1934. here’s another film that was supposed to impress me. i guess i just don’t have an eye for some things. i know that some of the cinematography was nice, especially relative to the majority of films for the time…add to that the fact that this was a documentary and you have a film that is regarded as moving forward its genre. maybe the people who watched this movie hadn’t seen “man with a movie camera” so they were really impressed, but i wasn’t. like i said, it has some nice enough stuff, but nothing that would make me call it the finest of early documentaries. nanook of the north (1922) was a way better film, man with a movie camera (1929) had far better cinematography and neither glorified hitler. while i’m on the subject – what’s with everyone’s obsession with ‘birth of a nation’? because he used montage and refined cinematic storytelling? anyone who’s read a book or play could figure out how to tell a story effectively, camera or not. sometimes being first goes a long way. or maybe i was sleeping that day in film class. good as a historical document, but it’s not entertaining and if you want a lesson on film as propaganda just watch some of the better television commercials – their art and technique are much more refined than this film’s. oh and do yourself a favor and watch the film with commentary even if it’s your first time…it’ll make it more worthwhile.