blogger prompt. How might we productively and deliberately use different genres (and rational/irrational explanations) online to help us portray the "truth" of an ongoing situation?
After seeing both of the films, it's hard to know what is the "truth". There were multiple examples of rational and irrational explanations. I think she uses the irrational ones to compliment her rational explanations for the killings in Juarez and her uncle's death. The irrational ones provide a higher sense of credibility for the rational ones. Also, the irrational explanations play on our "pathos" because some of the irrational reasons are theoretical/religious explanations that cannot be denied or be viewed as fact. (For example, the woman who lost her daughter and the bird "knew". The mother also discussed how the bird was in tune with her daughter, etc.) and we discussed in class how that particular example may be a way of mourning and grieving the loss of her daughter.
It is interesting how the director weaved in all aspects of her stories on both accounts. Those reasons where the animals were connected with their owners seem irrational, but somehow, they kind of make sense. Usually animals are more partial to the one who takes care of them the most, so to say these pets acted differently when their owners died doesn't seem so absurd.
ReplyDeleteI kind of think the one example in the second film where the uncle brought home fish for his dying wife to watch for entertainment was interesting, because the way the director set it up. When the big fish killed the smaller fish I took it as a foreshadowing of what was to happen.
Too bad both documentaries are unsolved. =(