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.
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.
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.
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.
Poster
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”.
Moore claiming his Palme d’Or
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.
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.
Bill Nichols, a documentary theorist, stated that every documentary could be categorised under one of six ‘modes’ of documentary, listed and explained below.
Bill Nichols’ Six Modes of Documentary
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).
Otis Morley’s A-Level Film Studies Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.