2. Analyse the stylistic features usually associated with ONE of the following concepts (a) “quality”, (b) “exploitation”, (c) “oppositionality”, (d) documentary.

Documentary is a concept that is not easy to define in a nutshell. The genre cannot be simply tagged under the label of non fiction because it uses a variety of different formal and aesthetic techniques that are employed by documentarists whilst also keeping loyal to a set of documentary conventions. Documentary gives the audience a greater understanding of the world that we live in. As Bill Nichols explains, “Documentary...attends to social issues of which we are constantly aware.”1 Documentaries are supposed to accurately reflect the prevailing issues that permeate society.

One of the most common ways to define documentary is as a “representation of reality.” As Paul Ward explains, it is the relationship between “reality and artifice”2. John Gierson has been quoted many times for defining documentary as, “The creative interpretation of actuality.”3 Documentary is not simply a recording of reality but a creative interpretation of it. This highlights the important issue of validity of documentary as a truthful source; after all, one expects documentaries to expose the truth of reality. Some critics argue that a films status as a documentary becomes devalued once the film maker's creativity and interpretation of natural material becomes involved. Bruzzi disagrees with this notion and sides with the common and universally agreed view that a documentary can be both a “recording and a treatment.”4

Another important issue is genre hybridity which further complicates the understanding of documentaries. Some documentaries use the conventions and stylistic devices associated with fictional narratives such as over dramatising and reconstruction; this in turn leads people to question the validity and reliability of documentary as a truth. However, it is not uncommon for fictional films to borrow the conventions associated with documentary and the majority of critics agree that “the key distinction is never form and style, but purpose and context.”5 There are also significant differences between the two. The editing employed by documentarists is in stark contrast to fictional film makers who generally prefer a classical continuity editing style. A documentary film maker, as Bill Nichols explains will “organize cuts within a scene to present the impression of a single, convincing argument in which we can locate logic.”6 Also, gaps of leaps and time is a common place in documentaries as importance is placed upon the “continuity in advancing argument” and not classical continuity as seen in most fictional films.

As I mentioned before, one cannot place all documentaries under one set of agreed criteria as the boundaries between what is and is not considered to be documentary become fuzzy. Bill Nichols proposed four different categories that most documentaries fall under, noting that these categories may become intertwined with one another and it is “rare for a documentary to make use of only one mode.”7 These four categories are expository, observational, interactive and reflexive. Observational documentaries attempt to observe life with minimal interference, reflexive documentaries draw attention to their own construction - for example, film makers may show the microphone head during an interview to make it apparent that it is a construction. An expository documentary's main objective is to “inform and educate the audience about a subject.”8 and is usually accompanied by voice-over narration - it “addresses the viewer directly, with titles or voices that advance an argument about the historical world.”9 The final mode, the interactive, acknowledges the film maker's presence as they often appear in the documentary, interacting with the subjects and presenting his/her own personal argument.

The Oscar winning documentary film “Bowling for Columbine” was directed and produced by the highly successful documentarist Michael Moore in 2002 and the film displays many of the characteristics and conventions associated with an interactive mode of documentary film making, as Michael Moore is both the author and a character, deeply involving himself in the film at every opportunity to such a degree that the audience is tracking his own personal journey of discovery. Using a mixture of black comedy and deeply emotive scenes, Moore's style of documentary makes the audience cry and laugh within moments of each other, taking us on a roller-coaster of emotions.

The film chiefly explores the issue of gun crime and violence in the USA but the film title refers to the Columbine high school massacre of 1999 and this tragic event is used as a vehicle to highlight the wider issue of gun control in the USA and the effects the aftermath of the shootings had on society.

A common device used by interactive documentary is juxtaposition as this manipulates the audience's response to the text. For example, as Bill Nichols points out, unexpected juxtapositions, “prompt the viewer to reassess an initial set of statements in the light of a second, discrepant set,”10 and this is exactly the effect Michael Moore achieves in Bowling for Columbine in numerous parts of the film. For example, in the first few minutes of the opening sequence, Michael Moore has presented a juxtaposition of images. In the opening, Moore adopts a narrative style of dialogue stating the time, date and location of the events and also an establishing shot of aerial perspective panning over America which is also a convention of fictional narrative film. Then Moore presents us with a montage of clips of Americans going about their daily lives with accompanying dialogue, “The milkman did his delivery,” but juxtaposes the feeling of normality with, “The President bombed another country who's name we couldn't pronounce,” and the image of ruined buildings and debris from the aftermath of the bombing anchors Moore's negative perspective of the USA government and creates a feeling of shock but also of humour deriving from Moore's wit and ironic disposition. The patriotic American music playing in the background also adds to this feeling of irony.

Shortly afterwards, more archive footage of an old American advert enticing young boys to buy lifelike guns is shown. Images of military clothing and the gun could symbolise the American tradition of military patriotism , representing the child as America's future soldier. The juxtaposition of the innocent child and insinuating shooting with a gun may evoke an uneasy feeling in the audience. Moore's own personal stance on children playing with guns reveals itself in the next piece of archive footage. Moore presents us with a clip of him holding a toy gun as a child and gives the voice-over comment “I couldn't wait to go outside and shoot up the neighbourhood.” Again, Moore creates humour but also hints at the disturbing ideology of America's fascination with guns and also could be inadvertently reflecting the real life shooting at Columbine high school who in real life shot “up the neighbourhood.” In fact, the humour that Michael Moore uses in “Bowling for Columbine” permeates the whole of the film giving rise to the issue of genre hybridity. Indeed, the film could be classed as a form of documentary comedy. Furthermore, Moore adopts devices usually associated with the fictional genre such as reconstruction and casting himself in comedy sequences, parodying American Cop Shows. A prime example of Moore adopting fictional techniques is the inclusion of a humorous cartoon clip called “Brief History of the United States of America.” The father of a Columbine victim poses the question “What is it about America that makes us so violent?” Then Moore intercuts to the cartoon clip which explains fear as one of the main factors contributing to violent America as well as portraying Americans in a less than flattering light.

Another interesting feature included in the film is a pre-organised interview with Marylin Manson. Moore is shown on camera interviewing Marylin Manson so he is highly involved, which is conventional of interactive documentary. Moore presents us with a montage of sound bites and intercutting comments demonising the singer Marylin Manson and condemning him as one of the main causes of the Columbine shootings based on the fact that the perpetrators listened to his music. Moore downplays the seriousness and credibility of the comments by playing lilting cheery music throughout the sequence of sound bites. The music only stops to comment that Marylin Manson cancelled his tour, “Out of respect for those lost in Middleton.” This subtle but significant manipulation of music makes Moore's own allegiances clear, with Marylin Manson, and influences how the viewer reads the situation. Indeed, the film maker taking sides in a conflict is one of the conventions of interactive documentary.

“Grizzly Man”, directed by Werner Herzog is an emotive and touching documentary, documenting the life and death of bear enthusiast Timothy Treadwell. The documentary combines Treadwell's work and Herzog's own original footage, taking the form of an expository documentary, a style of documentary film making which is in deep contrast to Moore's satirical interactive style. One of the main contrasts between Michael Moore's style of documenting and Herzog's style is the use of voice-over, as it is the main characteristic of both films, yet each is executed in a different manner depending on the aims and objectives of the film. As one would expect with an expository documentary, Herzog is presenting the audience with an argument; should man cross the boundaries of nature and interact with the wild, or merely observe and admire from the sidelines? Indeed, Herzog presents his perspective early on in the film, “He crossed an invisible borderline,” but refuses to condemn him and acknowledges Treadwell as a brilliant yet disturbed man. The lack of humour and tightly scripted style of the voice-over commentary gives a feeling of seriousness and respect. As Kilborn and Izod point out, “The authority of narration is such that it anchors the meaning of expository documentaries.”11 Herzog is dealing with a serious and sensitive subject and so his authoritative style of discourse encourages the audience to take it seriously. Another contrast between the styles of Moore and Herzog is Moore's use of voxpopuli (man on the street interview) and Herzog's absence of it. Voxpopuli is well suited to Moore's interactive presence on screen and informal style of interviewing. The voxpopuli allows Moore to gain a wider perspective on events and gain insight into the opinions of everyday people on the issue of gun violence. For example, when Moore “hits the streets of New York to find out about what the average American” thought about why Canada had a lower rate of gun crime than the USA. In contrast, Herzog prefers to use a more formal and scripted style of interviewing, hand picking experts, witnesses, family and friends of Treadwell to emphasise the authenticity and realism of the documentary.

Herzog adopts the style of showing clips of Treadwell's work then intercutting to original footage and interviews commenting on Treadwell's experience with the bear. This process of “cause and/effect linkage between sequences and events”12, creates a feeling of a logical and “commonsensical” world which, in turn, validates the evidence and comments given by the interviewees and voice-over. An example of this is an interview of Sam Egli, a helicopter pilot who assisted on the clean up of the “Treadwell tragedy.” A shocking and explicit photograph of the bear that killed Treadwell cut open appears on screen and then directly intercuts back to the interviewee commenting that “The bear was all cut open, it was full of people and full of clothing.” Images anchor what the interviewee is saying and act as evidence that he/she is a reliable source.

In conclusion, documentaries use different styles and techniques depending on the objective of the documentary film maker. The film maker must decide what mode of documentary form he/she wishes to use to gain the best response from the audience and successful presentation of their argument. From analysing “Bowling for Columbine” and “Grizzly Man” in great detail, one can see some forms of documentary are more overt in their representation style, such as the interactive, and others are more covert such as the expository. The obvious presence and spontaneity of the film maker in interactive documentaries presents a bias and informal discourse with the audience whilst the formal and tightly scripted voice over style of the expository film maker exerts authority over the audience so they trust what he/she is saying. As one can see, the simple use of different styles and techniques can have a huge effect on the way the documentary is presented and read by the audience, so they are powerful tools of manipulation.

Word Count: 2179

View Entry