Neither discovery nor rediscovery is more complex than the other, both have different influencing factors that make them complicated. Rediscoveries are made complicated through having to assess their significance in the changed context over the time passed form the initial discovery. However, initial discoveries are difficult as they can challenge the values of the discoverer. The documentary “Frank Hurley: The Man Who Made History” explores this notion of rediscovery through inviting the audience to discover the story of one of the great imperial explorers Frank Hurley. Karen Joy Fowlers novel “We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves” supports this through the story of Rosemary Cooke who was raised with a chimpanzee (Fern) as a sister, but separated from her at a young age, who makes discoveries about her confusing past. Contextual changes make is complex to decide the significance of a rediscovery. A change in context can lead to renewed perception, thus a new significance in the discoverers world. This complexity is demonstrated in ‘Frank Hurley: The Man Who Made History’, which portrays the complicated debate over the …show more content…
In “Frank Hurley: The Man Who Made History” the audience discovers Hurley’s cowardly side when Nasht portrays Hurley neglecting his family. This discovery is made influential in the film as Nasht presents it through in an interview with Hurley’s twin daughters, making the information presented both personal and confronting. The Mise-en-scene in these interviews is a family home, but the background is darkened to symbolise the lack of a complete family home environment, making the audience empathetic towards the daughters. This new perspective challenges the heroic view that had been created about Hurley in the opening of the documentary and complicates how the audience now perceive
Interestingly, visual techniques are also effective in portraying the theme of free will versus determinism to question the responder who and what controls our lives. The tripartite storytelling structure incorporating three wholly, self-contained alternate versions of events is an unconventional filming technique reinforcing the postmodernist perception of having minimal control over life. As Lola rushes past minor characters in the film, flash forwards offer alternate glimpses of the possible outcome of their future, suggesting that fee-will alone is not a sole determination of the outcome of life. In each run, Lola’s encounter with these minor characters varies, showing that even the slightest change can become a significant impact to life. An extreme close-up
A documentary demonstrates an interpretation of the truth by attempting to persuade an audience to side with the makers to endorse their interpretations of issues and events. In the instance Bra boys; Blood is thicker then water, directed by Sunny Abberton, the Bra Boys gang is viewed as a imitation of a prodigious brotherhood gang of surfers that are victims from occurrences and backgrounds opposed to a gang that dispute with the law by an act of violence. The Bra Boys have interpreted issues and events by emphasizing the importance of family, belonging, brotherhood and multiculturalism. The use of presenting constructed footage and personal interviews endorses viewers to see the Bra Boys from a positive light, boys who are role models to
Although released over 17 years ago, Rob Sitch’s comedy The Castle remains an incredibly popular film that portrays an ‘Aussie Battler’ family, the Kerrigans, in suburbia. Film writer Ian Craven states that the Kerrigans possess “the qualities of a simple good-heartedness family, with human decency and dignity”, all of which can be easily recognized by the audience throughout the film. The Castle takes a satirical look at Australian suburbia in order to manipulate traditional stereotypes, gender constructions, themes, identities, ideologies and cinematic techniques as a means of altering the positioning of the audience.
Through revealing that actors had in fact portrayed Polley’s family, the film sets out to emphasise the reliability and truthfulness of the documentary as well as the recounts. Without notifying the audience that such archival footage was fake and placing this revelation at the end of the film allows the audience to really consider what the “truth” is. When asked about the making of the film, Harry Gulkin, Polley’s biological father, states that the truth is a subjective narrative, that these “narratives are shaped in part by their relationship to the person who told it to them, and by the events” (Stories We Tell 2012). Additionally, Polley states, “the way her mother’s story changed depended on who was going the telling” (Vulture, 2013). This point is what resonates from the film and its purpose – that the there are different sides to the truth; one truth to one person is false to another.
Can Discovery truly allows us to view life in a new and fresh way? Due to the complex and abstract nature of the concept of discovery, a true sense of discovery harbour's the ability to incite individuals in many differentiating ways as it can be provoked through their different past experiences. The concept of discovery has evidently evoked curiosity and inquisitiveness through the protagonists of both the indigenous play “Rainbows end” composed by Jane Harrison, and also through the novel “The fault in our stars” authored by John Green.
Documentarians often want to get as close to their subject matter as possible. Some documentarians have an insider perspective which ignites a spark to create a piece that illuminates a specific topic or area of study. There are also documentarians that have no affiliation with said subject matter, but want to explore the topic in question. Finally, there are documentarians that have a foot in both worlds. Insider/outsider is a theory in which a documentarian can be close to a subject, but also possess characteristics or traits that make them distant from the topic in question (Coles, 1998). Such is the case with the directors of both Stranger with a Camera and The House I Live In. Due to their own location, both Eugene Jarecki and Elizabeth Barret exhibit characteristics that make them fall into the insider/outsider roles as directors. Robert Coles defines location by stating, “We notice what we notice because of who we are” (Coles, 1998, p. 7). Included in this is, a person’s education, race, class, and gender. Both directors realize they are outsiders and utilize a lens into a world in which they are not otherwise a part of. Jarecki’s lens comes in the form of Nanny Jeter, his family’s nanny from when he was a child. Barret’s lens for her documentary is the community that she shared with Ison. The two directors enter into a world that they are not a part of because of their location, but forge a connection to the subject matter through means of a lens.
The idea of the exclusion of important narratives is a common theme amongst many of the historians involved in the discussion. The omission of such narratives would only stand to present an unfinished version of history from which one cannot grasp the lessons history intends to teach. Catherine Emerson would be the first to
The term ‘discovery’ can be explored and interpreted in many different ways, the meaning is created by an individual’s perception, opinion and experiences of discovery. In the book Swallow the Air by Tara June Winch and the film, Titanic by James Cameron explores the concept of discovery as an idea that discoveries can be challenging as they allow for the transformation of an individual’s perspective, and they allow for an individual to discover their true identity and the identity of others around them.
This example clearly confirms the idea that documentaries are highly constructed, offering a particular version of reality which to different viewers may reinforce or critique the dominant representations of the “Bra Boys”. The documentary does include elements which clearly function to criticise and change the dominant representations by valourising Koby Abberton’s achievements in the surfing arena.
3- In recent years, historians had interpreted the meaning of the discovery of America, which led them to reassess the place of Columbus in Western history.
History is created by the feats and accomplishments of mankind as time goes on. Two men, Christopher Columbus and Charles Lindbergh, revolutionized the world and the people of their time.If neither one did what they did, the world now would be such a different place, technologically, socially, and politically that none of us now could accurately predict. Each one accomplished two big steps in the history of mankind, each one faced challenges and obstacles that neither one would’ve thought of, each one changed the face of the earth to as we know it now, and even each one accomplished things that weren’t even apart of their goal for what they attempted to achieve.
Sinking Columbus, at first glance, wouldn’t catch the eye of a passer-by due to its very plain appearance. With its binding a very pale beige and its hardbacks a moderate shade of grey, it’d be easy to fail to acknowledge this publication if seen on a shelf next to those of brighter, more appealing colours. Those who judge this book by its cover would miss out on the many things it has to offer regarding the memory of Christopher Columbus. The two main questions that the authors aim to answer are: How did Columbus go from hero to villain and from cultural icon to false idol in such a short time? and How did the 500th anniversary of his voyage serve as an estimate of the ultimate significance of the change of the meaning of Columbus in contemporary
Much of the human race strives to escape the sands of time as future generations will forge their own paths and forget the great work of their relentless ancestors. No one wants to be forgotten, and if they are, rarely ever are their works uncovered. However, when it happens, it seems as though the whole world stops for a moment and appreciates what they have completed— their work inspires the work of future generations. As it turns out, maybe they were not forgotten after all.
The fact that Henry Armstrong was buried did not seem to him to prove that he was dead: he had always been a hard man to convince. That he really was buried, the testimony of his senses compelled him to admit. His posture -- flat upon his back, with his hands crossed upon his stomach and tied with something that he easily broke without profitably altering the situation -- the strict confinement of his entire person, the black darkness and profound silence, made a body of evidence impossible to controvert and he accepted it without cavil.
You all know about the discovery of North America by the European explorers, yes? But did you know that the Europeans were NOT the first ones to sail to the unknown lands that we live in now? It was ancient people, like the Vikings, for example. While we could say that it was discovered twice, that would be dumb. There was simply a lack of communication. So with that in mind, the whole point of this is: Discoveries can never be truly repeated. We’ve seen so many things, and we have records of discoveries from even a millennium ago. You may have some opinions that say otherwise, but right now, hear me out. You can't discover something multiple times. It just cannot be done. And are we really that likely to forget something, when we have all these records? And what is a discovery if it’s not new?