Documentary Essay Starting with the open sequence of Bowling for Columbine, firstly the sound to create the mood it’s a very patriotic and military with a voiceover, which is done by the director of the film, Michael Moore. However the audio is purposely non - diegetic because in majority of Films and TV shows they want to create mood that is emotional and physically dealt with and having non diegetic sounds it convinces the audience into different emotions because they connect with it more. The opening sequence of BFC, the mood of the music that it brings to the audience is very ‘proud American’ style, it’s a sound that maybe played for the American army, however it may bring a mood that can suggest a ‘fake’ happy ordinary life that back then the American lived. The voiceover can create a mood by the tone of the voice, he has a very bland matter of fact in his voice, its very impartial e.g. its very balanced and unbiased because he is talking about normal everyday things, like the teachers and farmers and milkmen doing their everyday jobs, but as the montage goes on his biased opinion becomes clear you can definitely see it when the graphic match is shown, (women in bikini with machine gun and empire state). He does this in a way that convinces you to believe him and his opinions he suggests he is telling a story in an objective way (3rd person way) but once he starts to show the women in a bikini and the machine gun with is matter of fact tone of voice about this being a typical day in America’ he has become subjective and is manipulating us to think all Americans are mad and gun crazy if this is ‘typical’ this is the meaning he is trying to get across to the audience. In Bowling for Columbine we first think that Michael Moore as non - diegetic as a voice of god, but in the second scene in the bank we see him and hear him talking so then he becomes diegetic when acting in the scene but then also continues with his non – diegetic voiceover, he is strictly a voice of god now as we have seen him and know who he is. In terms of the voiceover in the documentary it is expository documentary, voiceover speaking directly to the audience, convincing and persuade the audience, letting the audience focus on the rich male and sonorous voice. However when we see the next scene with him in it we then discover very quickly it is he that it then becomes an interactive documentary by then involves individuals more directly while not reverting to classic exposition interview styles. Non - diegetic and diegetic sounds in this documentary for the voiceover and voices also changes, with the open sequence the voiceover was recorded in the studio so therefore the isn’t going to be any background noise, however when it comes to the interviews at the bank it was filmed on location so therefore there is going to ambient sound and background sound which is the sound of the bank, like the air conditioning whirring and the chairs moving, this then gives a feel that the filming is real which then helps the mood of it being real. The use of long takes and the panning of the camera during his interview with the bank women in glasses is somewhat suggesting he hasn’t edited lots therefore also suggesting accuracy in the documentary, meaning that it is ‘real’ and ‘truthful’ as he is actually there and he hasn’t edited out lots of information to get his point of view across. So despite it being biased we ‘believe’ it as it comes across as accurate and ‘truthful.’ This is also backed up the way he
interviews her he uses some open’ questions and some closed questions, such as ‘what race do I put White or Caucasian, or...?’ she then replies ‘Caucasian’ he then says ‘Causcasian. I knew you were going to make me spell that’ Also ‘Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or have been committed to a mental institution? I’ve never been committed to a mental institution. What does it mean, have I ever been adjudicated mentally defective?’ The interview itself is very informal and he creates a ‘rapport’ with her, in other words develops a friendlyjokey way of asking her questions – she probably (and the audience) doesn’t even think of it as an interview (which is another reason we see it as ‘real’ – it looks like any person opening a bank account) creating a sense of realism but he asks suggestive and leading questions that make her and her bank seem stupid. Which again is him creating the meaning of the scene. The final part of the bank scene is really good in expressing Michael Moore’s opinion. Again he creates a rapport with the guy who has given him the gun and he asks one final ‘interview’ question ‘don’t you think its stupid handing out a guns in a bank?’ in a light – hearted (jokey, friendly) way but shows his bias and opinion by not letting the guy answer – he edits out the answer which may have been ‘No – we just put you through every security check known to man – and we have security guards ready to shoot any mad gun man to drop of a hat’ or something similar. This final question – suggests the bank is stupid and irresponsible and Moore has chosen to represent (portray) them in this way to get across his biased opinion convincing the audience to believe his opinion by his interviewing skills and creating his ability rapport and come across as the interviewees friend, when in reality he is taking the mick out of them. Which is also him creating using the illusion of the bank being stupid by editing out the answer to the interview question. Tattooed Tear is an observational documentary due to the fact that there is no voiceover at all and I suppose it’s ‘observing’ what’s happening in the prison. It also has no interviews and therefore the filmmaker is not interacting with the prisoners and the people being filmed. This can supposedly mean that the film is an accurate representation of the prisoners and how they interact with each other. Also the fact that it is a observational documentary it suggests no authorship meaning that there is not a point of view or opinion or bias from the filmmaker and objective ‘fly on the wall’ filming. There is also a good use of long take (long unedited shots which suggest realism as there as been no editing to hide anything from the viewer, for example when they follow the teenagers into the prison they start from the beginning of there time in prison, to one another communicating with each other about why they are in here and the filmmaker isn’t scared of letting the viewers see how one man is in prison for beating up his mother and explaining it in detail. However it also could be the man playing up or ‘performing’ to the camera by saying ‘check this out’ and then annoying other prisoners and getting him to talk about how he beat his mother. Using Diegetic sound no music to create mood, no interview questions to get people to say what you want suggest realism.
Watching real people and events in this documentary means we except them not to ‘act or ‘perform,’ we expect them to be there selves and not play up in front of the camera, as a viewer and spectator we believe that we are watching something ‘real’ and not something ‘constructed.’ However because this is a film it has been constructed (filmed, edited, post production sound added and in Tattooed Tear there is a clear introduction, confrontation and resolution to the story). Even though documenting real events and people, the filmmaker has chosen what, and who, to film and has a specific point of view they want to express therefore the film is ‘authored.’ This is not the way most people think of a documentary they believe it is real and true and accurate and not to be directed and constructed to express the filmmakers opinion. Pop Britannia however is an Expository documentary with 3 layers going on which are the voiceover, soundtrack and video montage. There is non diegetic voiceover explaining about the whole documentary this is different to Tattooed Tears, which just goes straight for the action in the documentary and doesn’t explain itself. The archive video montage shows short clips ofthe subject ofthe documentary, which is pop music. This instantly shows the viewers what they the documentary is about. The soundtrack is 80s electric pop which illustrates the subject of the documentary and like the voiceover it makes the viewers understand. It creates the mood of an exciting and party like sense. The voiceover is done by a British women to carry on the theme of the British pop and everything about this documentary being British, it is similar to bowling for my columbine in that since that the soundtrack and voiceover are both American themed and related making it straight away something to do with America. The voiceover in Pop Britannia is very informal, it flows with the soundtrack by having breaks in between the voiceover to show the viewers the action and the soundtrack to merge together so that the voiceover isn’t speaking the whole way through the introduction. The voiceover is unbiased because the women know what she is talking about speaking from a point, which all people should understand. There also have interviewees’ voiceover speaking over the archive video montage so that to the viewers it has meaning that there are bias opinions on Britain pop music. King of Kong is expository documentary, there is a no voiceover, which could suggest that it is observational, but there are interviews throughout the whole documentary and observational documentaries have no interviews at all (like Tattooed Tears). In King of Kong when the interviewees talk to camera, these are interviews, which have had the interviewers questions cut out of the film this interview technique is regularly used in expository documentaries it is the use of the 'talking head' shot where an expert or participant in the documentary appears to just be talking with no prompting, however they are being interviewed and asked a number of questions structured so that the interviewer and the audience get exactly the information they need out of them. They then edit out all of the questioning and the interviewee seems to just be talking about exactly what is necessary for the documentary to create
its own structured narrative, with most audience members not questioning how all these different interviewees are essentially telling a story in the correct (chronological and sensible) order. It is presented to an audience as if the interviewees are so obsessed by the topic of the documentary that they are essentially 'experts' on that if you just go up to them and ask them to speak then they will tell you everything you want to know about the topic (in this case Donkey Kong/computer games) whereas the reality is even obsessive geeks like this need to be prompted to talk by being asked very specific questions to get exactly the answers you want. For example 'Billy Mitchell' & 'Walter Day' and the other gamer-geeks will have firstly been asked an introductory question such as 'tell us what you think about computer games' then a developmental question about which games are the best, eventually arriving at a key question (the most important one - which in reality the whole interview is about) about the head to head video game war/competition between 'Mitchell & Sanders' in that sense the questions are structured to build up the story and develop the tension and slowly feed the audience more information that will enhance audience understanding of the topic. Also the fact that there are captions under each interviewee where else there isn’t any in Tattooed Tears, which keeps the feeling of it being observational. Whereas the text telling us who someone is in King of Kong and why there are famous/what they are an expert on is also another reason why it is expository, for example it is providing us with more information which helps to enhance audience understanding. There are interview and documentary techniques used in on going shows like the news. They always start of by reading the headlines for example BBC One news at 10, we see them looking into the camera and read the headlines, however on news night they read out the headlines over actuality footage (essentially footage shot on location wherever the relevant news story is happening) which essentially is a voiceover over the footage (like Michael Moore talks over his montage in BFC). The use of audio is diegetic hence allowing the audience to believe the new is ‘real.’ When studio newsreader reads the headlines, which is someone who presents the news to us, who is dressed formally and give eye contact to the camera all the time so that we believe them as we think they are smart and we believe them because they can literally look us in the eye. Also they are well-spoken mode of address to the viewer which means how people talks to you including their clothes, body language and facial expressions so again we believe and trust them and think that there voice is authority. They are never ‘friendly’ and informal to the viewer. However when interviewing – experts and witnesses they become a little less formal and even sometimes confrontational, for example at the start of news night when Chloe Smith starts of about talking about the change of fuel and that its be going on for sometime and Jeremy Paxaman soon butts in and doesn’t let her finish so she then says ‘like a said.’ The interview then gets a little mean and less formal – as he suggesting the government is taking the mick for example when Chloe Smith is talking about the public sector she talking and then Jeremy says ‘where’ and inside of answering his question she carries on with the sentences and what she
was saying before. Also he is being mean when he says ‘what departments are they going to come from’ she then doesn’t say and then he goes on to say ‘just name me a few departments’ she then says ‘no I wont’ and he just ‘what because you don’t know’ he then keeps interrupting her while she is trying to explain why she wont tell us and he keeps on butting in saying ‘are you waiting to be told that as well’ ‘you know do you’ ‘you know what departments have underspent.’ Is as if he is doing it on purpose that every time she goes to speak he then interrupts her just to try and annoy her. His facial expressions and tone of voice is confrontational, he doesn’t change expressions throughout it seems as if he has no emotions but he still as the power to control and be demanding what Chloe Smith is trying to say. Also the fact that he would never be this demanding and this mean to the audience or an audience member hence his mode of address to some of his interviewees is different to his mode of address to the viewer. The use of sound on this type of show, its recorded in a studio so there isn’t any acoustic interference or background noise, which suits the way the show is panned out because its about serious matters so they don’t want the audience to get distracted with other noises that are interfering. The beginning of BBC One News at 10 has a loud commanding tone of voice one talking about the revolution in Egypt as this is important news and the beginning we see an example of someone reporting from the field, for example where the news story is taking place – field reporters are always used in the news, for reporters from outside courtrooms when famous trails are taking place, to reports at ‘warzones’ and other news that is abroad e.g. earthquakes or other disasters, sometimes in the programme we hear voiceovers of the field reporters and see actuality footage taking place in the region for example when the voiceover the man on BBC One News at ten explains the live events and pre events of the Egypt revolution and shows the Egyptians celebrating and crying with happiness. The use of audio when on location it isn’t a good quality there are interferences from the background noise, which of course is also diegetic and make us believe the ‘reality’ of the location reports as we can hear fighting or cheering and other background noises. So even though it is annoying it makes the audience believe its more, creating a meaning and the mood. Other times we see field reporter on screen stood in front of the place he is reporting from while he talks to the Studio newsreader for example when John Simpson is on screen it is live unlike with the voiceover of the field reporter at the beginning which is pre recorded. Another example of how the audience's understanding is enhanced is the News at Ten interview between the newsreader (George Alagiah) and the reporter (John Simpson) who is telling us and presenting information to us about the situation in Egypt and how Egyptians have been ruled for 40 years by a Prime Minister that was cruel and treated many of the general public badly - the interview is also presenting information to us and enhancing our understanding by telling us that today he is in court and is being tried for his crimes and the Egyptian people are celebrating this. This interview here also gives the audience an insight into the situation in Egypt that is also emotional in that we begin to feel sorry for Egyptians and angry at
their ex-Prime Minister (Mubarak) for being evil to them and their families and the way John Simpson talks and the questions George Alagiah asks him allow him to do this by the answers he gives and by Simpson's tone of voice and facial expressions, and therefore his mode of address to the audience. The purpose of interviews in documentaries can be a number of different things like enhancing the audience's understanding of a topic, for example Bowling for my Columbine Michael Moore informally interviews the staff at the bank in order to show the audience how (in his opinion) dumb they are to be handing away free guns in a bank this happens when he asks the guy at the end "don't you think it's stupid giving away free guns in a bank?" but doesn't let him answer, even though the audience realise that Moore does not let them answer and justify why they don't think it is stupid, he enhances (increases) the audience understanding of the situation in America with regard to gun law and in particular he enhances our understanding that this particular bank gives away free guns. He uses the informal interview technique, in a rapport-like tone, to make us believe this bank and by association America is gun-crazy that the purpose of this interview is for Michael Moore to express his opinion - he is showing use something 'real' that does take place but he is showing it to us in a way that clearly expresses his opinion that it is stupid and he uses his understanding of editing and mise-en-scene to manipulate the audience to believe him, but even more so he uses his skills as an interviewer to express his opinion, by getting the interviewees to say things that show up them and their bank as being stupid and dangerous. He also earlier in the bank scene asks the woman if it's okay for him to be 'mentally defective' and be given a gun, and that the only time they would refuse him a gun was if he has a criminal record as 'mentally defective' thereby suggesting that to be mentally defective is fine as long as you have never been judged to be by law this again is enhancing or increasing our knowledge that the law in America is a little silly, in making it easy for people who may be mad, but have never been proved to be, to get a gun, but, of course, once again Moore is using his interview skills to manipulate the audience into believing his opinion - he doesn't give the bank a chance to voice their opinion at all (the only time he does give them a chance to voice their opinion is when he asks "don't you think it's stupid giving away free guns in a bank?" but then he cuts them off before they get to express their opinion). Â