Documentary Mini-Task

Documentary ‘mini-task’

Introduction

A documentary is showing the reality of something through the means of a presentation, visual document or record. However, it is questionable whether footage can be an accurate representation of reality because you will never know whether someone is being 100% natural on camera. Documentaries can be controversial as you are mixing both reality with entertainment. This is questionable because when the camera is switched off; the thing that is being documented on is still happening. On the other hand, there may be over-exaggerations and hyperbolic undertones that aren’t a true reflection of reality, to make the documentary ‘exciting’ and give people a story, which can lead to false/misinformation. 

There are 5 main types of documentary (coined by Bill Nichols);

-Expository 

-Observational

-Interactive

-Reflexive

-Performative

Expository Documentaries

Expository documentaries usually commentate on what’s going on in the documentary directly to the viewer, acting like a running commentary and is usually non-diegetic. This can be done through voiceovers or subtitles. Expository voiceovers or subtitles are meant to be objective, and do give that effect, however, as described before, there is always bias when something is being made from a person’s point of view. An expository documentary states facts and arguments that complement what is being depicted in the documentary. 

An example of this is Channel 4’s ’24 Hours in A&E’ where they use hidden cameras inside A&E’s around the UK and show, not only the patients when they come in, but also their reactions to what’s happened to them and the relationships they have with, not only their friends and families, but also with the staff. You can tell that the patients/patient’s family have given consent as there is usually interview clips that accompany the footage. There is also a voiceover explaining what has happened to the patients and other details about what’s going on in the footage. Although we can tell that the documentary makers have used raw footage and that there is authentic emotion and reactions coming from the people being filmed, there is still bias. This is because the documentary makers are squeezing 24 hours of film into 1 hour, so a lot of patients will be missed out as well as certain practices. This means that, although you are seeing a glimpse of what it’s like in A&E for 24 hours, you aren’t seeing the whole thing and there may be things in the A&E that they didn’t show us which may have swayed our opinion a different way. Although, there may be some bias within this documentary series, it is probably one of the least bias expository documentaries as it verges on a observational documentary.

Observational Documentaries

Observational documentaries are ‘fly on the wall’ which means that they are simply made to observe the spontaneity of life, without any intrusion or direction. The documentary filmmaker is meant to stand back as an observer and watch what is happening and is usually hidden from the audience. This is seen as a more neutral way of making documentaries because of the aspect of it being ‘fly on the wall’ allowing the audience to make up their mind on what was going on within the documentary. This mode of documentary making started in the 60’s when technology allowed more movement leading to more spontaneity as handheld cameras and portable sound recorders were invented. 

A popular example of an observatory documentary is ‘MTV Cribs’ where people show off their extravagant homes. Whilst there are no interviews, the homeowners explain what is in their houses whilst walking around the house. There is no obvious obstruction from the documentary filmmaker, however the one thing that is focused on is the expensive elements of the house. This does make the documentary less realistic than traditional observational documentaries, as it isn’t about getting the spontaneous and actual sides of reality and more about someone showing off their home. Additionally, as the homeowner will know that they’re going to be on TV they will, most definitely, clean up their houses and could even buy things in preparation for the documentary.  

Interactive Documentaries

Unlike observational documentaries; interactive documentaries clearly show who the filmmaker is as they are participating within the documentary. Within these there is usually an interaction between the interviewer/filmmaker and the interviewee/subject. There is usually a strong argument that is being expressed by the filmmaker and is a lot less neutral than observational documentaries. These types of documentaries are usually criticised for being ‘manipulative’ because they show a clear argument but, it can be argued that; it is more important to show what is going on in the world than to look at the objective elements of that topic. 

One example of this type of documentary filmmaking is; ‘Ross Kemp: Extreme World’. Ross Kemp is well known for his reporting on war-torn countries and the extreme violent nature of humanity. In ‘Ross Kemp: Extreme World’; Kemp and his crew go around the world to explore different hardships that people face such as; homelessness, drug addiction, poverty, illicit trade and violence[1]. Although Ross Kemp will be witnessing real people and talking about real issues that are going on in the world there is a lot of bias. For example, there is no way that he could fit all of the facts about a topic within 1 hour. Additionally, the people he’s interviewing know that they are being filmed and so stories may be exaggerated or, even, made up (depending on what it’s about there may be no way to tell if the story is true or not). It may not be the intention of Ross Kemp, to have a bias documentary, but it is inevitable when; editing is involved, you are relying on peoples own accounts of stories and you can’t fit all the information in to 1 hour.

Reflexive Documentaries

In this type of documentary, the filmmaker shows how they constructed the documentary and where they got the facts from. These types of documentaries rely on the construction of the documentary as you follow the filmmaker on their journey to making the documentary. This reflects John Grierson’s quote that documentaries are “the creative treatment of actuality” as it shows that instead of being a window to reality, they are representations of it. 

An example of reflexive documentary could be ‘Blue Planet’; a documentary narrated by legendary David Attenborough, casting light on the intricacies of nature. I think this could be seen as reflexive because the ending always involves an explanation of how they filmed it. Although it is unlike traditional reflexive documentaries which allow the viewer to go on the journey with filmmaker, it does have an element of being quite transparent as it shows how the documentary was made. This can eliminate some of the bias because it shows how scenes may have been manipulated to the viewers, making the documentary completely open in respect to the footage. However, as this documentary, as a whole, is expository there is bias through the arguments of climate change that are made throughout the whole series. However, as I’m focusing on the last couple of minutes that can make this documentary reflexive, there seems to be little bias within the actual footage.

Performative Documentaries

Performative documentaries stress the representation of an event rather than the facts. This emphasises the role of documentaries entertainment purposes rather than the educational and informational purposes. These types of documentaries always include a re-enactment of some sort to express the topic of the situation. This can often be exaggerated and can be seen as manipulative as it uses emotion to relay information. Dramatisations/re-enactments can be used, as it may be hard to express a situation through speech or text, a visual representation can make it easier for viewers to picture and understand. It may also be used to hypothetically to give the viewer an experience of a different perspective. These are most popular in crime/history documentaries where it may be harder to talk about a scenario without a physical depiction. However, re-enactments and dramatisations can be used to create an emotional response by the viewer, which can be highly manipulative. Additionally, it may also be as an entertainment technique so that the documentary can be more exciting. This means that re-enactments/dramatisations should be taken with a pinch of salt as there’s no way to tell whether they are accurate or not, so shouldn’t be taken seriously. 

For example, BBC’s ‘World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West’ uses re-enactments throughout the entire documentary, with the first scene being a re-enactment of a conversation between Stalin and Winston Churchill. This is done to give a face to the people that are being talked about and makes the viewer feel like they have a real representation of what that scenario may be like. As the people who are being spoken about aren’t alive anymore, there is no way to tell whether the re-enactment is 100% accurate or not and so, like all re-enactments, shouldn’t be taken seriously. Additionally, this is a good way to give life to those who aren’t living anymore by re-enacting the moments that made history. This does give some bias, as the people who are acting aren’t really the people they are depicting, so their mannerisms and speech may be exaggerated a long with everything inside the shot that creates the mise-en-scene.

Conclusion

John Grierson described documentaries as “the creative treatment of actuality” which is something I can stand behind. I think documentaries should be taken with a pinch of salt, as there’s only so much you can argue, about a subject, within a limited time frame. This means that although the main points of the topic may be covered, there may be details within that subject that can’t be covered due to; a limited time frame, limited access to all the information and the documentary makers own bias (whether the bias is intentional or not). 

I think a documentarist has a duty to let the viewer know whether what is presented is the complete truth and that there should be some element of transparency between the documentarist and the viewer. It is okay if someone makes a documentary to entertain, rather than inform and educate, but it is up to the documentarist to make that distinction to the viewer. It is not the documentary itself that creates misinformation, it is the way the viewer watches it that creates misinformation. Therefore, if the documentarist is honest with the viewer that some bits may not be completely accurate, then there can be a different way of watching the documentary leading to less misinformation.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Kemp:_Extreme_World