The beginning of Chapter 3 in Crafting Truth (which you're reading this week) states that "Authority forms part of the complicated ways by which documentaries represent nonfictional reality."
For this week's post, please watch Andrew Jarecki's 2012 documentary The House I Live In on Netflix Instant and let me know what you think, especially in relation to how successfully (or unsuccessfully) the film has been authored. In particular, does the director's first-person approach make the story he's telling more convincing? Does the director's personalizing the narrative provide a fresh spin on a pressing social issue or do you feel it ultimately overwhelms the importance of the crisis he's trying to examine?
I look forward to reading how you sort this film out - what you liked, what you didn't like, and what it meant to you. Write whatever you'd like, just be sure to address the concept of authority and how it impacted your feelings about this piece of work.
And remember, your in-depth, inspired comments about The House I Live In need to appear on this blog by no later than 9 am on Wednesday morning.
Have fun!
The House I Live In by Andrew Jarecki is successfully authored because it is inspired from a personal influence, Nannie his nanny from his childhood. This interested sparked from digging deeper into her family history, then growing into a national interest. The only problem I had with this is that he himself has not been personally impacted by this topic or the issues presented within the story itself. It seems like another “Heal the World” interest. However, the testimonies and his access to subjects was so profoundly exclusive and admirable that so many people were willing to speak to him in regards to the war on drugs and its impact on America, and how proper it was the honesty flowing from these testimonies from all viewpoints: patrons, professors, and law enforcement. Also effective and humbling was the utilization choices of archival footage and its relation to the topic.
ReplyDeleteThe use of his narrative was not bothersome, nor did it take away from the concept or story. It didn’t enhance it either. It complemented it and gave him more credibility for himself and his interest in the project. It was long and drawn out, as is watching any prison or drug documentary, but it was well done and valuable.
Personally, I believed the film was authored successfully. It effortlessly stirs anger within the audience due to the failed attempts of policies on drugs in America. It’s a story we all know too well. As a minority I’m sort of disgusted by this topic since my particular race (African American) is one who’s targeted by the government to destroy. The War on Drugs has been a joke for decades and I honestly believe it favors to the rich and powerful which has been the foundation of America since is existence. The director’s 1st person approach makes it extremely personally which I think forces the audience in more emotionally. The interviews with law enforcement, politicians, and professors gives a sense of authenticity and a feeling of factual truth, which works effectively. No I don’t think it overwhelms the topic of the story for one because this isn’t some brand new controversial story that’s just being sprung on to Americans. I think his approach works successfully.
ReplyDeleteThe way the film The House I Live In was authored very well in my opinion and done with a very truthful feel. Because of the live interview, and being able to hear the question, and see the pause in the person answering the question made it seem very real. Also throwing in live news shots, and black and white film footage from the past, as well as mixing in live action shots of the world today made the contrast and realism even more evident. I think the first person approach doesn't make the story more convincing because it never explains his own relationship with drugs. It just has him telling the story of what he found about others, and the country as a whole. Having his voice explaining things, and asking the questions, and showing his interactions with people is what added to the story in my opinion. When drug law patterns were explained in a historical context, and then put into relation of race and racism, I had never seen or thought of the drug problem like that. I had always imagined the Drug War being started as a purely money thing. It was also very unique in how it gave facts, some where just given straight from the director's voice overs, while others were given in the form of lectures from the teacher, or from the words of people in prison, or the lawyers and even the judges opinions. Another thing that stood out to me was the if all these police officers are realizing they are stuck in a loop, and not really doing any good, why haven't they stepped up and done something about it? They talked about the terrible relationship with police and community and how it is just getting worse, yet they never really touch base on how to fix that problem.The convention near the end of the doc also made me very sad for this country. We are just keeping a broken system alive and running because of profit. We have, for the most part, completely removed the human element and used the words criminal, drug user, killer, murder and so on and so forth that we stopped seeing people. I agree that we need to make a change towards not imprisoning these people, but truly fixing the situation by healing. The way the director was involved with the movie was very positive for me. He did not reveal much about himself, but instead just used the people around him to tell a story of a very real social problem that most people are ignoring. I did not feel like the director was an authority figure in this movie, but instead just told a story that he had done a lot of work on. He uses authority figures in their own voice to make a point if he wanted to get one across.
ReplyDeleteThe House I Live in was an eye opening story. Being somewhat of a Nat Geo Doc fanatic myself, I have had my eye on it for quite sometime now but have never actually watched it. To say the least, based off of it's cover and title, I imagined that it was going to be more of a "day in the life" prisoner documentary that provided an in depth analysis of inmates' personal stories related to drugs, and how they're living incarcerated now. To my own dismay, and despite bearing such a constricting title (The House I Live In), I was surprised to learn that this film actually addresses a much larger issue beyond the confines of a single prison. I believe the title is almost implying that America as a whole is a giant prison due to its war on drugs, that ironically, doesn't really have anything to do with drugs (or so the film implies). The Director (Andrew Jarecki) uses a first person approach that I believe made this documentary feel like a somewhat extended version of 60 minutes on ABC with a little less sass. Jarecki's presence made me wonder what his personal thoughts on drugs were (which he never explains), and he doesn't really allow his own opinion to prevail, so he was almost just acting as an investigative news reporter. He does, however, use Nannie Jeter to help the audience identify and show that on some level most of us know someone who has been affected by drugs. While some may argue that it is the interviews with government officials that give this film it's authority, I believe it is Nannie's role that fulfills that aspect. Nannie is a human being with a personal story, and this film makes the war on drugs such a personal issue (more for some than others), that hearing about how its effects have directly impacted people is what makes it real. I also believe it was nannie's story that made this film convincing, not the director's presence. All in all I was somewhat frustrated by the end of this documentary because I felt that no matter what information or story was presented, there is always another side or fact that could contradict it.
ReplyDeleteI think this film was authored very well. The way it was executed was fantastic. I thought it was interesting how the filmmaker followed some of the drug dealers around. At first my impression was, "this must be fake." I thought this because I put myself in the situation of the customers and dealers. I would not have wanted anyone watching what I was I doing. However, after I kept seeing the same business go down with the same people, it became more real to me. I believe the director's idea of personalizing the narrative to provide a fresh spin on a pressing social issue is successful. If the viewers can connect or become apart of the life of a person in a film then an issue, for me, becomes a much bigger deal and I know I would work harder to fix the issue or prevent it from affecting my own life. I really enjoyed how the director made everything feel more personal. The story drew me in to the point where I felt like I was in the prison as either one of the prison guards or even one of the prisoners.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the part where one of the men said that the drug dealers were the heads of the community. They would provide everyone with whatever they wanted. Once the drug dealers were gone and in jail the communities would fall apart. This was interesting to me because the police and government work so hard to "make the communities better" by locking up the drug dealers. This film was done very well. I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.
The House I Live In was well authorized. There are many “authorities” if you will to present the information in this film. Nanny, the police officers, prisoners, citizens, and Andrew were all involved in speaking their opinions and adding to the authority aspect. I kind of felt like Andrew should have been in it more though. I felt like his presence was randomly placed. I never really got all that I wanted out of him and I’m not really sure what that would be but I ended this documentary thinking “so what?” Don’t get me wrong I like the personal aspect of Andrew but I don’t feel connected to him in anyway and I don’t feel like it is all that personal to him. I could see it was something he was passionate about but I wasn’t totally convinced why. Call me heartless but at the end of the day this documentary didn’t make me care for their cause. I felt like the whole film I was bombarded by how society and the “system” are to hard on drug users but they never once mentioned how they would like to see it fixed. Briefly they mention self-help and therapy but it was to general for me. Do they want everyone to go to counseling instead of prison? That sounds silly. I’m sure that’s not what they meant but I didn’t know what they wanted me to fight for at the end of watching all of that. Maybe if Andrew was more connected to the issue I would be more convinced. It’s almost as if Nanny should have just been in Andrews place. All this probably sounds harsh. I didn’t entirely hate the film. There were parts I really liked actually. I was really roped in to how they compared what was going on to the holocaust. Overall I just wanted more. I wanted to feel like this was a life and death situation for Andrew. Like he needed a change. This issue is a big one and I agree that something should change but this film didn’t make me care much more than that and all I wanted was to be convinced.
ReplyDeleteThe House I Live in felt all too familiar to me. I have been exposed to several cases of drug addiction/drug dealing within my own family. I think one thing Jarecki showed clearly to the audience was the racial identity given to blacks in America through the “War on Drugs”. Although there weren’t direct racial slurs by the presidents in the old footage, there were definitely hints and suggestions separating not only “normal” citizens from drug addicts and dealers, but there were also hints that pointed the finger at poor black citizens. A good way he voiced his opinion on the issue was to interview a racist (in my opinion) white cop and then interview an upper class black citizen with proper education. Whether people do drugs, deal drugs, or make drugs, they are people. Often times, people only do it because they have no other option and it is considered normal. Dennis Whidbee is a prime example of that in the film. When he described his situation, I pictured myself in his shoes. I probably would’ve done the same thing. Here we have kids with no parenting, no education, no money, no food, and all the time in the world. They look for any type of role model or parental figure they can find. Whidbee talks about getting ice cream, shoes, money, clothes, water, etc. every time the neighborhood drug dealer came around. He also described the situation as being like “Christmas”. That was the most powerful point made in the film, in my opinion. We constantly treat people with drug problems/associations as monsters. It needs to be remembered that if put in a bad enough situation, humans will do what is necessary to survive.
ReplyDeleteI think that the film was Authored wonderfully. I like it when a filmmakers voice can be heard it gives a sort of human element to films. Not as if there wasn't already one, I just like it when we can get the filmmakers side of the story. I really like the subject matter of the movie, it makes you really think about our country and our policies.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the film as a whole, there wasn't a part that I didn't like, I don't like to pick out parts of a film that I do and don't like.
By including his own backstory, the filmmaker is establishing his authority/credibility in the very first scene. He shows that his family comes from oppression and that they came to America to escape it. He then directly cuts to Nixon fathering the modern war on drugs. This makes the viewer associate oppression with the war on drugs, and we should believe the filmmaker because he knows oppression.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I saw this documentary was in a small indie theater when it was first released. I thought it was excellent the first time I saw it and I appreciate it just as much the second time around. I like that the filmmaker was a player in his own doc, but I also like the subjects he chose to interview. They were not all "experts." They were from all different backgrounds and races. From people who have watched loved ones suffer from the crazy unfair laws to people who have had their lives ruined because of drugs. This was largely a film about how damaging hard drugs are, but more so about the United States Prison Complex and the racist building blocks of the current system. Although the filmmaker was white, this was not a film to make white people feel good.
I think the film was well authored because it did hit close to home at least to the director. It was refreshing to see not only how the war on drugs effected the people of America, but how it effected the filmmaker and his friends along with his family. Nanny was very interesting to watch and it was very emotional to see what happened to her son and how good people can be driven to the trade of drugs because of how bad the system is. The harsh reality of the endless cycles of laws that contradict themselves really powered through with everyone who was interviewed. I also believed it because we even got the perspectives from the cops that do the arresting. Even they thought that the system targeted minorities and the shocking truths just keep pouring out. I think the director's narrative was always just there to bridge one section of the doc into another. It could have still been great without it.
ReplyDeleteThis is an extremely important piece to me about the state of America & the injustice & corruption going on within American politics. It shows that there are two Americas- one for the rich and one for the poor. The way they revealed this jailing system and overall suppression & destruction of Americans as resembling the Holocaust was shocking. To me this should be top world news.
ReplyDeleteI love the way Eugene Jarecki pieced it together & without his voice and connection to the topic I really can't imagine how the doc would be. He is a part of this story as much as all the other Americans being filmed in the doc, even though he isn't seen much on screen. His input in the story makes it more real to me of course as we see his journey through finding out all of this. It makes the story more convincing because we see what his stance on this topic is & why he's doing this.
Wonderful piece of work.
The House I Live In - I thought it was a very powerful narrative and though I appreciated the approach the director Eugene Jarecki took by injecting himself in the narrative the reflexive approach wasn't necessary given the potency of the subject at hand.
ReplyDeleteThe film yielded some deeply revealing things about our justice system here in this country. Jarecki's search took him on a deep and dark journey where through expert testimony and actual men and women who have been incarcerated due to unjust laws we discover how discriminate this laws are and effectively how they close you out of the system.
Jarecki explores the different levels of government from the executive branch with Nixon and Reagen and there stance on the "WAR ON DRUGS". He goes on to explore the Judiciary Branch and how you had judges who disagreed with the mandatory minimum sentences resign their post because of the unfairness and harshness of many of these laws. We also see at the local level how a police officer says that yes he profiles and that that is a tactic that law enforcement employees.
The statistics in the film with America having 5% of the worlds population but 25% of the world prison population was startling. Also the fact that 500,000 are imprisoned in this country for non violent crime is another heart wrenching stat. The rate at which prisons are being built and how they have become privatized in this country shows that it is big business.
I was privy to a lot of the issues and problems presented in this film and what I will say is that it is funny how people in this country speak of it being a post-racial society when that isn't even the case. The laws as expressed in this film show how certain sects in the society are targeted and that is the real crime.
Powerful narrative that stands alone on its own. I like Jarecki but his inclusion in the film I could take it or leave it.
To tell the truth, I don't know how I feel about hearing the director's first-person narrative in the film. Sometimes I think it makes him sound like an expert, and sometimes I just simply didn't like the way it sounded. It was a useful transition, and offered a good source, Nanny. I think the filmmaker successfully covered different sides to how people feel on the issue, and still allows the audience to put the pieces, from the given information and interviews, together for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly interested in this doc because of the popular show "Breaking Bad." I knew many in the country used and sold drugs, but I wasn't exactly sure of the consequences. This film is chocked full of stats, info and history. It's very compelling to here these users and dealers talk about their life growing up, and it makes sense that they all end up where they do.
I really appreciate people who understand the bigger problem, instead of just arresting people possessing drugs, like the men who offer jobs to ex-cons.
The House I Live In used authority in an interesting way by Eugene Jarecki. Keeping my personal opinion out of it, which I agree with the film, it was able to do get the message across that was intended. The use of personal narrative and the combination of the first-person view works in his court in this situation. I believe that when he used his own personal story to reinforce the messages he was getting across it helped impact the audience and make it relatable. All though I agree with everything that was put out I can't help but think about our conversation in class about truth, was this the best way to put out truth. Although I did get caught up in the story and found myself into what he was saying afterwards I came away thinking about how this was pretty one sided, which as a film is not terrible. Actually in this case if he brought up both sides of the argument it would've taken away form the impact of the film. But as a conversation to have as a people this is great but it doesn't complete the whole conversation. Just a thought, I liked the film agree with strongly. I think in this arena it is one thing to make a film about something it is another thing to be proactive and change a people, do think this can be a platform to do so?
ReplyDeleteThe House I live in was hands down successfully authored. Using jareckis actual own life experiences personified through Nannie was what really made this Doc interesting and not just another Doc with facts stating there is a problem. The way Nannies life spirals into a web of more affected people really made me analyze my own life thinking about the people that I know who have been affected by the same issues as the ones seen in the Doc. The way he personalized the story with himself was just right, he used his family as a push to stir the story in the direction is ultimately went in and he didn't at any moment make it about himself and the effect it may have had on him which was great because it makes it authentic.
ReplyDeleteThe stories in the Doc were thought provoking because when they talk about a cycle that drugs has on families you think well everyone has free will to say no but the doc changes your mind. It shows how the streets aren't the only ones who pulling these people down and as one of the speakers said, it's a slow holocaust.
The House I Live In was authored very well. I think that by just hearing the narrators voice and not actually seeing him, it helps us focus more on the subject being interviewed. I really like how there are so many different people and aspects in this doc. You can be watching cops search a house for drugs one minute, and cut to a drug dealer talking about his/her experiences the next. I didn't realize just how severe drug laws can be, so I think this doc was successful at getting the point across. It did a really good job at informing the viewer with just how strict our country has become on how it deals with drugs. I enjoyed the topic of this doc, I learned a lot from it and it really makes you take a step back and really think about some of the insane drug laws our country has.
ReplyDeleteThe House I Live In, starts off wonderfully with photographs to establish the family’s history. I feel that using a primary source to begin a documentary really grabs the audience’s attention. Utilizing archival footage to show how dramatic the drug devastation is, is particular useful in getting us to identify with the director’s view. Another great thing Eugene Jarecki does is show both sides of the arguments, and even a little in between. This makes his argument all around more convincing, and shows that even people who feel strongly about the law regarding the drug problem as over dramatized. Jarecki ensures, however, that the true purpose of the documentary is revealed slowly, allowing us to fully grasp the meaning. There was a lot of stuff thrown in about the government using these legality tactics as a means of keeping foreign markets from flourishing, especially if their interests aren’t similar to ours. Jarecki exhibits the fact that many of these laws never had a place, and if they did, they are certainly out of date. This is the most apparent when explaining the subtle chemical difference between powder cocaine, and crack cocaine. Overall I’d say this documentary garners three and a half stars out of five. I applaud the director for changing my mind on some issues.
ReplyDelete