In the Watermelon Woman Cheryl Dunye uses sound to create a world behind the lens of the camera. She does this by having diegetic dialog, and sound effects that take place where the camera woman, in most cases herself, would be standing in real space and time. This not only allows the world to become larger then what the viewer can see, but it makes the camera a tool of hers instead of just a window into her world where the audience watches detached. Cheryl Dunye uses diegetic sound to create a larger world for her story while making the camera an actual object used to represent the world and force the audience to see her world through a specific lens.

In the opening scene, we see the wedding that Cheryl and Tamara are filming, but instead of hearing what the camera is filming we hear conversations between Tamara and herself. Being the opening scene this helps with character development. We begin to form an idea of the two characters before we even see them. Although character development is important, opening the movie up with uncorrelated sound and picture introduces the idea that the movie we are about to see is Cheryl’s view. We see what she wants us to see, and the camera is not a window used to view her story, it is a tool used by her.

As the movie progresses this concept continues in different ways; sometimes having arguments with tamara while the camera is running. In these scenarios, cheryl is seen by the audience but Tamara is only heard. She is clearly the one holding the camera. This opens up their world to the audience and may even allow the audience to feel more as a participant then a viewer. This technique of having diegetic dialogue off camera allows the audience to be constantly reminded that Cheryl is in control of what we see, that the character Cheryl is telling the story.

Once we established that the main character Cheryl is whom is directing our sights and therefore thoughts, we can start to understand that a lens is completely controlled by her. When we discuss the “male gaze’ in this movie, we can see that it is challenged. A strong, main character is in fact a women and is not directed at love, although there is a romance. Her goals and ambitions are what drives the movie, and what the main story is about. We can also notice that the audience of this movie is directed at specific audiences; controlling whom would be interested in this movie. It also gives the feel of a home movie and takes away the expectations of a main stream cinema. It feels like a documentary almost and therefore her story comes across as truth.

Cheryl Dunye uses off camera diegetic dialogue to consistently remind the audiences that the camera is a tool, not just a window. And she illustrates what she can do with that tool. She can depict her audience, she can convince you of a false history and she can challenge social ideals. The world in which we see in The Watermelon Woman is much larger then what we actually see through the lens. It is not just a 180 degree version, but in fact a 360 degree rotation of a natural world. We dive into her world, and believe what she tells us, and are reminded of the power of the auteur.

While watching “Man with a Movie camera” many different thoughts and opinions ran through my head during different points in the movie. As discussed in class, with a movie like this, without plot or characters, the audience should find things to focus on in order to stay connected to the film. While watching the film, one tactic that I seemed to have used was focusing on the scenes in which the director showed how the camera man was obtaining the shot. I started to notice the shot would at first show the camera man shooting the scene, then it would jump to what that shot looked like from the previous camera. For example, a scene that was repeated a couple times was the man with the movie camera laying on the train tracks in order to film the train approaching, it would then jump to his camera and show the train approaching and rushing over him. These repeated scenes and jump cuts kept me focused because I felt like it was the director directly talking to the audiance to show the complexity  or even dangerous activities he did in order to achieve the shots and angles his camera captured.

Another example of this was the scene in which the camera man was in the car filming the group of women. At first the viewer sees  the camera man filming the car next to his own, then the cut jumps to just what his camera is capturing and we see the unrehearsed reactions of the women being filmed. This scene not only showed a typical sight in Russian society, but also showed a typical sight of the directors life, the latter of which I felt was a strong influence of the film. Not only was the film a beautiful representation of the society he filmed, but also, a glimpse of his own life. I started to feel like this movie was a work to glorify movie making and avant -grarde; to show the art form of cinema. This movie showed the work he put into each shot while also commenting on the power he held with each shot.

Realizing that these shots may be apart of a conversation highlighting the beauty and work of art cinema, brought to light the power he held, as the director, over what images and feelings we saw and felt. He not only wanted to highlight the work and design he put into every single shot, but also show how much power over the audience these images held. Scenes like the ones showing the man with his movie camera as a giant, filming the city below him, or the stop action scenes making the lobster or the camera come to life represent how he can manipulate and control what the audience can see. The entire piece was to commemorate art cinema and all it has to offer. To show the hard work it takes in order to get the shots we see, as well as to glorify the power these images can hold.