DOCUMENTARY MODES

A very interesting and influential approach to the study of documentary that I shall be using in my own work is Nichols’  “The Documentary Modes of Representation”. In this he identified five different modes (or types) of documentary. He created a way of organising documentaries into catagories similar to film genres. Unlike genres though these modes, Expository, Observational, Participatory, Reflexive, Performative and Poetic, were defined with reference to documentary techniques rather than subject matter like their feature film counterparts.

Taking these modes as a starting point and exploring all the areas that Nichols devised in more detail has helped me to define the boundaries of traditional documentary techniques. Whilst not the definitive tool it has helped me to understand styles, techniques and approaches and consider how to manipulate, stretch and possibly subvert them. Much as modern chefs are now creating “deconstructed” dishes such as reducing a cheesecake to its core elements and playfully distorting subverting and disrupting them I am looking to apply this same practice to my documentary work. All of these areas interest me and I can "borrow and be playful or even possibly subvert codes and conventions from all of them. The four below are areas that I have either worked in before or are the areas that do not interest me as much in my "creative treatment of actuality" as penned by Grierson. The two areas that I am most interested in are the stylistic elements of Performative and most especially Poetic documentary and I will explore these in their own posts. However below is a skinny on the other four "modes" of documentary and why they are not areas that interest me as much as the two pointed out.

Expository documentaries are the most common and familiar to audiences and are primarily made for TV. The techniques often employed include a voiceover narration, commenting on the images on screen and explaining them to a direct address to the audience. They can also use a lot of formal talking head interviews alongside general views of what is being communicated. Generally they develop and construct an argument and are not objective. Typical examples would be biopics and nature documentaries. These are really atypical documentaries that audiences are familiar with and due to this some of the techniques employed by them could easily be subverted to create new meanings.

Observational documentaries are also sometimes referred to as “fly on the wall” or “cinema veritie” and they attempt to represent the world as it is and capture a slice of life and with minimal awareness of the filmmaker. It does this through techniques such as long takes, hand held camera and no use of voice over and music. A film such as Etre Et Avoir and live Big brother is a good examples of this. Observational documentaries are often thought of being the closest you can get to truthful representation. Although I do not want to create observational documentaries their stylistics, codes and conventions could be useful in creating a "version" of the truth as audiences tend to trust this mode and its camera techniques are often mimic'ed in feature films to create a reality to the subject matter.

Participatory (interactive) documentaries are directly opposed to the observational style as the filmmaker is usually the central character of the film. They make it explicit that the film is their point of view and highly subjective and common techniques include voiceovers (with pronounced use of “I”) hand-held camera and informal interviews. These films saw something of a renaissance of cinema documentaries finding an audience in the early 2000’s of finding a through the work of Directors such as Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock. I in no way want to be the centre of the documentaries that I am making preferring to be puling the strings from behind the scenes however my work will borrow from the subjectivity that this mode allows.

Reflexive documentaries have some similar codes and conventions to the participatory in that they sometimes feature the documentarian or interviewer either on screen or off. However they also show the struggle and nuts and bolts of the film-making process. They are have a post-modern feel to them examining the nature of the construction process, the creation of the narrative and the truth. The audience and their journey is paramount and the questioning of our assumptions and expectations of the subject of the film. A majority of the work of Nick Broomfield follows this mode with the often problematic journey to the creation of the documentary behind the scenes often the narrative spine and the subject the content of the films. Whilst not wanting to work in this mode the philosophy behind the making of Performative documentaries and the creation of narrative and truth are areas within it that really interest me.

Returning to the idea of documentary modes being similar to film genres caution must be made and I must make sure there must be a fluidity of approach to strict definitions as illustrated by the cross-overs in the documentary modes mentioned above and I feel confident in using elements from all of these to create my own language of film. To borrow from some genre thinking fro Steve Neale, genres are instances of “repetition but difference”. David Buckingham states “genre is not… Simply “given” by the culture: Rather it is a constant process of negotiation and change”.  So I am looking to use these modes and their stylistics codes and conventions to guide me not as rigid paradigms.