Reflexive Mode

While in the participatory mode the filmmaker would be engage with a cause showing it to the audience. This mode shows also the filmmaker, but engaging the audience to evaluate the process of doing a documentary. The two films that we watched a great examples of these mode.

The French film Chronicle of a Summer starts showing all the process of displaying a film in the movie theatre. It also portraits the work of the director or cameramen, filming within the film how the cameraman films his subjects. One of the most obvious moments of the reflexive moment is the end of the film when the director has a meeting with all the people he already interviewed. He shows his work to that people and they would comment on his work. At the end of the film he will also make comments about how hard is to make a documentary and his thought about his final product. I found really interesting how the process of evaluating the film was portrait in this film, not as an staged conversation, although it has some previous preparation, but mostly as an evaluation process that help the viewer to understand an value the work of the filmmaker and his own work in display.

Also the film This is Not a Film is another original, and to me not so exiting documentary. I waited for something to happen throughout the film. Because that “wasn’t a film,” nothing happened, but only the hard work and thoughts that this filmmaker was trying to put into his next film or story. The director struggles on telling a story and making a film that is not a film, and to my point of view that is what makes interesting about the film. Although I couldn’t sympathize

 very much with the character, I completely empathize with his situation, and I found terrible to not be able to make a film for so long.

In conclusion, this mode exalts not only the subject but also the people who is involved on telling the story. The reflexive mode put the audience to evaluate and think about the value and the importance of documenting in general. 

The Participatory Mode

Nichols explains in a very simple way the difference of how the participatory mode works in documentary, explaining the role of the director as “ I speak with them for us (me and you).” This means that the director is also involved in the documentary, not as a passive entity, but as an active portion of the film. In this mode the audience can see the director making interviews, talking with the camera, or talking to the camera, etc.  Also, this means that the subject matter could be evaluated from one point of view, or showing the two sides, but usually standing for only one. From the documentaries that we have evaluated, this is for sure the one who have more influenced on a call of action on the audience.

The three first short films that we watched about the different sides of the health care system have interviews, and staged scenes with the characters. Doing certain stuff, like being still watching the camera. Even though, the staged images are not part of this reality that the observational style represents, this still works because of the interviews, and the level of emotionality on it. It’s hard to doubt about the topic that its being discussed. The staged images are only part of the story that its been told. Still, these are a stylized representation of the character, emotions, or personality of the people in the documentary.

Furthermore, the director’s participation also, makes a big difference with the other styles such us the observational or expository. In here, there is no voice of God that looks for certain impartiality. Although in the documentary Sick around the world, the journalist, and director wanted to prove, showing the both sides of the coin about the different health care system in different countries.  His face though, was an inevitable revelator who would show sympathy for one side of the coin. In Sicko by Moore, the director is completely bias, and he doesn’t intend not to be. His documentary is loaded with emotional stories and plenty of satires about the mediocre health system in the USA.

In short, this mode of documentary helps the audience through the director’s eyes and voice, or his persona,  and the people involved  the subject matter presented. They both evaluate the topic, and put you in a place in which is hard not to take sides or formulate a discussion after watching this kind of document. 

Doc Mode Activity - The Young American Rock Band

I include a photographic record in an observational mode.  I shot this last year and I never got to do anything with this, until now. One is a collage that follows a rock band for two days. The other is a mixture of how I though my work would look like due to the illegal drug the members of this band would surprisingly use to compose music.  I was merely the cameraman who wouldn’t interrupt or mess with their reality.  I believe the place, their clothe and the things they would drink would all make a statement in a very popular tendency on a regular American band. This band dresses just like a band from the eighties-Things literally do not change.

I felt tempted to stop recording or to just not be in that place, because I felt like I was partaking of that, why?   Might be Ethic?  I don’t partake of drugs or similar stuff, why would I be interested on this.  The fact that I was recording all the time, and specially looking for some sort of thing to happen might have put me in a place in which I was there to mingle. Although I wasn’t involved or interacting with people.  I was interested in the fact that I could see a sort of change in them that I could portrait over film or pictures.

This band at the beginning has their regular breakfast, and after that during rehearsal, they used some drug that looks like a candy, swallow it really fast, and then continues composing some music. Practicing some songs for their performance at the Velour. Although, I didn’t see a big change, only found that they were a bit loopy and apparently hyper.  Later at the Velour, they are told not to drink alcohol, so their way to get away of that is mixing Coke with alcohol in a plastic bottle. 

In the concert, they connect with their audience who kind of looks like they are all part of the same group of friends. The members of the band and their friends didn’t seem threaten by the cameraman, they act according to me, very natural.

Stylistically speaking, I edited and pick the photos and place them in a sort of chronological order. Hoping this order can make and give the audience a big picture of this whole situation and story in which they get to performed in this popular place who helps local bands to show their art.  Also, the colors and the decision of doing a collage instead of placing each one of the pictures is because the details in this performance and the set make a whole difference on this band.  

Although this is not the War Room-not a lot of tension. I believe there is a sort of truth and crude reality of a world that still keeps maintaining the same traditions and component of young American bands. I couldn’t see a great difference in the effects on drugs in their musical performance, and I feel that there should be maybe a more scientific approach to this matter.  And personally, I remembered part of my childhood, and the time when I would watch documentaries of Woodstock with my dad.

https://soundcloud.com/ricardo-quintana-4/night-at-the-velour

The Observational Mode.

Now it is very clear to me that Observational documentary style is not only to set a camera in  a place without interrupting anything, just like a security camera. The observational mode is purposefully intended to tell a story without intervene, although frames and the course of the story and the time frame this all serve to shape a story in the documentary. According to the dictionary the word observe means watch (someone or something) carefully and attentively. With this small definition I’ll support the idea that leaving the camera recording is not enough, but to look attentively for a story without interfering letting the subject matter to follow the action as spontaneous as it can be.

Given this definition, the different films already watched such as the War Room  portraits how Clinton got elected, more than Clinton, how their staff helped to got him elected. I believe the director didn’t completely intrude, instead he showed how these people passionately work for this candidate. There are several examples of certain kind of tension or some highlights in this documentary, like the introduction of James Cartville, and the issue with the acussation Clinton had of a women who used to work with him, and the Bush campaing working in Brazil. All these little things compose a well-crafted summary of an exiting time in which the director leads the audience to this war room. I also think that partiality was key to presents this topic, because more than a pro Clinton documentary, it was about the campaign and the staff in itself. How these people reveal their character and individuality in each one of the scenes without being voyeuristic about it.

The other documentaries such as Les Racquetteurs, show in a very less aggressive way how a group of Motrealers enjoyed games in the snow. Although is a different treatment, this film also take you to the place and put you in the front line of this events. There director engages the audience with familiar and quotidian scenes of these games in the snow. Celebrations, competitions, and others are depicted by these images. Observational documentaries prove to be another interesting way to tell a story with hours of footage and a smart editing  it can be created a great way of representing reality, for some a fake and “spontaneous” reality, for others is to put a scope even closer to the subject than in any other style, seeing the true colors of the characters the film. 

The Expository Mode

In this documentary style the voice of the documentary is one of the most popular ways to continue doing documentaries.  The expository mode emphasizes the impression of objectivity and a well supported perspective.  This doesn’t mean that it won’t have a voice in itself. Editing, Sound, and other matters will all influence still in the film.  As Nichols explained, “ The fact that documentaries are not a reproduction of reality gives them a voice of their own. They are instead a representation of the world.” This means that even an expository film will have a voice, or a style that would give a certain message that the filmmaker wanted to remark, and not merely an exposition of two ideas.

In the Manufacturing Consent with Noam Chomsky the director doesn’t use a clear omniscient voice, but still follows a certain exposition of ideas trough the character and the different interviews he would give around the world. The director places each one of these interviews in an order in which there is a progression of an idea. At the same time there is a juxtaposition of images and information than can invalidate Chomsky point of view.  One example is when he Chomsky talks about how important is the ability to communicate at a regular basis to one another, and how this separates us to other animals, and following that remark the director chooses to show how in the news broadcast that  chimpanzees  might have the ability to communicate. Then there is this comparison about having fail on communicating this little chimpanzee “Nim Chimpsky.”

Another example of expository films in which a voice of authority or voice of God was clearly highlight was in The Vampire, and the Love life of the Octapus  in which the narrator plays a relevant place on the film. He guide us trough the images to learn the information we need about this animals, the bat and the octopus. Although, there is an exposition of information with a well supported perspective. In the case of The Vampire, the filmmaker to prove a point mixes a fiction film Nosferatus compared to the Bat,  to illustrate how similar and scary this animal can be. The juxtaposition of these images are not forced, and support what the narrator is explaining about this animal.  In the other documentary,  even so is still a believable  voice of authority, the stylization of Love life of the Octapus,  wouldn’t be completely objective. Music and the description of the animal would make us think that this animal is not part of this world, but an alien. Still, as a viewer I believe and follow the characteristics and the information that this scholarly voice was explaining.

In short,  the voice of an expository film would  be one of the most believable voices in these different styles.  Even though, it can’t be a completely objective view of a topic, the well informed voice of God,  or the pattern of presenting an argument seems to have a great impact on the audience.