Component 2b: Documentary Film (Filmmakers’ Theories)

“How far does your chosen documentary demonstrate elements of one or more filmmaker’s theorises you have looked at?”

Plan:

Introduction – Very brief explanation of observational mode.

Paragraph 1 – Brief introduction to Longinotto’s style/theory and intentions – Manka sequence – How Longinotto’s style can be observed by the audience in this specific sequence (May be split into 2 paragraphs if needed).

Paragraph 2 – Divorce sequence – what signature directorial features the film displays, their effect on the audience.

Conclusion: Show that I understand documentary autership and how Longinottos style differs from others, such as Michael Moore, so briefly make reference to both of their theories.

Version 1:

Sisters In Law demonstrates elements of the observational filmmaker’s theory to a high degree. Bill Nichols described observational documentary as that which simply documents events in a “Fly on the wall” style that remains separate from characters and events, not interfering in the subject matter at any point or in any way. However, Kim Longinotto does not strictly adhere to the unobtrusive style of observational theory, as seen in her interference in the course of events in the divorce sequence.

Kim Longinotto’s Sisters In Law is in observational mode, which means that she keeps her involvement in the events of the film at a minimum and captures events as they play out with our interviews for context. She intends to capture inspiring stories of women who fight against patriarchal and traditional societies that favour the men in it. In the Manka sequence, this can be seen in how at the beginning of the scene, when the man and Manka enter prosecutor Vera’s office, there is no contextual information given to explain why they are there or who they are. Longinotto stands out of shot and records the conversation, but also directs the audiences attention on what is important by zooming in on certain things, such as when the camera zooms in on Manka’s face as the man explains how he found her, bringing our attention to her bloodshot eye. This effects the audience by showing them how small and scared Manka looks, causing us to feel sorry for her. Since the film is in observational mode, there is no manipulative editing or cinematography to influence the audiences attention, but Longinotto keeps certain things in frame to convey information to the audience that may impact their opinion. Longinotto also remains in observational mode as she stays completely uninvolved in the scene, not influencing events in any way, which is an important element of the observational theory. She also keeps an objective stance on things, as an observational documentary filmmaker would, and aims to let the audience come to their own conclusion. But she also shows Vera to be the good and moral character in this situation, panning right to her to show her dismayed reaction at the description of how Manka was beat by her Aunty.

When the Aunty is brought into the office and is questioned by Vera, the camera stays on her, but occasionally zooms out to create a two or three shot of the aunty, Manka and the man who brought Manka to the station. This brings to the audiences attention the man’s disappointed reaction at the woman’s confession and Manka’s look of confusion and concern. These reactions are not scripted, as the documentary is in observational mode, but Longinotto records them to make it clear to the audience that the aunty is in the wrong here and the man and Vera are in the right, demonstrating the element of recording events as they play out, acting almost like a “fly on the wall”, in observational documentary. As Manka’s scars are revealed to Vera, the camera zooms in on them to bring the audiences attention to them. This shows the severity of the aunt’s actions, but, as it is in observational mode, the film does not point out how cruel and harsh this is, only showing the audience all the important parts of this situation so that they can get a full picture and come to their conclusions, an important element of observational documentary film.

The divorce sequence also demonstrates elements of observational documentary film. The divorce sequence begins with an establishing shot of the village to give the context in which the following scene is to play out, only providing information to the audience in the form of visual cues. As the filmmaker cannot involve the self in the film, seen in Sisters In Law in how Longinotto is never in frame or says anything to the participants in the film or directly to the audience, they have to provide information to the audiences through documenting certain things. When we enter the courtroom, there is a close-up of the husband who wants prevent the divorce to instantly remind the audience of who we are following. As the scene continues and the woman who wants the divorce is questioned, the camera zooms in on her face to shoe her fear and desperateness, creating sympathy for her in the audience. Another important element of observational documentary is the filmmaker staying so uninvolved in the scene that characters forgets that they are being filmed and act as they would naturally, without playing to the camera. This can be seen in the divorce sequence in how the men of the court council speak to the woman in a disrespectful way, almost threatening to deny her divorce and letting the man beat her to death. This honest reaction only occurred because the men forgot that they were bing filmed and spoke in a way that they would of when not on camera. This is an important element of observational documentary film, remaining so uninvolved in the subject matter that participants act as they would if not on camera, evoking honest reactions and getting a full picture of the situation for the audience.

Kim Longinotto’s observational theory of filmmaking is very different from others documentary filmmakers, such as Michael Moore, who would involve himself in his project a lot and give his own opinion and try t influence that of the audiences. Longinotto simply records events as they play out and remains uninvolved in the subject matter, allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions, serving more to show and educate than inform and dictate. Sisters In Law demonstrates elements of the observational filmmaker’s theory by the filmmaker remaining uninvolved in events, showing the subject matter in a way that is objective and allows the audience, ultimately, to make their own decisions and opinions, and showing what is most important to the film without giving any context to the audience.

Version 2:

Sisters In Law demonstrates elements of the observational filmmaker’s theory to a high degree. Bill Nichols described observational documentary as that which simply documents events in a “Fly on the wall” style that remains separate from characters and events, not interfering in the subject matter at any point or in any way. However, Kim Longinotto does not strictly adhere to the unobtrusive style of observational theory, as seen in her interference in the course of events in the divorce sequence.

Kim Longinotto’s Sisters In Law is in observational mode, which means that she keeps her involvement in the events of the film at a minimum and captures events as they play out with our interviews for context. She intends to capture inspiring stories of women who fight against patriarchal and traditional societies that favour the men in it. In the Manka sequence, this can be seen in how at the beginning of the scene, when the man and Manka enter prosecutor Vera’s office, there is no contextual formation given to explain why they are there or who they are. Longinotto stands out of shot and records the conversation, but also directs the audiences attention on what is important by zooming in on certain things, such as when the camera zooms in on Manka’s face as the man explains how he found her, bring our attention to her bloodshot eye. This effects the audience by showing them how small and scared Manka looks, causing us to feel sorry for her. Since the film is in observational mode, there is no manipulative editing or cinematography to influence the audiences attention, but Longinotto keeps certain things in frame to convey information to the audience that may impact their opinion. Longinotto also remains in observational mode as she stays completely uninvolved in the scene, not influencing events in any way, which is an important element of the observational theory. She also keeps an objective stance on things, as an observational documentary filmmaker would, and aims to let the audience come to their own conclusion. But she also shows Vera to be the good and moral character in this situation, panning right to her to show her dismayed reaction at the description of how Manka was beat by her Aunty.

When the Aunty is brought into the office and is questioned by Vera, the camera stays on her, but occasionally zooms out to create a two or three shot of the aunty, Manka and the man who brought Manka to the station. This brings to the audiences attention the man’s disappointed reaction at the woman’s confession and Manka’s look of confusion and concern. These reactions are not scripted, as the documentary is in observational mode, but Longinotto records them to make it clear to the audience that the aunty is in the wrong here and the man and Vera are in the right, demonstrating the element of recording events as they play out, acting almost like a “fly on the wall”, in observational documentary. As Manka’s scars are revealed to Vera, the camera zooms in on them to bring the audiences attention to them. This shows the severity of the aunt’s actions, but also influences the audiences opinion, causing them to feel immense sympathy for Manka and anger towards the aunt, and observational mode typically avoids influencing the audience, rather only showing the audience all the important parts of this situation so that they can get a full picture and come to their conclusions, an important element of observational documentary film.

The divorce sequence also demonstrates elements of observational documentary film. The divorce sequence begins with an establishing shot of the village to give the context in which the following scene is to play out, only providing information to the audience in the form of visual cues. As the filmmaker cannot involve the self in the film, seen in Sisters In Law in how Longinotto is never in frame or says anything to the participants in the film or directly to the audience, they have to provide information to the audiences through documenting certain things. When we enter the courtroom, there is a close-up of the husband who wants to prevent the divorce to instantly remind the audience of who we are following. As the scene continues and the woman who wants the divorce is questioned, the camera zooms in on her face to show her fear and desperateness, creating sympathy for her in the audience. Another important element of observational documentary is the filmmaker staying so uninvolved in the scene that characters forgets that they are being filmed and act as they would naturally, without playing to the camera. This can be seen in the divorce sequence in how the men of the court council speak to the woman in a disrespectful way, almost threatening to deny her divorce and letting the man beat her to death. This is an important element of observational documentary film, remaining so uninvolved in the subject matter that participants act as they would if not on camera, evoking honest reactions and getting a full picture of the situation for the audience. However, it can also be argued that these men only favoured the wife in the verdict because Kim Longinotto moved herself to remind them of her presence, having an influence on events and causing them to play out in a way that they might not have without her interference. This is an example of how Longinotto’s personal beliefs can cause her to impact the events in her film in a way that observational filmmaking typically tends to avoid, so the film does not show demonstrate all elements of observational theory, since intervention in events is not something an observational filmmaker would usually do.

Kim Longinotto’s observational theory of filmmaking is very different from others documentary filmmakers, such as Michael Moore, who would involve himself in his project a lot and give his own opinion and try to influence that of the audiences. Longinotto simply records events as they play out and remains uninvolved in the subject matter, allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions, serving more to show and educate than inform and dictate. Sisters In Law demonstrates elements of the observational filmmaker’s theory by the filmmaker remaining uninvolved in events, showing the subject matter in a way that is objective and allows the audience, ultimately, to make their own decisions and opinions, and showing what is most important to the film without giving any context to the audience. However, Longinotto does interfere in the events shown in the divorce sequence, letting her own stance on the situation affect her execution of the observational filmmaker’s theory, manipulating the audiences feelings by showing Manka’s scars in the Manka sequence, and influencing the events of the film by making her presence known in the divorce sequence. Therefore, Sisters In Law does not demonstrate all key elements of observational theory, since the filmmaker sometimes strays from the method of observational filmmaking.