Intro to documentary

I learned a lot about documentary film from the article. It introduced about six types of documentary: poetic, expository, participatory, observational, reflexive, and performative documentary. “Poetic: adept at opening up the possibility of alternative forms of knowledge to the straightforward transfer of information, the prosecution of a particular argument or point of view, or the presentation of reasoned propositions about problems in need of solution. Expository: assembles fragments of the historical world into a more rhetorical or argumentative frame than an aesthetic or poetic one. (voice-of-god) it rely heavily on an informing logic carried by the spoken word. The expository mode emphasizes the impression of objectivity and well-supported argument. Observational: simply observe what in front of the camera. Filmmaker is invisible. It involve with the ethical issue of voyeurism and when should the filmmaker to intervene. Participatory: “being there” and experience. Record what he or she have learned. Reflexive: readers attend to the filmmaker;s engagement with them, speaking not only about the historical world but about the problems and issues of representing it as well. Performative: what is knowledge, what counts as understanding or comprehension? Concert or abstract? Personal or organizational? ” Personally, I have a strong feeling about observational documentary. When it is about the naturel world, there is no problem at all. However, as the article has pointed out, it has raise the question about when should the filmmaker comes out and stop the whole process? A film called Das Experiment (2011) by Oliver Hirschbiegel is a great example of how the ethical issue interacts in observational documentary. It was base on true story. 19 volunteer men are divided into to group, in the experiment, half of them role-play the convicts and the other role-plays the guards. They are lock in a place for two weeks. The situation goes out of control, people start to fight and hurt each other, but the observers in the other end of the camera did not stop the madness. . Few people dead and the ending of the film is fairly inspiring and sad. I do not know how to solve the problem, which is more important? The truth and the sufficient scientific result of a research or experiment or observation, or the objects in the observational process?

Introduction to Documentary

This reading focused heavily identifying what makes a documentary so different than other aspects of filmmaking. As such, it sets out clearly defined examples of describing the voice of documentaries and why these voices are important. This is because the voice of a documentary is what makes a documentary so much different than other aspects of filmmaking. Not only is the general idea of the voice of documentary important, but also the fact that there are different types of voices of documentaries. The reading points to six of these: poetic, expository, participatory, observational, reflexive, and performative. Each of these types of voices is important because, as the reading stated, “It attests to the individuality of the filmmaker or director, or, sometimes, to the determining power of a sponsor or controlling organization”. Within each of these different voices, each filmmaker will have a different perspective or twist on the voice of the documentary. The reading also points out that a documentary does not have to be held to one distinct voice, but rather, a documentary can utilize multiple voices to deliver the message.

The poetic mode of documentary focuses on the representation of the history of what has happened and uses this history to deliver its message. The expository mode brings this history into an argumentative form that will address the viewer directly so that the viewer becomes more involved with the message. The observational mode is pretty straightforward; the filmmaker is “on the scene” but is not involved with the scene. The participatory mode is similar to the observational mode with the difference being that the documentary will show the effects of the filmmaker being on the scene. The reflexive mode fully engages the viewer with the filmmaker in that the filmmaker challenges the viewer to think about the problems and issues that the documentary brings up about its subject. Finally, the performative mode seeks to show the viewer a better understanding of general processes that occur in society.

The Kony 2012 film, produced by the organization Invisible Children, uses a combination of these voices to bring about their message. They use the poetic mode to provide history of the issue. They use the expository mode to address the viewer that they need to take action against the issue. They use the participatory mode to question those affected by the issue so that they can gain more evidence to help draw the viewer to the issue. They use the reflexive mode to further encourage viewer participation against the issue. They use the observational mode to show examples of the issue of which they have not altered or affected. Finally, they use the  performative mode to show these social issues and spark a social movement to combat the issue.  

Response to Intro to Documentary: 'Man Bites Dog'

I actually took a class on documentary and mock documentary last semester, and out of all the films we screened, I found Rémy Belvaux’s Man Bites Dog among the most fascinating. Though fictional, the film adopts the agenda of the reflexive documentary by interrogating the very act of filming real-life subjects, specifically focusing on the often ethically problematic relationship between the subject and the filmmaker. The movie follows a diegetic documentary film crew as they go about filming the exploits of Ben, a fictional serial killer and the subject of their film. Watching this process take place, our moral instincts immediately kick in. How can these filmmakers go about making their movie when Ben is walking the streets, murdering people left and right for sport?

But it is precisely the extreme nature of the movie’s subject that foregrounds the ethical issues inherent in documentary filmmaking. To what degree are filmmakers justified in continuing to film a subject before they are ethically obligated to intervene? The film’s aim is satirical rather than realist, using the film crew’s chilling moral apathy (and later outright moral decadence) as a commentary on the way in which documentary filmmakers sometimes sacrifice moral integrity for the pursuit of knowledge. One thinks of the infamous incident in which a photojournalist takes a picture of a hungry child only to receive vicious backlash for not helping the child out.

It only goes to show how complex a genre documentary is. Because a documentary’s goal is to represent reality, there are added ethical implications to the making of the film.  

Below is Man Bites Dog in its entirety, available on YouTube. Go to the 1:00 mark and you’ll see Ben describing the process of disposing a body. The way he’s framed and talking at the camera mimics the “talking heads” interview style commonly seen in the expository mode of documentary film.

If you’re going to watch the whole movie, be warned: it’s very violent and disturbing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOHAVFejTWg

Response to Intro to Documentary

         I found the reading to be very interesting, especially considering my primary interest is ethnographic film. I especially liked the part that examined performative documentary and “the observational mode.” I feel, however, that in order to make what I consider a truly observational film, you would have to be completely without bias or interference. The ways in which the category is defined confuses me a little bit. Because most observational films seem to be less simply observing and more of asking people to act in a way, to reveal the information that they need to capture. While the observational documentary is more “real” and “raw” in some ways, such as the lack of voice-overs or interviews, it the filmmaker is always trying to get specific footage to fit in with his fiction. One of the best examples of this type of film is Jean Rouch’s Jaguar. I have included a trailer of it below. Jaguar was a film made with great assistance from the subjects themselves. It is what most anthropologists call an “ethno-fiction,” or a fictional story that also has significant anthropological and documentary value. I believe that this film is exemplary of the observational mode.
       Performative documentary is similar in the fact that it does not focus solely on the facts, as one would expect from a documentary, but instead seeks to illicit an emotional response from its audience. It often focuses on the filmmaker’s personal story or connection to the subject matter, becoming almost autobiographical and very subjective. Modern performative documentaries often focus on the subjectivity of a specific group of people regarding the core subject of the film. Instead of presenting the audience with cold facts, these filmmakers give them deep emotional material and, while not always unbiased or scientific, that material is real to a certain extent. I think this is really interesting.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9rTiHC20y0

Intro to Documentary

I have always thought of documentarians as striving to maintain objectivity (regardless of personal bias) but this reading made me reevaluate the degree to which a filmmaker can assert bias and opinion. While documentaries can be purely observational they can also have an agenda that specific shots and editing choices help to reinforce, manipulating viewers on a subconscious level. I was excited to see The Man With a Movie Camera cited as an example of how realities can be constructed through visual associations and montages, as I have seen this film and experienced its effects. I was also glad to see the mention of Triumph of the Will, as it too uses a historical reality as a base of construction to plant seeds in viewers’ minds. This documentary style opposes the aesthetics and purposes of observational documentaries. Narration and voiceovers are another way documentarians more overtly insert their opinions. This reading comments on a documentary style I especially appreciate, documentaries that make me question a certain status quo and leave me thinking after the credits roll. I also connected the discussion of participatory observation to my interests in film and anthropology, imagining the combination could create powerful understandings of new cultures and environments and allow these enriched perspectives to be shared with a wider audience.

Man With a Movie Camera:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW5Nm_D7Wns

Triumph of the Will:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0kwnLzFMls

Intro to Doc

I found the article very informative, as I was not previously familiar with the six different "modes" of documentary. I actually had to read the same article for one of my film classes since we are also starting our documentary unit. We were assigned to watch Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, which definitely embodies the expository mode. What I liked most about the film was the effective use of humor to emphasize its argument.
The documentary I've seen most recently is Taxi to the Dark Side, a powerful film that provides an in-depth look at the US torture practices in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The film is also expository; there is a "voice of God" commentary that directly addresses the viewer, interview segments, and photos/footage from the events. I enjoyed this film because though it can be hard to watch due to the nature of the events it exposes, it is very well edited and provides a lot of genuine evidence that sheds light on our military's horrible, inhumane war practices.

Intro to documentaries

            As I was reading about documentaries I kept thinking back to the last one I saw that I really liked, it was called Jiro Dreams of Sushi (2011). It shows us Jiro, considered by many to be the best sushi chef in the world, and his life revolving around making sushi. It shows us his restaurant, his workers, and his two sons. I purposely described the film as “showing” us because that is really what it does, it is very much an observational documentary. We as the viewers really just sit back watch and listen to Jiro make and take about sushi. There is no “voice of God” and the only thing that really comes close a “voice of authority” and that is the food critic that’s friends with Jiro. However even though he does pervade a bit of the narration, it’s more in terms of stories than real detached authority.

The documentary also is not trying to make an argument. It’s showing us a person’s life and just letting us think about it. It really doesn’t have anything “bigger” to say, because lets face it, as much as I love sushi, and I do love sushi, in the grand scheme of things it’s not the most important thing. It’s a story about an interesting person who has I seemingly one-track mind, and how that has affected his life. As David Gelb, the director of the film, said, “here's a story about a person living in his father's shadow while his father is in a relentless pursuit of perfection.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1UDS2kgqY8

     

"Intro into documentary" Response

            I really like documentary film and one of my favourite documentary films is called Bowling for Columbine. It is talking about the role of guns plays in the American society. The issue is raised by a gun killing event happened in Columbine Elementary School. In the film, the voice of authority is used as a narration in the part of the interview or introduction, which brings effective and convincing argument to the audience. Many scene shows without music, without cutting and without narration, with only the show of the facts.

            Specially, director in the film uses montage way of cutting many trusted TV news, such as BBC news and Fox news, in order to make the credibility of the facts about the tragedy of the gun killing event which happens in the Columbine Elementary School. There are also many particular scenes for the survivors and victims’ parents to take interviews to talk about the process of the tragedy that they have experienced. Their memory of the tragedy emotionally appeals to the audience which points out the seriousness of the guns’ use.

            In addition, director presents himself as one of the character in the film. His interview with all sorts of authorities, his voiceover narration and his on-screen interactions with people and the way of handhold camera of shooting all brings a live experiment to the audience. The audience may have the similar experiences and emotion as the director and they will notice that the story in the film is actually something happening next to them in their country instead of some fake stories in the film. For example, when the director films the autobiographical information about his childhood experience and he makes the parallels between himself and Charlton Heston. The director uses himself as a narrator instead of creating some superficial heroes. This type of filming makes the film real and closer to the audience. The audience might even recall that if they have similar experience in their childhood or if they have the similar interaction with guns. It might also arouse the audience’s fear for the gun because such kind of experience does happen to them or to somebody around them.

Intro into Documentary Reading

I found this reading very interesting and informative. I liked how the reading broke down documentaries into 6 different genres. However, each documentary can be viewed with multiple genres. I liked how it said that documentaries can borrow from multiple genres instead of just being known as "reflexive or perforative". My favorite types of documentaries are ones in which they pose a question of argument about a certain culture by filming subjects amongst the culture and letting the interviews drive home the argument rather than just a voice over. Although some documentaries are very effective when they combine visuals and a "god like" voice over. Expository documentaries can be very effective and are some of my favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpSGGBJ4tG4

This is a clip from a documentary called "Earthlings". The combination of visuals and voice over make the film very effective and informative.

Intro to Documentary Response

The observational documentary is very interesting to me. The article describes this type as a "persuasive argument." Most people don't usually associate persuasion with film that isn't advertisement, or even an argument--we think of persuasion arguments belonging in writing. But, observational works in a similar way, presenting argument, or footage in the case of the documentary, that supports their thesis, or message. Although, it almost works reversely--the filmmaker might form an idea only after they have observed the evidence "through the lens." It seems that one might not even know quite what they're looking for, or what they might find prior to documenting. This is because live experience is spontaneous. Despite this information, a documentary can still be persuasive, depending on how the footage is presented. Another interesting bit that was mentioned in the article (concerning the observational type) is that the scenes are real, but tended like fiction. Everyday events can be formulated into a story, which can only be done from a observational perspective. Although some implications might be that there is a blur between fiction and reality, which is what caused much controversy in the documentary "Armadillo" (2010). There is also moral conflict concerning what should and should not be captured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcwrLV-H5UU

"Intro to Documentary" Response

I’ve always enjoyed documentaries because I find them captivating and the way the information is displayed visually and auditory kept me intrigued. I found this piece interesting because it explained the why’s and how’s of my enjoyment. “The emotional intensity and subjective expressiveness” that arose in the 1980s/1990s is definitely a key aspect I plan to include in my documentary (101). It’s that intensity that engages the viewer- especially when documentaries are typically lengthy.  I found the participatory mode particularly important because it aims to grab the viewer – and teach them something! Direct, personal, involvement by the filmmaker is important in the documentary. Whether, this means responsive, reflective, and personal, or discussing ramifications, I agree that personal involvement is key to portraying an idea (117). Anyone can sit in front of a camera and talk about a topic. However, talking about something personally impacts you makes the passion infinitely higher, which makes the video better because it feels genuine.

At the link embedded, there are five documentary clips that discuss Olympic athletes (for the upcoming Olympics) giving thanks to their parents and discussing the conflicts they overcame to reach the Olympics. The mothers discuss the child and the child discusses the mother, with lots of overlapping. This enabled me to get the full story from two perspectives. The language used isn’t necessarily script, but it’s real- real emotions, thoughts, and feelings help to understand what the speaker is trying to convey. Documentaries aren’t like films because the speakers are speaking from the heart- there’s no script, it’s truly genuine and I think that’s why I like the idea of documentaries. Average people are able to learn from other average people through recording and editing.  In  addition, the background sounds create anticipation, excitement, and momentum in the video. The tempo picks up and the passion is out and about and fully conveyed.

"Intro to Documentary" Response

Although it was a bit confusing at times, I really enjoyed reading this article about the different types of documentaries. Reading it really helped me kind of navigate my way through ideas for my documentary for our next assignment. Personally, I favored the poetic, participatory, and reflexive forms of documentary. I like the participatory mode because it goes along with what I have been learning in anthropology through immersing yourself in some setting or culture and capturing the practices while also participating in rituals or other practices. The only thing is that for our project, I'm not sure what I would be able to fully participate in and interview people about. The reflexive form was completely new to me and I liked how it draws references to historical context and also involved participatory mode. I like the combination because it gives more room to take something that is happening now and connect it to a problem or event in the past with a little less involvement than participatory. The only thing I was a little confused about was how we would go about doing this mode and engaging the audience to show realism as well. Poetic seemed interesting and I like the idea of focusing on images and a more stylistic approach so it seems more open to ideas than the other modes which require more participation. I ran across these two short documentaries about the history of title sequences and thought they went well with this reading. Both are conveying the same history but the first one is more artistic, along the lines of the poetic mode, while the second is more expository with a lot of vocal narration.

A History Of The Title Sequence from From Form on Vimeo.

THE FILM before THE FILM from ntsdpz on Vimeo.

Intro to Documentary

In this reading the author breaks the genre of documentary films into 6 categories or sub-genres. Each sub-genre is a different style that are utilized by filmmakers in the representation of their documentaries. The sub-genres are as follows: poetic, expository, participatory, observational, reflexive, and performative. These types of documentaries all intertwine when filming. Just because the focus of a specific documentary is reflexive doesn't mean that the film's only focus is reflexive. The film can utilize each of the 5 other categories with reflexive being the focal point. I found the reading to be pretty informative in the break down of the documentary film. 

ESPN airs sports documentaries every so often titled 30 for 30. These documentaries are my favorite to watch. They tell the story of a specific athlete, team, or sports organization. One of my all time favorite ones to watch is the 30 for 30 special on the former NBA player Chris Herren. The film they air includes past and present footage of Herren. Interviews of Herren, acquaintances of Herren, coaches, sports analysts, etc. They include news clips and old highlights of him in high school, college, and the pros. This particular special can be enjoyed by anybody, even somebody with no background in sports. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcmBAgqWnt4

Performance video

https://vimeo.com/79068852

Response to "Intro to Documentary"

I found this reading to be very informative and a great start to our next project. For instance, I enjoyed how it explained all six modes of documentary as well as present specific examples for each one. In addition, I liked how the author compared each mode to one another because it allowed me to figure out which one I would choose for my next project and whether it will be effective to my audience or not. As of now I am interested in the Reflexive mode because "rather than following the filmmaker in her engagement with other social actors, we now attend to the filmmaker's engagement with us, speaking not only about the historical world but about the problems and issues of representing it as well". I also like how this mode "is the most self-conscious and self-questioning mode of representation". Overall, when reading this article I was reminded about photography and how we as viewers are constantly trying to figure out whether something is "real" or "true" and if so, how close is it to reality. Therefore, as I think about our next project I want to make sure that my documentary is as "real" or "raw" as possible because documentaries center on the attempt in one fashion or the other to document reality. I think this video is a good example of what a Reflexive documentary looks like. It documents a woman and her reflection upon why coffee occasions are so important.

Response to Introduction to Documentary

The reading gives me a new idea on looking at the Documentary film.With the word "film", people normally cares about the images and the contents rather than the sounds that comply with the images. "Expository documentaries rely heavily on an informing logic carried by the spoken words". Suddenlu, it twists the way and angle that we are seeing a documentary piece. It is no longer about the acting, but the immediacy and the presence of the action. With this I realize, isn't advertisement a little documentary? Yes, the voice with the introduction is more important and overreaching than the content itself. No, it is acting and contains lots of arrangments over the actions. How does advertisement fits into the content then?

The documentary film I share here is about a rumor that two young men started. Czech people are crazy about supermarket. So the two men started a supermarket called Czech Dream. Everybody though it was real with all the outfits and planning. On the opening day, people were rushing to the supermarket, but they realized it was a joke. The documentary contains the components of interviewing, observations, and the real effect that happens in front of the camera, which it is worth watching. It is just fascinating,