We presented as a group of three about the film 5 Broken Cameras, directed by Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi. We split the analysis up so that each of us addressed a different element of the film in our oral presentation. I decided to address its documentary mode, specifically how viewing the film through the lens of being “autobiographical” impacts what we take away from it and how we absorb the information and story presented to us.
The film addresses a well-known, political, global issue in a new light, with a new perspective. The voice is both authentic and subjective. This is Emad’s autobiographical story, told through the lives of his five video cameras, the first of which he purchased to document his family and make home movies. He just happens to be living through a political moment. The aesthetic is very run and gun, very low budget, and has a journalistic style though it is not presented as journalism, objective fact, or news. The film is made of footage that Emad shot on his cameras, and edited with help from Guy Davidi.
Insofar as authorship of the final film is concerned, our cameraman is both the subject and the director. 5 Broken Cameras is as if Grizzly Man were made by Timothy Treadwell rather than Werner Herzog, meaning, the subject has a hand in how they are ultimately presented to the audience. How does this affect our understanding of the film’s presentation of events, and truth?
The high-intensity, highly-political resistance footage is intercut with moments from the filmmaker’s family life, further legitimizing this point of view as authentic, and presenting a gentler look at what is typically portrayed as “conflict.” It’s largely devoid of additional post production techniques, apart from the slow motion bullet technique and occasional sound design and music. Time passing is marked by the improving quality of the camera. What follows are some specific notes I made regarding my thematic analysis of the documentary mode.
Edit Analysis
5 Broken Cameras
(2011)
A group presentation with
Maevia Griffiths & Zubeda Mir
22:20 - Directly prior to this clip there was a burst of violence from the army towards the protestors and Adeeb gets shot in the groin, prompting the argument we see here. This clip is followed by the peaceful moment with the chickens in the tree and intimate knowledge of the characters. A voiceover suggests the camera is a metaphorical lens, it gives the cameraman super powers, the ability to see what was otherwise hidden in his friends who, to the media, are rebels. Considering the film is edited after shooting, our cameraman becomes an author to the story, he gives humanity and personality to his friends that would never be in the news and not apparent upon just looking at them. This is personal perspective informed by a lifetime of knowing these people. The footage is of chickens in a tree, and of these people, but Emad has the power and ability to add his feelings to the footage after the fact and give it higher meaning. The contrasting scenes also indicates that the occupation by the Israelis is what pushes his otherwise content, gentle, kind friends to anger.
52:00 - Emad under house arrest with psychologist – “I am used to filming.” Autobiography – with nothing else going on, Emad still feels he must capture some action, so becomes a character. A moment of self reflection, of self presentation. This part of the film is a turning point for Emad, he’s not just observing, now he is participating. After his brother’s arrest, the continued occupation, the toll it’s taking on his friends and community, he is not just documenting anymore but getting involved, taking it personally. The following voiceover editorializes on the moment – this is now his purpose, whatever the cost. The footage of the birds flying overhead indicate freedom. Here it becomes not just the story of Bil’in or Gibreel, but Emad’s story.
1:04:00 - “The truck I’m driving crashes into the barrier” followed by the title card that doesn’t indicate how the camera broke. The power of hindsight, and the power of omission. Why has the author left these details out? Why the use of passive voice, thus shifting the responsibility to the truck and not himself? Or is it simply a quirk in translation to the English subtitles? He’s obviously severely injured, but it’s glaring how we get the least possible information about what happened in the truck crash. We also see Emad being filmed by someone else. Cut to Emad in the hospital, a reminder that this is his story and he is the central character even though he’s often behind the camera. This scene is also a strong reminder that our author, our narrator, is not presenting news but a subjective story about his life that’s been edited to present his specific perspective.
1:18:02 - 1:18:52 - The break in editing, editorializing on the breaking of the 5th camera. Camera vs gun. The gun wins the battle but the camera wins the war. This is very stylized compared to the gritty reality we’ve gotten thus far, and the technique is not repeated. In this instance, the voiceover is presenting objective fact but the image is interpretive showing how it felt to experience the moment. This is a rare instance that acknowledges the medium and breaks us out of feeling like we’re watching home videos / video journalism. Prior to this, the image is more literal, depicting “reality” and the voiceover adds opinion / emotion.
References
5 Broken Cameras. Directed by Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi, 2011.
Grizzly Man. Directed by Werner Herzog, 2005.