Compare how different documentary techniques are used to engage and create
impact for the spectator.
There are
five different forms of documentary; observational documentaries are often used
to follow a narrative and view what is happening from an unobtrusive, ‘fly on
the wall’, perspective; investigative documentaries introduce a problem or
question and then seek to solve it; ethnological or educational looks at the
lives and culture of a particular group and seeks to educate the spectator of
it; drama-documentary dramatizes an event and uses fiction film techniques as
well as, sometimes, using ‘voice of God’ narration and mockumentaries are, often
comical, fiction films that use documentary forms and techniques to suggest
reality in its content. Even though each documentary type has its own set of
distinct rules and techniques, a documentary that only complies with one of
these forms is rarely seen. Neither of my two documentaries, Jesus Camp (Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing,
2006) and The King of Kong: A Fistful
of Quarters (Seth Gordon, 2007), both primarily observational
documentaries, comply with only one form.
As both
documentaries are observational they set out to inform the spectator of a
particular subject and allow the spectator to form their own opinions on the
matter. However, techniques that are expected to force biased opinions upon the
spectator are still used. In Jesus Camp,
the spectator expects an in depth deconstruction of the beliefs and opinions of
Evangelical Christian children and an explanation into why they behave how they
do and believe in what they do. Controversy, politics and religion and
indoctrination were also expected. The
King of Kong, the story of a man trying to break the Donkey Kong world
record, was made to be a much more light-hearted, entertaining story with the
use of certain documentary techniques to get the spectator to sympathise with
the main character, the Donkey Kong challenger, Steve Wiebe, and dislike the
champion, Billy Mitchell.
To get the
spectator to sympathise with the children and understand the seriousness of the
documentary’s subject, the directors have used techniques such as unsettling
music and extreme close-ups on the children’s faces, particularly in the
unnerving scenes of ‘possession’. The close-ups show the children’s tear
streaked faces and pulling grotesque faces as they talk unintelligibly,
seemingly possessed. One particular shot of a young girl no older than ten,
clasping her hands together in prayer with a reverential expression on her face
and tears running down her cheeks was used for the promotion of the film and
created a shocked and sad spectator response. The use of these images enforces
the saying “scare, get people to care” The brainwashing and indoctrination of
these children, shown through the use of extreme close-up shots, eerie
non-diegetic sound and the use of biased interviews with opinionated parents
and the pastor, Becky Fischer, exposes the use of children in religion, shows
the influence these people have in society and, most importantly, shows the
dark side of religion which generates a strong emotional response from the
spectator.
In complete
opposition to Jesus Camp, The King of
Kong allows the spectator much more freedom to develop an opinion on the
subject. However, techniques to generate biased opinions are still used. The
central character, Steve Wiebe, is depicted as a family man and a secondary
school science teacher, which makes him almost instantly likeable and relatable
to the spectator, whereas Billy Mitchell, the record holder, is shown as “a
bragging, cocky and meddling gamer who won’t give Wiebe his due”. The
spectator’s dislike for him is heightened when he refused to accept Wiebe’s
challenge to a game, making him seem cowardly. The editing techniques used in
these scenes give the spectator the impression that this documentary has a
protagonist and antagonist.
In my
opinion, the use of the interviews with Becky Fischer (Jesus Camp) and the clips of her speeches were the most effective
way of provoking my anger, as I knew she was one of the main sources of the
children’s indoctrination. As for The
King of Kong, the film convinced me that Billy Mitchell was an unpleasant
character when actually, as I soon realised, the footage, chosen from the many
hours of footage available, was purposefully cut that way to force that biased
opinion on me. Both films have been very successful in generating the required
response from the spectator, shock and enlightenment from Jesus Camp and enjoyment and happiness from The King of Kong.
No comments:
Post a Comment