Monday, June 30, 2014

What is Cinéma Vérité



What is Cinéma Vérité

I’ve always preached the gospel of my understanding of what Cinéma Vérité is, according to how I comprehended it from textbooks and lectures in film school.
Every now and again I’ll run into a discussion with someone about it’s meaning and definition. So here, I will give you my side of the story culled with what I found on Wikipedia .

I always say reality shows are Cinéma Vérité because they instigate the desired outcome of the filmed subject. I use film as a term for any form of video capture because I’m old school, yup, I still sit in a directors chair with a megaphone and beret.

Some would argue that Cinéma Vérité is simply capturing film truth as it unfolds, but I tell you, that is called Direct Cinema. News gathering is Direct Cinema, so long as the subject being filmed has not been provoked to behave in a desired way to affect a desired outcome. For example, if you are shooting a riot as it unfolds, that’s Direct Cinema. As crude as it is, but those street fight videos on the internet, those are Direct Cinema when they are captured unbeknownst to the folks engaged in combat.

Here’s what Wikipedia says about Cinéma Vérité:

Cinéma vérité (/ˈsɪnɨmə http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English - Keyvɛrɨˈteɪ/; French: [sinema veʁite], truthful cinema) is a style of documentary filmmaking, invented by Jean Rouch, inspired by Dziga Vertov's theory about Kino-Pravda and influenced by Robert Flaherty’s films. It combines improvisation with the use of the camera to unveil truth or highlight subjects hidden behind crude reality.[1][2][3][4]

It is sometimes called observational cinema,[5][6] if understood as pure direct cinema: mainly without a narrator's voice-over. There are subtle, yet important, differences among terms expressing similar concepts. Direct Cinema is largely concerned with the recording of events in which the subject and audience become unaware of the camera presence: operating within what Bill Nichols,[7] an American historian and theoretician of documentary film, calls the "observational mode", a fly on the wall. Many therefore see a paradox in drawing attention away from the presence of the camera and simultaneously interfering in the reality it registers when attempting to discover a cinematic truth.

Cinéma vérité can involve stylized set-ups and the interaction between the filmmaker and the subject, even to the point of provocation. Some argue that the obvious presence of the filmmaker and camera was seen by most cinéma vérité filmmakers as the best way to reveal the truth in cinema.[8][9][10] The camera is always acknowledged, for it performs the raw act of filming real objects, people, and events in a confrontational way. The filmmaker's intention was to represent the truth in what he or she was seeing as objectively as possible, freeing people from any deceptions in how those aspects of life were formerly presented to them. From this perspective, the filmmaker should be the catalyst of a situation. Few agree on the meanings of these terms, even the filmmakers whose films are being described.

Pierre Perrault sets situations up and then films them, for example in Pour la suite du monde (1963) where he asked old people to fish for whale. The result is not a documentary about whale fishing; it is about memory and lineage. In this sense cinéma vérité is concerned with anthropological cinema, and with the social and political implications of what is captured on film. How a filmmaker shoots a film, what is being filmed, what to do with what was filmed, and how that film will be presented to an audience, all were very important for filmmakers of the time.

In all cases, the ethical and aesthetic analysis of documentary form of the 1950s and '60s has to be linked with a critical look at post-war propaganda analysis. The best way to describe this type of cinema is probably to say that it is concerned with notions of truth and reality in film. Also feminist documentary films of the 1970s often used cinéma-vérité techniques. Soon this sort of 'realism' was criticized for its deceptive pseudo-natural construction of reality.[11][12]

As Edgar Morin wrote: "There are two ways to conceive of the cinema of the Real: the first is to pretend that you can present reality to be seen; the second is to pose the problem of reality. In the same way, there were two ways to conceive cinéma vérité. The first was to pretend that you brought truth. The second was to pose the problem of truth."[13]

So, according to the above Wikipedia page, my argument holds true. The biggest influence on my understanding of Cinéma Vérité came from one of the required text books from my film school (1992-1997 - also attended USC Film/TV for a brief stint) was Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film by Erik Barnouw

Thank you for reading this blog and please feel free to share with others. Reading is still fundamental.

About the blogger:
Stevie Mack is a blogger for many reasons, the main one being his love of entertainment. Visit his website here: steviemack.com


What is Cinéma Vérité



What is Cinéma Vérité

I’ve always preached the gospel of my understanding of what Cinéma Vérité is, according to how I comprehended it from textbooks and lectures in film school.
Every now and again I’ll run into a discussion with someone about it’s meaning and definition. So here, I will give you my side of the story culled with what I found on Wikipedia .

I always say reality shows are Cinéma Vérité because they instigate the desired outcome of the filmed subject. I use film as a term for any form of video capture because I’m old school, yup, I still sit in a directors chair with a megaphone and beret.

Some would argue that Cinéma Vérité is simply capturing film truth as it unfolds, but I tell you, that is called Direct Cinema. News gathering is Direct Cinema, so long as the subject being filmed has not been provoked to behave in a desired way to affect a desired outcome. For example, if you are shooting a riot as it unfolds, that’s Direct Cinema. As crude as it is, but those street fight videos on the internet, those are Direct Cinema when they are captured unbeknownst to the folks engaged in combat.

Here’s what Wikipedia says about Cinéma Vérité:

Cinéma vérité (/ˈsɪnɨmə http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English - Keyvɛrɨˈteɪ/; French: [sinema veʁite], truthful cinema) is a style of documentary filmmaking, invented by Jean Rouch, inspired by Dziga Vertov's theory about Kino-Pravda and influenced by Robert Flaherty’s films. It combines improvisation with the use of the camera to unveil truth or highlight subjects hidden behind crude reality.[1][2][3][4]

It is sometimes called observational cinema,[5][6] if understood as pure direct cinema: mainly without a narrator's voice-over. There are subtle, yet important, differences among terms expressing similar concepts. Direct Cinema is largely concerned with the recording of events in which the subject and audience become unaware of the camera presence: operating within what Bill Nichols,[7] an American historian and theoretician of documentary film, calls the "observational mode", a fly on the wall. Many therefore see a paradox in drawing attention away from the presence of the camera and simultaneously interfering in the reality it registers when attempting to discover a cinematic truth.

Cinéma vérité can involve stylized set-ups and the interaction between the filmmaker and the subject, even to the point of provocation. Some argue that the obvious presence of the filmmaker and camera was seen by most cinéma vérité filmmakers as the best way to reveal the truth in cinema.[8][9][10] The camera is always acknowledged, for it performs the raw act of filming real objects, people, and events in a confrontational way. The filmmaker's intention was to represent the truth in what he or she was seeing as objectively as possible, freeing people from any deceptions in how those aspects of life were formerly presented to them. From this perspective, the filmmaker should be the catalyst of a situation. Few agree on the meanings of these terms, even the filmmakers whose films are being described.

Pierre Perrault sets situations up and then films them, for example in Pour la suite du monde (1963) where he asked old people to fish for whale. The result is not a documentary about whale fishing; it is about memory and lineage. In this sense cinéma vérité is concerned with anthropological cinema, and with the social and political implications of what is captured on film. How a filmmaker shoots a film, what is being filmed, what to do with what was filmed, and how that film will be presented to an audience, all were very important for filmmakers of the time.

In all cases, the ethical and aesthetic analysis of documentary form of the 1950s and '60s has to be linked with a critical look at post-war propaganda analysis. The best way to describe this type of cinema is probably to say that it is concerned with notions of truth and reality in film. Also feminist documentary films of the 1970s often used cinéma-vérité techniques. Soon this sort of 'realism' was criticized for its deceptive pseudo-natural construction of reality.[11][12]

As Edgar Morin wrote: "There are two ways to conceive of the cinema of the Real: the first is to pretend that you can present reality to be seen; the second is to pose the problem of reality. In the same way, there were two ways to conceive cinéma vérité. The first was to pretend that you brought truth. The second was to pose the problem of truth."[13]

So, according to the above Wikipedia page, my argument holds true. The biggest influence on my understanding of Cinéma Vérité came from one of the required text books from my film school (1992-1997 - also attended USC Film/TV for a brief stint) was Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film by Erik Barnouw

Thank you for reading this blog and please feel free to share with others. Reading is still fundamental.

About the blogger:
Stevie Mack is a blogger for many reasons, the main one being his love of entertainment. Visit his website here: steviemack.com


Thursday, June 19, 2014

22 Jump Street movie review by Stevie Mack



It’s $6 movie day (every Wednesday), so you will find me at Rave Cinemas Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza 15 + Extreme This is where I settle in with a large bucket of popcorn to watch all the hottest movies.

Plot:
After making their way through high school (twice), big changes are in store for officers Schmidt and Jenko when they go deep undercover at a local college. But when Jenko meets a kindred spirit on the football team, and Schmidt infiltrates the bohemian art major scene, they begin to question their partnership. Now they don’t have to just crack the case - they have to figure out if they can have a mature relationship. If these two overgrown adolescents can grow from freshmen into real men, college might be the best thing that ever happened to them.

I liked the first 21 Jump Street movie adaptation, but I was skeptical about 22 Jump Street, thinking it would be just a sequel cash cow for all concerned, but it wasn’t. In fact, it far exceeded my expectations.

Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum took bromance to another level in this flick. They had me rooting for them to triumph over the bad guys as well as the hindrances in their friendship.

Amber Stevens was so good; I forgot I knew her in real life…LOL…but true, and this was some of Ice Cube’s best comedy performances since Friday.

There was never a dull moment, tons of jokes, action and Special FX. The theater had a family like vibe to it, so everyone laughed out loud, long and hard,  without fear of retribution, if there is such a thing.

Go see this movie, and go see it at a theater that will allow you to laugh out loud, long and hard, because you will.


That’s my two cents.

About the blogger:
Stevie Mack is a blogger for many reasons, the main one being his love of entertainment.
Visit his website here: http://www,steviemack.com

Friday, June 13, 2014

A Million Ways to Die in the West - movie review by Stevie Mack



As I settled into my high back velour seat at Rave Cinemas Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza 15 + Extreme I wondered how many other Seth MacFarlane fans would be there entertaining the same thought, "Will this be as bad as the critics and word-of-mouth say? Will it be 1 ½ hours of my life wasted?"

I’ve always stuck to my own rule of thumb, which is to forget what others say about a movie and go see it myself. I’m glad I did in this case as well.

Plot:
Cowardly Albert (Seth MacFarlane) backs out of a gunfight prompting his long time girlfriend (Amanda Seyfried) to leave him for another man (Neil Patrick Harris), the proprietor of a moustache emporium. When Albert unwittingly saves the life of a beautiful woman (Charlize Theron), she teaches him how to shoot a gun for the first time in his life and stand up for himself. But when her husband, a notorious outlaw (Liam Neeson), arrives seeking revenge for the secret love affair, Albert must save her once again, but this time on purpose.

Was it full of toilet humor and crude sex jokes? Yes. Did it have a big dance number with an awesome original / funny song like Seth MacFarlane is so well known for? Yes. Did it have racist jokes that I, a Black guy, would laugh at? Yes. One note here about that, don’t leave the theater until the lights come on, because at the very end, after the Universal Pictures logo swirls, there’s a double surprise twist of redemption on the racist joke….nailed it!

Every movie has slow parts and a lot of the same story plots, so to rag on this one for having the same is missing the forest for the trees. I went to this movie knowing full well what I was getting into. This is Seth MacFarlane, the same guy who brought us Family Guy, American Dad, The Cleveland Show, Ted and more! So I expected a cartoonish movie with a lot of hokey humor. Wasn’t looking for it to be as good as Ted, a lot more went into that movie. Expected this one to play like a flip-book of one-liners, and it did just that.


That’s my two cents.

About the blogger:
Stevie Mack is a blogger for many reasons, the main one being his love of entertainment.
Visit his website here: http://www,steviemack.com

Sunday, June 08, 2014

Leimert Park Art Walk Comedy Show is Empowering Our Youth


The Leimert Park Art Walk Comedy Show has been Empowering Our Youth, Elders and Young Adults!

Producing a comedy show with a positive influence on the community has been the goal and aim of Host Stevie Mack and Producer Ben Caldwell from the very start and it is working.

Every month the show has a new theme that uses comedy as a vehicle to encourage participants and audience members to engage in social change, healthy living, higher learning, competitive education and wellness. We challenge them to use their mind and dare to grow beyond accepted norms, expected stereotypes and apathy.

The Leimert Park Art Walk Comedy Show is a unique family friendly learning experience, bringing together people from various cultures in a fun, diverse and entertaining comedy showcase touching upon a wide range of topics. Social issues are brought to light, explored and resolved through the vehicle of performing arts; comedy, song and dance.



The Leimert Park Art Walk Comedy Show, Hosted by Stevie Mack (HBO / Last Comic Standing) and Produced by Ben R. Caldwell is a monthly comedy showcase punctuating the evening of the Leimert Park Art Walk on the last Sunday of every month with laughter.

Comedians featured on the May 2014 showcase:

All photos by Inspiration Media 

Adan Williams (6 yrs old)


Doug Williams III (9 yrs old)


Leroya Sanford (12 yrs old)
Akeyla Aluko

Mark Kushner

Rori Diggs


Steven Briggs

Sardia Robinson

Ty Fance
Sponsored by:

Inspiration Media (Photography)