We Live in Public Review

“We Live in Public Blog”

General Film Information

We Live in Public is a wonderful documentary film released in 2009. Documentary filmmaker Ondi Timoner created the idea of the film. Although the presence of Timoner isn’t obvious throughout the film, one can assume that he’s very passionate about the film topic. The Initial point the film exhibits the life of Justin Harris: “the greatest internet pioneer you’ve never heard of.” However, the underlining theme the film explores relates to the evolutionary history of the public Internet world. The way in which Justin Harris connects to this theme is through the fact that he was a true pioneer in the field. Although throughout the film Justin Harris was constantly criticized, it was obvious that Harris was able to predict the future in the technology’s influence on public exposure. The documentary portrays several of Harris’ digital experiments that tested such exposure methods. The film is structured in a very chronological order, following Harris’ career from the successful beginning to his isolated end. Film altogether was brilliantly formatted. The film maker successfully portrayed great organizational skills during the production of the documentary.

Documentary Aspects

We Live in Public is an interesting example of an observational documentary. Throughout the entirety of the film, the camera acts as a bystander. The presence of the filmmaker is portrayed as a “fly on the wall,” similar to most other observational documentaries. The perspective of Justin Harris presents itself as being the most commonly referred to throughout the film. However, other perspectives such as Harris’ family and people that had come in contact with Justin Harris while he was creating his specific media and technology based idea. One major convention used during the film is the use of interviews. Many interviewees include those of Harris’ associates and family. Furthermore, the film incorporates a lot of “real people,” in order to present certain ideas with a variety of different perspectives.

Another convention used in We Live in Public is archival footage. A lot of the shots used are from scenarios shot during Harris’ former media experiments.

Strengths of the Film

I felt that the film incorporated a lot of successful thought-provoking archival footage. This strength helped the viewer better understand certain scenarios and how they connect to the underlying plot. For example, the film showed a lot of interesting shots from Justin Harris’ futuristic hotel. The film also presented a lot of good factual information. This strong factuality aspect helped portray specific ideas in the film quite well. I felt that the film had an outstanding introductory montage. This positive introduction allowed the further to get an overview of the evolutionary history of Internet exposure, which is the film’s basis. A final yet important strength found in the film is the quality of the interviews that were used. The interviews with Justin Harris were extremely interesting. They definitely helped ensure the viewer’s comprehension of specific scenarios that directly related to Justin Harris’ career progression.

Cultural Values in the Film

This film portrays our current Internet culture in a way that most people surely overlook. One positive outcome that could generate from this film is that it could help educate many viewers on a topic many people in today’s society are naïve about. However, one negative repercussion that could form as a result of this film being released is social networking sites could get the wrong idea. For example, sites like: Facebook, Twitter and MySpace could feel that this film damages their image. This film makes a significant statement about the world we currently live in and the world we are moving towards. This film implies that majority of the population today chooses to live in public as a result of social networks. Furthermore, the documentary implies that the further the population progresses into the future, the more publicized our lives will become.

All in all, I felt this film was an extremely well created documentary. I feel that Timoner’s theme successfully progresses and develops further throughout the film. I would surely recommend this film to anyone interested in seeing a very thought-provoking documentary! The thought-provoking and factual aspects of the film make it surely one of the top observational documentaries that anyone should watch!

Media Studies Blog – Rip! A remix manifesto review

Basic film aspects:

Rip! A Remix Manifesto is an outstanding film that was created roughly around 2002, but was officially released in 2008. The initial controversy that the film explores was a result of people calling the creation of mash-ups an illegal act. The film was written, directed and narrated by Brett Gaylor who is a strong believer in the idea that the world’s copyright laws are somewhat holding the progressing artists back from several strains of creativity; including the growing art of creating “mash-ups.” Brett Gaylor’s film orbits around the idea that creativity builds off of earlier works, which leads to the film going in depth on how progressing one’s creativity though former songs goes back many generations. The film is structured in a somewhat chronological order which helps better organize Gaylor’s thoughts in terms of copyright laws. Overall, all aspects of the film are expressed with great strength and one can easily note that Brett Gaylor is extremely passionate about people creating their own remixes.

Documentary aspects:

Rip! A Remix Manifesto is a brilliant example of an expository documentary. Through the use of a narrator to help guide the audience through the information being presented, persuasion methods and essay-like format; one can easily determine the category of documentary this film falls under. Throughout the entirety of the film the perspective of Brett Gaylor presents itself as being the main perspective. However, many other important perspectives are examined such as the perspective of Gregg Gillis (also widely known as Girl Talk.) The conventions that led me to the previous conclusion includes: Gaylor’s narrative explanations and perspective being expressed, several interviews with Gillis and the way in which both perspectives are solidified throughout the film. During the film, many facts are stated that help give an in-depth point of view on Gaylor and Gillis’ perspectives. For example, Gaylor introduces the obscure fact that Warner Chappell owns the copyright laws to “Happy Birthday,” which means that even the most commonly used songs still aren’t in the public domain, meaning we still have an “unhealthy,” public domain.

Strength’s of the film:

One major strength the film demonstrated is how accurate and factual it was. The amount of interesting and significant facts stated throughout the film on a regular basis made the ideas extremely easy for the audience to comprehend. A good example of strong factual statements made during the film is demonstrated in the scene that takes the audience back to the mere creation of copyright and how it encouraged an artist’s creativity, rather than demote it. I found a lot of the editing style quite creative and enjoyable. The use of collage-style images/animations really helped embellish the film’s creativity and passion. The opening scene of the film is a strong example of this collage style of animation. While he’s introducing Gregg Gillis and his drafted manifesto, the film shows several relevant pictures and short clips of Girl Talk. While doing so, Gayler is also able introduce the idea of copyright sampling to the audience. I also found the narrator’s style of speech truly helped portray the emotion and passion he put into this film.

Weaknesses of the film:

Although I found the interviewing styles used in the film quite effective, I would have enjoyed viewing the perspective of some of Gregg Gillis’ fans. As a result, I feel the film would have a greater appeal to the general public. Further more, I would have enjoyed seeing less of the reoccurring “game,” that involves the audience trying to identify specific songs. Though I found that aspect effective at the opening part of the film, I found it was somewhat repetitive when reused a few more times towards the end.

However, overall I found that this film was a well-structured documentary that I would surely encourage anyone to see if they have the time! The film helps promote its theme of encouraging the creation of remixes and the flaws of the copyright system extremely well. Through the strong factuality, creativity and thought-provoking aspects of the film, it is surely a great documentary for anyone to watch.