Introduction to Documentary Reponse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx9zIGxQ-zE A documentary, in purely linguistic terms, must document something, which implies that nothing about it can be tampered with or manipulated. But as Nichols explains with his 6 modes of documentary, this is is simply not the case. For example, expository documentaries are often heavily narrated and edited to convey a certain message to the viewer, regardless of whether that message would have been apparent if the same viewer had been literally standing on the set of the film for the entire shooting process. For instance, many of Michael Moore's documentaries have been criticized for their bias and twisting of the truth. That is why the observational mode of documentary appeals very much to me: this type of footage cannot be changed or coerced into displaying a filmmaker's hidden agenda. It is designed to show what is there, in the most pure form. Only a camera has the ability to capture a past reality so accurately, and the observational mode brings out this little discussed trait. The clip I have attached is from "Don't Look Back," an observational documentary about Bob Dylan in his heyday. The film is shot in so-called "Fly On the Wall" fashion, meaning that it is shown to us exactly as if we were a fly flying around Bob Dylan for a few weeks. Of course there is some editing, because a film cannot last for such a long amount of time as it takes to film, but the filmmaker should use presence of mind to know which sections should be edited out. As Nichols suggests, there are some ethical problems with a filmmaker ignoring his or her subjects: what if the subject becomes injured? What if the subject acts differently because of the presence of the camera? These questions are certainly issues, but still, the observational mode is the closest thing we have to living a past moment in real time.