Post your reaction to the film and your responses to at least on of the following discussion questions:
- What are the conflicts/themes of the documentary?
- Discuss the role of Elizabeth Barret, the filmmaker, in the documentary. Why does she present herself in the way she does?
- Barret poses the question “Who gets to tell the community story?” at the beginning of the documentary? Now, having watched the film, what do you think the answer is?
- How do the images of Appalachia shown by major media compare to the images taken by Elizabeth Barret?
I also recommend checking out this awesome website about the film: http://www.itvs.org/strangerwithacamera/
I thought it was a good but awkwardly depressing documentary. The general theme of poverty was definitely seen throughout the film, and I like how they discussed how film makers would actually exploit scenes of poverty in their films. I was kind of confused as to how coal mining, a topic they bring up frequently, was tied in too the shooting of Hobart. My guess is that the poverty that the community had been going through and the sheer amount of filmmakers who came through Kentucky finally led to the townspeople being fed up. In terms of the question "Who gets to tell the community story?", I think it really should be told by members of the community, not reporters reciting quotes or filmmakers showing torn up shacks and talking about how bad things are. In terms of the images shown, they are in sharp contrast as to what is shown in the media. In mass media, you only see what is impressive. Fine houses, glistening mountains, endless forests. In reality, it's dried up creeks, soggy footpaths which count for roads, and rickety wooden shacks which house families far too large for their home. I find it strange that even though 2 presidents visited the area, poverty still couldn't be stricken from the area, especially since it seemed like all the filmmakers focused on was how bad things were.
ReplyDeleteCrap, i messed up earlier, what I meant to say was I couldn't understand why Hobart shot Hugh O'Connor, but I think it was because Hobart was feeling like most of the community was, that they were being treated like hobos and beatnicks, and were being mistreated and disrespected. It must have gotten to the point where Hobart just snapped and ended up shooting Hugh.
ReplyDeleteThe parts when the filmmakers and volunteers were labeled communists for attempting to help children learn to read and to draw media attention to the situation in the mountains shocked me. Though I agree that people need to avoid taking a condescending attitude towards people who might not even need or want help, in certain cases people in poverty don't know that life can be different or better because that is all that they have known. Is it so wrong to try and increase literacy rates and find better jobs for people? The outcry against them was incredibly extreme.
ReplyDeleteTo address discussion topic number 2, I thought Barret portrayed herself both as a member of the Appalachian community as well as a filmmaker. She was on both sides of the gun; this was a difficult position to take because as a filmmaker, she was on the side of the people who were exploiting the images of poverty in the community; on the other hand, as a member of the community, in a way she was also on the side of murderer. She had to portray both sides of the story to deal with that. I felt it became confusing precisely because she doesn't take a stance to support either one, or she actually supports both. I guess her message is that the filmmakers shouldn't make judgments and the stories themselves should be enough to carry a message.
I thought the film did a very good job at staying balanced in it's representation of the townspeople vs. the film crews. I don't think any of us would argue that Hobert was justified in murder because he absolutely wasn't, but it is easy to get caught up in the shooting while ignoring the importance of the East Kentucky Poverty event as a whole. I thought that most of the interviewees had a very healthy viewpoint on the situation, especially O'Connor's daughter. It is important to see that this was a very unfortunate clash of culture and not just a shooting by a murderous lunatic. That being said, Hobert deserved to be convicted of first degree murder based on the evidence provided by the documentary. One of the most admirable parts of the documentary was the fact that O'Connor's daughter was able to have such a clear understanding of the situation, instead of showcasing blind rage towards Hobert. This event showed us the dangers that can be involved in documentary filmmaking, and certain arrogant filmmakers could learn a lesson here. One of the filmmakers being interviewed seemed to be surprised that the East Kentucky residents thought he was so much different than them, well, the truth is the documentors and the townfolk were worlds apart, thinking you have the capacity to understand another way of life without having LIVED it is both ignorant and dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how the narrator was herself a Kentucky Native, as well as a journalist. She could understand the feelings of Hobert, because she herself had been offended by the media coverage of their area. She also understood the responsibility of a journalist like O'Connor, to get at the truth of situations like the poverty in Eastern Kentucky. She had interests in both sides of the argument, so supporting one or the other would have been difficult without "betraying" the other. As both a community member and a journalist, she could be more objective. It made the documentary that much more effective. It made the shooting of O'Connor more than just the result of angering a hillbilly. It was the result of a social trespass, as well as the result of community exploitation.
ReplyDeleteThe overall conflict in the film certainly has to do with the tension between real scenarios and the media's portrayal of these scenarios, of which are often less than true, or only present a certain scenario of which holds true to the artist's vision but not necessarily to the people and life that he/she is trying to portray. In the film, we see two different views from the people of the town; one that the journalists are exploiting them with biased representations for personal gain, and the other being that they were honestly trying to bring social awareness to a long overlooked community.
ReplyDeleteThough I am sure tensions were high between the town's peoples and the journalists, I do not like Barret's almost sympathetic portrayal of Hobart Ison. The man was clearly deranged, and possibly even a sociopath. He killed O'Connor in cold blood and did so without remorse, in fact he even delighted in the fact, twistedly thinking he did his community a favor. The fact that he thought these people were laughing at him is such a poor excuse for murder it makes me sick to my stomach. The man took a father away from his children and should be eternally condemned.
My favorite interview in the film was the man who was being photographed by Hugh O'Connor with his daughter just prior to the murder. The man seems to in some ways, mostly superficial and physical ways, be a perfect stereotypical representation of the average hillbilly. He has a deep southern fried accent, almost no teeth, and a very Appalachian look. Yet when talking, he exudes such honesty and integrity that while living up to some stereotypes, he also breaks them down. The man has a moralist view of life, and even acknowledges the fact that O'Connor was doing the right thing. He is in sharp contrast to Ison's backwards and sadistic view of life, giving the viewer the knowledge that while Hobart was certainly an evil man and a product of his environment, this man was a product of his environment and an overtly good man. It shows that there is good and evil in all places, and that the people of Appalachia should not be condemned for Ison's heinous act.
Mike, it was the town's people who were referring to the journalists as "beatniks", as in hippies, Ginsberg, Kerouac, that sort of thing. It was a derogatory term to single out the filmmakers as different.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to note that the media's representation of Appalachia were very dark and grim, showing the most hideous aspects of poverty and hunger, while Barret's film certainly depicts that, she also shows the happiness that comes out of community and family. I really thought the documentary was shot and filmed very well, even the music was phenomenal. Barret was in an interesting role of being both the storyteller, as well as a character in the story, being from east Kentucky herself. It reminded me very much of one of my favorite writers, Claude McKay, and his ability to write about the world he lives in as both a spectator and a participant. Such as in his fantastic novel, "Home to Harlem", McKay writes himself as a character in the book, the character of Ray is a Harlem resident with a literary background who is able to both critique and engage in the insane world of the Harlem Renaissance. Barret is able to condemn Ison's actions from an unbiased perspective, and critiques the environment she grew up in as having influence of Ison's deranged mind, while at the same time embracing the kind of beauty that comes out of a tight-knit and small community. Her story is about people, the people she grew up around, and how that has shaped her perspective as a filmmaker.
ReplyDeleteAdam, thank you for referring us to McKay's story as another example of what I would call a more "embodied" approach to narrating a community story. Placing oneself in the narrative, or documentary, complicates the story as it disrupts notions of "two-sides" or "objectivity."
ReplyDeleteHowever, Aaron, I love the idea you pose as well. In a way, because Barret is part of the community she investigates--and admits being both shocked as a teenager by the event and also sympathetic to the people in her community who are portrayed as static representations of poverty--she is able to attain a certain "objectivity." I had never thought about it in this way before. In admitting a very subjective position, she tells a story that allows a viewer to see and analyze the various influences and complexities of a community moment. This story troubles commonplace arguments that "murder is always wrong" not by suggesting that this murder was right, but by showing how (as Kyle so eloquently put it) this is not just a lunatic maniac that we should dismiss and abhor but a community/culture clash that we should be aware of and learn from.
It was interesting how the narrator, being both an eastern Kentucky resident and a film journalist stayed somewhat standoffish throughout the documentary. She did this, I think because she understood both of the cultures and wanted to portray their point of view equally and fairly. Probably the most shocking aspect of the documentary, to me was the sentencing of Hobart. Although I myself would be outraged if someone from a different culture came to my community to film a documentary on how horribly I lived, and intended on showing it to people only of their culture, I don’t think I would be angry enough to shoot O'connor. Hobart probably should have received a harsher sentence, or at least should have served his full ten years.
ReplyDeleteTo answer question number three, members of a community should tell the community story, or at least approve of some one else to do it. I think the narrator recognized her community’s obligation to document their way of life and their social problems and felt it was necessary to document it. I believe she did this to protect her communities reputation. to prevent them as being portrayed as a bunch of savage hill-billies and also to expose the dangers of ignorance, which was present on both the filmmakers side as well the Kentucians side.
I think that this documentary was so effective because it was told from the perspective of someone from the community of Appalachia, and a member of the film industry. It was easy to see both sides of this piece because of the way Elizabeth Barret told portrayed the story. She really showed the anger of Hobert and the people of Appalachia, but also gave understanding to her audience. Being able to see O'Connor's camera crew side of the story really made the piece objective. Her approach answered the question of "who gets to tell the community story," the community, or a member of the community should be the ones to tell their story.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Kyle said about Hobart' sentencing being shocking. I was so surprised that it was so short, and that he was out after one year. If I was his friends of family I would not have felt any justice.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Aaron F about how Barret's background is what made the documentary the most effective, and that she balanced her two worlds well.
ReplyDeleteANOTHER POST :)
ReplyDeleteTo me, the epicenter of the culture clash, was how the filmmakers blamed the degree of poverty in Eastern Kentucky on the flaws of the American Dream. Then to counter this mindset the narrator juxtaposed it with a poor coal miner stating that he had lived the American Dream and was happy with his life. This is interesting, and somewhat ironic because it shows that those who are disavowing the American Dream were those who were secure in it (to their standards). The filmmakers had standardized to what constituted the American Dream to their lifestyle, and when they saw a community living outside those boundaries, they decried that lifestyle that the people were content with. However, in a way, the filmmakers were using the poor coal miners, just as corporations had, in order to capitalize on a product, which in their case was a documentary about poverty. But I don’t think the filmmakers had any band intentions with making their film. However, I do think they were arrogant and ignorant to other lifestyles. Although obviously the filmmakers were aware of other lifestyles and cultures, they were ignorant to the peoples’ attitudes towards them. And this ignorance, I believe is what started the culture clash.
The major conflict that I saw in the story was the role of pictures in popular media. At one point Barret makes the point that the major media outlets erred in focusing on the depressive state of Kentucky. But instead of providing a well rounded story of the people, which are the real treasure of Eastern Kentucky, their faith, their neighborliness, and love of the land, CBS and BBC and the Canadian broadcasting company show only the destitution. Since ravines of abandoned cars and roadside creeks filled with trash and debris and shanty homes is all that these major broadcasters show, that is what comes to characterize the region. While the camera doesn't lie, it also doesn't try and represent. In short, the people of Kentucky felt misrepresented and resentful because of it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel that there is catch-22 here. Because even when a news agency showed the people, it was also blamed for showing a population in rags. I think the resolution to this ethical problem of fair representation in the media is simply showing sensitivity. Barret showed the poverty because the issue of poverty ought to be brought to social conscience. Only in seeing it can a person be inspired to make a difference. And many people arrived in Kentucky to improve their situation. But by showing the positive and healthy culture, a man playing the fiddle, a local baptism, her own family videos, Barret also show's a side of Eastern Kentucky that they are proud of and want to show to the world.
The documentary gave a different view of the 1960’s in Appalachia, Kentucky, compared to what the media portrayed at that time. As an outsider my first reaction to the news of a camera man being shot by a civilian would be that the civilian was crazy. I would have never considered the damage a camera can do to a community. Elizabeth Barret gave a very good explanation of what the people that were not poor were feeling about the media only showing the very poor people in their community. Elizabeth had a very important role in the documentary because she was in charge of telling the story but since she was a part of the story herself, as a member of the community at the time, she had a very valuable opinion of what was happening. I believe everyone that got interviewed for this documentary, but also Elizabeth, got to tell the communities whole story, from the point of view of someone living the different situations, rather than just seeing it from the outside. The images Elizabeth showed were of typical people living regular lives. She used images from when she was in high school and images of other people around town. The media only showed the people who were struck by poverty and made it seem as if that was the case for everyone in that community. Although what Hobart Ison did was wrong I see where his frustration was coming from and realize that he felt Hugh O’Connor was going to hurt him with the images taken by his camera.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Marissa’s response, that the members of the community should be the ones to tell the story. Having different people living the same situation or different situations but at the same place and time, is the best way to get the full story with out being bias.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Mike’s confusion about, “how coal mining, a topic they bring up frequently, was tied in to the shooting of Hobart,” is that this was tied together because the pictures Hugh O’Connor was taking were of a poor coal miner, as the media always showed, yet they happen to be in the property of a well off person (Hobart Ison) who did not appreciate how his community was being portrayed.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary successfully depicts the poverty faced by the mountain people of eastern Kentucky’s Appalachian region during the 1960s, a region focused around coal mining. It was very interesting to see how some people wanted this attention, while others, regardless of whether they were rich or poor, did not want this national exposure. The media has a way of telling only a partial truth and depicting a story in a certain way to gain more interest. Locals of eastern Kentucky feared that the media would portray their society as a backward looking one, one that has no hope of prospering. This is clear by the unexplained murder of a cameraman that took place. The documentary talked about how the man shot the cameraman, who was trying to do a good thing for their region, due to the fear of all outsiders being dangerous. The landlord, Hobart Ison, thought he was protecting his region and was supported by his community.
ReplyDeleteWhat gave the documentary authenticity and credibility was the fact that the filmmaker, Elizabeth Barret, was born and raised in this region of eastern Kentucky. She returns to her region, a generation later, to expose the issues of poverty and crime that still exists and haunt the region. Barret’s own childhood accounts, filled with memories of vacations and high school, was a complete contrast to the region currently.
During the interview, she poses the question, “Who can tell a community story?” In my opinion, Barret was arguing how she, despite being a member of the media, had the authority to document this region since she still feels connected with it and experienced it firsthand. The documentary shows the dangers of filmmaking and the difficulty of accurately portraying a situation or region without embarrassing the people it filmed. Barret wanted to portray an American region that still dealt with extreme poverty and struggled to progress without embarrassing the mountain people she was filming. I think she successfully did this as I sympathized with the people being interviewed rather than instantly judge them as stupid. Having a past-local narrate the film was essential for the documentary’s success.
I agree with Kyle and Marissa, and everything else who addressed the issue, that it was essential Barret was from this region of eastern Kentucky. She was able to give the documentary credibility and tell the story of a community that was once hers. She felt obligated to portray this region without any bias and simply unleash the truths of this often hidden region to the public.
ReplyDeleteMike, I found it very interesting when you said, "I find it strange that even though 2 presidents visited the area, poverty still couldn't be stricken from the area."
ReplyDeleteI had not thought about it like this and am also shocked that poverty still haunted this region. This just shows that poverty is not an issue that can be addressed overnight; it is a process that requires many changes in their living styles that the mountain people may not be open to change.
I think it was an interesting documentary for a few reasons. Elizabeth Barret really lays out the context and personal details about the "mountain people." She not only incorporated her own childhood as part of the community, but she interviewed other perspectives about the place.
ReplyDeleteI also had no idea that it was going to lead up to such a notorious murder story. I thought she did a good job at building all of the characters individual story before going into the murder. It enabled the viewer to really understand the deeper reasoning for the conflict.
What stood out to me was the commonplaces that the community made about the media. They were outsiders that the people in the mountains did not understand or want to accept, so they created negative commonplaces about them to keep them away. This created a boundary between the press and the people that made it very hard for the press to do their work. While I'm sure there were some that were guilty of only highlighted the poor and poverty stricken families, I believe that if they had been more widely accepted they would have given all of the perspectives of the town. from rich to poor. they just werent given access to all of it.
To comment about Mike Crane's post.
ReplyDeleteHe said that he didnt understand why the coal mining industry was incorporated so much with the story of the shooting. I think the reason the filmmaker gave that background context was because it has so much to do with their communities family values. It is a good way to highlight how the industry controlled and manipulated their lifestyles and was the reason for their poverty. They also said that the fathers were content working in the coal mines because it was all they knew and it as all they wanted to do. There was a sense of loyalty and pride that went along with working in the mines. So while some of them probably could have left the mines, left the mountain towns, for a better life. But they didnt. Because they were mountain people and they were content with the way things were.
THis was good context for the viewer to further understand why they were so un-accepting of the outside volunteers and media coming into their towns.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to Mike's comment, “Crap, I messed up earlier, what I meant to say was I couldn't understand why Hobart shot Hugh O'Connor," I would like to say that the reason O’Conner was shot was because the film maker's were trust passing. They didn't ask Mr. Hobart if they could film on his property. It is very extreme to just take someone’s life away for simply wanting to film, but as Elizabeth said, “Mr. Hobart had a strong grudge and hatred for Mr. O’Conner." The real question is why on earth would he want to shoot him? He never caused any physical harm on Mr. Hobart and always visited countries around the world that were far less off then the United States. While visiting these countries, Mr. O’Conner was very kind, for example, remember the part where he want to Africa and showed that little girl a camera and she was excited because she had never seen anything like it? He seemed eager to learn about different types of people from the entire world and all he wanted to do was film them, so the rest of the world would how people from other parts of the world are doing and what they are like.
ReplyDeleteSo to answer Mike's question: Why did Hobart shoot O’Conner. As mentioned by someone in the film who knew Hobart, “He had to do it."
Mr. O’Conner was going against Hobart's right to privacy. Hobart didn't want people to know about his situation and he felt embarrassed about how poor people were portrayed. When people think of America, they think of the American dream, meaning opportunity for a better life style. If Mr. Hobart was filmed, he may have felt that people would judge his personal life and he didn't want to share his personal struggles with the rest of the world because it wasn't something to be proud of. In, fact Mr. Hobart had such a strong hate for O’Conner that he didn't feel bad about shooting him. I felt that if Mr. Hobart actually knew O’Conner, he would find that Mr. O’Conner is not the type to ridicule people. He simply wanted to film to let others know about the struggle so that maybe people would intervene and help people from Kentucky out.
It is like that book by Upton Sinclair, "The Jungle," after that book was published people began to understand the seriousness of bad working conditions. They had no idea what really went on in these factories until this book came out and then working conditions were improved because people started to notice that it was a problem. Shouldn't people know what's going on so that they can do something about it? In my opinion, that's what I think Mr. O’Conner was trying to do, notify the public of the poverty problems around the world and to help others understand that they are not the only country going through poverty issues. If we, as a whole nation understand that poverty is happening all across the globe, we can all work together to improve living conditions.
Discuss the role of Elizabeth Barrette, the filmmaker, in the documentary. Why does she present herself in the way she does?
ReplyDeleteI think that Elizabeth's role as the film maker is to notify the public of what was going in Kentucky. Her job was to show how Kentucky truly is, that means no Photoshop or anything that would cover up the real story. As a person that is involved in the media, it is hard to be truthful because the media always seems to embellish the truth these days. It is also important to be unbiased. Elizabeth was able to portray the real story because she was connected with what she was filming. She wasn't just some film maker shooting scenes of Kentucky to show the public what Kentucky was like. She was a part of what went on in Kentucky because she grew up there. She had previous knowledge about Kentucky and experience that other's wouldn't understand because they weren't apart of the community.
To answer the question, Elizabeth portrays herself as a citizen of Kentucky. She does this because like I said, only people who grew up in Kentucky knew the history of the community as a whole. It was her hometown and it would always be the place she would remember as a part of her childhood.
I agree with Tiantian about how the filmmakers being labeled as Communists was quite extreme. Also, like s/he said, many times people living in poverty don't know what else is out there and filming the situation could potentially bring jobs to the area, or other opportunities.
ReplyDeleteI think it's rather outrageous that a man only served one year for the murder of another. In any other city, some people would be outraged. This movie seemed to make light of this fact, because Hobart was a well-loved man. So that means that anyone who is popular can literally get away with murder? That's not justice. I understand he was loved, but come on! Trespassing doesn't call for murder. And what kind of message does this send to the rest of the townspeople? Shooting someone for coming onto your property when given permission by a person on the property is ok? A man was murdered--a father, husband, brother, son. In any other context, people would be outraged.
As far as who gets to tell the story, history shows us it is the winner. The winner writes the history books. These days, though, with our mass media, the truth is hardly known anymore. Everyone has a bias; it's inescapable. So the one who gets to tell the story these days is the one who is the most entertaining, unfortunately.
I find the comments that Barret's dual role as an East Kentucky resident and a film maker allowed her to be more objective or present both sides equally strange. Through her approach of trying to pin the murder on the social context of Appalachia, I felt that she seems almost apologetic for Ison's actions. Anyone who shoots a person in cold blood like that is absolutely a lunatic, and to try to explain it away or even blame it on O'Connor by saying he should've known better or it's different culture, as Barret and the jury during the trial did, seems incredibly biased.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Kyle that it was shocking Hobart only received a year in jail for his crime, and how he was completely unapologetic about the murder. Having the various members of the community tell their story is a good way to do a documentary, but obviously community members aren't very good at justice if Ison got off so light.
I both liked and dislike the film. At first I thought it was a representation of how Documentary filmmakers would use the camera in such a way as to prove their argument. They were arguing that Kentucky was poor, the people impoverished and uneducated. Their use of black and white photography helped to elicit their views. Why didn't they use color? Why black and white film? Yes, color film is more expensive, but by using black and white they were making a point about the strong divide between those who had money and those who didn't.
ReplyDeleteThe movie made a rather abrupt turn when it focused on the shooting. Elizabeth Bakers film was all in color, which put it in stark contrast to the Documentary film makers. It's because I think that she wanted to show the "Color" of the people and the area. It's a beautiful area, but if the documentary film makers showed that, it would have distracted the views from the verbal message, which is that Kentucky is a blight on America that needed help.
I finished the film angry at the injustice in which a cold blooded murderer got off free. It made me angry.
I liked Noah and Mikes comments. The whole story of the coal mines was intermingled into the story and not clearly spelled out. And for Kyle, we have the American Dream in Arizona and some of us are just as poor and people in Kentucky. The American Dream is a myth.
I felt the same emotion Christine did at the end of the film where I became angry that the community basically supported a murder as an outlet to their distress at being labeled one of the ugliest parts of America. I do want to note on something many people have said about Barrett; she herself establishes the divide between her own upbringing and the people in poverty; while she was sledding in the snow, cheerleading, and becoming homecoming queen, the miners' families were struggling to keep food on the table. She is not a member of the actual community that was under public scrutiny, yet it seems like she is giving herself the right to tell the story because she was nearby, making her a member of the larger community.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary was a unique story that described Kentucky, particularly, Appalachia as a depressed state. This rural existence depicted poverty; in which, the mountain people of eastern Kentucky suffered tremendously. This documentary focuses on a different perspective starting in the era of the 1960’s when many Americans were questioning the “American Dream”. A major conflict in the mining industry created huge unemployment issues because millions of dollars of coals was taken from Appalachia. Sadly, this brought about a hunger problems, leaving these mountain people with never enough food to go around. The miners had been treated very badly in Kentucky and they wanted to show this to the country, “was this the American Dream?”
ReplyDeleteThe majority of everyone was poor, however, not everybody was poor in Kentucky. The main problems’ concerning the people was that these people were afraid of change, especially the people in the mines. For the most part, everybody else resented welfare and people who thought they were more sophisticated than others.
The Hugh O’Connor’s story was very interesting and I was shocked on how much harm a cameraman could do to a community in the Midwest. Because of all the media attention from outsiders, a major controversy arose among the citizens of Kentucky. Many people were giving them a hard time because they were showing the rest of America there problems, and others were glad to show because they wanted to change it. Social status determines how others see the town, but it was the images that brought insulting film that showed the worst of the town. Therefore, the war on poverty was blamed on journalists and other media representation. But can people film poverty but not represent the poorness that they display? Because of this controversy, O’Conner was shot with a whole in the side of his chest in 1967. He was a prominent Canadian filmmaker; in which, he was shot and killed, known as the “Stranger with a camera”.
Elizabeth Barret, in return, wants to dig deep and find the meaning of this darkness. Elizabeth plays a significant role in telling this story and was connected to Hugh because she was a neighbor and a wife of the “stranger with a camera”. Her beneficial judgment gives the audience a clear understanding of the documentary that traced to O’Conner, where he was shot multiple times in the chest because of all the people coming in with cameras. Hobart was the victim in this case; yet, O’Conner was also the victim because he was also hurting Hobart with the pictures he was taking of him. The outcome resulted in O’Conner being shot at around four or five times, as well as a bullet shot into the lenses of his camera. After Daniel Smith fired off a few shots, they ran with the camera equipment, and O’Conner was shot in the side of his chest. Hobart Ison was getting the picture taken of him watched it all with his daughter on his front porch. The ending result was a jail sentence for ten years and one year of parole; in which he never felt guilty about because he thought he was doing a favor for the people of his state.
I strongly agree with Noah's comment on how "Having a past-local narrate the film was essential for the documentary’s success" because without this essential feature, the documentary would be less efficient. By connecting this real life scenario with the narration of Elizabeth Barret, the documentary has much more credibility overall.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kyle’s comment on the arrogance and ignorance of the filmmakers, I also think they were ignorant and inconsiderate to other lifestyles. I completely agree that the filmmakers were aware of other lifestyles and cultures, such as those that worked in the mines. However, the attitude towards them represents the ignorance that generates the clash between different cultures.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Christine's observations of the film - I, too, noticed the drastic differences between the way that Elizabeth Barret portrayed the community and the ways of the filmmakers she discusses in her film - in both style and content. She tends to focus on nature and serene images of winding country roads (in color), while the others focus on filthy children who they are trying to portray as impoverished - even those who aren't. The primary theme of the film is the way documentary filmmakers and photographers unfairly illustrated the blunt contrast between the wealthy and the poor in this community - and Barret examines and challenges this issue by using color to help get her message across. She focuses on the beauty of the environment more than its inhabitants. She shows the viewer that there is more to Appalachia than rich and poor citizens.
ReplyDeleteBarret even says that it is her responsibility to capture and portray the community fairly,truthful to the way she sees it. I think she does a fine job embodying her standards. She is the type of filmmaker who she believes is able to truly tell the story of a community.
I agree with Aaron's comment about Barret's ability to present both sides of the "argument" as a member of the community and as a journalist. It made her film more powerful and effective given her background and knowledge of the flaws of the community members and the media. She remains unbiased, yet shares her thoughts and insight. The emotions she shares with us also helps us understand her position and she does a good job avoiding any conflict of interest.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary Stranger With a Camera explores many themes and examines the conflicts endured by a partially poverty-stricken community in Eastern Kentucky. Elizabeth Barret revisits a tragedy that struck the community in the late 1960s. The murder of filmmaker Hugh O'Connor brought attention to the relationship between a community and those who document it, as well as the responsibilities of both the filmmaker and community members. While the community did have it's share of lower class, poverty stricken families, it also was inhabited by wealthier attorneys and doctors and families with more than sufficient means to survive and all those in between. However, the community had problems with the way they were being portrayed by photographers, filmmakers and other media outlets who would sometimes undermine the less wealthy people and make a bad situation worse. In one case, a child/children were photographed in a way that implied they were deprived of food, but these children were, in fact, well fed.
ReplyDeleteBarret says that only certain people are able to tell the story of a community. The community members or those who have been able to observe the community and become well acquainted with its members, can tell the story. She also says that she has a responsibility to tell or illustrate what she sees truthfully and fairly.
Another conflict examined in the film is how filmmakers portray the American Dream and how it is complicated by the impoverished community.
The filmmakers also seem to fixated on the theme of the contrast between the rich and the poor and how social change is brought about.
Essentially, the theme incorporated in the film is practiced by the filmmaker herself. The main theme being the relationship between filmmakers and a community (specifically in the 1960s) is being put into practice when Barret takes on the challenge of attempting to fairly portray her community and the conflicts it has endured.
She ultimately portrays to the viewers what she thinks, what she witnesses and what she feels about the community.
(Sorry my posts are late, this page wouldn't let me post from my computer so I had to do it from a computer in the ILC)
Hey, sorry for the tardiness. I'd like to comment on Barret's images. Her images display a level of poverty similar to the images provided by the professional journalists.
ReplyDeleteI think the significance of that is that it seems impossible to document Kentucky Appalachia, or the coal mine towns in particular, without depicting poverty. Clearly, that region of the country is poor. The residents didn't object to being portrayed as poor, but to being misrepresented. Documentary film making, like Barret's, succumbs to the catch 22 that if you are documenting a subject then you bias your piece by trying to capture one angle. There is no way to present the whole story, and every journalist, photographer, writer or film maker knows this. By focusing on one aspect of a culture you necessarily injustice it by simplifying its existence. Even the most oppressed or enslaved cultures develop beyond the confines of their controllers. Therefore, if one attempts to document injustice, he avoids the true nature of the people. In that sense, documentary photography or cinematography never documents a people, but an aspect of a people.
Barret tries to understand why the videographer was murdered from a personal stand point, but as someone who tries to analyze the event she is necessarily an outsider, and her images represent her as such. To document and retell is to put yourself above a situation. Not in a moral sense, but you have to separate from the story you are telling, otherwise you deliver a slanted version of the truth that undermines the trust with your audience.
Barret's pictures describe the same scenario that ended with murder. To document honestly, you will offend people with the truth because no one views their personal situation as the world does. To photograph is to record reality, and most humans live outside of that sphere.
Responding to Mike Crane:
ReplyDeleteI don't think Hobart shared a sentiment with the locals that O'Connor and his ilk deserved to die. I think Hobart had a sense of propriety tied to possession and control of land. When O'Connor compromised Hobart's control of his property by recording it, tensions and sanity exploded.
I think the general local sentiment was one of anger at exploitation. They were living their lives, and who were these outsiders to judge?
Responding to Aaron Kuhl:
ReplyDeleteIt's a great point that documentarians couldn't represent the poverty of Eastern Kentucky without also presenting the poorness of individuals.
However, I can't agree with Hobart being a victim as well as O'Connor. Perhaps Hobart's property was trespassed upon, but to compare O'Connor's victimhood to Hobart's is to call Influenza a disease the same as AIDS.
A note on that poverty in Kentucky: It still exists today. Coal mines still exploit the poor in Eastern Kentucky. Barret and O'Connor's work showed the world how poor and oppressed that part of the country was, which is great, but somehow America thinks we have stepped out of that backwardsness. Still, people have coffee and cigarettes for breakfast so the bread-earner of the family can eat bacon for mining sustenance.
I think it is impossible to not show the poverty that this rural town in Kentucky has. It seems like the people of the town were almost alright with being represented as poor, as long as it was shown in a "tasteful" way. They were a large family basically that defended each other and protected one another.
ReplyDeleteI felt that Barret did a great job of totting the line between emotion and fact. She was telling a true story through pictures, and then finding people in the town to deliver a real truth to the story, and give it a real kick. This was a film about a poor town with a strange murder, and I saw the truth in it the whole time.
I felt the O'Connor story showed another interesting side to this story. It is amazing how one camera and some pictures can stir up such a large controversy, and I thought that lead perfectly into the story of the Hobart murder as well. I felt that was the best part if this entire film. Barret did a great job of finding the correct people to interview about this strange murder, those who agreed with protecting the family values in what Hobart did, and those who saw it for what it actually was, cold murder. This was the story of some photographers who saw a great opportunity to shoot some peaceful pictures of this town before they left. As they were shooting a nice family moment, Ison, who felt betrayed and let down by "misrepresentation" of his town, fired shots and the journalists and demanded they leave. As they were going he shot and eventually killed one of the journalists. Now, I can see the act of defending your town's honor, especially after it has been portrayed as nothing more than hicks and poor living for as long as you can remember, but that does not allow murder. I was so angry to find out that Hobart would only receive one year for his crime, solely because I felt that did not do justice for the journalist's family, who also had been hurt.
I was really compelled to find out more during this story, which made it good journalism, I felt that Barret did a great job of trying to show both sides evenly to let the viewer develop their own opinion of the story, which is often very hard to do in journalism. She let the viewer develop their own opinion, and show both sides almost evenly.
1. What are the conflicts/themes of the documentary?
ReplyDeleteThe main theme of the documentary seems to have been the imbalance between the views of the outside news media and the desired reception in regards to the poor. The movie alternates between scenes of the invading press and Elizabeth Barret's own video recordings. This stands to illustrate how much outsiders focus on the conditions, and how little time they spent on the people themselves. Other themes, such as whether or not Hobart was acting selfishly or the gulf between the poor people and the rich mine owners, existed in lesser form than the aforementioned main theme.
2. Discuss the role of Elizabeth Barret, the filmmaker, in the documentary. Why does she present herself in the way she does?
She obviously, when she inserts herself into the narrative, portrays herself as one of the Appalachians. I believe this is to illuminate the deficient way in which the Appalachians were being portrayed before.
3. Barret poses the question “Who gets to tell the community story?” at the beginning of the documentary? Now, having watched the film, what do you think the answer is?
It is not so much who, but how. Saying that only those who are part of the culture have the right to speak on the issues that affect it is foolish in the extreme. Such would result in biases that would cripple social dialogue, as people would be encouraged to glorify their own culture to keep away critics, and eventually no on would trust any such opinions, leading to greater gulfs between people.
What is needed instead, is a willingness to learn, fully, the culture that is being examined. Such should be initially done without a goal in mind, just an investigation into all of its faucets. Outsiders should also be aware of the history of the people within the culture. If O'Conner had known of Hobart's tendencies toward powerful protectiveness of property, he might not have stepped onto Hobart's land without prior permission. From what I gathered from the video, O'Conner was one who respected culture. This is not to say that O'Conner was at fault, or that the death was preventable, but the community might have viewed Hobart's actions in an entirely different light had O'Conner showed respect to Hobart's culture.
Lee Kitagawa
1) The main conflict throughout the film is the role of law in society. In essentially any other part of the country, the murder would have been a close-cased murder. Simple. Yet, in this isolated community, unspoken laws had been set forth regarding pride, respect, and fear. Therefore, these film makers broke these laws and met the consequences.
ReplyDelete2) The filmmker presents herself in two ways--a backcountry girl from the place of the crime and a filmmaker. As the backcountry girl, she is sympathetic to the locals. As a film maker, she is sympathetic to the victim, as well as sympathetic to the right to expose knowledge. She presents herself as thus to make her become an almost biased party.
3) This is an intersting word choice in "community story". In one sense, the community's story is told to the American people through the film makers and their lense that they interpretted it through. However, this is not the community story. The community story is the fact that the the murderer got off because he followed the unwritten community laws. In that way of thinking, it was the community that told its own story.
4) I am not sure what this is referencing. I remember seeing happy scenes from the storyteller's life that completely contrasted the other images.
I disagree with Christine. She said that she felt angry when the murderer got off free. I felt a sense of depression and understanding. In that community, normal laws did not apply. Hobart only knew one way to act when he was threatened and that was with violence. This barabric attitude was depressing. Yet, i understood the reasoning for such an act. I could not be angry at the individual for the way he had been taught to think
ReplyDeleteMany people said they were shocked by the light sentence. I was not. Being tried a jury of his peers who most likely believed the same way as the murderer, the obvious outcome would be a light sentence.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Sam Landfried.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that he was not a victim. He's just not a victim in the same league as O'Conner. If it wasn't for the way that the media had formerly treated the Appalachians, he would not have expected O'Conner to be disrespectful. He, in a way, is a victim of the media blitz. There was a reason that the community was willing to defend him. But this does not in any way excuse what he did. Taking someone's life is almost never excusable, and he did so because he was close-minded.
In reaction to Sean Spiece's comment.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am not shocked by his light sentence, I would condemn it the same way that I would if someone raped my sister and got off because she's ethnically part Japanese. There are actions that cannot be explained away by the presence of culture. Murder is one of those things. Anyone who has studied the civil rights movement within America knows that evil men were let go despite murdering, because their culture said it was all right to kill someone as long as they were not white. While those men were victims of their own culture, they should have paid the full price for their actions, as should have Hobart.
So I just realized that when I wrote my response on the film almost two weeks ago now I did it on my blog and responded to people's blogs. I guess I overlooked this. But here is my reaction.
ReplyDeleteTo be quite honest I thought the movie was a little bit slow. I felt that it had a decent plot and could have developed into a good story, but the narrating was monotone and seemed a little repetitive. Also, I am leaving for my cruise tomorrow, so I was a bit anxious to get out of class and drive back to Phoenix. The movie did allow me to see something I never knew existed. I know this was quite a while back, but I was completely unaware that areas in the South were in that extreme poverty. It makes me realize how lucky I am today to have what I have. It was really upsetting to see the young children especially. It even surprised me to see some of the people much older now still missing teeth and looking in bad condition.
I think when Barret asked the question about who should tell the story, I think she had two different ideas on the answer. I believe she thinks at some points the only ones who can truly tell the accurate accounts are those who lived it, and experienced the horrible times. I also think she believes her and the filmmakers are the only ones who can tell it to the public. She believes they are only ones who can get the story out to the public. If it were not for them then those who experienced it would not be able to have anyone to tell the story to and to get it out there.