#i would argue that criticising show you like for its shortcomings is also a form of love

[sirlancenotalot]

people who think i can't be a hater AND enjoy a show don't know the first thing about media consumption

[nandininegi97]

The “truth” in documentary - Chronique d'un été (Chronicle of a summer)

Filmmaking, I believe, has always been a road full of many questions about how things should be. Entrusted with the responsibility of representing “reality” as closely as possible in the case of a making a “documentary” film, these questions of how things should be become even more relevant. In an attempt to show the “truth”, “documentary” films often employ different ways but as Ralph Lee once said in an interview, “The idea that there is a truth that you discover is like chasing the end of a rainbow”. He states here that there is an important difference between a true story and the true story. One such film, that I believe not only attempts to construct a “truth” but also question it is Chronique d'un été ("Chronicle of a Summer”).

Chronique d'un été is a 1961 French documentary film shot during the summer of 1960 by sociologist Edgar Morin and filmmaker Jean Rouch. Shot in Paris at a time during the Algerian War, the film is a curious exploration of the form a documentary itself. Jean Rouch was sceptical that “reality” was inevitably compromised in the presence of a camera yet using a camera to capture uncompromising reality was what he wished to attain. The experiment thus resulted in an innovative film around happiness, human nature and life in the city which not only attempted to construct uncompromising reality but also questioned and introspected it. In many ways, the film became one of the first experiments in the field of Cinéma vérité, “truthful cinema”.

Using the cinéma vérité style of “documentary” filmmaking, filmmakers Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin interacted with their subjects directly and the audience was made aware of the obvious presence of the camera and the filmmakers. Many followers of the cinéma vérité school of thought have often argued that the filmmakers often acknowledged this presence as “the only way to reveal the truth behind cinema”. In this film itself, the filmmakers hold active discussions with the subjects, question them and even introspect and ask for their feedback. At many instances there is a silence between the filmmaker and the subject where there is nothing left to say and that reveals their bond and the “truth” behind the film.

The film opens up with Rouch and Morin speculating whether what they want is achievable and if they really could film the “truth”. Also a part of this discussion is Marceline, who is later revealed to be a holocaust survivor, and together they wonder if it is possible to record a conversation naturally in the presence of a camera. They then request a small favour of Marceline and the film moves to the streets of Paris where Marceline asks a simple question to passers-by, “Are you happy?” The varied range of responses coupled with the interviews

of the other participants make up for the thematic “truth” of this film, which Morin puts directly in the beginning of the film as a film about “how people live”.

The film later includes more intimate interviews with other subjects, few of which include insights into the life of a factory worker Angelo and a young student from Africa managing to get by France, a married couple and their adjustments and Mary Lou and her vulnerability. The film also includes a scene where Marceline is overcome by memories of her father and talks to herself on the road, walking away distraught. Many of these scenes question the nature of happiness, life in a city and even a foreign city, isolation, the simplicity and complexity of routine and things and ideals one must hold onto to get by. Many of these scenes are extremely intimate and make one question the bond between the filmmakers and the subjects and how does one decide what must be included in the film in order to represent “reality” as truthfully as possible, especially so in the scene with Marceline. Although, the “truth” in the “reality” of this film can also be argued as even though the scenes are unrehearsed and the people real, despite Morin and Rouch’s efforts, the camera has somehow still managed to alter the nature of the conversations as sometimes the people come off as highly self-conscious.

However, that again brings us back to Rouch and Morin’s awareness that a camera inevitably alters “reality”. As Bill Nichols says, “Documentaries always were forms of representation, never clear windows onto “reality”; the filmmaker was always a participant witness and an active fabricator of meaning, a producer of cinematic discourse rather than a neutral or all-knowing reporter of the way things truly are.” In some ways in reference to this definition, even if Chronique d'un été fails to highlight the “truth” it really hoped to attain, in many ways it still constructed its own truth, questioned it at the end of it and then also disregarded it.

Regardless of its thematic “truth”, Chronique d'un été was true and aware of its process and its limitations. It felt close to “reality” in ways with the handheld camera, however it did bot particularly use long takes which are generally associated with the style of observational cinema. The sound hardly included any external soundtracks except for the opening scene. In this self reflexive method, the film included no re-enactment of events, no casting and the people were their true selves, including Marceline, interaction with characters like who hardly existed before. The discussions were generally allowed to take their own shape and were intimate and conversation like, almost making them seem like everyday life where friends sit down to introspect and reflect on their days. However, I feel, that it can also be argued that questions presented by the filmmakers already carried the weight of the answers they were bound to receive. Anyhow, despite the probable influence of the cameras on the subjects, the filmmakers undoubtedly attempted to be truthful. They exposed their vision to help the audience understand the purpose of the film. Consequently, in the same self

reflexive method, they not only took the viewers through the experience of making the film but also through the experience of watching and criticising it.

In a film as intimate as Chronique d'un été, what is also critical is the choice of including or not including something in the film. One can wonder if the film makers while editing the film realised the probability of certain scenes coming off as rehearsed or even dramatic. The inclusion of these scenes along with the scenes where the subjects watch the film and criticise it, along with Rouch and Morin themselves criticising it brings forth another different kind of “truth” which certainly validates the “truth” in the process of making such a film.

In its attempts of constructing a “truth” close to the reality and questioning the same “truth”, Chronique d'un été also wonders if it is possible to construct such a “truth”. In many ways, it comes very close to to the same “truth” and its process - taking the audience on a journey where the film makers doubt their own desire, attempt to construct it, have people and themselves question it and then also admit their failure to do the very same. If the purpose of a “documentary” is to attain “truth” along with, as put by John Grierson, “the creative treatment of actuality”, does something like Chronique d'un été become a lesser “documentary” because it fails to achieve the hoped “truth” and is also not creativised enough?

However in many ways it is also a brave film as it acknowledges all of its shortcomings. As Bill Nichols says, many films “disavow the complexities of voice, and discourse, for the apparent simplicities of faithful observations or respectful representations”. Chronique d'un été breaks these and engages with its own “reality”, constantly attempting to make it and break it and at the same time realising and admitting why it fell short. But it does attain is own “truth” of representing the “reality”, if not of happiness, then of filmmaking. As Edgar Morin says in an ending shot, “I thought the audience would like the people I liked”, it really could not have gotten any closer to representing the “truth” than that.

[calacuspr]

No way José – how can Mourinho restore his reputation?

There was a time when it seemed as if Jose Mourinho could walk on water.

After leading Porto to Champions League success, he joined the Roman Abramovich revolution at Chelsea and created a team that formed the bedrock for a decade of success.

Having announced himself as ‘The Special One’ upon his arrival in West London, his status did not wane when he left Chelsea. He went on to win the Champions League again with Inter Milan and then more titles at Real Madrid.

But things began to unravel towards the end of his second spell at Chelsea, where, having won the Premier League once more, his charm was replaced by more fractious relationships.

Where once he used to gloat at other managers and their shortcomings, since joining Manchester United, his demeanour has been one of frustration and conflict.

One man who works closely with Mourinho is Daily Mirror Manchester Football Correspondent, David McDonnell.

“When Sir Alex Ferguson was manager of Manchester United, he ran a very tight shop and not a lot of information leaked out. He sought to keep anything negative in-house, which is why it was always such a big story if something did get out.

“The club was successful and Sir Alex would always show solidarity, unity and protect his players publicly.

“That has changed dramatically under José Mourinho, who doesn’t appear to care about leaks at the club, such as the episode where he and Paul Pogba argued at training about an Instagram post the midfielder had published.

“Mourinho was a young man when he took over at Chelsea for the first time, and a breath of fresh air with his charisma and unshakeable self-belief. It was impossible not to be impressed with him, because of his total conviction in his ability as a manager.

“But the game moves on and I'm not sure he's moved with it. A younger breed of coaches like Pep Guardiola, Jurgen Klopp and Mauricio Pochettino play a different brand of football, a passing game on the front foot while Mourinho is pragmatic in his approach.

“Despite spending a lot of money, United are no closer to winning the Premier League or Champions League than they were when he took over, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to have expected a more competitive team by now, given he has spent around £400million.”

Mourinho has been reported to have clashed with his board over a failure to sign defenders during the summer, which set the tone for Mourinho’s pre-season and subsequent demeanour.

McDonnell added: “He probably knows that he cannot compete with City, Liverpool and possibly even Chelsea, because of the players and investment that has been made at those clubs, and that has affected his mood, although he has spent big himself, just not on players effective enough to compete with the likes of City, Liverpool and Chelsea.

“He wasn't given everything he wanted in the summer, and that set the tone for the brooding discontent we have seen from Mourinho, which has created such a toxic atmosphere at United.

“I was in America in the summer when United played Liverpool. There was no sit-down interview with Mourinho for the media pack who followed the team over the five-game tour, no chance to discuss his plans for the season.

“I don’t even cover Liverpool, but they extended an invitation to me for a sit-down with Klopp, who was engaging, funny and open about his views.

“I just don’t think Mourinho enjoys doing media but, ultimately, you reap what you sow. He engenders a divisive approach with the media and within his squad, by calling out players and criticising them in public, which in turn causes a negative atmosphere.”

While putting on a united front is one area where Mourinho could improve, so is regular access ahead of games.

At Calacus, we advise our clients to engage with media rather than baton the hatches.

There will always be issues of sensitivity or confidentiality that cannot be discussed in detail, but working with the media rather than against them develops trust that produces a stronger working relationship.

McDonnell explained: “The print media now get eight minutes with Mourinho every week….four minutes general media and then four which is embargoed for newspapers and so we aren’t able to go deep into topics we may want to discuss.

“With some clubs, including Manchester City, setting aside at least half-an-hour for the Friday Press briefing, and Liverpool offering newspaper reporters a separate private briefing with Jurgen Klopp, United's eight minutes all-in is a joke.

“It’s a fight to get questions in and it’s impossible to build up a rapport with him. We know he thinks Manchester Press are not supportive, which is inaccurate and unfair. We only write as we find, and if United are under-performing and under-achieving, like they have done under Mourinho last season and so far this season, we have to reflect that.

“It’s far easier to report on a club that's doing well and where manager and players are engaging as a result of that. When he told us he thought we would be sad that he had won a few weeks ago, it couldn’t be further from the truth.

“He also started a press conference half-an-hour early recently, trying to catch us out, but all it did was cause greater friction between Mourinho and the Press pack, and create negative headlines.

“When you look at Manchester City or Liverpool, though, they have a strong communications team who see the value in building a rapport with journalists.

“We can discuss stories with them, get briefings that help us to do our job and satisfy the insatiable interest fans have in news from the clubs.

“At United, there isn't dialogue with the media in the same way, and briefings are rare. They need to be more open as a club - you need to have dialogue with the press.

“We don’t expect to be waited on hand and foot, but if the club opened its doors a little more and gave better access, the coverage improves, because they can shape the narrative rather than just react to it.”

The situation is about to change, with former Nike executive Charlie Brooks joining as head of communications.

McDonnell concluded: “I know Charlie well, and I hope his appointment will bring about a change.

“There needs to be a greater understanding of how the media works and better co-operation – let us in through the front door and work with us, rather than leave us isolated and digging around for stories around the back door.

“It will help the club, it will help the mood and hopefully put a smile on Mourinho’s face!”