The French New Wave was a movement that emerged in the 1950s, gaining worldwide attention throughout the 1960s. It was characterised by a rejection of traditional cinematic techniques – embracing experimental methods of filmmaking viewed as a radical departure from the status quo of cinema. This movement’s cultural impact greatly influenced films of the New Hollywood era, inspiring young independent filmmakers to hone and display their artistic vision.
A key element of the French New Wave centred around creating a different world on screen. Pioneering filmmakers, such as Jean-Luc Godard, strove to illustrate an artistic visual language that was much more experimental and ‘looser’ than the Classical Hollywood style. The French New Wave implemented techniques such as non-linear narratives alongside unorthodox camera angles and editing techniques to create a wholly distinctive style of filmmaking.
Anna Karina, a star of the French New Wave, being filmed by Jean-Luc Godard, a renowned filmmaker of the movement
This wave of filmmaking also manifested new voices into the cinematic landscape. These up-and-coming filmmakers were often young and had grown up with cinema existing as a prominent art form their entire lives. These new voices brought a fresh perspective to the medium, challenging the pre-conceived notions of what cinema could and should be.
Films of the French New Wave were typically shown in smaller art house theatres, displayed to audiences who sought a departure from the homogenised mainstream cinema of the Hollywood Studio System. This only served to bolster the French New Wave’s notoriety in America, aiding its later influence towards Hollywood studio-produced films, such as Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967).
The French New Wave also brought about an array of unorthodox filmmaking techniques to the table. Within films such as Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960), the filmmakers of this wave of cinema employed specific techniques such as filming on location with a handheld camera, natural lighting, and jump cuts to create a more authentic and intimate feel. This, alongside actors often breaking the fourth wall by addressing the audience directly, created a sense of immediacy and spontaneity within the films of the French New Wave.
The decline of the Hollywood studio system began in the late 1950s, after the Paramount Antitrust Case of 1948. This prohibited the studios from owning the cinemas in which their films were shown, and this greatly encouraged a rise in competition between the studios. This ultimately led to a much more diverse landscape of cinema in America, as each studio became influenced by the filmmaking techniques of other cultures, such as the French New Wave.
Alongside this, the rise of television of also contributed to the start of the New Hollywood era. During the 1950s, televisions became increasingly available due to their price steadily decreasing as the technology became cheaper to manufacture. As more households acquired a TV, the demand for television content increased and this led to an increase in the production of TV programmes. Television was a new and exciting form of entertainment, creating a new array of genres such as sitcoms and game shows. This ultimately resulted in a decline in popularity of cinemas as a form of entertainment, as families chose to watch films and TV from the comfort of their own home.
During the Golden Age of Hollywood, the studio system dominated the distribution of films that were shown in the cinema. Because of this, there was no opportunity for any independent films to be shown to American audiences. After the studios lost their power, independent filmmakers were now able to distribute their own films. This ultimately led to an emergence of new independent perspectives in the landscape of American cinema.
A significant development within the New Hollywood era was the rise of two systems working in parallel – independently produced films and studio produced films. Independent filmmakers, who had been exposed to films from around the world, often took advantage of cutting-edge technology such as 16mm film to produce their own low-budget productions that often experimented with the typical conventions of the prior American filmmaking landscape. These films usually had to be financed by relying on friends and colleagues of the filmmaker.
Simultaneously, the major film studios were producing more adventurous and nuanced films that challenged the status quo of the Classical Hollywood era. These films grew larger in both scale and budget, and were designed to appeal to a wide audience. This ultimately provided a dual filmmaking platform that broadened the cinematic diet of the American audience – viewers were able to simultaneously experience the unique and personal stories of the young independent filmmakers alongside experiencing the classic blockbuster entertainment that they had come to expect from Hollywood throughout the Golden Age.
Throughout this New Hollywood period, Arthur Penn was a prolific filmmaker who paved the way for the rise of independent cinema and the increasing influence of auteurs throughout the film industry. His film, Bonnie and Clyde (1967), was revolutionary in the way of challenging the conventions of the Hollywood studio system. Inspired by the French New Wave, Arthur Penn, alongside other visionary directors of this era, sought to create a film that did not shy away from a raw and violent portrayal of crime – a stark departure from the sanitised, formulaic style of storytelling that dominated the films of the Golden Age.
Behind the scenes of Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967)
The overwhelming prominence of the ‘Big Five’ studios monopolising the landscape of cinema ultimately led to the United States vs Paramount Pictures case of 1948, also referred to as the Hollywood Antitrust Case.
The famous entrance to Paramount Studio
Over the course of the 1930s, each of the ‘Big Five’ owned the cinemas in which their films were exclusively shown, either independently or as a partnership with another studio. This meant that only films produced by a specific studio were able to be shown in those cinemas. By 1945, the film studios owned an overall 17% of cinemas in America, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue. This meant that it was not financially viable to release a film independently, or show any film made outside of America in these cinemas. It was clear that the studios were dominating the film industry, establishing an illegal oligopoly.
This led to a group of filmmakers filing a formal complaint to the US Department of Justice, suggesting that the studios’ tactic of vertical integration was an illegal situation that violated antitrust law. In 1938, the studios were all sued by the justice department, with Paramount acting as the primary defendant due to its status as one of the biggest of the ‘Big Five. With the seven other studios – alongside a multitude of subsidiaries – being co-defendants of the case, each head of the studios were prosecuted and personally at risk of losing their livelihoods. The case was settled in 1940 with a consent decree, allowing the government to resume prosecution if the studios did not comply to four conditions by a reassessment that would take place in November 1943. These conditions included the following:
Each of the ‘Big Five’ studios could no longer block-book short films that would accompany the feature-length main film at the cinema
The studios could continue to block-book feature-length films, but the block size was now limited to five films
The practice of ‘blind buying’ was made illegal. This practice involved the studios selling their films to the cinemas without showing them beforehand
A voluntary industry-wide administration board would be created to ensure that these practices were adhered to
After reviewing the case in 1943, it became abundantly clear that the studios had not fully complied to the conditions of the decree. The studios went to trial once again in 1945, with the District Court ruling in favour of the studios, after which the government promptly appealed to the Supreme Court. After reaching the Supreme Court in 1948, they ruled that the studios did not fully comply with the consent decree, and declared that the studios were not allowed to own cinemas anymore, and must sell all of them.
This, coupled with the rising popularity of television in the 1950s, led to a steep decline in the revenue of the studios. Audiences could now watch films from the comfort of their own homes, and others did not have easy access to a cinema, meaning that television was the more convenient option. This ruling also broadened the range of films that American audiences had access to: smaller, independent films were now able to be shown in cinemas, due to cinemas now being able to freely show films from different studios. This ultimately decimated the fortune of the Hollywood studio system – the studios were forced to diversify their practices and the rise in competition skyrocketed.
The United States vs Paramount Pictures case of 1948 was a turning point for Hollywood. The ruling of the Supreme Court ultimately spelled the end of the Golden Age era and birthed the ‘New Hollywood’ era of filmmaking, in which directors began to claim much more creative control over the studios.
Over the course of the Golden Age of Hollywood, American filmmaking ultimately coalesced around Hollywood – a suburb of Los Angeles. Filmmaking was considered both a huge commercial proposition and a business first and foremost, which led to the emergence of a small number of domineering film studios. These corporations fiercely competed against each other in order to produce grander and more impressive films.
The Studios
By the 1930s, eight American film studios had been established – all being conceived at similar times throughout the previous two decades. Colloquially known as the ‘Big Five’ and ‘Little Three’, each of these studios appeared to be very similar on the surface, however each studio possessed a multiplicity of business intricacies that separated them from one another. Each studio had its own unique selling point, attempting to offer something fresh to the table. The studios that made up the ‘Big Five’ included: Metro Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, and RKO. The ‘Little Three’ studios were United Artists, Universal Pictures, and Columbia Pictures – the latter two of which ironically possess a very prolific presence throughout the cinema of the modern day.
Most of the eight studios established themselves by originating from a small chain of cinemas which went on to merge with an array of production companies in Hollywood. These studios then dominated the filmmaking landscape over the late 1910s and 1920s, before The Great Depression of 1929. A few of the studios, such as MGM and Columbia, were able to weather the effects of The Great Depression, and continue strongly into the 1940s, whereas other studios such as 20th Century Fox and Universal were not as fortunate, and had to sell significant assets to survive.
Studios such as MGM offered films which provided glamour and spectacle, also embracing cutting-edge technology such as Technicolor. MGM produced films such as Gone With The Wind (Victor Fleming, 1939) and The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939). Other studios such as Paramount were known for producing light entertainment, such as comedy, whilst also dabbling in biblical epics, such as The Ten Commandments (Cecil B. DeMille, 1956). Both Paramount and Columbia embraced the invention of television in the 1950s and 60s, increasing the studios’ longevity. One of the ‘Little Three’ studios, Columbia, chose to produce B-movies to sell to the bigger studios. These were secondary films that acted as an accompaniment to the main event being shown at the cinema. Columbia managed to successfully survive the Great Depression with no repercussions, primarily due to the fact that they did not have a ‘stable’ of actors to hinder them.
The majority of the eight studios were frequently passed around by a handful of corporations throughout the 1980s and 90s and underwent a business model transformation, such as Universal who in the 1970s, began to focus primarily on releasing a handful of expensive blockbusters each year. These included the likes of Jaws (Steven Spielberg, 1975) and Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg, 1993) In the case of RKO, the name of the studio died out completely and the company was merely absorbed into Paramount.
The logo of MGM
Vertical Integration and Unbreakable Contracts
The studios also implemented the business tactic of vertical integration, with each studio overseeing and taking ownership of all the means of production. Studios contracted screenwriters, editors, actors, directors, and even entire cinemas in an attempt to monopolise the film industry. From a business perspective, this meant that little to no money spilled out of the studio and each of the eight studios managed to fully maximise their profits, and dominate the market. Due to the studios owning all of the cinemas in United States, this meant there was no opportunity for American audiences to view films outside of the realm of the American studios and cinemas.
The actors were claimed by the studios through the use of ‘unbreakable’ exclusivity contracts that meant that the actor was required to star in a set block of films for that studio and were prevented from making films with any other studio. These actors were the ‘pull’ that drew audiences into cinemas and were thus a vital bargaining chip for the studios. Through this, each studio proudly possessed a ‘stable’ of stars, all of whom would frequently appear in each of the studios’ films that they would go on to produce.
Because of this, studios began to fear the prospect of losing a specific film star after they were approaching the final film on their contract. Many studios decided to ‘cheat the system’ and decided to simply not produce the final film in an actor’s given contract, rendering the contract ‘unbreakable’. From there, many actors were forced to make an impossible decision: either sign another contract with the same studio or never make another film.
As a result of this, four film stars in particular were extremely unhappy with the state of the studio system, claiming that the studios collected an disproportionate amount of money, and did not treat actors fairly. D.W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Douglas Fairbanks collectively founded United Artists – a company premised on allowing actors to control their own line of work, rather than being fully dependant upon the domineering film studios.
The four film stars creating the United Artists studio
On October 2nd, I decided to reshoot and alter some scenes of my film in order to alleviate a few issues, namely: some grainy footage, resolve some continuity errors, and to change the ending of the film entirely. This proved to be very successful, with each issue successfully being resolved.
Firstly, I decided to refilm the originally grainy shot from a slightly different angle and using a different lens, ultimately resulting in better quality footage.
Some lines and plot details were also slightly altered, such as the cafe dialogue, alongside the Hooded Figure instead donning an iconographic werewolf mask as suggested and donated by Harry Batkin.
Before and after
I also decided to reimagine the ending of my film, deciding to attempt a more creative and engaging sequence involving pulling the camera back to reveal a seemingly endless pattern of The Student watching himself watch himself watch his film.
Over the summer, I decided to film all of the footage for my short film. Below are the dates that I filmed, alongside the location and actors involved.
August 2nd: Woodlands Café, James Wickes and Jessica Gates
August 25th: My house, James Wickes
August 26th: Pine Woods, James Wickes and Harry Batkin
The filming went very well overall, I managed to capture a range of interesting shots and the actors were perfectly cast in their respective roles. All shots were handheld and taken with my iPhone 11, and although some shots had a little amount of camera shake, I managed to resolve this in LumaFusion. I unfortunately forgot to film one of the Love Interest’s lines but I managed to resolve this issue by cutting back to a previously used clip.
Through this, I have created an initial rough cut of my film, with the duration coming to 4 minutes and 46 seconds. This gives me enough leeway for credits at the end of the film.
Over the summer, I decided to film all of the appropriate footage for my coursework. Due to my efforts being focused towards the act of filming, I have not made a production diary log in over a month.
My next steps are to edit together a rough cut, which I plan to show to my teacher in due time. The most important step I must take in order to achieve this involves acquiring appropriate diegetic and non-diegetic sound to underscore my film.
Alongside this, I plan to reshoot some a small amount of shots to reduce unintentional camera shake. I also plan to write a blog post about soundtrack research, alongside a blog post about the minor changes I have made to my film.
Soundtrack is a vital element of film, being responsible for the contextualisation of the mood and atmosphere of a scene. The context and atmosphere of a scene are subject to completely change with the addition of a specific soundtrack.
My film will contain a mix of both diegetic and non-diegetic sound throughout, with both requiring to undergo careful consideration. For example, I will underscore the opening shots of the film in the bedroom with the diegetic ambience of a clock ticking, indicating that the student is under time constraints.
For the woods scenario, I will select a score that evokes a sense of urgency, typical of a chase scene in a thriller. My current plan is to use parts of “Labor Intensive” from A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018).
For the café scene, I am currently planning to use Elliott Smith’s Between the Bars. It is stripped back in nature, being made up of only soft vocals and an acoustic guitar. This matches the setting and aligns with the conventions of the intended romance genre I am attempting to emulate and parody.
For the ending of my film, I require a piece that evokes a sense of unnerve, accentuating the drama and shock value of the scene. Currently, I am using “The Greatest Trick” from The Usual Suspects (Bryan Singer, 1995), which plays during the shocking reveal of Keyser Söze’s true identity.
The costumes and props that I plan to include in my film are relatively basic, and will not require meticulous planning. Below is a general outline of the costumes and props that each character will wear and use.
Costumes
The Student/Protagonist: basic casual clothes – hoodie, tracksuit bottoms, etc.
Hooded Figure: black hoodie, black trousers, werewolf mask
Love Interest: casual clothes suitable for a date
The werewolf mask
Props
An iPad for The Student to conceptualise their film idea. For this, I can simply use my own Film Studies iPad.
Menus for the café scene, which I should be able to simply borrow from the café itself.
I have now decided for a werewolf mask to be worn by the Hooded Figure. Harry has a mask perfect for the occasion, and will simply bring it on the day of filming.
After viewing and blogging about each of the eighteen short films that make up the Eduqas Short Film Collection, the research stage of the coursework process is completed. It is now time to move onto the second element of coursework: pre-production, the first order of business being an outline of my production idea.
Idea
The keystones of my film idea involve the concepts of both Metacinema and breaking the fourth wall. The basic plot of the film depicts a student who is attempting to conceptualise an idea for a short film. Perhaps opening on an establishing shot of a house, the opening scene of the film will display the student sitting at a desk with an iPad, hopelessly unable to come up with an idea.
After displaying a closeup of blank Notes page, the student begins to type and we then cross-fade into a visual representation of what this idea is. We fade to a highly stereotypical horror chase scene in the woods, before coming to an abrupt end (perhaps a comedic resolution). Out of frustration, the student deletes the typed idea before leaving the desk. Coming back later, the student receives a message from his teacher urgently asking him to submit his idea before the deadline. As the student begins to type, we fade to another hypothetical idea involving a cliché scene of the romance genre in a café.
In a state of desperation, the student continues to frantically type as we rapidly cut to different scenarios in a sequence. The film ends with the reveal that the student’s final film idea is in fact the film that that you are watching.
Due to the film involving the portrayal of multiple hypothetical narratives, my film could nicely classify under the ‘narrative which has parallel stories’ brief.
The third component of the A-Level Film Studies course is a production-based unit worth 30% of the qualification. This entails an entirely independent filmmaking project, involving the creation of a short film with a duration between four and five minutes. The coursework process will be entirely documented in a series of blog posts referred to as the Production Diary, this post being the first of many. The short film must align with one of the four briefs established by the exam board, listed below:
A narrative which has a distinct genre.
A narrative which has parallel stories.
A non-linear narrative.
A narrator.
The creative process of the making of the short film can be clearly divided into six ‘elements’ of production:
Element 1 – Research
Element 2 – Pre-production
Element 3 – Production
Element 4 – Post-production
Element 5 – Evaluative Analysis
Element 6 – Submission
Research involves the viewing of the Eduqas Short Film Collection, which consists of 18 films that will be viewed in class and will each receive a respective blog post afterwards. During the Evaluative Analysis process, at least three of the 18 films must be credited for imbuing creative inspiration within your own short film.
Pre-production is a lengthy process which occurs after a clear, finalised idea of what the short film will entail has been reached. The mandatory aspects of the pre-production process are listed in bold:
Production Idea
Treatment (written in detailed prose, using film-specific language)
Pitch (filmed verbal delivery of the treatment, followed by discussion)
Finalised screenplay, with evidence of drafts and versions
Filmed rehearsals
Filmed screenplay read-through
Storyboards
Practice shots
Wardrobe and prop acquisition
Makeup
Special effects
Soundtrack research
Production involves the entire filming process of the film and all aspects of camerawork and editing are assessed. A diverse range of camera shots and editing techniques are encouraged within the production, through the application of the key elements of film form. Performance skills are not assessed.
Post-production is another fairly lengthy process which has the potential to impact the final mark significantly. Through the process of frequent screenings in order to receive invaluable feedback, this process will involve reshoots and rewrites in order to improve the film in the best way possible. New cuts of the film will be edited in LumaFusion.
Evaluative Analysis involves a 1600-1800 word evaluation of the production. It is here that the Eduqas Short Film Collection will be referenced. The evaluative analysis will include:
The narrative structure of the short film – an analysis of how the narrative features and dramatic qualities of all short films studied are constructed – highlighting key ideas which informed our own production.
Cinematic influences – an analysis of how audio/visual elements of other professionally produced films or screenplays – including short films -influenced our own short film.
How our film creates meaning and effect – an analysis of how our production creates meaning and generates responses for the spectator in relation to other professional short films – including at least one of the Eduqas Short Film Collection.
Submission is the final element of the creative process, involving the handing in of three specific documents:
A cover sheet, completed with the class teacher.
The final short film itself, uploaded as a .mp4 file.
The evaluative analysis document, uploaded to the shared OneDrive folder.
André Bazin (1918-1958) was a French film critic and theorist, known for writing in the film magazine ‘Cahiers du cinéma’ (Notebooks on Cinema) from 1951 until his death in 1958. Afterwards, a four volume anthology entitled ‘Qu’est-ce que le cinéma?’ (What is Cinema?) was published posthumously, a work that exhibited his theories of realist and expressive cinema. At its core, his main argument stated that realism is the most important function of cinema. He argued that filmmakers should not manipulate the viewer’s thoughts, feelings or attention but instead leave it up to the individual spectator’s interpretation. Opposing the film theory of the 1920s, Bazin called for objective reality, deep focus and a lack of montage to be conducted throughout filmmaking.
André Bazin
Bazin viewed cinema as an “idealistic phenomenon” first and foremost, sidelining its commercial and technical value. Categorising the early pioneers of film – such as the Lumiere brothers – as merely “industrialists”, he strongly believed that the idea preceded the invention and is thus superior to the technical means to achieve it. Bazin believed that a camera’s ability to capture a duplication of reality placed cinema above both paintings and photos as art forms.
Through this, Bazin believed that cinema’s true purpose was to depict an ‘objective reality’. Utilising the techniques mentioned above, alongside a ‘true continuity’ through the use of mise-en-scène, cinema’s true potential was achieved in Bazin’s eyes. However, Bazin also remarked upon the fact that, as with any art form, the filmmaker should carefully select what they display to the viewer. He did not simply believe that films should display a never-ending, uninterrupted depiction of reality,
“Every form of aesthetic must necessarily choose between what is worth preserving and what should be discarded, and what should not even be considered”
André Bazin, What is Cinema?
Another important idea found within Bazin’s writing is his theory of the ‘invisible director’. Despite believing cinema to be a fully realist art form, Bazin additionally heralded the concept of the auteur – championing the idea that each director should possess a recognisable visual flair within their films. This seemingly contradictory belief can be rebuked by Bazin’s statement on direction found below. Through this, the viewer is able to engage with a particular auteur’s vision in their own individual way, rather than having a specific meaning forced upon them.
“It is the director that brings the film to life and uses the film to express their thoughts and feelings about the subject matter as well as a worldview as an auteur. An auteur can use lighting, camerawork, staging and editing to add to their vision.”
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.
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
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) 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.
Poster
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 membersof 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.
How far does your chosen documentary demonstrate elements of one or more filmmaker’s theories you have studied?
Autumn 2020
Essay plan
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.
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 – often employing another co-director.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Louis Theroux
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.
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.
One of the pickets attended by Louis
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 ★★★★.
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 ★★★.
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) 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.
Poster
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.
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.
Michael Moore
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.
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.
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.
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.
The process of filming ran relatively smoothly with no major issues. We filmed for around an hour, despite the final film being around 2 minutes long.
The main point of interest is that I decided to utilise a number of shot types and techniques that I hadn’t considered in the storyboard. This included filming from the bottom of the glass, as well as from inside the cupboard. I also tried including a body wipe, where Scarlett appears to walk through the camera.
In addition, the sun began to set after a period of filming so I was careful to not include any shots which pictured a window in the frame.
The two filming locations – dining room and kitchen
The next step in the process was to take photos of the filming location, in this case being the dining room and kitchen. In addition, I had to draw a rough floor plan of the area. Below are both the images taken and the floor plan.
My film will involve two characters, a father and a daughter.
We open on a closeup of an empty glass containing a few drops of water which the father then inspects to see if there is any water remaining. After discovering it is practically empty, he picks up the glass and he heads towards the kitchen. Before he reaches the kitchen, he encounters the daughter holding another empty glass. The father then asks the daughter if she can refill his glass, seeing as she is doing the same anyway. She reluctantly accepts the request and takes the glass from him.
We cut to the daughter in the kitchen pouring squash into one of the glasses, then diluting it with water. She moves onto the father’s glass and pours some squash into the glass. She then realises that he asked for water, and proceeds to carelessly throw the squash into the sink, unknowingly leaving a minuscule amount remaining in the glass. The camera focuses on this. She dilutes the squash with water, realising her mistake and masking the contents of the drink. The daughter enters the dining room and she places her squash down on the table. She then gives the other drink to the father. The daughter takes a sip of her squash, scrutinising the father. As he takes a sip of the drink, we cut to a reactionary shot of the daughter’s devious expression. The film ends on a closeup of the father’s confused reaction to the extremely dilute squash before any dialogue can ensue between the two characters.
We have been tasked to plan, film, edit and upload a sequence featuring two characters in a kitchen, during which a drink is offered and accepted but secretly has something added to it.
The first order of business is to write a treatment. A treatment is a document that presents the story idea of a film before writing the script in its entirety. They are often written in present tense, in a narrative-like prose. Information included within a treatment usually contains the title of the film, a story summary as well as character descriptions.
We were tasked to recreate the opening sequence from Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1992). The scene consists of the characters walking in slow motion to a car. It focuses in on each character individuallywith accompanying title cards. The scene contains no diegetic sound and is accompanied by the non-diegetic song Little Green Bag by George Baker Selection.
Reservoir Dogs opening sequence
In groups of eight, we spent a lesson planning the logistics of filming. The discussion included costumes, props, filming locations and shots. The two chosen filming locations were the canteen and school entrance.
School entranceSchool canteen
After overcoming a few small hurdles such as creative disputes, the filming process progressed smoothly and we captured all the necessary footage after one lesson.
Making use of transitions, key frames, overlay titles and slow motion I edited the film together using LumaFusion and produced a final product as accurate to the original as possible.
After researching some key filmmaking techniques, we reshot our knock-knock joke short films, this time with added improvements and developments.
Firstly, we made use of both matching on action and the shot/reverse shot. Unfortunately, the 180º rule was briefly broken, but I was not behind the camera this time.
The 180º rule is a general guideline regarding the on-screen spatial relationship between two characters within a scene. The rule involves keeping the camera on one side of an imaginary axis between the two characters.
In effect, the first character is always frame right of the second character. If you were to cross the imaginary axis with the camera, this is known as “breaking the 180º rule” and it visually confuses the audience as to where the characters are standing in relation to each other.
A shot/reverse shot is a film technique where one character is shown looking at another character (usually offscreen). The second character is then shown looking back at the first character. This leads the viewer to believe that the characters are facing each other.
A shot/reverse shot from The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
During the filming of our knock-knock short film, there were a number of variables which were done and well, as well as some which could be improved upon
What went well:
The close-up was well filmed (filled the frame)
Lines were delivered well
The boom mic was never in frame
Continuity was sound
What could be improved:
Tracking shot could’ve been filmed more effectively
We were assigned to plan, film, edit, and upload a sequence showing two characters coming together, telling a knock-knock joke, and departing.
We worked in groups of four and each had a dedicated role:
Director (me)
Boom Mic Operator (Grace)
Two actors (Finley and Georgia)
After an initial struggle of setting up the equipment and a few bloopers later, we produced a film utilising seven shots in total. We used a variety of shots such as two-shots, closeups and handheld tracking shots.
Otis Morley’s A-Level Film Studies Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.