No Country For Old Men Contextualised

The film is based of the 2005 novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy which centres around the violence associated with the drug trade at the border between the U.S and Mexico. The film strays from the book in a few regards, choosing to keep the plot somewhat unresolved at the end, for example, not explaining what happened to the drug money. It does share some qualities though, such as the persistence of Anton, who eventually escapes, leaving Bell contemplating his place in the modern world.

The directors, Joel and Ethan Coen, are known for producing darkly comedic, rural crime thrillers. In the film, they utilise minimal sound design and editing to raise tension through the simplicity of how the scenes are presented to us, allowing the audience to become immersed in the atmosphere and enthralled by the slow buildup, which the Brothers take their time with establishing, before a short but explosive, bloody climax. Roger Deakins, the cinematographer, is recognisable for his use for dark lighting, characterised by strong shadows and sharp contrast tween light and dark, to raise suspense and tension through the films visuals.

As a pair of auteur directors, the brothers have much creative control (Roderick Jaynes edited No Country For Old Men, a fictional name made up as a disguise for the films actual editors, Joel and Ethan Coen), there are reoccurring motifs throughout their filmography. Their films often take place in rural Southern American, dry, expansive landscapes where morally grey characters driven typically by money are hunted by psychopathic hitmen, involving surreal dream sequences and shocking climaxes, and also use reoccurring actors like Frances McDormand and John Goodman. Their films are almost always crime-centred, following immoral characters with dry senses of humour that results in the films often holding qualities of dark comedies. No Country For Old Men makes few attempts to be funny.

They have won many awards, No Country For Old Men winning four like best adapted screenplay and best director, three BAFTA awards and two Golden Globe wins, so fifteen wins overall, with 101 nominations overall (for all of the previously mentioned awards). Their films tend to turn profits, e.g The Big Lebowski had a budget of $15 million and made $46.7 million, No Country For Old Men had $25 million and made $171.6 million, O’ Brother Where Art Thou had $26 million and made $72 million.

Arthur Penn: Copycat Auteur

Some directors in America had been inspired but the various methods of the French New Wave, such as focus on realism, hand-held camera work and improvised dialogue. The focus on serious plots had fallen after the decline of Hollywood, and the French New Wave galvanised some young American directors to take a more causal, relaxed and fun approach to filmmaking. This inspiration also culminated in rapid shifts in the tone of the film and abrasive/rough editing.

David Newman and Robert Benton were both screenwriters who had no particular style of screenwriting, or a focus on any particular genre, tone or motif. There was no recognisable aspect of their scripts that associated the film with the screenwriters. They took inspiration from the French New Wave in their approach to fun, causal film script as with often improvised dialogue or realistic dialogue. For example, they were both inspired by the unconventional relationship between the characters Patricia and Michel in Godard’s Breathless (Godard, 1960) In fact, Bonnie’s poem in the film mirrors the exchange of letters between Jim and Catherine in Jules et Jim (Truffaut, 1962) When writing the film, French New Wave director Francois Truffaut screened the film Gun Crazy (Joseph Lewis, 1950) as he had loved it. This also led to Warner Bros. Advertising the film as a violent crime genre film and star vehicle. It was the two scriptwriters who brought Penn onto the film when Truffaut himself could not.

A director who took inspiration from the French New Wave was Arthur Penn. He was a director who made his name through Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967), and was not recognised for many other productions. He was a director-for-hire who did not have any recognisable motifs of his own, instead taking his ideas from the French New Wave style of directing, with a focus on realism and deliberately casual way of filmmaking. He favoured shooting on location with small production teams, many of his films displaying American myths/culture, Classic American genres and ‘outsider’ characters.

Dede Allen is considered an auteur Hollywood director, taking inspiration from the French New Wave and stylising jump cuts used for emotional effect, audio overlaps, placing continuity editing at a low priority and instead focusing on expressing the body-language of characters through cutting and conveying the plot in a nuanced way.

Warren Beatty, the actor who played Clyde Barrow in the film, also produced it and made up contributed attributions to the script through their improvised dialogue. He had wanted Clyde to be presented as a flawed protagonist, an anti-hero, and played the character that way. As producer, he made contributions that made the film what it was, an imperfectly produced film taking heavy inspiration from the French New Wave style of filmmaking. He hired Newman and Benton, selected most of the cast and oversaw the script’s development. His role in production reflects the rise of ‘star-auteurs’ in the 1960s, for example Jack Nicholson, who also directed and produced films.

Component 2d: Experimental Film 1960 – 2000 (Auteurship)

“Experimental film is often the result of an auteur challenging established conventions with fresh ideas.” With reference to your chosen film option, how far do you agree with this statement?

Planning:

Intro: I agree with the statement large extent. Make reference to the concept of Auteurship and explain how Tarantino is one, making reference to Pulp Fiction,

Explain how Tarantino is an auteur through his subversion of convention, making specific reference to sequences in Pulp Fiction. Describe how the film experimental and LTQ!

Explain why he is an auteur through his filmography motifs and reoccurring experimentalism signature to his oeuvre.

Make reference to criticism of the auteur theory and show why experimental film is not always made by auteur, and can be a result of a directors wish to dismantle convention, but acknowledge the increasing influence of directors who create experimental film, e.g Nolan or Wes Anderson. Experimental or auteur for different reasons, i.e narrative or visuals, etc.

Conclusion: Link points together, explaining why Tarantino has created an experimental film through his Auteurship, but experimental film, while common among auteurs, is not specific to them.

Version 1:

I agree with this statement to a large extent as auteur directors will often strive for new and original films, and often achieve this through experimental methods of filmmaking. The auteur theory states that a director who exudes a specific style or aesthetic that is singular to them, making their work recognisable as having been made by that director, is an auteur.

Tarantino is considered an auteur director because of the nuanced way he subverts narrative convention in Pulp Fiction. The film is episodic, circular, and each plot arc plays out in a linear order within itself. Tarantino keeps the film interesting by frequently swapping audience perspectives and playing major events in the story out of order, keeping the story and plot out of sync for the entire film. The way that he plays around with established narrative form in an otherwise cliche genre setting makes the film experimental, and this experimenting with narrative has become a staple of Tarantino’s oeuvre. This can also be seen in his other film, Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1992), where the events taking place in the present are often broken apart or interchanged with snippets of the events leading up to them. Therefore, experimental film is often the result of an auteur challenging established conventions with fresh ideas, and this is significant in Tarantino’s style as an auteur in creating nuanced narrative.

Tarantino is also experimental in his approach to other aspects of filmmaking. In Pulp Fiction, this can be seen in the dialogue. Conversations are often entirely centred around copious pop culture references, typically music and film of the 1970s that Tarantino himself appreciates, making it more distinct to him as a director. There is subtext to these seemingly pointless discussions, and crude language within them is another motif of his filmography that makes his films recognisable as having been made by him. Obscure, vintage soundtracks, shooting on film, subversion of genre cliches, here that is crime/thriller, extreme violence used for comedic effect are also reoccurring staples in his entire body of work that make him films instantly recognisable as a Tarantino film. This can be seen in Pulp Fiction in the conversation between Jules and Verne. They casually talk about TV and fast food for a long period of time before carrying out a hit in an apartment. This scene is very drawn out, uses entertaining yet seemingly unrelated dialogue, and climaxes in a bloody and violent death. Therefore, auteurs do often experiment with new and fresh approaches to established film conventions to make their films more distinct and specific to them. This can be seen in Wes Anderson, for example, whose oddly symmetrical visuals and dry humour and dialogue give his work an individuality in their experimentalism and a link to him as a director. Therefore, auteurs will often create experimental film through a desire to make nuanced, interesting films specific to their oeuvre.

However, I do not completely agree with this statement, as auteur theory has been criticised for placing too much emphasis on the director alone as the creator and executor of an artistic vision in a film. There are many people who work on a film, for example, the cinematography for Pulp Fiction was done by Andrzej Sekula, who would go on to do a number of Tarantino’s other films. Therefore, it can be argued that Tarantino alone did not create the experimentalism of Pulp Fiction, rather a group of people who each input their vision and skill. However, this can be argued against as Tarantino wrote the script for Pulp Fiction, and often with other auteur directors the crew of a film may input their own ideas, but ultimately they carry out and partly execute the artistic view of the director who oversees that the film executes their idea/vision correctly. Therefore, many auteur directors do execute their vision in their films accurately enough so that it is specific to them, and any experimental narrative, dialogue, or aspect of it can be attributed to them and their desire to create a nuanced and fresh subversion of an established convention. Therefore, I agree with this view to a large extent.

I agree with the view that Experimental film is often the result of an auteur challenging established conventions with fresh ideas to a large extent. While experimental film is not specific only to auteur directors, most auteur directors will create and execute fresh, innovative takes on film convention to make original and entertaining works that are recognisable as their due to an overarching style in their filmography, as seen with Quentin Tarantino, and this drive for originality and ingenuity often results in experimental approaches to filmmaking.

Quentin Tarantino, Auteur

Quentin Tarantino is considered an auteur for his stylistic, signature aesthetic and approach to filmmaking. His films are all linked by reoccurring motifs and aspects that are distinctly recognisable to him ad a director. These include shooting in film, interesting and entertaining dialogue surrounding pop culture Tarantino himself likes, crude language and humour, extreme violence used for comedic effect, etc.

Quentin Tarantino is considered an auteur for the the motifs that can be recognised universally in his filmography. An identifiable feature of his work is snappy, entertaining dialogue, crude humour and language, riveting tension, extreme violence, pop culture references and classic/retro soundtracks. A scene that shows this clearly is the apartment scene in Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994), where a long and unrelated conversation told through crude language on pop culture builds up to the hit, tension is built in the apartment through a lengthy soliloquy by the character Jules, further pop culture references are made, and the climax arrives as a bloody, violent moment that is done for comedic effect. Tarantino is considered an experimental auteur, as his films display a high level of filmmaking/technical competence but also use unique and innovative approaches to narrative, dialogue, violence, etc. This is another reason why his films are so signature and specific to him, and allow for the audience to instantly recognise a Tarantino film as a Tarantino film. His experimental approach also prevents his films from become so synonymous with the crime/thriller genre that his style is considered a convention of the genre. He plays around with convention, subverts audience expectations and uses nuanced techniques. He has not simply made innovations in the genre, he has created a style and approach within the genre that is specific to him.

He can be considered a post-modern auteur. He has created his own directorial style by copious reference to past (specifically 1960s and 1970s) obscure/grind-house film and music sub-culture, cementing that convention in his own films, re-contextualising into the norm, while experimenting with nuanced approaches to narrative, scriptwriting, etc. He does not change the art’s original message, rather shows how it was filtered through the audiences perspective.

Quentin Tarantino: Contextualised

Quentin Tarantino’s signature style can be seen to have began in his lost film My Best Friends Birthday, which featured his comedic editing and use of volatile language and snappy dialogue. Tarantino’s career began with Harvey Keitel’s dedicated support to the Reservoir Dogs script, whose career had been diminishing. His name helped the film to be made, as other stars began to consider the project. Tarantino’s style seemed unconventional to more experienced members of the industry.

He was heavily criticised for leaving in a graphic torture scene in the film. It was pegged as a revelation at Cannes, and won at the Toronto Film Festival the prize for best film. It made $3 million in the USA, only shown in 26 theatres in the first week, and 10 in the UK, making £100,000 in the first weekend. It was considered the best directing be but since Citizen Kane.

Tarantino thinks in oeuvres (body of work), considering his films connected. He is eager to avoid creating lesser works that affect the overall quality of his oeuvre, believing that his filmography would be healthier if all his films were well-made.

His films are distinct in their use of fast and witty dialogue over seemingly pointless subjects, chaptered plots and story’s following 1970s crime thriller cliches that he puts his own spin on via unique characters, dialogue, soundtrack and nuanced use of extreme violence for comedic effect. Tarantino’s filmography is consistently highly-praised and many, if not most of his films are considered masterpieces. There are many aspects of Tarantino’s films that make them recognisable as being made by him, including extreme, often ridiculous violence, clever and nuanced use of dialogue, non-linear/interesting approaches to narrative, obscure 1970/80s compiled soundtracks, re-occurring actors and riveting plots told through unique structure and use of perspective/audience positioning. He often also includes crude language used casually in his dialogue and many pop-culture references, of which are very specific to him and his tase in pop-culture, e.g films, music, etc., which make his films individually more unique to him as a stand-alone director.

He includes an abundance of subtext to his dialogue, which makes his more fun to watch. He also creates and holds suspense over the course of long scenes. All of his films include scenes like this, some include many of them. He will do this often through dialogue with subtle and hidden meaning, even if on surface level it is over pleasantries and/or seemingly unrelated topics. He will give the audience implicit information and often create constantly building tension by bringing the scene closer to a climax or realisation, and continues the tension even after that realisation. The characters take their time and chat over normal, even realistic matters. They do not speak quickly or purposefully for long periods of time, instead Tarantino establishes their motivations and goals to create binary oppositions and set the possibility for a climax, thereby establishing tension and building it through subtle dialogue slowly but evidently building to that climax. These scenes also rarely involve music, instead long, drawn out silence to draw the audience inti the scene, alongside the dialogue with subtext.

His films have become highly recognised, respected, discussed and aspired to in the film industry. He is considered an independent auteur director, all of his films instantly identifiable to him and his body of work, different in each story but connected through signature features of his style of directing and his striving for consistent success in his oeuvre.

Component 2d: Experimental Film 1960-2000 (Narrative)

“Explore how far your chosen film or films are experimental in challenging conventional approaches to narrative.”

Planning:

Introduction – Briefly explain some context, i.e traditional approaches to narrative (3 act structure, 3 types of narrative), and summarise how/how much Tarantino subverts these traditions.

Describe how Tarantino subverts audience expectations and orthodox narrative through a non-linear, episodic narrative through a jumbled plot, linking to Tzvetan Todorov’s 5 stage theory. Also how he follows the 3 types of narrative.

Describe his switching between different narrative viewpoints through characters, restricted and unrestricted, and audience positioning. Explain how he subverts Vladimir Propp’s theory on character types, and his unique use of dialogue.

Conclusion: Describe how Tarantino combines episodic, circular and linear narrative types, changes audience positioning and narrative viewpoints regularly, and subverts established film theories/tropes and the cliches he himself included deliberately in the film to challenge conventional approaches to film narrative.

Version 1:

Pulp Fiction is highly experimental in it’s approach to narrative. Narrative traditionally follows a three act structure with a linear plot. Tarantino creates a narrative that subverts conventions and regularly swaps viewpoints, abandoning common narrative form in favour of focus on dialogue and character.

Tarantino subverts audience expectations in Pulp Fiction by going against orthodox film narrative, described by Tzvetan Todorov as a five stage process, involving the equilibrium, the disruption, recognition and resolution. Pulp Fiction is broken up into three distinct chapters which are played out of linear sequence, epilogued and prologued by a scene in a diner. This makes the plot episodic, circular, and linear, as each story plays out in chronological order in itself. The plot is completely separate to the story, leading to a highly experimental and disrupted narrative. The audience does not witness the plot playing out in order of the events occurring, for example, the diner sequence is shown at the beginning and the end of the film, but in the story occurs somewhere near the start of events, and the final scene chronologically int he story is shown around halfway through through the film’s plot. Tarantino therefore subverts audience expectations by fragmenting the plot and leaving the viewer to create the story in their own mind after seeing the film. He follows the three most common narrative types, and uses multiple devices such as inter-title cards and chaptering to create a highly irregular narrative that combines different conventional forms to subvert traditional narrative theory and create an experimental narrative in Pulp Fiction.

Tarantino also challenges conventional approaches to narrative through his frequent switching between narrative viewpoints. For example, at the start of the film the audience is positioned to empathise and care for the two diner robbers. At the end of the film, we are positioned to care about Jules and his story, and in that scene, despite what we know about them, the robbers are the antagonists with a binary opposition to Jules, who is in that scene our protagonist. He also uses restricted and unrestricted narrative viewpoints, such as when we do not know about the armed man in the apartment bathroom whilst the hit is happening, but later on we are aware of the fact, whereas Jules and Vincent are not. Every different chapter the narrative viewpoint shifts between characters, which stops the audience from seeing any particular person as the main character or villain, subverting Vladimir Propp’s theory on character type, stating that there are seven main character types in all stories, such as the hero, villain, and false hero.

Tarantino also does this by making the characters immoral and hard to look up to, so no character is the hero, villain, etc. Tarantino also places a great amount of emphasis on the dialogue in the film. The characters spend large amounts of time discussing irrelevant topics, such as how Vince and Julie’s spend as much time talking about fast food and foot massages leading up to the hit in the apartment as they spend carrying out the hit itself. The audience would not realise this as the dialogue, despite going against convention buy being so seemingly pointless, flows so well and immerses the viewer in what is being said. We are drawn in by these conversations that do not progress the plot in any way, only revealing binary oppositions, such as Vince’s belief that foot massages are inappropriate, explaining his later reluctance to take Mia on a date, or Butch’s dedication to his father’s watch. These oppositions, established by Claude Levi Strauss, provide the film with underlying tensions that immerse the audience. Tarantino subverts this theory by revealing the binary oppositions through seemingly pointless conversations about apparently unrelated topics, rather than through character actions or inner-monologue. The dialogue is flowing and entertaining to listen to, providing the film with a rhythm that flows smoothly to move the audience between major events, which are more memorable than the events themselves. Tarantino challenges conventional approaches to narrative through original, nuanced and experimental dialogue and cliche characters that are fleshed out and developed through the subtly written dialogue, script, and shifting narrative viewpoints.

Pulp Fiction is highly experimental in challenging conventional approaches to narrative. Tarantino utilises a chaptered, non-linear plot that goes against traditional narrative convention to encourage the audience to order the story themselves, forcing viewer participation and subverting Todorov’s established theory on five stage theory. He also swaps audience positioning to show characters from different perspectives, adding a layer of depth to the film through an experimental methodology. He incorporates fresh and original dialogue that does not progress the story but immerses the audience by being so casual and calm, and fleshes out the cliche characters through binary oppositions and subtle meanings between the lines. The characters themselves go against convention, despite being cliches themselves, as they are realised and developed through the dialogue and the audiences shifting feelings towards them as Tarantino changes the narrative and audience positioning.

Pulp Fiction Contextualised

Pulp Fiction was written by Quentin Tarantino between 1992 and 1993, and was originally turned down by Tristar pictures for being ‘too demented.’, but was the fist film fully distributed by Miramax after co-chairman Harvey Weinstein saw it. It won the Palme d’Or at Cannes film festival in 1994, having been made with a budget of $8.5 million and eventually making a box office success of $213.9 million.

It is considered by critics as a touchstone of post modern film due to its entirely unique and unconventional narrative structure. It’s use of an A-List cast also brought the film much attention, regardless of the long-anticipated second film by the director, who had made notoriety after his 1992 crime thriller Reservoir dogs brought him into the mainstream.

Pulp Fiction is an experimental film, telling a conventional, cliche gangster story through a nuanced form of narrative. They film was also so influential due to Tarantino’s use of violence to ironically create humour and snappy and clever dialogue that does not add to the plot in any way, self-reflexive style, all which would come to represent Tarantino as an auteur director. The film homages more classic, indie cinema, and is considered his masterpiece particularly for its screenplay.

Tarantino created a riveting and enthralling movie by maintaining an escalating plot that is conveyed in a more nuanced way by the unique narrative. His dialogue is also honest and genuine-seeming, as characters talk among themselves about topics that don’t necessarily relate to the plot in any way, building his characters and their views on different matters. There is always something at stake in his films, creating conflict in all interactions, no matter how trivial, which maintains the viewers’ attention. He also handles subtext in a way that maintains tensity in a scene, and therefore viewer interest, as seen in the prologue scene in the diner.

He was closely involved in the production process, communicating with the actors and giving direct instructions. He uses non-diegetic music to add to his scenes, adding a style, pace to tone to a scene. In pulp fiction, Tarantino uses the narrative structure to reveal things about the characters, such as Vincent’s death due to his dismissal of Jewel’s moral awakening after a near death experience. He also immerses the audience into the narrative immediately by having two people discussing organised crime casually, bringing them into the story and the characters. By the end of the film, our perspective has changed a lot between characters, as Tarantino follows separate characters and revealing things about them between scenes, such as Jewel’s job to kill, the resolution of Butch and Wallaces conflict, and Vega’s death. Characters feel relatable due to the clever dialogue, scenes are engaging through dialogue undertones andcasual violence, and an engaging narrative that immerses the audience through what it reveals about the plot and how it keeps the audience on their toes. It also uses experimentalism in the narrative structure to create a new and subjective experience for the audience who can view the film in a way they want, therefore encouraging audience participation through a structure that demands attention and experimental methods that create a memorable and engaging audience experience.

Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994)

Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994) is crime/gangster thriller that follows multiple characters whose arcs intertwine and play out in a non-chronological order. The film is split up into five stories/sequences that swap perspectives between different characters at different points in the story.

The film is told in a unique way, as the plot does not play out chronologically, but rather the separate parts of the film are show in a jumbled and non-consecutive order. For example, the prologue, showing two people robbing a diner, is played again at the end of the film from another characters perspective. However, this scene is not the final in the story, only the plot, as they are separate in this film.

The film holds a significant place in history, as the methods through which it was told, i.e the narrative structure, use of violence and swearing, casual conversation, etc. were very new to film at the time. Tarantino took a cliche, conventional film genre and made it his own, individual work through distinct dialogue, tropes specific to him as a filmmaker, and a unique narrative structure.

I personally very much enjoyed Pulp Fiction. I enjoyed listening to the clever dialogue, the violent and shocking action sequences, the moments of intensity and the interesting mode of telling an entertaining and stylistic story. Tarantino utilises signature actors and iconic, classy music to give the film a slick aesthetic. It’s characters and quotes are iconic, and the story is intriguing and riveting. I rate Pulp Fiction ★★★★★!

Buster Keaton: The Silent Clown

Joseph Frank “Buster” Keaton was born in October, 1895 in Kansas, USA. He moved to New York in 1917, where he was signed to show in “The Passing Show of 1917”. He made popularity throughout a series of commercials and American programs, and directed his first film, Sherlock Jr. in 1924. He did not experiment with expressionism and realism, simply just filming what he thought audiences would find funny, which often involved physical stunts that he himself performed or unrealistic and wild scenarios involving a naive but lovable protagonist that he played.

He became very famous and one of the most iconic actors/creators of silent cinema, as people recognised him for his physical gags, still stature and chaotic situations. His films involved a clueless hero who would accidentally get dragged into escalating situations what would eventually reach a climax, performing stunts to achieve physical comedy and creating sets that he used to perform off of and create comedy through the environment, as seen in the unfinished house in One Week(Buster Keaton, 1920).

Although his career died out after the end of silent cinema, Buster Keaton is remembered as one of the pioneers of comedic film, and one of the most iconic faces of silent cinema.

Filmmakers’ “theories”- Kim Longinotto

“Longinotto has said ‘I don’t think of films as documents or records of things. I try to make them as like the experience of watching a fiction film as possible, though, of course, nothing is ever set up.’ Her work is about finding characters that the audience will identify with — ‘you can make this jump into someone else’s experience’. Unlike Moore and Broomfield, Longinotto is invisible, with very little use of voice-over, formal interviews, captions or incidental music. As the ‘eyes’ of her audience, she doesn’t like to zoom or pan. She says she doesn’t want her films to have conclusions but to raise questions.”

Kim’s style:

Kim Longinotto is known for strictly adhering to an observatory style of filmmaking. This involves keeping herself outside the events of the film as much as possible, and documenting people from an objective stance that seeks to inform an audience on a particular topic, rather than influence their opinion. In the case of Kim Longinotto, she shows areas of life in foreign countries that are usually unknown to Western audiences, but sticks to overarching themes, such as divorce, as seen in Divorce Iranian Style(Kim Longinotto, 1998). Her films follow people, mostly women, belonging to cultures that have left them victim of some sort of discrimination or patriarchal system, as seen in Sisters In Law(Kim Longinotto, 2005), which focuses on a pair of women who have challenged and overcome a system that favours the men, a theme that Kim focuses on quite often in her films.

Kim’s techniques:

Longinotto’s main approach is to make the people in the film feel like it’s their film, and have complete control over her stories. This is a method of getting people to forget that a camera is recording them, which, as an observatory filmmaker, is necessary for documenting what people are actually like off camera. Kim is completely separated from events, just recording them so that she can get a full image of the subject matter. Her films follow people that she considers inspirational,”Rebellious people”, to celebrate them, but keeps an the film at objective stance on the subject matter so that the audience can come to their own opinions. She does, however, like for people to acknowledge her as the filmmaker because it allows for them to speak directly to the audience, and to not feel like speaking to the filmmaker is unnatural or uncomfortable. “for me that makes you feel like the filmmaker is a kind of non-feeling, non-present person who’s just observing in a cold way, there’s no other way to interpret that. And I think that a lot of early observational films people took that very much to heart, and so if people spoke to them they would get embarrassed, they wouldn’t meet people’s eyes and there was all of that kind of weird thing”.She chose to make films in an observatory way because, she claims, it creates a more naturalistic feel in the production process that captures the more real aspects of life, since the documented people and the filmmaker are separate.

So, she wishes for the people she documents to know that they are being filmed, but also keeps the filmmakers and them separate so as to not interfere in the subject matter at all. Her films are not edited in a way that influences the audiences opinion in any way, but does display the cruelties and inequalities of some legal systems or traditions towards women in some countries. She avoids edits, such as hard cuts, as much as possible to keep the audience immersed in the film and environment, which links into how she attempts to create a connection between the audience and characters so that their story’s are more impactful and meaningful. She makes people in foreign places and situations feel human and relatable by documenting many personal aspects of their lives, which she does through following them in observatory mode. She has said “I wouldn’t call it narration in the way its not telling you what to think. It’s giving you layers, so that everybody gives you their own layer, in a way”. She wishes to get a fully fleshed out and authentic depiction of a subject matter, and avoids filmmaker intervention to keep the events real and uninterrupted, but chooses stories that have impacts on the audience, and educate them on a relatively unknown subject.

Kim’s aims:

Kim Longinotto aims to change the mentality of Western cultures that see her films, and would like for their to be a change in mentality in the cultures she documents, clearly to reduce the inequalities and injustices that exist there. She does not seek to change the laws or traditions, but the mindset that causes such cruelty and injustice in some cultures and/or legal systems. She has said “I don’t like films where I’m told what to think” and “I try to make a film that I would like to watch”, which explains her objective and purely documentation approach to documentary filmmaking in observatory mode. Kim also believes that documentaries are not there to instruct us, but rather to teach us. She also says the job of a documentary filmmaker is to bring out our empathy for the characters, even if they are in an unfamiliar situation.

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.

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.

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.