Blog 8 reflexive mode

Reflexive mode documentaries have similar traits to that of the participatory mode in terms of realistic subject matter.  However, there is an important and distinguishable difference that Bill Nicholas brings to our attention; which is that instead of there being a negotiation between the filmmaker and the subjects there is in a negotiation with the filmmaker and the actual audience. 

In the documentary we watched about the Republican campaign we could see that it reflected a sense of realism especially when they tried to interview several people at a committee party.  Some would express their opinions; others would not even talk to them.  This documentary addressed several facts, opinions, and details about the campaign that helped the audience to better understand the issues that were happening at the time.  This helps to categorize it in a reflexive mode because Nicholas says that “reflexive documentary sets out to readjust the assumptions and expectations of its audience”.  It seemed that this documentary was made for this exact purpose; to portray to the audience what really was going on during the campaign in hopes to persuade the viewers to side with their opinions. 

I remember in class we spoke about the film “Cane Toads” in that it was interesting how that the film was about the cane toads and what they have brought to Australia.  However, we also discussed that the filmmaker seemed to be focused on the conditions that Australia in because of the cane toad.  This ties in with the characteristics of reflexive mode documentary because they try to persuade the viewer to understand what’s really happening in Australia.  They push their opinions to change from believing that the cane toad has helped Australia with their worm problem to the fact that instead the cane toad has actually replaced the worms and have now become the pest.

I watched part of a film on youtube called “Driving me Crazy” by a well known reflexive documentarian known as Nick Broomfield.  In this film he documents his journey in making a movie about a dance studio.  He does several interviews with people he works with and makes a good connection with the audience.  It was interesting because after watching part of the film I thought that the filmmakers were not just making a documentary, but trying to persuade the viewer (whoever it may be) to donate money so they could make the original documentary.  It is possible that they did this to show sponsors or other people that their idea was a good one which would then persuade them to give donations.  This in turn helps the documentary to fall under the category of reflexive mode in that the filmmakers connect with the audience to show that they need money.  This in turn reflects they true purpose for making this film in that they are trying to influence whoever watches this film to help donate to their original cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8CrLsa5Zf8

The participatory mode of documentary is much like the observational mode in the idea of filming real people, real situations, in the exact reality they live in.  However, the major difference between the two is that in participatory mode the filmmaker actually interacts with their subjects instead of only sitting by to observe. The reason behind this, as explained in the reading, is that this form of documentary is meant to portray the world as it is represented by someone who is actively engaged with what is being recorded.  Personally I think it helps illustrate a stronger sense of reality because it appears more organic when there is involvement between the filmmaker and the subjects.

I think that by allowing the filmmaker to actively participate in certain situations of the documentary it delivers details and less analysis.  This is because the filmmaker can document an event and involve her/himself by asking the people in the shot questions that explain what is happening.  Therefore, the audience is left with facts rather than their own analysis to predict what is really going on.

As discussed in class, the filmmaker can involve themselves in a variety of different ways; which can help the audience better understand the current conditions that are being recorded.  For example, in the film we watched about the miners going on strike the filmmaker would ask questions about the current conditions they were facing.  Sometimes the filmmaker can even appear in the shot itself and speak to the audience as they are asking questions or describing the situation they are in.  

In this youtube video there is a woman who started what’s called vlogs (video blogs) and she documents her life with a simple camera talking to people about her upcoming concert in the area.  I don't think that to some this would be considered your average participatory mode documentary.  However, it does meet the criteria in documenting real people, in real situations, that involve the filmmaker participating in some way. 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYcIUJGNaME&list=UUWTD3EHR2SWV4D8WplDWFVg&index=4&feature=plpp_video

Participatory mode I find to be a little more fascinating than other modes of documentary.  This is so mainly because I think we can obtain more factual information about the story and that can sometimes make the film more entertaining in my opinion.

Doc Project 1

For the first Doc project I decided to make a photo documentary representing the observational mode.  In the series of pictures that I assembled into a single sequence we can see that there is not real order to them nor is there a clear message as to purpose of the pictures.  The only representation that these pictures have is that of random people going about their own business living life as it is in the current state.
The pictures show what actually happens when students travel between classes.  It has a sense of randomness to it because there is no organization; it simply shows actual events without any interaction or notice of the filmmaker.  In the reading it talks about a few observational documentaries like High School and Primary in which there were no rehearsals, no interviews, no retakes.  In this documentary that I made I simply went on campus and took pictures of people without any interaction which allowed  me to capture the natural feel of what you actually see on campus in between classes.
 Observational documentaries don't have an solid and clear message spoken in the film because its without script; its just random.  The book talks about how with observational documentaries, everything captured is up for discussion and debate as far as the message behind the image.  In class we spoke about the film High School  and the hidden messages illustrated behind the image about gender roles and society.  In my documentary we can similarly see hidden messages within the images through commonalities that some pictures have.  For example, there are some pictures of couples walking together which could mean that lots of students like to date.  There are a variety of different kinds of people in the pictures which portray the rounded character that BYU has; muslims, military, artists etc.  messages can be found within this documentary, but note as the reading stated its all up for discussion and agreement.
My documentary truthfully shows students on campus living life as it is for them.  They have no guide other than their own agency which captured on camera shows what one can see if you just observe.  Therefore this documentary well fits in the observational mode of documentary film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qiCTXAi6yY

Expository Mode

Expository Documentaries seem to me a lot like the typical documentary that I would watch.  It is a story with a voice trying to prove something using rational facts or data.  In many cases we can see this type of documentary being used for propaganda or for the use of persuasion. 

Basically expository Documentaries have a voice and that voice speaks out in a couple different ways that help convince the audience to believe what the credible facts reveal.  The first way of voicing out the facts is more direct.  This is done with say an actual person/actor who exposes the data which reveals the opinion of the documentary.  Another way is by narration in which we do not see an actual being, but simply hear a human voice giving us the facts while reveal the image that confirms the data presented.  The second way is more indirect in the sense that we have to analyze the situation present and observe the subtext behind the portrayed image.  For example, in class we watched a documentary about vampire bats which when analyzed in a certain way we can see the subtext within the story.  The documentary is delivered much like a simple animal documentary much like we see on the Discovery channel.  However, the filmmakers put random shots of old vampire movies to portray some kind of message which could be interpreted in many ways.  Personally I understood the reasoning behind such randomness was to put fear into the minds of the audience concerning the dangers of vampire bats; at least according to their opinion. 

One example of an expository documentary that I watched was one of the church’s “I am a Mormon” ads.  It was about a woman and that facts of life she faced being a Mormon in New York City where the environment is not as friendly to moral people.  It has a voice that tells people that one can still live a moral life and enjoy working in this big city.  It has a more direct effect in telling people what it’s like to be a comedian in New York City, but it also has a indirect effect in telling people the happiness that the gospel can bring.

Blog Expository Mode

Expository Documentaries seem to me a lot like the typical documentary that I would watch.  It is a story with a voice trying to prove something using rational facts or data.  In many cases we can see this type of documentary being used for propaganda or for the use of persuasion. 

Basically expository Documentaries have a voice and that voice speaks out in a couple different ways that help convince the audience to believe what the credible facts reveal.  The first way of voicing out the facts is more direct.  This is done with say an actual person/actor who exposes the data which reveals the opinion of the documentary.  Another way is by narration in which we do not see an actual being, but simply hear a human voice giving us the facts while reveal the image that confirms the data presented.  The second way is more indirect in the sense that we have to analyze the situation present and observe the subtext behind the portrayed image.  For example, in class we watched a documentary about vampire bats which when analyzed in a certain way we can see the subtext within the story.  The documentary is delivered much like a simple animal documentary much like we see on the Discovery channel.  However, the filmmakers put random shots of old vampire movies to portray some kind of message which could be interpreted in many ways.  Personally I understood the reasoning behind such randomness was to put fear into the minds of the audience concerning the dangers of vampire bats; at least according to their opinion. 

One example of an expository documentary that I watched was one of the church’s “I am a Mormon” ads.  It was about a woman and that facts of life she faced being a Mormon in New York City where the environment is not as friendly to moral people.  It has a voice that tells people that one can still live a moral life and enjoy working in this big city.  It has a more direct effect in telling people what it’s like to be a comedian in New York City, but it also has a indirect effect in telling people the happiness that the gospel can bring.