documentary – Otis Morley’s 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?
Sample Assessment Materials, 2021

Introduction: The significance of digital technology generally, how it has affected filmmaking.

Body: How Kim Longinotto has utilised digital technology in order to create an unobtrusive observational documentary.

Described examples: Opening wide shot, able to film everything (‘favouriting’ footage, revealing moments “that’s what you men do”), portability (small and can conduct spontaneity panning, tilting, zooming. Swift and fluid movements), autofocus, natural lighting, no external sound equipment, multi-camera setup (cameras are cheap, two sides of the law – divorce sequence, storage is cheap and limitless, no cartridge swapping), non-directional microphone. Authentic long takes in Manka and divorce sequence, Manka scars, changing outcome of trial.

Conclusion

Essay – Version 1

The implementation of digital technology has had a vast impact upon filmmakers. Due to digital technology: cameras are much cheaper to purchase, editing is no longer permanent and films are much more widely available to general audiences. More specifically, the impact of digital technology has also greatly affected the documentary filmmaking scene in a multitude of beneficial ways. A great example of this can be seen within Sisters in Law (Kim Longinotto, 2005), in which Kim Longinotto employed the use of digital technology throughout the production process in order to produce an unobtrusive observational documentary.

The film opens on an establishing wide shot of the outskirts of Kumba, Cameroon. Due to the fact that this is filmed using a digital handheld camera out of a car window, Longinotto is able to make use of the built-in digital stabilisation. This allows the shot to be of a high quality and suitable for the cinema, despite the fact that it was filmed in a moving vehicle. This also demonstrates the fact it is not a requirement to be an expert cinematographer in order to operate a digital camera – democratising documentary filmmaking. Due to digital storage being extremely cheap and practically limitless, is likely that Longinotto filmed out of the window for an extended period of time. Afterwards, the take was likely edited together in post-production, through the apt use of digital non-linear editing software to demonstrate her journey into the village.

As Longinotto has the ability to film everything she encounters in Kumba, she is able to ‘favourite’ specific clips during the production process. As a result, she is able to start the editing process earlier and capture and display a number of revealing moments within the documentary. An example of this can be seen in the opening sequence when Vera Ngassa, the state prosecutor, exclaims “that’s what you men do!” to the husband of a wife seeking legal support. The lightweight and portable nature of the camera also allows Longinotto to conduct an extremely reactive style of filmmaking, letting her fluidly pan, tilt and zoom the camera as she deems appropriate. The digital autofocus feature is also utilised throughout the sequence, an example being when Longinotto swiftly zooms in on a closeup of Vera. The shot is out of focus for a brief unnoticeable moment, but the autofocus soon activates and the closeup is in perfect focus.

During the Manka sequence, when the aunt is summoned for questioning, Longinotto is able to initially zoom in on a closeup of the her, and then later zoom out to reveal a three-shot: displaying the aunt, Stephen and Manka. This demonstrates the digital camera’s ability to smoothly reposition a frame. Alongside this, due to the camera being so unobtrusive, no one is fazed by its presence – including young Manka herself. Unlike an imposing celluloid camera, this allows the events of the documentary to occur in a much more authentic manner. The digital camera is also able to exhibit the scars on Manka’s back, despite the dim lighting of the cramped office.

Throughout Sisters in Law, Longinotto’s use of digital sound recording is a much more convenient and intuitive process due to the fact no obtrusive equipment – such as external sound recorders or boom poles – are required. Instead, all the sound is captured and recorded with the use of a subtle non-directional microphone, and the requirement to synchronise sound in post-production is nullified. This makes the editing process much more efficient in effect. As digital cameras are much cheaper than analogue, Longinotto is able to afford a multi-camera setup, employing a co-director: Florence Ayisi. The setup is extremely useful in separating the two sides of the law in the divorce sequence, as well as providing good coverage of the courtroom. One camera is positioned in the corner of the room, whereas the other is stably positioned behind the couple, framing a two-shot. As Longinotto is not limited by storage, she is able to aptly utilise a variety of long takes throughout the Manka and divorce sequences. Despite the implementation of light editing to compress events, this makes the documentary seem much more authentic.

With particular focus on digital cameras, digital recording software and non-linear editing, Longinotto has intuitively utilised digital technology in a number of ways throughout the production of Sisters in Law in order to produce an uninterrupted observational documentary. Being extremely cost-efficient and accessible, digital technology has successfully democratised documentary filmmaking and positively impacted the medium as a whole.

Essay – Version 2

The film opens on an establishing wide shot of the outskirts of Kumba, Cameroon. Due to the fact that this is filmed using a digital handheld camera out of a car window, Longinotto is able to make use of digital image stabilisation. This allows the shot to be of a high quality and suitable for the cinema, despite the fact that it was filmed in a moving vehicle. This also demonstrates the fact it is not a requirement to be an expert cinematographer in order to operate a digital camera – democratising documentary filmmaking. Due to digital storage being extremely cheap and practically limitless, is likely that Longinotto filmed out of the window for an extended period of time. Afterwards, the take was likely edited together in post-production, through the apt use of digital non-linear editing software to demonstrate her journey into the village.

As Longinotto has the ability to film everything she encounters in Kumba, she is able to ‘favourite’ specific clips during the production process. As a result, she is able to start the editing process earlier and capture and display a number of revealing moments within the documentary. An example of this can be seen in the opening sequence when Vera Ngassa, the state prosecutor, exclaims “that’s what you men do!” to the husband of a wife seeking legal support. The lightweight and portable nature of the camera also allows Longinotto to conduct an extremely reactive style of filmmaking, letting her fluidly pan, tilt and zoom the camera as she deems appropriate. For example, she frequently pans the camera in the opening sequence between Vera and the couple depending on who is speaking, which is reminiscent of eyes following a conversation. The digital autofocus feature is also utilised throughout the sequence, an example being when Longinotto swiftly zooms in on a closeup of Vera. The shot is out of focus for a brief unnoticeable moment, but the autofocus soon activates and the closeup is in perfect focus.

During the Manka sequence, when the aunt is summoned for questioning, Longinotto is able to initially zoom in on a closeup of the her, and then later zoom out to reveal a three-shot: displaying the aunt, Stephen and Manka. This demonstrates the digital camera’s ability to smoothly reposition a frame. Alongside this, due to the camera being so unobtrusive, no one is fazed by its presence – including young Manka herself. Unlike an imposing celluloid camera, this allows the events of the documentary to occur in a much more authentic manner. The digital camera is also able to capture a closeup of Manka’s back, which exhibits the scars inflicted by her abusive aunt, despite the dim lighting of the cramped office.

As digital cameras are much cheaper than analogue, Longinotto is able to afford a multi-camera setup, employing a co-director: Florence Ayisi. The setup is extremely useful in separating the two sides of the law in the divorce sequence, as well as providing good coverage of the courtroom. One camera is positioned in the corner of the room, whereas the other is stably positioned behind the couple, framing a two-shot. As Longinotto is not limited by storage, she is able to aptly utilise a variety of long takes throughout the Manka and divorce sequences. Digital editing is no longer destructive, meaning that Longinotto is able to freely edit the takes together in a non-obtrusive manner. Because of this, light editing is employed throughout the film in order to compress events and form a natural transition between sequences.

Sisters In Law “Divorce Sequence” (Digital Technology)

Throughout the divorce sequence of Sisters in Law, Kim Longinotto’s utilisation of digital technology has allowed her to have an indirect impact upon the result of the divorce trial displayed in this sequence, despite the underlying aim to produce a fully unobtrusive observational documentary.

The first portion of the sequence is made up of a long take, in which a wide shot displays children playing football – one of many examples of domestic life presented throughout the documentary within the village of Kumba. Due to the fact that a handheld digital camera is able to record everything as storage is extremely cheap, Longinotto is able to acquire this B-roll footage and select appropriate clips later.

Within the courtroom, it becomes apparent that Longinotto has chosen to utilise a multi-camera setup once again. Due to the cameras being cheap and easy to use, she is able to capture good coverage of the scene. She can also, if needed, fluidly move out of the way as to not interrupt the proceedings, due to the portability of the camera. In this case, one camera is positioned in the corner of the room, whereas the other is stably positioned behind the couple, framing a two-shot.

The camera in the corner of the room continually films in a spontaneous manner – Longinotto pans, zooms and tilts on the fly as she deems appropriate. The camera itself works well in the dimly lit courtroom, meaning that no artificial lights are required, making the process much more unobtrusive. Due to cheap and limitless storage, Longinotto is once again able to film everything with one long take, alongside the fact that the laborious and conspicuous process of swapping film cartridges is not required.

Towards the end of the trial, the court behave in a manner which indicates to the viewer that Longinotto’s presence has been forgotten. Asserting their dominance over Amina, stating that “what we say must be”, Longinotto decides to make an active decision as she realises that Amina is in danger. She chooses to countermand the underlying mode of the film, an observational documentary, by actively stepping closer towards the court with the camera in hand. Afterwards, one of the judges jokingly remarks that “he’ll split you open” to Amina, initiating a change in opinion. Through this, Longinotto has indirectly forced the court to change their originally oppressive ruling.

Sisters In Law “Manka Sequence” (Digital Technology)

Throughout the Manka sequence of Sisters in Law, Kim Longinotto’s utilisation of digital technology has allowed her to create a successfully unobtrusive observational documentary.

Firstly, even Manka herself is not fazed by the camera’s presence, demonstrating the subtlety and unobtrusiveness of a small digital camera. Due to the cameras being relatively cheap, Longinotto is once again able to utilise a multi-camera setup during this scene. Alongside this, Longinotto does not need to worry about running out of film, as digital storage is extremely cheap and almost limitless.

The lightweight nature of the camera allows Longinotto to conduct an extremely reactive style of filmmaking, letting her to swiftly move the camera between the two sides of the law. For example, when Manka’s aunt appears later in the sequence, Longinotto is able to initially zoom in on a closeup of the her, and then later zoom out to reveal a three-shot: displaying the aunt, Stephen and Manka. In addition, she is able to ‘favourite’ specific takes as she is filming, allowing her to begin the editing process earlier. Longinotto’s use of long takes makes the documentary feel more authentic, despite the implementation of light editing, used to compress events. Filming each and every event allows her to select the most interesting moments during this process, such as the aunt’s breakdown during this sequence.

The digital camera is able to exhibit the scars on Manka’s back despite the dim lighting of the room – the brutality of the poignant moment is not lost due to digital technology. Finally, Vera’s demeanour is extremely authentic, assuming an austere disposition throughout the sequence. This demonstrates to the viewer that Longinotto’s camera has successfully remained unobtrusive.

*The camera is able to discern the scars on Manka’s back*

Sisters In Law “Opening Sequence” (Digital Technology)

Throughout the opening sequence of Sisters in Law, Kim Longinotto’s utilisation of digital technology has allowed her to create a successfully unobtrusive observational documentary.

The sequence opens on an establishing wide shot of the outskirts of Kumba. Due to the fact that this is filmed using a handheld camera out of a car window, Longinotto is able to make use of automatic digital stabilisation. In effect, this allows the shot to be of a high quality, despite the fact that it was filmed in a moving vehicle. In addition to this, the long take exhibits Longinotto’s journey as she gets closer and closer to Kumba. It is likely that she filmed out of the window for a long period of time, due to digital storage being cheap and practically unlimited. Afterwards, the take was likely edited together in post-production to demonstrate her journey.

Within the village, a number of wide shots display the rural vistas of Kumba. The foreground and background of each shot is in perfect focus, reinforcing the fact that no professional cinematographic skills are required to operate a digital camera. Due to Longinotto’s ability to film everything she encounters, she is able to select appropriate footage in post-production – an example of this can be seen when a man on a bicycle smiles at the camera.

As Longinotto cuts to the office, the portability of the digital camera becomes apparent. Due to the small stature of the camera, Longinotto is able to work in the crowded office. She is able to reposition the camera through zooming, panning and tilting – rather than having to physically move an analogue camera. The fluid camera movements continue to follow the action throughout the film, in an unobtrusive manner. Due to the fact that digital cameras are able to capture footage well in low lighting, no artificial lights are required to be used, preserving the credibility of the film. Longinotto is able to merely film the unfolding events from the corner of the room and the footage will be adequate for a cinema screen. Alongside this, no external sound recorder or boom pole is required to record the sound of the environment. Instead, all the sound is captured and recorded with the camera itself and the requirement to synchronise sound in post-production is nullified – making the editing process much more convenient

Due to cameras themselves being cheap, Longinotto can afford to make use of a multi-camera setup which, in effect, allows her to capture two simultaneously occurring events. This can be seen when a closeup of the wife is overlayed with the audio of a separate clip. In addition to this, a subtle digital camera is much less imposing than a staggering analogue camera, which requires setup. This allows for a much more unobtrusive documentary, as the subjects are bound to act more naturally in the presence of a more unnoticeable camera. In order to preserve authenticity, Longinotto is able to utilise the zoom and autofocus functionalities respectively, which are available on a digital camera. Because of this, the closeup of Vera goes into focus after a brief moment. This further democratises documentary filmmaking, due to zooming being an automatic and intuitive process.

A non-directional microphone is also built into the camera, which allows Longinotto to record all audio at once – albeit at the cost of hearing some voices louder in the mix than others. Finally, due to the fact that Longinotto is able to capture every moment with her digital camera, a number of revealing moments are captured and make it into the final cut. A clear example of this can be seen in the first sequence when Vera shouts “that’s what you men do!” At the husband.

Critical Debates: The Significance Of Digital Technology

We were tasked to create a mind map that details that significance of digital technology within filmmaking. On the whole, the implementation of digital technology has vastly improved film in three key areas: filmmakers in general, to audiences and to documentary filmmakers in particular.

Side By Side (Chris Keneally, 2013)

Side By Side (Chris Keneally, 2013) is a documentary film directed by Christopher Keneally. Presented by Keanu Reeves, the film investigates the history, process and workflow of celluloid and digital filmmaking respectively.

Throughout the film, a wide variety of notable directors, actors, producers and cinematographers are interviewed by Keanu. These include the likes of David Fincher, Martin Scorsese, George Lucas, David Lynch, Greta Gerwig and many more. The film cuts between interview clips featuring Keanu and one of the aforementioned filmmakers with relevant visuals of the filmmaking process being discussed.

*Keanu Reeves pictured with some of the crew members* *of Side By Side*

Each filmmaker is able to voice their opinion on both the photochemical and digital means of filmmaking, each giving us a different interpretation. For example, filmmakers such as George Lucas and James Cameron were early adopters of digital technology and are all for leaping into the future. Conversely, Christopher Nolan and David Fincher are still reluctant to do this, and insist on using film cameras.

There is a significant argument for both cases, due to the fact that digital is becoming increasingly cheaper and of a higher quality. Furthermore, Danny Boyle stated that he felt he had more freedom during the production of 28 Days Later which was filmed on digital. However, pro-celluloid filmmakers argue that actors take the noisier film cameras more seriously as they can “hear the money”. Alongside this, some argue that digital will simply never equal the sheer quality of authentic film reels.

The mode of this documentary is participatory, due to the fact that Keanu Reeves’ presence can be felt. However, he is not the filmmaker of this particular documentary, therefore it cannot be performative.

I enjoyed the film a considerable amount and it gave me a comprehensive insight into film production, featuring an ensemble cast of directors that I admire. However, I felt that the pace of the film faltered at points.

Overall, I would rate Side by Side ★★★.

Component 2b: Documentary Film (Filmmakers’ Theories)

How far does your chosen documentary demonstrate elements of one or more filmmaker’s theories you have studied?
Autumn 2020

Introduction: Defined as a film that uses pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a particular subject, it can be difficult to pinpoint what a documentary exactly is. Bill Nichols, a documentary theorist, has argued that all films fall into one of two categories of documentary – being wish fulfilment and social representation. The latter of which can be further categorised into one of Nichols’ six ‘modes’ of documentary, including: expository, observational, participatory, performative, poetic and reflexive.

Even still, the vast majority of documentaries blur the line between modes and can be easily argued to be categorised under more than one. A clear example of this is The War Game (Peter Watkins, 1965) which can be classified in particular as an observational or participatory documentary. These filmmakers such as the aforementioned Peter Watkins, as well as those such as Michael Moore and Nick Brookfield, are attempting to create a wholly unique and intriguing documentary. Therefore, their aims involve preventing their films from being categorised under a flawed, preconceived system created by a single person.

Section 1: Introduce Kim Longinotto and her style. Reference her ideologies and theories.

Observational, Cinema verite, “would like to watch herself”, “feels very uncomfortable asking people to do things”, panning over cuts, Aaton Super-16 camera over digital technology (acts as the cinematographer and camera operator).

Section 2: Introduce Sisters in Law.

Handheld, long-takes, opening score is the only non-diegetic sound, temporal editing, tilts, subtitles, editing compresses events, zooming (Vera and Manka), priorities authenticity over aesthetics, two shots separates the law, reactionary shots, domestic life separations, over-the-shoulder (Amina), gender inequality (observational documentary is successful), playing up to the camera (aunt and council)

Conclusion

Essay – Version 1

Defined as a film that uses pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a particular subject, it can be difficult to pinpoint what a documentary exactly is. Bill Nichols, a documentary theorist, has argued that all films fall into one of two categories of documentary: wish fulfilment and social representation. The latter of which can be further categorised into one of Nichols’ six ‘modes’ of documentary, including: expository, observational, participatory, performative, poetic and reflexive.

Even still, the vast majority of documentaries blur the line between modes and can be easily argued to be categorised under more than one. A clear example of this is The War Game (Peter Watkins, 1965) which can be classified in particular as an observational or participatory documentary. These filmmakers such as the aforementioned Peter Watkins, as well as those such as Michael Moore and Nick Broomfield, are attempting to create a wholly unique and intriguing documentary. Therefore, their aims involve preventing their films from being categorised under a flawed, preconceived system created by a single person.

Despite this, a number of documentarians’ work can indeed be categorised under a single mode of documentary, one example being Kim Longinotto. Known for making observational documentaries that spread awareness of discriminatory oppression towards women, Longinotto has stated that “real life is often more surprising and extraordinary than we can imagine”. Incoporating the cinéma vérité style of filmmaking into her films, Longinotto attempts to create films that she “would like to watch” herself. Her films are characterised by an authentic, uninterrupted portrayal of events which supports her ideology of believing that films should not explicitly state what the viewer should think and feel over the course of the film. This juxtaposes the styles of documentarians such as Michael Moore, who establishes an extremely noticeable and cynical presence throughout each of his films.

Throughout her films, Longinotto prefers to pan the camera rather than use cuts when a new person begins to talk. This places the viewer within the “eyes” of the camera and establishes a much more authentic and apparent perspective. Although she can never be seen in her documentaries, Longinotto acts as the cinematographer and camera operator for each of her films. Because of this, she shoots each of her films with an Aaton Super-16 model stating that she “loves the steadiness” of it. Often employing only one other co-director, it is important for her to film with a camera that she is extremely familiar and comfortable with.

One film that best demonstrates the filmmaking theories of Kim Longinotto is Sisters in Law (2005). Throughout the film, Longinotto employs the key elements of film form in a wide variety of ways in order to produce an unobtrusive and authentic observational documentary.

Firstly, Longinotto employs the use of her aforementioned Aaton Super-16 handheld camera throughout the duration of the film. This can initially be seen in the opening shot of the film – a wide shot out of a car window that exhibits the rural, poverty-stricken landscape of Kumba, Cameroon. The use of a handheld camera without a tripod is perhaps used due to the fact that it is less conspicuous than a tripod. In theory, the subjects’ actions portrayed throughout the documentary will be more genuine because of this, demonstrating Longinotto’s theory of authenticity. Throughout this long take, a non-diegetic score is present in the mix – a plucked acoustic guitar that evokes a sense of pastoral imagery. After the score gradually lowers in the mix, the diegetic ambience of Kumba enters.

From this point forward, every sound in the mix is both diegetic and recorded on set. Alongside this, the lighting is all naturally captured and is merely a reflection of reality. All of the mise-en-scène found within each scene is naturally occurring in order to display an entirely authentic depiction of the scenarios. Alongside this, no contextual information is explicitly stated to the viewer – supporting Longinotto’s aforementioned statement about implicit information. After an apt use of temporal editing to demonstrate the journey into the village, Longinotto employs her first of many uses of camera panning. Acting as the proxy for the viewer, the pan exhibits the view of the rural setting. Alongside this, panning is used to focus on each subject as they begin to talk, replicating the notion of eyes following a conversation.

Within the village, Longinotto utilises a number of spontaneous camera movements – tracking subjects by tilting the camera up and down. Scenes are mostly captured with a two camera setup, operated by Longinotto herself, as well as co-director Florence Ayisi. Thus, each scenario can be captured by two opposing angles and cut together by Longinotto in post-production. During a court meeting between Vera Ngassa (the state prosecutor) and a couple, Longinotto employs the zoom feature in real time to focus in on a closeup of Vera. Due to autofocus taking effect, the footage briefly goes out of focus before refocusing on the closeup. This demonstrates to us Longinotto’s ideological priority of accuracy and authenticity over aesthetic perfection.

Each legal case is interspersed with brief, ambient scenes which display domestic life within the village. Throughout these, Longinotto will typically film in a single location and capture each and every event that occurs, even seemingly trivial scenarios. In effect, this implicitly contextualises the setting and cultural characteristics of the Cameroonian village of Kumba. This demonstrates her theory of capturing “real life” throughout her unassuming style of filmmaking.

Zooms are often used throughout the film, another example being during the Manka Sequence in which Longinotto zooms in on a young girl’s wounds. Through this, a high-angle closeup is created which exhibits the scars and wounds she possesses. This subtle example of camera manipulation instills empathy within the viewer and reinforces Manka’s vulnerability. Longinotto also separates the two sides of the law by cutting between a three-shot of Stephen, Manka and the aunt, and a mid-closeup of Vera which is captured by the second camera. This apt use of editing is noticeable to the viewer, but unobtrusive to the portrayal of events. During the confrontation, the camera also occasionally focuses on the reaction of the subject being spoken to, rather than the person speaking. Through this reactionary shot equivalent, the viewer is able to soak in each of the subject’s live reactions to the events that occur. During the aunt’s panic-stricken rebuttal, Longinotto utilises a closeup on her face. Through this, it becomes clear to the viewer that the aunt is playing up to the camera. Her exaggerated crocodile tears and frantic justifications purports a sense of vulnerability, but the viewer is likely able to see through this due to Longinotto’s intelligent camerawork.

This instance of the camera having a direct impact on events can also be seen within the Divorce Sequence. After the divorce is granted to Amina by the council who almost exiled her from the country, the man now noticeably plays up to the camera, stating that “that’s what Cameroon wants! We don’t want problems”. Vera’s prior empowerment over the abusive aunt juxtaposed with the oppression faced by Amina within this sequence epitomises the different roles in society held by women that Longinotto endeavours to bring to light.

In conclusion, Kim Longinotto’s filmmaking theories, employed throughout Sisters in Law, can be characterised at its core, by her proactive avoidance of intervention which is typically found throughout other documentaries. For example, if Nick Broomfield or Louis Theroux had made this film, their respective strong characters would be felt across the duration of the film. In the case of Longinotto, Sisters in Law’s approach allows for a much more subtle and thoughtful viewing experience, in which the viewer is able to draw their own conclusions through Longinotto’s implicit manner of filmmaking.

Essay – Version 2

Defined as a film that uses pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a particular subject, it can be difficult to pinpoint what a documentary exactly is. Documentary theorist Bill Nichols’ six ‘modes’ of documentary can be used to categorise each and every documentary under a particular division.

Even still, the vast majority of documentaries blur the line between modes. A clear example of this is The War Game (Peter Watkins, 1965) which could be classified under more than one mode. This is because Watkins and other documentarians such as Michael Moore and Nick Broomfield are attempting to create a wholly unique and intriguing documentary. Their aims involve preventing their films from being categorised under a flawed and narrow-minded system.

Despite this, a number of documentarians’ work can indeed be categorised under a single mode of documentary, one example being Kim Longinotto. Known for making observational documentaries that spread awareness of discriminatory oppression towards women, Longinotto has stated that “real life is often more surprising and extraordinary than we can imagine”. Incoporating the cinéma vérité style of filmmaking into her films, Longinotto attempts to create films that she “would like to watch” herself. Her films are characterised by an uninterrupted portrayal of events which supports her ideology of believing that films should not explicitly state what the viewer should think and feel.

Firstly, Longinotto employs the use of a handheld camera throughout the duration of the film. This can initially be seen in the opening shot of the film – a wide shot out of a car window that exhibits the rural, poverty-stricken landscape of Kumba, Cameroon. The use of a handheld camera without a tripod is perhaps used due to the fact that it is less conspicuous than a tripod. In theory, the subjects’ actions portrayed throughout the documentary will be more genuine because of this, demonstrating Longinotto’s theory of authenticity. Throughout this long take, a non-diegetic score is present in the mix – a plucked acoustic guitar that evokes a sense of pastoral imagery. After the score gradually lowers in the mix, the diegetic ambience of Kumba enters.

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

We were tasked to analyse the “Divorce Sequence” from Sisters in Law (Kim Longinotto, 2005). Throughout the sequence, Longinotto once again employs the key elements of film form in a variety of naturalistic and unobtrusive ways.

The sequence opens on a wide establishing shot that exhibits a rural vista of Kumba. This exhibition of domestic life within the village is once again utilised by Longinotto to separate the court cases from each other in a subtle and authentic manner. We then cut to a divorce procedure within a small, densely packed room which is framed claustrophobically. By physically moving out of the way, Longinotto attempts to remain as unobtrusive as possible. She does not want the camera’s presence to influence the procedure in any way.

Once again, the two sides of the law are separated by two different two-shots, one exhibiting the court and one displaying the couple. The court initially addresses Amina, the woman seeking divorce, in a commanding and austere manner whereas the man is spoken to politely and formally. After Amina states that she has received legal advice, the council uses harsh phrases such as “you have to do as we say!” and “what we say must be!”, the prevalent gender inequality present throughout the country is reinforced. Longinotto accentuates this hostility by frequently cutting between the two two-shots and additionally implementing the use of an over-the-shoulder shot. Through this, the oppression that Longinotto is seeking to bring to light is epitomised and Amina’s vulnerable position is highlighted. Due to this behaviour, we can infer that at this point, the court is acting in a ‘normal’ manner and Longinotto seems to have no impact on the events unfolding. Because of this, Longinotto’s aims are ultimately achieved, and the observational documentary has been successful.

After the court begin to realise they are on camera, the case takes a complete U-turn. Firstly, the men acknowledge the danger Amina is facing in a light-hearted manner by exclaiming that the man will “split [her] open!’. The divorce is then granted to Amina, despite almost exiling her from the village moments earlier. The man now noticeably plays up to the camera, stating that “that’s what Cameroon wants! We don’t want problems”. This demonstrates that the camera has influenced the outcome of the trial, perhaps due to the fact that Longinotto seems to have stepped closer to the subjects. Finally, a questionably celebratory atmosphere is present within the council, arousing suspicion within the viewer due to the stark juxtaposition of events in such a short span of time.

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

We were tasked to analyse the “Manka Sequence” from Sisters in Law (Kim Longinotto, 2005). Throughout the sequence, Longinotto once again employs the key elements in a variety of naturalistic and unobtrusive ways.

Once again making apt use of her handheld camera, Longinotto continues to employ panning between each of the subjects depicted – in this case being Manka, Stephen and Vera. Each sound heard throughout the sequence is both diegetic and recorded on location. As Stephen proceeds to detail the brutality of Manka’s wounds, Longinotto zooms into the young girl. Through this, a closeup is created which exhibits the scars and wounds Manka possesses as a result of her aunt’s abusive behaviour. A high angle shot is then implemented – looking down onto Manka. This subtle example of camera manipulation instills empathy within the viewer and is further accentuated when Manka looks up towards the camera.

As the camera zooms out, Manka and Stephen are framed in a two-shot which portrays a significant difference in figure between the two. Manka’s frailty and destitution is reinforced through the use of this carefully constructed frame. Longinotto then utilises another example of temporal editing, in order to smoothly transition the footage to the following day which appropriately compresses the events presented.

During the next day, the aunt, Stephen and Manka a framed together in a single three-shot. We cut between this and a mid-closeup of Vera, captured by the second camera. Through this use of editing, the separation between the two sides of the law are subtly established. In addition, the three-shot allows the viewer to take notice of Stephen’s paternal-like protection of Manka as well as the aunt’s frantic attempts to justify herself. In addition, Stephen occasionally glances into the camera which demonstrates his awareness of the situation and reinforces his protective nature. During the confrontation, the camera occasionally focuses on the reaction of the subject being spoken to. Through this reactionary shot equivalent, the viewer is able to soak in each of the subject’s live reactions to the events that occur.

During the aunt’s panic-stricken rebuttal, Longinotto utilises a closeup on her face. Through this, it becomes clear to the viewer that the aunt is playing up to the camera. Her exaggerated crocodile tears and frantic justifications purports a sense of vulnerability, but the viewer is likely able to see through this due to Longinotto’s intelligent camerawork. She attempts to hide nothing from the viewer and merely display an accurate portrayal of events, despite the aunt’s superficial emotions. This is further reinforced when we return to the three-shot, during which Manka’s stoic reaction to her aunt’s utterly distraught rationalisation for her abusive actions. This shot further displays Manka as an innocent and vulnerable victim.

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

Throughout the opening sequence of Sisters in Law, Kim Longinotto employs the key elements of film form in a wide variety of ways in order to produce an unobtrusive observational documentary.

Firstly, Longinotto employs the use of a portable handheld camera throughout the duration of the film. The sequence opens with a wide shot out of a car window that exhibits the rural, poverty-stricken landscape. It could be argued that Longinotto has chosen to use a smaller, more portable camera due to the fact that it is less conspicuous than a tripod. Therefore, the subjects’ actions portrayed throughout the documentary will be more genuine in theory. The vistas are lush and the weather is overcast – perhaps challenging the viewer’s preconceived notions of West Africa. Throughout this long take, a non-diegetic score is present in the mix – a plucked acoustic guitar that evokes a sense of pastoral imagery. As the score gradually lowers in the mix, the diegetic ambient street noise of Kumba enters. From this point forward, every sound in the mix is both diegetic and recorded on set. Alongside this, the lighting is all naturally captured and is merely a reflection of reality. All of the mise-en-scène found within each scene is naturally occurring in order to display an entirely authentic depiction of the scenarios. It is also important to make note of the fact that no contextual information is explicitly stated to the viewer.

As Longinotto travels further into the village, it becomes clear that an example of temporal editing is implemented. Longinotto’s use of hard cuts exhibit the passing of time as the village becomes ever closer. As she reaches her destination, Longinotto employs her first of many uses of camera panning – a typically unorthodox technique within filmmaking. In the case of Sisters in Law, panning is used in order to recreate the feeling of a head turning to take in its surroundings. Through this, the camera acts as the proxy for the viewer over the course of the film.

Within the village, Longinotto captures the actions of the documentary subjects in a variety of ways. She utilises a number of spontaneous camera movements – tracking people’s movements by tilting up and down. Alongside this, when a person starts speaking, Longinotto will usually pan the camera in order to focus upon them, reminiscent of eyes following a conversation. Scenes are mostly captured with a two camera setup, operated by Kim Longinotto herself, as well as co-director Florence Ayisi. Through this, each situation can be aptly captured by two opposite angles – Longinotto later cutting between the footage appropriately.

The residents of Kumba mostly speak in a form of Pidgin English. This involves the use of fragmented English phrases which are interspersed with a multitude of African tongues. Due to this, almost all of the events portrayed are accompanied by English subtitles. As we are introduced to Vera Ngassa, the state prosecutor, a subtle title card displays her name – a rare example of explicit information provided to the viewer. The conversation between the prosecutor and the couple ensues, during which Longinotto employs the zoom feature in real time to focus in on a closeup of Vera. Due to autofocus taking effect, the footage briefly goes out of focus before refocusing on the closeup. This demonstrates to us Longinotto’s priority of accuracy and authenticity over aesthetic perfection in the case of this film.

Throughout the sequence, editing is visible and present – but unobtrusive. Used in order to break up the frequent long takes which exhibit the passing of time, Longinotto’s use of editing acts as a compression of events rather than a manipulation. It is clear to see that in the example of this case, the woman reporting her abusive relationship is acting genuinely. She takes no notice of the camera’s presence and her sincere demeanour illustrates that she is exclusively concerned with her serious legal matter. In addition to this, Vera Ngassa’s disposition is strict, impartial and austere. This aids Longinotto’s aim of presenting female strength and empowerment within an oppressed and poverty-stricken environment. Finally, it is important to make note of the fact that each legal case is interspersed with brief, ambient scenes which display domestic life within the village. Throughout these, Longinotto will typically film in a single location and capture each and every event that occurs, even seemingly trivial scenarios. In effect, this contextualises the setting and cultural characteristics of the Cameroonian village of Kumba.

Filmmakers’ “theories” — Kim Longinotto

Kim Longinotto is a British documentary filmmaker known for making observational documentaries that spread awareness of discriminatory oppression towards women. Stating that “real life is often more surprising and extraordinary than anything we can imagine”, her films include those such as The Day I Will Never Forget which explores victims of FGM in Kenya and Pink Saris – a film which documents women in India standing up to rapists.

Studying English and European literature at Essex University, Longinotto met fellow documentarian Nick Broomfield, and both later attended the National Film and Television School. Here, she made a film called Pride of Place which documented a draconian all-girls boarding school that Kim Longinotto attended as a child. Later shown at the London Film Festival, this perhaps inspired her to discover her niche of cinema – creating unobtrusive documentaries about women undergoing oppressive circumstances.

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 Longinotto attempts to create films that she “would like to watch” herself. Due to this, each of her films can be categorised under the observational mode of documentary, often utilising the cinéma vérité style of filmmaking in which subjects are depicted in the most authentic manner possible. She vehemently believes that films should not explicitly state what the viewer should think and feel throughout the duration of the film. Stating in an interview that she “feels very uncomfortable asking people to do things”, Kim Longinotto endeavours to create uninterrupted films that are characterised by empathy and nonintervention. Despite this, she feels uncomfortable with her films being described as “fly on the wall”, stating that “it implies that the person we are filming does not really care and is not involved.”

Furthermore, Longinotto prefers to pan the camera, rather than cut when a new person begins to talk. In effect, this places the viewer within the “eyes” of the camera and establishes a much more authentic and apparent perspective. Kim Longinotto is never seen within her documentaries, as she does not wish to interfere with the events and issues being documented.

A key example of this can be witnessed throughout Longinotto’s film, Sisters in Law. The film provides zero context surrounding the subject matter and throws the viewer straight into the deep end. Other than the subtle use of unassuming title cards, this undisturbed style of filmmaking continues throughout the duration of the film as the viewer continues to surmise more information about the Cameroonian judicial system. Stating that the film took “3 months filming and 10 weeks editing”, it is clear to see that Kim Longinotto meticulously crafts each of her films in a highly deliberate and meaningful manner.

*An authentic situation captured by Longinotto in Sisters in Law*

All of Longinotto’s films are filmed in a foreign country, making her a foreign filmmaker within those countries. After filming in Kenya while making The Day I Will Never Forget, Longinotto described herself as not having “any of those prejudices” towards the tribes she was documenting, due to being an outsider. Through this, the concepts of “gender, power and hierarchy” became more apparent to her as the film developed.

Longinotto shoots each of her films with an Aaton Super-16 camera, a relatively large model. Straying from the increasing popularity of digital technology, Longinotto has stated that she “loves the steadiness” of her camera, as well as “the fact that it’s film”. This particular preference perhaps allows her to produce a more authentic and raw documentary. Alongside this, Longinotto acts as the cinematographer and camera operator for each of her films. Therefore, it is understandable for her to film with a camera that she is extremely familiar and comfortable with.

*Kim Longinotto pictured with her preferred camera*

Sisters In Law (Kim Longinotto, 2005)

Sisters in Law (Kim Longinotto, 2005) is an observational documentary film which gives us an insight into the criminal judicial system of Cameroon. We follow the day-to-day lives of Vera Ngassa (the state prosecutor) and Beatrice Ntuba (the court president) throughout the film. The two fight against injustice within the village of Kumba, placing particular emphasis on domestic abuse, child abuse and violence against women throughout the film.

*Vera Ngassa (left) and Beatrice Ntuba (right)*

The film centres around four cases, each being linked by the theme of discriminatory violence against women. The case that has the most time dedicated to it involves Manka, a child who was beaten with a cane by her aunt. By the end of the film, she is charged with child abuse at the hands of Vera Ngassa. Despite this, women are also presented in a strong and rigorous light due to the two aforementioned lawyers, Vera and Beatrice exhibiting their forceful presence by distributing their ethical judgement towards the tyrannical citizens present throughout the country.

*Residents of Kumba features throughout the film*

The film is unanimously agreed upon to be categorised under the observational mode of documentary. This is due to the fact that Kim Longinotto has zero direct involvement on the events portrayed throughout the film and merely wishes to capture an entirely accurate and uninterrupted portrayal of the Kumba judicial system. The only involvement Longinotto has on the events of the film are through her use of occasional subject title cards, as well as subtitles of the Pidgin English spoken by the subjects. The camera almost appears to be invisible, as the subjects of the documentary never once acknowledge the camera’s presence. This ‘fly on the wall’ style of filmmaking means that the film can easily be placed under the observational mode. This particular mode of documentary allows the viewer to form their own opinion on the events that unfold throughout the film without the hindrance of a coercive documentarian, such as Michael Moore.

Personally, I enjoyed Sisters in Law to a considerable degree. Through Longinotto’s apt use of the observational mode of documentary, I often forgot that these events were filmed in the presence of a documentary crew. Although I found some cases more engaging than others, Longinotto offers an enlightening insight into the judicial system of Cameroon and spreads awareness of the discrimination of women throughout the country.

Overall, I would rate Sisters in Law ★★★½.

The Trouble With The Six Modes

Bill Nichols’ modes of documentary are highly problematic for one key reason. The vast majority of documentaries cannot be categorised under a single mode of documentary, a clear example being The War Game (Peter Watkins, 1965). This particular film can be argued to be classified under a number of modes – including both observational and participatory. Because of this, an uncertain middle ground is created and the modes are rendered useless.

The main reason for this is that filmmakers attempt to create a wholly unique and intriguing documentary, often with a particular artistic vision in mind. Because of this, documentarians often attempt to prevent their films from being categorised under a single, pre-conceived mode created by a single person.

Filmmakers’ “theories” — Louis Theroux

Louis Theroux is a British-American documentarian, journalist, broadcaster, podcaster and author. He is known for hosting performative documentaries, such as When Louis Met… and Weird Weekends, as well as a number of BBC Two specials including The Most Hated Family in America.

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.

Theroux’s documentaries typically follow Louis’ investigation into some of the world’s most restricted and controversial communities. Including the Westbrook Baptist Church, a notorious neo-nazi group and the San Quentin prison, there seems to be no limit as to where Louis Theroux will document next.

Louis Theroux’s style of documentary is like no other. Being typically categorised under the performative mode, Theroux purports a façade of naïveté and inquisitiveness in order to establish a diplomatic rapport between himself and his interviewees. Through this, the viewer is able to place themselves in Louis’ shoes and receive an objective, transparent insight into these marginal subcultures.

In addition, a number of unscripted humourous moments often occur throughout Theroux’s films due to Louis’ occasional remarks towards the interviewee. During these, Louis will often comment on exactly what the viewer themselves is thinking and this creates a sense of relatability between Louis and the viewer.

Due to this, Louis Theroux has received a number of accolades including two BAFTAs for Best Presenter as well an Emmy award in 1995. He is popular among the documentary viewership and arguably one of the most recognisable documentarians of our time.

Louis Theroux

The Most Hated Family in America (Geoffrey O’Connor, 2007) is a performative documentary written and presented by Louis Theroux. During the film, Theroux visits the Westbrook Baptist Church in Kansas. Led by Fred Phelps, the church members vehemently believe that America is immoral due to the tolerance of homosexuality present throughout the country,

*Louis pictured with the daughters of the church*

Throughout the film, Louis accompanies the church to a number of pickets at the funerals of military soldiers who were killed in action. Throughout the protest, each member of the church – including the radicalised young children proudly displays a multitude of extremely derogatory signs pictured below.

Alongside attending the pickets, Louis takes time to interview each member of the church in order to fully understand their extremely controversial way of life. He exerts an extremely polite and almost naive demeanour towards the church members, cleverly making them more eager and willing to converse with him. He strikes the perfect balance between getting up-close and personal with the interviewees and keeping enough distance between to remain impartial towards the situation.

This film could be categorised under the performative documentary mode, due to Louis Theroux’s heavy involvement upon the events depicted within the film. Revolving around Louis’ interactions with the church members, Theroux holds the film together and the viewer can easily place themselves in his shoes.

The film aired on 1 April 2007 on BBC Two and received 4.3 million viewers. Later the film was awarded overwhelmingly positive acclaim for exposing this controversial family to the public eye in an extremely professional manner.

Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed The Most Hated Family in America from start to finish. Being a fan of Theroux’s style of documentary, I was engaged within the interactions between Louis and the church members.

Overall, I would rate The Most Hated Family in America ★★★★.

Filmmakers’ “theories” — Nick Broomfield

Nick Broomfield is an English documentary filmmaker known for his highly influential self-reflective style of documentary. Initially regarded as a performative documentarian, Broomfield begun to employ non-actors to play themselves in scripted works, beginning in the early 2000s. Broomfield refers to his work as ‘Direct Cinema’, attempting to capture his subjects as directly as possible.

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 can often be seen within his films, recording sound himself with a couple of camera operators at his side. Because of this, Broomfield’s films, such as Kurt and Courtney and the Aileen duology, are often categorised as either participatory or performative documentaries. Despite this, his films such as Driving Me Crazy also frequently detail the events of the making of the documentary itself – perhaps placing it under the reflexive mode. Nick Broomfield has inspired many other documentarians with this particular style of filmmaking – influencing the likes of both Michael Moore and Louis Theroux.

In 2006, Broomfield adopted the aforementioned style of ‘Direct Cinema’, casting non-actors within scripted works. He produced Ghosts, a dramatisation which detailed the events of the 2004 Morecambe Bay cockling disaster. Receiving immense critical acclaim and winning a multitude of awards, Broomfield managed to raise almost £500,000 for the families of the depicted disaster.

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

Aileen: Life and Death Of A Serial Killer (Nick Broomfield, 2003) is a performative documentary film that details the events leading up to Aileen Wuornos’ execution – America’s first female serial killer. The film is a follow-up to Broomfield’s previous film Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer (1992) in which Broomfield attempts to interview Wuornos, and those around her who exploit her.

Throughout the film, Broomfield documents his relationship with Aileen and her family members through a variety of interviews. Alongside this, a large portion of the film is made up of Aileen’s courtroom hearings in which Nick Broomfield is summoned as a key witness. Broomfield additionally employs an assortment of news-reel footage in a non-linear manner to further inform the viewer of Aileen’s crimes. Interestingly, Aileen’s mental state can be seen to be visibly deteriorating over the course of the film.

This film could be considered a performative documentary due to Nick Broomfield’s heavy impact upon the events depicted throughout the film. Every event portrayed throughout the documentary can be traced back to Broomfield in one way or another.

The film grossed $16,158 after being released on three screens and received positive acclaim, receiving an 86% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Personally, I enjoyed the film to a certain extent and found Aileen’s hearings to be quite enjoyable and engaging. Despite this, I found many of the interviews to be relatively boring and unenjoyable – especially Aileen’s.

Overall, I would rate Aileen: Life And Death Of A Serial Killer ★★★.

Filmmakers’ “theories” — Peter Watkins

Peter Watkins is an English film and television director known for pioneering the ‘docu-drama’ sub-genre of documentary. Presenting radical ideas in an unorthodox fashion, Watkins’ filmography offers an insight into scarily authentic but hypothetical near-future events.

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’.

*Peter Watkins (second in from the right)*

Throughout films such as The War Game, Watkins typically employs amateur actors and handheld cameras in order to purport a sense of authenticity throughout the dystopian future presented throughout. Alongside this, Watkins includes superficial news report footage as well as voice-over narration within his films to fully immerse the viewer. Watkins’ implementation of documentary filmmaking traits in a seemingly impossible scenario, such as the bloody Scottish battlefields found within Culloden, provide a vast sense of immediate enthrallment throughout his filmography.

Peter Watkins’ films can typically be classed as somewhere between an expository documentary and an observational documentary. Due to the utilisation of narration combined with seemingly impossible ‘fly on the wall’ scenes, Watkins’ films lie in an interesting middle ground within Bill Nichols’ modes of documentary.

The War Game (Peter Watkins, 1966)

The War Game (Peter Watkins, 1966) is a British pseudo-documentary film which depicts a hypothetical nuclear war and the proceeding repercussions. The film caused a significant amount of distress within the BBC and it was soon deemed to be “too horrifying” for a general audience. The film was later televised in July 1985 during the week before the 40th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing.

During this ‘worst-case scenario’, the UK has declared a state of emergency after the Soviets threaten to invade West Berlin if the US does not revoke their decision to employ nuclear warfare. Ration cards and hazard booklets are soon distributed to the public and an emergency siren system is tested. Soon enough, a Soviet thermonuclear warhead airbursts 6 miles outside of Manston Airfield and the effects of the nuclear bomb are viscerally displayed to the viewer through the use of extremely graphic imagery.

The War Game wavers between being an observational documentary and a participatory documentary. In some scenes, the actors on-screen acknowledge the presence of the camera and in others, the camera appears to be invisible. Through this, a ‘fly on the wall’ style of filmmaking is employed, thus placing these parts of the film under the observational mode. The fact that each situation depicted is entirely fictional and each of the characters are actors, suggests that the film can be categorised as a participatory documentary. This is aptly utilised by Watkins in order to immerse the viewer within the imaginably dystopian reality of the near-future.

*Some of the many victims of nuclear warfare displayed throughout The War Game*

Receiving a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and winning the 1967 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, critics praised the film for being “remarkab[ly] authentic” – despite being shown to the public almost 20 years after production.

Although I didn’t get much enjoyment out of The War Game, I greatly appreciated it for its frightening level of genuineness presented throughout its 45 minute runtime. It’s no surprise that this film wasn’t aired publicly in 1965.

Overall, I would rate The War Game ★★★.

Filmmakers’ “theories” — Michael Moore

Michael Moore is an American documentary filmmaker, author and left-wing activist. Often addressing the topics of globalisation and capitalism, Moore’s documentaries frequently utilise his trademark cynical satire to expose a typically controversial subject matter.

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.

Moore’s work is typically a combination of his aforementioned cynical narration over a variety of archive footage intertwined with present day interviews with relevant authority figures and other noteworthy members of the public. Through this, Moore creates an engaging and unique experience throughout his filmography – often generating a great deal of controversy.

Moore’s films are extremely personal, tackling topics that hold a great deal of significance to him. Films such as Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are now cornerstones of the performative documentary genre. Because of this, it is no surprise that Time magazine named Michael Moore as one of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore, 2004)

Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore, 2004) is a performative documentary written, produced, directed by and starring left-wing political commentator – Michael Moore. The film’s main point of discussion is a critique of the George W. Bush administration’s handling of the September 11 attacks, as well as the proceeding 2003 Iraq war. Alongside this, Moore persistently argues that the media were “cheerleaders” for the war and did not provide an objective or accurate portrayal of the the events that took place.

Throughout the film, Moore narrates over a wide variety of footage, including the 2000 presidential election, the aftermath of 9/11 itself as well as an array of clips from Bush’s many speeches. Moving chronologically through the events, Moore’s commentary remains comedic throughout, which is extremely typical of his style of filmmaking. He jokes satirically at the extremely serious events being presented, with them being predominantly at Bush’s expense. In effect, this makes Michael Moore’s opinion on the subject matter extremely transparent from the get-go, which sets the tone for the duration of the film.

Alongside his cynical commentary, Moore appears in person throughout the documentary in order to interview citizens affected by the topics discussed. This places the film under the performative mode, due to the fact that Moore is personally interacting with the subjects and has a direct impact upon the events.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was received mostly positively by critics, receiving an 82% on Rotten Tomatoes and winning the 2004 Palme d’Or. However, some critics expressed their distaste for the documentary, stating that it was extremely one-sided and “harshly satirical”.

Personally, I found the film to be relatively enjoyable and Moore’s sardonic humour lightened the mood of the extremely harrowing footage presented throughout. However, I have to agree with the consensus that the documentary was extremely biased and only offered a single perspective. In addition to this, I lost interest at certain points throughout the film and found sections of the documentary to be overly convoluted.

Overall, I would rate Fahrenheit 9/11 ★★★.

Night Mail (GPO Film Unit, 1936)

Night Mail (GPO Film Unit, 1936) is a poetic documentary directed by Harry Watt and Basil Wright and produced by the Post Office. Being just under 25 minutes, the film documents the nightly postal train operated by the LMS.

The film follows the process of mail distribution through the ‘Postal Special train’, which exclusively carries post from London to Scotland. The filmmakers use a variety of external shots to exhibit the train’s journey as well as interior shots to display the interactions between the many workers sorting letters.

Although the majority of the film appears to be an observational documentary, the final minutes of the film include a poem by W.H. Auden which is rhythmically narrated by John Grierson and Stuart Legg. In effect, this transforms the mode of the film into a poetic documentary – making Night Mail particularly noteworthy.

Night Mail is considered by many to be the apotheosis of the GPO Film Unit, trailblazing the way for the future of the documentary form. The film was widely acclaimed by contemporary critics and the poem remains popular within the British public.

Personally I found the film to be largely uninteresting for the majority of its duration, offering little in the way of insight and information. However, I found the recital of W.H. Auden’s poem to be relatively intriguing and I believe it to be the part of the film that has aged the best.

Overall, I would rate Night Mail ★★½.

Blackfish (Gabriela Cowperthwaite, 2013)

Blackfish (Gabriela Cowperthwaite, 2013) is an observational documentary centering around the controversy of keeping killer whales in captivity and the psychological damage imbued upon the wales themselves. We follow the orca, Tilikum and his restrictive life at the SeaWorld entertainment centre.

The documentary details Tilikum’s involvement in the deaths of three people at SeaWorld, covering his capture in 1983 and his harassment by fellow captive orcas at the entertainment centre. The film rebukes several claims made by SeaWorld concerning the lifespan of orcas in captivity, stating that killer whales have similar lifespans to humans in their natural habitat. A variety of former SeaWorld trainers are interviewed throughout the film, including John Hargrove who each detail their experiences with Tilikum and the tragedy caused by him as well as other captive whales.

*A former SeaWorld member of staff being interviewed*

The subject of whale captivity is framed in an extremely negative light, reporting that whales undergo utmost stress while in captivity. Alongside this, the separation of the whales’ offspring when captured in the wild adds further insult to injury to the suffering the whales must live through. Cowperthwaite uses a number of interesting techniques throughout the film, such as expressing different viewpoints through the process of interviewing. Additionally, the medium of animation is used to recreate specific court cases as well as to make the process of whale capturing clearer for the viewer to visualise. The narrative of the documentary is relatively nonlinear, jumping between the date of Tilikum’s capture to the deaths of several trainers. This places the narrative in a more immediate position and places the viewer within the context of each situation.

*Tilikum pictured with Dawn Brancheau, one of the wale’s three victims*

The film premiered at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival and was then acquired by Magnolia Pictures and CNN for a wider release. With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 98%, the site states that “Blackfish is an aggressive, impassioned documentary that will change the way you look at performance killer whales.” Alongside this, SeaWorld suffered a $15.9 million loss and attendance declined by 5% in the first 9 months of 2013. This implies that Blackfish had a considerable impact upon the negative decline of SeaWorld as a tourist attraction.

Personally, I enjoyed Blackfish from start to finish. Prior to watching, I had little to no interest in the subject matter of orca captivity but this documentary managed to effectively spread awareness of the issue at hand. In saying this, no specific sequences particularly stood out to me and the documentary felt unnecessarily hard to follow at certain points. I believe that the underlying message that Gabriela Cowperthwaite was trying to convey was the persistent and unnoticed oppression towards killer whales and that the captivity of their species for our entertainment is inherently wrong.

Overall, I would rate Blackfish ★★★★.

Modes of Documentary

Bill Nichols, a documentary theorist, stated that every documentary could be categorised under one of six ‘modes’ of documentary, listed and explained below.

Expository Documentary

An expository documentary is the ‘traditional form’ of a documentary film, setting up a specific point of view or argument about a subject matter. The narrator often addresses the viewer directly, establishing the relationship between what is being projected on screen and the accompanying verbal commentary. Examples of an expository documentary include the works of David Attenborough, such as Planet Earth (2006) as well as the feature-length March of the Penguins (Luc Jacquet, 2005).

Observational Documentary

An observational documentary aims to capture fully authentic, day-to-day life with minimal interruption. Also referred to as a ‘fly on the wall’ documentary, the filmmaker is a neutral observer of events – remaining hidden behind the camera at all times. Examples of an observational documentary include High School (Frederick Wiseman, 1968) and The Beatles: Get Back (Peter Jackson, 2021).

Participatory Documentary

Within a participatory documentary, the filmmaker themselves is directly included within the documentary’s narrative, typically onscreen. Their impact upon the recorded events is acknowledged and the filmmaker personally interacts with the documentary’s subjects, with their personality often shining through in the process. Examples of a participatory documentary include Sherman’s March (Ross McElwee, 1985) and The Danube Exodus (Péter Forgács, 1998).

Performative Documentary

A performative documentary focuses on the filmmaker’s involvement with the specific area of documentation that the film is centered around. The filmmaker often inputs their personal experience with the subject in order to explore the larger truth of the matter at hand. Examples of a performative documentary include Supersize Me (Morgan Spurlock, 2004) and the many documentaries of Louis Theroux.

Poetic Documentary

A poetic documentary utilises avant-garde and experimental techniques to evoke a specific emotion within the viewer, avoiding a typical linear narrative. Examples of a poetic documentary include Fata Morgana (Werner Herzog, 1970) and Tongues Untied (Marlon Riggs, 1989).

Reflexive Documentary

Reflexive documentaries are often extremely meta in nature, acknowledging the format of a documentary itself. Often featuring the filmmaker within the film, a reflexive documentary makes no attempt to explore an outside topic but solely focuses on the act of creating a documentary. Examples of a reflexive documentary include Man With a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929) and Chronicle of a Summer (Jean Rouch, Edgar Morin, 1961).

Documentaries Defined

The dictionary defines a documentary as a film that “us[es] pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a particular subject.”

Realism is a concept that is portrayed throughout both fiction and documentary films. Whereas a fiction film may deviate from complete authenticity throughout its narrative to suit its particular purpose, a documentary film attempts to capture the absolute truth of the subject matter. In effect, a documentary strives to provide a highly informative and educational piece of media for a wide audience to consume.

Bill Nichols, a documentary theorist, stated that all films fall into one of two categories of documentary. These include ‘wish fulfilment’ (fiction films) and ‘social representation’ (what we would typically refer to a documentary as). Nichols claims that even the most fictitious work provides an accurate report of the culture and society it was produced under. Alongside this, the actors and physical locations utilised are authentically represented, according to Nichols. On the flip side, Nichols believes that documentaries are often as exciting and dramatic as fiction films and generally less predictable, due to the fact that they draw their subject matter from reality.

With this in mind, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between these two forms of filmmaking. This is due to many documentaries using a number of dramatic techniques from fiction films to recreate a truthful event in an entertaining manner. Conversely, a fiction film may borrow a variety of techniques utilised throughout documentaries in order to make the events of the film appear to be more authentic and nonfictional.

To reinforce this idea, it is important to establish a scale. On one end of the scale is an entirely fictitious film, produced for the sole purpose of entertainment with no regard for realism or authenticity. On the other end is a ‘pure documentary’ which is entirely nonfictional and produced for the sole purpose of education on a particular subject matter. In between these two extremes is a large grey area, brought to light by Bill Nichols. This area includes a wide variety of aforementioned films, including a seemingly fictional dramatisation of truthful events as well as an entirely fictional narrative which purports a sense of authenticity, due to the techniques employed by the filmmakers.

Fiction or documentary?

There are a wide variety of differences between a typical ‘fiction film’ and a feature length documentary film. In the table below, I have listed the main discrepancies between the two types of film, centering around a key aspect of filmmaking in each point.

Fiction Films

Mise-en-scène (locations, props, costumes, etc) can be real (shot on location) or “faked” in a studio.

Characters’ dialogue and actions are pre-conceptualised by a screenwriter and usually played by an actor.

Professional equipment is used throughout (such as dollies, rigs, Steadicam etc.) to fully immerse the viewer within the fictional world of the film. The equipment is invisible to the viewer.

The filmmaker typically has an ambitious creative vision for what their film will entail, often disregarding a sense of reality. They are behind-the-scenes and invisible to the viewer.

The narrative’s structure, dialogue and events are preconceived and conceptualised in a fictional manner.

Often attempt to attract the largest possible audience. The viewer accepts the artificial and fictitious nature.

Typically has a larger budget, due to the requirement for more expensive equipment.

Documentary Films

Mise-en-scène is found in real life.

Documentary films do not contain characters, only real people and events are portrayed throughout – the dialogue appears to be genuine.

Bare minimum equipment (handheld camera, tripod etc.) is typically used to create a sense of authenticity.

The filmmaker attempts to capture the most accurate reality possible in a documentary, often displaying the crew behind the scenes. The filmmaker often appears in the documentary, sometimes even being the focus.

The narrative events unfold in real time, the filmmakers often do not plan the documentary in advance.

Often attract a niche audience, the viewer expects truthfulness and transparency.

Typically has a smaller budget, as expensive equipment is not needed.

Component 2b: Documentary Film

The second component we are studying is Component 2b: Documentary Film. This section of the course entails one film of study, being Sisters in Law (Kim Longinotto, 2005). Throughout this component, the areas of study are the core study areas (including the key elements, contexts, aesthetics and representation) as well as two specialist study areas. These include critical debates, particularly discussing the use of digital technology within documentaries, as well as examples of filmmakers’ theories, such as the ideologies of Bill Nichols.