While watching this documentary, it was easy to pick up on the parts where the filmmaker was trying to persuade the viewers one way or another. The different topics they addressed, like how the people of Panama reacted to the situation, were specifically geared to have the viewer feel sorry for them and to get angry at the United States government. Engaging Cinema says "Documentaries seek to engage the viewer persuasively by emotional or persuasive means"(99). The Panama Deception is a prime example of this definition of what documentaries are supposed to do. By showing vidoe clips of mass graves and bombs going off in Panama, the film definitely toys with people's emotions. The video clips of some of the politicians and what they have to say about the ordeal adds to how persuasive the movie is. The specific clips the director chooses to put in the documentary will effect what the viewer takes away from the film.
Along with persuasiveness, the book always talks about the "Three C's" of documentaries and I think this film for the most part exhibits them quite nicely. The first one is to establish credibility of the filmmaker. This documentary fullfils this requirement because of the footage they included in the film. There were many shots of live footage which makes for a credible video because the filmmakers were actually on the scene. Also, the use of news footage and political speeches gives credibility because it is raw information. If the narrator repeated what the President of the US said, it would not be as credible as actually showing the President making his speech. The second "c" is convincing. The same thing which makes this film credible also makes it convincing. It appears as though the viewers of this documentary are getting the true story through all of the raw footage. Whether it is true or not can be debated somewhat but for the most part the documenatary was very convincing when it comes to telling the story of the invasion in Panama. The last one is compelling. This may be the most important because whether or not the documentary is compelling could depend on how many people watch it and take into consideration the ideas brought up in the film. A compelling film, which I beileve this one to be, could be the breaking point of whether people believe the story to be true or not.
The article in the Washington Post explains whether or not what was said in this film is actually true or not. It explains how we may never really know which things are true and which our false but the directors of this documentary definitely make a strong defense for their thoughts and ideas on the matter. The Post states, "there's the possibility that both sides are engaging in a propaganda war. But "The Panama Deception" does a superb job of documenting its case". I thought this statement was important because when looking at the content of the documentary it may be debateable about what was going on but when you analyze the way the film was made there is no doubt that the filmmakers were very persuasive in their attempts at unveiling this situation.
I like how you pointed out the many methods which are used to emotionally engage the viewer, which definitely contribute to the effective use of the "three c's" of documentaries. It is also important and interesting to use these book concepts to analyze the film.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important that you mentioned how evident it is when Trent tries to persuade the audience and how we can easily detect it, however many of us are still completely persuaded. It goes to show how powerful the film is.
ReplyDeleteIt is important that you used the outside article as more of an objective statement. The Post states, "there's the possibility that both sides are engaging in a propaganda war," which is very true. One must also consider the validity within the documentary in reference to the people they interviewed and their credibility.
ReplyDelete