Documentary mini-task

What is a documentary?

A documentary (to me) is a film or series consisting of actual footage and/or reenactments of real life events, places and people to create a narrative, however true or false from the facts, for the understanding of the general viewer.

Expository documentaries:

The key points of what makes an expository documentary are:

• A voice over narrator who's purpose it is to give meaning to the images seen by the audience.
• Voice over provides facts to accompany the images.
• The images used compliment the voice over the same way the voice over compliments the images.
• The primary objective of an expository documentary is to represent the subject matter in a transparent way.

The example I've picked is the BBC's 'The Blue Planet' (2001).

The Blue Planet is probably one of the BBC's most famous documentaries. featuring the voice over of Sir David Attenborough, The Blue Planet covers a whole range of subjects to do with the seas and oceans, from fish to birds, whales to dolphins, rays to seals, the whole lot is covered in this large scale documentary spanning eight parts. With the assistance of Attenborough, this documentary quite transparently shows us how different sea creatures live and survive, with the explanations of the voice over adding meaning to what we as an audience are seeing.

Observational documentaries:

The key points of what makes an observational documentary are:

• Unobtrusive depiction of subject with no filmmaker presence.
• focuses on non-contained footage (No interviews, commentary, etc.)
• Neutral and transparent recording of events that allows viewers to make their own assumptions and opinions.

The example I've picked is Edet Belzburg's 'Children Underground' (2001).

Children Underground is an observational documentary on a small group of Romania's thousands of homeless children. The heartbreaking documentary is mostly without filmmaker presence, with the exceptions of asking a few questions during short interviews with some of the children and a couple of adults involved in helping the children. While these small interviews break the rules of the observation format, in comparison to the rest of the films content it quite obviously fits into the format. The events are sometimes shocking and it must have taken a lot of will for the filmmakers to not intervene, with many scenes showing the children fighting, begging for food and money and many of the children are shown huffing paint. The fact these are shown without any filmmaker comment or intervention truly prove that the film is transparent and shows real events that actually happened.

Interactive documentaries:

The key points of what makes an interactive documentary are:

• A strong filmmaker presence, with the filmmaker often presenting and interacting with the subject(s) of the documentary.
• There is usually an agenda present, with a lot of manipulation to help push it, which is heavily criticised by viewers and critics.

The example I've picked is Ian Carter's 'Full Force' (2019).

Full Force isn't your usual documentary that focuses on important events or people, instead it focuses on the life of an intriguing small time YouTube star Chris LaFon, AKA AirsoftFatty. The filmmaker Ian Carter, another online personality, spends a couple of days in Battle Creek, Michigan to get an inside look at Chris's life - his friends, family, former friend Robert who stars in many of Chris's videos, etc. Ian does a good job of following the interactive format, doing interviews and getting involved in the scenes that unfold to get a good sense of how Chris lives off and on camera. There is definitely an agenda present, and that is stated many times by Ian as him wanting to get to know Chris off camera and also to see a lightsaber fight between Chris and Robert.

Reflexive documentaries:

The key points of what makes a reflexive documentary are:

• heavy exposure of the documentary format to create an experimental feel on what would usually be considered as (but not limited to) an observational documentary.
• Usually a very vague subject matter being focused on with little to no filmmaker intervention.

The example I've picked is Dziga Vertov's 'Man with a movie camera' (1929).

The documentary itself documents the urban life in several soviet cities using many techniques to create the first truly reflexive documentary. The film is silent and features no real narrative or actors (although a few shots definitely seem staged) and is extremely experimental, being one of the first films to incorporate, and even invent, different shot types, angles and footage manipulation, including slow motion, footage played in reverse, split screen created using two different dutch angles simultaneously, etc.

Performative documentaries:

The key points of what makes a performative documentary are:

• Heavy focus on presentability over unedited, single camera footage.
• Might use sounds, animations, reenactments, etc. to keep the plot/narrative interesting for the viewer.
• heavy focus on emotional storytelling, with powerful phrasing and imagery to evoke reactions and heavy thinking from the viewer.

The example I've picked is Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' (2004).

Fahrenheit 9/11 is Michael Moore's sixth documentary, and it revolves around the supposedly fraudulent election of George Bush, Bushes involvement with the Saudi's and the Iraq War and the medias fear mongering that came with that, among other subjects. The documentary incorporates news clips, interviews, records and various footage to create an interesting plot line for the audience to follow and maintain interest. Moore's emotional and direct explanations and overall style of filmmaking that is present in many of his documentaries is very prominent in Fahrenheit 9/11, and if the film does one thing right, it makes you really think about what happens in it.

Conclusion:

The format I personally prefer is interactive, as it gives you as a viewer a sense of involvement in the scene rather than acting as a voyeur into the life of the subject. It also tends to be a more investigative style of filmmaking, with an end goal or agenda set forth by the filmmaker as though you're working towards a means rather than watching someone live their life for a set amount of time.

The format that presents information in the most unbiased way to me is observational, as there is no filmmaker presence (that we know of), no voice over telling us what to think or believe and unlike the reflexive documentary format doesn't have that experimental influence that may sway opinions.

I feel that documentary producers and filmmakers do have a right and responsibility to show the truth in a documentary, however I feel its ok to only slightly sugarcoat or downplay the truth for a second version of the documentary if its contents are so horrible as to permit a second 'made for TV' version of the documentary for TV viewing or for people who don't wish to view the original uncut materials, however there is also that responsibility to make an unrated, fully truthful version for those who wish to see the truth no matter how horrible it may be, with maybe the exception of scarring and brutal imagery being censored.