How Does Capturing the Friedmans Thematize the Documentary Impulse, Jareckis Representation of This - Assignment Example

How does Capturing the Friedmans thematize the “documentary impulse?” The audience knows it was there to see a series of events on which they could'rely on authenticity or transparency'. It was not important to establish truth. These are the three criteria of 'documentary impulse'. The credibility of the story teller must be established in order for the questions to be answered be believable. A document was created from a set of videos; facts were derived from a set of videos. "A documentary impulse" was made to sew together a series of events with the police interaction in order to show the audiences a clear set of events or facts.

Establishing the truth was not the purpose. Capturing the Friedmans was shown as realistic and transparent In what ways does Jarecki’s representation of the “documentary impulse” reverberate with Tom Gunning’s definition? (agree) Jarecki's creating a document from a group of facts corresponds with Gunn's definition. Jarecki's document doesn't show his viewer many direct facts other than lawyer repeating Mr Friedman's confession once he is in prison of getting "excited being by the four year old".

We are witness to the young man who said he was hypnotized before confessing. In both men's definition, the viewer is the onlooker. In discretionary moments were displayed but they were explained verbally. It is difficult to believe that the rest of the family knew nothing was going on for so many years. There were moments of high emotions with some embarrassment. What does Capturing the Friedmans tell us about documentary impulses that Gunning doesn’t? (different) Capturing the Friedmans was a soul searching verbal diary of one boy of the video history of he and his family while growing up.

There was no visible proof in the film of any in discretionary acts. Facts can be created or implied from a set of videos, and then later proved otherwise. There were no actual facts which came from the documentary impulse of Jarecki. It was an emotional experience which played on the frustration of the viewer who waited to see concrete evidences other than a father who was in complete denial and the police and media, who were in complete hysteria. Jarecki shows that documentary impulse works more on the emotion that on the fact.

Continuing in showing the family's state of denial was a lack of judgment. He was more intent on showing the family dynamics in a 'trying time' then in the actual situation. There was no line of continuity or reality. The viewer asks himself what is the purpose in watching the film. Is it to see the breakdown of the family? Is it to see the capturing of the Friedmans? The questions were never answered and the purpose was never defined. He completely changed the concept of "documentary impulse".

Gunning's purpose of the documentary impulse was to show a series of factual events with a line of continuity. His main emphasis would not have been on the breakdown of the family. It was an insignificant point. The onlooker would have become the witness. Jarecki's onlooker has become the judge. A witness becomes a moral judge.