Component 2b – Finley Cairns A-Level Film Studies Blog

Component 2b: Documentary Film (Digital Technology)

“Portable, digital cameras, digital sound recording equipment and non-linear digital editing have had a very significant impact on documentary film.” How far has digital technology had an impact on your chosen documentary film?

Plan:

Intro – briefly evaluate the significance of digital technology for documentary films and list the main reasons why – portability of digital cameras, digital audio and editing were positive for it. Then introduce Sisters In Law.

Para. 1 – Discuss the opening sequence and pick apart the aspects of digital technology in the question.

Para. 2 – Discuss the aspects of digital technology in the opening sequence.

Para. 3 – Manka sequence. Remember to keep in mind editing, audio and digital cameras are seen in the film and were used in its production tot he filmmaker’s’ advantage.

Para. 4 – Manka Sequence.

Conclusion – Link back to question, evaluate overall impact on documentary film through positive effects on production.

Version 1:

Digital technology has impacted Sisters In Law (Kim Longinotto, 2005)to a large extent. Digital audio equipment, digital camera technology and editing have made it easier for Kim Longinotto to gain high quality footage and documentation of their subject without making any sacrifices during the production process.

In the opening sequence of Sisters In Law, the camera shows the view from inside a moving car, introducing us to the village the film will be set in. The camera used here is steady and captures the view from outside the window clearly, in good quality footage. This is the first time that the portability of digital cameras can be seen in the film, as the camera being used here fits into the back of this small car. The first show we see of the office is a man parking his bike up. This shot, alongside those inside the office, were included in the final film after the editing process because Longinotto was able to film for long periods of time, capturing lots of footage of this village so that she could choose which clips to keep in the film. This is because the digital cameras hold near limitless storage, so that the filmmaker can film for as long as they want, as seen in the opening shot to this sequence, and decide what to include in the film in post-production. The lightweight nature and portability of digital cameras allows for Longinotto to film in these cramped office conditions without getting own the employees’ way, since the small camera can just be moved when needed. These digital cameras can also film in natural and low light conditions, as seen inside the office, without the need of obtrusive artificial lighting, and the end product of the footage is still high quality.

There is also no need for a boom-stick to pick up audio here, since there is a non-directional camera built into the camera. This means that there is no large audio device taking up space in the room, making sure that no employees are distracted by the camera crew since their small and portable equipment keeps them unobtrusive. This non-directional microphone also does not need to be aiming at a specific subject to capture audio from them, and just one digital camera can capture good quality audio from around the entire room without using bulky, heavy and obstructive equipment. Digital cameras are also cheaper than film cameras, so two were bought for Sisters In Law, and we can see this from how the film cuts between them both. This allows for more footage to be captured, as seen here from where the camera cuts from a shot of a woman setting up her desk in the office and answering a phone to a man in the lawyer’s office the next room over. But despite there being more cameras here, they still take up little more space as they are so small and portable. The audio from the office has also been edited to play over the footage of man in the lawyers office, so that we can hear the conversation playing out in one place but also be immersed in the environment from the clip of the office, making us, the audience, feel like we are really there. The digital camera can zoom in on objects of significance, such as the wife who is giving her story, to focus the audience’s attention on them without physically moving the camera and distracting the participants. The compact nature of the cameras also leads to people sometimes forgetting that they are there and giving a genuine reaction to things, such as when the lawyer shouts “That’s what you men do” at the husband, which allows for more authentic aspects of these people and life in the village to be captured.

Digital camera technology has also had a significant impact on the production of the Manka sequence. The camera is small and compact, remaining unobtrusive in the lawyer’s small office as it takes up significantly less space than a film camera would. This prevents it from being distracting at any point for the participants in the documentary, such as the small child Manka, who does not look at it more than once throughout the whole scene. It also allows for Longinotto to point the camera at whatever is relevant in a specific moment, such as the lawyer, who she pans right to show as she gives a reaction to the aunt’s actions. The lawyer’s reaction, a brief moment of anger, was also made possible by the size and portability of the digital cameras, as the lawyer likely forgot that they were there and so gave a completely honest reaction in the heat of the moment. These digital cameras can also zoom, so Longinotto can bring the audiences specific attention to something, such as the aunt’s reaction to what she has done when it zooms in on her face as the lawyer questions her, or in this case the scars on Manka’s back, making the audience feel sympathetic for her and avoiding having to physically move closer to capture it on camera, interrupting the proceedings. The camera also automatically refocuses when it pans right to show the lawyer’s reaction to the scars on Manka’s back, and this shows that these cameras can move quickly, but also do not require professional camera operators to be used and capture good quality footage.

The near infinite storage space on these cameras allows for Longinotto to record for as long as is needed, and avoid interrupting events and proceedings to get a new camera. This is impactful as a documentary filmmaker, specifically an observational one, must avoid being a distraction for the participants of the film and interfering with the way that events play out. These lightweight and portable, accessible and compact digital cameras remain unobtrusive throughout the production process and prevent the film crew form being too involved in the events that they are documenting. The high quality of the camera footage also allows for the scars on Manka’s back and legs to be seen clearly by the audience, emphasising the severity of the aunt’s actions, and the zoom again helps here by allowing Longinotto to focus the audiences attention without moving herself. The long takes in this sequence also show to the audience that the footage here is unedited and untampered through editing, making the film feel more authentic and real.

Digital technology has had a significant impact on Sisters In Law. Lightweight, portable, compact cameras with near limitless storage space allow for long takes and for the filmmakers to stay unobtrusive in the films production, separate from events and avoiding interrupting proceedings. They also film in natural light conditions, and their non-directional, built in microphones allow for quality audio to be captured form all around an area without the need for a boom stick, which can be bulky, difficult to carry around and distracting for the film’s participants. Non-linear digital editing has allowed for Kim Longinotto to choose which clips she would want included in the final film, and what is not necessary, and make sure that events are kept in order and different audio and footage clips can be overlapped to make the film more entertaining and flow better, keeping only the most important clips in the final film.

Version 2:

Digital technology has impacted Sisters In Law (Kim Longinotto, 2005) to a large extent. Digital audio equipment, digital camera technology and non-linear digital editing have made it easier for Kim Longinotto to gain high quality footage and documentation of their subject without making any sacrifices during the production process.

In the opening sequence of Sisters In Law, the camera shows the view from inside a moving car, introducing us to the village the film will be set in. The digital camera stabilisation here captures the view from outside the window clearly, in good quality footage, and prevents the camera from shaking around and disrupting the quality of the footage. This is the first time that the portability of digital cameras can be seen in the film, as the camera being used here fits into the back of this small car. The first show we see of the office is a man parking his bike up. This shot, alongside those inside the office, were included in the final film after the editing process because Longinotto was able to film for long periods of time, capturing lots of footage of this village so that she could choose which clips to keep in the film. This is because the digital cameras hold near limitless storage, so that the filmmaker can film for as long as they want, as seen in the opening shot to this sequence, and decide what to include in the film in post-production. The lightweight nature and portability of digital cameras allows for Longinotto to film in these cramped office conditions without getting own the employees’ way, since the small camera can just be moved when needed. These digital cameras can also film in natural and low light conditions, as seen inside the office, without the need of obtrusive artificial lighting, and the end product of the footage is still high quality, as we can see the inside of the office clearly despite the lack of artificial lighting equipment.

There is also no need for a boomstick to pick up audio here, since there is a non-directional camera built into the camera. This means that there is no large audio device taking up space in the room, making sure that no employees are distracted by the camera crew since their small and portable equipment keeps them unobtrusive. This non-directional microphone also does not need to be aiming at a specific subject to capture audio from them, and just one digital camera can capture good quality audio from around the entire room without using bulky, heavy and obstructive equipment, as seen when a woman speaking in frame can be heard at the same time as a man who is sat outside of shot. Digital cameras are also cheaper than film cameras, so two were bought for Sisters In Law, and we can see this from how the film cuts between them both. This allows for more footage to be captured, as seen here from where the camera cuts from a shot of a woman setting up her desk in the office and answering a phone to a man in the lawyer’s office the next room over. But despite there being more cameras here, they still take up little more space as they are so small and portable. The audio from the office has also been edited to play over the footage of man in the lawyers office, so that we can hear the conversation playing out in one place but also be immersed in the environment from the clip of the office, making us, the audience, feel like we are really there. The digital camera can zoom in on objects of significance, such as the wife who is giving her story in the lawyers’ office, to focus the audience’s attention on them without physically moving the camera and distracting the participants. The compact nature of the cameras also leads to people sometimes forgetting that they are there and giving a genuine reaction to things, seen in Sisters In Law when the lawyer shouts “That’s what you men do” at the husband, which allows for more authentic aspects of these people and life in the village to be captured.

The near infinite storage space on these digital cameras, made possible by SLR memory cards, allows for Longinotto to record for as long as is needed and avoid interrupting events and proceedings to get a new camera or new film tape. This is impactful as a documentary filmmaker, specifically an observational one, must avoid being a distraction for the participants of the film and interfering with the way that events play out, seen in Sisters In Law when the lawyer has an outburst of anger against the aunt who beat Manka. These lightweight and portable, accessible and compact digital cameras remain unobtrusive throughout the production process and prevent the film crew from being too involved in the events that they are documenting by walking around or taking up space, reminding participants of their presence there. The high quality of the camera footage also allows for the scars on Manka’s back and legs to be seen clearly by the audience, emphasising the severity of the aunt’s actions, and the zoom again helps here by allowing Longinotto to focus the audiences attention without moving herself. The long takes in this sequence also show to the audience that the footage here is unedited and untampered through editing, making the film feel more authentic and real.

So overall, digital cameras, non-linear digital editing and digital audio equipment has had a significant positive impact on the production of Sisters In Law. They allow for Kim Longinotto to operate with a small camera crew and lightweight, portable cameras that remain unobtrusive and capture quality footage in natural conditions, with the digital memory card storage capability allowing for long, uninterrupted takes that make it possible to capture unexpected events during production, such as honest reactions from the participants. The digital audio equipment allows for the film crew to remain stationary as they record and captures what is needed, remaining unobtrusive by reducing the need for boomsticks, and the non-linear digital editing means that Kim Longinotto can take what footage she finds most essential to the film and include it in post-production to keep events in chronological order for the audience.

Sisters In Law “Divorce Sequence” (Divorce Sequence)

At the beginning of the scene, people are shown playing a football game. No one playing football is paying attention to the camera, due to how small and unobtrusive it is. This part of everyday life in the village was also recorded in the first place due to there being near limitless storage in the camera for footage.

Inside the courtroom, the lightweight cameras comes in handy since the filmmakers using them can quickly move out of peoples way as they walk into the room. The room also has no artificial lighting, but the cameras do not need it as they can get good quality footage even in low light conditions. There is also a multi camera set up, as seen from there being shots from in front and behind the woman. These cameras could be used due to them being affordable and easily accessible to the film maker as, and also allows for them to avoid walking around the room during the trial and interrupting events.

The ease of use of digital cameras allows for her and her assistant to both use one for good coverage of the scene. The near infinite storage also allows for both of them to record constantly, picking up lots of footage and avoiding stopping the proceedings to get a new camera or film. The portability of the cameras also allowed for Longinotto to move into a corner of the room to remain outside of events while recording. The portability and lightness of the cameras allows for her to make delicious on the spot, since she has not planned where to stand or film from or what to focus on. Since the camera is so small and unobtrusive, people eventually forget that it is there, which gets an honest reaction out of one of the men, who jokes about the wive’s husband killing her, which was picked up by the cameras that don’t have to stop recording. This causes Longinotto to have to step in to remind the men of her presence to influence the proceedings to gain a more favourable conclusion.

Sisters In Law “Manka Sequence” (Digital Technology)

The camera being used in the Manka sequence is clearly so unnoticeable, unobtrusive and compact that even the child, Manka, doesn’t seem to notice it. The cheaper, affordable digital cameras allow for more to be bought, so a multiple camera set up allows for more footage to be captured. Extended takes can record more footage since the camera cannot run out of film.

A more lightweight camera means that Kim Longinotto can move and react quickly to events happening without her control, and also reduces the need for editing since she can simply face her camera towards whatever is most important in that moment. The long takes also prove to the audience that all they are seeing is real, untampered with through editing, and everything that they are seeing actually happened with the filmmakers adapting to film it, adding to the documentary’s authenticity.

Filming more allows for Longinotto to select the best footage and include it in the final film, leaving out what she doesn’t like. Her equipment is high quality enough to pick out details of the small scars on Manka’s back even without out artificial lighting. The way that the prosecutor loses her temper towards the end of the scene shows that she has forgotten Longinotto is there filming, or at least to enough of an extent that she may break her composure and give her most authentic reaction to the aunt’s actions.

Sisters In Law “Opening Sequence” (Digital Technology)

In the establishing shot of the opening sequence, the camera is filming from inside a moving car window, recording their entrance into the village. The digital camera is steady and stable, remaining portable but also with good camera quality. The camera is also able to film in low-light conditions, as there is clearly no artificial light around, but the footage is of high quality, and this long, uninterrupted take is made possible due to near unlimited storage space.

The background and foreground of the pan shot of the village are both in focus, which shows that digital cameras do not require professional photographers to be operated properly and efficiently. The clip of the man parking his bike has been left in the film spot-production, and it was taken in the first place since Kim Longinotto can make long takes due to such large storage spaces. There is also not much space for movement in the reception room, so the small and compact digital cameras allows for unobstrusive filming methods that keeps the filmmakers out of people’s ways. There is also no artificial lighting indoors, but the digital camera quality is still high since it does not need artificial light conditions to shoot in. There is also no boom pole needed since the camera being used has a built in, good quality microphone, so the film crew remain unobstrusive, taking up less space, having less equipment to buy, and can fit in smaller, more confined spaces.

There are also multiple cameras being used, which we can tell from the fact that the footage of someone in one shot is overlayed with audio taken by another one. This shows that digital cameras are more affordable and accessible than film cameras, so more people can get into the industry and create their own work. The small, compact camera also means less people notice and are distracted by it. Kim Longinotto also does not know what is going to happen while filming. Many important events may occur or nothing at all, so having near limitless storage allows for her to film for as long as she wants and choose the best footage post production, and also does not have to stop recording or time recording carefully and risk losing valuable footage because the film camera was off or taking a while to set up.

Digital cameras can also zoom, so Kim Longinotto does not have to move around to fill the frame with certain people, which she does often here, as seen in how she zooms in, from the corner of the room, on the wife who is explaining the story of how her child was kidnapped by her husband. When the camera pans to the right to show the prosecutor, we can see it quickly an sharply refocus on her face, which shows that digital cameras do not need professional camera operators to be used. There is also a non-directional microphone in the camera, so it does not need to be aimed at someone too pick up audio, which is useful for when multiple people are talking at once and it does not take up much attention. The fact that Kim Longinotto is able to record so much footage is what allows for these accidentally revealing moments, like when the prosecutor shouts at the husband, losing her temper and yelling “That’s what you men do!”.

Critical Debate: The Significance Of Digital Technology

This mind map displays the significance of digital technology in film. It is clear that there are plenty of arguments that digital technology has made the planning, production and distributaries of films more efficient and manageable for filmmakers, replacing film as a more effective and accessible mode of film production.

Side By Side (Chris Keneally, 2013)

Side by Side was directed in 2013 by Chris Keneally and follows the development of digital technology. It is in reflexive mode as it acknowledges that it is a documentary, often showing the film crew and the producers’ (Keane Reeves) thoughts.

The film follows Reeves as he interviews some well known filmmakers, such as Martin Scorsese, and other people involved in the industry, such as cinematographers. It gathers these people’s opinions on the rising dominance of digital film over traditional film, and uses their insight and experience to ask questions such as “is film dying” and why digital is growing so much, what it could mean for the industry and young filmmakers, and the advantages and disadvantages of this form of filmmaking. It discusses the past, present and future of film and digital film, and how they have influenced the industry, and henceforth, the future of cinema as a whole.

I personally enjoyed the film. I felt it covered a wide range of opinions and topics and did a good job of displaying the growth and increasing dominance of digital film, and the advantages and disadvantages of that. The interviewees provided useful insight and theories and the film was interesting enough to stay entertaining. I rate Side By Side (Chris Keneally, 2013) 4 Stars!

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.

Version 2:

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.

Sisters In Law “Divorce Sequence” (Filmmakers’ Theories)

The divorce sequence begins with an establishing shot to contextualise the scenery and environment of rural village life in Cameroon. The scene then cuts to a shot of the abusive husband sat at a desk to remind the audience of this particular case by showing them of that certain character. The court council is shown from Amina (the wife’s) perspective at first, helping the audience understand what position she is in. Longinotto moves around the room here to document the scene, but also remain out of the way of the people, so as to not interfere in what is happening at all. This is shown to have worked when the court begin speaking to Amina in a disrespectful and threatening way, leading them into behaving how they would normally, without cameras in the room, since they forget that they are they. However, it also leads to them playing to the camera, as seen at the end of the scene where they grant the divorce and speak to Amina in a more polite and respectful way.

The court speaks to the husband more respectfully than they do to Amina, asking him what they want as oppose to telling Amina what to do. This shows how Longinottos observatory style works, causing characters to act as they would off-camera, since they forget that it is there. The courts discrimination against Amina is also seen in how the man does not dispute her evidence that he abused her, and they still threaten her that they wont grant the divorce. Amina and her husband are shown in a two-shot as she explains how he abused her, showing both victim and offender in frame to allow the audience to see what affect the man has had on her. A close up on Amina shows her fear and sadness as tears streak down her face, and another close-up as the men threaten her, bringing the audiences attention to the affect that this situation is having on her, making us sympathise with her. After the divorce is granted, the abusive husband is kept out of frame, showing that he no longer has any influence over Amina, instead focusing on her, zooming in to show her happiness and relief at her victory.

Sisters In Law “Manka Sequence” (Filmmakers’ Theories)

At the beginning of the Manka sequence, the scene cuts between two camera, one showing Manka and the man who took her to the police station, and the other showing Vera, the prosecutor. Cutting between two cameras avoids panning too much, instead using simple shot-reverse-shots. As the man explains how he found Manka, the camera stays on him and her in a two shot, the size difference emphasising how small and frail Manka is and also her uncomprehending expression, showing her trauma, and the mans concern as he tells the story. The camera also looks down as Manka in a high angle shot to show how small she is, which gives the scene more gravity as the man explains what has happened to her. It also zooms in on her face to bring emphasis on her bloodshot eye, allowing the audience to see what has happened to her, having more of an affect on them than if it was just said without footage to back it up. Longinotto brings the audiences attention to important parts of a scene, but in the process may have an impact upon their interpretation of the scene through cinematography.

The camera stays focused on Manka’s face as as she is questioned, and this brings to the audiences attention the passive expression and obvious confusion and sadness she has, making us feel more sympathy for her and helping us understand the effect the beatings have had on her. The camera then pans to the right to show Vera’s reaction to Manka’s confirmation that here aunty beat her, showing to the audience her clear dismay and disappointment at what she is hearing, showing that she is a good person. It also stays on her as she makes a phone call, showing her mounting anger.

As the police officers get an arrest warrant for Manka’s aunt, the camera follows them and occasionally shows random people to give a better, more authentic image of the environment that they work in. As the aunt is questioned by Vera, it stays focused on her with only her in frame for a while, showing her increasingly distressed reactions to the questions that she cannot lie her way out of. It occasionally zooms out as she tries to defend herself, creating a two or three shot of the aunt, Manka and the man. The contrast between the man, who cannot even bring himself to look at the aunt, and the aunt who is desperately trying to defend herself from her crime, makes her seem like the villain of this scene, and the man the good character in frame. It also shows how passive and confused Manka is at her aunts pleading, which shows how young she is and, therefore, how cruel and uncaring the aunt is, which is emphasised by how she relentlessly begs for mercy here.

The camera does not cut back to Vera often, only panning right to sometimes show how angry she is at the aunt for her actions. Most of the time it stays on the people on the other side of the table, immersing the audience into Vera’s position, which is done to make her seem like a good person to them. It zooms in on Manka’s back as her scars are revealed, and also keeps the aunty in frame in a two shot to show what she has done and her reaction to it. The three shot also shows how the man is looking after Manka, who looks relatively comfortable with him, while her aunt, who is supposed to look after her, only uses her to try and prove her defence case. As all the people leave the room, the camera pans left to show Vera’s expression of disappointment and anger, which pushes the presentation of her as a moral and just person.

Sisters In Law “Opening Sequence” (Filmmakers’ Theories)

The opening sequence of Sisters In Law is from a handheld camera looking outside the window of a moving car. This shows the rural, African location that the film is set in, introducing the audience to this foreign environment. Longinotto also challenges the audiences pre-conceived ideas of what a rural African village may be like by displaying the dull, overcast sky and thick greenery surrounding the village. There is also some African-inspired non-diegetic music playing over this footage, immersing the audience in this environment and culture. It’s jaunty and makes the tone of the film seem more light and happy, juxtaposing the later serious and grim subject matter.

As the scene continues, obvious, hard cuts are used to show that time has passed and we are getting deeper into this village. There is no contextual information for the film others than the captions showing where it is, to avoid influencing the audiences opinion in any way. The camera pans right to show a dirt road in the village, immersing the audience in the scene by making it feel more like they are seeing these events as they happen, and that they are there. The camera movements are also spontaneous and move as events occur, following participant’s movements since events are not scripted or planned in observatory film.

Longinotto’s physical presence is reduced by only her and a co-director filming. They did not ask people to speak English, instead using English subtitles to keep the films authenticity. No music is played after the initial opening shot, keeping the atmosphere feeling real and avoiding manipulating the audience’s feelings. The crew go around, recording aspects of everyday life in this village to create a sense of place in the film. She also uses zoom at times, sacrificing aesthetic for a useful way of bringing the audiences attention to something. She also stands in the corner of the office to remain out of the way as she records, and moves and refocuses the camera to focus on whatever is important in that moment.

When the film does cut between shots, it is not done to manipulate the audience but to compress the films length and avoid unnecessary scenes that don’t add anything to the film. If the important moments, like conversations go on for a long time, then so does the the scene. The film is also visually imperfect, as seen when the camera pans left to show Vera talking to the husband who kidnapped his wife’s child, and the camera takes a second to refocus. This is left in since the scene is still important for the film.

Every time there is an extended sequence focusing on one of the sisters, Longinotto then cuts to scenes of domestic life in Cameroon to contextualise the film and show more of what the location is like, putting it into real life and immersing the audience, teaching them of what it is like there. Handheld cameras, natural lighting creates a real sense of place, showing more of what the location is and also avoiding spending time setting up bulky equipment, allowing her to capture events in real time, making the film less artificial and staged.

Sisters In Law (Kim Longinotto, 2007)

Sisters In Law was made in 2007, and is directed by Kim Longinotto. It follows Vera Ngassa and Beatrice Ntuba, two women working in the Cameroonian justice system, specifically fighting against child abuse and abusive relationships, attempting to tackle sexism in the country.

The film is in observational mode, since Kim does not get involved in the film at all, simply staying at a distance from the events shown, documenting them without any interference or input. This allows for a completely uninterrupted film, where the audience watches things happening without narration or opinionated input from the director. Kim probably uses this mode here to show what things are like in Cameroon, and let the audience come to their own conclusions.

I also think the film is in observational mode to get the meaning across in a more subtle way, which is that gender discrimination and inequality still exists in some places, and can be hard to overcome. It aims to show the most unfair and clearly immoral parts of certain society’s, and uses two entertaining and likeable people as a symbol of perseverance through injustice.

The narrative, as the film is observational, follows events as they occur, switching between different cases and characters, and not strictly following Ngassa and Ntuba, instead focusing on whoever’s story best conveys the theme of the film, and showing has events can lead on after court. It also does not switch between time periods to give scenes context or explanations, usually documenting scenes that are self-explanatory.

I personally really enjoyed the film. I felt that a difficult to convey through documentary film was approached in a way that was understandable and entertaining. It’s observational approach made the film easy to follow and immersive, even though the events were real and sometimes slow paced. Another positive was how the film did not cut away from slow or quiet scenes, instead focusing on the reality of the situation, and gave an important message through some interesting filmmaking techniques.

The Trouble With The Six Modes

Bill Nichols’ six modes of documentaries apply to all documentary films. All documentary films belong to a mode, such as reflexive, and so the theory still apply’s to all documentaries, since so documentary is n to poetic, or observatory, etc.

However, the problem with the six modes is that, while they do apply to all documentary films, documentary films do not always belong to a certain mode. They can stray from them, being in multiple modes at different points. This can be seen in The War Game (Peter Watkins, 1965) which operates in performative and participatory at times. This makes it hard to always categorise documentary films into certain, single modes, since multiple may apply to it.

This is because documentary filmmakers need to make their films entertaining to make profit, as well as making them informative and/or artistic. To do this they need to make their film interesting, and this can involve making it it different modes, so it does not strictly follow a simple, single documentary format. This leads to the categorisation of documentary films into specific modes difficult at times.

Filmmakers’ “theories”: Louis Theroux

Louis Theroux is an English documentary filmmaker who is known for his “Louis and …” films that he made in the early 2000’s, where he met and interviewed people who belonged to a minority and usually controversial group. He also looked into niche industries like gambling in Las Vegas and brothel’s, such as in Louis And The Brothel ( Louis Theroux, 2003), also looking into some more serious subjects like Law And Order in Lagos (Louis Theroux, 2010). His films are mostly in performative mode, since he involves himself in the films to get the real opinions out of interviewees and guide the audience as to what he is doing and he thinks of a subject matter or person.

“The faux-naïf persona he presents is deceptive to the interviewee because it will make them feel like they have to tell him everything from the basics, which is an advantage for the viewer as they will get the clearest picture of the subject that they are talking about.”

Louis’ Objectives:

Louis attempts to get the most honest and unhindered opinions of people involved in a subject, or to inform audiences on a niche or controversial topic that hasn’t been covered in other documentaries. He uses intrusive and personal questions that sometimes slightly story from the subject matter, to try and gauge the personal opinions of the interviewees, and show how large scale problems affect individual people, and relate to individual people. Since the subject matter he documents is unknown to Western audiences. Or he looks into more stigmatised topics like prostitution and the porn industry (Twilight of the Porn Stars, 2012) to show the inner-workings of them, and show the humanity and even relatability in such subject matters.

louis’ Style:

Louis Theroux is known for involving himself in his films to a large extent, often being the most recognisable feature of his works. He is a character who gives his own opinion and asks provocative questions to the interviewees. He aims to show the realistic and personal aspects of sensitive topics like crime and prison life, showing to everyday people what these topics are like for people affected by it or involved in it. Louis also makes assumptions about his interviewees, often to get them to give across their real opinion and forget that a camera is pointed at them. He has also gotten into confrontations with people, and tends to not back down since, as long as he is getting an emotional reaction, he is getting some sort of insight into a subject. He does not take an objective stance, giving his opinion and learning what someone else’s is, usually using his opinion as a contrast to their own and to relate to the questions that audience wants answered. He also creates humour in his films by including the real reactions to some provocative questions, not by making jokes but showing the sometimes foolish answers to his questions and giving his own, real reactions to things people say, relating to how the audience likely feels on matters like Nazism. He does not hold back his dislike for or confusion by some topics, since this provokes the interviewees into responding to his statements and getting the truth out of them.

Louis Theroux

Louis and the Nazis is a documentary on Neo-Nazi life in California, made in 2003. In the documentary, Louis initially meets a few well-known members of the local Nazi community, then proceeds to interview them and follow their everyday lives, also interviewing some of their associates to gauge their views and the background and personal lives of the Nazis.

The film is in performative mode, as Louis is a definite character in the documentary, carrying out interviews himself, provoking the interviewees and giving his own opinion to them, almost coming across more like an inquisitive neighbour than a documentaryfilmmaker looking for answers. He even goes as far as to make fun of the Nazis at times, to their face or via narration, to add humour to the film and provoke them into reacting truthfully in front of the cameras, which they are mindful to act polite in front of.

Theroux also follows the Nazis around to a large extent, gathering footage of their personal lives, relationships, hobbies and personalities. He also theorises about the real opinions of the interviewees, often asking very intrusive questions and giving his real opinion on them. This is one way that he provokes the Nazis into showing their real personalities and behaviours, and also looks into their actual opinions, at one point claiming that he thinks one person is not a Nazi at all, asking persistent yes or no questions to show how deluded and on the fence they are.

Louis does not seek to get an entertaining film out of the Nazis. To add humour he adds his own insight and reactions to their opinions. He asks the questions he does to get the truth, often in the form of real opinions and reasonings, out of the Nazis, and this often leads to funny moments due to their awkwardness. He also narrates over the clips in the film to show the audience his train of thought, and guide them as to why he is asking such provocative questions. He also puts himself at danger at one point by refusing to be completely honest with the Nazis, showing how far he is willing to go to show the real people behind the Swatsika

I loved this film! I feet it was the perfect length for a documentary, with an easy to follow narrative and humour to alleviate the grim nature of the Nazi’s beliefs. It is entertaining and also gives useful information on the real views of such a controversial and explicit group of people. It is engaging and the pace is consistent, staying relevant on the subject matter and also giving helpful narration from Louis, who alone makes the film entertaining by giving his real views and often irritated reactions to their outrageous comments. I rate Louis And The Nazis 5 stars!

Filmmakers’ Theories: Nick Broomfield

Nick Broomfield is a British documentary filmmaker who his famous for his works on Aileen Wuornos and his reflexive style. Broomfield uses reflexive mode in his documentaries, which reflects on the fact that the film is a documentary, to keep the aim of the interviews in mind as he investigates usually controversial and difficult topics to approach. He tends to directly interview people and look into subjects in a speculative way to find an answer to situations, or bring light on them.

“Broomfield, like Michael Moore, has developed a participatory, performative mode of documentary filmmaking. Broomfield is an investigative documentarist with a distinctive interview technique which he uses to expose people’s real views. Like Watkins, he keeps the filmmaking presence to a minimum, normally with a crew of no more than three. He describes his films as ‘like a rollercoaster ride. They’re like a diary into the future.’”

Broomfield’s objectives:

Broomfield is known for investigating the most real and personal aspects of peoples’ lives, as seen in Aileen: Life And Death Of A Serial Killer (Nick Broomfield, 2003). His films are realistic in their depiction of real people, often remaining casual by simply showing events with narration by Broomfield to guide the audience on his views and context of certain interviews or events. He also remains unbiased on a subject, only giving his personal thoughts to show the audience why he is doing what he is doing, and often interviewing a wide range of people involved in the subject matter to get a good narrative of events and investigate thoroughly the subject matter from all angles.

Broomfield’s Style:

Broomfield usually shows present day events in chronological order, occasionally using footage and interviews from the past to emphasise his point. He comments on his own status as a documentary filmmaker, but also focuses on the subject matter at hand, typically showing events in a way that immerses the audience and keeps them entertained while also revealing facts about the subject. His reflexive style is what he is known for, and is considered as influential to other documentary filmmakers , which shows how famous Broomfield is for his style. He makes comments on why and how he is collecting evidence for his documentaries, and sometimes talks about the production of the film itself, directly acknowledging its purpose as a documentary. This can be seen in Driving Me Crazy (Nick Broomfield, 1988) where Broomfield specifically discusses his role as a documentary filmmaker.

Aileen: Life And Death Of A Serial Killer (Nick Broomfield, 2003)

Aileen: Life And Death Of A Serial Killer was directed by Nick Broomfield in 2003, and tells the life story of Aileen Wuornos. The film begins by showing how Aileen was sentenced and what for, then proceeding to show how she was brought up, occasionally alternating to present day interviews with her, using archive footage also to show her trials at court.

The film is in reflexive mode, since it occasionally reflects on its purpose as a documentary . The director inserts himself into the film a lot, almost forming relationships with certain characters and even speaking in court at one point. This goes much further than most filmmakers would involve themselves in their films, which puts the film into reflexive mode. Broomfield is certainly a character in this film, usually getting involved in the course of events to a point where he influences them. But is it reflexive mode since it occasionally reflects on the fact that the film is a documentary, often referencing past films made by Broomfield (The Selling Of A Serial Killer, Nick Broomfield, 1982), and also Broomfield being a participant in the course of events in the film.

I personally enjoyed the film. I feel it did a good job of showing how Aileen had been brought up, and what her personal and often disturbing thought process was. It provided interesting insight into a serial killer’s psyche and their motives, not focusing so much on their actions but the reasons for them and the consequences for them. Though the narrative was a bit incoherent at times, I still understood the whole picture, and feel like I learned about the life and death of a serial killer. I rate Aileen: Life And Death Of A Serial Killer 4 and a half stars!

Filmmakers’ “Theories” – Peter Watkins

Peter Watkins is an English filmmaker who is known for making documentary films that depict dystopian futures that reflect issues in modern day society. His most famous work reflects his style perfectly, The War Game, 1965, which depicts how the English government had prepared for a nuclear explosion in England.

“Watkins established his reputation with two docu-dramas from the 1960s, *Culloden* and *The War Game*. Both document events from the past using actors and reconstruction. In asking questions of conventional documentary, Watkins reflects his deep concern with mainstream media, which he has called the ‘monoform’.”

Watkins’ objectives:

Watkins usually depicts such grim and pessimistic views of the future of society to reflect issues prevalent in modern day society. His films are typically violent and explicit in their depiction of chaos and brutality to emphasise the danger of society reaching such a point. They also remain somewhat rooted in reality, featuring real countries and theorising how current governments may handle certain situations, typically to push anti-war slogans, as seen in The War Game. He does this by focusing on the real human suffering that would be caused by warfare and the indirect consequences of warfare, as is clear in punishment Park, 1971.

Watkins’ style:

Watkins does not focus on particular characters. Rather, groups in society affected by warfare. This shows how everyone would be affected by war, inducing fear in the audience, to an extent, to emphasise the brutality of war, and what it could lead to. Of course, he mostly doesn’t cover real disasters, but fictional ones that represent certain atrocities or crimes that happened in real history. Watkins’ depiction of nightmarish future scenarios are typically direct mirroring of real tragedies, e.g the Hiroshima nuclear explosion in The War Game, which further pushes the point that just because the tragedy didn’t happen to you, it can. His style is not fear mongering, but rather accurately depicting what society would look like, should another significant war break out.

The War Game (Peter Watkins, 1995)

The War Game was directed in 1965 by Peter Watkins. It depicts how the British Government would operate in the event of a nuclear explosion in England. The documentary is in participatory mode since it simply shows the events occurring with out any interference from the filmmaker, who does interview people involved in the events to show how they are reacting to it. The filmmaker exists to guide the audience through the events, remaining outside of the film except to document the events via footage or interviewing people.

The film follows the events leading from the initial explosion, switching between different groups of people, such as children and police officers, to show how government officials would handle the situation and how that would affect ordinary citizens. The purpose of the film is not just to scare people and show what the government had planned, but to show the full extent of how nuclear war would impact and change British society and ordinary people who had no part to play in the explosion. The film also tells, through narration, what the initial and long-term impacts of a nuclear explosion would be, and how the explosion itself works to cause chaos and affect people.

The film is significant since it uses the real examples of nuclear explosions to predict what it would look like to show the British people. It represents a height in the tension of The Cold War, and just how prepared the government was for nuclear disaster. Perhaps that is partly why the film is so violent and intense, to evoke the experience3 of being affected by such an explosion.

I personally enjoyed the film. I felt it told an accurate and unrelenting prediction of what a nuclear explosion would be like, and some of the methods of showing it, such as interviewing people and showing how individual groups would be affected, was an interesting and effective way of telling the story. My only problem with it was that at times the performances were not very believable, but I suppose the film can’t be faulted for that as it was made in the 1960’s. I rate The War Game 4 stars!

Filmmaker’ “Film Theories” – Michael Moore

Michael Moore is an American filmmaker who is known for criticising the U.S government for it’s inadequacies through performative documentary. He often inserts himself into his films to get his opinion across, and is recognisable for his humour in tackling real issues, often using sarcasm and rhetoric to mock the subject material and also inserting real examples of tragedy to emphasise his point.

“Moore, like Broomfield, is a very visible presence in his documentaries, which can thus be described as participatory and performative. His work is highly committed — overtly polemical in taking up a clear point of view, what might be called agit-prop documentary. He justifies his practice in terms of providing ‘balance’ for mainstream media that, in his view, provides false information. Part of Moore’s approach is to use humour, sometimes to lampoon the subject of his work and sometimes to recognise that documentaries need to entertain and hold an audience.”

Michael’s Objectives:

Moore often attacks U.S administration through his films, inserting his left-wing views to balance information since he believes mainstream media provides false information. He has attacked the American healthcare system, gun legislation, foreign policy and specific government officials like George Bush and members of Congress, as seen in Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore, 2004).

Michael’s style:

Michael uses performative mode for his documentaries. This is sene in how he inserts himself as a narrator, which he does to make sarcastic and mocking commentary of the subject, and also through direct involvement, such as interviewing members of Congress unexpectedly on the street. He does this to make fun of the subject, but also uses archive footage to provide context, and usually leaves himself out of the film when the more serious subject matter, such as the Iraq War, is being shown. This emphasises the dark nature of the subject he is documenting, and helps to get his points across and justify his humour. He is not making fun of the actual tragedies he bases his criticisms off to show how problems in the U.S law accumulate, but rather making fun of the government for being so disconnected to the problems their country has. This has marked Moore as a distinct and unique filmmaker for giving his views in a un-relenting and persuasive way, while also making his films entertaining and emphasising his points through humour on an otherwise grim subject matter.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore, 2004)

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary film made by Michael Moore that exposes the flaws in President W. Bush’s handling of the tragedy of September 11th. The film is in performative mode, since it features Moore as a direct influence on the people interviewed, he gives his own story and opinion on Bush, and often uses archive footage and protests to display his goal in bringing the President’s failures to light.

The film follows the events that took place after September 11th, 2001, and mainly focuses on Bush specifically and the way that he handled the crisis. However, it also cuts to periods before Bush’s election to explain the context of his career and the way he handled foreign policy after 2001. It also cuts from America to Iraq to show the atrocities of the war, occasionally cutting back to show what Bush was saying to justify the war, and bring to the audience’s attention how insensitive he was to the war crimes he was committing.

The documentary, despite involving such heavy material, has a relatively comedic style. This is done by Moore making fun of the government themselves and using performance and music to mock their actions. This is another example of how Moore inserts himself into the film and makes it performative mode, but the film also focuses on the atrocities and grim situation of war with a much more mature tone to emphasise the awfulness of it, mixing it with clips of Bush to show how disconnected he was from his own war.

Fahrenheit 9/11 accurately shows the disturbing subject matter of Bush’s presidency while also making light humour of his failures and crimes. It uses interviews to effectively show the disillusionment of Congress and the view of the soldier’s on the ground and people watching the news from home. It is memorable and funny, but serious where it is appropriate and very informative on just how corrupt Bush’s presidency was. Despite this, I often found the film hard to follow due to the fast narration and non-linear narrative, and the interviews sometimes took fast-paced to process. The amount of names to remember was also confusing at times, so while I found the film entertaining and informative, I also found it difficult to follow at times and hard to process. I rate Fahrenheit 9/11 3 and a half stars!

Night Mail (GPO Film Unit, 1936)

The film is about a mail delivery service that runs via railway from around the UK. It is a poetic documentary that is used to advertise the efficiency of the railway messenger service. It is in poetic mode due to the poem read out at the end that symbolises the usefulness of the train, and throughout the rest of the film the inner-workings of the railway and postal service is shown to display why it is an effective business. The poem is done to describe the efficiency of the service through a light-hearted and flowing prose.

Blackfish (Gabriel Cowperthwaite, 2013)

Blackfish is a documentary by Gabriel Cowperthwaite, made in 2013, that shows the inner-workings of the sea park industry, namely the cruelty shown towards orca-whales in sea parks and how this changes their behaviour. The documentary swaps between cases of orca violence, but mostly follows Tilikum as an example of how captivity can cause violent tendencies in killer-whales that can, and has, led to fatal accidents.

The narrative of the story follows the life story of Tilikum, mainly focusing.on his capture, movement between sea parks, and the accidents he was involved in. The film does occasionally swap to other orca’s being kept in captivity, using the instances if violence they showed towards trainers as evidence of how captivity can alter behaviour patterns in orca-whales. The documentary also includes. Interviews with trainers, fishermen, SeaWorld managers and witnesses to show different sides of the story and help describe events as they happened.

The film holds a significant place in documentary film history as it has brought light onto a relatively niche industry and links it to modern day activism against animal cruelty. It made $2.3 million in the box office and was shown on Netflix, so has gained notoriety in the documentary genre.

I personally liked the film. I found it a very interesting insight on how Orca-whales are effected by captivity and how harsh life is for those that have been captured. The film also effectively focuses not on the violence the whales could exhibit, but rather the causes foe it and how the industry treats these animals, keeping the point of the film constantly, only showing the violence to such a degree to emphasise the industry’s effect on the whales. I also found the scenes involving more violent moments very harrowing, as they were described and shown in ways that effectively impacted the audience and conveyed the danger and un-naturalism in the behaviour of some orca’s. My only problem with the film is that sometimes it is confusing when a killing happens, and what whales are being described, and even the course of events, due to the narrative switching so often between places and whales. By the end of the film, I was not actually sure how many people Tilikum had killed, and septic that not being the purpose of the film, it still left me feeling unsure about the whale the film had focused on so much.

The film is a participatory documentary, since it interviews people who were involved in Tilikum’s life and uses archive footage to accompany the narration of the interviewed.

I rate Blackfish ★★★★!

Modes Of Documentary

Expository documentaries:

The traditional form, using a voice-over/presenter to directly address viewers and discuss a particular subject matter. Also known as ‘the voice of god’. How we most often think of a documentary. Emphasises verbal commentary and argumentative logic, usually through a narrator. It follows a logical argument and it offers a right or ‘proper answer. David Attenborough nature documentaries is what Nichols would call expository, as facts are presented to us, the audience.

Observational documentaries:

Aims to show every-day life, un-obstructed by the filmmaker. Also known as ‘window on the world’. Cinema Verity emerged in the late 1950s-early 1960’s. This attempted to capture objective reality. So the filmmaker is a neutral observer of real life. They remain hidden behind the camera and is ignored, neither changing or influencing the events being captured. Since nothing is staged for the camera, it rushes to keep up with the action, often resulting in rough, shaky footage. Sometimes known as ‘fly on the wall’ documentary. This would be something like ‘police interceptors’.

Participatory documentaries:

Unlike observational, participatory mode has direct engagement between the filmmaker and the subjects, so the filmmaker becomes parts of the events being recorded. Their impacts on the events being recorded is acknowledged, and that could even be the point of it. Where the person making the documentary is pat of the documentary. Reggie Yates is a participatory filmmaker, where their personality is a part of the film.

Performative documentaries:

Emphasises the subject nature of the documentarian as-well as acknowledging the subjective reading of the audience. In a performative documentary, the documentary filmmaker is kind of the point. Such as Louis Theroux. The result is because he is interviewing them, provoking reactions, making the interview go a certain way. Emphasises the emotional impact on the audience.

Poetic documentaries:

Poetic mode is where moves away from objective reality to tray and grasp at “an inner truth”. It favours mood, tone and texture over accurate representations. It is literally poetic or metaphorical in its representation of something.

Reflexive documentary:

Reflexive mode is where Acknowledges the constructed nature of documentary and sort of flaunts it, in a way. A reflexive documentary offers a truth rather then the truth. Sometimes used for when the absolute truth of a situation can’t be known, e.g the last hours of Hitler’s life. The location could be exactly correct, but the dialogue could only be an approximation.

Documentaries Defined

The dictionary definition of documentary is “Consisting of or based on official documents” and “Using pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a subject”.

Realism is presented in documentary films to show the audience real events that have happened and serve as an educational piece of media. Fiction films can portray real events, but can stray from realism if it suits their purposes, which are more so for entertainment than education .

Bill Nichols describes all films as documentaries, some are ‘wish fulfilment’ in the sense that they create fiction, and others are ‘social representation’, which are usual documentaries intended to serve as a documentation of real events.

The difficulty in differentiating between fiction and documentary films is something that Nichols also described. He explained that all films, whether fiction or not, were documentaries in the sense that they showed the climate, environment and culture in which they were produced.

There are fiction and pure documentary on a conceptual scale. At one end, there is fiction film made purely for entertainment, and on the other, pure documentary made to discuss and educate audiences on a particular topic. In between, there is a grey area. This is because it can be, according to Bill Nichols’s teachings, difficult to differentiate between fiction and documentary film, as all films are technically documentaries, so there is no clear distinction between them which creates a grey area on the scale.

Fiction or documentary?

There are many differences in the key aspects of film form between fiction films and documentary films. This table lists those differences.

Fiction Films:

Mise-en-scene is real or ‘fake’ to create the film.

Characters are real or invented purely for the film but are mostly played by actors.

Equipment is hidden from the audience to create the film.

Filmmaker is a director who is in charge of the creative process but not in the film.

Narrative follows people in the film, can be changed to suit the filmmakers wants.

The audience will accept the reality of the film, fiction or not. These films want to attract the broadest possible audience who want to be entertained.

Fictional film usually has a higher budget than documentary film.

Environment is invented for the film or shot on set but put into fictional context for film. Environment can be real and set in real location too.

Documentary Films:

Mise-en-scene is real and used to create the film.

Characters are usually played by real people, interviewed for their involvement in the subject matter.

Equipment is shown to exhibit the reality of the documentary.

Filmmaker creates the film but can be shown on screen/be part of the film.

The narrative follows real events and must be concise to make the subject matter clear and understandable.

Attract a niche audience who want to learn about a subject band not necessarily be entertained, and know that the film is showing real events.

Documentary film usually has a lower budget than fiction film.

Environment is real in documentary film and used for a specific purpose.