I watched Inside Job this afternoon. Charles Ferguson and his team were extremely effective in telling the story of the 2008 meltdown that has led to one of the largest recessions the U.S. has ever faced. Narrated by Matt Damon, illustrated by helpful graphics and epic helicopter shots, and provocative interview moments, this film has severely influenced the way I understand the world.
Perhaps the film was so effective because of the obvious scrutiny and attention given in the research of the topic. There was some amazing CSPAN footage, assorted facts, testimony, and actual video footage of things that are hard to believe. Having Damon's voice delivering all of this also had an effect on me since it is one I have come to trust and respect from watching his fiction films. I have heard similar stories about the meltdown from other sources such as This American Life and Freakanomics, and have struggled with all the vocabulary and terms. I still had a difficult time with the jargon and understanding what they were specifically talking about for much of the film, but I was able to clue in to more of the picture than I have been able to in the past. For this reason the film felt more effective.
Though I thought the film was powerful, that doesn't mean I am not skeptical of it. As mentioned already, Ferguson's use of Damon as narrator and captivating cinematography were important tools that were quite persuasive (bordering manipulative). Where I felt Ferguson was most persuasive was in his interviews with the subjects. At times I thought he phrased questions a bit unfairly, and yet when looking at what he is dealing with and the severity of the meltdown subject - maybe such force is actually more ethical. Some of the remarks given by the subjects to Ferguson's questions were almost too incredible to believe! Thus the interviews convinced me of Ferguson's stance, but I am not fully convinced that he went about getting that footage in a fully ethical way. I do think Ferguson and his team were trying to be fair by attempting to get everyone affiliated with the meltdown in the film, and that is another strength of his argument: he gave the chance for everyone to be in the film and many didn't take it - thus sending a message which reinforced the film's main argument.
The most significant element I feel that this film lacked was a proposal or at least vision for what can be done now. I feel like I have been appropriately alarmed about what occurred but now I am left with nothing to do but feel scared for the future of our country! To be fair, maybe that is the intention of the filmmakers - to have audiences shocked into having "the right" conversations and eventually coming to a few possible solutions. Either way, thanks to the intense interview scenes with individuals from higher education and lobby firms, this film will stay with me for many years to come.
Perhaps the film was so effective because of the obvious scrutiny and attention given in the research of the topic. There was some amazing CSPAN footage, assorted facts, testimony, and actual video footage of things that are hard to believe. Having Damon's voice delivering all of this also had an effect on me since it is one I have come to trust and respect from watching his fiction films. I have heard similar stories about the meltdown from other sources such as This American Life and Freakanomics, and have struggled with all the vocabulary and terms. I still had a difficult time with the jargon and understanding what they were specifically talking about for much of the film, but I was able to clue in to more of the picture than I have been able to in the past. For this reason the film felt more effective.
Though I thought the film was powerful, that doesn't mean I am not skeptical of it. As mentioned already, Ferguson's use of Damon as narrator and captivating cinematography were important tools that were quite persuasive (bordering manipulative). Where I felt Ferguson was most persuasive was in his interviews with the subjects. At times I thought he phrased questions a bit unfairly, and yet when looking at what he is dealing with and the severity of the meltdown subject - maybe such force is actually more ethical. Some of the remarks given by the subjects to Ferguson's questions were almost too incredible to believe! Thus the interviews convinced me of Ferguson's stance, but I am not fully convinced that he went about getting that footage in a fully ethical way. I do think Ferguson and his team were trying to be fair by attempting to get everyone affiliated with the meltdown in the film, and that is another strength of his argument: he gave the chance for everyone to be in the film and many didn't take it - thus sending a message which reinforced the film's main argument.
The most significant element I feel that this film lacked was a proposal or at least vision for what can be done now. I feel like I have been appropriately alarmed about what occurred but now I am left with nothing to do but feel scared for the future of our country! To be fair, maybe that is the intention of the filmmakers - to have audiences shocked into having "the right" conversations and eventually coming to a few possible solutions. Either way, thanks to the intense interview scenes with individuals from higher education and lobby firms, this film will stay with me for many years to come.
I like your last paragraph, because I think it's a problem too many documentaries suffer from. If anything, the solution to the problem the film outlines should spend more than a couple minutes on how to fix it. It's easy to point out stuff that is wrong with the world, but it takes brains and preparation to come up with a solution.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm kind of mixed on this one. I agree with your last paragraph and what David says, yet at the same time I feel that the purpose of most documentaries is to inform, educate and and raise awareness rather than offer solutions (because they perhaps acknowledge that they themselves are inadequate in finding a solution good enough). However, if this film is able to create conversation after it is over, then hopefully even more people, especially those with the talent and means, could talk about it together and come up with the best ideas. I also really like your line where you mentioned that even though you feel that the film was a powerful one, it doesn't mean that you're not skeptical about it. In fact, the more powerful a film, the more it makes me wonder about the techniques at work to make me feel this way. I feel that as documentary filmmakers ourselves, we need to be wary of storytelling biases so as to avoid doing it in our own films.
ReplyDelete