In specific, I want to, in part, document the series of events surrounding the retirement of Chief Illiniwek from the initial pro-chief reaction to the present. I believe that, like the symbol or not, it represents a pivotal time of change in our University’s history. I am not keen on the symbol, and own a t-shirt stating my opinion on the matter, but feel that the controversy it has created shows a lot about our university body. I specifically filmed certain pro-chief events believing they would make for good context regarding this subject in this project. I even had the opportunity to interview or capture the interviews of some students who had rallied in support of the chief. In particular, these were Paul Schmitt, president of Students for Chief Illiniwek, and Danielle Perlin, a journalism student and acquaintance of mine from down the hall. Because of certain untempered ambitions, I want to interview Paul Schmitt in depth. The difficulty presented is that I am not personally acquainted with him and may not be able to interview him for various reasons. Thus, an interview of Danielle lends itself to convenience, a situation that I try to avoid, but realize I must embrace at times. There’s another point I also need to get at. Also I realize I’m not following the proposal guidelines. Please bear with me.
The ultimate goal of this piece would be to identify with a pro-chief student and understand exactly what makes them pro-chief, something I have a difficult time understanding. What makes this a test of objectivity is the fact that, as a film-maker, I would be presenting a viewpoint I disagree with, and the end product would be an expository piece bordering on persuasive. I have wrestled with the thought that successful production is measured by audience reception. Ideally, this film should convert people to the viewpoint I’m representing, because such is the power of moving images. At the same time, I’m not completely willing to compromise my values to sell or proselytize something I wouldn’t buy or believe in. It’s much like Michael Moore making a documentary about the NRA. I’m willing to do this for the truth. It shouldn’t matter whether or not I agree with the viewpoint; I am representing it in a way that is not clouded by my judgments and truly reflects that person or ideal.
It would be, in some ways, wise to choose just anyone, opposed to the leader of a student organization or other publicly visible person. Taking a typical person off the street reinforces the fact that actual people feel this way, rather than exceptional people in positions of influence over said people. Still, it would be cool to interview Paul Schmitt. I digress. I’m also going to follow the prescribed order from here out:
In terms of action sequences, it would be imperative to include the footage I took of the Pro-chief rally on the Monday following the Board of Trustee’s decision. It documents a large body of students protesting the administration’s handling of the decision and their distaste for said decision. It was a funeral, except the people there still held hope that he would remain alive. There was a eulogy, which I unfortunately did not get good audio for. Then there was the dirge, the swaying of bodies to the tune of the Alma Mater. Then the chanting began, and the dispensing of t-shirts and call for petition signatures. It makes good B-roll in a film that centers mainly on the people, or an individual who wants to save the Chief, or serves as a pivotal entrance point to this series of events.
The main character is the student or students I get an interview with. This person has unique opinions, or at least unique in the sense that they hold a specific reason for having it or some variety of opinion that is different from the rest. They drive the film, it is about them, not me, not the Chief, not the board, the attention should rest on them. Obviously, they are the ones who will give the on-screen interview they would need to asked the following, among the myriad of questions that aren’t the five I’m stipulated to include:
- What does the Chief mean to you?
- What is your initial experience with Chief Illiniwek and how did it make you feel?
- What are some misconceptions that you feel the anti-chief movement holds and why are they not valid?
- What is your opinion on what we learn and how much we learn about Native American history and culture in an educational setting? How might the Chief fit into this scheme?
- What will you do to save the Chief?
- Overall, any other questions would develop exactly why someone is pro-chief and not anti-chief.
As an expository piece, I have no expectations on the part of the characters to undergo some sort of change or narrative crisis. If there is a change in events, such as a vote from the Board on March 13th that contradicts their February 16th decision, that takes place in the context of the piece, then I would want to document some sort of change on the part of the subject(s). However, I probably won’t start principal photography until well after that. In terms of framing, I would want to juxtapose images that make sense for exposition’s sake: introduction, middle, end. First, some sort of clue as to who this person is, then the rising tide of additional information and context and opinions that somehow come into a crucial moment when they have to defend their position. And at the end, the moment of truth, whether or not they have succeeded in explaining their position or failed miserably and given up. Hopefully the former. Although I’m not averse to using the latter if it proves to be objective enough.
The audience of this piece is our class, or whoever among my friends will see it, if I’m very passive about this process. I wouldn’t mind selling this piece if it turns out successfully to some organization like Students for the Chief, or whatever, or putting it on some public display. The audience I suppose already has a working knowledge of this controversy and shouldn’t need the context for the piece. As far as producing for a certain audience, this is not a point of consideration. I am not Fox News and I am not pandering to what is obviously a conservative audience. If anything, the appeal or the approach should be so inherently neutral that anyone can watch it and understand, rather than brush it off as something imbued with an agenda.
I don’t forsee there being anything complex in terms of formal syntax, a rather uncomplicated interview set-up and the images that I’ve already taken or will take if anything happens to develop.
The piece should end gracefully, if there was ever such a way for an expository piece to end. Some sort of truth uttered by the interviewee or conveniently placed footage of people valiant enough to stand up for an issue rather than let some body unilaterally decide on things. I think that would work stylistically. Maybe even the interviewee voicing over the footage as it fades out. In general, it should basically be a summation of the main reason that the particular person holds their particular opinion, but parsed in a manner that is stirring or philosophical or challenges our belief or whatever. In the course of writing this, I’ve become less and less excited and it probably shows.
This will take a camera, preferably a 3-ccd miniDV format digital camera, adequate lighting, an acoustically appropriate space for filming, a video tripod, a shotgun mic, and if I’m lucky, just one DV tape. Maybe some Pocky as an incentive for people to undertake the interview process. That and a willing interviewee.
So here’s the deal with scheduling. It’s Monday, March 12, 2007. I have until April 1. Here’s how it should break down:
- Today – have meeting with Cory. We will probably discuss how badly this proposal was written. Sorry. If it isn’t bad, then disregard the apology.
- Tommorrow, March 13 – film the board of trustee’s meeting if they’re public, which I’m not too sure about. Also, cameras may be in short supply.
- Wedneday, March 14. Interview Danielle Perlin with appropriately measured questions that I will have come up with by then.
- Sometime during this, approach Paul Schmitt via e-mail about possibly interviewing him. Also should do the same with Danielle, just so she knows what she’s in for.
- If I do get Paul Schmitt, schedule it very carefully such that it happens when a camera is available. Pray like crazy. This will probably have to happen after break, unfortunately.
- Post-production. As soon as I get my footage in order.
- There is no step three.
- My contingency plan is to cry a lot, or just find other pro-chief supporters and interview them, figuring out what makes their opinions so different from everyone else. There’s a ton of them, unfortunately.
As far as a treatment goes, I’m going to have to stretch this a bit:
I begin in the thick of things. There is a throng of coated and heavy jacketed college students standing in the plaza outside the Illini Union. They are clad in orange and blue and adorned with symbols and block letters that suggest their support for the Chief. It’s a dark evening, after classes, after work, but before the late night when people are truly busy and hunkered down. Right now, they are holding signs that read “save the chief.” And they chant those words over again, “save the chief, save the chief, save the chief, etc.” They say it with growing enthusiasm, and the camera gets into the middle and crowd and points down. There are a lot of people. They are a qualified throng. On February 16, the Board of Trustees decided on retiring the Chief. On February 19, a lot of students began the first of what would be a week-long series of visible protests of this decision. It began in force that Monday with the gather of students to rally for their cause, reached a boiling point at the Chief’s last performance at the last regular season home basketball game, as hundreds of students changed out of their festive orange for somber black, and fizzled out with a sparsely attended candle-light vigil on a cold night the following Monday. Our subject introduces him or herself, with the usual name, the class, the major. He or she goes into why he or she supports the Chief, his or her reasons becoming more and more apparent as the interview goes on. We see what how the media has covered this event. We see websites announcing the news, we see the Daily Illini headlines and front page illustrations that, for a week, said the same thing, just in a different pitch or worded differently. We see a whole page of op-ed pieces that denounce the announcement. We see the news crew who cover the events that first Monday, and then we see it again on television. By now, the interviewee has said something stirring, he or she has said something in apparent defense of his or her beliefs, a parry to the thrust of the unseen, unheard interviewer’s line of questioning. It is at this point that I fail to see the effect of a treatment on a piece whose content is driven by probability. I have no idea what they’re going to say, or how they structure their answers. I’m not going to wag the dog or beg the question or lead them out or write out mad-libs for them to fill in. How is any of that or this objective? He or she will make a comment on the board of trustee’s decision and what they plan on doing about it, because he or she believes that their beliefs should be put to action. At this point, he or she makes a plea to the audience to do something similar, like express their distaste for the Board or Trustees or continue to support the Chief by wearing his likeness. At this point, I could include the footage of people swaying back and forth, singing the Alma Mater with a voice-over of my interviewee’s send-off message that easily encapsulates his or her argument in a manner that makes people really think about the issue, and I mean really think.
That really wasn’t all that bad. But still, I can’t expect out of this exactly what I put in; my whole concept revolves around the fact that there are too many unknown, unforeseen variables. This is, however, a reason to be excited rather than scared. I’m going to discover things I haven’t encountered before, and really that’s the point of argumentation, to develop yet unthought, unwritten, and unsaid ideas.
------------------------------------------------
What was this, the monday before break? That sounds about right.
This is unfortunately where I have to wedge my Dark Days response. I thought I had problems, but when you live in a railroad tunnel, then the shit I go through seems stupid. It's nice to live in comfort and have all the trappings of a technological society and struggle towards making a far-above ground living when I get out of school. It's not so nice to live underground in a shack. Sure, the shack is insulated and everything and you can get free electricity and maybe water, and given the outrageous rent in NYC, it's downright desirable in an economic sense, but it's literally a step below homelessness. The people living down there may think otherwise and shy away from shelters for safety's sake, and one can't help but think these are rugged individuals making it out on their own in a cruel world. Marc Singer's aesthetics reflect the stark realities of underground life. For one thing, he chose to use black and white, and arguably this is the best choice for low-light conditions. Still, the lack of color suggests a cold and bleak existence on the part of the tunnel residents. And yet, they continued to live there. Whether out of choice, or out of necessity is explored through the series of intimate dialogues between Singer and the residents. A choice I particularly enjoyed was his use of DJ Shadow in the beginning. I probably first heard that track before 8th grade and I just think it's a cool piece of music to use, and the repeated choral sample suggests something dark and mysterious overall, just a perfect way to suggest what is to come in the work.
As a representation of a group of people or place, this piece works extremely well, the filmmaker does not inject himself into the discussions or serve any purpose in the exposition rather than capturing it and as a sounding board (although on Wikipedia, I read that he had helped to secure their housing vouchers). I think it works well to let the subjects drive the conversation and inject bits of non-incidental anecdotes, as well as let the events in their lives serve as narrative points, like how the one woman's shack burned down. We see and hear their stories directly, rather than through some third-hand channel like in print. And such is the nature of well-exposed film, it is second only to experiencing something in person.
No comments:
Post a Comment