Documentary - Formats

There are six distinct sub-genres of documentaries that help to distinguish between the styles and structures that are used to relay a message or information to the audience.

Poetic – Poetic documentaries came about in the 1920s when film was still very much a new concept. These types of documentaries took a completely different take on the traditional codes and conventions of documentary film making and instead made the focus on the images that are being shown, and showed very loose narrative as there isn’t necessarily attached to the footage. These documentaries are usually very experimental and abstract as they attempt to create a feeling from the viewer, rather than expose a subject or reveal a truth. The imagery and music juxtapose each other to draw out a third, inner meaning or truth. The music often helped to influence the pace of the shots and stress the rhythmic and emotional aspects of the film footage.

A documentary like the one shown below, called Lights, would be considered a poetic documentary as it focuses on the aesthetic aspect of the footage to create a feeling from the viewer and brings a much more artistic approach to the genre. This film focuses on different forms and sources of light in the world, whether it be the obvious sunlight or fireworks in the night sky. The music accentuates the flow and pace of the editing.

Poetic Documentary - Lights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM5lMxvIAtc

Expository – An expository documentary is probably the most generic example of a documentary, and the format most people would immediately think of when you mention the word documentary. They first appeared around the 1920s alongside the poetic documentaries and it is one where the viewer is directly addressed by the presenter with a “voice of god” style of narration where the presenter is given an impression of a place of authority and is never shown in the footage. This narration is usually very authoritative ends with rhetorical questions in an attempt to persuade the viewer towards a certain viewpoint discussed in the documentary, IE “Is social media as good as it seems?”. The narration aims to be descriptive and informative whilst constantly pushing an argument throughout the documentary. The images shown in the documentary are there purely to help support the argument being presented by the narration and show the subject/location/person being spoken about by the narration. Often you will find a grouping of researched facts and figures, narrations and interviews interwoven with the rest of the documentary. The main goal of this type of documentary is to expose a subject that very few people will know a lot about. The editing in the film is for continuity so that the footage can help support the argument that is being stated in the voiceover.

A fairly recent example of an expository documentary is “March Of the Penguins” (2005), narrated by Morgan Freeman and directed by French director Luc Jacquet. This documentary follows an annual year-long journey of the emperor penguins that live in Antarctica. Whilst the footage supports and follows the movements of the penguins, Morgan Freeman narrates what is happening and why. The focus of the narration was to expose the migration and breeding habits of the emperor penguins, and bring light and more explanation to a species not many people would know about. The main goal of this documentary was not to get an emotional feeling from the viewer, but rather to follow a year long journey of this animal and bring light to a species that most might not have heard of.

March of the Penguins – Original Theatrical Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyYZCjVEsD8

Observational – An observational documentary is exactly what it sounds like, where the cameras are there purely to observe, and the footage is presented to the audience and they are then able to draw their own conclusions from it. These documentaries originated around the 1960s as camera technology developed, allowing for easier transport and mobility of lighter cameras and portable sound recording equipment. The main aim of these documentaries was to observe the world around them, often focusing on a particular person or persons and simply letting the camera capture them completely uninterrupted. Most modern day reality shows would be considered observational documentaries (provided they aren’t all scripted). Typically these documentaries do not have voice-over commentaries, though that isn’t always the case. Any voice-over is usually included to describe what it happening in the footage. The subjects of the film are instructed to behave as if the filmmakers are not there, and there are no interviews between the crew and the subjects. These documentaries are often described as a “fly-on-the-wall” as they attempt to observe and not disturb.

An early example of observational documentaries is the film “Crisis” (1963) by director Robert Drew. This clip from the film served as an observational piece as it aimed to film what an average meeting with JFK as president would have been like. The film shone light on a potentially private moment of his life by simply setting up cameras to observe a meeting taking place, with zero interruption. The voice-over in this instance is there to explain what is happening and what is being discussed in the clip.

In The Room With JFK and RFK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tZkvhQcZI4

Reflexive – A reflexive documentary is one that is aware of the fact it is in the form of a documentary representation and attempts to expose the audience to that fact. They help to provide the audience with a deeper understanding of the construction of the film so that they are able to develop their own much more critical opinion of the film. These films draw attention to their own conventions and encourage us to question the idea of documentaries in general whilst acknowledging the presence of the viewer throughout the filming of the documentary. The idea is for the film to help the viewer develop a relationship with the filmmaker, rather than the filmmaker developing a relationship with the subject of the film. The film follows the process of making the documentary, and the crew aren’t afraid to get involved. The film makers often like to show the audience all the difficulties and issues they faced whilst filming the documentary as it isn’t as easy to make as people might think. These types of documentaries avoid high levels of editing and special effects to keep the truth and realism of the documentary intact. Most arguments are suggestive, rather than presented as factual.

A great example of a filmmaker who likes the keep all the aspects of the filming in the final edit is Louis Theroux. He always presents a questioning and uncertain narration rather than an aggressive or authoritative as he works his way through the episodes, attempting to learn more about certain subcultures or celebrities. For example, in this clip from Louis Theroux’s Weird Weekends, Louis meets a small group of members of the Boer society in South Africa and the leader gets agitated with Louis’ questions. Often in documentaries, if an argument were to break out, then it would be edited from the final cut of the film, yet Louis keeps all the footage in, not hiding any of the truth of how it was to film the episode.

When Louis met the Boer leader: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPbExwBJiwY

Participatory – Participatory documentaries will include the filmmaker within the narrative of the film, often through showing them on screen but also having them narrate the documentary. There is a believe that with documentaries, it is next to impossible for a filmmaker that is participating or getting involved in the making of the film, then there is no way that they will somehow influence or alter what is occurring in the film. We get a strong sense of how the filmmaker’s presence affects the creation of the documentary. This format of documentary is often criticised for the pure fact that the filmmaker is in charge of exactly what gets put into the final cut and what doesn’t, and they could therefore change the message or meaning of what they’re presenting, which may not end up being accurate. This theory is called the gatekeeper theory. Most of the film will be recorded on handheld cameras, and the footage that is shot will be long, uninterrupted takes, as they film the entire encounter. Any interviews that take place in the film are often very informal, and the questions are either made up as they go along or built upon the answers provided by the interviewee.

An example of a participatory documentary would be the 2003 TV film “Living with Michael Jackson” where a British journalist, Martin Bashir spent 8 months with Michael Jackson himself and filmed various interviews that he conducted over that timespan. Bashir narrates the film whilst also appearing alongside Jackson throughout. The film came under serious criticism after Jackson came out and stated that Bashir was attempting to tarnish his reputation with this film, and that most of the footage that Bashir’s team had presented in the TV film was not the full story. Jackson’s team later released a “rebuttal video” which showed footage of Bashir complimenting Jackson on his fathering capabilities and various other omitted interviews. This only underlines the gatekeeper theory, that Bashir was hiding footage from the public, simply to try and make Michael Jackson look worse to fit his own agenda.

Living with Michael Jackson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmL9gP-SKDo

Performative – A performative documentary is one where the filmmaker takes part in the documentary, and acts as a presenter as well as the narrator. These documentaries first appeared in the 1980s and aimed to approach topics on a much more personal level. The narration would usually be referring to themselves in the first person, so you will hear the word “I” often throughout. The documentaries will consistently highlight the personal experience(s) that the filmmaker had making the film, and what their emotional response to the topic or subject of the documentary was. Often these documentaries favour a personal take on the subject, rather than being objective and will highlight that the truth they present is relative to the filmmaker’s experience. There is a strong use of interviews with various people linked to the subject matter to help support the argument of the film. They may also link their experiences or personal accounts in with a larger political issue at the time of the making of the film, addressing the audience in a very direct and emotional way.

Michael Moore is a great example of a filmmaker who takes this approach on his documentaries, as he is often presenting his truth as the definitive truth, when in fact they’re simply based on his personal experiences, rather than built upon an objective foundation. His 2002 film, “Bowling for Columbine” helps to support this as he presents the argument that guns are outright evil, building upon a recent school shooting disaster that had occurred at Columbine High School and using the fear factor of that to support his argument. As the filmmaker, Moore narrated the documentary, covering each scene with this explanation and description of how the events went down.

Bowling for Columbine Official Trailer #1 – Michael Moore Movie (2002) HD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH0mSAjp_Jw