Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Camera

For all the quirks in its construction, The Adults actually utilizes one of the most traditional tools of documentary filmmaking, and one that I have very little experience with, the hand held, verité-style camera. One of my concerns about the finished product is that the more mediated techniques that have worked in my previous films, such as re-enactment and symbolism, will create an uneasy conflict when juxtaposed with footage that is perceived through it’s presentation to be so “direct”.

Bonnie Kyburz is an Associate Professor of English at Utah Valley University, and is therefore my favorite person with whom to bat around lofty ideas and play the devil’s advocate. I had an online chat with her last week to share my concerns about how we are acknowledging (or not) the presence of the camera in The Adults, based on the scene “Talking About Sam”.

Bonnie Kyburz: I like the way the trope of the “friends at dinner” scene plays out. it’s nonfiction, but it’s so clearly also aware of itself as a cinematic trope. You’re so fucking meta.

Andy Blubaugh: So why do you say that? Because this is one of the things that [director of photography] Anna and I are struggling with. What is it that you see what makes it aware of itself?

BK: The fact that you are creating a film, writing and shooting and composing … and you use the “friends at dinner” footage as part of that process rather than as polished product, exclusively. You incorporate a polished convention not as polish but as part of the messy process of composing.

AB: Right. The film acknowledges itself SOMEWHERE, it has to. But the question becomes, where? For instance, that scene is cut in a way that is impossible, the “second camera” would be seen.

BK: I’m not sure you need to position that awareness in a particular place and/or time.

AB: You aren’t? I’m worried about losing the trust of my audience.

BK: You’re a filmmaker. You articulate from within the grammar of film so it makes sense that you think through that lens, even about things that are “extra-cinematic” But i get that you worry about it being “too precious,” and that’s very, very smart. This is perhaps why the friends’ criticisms — at dinner, on the porch, the Dan Savage bit – works so well.

AB: You mean because it’s humliating? or, causes humility?

BK: That, and your whole demeanor — your visual aura/ethos, speaks humility, so form and content — inasmuch as we can know that your image betrays your actual humility – works together organically.

AB: But isn’t the issue of trust important even if what’s being said makes me uncomfortable? I’m still asking an audience to wonder, “did the camera just happen to catch this?” I mean, of course, it couldn’t have. So by not revealing the entire mechanism (the second camera, or a boom pole), am
I being deceitful?

BK: No, I don’t think so. We know it’s staged, but i think that somehow your silence, your presence, all together w/ the complexity of the subject — it works. And to answer your question, it’s not deceitful. And because of the subject, we GET that you are being cautious of and respectful about the delicacy of the narrative and its subject (both and together). Reflection happens in recursive processes … best when it’s social. So what if you staged a conversation; it’s still a conversation that happened. Was it scripted? Does it matter? It’s your reflection.

AB: I’m worried that without the context of my previous work, audiences might be thrown for a loop. Or, worse, irritated by being jerked around.

BK: Your other films work so well, and this one uses many of its methods
and this layering of lenses is pretty hip especially in its steampunk ways (the tape recorder shots always kill me) so it’s fancy and pomo but not in a flashy way. it’s more humble (back to that term).

AB: I read that as “fancy and porno,” which I was looking forward to asking follow up questions for.

BK: HA! Perv…