Documentary Essay by Teo

A documentary is a film which aims to educate or entertain the viewer by documenting some aspect of life. Documentaries share common features that make them a what they are. Almost all documentaries have voiceovers which are edited in, in a way that makes the viewer believe that the person talking has an in depth knowledge of subject. A lot of documentaries use archive footage or real footage of events that have happened according to the authors. Usually archive footage is used to accompany the speech, but also used when the author runs out of footage. Archive footage is also used as proof for a subject in a lot of situations. The authors often makes us think that the footage used is unaltered in any way, however the way in which the events are edited can change our opinions. Something that is very common for the documentary genre is the interviews with so called experts and professionals. Often we see historians, doctors, scientists exc., going alongside the theme of the documentary, making it biased in a lot of the films.

Sound in documentaries are not classified by any stereotypes, but vary depending on the documentary. For example in Supersize Me, we can hear the Ronald McDonald song, but in other documentaries such as historical, we do not hear this type of music, but rather goes alongside the theme of the film. Another thing that is very common in documentaries is the visual coding. For example the experts that are interviewed in the documentary all go through the same stereotype e.g. old of age, in depth knowledge, smart clothing exc. By using visual coding, the average viewer can be easily manipulated by what he is seeing on screen. As far as the camera angles go, they vary depending on the type of documentary. Participatory documentaries for example use live action to make it all look realistic, while other modes like poetic documentaries can use any type of camera angle, as long as it gives the intended experience.

Documentaries divide into 5 different main modes. Expository documentaries are used to speak directly at the viewer, educating them about a certain subject, also called the voice of god. Most commonly, expository documentaries feature voiceovers and texts, which try to persuade the viewer by giving strong points and evidence. One example which covers the expository characteristics is Bowling for Columbine. Michael Moore, the director of the documentary, often features in voice overs, trying to persuade the audience into believing his point. One part where Moore uses persuasion techniques, is when he gives a 1 on 1 interview with Marilyn Manson, but does not have such an interview with the people opposing his argument.

Participatory documentaries are most commonly used to tell a story as well as prove a point. The whole point of participatory documentaries is that the producer of the film participates in the movie, as well as featuring in voice overs. One famous example for participatory documentary Is Supersize Me. We can see Morgan Spurlock, who is the creator of the documentary use himself as a lab rat, by featuring in the footage and the voice overs.

Reflexive documentaries are based more on opinion rather than using solid facts to persuade people. This means that the audience get their opinion from watching the documentary rather than being persuaded to believe something. Louis Theroux is a famous documentary maker who is specialized in making reflexive documentaries. He is featuring in the film, in front of the camera who appears to be a normal interviewer. To get an inside look, Louis often takes part in what the person that he is interviewing is doing.

Performative documentaries aim to create an emotional response in the viewer. They are strongly personal and most likely than not, a person is having an intimate interview in the film. Usually in performative documentaries, the meaning is defined by the view of the viewer. Also in most cases, sound is minimal and when its used, it is used in a way to blend in with the emotional experience. One example for performative documentary is "The Confession" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW9Ic28qUM8). In this short peace we see a bunch of people having an intimate interview, while talking about very personal experience. We do not see any persuasion techniques which keeps the meaning subjective. The sound is kept to minimal but when used, it makes us connect with the people's experience, which is typical for the performative mode. Another documentary which is performative is Supersize me. A lot of the times when we see Morgan Spurlock eating, he is performing a role, a character. At times when he is alone with the character, we see him burp, play with his stomach and all these things which we would not do if we were at his place, because it would be weird. He is doing it, because he is performing for the audience, to create an emotional response. In one scene in his bed, he tells us to look at the burger and fries quite sarcastically, before eating them which evokes an emotional response in the viewer.

Poetic documentaries usually reflect a very personal topic which are close at heart with the creator of the film. In this type of documentary we usually see a number of images accompanied with sound which gives out a meaning which can be subjected. A good example of a poetic documentary is "Time" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSSqa9RD3mw). In this short piece we see a number of images which are quite random, but related to the topic of time. We do not hear near any fancy soundtrack which is typical for poetic documentaries. Also we do not hear any voiceovers which is also quite typical, because it makes the meaning of the film subjective rather than being persuaded to think something.

According to Bill Nichols, these are the main types of documentary modes. Even though these are the main types, documentaries can be broken down even into smaller sub-genres. Fly on the wall is one of the sub-genres. In this type of documentary, people are being filmed doing what they do on a daily basis, without being interviewed or asked to pay attention to the camera. Drama documentary or also called Docudrama is a type of documentary which recreates scenes of events with actors. Dialogue is very common for Docudrama, as actors are trying to represent a certain person. One example of a Docudrama is "The Queen" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7t5ivfKf0o&list=PL57FA775C65A02396&index=6). In this

short clip we see people trying to recreate business meetings, for example the queen and the prime minister.

One of the most famous sub-genres of documentary is the mockumentary or also called the docu-comedy. Just as the name says, the mockumentary is trying to mock/parody an event or a topic of which the documentary is about. These types of documentaries do not have any emotional response, but rather tries to make the viewer laugh with the use of humor.

The performative genre would be most effective in targeting the audience that I will be targeting when making my documentary. This is because in my documentary, there will be a lot of intimate reviews which will require the interviewees to answer very subjective and personal questions. The performative genre is specialized in creating an emotional response in the viewer as well as making them think about a certain topic, which is exactly what I am aiming to do with my piece.

Documentaries aim to use accurate information, archive footage, convey information and interesting point of views across different types of audiences. Based on what we see on screen, should we really believe everything we are told? In my opinion the accuracy and impartiality of documentaries sometimes cannot be completely trusted. In many expository documentaries for example, we do not see impartiality, as both sides of the arguments are not presented in the same way. In many cases, more information is used on one side of the argument, which persuade us to think in a manner which may not always be valid. In one documentary in which this is clearly illustrated is Bowling for Columbine. In one particular scene with Marilyn Manson we can see how Moore is trying to persuade the audience. At the beginning of the scene, the editing makes the situation look very biased, as we see figures of higher authority gang up on Marilyn Manson putting him to blame for the violent behavior of kids. Also with the voiceover, the voice makes us ask ourselves who is to blame for the violent act of kids. The editing in this sequence is structured in a way, to show that the politicians are blaming Marilyn for everything, which makes us think that the artist is being heavily victimized. After all the biased views against the artist, Marilyn himself had an interview with Moore, which made it seem like he redeemed himself. Both Moore and Marilyn are trying to prove the same point, so the editing makes us feel more for the artist rather than the politicians. This is kind of unfair, because the editing makes it look like Marilyn is the victim and he is the one who is right, which makes us look in one direction only. If we were to ask ourselves what we think of Marilyn before watching this sequence, we would have a negative opinion of him, because of what he represents. The editing and the relationship between him and Moore makes us change that opinion about him. For the point of views to be balanced, I think Moore should have done a 1 on 1 interview with one of the politicians. The interview between Moore and Manson is very intimate, however we do not see such an interview with either of the politicians. This is a big persuasion technique which is commonly used in factual television. If Moore had made an interview with a person of the opposite point of view, the argument would have been a lot more complex and objective. Rather than being objective Moore chooses to be biased, so he

gets his point across. This is one example of why we should not have all our trust on factual television.

Another documentary which addresses the issue of accuracy and balance is the Biggie and 2pac documentary. Throughout the whole documentary, there is a huge issue between the two in the film. In many cases, we see opinionated based statements, which have no proof whatsoever. At one point, Nick Broomfield spoke about how the friendship between 2pac and Biggie has been broken “supposedly”, because of outside causes(people that want to break their friendship). After Nick states that, he has absolutely no evidence to support that. This goes against the codes and conventions of documentaries, because documentaries are supposed to show solid facts, to support an idea, but in this film we do not see that. Throughout the documentary, we see opinions thrown at the audience which may or may not be true, which confuses us. It confused me, because he viewed 20 different opinion on one topic, without backing up his points with evidence.

Both Christopher(Biggie) and Tupac have been represented in different spotlights throughout different parts of the documentary. At the start when Nick talked about the rappers in early age, he represented them in a very bright light. For example he included footage of Tupac’s teacher who told us that he was a very bright and charismatic child. Also in the start, Biggie’s friend was being interviewed and he told the audience that Christopher was a very calm and very heartwarming child. Later on in the documentary, Nick talks about how Tupac joins Death Row who are represented in a very dark spotlight: Connected to drug trafficking, Gang violence and murder cases and once again without showing us evidence of such accusations. Also Nick talks about how Biggie allegedly arranged the shooting of Tupac, on two occasions and yet again no solid facts were presented to solidify that.

The hip-hop movement has been represented in a very bad spotlight. At one point, Nick talks about how hip hop was connected to the FBI, cop killing and so many other bad arguments. He was very biased on that matter, because I know for a fact that, there was a lot of racism at that time and there were many cases of racist cops. The whole hip hop movement was created, because of the fact that a lot of people were not treated fairly and hip hop was a way of these people to express their opinions. Nick Broomfield, showed footage of riots and after it, we saw footage of the politics telling us negative views about the hip hop movement. The whole movement was shown in a way that it makes us believe that the rioters were the villains of the situation.

It is very important for a producer of a documentary to get his point across, however to do that in the most efficient way, documentaries can be very biased in a lot of cases. Again, the interview of Marilyn Manson was very intimate. Intimacy in general in documentaries is very important, because it opens some doors and opinion which objectifies a certain view. The montage of the politicians that we see is not private unlike Marilyn's interview. Due to the fact that the politicians are speaking publicly, they have to be politically correct, which prevents them from expanding their opinion on camera. On the other hand, Marilyn holds the power,

because he has an intimate interview, which allows him to speak his mind freely unlike the opposers of the argument.

It is a fact that Moore is very biased about his whole idea and he does not keep an open mind, however is this okay in critical point of view? In the end of the day, documentaries and every types of movies are produced to generate money and if the point is not shown across in the most efficient way, the documentary will get too objective and lose their purpose. By losing their purpose, they won't be as successful, which means that the money produced will not be as much as if they have kept it biased. So is it okay to keep it biased? In a moral point of view, a lot of people will get tricked into thinking in one direction, but that is what makes a documentary.