The voice of the narrator also created a sense of authenticity/credibility because it sounded as though the person was confident, stern and firmly believed what they were saying. It goes back into history showing how the US first got into Panama dealing with the Panama Canal and how they infiltrated the Panamanian government using scandals to get Noriega in. Trent portrays the US as this monster that grows angry because they are not getting their way. America is the villain. They use actual footage of Bush's speeches, as well as, footage of the war.
Overall Trent was very convincing in the documentary by trying to show America as the enemy. At the end of the movie I felt really disgusted with the country and also felt as though things could've been handled differently. I felt as though they were lying to the people (I guess hence the deception in the title of the documentary) and Trent evoked those emotions very well.The New York Times review; The Panama Deception states that the documentary is full of witnesses, for example, official spokesmen, ordinary folk and politicians and I agree with them with they say that this give it a hometown point of view. Trents photos and excerpts on interviews clearly show which side of the argument she is on as this is a one sided documentary. She obviously believes that the invasion was a mistake and the the US was taking advantage of the trust of the people.
I really agree with you Sasha that the movie was very moving and convincing because it was exploring areas that were familiar yet unfamiliar to us. It was trying to evoke in us emotions that were proportionate to the tragedies that happened. The audience felt a need for change and responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI like how you noticed the video footage they had. I had too noticed the footage and I feel that the footage they used were directly correlated with the feelings they wanted to connect us to, such as the portrayals of character even the references to certain criteria.
I agree with you that the director evokes the viewers' emotions very well by using sound, music, and shocking footage to make people feel shocked, depressed, angry, and then be on the side of the director and believe what she tries to convey. Also as you said "this is a one sided documentary", while it still appears to be pretty objective because there are many factors make the film real to the audience.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. The narrator was used minimally yet very effectively as it provided you with continuity and gave you information in a "matter of fact" kind of tone which you trust.
ReplyDeleteI also felt anger towards the US government as I felt ashamed of how they use their influence to force other countries into their plans to best benefit the US without care towards the innocent country and civilians.
I also felt sad and angry after i watched this movie. But then when i think about it, i keep asking myself a question, would other countries do the same thing if they are the super power in the world? And i think they will because every country look after its own interest although it is sad to us. I still remember the docunmentary said that Americans are humans, Panamian are humans too, their lives are equally precious as Americans. I hope one day, all governors will understand that.
ReplyDelete