The definition of a documentary is problematic. With this, we must respect that the purpose of a documentary is literally to document an event, which has to be done with evidence, using an element of actual footage. Most documentaries resemble the truth, but all use an element of construction – a documentary cannot all be simple footage, it needs to be layered together with narration and in most cases, cutaways.
Documentary was defined in the 1930’s by John Grierson and his team at the GPO ( General Post Office). He first coined the term documentary in 1926, but defined it as ‘The creative treatment of actuality’. Documentaries in those days were made for a cinema audience, as television had not yet been invented, and were used to boost morale in war times. Often, documentaries were made with government interest; used as public service announcements for example. They aimed to give people a glimpse into the lives of others; something we now take for granted, being brought up around cultural programmes and a media conscious society.
This video shows one of John Grierson's famous documentaries - Night Mail (1936)
John Connor stated in 1995 that ‘What distinguishes a documentary is the portrayal of the recorded sounds and images of actuality.’ This means that a documentary is a factual account of an event. With this, we must respect that parts could be staged and reconstructed using actors and sets, which helps to evoke feelings for the audience, and sensationalises documentaries, making them more accessible.
Therefore, we must take into account that even though documentaries are highly respected for their factual content, even the most pure of documentaries contain a high level of construction; even in interview formats, the interviewee is set up in a certain place, with a certain mise en scene and made to look a certain way; for example, in a documentary about a troubling topic; i.e eating disorders, the interviewee is made to look vulnerable. This in turn, makes the documentary even more constructed; we are seeing the subject at a biased view as an audience.
Scheduling of a documentary is very important; what is shown before and scheduled after the documentary is vital. A particular target audience will be hooked by one programme and seek interest in a documentary through this. For example, when showing a documentary surrounding the arrival of the Pope in England, Channel 4 chose to include a short minute long opinionated piece before showing the more biased documentary. This added an element of balance to the piece, but also hooked the audience’s attention.
Some documentaries are emotional and sensational in order to gain a biased opinion. These documentaries are getting rarer however, as we live in a media conscious world, and viewers today are aware of when they are being persuaded to a certain opinion. Opposing this, they do not have to have analysis – they can be descriptive and leave the viewer to decide their own opinion. British documentaries are famed for their investigative journalism – they oppose the government and sometimes society in order to try to stir up debate between people. As long as documentaries are exposing hidden truths and constructing others, there will never be total consensus in society.
THE CREATIVE TREATMENT OF ACTUALITY.
Ken Loach, Filmmaker.
How creative should a documentary be? Documentaries always need to be authentic, although some elements can be faked/reconstructed; raw footage is often impossible, as of the topics that documentaries cover. For example, documentaries on murders or domestic violence, raw footage is few and far between, or too distressing to broadcast. Raw events which have not happened and can be filmed are taken control of by the documentary; camera angles need to be taken care of, crews will watch and ensure shots are appropriate.
Diane Tammes, an esteemed filmmaker once said ‘Truth is what you actually come away with at the end of seeing the film. I mean, it is your truth that you’re seeing. Everybody who makes a film is putting their own truth on the screen’. This is certainly true; filmmakers have an aim of what they want their film to portray and connote, and will always show the filmmaker’s opinion.
However, It is universally considered that within documentaries there must be elements of recorded images and sound of actual reality. If there is not either of these elements, the film is not a documentary; there is no evidence, and could therefore simply be a work of fiction.
Over the years, many people have began to argue over the ‘true documentary’ as of increased creative involvement. Because of this, there are now subgenres within documentaries, which will be discussed further on.
Current affairs programmes are described by many as halfway between the news and a documentary. These programmes offer a deep analysis and can be ranged from a couple of minutes to 30 minutes long. Many consider programmes longer than this to be classed as a documentary. Weighty issues and social problems are discussed, yet they are sensationalised in order to appeal to a mass audience. Programmes such as panorama are classed as current affairs; Panorama is a primetime programme which sensationalises current affairs to reach a wider audience.
John Corner states that there are 5 stages in a documentary
- Observation
- Mise-En-Scene
- Interview
- Exposition
- Dramatisation
Most documentaries use some element of observation – the camera becomes the eyewitness. We observe some raw footage as the audience also, which makes the documentary more authentic.
Documentaries rely heavily on interviews from many different people; they can be directly involved with the subject or simply an audience member just like the viewers. Full flowing interviews are often used when concerning huge events and consulting a close subject; e.g the Jackson family after Michael Jackson’s 2009 death. Break interviews can also be used, when an interview becomes fractured between cutaways and other action pieces to support or contrast what the subject is saying.
All documentaries have an element of dramatisation – drama needs to happen naturally and show real events happening. If dramatisation is not apparent, documentaries are not considered real as they may not be factual or interesting to the viewer. Reconstruction is also important as it adds an element of dramatisation to the piece and holds the audience’s attention.
Mise en scene is important to set the scene of the documentary – within interviews, the mise en scene needs to allow drama to unfold and allow the documentary to advance with the argument of the exposition. Without an appropriate mise en scene, documentaries become stale and boring to the audience.
The exposition of the documentary is the line of argument; it could be made of description and combined with commentary. The line of argument has to be clear within a documentary, so as not to confuse the audience.
Current affairs programmes are on a much shorter deadline than normal documentaries. This is because the news within them is much more topical, and will not be relevant if broadcast too late. Documentaries, on the other hand, can take months to complete; they can be on important events, but are usually after an event has finished; e.g. to mark the anniversary of Princess Diana’s deaths, many documentaries were made. Current affairs programmes also provide info-tainment for the viewer; these programmes are like the news, but add more interviews, facts and sensationalise most of the content, in order to make it more accessible for more viewers.
It therefore seems that current affairs programmes are more relevant in today’s society; they are culturally relevant and provide topics which are enjoyable for a much wider audience than a documentary. The main reason for making documentaries however, is the public’s right to know – documentaries can reference events that happened years in the past, which the public may still want to know about, and feel that they have a right to know. Documentaries also gain authority from the connections they have with democratic processes; lack of bias etc. They also have the power to change things in society for the better.
One important filmmaker who revolutionized documentaries was Ken Loach, maker of Cathy Come Home (1966). This documentary resulted in improved conditions for the homeless and laws and legislation were changed to accept and accommodate homeless people. From this, we gain that documentaries are extremely powerful, and have the power to sway mass audiences and even governments into believing in one opinion or improving society for the better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8fVnXXMw60
^Link to Cathy Come Home, KenLoachFilms
However, documentary makers rarely question the deeper organisation and fairness of society. For example, within documentaries of the James Bulger killings, films and popular culture are blamed – i.e. the film child’s play – rather than the neglect the child killers suffered from from their parents.
Dennis O’Rourke says that ‘It is critical that filmmakers be rid of the fantasy that the documentary can be unproblematic representations of reality, and truth can be conveniently dispensed and received like Valium’. This states that documentaries need to show both sides of the argument, in order to appropriately show the conflict in an issue; this also lets the audience pick their view, so they are not biased.
Within documentaries, ideas of truth and reality can be conflicting at times. Sometimes they can attract counter claims of lies. For example, when the news broke of Tiger Woods’ infidelity, lots of women came forward with claims that they had had a relationship with him; many of these claims were proven untrue, and were just made for fame or money. Corner believes that evidence rather than truth would help this; he states that recording technologies only record traces of the physical world and can be used as evidence of actuality or reality. Furthermore, this evidence can then support the exposition and strengthen the whole documentary.
The documentary represents the transformed world. They are not especially important in a TV schedule, yet cover all 3 of the BBC’s main aims; to inform, educate and entertain. However, documentaries are the first programmes to be cut if commercial channels find money tight, as, depending on the content, they can often be unpopular within ratings. Documentaries that are ratings winners include issues of sex, law and order and violence, but they are often unpopular with networks as they may offend advertisers; e.g Cadburys are unlikely to advertise on a documentary about a brutal murderer.
There is a 3 way process within the making of documentaries; relevant elements include who the documentary is aimed at, who is featured within the documentary and the reaction of the audience. Documentaries are often about society’s victims; this is popular as people want to empathize or put themselves in another’s shoes in order to escape from their daily life. Because of this, documentaries often use humans as evidence within their expositions. Documentaries also play on the audience’s right to know – if a viewer see’s something wrong they want to right it, which again, reinforces the power of the documentary in today’s society.
Types of Documentary
Fully Narrated
A fully narrated documentary has a direct mode of address, and an off screen voice over, nicknamed voice of God. For instance, within nature documentaries, there is always a voiceover explaining the action onscreen.
Fly On The Wall
Fly on the wall documentaries are similar to the cinema verite genre – they are almost all observational, hut will sometimes convey chilling events. The process of editing within fly on the wall creates meaning to the behaviour of the subjects; e.g Rogue Traders.
Mixed
Mixed documentaries have a mixed approach to interviews, observation and narrative.
In contrast to voice of god, narration is often news style. For example, a journalist will speak to the camera while visuals are used to anchor meaning.
Self Reflective
In self reflective documentaries, the subject acknowledges the presence of the camera. People talk to the documentary maker/journalist while they are sat behind the camera.
Docudrama
Within docudramas, there is a re-enactment of events as they are supposed to have happened. Docudramas are stories which are based on facts; at best they are misleading, and at worst, dangerous. They tackle big events, e.g 9/11.
Docusoaps
Docusoaps follow the daily lives of people in a range of different jobs/positions in society – for example, airports and cruise liners. Docusoaps are brilliant for light entertainment, and are very cheap to make, but are a phenomenon of recent years and enormously popular. Steven Barnett has blamed the docusoap for dumbing down the documentary drama through disneyfication. As things become more popular, they become less informative.
No comments:
Post a Comment