Don't Judge a Person By a Film

Having watched half of ‘Grizzly Man’ and listening to the interview, one thing that really struck me were the differing perspectives and opinions of Treadwell’s adventures. As Hayley previously mentioned, Herzog produced the film after Treadwell had already passed away, and he was the one that chose which footage was shown, how it was shown, and who he interviewed and included in the film. As I watched the first moments of the film, I thought what Treadwell was doing was admirable and was a genuine act of kindness. As the film progressed and I listened to the disapprovals, I started to question whether his adventures with the bears were really helping or hurting. Many people thought that “he was disrespecting the bear (…) crossed a boundary.”(Grizzly Man) Looking at the shots where the bears were civilized and seemed unbothered by his presence, I would have never thought that he was crossing a boundary. However, when the film announced that a bear killed Treadwell, I really questioned his decision to go into the wild with these bears. If Timothy hadn’t died, the footage shown in the documentary would have convinced me that Grizzly bears are not as aggressive and unfriendly as I thought; however, the unfortunate attack by the bear makes his intentions and his results seem less legitimate.

In the class decision, the big question of “what story is actually being told,” really got me thinking. Although the documentary was not scripted, the director strategically presented certain scenes with certain outside inputs in order to send a message to the audience. In his interview he says that Timothy had disrespected the bears and that his actions were ‘wrong.’ Similarly, in Grizzly Man, one of the people who were interviewed said that ‘he got what he deserved.’ (Grizzly Man). Is this the message that Herzog is trying to send to us? Is this the reason he made this film? Even though their thoughts on the matter are valid and understandable, I don’t think that anyone can say what was ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ regarding these attempts. We, as the audience, must now try to formulate our own opinions and outlooks on Timothy Treadwell’s efforts without allowing the inputs from others contaminate our perspective and lead us in a direction that they want us to go. 

Stories on Stories on Stories on Stories

In our class discussion today we talked about the world that Timothy “created” in his mind for the bears, which he displays by talking to them like pets. This is not a judgement call that we should be making. Of all humans, Timothy can probably be the most objective about the bears because he has spent way more time with the bears than us. He was able to intuit enough about their behaviors that he could stay alive, even at extremely close proximity to them, for thirteen summers. Even if he was projecting onto them, those projections kept him alive pretty well for a long time. One of the men interviewed for the film said that the bears don’t eat Timothy because they think he’s retarded. He is personifying the bears the same way that Timothy does. Even when criticizing Timothy for his “delusions,” we tend to make up our own stories for the bears, and those stories are focus more on Timothy than the bears.

The bears have a lot more going on in their lives than thinking about the presence of a human. They’re either thinking that Timothy’s a threat or that he’s not, and beyond that they’re thinking about finding food and taking care of their young. To them, Timothy is just another part of life. I found it interesting that when talking about the bears, people often jump to the impact Timothy was having on them, when in reality Timothy was just living amongst them, hanging out near them. He didn’t have any more impact than a bird or Timmy the fox.

Grizzly Man: the Character Constructed by Werner Herzog

After listening to the NPR interview with Werner Herzog, I now think of the documentary a little differently. Herzog made the documentary after Treadwell had already died, meaning that the representation of Treadwell in the documentary was entirely crafted by the director. It was Herzog who sifted through the hundred hours of footage that Treadwell filmed; it was Herzog who read Treadwell's diary and interviewed his friends; most importantly, however, it was Herzog who pieced together the film, fitting in each clip meticulously and purposefully to give the audience a specific and partially artificial representation of the Grizzly Man. Because Herzog is manipulating each piece of video and information that he has collected, the audience does not see the pure Timothy Treadwell, but the Timothy Treadwell that Werner Herzog wants them to see. I think that this is a particularly interesting idea given that in his NPR interview, Herzog almost immediately refers to Treadwell as a "character" (NPR interview). This seemingly innocent word becomes loaded given the context that he is referring to a real person in a real documentary. If Herzog sees Treadwell as a character, then is he admitting that he had a hand in shaping the man that the audience perceives to be the real Timothy Treadwell? This hypothesis is also substantiated by Herzog's later acknowledgment that he often blurs the lines between documentary and feature film. Herzog admits himself that "sometimes I invent, I script" (NPR interview). So if Herzog has such a heavy hand in creating Grizzly Man the character, then it is impossible to say that the audience is getting an accurate account of the real Timothy Treadwell. Thus the real question that the viewer should be asking themselves after the film ends does not have to do with Treadwell's mental state, but with how and why Herzog manipulated Treadwell's story and the audience into believing it. Is Herzog just trying to create a good story or does he really want to accurately depict the Grizzly Man? Is he trying to honor Treadwell's memory or does he have something a little more critical to say about Treadwell's way of life?

No More, Without Less

Vonnegut’s bokononists and the writer O’Brien create purposeful lives for themselves by manipulating subjective meaninglessness through the contrasting methods of believing religious tenets on top of mundane scientific “fact”, and writing into being a proxy which can take on the necessity of query.

The bokononists use science to establish in their minds a mundane level of existence, over which their religion can exalt them. Bokononist’s know that their religion is a set of helpful lies. Their knowledge of this is what enables them to simultaneously hold scientific “fact” in their minds, as well as religious tenets. Bokononists know that many people do not believe in God. Bokononists know that the big bang and evolution are often used to explain our existence, from the very beginning of time. Bokononists understand that many people think humans have no purpose, and no intrinsic meaning. Science renders the world thus, in the base of their minds. Bokononism lifts them above each of these lesser “realities”. There is a God! He created us out of mud, and invited us to look on all of Creation. We have karasses, and we are all significant, and there is nothing higher for us to do than love one another. Boku Maru matters. Bokononists feel higher than the mundane scientific world, the other option in their minds, the “reality” that renders Bokononism a lie, and therefore, they feel fulfilled.

              O’Brien creates characters to whom he can pass on his deep sense of loss. When his characters live through anguish and a sense of meaninglessness, O’Brien is able to feel these things less, because of the inherent power of writing. O’Brien entraps his character Norman Bowker in an endless orbit around a hole in his heart. Norman cannot connect to the peaceful world he has been dislocated to, and therefore he can find no person or means through which to express, objectify, and temporarily release his pain. Essentially, Norman Bowker is O’Brien, if O’Brien could not write. As long as Bowker circles, O’Brien can progress through life, the hole in his heart transplanted, and thus partially assuaged.

This Made Me Laugh, in Relation to our Recent Class Discussions on "Success"

Plus, it's The Onion. Who doesn't love The Onion?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/breaking-daniel-throwing-his-life-away-you-should,34087/