This is a documentary firm which is telling the truth to the audience, other than some imaginary stuff. The filmmaker Pamela Yates is also a part of this film who is the person telling us the whole story. I think that is a good way to make us feel that this film is real, what we see from the film is all about the truth. As I see from this film, the filmmakers use close-up to let us clearly see the expression of each person, some are hopeless, some are afraid, and some are just like dead people without any soul. Simultaneously, when they use close up to shot the talking of people, the surrounding sound we hear is only the voice of that person. That is good, because we can more focus on their expression, other than the background music. But, the background music is always makes us feel the same way as the hopeless Maya people do. When I watch this film, many times I wanted to cry and I kept my angry feeling all along the movie. This is about a government kills its own people, put them into the hell for their own benefit. The landowners just steal the land from the residents and will not return them. I just cannot believe how could this happen in our real life. Yates is very brave who makes this film and tell the world about the injustice happened to the Maya people. Finally, Yates’s 16mm out-takes footage is used as an evidence to help convict former dictator. She helps Maya people to rebuild their homes, to gain courage and hope. I am really enjoying watching this kind of documentary film.
Granito was an interesting documentary, but at the same time it fell a bit short of my expectations. I went into the film expecting it to be a history of the genocide in Guatemala, but in reality I found it to be much more about documenting the case against the Guatemalan generals than the history behind it. I have to say I did still enjoy it; the documentary used a wide variety of interviews with many different people to tie together the events unfolding behind the case. Everyone from Guatemalans who lived during the turbulent times of the 1980s to international lawyers to forensic anthropologists were featured, which I think gave the documentary a strong and diverse source of evidence against the dictators. But at the same time, I found the film lacking in background knowledge as to the events that happened in Guatemala. Pamela Yates, the filmmaker, focuses too much on her own experiences in Guatemala while leaving out major pieces of background information. As a viewer, I was left wondering about who the generals were, how they came to power, who the victims of the crimes were, and what their relationship was to the Guatemala's culture. Instead, I felt that Yates immediately forced the viewer to accept that there was a genocide, these guys where the bad guys, and these people were the victims. After having seen the documentary, I can tell you all about the case being presented in Madrid against the dictators, but I can tell you little about what actually happened in Guatemala in the 1980s other than the fact that there was a genocide. The documentary should have provided more background information. But overall, it used interesting techniques, such as contrasting the rural landscapes of Guatemala with the somber skyline of New York City and the hopeful streets of Madrid, to portray the events unfolding around the international case.
Granito: How to Nail a Dictator is an amazing film. I found it very inspiring. One of my favorite take home messages was “when the hand of destiny touches you, you have to act.” The name of the movie, Granito, came from the phrase “un granito de arena.” This phrase, “a grain of sand”, is used as a humbling phrase. It means that alone we cannot produce a huge change, but collectively we can change anything. This is said in regard to the guerrilla efforts to rebel against the Guatemalan government throughout the early 1980s. Individuals at that time and even up until recently were unable to fight the government for a better life. Thus, when Pamela Yates and her crew were assembled to assist the people in fighting back, they made a huge change. This movie was produced because Pamela Yates was approached by an international lawyer to look through outtakes of her old film made in 1982 called “When the Mountains Tremble” and find evidence in a genocide case. Her original film was a documentary about a hidden war-- a war between the Guatemalan government and the indigenous people of that area. If she could find evidence, it would prove the genocide claim, therefore proving a political crime took place. The war started because a group of people referred to as the “landowners” came and took the lands of the indigenous people (Mayans). The “landowners” were worried that the Mayans would rise up and try to take back their land; so, the “landowners” asked the government to help subdue the Mayans. This one seemingly innocent act led to the genocide of thousands. Anyone who helped “support the peasants” (Mayans) was deemed a communist and “disappeared.” Mainly the people who participated in the resistance were students, workers and young Mayan people. This film really hit home for me. The young guerillas filmed could have been my friends or myself. Many people were executed for doing the right thing and they are still threatened today. Recently, because of this film, many of the massacre leaders have been sentenced and punished for their crimes. Also, I was working with a team of doctors in Nicaragua and Costa Rica over winter break. We were down in Nicaragua as the “election” took place. The election there is similar to the one in Guatemala ( it is set up to appear to the rest of the world as a democracy, but really it’s not). We were almost not allowed to leave because of riots in the capital against the re-elected diplomat. I would recommend everyone seeing this film, even if it is a bit slow at times. I think it is important for putting life into perspective.
I really enjoyed the film "The Conquest." I always enjoy films about real life people, and being that I am a total Francophile, anything to do with France is always interesting to me. I have to wonder how much of the story was true to life, as we have no real idea what his competitors said about him behind his back. I am sure that he would not like to see himself portrayed as so selfish and temperamental. I feel that the film is portraying the president as a man willing to let relationships go, in order to obtain power. However, I could really see Sarkozy being an ego maniac, with short man's syndrome. It was very interesting to see that he appeared to run his campaign in a typical American fashion with all the hoopla that usually surrounds our U.S. elections, including being hounded by the paparazzi. The film was made high quality and did not appear to have many of the characteristics of an independent film. I would love to see a follow up with his new beautiful wife Carla Bruni and their baby.
As a fan of politics, I often shy away from political films. I find that they frequently oversimplify political situations and that their creators see the situations through an unrealistic lens. "The Conquest" falls into this category. Basing a movie on the life of a major public figure, especially one who is still in power, carries the problem of not being objective enough. In a way, each political film is a bastardization of political reality. In this film, the notion of power and its attainment reigns supreme for the main character, who will do or say anything to get where he wants to be. In a way Shakespearean, the film tries to meditate upon power but simply leaves behind a caricature of the French system, one that is petty, petulant, and prude. It comes off as a circus instead of truly intellectual and meaningful film. The film has its share of ironies, contradictions, and humor that may make it enjoyable to watch. However, it leaves me wanting for something more intelligent, something less cynical and more analytical without passing too much judgment. The film is based on reality and needs to give a little more thought to how this "reality" is portrayed on screen.
“Granito” is a movie that was made in 2011 by the director Pamela Yates. This documentary reveals the social and internal conflict that was happening in Guatemala in regards to the guerrilla. I like how the director gets involve with the same documentary, she is the narrator of the same story, she is telling a story that affects her. The film has a lot of close-ups, which allows having a sense of reality, and permits the audience to have a full understanding of the expression on face of those involved. While watching this documentary I felt very identify, not because of a personal experience but because of my country’s history. I am from Colombia and watching this filmed made me realize that Guatemala and Colombia have suffered of similar violent conflicts. Colombia is a country that has suffer a lot of violence due to guerrilla groups since long time ago. Although this documentary talks about Guatemala’s internal conflicts displaying all the people that got affected, it was a search in the past, a journey through the memory of an entire country. Granito exemplifies the consequences of what happens in the past might evolve to the present. I liked this film, I thought it was very complete and had elements that made of it a quality product. And as I said before I couldn’t keep thinking of my own country.
“Witnessing is the essence of being a documentary filmmaker. Capturing moments in time never knowing how history will judge them...” This documentary is about Guatemalas past history with violence and the guerrillas. The director Pamela Yates had to investigate on information and films for the past thirty years to have enough back up evidence on her documentary. This is very similar to Colombia’s past. We have had a guerrilla since fifty years ago and the crimes they commit daily are unimaginable. In the documentary you can not only see different points in history but also different personalities giving their opinion and personal experience on the case. I am studying journalism and ive been taught that the more sources you have the better and more reliable your argument becomes. This documentary shows the evidence well proven so it made it very strong. If the director wanted to make it stronger she could, this theme has a lot of information, it dependes on what prospective you want to show.
This is a documentary firm which is telling the truth to the audience, other than some imaginary stuff. The filmmaker Pamela Yates is also a part of this film who is the person telling us the whole story. I think that is a good way to make us feel that this film is real, what we see from the film is all about the truth. As I see from this film, the filmmakers use close-up to let us clearly see the expression of each person, some are hopeless, some are afraid, and some are just like dead people without any soul. Simultaneously, when they use close up to shot the talking of people, the surrounding sound we hear is only the voice of that person. That is good, because we can more focus on their expression, other than the background music. But, the background music is always makes us feel the same way as the hopeless Maya people do. When I watch this film, many times I wanted to cry and I kept my angry feeling all along the movie.
ReplyDeleteThis is about a government kills its own people, put them into the hell for their own benefit. The landowners just steal the land from the residents and will not return them. I just cannot believe how could this happen in our real life. Yates is very brave who makes this film and tell the world about the injustice happened to the Maya people. Finally, Yates’s 16mm out-takes footage is used as an evidence to help convict former dictator. She helps Maya people to rebuild their homes, to gain courage and hope. I am really enjoying watching this kind of documentary film.
Granito was an interesting documentary, but at the same time it fell a bit short of my expectations. I went into the film expecting it to be a history of the genocide in Guatemala, but in reality I found it to be much more about documenting the case against the Guatemalan generals than the history behind it. I have to say I did still enjoy it; the documentary used a wide variety of interviews with many different people to tie together the events unfolding behind the case. Everyone from Guatemalans who lived during the turbulent times of the 1980s to international lawyers to forensic anthropologists were featured, which I think gave the documentary a strong and diverse source of evidence against the dictators. But at the same time, I found the film lacking in background knowledge as to the events that happened in Guatemala. Pamela Yates, the filmmaker, focuses too much on her own experiences in Guatemala while leaving out major pieces of background information. As a viewer, I was left wondering about who the generals were, how they came to power, who the victims of the crimes were, and what their relationship was to the Guatemala's culture. Instead, I felt that Yates immediately forced the viewer to accept that there was a genocide, these guys where the bad guys, and these people were the victims. After having seen the documentary, I can tell you all about the case being presented in Madrid against the dictators, but I can tell you little about what actually happened in Guatemala in the 1980s other than the fact that there was a genocide. The documentary should have provided more background information. But overall, it used interesting techniques, such as contrasting the rural landscapes of Guatemala with the somber skyline of New York City and the hopeful streets of Madrid, to portray the events unfolding around the international case.
ReplyDeleteGranito: How to Nail a Dictator is an amazing film. I found it very inspiring. One of my favorite take home messages was “when the hand of destiny touches you, you have to act.” The name of the movie, Granito, came from the phrase “un granito de arena.” This phrase, “a grain of sand”, is used as a humbling phrase. It means that alone we cannot produce a huge change, but collectively we can change anything. This is said in regard to the guerrilla efforts to rebel against the Guatemalan government throughout the early 1980s. Individuals at that time and even up until recently were unable to fight the government for a better life. Thus, when Pamela Yates and her crew were assembled to assist the people in fighting back, they made a huge change.
ReplyDeleteThis movie was produced because Pamela Yates was approached by an international lawyer to look through outtakes of her old film made in 1982 called “When the Mountains Tremble” and find evidence in a genocide case. Her original film was a documentary about a hidden war-- a war between the Guatemalan government and the indigenous people of that area. If she could find evidence, it would prove the genocide claim, therefore proving a political crime took place. The war started because a group of people referred to as the “landowners” came and took the lands of the indigenous people (Mayans). The “landowners” were worried that the Mayans would rise up and try to take back their land; so, the “landowners” asked the government to help subdue the Mayans. This one seemingly innocent act led to the genocide of thousands. Anyone who helped “support the peasants” (Mayans) was deemed a communist and “disappeared.” Mainly the people who participated in the resistance were students, workers and young Mayan people.
This film really hit home for me. The young guerillas filmed could have been my friends or myself. Many people were executed for doing the right thing and they are still threatened today. Recently, because of this film, many of the massacre leaders have been sentenced and punished for their crimes. Also, I was working with a team of doctors in Nicaragua and Costa Rica over winter break. We were down in Nicaragua as the “election” took place. The election there is similar to the one in Guatemala ( it is set up to appear to the rest of the world as a democracy, but really it’s not). We were almost not allowed to leave because of riots in the capital against the re-elected diplomat. I would recommend everyone seeing this film, even if it is a bit slow at times. I think it is important for putting life into perspective.
I really enjoyed the film "The Conquest." I always enjoy films about real life people, and being that I am a total Francophile, anything to do with France is always interesting to me. I have to wonder how much of the story was true to life, as we have no real idea what his competitors said about him behind his back. I am sure that he would not like to see himself portrayed as so selfish and temperamental. I feel that the film is portraying the president as a man willing to let relationships go, in order to obtain power. However, I could really see Sarkozy being an ego maniac, with short man's syndrome. It was very interesting to see that he appeared to run his campaign in a typical American fashion with all the hoopla that usually surrounds our U.S. elections, including being hounded by the paparazzi. The film was made high quality and did not appear to have many of the characteristics of an independent film. I would love to see a follow up with his new beautiful wife Carla Bruni and their baby.
ReplyDeleteThe Conquest
ReplyDeleteGaurav Dhiman
As a fan of politics, I often shy away from political films. I find that they frequently oversimplify political situations and that their creators see the situations through an unrealistic lens. "The Conquest" falls into this category. Basing a movie on the life of a major public figure, especially one who is still in power, carries the problem of not being objective enough. In a way, each political film is a bastardization of political reality. In this film, the notion of power and its attainment reigns supreme for the main character, who will do or say anything to get where he wants to be. In a way Shakespearean, the film tries to meditate upon power but simply leaves behind a caricature of the French system, one that is petty, petulant, and prude. It comes off as a circus instead of truly intellectual and meaningful film. The film has its share of ironies, contradictions, and humor that may make it enjoyable to watch. However, it leaves me wanting for something more intelligent, something less cynical and more analytical without passing too much judgment. The film is based on reality and needs to give a little more thought to how this "reality" is portrayed on screen.
Granito
ReplyDelete“Granito” is a movie that was made in 2011 by the director Pamela Yates. This documentary reveals the social and internal conflict that was happening in Guatemala in regards to the guerrilla. I like how the director gets involve with the same documentary, she is the narrator of the same story, she is telling a story that affects her. The film has a lot of close-ups, which allows having a sense of reality, and permits the audience to have a full understanding of the expression on face of those involved. While watching this documentary I felt very identify, not because of a personal experience but because of my country’s history. I am from Colombia and watching this filmed made me realize that Guatemala and Colombia have suffered of similar violent conflicts. Colombia is a country that has suffer a lot of violence due to guerrilla groups since long time ago. Although this documentary talks about Guatemala’s internal conflicts displaying all the people that got affected, it was a search in the past, a journey through the memory of an entire country. Granito exemplifies the consequences of what happens in the past might evolve to the present. I liked this film, I thought it was very complete and had elements that made of it a quality product. And as I said before I couldn’t keep thinking of my own country.
Ximena Manrique
Granito
ReplyDelete“Witnessing is the essence of being a documentary filmmaker. Capturing moments in time never knowing how history will judge them...”
This documentary is about Guatemalas past history with violence and the guerrillas. The director Pamela Yates had to investigate on information and films for the past thirty years to have enough back up evidence on her documentary. This is very similar to Colombia’s past. We have had a guerrilla since fifty years ago and the crimes they commit daily are unimaginable. In the documentary you can not only see different points in history but also different personalities giving their opinion and personal experience on the case. I am studying journalism and ive been taught that the more sources you have the better and more reliable your argument becomes. This documentary shows the evidence well proven so it made it very strong. If the director wanted to make it stronger she could, this theme has a lot of information, it dependes on what prospective you want to show.
Michelle Yidios