https://vimeo.com/31235860

1.The documentary is a form of expository because it wants the viewer to remember the most important events in history and give a sense of empathy, which from the title of this piece it clearly doesn’t want us to forget any of this. It includes interviews from people who have experienced the bombing first hand as well as people who were there when making the bomb. It educates us but doesn’t really explain as much because we should already know what it is he is talking about, he is just going more in detail of what we could have missed and what others may say about it. This film also shows a poetic mode according to the images and videos that are shown it seems to be random but gives a sense of purpose as a whole. The editing is very abstract and just is all over the place, not knowing what was going to be shown next though it fits the piece and gives the viewer what could be seen when the narrator is talking.

2. I think that the filmmaker chose to automate the voice of the narrator in order to give more interest in this film. It’s standard to have a normal voice and viewers are expecting that, so I think the filmmaker wanted to get out of the traditional making of a documentary, and he succeeds in making the film more interesting when adding a twist to what you were expected of seeing.

3. The experimental aspects of the film had to be in the images and the way it went with storytelling. When the narrator was talking about a specific subject, the images didn’t always correlate with the story though it set a mood and a tone overall. Also what was experimented was the voice of the narrator, it breaks away from traditional documentaries and gives this more interest.

4. To me this film comes across as fact, but I can see why it could be fiction. The articles and interviews from people during WWII give me the reason why it could be a true piece though the way filmmaker set up the overall look of the documentary could seem fiction and made up. The images are not always in sync to what the narrator is talking about but when it does it looks to be true. This piece could be either or for me but I am leaning towards true because, of course I learned about this in history but this story is telling us the views towards people who were there and what they saw and experienced, so it goes more into the viewer rather than the actual facts.