Open Call: Rough Cuts

rygarrett:

I see your point about the narrative point of view though (and I am clearly not objective in this matter) I don't fully concede your point. My approach to this piece was to conceive of it as a poem of sorts and not a pure historical document. It was to be a poem written in my subjective tongue and visually illustrated using only original source material from Irving. My narrative approach and style is informed by traditional story-telling techniques as opposed to academic historical documentation.

I have original newspaper reports from the time relating this specific incident and which appeared in numerous papers around America and I specifically chose not to use that as a departure point for the piece. I felt that relaying on facts as were put on paper was too static and that I wanted to tell a story. I am perfectly fine with people questioning the historical veracity of it. Frankly, if you want to travel that intellectual path then we should pull out our Baudrillard and start questioning ALL historical events that have been documented.

The motivation for stating "this is my grandfather" is a simple narrative device. It engages the lay-person listener with a personal connection to the subject matter. It attempts to allow the viewer to connect, through the narrator, to the subject and to feel an intimacy. Is it necessary to tell the story this way? No, of course not. But it is a decision I made as the creator akin to the decision an author makes when writing a novel as to what person they are going to be using in their writing.

Related to your wondering about my intention. I could place these documents in lap dissolve after lap dissolve without context or narrative. I could show you his own notes on them, present his writings and journals and allow you to read them but that would not be appropriate for this medium and format. The challenge for me as I approached this was not in adding something to disparate images but, rather, in stripping out everything but the necessary to tell the story. At it's most structural, the film functions as follows:

Who is talking.
Who is the subject.
Where is he.
What happens.

Each of those questions needed answering for the story to be coherent to a viewer.

As to your point regarding the purpose of including subjectivity: I do point to the statement earlier that the driving intention is engaging an audience with a narrative. I suggest exploring organizations like The Moth which deal with classical story telling. My intention is neither to obscure incompleteness in the story, nor to negate critical response.

One should be open to critically reading a document regardless of the author's assertions about the material. I would refer you to Robert Nozick's wonderful essay Fiction, in which he draws the point that any faith in the author is questionable. Suffice to say, I think you have perhaps missed the point in this piece. If I had intended to create a historical document then I would have approached the material entirely differently.

I appreciate your thought and consideration on my work and would suggest that the answer to your confusion is that it is simply meant to be a story. One to sit back and watch. Or close your eyes and listen. Think of it as an amuse-bouche - it should engage your senses and give a hint of my creative intention but is just a glimpse of a whole meal that is yet to be enjoyed!

My first question on viewing this film is: What does it mean for the filmmaker to include himself into the narrative? How does it aid in us understanding the story of this american Doctor's experiences?

If the subjectivity of the narrator is not dealt with, questioned, critiqued, we are left with the simplistic view of history that merely asks, "was this a good story or a bad story?"

I wonder if the inclusion of the Filmmaker's self in the narration doesn't flatten out the interesting conflicts and complexities of the film's subject, making it a universalizing morality tale. If the flmmaker is going to say "this is my grandfather," then I want to what is the motive of that admission. What was his relationship with his grandfather? It immediately becomes more about the narrator's relationship with his grandfather than about anything else.

While I do not really question the truth of the story, I immediately wonder if perhaps this film is about a subject (the narrator) confronted with an archive of photos who feels he must make sense of them, to add meaning to them, fill in the blanks. Documents from a time of war, a time where reality often withdraws from consciousness, must be accompanied with stories.

Sometimes an author will include the affect of their subjectivity to address the incompleteness of any story, this type of inclusion can generate critical and vital questions about history itself. Othertimes however, the inclusion of an author's subjectivity is a technique to dissuade a critical reading of a story, as if to say "you cannot question this story, it is about my grandfather, my country, my beliefs, etc." I would tend to think this is a negative rhetorical device, as it does not encourage a critical and particapatory role in history on the part of the viewer or reader.

Since these questions are raised but never addressed I am left confused about the subject of the film.

Simon,

Thanks for the input. I went back and forth on the writing on the photos. Ultimately I think your instincts and mine are similar. Keeping it in on all the photos was too much so I cropped it out where I could, but by having it there it reinforces the notion (the truth) that we are not simply looking at images of the era but we are looking at Irving's memories, and by seeing the notes we are reminded of his presence in these photos as more than just a subject. I respect and understand the view that it could distracting but I think, at this point, I'm inclined to keep the writing in the places where it is now.

As for length, well, as Chris said, they capped us at 3:00 and I took the liberty of dragging it out to 3:04 (I can trim credits, Chris, if you need a flat 3:00). I think there is a lot more material here and I know there are certainly other interesting vignettes of Irving's from the war that I would like to explore. I chose this one as I felt it was an interesting counterpoint to war - which is generally the pitting of opposites against each other - here is the bringing of two opposites together and that it was a moment of non-aggression, of healing, which is what Irving believed in above all.

Again, thanks for the input and I look forward to hearing the response to the finished piece.

- Noah

A nice, well-written story – quite moving. Nice pacing, great use of Irving’s photos. I found the music and sounds effects were well balanced – enough to evoke the era and underline the narrative, but not so much as to overwhelm the story. At P.O.V. we are in disagreement about whether you should crop the handwriting on some of the pictures – some people think you should, but for me it added to the story. The writing (for me) was another way to represent Irving in the screen, another tiny slice of his personality. So, basically that’s an artistic choice for you. The VO style is nicely restrained and understated.

We were left wanting more, and wouldn't mind if this were longer.

Simon Kilmurry
Executive Director
American Documentary | P.O.V.

Chris,

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm very happy with how the piece turned out and I did wrestle with how to provide enough context as to who Irving was and what he experienced during the war while still telling the story. I think it found the balance as I was trying to get a lot into the time constraints.

The music is locked at this point as I was able to clear both pieces with the great kindness of Norman Bruderhofer and his Cylinder Archive of old Edison cylinder recordings (www.cylinder.de) and the generosity of YIVO Institute for Jewish Research and Dr. Carl Rheins for the second piece. Both of these people were very open to allowing their archives to be used and I owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. The length of the film is locked at this point as I did a sound mix with my friend Chen Harpaz (www.vertigopower.com) who also helped me to rerecord the voice over. My original recording using my isight camera's mic was just not going to cut it! I may still tweak some of the photos and their pacing but this is pretty close to a final cut for me.

As for your question about the hand writing. Those are Irving's own notes on the photos. I have framed them out of some photos and left it in on others. The photos were not of consistent size or frame ratio so I made choices to include the edges in some and not on others. That's one of the things I'm taking a look at.

I'm sorry if the first part of this seemed like a commercial for those people but I do want to thank them and let others know who they are...

Noah, you are a talented storyteller. When we originally decided to go with a 3-minute time limit, I was reluctant because I wasn’t sure if the time limit would allow for this type of re-telling. You proved me to be a pessimist, as I think you have masterfully written Irving’s story into a concise, sweet short.
As a viewer, I’m hooked. I want to hear other stories from Irving’s service. I thought you connected his story with the time at which he served very creatively.

I know at some point while you were cutting, music had been a concern, I think you made a good choice, it feels like it supports the story well. Is this your final selection or are you still considering?

You really had a strong beginning, middle and end. I’m anxious to hear what some of our editorial folks in the Lab community have to say.

One a minor tech question, I noticed that some of your images have hand written notes. Are these original texts that you chose to leave in?

Christopher Hastings
Supervisor, WGBH Lab
Post Production Supervisor, WGBH