Never before in this class have we been able to see a filmmaker’s complete body of works. But after some hasty research on IMDB last night, I found that Jeff Kreines and Joel DeMott had not been credited with any other film-making past the production of “Seventeen.” This makes it easier to contrast the styles of the two pieces, and make notes on what I would consider to be successfully self reflexive techniques, and what simply made observational cinema seem less objective.
From the outset, “Demon Lover Diary” presents itself as a personal narrative. The very inclusion of the word “diary” in the title implies that this work is going to be heavy handed in regards to inclusion of the film makers’ perspective. “Demon Lover Diary” does not disappoint. The role of the narrator is established almost from the first frame, as Joel identifies herself and her subjects by their position in her personal cosmology of influence. The audience is immediately aware that this is a film about making a film, and that the filmmaker herself will be documenting the process, not sparing her opinion of the proceedings. This is made apparent when Joel introduces Don as “a friend of Jeff’s” and Jerry as “not so much a friend of Jeff’s” (I paraphrase.) Never having met these characters, never having the opportunity for them to establish their own legitimacy or present themselves as complex subjects, the audience is immediately biased against Jerry due to the Joel’s disclaimer. The proceedings of the shooting of “Demon Lover” are similarly colored. Clearly Jeff’s aggravation with Don’s disorganization is mounting, but Joel chooses to shoot mostly Jeff’s emotional state, not necessarily the context that has produced it. We rarely see wasted time, and only towards the end of the film are presented with the affects of Don and Jerry’s poor communication.
Joel DeMott does not frame the other filmmakers outside of her own personal perspective. However, she does cast her boyfriend and friend in a more flattering light, filming Mark’s search for love and Jeff’s candid discussion of his willingness to help his friends. Even the inclusion of the scene in which the three documentarians are enjoying themselves too loudly and are shushed by Don’s mother is biased in that presents the audience with a set of gleeful, young subjects to compare to Don and Jerry’s unattractive, incompetent presentation. Self reflexivity in a film such as “Demon Lover Diary” is a necessity, as it is a personal account of events. However, in this case, by editorializing with the narration before even shaping the piece to reflect favorably upon herself, Joel DeMott shapes the perception of events, potentially violating the veracity of the work.
However, the same criticism cannot be made of “Seventeen,” although it is not devoid of moments of self reflexivity. Much of the candor exhibited by Kreines and DeMott’s subjects in seventeen may be assumed to be prompted by the presence of the camera; some of the teens audacity (especially in their back-talk to their Home Ec. Teacher) could be attributed to a performative inclination. But such examples are limited. Lynn may address Joel directly in a scene, and the mic may accidentally come into frame in a moment of chaotic drunkenness. But “Seventeen” does not suffer from the same immediately apparent editorial feel present in “Demon Lover Diary.” I would attribute this to the lack of voice over narration. The audience is not instructed on how to relate to the subject. Instead, DeMott and Kreines simply “take us along for the ride,” literally—as the audience sits beside Lynn and Wendy as they smoke cigarettes on their ride home from school, it is easy to forget that there is another body in the front seat and that the audience is not simply privy to this private conversation.
In many instances, self reflexive techniques may provide the right critical approach so that audiences respect the nature of the documentary’s production and are made aware that even in this instance, the truth is being molded by the film makers. Yet Joel DeMott’s highly critical, personal presentation of her subjects in “Demon Lover Diary” steps beyond self reflexivity as a tool in the film maker’s arsenal into self indulgence. Luckily, in a situation that necessitated a more unbiased, sensitive presentation of the subjects, DeMott and Kreines were able to leave their personal biases behind and create a film that is more observational than editorial.
1 comment:
Actually they have both made other smaller and more experimental works, even if these two are the only ones in circualtion and also only ones listed on imdb. But still we are seeing here and getting a more total sense of these filmmakers - even as these films differ in style and approach.
You bring up a crucial point in self-relflexive cinema - how do the filmmakers treat themselves, are they unfairly favored (one could argue the POV of these films inherently favors them in an unequal way)? There are plenty of scenes where Jeff and Joel look bad - the scene where they decide to take advantage of Don and accept the money that Don/Jerry dont really have and that they wasn't initially agreed upon, for one instance, shows our filmmakers to be somewhat immoral and greedy and certainly flawed.
I like your argument for Seventeen being self-reflexive in some ways, but in avoiding the filmmaker as center of interest, and the fact that this was a choice on the part of the filmmakers to deflect interest away from themselves, and perhaps to avoid judgment on their subjects.
It is certainly a film that, while undeniably influenced by the filmmakers' hands, lets the audiences draw their own conclusions. Not sure the same could be said for Demon Lover and more directly self-reflexive films in general.
Post a Comment