The ‘complexity of spectator response suggests that documentary offers much more than a window on some aspect of our world’. Discuss this statement with reference to the films you have studied for this topic?
Documentary films are in theory, non fiction films that are based on true cases. A common misconception is that they are entirely factual/unbiased and offer only a ‘window on some aspect of our world’. This is not usually the case since the documentary is made from the viewpoint of the director, and thus they gradually present an unfolding narrative that covers different opinions and viewpoints, suggesting that the complexity of the spectator response depends upon the fact that the documentary offers more to the spectator. The spectator will therefore view the documentary in a different manner. Both Senna(2010, Asif Kapadia) and Capturing the Friedmans (2003, Andrew Jarecki) can be said to manipulate their audiences and suggest that documentary offers much more than a window aspect as they are based on real life events.
One way in which documentaries offer more than just an aspect of our world is by questioning the nature of truth, as Jarecki does this by employing the participatory mode during the leapfrog scene. Jarecki presents a close up of the computer student, being loosely framed in order to give the aura of distrust towards the audience, claiming that there was rape. Jarecki then juxtaposes his argument by showing another former student claiming that nothing like this ever happened. The illusion created by the cross cutting has been edited by Jarecki to deliberately give the conception of giving a balanced viewpoint. Jarecki’s constant use of cross cutting combined with editing forces the spectator to question the nature of truth and to perceive that documentary offers much more than just a ‘window aspect’, which is different to fiction films in this regard. Although constructed by Jarecki, the use of the participatory mode is used to manipulate the audience, thus forcing them to make different requirements to question the nature of truth. This ties in with Koenig’s argument that every ‘shot is a lie’ and that no ‘two shots are the same’. This encourages the director to explore the complexity of the spectator’s response as each spectator will have different viewpoints of how they see a documentary. In this regard the spectator’s response becomes complex with many differing viewpoints. For me as a spectator, I found my response to be complex as I viewed different viewpoints from both sides. The use of juxtaposing shots used by Jarecki also changed my perception of how cases are normally presented in courts. Jarecki manipulated me into believing that there were two even sided arguments, when in fact the documentary itself had only one argument, and that I had to question the nature of truth. However documentary can never be subjective, for both the audience and the spectator are required to question the nature of truth rather than suspend their disbelief. Therefore Jarecki uses the participatory mode to explore the complexity of the spectator response and offers more than just a window aspect of the world, instead arguing to question the nature of truth.
Another way in which documentary offers more than just a window aspect of our world, is by Kapadia employing the poetic mode to celebrate the life of Ayrton Senna, to allow the audience to feel what was being felt at the time. This satisfies the notion that documentary offers more than just a narrow viewpoint. Kapadia utilizes footage of Senna’s body being carried away into his helicopter, connoting how this great/lamented man has departed from earth, thus evoking an emotional response from the audience. The graphic shots of Senna arriving in Brazil to be welcomed as an hero acknowledges the sacrifices he made for Brazil to win Formula 1 at a time when Brazil was rife with corruption and ruled by military juntas. Hence, it is akin to that of Jesus Christ’s story. Kapadia combines footage of his early years a racer to his glorious highlight of his career, cutting to interviews very often, this is combined with sad-non diegetic music to create an emotional response from the spectator. The realistic setting created by Kapadia helps to impact on the spectator. If the documentary is offering more as Senna is depicting, than it is clear that documentary cannot be defined through a corner aspect of the world. Although constructed by Kapadia, the use of the poetic mode ties with Renov’s purposes to express what a respected and celebrated man he was, This ties in Flaherty’s argument that it depends on the ‘authenticity of results’. The documentary created by Kapadia has an impact on the audience due to its constructed editing, and thus represents the fact that the documentary is considering different viewpoints from Senna’s celebrated admirers to his worst. In this sense the documentary is far more flexible for it provides an insight to the world of formula one and where Senna lived in, but it is unlike a fiction film that is usually restricted to specific viewpoints. For me as a spectator, I felt emotional at the loss of Ayrton Senna, though it had been deliberately and cleverly constructed by Kapadia to make me feel emotional at this point. I felt as if I knew what the people of Brazil were feeling at the time; a man that was standing against the corrupted politics of formula 1, and who provided hope to Brazil when it was ruled by corruption mostly. This clever use of construction evoked an emotional response while engaging me in the historical context. At this point, Kapadia is exploring the complexity of the spectator’s response through evoking emotional and historical contexts together. Each spectator will differ on how they see his departure on earth has. Some may celebrate while some may say that he was detrimental. In this regard Kapadia’s documentary can be seen as a ‘love letter’ that celebrates his achievements while ignoring pretty important races that he won, instead focusing on the trivial aspects. Therefore he uses Senna to explore the complexity of the spectator’s response and to agree that documentary offers much more than just a ‘window aspect of the world’.
The complexity of the spectator’s response can be engaged in Capturing the Friedmans, where Jarecki employs the use of the participatory mode to explore the conflict between Seth and Panaro. Jarecki presents a close up of Panaro as the dark, grubby lawyer that pleads with Jessie to admit guilt to reduce his prison sentence. Jarckei juxtaposes this with Seth claiming that all Panaro was after was money, and that he neither cared about the case and was in there for his own advantage. In this sense, Jarecki provides the audience with a edited conception of balance through the construction of the nature of shots. Although constructed by Jarecki the use of the participatory mode and presenting the two sides of the cases brings an interesting mix into so far what Jarecki has presented to the audience. Instantly the case becomes much more complex and demands far more of the spectator to understand how this case had grown too complex. This ties in with Koneig’s argument that no ‘two shots are the same’ and many are ‘telling the lie in order to tell the truth’. In this case, the spectator’s response becomes complex because of the very nature of the case itself. There will be different viewpoints from the spectator and that is the very purpose of any documentary, because unlike an fiction film, it enforces the spectator to engage with the subject as they are real life cases. As a spectator I felt as if Jarecki was manipulating me as the spectator, and the audience at the same time to present a ‘balanced’ viewpoint of the conflict between Seth and Panaro. However I could not bring myself to trust any particular viewpoint since both sides presented a contradictory view which I myself could not figure out. Therefore the demand on me as a spectator to understand the two viewpoints of Seth and Panaro pointing the blame on each other became much more demanding. It would take me some time to review the sides presented. Therefore Jarecki employs the use of the participatory mode to explore the complexity of the spectator response, and to reference the fact that documentary offers much more than just a narrow viewpoint.
Another issue raised by the complexity of the spectator’s response is generated by Asif Kapadia’s depiction of the Japanese Grand Prix scene through the use of edited and captured footage. This historic documentary uses the observational mode to depict Senna’s highlight and his struggles at the height of his career. Kapadia, unlike Jarecki doesn’t participate due to the construction of captured footage that has been edited. The use of constructed shots is questionable due to his selection of close ups, creating a close relationship between the protagonist and the spectator. This is evident in the sequence, the Japanese Grand Prix where Kapadia selects the in-car race footage, putting the spectator as part of the race. Kapadia uses long shots of Alan Prost, distancing himself from the spectator, and subsequently lands him the job of the anti-protagonist. This ties into the idea of Flaherty’s argument that documentary must always make an impact on the audience, and the idea of portraying Prost as a villain is the deliberate construction of shots. For me as a spectator, I was on the side of Senna, however this scene raises questions on the spectator’s mind whether Prost was actually a villain or not, or if it is just Kapadia’s selection to present his viewpoint. Therefore Kapadia employs the use of the observational mode to explore the complexity of the spectator’s response and to reference the fact that documentary offers much than just a window aspect.
In conclusion, it is clear that any documentary offers more because it has differing viewpoints of a real life subject. The idea that documentary is accurate is a complete misconception. Unlike a fiction film, in Capturing the Friedmans, the spectator is overburdened with having to view many ludicrous and sensible viewpoints. Each viewpoints believe that their response is the truth, and the spectator is often encouraged to question the nature of truth. And however, in Senna it is more of a celebration of his life, coupled with viewpoints that celebrate rather than negate his story. It is clear that documentary will offer much more from a historical/social context based on a real life subject case, and is very unlikely to offer a narrow aspect of the world.