In this assignment, you’ll learn how to begin to organize and outline your ideas so that you can write your Documentary Film Research and Analysis on a film of cultural and historical importance. This process will draw on several of the exercises we’ve done throughout the semester:
⠀For this example, I am using the 1982 documentary film The Atomic Cafe.
In this part of the process, I summarize the plot of the film in neutral terms so that someone understands what happens in this film.
The Atomic Cafe (1982) is a compilation film that uses military, government, commercial, and television footage from the 1940, 1950s, and 1960s to reconstruct the timeline of the US’s development and deployment of atomic bombs in the second half of the twentieth century. The film covers the bomb’s development and deployment in World War II, the nuclear arms race with the Soviets, and the propaganda campaigns devised to sell Americans on the need to accelerate developing and procuring atomic weapons.
In this part of the process, I will think about the meaning of the film. This is somewhat subjective to my own interpretation, but it should be something that is a consistent theme of the film, expressed throughout the film.
The film is as much a representation of how critics of atomic weapons had evolved in their thinking in the decades since the 1960s, the heyday of the atomic age. The films that constitute The Atomic Cafe offer misleading information—if not outright lies—about the dangers of atomic weapons in defending the “American way of life.”
Although there is no voiceover narrator or original interviews with critics of atomic weapons, there is clearly a voice in this film. Simply juxtaposing jingoistic footage about America’s use atomic weapons with the devastating effects of that use, the filmmakers allow the audience to critically question the US’s role in the Cold War at a time when nuclear war seemed a realistic possibility.
For this part of the process, I will think about three sequences that support my evaluation of the film. Instead of doing a shot analysis chart, which you are free to do to help you see things, I will describe what I see and hear in each of these sequences.
The first sequence is the one that chronicles the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this sequence, we see the aftermath of the bombings, expressed through an interview with one of the pilots and a celebratory gathering after Japan surrendered to the Allies. This footage expresses the euphoria of the victory through an American perspective. But the sequence extends to include footage of the destruction that the atomic bombs left in their wake. By including this footage, the filmmakers make a point about the human toll of this victory, countering the idea that Japanese lives didn’t matter as suggested by the earlier footage.
The second sequence is the one that shows the testing on Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. In this sequence, we see a map of where the testing took place. The sounds accompanying this image is of people signing a song in a language that is unrecognizable to English speakers, but likely the language of the people of Bikini Atoll. The image switches to an image of people waving at the camera, and the voiceover narrator announces that “the natives express to the people of the United States their welcome.” This sequence continues in this fashion, suggesting that the nuclear tests that would make their homes uninhabitable were welcomed by the people of Bikini Atoll. This viewpoint, expressed through the long shot camerawork, treats them, not as individuals, but as willing participants in the development of nuclear weapons.
The third sequence depicts the contemporaneous attitudes about communism. We see a montage of a parade where marchers carry signs disparaging communism and the Soviet Union. We hear a folksy American song with lyrics proudly proclaiming that the performer is “no Communist.” This is followed by a medium shot of a man revealing that the Soviet Union has gained knowledge of how to build an atomic bomb. This is then followed by a sequence of shots depicting the execution of the Rosenbergs, a married couple convicted of treason for providing secrets to the Soviets in constructing their own nuclear bomb. In this sequence, we see images of another mass gathering. This gathering however is of protesters both for and against the execution. Those in favor of their execution carry signs that label them as communist “scum” and claiming that they “stink.” This is a way to dehumanize them. The sequence concludes with a somber long take of a reporter narrating the execution of Ethel Rosenberg. The reporter describes a “ghastly” scene, where “she died a lot harder” than her husband. By concluding with this sobering, even humanizing portrayal of her execution, it challenges the American narrative that this couple deserved to die.
In this part of the process, I list two formal elements that I think help convey the message of the film that I addressed in my evaluation (written above). For the sake of brevity, I didn’t describe details from the sequences.
As with most compilation films, editing plays a crucial role in communicating the narrative. The footage used in this film comes from a multitude of sources, and it requires editing to construct these images into a narrative. The film excels at using nondiegetic inserts, footage unrelated to the story, to aid in craft that particular narrative. For example, in the third sequence, we hear a radio reporter describe the execution of Julius Rosenberg at Sing Sing Prison with the dispassionate voice of a news report. The image however does not show the reporter. Instead, we see a montage of images depicting various radio sets: a hand tuning one radio, a few closeups of other radio sets, images of people sitting in living rooms with radios in the background, and then finally, an image of a car radio receiver. This is followed by images of a car driving through busy city streets, giving the impression that the driver, along with many other people, were listening to this news report. None of these shots included sound from the news report. It was the editing that created this story and this illusion.
A second formal element that plays an important role in the contemporaneous attitudes about the Cold War and the atomic age. We hear this in various forms but most notably through the music. We hear various songs that made me marvel: who knew there were so many songs about nuclear weapons from that period of time. Some songs tell of what happens “When They Drop The Atomic Bomb” and “When the Atom Bomb Fell,” such as one man would be surrounded by “13 Women” and he was the only man around. One song compares his sweetheart to an “Atom Bomb Baby” while another proclaims that “Jesus Hits Like an Atom Bomb.” Lastly, one crooner takes comfort in telling his love that he will spend “This Cold War With You.”
In this part of the process, I incorporate the writings of others to show how my essay is in conversation with their evaluation of this film. I will find a quote or two from the sources and incorporate them into my own writing and analysis.
DeLoach, Douglass. “The Atomic Cafe.” Art Papers, vol. 6, no. 5, Sept. 1982, p. 31. Permalink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=49119990&authtype=sso&custid=s8440772&site=eds-live&scope=site&authtype=sso&custid=s8440772Links to an external site.
In this review of the film, in advance of its opening in Atlanta, Georgia, in July 1982, Douglass DeLoach discusses how this film started as a compilation film looking at propaganda and then evolved into the propaganda surrounding the atomic bomb. He almost notes how the film comes at a time when the public was increasingly critical of the threat of nuclear bombs and the escalation of the Cold War conflict between the US and the USSR, both representing the biggest nuclear powers in the world at the time.
Mielke, Bo. “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Nuclear Test Documentary.” Film Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 3, Spring 2005, pp. 28–37. Permalink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f3h&AN=16829092&authtype=sso&custid=s8440772&site=eds-live&scope=site&authtype=sso&custid=s8440772Links to an external site.
In this essay about nuclear test documentary films, Bo Mielke reviews The Atomic Cafe and other films of nuclear test footage to show that the film has aged well, except for some moments, noting that certain “moments” in the choice of footage depicting soldiers “seem a bit mean-spirited and historically smug.” Mielke also notes that the film is right to be critical of the mania surrounding nuclear bomb tests, noting that “even though the violence of bomb testing seems condensed into a few frames of a mushroom cloud, it is a violence that lingers and kills in the present day and far beyond.” As with the previous source, there appears to be a collective awakening about the threat of nuclear war and the danger it posed at the same time that propaganda films were minimizing or even obscuring that threat.
In this part of the process, I consider some of the cultural aspects of the film. For the sake of illustrating this process, I will consider three, but it’s not necessary to include all of these in your outline or essay.
The film addresses race, ethnicity, and national origin through its use of decades-old films that present American superiority at the expense of other cultures or nation’s interests. The atomic bomb was presented as a solution for the United States’s security, without regard for the safety of the rest of the world.
In each sequence, we can see how American’s development and deployment of nuclear weapons reflected the contemporaneous viewpoint that non-American lives did not matter, except to advance American goals.
In the first sequence, the lives of Japanese civilians were minimized at the time to leverage the power of the atomic bomb in accelerating Japan’s surrender. The film notes in the text from a previous shot that “In the Pacific, Japan was desperately fighting a losing battle against America and her allies,” making the use of the atomic bomb seem unnecessary.
In the second sequence, the lives of the native of Bikini Atoll did not matter. We see footage where Americans are essentially welcoming the sacrifice the inhabitants made for allowing nuclear bomb testing.
Lastly, the lives of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were sacrificed to respond to the US losing the monopoly over the atomic bomb. As the Rosenbergs were Jewish and members of the Communist Party, their lives were valued less than those who were American capitalists. With the filmmakers including additional footage to challenge each idea represented in the “official” footage, such as the reporter who becomes emotionally overwhelmed when narrating the execution of Ethel Rosenberg, the film argues that many years later, we could be mindful about the ignorance of that thinking.