Ok, it's taken me nearly two months to reply. Better late than never...
strapped for cash said:
BenLaw said:
I've just watched the greatest documentary ever, The Act of Killing.
Hyperbole, Ben? *smile*
Very much so, but with the purpose of attracting attention, which seemed to occur! Having said that, it may be subjectively accurate; I watch quite a lot of documentaries and I'm struggling to think of a better one.
BenLaw said:
Formally pretty interesting too, elements of expressionism, realism and surrealism within the documentary format.
I haven't seen The Act of Killing, though I read a few reviews when it was released theatrically. Can you expand on your observations above?
I can. A pretty novel technique is used of asking the subjects to make their own movie of their historical actions. (The only major disappointment is that what they created is not an extra on the blu ray.) Their efforts are remarkable both in the content of what they produce, because of its brutal honesty, but also the innovative form they frequently go for, despite not being trained filmmakers.
The subjects' frankness about their own abhorrent actions is pretty remarkable, but combined with the insight one gets (obviously filtered through one's own experiences and perceptions) from how they go about presenting it and by how they interact with each other and third parties during thr making of their film, really makes for a unique documentary.
Documentary filmmakers are never objectively capturing "reality" and the camera is never simply a window on the world.
Yes, and this film is especially interesting for on the one hand making that clear, but on the other allowing one to think one is getting this special psychological insight into the subjects.
If the filmmakers made bold formal choices to incorporate aspects of realist, expressionist and surrealist techniques, what function do these approaches serve, and what might this tell us about the filmmakers' positions/objectives?
To frame the question another way, who has agency here and to what extent -- the filmmakers, the documentary's subject or subjects, the audience at the level of interpretation? (This is, in essence, a question about authorship and documentary filmmaking.)
Great questions, and especially pertinent to this film. It's what makes it so special, in my view. It is not only about a disturbing and fascinating subject matter, it not only has remarkable input and insight from the subjects into that subject matter, but it also asks deep questions of authorship and audience interaction.
Watch it, I think you'd be very interested.