Documentary 'mini-task'
What is a documentary?
A documentary is a collection of reports, photographs, interviews and facts that are used to display or document an event. I would define a documentary as a film or program that consists of factual information, photographs, footage of the relevant subject or re-enactments used to show and inform the viewer about a particular subject or real life event.
Key features of expository documentaries are having a narrator or voice over accompanied with visual images underneath. The images underneath compliment what the narrator is talking about and they are used to help show and explain the narration which is told in an objective manor. Expository documentaries typically try to remain objective with their presentation focusing on facts or arguments. The example that I have chosen is one from the British documentary series, Life. Here we have Sir David Attenborough, providing the voice over for the documentary. He explains the mechanisms of a Venus Flytrap and the documentary shows video footage which accompanies what the narrator is explaining.
Typical traits of an observational documentaries are attempts to being objective as they try and show life as it happens. As a result of their objectivity, they allow their audiences to decide what to think from the footage. The film crew will do there best to become as unnoticeable as possible, nothing more than a fly on the wall. This term, fly on the wall, is sometimes used as another name for observational documentaries. Here we have an example of an observational documentary with cutting hair. The camera is completely ignored and you here nothing other than the diegetic sounds of day to day life.
Interactive documentaries are about the presenter as much as the subject itself. They are present throughout the documentary and it's as if you follow them on their understanding of the subject or as they gain information. This will or can lead to agendas being discussed from both sides or the presenter asking certain question as well as taking part in an attempt to gain more in depth responses and information. Interactive documentaries are cirtised as they often edit the footage to help convey the message even if this means tweaking the actual order of events. The example I have involves Reggie Yates, as he explores Russia and in this episode he investigates Russia's extreme right wing activists. It is very apparent the involvement Yates has to this as their views are often against Yates' beliefs or connected to the pigment of his skin. As a result of this, we often get an interaction of these views ( Threats) directed towards Mr Yates as well as his after thoughts.
Reflexive documentaries attempt to expose the artificiality or the actual construction processes of the documentary as well as breaking down the editing walls to the viewers. The filmmaker also often appears in the film and provides the narrative for the documentary, directly addressing the audience. Reflexive documentaries are also experimental and aim to push and explore the boundaries of film.
In this documentary, we have an interview with, Lenny D, who is an artist. This is shot in a reflexive style as you can see the camera that is recording her as well as different cuts that have different tones to them. Both of these things expose the construction of the making of the film.
Performative documentaries focus on the message and presentation of the film, rather than the nitty gritty details. They use re-enactments, cinematic music and emphasised shots to create an impactful, subjective world. To represent this, I have chosen an extract from River Monsters. They use multiple re-enactments showing you exaggerated events to do with aquatic life, intense music and moody tints on the footage. All of these things create an exaggerated, cinematic world which focuses on the performance over the real life representation. It's all about hooking the viewer.
Conclusion
I feel like a documentarist should present the truth to the viewer. If your job is about documenting events and facts then it's in your best interest to show it with authenticity. If you don't or fabricate your facts, then people will always doubt your footage and material, questioning whether this is what happened or just what the filmmaker wanted us to think what happened. However, what if you can't collect the footage when it was going on because you couldn't be there or you didn't have the right equipment. I know this has been a problem for documentarist for a long time. Take for instance, Roger Fenton, considered one of or thee first war photographer. Fenton was tasked with documenting the Crimean War, and one of his most famous photographs is of the Valley of the shadow of Death. Due to the time period, he used a large format camera and that required long exposures to make the correct exposures. He also had to lug around his equipment via horse and cart along pot holed 'roads'. Fenton couldn't shoot the battle because of motion blur, collateral damage and he didn't arrive to the battle till after it was over, two years later if I remember correctly. By the time he arrived all of the cannon balls had been moved out of the road by the people living in the area as they still needed to get on with their lives. Fenton then took two photographs, one with the cannon balls in the ditch and another where he placed the cannon balls back into the road. Meaning he staged the second. So, which one is right thing to do?
On one hand, you could say that the locals have moved the scene of the battle and because its preservation has already been contaminated, the photographer has the right to try and repair the damage. However, I think the documentisit should avoid tampering with the scene. Show what you actually see at that moment, not what you think you should or would have been seeing. Although the tampering may indeed give a more accurate representation to what you think the fact would have looked like, that's the issue. They are your thoughts thus making it subjective. I personally feel that someone who is documenting something, should do their best to remain as objective as possible, documenting what is there, even if it doesn't agree with your own ideas or thoughts on how it should appear.
Photographs used from: http://www.radiolab.org/story/308563-truth-cannonballs/ [Accessed 19/03/2017]
A documentary is a collection of reports, photographs, interviews and facts that are used to display or document an event. I would define a documentary as a film or program that consists of factual information, photographs, footage of the relevant subject or re-enactments used to show and inform the viewer about a particular subject or real life event.
Key features of expository documentaries are having a narrator or voice over accompanied with visual images underneath. The images underneath compliment what the narrator is talking about and they are used to help show and explain the narration which is told in an objective manor. Expository documentaries typically try to remain objective with their presentation focusing on facts or arguments. The example that I have chosen is one from the British documentary series, Life. Here we have Sir David Attenborough, providing the voice over for the documentary. He explains the mechanisms of a Venus Flytrap and the documentary shows video footage which accompanies what the narrator is explaining.
Typical traits of an observational documentaries are attempts to being objective as they try and show life as it happens. As a result of their objectivity, they allow their audiences to decide what to think from the footage. The film crew will do there best to become as unnoticeable as possible, nothing more than a fly on the wall. This term, fly on the wall, is sometimes used as another name for observational documentaries. Here we have an example of an observational documentary with cutting hair. The camera is completely ignored and you here nothing other than the diegetic sounds of day to day life.
Interactive documentaries are about the presenter as much as the subject itself. They are present throughout the documentary and it's as if you follow them on their understanding of the subject or as they gain information. This will or can lead to agendas being discussed from both sides or the presenter asking certain question as well as taking part in an attempt to gain more in depth responses and information. Interactive documentaries are cirtised as they often edit the footage to help convey the message even if this means tweaking the actual order of events. The example I have involves Reggie Yates, as he explores Russia and in this episode he investigates Russia's extreme right wing activists. It is very apparent the involvement Yates has to this as their views are often against Yates' beliefs or connected to the pigment of his skin. As a result of this, we often get an interaction of these views ( Threats) directed towards Mr Yates as well as his after thoughts.
Reflexive documentaries attempt to expose the artificiality or the actual construction processes of the documentary as well as breaking down the editing walls to the viewers. The filmmaker also often appears in the film and provides the narrative for the documentary, directly addressing the audience. Reflexive documentaries are also experimental and aim to push and explore the boundaries of film.
In this documentary, we have an interview with, Lenny D, who is an artist. This is shot in a reflexive style as you can see the camera that is recording her as well as different cuts that have different tones to them. Both of these things expose the construction of the making of the film.
Performative documentaries focus on the message and presentation of the film, rather than the nitty gritty details. They use re-enactments, cinematic music and emphasised shots to create an impactful, subjective world. To represent this, I have chosen an extract from River Monsters. They use multiple re-enactments showing you exaggerated events to do with aquatic life, intense music and moody tints on the footage. All of these things create an exaggerated, cinematic world which focuses on the performance over the real life representation. It's all about hooking the viewer.
Conclusion
I feel like a documentarist should present the truth to the viewer. If your job is about documenting events and facts then it's in your best interest to show it with authenticity. If you don't or fabricate your facts, then people will always doubt your footage and material, questioning whether this is what happened or just what the filmmaker wanted us to think what happened. However, what if you can't collect the footage when it was going on because you couldn't be there or you didn't have the right equipment. I know this has been a problem for documentarist for a long time. Take for instance, Roger Fenton, considered one of or thee first war photographer. Fenton was tasked with documenting the Crimean War, and one of his most famous photographs is of the Valley of the shadow of Death. Due to the time period, he used a large format camera and that required long exposures to make the correct exposures. He also had to lug around his equipment via horse and cart along pot holed 'roads'. Fenton couldn't shoot the battle because of motion blur, collateral damage and he didn't arrive to the battle till after it was over, two years later if I remember correctly. By the time he arrived all of the cannon balls had been moved out of the road by the people living in the area as they still needed to get on with their lives. Fenton then took two photographs, one with the cannon balls in the ditch and another where he placed the cannon balls back into the road. Meaning he staged the second. So, which one is right thing to do?
On one hand, you could say that the locals have moved the scene of the battle and because its preservation has already been contaminated, the photographer has the right to try and repair the damage. However, I think the documentisit should avoid tampering with the scene. Show what you actually see at that moment, not what you think you should or would have been seeing. Although the tampering may indeed give a more accurate representation to what you think the fact would have looked like, that's the issue. They are your thoughts thus making it subjective. I personally feel that someone who is documenting something, should do their best to remain as objective as possible, documenting what is there, even if it doesn't agree with your own ideas or thoughts on how it should appear.
Photographs used from: http://www.radiolab.org/story/308563-truth-cannonballs/ [Accessed 19/03/2017]
Comments
Post a Comment