KOYAANISQATSI

Documentary Film

Analysis Worksheet

Name: Hannah Diver

Step 1. Pre-viewing (Do not worry if you have already viewed the documentary; answer the questions to the best of your ability.)

Title of Documentary:

Koyaanisqatsi

Date Released: 23rd July 1999

Principle documentary maker(s): Godfrey Reggio

Why did you select this particular documentary for this assignment?:

It was allocated, but it was a stretch from other documentaries I have watched, due to it following the poetic mode of Documentary. It isn’t something I would have chosen to watch myself.

What do you think you will see in this documentary? List three concepts or ideas that you might expect to see based on the title of the documentary or list what you already know about this documentary:

1. Koyaanisqatsi stands for ‘life out of balance’ so i’m expecting it to show the unequal balance between mankind and nature.

2. I expect to see the beauty of nature compared to the ugliness of the man-made world

3. I expect the music to replace the narration by raising and falling in pitch/tempo and style to represent emotions that the filmmaker wants to help portray with the both music and images.  

Step 2. Viewing

Type of documentary (check where applicable):

__________ Advocacy for social concerns

__________ Biography

__________ Career Profile

__________ Community History

__________ Research/Factual

__________  “How To”

__________ Training/Orientation

_____x_____ Investigative

__________ News/Special Events

___________Skits & Spoofs

____x______ Travel/tourism

____x______  Nature

Physical qualities of the film: Describe all that apply.

Music:

Since there is no narration, instrumental/classical music plays a major part of the documentary. The hour and a half film uses the changes in form of the music, to help portray the emotions without the words The poetic documentary shows the looming and disruptive mankind, that ignores the wilderness and untamable nature as it uses it as a backdrop for development. The rise and fall in music with instrumental climaxes, can be stronger than words, telling of aggression or passion when paired with towering buildings or sweeping fields. It was at the breaks in music that would bring attention to the film as you are left to admire the images in the calm before the storm.

Live action:

The film is all live action. It could be considered to be admiring beauty of both nature and the man-made, yet it can also show the contrast of beauty and ugliness. All footage supports this idea with the filmmakers own footage or gathered footage, combining to make thoughtful material. The live action footage of people is observational with a combination of close up shots and time lapse footage, they are the most active subject of the camera.

Narration/voice Over:

Because this documentary follows the poetic mode, there is no narration. Although there isn’t narration or voice overs, there is text at the end that explains the meaning behind the title, with multiple definitions. This text brings together all the footage, making what might have seemed confusing and random, far more clear.

Background noise/Special effects:

Because the music is in the placement of the narration, it cancels out any background sound except when the music falls quiet and there is the chance to admire the scene so there is a slight chance of background sound.

Animation:

There is no animation since all footage is live action and showing the subjects as they are, with only time lapse to speed the movement along.

Color/Black and white:

The colours are bright and contrasting with each other, the natural colours are bright oranges and reds, whereas the colours of man made creations are more dismal with white and greys. This can be classed as manipulation or shows a bias as the filmmaker is painting a nicer picture of nature even when man made things can appear beautiful.

Interviews (Who did the filmmaker interview and for what purpose?):

There were no interviews since this was solely a poetic documentary.

Dramatizations or reenactments:

There were no dramatizations since the film was documenting life as it took place and wasn’t looking back on an event of a specific subject.

Note how camera angles, lighting, music, narration, and/or editing contribute to creating an atmosphere in this documentary.

The whole documentary film is a combination of extreme long shots, long takes with the camera as it pans over the specific setting/area. This mixture of ELS and longer takes makes the audience appreciate the setting more so the atmosphere is calmer since the time given for each image is slow-paced. The memorable image that is close to start of pylons disrupting a red natural landscape with a haunting section of music that immediately changes the tone and atmosphere to that of a eerie one - an opposite feeling to that given with the sweeping shots of natural plains. The filmmaker has encouraged the editing to make the man made structures the enemy, giving the scenery the element of a before and after.

What is the mood or tone of the documentary?  What emotions does the documentary evoke in its viewers?

The mood of the documentary starts out as called, the filmmaker is encouraging the audience to favour the natural images over the man made images. The chanting at the start of the film creates a rather daunting image before it starts. Thus, the beauty of rolling hills and waterfalls evokes a stronger emotion since the images are calmer.

However, the opposite and more hateful emotion would overpower as the audience are manipulated into thinking their man-made world is ugly.

Step 3. Post-viewing (or repeated viewing)

Circle the things that you listed in the previewing activity that were validated by your viewing of the documentary, then answer the following:   

What is/are the central message(s) of this documentary?  Be specific. Use examples from the documentary to support your choice.

The central message, is that life is unbalanced and that mankind has overpowered and taken over the chances of nature living and growing healthily. The clouds are reflected against the building though, which can show some kind of unity but the image of pylons against the red landscape shows the unbalance, especially paired with the haunting music.

Discuss the bias in the documentary (point of view of the filmmakers).   

There is a slight bias, yet the filmmaker is showing the audience the two sides, so they have the chance to see beauty in both sides, whether that is the the beauty of nature or the the endless cycle of the city.

Though I think that through the use of more man kind images, the filmmaker is more biased swords showing the artificial beauty.

Consider the effectiveness of the film in communicating its message. As a tool of communication, what are its strengths and weaknesses?

It is quite effective in conveying the message of unbalanced life through the difference in form of the music, it is more aggressive at points, making the audience believe moments are off balance and conflicting (clouds and building) though the image of people enjoying the beach can be considered as unity.

Does this film appeal to the viewer's reason or emotion? Explain the role of each in this documentary.  

It appeals to the reason by showing the explosions and destruction of nature, people immediately believe that it is wrong to destroy such natural strength and power. On the other hand, emotion is appealed to with the use of music rising and falling in volume and then the long takes letting the audience think and consider for themselves what to feel about it, arousing confliction at times.

How does it make you feel?

It makes me also feel conflicted

Write a question to the filmmaker that is left unanswered by his/her documentary. Do you believe the question was left unanswered purposefully?  Why or why not?

How do Man-made projects and architecture work to accommodate nature instead of destroying it?