Exam Question
How far is the way evidence is presented by the documentary
filmmaker important in determining the spectator’s response? Refer in detail to
the films you have studied for this topic.
Planning: The way evidence is presented is quite important
as refraining from providing certain evidence and keeping the user interested
can affect the spectator’s response. The Cove, presenting evidence through literal
video footage. A Brief History of My Sexual Failures, no evidence. Biggie and
Tupac, interviews and opinion based evidence.
I believe the way evidence is presented by the filmmaker’s
is quite important in determining the spectator’s response. However, this leads
me to question what the term evidence means. Since documentaries often serve to
handle very delicate subject matter, it’s common that they provide evidence to
strengthen their points and build trust with the audience; however this isn’t
always the case, and so I wonder if documentaries that suit the ‘Mockumentary’
category provide any evidence at all.
‘The Cove’(Louie Psihoyos, 2009) is a very passion-filled movie that seeks to
end brutality towards sea life in Japan, specifically towards dolphins. In
attempts to persuade the audience to agree with it’s intentions, the filmmaker
presented it’s evidence in various ways. Indisputable video evidence of the
brutality, a protagonist who has first-hand experienced both sides of the
argument, emotive imagery, etc. It attempts to appeal to every audience member
it can by including as many different angles of presenting evidence as
possible. This was extremely successful and garnered a huge reaction from it's audience, sparking hashtags, donations, movements and all around positive feedback. It hit it's mark and whether it be due to it's use of interviews or video footage or one of it's many other approaches to displaying evidence, it was highly responsible for the spectator's response.
In quite the contrast is 'A Complete History of My Sexual Failures' (Chris Waitt, 2008), which falls into the category of a 'Mockumentary', which almost parodies the documentary format and uses it to cover much less serious subject matter than 'Investigative Documentaries' like The Cove. This means that there is little to no evidence at all. The only evidence we have to go on is the reactions of the people the protagonist interacts with, some of which do seem genuine. The film also breaks realism on numerous occasions during his journey as well, such as when he swallows a handful of viagra and washes it down with alcohol, which would cause severe health problems. Since it's a 'Mockumentary', the film doesn't need to rely on the way it presents evidence at all and can afford to break realism for added humour. This means it's spectator's response is not very reliant on how the filmmaker presents it's evidence, as there's little evidence in the first place.
Finally, 'Biggie And Tupac' (Nick Broomfield, 2002) is also an 'Investigative Documentary', yet, uses not nearly as much evidence as The Cove. It chooses to present it's evidence through primarily interviews which happen to be from unreliable and biased sources as well as some archive footage which does little to provide an answer to the question the documentary seeks to answer. This led to not just the spectator, but also the local's response to be quite negative and at times hostile. The filmmaker came across as quite intrusive at some points and this could be one of the reasons the film's audience didn't react as passionately as The Cove's. This proves that the way the filmmaker chose to present evidence, through disputable means, dictated the spectator's response to be one of negativity.
In conclusion, while the way in which filmmakers choose to portray evidence is important, it appears to vary across the types of documentary. It appears that all the documentaries follow the Uses & Gratifications theory and attempts to appeal to many different aspects of an audience member's personality, such as The Cove's emotive imagery, in an effort to elicit more response from them; although, as we see with A Complete History of My Sexual Failures, documentaries can also rely on simply the content and entertainment value to engage the viewer and doesn't have to be particular on how they represent their evidence.
In quite the contrast is 'A Complete History of My Sexual Failures' (Chris Waitt, 2008), which falls into the category of a 'Mockumentary', which almost parodies the documentary format and uses it to cover much less serious subject matter than 'Investigative Documentaries' like The Cove. This means that there is little to no evidence at all. The only evidence we have to go on is the reactions of the people the protagonist interacts with, some of which do seem genuine. The film also breaks realism on numerous occasions during his journey as well, such as when he swallows a handful of viagra and washes it down with alcohol, which would cause severe health problems. Since it's a 'Mockumentary', the film doesn't need to rely on the way it presents evidence at all and can afford to break realism for added humour. This means it's spectator's response is not very reliant on how the filmmaker presents it's evidence, as there's little evidence in the first place.
Finally, 'Biggie And Tupac' (Nick Broomfield, 2002) is also an 'Investigative Documentary', yet, uses not nearly as much evidence as The Cove. It chooses to present it's evidence through primarily interviews which happen to be from unreliable and biased sources as well as some archive footage which does little to provide an answer to the question the documentary seeks to answer. This led to not just the spectator, but also the local's response to be quite negative and at times hostile. The filmmaker came across as quite intrusive at some points and this could be one of the reasons the film's audience didn't react as passionately as The Cove's. This proves that the way the filmmaker chose to present evidence, through disputable means, dictated the spectator's response to be one of negativity.
In conclusion, while the way in which filmmakers choose to portray evidence is important, it appears to vary across the types of documentary. It appears that all the documentaries follow the Uses & Gratifications theory and attempts to appeal to many different aspects of an audience member's personality, such as The Cove's emotive imagery, in an effort to elicit more response from them; although, as we see with A Complete History of My Sexual Failures, documentaries can also rely on simply the content and entertainment value to engage the viewer and doesn't have to be particular on how they represent their evidence.
Comments
Post a Comment