For the most part, I enjoyed the documentary about Robert Frank and his composition of the book that shaped the future of photography, The Americans. I think that the director made some interesting choices in the actual composition of the film. As many people had said on the night of the viewing, the actual shots were kind of blurry and sometimes a little jarring or dizzying. I agree, some of the shots gave me a headache, but I don’t think that they were put in carelessly or unintentionally. I felt like they were used in order to mimic (or maybe commemorate?) the photography of Robert Frank. After all, the photos that he used in The Americans were certainly jarring and not necessarily pretty to look at all of the time. More importantly, they were raw. Although they weren’t clean-cut, they exposed pieces of American culture that definitely needed to be seen. Similarly, I believe that the film was intentionally shot this way to emulate Frank’s style.

I’m especially interested in The Americans itself and our discussion about how that one, three-letter word could make as much difference as it did. Judging by the critical view point that Frank took in his exposition, I’m not surprised that people took as much offense by the title as they did. When he called it The Americans rather than Some Americans or just Americans in general, he classified an entire nation under his own viewpoint. I think that’s a dangerous thing to do in any situation. On the other hand, perhaps the title was so jarring that it really forced people to take a second look at the photos, understand what they are really about, and internalize their messages. I think that’s the most that any artist can really hope for when they put a piece out in to the world.