Nichol's Mode Documentaries

Documentary Modes

Realism

This is when the film maker uses actual footage from the issue or subject as a pose to re-enacting everything. This is usually done by a handheld camera filming interviews with people who are or were involved in the development of the topic. Sometimes you could see graphics or statistics used to support the point made during the documentary. 

Dramatisation

This is also a code and convention often seen in documentaries, where it is opposite to realism and the topic is taken on in a different angle, for instance the use of re-enactments is an example and alongside some interviews. Music and sound usually non-diegetic is added to again make the topic dramatic also voice overs. An example of this is the documentary on the channel 'Really' which is called 'I survived evil' and talks about people who have suffered a fatal or tragic event in their life and are sharing their story with everyone. The documentary usually has them being interviewed and talking about their experience giving specific examples of when something occurred. This is then re-enacted by an actor whom shows us as the audience what the victims position in the situation was like. This allows for the audience to imagine how the victim might have felt at that time or the tragedy. 

Narrativisation

When the filmmaker builds up a narrative through the events of the subject or issue this is usually done to reach a conclusion about something. 

The Expository Mode

This is what we'd expect a documentary to do/have  in it's sequence. It is the idea of showing the audience the nature of life in its realistic form, it is 'expository' which is a step word from exposure which shows us life exposed almost, things that we might not usually see in our everyday lives. This type of mode is mainly seen in wildlife and nature documentaries which shows animals and how they act and live but also the way some natural event happen on our earth such as climate change. 

The documentary which I have embedded above is of a wildlife documentary that is presented by David Attenborough, one the worlds most famous wildlife experts. We call tell that this is an expository mode by its nature and it having 'the voice of god' which in this case it David Attenborough. He informs us, what each individual living organism is, and what they do, in a good sum of detail, the fact that this documentary has David Attenborough speaking through the entire thing, shows it is expository, because in the description of the expository mode it is said to be 'verbal commentary to emphasis argumentative logic'. For example he uses his argumentative logic to tell us that 'the beavers are at their busiest at winter', 'they are powerful swimmers above and below'. There is clearly good quality realism because they do talk about the animals and give relevant and true facts about each individual one, so this keeps it real which conforms to this particular mode. There are some dramatised aspects in it though such as the music, and tome of voice, but this is all done for effect to get the audience into the atmosphere of the show.  Showing the animals in real life situations rather than exaggerating or only showing the animals doing one thing, so we only get a small proportion of their life which isn't going to show their whole life realistically. This isn't what we're shown however because the show shows us everything they do which give us an all rounded picture of the animals. The narration too is very good, by using a real well-known wild life documentary icon like David, who alone sets the tone of the footage, but also helps tell the story or deliver the issue really well, not only this but the way the footage is cut in the sequence also helps tell the story well. However, you can tell that the crew have used many cameras to get the variety of shots , this may make the realism questionable in the sense that they might be manipulate us with the different shots, which is a con of the expository mode. There is also many close-up shots of the various animals, over ground and under water , so you can tell that they planned for this to be filmed. Also,  some shots are inside their burrow, this could be a con because the audience will think that it is been filmed in a controlled environment and not actually at that specific nest.  

The Observational Mode

The observational mode, is an attempt to capture footage that is objectively delivered, that is the filmmaker is taking on the issue with an objective angle. The filmmaker must remain neutral and keep the balance between the two sides of the argument, he should simply observe the issue and not take sides, it is also referred to as 'fly on the wall'. We don't see the filmmaker in the documentary, that is in front of the camera, because they aim to neither influence or change the situation or event being caught on camera, they only aim to unbiased situations showing the pure truth. This is normally filmed with a hand held camera as they have to be agile and if it was on a tripod would seem staged, hand held filming is used to achieve as much footage as possible of the genuine situation which in most cases wouldn't be able to be filmed again. 

The documentary I will be analysing is an observational one as it has a fly on the wall atmosphere, this is shown threw the way the filmmaker is simply observing through the topic and the interviews we see are clearly not scripted which implies again that this is an observational mode. The filmmaker is not influencing the topic in any way, because the people in it constantly stick to their opinions and they stay unchanged. The aim is to get the genuine truth across to the audience, by the filmmaker being behind the camera throughout the entire show, they record the true things that occur and nothing is a re-enactment, that is all scenes are shot with the actual people involved in the highlighted issue. Another thing which prove this to be observational is that we can tell the camera is handheld and not set up on a tripod which is what we'd expect from this mode. The sound and lighting quality are not particularly the best however this is good because it adds to the realism. It also shows that is not planned and event unfold as they continue filming, any other effect that would make it seem professional is always kept amateur. The documentary is kept real throughout and they allowed us to see the true life, and atmosphere of the footage, there isn't any particular opinion swaying, they are simply being observing and documenting. The editing is also not cut to a specific style, they shows us all the evidence and put it together to show the real story, rather than giving us half cuts which may hide aspects that perhaps a bias filmmaker would want gone. Clearly the filmmaker is unbiased throughout, this is evident because he is just staying neutral. There is very little dramatisation because the footage needs to be kept as real and genuine as possible, there is of course verbal communication but this isn't done to persuade us to feel a certain way, just telling us the facts. In terms of the narration, I would say it is done quite well as it gets the story across, and doesn't overwrite the subjects voice, the subject is the most heard voice throughout.  They have also chose to start with certain clips, and add voice overs over certain archive footage, showing this is not as much as an observation as you'd think. They create a narrative by using the clips they have gotten from filming, and have clearly edited voice overs, over clips to get a feel, however they are still showing what they have gotten without really creating a biased.

The Participatory/Interactive Mode

The participatory mode, is one which allows for direct contact with the filmmaker, and people involved in the show, this is done on camera as well as off, the filmmaker becomes part of the story or issue. This mode is very opposite to obersvaetional and we see the filmmaker in different situations. 

This type of mode is called an interactive or sometimes referred to as a participatory mode, the documentary filmmaker is the camera man  and asks questions to everyone involved, as well as moving the camera around it is quite similar to the observational mode as the camera isn't set up on a tripod, most of the time it is handheld. The main aspect of the documentary is the filmmaker, and we are expected to hear them all of the time, because they are interacting with the subject. We see this clearly in 'country House Rescue' because Ruth is always the one talking the most. The filmmaker will try to make it as real as possible by asking questions on the point of filming, which shows us that it isn't planned, this helps us understand what is actually going on. This is shown in 10:39 where she interviews the parents of Anselm. in 12:43 she also goes to a residential cookery school to as the students some questions about their opinion on paying for a course in the school. There is also a voice of which is the filmmaker, so we get used his or her voice. There is an element of dramatisation where the sound or music, pictures with some transitions etc. For instance when the documentary starts we hear a music track that sounds like a piano.  The way in which the narrative is put through is very professionally done. and it seams trustworthy to an audience watching, the opinions are firm and is also put across well, where the majority of the documentary is the filmmaker asking questions which makes up the main part of the story.This is shown throughout, but in particular in 11:18 she gives her opinion on the inside of the house.  The fact that the director or filmmaker is interacting with the people involved, makes it biased as we mostly hear their opinion of the situation, even though we get answers from the various people, we are overall swayed to believing what the filmmaker is telling us because they are the overriding source in this documentary.

The Reflexive Mode

Th is mode is not necessarily the truth, but the way it is filmed is a reconstruction of the truth, so they are not lying to us as the audience, they are making a statement which gets this across to us as the audience. This is often done to show the audience and it is often so that the audience are aware of factors such as music and cutting and recording which are in the sequence. It pays attention to the idea of a setup documentary.

The example I am going to be talking about demonstrates what a reflexive mode is in a documentary is 'Who killed biggie smalls'. Firstly, we can tell this is a reflexive mode by looking at the actual footage. It shows a reconstruction of the truth, it is the truth but not all of it and it aims to get as much across to the audience and this is why it is a reconstruction  We can see this is of this mode, by looking at the actual footage. Because it shows a reconstruction of the truth, it is truthful, but not the full truth and it aims to get as much of it across as possible and therefore labels itself as a reconstruction of the truth. We as the audience are made aware of factors such as music and editing, or cutting to different footage, again reflecting the point about the mode which states it is a reconstruction of the truth. It also acts like a setup documentary, again this being a convention of a reflexive documentary. Realism wise, it tries to show the story using archived footage there is very little to no present taken footage, that is not the same to say for the voice over though, some are more recent then others. The dramatisation in this footage includes music and transitions effects, which get points across to us, as well as implementing emotion. The narrative is created and represented like a book, mostly with voice over, and clips playing over them.

The Peformative Mode



The preformative mode, adds the film maker, as an actual participant, this mode seeks to create emotion through subjective speaking from the film maker, they are seen as the subject, and are treated as so, they create emotion with clips, and real vocals, which can establish emotion. It aims on creating a social emotional impact on the viewing audience, and it sways the thinking of the audience.

This documentary is an example of a performative mode documentary. The reason this is, is because it has the actual film maker as the main character, it is all about him and his journey, this is a convention of a performative mode. It is also filmed with handheld cameras, creating an amateur like feel, which again is a convention of the mode. They use realism to try and show the situation in a non-biased way, well in actual fact they attempt to get the idea of the film maker across, so that we feel sorry for him, and we believe he is right, he is trying to make us a feel a certain way. As for dramatisation music is added to create sympathy especially at the end of the movie where the husband of the ‘catfish’ tells us about catfish and cod, and how the title of the film was created due to his speech. Narration wise, we hear from him and his friends, and they make a real story using hand held cameras, and voices, there is no voice over until the end, where again the man talks, this is edited, It does not seem very reliable, due to the fact that is about the film maker, someone would not make a film about themselves if they do not want to get a point across, the fact it is about, shows he is trying to get a point across, it is very biased and we see from his point of view, and his opinions, again ultimately being swayed to his opinion and emotional status.