Documentary 'Mini-Task'

Documentaries aim to show and inform the audience about particular subjects. This may be done in many different ways such as showing "reality" from hidden cameras (e.g. Big Brother) or even from the filmmaker themselves making a point and showing the audience through opinions or facts. Documentaries aim to represent reality and show information (being truthful), but sometimes they are more constructed which means that some documentaries may not be seemed as 'real' as others.


Expository documentaries tend to include a voice-over which is directly addressing the audience but not giving opinion. This means that the voice-over is providing generally a 'caption' on the images shown, and the documentaries content is made up of arguments and facts. Also, this type of documentary is supposed to be showing a 'transparent' or a unbiased opinions throughout.

Examples of expository documentaries include nature and wildlife programs such as David Attenborough, as for example, when the images are being shown of the wildlife, there is a commentary voice-over over the images captioning what is being shown. 

Observational documentaries present a 'slice-of-life' and therefore the filmmaker is usually hidden from the audience and doesn't interact within the documentary. The aim of the observational documentary is more to get the audience to think and decide what they get from the text. This therefore makes the documentary a "fly on the wall", as we are just observing the images and there is no interaction (narrator/interviews). The documentary type makes it seem like we are a "fly on the wall" due to there being no narrator or interviews.
An example of an observational documentary is 'Salesman' from 1969. This is generally making the audience follow and watch the 'life' of a salesman, therefore being observational.

Interactive documentaries contrast with observational documentaries as the filmmaker is present in the documentary, and they usually interact with the interviewees/audience/presenter. Arguments are generally also included. There is much manipulation through the editing and therefore it is more criticized for manipulation and misrepresentation. Some interactive documentaries may cause the viewer to change their opinion on the topic, much like in Louis and the Nazis. This can be manipulative and as certain arguments, images and clips may cause the audience to think differently about the topic, changing the audiences view throughout.  If a certain person in a documentary is being interviewed, and they have strong opinions and good points to back up their opinion, then this can be said to be making the audience think differently, and therefore this is manipulating their opinion, and their opinions have changed from what it was at the beginning. 
Access and privacy can effect a production such as this because, in order to film certain people and places etc. you have to complete releases and permission forms in order to legally film the subject. This also links to section 8 in Ofcom, which states "...activities and conditions may be of such a private nature that filming or recording, even in a public place, could involve an infringement of privacy," meaning that there is a regulation to protect the public who don't their privacy to be invaded.  
Also, the interviewer has to be extremely careful with the questions he/she asks, as people could be offended, or refuse to answer because of morals. 
One example of this is a BBC Television Documentary called Tropic of Cancer from 2010. This is one of my favourite documentaries, as it involves the filmmaker traveling and interacting with different people in many different places. I found this documentary very truthful and was generally showing the audience the facts, with also the filmmaker giving a few self opinions.

Reflexive documentaries are more constructed than the other documentary formats and are more heavily edited. The text will consist of 'captured everyday life' shots. All of the editing that reflexive documentaries contain overall could make he product very confusing and affects the authenticity. Reflexive documentaries are very experimental and the way that the footage and clips are put together is with editing software. 

An example of this is Man With A Movie Camera from 1929. Even though the film wasn't extremely edited such as Territories, this is still seen as a reflexive documentary as it is definitely constructed. I feel that the shots are edited so much that this takes away the authenticity of the text, and the overall documentary doesn't feel truthful, however I feel that the actual images/clips are definitely just 'everyday life' shots. With this documentary, the maker shows the camera recording events, while also showing the editor re-arranging the shots on an editing table. The film is also shown being projected, with an audience, with the audience watching. Also, he shows the different qualities such as montage, freeze frames, out of focus shots and fast and slow motion- which overall reminds us that this is reconstructed reality- overall showing that this is a reflexive documentary. 

Performative documentaries include much use of re-enactments, soundtracks and exaggerated camera angles/positions which helps submerge the audience. Performative documentaries contrast with the other documentary formats as they represent the world indirectly and there is emphasis is on the presentation.
There are many examples of performative documentaries, many of them being about crime and police etc. such as 'Inside Job' and 'The Cove' which are similar to 'The Thin Blue Line'. 
The Inside Job is performative as it includes many interviews but also many clips which, as you can see, are constructed. Because it includes many constructed and film clips which motivate the interviews taking place, it makes this documentary performative. 

These kind of documentaries are more dramatic in performative documentaries makes the documentaries seem more like films than presenting reality and facts. Although, this gives the viewer a better image on the subject being explained.  Dramatizations can be good in performative documentaries for attractive elements, however sometimes dramatizations can cause problems and the audience may be manipulated to believe the re-enactments are extremely truthful, when they're actually not. Documentaries are said to be very factual but, sometimes re-enactments could overall take away the authenticity of the text as they are only representations of the event, meaning that it is not 'real' footage. Therefore causing the audience to believe in something that isn't completely truthful (manipulating them). 

In conclusion, the documentary we made for this unit was a performative documentary, and I think that documentarists do somewhat have a contract with the viewer to present them with authentic and truthful information and facts. All documentaries should be truthful and honest to the viewer, although there may be many cases where we have been 'tricked' into believing that something is completely factual. Therefore, I think that documentaries should aim to be as impartial as possible.