Component 2b: Essay – Filmmakers’ Theories

“To what extent can it be said that your chosen documentary is shaped by the filmmaker’s approach? Refer to at least one filmmaker’s theory you have studied.”

Plan:

Introduction –

The documentary genre is broad and difficult to define, in fact, Bill Nichols classes all films as documentaries, but within two groups, wish fulfilment and social representation. (explanation) … He further categorises them by six modes: (name + explain). However, others believe that these categories are becoming increasingly weaker definitions and filmmakers often have their own clear ideas of what a documentary should be.

First section –

One filmmaker who seems to fit categorically into observational filmmaking is Kim Longinotto…

• she feels the style best fits her personality
• doesn’t want to construct events
• lends an authenticity to her films
• often avoids narration
• mention Salma as exception
• subject topic makes her different
• by her nature she makes people able to open up

Second section –

Longinotto’s auteurship can be seen in Sisters in Law…

• only two members of crew – not very obtrusive
• sound filmed there
• medium/close-up shots – focus on people + reactions
• lengthier shots, not much zooming – as if audience’s eyes
• women able to open up (refer to specific moment they are gathered round talking)
• style means sometimes subjects become unaware of camera, e.g men bullying Amina to get divorce
• rawness places audience there, able to empathise – she aims for audience to go through an experience
• no narration, able to follow story and form own opinion
• don’t need to be told what to think with the story
• she doesn’t want to change laws but mindsets – evident in this film

Conclusion –

Once the audience gains an understanding of Longinotto’s style, her filmmaking choices become clearer, e.g realise there is no need for her to add opinion to the story. A film like Sisters in Law would be entirely different if made by say Michael Moore, because he would impose his own narrative on the footage. The films she makes couldn’t be made be anyone else and aren’t, part of what makes her unique is her choice of subject matter…

Essay:

The documentary genre is broad and difficult to define, so much so that Bill Nichols simply classes all films as documentaries. However, he gives two categories of documentary: wish fulfilment and social representation, with the former being mostly fictional films and the latter being typical documentaries. Within this, he also provides six modes of documentary: expository, observational, participatory, performative and poetic. Other theorists believe that these divisions are baseless and all documentaries are mixed mode, whilst Nichols himself accepts that there are overlaps, but the documentary can be defined by the mode with the most dominant features present.

One filmmaker whose documentaries seem to categorically fit into Nichols’ observational mode is Kim Longinotto, though even in this case that is not necessarily true. Her film, Salma (2013) uses narration, a feature not normally present in Longinotto films, in order to re-tell the past of the titularly-named Tamil poet, yet although narration is one of the defining features of the expository mode, the narration in Salma is not argumentative, merely informative, making this film harder to categorise.

Longinotto’s usual observational style stems from her personality, as she says it is difficult for her to ask people to do something and is uncomfortable with the construction of events. This lends itself to an authenticity in her films and naturalness that is further pushed by Longinotto’s ability to make people comfortable and feel able to share their stories.

Therefore, Longinotto’s films are defined by the people within them, the stories they share and the overall subject matter, which is almost uniquely explored by her in documentary filmmaking. She is concerned with rebels and those who challenge tradition, often women in oppressive places, and focuses on making her films as a partnership with her subjects, rather than instructing them or taking control over the narrative.

Her style and attitude towards filmmaking is evident in documentary Sisters in Law (2005), which explores the legal system in Kumba, Cameroon, and the female professionals fighting for justice in court for the cases of abuse brought to them by local women. Longinotto often films with minimal crew, and this is true for Sisters in Law, which was filmed with only herself and a sound recordist present. This contributes to the authenticity of her films, as the crew of two have little impact on the events around them, making the footage closer to the truth.

Longinotto’s presence is not ignored, however, as she explains that she always uses a large camera that the subjects can easily see and is sometimes addressed directly. On the other hand, the subjects often become so involved in the real-life events, that their awareness of the camera reduces and Longinotto cited a moment in Sisters in Law as an example; when Amina is seeking a divorce, the four men in the room try and bully her into going back to her husband, even joking that her husband will “split her open” if she does so, but once they seem to remember that the camera is in the room, they become nicer and grant the divorce. This example lends itself to the idea that no film can be purely observational and truthful, because just the presence of the filmmaker impacts the events being filmed.

Additionally, Longinotto is not opposed to engaging with the subjects, unlike early observational documentarists, and there is a section in Sisters in Law when a group of women, including Amina, share their individual marriage stories to the camera. Even then, Longinotto’s presumable prompting questions are cut out, to avoid detracting from the stories and the naturalness of them opening up.

Part of the authenticity in Longinotto’s films is gained by her cinematographic choices, such as using limited zooming, to try and maintain the feeling that the audience is really in Cameroon, watching the events play out with their own eyes. Longinotto also uses mostly mid-shots and close-ups in the film, reinforcing the importance of the individuals and their reactions. The shots are rather long in length, allowing the audience to take in each scene for themselves, rather than using cuts to direct attention. A good example of this is the lengthy opening shot, which is filmed from a car and shows the local countryside, giving the audience the opportunity to gradually get a sense of the environment.

This ability to place the audience in the location helps Longinotto achieve her filmmaking aim: to tell a story that makes the audience undergo an experience that shifts their perspective and this is not benefitted by argumentative narration that tells the audience what to think. Rather, Longinotto’s style is characterised by the opposite approach, she does not want to give instructions to the audience, but enrich their lives and provide entertainment, just as a fiction film would. Chiefly, Longinotto wants to change mentalities not laws, which is a key part of Sisters in Law, as evidently the laws are already in place to convict male abusers, but the difficulty is in making women feel and be heard.

Therefore, Longinotto is an auteur whose presence is not required on screen or in narration in order for her impact to be obvious. Her off-screen presence evokes an honesty from her subjects that defines her films and there is a rawness and authenticity to Longinotto’s films that is unique to her approach. After gaining an insight into her personality and filmmaking theory, her choices become clearer, as does the narrative, character-based nature of her films, influenced by her fictional film-watching.

Her films would be entirely different if made by a documentary filmmaker such as Michael Moore, because he would impose a line of argument on them that is unnecessary; for example, the inequality and suppression in Sisters in Law is obviously terrible, there is no need for that to be spoken. Longinotto allows the stories to speak for themselves and another key difference between her and other filmmakers is that she sees her subjects as survivors, not victims, and thus does not attempt to portray the way in which they have been abused, but to show their path forward and their moves to make peace with their past.

This allows her subjects to take control of their stories, there is no way to undo what has happened in their past, but Longinotto provides them with a platform to spread their stories and depict their journeys. Her subject matter ultimately defines her films, as few others choose to address the topics of female oppression and discrimination and Longinotto has a style that is suitable for conveying these topics in a sensitive yet gripping way, developed by her own personal struggles.

Filmmakers’ theories – Kim Longinotto

Kim Longinotto is an observational film documentarist, known for works such as Salma (2013), Dreamcatcher (2015), Pink Saris (2010) and Sisters in Law (2005). Before moving on to making feature length films, Longinotto first made several shorter length films, including Pride of Place (1976), a film about a girls’ boarding school that Longinotto once attended herself. Made whilst she was still at the National School of Television and Film, the film was a good preview of Longinotto films to come, showing her desire to question tradition and give the suppressed a chance to be heard.

Longinotto loves to focus on the rebels of the world, and when asked on why most of her films are about women (a seeming frequent question posed to her), she replies that it is simply because most of the rebels in the world at the moment happen to be women, because they are the ones who have to fight for themselves. She also finds it odd that it is still considered unusual for films to have women at the forefront, explaining that when she made a film about troubled children, who were mostly boys, no one queried why.

Although her films may seem somewhat depressing in concept, Longinotto is actually not one to make depressing films, citing that as the reason why she almost did not make Dreamcatcher (2015). However, a clip of former prostitute, Brenda, caused Longinotto to fall in love with the concept. She likes it when the women in her films succeed in the end, and are able to move on, preferring survivors to victims and films about change over depressing films.

None of Longinotto’s films are set-up, the thought of doing so apparently makes her feel uneasy and worry that the relationship between her and the people she is filming will change from an equal partnership to them wanting to please her. Neither does she particularly want conflict, she simply wants authenticity and honesty. This also explains her reasoning behind only meeting her documentary subjects for the first time when she begins filming them, as she does not want to form a relationship first, causing them to open up, when she would then have to make them say it again for the camera, losing the naturalness. She does, however, form a connection with her documentary subjects and feels that the films she makes are as much theirs as hers.

One of her films that doesn’t stick to her usual observational style is Salma, a 2013 film about a Tamil poet who was locked up by her parents for 25 years of her life. The film is about Salma’s past, which made it harder for Longinotto to convey the story through visuals alone and made the editing process very important in constructing the story. As a consequence, she made this film with narration from Salma to fill in the audience’s understanding, but even then, she was cautious not to tell the audience what to think, rather to give the film more layers.

In interviews, Longinotto often makes reference to her desire for her films to have layers and be similar to fiction films in that way. She also believes that documentaries and fiction films are moving closer together, that audiences don’t want just information from a documentary, and both types of films are entertainment.

Her films aim to tell a story, which makes the viewer go through an experience and shifts something inside them. They are not instructions by which to live life, but a way for her to enrich the lives of others, and the audience reaction is important to her, though she never considers the impact of her films during the filmmaking process. Despite defining her films as an experience, she does not class them as art, or herself as an artist, if anything she feels the people featured in her films are the art.

Longinotto’s desire to make films is naturally selfish to a degree: she pines for making a film when she is not currently doing so, though she admits that she finds the process difficult and painful for every film she makes. On the other hand, she wants to use film to change mindsets and believes it is not the laws that need to change but the mentalities in the places she visits.

Whilst some may believe that Longinotto, as an observational filmmaker, does not make an impact on her documentaries, this is contentious: without Longinotto, the women in her films would not have their voices heard and would perhaps not feel able to share their stories, if it weren’t for Longinotto’s calming presence and own personal difficulties that allow her to relate and connect with them. She is not simply a cold, unfeeling observer, as she believes the expression ‘fly-on-the-wall’ evokes, instead she is feels split in two by her compassion and her status as a filmmaker, often feeling guilty that she has to think about the technicalities of filming whilst emotional scenes are playing out before her.

A key misconception about her films is that the people do not know she is filming them. This is cleared up by her description of her large camera, that means people always know she is filming, even if they aren’t necessarily aware, when they get absorbed in the events of their lives. One example she gives is of a group of men in Sisters in Law, who are talking about sending a woman back to her abusive husband and joking that he will “split her open”, but then seem to regain awareness that they are being filmed and immediately begin to behave more nicely and eventually agree the divorce. This example does lend itself to the belief that reality cannot be filmed, because the presence of the filmmaker changes the course of events.

Longinotto is disimilar to early observational documentarists, who she believes took the concept of observation to heart and would refuse to talk to subjects, because she likes to be acknowledged and even have people speak to her, which means they are then speaking to the audience. She also admits that observational filmmaking can be an easier style, although it requires an alertness and ability to capture the correct footage to be able to depict the story. One of the reasons she finds it harder to do shorter films now, is because she is less able to condense the story, having gotten used to feature length films.

Although she appreciates films by Nick Broomfield and Michael Moore, she feels observational documentaries best fit her personality: she doesn’t like to ask people to do things and feels uncomfortable constructing events, though she does not judge others for doing so.

Overall, Longinotto’s style is influenced by the films she watches, both fiction, factual and also television, and watching films, coupled with the people she meets, make her want to be braver and take risks. One of her films, Shooting the Mafia (2019), was created out of the desire to remove the glamour from the mafia that Hollywood fiction films such as The Godfather generate.

She is also characterised by her instinct to rebel or to film those who do, shown by her pride in being called a ‘class traitor’ by the headteacher in her first film. Her childhood was a place distinctly lacking in rebellion, due to the strict boarding school she attended and later ran away from, but Longinotto has more than made up for that in her many films. She is very driven by people and their stories, in fact, she flew to Cameroon without knowing that the resulting film would be Sisters in Law. Her personality makes people able to open up and that is what makes her films so good. She does not need to use voiceover or tell the audience what to think, because the stories do all the talking for her.

Component 2b: Essay – The Significance of Digital Technology

“Portable, digital cameras, digital sound recording equipment and non-linear digital editing have had a very significant impact on documentary film.” How far has digital technology had an impact on your chosen documentary film? [20]

Plan:

Introduction –

Move from analogue to digital has affected every aspect, making things easier, cheaper and faster. This allows films that might not otherwise be made to be made, e.g Sisters in Law. It is a documentary by Kim Longinotto, which is about…

Main section –

• pre-production: funding (general) – digital technology is cheaper and more accessible
• pre-production: funding (Sisters in Law) – Kim Longinotto often struggles to get funding for her documentaries
• production: movement (general) – digital technology is lighter and has better manoeuvrability
• production: movement (Sisters in Law) – the camera is able to follow the subjects better, e.g Manka running up to her uncle. The camera can move around more to show the area and give the audience a better idea of location, e.g opening shots
• production: camera size (general) – digital cameras are more compact and lightweight, enabling their increased mobility and making them less imposing on the documentary subjects
• production: camera size (Sisters in Law) – the smaller cameras allow a more natural response from participants, e.g when the women are having a discussion together. The cameras are less obtrusive in sensitive situations, e.g the trials in the courtroom or the victims relaying their stories
• production: longer takes (general) – the camera can be left on for longer periods of time and does not require re-stocking, maximising amount of footage and reducing the risk of missing key moments
• production: longer takes (Sisters in Law) – the lengthier shots are less disruptive to the audience’s viewing and let entire events unfold without requiring re-stocking, e.g in the courtroom
• production: set-up (general) – cameras can be set-up more quickly or can be hand-held, allowing flexibility in shot choices
• production: set-up (Sisters in Law) – decisions were made at the time about which shots were suitable, giving the documentary more rawness and authenticity
• production: durability (general) – digital cameras are more robust
• production: reviews (general) – footage can be reviewed at the time and re-shot if necessary
• post-production (general) – editing is non-destructive, quicker (keeping the documentary relevant)

Conclusion –

Digital technology has allowed documentary filmmaking to evolve, enabling fly-on-the-wall documentaries and more truthful results. Films like Sisters in Law may not have been possible prior to digital technology, which allowed the documentary a manoeuvrability and unobtrusiveness that was essential for the location and topic.

Essay:

The move from analogue to digital in filmmaking technology has impacted every stage of filmmaking, from pre-production right the way through to post-production. Digital technology brings huge advantages to filmmaking in terms of ease, speed and cost and this is especially true in documentary filmmaking, where often the aim is to capture true events with minimal influence on the subjects. Another benefit of digital technology is the widening availability of equipment and, consequently, an increase in films produced. This means there is the opportunity for films to be made that may not have been previously feasible, and one such example is the documentary Sisters in Law by Kim Longinotto, which is about cases of abuse towards women in Kumba, Cameroon being taken to court by female legal professionals.

One reason Sisters in Law may not have been possible before digital technology is the pre-production issue of funding. Kim Longinotto often struggles to get enough funding for her documentaries and this likely would have been a much greater difficulty for her prior to digital technology, with the increased connections and lower prices that it brings. Since the rise of digital technology, filmmaking has become more accessible and the price of technology has decreased generally over time, in addition to digital storage being much cheaper than the analogue alternative, film stock.

During filming, digital technology has the ability to be more flexible in terms of set-up and cameras have become lighter, with increased manoeuvrability. This was maximised in Sisters in Law, with the camera able to move around to give the audience a better sense of location, such as in the opening shots. At the beginning of the documentary, the camera moves along, as if it were a car, showing the Cameroon countryside. This shot has a shakiness that makes it more authentic and puts the audience in the moment more effectively than a dolly shot could have done and the shot was likely only possible due to the compact, robust and hand-held nature of the camera.

The use of digital technology also allowed Longinotto and her crew to be more flexible and spontaneous with their shot choices. As the events were real-life, Longinotto and her crew had no way of knowing how they would play out, so decisions about framing and shot sizes had to be made at the time. With analogue equipment, this spontaneity would be more difficult, both with setting up the camera and due to the price of film stock, which meant that shots should have been carefully planned to reduce takes and keep costs down.

Some shots of the local environment may not have been planned and therefore not been filmed if analogue equipment was being used, such as the shot of two men constructing a bed frame. These shots are important in adding a sense of location and giving a feel of local everyday life. The camera moves back to focus of Manka, a 6-year-old who is featured as a victim of abuse in the documentary, before cutting to a wide shot of her running up to her uncle and cousin. The ease of setting up digital equipment then allows the camera position to move, so that there is a mid-shot of Manka and her uncle hugging, which is better suited for the intimate gesture and brings the audience closer to the two and more able to emotionally respond. The flexibility of digital equipment is crucial in allowing Longinotto to make the most suitable choices for each shot, such as the prior example.

Additionally, digital cameras can be left recording for long periods of time, without the need to replenish film stock causing disruptions. This requirement in analogue recording creates the potential for the filmmaker to miss key moments, which is especially detrimental in documentary filmmaking. Lengthier shots, such as when the trial charges are being read out, are necessary to avoid missing pieces of information and as the trial is occurring in real-time, with the filmmaker unable to repeat the process, any missed moments are lost and could affect the audience’s ability to understand the events. Longer length shots are also beneficial by being less disruptive to the viewing experience and making it easier for the audience to engage and be submersed in the film.

Sisters in Law is an observational documentary, making the use of more compact digital technology crucial in obtaining truthful results. Digital cameras can be smaller and more lightweight, so they are less imposing on the documentary subjects. The film deals with sensitive subjects, therefore unobtrusive cameras are more likely to gain natural responses from participants. Smaller cameras may make the participants feel more able to be open and honest when sharing their stories, such as when several women are sat round discussing the age at which they got married and the education they want for their children. In other delicate situations, like when Manka is taken to the legal office and the marks on her body are shown, a large camera would seem wrong and intrusive.

Other benefits of digital technology are the durability and robustness, as well as the ability to review footage at location. For Longinotto filming in Cameroon, checking shots immediately after recording them would have been incredibly important in avoiding disappointment when it came to post-production. Filming abroad requires travel expenses, therefore it is difficult to re-shoot any bad footage once home, making instant playback on digital technology very valuable.

Any mistakes in post-production are also much more easily rectified with digital technology than with analogue, when editing was a destructive and definite process. Post-production digital technology is important for speed of editing, allowing filmmakers to finish their film sooner and thus keep it more relevant, especially in regards to topical documentaries.

Overall, digital technology has allowed filmmaking to evolve, but has been particularly important in the development of different styles of documentary filmmaking, enabling fly-on-the-wall documentaries to be made, which provide more truthful results due to the unobtrusive nature of the digital camera. Films such as Sisters in Law may not have been possible prior to digital technology, which provides a flexibility, unobtrusiveness and manoeuvrability that was essential for such a sensitive subject and the particular location and also gives a rawness and authenticity that is suitable for the observational mode of the documentary and makes it more captivating for the audience.

Sisters in Law (Kim Longinotto, 2006)

The documentary is about cases of abuse against women in the town of Kumba, Cameroon. This includes a young girl of six called Manka, who is beaten by her aunt with a hanger and married women who have faced physical abuse and rape at the hands of their husbands. Fortunately, due to the work of the female legal professionals, the cases are taken to court and won: the women are finally heard and the abusers are forced to face their punishment.

I would categorise this documentary as observational mode, as the filmmaker does not attempt to influence the events shown, merely record them and this can also be seen through the, at times, slightly shaky footage. However, some of the participants do engage with the filmmaker, responding to presumably prompted questions to allow the audience a better understanding of their individual situations and their way of life.

It is interesting focusing on both the different cases of each woman, following their story from it being shared with the legal professionals, to it going to court and reaching a verdict and a brief insight into how they feel afterwards, but also focusing on the legal professionals themselves and the way they handle the cases. Two key women in the documentary are the State Prosecutor, Vera Ngassa and the Court President, Beatrice Ntuba, who manage to bring the abusers to justice in court.

The town is made up of a largely Muslim community, where women have struggled for a long time, being treated as inferior to the men, and this documentary draws attention to that. Additionally, it touches on the age at which the women are married off, often as young as 14, and the lack of education for girls.

Although the documentary describes the terrible abuse the women have faced, it is a positive step that the offenders are prosecuted and one particular case even sets the precedent for the first male conviction of spousal abuse in the area and Amina, the victim, goes on to get a divorce from her husband, freeing her from her abuser for good. Therefore, the documentary ends on a relatively uplifting note, though it is undoubtable that the women of Kumba will still face difficulties.

The War Game (Peter Watkins, 1965)

The War Game is a 1965 documentary by Peter Watkins that explores what would happen if Britain was hit by a nuclear bomb, similar to the events of Hiroshima during the Second World War. The documentary focuses on an area in Kent, and the process of the inhabitants preparing for the bombing by setting up shelters, the actual strike and then the aftermath of it. The scenes are particularly hard-hitting and difficult to watch, with many people covered in radiation burns by the end.

It is difficult to categorise this documentary according to Bill Nichols’ Six Modes, as the footage shown is staged. The documentary is merely a representation of what would happen in the midst of a nuclear war, not events that actually occurred. However, the subjective nature of the documentary against nuclear weapons places it partially in the poetic mode, whilst the use of narration is more akin to the expository mode. Another element that makes it difficult to categorise the film is the occasional recognition of the camera, when at other times the camera acts just a passive observer.

I think the film mainly aims to educate people about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the weight that should be felt when using them; the devastation and destruction of nuclear war is clearly and harshly shown throughout.

Watkins uses a docu-drama form and enlisted the help of locals in Kent when making the film, instead of using actors. This adds to the realism of the film, as they are real people in the film, although they are put in a false situation. The film attempts to display how the government and local people would respond to a nuclear crisis, without there actually being an ongoing nuclear war that could be documented.

The documentary aims to be truthful and realistic, hence the ‘news report’ style throughout the film. This style was most likely to be accepted as honest to audiences at the time, suggesting Watkins wanted the British public to believe there was truth in what he was saying, even if the form he was choosing to tell it in was staged. Watkins also features interview-like snippets of ‘high-up officials’, using real quotations from church or political leaders. This allows him to show the attitudes of those in power to the threat of nuclear war.

The film was rather controversial at the time, for its upsetting images and strong political stance, therefore, it was not actually broadcast on television by the BBC until 1985, eighteen years after it won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature. This shows the extent of the impact and relevance of the film, such that the government did not feel it was appropriate for public viewing.

Interestingly, despite Watkins warnings that within fifteen years of the documentary being made (by 1980) we would likely be in a similar situation to that being shown, the world has managed to prevent such events thus far, and the world has moved on from the one he portrayed, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Although the concept of mutually assured destruction has kept countries in line, the threat of nuclear war is still very real, even if it has moved geographically from the Soviet Union to North Korea. Therefore, most of Watkins’ warnings still ring true and the sights that he has depicted will never be pleasant to view, but his message may seem less urgent to us today.

Fahrenheit 11/9 (Michael Moore, 2018)

Fahrenheit 11/9 is a 2018 documentary by Michael Moore about the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States, and other national topical issues. The title plays off the name of his 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 about the Bush administration and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but the reversal coincidentally is also the date Trump was announced as the winner of the 2016 election (in American format).

Michael Moore acts as a narrator and the documentary conveys an anti-Trump argument, making it most likely the expository mode of documentary. The argument is very logical, clear and digestible to everyone, including the politically unaware and through the documentary, Moore leads the audience to recognise the criminal behaviour of Trump and other similar politicians, such as former governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder.

I found the documentary enlightening and learnt a lot of new information, having had no previous knowledge about the Flint water crisis, but being somewhat aware of the 2016 presidential election, which took place when I was 14 and less interested in politics than I am today. Therefore, I was surprised at the opening and the apparent certainty that was felt in 2016 about Hillary Clinton’s win, as that is not what I remember of the election. However, I do remember it seeming impossible that a man like Donald Trump could become President in a place like America, a misogynistic buffoon leading a country so similar to our own.

This utter assurance that America was moving on to its first female president is explored in the opening of the documentary, along with Donald Trump’s ridiculous journey to candidacy. And it really is just ridiculous, in a way that I never realised before. Donald Trump, face of the American Apprentice, found out that Gwen Stefani on the Voice was earning more money from TV company NBC than him, so launched a fake presidency run to show off his ‘popularity’ (with hired extras at his rallies) and earn himself a pay rise. This move majorly backfired on him when he was sacked by NBC for his derogatory comments made at these rallies, but this pushed him into a legitimate presidential campaign.

Some of the scenes were completely depressing, like when all the Hillary Clinton supporters were awaiting the announcement of their first female president but found out that Trump had won. Or when Hillary Clinton was given more delegates in West Virginia than Bernie Sanders, even though he won all 55 counties there. Others were heartbreaking, such as the ones of the children affected by the Flint water crisis or the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

The documentary is very well crafted; I particularly liked the opening showing a Donald Trump wax figure being created, with not very subtle implications, and the what ‘would seem comical if it wasn’t disturbingly true’ branding of the sexual predators who run/ran the television networks that just kept giving Donald Trump screen-time. The ending was also very moving, finishing with Emma Gonzalez’s powerful speech about the Parkland school shooting.

I found the documentary enlightening, depressing and some of the footage disgusting, in equal measure, and Moore’s narration accompanied it to give an interesting argument, but despite the documentary being persuasive and easy to agree with, it is also important to remember that it is ultimately subjective, which is part of what makes it an expository documentary – it assumes a ‘correct’ answer and offers a preferred meaning to us.

Side By Side (Chris Keneally, 2013)

Side By Side is a documentary about the development of technology in film and the transition from celluloid film to digital. Keanu Reeves acts as an interviewer, talking to famous directors, cinematographers and other filmmaking professionals to discuss their preferences for filmmaking and their attitudes to the rise of digital technology. Therefore, I would categorise this documentary as ‘participatory mode’, as there is engagement between Reeves and the other filmmakers.

Some, such as George Lucas, welcome, or even promote new technological advancements, whilst others are more resistant. Included in the category of those who continue to prefer celluloid film as a medium are Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan, who speak at length about the advantages of film stock over digital recording. Most suggest that there is a different feeling when watching a movie created on physical film, something more real and an endearing graininess. However, champions of the digital claim the clearer, cleaner image of digitally-shot films is better and that there are many more benefits.

Some advantages of digital filming pointed out in the film include being able to make adjustments immediately, using instant playback, instead of having to wait for the film to be processed overnight and then reviewing it. This enables the filmmaker to get the shots exactly how they want them and to see that reflected on the monitor. Additionally, digital storage does not require frequent replacement, as celluloid film does, so the filmmaker does not risk missing certain moments when the camera is off. People can be shot without them realising, there are more options for unconventional shooting and there can also be less waiting in between takes for actors.

However, this immediacy is not always beneficial, because constant filming can be tiring for actors and perhaps lead to lower quality performances. One of the interviewees also suggested that everyone works harder with film and concentrates better because they can hear “the money running through the camera” and do not want to waste it. Instant playback also enables the actors to watch their performance in between takes, which could help them improve, or could alter their performance negatively, if they become too self-conscious. Some of the filmmakers mentioned that this changed the atmosphere of shooting.

The documentary delves into how different areas of the filmmaking process have been impacted by the transition to digital; for example, editing. A key point that stuck out was that editing has become an art form, due to digital technology, as opposed to just a physical process. But despite the increased precision and ability to correct mistakes, a few of the interviewees felt that digital did not require the same amount of thought, because it could simply be changed again. One filmmaker pointed out that ‘analogue’ editors had to find the best possible cut before they made it, because every cut was final and that gave a weight to the process that bettered the film.

Cinematographers on the documentary largely seemed to prefer the older technology, because it gave a sense of magic to their jobs. Previously, cinematographers had extreme authority on set, and as no one could see the shot as it was being filmed, they all had to trust the cinematographer’s decisions and vision. Then, once the film had been developed, the cinematographer’s work was revealed, like a magic trick. However, now, most of the interviewed cinematographers felt that too many other people try to interfere with their decisions, because anyone can look at the shot during filming and make suggestions.

Another area that was explored was colour correction. With film, the only adjustments that could be made were the colour balances between red, green, blue and brightness adjustments. Digital colour correction tools were originally used for shorter media, such as adverts and music videos, but were introduced into the film industry and as a result, films like O Brother, Where Art Thou (Ethan Coen/Joel Coen, 2000) could be made. It was the first major DI, where all the scenes were colour graded, so that they were in-keeping with cinematographer Roger Deakin’s envisioned colour palette. Tools such as this allow filmmakers to manipulate the images more to fit their vision better.

(above: O Brother Where Art Thou before colour correction, below: after colour correction) – screen-grabs taken from the Side By Side documentary

Despite the increasing use of digital technology in production, digital projection was still limited. George Lucas talked of his 1999 Star Wars: Phantom Menace release, one of the first major productions projected digitally. However, there were only four digital projectors in the US at that time, two in New York and two in LA and by 2002, still only 150 in the whole country. He spoke of the benefits of digital projection: every copy would be perfect, with no scratches or tears, no matter how many times it was played. Other filmmakers also talked of the difference in every theatre and how in some, the quality was terrible.

By this time, almost every aspect of filmmaking was becoming digitalised, but cameras were lagging behind technologically. Many still operated similarly to a celluloid film camera and often, had to be loaded in the same way, whilst there were still no playback options. The Panavision Genesis camera was “the first full frame digital camera for feature length films” and had a similar depth of field to 35mm film, but had these limitations; the recorder was attached in the same way as a film magazine would be and the footage could not be player back on set. Lack of dynamic range was another problem that many of the filmmakers cited with digital cameras. However, digital cameras were able to film in lower light and soon made further progressions.

Developments were made in terms of resolution, moving from 2K pixels to 4K pixels. The RED 1 was a huge step in attracting film stock-loving filmmakers to digital and then the S1-2K made another move in making cameras far more mobile. This camera was used to make Slumdog Millionaire, and contributed to its 2009 Academy Award for Best Cinematography, the first win for a film mostly shot on digital.

Not only have the cameras changed, but also the way we watch films. It is becoming a more private activity, with the introduction of VOD services allowing us to watch at home instead of at the public cinema. Digital advancements have widened access to the film industry, enabling more people to make art, increasing people’s opportunities, shown by the rise of film festivals. Film is no longer seen as a rarefied form, but some of the filmmakers worried that this increase in quantity would lead to a reduction in quality of films produced.

The closing comments were focused on the future of film and the question of preservation. It was pointed out that film is not dead and will not die out yet, because people still make the choice to use it and like to do so, even though celluloid film cameras are no longer in production. One filmmaker said that “film will never be format obsolete” because we will always be able to shine a light on that celluloid and watch it back. On the other hand, it was commented that there is too much digital information in the world for us not to find a way to store it and eventually a way will be found to preserve it forever, so digital films are safer than their fragile celluloid film counterparts.

Overall, the debate was very balanced and the insight from famous filmmakers into their choices was fascinating. Keanu Reeves added an informative narration and laid-back questioning style, gently probing into the attitudes of the filmmakers with personal insider knowledge of the film industry.

Critical Debates: The Significance of Digital Technology

As technology has developed and improved, it has begun to take over the analog medium of physical film. Whilst some filmmakers remain adamant that film is the superior medium, there are undoubtedly benefits to using digital technology, and these are laid out in the mindmap below, which explores the significance of digital technology in the various stages of filmmaking, for audiences and for specifically documentary filmmakers.

Modes of Documentary

According to Bill Nichols, there are Six Modes of Documentary:

1. Expository Mode (voice of God)

• The mode we most typically associate with documentaries
• This type emphasises argumentative logic and verbal commentary, so often uses a narrator
• It assumes a logical argument and a ‘correct’ answer by using direct address and offering a preferred meaning to the audience
• Television news and nature documentaries are good examples

2. Observational Mode

• This is best exemplified by cinema verité (direct cinema), which emerged in the late 1950s and 60s and attempted to capture objective reality as accurately as possible, with the filmmaker as a neutral observer
• The filmmaker should remain hidden behind the camera and ignored by the surrounding environment – s/he should neither change nor influence the actions/events being captured
• As nothing is staged for the camera, it often has to rush around, attempting to keep up with the action – this results in rough, shaky and amateurish footage
• It is often known as ‘fly on the wall’ documentary

3. Participatory Mode

• The Participatory Mode, unlike the Observational Mode, encourages direct engagement between the filmmakers and subjects and the filmmaker becomes part of the events being recorded
• The filmmaker’s impact on the events being recorded is often acknowledged or even celebrated

4. Performative Mode (filmmaker as participant)

• This Mode emphasises the subjective nature of the documentary-maker, in addition to recognising the subjective reading of the audience
• It highlights the emotional and social impact on the audience

5. Poetic Mode (subjective, artistic expression)

• It moves away from the supposed ‘objective’ reality of a given situation or people in an attempt to reach for an inner truth that can only be understood by poetic manipulation
• It emphasises visual associations, tonal or rhythmic qualities, descriptive passages and formal organisation
• Additionally, it favours mood, tone and texture in a film

6. Reflexive Mode (awareness of process)

• This acknowledges the constructed nature of documentary and does not hide it, but rather displays it, conveying to the audience an awareness that it is not necessarily ‘truth’, it is merely a reconstruction of it, and is therefore ‘a’ truth, not ‘the’ truth
• The artifice of the documentary is intentionally exposed and the audience are made aware of everything, from the editing, to the sound recording, and so on

Documentary Defined

According to the Collins Dictionary:

“A documentary is a television or radio programme, or a film, which shows real events or provides information about a particular subject.”

However, Bill Nichols believes that all films are documentaries, because “even the the most fantastical fiction film provides information about the culture that produces it, as well as representing the actors and any physical location used.”

Therefore, he believes that the distinction between fictional narrative films and what are generally classed as ‘documentaries’ is an arbitrary one, and should not exist as such. He prefers the distinction of “wish fulfillment” films and “social representation” films. This is a similar division of fiction films and traditional documentaries, but labelled differently and with slightly different connotations of the film classification.

He argued that it is not only fiction films that tell stories, and that documentaries can be as dramatic and exciting as narrative films, as well as often less predictable. This is because they draw their subject matter from reality.

Since the start of cinema as an art form, there have always been feature-length cinema documentaries and therefore it is sustainable as a business model. However, it is true that the cinema documentaries are competing with TV, which seems a more natural home for them.

Some recent popular examples of cinema documentaries are:

• March of the Penguins (2005)
• The Inconvenient Truth (2006)
• Supersize Me (2002)
• Man on Wire (2008)
• Farenheit 9/11 (2004)
• Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Michael Moore (who directed the last two of the above list) shows that a career can be made out of cinema documentaries and there continue to be a set of filmmakers who do so, despite it not being an obviously popular form.

The line between documentaries and fiction films becomes increasingly blurred, as audiences become more cine-literate and filmmakers become more sophisticated. Filmmakers of both use the techniques and styles of the other, but there are still some clear distinguishing factors:

• Mise-en-scène can either real or faked in fiction films, whereas it is all real in documentary films, and the term becomes basically void, as everything in the scene is real life
• Characters in fiction films may be representative of real people, but are actually played by actors, who are often stars, not people who most closely resemble the truth. On the other hand, there are no characters at all in documentary films, they are just real people living their real lives
• Camera and recording equipment is hidden in fiction films to maintain the illusion that it is not really there, so the audience can be fully immersed in the film, but in documentary films, the technical equipment can often be seen, as the film is not aiming to be an illusion, rather, to show reality
• The filmmaker of a fiction film is an off-camera creative presence, who directs the actors, whereas in documentary films, the filmmaker often features in it and the film is partially made more interesting by their presence
• The narrative structure and dialogue of fiction films is created by screenwriters, so the film is scripted; however, in documentary films, the story unfolds on its own, whilst the dialogue is just the participants naturally speaking
• Audiences are willing to accept the illusion of reality according to general codes and conventions in fiction films, but they expect a certain degree of accuracy and truthfulness in documentary films

Bill Nichols accepts that “the boundaries between the two forms are notoriously flexible, with many documentaries using techniques from fiction films to re-create events – and fiction films borrow heavily from documentary for its enhanced ‘truth value’.”