Definition Of Food Advertising Marketing Essay

Definition Of Food ad Marketing EssayAdvertising which is one type of marketing activity (McCall KL, 2003). Besides that, based on (Chris Fill, 2006) rear that no matter on international, national, local or direct basis, is important, because it slew mint audiences by informing or reminding them of the existence and aw beness of a disgrace, or alternatively by persuading or helping them differentiate a carrefour or organization and comparison from former(a)s competitors in the market.The media usually use by intellectual nourishment circulaters and marketer, Television which the largest single source of channel that promo viands messages to children (Gallo AE, 1999). Television viewing starts from youthfulness, US children around the ages of 2 to 4 age normally view 2 hours of boob tube daily this increases to more than 3.5 hours go up the end of primary school, then decrease to around 2.75 hours in novel adolescence (Roberts DF, Foehr UG, Rideont VJ, Brodie M, 1999) . US children who in low-income families and fewer youth tend more alike to watch television (Roberts DF, Foehr UG, Rideont VJ, Brodie M, 1999 Gentile DA, Walsh DA, 2002). in that locationfore, Food is very often publicise product course of study on US childrens television and food advertise account for more than 50% of all advertise be targeting children (Gamble M, Cotunga N, 1999 Kotz K, narration M, 1994 Coon KA, mystify KL, 2002 Taras HL, Gage M, 1995 ).Internet US Census data shows that the year between 1998 and 2001 was increase from 51% to 75% of US adolescents (ages 14-17 years) are using the Internet and increase from 39% to 65% of US children (ages 10-13 years) are online (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002). The 2001 US Census data shows that half (51%) of US children around 10 to 13 years over-the-hill and 61% of those who around 14 to 17 years old have Internet access at family unit (Montgomery D, Pasnik S, 1996).Therefore, Advertisers and marketers have start us e different kinds of new interactive publicise and marketing techniques to target the rapidly growing number of US children online (Montgomery D, Pasnik S, 1996).The expressive style to advert and marketing on the Web is not similar significantly from television commercials. Advertisers and marketer able pass thought the special bluster of the Internet to seamlessly integrate advertising and Web site content (Montgomery KC, 2001). nifty majority of the big companies will created their make websites, and designed as brand environments for children, the purpose is to advertise and market to children (Montgomery KC, 2000, 2001).For example, Burger king food company website (http//www.burgerking.com) their grant Games, toys, tunes, and some other downloads to promoted alongside for their food items. These is under Big Kids Club which is intimacy on the home page, where throw outd 4 to 12 year old to join club members (Story and French International Journal of Behavioural regi men and Physical Activity, 2004).2.4 Food Advertising Influence to Children Eating PreferencesNowadays, more and more people attract important that Advertising which aimed at children (Keane and Willetts, 1994 Moore and Moschis, 1983 Moschis et al., 1980). Because no other agent of consumer socialisation has received more attention than the mass media (Moschis, 1987, p. 121). There is a large amount of scholarly research in the demesne that focuses mainly on two dimensions of media that confers affect upon children, namely, advertising and editorial/ programming content, especially intend to promote young people about products and encourage them to purchase (Ward and Wackman, 1973 Clancy-Hepburn et al., 1974 Galst and White, 1976 Gorn and Goldberg, 1982 Woodward et al., 1997 OGuinn and Shrum, 1997).Approximately, 11 of 19 commercials per hour were for food. Those advertises occupy 246 (44%) to promoted the kind of fats and sweets food, much(prenominal) as candy, soft drinks, chips , cakes, cookies and pastries. Fast-food restaurant advertising was very frequently, which stand of 11% of total food advertisements. The most often advertised food product was high gelt breakfast cereal. And there were no fruits or vegetables on advertisements. Also by indicate severalize of other studies that advertises on US childrens television are majority on high in wampumpeag and fat food, it was very field to fruits or vegetable (Gamble M, Cotunga N, 1999 Coon KA, Tucker KL, 2002 Taras HL, Gage M, 1995 Morton H, 1984 Dibb S, Harris L, 1996 Lewis MK, Hill AJ, 1998 Chestnutt IG, Ashraf FJ, 2002 Byrd-Bredbenner C, Grasso D, 2000)More and more TV viewing in children and/or adolescents is associated with decrease fruit and vegetable consumption (Ortega, RM, Andrs, P, Requejo, AM, Lpez-Sobaler, AM, Redondo, MR Gonzlez-Fernndez, M, 1996 Lowry, R, Wechsler, H, Galuska, DA, Fulton, JE Kann, K, 2002 Boynton-Jarrett, R, Thomas, TN, Peterson, KE, Wiecha, J, Sobol, AM Gortmarker, S L, 2003 Matheson, DM, Killen, JD, Wany, Y, Varadt, A Robinson, T, 2004), more snacking (Francis, LA, Lee, Y Birch, LL, 2003 Snoek, HM, Van Strien, T, Janssens, JMAM Engels, RCME, 2006) and add more inhalant non healthy foods and taking less healthy foods (Woodward, DR, Cummings, FJ, Ball, PJ, Williams, HM, Hornsby, H Boon, JA, 1997)2.5 Food Advertising Influence of children healthyIt is very importance whether food products of marketing and advertising for youth-targeted has any impact on childrens food behaviours or body weightiness (Coon KA, Tucker KL, 2002).From the research evidence indicate that preschoolers and grade school childrens food habit and food purchase more on high sugar and high fat food are affected by television exposure to food advertising. (Isler L, Popper HT, Ward S, 1987 Coon KA, Tucker KL, 2002 Horgan KB, Choate M, Brownell KD, 2001 Taras HL, Sallis JF, Patterson TL, Nader PR, Nelson JA, 1989 Borzekowski DL, Robinson TN, 2001).On the other hand, a new W HO/FAO consultation shows the report on diet and streak of chronic diseases investigated the evidence showing the hazard of developing obesity by dietary and lifestyle factors (Geneva, World Health Organization, 2003). Under scientific sacrosanct evidence Diet and lifestyle factors can be categorized on four levels of evidence convincing, probable, possible and insufficient. The report indicate that even the evidence shows heavy marketing of fast food outlets and energy-dense, micronutrient-poor food and beverages to children causes obesity is equivocal, large indirect evidence to place this fulfil in the probable category for increasing hazard of obesity (Geneva, World Health Organization, 2003).2.6 Children Preferences Influence to Family utilisationChildren strong affect how the family functions-in terms of relationships, employment, and purchases-and their affect is changing family consumption end-to-end much of the world (Blackwell, miniard, engel, 2006) studies based on C anadian data shows that young children depreciate parents participation in the labor force, it will influence how families conk their money, and lower the amount of time and money available for leisure (RoBert E.Wilkes, 1975)Has a huge influence on children to make purchase decision involving products for their own use (Chankon Kim and Hanjoon Lee, 1997), In addition their also influence over agnate spending when they request particular products and brands (Blackwell, miniard, engel, 2006).Not only do Children affect choices, but they also are used family money and their own to purchases. honorable like a cycle, children influences family spending, family influences young consumers cognitive and evaluation of product and brand choices (Margaret Hogg, Margaret Bruce, and Alexander Hill, 1998).

Employee Involvement in Decision Making

Employee Involvement in determination MakingMcCabe and Lewin (cited in Dundon et al., 2004) termed employee portion as a way of let outing complaints or grievances or dissatisfaction and the fight and social occasion of employees in decision making dish out of establishment. During the last two decades, revolutionary steps that have been initiated to facilitate the racy performance runing mainly focused on increasing the shipway of joint consultation, which attracts both employers (who demand better trading results) and employees (who demand credit rating and protection of employee respectables) (CIPD, 2009).Employee voice is a very distinguished factor in the success of an cheek. Dundon et al. (2004) argues that successful voice regimes not exclusively positively make the performance of employees in terms of quality and productivity but excessively supporter to negate the issues which might explode otherwise. Opportunities of Employee voice be believed to be asso ciated with the employee turnover. harmonise to (Spencer,1986)employees will show to a greater extent interest in staying with the plaque if they have more opportunities to chat their dissatisfaction, grievances and to change the unsatisfactory work conditions. embodied bargaining and joint consultation have been the main spotlight of industrial relations as far as employee voice is concernedAccording to Boxall and Purcell (2003) in the industrial relations, the main focus for representation of employee voice has been on the collective bargaining and consultation. Freeman (1976) defined articulations as the institutions of collective voice in the labour market. He further asserted that collective forums, for voice employee issues are more exitive in some situations as they help strengthening worker communities and provide a direct mean of communicating between them and charge but Addison and Belfields (2004) findings tend to negate these arguments as tally to them more formali zed union structure whitethorn create a communication gap between workers and management, because they have to deal with their issues through a third party. Freeman and Medoff (1984) argued that union plays a vital role in minimizing turnover rate as they provide employees with the voice mechanisms through which they washbowl rectify the work related problems and can negotiate higher fee packages. Their arguments are supported by Batt, Colvin and Keefe (2002), who believes that employees in union set-ups are anticipate to have higher compensation than they could earn in similar jobs in non-union set-up and secondly unions strengthen employees, by providing them with a voice in find policies that reduce the pay inequality, grievance and arbitration procedures for appealing managerial decisionsEmployee voice refers to the two dimensional dialogue between management and employees which allows employees to give their meltback and express their concerns and griefs relating to matter s affecting them. Employee voice is not a one-off phenomenon as employees like to point their suggestions for improvements and express griefs on a continuing basis. (Landau, 2009) Employee voice not only helps employees to improve performance but it is good in principle (Wilkinson 2001). It is a fundamental right of each employee to know the training regarding the financial and organisational performance of the organization and express their concerns astir(predicate) the work conditions or feed both ideas which they tone will be beneficial and helpful in achieving the long term goals of the organization.Employee involvement (EI) and employee participation (EP) have been given ofttimes importance in the employee relations literature for a long time. Employee involvement is normally initiated by the management and it earns place at lower levels of organization sharing information at the shop floor on matters that effect their day to day working not allowing them to give their o pinion about the higher lever decision making., on the other hand ,employee participation is driven by corroborative style of representation like unions and advice councils etc and its aimed at higher levels of the organization concerning matters of long term importance (Ackers et al,2003).Employee voice plays an in-chief(postnominal) role in increasing commitment. Sensitive financial and organisational information is shared with employees. These symbolic gestures can make them feel they are faith worthy and being treated fairly and openly and they are an grievous asset for the organization. (Marchington,Wilkinson, 2005 pp77). This commitment can lead to improved performance as committed employees put extra discretionary effort in to the work.Landau, 2009 concludes that employees who express their voice and their voice is accepted and appreciated are more committed,more probable to stay in the organization, have good attitudes about their immediate managers and feel more secur e as compare to those who speak up unsuccessfully. downward(prenominal) communication takes place in almost all the organizations, different manakin of mediums are used to brief employees about the current issues faced by the organization. Employee voice can pave a way for more causative and open work environment to work in.(Wilkinson,2004)Financial participation not only helps employee to contribute towards the success of the organizatioan but also help them take their fair share of company profits. (Marchington,2005) It is argued that employees will be more in all likelihood to accept decisions in which they involved. Employees will be in a right /better position to perform if they know what is expected from them and what is the situation of the organization. conjunction can lead to less conflict and increased team work spirit.There is compelling logic in favour of effective employee involvement.regular preparedness of relevant information to employees together with consulta tion on management device on issues, promotes a shared commitment to the objectives of an organization, this in turn maintains a positive climate in which employees are motivated to contribute to business success which benefits both employer and employees alike.Direct participation direct participation means that the employees themselves express their opinion and say over matters affecting them on the contrast, indirect participation means that a third party e.g trade union or advice council represents the right of the employees (Guest, Fatchett, 1974). In top down problem solving, workers may feel that they are being lectured and not listened to ,where as in coffin nail up approach,employees may feel that management is using their ideas and suggestions without giving them any reward.A feeling of powerlessness decreases loyalty and commitment in employees, it is important to tap new ideas and suggestions from lower level employees as there are more close to the customer the workpl ace. There are more chances of having more satisfied employees if they genuinely being involved. Transformational leadership encourages their subordinates to give suggestions or identify grievances or anything they are dissatisfied with because of their natural instinct towards improvement kinda than just maintaining the status quo. These initiatives help the employees to perceive/discover their value for the organization and results in more committed and enthusiastic work force which is fundamental to the achievement of long term goals and objectives (Detort, 2007)ReferencesDerek Rollinson ,2005 pp56 Organizational behaviour and analysis, an integrated approach,3rd edition,prentice mansion publishers.Wilkinson, A.(2001) Empowerment, in M. Warner (ed.)International Encyclopaedia of Business and worry(Londonineternational Thomson Business Press)Dr. Tony Bennett, 2007 The significance of employee voice mechanisms in the workplace Employee participation in the new global economyPap er for submission to the Work, commerce and Society Conference held at Aberdeen University phratry 12th to 14th SeptemberPeter Ackers, paddy field Marchington, Adrian Wilkinson ,Tony Dundon,2003 .Partnership and articulate, with or without trade unions changing UK management approaches to organizational participation. Research series Paper 4Peter Ackers, Mick Marchington, Adrian Wilkinson ,Tony Dundon,2004 ever-changing Patterns of Employee Voice Case Studies from the UK and Republic of IrelandMick Marchington, Adrian Wilkinson, ,2005 Human Resource trouble at Work, third edition,CIPDJacqueline Landau, 2009, When Employee Voice is Met by Deafears, SAM Advanced Management Journal ,pp 4 -12James R.Detort,2007 Leadership behaviours and employee voice,Is the door really open,Academy of management journal,Vol 50,no 4, 869-884David Guest,Derek Fatchett 1974 ,Worker Participation Individual Control and Performance ,institute of personnel management ,pp13Mick Marchington,2005 ,Employee Involvement Patterns ans Explanations ,Participation and Democracy at Work, essays in honour of Harvie Ramsay, pp27 palgrave macmillanCANNEL, M., 2009. Employee Voice online. CIPD. http//www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/comconslt/empvoice.htmlDUNDON, T., WILKINSON, A., MARCHINGTON, M., and ACKERS, P., (2004) Changing Patterns of Employee Voice Case Studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland The Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 46, zero(prenominal) 3, pp. 298-322SPENCER, D.G., (1986) Employee Voice and Employee Retention Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 488-502.

Analysis of JFK (1991) and Thin Blue Line

Analysis of JFK (1991) and snub sombre declinationBoth hits, for example, concenter over minutae that discolourthorn or exsanguinousthorn non be substantive (umbrellas opening in JFK, a dropped thickshake in The turn off saturnine Line) to tangle the tantrumer ever overmuch profoundly into the atomic number 18na of the crime nip. to date n all image stops at a simple narration of facts twain opinion at the States character case in all the aforesaid(prenominal)ts and suggest an invoice for the alleged cover up. In JFK, this is rock-and-rolls exceedingly controversial suggestion that the CIA and the military-industrial tang school had a vested interest in comprehend chair Kennedy dead beca design he was shortly to scale d induce Americas betrothal in Vietnam.In The Thin no-account Line, cardinal related theories ar suggested for the functionary insistence on trying Randall Adams firstly, that David Harris account had the advantage of providin g the law of spirit with an eye-witness, small-arm if Harris was himself the stumbleer, no sure witness existed and secondly, that Harris could non be attempt as an adult, thus robbing the territory Attorney of the much- want death clip for the murder of a policeman.These theories be communicated finished with(predicate) devices comm hardly associated with assumed tales, much(prenominal) as a highly redolent(p) unisonal score (Phillip Glass music for The Thin unconsecrated Line invokes a melancholy backbone of helpless(prenominal)ness, speckle John Williams score for JFK has a more urgent tone, suggestive of sneaky conspiracies and forces cargonening out of control). And some(prenominal) counter situation different modes of photographic occupymaking as they do so, secern invented visible bucked in a continent Hollywood ardor with non cogitationive or faux- docudrama footage.The affinity in effect of the cardinal occupys fast juxtaposition of room s is striking, and suggests rock candys barbel whitethorn set or so been influenced by Morris work. except bandage both dupe a rooms break an over-riding lodge in with the fill breakr uncovering facts, that mogul be called the outer biography, each constructs a contrasting relativeship between the record and docudrama elements at heart the text. In JFK, stone pit functions an interior recital of Jim garrison (Kevin Costner) investigating the case. While send is essentially a surrogate for the painting theater get throughr, so that the get hold of end non be considered as the story of Jim place,3 this biography is provided moments that function only as character manoeuvre with little or no relationship to the larger cause ( much(prenominal) as sends commands and reconciliation with his wife, or a Norman Rock wellspring moment4 with his children).This, and thereforece, is an example of definitiveal Hollywood- carriage assumed filmmaking. This is th en ruptured by the moments of object lens and faux- documental film that splay on Stones job as it is cosmos expressed by Garrison. This includes what we readiness call genuine nonsubjective material the Zapruder film of the assassination and archival clicks ( much(prenominal) as of Kennedys autopsy, or the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding the rifle).It alike(p)ly includes a large number of re-enactments, which be truly much presented in a mistaken documentary style (grainy or black and white film stock, hand-held cameras). This faux-documentary material is oft juxta comprise with the genuine documentary material in a trend that blends the two together (the Zapruder footage is matched by ordered footage using similar film stock, and the autopsy photographs ar intercut with shots of a jump dummy of Kennedy).The Thin sombre Line servings the comparable outer write up (film shaping machine investigating), entirely the inside(a) autobiography (the story of Randall Adams) is not constructed in a classical Hollywood style. Instead, it is told finished one of the standard modes of documentary filmmaking place by nozzle Nichols5 call address by participants in an oppugn format (with the interviewer removed finished editing).As with Stones film, this inner muniment is advocateed by conclusion, tho once more the mode of presentation is reversed the asterisk regularity utilize to pay the witnesses testimony is through reconstructions of the crime scene that, while stylized and fragmented, be constructed as a miniature classically constructed annals. This nesting of different modes might be tabulated as followsMy compass smudge, however, is that the films differ in mode, provided use mirror-image forms of the same twist. JFK is primarily a fableal film, which rents a documentary style when re-enacting speculated even outts. The Thin sacrilegious Line is primarily a documentary, hardly employs a style borrowe d from lyingal films in its re-enactments.If the two films share so much in common, and drop off so fluidly from documentary to illustrational modes so quickly, does this suggest the difference in the two forms might be mostly cosmetic? Fiction drive out be used to express rightfulnesss almost the substantial populace, and the documentary is poop be used in slipway that obscure the fairness or construct falsehoods. If the fundamental difference between prevarication and non- allegory is taken as the tie in to the received, and it is sh witness that documentaries and fictions share similar relationships to the existing, then the two forms scratching to look more a exchangeable not the same, exactly, hardly similar. JFK and The Thin zesty Line, by this way of thinking, are then only superficially different types of movies.They share the same structure and the fiction versus documentary dichotomy is more like a difference in writing style than a fundamental disti nction. This is not to invest the superficial crossover of techniques between the two forms with a conditional relation it does not posses. Documentaries are not fictions in effect(p) because The Blair Witch Project (1999) does such(prenominal) a good job of simulation to be a real document, or even because Rats in the Ranks (1996) work so well as a narrative. Rather, the d take inplaying of the documentary / fiction divergence is ground upon a deep-rooted cynicism slightly asseverates to truth in documentary.That on that pane is such reluctance to buy up truth at face comfort in documentary should not be surprising. Early or classic film studies was establish for the most part on contrasts some the relationships between film and reality. While this debate is similarly detailed to fully explore, it is important to link upon briefly because much paper upon documentary echoes the arguments of these early writers.The necessitate link to reality might be seen as a defining take of the documentary, but it was overly seen in the first half of the century as one of the defining features of the film modal(a) itself. The movie house appeared to be an even more perfect order for mechanically reproducing reality than the windlessness photographs that preceded it. This added destiny to arguments of estheticals that centred on whether the role of the artist was to attempt to recreate the real world, or rather to defend or even transcend the real.6 These arguments were thereof central to classic film possibleness and resolved into two unspecific strands of argument that echo the aesthetic positions described.Thus writers such as Siegfried Kraceur and Andre Bazin had approaches that emphasise films role as a mirror to the real. Of more interest to the circulating(prenominal) discussion, however, are early anti-rea listens such as Rudolf Arnheim. In his take up as fraud, his self-renunciation for moving pictures status as serious ta sty medium (rather than a mechanical assist) is built a round a series of explanations of the way in which film differs from the real.7 triple dimensional surfaces are brooked on a plane surface. knowl distinctness of depth is lost. In the black and white cinema with reference to which Arnheim hypothesise his thesis, colour is eliminated. Lighting distorts. Editing interrupts the endure of time and creates elegant possibilities through the use of montage. Non- visual stimulus is absent (or, by and by the coming of sound, limited), and even the visual world is limited by the edge of the screen.This catalogue of distortions is, for Arnheim, the very alkali for the creation of aesthetic systems by which films prat signify meanings. After establishing the to a higher place points, he sets just or so demonstrating how each of these limitations in depicting the real is used as a method of artistic expression8. Subsequent film opening moved beyond Arnheims formulations, but h as tended to take them as a give in the sense that few would still argue that the central project of film is limited to the reproduction or reflection of reality.Given that such formulations are at the foundation of by and by film theory, it should not be surprising that they were echoed when subsequent theorists turned their minds to issues regarding documentary, and especially its relation to the real. Nol Carroll attributes much of this writing to a backfire against premature considers by proponents of direct cinema that their method of cinema provided unmitigated access to the real.9 These documentarists attempted to annul the film advancers intervention and interpretation, reacting to the overt imposition of a viewpoint present in traditional Griersonian forms of documentary. However, as Carroll puts it, direct cinema opened a faeces of worms and then got eaten by them.10 It was quickly argued that direct cinema was every bit as interpretive as Griersonian documentaries .For the distortions of reality that were set by Arnheim are every bit present in documentary cinema, but with different importees. Instead of world the unambiguously positive performer to artistic expression, every limitation of the medium is instead a problematic point of mediation by the film collide withr. The limitations of the film frame, for example, force resources upon even the most non-interventionist direct cinema filmmaker. And with every choice the filmmaker is placing the film at a greater distance from reality. Carroll quotes Eric Barnouw making this pointTo be sure, some documentarists read to be objective a term that calculates to renounce an interpretive role. The claim may be strategic, but it is surely meaningless. The documentarist, like every communicator in every medium, makes endless choices. He sic selects topics, people, vistas, angles, lens, juxtapositions, sounds, words. Each selection is an expression of his point of view, whether he is aware of it or not, whether he acknowledges it or not. make up fundament the first step, selection of a topic, there is a motive It is in selecting and arranging his findings that he expresses himself these choices are, in effect, comments. And whether he adopts the stance of observer, or chronicler or whatever, he shtupnot escape his egressivity. He presents his reading material of the world.11Such an argument for certain seems to cast doubt over the potential for objectiveness in documentary cinema. Carried to an extreme, it is the presentation of a version of the world rather than the world itself that arse be seen as render documentary a form of fiction. both way, the prospects for documentary truth in such a model seem grim indeed.It should be notable that Carroll puts little faith in such an approach to documentary, and his counter-argument leave behind be returned to. Before doing so, however, it is worthy noting that more recently, Carroll has emaciated the distinction between what he calls the selectivity argument (recited above) and more global postmodernist scepticism of claims to truth.12 The latter is based not in the guesss of classical film studies, but rather the wider discussions about the way whatever human treat imposes meaning and structure on real events. For example, historic accounts impose a narrative structure onto events to make them intelligible, and a distinction essential be drawn between the real events (which actually occurred) and the account (which lacks an independent diachronic existence)The states of personal matters and events the historiographer alludes to do start out a basis in diachronic reality, and the historians claims about those states of af sanes and events advise be literally square(a) or false. except the narratives in which those states of affairs and events figure are inventions, constructions, indeed, fictions. The narrative structure in the diachronic recounting is not line up or false i t is fictional.13This point of such an observation may seem a little obscure. If the narrative structure imposed in a diachronic account is considered independently of the statements of historical fact that it is used to explain, then of fertilise it must be considered fictional. If, however, a documentary text is considered in its entirety, then it is open to questioning about the validity of the historians factual claims (including analysis as to whether the narrative structure is an ideal or fair way of rendition the real events) in a way that fiction is not.Certainly the argument is here macrocosm posed by Carroll (albeit following Michael Renov and Hayden White) as a prelude to arguing that it is unsupportable14. However, Carroll withal refers to an alternative model for looking at the link between non-fiction and fiction, attach by Bill Nichols in his intelligence Representing echtity, which is more subtle and worth dealing with directly.Nichols, contrasted the opp osite theorists alluded to by Carroll, does not argue that documentaries must be considered fiction. He recognises that the existence of an external, real-world referent is an important distinction that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. The world of a fiction film is a unique, imaginary domain, but the world of documentary is different Instead of a world, we are offered access to the world.15This claim to federal agency of the real means that documentaries are not untaintedly narratives they are alike argumentative, if only in the sense that they make claims (even if only implicitly) about what is aline. They are therefore a fiction (un)like any(prenominal)(prenominal) other.16 However, Nichols remains troubled by these claims to truth. While the documentary is elevated from fiction by its links to the real, this example is rendered problematic by the evident impossibility of rendering truth objectively. Documentaries, while not fiction, share with fictionthose very qual ities that thoroughly compromise any rigorous objectiveness, if they dont make it impractical Objectivity has been under no less siege than realism, and for many an(prenominal) of the same reasons. It, too, is a way of representing the world that denies its own processes of construction and their formative effect. all given over standard for objectivity will move over embedded political assumptions In documentary, these assumptions might include public opinion in the axiomatic genius of facts, in rhetorical persuasion as a necessary and enamour part of representation, and in the capacity of the documentary text to affect its listening through its implicit or transparent claim of This is so, isnt it?17Nichols argument is reminiscent of those strands of theoretical thought that view ideology as an inescapable and all pervasive force. Documentaries do make claims about the truth that are open to evaluation, but unfortunately, according to Nichols, our institutional mechanism s for assessing such claims are themselves suspect.If such an approach is pass judgment, evaluation of the arguments made by Oliver Stone and Errol Morris might be highly problematic. Carroll, however, is not willing to give in that any of these arguments establish all that non-fiction is a form of fiction, or that objectivity is impossible. Firstly, he argues that the cinema does not posses any unique tendency towards turn compared to other media. The same arguments about selectivity that Barnouw raises with respect to film are equally applicable to other media and compass of enquiry.18 The particular causes of distortion may be different, but any historian for example may select, manipulate, interpret or emphasise aspects of their material incisively as a documentary maker can.Thus if non-fiction film is verbalize to be indwelling due to its selectivity, so must any subject area of human enquiry, such as biography and science. In the earlier of the two articles I have discussed ( indite in 1983), Carroll is sure-footed that such a big scepticism would not be bad proposed.19 As we have seen, by 1996 that was exactly the argument Carroll was responding to. Nevertheless, in 1983 his defence against the selectivity argument is based upon the flavour of objectivity. In any given field of argument, at any given time, there are patterns of reasoning, standards for observation, and methods for assessing evidence which are used for getting to the truth.20 A gather of research is considered objective so far as it abides by these norms.Likewise, non-fiction films may be assessed against similar codes, and will be considered biased or subjective if they fail to meet them. That selectivity may make bias possible, or even in all probability, does not preclude the possibility of a film according with constituted standards of objectivity. The manifest differences between the real world and the filmed presentation proceed film from substituting for lived experience, but they do not prevent documentaries from being objective.This central assumption of this argument that there are standards of objectivity that can be used to judge the truth is exactly the assumption that we have seen Bill Nichols question. Carroll, however, disputes all of Nichols contentions that are cited above. Firstly, he does not accept that objectivity demands that a film call help to its processes of construction. After all, the fact that a non-fiction film is constructed is understood by any hearing and does not wish to be spelt out. Self- reflexive pronoun analyses of the filmmaking process or the authors own subjectivity might be a feature of many recent documentaries, but for Carrol this is an artistic device, rather than a necessary bench mark for objectivity.Nor does he accept that any standard for objectivity has embedded political assumptions, even accepting Nichols very broad definitions (outlined above) of what constitutes a political assumption . A belief in the obvious nature of facts, for example, might be a political assumption when the facts being presented are politically charged falsehoods. Yet the acceptance that some claims of self-evident truth are suspect does not mean that there can be no self-evident facts. With regards to rhetorical persuasion, he argues that films can either eschew such devices altogether (he cites nature documentaries as an example),21 or employ rhetorical structures in the service of objective discourse.Similarly, he regards the implicit claim that this is so, isnt it as present in closely any assertion and hence neither a political assumption nor a barrier to objectivity. Carrolls approach to these arguments about the prospects for truth or objectivity in documentary is a good deal to return to examples where the truth claimed by the documentary seems weak and uncontentious (as with his common use of nature documentaries as discussion points). The linking draw off of the arguments he presents is that the theorists he criticises have mistaken the impediment in presenting objective truth for an impossibility, often by poresing on exactly the texts where the truth is most problematic.22It is worth reverting to The Thin Blue Line and JFK at this point, since these films both explore events that are subject to considerable conjecture. Neither could be accused of assuming the truth about these events is self-evident (quite the opposite), yet both nevertheless ultimately make vital factual claims. As tell already, these claims question state-sanctioned verdicts, and both films led to a frequent discussion that coerce official re-examination of the cases The Thin Blue Line forced the retrial of Randall Adams, while JFK contributed to the personnel casualty of the President John F. Kennedy character assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which appointed an black lotion Records Review Board (AARB) to critique unreleased breeding about the assassination.23 much than a decade later, with Randall Adams freed from jail, it seems fair to say that Morris case has been widely accepted as true.Oliver Stone, too, has been partially unclouded by subsequent re-examination of the case, with records released by the AARB that support some of his allegations (such as monkey with records of Kennedys autopsy).24 Yet, despite such small victories, and acceptance by many filmgoers of Stones theory of the assassination, JFK remains subject to fierce bookish criticism of both its methods and conclusions that stands in contrast to the reception of The Thin Blue Line. Linda Williams, in her discussion of the two films, dismisses JFK as paranoid fiction,25 and the widespread disapproval of Stones film by both popular and academic press is well authenticated.26 Clearly this has much to do with the nature of the case Stone discusses.The Kennedy assassination, for obvious reasons, is a much more familiar event and one that had been the subject of consi derably more public discussion than the Randall Adams prosecution. Furthermore, while The Thin Blue Line avoids underlining the political implications of its own conclusions, JFK is explicitly critical of the government and media, craft the assassination a coup detat detat and coming very close to suggesting actor president Lyndon Johnson was involved.27However, the difference in the reception of the two films cannot be explained manifestly through reference to the argument each presents. Within the very similar structures outlined at the start of this essay, there are also pivotal differences that also explain much of the negative response to Stones film compared to Morris.In his consideration of JFK, Robert Rosenstone notes that there are considerable constraints over the depiction of historical events on the screen.28 In particular, he sees the need to invent detail and shove events to shape a narrative as a limitation that must be negotiated by any historical film. While h e is referring to narrative features such as JFK, his argument is equally applicable to the summaries of and suppositions regarding events in The Thin Blue Line. This argument has clear overtones of the discussions of documentaries distortions of truth through selectivity that have already been cited.Like Carroll, Rosenstone argues that when a historical filmmaker such as Stone invents or compresses events, he or she is exercising the same type of sagaciousness that the author of any written history must.29 Such inventions can be considered true (at least(prenominal) to a point) in the sense that they can be verified, documented, or reasonably argued. The problem, notes Rosenstone, is that the impediment must occur outside the world of the film. When Stone argues in JFK that President Kennedy was about to slay troops from Vietnam, the information is justified by reference to a real memorandumrandum (National security measures Action Memo 263), but a fictitious character makes t he reference. expect no foreknowledge of the case, the hearing has no way while ceremonial occasion the film of even cognise that the memorandum really existed, let but being sure that it supports the conclusion Stone draws. If Stones conclusion is to be examined, the earreach must go beyond viewing and read the relevant documents (or studious discussion of them) for themselves. If they do so, they will, as Rosenstone states, be undertaking the same good-hearted of critique and review that a work of written history is subjected to. This process of measuring a film against standards of objectivity is exactly that which Carroll highlights as the means of linking non-fiction films to the truth. Stone has actively sought to enter into such debates, mounting enormous defences of the historical accuracy of JFK and his other works.30That JFK was so controversial was perhaps partially due to the fact that interviews do not necessarily judge films within such evaluative frameworks un like the target audience for written history, they may assume that what they see is true and not enter into the debates as to the films veracity. Even assuming an engaged, sceptical audience, however, it is also the case that Stones film does not make the separation of truth from fiction a straightforward task. I have already suggested that the film possesses terzetto layers of exposition an outer narrative (Stones case), an inner narrative (Garrisons story), and evidence (presented as documentary material and re-enactments). The inner narrative story of Jim Garrison (which is likely to be understood by most audiences as at least partially fictional and not taken as literally true) is often weaved seamlessly in with the evidence (more likely to be seen as Stones presentation of true material).Garrison, for example, meets the mysterious Mr X (Donald Sutherland) in Washington, who outlines a hypothesis about who killed Kennedy and why. This calls forrader a series of re-enactments o f high aim discussions between officials that are weaved into Mr Xs account. The narrative is calling forth evidence, but the difficulty with this sequence is in separating what material is a fictional narrative device, what is speculated, and what is documented truth. For example, are we to accept that Garrison really did meet an anonymous official who told him this information, and take that as evidence that Stones case is true? Or are we to take this as precisely part of the inner narrative, a method of presenting evidence? As mentioned, Mr X talks in detail of a real memorandum in order to put Stones case that Kennedy wished to withdraw from Vietnam.An audience might decently surmise that the existence of such a memo (putting aside its meaning) is a documented fact. However, this quickly leads into discussions of the reaction to this memo within high levels of the government, and the point at which history slides into speculation in this sequence is by no means readily appare nt. The re-enactment portions of the sequence are presented in a represent style using black and white photography, but this does not swag them as conjectural, since Stone switches between film stocks throughout the film without tipple such distinctions. (Elsewhere in the film, for example, the Zapruder film of the assassination, is alternated with simulated footage shot in the same style.)The effect of these aesthetic decisions by Stone is to confuse the boundaries between non-fiction and fiction in a way that makes finish of objective standards for assessing truth difficult. The audience can only infer which sections of the film are deputeed to be read as non-fiction and subject to such examination.Written in October 2001 for the Melbourne University subject Ethnographic and Documentary Cinema.Notes1. This is the concluding sentence of Eric Barnouw, Documentary A bill of the Non-Fiction characterisation, (Oxford University Press, New York Oxford, 1993, 2nd Revised Edition) , p. 349.2. The list of similarities between the two films that follows draws partially on Linda Williams, Mirrors without Memories Truth, History and The Thin Blue Line in Barry Keith allot Jeanette Sloniowski (eds), Documenting the Documentary Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video (Wayne State UP, Detroit, 1998), p 381.3. The films Garrison, for example, has access to information the real Garrison did not, in order to appropriate Stone to communicate it to audiences. For example, In the movie we attributed to Garrison the information about Shaws background but in real life Jim did not have access to that information at that time. (Oliver Stone audio commentary, JFK DVD, Region 4 Special Edition Directors Cut release, Warner Brothers, 1 hour 28 mins approx.)4. This phrasal idiom is Stones own JFK audio commentary, op. cit., 2 hours 10 mins approx. While these scenes are also used to communicate information about the larger case, this is an example of narrative efficiency , and does not contradict my point that they do contain aspects (such as the melodromatic nip of Garrisons children asking Dont you love us any more?) which function simply as domestic drama, with no relation to the case against Clay Shaw.5. Nichols has revisited and slightly reformulated these modes over time, but they can be summarised as expository (ie voice-of-God documentaries that use direct address to tell the audience a truth), observational (cinema verite style films that aim to observe events without participating), interactive (interview based films that allows for direct address by participants, while allowing for filmmakers interaction through questioning), reflexive (films that draw attention to the documentarys own methods), and performative (stressing an individual, subjective position, while downplaying objective or referential aspects). See Bill Nichols The Voice of Documentary, Film Quarterly 36, no 3 (Spring 1983) Representing Reality Issues and Concepts in Docu mentary (1991, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis), Chapter 2 and (for the perfomative mode) performing Documentary, Blurred Boundaries Questions of Meaning in coetaneous Culture (c. 1994, Indiana UP, Bloomington), pp 92-106.6. This point and the subsequent discussion of classical film theory draw on the discussions in the anthologies Gerald Mast et al. (eds.), Film hypothesis and Criticism Introductory Readings, (Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 1992), pp. 3-7, and Antony Easthorpe, Contemporary Film Theory (Longman, capital of the United Kingdom New York, 1993), pp. 2-5.7. Rudolf Arnheim, Film as Art (Faber Faber, London, 1958), esp. pp. 17-37.8. Ibid., p. 37-114.9. Nol Carroll, From Real to Reel Entangled in nonfiction film, in Nol Carroll, Theorizing the Moving Image (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996), p. 224-252. (Originally published in Philosophic Exchange in 1983, and will be cited in succeeding(a) as Carroll (1996/1983) to d istinguish it from his piece in Post-Theory cited below). Reference to direct cinema is p. 225.10. Ibid.11. Ibid., p. 226. Carroll is quoting from the first rendering of Barnouws Documentary, citing p. 287-288 of that translation (Oxford University Press, New York, 1974). The nearest like to this quote I can find in the third edition (op. cit.) is at p. 344.12. Nol Carroll, Nonfiction films and Postmodernist Skepticism in Nol Carrol David Bordwell (eds.), Post-Theory Reconstructing Film Studies, (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1996), pp. 283-306.13. Ibid., p. 288. Emphasis is Carrolls.14. Carroll is frequently belligerent about the texts he discusses but is especially so about Renovs Theorizing Documentary, describing it as a state of the art analysis of received thinking about the documentary film, and dismissing Renovs argument as a red herring. Ibid., p. 285 291.15. Both quotes Nichols, 1991, op. cit., p. 109. Emphasis is Nichols.16. This is the name of the second part of Nichols book. How accommodative this argumentative nature is as a distinction between fiction and documentary (and how unlike any other form of fiction documentary can be said to be) is debatable given that fiction can be every bit as argumentative as documentary (as JFK demonstrates).17. Ibid., p. 195.18. Carroll (1996/1983), op. cit., p. 226.19. Carroll I mention this because I do not think that commentators who leave off that the nonfiction film is subjective intend their remarks as a mere gloss on the notion that everything is subjective. But that, I fear, is the untoward implication of their attack. Ibid., p. 226.20. Ibid., p. 230. See also Carroll, 1996, op. cit. pp. 283-285.21. Carroll, 1996, p. 294.22. See, for example, Ibid., p. 293, regarding film scholars focus on art-documentary.23. Michael L. Kurtz, Oliver Stone, JFK, and History, in Robert brent Toplin (ed), OliverAnalysis of JFK (1991) and Thin Blue LineAnalysis of JFK (1991) and Thin Blue LineBoth films, for example, pore over minutae that may or may not be significant (umbrellas opening in JFK, a dropped thickshake in The Thin Blue Line) to draw the viewer ever more deeply into the world of the crime scene. Yet neither film stops at a simple recitation of facts both look at the States role in events and suggest an explanation for the alleged cover up. In JFK, this is Stones highly controversial suggestion that the CIA and the military-industrial complex had a vested interest in seeing President Kennedy dead because he was shortly to scale down Americas involvement in Vietnam.In The Thin Blue Line, two related theories are suggested for the official insistence on trying Randall Adams firstly, that David Harris account had the advantage of providing the police with an eye-witness, while if Harris was himself the murderer, no reliable witness existed and secondly, that Harris could not be tried as an adult, thus robbing the District Attorney of the much-sought death sentence for the murder of a policeman.These theories are communicated through devices commonly associated with fictional narratives, such as a highly evocative musical score (Phillip Glass music for The Thin Blue Line invokes a melancholy sense of helplessness, while John Williams score for JFK has a more urgent tone, suggestive of furtive conspiracies and forces careening out of control). And both counterpoint different modes of filmmaking as they do so, contrasting invented material filmed in a classical Hollywood style with documentary or faux-documentary footage.The similarity in effect of the two films fast-paced juxtaposition of styles is striking, and suggests Stones approach may have been influenced by Morris work. Yet while both films have an over-riding concern with the filmmaker uncovering facts, that might be called the outer narrative, each constructs a contrasting relationship between the narrative and documentary elements within the text. In JFK, Stone uses an interior narrative of J im Garrison (Kevin Costner) investigating the case. While Garrison is essentially a surrogate for the filmmaker, so that the film cannot be considered as the story of Jim Garrison,3 this narrative is provided moments that function simply as character drama with little or no relationship to the larger argument (such as Garrisons arguments and reconciliation with his wife, or a Norman Rockwell moment4 with his children).This, then, is an example of classical Hollywood-style fictional filmmaking. This is then ruptured by the moments of documentary and faux-documentary that expand on Stones argument as it is being expressed by Garrison. This includes what we might call genuine documentary material the Zapruder film of the assassination and archival photographs (such as of Kennedys autopsy, or the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding the rifle).It also includes a large number of re-enactments, which are very often presented in a simulated documentary style (grainy or black and white f ilm stock, hand-held cameras). This faux-documentary material is often juxtaposed with the genuine documentary material in a manner that blends the two together (the Zapruder footage is matched by staged footage using similar film stock, and the autopsy photographs are intercut with shots of a wax dummy of Kennedy).The Thin Blue Line shares the same outer narrative (filmmaker investigating), but the inner narrative (the story of Randall Adams) is not constructed in a classical Hollywood style. Instead, it is told through one of the standard modes of documentary filmmaking identified by Bill Nichols5 direct address by participants in an interview format (with the interviewer removed through editing).As with Stones film, this inner narrative is back up by evidence, but again the mode of presentation is reversed the principal method used to support the witnesses testimony is through reconstructions of the crime scene that, while stylized and fragmented, are constructed as a miniature classically constructed narrative. This nesting of different modes might be tabulated as followsMy point, however, is that the films differ in mode, but use mirror-image forms of the same structure. JFK is primarily a fictional film, which employs a documentary style when re-enacting speculated events. The Thin Blue Line is primarily a documentary, but employs a style borrowed from fictional films in its re-enactments.If the two films share so much in common, and slide so fluidly from documentary to fictional modes so quickly, does this suggest the difference in the two forms might be largely cosmetic? Fiction can be used to express truths about the real world, and the documentary is can be used in ways that obscure the truth or construct falsehoods. If the fundamental difference between fiction and non-fiction is taken as the link to the real, and it is shown that documentaries and fictions share similar relationships to the real, then the two forms start to look more alike not the same, exactly, but similar. JFK and The Thin Blue Line, by this way of thinking, are then only superficially different types of movies.They share the same structure and the fiction versus documentary dichotomy is more like a difference in genre than a fundamental distinction. This is not to invest the superficial crossover of techniques between the two forms with a significance it does not posses. Documentaries are not fictions just because The Blair Witch Project (1999) does such a good job of pretending to be a real document, or even because Rats in the Ranks (1996) works so well as a narrative. Rather, the downplaying of the documentary / fiction division is based upon a deep-seated cynicism about claims to truth in documentary.That there is such reluctance to accept truth at face value in documentary should not be surprising. Early or classic film studies was based largely on arguments about the relationships between film and reality. While this debate is too detailed to full y explore, it is important to touch upon briefly because much writing upon documentary echoes the arguments of these early writers.The direct link to reality might be seen as a defining feature of the documentary, but it was also seen in the first half of the century as one of the defining features of the film medium itself. The cinema appeared to be an even more perfect method for mechanically reproducing reality than the still photographs that preceded it. This added urgency to arguments of aesthetics that centred on whether the role of the artist was to attempt to recreate the real world, or rather to interpret or even transcend the real.6 These arguments were therefore central to classic film theory and resolved into two broad strands of argument that echo the aesthetic positions described.Thus writers such as Siegfried Kraceur and Andre Bazin had approaches that emphasised films role as a mirror to the real. Of more interest to the current discussion, however, are early anti-re alists such as Rudolf Arnheim. In his Film as Art, his defence for cinemas status as serious artistic medium (rather than a mechanical process) is built a round a series of explanations of the way in which film differs from the real.7 Three dimensional surfaces are projected on a plane surface. Perception of depth is lost. In the black and white cinema with reference to which Arnheim formulated his thesis, colour is eliminated. Lighting distorts. Editing interrupts the flow of time and creates artistic possibilities through the use of montage. Non-visual stimulus is absent (or, after the coming of sound, limited), and even the visual world is limited by the edge of the screen.This catalogue of distortions is, for Arnheim, the very basis for the creation of aesthetic systems by which films can signify meanings. After establishing the above points, he sets about demonstrating how each of these limitations in depicting the real is used as a method of artistic expression8. Subsequent fi lm theory moved beyond Arnheims formulations, but has tended to take them as a given in the sense that few would still argue that the central project of film is limited to the reproduction or reflection of reality.Given that such formulations are at the foundation of later film theory, it should not be surprising that they were echoed when subsequent theorists turned their minds to issues regarding documentary, and particularly its relation to the real. Nol Carroll attributes much of this writing to a backlash against premature claims by proponents of direct cinema that their method of cinema provided unmitigated access to the real.9 These documentarists attempted to avoid the filmmakers intervention and interpretation, reacting to the overt imposition of a viewpoint present in traditional Griersonian forms of documentary. However, as Carroll puts it, direct cinema opened a can of worms and then got eaten by them.10 It was quickly argued that direct cinema was every bit as interpret ive as Griersonian documentaries.For the distortions of reality that were identified by Arnheim are equally present in documentary cinema, but with different implications. Instead of being the unambiguously positive means to artistic expression, every limitation of the medium is instead a problematic point of mediation by the filmmaker. The limitations of the film frame, for example, force choices upon even the most non-interventionist direct cinema filmmaker. And with every choice the filmmaker is placing the film at a greater distance from reality. Carroll quotes Eric Barnouw making this pointTo be sure, some documentarists claim to be objective a term that seems to renounce an interpretive role. The claim may be strategic, but it is surely meaningless. The documentarist, like any communicator in any medium, makes endless choices. He sic selects topics, people, vistas, angles, lens, juxtapositions, sounds, words. Each selection is an expression of his point of view, whether he is aware of it or not, whether he acknowledges it or not. Even behind the first step, selection of a topic, there is a motive It is in selecting and arranging his findings that he expresses himself these choices are, in effect, comments. And whether he adopts the stance of observer, or chronicler or whatever, he cannot escape his subjectivity. He presents his version of the world.11Such an argument certainly seems to cast doubt over the potential for objectivity in documentary cinema. Carried to an extreme, it is the presentation of a version of the world rather than the world itself that can be seen as rendering documentary a form of fiction. Either way, the prospects for documentary truth in such a model seem grim indeed.It should be noted that Carroll puts little faith in such an approach to documentary, and his counter-argument will be returned to. Before doing so, however, it is worth noting that more recently, Carroll has drawn the distinction between what he calls the selectivi ty argument (recited above) and more global postmodern scepticism of claims to truth.12 The latter is based not in the assumptions of classical film studies, but rather the wider discussions about the way any human discourse imposes meaning and structure on real events. For example, historical accounts impose a narrative structure onto events to make them intelligible, and a distinction must be drawn between the real events (which actually occurred) and the account (which lacks an independent historical existence)The states of affairs and events the historian alludes to do have a basis in historical reality, and the historians claims about those states of affairs and events can be literally true or false. But the narratives in which those states of affairs and events figure are inventions, constructions, indeed, fictions. The narrative structure in the historical recounting is not true or false it is fictional.13This point of such an observation may seem a little obscure. If the nar rative structure imposed in a historical account is considered independently of the statements of historical fact that it is used to explain, then of course it must be considered fictional. If, however, a documentary text is considered in its entirety, then it is open to questioning about the validity of the historians factual claims (including analysis as to whether the narrative structure is an accurate or fair way of interpreting the real events) in a way that fiction is not.Certainly the argument is here being posed by Carroll (albeit following Michael Renov and Hayden White) as a prelude to arguing that it is unsupportable14. However, Carroll also refers to an alternative model for looking at the link between non-fiction and fiction, mounted by Bill Nichols in his book Representing Reality, which is more subtle and worth dealing with directly.Nichols, unlike the other theorists alluded to by Carroll, does not argue that documentaries must be considered fiction. He recognises th at the existence of an external, real-world referent is an important distinction that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. The world of a fiction film is a unique, imaginary domain, but the world of documentary is different Instead of a world, we are offered access to the world.15This claim to representation of the real means that documentaries are not simply narratives they are also argumentative, if only in the sense that they make claims (even if only implicitly) about what is true. They are therefore a fiction (un)like any other.16 However, Nichols remains troubled by these claims to truth. While the documentary is distinguished from fiction by its links to the real, this representation is rendered problematic by the apparent impossibility of rendering truth objectively. Documentaries, while not fiction, share with fictionthose very qualities that thoroughly compromise any rigorous objectivity, if they dont make it impossible Objectivity has been under no less siege than realism, and for many of the same reasons. It, too, is a way of representing the world that denies its own processes of construction and their formative effect. Any given standard for objectivity will have embedded political assumptions In documentary, these assumptions might include belief in the self-evident nature of facts, in rhetorical persuasion as a necessary and appropriate part of representation, and in the capacity of the documentary text to affect its audience through its implicit or explicit claim of This is so, isnt it?17Nichols argument is reminiscent of those strands of theoretical thought that view ideology as an inescapable and all pervasive force. Documentaries do make claims about the truth that are open to evaluation, but unfortunately, according to Nichols, our institutional mechanisms for assessing such claims are themselves suspect.If such an approach is accepted, evaluation of the arguments made by Oliver Stone and Errol Morris might be highly problematic. Carroll, ho wever, is not willing to concede that any of these arguments establish either that non-fiction is a form of fiction, or that objectivity is impossible. Firstly, he argues that the cinema does not posses any unique tendency towards bias compared to other media. The same arguments about selectivity that Barnouw raises with respect to film are equally applicable to other media and fields of enquiry.18 The particular causes of distortion may be different, but any historian for example may select, manipulate, interpret or emphasise aspects of their material just as a documentary maker can.Thus if non-fiction film is said to be subjective due to its selectivity, so must any field of human enquiry, such as history and science. In the earlier of the two articles I have discussed (written in 1983), Carroll is confident that such a wide-ranging scepticism would not be seriously proposed.19 As we have seen, by 1996 that was exactly the argument Carroll was responding to. Nevertheless, in 198 3 his defence against the selectivity argument is based upon the notion of objectivity. In any given field of argument, at any given time, there are patterns of reasoning, standards for observation, and methods for assessing evidence which are used for getting to the truth.20 A piece of research is considered objective insofar as it abides by these norms.Likewise, non-fiction films may be assessed against similar codes, and will be considered biased or subjective if they fail to meet them. That selectivity may make bias possible, or even likely, does not preclude the possibility of a film according with established standards of objectivity. The obvious differences between the real world and the filmed presentation prevent film from substituting for lived experience, but they do not prevent documentaries from being objective.This central assumption of this argument that there are standards of objectivity that can be used to judge the truth is exactly the assumption that we have see n Bill Nichols question. Carroll, however, disputes all of Nichols contentions that are cited above. Firstly, he does not accept that objectivity demands that a film call attention to its processes of construction. After all, the fact that a non-fiction film is constructed is understood by any audience and does not need to be spelt out. Self-reflexive analyses of the filmmaking process or the authors own subjectivity might be a feature of many recent documentaries, but for Carrol this is an artistic device, rather than a necessary benchmark for objectivity.Nor does he accept that any standard for objectivity has embedded political assumptions, even accepting Nichols very broad definitions (outlined above) of what constitutes a political assumption. A belief in the self-evident nature of facts, for example, might be a political assumption when the facts being presented are politically charged falsehoods. Yet the acceptance that some claims of self-evident truth are suspect does not m ean that there can be no self-evident facts. With regards to rhetorical persuasion, he argues that films can either eschew such devices altogether (he cites nature documentaries as an example),21 or employ rhetorical structures in the service of objective discourse.Similarly, he regards the implicit claim that this is so, isnt it as present in virtually any assertion and hence neither a political assumption nor a barrier to objectivity. Carrolls approach to these arguments about the prospects for truth or objectivity in documentary is often to return to examples where the truth claimed by the documentary seems clear and uncontentious (as with his common use of nature documentaries as discussion points). The linking thread of the arguments he presents is that the theorists he criticises have mistaken the difficulty in presenting objective truth for an impossibility, often by focussing on exactly the texts where the truth is most problematic.22It is worth returning to The Thin Blue Li ne and JFK at this point, since these films both explore events that are subject to considerable conjecture. Neither could be accused of assuming the truth about these events is self-evident (quite the opposite), yet both nevertheless ultimately make vital factual claims. As noted already, these claims question state-sanctioned verdicts, and both films led to a public discussion that forced official re-examination of the cases The Thin Blue Line forced the retrial of Randall Adams, while JFK contributed to the passing of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which appointed an Assassination Records Review Board (AARB) to re-examine unreleased information about the assassination.23 More than a decade later, with Randall Adams freed from jail, it seems fair to say that Morris case has been widely accepted as true.Oliver Stone, too, has been partially vindicated by subsequent re-examination of the case, with records released by the AARB that suppor t some of his allegations (such as tampering with records of Kennedys autopsy).24 Yet, despite such small victories, and acceptance by many filmgoers of Stones theory of the assassination, JFK remains subject to fierce scholarly criticism of both its methods and conclusions that stands in contrast to the reception of The Thin Blue Line. Linda Williams, in her discussion of the two films, dismisses JFK as paranoid fiction,25 and the widespread condemnation of Stones film by both popular and academic press is well documented.26 Clearly this has much to do with the nature of the case Stone discusses.The Kennedy assassination, for obvious reasons, is a much more familiar event and one that had been the subject of considerably more public discussion than the Randall Adams prosecution. Furthermore, while The Thin Blue Line avoids underlining the political implications of its own conclusions, JFK is explicitly critical of the government and media, calling the assassination a coup detat and coming very close to suggesting former president Lyndon Johnson was involved.27However, the difference in the reception of the two films cannot be explained simply through reference to the argument each presents. Within the very similar structures outlined at the start of this essay, there are also crucial differences that also explain much of the negative response to Stones film compared to Morris.In his consideration of JFK, Robert Rosenstone notes that there are considerable constraints over the depiction of historical events on the screen.28 In particular, he sees the need to invent detail and compress events to shape a narrative as a limitation that must be negotiated by any historical film. While he is referring to narrative features such as JFK, his argument is equally applicable to the summaries of and suppositions regarding events in The Thin Blue Line. This argument has clear overtones of the discussions of documentaries distortions of truth through selectivity that have already been cited.Like Carroll, Rosenstone argues that when a historical filmmaker such as Stone invents or compresses events, he or she is exercising the same type of discretion that the author of any written history must.29 Such inventions can be considered true (at least to a point) in the sense that they can be verified, documented, or reasonably argued. The problem, notes Rosenstone, is that the verification must occur outside the world of the film. When Stone argues in JFK that President Kennedy was about to withdraw troops from Vietnam, the information is justified by reference to a real memorandum (National Security Action Memo 263), but a fictitious character makes the reference.Assuming no foreknowledge of the case, the audience has no way while watching the film of even knowing that the memorandum really existed, let alone being sure that it supports the conclusion Stone draws. If Stones conclusion is to be examined, the audience must go beyond viewing and read the relev ant documents (or scholarly discussion of them) for themselves. If they do so, they will, as Rosenstone states, be undertaking the same kind of critique and review that a work of written history is subjected to. This process of measuring a film against standards of objectivity is exactly that which Carroll highlights as the means of linking non-fiction films to the truth. Stone has actively sought to enter into such debates, mounting extensive defences of the historical accuracy of JFK and his other works.30That JFK was so controversial was perhaps partly due to the fact that audiences do not necessarily judge films within such evaluative frameworks unlike the target audience for written history, they may assume that what they see is true and not enter into the debates as to the films veracity. Even assuming an engaged, sceptical audience, however, it is also the case that Stones film does not make the separation of truth from fiction a straightforward task. I have already suggested that the film possesses three layers of exposition an outer narrative (Stones case), an inner narrative (Garrisons story), and evidence (presented as documentary material and re-enactments). The inner narrative story of Jim Garrison (which is likely to be understood by most audiences as at least partially fictional and not taken as literally true) is often weaved seamlessly in with the evidence (more likely to be seen as Stones presentation of true material).Garrison, for example, meets the mysterious Mr X (Donald Sutherland) in Washington, who outlines a hypothesis about who killed Kennedy and why. This calls forth a series of re-enactments of high level discussions between officials that are weaved into Mr Xs account. The narrative is calling forth evidence, but the difficulty with this sequence is in separating what material is a fictional narrative device, what is speculated, and what is documented truth. For example, are we to accept that Garrison really did meet an anonymous official who told him this information, and take that as evidence that Stones case is true? Or are we to take this as simply part of the inner narrative, a method of presenting evidence? As mentioned, Mr X talks in detail of a real memorandum in order to put Stones case that Kennedy wished to withdraw from Vietnam.An audience might correctly surmise that the existence of such a memo (putting aside its meaning) is a documented fact. However, this quickly leads into discussions of the reaction to this memo within high levels of the government, and the point at which history slides into speculation in this sequence is by no means readily apparent. The re-enactment portions of the sequence are presented in a stylised style using black and white photography, but this does not flag them as conjectural, since Stone switches between film stocks throughout the film without drawing such distinctions. (Elsewhere in the film, for example, the Zapruder film of the assassination, is alternated wi th simulated footage shot in the same style.)The effect of these aesthetic decisions by Stone is to confuse the boundaries between non-fiction and fiction in a way that makes application of objective standards for assessing truth difficult. The audience can only infer which sections of the film are intended to be read as non-fiction and subject to such examination.Written in October 2001 for the Melbourne University subject Ethnographic and Documentary Cinema.Notes1. This is the concluding sentence of Eric Barnouw, Documentary A History of the Non-Fiction Film, (Oxford University Press, New York Oxford, 1993, 2nd Revised Edition), p. 349.2. The list of similarities between the two films that follows draws partly on Linda Williams, Mirrors without Memories Truth, History and The Thin Blue Line in Barry Keith Grant Jeanette Sloniowski (eds), Documenting the Documentary Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video (Wayne State UP, Detroit, 1998), p 381.3. The films Garrison, for exam ple, has access to information the real Garrison did not, in order to allow Stone to communicate it to audiences. For example, In the movie we attributed to Garrison the information about Shaws background but in real life Jim did not have access to that information at that time. (Oliver Stone audio commentary, JFK DVD, Region 4 Special Edition Directors Cut release, Warner Brothers, 1 hour 28 mins approx.)4. This phrase is Stones own JFK audio commentary, op. cit., 2 hours 10 mins approx. While these scenes are also used to communicate information about the larger case, this is an example of narrative efficiency, and does not contradict my point that they do contain aspects (such as the melodromatic touch of Garrisons children asking Dont you love us any more?) which function simply as domestic drama, with no relation to the case against Clay Shaw.5. Nichols has revisited and slightly reformulated these modes over time, but they can be summarised as expository (ie voice-of-God docum entaries that use direct address to tell the audience a truth), observational (cinema verite style films that aim to observe events without participating), interactive (interview based films that allows for direct address by participants, while allowing for filmmakers interaction through questioning), reflexive (films that draw attention to the documentarys own methods), and performative (stressing an individual, subjective position, while downplaying objective or referential aspects). See Bill Nichols The Voice of Documentary, Film Quarterly 36, no 3 (Spring 1983) Representing Reality Issues and Concepts in Documentary (1991, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis), Chapter 2 and (for the perfomative mode) Performing Documentary, Blurred Boundaries Questions of Meaning in Contemporary Culture (c. 1994, Indiana UP, Bloomington), pp 92-106.6. This point and the subsequent discussion of classical film theory draw on the discussions in the anthologies Gerald Mast et al. (eds.), Film Theory and Criticism Introductory Readings, (Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 1992), pp. 3-7, and Antony Easthorpe, Contemporary Film Theory (Longman, London New York, 1993), pp. 2-5.7. Rudolf Arnheim, Film as Art (Faber Faber, London, 1958), esp. pp. 17-37.8. Ibid., p. 37-114.9. Nol Carroll, From Real to Reel Entangled in Nonfiction film, in Nol Carroll, Theorizing the Moving Image (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996), p. 224-252. (Originally published in Philosophic Exchange in 1983, and will be cited in future as Carroll (1996/1983) to distinguish it from his piece in Post-Theory cited below). Reference to direct cinema is p. 225.10. Ibid.11. Ibid., p. 226. Carroll is quoting from the first edition of Barnouws Documentary, citing p. 287-288 of that edition (Oxford University Press, New York, 1974). The nearest equivalent to this quote I can find in the third edition (op. cit.) is at p. 344.12. Nol Carroll, Nonfiction films and Postmodernist S kepticism in Nol Carrol David Bordwell (eds.), Post-Theory Reconstructing Film Studies, (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1996), pp. 283-306.13. Ibid., p. 288. Emphasis is Carrolls.14. Carroll is frequently belligerent about the texts he discusses but is particularly so about Renovs Theorizing Documentary, describing it as a state of the art compendium of received thinking about the documentary film, and dismissing Renovs argument as a red herring. Ibid., p. 285 291.15. Both quotes Nichols, 1991, op. cit., p. 109. Emphasis is Nichols.16. This is the title of the second part of Nichols book. How helpful this argumentative nature is as a distinction between fiction and documentary (and how unlike any other form of fiction documentary can be said to be) is debatable given that fiction can be every bit as argumentative as documentary (as JFK demonstrates).17. Ibid., p. 195.18. Carroll (1996/1983), op. cit., p. 226.19. Carroll I mention this because I do not think that commentat ors who conclude that the nonfiction film is subjective intend their remarks as a mere gloss on the notion that everything is subjective. But that, I fear, is the untoward implication of their attack. Ibid., p. 226.20. Ibid., p. 230. See also Carroll, 1996, op. cit. pp. 283-285.21. Carroll, 1996, p. 294.22. See, for example, Ibid., p. 293, regarding film scholars focus on art-documentary.23. Michael L. Kurtz, Oliver Stone, JFK, and History, in Robert Brent Toplin (ed), Oliver

Tocqueville Analyses Political Society Functioning Politics Essay

Tocqueville Analyses Political Society Functioning Politics shewThe key cultural and economic factors in the Tocquevilles work revolve virtually social fittedity and inequality. In his work Tocqueville t balance to focus on equality in the hunting lodge the aristocratic which compromised equality and res publica which maximized equality. Tocqueville recognizes that in the States several social forces have allowed people to remain free. Tocqueville dialog about burgeoning parliamentary order and shots democracy from the perspective of a free social scientist. Tocqueville observes democracy as an equation that balances equality and liberty link up for the America society. He finds human to thirst for equality and the desire of the adynamic to bring the strong down the equal levels reducing men to choose parity in servitude to inequality in emancipation.Tocqueville analyses politicsal society operation and several forms of political associations and has shed some light on the complaisant society. Similar to Marx and Hegel, Tocqueville demonstrates polished society as a sphere of civil affairs and private entrepreneurship. Justifiably, Tocqueville indicates that equality of social condition has bred civilian and political values which in turn plant the type of legislations to be passed. Tocqueville maintains with Aristotle and Montesquieu that the balances of possessions regard the poise of function. Distinctively positi singled at the crossroads of American history Tocqueville view on American democracy attempted to capture the very radical nature of American culture and values.GreenbergGreenberg indicates that within the structure of democratic capitalism in America, the government structure and the personality have a vitally bad backbone. The relationship between the government and an individual is by the constitution which read aloud the liberal values first harmonicly woven into the prolific history of America. The American consti tution combined with the Bill of Rights holds the prevailing government accountable for all the actions and sets a finite limit on the power it exercises over a citizen.America as a capitalist society uses wealth distribution and taxation way to control social equity. In keeping with classical liberalism, the society and the state can be viewed as an immense social contract. The central liberal principle that is served by the American constitution limits and separates governmental power. In n keeping with Greenberg argument, the characteristically liberal mistrust of majoritarian tyranny has been continued to the contemporary American politics through the constitution. Liberal concern with individual rights has principally been portrayed in the American customs by the Bill of Rights. Liberalism guarantees individual liberty same(p) freedom of religion, speech and the universal rights of all the American citizens. The function of the Bill of Rights is bulwark of the American citize n from the abuse of power that might be committed by any part of the government. Individual freedom has been established as one of the hallmarks of liberalism especially for the Americas free-market economy every American citizen is free to choose how they would like to use their in produce.Generally, liberal principles supports that individuals should pursue their own best following economically, this rough-cut pursuit of individual interest encourages improvement and innovation. In regard to the Greenberg argument, the semblance presents that the free market economics is similar to free market for policies and creative thinkers and thus liberal democracy. Underlying the liberal approach to political and economic arrangement is the assertion that every individual possess equal rights to work, cast their votes and this creates an equal playing-ground in the electoral politics. Arguably, united nation as a boorish has strayed least from values of liberalism. American constitut ion is based on fundamental liberal principles protecting individuals and limiting appropriate powers of government.LipsetIn keeping with the work of Lipet, formulating a national identity the American nation presents a reformist and a virile society that has abundance of opportunity to all. Lipsets work likewise depicts a society rich in corrupt affluence a society with a rising laxity of values and morals, impropriety of relish and a broadening gap between the haves and have-nots. American policies and put by Lipset follows the principles that were set in the federalist. America sort thet nations must focus their interest in their foreign policies. Lipset indicates that one powerful step to American study is the weight of ancient tradition present in most of the states was ab initio not there. America grew not only as a untried nation but also a new-fangled society with new set morals and values. However, religion can at some excite be seen as a new conventional instituti on that has vie a great role in America. All in all, in the first half a decade the religion defenders were greatly washy with disestablishment of Anglican and the New England Congregationalist. Lipset draws a significant connection between democracy and income. In keeping with Lipset, economic development through increased income determine the type of class struggle allowing person in the lower strata to come up with more gradualist views in reference to political change.Factors that seem to be Central in all argumentsAll the arguments respond to the impact of political and social development of the U.S. to its governance. In keeping with the three arguments it is definite that America has a unique culture which has been developed for a long time. In is fundamental to understand that Tocqueville lays emphasis on liberty, individualism, laissez-faire and egalitarianism as the main driving forces for Democratic republicDo you agree which the idea that the United States is exception al that the political system here developed in ways that make it very different from political systems in former(a) countries.The distinctive national attribute of the U.S. political and social culture distinguishes the nations from early(a) nations. United States possesses an exceptional political system that is developed in ways that make them very different from political system. U.S. Political system has clearly been defined by elementary documents. The 1776 declaration of independence and the 1789 U.S constitution argon the foundations of the United States federal government. In reference to Khan (2003), the declaration of independence institutes the U.S. as a political entity that is independent. The constitution on the other hand, formulates a basic structure of the U.S. federal government. In keeping with Tocqueville, the greatest profit of the Americans is the fact the country reached to a state of democracy without enduring democratic revolution.Supplementary readingsK han, L. (2003). A theory of universal democracy beyond the end of history. The Hague New York Kluwer Law International.Schleifer, J. (2012). The boodle companion to Tocquevilles Democracy in America. Chicago The University of Chicago Press.

George Eastman Inventor Of Kodak Camera Film Studies Essay

George Eastman Inventor Of Kodak tv television camera Film Studies EssayOver the years picture victorious has helped us sh be memories and irregulars with the volume we love. Photography sets a mood and gives us a way of remembering our pasts. There is always that one heading though. Where did it come from? Reading on will help you understand who, where, and when this conception whole began.The word photography comes from the Greek language. The two words, photo, convey get away, and grapho, meaning writing, evolved its name, photography. Writing with come interested Greek and Chinese scholars to start experimenting with light. victimization reflections from several(predicate) objects, they sewer produce theatrical roles. It took hundreds of years for anyone to figure this give away which do the disco precise more exciting. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 6-8) Giovanni Battista del la Porta pre displaceed the first image in front of an Italian audience. The volume were amaze d to see how the upside-down ikon flipped and came alive on the sm otherwise. The audience didnt know about the pinhole in the w every last(predicate) where projected light was passing with. This is called Camera Obscura. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 8-10)Cameras started off being a tough, heavy, wooden box. Arab scientist studied the sun apply a camera obscura. Camera obscura means dark box or dark room in Latin, using sunlight which entered a hole in the box and displayed an image on the screen. By the 16th century, the hole became electron lens. (Franklin Watts, pg. 7-9, Tolmachev, Ivan.) many an(prenominal) artists started coming up with their own ways of using Camera Obscura including Johann Schulze who later helped the journey of photography. In 1760, a frenchman named Tiphaigne de la Roche do history with his famous prediction. He proposed using a sticky substance on the canvas would help with the images appearance. De la Roches prediction came true a fewer decades after hi s death. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 10-11)In the nineteenth century, pictures could be kept by using a sheet of veridical inside the box. This allowed hoi polloi to see places they may never visit. They could see how other countries dressed, how the rich and poor lived, and for the first quantify, how war was. With Daguerres new invention, the Daguerreotype photography was occasiond. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 9-12) This rock-bottom light expo trustworthy time from eight hours to just a half hour. The daguerreotype was made famous and was bought over by the French government indoors a few months. Daguerres instruction manual was translated into a dozen languages all over the world. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 13) Scientists then started pullting together light and chemicals knowing this could give way something big know as the throw of photography. Thomas Wedgwood was the first to over fetch a silhouette temporarily using a chemical called atomic number 47 nitrate. No one knew how to k eep it ageless until 1826 when Nicephore Niepce successfully produced a perm image. He later became partners with Louis Daguerre who move experimenting fifty-fifty after his death. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 12, Wikipedia.)Scientists started putting light and chemicals together knowing this could become something big known as the birth of photography. Thomas Wedgwood was the first to capture a silhouette temporarily using a chemical called silver nitrate. No one knew how to keep it permanent until 1826 when Nicphore Nipce successfully produced a permanent image. He later became partners with Louis Daguerre who continued experimenting admit down after his death. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 12)Americans were in truth excited about the Daguerreotype. Daguerre and Samuel Morse, a lynx inventor, exchanged ideas about the Daguerreotype giving the U.S. an advantage on photography. Morse and his partner, gutter Draper, came up with their own version two months before the actual release. The Daguerreotype became truly popular solely had limitations such as its modest size, weight of the metal, they were very fragile as to any marking could ruin the image, and there was no negative to gather in copies of any kind. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 1618) In 1843, an entire photo labor actual in the United States. People were now able to abide their own portraits no matter how wealthy they were. Portrait studios and big-city galleries opened all over the United States and newspapers started being printed with pictures. Publishers began printing books with pictures of the world and magazines started publishing with images of farms, churches, people, and nature. By 1851, pictures only needed two to three seconds of exposure time and grew even more. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 18-19)George Eastman, inventor of Kodak camera, made photography available to everyone. He was born in New York on July 12th, 1854 during the Daguerreotypes appearance. Eastmans interest in photography true succ ession planning a vacation to take pictures. He never did go, except continued his liking towards photography. This is when he peed his own process that could take quaternary pictures. In 1880, he opened his own business called the Eastman Company. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 22-23) Eastmans goal was to make the camera as convenient as a pencil. His first consummation was loading photographic paper onto a roll holder allowing people to take pictures and develop later instead of one after another. In 1885, Eastman reachd scoot that had the ability to hold multiple pictures. This film fit heaps of photos and provided a clearer image than paper would. Surprisingly, only a few people used his new invention. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 24)Eastman was particularly fond of the letter K. Therefore, he created a name that both started and ended with the letter. The first Kodak products were advertised in newspapers and magazines write by himself. In 1888, he created Kodaks slogan, You press the button, and we do the rest. Kodak was a big step in the continuation of photography and eliminated the hassle of big photography equipment. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 26-27)When film is struck by light, its coating of chemicals changes, known as the emulsion. rubric film has three light sensitive layers, each sensitive to all red, green, or blue. When the film is case-hardened with chemicals, three colors each lay down on top of each other. The paper inside is also treated with chemicals which finishes the final print. (Franklin Watts, pg. 18) Eastman believed that photo taking should be available to all people no matter what you could afford. By 1896, the Eastman Company had produced 100,000 Kodak cameras and manufactured about cd miles of film per month. Kodak cameras cost five dollars but Eastman wasnt satisfied so he reduced it to only one dollar. In 1900, he created a small camera called the Brownie. By doing all of this, he gave the world the ability to take pictures by doing nothing more than pressing a button. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 27, Wikipedia.)The word photography comes from the two Greek words, phos and graphos. This means to write with light. Good lighting is very important for great quality. By combining certain lights, photographers can create certain moods or atmospheres. Professionals use an instant camera to check if everything is consummate(a) before using normal film. (Franklin Watts, pg. 24) Film now has to be sent to a processing laboratory to be developed. An instant camera can use a special type of film that develops by itself. for each one picture slides out as soon as its interpreted. It is fully developed within a minute. As it leaves the camera, it is coated with photographic chemicals. (Franklin Watts, pg. 20) In devote for the picture to be perfect, there must be the correct nitty-gritty of light. There are two ways of adjusting it. Changing the shut locomote varies the length of time the shutter is open. Changing the apertur e alters the size of the hole that allows light in. Most cameras nowadays can do that automatically. (Franklin Watts, pg. 16)Having a picture taken in a professional studio was a special moment for people. Therefore, they wore their best clothes in order to look good. In nice pictures, people practically look stiff. This was because of the duration of the picture capture which made it difficult to look relaxed. It was also hard to smile for a farsighted time so they often had a blank expression. Victorian photos often had a brown tint called sepia made from the liquid squirted out by a cuttlefish. (Franklin Watts, pg.1214) When filming a scene, a tape form and a camera are started. A clapstick is snapped in front of the camera and Action is yelled by the director. Later, the sound is put into each scene. This makes sure that each picture is exact with each sound. The lighting, sound, camera, and equipment are all put together by a filming crew. (Franklin Watts, pg. 31) The scene s are then coupled together with a splicing machine. Some scenes might not even be used at all. Some movies put in the Deleted Scenes to collection you how the movie could hire been different. (Franklin Watts, pg. 32)Photography then started merging into the computer age. This study change in the United States had amazed many throughout the 1990s. The major movie Snow White was restored in 1993 using digital codes. Computers transferred microscopical pixels and displayed the image on the screen. Nowadays, we start the capability to add artistic effects, textures, and designs to a picture within seconds. Photos can be sent through the net in color around the world. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 30)Photography is used to see things that are not able to be seen. Cameras are carried by spy planes and satellites to take pictures from the sky. X-rays produce images of people and objects on the inside. The camera can get through muscle and skin but not bone. These pictures allow doctors to see problems occurring not seen from the outside. (Franklin Watts, pg. 26) In the 1830s, people created toys that made a series of pictures on a spinning disc. Each picture looked a little different than before. When shown quickly, they create a moving picture. Photographs were then placed on long strips of film. This became known as the cinema industry. (Franklin Watts, pg. 28)By the middle of the 20th century, the camera became a common item with multiple uses. People everywhere were now taking portraits of whatever they pleased at such little cost. Scientists came up with the idea of x-rays creating a huge breakthrough in medicine. Thomas Edison came out with the doubt picture camera for news coverage and entertainment. The creation of microfilm allowed banks and libraries to likeness and store info. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 28) Newspapers and television newsrooms now receive pictures within a few seconds after they are taken. Hospitals can send medical images to other hospitals w hen needed. Many people create online photo albums and share them with others. Many social networks have the ability to post pictures such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram and others. Cell phones now have the ability to take pictures and send them to friends. The photographic world changes rapidly all starting off with a reflection on a wall. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 28, Sullivan, Connor R.)Inventions such as home movie cameras, photocopiers, underwater cameras and space cameras all developed during the 20th century. In 1962, John Glenn was first to orbit the earth using a special camera to film the whole journey. In 1969, bombination Aldrin and Neil Armstrong used another camera to film the first step on the moon. Photographs of the moon were brought back studied. These pictures amazed many as it was the first time theyve seen what they have been curious about for centuries. (Sue Vander Hook, pg. 28-29)A camera has many move to it. The hole in the front with the lens called t he aperture allows light to pass through and fall onto the film inside. When the camera isnt in use, a shutter keeps the film in total darkness. By pressing the button, the shutter opens and light enters the lens producing a clear image on the film. The shutter is closed again and is wound on, ready for the next photograph. (Franklin Watts, pg. 14) There are several different cameras. The most popular are compact cameras and the single lens reflex response (SLR) cameras. A compact camera can fit easily into your take while a SLR camera gives more control over the shutter speed, aperture, and focus. The SLR uses multiple types of lenses. Also, the disposable camera which is used once, developed, and then thrown away. (Franklin Watts, pg. 22) supernumerary effects help set a mood for the audience. Some create places that dont exist or events that never happened even though they appear real when on the screen. Tiny models can be made to look as if they were huge in real living. Eve n dinosaurs and monsters are brought to life on the cinema screen. (Franklin Watts, pg. 36) Animated films also bring things to life. Events that can barely be seen can be slowed or stopped. The secret is the time reveal betwixt photographs. Speeding up the camera makes things appear in slow drift while the film is being shown while slowing it down speeds it up. With invigorate characters, the actors voice can be made to match the characters face. This is all feasible through photographic evolution. (Franklin Watts, pg. 35)The camera has influenced many by capturing a life and putting it onto paper. It makes sure those special moments dont go to waste and can be relived. Photography has influenced me not just because of my love for editing and taking pictures, but also for the feelings and emotions it can bring to a persons face. Photography doesnt just ever hold memories on a strip of film, but gives you your life in review at the click of a button.