose the essence of some world, and try to convince the audience, Also nothing wrong. This film combines a large number of video materials to express its own opinions, which seems to be beyond reproach, and it also confronts the audience with such an eloquent attitude.
The flaw in "The Simpsons" is of course not that it has a point of view, but that the creators have a preset position-the creators almost constructed the text around the issue of race, rather than getting the film's inspiration by arranging the materials. in conclusion. This will bring about a very serious problem of narrative logic, or argumentation logic: if it is to prove that the whole case is surrounded, entangled and disturbed by racial issues, Simpson must be proved guilty, and then the conclusive material that has become the result must be used. - Simpson was acquitted, to argue that playing the race card exonerated Simpson. Namely, because Simpson was guilty and murdered, and because Simpson was released, Simpson was released because of the consequences of the rise of the racial movement. The creators of this film are not like that. Like the prosecutors of the case, they entered with the presumption of guilt, not the presumption of innocence. And we have to understand: In a truly more complete court record, the reason why the prosecution failed was precisely because of their weak evidence, many logical inconsistencies, and many doubts.
Therefore, if the arguments presented in the first four parts are to be more believable, it must first be proved that Simpson is guilty and that both men were murdered, and then the well-known trial results, and the creators have already collected The material on the racial movement in their main point proves what The Simpsons was meant to say in the finished film.
The film's lack of sufficient evidence to prove Simpson's guilt undermines its final quality. If we agree that opinion documentaries should show the audience a new way of looking at the world and add a new dimension to people’s understanding of public memory and social history, then the acquisition of this new angle and dimension is not without preconditions, it must be based on On the basis of seeking truth. It is obviously not a truth-seeking attitude to put aside materials that are not conducive to their own views, and only select and place materials that are beneficial to them, and use the materials to match their views. All simplification and purification are harmful to the expression. When the point of view documentary is to persuade the audience, if it only focuses on guiding the audience through skills and techniques, and does not pay attention to the complexity of the material itself, it will be discarded.
Some people may question: Since the Simpson case is said to be a major case that is well-known in the United States, the public understands it enough for them to have a clear judgment. If the audience is still persuaded by this film under this premise, it is not just enough to prove Is the film sufficiently objective and credible? In this regard, two points should be considered:
First, as mentioned in the previous article, the most eye-catching point of this film is the addition of the Simpson civil lawsuit and the burglary two sets of materials on the basis of the Simpson case, thereby showing the American race. The complexity of the contradictions, and the dangers of doing so—both for whites and blacks. And the last two paragraphs of arguments supporting this point of view are more convincing and more credible;
Second, as early as the trial of the Simpson case, the media had hyped the defense lawyers playing the racial card, which made the audience who knew the case still had vague memories of it, so the audience expressed a kind of change that could be changed. In the state of persuasion and persuasion, it is easy to be persuaded by adding the authenticity and credibility of the following two groups of materials. At the same time, we must not forget that the affirmative movement in the United States has made it a general trend to discuss racial issues. The people in this environment are ready to accept similar views. In terms of receptive aesthetics, the current environment has given audiences a certain vision of expectation, and the implication is that audiences are waiting to be summoned by arguments about race. From this perspective, The Simpsons is just a small step forward in the current environment.
As mentioned by the author before, the shortcomings of this film are precisely the side-by-side of the arguments and the confusing nature of the arguments, which are detrimental to the expression of the creator's point of view, and even fall into the suspicion of deliberately pandering to the "political correctness" of the times. It's easy to pander to all the technical and tactical effort—although docility in point of view and sophistication in technique can do more with less.
Ethical Issues in Documentary
In Bill Nichols's "Introduction to Documentary", it is mentioned that the film is divided into two categories: the documentary that achieves the wish and the documentary that reproduces the society. The former is what we usually call a feature film (fiction), which "expresses our hope clearly Dreams, nightmares, and fears make the imaginary content concrete and figurative.” The implication is to concretize the creator’s aesthetic concept and ideology; while the latter makes the content of social reality in a unique way Becoming visible and audible provides us "with new perspectives to explore and understand a world we have long ignored", but also to state that before accepting its ideas and perspectives, it is necessary to "evaluate their implications for the world as we know it" statements and comments made and claims and opinions held, and then judge whether they are trustworthy”.
The author has explained in the previous analysis of "The Simpsons" that the film's views are quite enlightening, and the technique is also very good, but the selection of its materials is biased, which makes the whole film be placed on the spot. in a special situation. Seriously, the subjectivity of the material it selects is enough to discredit the whole point of view. Throughout the history of film, this kind of behavior is enough to make the film downgrade from an excellent work of art to a tool of political propaganda and ideological propaganda.
At this point, we have had to briefly discuss a moral question about opinion documentaries: for opinion documentaries, whether position is more important or right and wrong is more important. The author has already proposed in the previous article that the creators of "The Simpsons" presupposed a specific position, and the value they advocated is suspected of conforming to and catering to the mainstream values of the white leftist in the United States, and the reason why they call it "suspect", It lies in confirming his own point of view through an unconfirmed case, so in the process of argumentation, materials that are not conducive to his point of view are deliberately discarded, so that the entire film is simplified and purified. Therefore, in this film, there is a phenomenon that the position is greater than the right and wrong - deliberately avoiding and weakening the material that is not conducive to your own argument, which will obviously damage the quality of the film.
This is not to say that a viewpoint documentary cannot presuppose viewpoints, and viewpoints come first, but whenever a creator encounters material that may be detrimental to his viewpoint, or even draw the opposite conclusion, how to deal with them becomes a problem. The moral issue directly determines the creator's attitude towards the audience and reality - whether it is faithful or deceitful, and for the creator itself, it is a matter of choosing "love my teacher" or "love the truth".
When we say that documentaries give us a new perspective on the world, it is because we know that we cannot reach the truth in our life, but can only strive to keep getting closer to it. Maybe there will be different views on the same event and the same set of materials. Just as in the case of Rodney King being beaten by the police, the video taken by passers-by simultaneously becomes the material for both parties to demonstrate their views. In court, this The video was played back frame by frame by lawyers on both sides, for fear of missing any details. Here, the image has completely become the medium, and both sides are allowed to play. How dare we say so confidently that we have the truth when even the same image can generate two different views. Thus, like the same set of images, Oliver Stone can be used as a parody, placed in Natural Born Killers, to satirize the immorality of modern media; and The Simpsons can be used to illustrate the long-standing injustices that black people have been subjected to. . However, these are also built on the solid material, it is not created out of nothing, and it is not deliberately avoided.
The reason why we say that "Too Big to Fail" is a more professional and convincing retelling of the United States' efforts to save the financial crisis during the subprime mortgage crisis; It appears because Wall Street's greedy "Steal Yourself" is relatively subjective and less convincing, because the latter has screened and rearranged the materials obtained from many interviews - taken the interviewer's words out of context and changed the order of sentences. . Perhaps the point of view of "Too Big to Fail" is not so amazing, and even has the suspicion of evading some high-level executives, while the point of view of "Guarding Yourself" is more clear-cut and more likely to meet the audience's expectations, but we can't deny that the latter is to achieve its own The treatment done by the purpose just devalues its point of view.
It is not difficult to find that, whether it is "The Simpsons" or "Steal Yourself," documentaries with a white leftist stand are often more eye-catching in terms of viewpoints, and are often more able to capture the hearts of audiences. phenomenon, and these concepts are often very correct in value orientation. Of course, these are not shortcomings. The shortcoming is that, in the process of argumentation, the power is not enough, and there are often biases. Of course, it also means that these leftist positions are often the same as feature films. They are more about expressing their own hopes and dreams. Saying what's on your mind is Schillerized.
Going back to the "new angle" issue mentioned earlier, and synthesizing the views on "The Simpsons", "Keep Yourself" and "Too Big to Fail", we will find that the so-called "new angle" is not so much "new" as it is "new". It is a rehearsal of mainstream views, a waiting in the audience's expected field of vision, and a kind of comfort in the comfort zone. And some documentaries that really challenge the audience's cognition are often unpleasant, which reminds people of the regret of "believable people are not cute, and lovely people are not believable".
But aside from the audience, mainstream concepts and other factors, returning to the creation of the documentary itself, when faced with the position and the issue of right and wrong, perhaps between the two is the creator's courage - not only challenging himself, but also It is also challenging everything that exists. In the face of facts that may change one's own views and opinions, it is necessary to have the courage to revise or overturn one's own views; Even when it contradicts, it also takes courage to express one's own views in the face of the huge pressure and coercion brought by mainstream values. And this kind of courage is perhaps the biggest moral issue of the documentary.
View more about O.J.: Made in America reviews
