Paul Greengrasse's Film 'Bloody Sunday'

Hello, I really enjoyed the film. I think that having a "modern-day" presentation really caught my attention. I enjoyed the sound on the background of the movie; it made the movie more intriguing. In addition, I think that a documentary could be boring, but who does not like to watch movies? Most of us do. Learning about the Women's Suffrage Movement in a modern movie was great. I think we retain better by watching a modern movie that listen to documentaries. One scene that stood out in my mind was when the police was feeding a prisoner with a tube. I could not believe that the American Government could not allow citizens to express their discontent about their government policies. I felt that in this scenario, the government did not allow

The Biased viewpoint of Michael Moore tears viewers away from the actual problem, and perhaps even the film’s intended message itself…

Having someone's views be different and questioned is the premise of freedom of speech. Allowing someone's opinion to not be questioned would promote a censorship on the people. In the first section of the article, a woman argues that filmmaker Calude Lanzmann's flim, “Shoah”, was not an accurate representation of the Holocaust. In response, Lanzmann states, “Madame, you are an experience, but not an argument.” That statement is disrespectful to every Holocaust survivor and more importantly, it demeans her experience during the Holocaust. Experience creates an argument because everyone doesn't have the same experience. It should be the strongest argument for anything and should outweigh anyone who hasn't experienced something personally. Anyone should be able to create an argument for the film even if they find it to be different from their point of

The obvious bias illustrated throughout Michael Moore’s film certainly does detract from the messages conveyed however when presented in the right circumstances it adds more value to the messages. The obvious bias leaves many people questioning the credibility of the director’s message as it doesn’t show the full spectrum of the situation, which is what documentaries are for, and ultimately this detracts the films message. However, in some circumstances the obvious bias brings more light on important aspects which should be acted upon thus adding more value the message being portrayed. Michael Moore has directed over 12 documentaries and a handful of them have been awarded with prestigious film awards. “Where to invade next”, “Sicko”, “Bowling for Columbine”, “Capitalism: a love story” and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, these are just half of the documentaries in which Michael Moore has directed. The purpose of a documentary is to present a nonfictional motion picture which aims to promote or

Although the best reasons for “going to the movies” are to be entertained and eat popcorn, understanding a film is actually quite complex. Movies are not only a reflection of life, they also have the capability of shaping our norms, values, attitudes, and perception of life. Through the media of film, one can find stories of practically anything imaginable and some things unimaginable. Movie-makers use their art to entertain, to promote political agendas, to educate, and to present life as it is, was, or could be. They can present truth, truth as they interpret it, or simply ignore truth altogether. A movie can be a work of fiction, non-fiction, or anything in-between. A film is an artist’s interpretation. What one takes away from a film depends upon how one interprets what has been seen and heard. Understanding film is indeed difficult.

There are many strengths and weaknesses in this film. One of Moore’s strengths was that he uses many entertainments to portray most of his argument. Moore uses interviews with the public and celebrities, history of our country, crude humor, footage that was extremely ruthless and alarming, as well as hands on experiments Another strength is that he provides evidence as to what he’s saying. One weakness is that sometimes he goes off topic, or sometimes he also contradicts himself. Moore uses many pathos, ethos, and logos through out the whole film. First off, this film is filled with pathos, it is all very emotional due to all the tragic events mentioned. With ethos it does show a lot of credibility through out the whole movie. Lastly, the film does state many facts, statistics, and evidence. For example, the correlation of people killed all around the world and the laws that each country has. On fallacy found in the documentary is how he always tries to prove something from what he says. This is called or also known as Ad Hominem fallacy. He

I believe this due to the use of appeals, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. The film uses storylines including children and babies and emotional images of soup kitchens, shabby homes, and empty refrigerators. It provokes anger and pity throughout by describing the political scene surrounding this topic along with the stories of the parents and children directly affected by legislation. The film uses Logos by interviewing spokespersons from organizations and political officials and providing facts and demonstrations. By being a film using graphics and such it presents itself as easy to understand and their for the viewer are more likely to retain information and believe it to be factual.

Another crucial point mentioned in the article is the power of perception and how media can often times influence perception. “One of the most powerful lessons of these films is how easily our opinions about a crime can be influenced by the manner in which information is presented to us” (Rich, 2013). An example used is that of Hobbs. Rich mentions that throughout the first film Hobbs appeared “dazed” and “ruined” over the death of his son. When they show the same footage in the third film, he looks like a man who is trying to hide something. With this new context the audience, watching began to see him in a different way. This is another way “truth” works as Professor LaFleur explained in the Fall semester. In this case, the West Memphis Three supporters sought to exonerate the accuse and accuse instead who they felt had committed the murders. The case with the backing of many celebrities and supporters gained national notoriety. Their agenda, which was blaming Hobbs, intensified in the documentary. With accusations, people who watched would begin to see Hobbs in a different light. Anybody can support a claim with the right “evidence”.

The film is arguable a film about torture, and portrays torture as contributory in the finding of Osama bin Laden. The film portrays the real account of events which follows the Navy Seal Team 6 who ultimately kill Osama bin Laden. The film doesn’t provide the audience with any historical or political context, besides the mention of the 9/11 attacks. All the viewers need to know is that these al-Qaeda terrorists want to destroy the US because they hate the values and freedom which Americans hold, no other clarification of their reasons is

This documentary just seem too good to be true. Some aspects of this video just did not really fit in. It jumped around a bit I feel. That made it a little confusing which did not make it compelling for me. Although I did enjoy watching the movie and learning a few things from

One interesting part of the trial in the documentary was that, when the wartime general was put on the stand, he claimed that he unwillingly raped a woman because she was hinting at it herself, rather than him advancing towards her. The lawyer questioned him, however, and was able to get the real story out, but he still attempted to turn this on to the women. This disgusted me because in a court where women are standing up for their rights against a man who is known to be guilty, he had the courage to even try and blame the woman, who he took from her home, killed her family, and threatened her, by saying she made advances at him.

I learned that Rosa Parks had problems with the bus driver previous to the day she wouldn’t give up her seat, he even came close to hitting her. I also learned that they only expected 500 people to show up at the mass meetings and 5,000 people really did. Another thing I learned was that the bus boycott lasted 381 days. I found it shocking that they were bombing houses and throwing balloons full of urine at blacks when they were walking and driving past. I also found it shocking of how calm Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was when he saw his house after it got bombed. My impression on the documentary is that I am amazed of how many people participated in the bus boycott and worked together to end segregation. I also think that Rosa Parks was extremely

Facts are displayed to appeal to a larger audience, as majority of people are controlled by their emotional side this is appealed to with the film, however some people are controlled by their rational side of the

That is the question I will be answering in this short paper but before I go over the historical accuracies and inaccuracies let me give you a brief summery of the movie to give you a better idea of the world and time period this movie tries to portray.

The documentary is based on reports from eyewitnesses by American and European personnel who were in the near east at that time. They should have had more documents as proof for what the eyewitnesses are reporting and make it more reliable information. I think the film Ararat raises awareness on this genocide better when it comes to filming, content, and theme. Ararat puts things into perspective in a new way and makes the audience zone in and out to the past and present making us think about the reality of the