I definitely enjoyed this documentary the most so far. I feel that Paul Pena is an extremely compelling subject to the point that it gave leeway to other mistakes that may occur. I feel the structure was pretty strong and very much like a story telling. It did seem to have a slightly dragged on ending (but not as bad as King Corn or Maya Lin). Paul Pena was such an outgoing character and expressed so much emotion through his facial features that I feel that video was the best way to capture his character. I think I am so excited about this documentary mainly because of the interaction between Paul Pena and the people of Tuva.
I thought the documentary was going to be about throatsinging, which essentially that is what it is about, but I feel that the documentary portrayed more than that. The greatness in Ghengis Blues is the bond between the people. It is not something you can fabricate in a fiction but rather a very real life experience that can be shared with everyone. You can definitely notice the cameramen and realize that the footage isnt always white balanced or lit well but I feel that everything is overlooked with the plot and character of the story. Great documentary!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My favorite also so far this semester - Ghengis Blues was awesome. Although the film lost some of its luster toward the end of the film, Paul Pena was a fantastically interesting subject. I enjoyed the haphazard editing and filming styles, especially in the musical refrains. There were a handful of scenes of nothing but music - throatsinging, which was fascinating to see and hear in and of itself - that really tapped into what scenes of dialogue rather than silence generally miss.
ReplyDeletePaul and his fellow travelers made for an exciting juxtaposition between mid-90's America and this amazing, thriving sub-culture I had absolutely no knowledge of before. It also had a lot going for it, in spite of the handheld, seemingly amateur look of the film; dealing with a lot of heavy themes - blindness, depression, what it means to be a foreigner or outsider, friendship, loss, death, loneliness, and personal exploration - didn't really bog down the film. It was easy to keep up with, out of just sheer curiosity and fascination with Paul and his journey.
What I appreciated about Genghis Blues was its ability to communicate the various facets and emotions of the story into an understandable, solid form. The filmmakers intertwined themes of enchantment with despondency, uncertainty with confidence, death, religion, culture, nature, and music into an engaging experience for the viewer. The cinema verite style provided for a reflexive and personable approach to the subject. While this film is stylistically edited according to sound and aesthetic, it doesn’t seem as constructed (narratively). They weren’t trying to glorify their subjects, but rather revealing the spontaneous humanity existent in their relationship with each other. Some of my favourite moments of the film were observational shots of Kongor-ol and Paul interacting with the local community. It was comforting to hear Paul’s commentary throughout the film…and I wish they would have included more of it.
ReplyDeleteOne character I think could have been excluded was Lemon De George. His interview was awkwardly thrown in throughout the film and his comments didn’t really provide much insight into the story. I did however respect that the filmmakers and crew chose to be present in the film. In this sense the film felt more realistic for me. A hidden camera/direct cinema approach might have taken away from the intimacy that Genghis Blues ultimately achieved.
Overall I genuinely enjoyed Ghengis Blues. As many have stated before, Paul Pena truly is a compelling character. One of the things I really enjoyed about the structure is that he isn't revealed as a special character from the get go. Instead, he's just portrayed as any other commoner, except with some strange interests. It seems that as his popularity with the Tuvans grew, so did our appreciation for him grow as well. About halfway through the story started to get a little old for me since it seemed like we had already been introduced to everything and I wasn't sure where it was headed. Just as that happened, the conflict was introduced out of nowhere when one of the colleagues (Lemon?) got sick. It effectively pulled my interested back into the story to see how it would turn out. Had it been revealed in the beginning that one member would get sick but then overcome it, it would not have worked nearly as well.
ReplyDeleteCinema verite is a great way to describe the style, as others have mentioned. Camera work was not always stellar, but they always seemed to be at the right moment in all the crucial times. One part that stood out to me was when Paul was by the river and they kept cutting between 2 obviously very different quality cameras. At first it came across as shotty work, but then I realized that it created a sense of credibility that it was really happening. There wasn't anything fancy about the people or what they were doing other than enjoying the moment. The wide range of coverage more than made up for any bad camera work. I think the direction and purpose of the documentary could have been established better in the beginning, but it definitely became clear not too far into it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDirection and purpose of the documentary was definitely an issue in the beginning of Genghis Blues. I felt that the first 20 minutes were poorly done. The documentary had a very disjointed feeling during this time, like a collision of unrelated thoughts edited together. In class, we always talk about how the first 15-20 minutes are often the most critical and Genghis Blues failed to make a claim as to why I should invest time into the film. Had I been watching this as a TV broadcast, it wouldn't have lasted more than 5 minutes prior to a switch. In my opinion, this was the biggest error in the film.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Genghis Blues was a respectable documentary. It had some issues with sound that were very disturbing (mainly interview levels that were too low), but overlooking that, and the most important thing, the story, was original and outstanding. The Tuvan people were remarkable. Watching the interaction between them and Paul Pena was a blessing, as was seeing the two vastly different worlds collide.
I loved that the director incorporated the views of Paul Pena in the documentary, and that they did a great job of developing emotional ties between Paul and I (the viewer). For example, what it was like for him to travel around the beautiful countryside of Tuva and not be able to see any of it. Paul had some very touching and thought-provoking dialogue in respect to this. After hearing him speak, in many ways I felt sorry for him to have to miss out on so much. The closeness I felt to Paul was one of the documentaries greatest strengths.
Having missed the screening due to work on our current project, Netflix caught me up just in time for me to get my blog on before our discussion. I'm going to come out of the gate complaining - that isn't meant to signify that I didn't like the film, rather I just need to develop a more positive or balanced approach to critiquing films.
ReplyDeleteThis film sucked! Just kidding. But I did notice right off the bat, particularly with the interviews of Paul at the studio but also throughout, that the sound recording and maybe mixing was less than professional. I wonder how an aurally sensitive blind man and recording artist ultimately took this. When one of the main subjects is music, or anytime your making a film that has sound, you'd think one would take special care to ensure good sound. These boys apparently did not. Between Lemon and Paul, they could have just asked their subjects what to do.
But that's just one indication that the filmmakers weren't really prepared (indeed, they admitted to being unprepared at the outset). To judge from the editing, they didn't seem to have much of a plan on how the story would be told. I felt it was stitched together somewhat haphazardly and had many digressions. At best, the segues or transitions between subjects were often either abrupt or lacking. My fellow students are describing this as verite, which is accurate as anything, although I think the problems seen here come mostly from lacking technical proficiency, planning, and structure - that is, a lack of style.
Where the filmmakers slipped, the subjects were able to carry them. Tuva, throatsinging, and Paul are all strange concepts to most of us, and each is fascinating. Honestly I want to learn to throatsing now. I could, you know. The filmmakers plan to capture all this was just that - be present and capture all of it. That allows for some luck, and they got lucky several times. A constant presence also gives the opportunity to foster trust, and these fellows seemed to earn and take advantage of trust well.
Alright, so honestly, the reason I enjoyed Genghis Blues so much was because out of the films we've seen so far, it's probably the closest style to what I will end up making during the beginning of my career. I won't be popping out a polished Maya Lin any time soon, however, I could relate to the technical blunders and rawness of Genghis Blues. And think, this film was still so well-received at Sundance. That is definitely proof that there's hope for the beginners. There's hope for those who don't have this genre quite nailed down. According to the posted interview, the two brothers stumbled upon this story. They wanted to take a trip to Tuva and coincidentally chose a time when Paul was about to make his pilgrimage. Think about how different of a film would have been made had it just been about two brothers traveling to an unknown territory. Yes, that could still be interesting in it's own way, but Paul, Paul is a true gem.
ReplyDeleteA lot can be forgiven of a film's technique if the character/story is just so utterly compelling. Maybe that's the hope for our endeavors here. Or at least mine. Find something that is just so damn interesting that the fact that I am a beginner is pushed to the side. I will make lighting mistakes, I will make audio mistakes, I will make framing mistakes, but this film is proof that those mistakes do not always have to overshadow the true capacity of a documentary. And I'm definitely not saying one should purposefully make mistakes because they may be forgiven, but it is comforting to know that I don't have to create a pristine style like that of Fog of War to have a documentary worth seeing.
I really like the story and the characters. I think that they had a lot to work with. But as a whole, I wished they could off made it more appealing. I mean they had a lot to work with, and sometimes I felt like they were dragging the story, and it was really slow. At some moments I wished maybe on the editing could be faster.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it was me, but I felt like this one was quite slow passe, and I wish they could off done more with it. The structure was not that strong, the sound, and the lighting. In particular when they were the interview in the music studio.
Excellent comments, All! Remember to consult outside sources (interviews etc) if you are one of the later posters, so as not to repeat what someone else said. Please read all previous posts.
ReplyDeleteMy attraction to this documentary is multifold; I love the 'journey' style
ReplyDeletedoc and the fact that it doesn't try to take on the world. Like some
people have said already, this type of doc is more like something I would
make. I can feel for the characters and their motivation. The story is
compelling yet very down to earth and I can parallel it to my own
interests and ideas.
I enjoyed the difference between the shots of Paul in the US and the shots
in Tuva. Those in the US were dark, gray and close (him wlaking, the dark
interview) whereas the landscape of Tuva was open, beatuful and colorful.
Having grown up partially on a farm gave me an extra enjoyment out of
seeing the shots of Tuva. Paul was not abe to see either place visually,
but he could feel the difference in his surroundings. The production
somewhat took me out of the story becasue it was so obvious, but because
it was a journey film I think the spontaneous aspect of the shooting style
brought me closer to the characters.
Hmm, there’s not much more I can say that already has been said, but I pretty much agree with many of the comments and statements that have been made before. I too thought this was a little too slow and dragged longer than it needed, and that is probably in part due to the way it was structured, which didn’t show too much organization. The beginning of this film also failed to appeal to me personally, and the technical aspects of the film (lighting, sound, etc.) also needed a lot of work as well.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I still really liked the character Pena a lot and also wished to hear more of his commentary. His connection and interaction with the people of Tuva was remarkable, and his story was truly unique. I just wish it was presented in an even more compelling way.