III

14 March


 

I am going to keep this one nice and short (I hope) due to my current physical state.

Note to self: Do not attempt to read an ethics report after minimal sleep and minimal food-intake

I am not sure whether or not it is this physical state or the fact that I did not watch the film Tagged (2007) that evoked a sense of agony upon me as I read week 3’s Donovan reading. I can take one (or both) of those stances however I almost adamant that neither are the cause. To put it simple, that was one of the most boring articles I have ever read and am glad that it is now part of my past and no longer infects my present or future. Donovan writes about her documentary film Tagged and unpacks an evaluation in excruciating detail of the successful and appropriate manipulation of ethics revolving around the production of the film. Apparently, Tagged presents an “ideological position” and is “truthful [in its] representation” through chosen aesthetic and discursive techniques. All I have to say is that whilst Tagged may have attempted this and might actually be one of very few ‘documentaries’ that intend on presenting truth, Donovan’s point has been overshadowed (personal opinion here) by the pain inflicted upon me in reading this article. I have not seen, and fail to believe that there is, a documentary that’s authors actually present 100 percent truth. The editing in post production, the planning of the film and multiple takes of shots in Tagged solidifies my opinion and has strengthened my stance against ‘documentary’ films. In truth, I have not seen the film; it could oppose my arguments completely and subvert my ideologies (however I highly doubt that). So in conclusion, I understand the position of the report and can draw connections to various points made by Donovan on ethics, however, the article interested me as much as the film adaptation of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008): not at all!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar