Transcript Document 595287

“Documentary, after all, can tell lies; and it can tell lies because it lays claim to a for m of veracity
which fiction doesn’t.”
Dai Vaughn
 Documentary films are
meant to be seen as
factual and not fictional.
 Most documentaries
purport to present
scientific investigations.
 Even if not scientific,
they are expositional and
often use logic to
persuade viewers to see
the subject in the same
way as the filmmaker.
 Exposition (types of):
 Cumulative—develops a
catalogue of images
 Contrastive—images
organized as a series of
contrasts or oppositions
meant to indicate
varying viewpoints
 Developmental—uses a
specific nonnarrative
pattern of logic
Critical viewing of documentaries requires moving beyond thinking of the
genre as merely educational or a form of entertainment. It also means moving
beyond ideas of “truth” and “bias.” A common response to this genre is that a
documentary must tell the “truth” and if it doesn’t then it is “biased.” It must
be “objective” and not be slanted in a particular way. This is a difficult line of
thinking to undo. It must be challenged, though, as it shuts down any
opportunities for critical viewing and response. But how?
Truth
The first step is to recognize that multiple truths exist in documentary. Truths
are constructs built of carefully arranged information.
What truths are presented in the documentary?
 How are these truths presented?
 What information does it put forward?
 What information is left out?

Point of View
The second step is to recognize that all documentaries are biased. The word
“bias” is equated with prejudice and information that is slanted in a particular
direction. The connotation here is that the information is tainted in a negative
way, much the same way the word “propaganda” has taken on connotations of
having evil intentions behind it. Another term that might be more useful here
is “point of view.”
 From what point of view is the documentary speaking? What perspective is it




offering on events and arguments?
Can you relate to this viewpoint or at least understand where it’s coming from?
Are there multiple viewpoints? Do they agree or contradict each other? Does one
come across as more “right” while the other seem more “wrong?”
Can you think of some other perspectives that might be out there but not
addressed in the documentary?
What is the tone of or emotion behind the(se) viewpoint(s)?
Conventions



What conventions does the documentary incorporate? Does it use voiceover,
reenactments, archival footage, interviews?
Does it rely on one convention more than another?
Why does it use the conventions it does?
Voices




Who are the dominant voices in the documentary? Are they official sources
such as government representatives, or are they experts of another kind? Or
are they people from the street?
Are most of the voices men or women? Are they of a particular ethnic group?
What is their connection to the documentary's subject? What kinds of truths
are they putting forward?
Do the voices agree with or contradict each other?
Arguments, Meaning and Message
 What is the director’s chief aims?
 What political and/or social statements are
embedded in the film?
 What does the filmmaker want us to take away
from this work? What “argument” is
embedded in the film about why this
documentary would appeal to its audience? (In
other words, what is its consumer appeal?)
 What ideas does the work explore? What
dreams, ideals, values—both cultural and
individual—does the work explore?
Subject
 What is the subject of the documentary? In
other words, what is it about?
 How is the subject of historical, political or
social relevance?
 What is the director’s tone or attitude toward
his subject? (Keep in mind that the answer to
this question is not always clear-cut.
Biographers are often critical of their subjects,
even as they convey admiration and approval
at times for certain attributes or characteristics
of their subjects.)
What ideas does the DVD cover convey
about the subject matter, tropes, ideas,
mythologies to be explored?
 What “arguments” are implicitly offered up in the
documentary’s images? What ideas and themes are being
explored?
 What “arguments” are posited as a result of the
accompanying sound? Does the sound set a mood or tone?
Does it contribute to the “argument” in anyway? How?
Maker
 Is the documentary maker present
within the piece either in person or
in voice? Or is the maker absent?
 If present, does the maker call
attention to him or herself ? Or,
does the maker’s presence seem
incidental?
 What purpose does the maker’s
presence serve? Does the maker
drive events, serve as another
observer, or fulfill another function?
 What is the maker’s reputation
outside this documentary? How
does that reputation affect your
viewing of it?
 Michael Moore, director
Structure
 How is the documentary structured? Does it follow chronological order?
Does it use a different order?
 What impact does the structure have on the unraveling of its truth(s)?
Frameworks
 How does the documentary fit within Paul Rotha’s traditions or Michael
Renov’s Four Fundamental Tendencies?
