Michelle Citron and Capturing the Friedmans

Home movies and photographs alike have the power to freeze time. They showcase what is being seen by the person behind the camera and everything that is brought up due to the image by the subject afterwards. In the juxtaposition of the double narrative, we see both writings having specific ideas about the importance of these images. Michelle Citron feels that what is captured on the film, is not her story but more over a sugarcoated version of her family's life through her father's eyes and what he chooses to film. To get at the "real" Citron later reviews and analyzes the films to find clues to her life of that year that is represented in those few home movies. It is interesting to note the amount of anger and intensity Citron feels towards the home movie images, noting and awknowledging that there is so much not being said through these images. For example how she kept trying to kill herself at age eight, or the sexual abuse that she endored due to her grandfather. Instead she sees the classic nuclear family, birthday parties with all the trimmings, loving family, smiles, food, a sense of stability.
The second narrative goes along really well with the first, but in a much more border sense of the meaning of home movies. The second narrative generalizes and reviews how home movies are only one part of the "real," the nostalgic attempt to record the "good old days." There is a big distinction in what is filmed and what is purposely left out [in possible attempts to be forgotten or unawknowledged] "We film Christmas dinner with family and friends. not the meal eaten alone; birthday parties, not the emergency room visits; baby's first steps, not fighting with the adolescent; vacation, not work; wedding parties, not divorce proceedings; births, not funerals." (page 19) Through this type of selective filming, we see only one side of the personal narrative, the side that we are taught to film and remember. But still through this process comes the over looked and somewhat forgotten "darker" side that is sparked by the subject after viewing what has been filmed. Citron can only see what is not there, what is missing, as if it is not her whole story but the presentable story, the one that is allowed to be viewed by the outside world. How many times have you looked over past photos and remember what is not being seen in that staged photo?
Memories, filmed images and current states of mind all play into eachother to give a full picture to establish an idea of self. All of these things must be taken into account to get to the "real." Citron uses images from the home movies of her family and incorporates that into her film Daughter Rite, as way to create a story that outlines the bigger picture of how the images affected her memory. Citron later hunts through the original footage to find any clues to her abuse to see if what she felt at the time was translated through the lens. It was really powerful when Citron notes how the subjects in home movies connect with the viewer because they stare directly at the camera, and she connects with her younger self trying to understand what exactly she was trying to convey at that age instead of pushing memories onto her younger self like she did in the beginning.
Unlike the double narratives, Capturing the Friedmans shows both the classic family image and then also includes footage that showcases the cracks in the family dynamic. The breaking of family which was caused by the arrest of both the son Jesse and the father Arnold, and the snowball effect that it had on the rest of the family and how they relate to eachother. The movie starts off with the younger Jesse embrassing the audience to get to know his loving family. We slowly learn that his father is a pedophile and film includes primary source footage of each family member except for the middle child Seth [who purposely did not want to be interviewed], the police who investigated the case against the Friedmans, reflections from the Friedmans, police, victims, parents of the abused and lawyers involved. There is a differnce in who is filming and it is evident by what is being filmed. The earlier home movie footage is typical to what would be captured by the "father" role; family togetherness and the like. Where as what David the oldest son films throughout the majority of the film is darker, harsher, showing the agruements, and screaming fights had between him and his brothers and their mother who is isolated and labeled as the other. The film shows the bonds between the father and sons as strong and tight knit and show the slow process as they pull away from their mother as the trail of Jesse and Arnold continue to go downhill. The juxaposition of the different footage really shows growth and seperation of the family-the enivitable changes that come with the loss of innocence and the onset of adulthood, the difference in loyalties and what we understand to be truth.

the fate of the cinema subject

The main theme of this chapter is the relationship between the director's motives and how they affect the audience. In the section about entitled "compound visions," MacDougall, introduces the idea of two premises, the first one being the perspectives of the film maker and the audience are different; no viewer usually has the same view as the director. One can then assume that the true meaning and purpose of the film as the director intended it, is never completely absorbed by the audience. As noted by MacDougall, the director and audience are affected differently by the film, "For the filmmaker, the film is an extract from all the footage shot for it, and a reminder of all the events that produced it. It reduces the experience onto a very small canvas. For the spectator, by contrast, by contrast, the film is not small but large: it opens onto a wider landscape." (page 27) The second premise mentioned is that film making is a form of expression or even extension of the filmmaker. The purpose of the film is closely attached to the filmmaker and the relationship of the filmmaker and the subject is that they are "apart" of each other; "in these moments, the subject's existence and the filmmakers are closely interwoven. To speak of the film subject at all is to speak of this shared space, willed with such intensity into the camera." (page30)
MacDougall makes a really interesting point on page 29, stating that "...the act of making a film is a way of pointing out something to oneself and to other, an active shaping of experience." This was one of the most profound statements in the reading for me because it is consistent with how we as the audience absorb what we see-creating assumptions and ideas based on what we take for the truth, after that he continues to break down how our knowledge is either transposed or displaced as we make sense of what we are viewing. It is through the motives of the filmmaker that our experiences when viewing are dependent on. How can we be sure that the footage we are seeing as close to the truth and "real" life as it can be?
Continuing to the section "the stars grow old," MacDougall examines that films can have consequences due to revisiting and "interpreting the reality to reflect my own perceptions" (page 37), no matter how hard you try to make something real and unbiased, there will always be someone who gets offended. Along with the discussions we've been having in class, it raises the question of why continue to use film? Can we depend on the filmmaker to give an accurate account of their subject while knowing that they are ultimately editing raw footage to get their point across?