The Reflexive Mode

I can scarcely think about the reflexive mode without Vertov Coming to mind. Barnouw explains very clearly the impact that Dziga Vertov had on both documentarians and fiction filmmakers around the world. Perhaps most interestingly though, is the portion of the Barnouw reading that explains the creation of The Man With A Movie Camera. Vertov, who opposed contrivance, embraced it in a manner that seemed to embody the reflexivity available to filmmakers and their films. He makes clear that the audience is watching a film, but not just watching any film, the audience is watching the film that they are watching being made(great potential for confusion and complexity). They are reminded that they are an audience, seeing 'themselves' in proxy on the screen. They are shown that the film consists of still images, it is physically pieced together by an editor, and it consists of multiple times and places. This attention to creating an awareness of the film itself, to avoid entirely the 'opium for the masses' potential of film that Vertov reviled, resulted in a fascinating self reflexive documentary.

Similar to Land Without Bread, Vertov's film makes assumptions about what an audience expects from a film, particularly documentary. It uses these assumptions to direct the thoughts of the audience to their own roles in the process of filmmaking: the consumption and assimilation of the experience into their lives.

This Is Not A Film is an excellent example of the strengths of reflexive documentary. I feel the film is designed to ask the questions such as what is a film? What consists of making a film? Is footage from an afternoon spent talking about filmmaking with a friend a film? Aside from the tragic ideological struggles in the film that make a strong political commentary, the film functions as a great critique of institutional definitions of film and filmmaking. It constantly reminds us that what we are watching was not supposed to be made; it is a film. This lends great strength to the argument and viewpoint of the filmmakers. It gives the simple afternoon spent with Jafar an ironic and satirical insight, charging it with a political buzz. It is hard to pin down wether the film really was as serendipitous as it was presented, but regardless of the answer, we are well aware with each passing second, that we are witnessing a film being made.

The Participatory Mode

Embracing serendipity, this doc mode seems to treat the camera as an extension of the filmmaker. It is as though the device is some sort of strange growth, another eye perhaps, protruding from the shoulder. The filmmaker becomes a character, or a social actor, in the story. S/he becomes a 'participator'. Though this mode is quite similar in utilizing technology and shares a similar historical emergence to the observational mode, it differs greatly. The filmmaker is not a mute bystander, simply filming and assuming to be neutral, the filmmaker becomes the 'picaro'. The lovable(or not so much - Sickness Around the World), or at times simply charming, character that takes us through the story. We wander with them and experience the wake of their presence in the lives of those they engage.

The filmmaker as 'picaro' type participator was particularly evident in Michael Moore's Sicko. His persona in the film not only acted as a vehicle to tie all of the film's strands together, but caused many of the strands to come into existence. He openly acknowledges his presence in the film, employing somewhat of a screen persona.  He takes on the tone of innocent inquirer at times(mostly whilst visiting with his subjects), though it is obvious that if he wasn't aware of the discrepancies between our perception of U.S. health care and reality, the film would not have been produced. He clearly acts as a catalyst, as Nichols explains, and incites the events that the film documents. Events such as the voyage to Cuba, and the inciting thousands of people to email him with their experiences with health care. Michael Moore would indeed be considered a bit of an extreme example of a participatory documentary filmmaker, but nevertheless a very good example.

This mode appears to be well suited for the Brechtian intentions of a filmmaker. We are reminded of our role as viewers and therefor participators. We are encouraged to self-reflect. This may effect may be due in part to the unmasking of the filmmaker as a real individual with opinions and values. The filmmaker does not need to represent any sort of ideal, and becomes truly a fellow social actor amongst the crowd.

The Poetic Mode - Doc Mode Activity 1

Bill Nichols explains in his description of the poetic mode that it "has many facets, but they all emphasize the ways in which the filmmaker's voice gives fragments of the historical world a formal, aesthetic integrity peculiar to the film itself." The poetic mode does indeed have many facets such as an emphasis on rhythm, texture, the disregard of spatial and temporal realities, and the desire to explore the world with a new perspective. But perhaps of all these facets, the potential for historical reality to be used for subjective repurposing caught my interest the strongest. Though other modes use historical fragments of the world to make arguments or drive home messages, the poetic mode is uninterested in delivering a single interpretation of the historical data. It is interested in exploring new perspectives and embracing ambiguity that comes with encountering fresh information.

This short piece is designed around the idea that fragments of the historical world can be manipulated and rearranged for the purpose of expressing ideas and emotions. Similar to words in a poem, images may be used like syllables, creating rhythms and evoking the senses. My film intends to promote a charitable consideration of a wasp, the unexpected guest. Informed by Stan Brakhage's Moth Light, I present the viewer with a new perspective in which to view the world. This perspective includes my own lens, as well as that of the yellow jacket, though perhaps very mildly.  The perspective is a hybrid, one born out of fighting the impulse to kill the small intruder and to simply experience the occurrence.

Moth Light beautifully affords the viewer a completely open ended experience. Likewise, my film hopes to present a subjective interpretation of a historical reality. It focusses on movement and stillness, textures and light.

Observatory Mode

Similar to most change and experimentation in filmmaking, the birth of observational documentary came out of technological advances. By this I am mostly referring to the advent  of lighter and more portable cameras. Nichols references the innovation of inexpensive 16mm film coupled with much lighter/portable audio equipment contributing greatly to the rise of observational film. It wouldn't be too much of a risk to say that before the ability to have a micro crew of one - two people, the observational mode would simply not be successful let alone possible. I'd imagine that any sort of larger crew would greatly hinder the comfort that the social actors would need to feel in order to give any sort of  genuine performance. Additionally, the difficulty alone of physically keeping up with the movements and actions of any sort of event/ unscripted encounter with a social actor would probably have discouraged filmmakers from even experimenting in such a way.

Very fittingly, Barnouw calls the first instance of observational films a 'Free Cinema'. This title suggests and highlights the potential that the new technologies afforded the filmmakers. In Primary, the filmmakers were given an unprecedented amount of free movement, often cutting their way through crowds trailing the senators. This mobility undoubtably allowed them to shift around and document the scene as though 'flies on a wall'. I recall Ross McElwee describing how the ability to film and record audio by himself(or be 'autonomous'), led him to experiment with forms of producing films as a one man crew. This undoubtably was the genesis to his distinct voice in documentary.

Interestingly, in contemporary times, we are afforded an incredible amount of mobility and virtually untethered potential with our recording devices. They are small, light, and inexpensive. I find it interesting that the majority of our society(including film students) seems to be unsure of how to utilize these powerful tools. We seem to be stumbling our way through film history, starting with the trick gimmick films, or spectacle cinema, and moving towards more evolved(sophisticated) and thoughtful forms of media. I'm not discounting the incredible ways that the general populace is utilizing technology to produce raw footage -- often with journalistic import -- because truly we live in a period of democratized journalism. I simply have to wonder how much easier this mode of documentary has become thanks to technological innovations. Is it still evolving as it did in its earliest reciprocation to tech developments?

The Expository Mode

This mode seems to be well suited for politically charged/ agenda driven documentary films. As Nichols explains, they are framed by rhetoric, which is typical of any persuasive argument. It became apparent as we viewed this week's film selection how the 'voice-of-God' narration impacts the viewer. At least for myself, I found it very easy to trust such an omniscient presence in the film. Obviously this facet of commentary was interrogated by Land Without Bread, but seemed to hold true throughout the other films we explored. The filmmakers were conscious of the power behind the omniscient voice and exploited the trust/faith that develops with the audience. The result was a somewhat humorous and slightly disturbing experience.

In the case of The Vampire and The Love Life Of an Octopus, I found it particularly entertaining to consciously trust the narrator as he made seemingly candid and dry remarks about the films' animal subjects. The two films didn't appear to have much of a politically charged nature, but they do seem to drive a view on the animals. For instance in The Love Life Of An Octopus we are encouraged to observe and appreciate the subject in a particular way: as though the creature were a chimera. This perhaps reflected the knowledge the filmmaker had about the impact of his narrations and other sound design elements on an audience.

Interestingly,  I found that Manufacturing Consent, though it lacked an omniscient narrator, employed the subject himself as a sort of 'voice-of-Authority' type narration, in spite of Chomsky never explicitly addressing the film's audience. Chomsky' speech, gathered from many contexts and places, was melded into a very strong driving narration in support of the subject's views.. This was a point of separation between this film and The Interrupters(another familiar example of expository film), which employed voices-of-authority that directly addressed the film's intended audience.

Another fine example of expository media that crossed my path this past week was Ken Burns' Jazz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pimw60xGmuA). It hardly needs much of an introduction as to why it would be considered expository, due to its heavily investigative/historical tone ushered along by a confident 'voice-of-God'.

Doc Beginnings

Origin stories from all subjects and places tend to become shrouded with mythology. It seems to be typical of us as humans to determine the value of thoughts and expressions long after their initial conception. So it is with documentary film. Its history is not singular and its origins are murky due to its evolution through many heads and hands. Though it could be claimed that documentary films owe in great part their heritage to the Lumiere mode of production, I must agree with Nichols' proposition that this may be undue credit. The Lumiere brothers didn't invent documentary, though they did make cinematic documents. Nichols explains that it would take leaps before filmmakers would make self-aware films that were institutionally recognized and purported as 'documentaries'. The Lumiere brothers simply made films. They were void of genre in their conception since no such thing existed at that time.

The murky evolution of certain film practices becoming established as documentary-esque was made evident when viewing Drifters and Coal Face. Both films undertake to provide a like-minded perspective of reality. Both have a similar interest in national identity and industrialization and seem to follow similar conventions in structure and form (though the advent of sound gave Coal Face the ability to narrate the 'intertitles', its narration is quite similar to the purpose of the intertitles in Drifters). Seeing the similarities between these films helped me to understand that 'documentaries' were born, in a sense, only once there were filmmakers in proximity to agree on an established idea of documentary. Before a common vocabulary had been established, it may have been purely experimentation and exploration that characterized the creation of films with 'documentary' qualities. Once proximity is established, we can see very soon after the creation of self-aware 'documentary' films such as Nanook of the North (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHbU2LdStwk) and Land Without Bread, which relied on the audience's trust to successfully tell their story. The establishment of a vocabulary set the stage for a genre to be born and the audience's assumption and acceptance of the veracity documentary. This allowed filmmakers to truly give an indexical representation of the world with their own voice, or poetic expression/experimentation. 

The Documentary Idea

Defining a subject, particularly a subject that deals with art and creation, is often very difficult. I found as we discussed the topic in class, and as I began reading in our texts, that finding a definition for 'Documentary Film' is quite slippery. It clearly has evolved, and will evolve. I feel that understanding this facet of documentary makes thinking about the genre so much more exciting. It really is an ancient form of expression, but now made accessible with extremely powerful tools. I enjoyed the way that Nichols compares documentary film to the indexical image. (Paraphrasing)It is an imprint of things made by instruments that have the capacity to reproduce with high fidelity. He mentions cameras and sound recorders. I found it helpful to start talking about documentary in that most basic of terms: simply an imprint of things, but given a unique perspective/interpretation.
Ai Wei Wei was a recording of events and organized to deliver a unique perspective and interpretation of the world. The film excellently unveils human struggles both ideologically, and physically, as we observe the lives of the film's subjects. Though the film in reality consists of physical imprints of light and sound frequencies made by instruments, it is delivered in such a way that is is so much more than just an indexical thing. It is a 'documentary'. And an effective one at that. This seems to be due in part to the way the film engages and deals with conflict. Ai Wei Wei is clearly struggling for his intellectual and arguably his physical freedom. We sympathise -- potentially empathize, with his struggle and desire his success. We can recognize his strengths and shortcomings thanks to careful and honest filmmaking. This allows for his imprint, or portrayal to be more rounded and human.