Incident at Oglala

   Incident at Oglala is a documentary recounting a shootout on a Lakota Indian reservation between FBI agents and Native American residents. The film begins by establishing that on June 26, 1975, two FBI agents were following suspects in connection with the stealing of a pair of cowboy boots. They perused the suspects onto a property were a shootout erupted, leaving the two agents dead. The film then leaves the specifics of the story and goes on to establish the aura of the situation and the tension that existed not only between whites and Indians, but between Indians and other Indians. It recounts recent violent conflicts between the government and Indians at Wounded Knee, and between differing ideologies concerning modernism and tradition that were tearing apart the Indian community.

By revealing the different individuals motivations and a history surrounding the event the film reveals to us that the case is not cut and dried as it may have seen at first and simulates the exhaustive process of investigation and questioning that is required to gain an understanding of both the event and the situation as a whole. The film relies on interviews from people representing both sides of the issue as well as reenactments that change depending on who is recounting the story, and that never get too specific. While it can be difficult reenacting a disputed event without being biased, the film does a good job of presenting both the interviews and reenactments in a way that allows the viewer to come to their own conclusion(or lack of conclusion) of the story, instead of being force feed a point of view.

The filmmaker is faced with a lot of challenges in making this film, not the least being the unfortunate history of conflict between the US government and the Native American population. Another challenge is that they are telling an unresolved story concerning a volatile situation and individuals who still wielded power at the time the film was made. This required a lot of examination and judgment in picking and choosing what to include in the film. It is also a challenge to create a sense of balance, as it is not a one-sided issue.

While they never come to a specific conclusion, the filmmakers present evidence of corruptions in our judicial and law enforcement systems, as well as biases that exist in our societal structure. It also points out that there was a violent and fearful situation on the reservation, and brings attention to the idea that any resident being followed by a mysterious car on the reservation might have reason to fear for their life and act in self defense. But the film was not made to convince its audience of a specific conclusion, but merely presents the situation and allows the viewer to thinks for themselves, which has probably increased the impact that the film will and has had.
   Joe Steigerwald

This Film is Not Yet Rated

This Film is not Yet Rated Is a documentary about the rating system run by the Motion Picture Association of America. It is not in the style of cinéma vérité but instead has an expressed purpose of attacking the system in place and exposing inconsistencies and biases that exist in the way films get rated in the US.

The film gives a brief history of cinema censorship and talks about how the film industry has chosen to “self regulate” itself to avoid government censorship. The filmmaker hires a private detective to infiltrate the MPAA and find out the identities of the film raters, which are kept secret (the process of which is chronicled in the film). The film contains various interviews with directors and their experiences with the rating system. It goes on to surmise the characters of the film raters and suggests that they discriminate against films with homosexual content and treat sexual content more strictly than violence. Also it uses animated figures to paraphrase the filmmaker’s interaction with the MPAA, instead of using actual transcript.

The film is has a clear bias and makes little attempt to represent both sides of the argument. The founder of the MPAA is made out to be a devious liar, and his words are also hand picked in a way to make him reflect poorly, as opposed to interviewees who agreed with the filmmaker who got ample screen time and opportunity to explain their views. It tries to make the case that the raters do not represent the ideologies of everyday Americans, even though the MPAA claims they do. It also claims that the MPAA and the studio system are in cahoots and act in mutual benefit of each other, but offers no explanation how or why they benefit from each other.

While the film does expose inconsistencies and lies of the MPAA, it does not offer any alternative idea or seem to value any form of rating system. It offers very little viewpoint from people who have benefited from or used the rating system and makes it seem that few people take the rating system seriously. Which if this was true, NC 17 movies would not average millions less in revenue, and filmmakers wouldn’t be getting upset over the power wielded by the MPAA. Overall the film suffers from a lack of clarity in its purpose, and a lack of balance in its viewpoints, which seems to reduce the impact of the film by diminishing its ability to facilitate open-minded thought. However it also carries with it many valid ideas regarding the way America thinks about and reacts to the content in our films, and can be a valuable tool in gaining a better understanding of the way films are created and distributed in America.

Joe Steigerwald

 

Comedian

“Comedian” is the Jerry Seinfeld driven documentary that portrays the life of a stand-up comedian and what he/she has to go through in this field.  Its basic format is a duality of the up-and-coming rookie comedian (Orny Adams), versus the established veteran (Jerry Seinfeld) trying to re-invent or re-establish his career that originally put him on the map.  This duality prompted me to one of the more relevant stories in Wisconsin sports this past year, the quarterback situation in Green Bay.  The way the camera portrays Seinfeld, who basically came out of stand-up comedy retirement, is much like Brett Favre coming back to football and having to prove himself all over again.  Seinfeld comes onstage and thundering cheers are amongst the crowd even before he begins his material.  This contrasts to Orny Adams who is trying to make it big in stand-up comedy and follow in Seinfeld’s footsteps, much like Aaron Rodgers to Favre’s footsteps.  This comparison just goes to show how the filmmaker’s use of editing (cuts from the rookie trying to make it and veteran trying to re-invent) to form this duality giving a great emphasis on how there is sort of an apprenticeship and appreciation of former and current comedic artists.  (This is also aided by numerous cameos by other comedians) It’s not easy either way, starting off or getting back into the swing of things.

The main technical part that jumped out at me was that 90% of the film was short on location and at night. There is one great quote, “Comedy isn’t a daytime thing,” that added to idea of nighttime footage and why daytime was hardly used.  To put it simply, people are more willing to have a good time and laugh in the  dark.  The night footage was often grainy at times though, due to the pure fact that they were shooting predominately in a cramped comedy or nightclub with little light available. This lack of lighting may have given the film a “nitty, gritty” behind-the-scenes feel so I can understand the logic behind it, but I feel it hurt the film because it was visually boring, hard to watch, and somewhat depressing.  It was hard for me to find any real images of beauty.  This was probably done intentionally because it leaves the viewer to find the beauty in the joke telling or material preformed verbally however.  Although, I wonder if this was done purely because the venues are at dark nightclubs? Maybe it was the only practical way to give the audience a sense of realism without coming off as too manufactured or fake.  Most of the interviews have an ad-hoc or impromptu type feel, as the subject mater is talking to the camera while eating in between sets or backstage before a bit.  This reinforces the essence of realism and truth apparent throughout the entire film.  While it may be boring, it has a structured theme and doesn’t sway from it.

The main message brought across through the use of this truthfulness (by camerawork, editing, and sound) is that while the jokes are funny, the amount of work put into these jokes are not.  Once the audience gets a feel for the comedian backstage the movie will give a sample of the performance for a quick laugh.  After a quick laugh, it’s back to the serious side of stand-up and all the frustration that comes with it.  Hand-held and on the fly recording is the best way to do this and makes complete sense why the filmmakers would choose this method.

Most of the film was of behind the scenes interviews that used b-roll of traveling to segway from one scene to the next.  This is a pretty common method I’ve seen in numerous documentaries and I wish the filmmakers could’ve thought of a more creative way to transfer the viewer from one scene to the next.  It would’ve been nice to end a shot on a microphone stand and then match cut it to a different mic stand from a different act of a different comedian instead of just going to traffic lights or an airplane.  Most of the film is dark and uninspiring to look at so at least use some sort of transition to add some fervor so that the audience can better see the “light at the end of the tunnel” message of stand-up comedy and that while its hard work it can still pay off in the end.  Otherwise the audience is left with this hopelessness that stand-up comedy is a dead end.  The film uses the story or Orny Adams and his rising success to get across this message but it isn’t used or reinforced through the filmmaker’s techniques enough.  At the end of the film I still felt uninspired and a tad depressed when I believe the film was trying to accomplish the opposite.  Yes, it made me appreciate and see how much work is put into stand-up, but it took away from the real reason anyone goes to see stand-up, and that’s to laugh.

-Lydell Peterson

American Movie – The Making of Northwestern” (1999) by Chris Smith & Mark Borchardt.

This documentary features three point lighting and sit down lighting to film Mark Borchardt, his family, and friends who helped him create his feature film, “Northwestern”, his short horror film, “Coven”. “American Movie” uses “in the moment” shooting of Mark Borchardt working. The audience sees him working at his numerous tasks throughout the three years that the film covers and has him working on both of those films. The camera shows the audience, Mark Borchardt shooting his film, and traveling to the locations he wants in his movie. This movie displays an intermingling of Mark Borchardt’s family life and his dream of making movies. The audience also gets a look at the financial hardships and the tragic loss of his children only pushes him harder to make his film.

After not being able to procure funds for his feature length film, “Northwestern”, Mark Borchardt goes back to his short horror film, “Coven”, a film he hadn’t touched in two years. Now that Mark Borchardt decides to change plans and finish his short horror film he still needs funding. With the help of his uncle Bill Borchardt and his uncle’s money, Mark is able to borrow three thousand dollars to finish his short film. In, “American Movie”, the audience follows Mark Borchardt’s journey in making his film. Along the way the viewers see Mark Borchardt’s private life, his moment’s depression, small successes and, his ability to rally all the help he can get to make his film, “Coven”. Throughout the film the camera appears as this floating thing among the action and at other times it is directly involved with the action. In,” American Movie”, there are also points were Mark Borchardt is alone just talking to the camera about what’s currently going on in his life and the film. During,” American Movie”, the viewers get to see clips from the movies Mark Borchardt made in his childhood. Ultimately this documentary ,” American Movie”, is about how badly does Mark Borchardt want to make it and what will he do and sacrifice to get his film, “Coven”, made?

As the camera follows Mark Borchardt the audience gets to see well composed and framed shots that are white balanced and lit well to insure the audience won’t miss anything. Overall,” American Movie”, is well made, esthetically pleasing and is a movie all filmmakers should see at least once. Mark Borchardt’s plight is engaging and touching to the viewer. Near the end of the film you see and feel the rush and tension of trying to get the final copy of,” Coven”, made and premiered. The audience goes to the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee’s own Mitchell Hall in the film department with Mark Borchardt were we see the post production process of, “Coven”, the camera acts as a fly on the wall as we observe the editing process and the tension to get the final copy of the film made. At the end of ,”American Movie”, the audience gets to see the big turn out of Mark Borchardt’s short film,” Coven”, a massive line of people waiting to see Mark Borchardt’s film. Afterwards Mark Borchardt is talking to his uncle Bill Borchardt about funding for his feature film, “Northwestern”, following that is a title card saying Bill Borchardt had passed away, and he left Mark Borchardt fifty thousand dollars to make the film.

I thought this was a good ending for, “American Movie”, because now Mark Borchardt could make his feature length film. This documentary was an excellent film to watch. Cinematically the approach of a meshed story about Mar Borchardt’s personal life, family life, life on the set, seeing parts of the film ,”Coven’, along the way, the pitfalls and the possibilities for Mark Borchardts journey during, “American Movie”, were all excellent to see. This documentary was filmed perfectly and the amount of work that went into was most defiantly staggering to make a great film like this. I see why this film was awarded The Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance film Festival. It is well deserved.

Matt Gonia.

Film 203 Introduction to Documentary Production

Born Into Brothels

Zana Briski’s film Born Into Brothels seems to be divided into many separate parts and roles.  The first part evokes the normal introduction to the film’s concept, that the lives of children whose mothers are prostitutes can be changed for the better.  The director of the film sees photography classes as a way to expose the lives of prostitutes without intruding as an American filmmaker often can.  The children each seem to have a voice and a certain aptitude for exposing their normally hidden lives.  The first part of the film also has the characteristic low-budget documentary feel, as we see only hidden camera video footage of the Sonagachi Red Light district, and only a few interviews with the children, followed by the still images the children take with disposable film cameras.

Once the film escalates to more urgent situations, where female children are preparing to “join the line” and male children seem to spiral towards a path of poverty and eternal slum-life, the film transforms into a more message driven film: that the lives of the prositute’s children must be changed, by being accepted into a boarding school or otherwise escaping their future lives.  The first part of film has a simple role, to introduce the topic, but this escalation offers a new role for the film, to instill a sense of despair for the viewer, that the children may never escape their life as the child of a Calcutta prostitute.  This despair however, has raised numerous criticisms for the film, mainly that of all things to give to these children, photography classes may be more sensationalist than life-altering.  Only one student was allowed to travel abroad to a photography conference in Amsterdam, and according to some updates, that student never really escaped his inevitable life as a lower-class slum citizen of Calcutta.  Overall, the photography collection raised an estimated $100000, which is a substantial amount of money when converted to the Indian Rupee, so some children were able to afford boarding school and other forms of education.  But the film seems to use the children’s photography more for its own benefit, whereas English and Math classes might have been a better choice for a long-term plan to influence the lives of red light district children.  

On a personal level, as a student who has visited parts of India, and lived with residents of Thane, a suburb of Mumbai, photography is somehow symbolic of India’s need to let the rest of the world what India is like, and what the rest of the world’s involvement is with India.  However, when one actually encounter’s an Indian child begging for spare rupee’s while waiting for a street light to change to green, the first reaction usually isn’t to hand over a camera.  Of course, the documentary filmmaker’s developed a sense of trust and ultimately a family-like bond with the children, but one wonder’s what would have happened to the children if they could have been educated in more academic topics, and entered boarding schools with an education.  The children’s lack of any education was one of the main obstacles for getting the children into a school, as well as their family ties with Red Light District workers.

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005) by Robert Greenwald

This is a documentary about the company Wal-Mart and the people this company affects. The filmmaker starts off the movie with found footage of a highly pixilated scene from what could be a video taken off You Tube.com or some other internet source of a news networks publicized celebration event of a Wal-Mart convention. The CEO and President of Wal-Mart Lee Scott comes on stage around hundreds of people who are cheering and he starts talking about how great the company is. Robert Greenwald takes the viewers all around the United States to small towns and county’s that have had the most trouble with the Wal-Mart company. He provides both on the spot and sit-down interviews of people whose small town family business has had to shut down do to Wal-Marts stores. In this documentary Robert Greenwald even takes the audience to China to have people talk about what it is like to work for the Wal-Mart company in there country. He shows the poor living conditions and people talking about the low wage they are paid and the long hours they must work knowing that if they cause any trouble they easily can be replaced.

Robert Greenwald presents throughout the film this pixilated convention of the CEO & President Lee Scott talking about how great the Wal-Mart Company is, how fair it is, what the company does to help the environment, and the equal pay opportunities it gives it’s employees. Throughout the film Robert Greenwald breaks apart and places segments of this entire spectacle after each issue that the CEO Lee Scott talks about and reveals from interviews and documents of just how far off Lee Scott is. An example is Lee Scott will be talking about how far the Wal-Mart Corporation will go to protect the environment, then Robert Greenwald will fade to an image of a map of the United States, zoom in on a state and a check mark will appear and list the name of a small town or county were the Wal-Mart Corporation has violated either state or federal law when in comes to laws that protect the environment. In this film Robert Greenwald will occasionally fade an image to black and white and place red text over the image that will usually display facts from legal documents, telephone calls, and interviews about what Wal-Mart really did in one of these instances. This is an excellent scare tactic the filmmaker uses to get peoples attention. Considering this is what the whole film is about creating awareness and getting people’s attention to focus on the wrongs that the Wal-Mart Corporation has done in the past.

This film was an interesting piece to watch because you got to see an investigative look at the Wal-Mart Corporation. The audience never hears Robert Greenwald’s voice when he is interviewing a person about Wal-Mart. He presents a movie that all though may be biased to the anti-Wal-Mart side he still makes an attempt to present facts and let the audience decide what to think of the Wal-Mart company. During the movie you never really hear any instances of the good things the Wal-Mart company has done from anyone except the CEO and President Lee Scott. You only see the counter points to those statements from the filmmaker Robert Greenwald’s interviewees, video clips, documents, and phone calls. So the viewer is stuck in this jumble of facts and presumptions about the bad things the Wal-Mart Corporation has done without any latitude for the viewers to relax and weigh the facts and what the filmmaker is not bring to light. Overall this Documentary was a good film to watch, however this student would strongly advise the viewers to be careful when watching the film because one can get the feeling that Robert Greenwald is bringing on these strong scare tactics and anti-Wal-Mart message to get across his point but there doesn’t seem to be a place for the viewers to sit back, absorb what they have taken in from the film and find out for themselves what they think of the Wal-Mart Corporation. One should realize the audience must do this with every Documentary they see and always ask what is not being said by the filmmaker and what could I find out on my own about the Wal-Mart Corporation? The filmmaker present strong evidence that the Wal-Mart Corporation is not a perfect company, but he does use interviews, on location shooting, video clips, to bring across his message for his film.

Matt Gonia

Film 203 Introduction to Documentary Production

Helvetica

This typographical documentary reveals the birth of the “Helvetica” text in the 1950’s and how it not only revolutionized the advertisement business but also how it went on to change our perception of written language all together.

 

What makes this film so intriguing is how it uncovers so much depth behind something right in front of us we take for granted everyday; it immerses you in this world of text you would have never known without.  There is so much articulation and history behind typography that is presented through people who have dedicated their lives to this communicative art and its creative philosophies.  New perspectives on the art are revealed when an interviewee discusses how when designing type-faces certain European typographers focus on the background rather than the text itself – nstead of bending the letters to conform to their inherent meaning they are shaped by the “matrix” in which they are injected.  It is unique conceptual insights, like this one, on an overlooked art that makes this documentary so effective.  The art of typography is all around us but this documentary introduces you to it personally.  It’s simple sophistication is a definite strong suit of this documentary.       

 

Technical notes:

 

Of all the documentaries I have watched this semester the shooting of “Helvetica” appears to have been the least arduous since typography is very abundant in today’s society.  The interviews may have been difficult to arrange due to some of them being in large facilities most likely protected by high security but overall it seemed comparatively simple to the others in terms of filming.   

 

-Quinn Hester

No End In Sight (2007)

The documentary opens with Donald Rumsfeld talking about an unfamiliar war, the first war of the 21st century. Followed by the credits, which were edited in with stock footage of Iraq and its combat.

After the credits the viewer is introduced to scenes of a downtown market in the heart of Iraq. There are banners hanging from walls with anti-American propaganda written on them; there are subtitles for those who cannot read the banners. There are shots of men armed with assault rifles walking the street, apparently keeping the peace. The market is the scene of a protest against the “Wahabi unbelievers”, American forces, and anyone who helps them.

“On May 1st, 2003, President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq and said ‘in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our Allies have prevailed.’”

After this quote there is a cut to scenes of car bombs, suicide bombers, and people mourning the loss of loved one.

The first section covered by the documentary is entitled, “History.” This section covers the ideas and political reasoning that the Bush Whitehouse gave to put troops in Iraq. Laced with interviews from former members of the Whitehouse, this section guides the viewer to see that some people gave good advice about actions that were to be taken in Iraq; these were politely discarded.

The next section is, “War”, which opens up to President Bush talking about the campaign in Iraq. This is quickly followed by clips of the “Shock and Awe” campaign as well as awe inspiring footage of all parts of the military at work. There are a few interviews at the beginning of this section that focus on the soldiers themselves, and the interviewer asks why these soldiers joined the armed forces. They give a variety of answers, from “I thought it was the right thing to do” to “I thought it would be a job that wasn’t boring.” The interviews with soldiers are quickly followed by interviews with more high ranking officials (retired) explaining about how the military requested more troops and how they were so harshly denied. Topics range from post war Iraqi looting to incompetence of high ranking members of the Whitehouse.

After that section is a part called “The Void”. This section received its name from the void encountered after Baghdad was captured. There was a massive influx in violence and the United States military was doing nothing to stop it. A more noticeable void was that left by Saddam as he fled power. In his absence, radical religion became a way of life, if not to just keep the people occupied. Leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr quickly became warlords and created their own militias.

This section is topped off with two conflicting interviews about the dissolution of the Iraqi military. This conversation of interviews goes on for over 15 minutes and was put together to directly conflict with each other.

The rest of the documentary is done in the same fashion; interviews which are set up to capture differing sides of the war in Iraq. B-roll is used heavily, but in such a way that the viewer will not get bored or used to seeing the footage.

This documentary is a very hard-hitting presentation of what the war in Iraq looked like from the governmental level as well as on a civilian level. If anyone is wondering about how the United States got involved in the current conflict, this documentary will answer most (if not all) of your questions.

- Tanner Johnson

Dark Days

For my third post I decided to watch Dark Days. I did some research on the film prior to watching it. I also read some viewer feedback on Netflix as I was preparing to click play. So I can’t say I wasn’t warned! Dark Days was horrifying to watch. People smoking crack and people frying up rats were two unnerving instances. After I got past the subjects activities I began to notice a common camera position when interviewing the subjects. The film maker used a medium, straight on shot almost throughout the film. There was little camera movement, enough to follow a subject as they paced around a small shack. Marc Singer produced, filmed and directed this documentary which made me conclude that the camera was most likely positioned on a tripod so Marc could multitask during a shoot.

Some further research online informed me that Marc Singer had the subjects themselves help with the production of the set to include the lighting and handling of the camera at times. Singer actually lived in the community for months before the idea to create a film about it came about. The film began with an establishing shot of Penn Station cutting to an extended shot of an Amtrak leaving a subway. This established an idea of where the film was being shot but I think there could have been a more creative way of opening the film. One that would have allowed the viewer a more specific description of what was going on. I would have added some text to the shots describing the community or the importance of Penn Station.

This film was very easy to follow due to the lack of effects and the set camera position used throughout the film. The dialogue was hard to follow at times but there wasn’t a lot of pertinent information each subject was conveying. The film consisted mostly of staged interviews of the homeless people talking about how they came to the subway and some regretful decisions they have made throughout their life. All in all, I wasn’t impressed with the film. I think the idea to capture a subway community lacked relevance.

Crumb

“Crumb” gives an intimate, behind-the-scenes portrayal of cartoonist Robert Crumb and important people within his life that helped shape him as a person and inspired him for his career.  The film’s structure deals with experiences of Crumb’s life as both a child trying to figure out the world and his correlation of taking life experiences or fantasies and putting them in his professional work.   Aiding Crumb are interviews/conversations with siblings, critics of his work, and footage of his actual cartoons or drawings.

The film wisely uses illustrations of Crumb’s cartoon work to help guide the narrative structure of the film and better understand what Crumb is talking about and how his life experiences are brought out through his cartoons.  There is one particular scene in which the camera moves along the cells of the comic in a close up with only the cells viewable as Crumb narrates what is happening within the comic and guides the viewer along with his own personal touch.  I find this scene extremely effective as it both shows insight to Crumb’s inner mind through narration and illustrates its interpretation in the art form of a comic.  This gives the viewer a visual way to try to understand/relate to what some may say is Crumb’s bizarre mind. The frequent use of close-ups of the face of Crumb and his brothers also give the viewer a more personal attachment or relationship to the characters within the film. These close ups of cartoons also act as a natural transition.  Crumb will tell a story about one such occasion that shaped his life and then the visual image of how that was used in his cartoon is shown on screen.  These cartoons serve as an important guiding characteristic driving the movie but in less emphasized parts they serve as fantastic b-roll.

Other B-roll that aids depth to the film, are surrounding objects within Crumb’s house.  One specific part shows a sculpture of a black cat, which aids the movie when Crumb discusses his cartoon “Fritz the Cat.”   It’s a natural connection that the filmmaker realized when filming.  The filmmaker obviously knew Crumb’s work dealing with Fritz and when at the location seeing the sculpture knew it would be a great connection visually when Crumb talked about Fritz later on in the interview (which could’ve been days or weeks later).  These concept is also demonstrated in the movie when we see b-roll of pedestrians wearing commercially logo-ed t-shirts.  A few seconds later Crumb, through and interview, talks about how the general public is all commercially, and “market research” driven by companies and his thoughts regarding the matter.  This is a great foreshadow and connection of b-roll footage (probably filmed after the interview) with sound bites from the interview.

This same matching visually with what Crumb is explaining technique is exemplified with real photographs of Crumb and his brothers when they are kids, or using stock footage of an old television program  (“Sheena”) to help better demonstrate his influences.  Camera movement (what imovie calls the “Ken Burns effect”) of slowing zooming in or out of these stills helps keep the movie fluid and less weary.  I believe this technique is successful in keeping the audience attentive to a boring old still from the 50’s or 60’s, compared to just keeping the still on screen for numerous seconds.  If the filmmaker chose to stall the still without camera movement, I believe the audience would feel bored and think, “why are we still on this still?”  Crumb’s explanations and stories often go a tad long and keeping the still up would lose viewer interest rather fast, so the camera movement helps prevent that and is a great solution to the dilemma.

One final comment is on a particular instance in which the use of non-editing plays an important factor.  In one scene, Crumb and his ex-girlfriend/wife are going over a sketchbook of images that Crumb created for her.  The cameraman is in a poor position to illustrate what they are looking at and tries to get a better position.  In attempting to do so all the sudden the camera is chaotic and swish-pans all over the place.  We find out through Crumb talking that the cameraman almost fell off a roof to obtain their focal point on the illustrations.  While this can be viewed as a gaff or mistake, I think it adds a sense of reality and truthfulness to the film.  It also adds a sense of movement and excitement to an otherwise comic and story driven film.

-Lydell Peterson