Timed Essay -

'Compare different documentary techniques employed to present reality, discussing their impact on the spectator. Refer to at least two documentaries you have studied'.




Grizzly Man – Werner Herzog
Bowling for Columbine – Michael Moore


In many cases directors of documentaries employ different techniques such as the use of a hand held camera, raw footage, reconstructions and interviews to present the reality of the topic that they are documenting this is often done to create impact on the spectator for many reasons such as to get an emotional reaction to give the documentary more of a meaning to the spectator. Michael Moore’s ‘Bowling for Columbine’ and Werner Herzog’s ‘Grizzly Man’ uses a few of these techniques for this exact reason.

‘Bowling for Columbine’ directed by the hard hitting Michael Moore uses raw materials, interviews which clearly will have only one outcome on the interviewee and a range of editing techniques to create a sense of the ‘real’ in the documentary. Michael Moore himself has a huge physical presence that can be quite intimidating regardless and for anybody that understands the way that Moore interviews people of quite high authority and openly makes them looks notoriously pathetic will then notice that it is not only the way that he uses his interviewing skills but the way that he then edits the interview and puts together the documentary that is equally as important. Often Moore will leave the camera filming the interviewee after the question has been answered in order to keep the interviewee talking about quite personal topics. This has an instant impact on the spectator, it gives off an uncomfortable feeling one in which you know that the interviewee should stop talking and Moore should stop filming, but he simply doesn’t. This same technique is used by Herzog in the documentary ‘Grizzly Man’. For most people this documentary, if edited correctly could in fact be a very emotional one, however because of this ‘Letting the camera roll’ technique the documentary gives off the general impression that some people are acting up for the camera for example ‘Jewels’ and the scene in which she is granted the wrist watch that was found at the scene of the death, The camera is left rolling throughout and her emotions seem to tell the story of her bragging a bit and seems scripted because of the awkward silence that follows shortly after the scene is technically over. This technique for one seems to have more of a negative effect on the spectator, one argument could be that it is used to make you feel what the people in the documentary are feeling at the time of the interview, on the other hand you could say that its simply used to allow the interviewee to carry on speaking and slip up and put their foot in it, this could arguably be what Moore tries to achieve in his interviews because his documentaries do carry a bizarre humorous side to them.

Another technique that is used in both documentaries is the usage of raw footage. Both Moore and Herzog edited their documentaries with raw footage of very controversial subjects such as the Columbine school shootings and the fact that ‘Timmy’ was not only killed by bears, but he endangered his girlfriend and may have been mentally ill. Herzog, I feel used this technique in order to show the real as raw as he possibly could seeing as pretty much all of the footage shown of Timmy was in fact unedited by anybody other then Timmy himself. This actual has a strong impact on the spectator because it allows you as a spectator to draw your own conclusions to whether Timmy should have been stopped due to his very ambitious dreams of living as one with bears. Myself as a spectator, I was left perplexed by this documentary because its impact on me frustrated me because I could simply come up with no conclusions of how I felt on the other hand Moore used raw footage in order to really show the real aspects of the Columbine shootings. This for me almost led me into thinking in a certain way which is the complete contrast to how Herzog and ‘The grizzly man’ left me feeling. I do however feel that Herzog and Moore both had separate intentions in making the decision to edit with raw footage to have an impact on the spectators.

I think the interviews and people being interviewed were very important in discussion to whether they represented the reality of the documentary or not. Stereotypically speaking American lower class people are known for being pretty stupid. Moore obviously knowing this chooses to interview a range of quite weird American citizens some of which fitted well with this stereotype. Interviewing these sorts of people with Moore’s knowledge is bound to conclude in only one way the interviewee looking pretty stupid however the way that Moore achieves this is genius based on the fact that whilst posing his own views on the topic, he simply shows through the interviewees reaction and answer to the question, that there is no other way at looking at the situation other then negatively. Herzog in contrast in ‘The grizzly man’ interviewed a range of people from members of Timmy’s family and friends to people who just heard the story and wanted to give their opinions this produced a mixed response especially for me as a spectator because on one side of the scale there were people saying that Timmy was simply insane whereas on the other you had the friends and family telling about how he loved to be with the bears and was the nicest person you could ever meet. The only downfall with this technique being used by Herzog in this way is that again, all the close family and friends seemed to be acting rather then showing themselves and their actual emotions on the subject, whereas in Moore’s interviews I personally didn’t see the interviewees as acting but much rather making themselves look unbearably foolish.

Its fascinating to me to see that although both documentaries and directors used the same techniques in their documentaries they both had completely contrasting impacts on the audience and completely different effects on showing the reality of the topic and subjects in which they were documenting. Moore used raw material, strong personal, bias interviews and a range of editing features In order to pose his views as the only views worth having on the matter of the Columbine school shootings therefore leading you down a very one sided narrow path in which you conclude the same as Moore himself concludes whereas Herzog uses more or less the same techniques and gets a completely different, in my opinion negative outcome where your allowed to conclude your own thoughts but based on the fact that you feel deceived in the way that it appears as if the interviewees are acting. Both documentaries I feel show the real in the raw footage shown however, the rest seems to either pull you down a bias path or leave you frustrated with no conclusions which are both very good impacts to have on the spectators of the documentaries.

Daniel Lodwidge

The Grizzly Man - 2005

This film spoke alot to me in the sense that it showed a clear defined line between acting and realism. There were small, short parts in the film that seemed extremly real, unfortunatly these were the parts where in fact there were no people in the camera shot. Jewel, seemed unrealisticly fake, it was completley unbearable to watch actually. She seemed very overacted and seemed simply to want the biggest part in the documentary besides Timmy himself. She was always bragging about her relationship with him and how much she got out of his death whilst at the same time, constantly crying. Naturally, the subject of one of your firiends being eaten by a bear could be very traumatic BUT the fact that she was acting i feel disrespected his death and their friendship.

I actually couldn't myself get involved with the film on a personal level because i could see all this false behavior. A couple of times there was a massive awkward silence when the camera was left rolling after a question had been asked i didn't totally understand why this was added in. Maybe it was a reflection on the answer type silence although then, i didn't understand the shifty eye at the camera thing.

Some parts of the film just didn't seem likly, for example the part where the watch was being given to Jewels, besides the fact that this was her dead friends watch it seemed almost if she was happy just to be the person to be seen recieving the watch. It seemed very, low budget hollywood effect. They said things like "It hasn't stopped since it came off his wrist a year ago" and she was saying "I'll never take it off, not ever" Then broke down crying, then in the next scene, it wasn't on her wrist. I didn't understand this "Milking" the oppertunity to help others understand her friends. I genuinley find her to be actually a bad person to be in this film, and a bad person to be represented as Timmys friend. I found her attitude towards his death disgusting and i had a big problem with her throughtout the entirty of the film.

However, i found Timmys attitude towards the risks that came along with "Hanging" out with bears extemely nieve and the fact that he also endangered another life was unreal. I think because the film, and in fact he himself portrayed himself in this light exposed the fact that there may possibly have been something wrong mentally with timmy his passion seemed unhealthy. The realism wasn't the fact that he may have been acting (Poorly) the simple fact that he felt he needed to try and act this way proved that there was something wrong with him. Also in that respect, the fact that his friends could not see what I saw in 2h watching his footage seems just out of the question, surley somebody other then his girlfriend must have noticed his craziness.

The whole thing seemed fake, acted and strange. I found it uncomfortable and disrespectful. Showing the unprofessionalism of the people in the movie, just in a word, odd.

"Bowling for Columbine" 2002 Michael Moore

I enjoyed that way this this documentary style film was placed together simply because Michael Moore did not have to impose him own veiws in order to get the over riding facts across. Setting his interveiwies up for their own demise was simply a technique that was used to allow the audience to conlude their own judgements on the topic of gun crime in america. I think although it may have come across as slightly subjective, the fact that he interviewed the general public of America about guns and other such things allowed the documentary the oppertunity to be "real". It can be argued however about why he didn't argue his points with big, top authority figures. I on the other find that he didn't need to. If the general pubic weren't aware of the dangers of guns, then the people at the top simply weren't doing their jobs and were not looking out for the saftey of American citizens allowing them to own loaded guns when they needn't. Generally, the excuse was simply that "We have an amendment that allows me the right to carry this weapon". Using this as an excuse is simply hillarious because they have no other reason to do so. I think its almost like a fashion trend. Some, brave person will wear something that is utterly ridiculous, then because maybe they have popularity, or authority over others, the whole contry will be wearing the same, utterly ridiculous item of clothing. My own personal veiws are much the same as Michael Moore's, If the answer to a question requires yet another question by the asker, then the question will never be fully answered.

Film Essay Contrast.

Gammorah, Directed in 2008 shows power, conflict and poverty in a very obvious way. The film is full of aspcts such as crime, drug dealers and hierachy with authority, that of which seems to be above any law enforced authority. What I find most interesting in the movie is the young boy To'to who appears to learn everything he learns i he film directly from the streets and what i shappening in the "Gang" that he is a part of. To get a place in this gang he has to pass a sort of initiation test in which the child is shot at with a gun to see if he gets back up again. This evidentually shows the vast amount of power that is placed in the movie based of the fact that because To'to is actually a child the older men feel that they can intimidate him into doing what they want, again sown when the men plan to kill Maria, somebody who To'to is close to. The film shows To'to not wanting to be a part of it, u becaue the men know they can control him based on his age, they intimidate him into helping them.

The crime and sheer amount of drug dealing that takes place during the film is simply disgusting, especially when they are involving children. As well as this, Children are hired in order to help drive a few lorries and the chinese are exploted in the way that the guy has clearly hired thm because they cost alot less to hire. This not only shows power but shows poverty, becaus the people are so desparate for money that they are willing to cut corners and sell drugs in order to get it. The most important and obvious show of power in the film is when you see that the money is being complety controlled by one main figure in the film. It seems that he and he alone holds their lives because he has total control over the money.

Conflict is show simply in the way that on the same estate two rival gangs are living and are in constant battle with eachother over money, power, drugs and territory. It seems that because of this crime in the film, other characters are greatly influenced to pursuit this way of living. Shown with sweetpea and his friend who seek to be "Owned" by nobody but themselves. Obviously, in this pursuit they are both set up and killed for thinking they could be a hierachy all of their own.

In contrast the film "The class" takes on a different way of showing power, conflict and poverty. The class is completly full of people from different races and ethnic backgrounds. The teacher as shown in the film brings this into the lesson plans and tries to tech others that racism and pejudice is wrong. Whilst this is happening, the children in the class under go a learning experience that is controlled unlike "Gammorah" in which there are no limits or bounderies. At any poit the teacher is able to put astop to the discussion and move on meaning nobody gets hurt unlike in "Gammorah". The children are free in "Gammorah" to learn outside of four walls whereas the children in "The Class" learn everything they kno inside the clasroom.

The conflict is between the races and authority figures in "The class" because it seems like the children are alway rebelling towards the teacher and aren't willing to accept that they are below him in the power hierachy because of this, conflict is created amongst the children and teacher although again the teacher can simply put an end to it by removing the pupil. Meaning that it is controlled unlike in "Gammorah".