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