Point of Order

Emile de Antonio's film Point of Order is a compilation film in that it uses found footage that has already been shot. I feel as if de Antonio utilizes the performative mode of documentary film making in Point of Order because he uses a mix of various documentary modes. The expository mode is used since he presents a logical argument in trying to show that McCarthy and his men are guilty. However, there are no voice overs used except during the introductions, but still it is the actual characters' voices. Due to the fact that there is no voice overs or commentary and that nothing is staged, de Antonio's work also represents the observational mode. The content filmed though is historical and is not rough or amateur looking. Since aspects of the expository mode and observational mode are both used, I feel that the best way to categorize Point of Order is by placing it in the performative mode. Plus, the film raises questions about knowledge. For example, McCarthy claims that he has a list of over 130 people involve with the government, military, or politics that are communist. The question is though, "Does McCarthy really know and have a list of all these communist or is he just trying to gain power by accusing people in the government?" Later, we find out that there really is no list and that McCarthy is simply lying about the entire matter.

I thought it was interesting how de Antonio was able to take 200 hours worth of film, condense it down to 97 minutes, and rearrange the clips to prove his point and show the wrong doings of McCarthy and McCarthy's workers like Roy Cohn. De Antonio never comes out directly and expresses his view point on the matter. Instead, he uses a montage in which he puts a bunch of clips together in order to construct a film that makes the viewer think a certain way.

Eye of the Camera

Have you ever noticed the one aspect that all films have in common? It is the perspective of the camera. In almost every film, the eye of the camera is the male eye. The way women are captured on video is completely different from the way men are.

Film producers often cater to a male audience by making women something to look at. When capturing women in video, the camera often moves up and down the woman's body in order to get a look at all of her features. When it comes to movies and films that involve nudity, the majority of the time women are the nude images that are captured. Men are sometimes shown with their shirts off to reveal their muscles and masculinity but rarely completely naked. It is acceptable to show women naked on camera because the film producer knows that is something men want and like to see. However, naked men are not shown on camera very often because men do not want to see other men nude. That is what most guys would call "gay". The only way men are shown nude on camera is in the form of masochism. Men believe that it is acceptable to watch other men naked if they are fighting or inducing pain on each other.

The fact that the eye of the camera is a male eye shows that women are still viewed as inferior to men because they are portrayed as a piece of work instead of as an actual person. On camera, women are characterized by their appearance whereas men get to be seen for who they really are. This is in no way fair, but since it has been this way forever, it will be hard to change.

Look at the way the women are portrayed in this photo compared to the men.

Zapruder Film

One of the most studied films in history is the Zapruder film. The film was taken by Abraham Zapruder on November 22, 1963 and captures the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Zapruder's film is characterized as an observational documentary because nothing is staged and the footage is rough, shaky, and amateur looking. Although amateur and accidental, the Zapruder film has been studied intensely and was even the primary piece of evidence used by the Warren Commission when examining the case.

The Zapruder film was taken with an 8MM camera. These cameras were significant because they allowed people to stop videotaping everything since they could easily be transported and maneuvered. They captured the occurrences of real events which is important because nothing had to be staged and no detailed was left out. Over the years, technology improved. More ordinary people began getting their own video cameras in the 1980s and creating their own homemade videos. In 1992, the Rodney King beating was captured on video. This video was also an observational documentary because an innocent bystander is the one who captured the footage. Later, this video served as the primary evidence in the case.

As time passes and technology advances, more and more devices are created to help people capture certain events. There was the video camera, then we moved to a time of digital cameras that could take videos, and now virtually every cell phone has the capability of taking videos. These videos are amateur and often rough but they do have much importance. People are now able to videotape a crime occurring or a least get a picture of the criminal. And for some reason, our society has a fascination with these homemade videos. A popular show that has been around for years is Americas Funniest Home Videos. There have also been movies and shows made where it shows the footage of actual people dying. Sometimes it is hard to recall every detail of an event and then reproduce it on film. That is why these homemade type videos like the Zapruder film are so popular because they were captured by mere accident and involve no staging or false details.

"Hearing the News" versus "Being There"

When I was little, probably around five, my mom picked me up from my grandmother's house late one night after she got done working her third shift job. At the time, she had two full time jobs so she was exhausted. As we drove home, both of us fell asleep. I woke up to a big jolt. When I asked my mom what had happened, she just said, "Oh we just ran up on the curb. It will be ok." I knew though that it was not ok because when we got home she parked her car in the garage, which is something she never did. I could tell something was wrong because she was really nervous. She made a pot of coffee and tried to get me to go to bed. About that time though, we heard someone pounding on the door. She rushed and turned all the lights out and told me to be really quite. I could see multiple people walking around our house with flashlights as we sat in the living room. My mother was so nervous that when she sat her coffee mug down on the end table, she did it too hard and knocked the glass out of the table and spilled the coffee all over our brand new carpet. Finally, we heard, "Its the police! Open up!" Turns out that my mom hit a parked car, which was a hit and run since she left the scene. My mother explained to the police what happened and why she was so tired, and they let her off with just a warning. Although I was little, that is one memory I will never forget because there was so much excitement, it was so emotional, and it affected me personally.

In the article, "'Hearing the news' versus 'being there': Comparing flashbulb memories and recall of first-hand experiences" by David Pillemer, Pillemer argues that people have an easier time recalling those memories that effect them personally compared to those they simply hear about. The example used in the article of an important event that people worldwide heard about is the attack on September 11, 2001. I do remember hearing about this event, but even more than that, I remember where I was and what exactly I was doing when I heard about it. Since I was not actually at the scene of the attack, I did not personally experience it. Therefore, I do not remember everything that actually occurred there. However, since I did personally experience hearing about the attacks, I can recall almost everything that was going on in my life when I heard of it.

Even being present during something, it can still be hard to remember every aspect and get all of the details right. During class when Aaron acted like a disruptive student, I tried to block what he was saying out because it did not seem important to me and I was trying to focus on the material we were being taught. Later when I found out that it was all an act and that we had to make a skit of what exactly had occurred, I had a really tough time recalling all of the details of what was said even though I was present during the entire event. A major reason for this is probably due to the fact that what was happening at the time had no significant important to me or any emotional connection attached. However, this does show that it is hard to get something documented exactly as it happened. Just hearing about an event makes it somewhat difficult to recall. Being there during the event makes that event easier to recall because of that personal connection, but it is highly unlikely that all the details of the event will be exact unless it is of huge significance to that person and has emotional ties.