Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the film makers ethics
How to analyze a documentary film
Analysis of documentary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Grizzly Man (2005) is a documentary directed by Werner Herzog. It details the life of Timothy Treadwell, and how he spent thirteen summers in the Alaskan wilderness with grizzly bears, only to lead to his demise by the bears that he cared about so much. In a way it could be a documentary about a documentary. Herzog’s Documentary consists of several interviews of family, friends, and acquaintances, and several pieces of film shot by Timothy Treadwell himself. Grizzly Man as a films toys with several modes of documentary defined by Bill Nichols. The film as a whole is shown through reflexive mode, though through the film shot by Timothy, the documentary would also go towards an observational mode. From the rough, and in a sense, improvised camera …show more content…
work done by Timothy, we get a look at the life of the grizzly bears. And within the participatory mode, we see Herzog interact with Timothy’s Family and friends on a personal level, especially after listening to the audio of Timothy’s death.
With all of that said, Herzog presents Timothy as looking both foolish and in a sense irresponsible for going to the Alaskan wilderness alone to watch and study grizzly bears without any prior training with the animals. Never shying away from how Timothy died, Herzog had an obligation to document ethically and truthfully, but in a way did not to the full extent. Though even the national park rangers claimed he was harassing the wildlife, Timothy truly believed in what he was doing and was wrongfully portrayed for who he was. In Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition by Bill Nichols (pg. 138), Nichols even states that “Grizzly Man explores the life of a specific disenfranchised and/or marginalized individual, …show more content…
respectively.” Although it would be irresponsible for most people to do what Timothy did during those thirteen expeditions, he was aware of what he was doing. Timothy’s death probably wasn’t something he wanted, but possibly something he accepted would happen, maybe even during his first expedition. And the amount of passion and interest towards the wild animals seemed to work for him. And thirteen expeditions alone with wild grizzlies is impressive even to a professional’s standpoint. His interest in animals went all the way back to his childhood, and willing to go above and beyond to get his message across, that message being to educate the children of America about the grizzly bears the Alaskan peninsula, makes him an interesting character. Nichols also states in his book (pg. 67) that documentary filmmakers often favor individuals whose unschooled behavior before a camera conveys a sense of complexity and depth similar to what we value in a trained actor’s performance. He states that they attract our attention and hold our interest. And although Nanook was considered the first documentary “star”, many soon followed including Timothy Treadwell. There are parts of the film however where Timothy is shown how he probably wanted to be portrayed as: a passionate individual who truly believed in what he was doing.
And it wasn’t until Herzog listening to the audio of Timothy’s death did he make the ethical choice not to put it within the film, realizing that his death does deserve both dignity and privacy. There is also the possibility that Timothy was a different person when his camera wasn’t rolling. He stated that he was always alone, but in his last expedition, he decided to bring his then girlfriend along with him, and several different expeditions prior, it is noted that several women accompanied Timothy on his expeditions over the course of the thirteen years as well. And the only way we got to see him was through Herzog’s point of view, learning about Timothy along with
Herzog. In conclusion, Herzog portrayed Treadwell as a naive and foolish individual who was irresponsible for the things that he did in the Alaskan wilderness. But throughout the film, we learn more about Timothy along with Herzog, maybe changing a point of view with him, or maybe Timothy wasn’t always like that when his camera wasn’t rolling. All in all, Timothy did truly believe in what he was doing, and his friends and family believed in him too.
All three adventurers displayed their affection for the wilderness through how they lived after leaving society. After reaching Fairbanks, Alaska, McCandless set up his camp and began to live off the wildlife nearby. In his journal, he noted what he caught each day and showed his gratefulness through his writing font. He believed that “it [wildlife] was morally indefensible to waste any part of an animal that has been shot for food” (166). He tried his best to preserve the animals he shot for food, which in turn displayed his thoughts of nature as something precious.
In this paper Martin is arguing that late quaternary or near time extinctions where caused by human activity or as he calls it “overkill”. Martin recognizes that there have been many forces that have triggered extinctions in the planet on the past but disagrees with the idea that near time extinctions where caused by some commonly believed causes like climate change, disease or nutrient shortage. He argues that the arrival of humans to different continents, islands and the subsequent excessive hunting, the introduction of diseases and other competitors and predators was the cause of extinction of a great number of species “As our species spread to various continents we wiped out their large
Throughout Into the Wild, Krakauer portrays Christopher McCandless as an infallibly eager young man hoping to distance himself from the society he so obviously loathes, to "live off the land," entirely independent of a world which has "conditioned [itself] to a life of security." Chris, contrarily to this depiction, is disparagingly viewed by some as a "reckless idiot" who lacked the sense he needed to survive in the Alaskan wilderness. This derogatory assessment of Chris's mindset is representative of the society he hopes to escape and contains all the ignorance that causes him to feel this way. Nevertheless, he is misjudged by these critics, allowing Krakauer to hold the more accurate interpretation of Chris's character, his goals, and his accomplishments.
Almost 24 years ago, Chris McCandless died in unfortunate circumstances. When the news was released that a young man in his early twenties was found dead in the wilderness many people speculated that it was just another hopeless hitchhiker. However this story took a three hundred sixty turn when author Jon Krakauer wrote a lengthy article on McCandless 's death. When the book was later published, the public response was incredible. Even though this happened about 24 years ago Chris McCandless 's death is still argued and discussed today. The events and circumstances leading up to Chris McCandless’s death are what seem to frustrate many readers. As stated in many articles, books, and blogs Chris McCandless died in April 1992 all by himself in
Was Chris McCandless deranged? Was he delusional? Or was he a hero? Since Chris’ body was found in bus 142 in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness, he has been called many things. Those who knew him believed that he wasn’t crazy; that his impulsive actions and aspirations to explore the world, were no more than the natural inclinations of a young and idealistic spirit. However, his desire to venture into the unknown with no source of human contact and nothing but a ten-pound bag of rice, is not considered normal behavior. Jon Kraukauer’s, Into The Wild, manifests how Chris McCandless’ antisocial demeanor, lack of remorse, and impulsive actions are directly relatable to behaviors associated with a sociopath.
Living in the wilderness is difficult, but understanding the meaning of such lifestyle is even more difficult. One of the Christopher’s admirable qualities was that he was well aware of what he was doing. He knew about the difficulties and dangers that he would face into the wilderness, and was mentally prepared for that. Author Jon Krakauer says that “McCandless was green, and he overestimated his resilience, but he was sufficiently skilled to last for sixteen weeks on little more than his wits and ten pounds of rice. And he was fully aware when he entered the bush that he had given himself a perilously slim margin for error. He knew precisely what was at stake” (182). McCandless was an educated youth, who loved nature and dreamed of living in the Alaskan wilderness. Although he ignored to take many necessary things with him on this
Christopher McCandless was a hurt soul indeed. He used his knowledge of freedom and spirituality that he saw in author’s writings to take it out of context and explore the wilderness on his own. Seeking a way out of his unfortunate hardship in a dysfunctional family he set out to achieve living on his own within his own thoughts in the Alaskan wilderness. I believe that Chris McCandless was crazy, and he was somewhat unaware in the reality of his decisions. Chris was bright yet made bad decisions, he could make friends easily, but left impressions on them, and he didn’t know enough about living in the wild which would ultimately cause his death.
Chris McCandless was a graduate from college whose dream was to go into the Alaskan wilderness and live there to get an overall experience of living off the land. McCandless wanted to experience how to hunt and gather everything that he needed to live in the Alaskan Wilderness. However was it a good idea when Mccandless went into the wild. Many people on his adventure tried to help him by giving him some equipment or buy him some because he wasn't prepared for his adventure. After McCandless’s death to this date people would say that McCandless is an idiot or stupid for not being prepared for the Alaskan wilderness.
Chris McCandless is regarded as being something as a spiritual figure almost as a cult hero, some call him a disillusioned fool, some call him a great adventurer, and the debate still continues. As Matthew Power calls in his article, an article where he tells the story of McCandless,“The debate falls into two camps: Krakauer's visionary seeker, the tragic hero who dared to live the unmediated life he had dreamed of and died trying; or, as many Alaskans see it, the unprepared fool, a greenhorn who had fundamentally misjudged the wilderness he'd wanted so desperately to commune with.” Like so many stories covering Christopher McCandless’ death, both ends of the argument are discussed in an unfavored manner in the hopes to help develop an opinion on the McCandless story. This open ended question can only be answered open-endedly based on what the readers base for themselves as covered stories intend. Like Power has done, ...
In Jon Krakauer’s book Into the Wild, he documents the events that led up to the death of Chris McCandless. McCandless was a teenage boy who dealt with tremendous amounts of pressure from his parents to do well in school and keep family secrets — they apologized for it through buying him things that they thought he needed. However, Chris hated this and just wanted peace, and honesty at home. There was one place in which Chris could get this, and it is in nature — there was no chaos or dishonesty amongst his family. Before he would go to college, he would drive to unknown places on his own — cherishing the peace that he gets. And when he decides to go to Alaska, his journey leads him to
A child of abuse and neglect, Chris McCandless awed the world with his inspiring trip across the nation to find himself in Alaska. Leaving his well off life and his problematic family behind to be true to his ideas of life. His life impacted the people who knew him well and the strangers that drove him to his haven. When the story of this young man hitch hiking across the country broke ground, it made many people question if this boy was just crazy or did he really have a true understanding on the day to day live we were living and where we were going wrong. Although some critics have conceived the idea that Chris McCandless was just a crazed mad man with schizophrenia and the unachievable idea of true happiness. Many believe he was a new
While it is relatively easy to confuse the ideas of Aristotle, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and René Descartes, ancient philosophy, eighteenth century politics, and mathematics all appear to be considerably disconnected subjects. Associated with these divisions are three different opinions on a common subject matter: technology. It appears that Rousseau directly opposes technology, Aristotle’s opinion rests in the middle but also shares similarities with Rousseau, and Descartes favors technology. After reading Rousseau’s Discourse On the Origin of Inequality, Aristotle’s The Nicomachean Ethics and Descartes’s The Discourse on Method, one can draw these conclusions. When looking at Rousseau’s opinion on the natural man, it is clear he believes that all things manmade are disadvantageous; Aristotle’s view on friendship can be both supportive and antagonistic, while Descartes’s method for pursuing the truth points solely to a pro-technology point-of-view.
He took everything in his life to the extreme. As stated earlier, “It is hardly unusual for a young man to be drawn to a pursuit considered reckless by his elders; engaging in risky behavior is a rite of passage in our culture no less than in most others. Danger has always held a certain allure….”(Krakauer 182). People want to live while their young, therefore they take risks. However, what McCandless did was more than just risk taking. He contained something along the lines of an excessive hubris. ‘“He didn’t think the odds applied to him. We were always trying to pull him back from the edge,” vocalizes Walt McCandless (Krakauer 109). Trudging into the vast Alaskan wilderness without proper provisions is taking the extreme too far. As Krakauer states, “...[Chris] was fully aware when he entered the brush that he he had given himself a perilously slim margin for error” (182). Only someone with an extensive hubris would commit an act so dangerous and be confident in their survival. Although he lent himself to a handful of stupid mistakes, McCandless was far from an idiot. Even though the extreme he took his Alaska adventure to was ill-advised, there is something about Chris that is almost admirable. Many people have dreams and passions that get shoved into an old chest and are never to be visited again. In today’s society it seems as though everyone is
McCandless is a very independent person, a person with high hopes, that has a lot of courage, and is a very brave man for going out by himself in the wild of Alaska of the Stampede Trail. Chris McCandless had a lot of courage on going to Alaska by himself at a young age. While Chris was at any city or anybody’s house, he was ready to go to Alaska. But while he was there, close to the end of his life, he left a note on the back of the bus saying, “S.O.S I need your help. I am injured, near death, and too weak to hike out of here i am all alone, this is no joke. In the name of god, please remain to save me. I am out collecting berries close by and shall return by evening. Thank you, Chris McCandless. August?” Chris McCandless was by himself at the time. He shows his courage because while by himself, he went back out even though he was near death. He went out for food. Food for his health. That shows how much courage he had for his trip. Chris McCandless encouraged many young men to ...
2. Nichols, Bill. ‘Documentary Modes of Representation (The Observational Mode).’ Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington & Indianapolis; Indiana University Press. 1991. 38-44