Wax museums and rural life: surrealism and sensationalism (Eco, 12)
The visual may seem more realistic but it cannot replace the event. Yet many times it does. The participation in such glorious recreation is itself a hodgepodge attempt. It is a false hope to reconstruct that which can never be mimicked. The tradeoff is dramatic flare.
Documentaries try to tell the full truth or at least we would hope they are honest. Unlike book adaptations the documentary is accepted as canon. Documentaries are truth tellers. Yet this trust from the narrational voice educating the viewer comes off as authentic. They are teaching, how could they lie? Why would they lie? The power of a documentary is not only in the visual but in the realistic persona. Yet just as a bookie will criticise the cinematic changes so too the knowledgeable can poke holes in the documentary. Documentaries are trusted for their tedious educational nature but such education is not always the whole truth and biases seep through the cracks to promote an agenda.
Documentaries do add the dramatic flare for entertainment. The information must be taken with a grain of salt. The interesting part is that the cinematic ought to be second to the textbook. A book is more honest since it just accumulates data. Yet a visual is by and large false because it requires realistic promotion. A historical figure has more to question as there is no visual footage. At least contemporary problems may have more of a visual exponent that can be easily analysed. A documentary on monkeys and the Roman Empire provide various components. The former can provide real life footage while the latter cannot. The latter is a recreation with actors. The latter is a ploy while the former is genuine photography. The documentary on monkeys may have its agenda and problems. It may promote one sided issues but it is proscribing photography in the moment. One ought to enter the documentary with a secondary source or check other sources after.
Today there is less interest in reading about problems. People would rather view the problem on a big screen. Learning from television rather than from books. The truth of television especially of documentaries becomes the truth of the issue. This is but a falsehood. The directing cast is promising a problem. There may be some unbiased programs but those confronting terrible issues are enlightening through a point. Again whether their agenda is correct or not it is still an agenda. The rate of unbiased material is quite mute. A documentary on factory farming has a goal even if it is correct. A documentary on monkeys may be to educate to fix a problem. Why make a documentary unless there is something underlying the goal. It isn’t about nefarious deception or underhanded means but rather a goal-centred choice. Education is but an agenda driven ideal. The power therefore of the visual is the realistic picture. This is how it is. Subsumed by the photographical portrayal. This image is the problem. The power of the imagery facilitates growth and change.
There is a documentary about the meat industry. People have said that it rationed them to eat. Was this because they saw the horrors or maybe it was the criticism. An array of psychological impressionism that tortured the meat eater. Here is what happens when you eat meat. It is not only the point of view imposed upon the viewer but more so the extra components that seek to “educate” the public. Showing them gruesome images and overpacking with dramatic association. The goal of documentary is not to educate but to overwhelm. They are like a news outlet who provide the unbiased news with images and storylines. Here too the narration is prodded by photos and lecturing. The documentary is but a series of news centric points but at the heart are advocates on social media. The documentary can provide so much but its textbook like narration ought not to be taken seriously. Though even a textbook is biased in many ways. Concerning the revolutionary war an American and British textbook may give different details and omit crucial information. A documentary may be a viewer friendly set but it doesn’t exempt bias.
An interesting trend of documentary-like shows have surged on Netflix from Vikings, Marco Polo and Barbarians. These provide some truth, some source material but many a time insinuate falsities about the culture. These aren’t necessarily intended to take seriously but they embed truth in these shows. So Ragnar wasn’t real but other stuff about the culture is. The deception is that the plot may be wrong but the setting is correct. Whether or not Ragnar successfully raided west and became king of the Danes is debatable even outright wrong (though the real life inspriation may have) nevertheless the viewer rejects the storyline but accepts the surrounding bits. Ragnar may not be real but the viking culture is. They did sacrifice people and they did pillage. They were savages not the Christians. The issue with the visual is its prowess over the setting. The truths relayed to the public take in much of the surroundings even if part of it is questioned. It’s a reaction. A mock up of the past yet has some truth to it. This is the agenda driven farce. Employing a singular narrative veiled behind the plot line. The setting isn’t all true but is fluidly incorporated.
The viewer knows this cinematic flavour is a recreation. There are no photographs nor videos of the event. They can only be transcribed from historians. From embellished historical facts. Nevertheless, it is a recreation. Yet such history is taken as a fact. When a group of men recreate the civil war for a YouTube video it is clumsy and ignored but when done in front of an audience it is taken seriously. This is what the battle looked like. This community in Jamestown is exactly how it looked nearly half a millennium ago. There is much truth but it can only be ascertained from notes or maybe even oral transmission. Yet the inability to fully see into the past disables the possibility of actualising the truth. What is presented is an aspiring equivalent. It may be the closest we have but it doesn’t make it the correct version. It makes it an admirable imitation. The visual in Jamestown may have its drama though the cinematic creation is evidently in the business of profit rather than non profit education. There is a difference between a historical society and a movie but then again non profits are not always as honest as they ought to be. The goal is to educate a goal a certain way. So again everything is to be taken a grain of salt.
All is to be cross examined. Still this doesn’t take away from the visual power on the audience. How seeing becomes believing. How could it be wrong. Yet it is really the opposite. Reading is believing. Reading different versions helps document the whole truth. Where one stands on the legitimacy it is for sure at most eighty percent. The visual is an important piece of the puzzle. The visual compels adherence. It compels authentication. Yet this is far from the truth. Do not always trust what you see. Someone is always selling you something that is the name of the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment