During this section of my blog, I am going to be talking about various types of Documentary Formats. These will be:
For all of the above I will be giving examples for each one, and explaining and discussing how they all work. If possible, I will also try to compare a few of these formats to one another in order to show a more in depth observation of the various genres.
- Expository
- Observational
- Reflective
- Interactive
- Performance
- Dramatisation
For all of the above I will be giving examples for each one, and explaining and discussing how they all work. If possible, I will also try to compare a few of these formats to one another in order to show a more in depth observation of the various genres.
The first type of format that I have looked at is the expository style documentary. An obvious example of this style would be a documentary such as a nature themed one. One in particular, that most people are accustomed to is David Attenborough's series, such as his 'Blue Planet' - where he travels the oceans and sea's to find discoveries and capture footage of things most of us would never imagine even seeing. I do believe this is the reason why Attenborough's documentary captivate such a broad range of people, and of all ages. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XXJs6vCTzc&list=PL8B8EDD0D02DA14B7) . 12-01-15
The styles and conventions that would typically be shown through an expository documentary such as this one are firstly a voiceover. For 'Blue Planet' it is, within itself recognised to be one of David Attenborough's documentaries due to his distinctive voice; as soon as the voiceover begins we know who it is, and who has made it and in my opinion, know it's going to be a worthy watch. This is only something we, as an audience associate together in order for it to be personally successful, and over time he has built himself and his nature documentaries a good reputation for themselves. The type of voiceover that Attenborough uses during his documentaries is known as 'the voice of God' - which means he's constantly talking us through the on-screen footage, yet we never see his face. But as I was stating earlier; due to having built up a good enough reputation for his nature documentaries, there is no real reason as to why we need to see him, as his voice and style of footage is recognisable enough.
Due to the type of documentary that this is within the expository format - nature, it is essential that the film makers get a really broad amount of shots, all varied. This is so they have enough to put together during editing. During the post-production of making this documentary, different clips of the footage will be put together accordingly. This may mean that they had to film over a course of a few days, and the clips that look best together were filmed on totally different days- but if it flows, and it works well looking good, it will be put together ready to show.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXl8F-eIoiM&index=3&list=PL8B8EDD0D02DA14B7)12-01-15 - This second example shows the types of shots that have to be filmed in order to make the documentary worth doing, and worth being broadcasted to the public viewers.
Throughout the 'Blue Planet' series, it is inevitable that some of the shots are going to be quite hard to see, due to the low levels of the oceans that the film makers are having to go down in order to capture all of the shots and footage they set out to get. However, this doesn't make a difference to us as viewers due to the constant 'voice of God' voiceover that talks us through all of the following footage, so the fact that we may not be able to see the footage that well, is made up for my the constant information being fed through to us, and the footage of what we can see on our screens, is unusual for us anyway, so really we do not miss out.
Even though many nature programmes do use the technique of interviews, David Attenborough's documentaries do not include any. The only time that it is not a voiceover is if he is actually showed on the documentary himself, saying most probably what he would during the voiceover - however this could have been done as a last minute decision during post-production to make up for something that is unable to be masked such as a lack of footage, and sometimes these cannot be helped especially for a documentary being filmed very deep into the ocean, these things cannot be helped so improvisation must be used. Nevertheless, it is nice to put the face to the voiceover, even though we know who he is, and many will know what he looks like - a break of imagery is always a nice change during a programme.
Even though many nature programmes do use the technique of interviews, David Attenborough's documentaries do not include any. The only time that it is not a voiceover is if he is actually showed on the documentary himself, saying most probably what he would during the voiceover - however this could have been done as a last minute decision during post-production to make up for something that is unable to be masked such as a lack of footage, and sometimes these cannot be helped especially for a documentary being filmed very deep into the ocean, these things cannot be helped so improvisation must be used. Nevertheless, it is nice to put the face to the voiceover, even though we know who he is, and many will know what he looks like - a break of imagery is always a nice change during a programme.
The next documentary format I am going to be looking at is Observational. This format is when a group of filmmakers and camera crew follow around the characters featured within the show, observing the events that happen in their lives on a daily basis.
The documentary I have decided to look into is '16 and Pregnant' as I haven't ever watched this show before and intrigued to find out a little more as to how it is filmed, and put together during editing to be perceived to the viewers, as biased and subjectivity, or left open for opinion.
They are often filming their programme in schools, as this teen mums are literally teen mums, hence the title '16 and pregnant' however very few of the episodes I watched were as young as 16.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvyLUnCDCno)12-01-15
They are often filming their programme in schools, as this teen mums are literally teen mums, hence the title '16 and pregnant' however very few of the episodes I watched were as young as 16.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvyLUnCDCno)12-01-15
I noticed that most of the programmes for this documentary often start with introducing the teenage mums-to-be at about 4/5 months pregnant, and they continue to observe and film her and her life, up until the birth, the time of the birth and after as well.
Even though there are not any interviews, the girls and family/friends of the teenage mums-to-be are still shown telling the camera certain things, obviously a vox-pop type of question that the camera crew have asked them, but are just not included when all the footage are put together during post-production. I feel that this has been done to emphasise the realism of these teenagers and this is there life, even though it is being filmed and documented as if it were fictional. It keeps the realism of the subject topic within the documentary style.
In terms of different shot types, this observational documentary '16 and pregnant' they are of a broad spectrum. The shots are anything from long shots of family members having a heated debate with their young teen future mum, and there are also closeups of really intimate scenes such as the actual giving birth in the hospital. This creates a whole new level to the type of show, as it creates such an in-depth look into the featured young mums, and it makes it 100% real.
However, the majority of shots that I noticed are in all episodes of the series is the medium shots [including medium close-ups]. I do believe that the reason for this is because a lot of the footage is conversational; due to the format of documentary being observational, and obviously the characters involved are about to endure a big step of someones life, and a new era, hence a lot of conversational shots between family and friends, which would be the reason as to why the vast majority of shot types are medium close up/medium shots. This makes us as the audience feel more involved because it's from our point of view that we can watch the two (or more) characters talk.
However, the majority of shots that I noticed are in all episodes of the series is the medium shots [including medium close-ups]. I do believe that the reason for this is because a lot of the footage is conversational; due to the format of documentary being observational, and obviously the characters involved are about to endure a big step of someones life, and a new era, hence a lot of conversational shots between family and friends, which would be the reason as to why the vast majority of shot types are medium close up/medium shots. This makes us as the audience feel more involved because it's from our point of view that we can watch the two (or more) characters talk.
Performative styles of documentaries are subjective. They are the experience and emotional response to the rest of us as viewers. They are strongly personal, unconventional. They may also give out examples of events which have been specifically been done in order to make us experience what it may be like, and to have a certain perspective on the world which isn't ours personally.
Above is 'Supersize Me' an American-based documentary about the horrendous diet of todays population. The idea of this style and performance style documentaries in general is that it emphasises all aspects of the subject in focus- in this instance the main guy takes himself and lives off of only McDonalds for a month and shows us all what an impact it has on his life; emphasising the topic to its fullest.
So the types of footage that you would typically find in a performative style documentary, such as this one [Supersize Me] is the filmmaker/documentary creator is in front of the camera oppose to behind it like during a expository, and David Attenborough's 'Blue Planet' where he is rarely, if not ever seen during the documentary.
Throughout their time of making the documentary, the producer [and also presenter/character in front of the camera] this style means that they are constantly updating their performance and explaining the process of the documentary that is in hand. This makes it the type of documentary that it is. In this case, for Supersize Me, Morgan Spurlock talks us through his daily intake of McDonalds on a daily basis across the period of time that the documentary is being filmed for. He also interacts with professionals within the health profession, who informs him [and us as an audience, naturally, as it is being filmed at the same time] on the effects it is having on his body - this gives the documentary more of a larger impact on what we as a nation are doing to our bodies.
Due to this type of documentary being made to stress a specific subject, as performative style documentaries generally are, this means that because of the various amounts of places he's going, and professional people he's having to talk with it means that their is a wide variety of shot types.
For example, during the scenes where he is talking to a doctor, there is a lot of medium shots to get them both in, and a good 'conversational shot' to see them both discussing issues. But when he is just in his car about to devour his 100th Big Mac from McDonalds, its more of a closeup as it's wherever he is at the time, e.g..in the drive through in his car which would be the type of shot would naturally be some sort of close-up shot.
At 1:07:50 it shows how roughly filmed this style of documentary is. Because he is the film-maker, and due to this subject being health, it may mean that other members with big camera and filming equipment are not able to go into the room with him, which would mean that to ensure he had some sort of footage he'd have to film himself using a small hand-held camera, and possibly need to be quite discrete with it, or even have a hidden camera on his person. However, this second circumstance could be harder in this case as he's having to take all of his clothing off in order to have his health assessed and be weighed.
For example, during the scenes where he is talking to a doctor, there is a lot of medium shots to get them both in, and a good 'conversational shot' to see them both discussing issues. But when he is just in his car about to devour his 100th Big Mac from McDonalds, its more of a closeup as it's wherever he is at the time, e.g..in the drive through in his car which would be the type of shot would naturally be some sort of close-up shot.
At 1:07:50 it shows how roughly filmed this style of documentary is. Because he is the film-maker, and due to this subject being health, it may mean that other members with big camera and filming equipment are not able to go into the room with him, which would mean that to ensure he had some sort of footage he'd have to film himself using a small hand-held camera, and possibly need to be quite discrete with it, or even have a hidden camera on his person. However, this second circumstance could be harder in this case as he's having to take all of his clothing off in order to have his health assessed and be weighed.
Interactive Documentaries is similar to performative in a way that the film maker/producer of the documentary is the main 'character' in front of the camera, presenting the footage. Therefore the concentration we as an audience focus on, and what is emphasised is on the character who they are interacting with, or subject that the documentary is about.
The documentary that I have chosen to look at for this interactive format is the 10 part film called 'Living with Michael Jackson'. During this documentary a British journalist called Martin Bashir spent a matter of 8 months interviewing Michael, from May 2002 to January 2003. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eYHVVgy5c]. 16-01-15
This screenshot is a clear example as to the journalist, Martin talking with Michael during the very first day of their filing from now for the next 8 months. At this point they're climbing trees in Michael's back garden, and this is a good place for Martin to start, as it makes the documentary unusual and interesting from the onset. Martin then goes on to ask Michael if he often does odd antics in his own garden very often, and if thats what he enjoys at this stage; this style of interview means its humorous but at the same time he is sill asking him a serious question and doing it in a professional way, which makes us believe it is still a 'factual' documentary and not just an excuse to find out what Michael Jackson does in his spare time (even though thats what it really is, he Martin has to ensure that this doesn't come across so casually).
Here is a scene from Part 2 of the documentary. As you can see Martin is again interviewing Michael, and I noticed that he does actually go very deeply into the childhood and 'danger area' of Michaels young fame era - which at the end of the day is the subject all of us really want to know. However, even though during this format of documentary interviews do tend to dominate the documentary, they are often still informal, and just questions after question following the answer before.
However, there are not many times of the interview that interviewer Martin is actually featured on the camera, and the shots are on Michael for the whole interview, which is a very long time but it allows us to connect with him while he speaks out about the hard questions being asked, which allows us to see all of his emotions, and even better seeing as the shot time is a medium close-up of his face and shoulders so we can see his face very clearly.
However, there are not many times of the interview that interviewer Martin is actually featured on the camera, and the shots are on Michael for the whole interview, which is a very long time but it allows us to connect with him while he speaks out about the hard questions being asked, which allows us to see all of his emotions, and even better seeing as the shot time is a medium close-up of his face and shoulders so we can see his face very clearly.
While I was watching this documentary, I noticed that this format, interactive, uses archive materials such as the footage from Michael in 'The Jackson 5' were a massive hit, and did a lot of touring and always featured on music shows such as the likes of 'The Top of the Pops' etc. By this being included as an element of this style of documentary it allows the film to be broken up, and sort it gives us a break of visuals, which makes the documentary become more interesting.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkidl8CZsOw] 16-01-15
In terms of the sound of this film, the 1-on-1 interviews include synchronised sound recordings - so this means that due to the talking being crisp and clear while filming, it allows them to use this straight in with the footage and not have to do any sort of voiceover to mask the bad recording during the interview.
A different sound element that is also included in this documentary, is the use of a voiceover. This is shown at 03:30-03:40 where Martin talks about Michael and his on-going events which means that we have informative information that can go off-track a little, while the filming is still being done. This brings a sense of realism to the whole documentary as they can show on-going events as well as information being fed to us. This also shows us that this type of documentary definitely fits into the interactive category of documentary, as many elements fit into the criteria.
In terms of the sound of this film, the 1-on-1 interviews include synchronised sound recordings - so this means that due to the talking being crisp and clear while filming, it allows them to use this straight in with the footage and not have to do any sort of voiceover to mask the bad recording during the interview.
A different sound element that is also included in this documentary, is the use of a voiceover. This is shown at 03:30-03:40 where Martin talks about Michael and his on-going events which means that we have informative information that can go off-track a little, while the filming is still being done. This brings a sense of realism to the whole documentary as they can show on-going events as well as information being fed to us. This also shows us that this type of documentary definitely fits into the interactive category of documentary, as many elements fit into the criteria.
The final element I feel really does stand out during this style of documentary, is the fact that the film maker/directer, is not always visible on the camera, while doing interviews, but depending on the interview subject he will, occasionally, be in the shot. An example of this would be the screen shots above, so Martin is featured in the far right hand side of the camera lens and is therefore in the shot. Whereas on more serious interviews where Martin is talking to Michael about more sensitive subject topics, he is not in the shot until a proper full on head shot is put on him by the camera man/crew. This differentiates the two different kinds of ways that he has chosen for it to be filmed, in order for us to understand the formalities of each individual subjects.
A Docudrama is my favourite genre of a documentary. I believe that the use of acting based on a real story creates realism as well as sensitivity towards the real people who had to go through this story showing through, and making it in even more interesting as you can't believe something that is being 're-enacted' actually once took place and happened. You could say a docudrama is a not classed to be called or perceived as a drama, or at least of how we know them stereotypically, such as the soaps. A focus on real events and real people presented in a dramatized way, differentiates the two kinds of 'dramas' we can associate our own knowledge with.
The docudrama I have chosen to look at, which was on recently, and definitely made an impact on me was BBC3's (which links in with who we are basing our documentary on producing for) called 'Murdered by My Boyfriend' this was a one of docudrama about domestic abuse, and a young woman hoping to make something out of her life, but having a child young, suffers the after-math of a violent relationship she tried to get out of, and unfortunately she lost the battle, as her ex-boyfriend ended up murdering her.
The docudrama I have chosen to look at, which was on recently, and definitely made an impact on me was BBC3's (which links in with who we are basing our documentary on producing for) called 'Murdered by My Boyfriend' this was a one of docudrama about domestic abuse, and a young woman hoping to make something out of her life, but having a child young, suffers the after-math of a violent relationship she tried to get out of, and unfortunately she lost the battle, as her ex-boyfriend ended up murdering her.
A docudrama would have 3 potential types of narrative structures; open, closed and circular. This docudrama in particular is closed, which means that the documentary is clearly 'tight' so that the audience is able to see from quite an early stage that it is likely to end during the same documentary. A big clue towards this is how many parts of the documentary there is, and often the more parts the docudrama, the more they tend to leave it on a cliffhanger, whereas in one whole full docudrama like this one, it starts and ends all in the hour its aired.
The filmmakers tend to make it quite clear, during a closed narrative style documentary to the audience who the characters are and what kinds of roles they play within the documentary, for example the violent boyfriend of this documentary is very early on perceived to be a bit edgy with a controlling personality, whereas the female/girlfriend is controlled easily, and plays the victim.
The filmmakers tend to make it quite clear, during a closed narrative style documentary to the audience who the characters are and what kinds of roles they play within the documentary, for example the violent boyfriend of this documentary is very early on perceived to be a bit edgy with a controlling personality, whereas the female/girlfriend is controlled easily, and plays the victim.
The conventions of the use of camera shots during this documentary style are often close-ups (medium close ups/medium shots included). I think this is to make more of an impact, and in my opinion - from my experience after watching this docudrama that is definitely the case and I feel as though, as a member of the audience you feel like you are more involved in the characters emotional feelings and it gets to the point where you almost feel the exact emotions that they are, and what they are trying to portray.
At the beginning of the second section of this documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1YIch-Qadk) 19-01-15, it shows scenes of the characters during a night out in their local bar/club. The convention of this styled documentary have made it look as though the person filming this scene is another person in amongst these characters. This could therefore mean that this was recorded using something like a hand-held camera, to give the realism effect; slightly being knocked around, naturally. Oppose to a heavier large camera filming them with possible support of a tripod. During this scene with the (possible) use of a handheld camera, they use a lot of left to right panning to show the whole scene during the conversation oppose to cutting up the shots which would make it appear to be more like a factual style documentary.
Here, I think that even though this would have been realistic, in the sense this was what the real thing looked like during the time of the situation actually happening but there is a good chance that it could have been emphasised for the use of being made into a drama/type of film. The darker scenes are during the scenes of the boyfriend which gives the impression and feeling that this character is the 'villain', and the bad guy - 'the one to watch out for'. All of these different elements that the film makers are able to use from the outside world to bring as much of the real thing to life, as much as possible without it actually being the real thing.
The very beginning of this documentary is graphics (writing) which also features a voiceover of a narrater, talking over the top, saying what the text reads. After the narrator has spoken the introducing text piece, the main character of the girl begins to talk, about what you're basically about to watch during this hour long docudrama. Alongside these two starting components, there is also the most vivid sound of her being killed, which is obviously unknown as to what it is at this stage, and leaves it open for us as the audience to continue to watch, if we want to find out what this scene is, and how it is revealed. And another element that has been placed in the introduction of the documentary is the use of eery instrumental music which sounds like a piano - this highness all emotions even before any characters have spoken. I do think that these conventions would be the typical process in most individual docudrama's as its the guidelines and ethics towards a docudrama are much more sensitive than any of the other categories. This being because peoples names, and reputations are being put on the line, whether they are still alive or not. This means that it is essential it is a 'remake' and has all been re-enacted and some parts may have been added or taken away for the pleasure of the viewer, and perhaps for the decision made by the family members of the subjects involved.
The final style of documentary format that I have looked at is called a Reflective documentary. During this style of documentary, the film maker is also the presenter, and acknowledges the fact they are in front of the camera. The film maker will be the narrater, so to speak, throughout the documentary informing the audiences on the footage whether they're featured in it at that moment in time or not.
This style of documentary is usually known to be together with another style of documentary called 'experimental documentaries' - as they're similar in the sense that the viewers watch the documentary for the way it is created just as much, if not more so than the actual content itself.
This style of documentary is usually known to be together with another style of documentary called 'experimental documentaries' - as they're similar in the sense that the viewers watch the documentary for the way it is created just as much, if not more so than the actual content itself.
I have decided to use Louis Theroux and his wide variety of documentaries - of which were quite difficult to watch on Youtube and other streaming video websites due to offensive footage - which alone tells us that his documentaries are potentially very controversial. But this is what he is now renowned for, during all of his documentaries.
Louis is very casual in the way he interviews the characters within each of his documentaries, as in they would probably not even consider it an interview, which would bring the most and best out of people, and considering how controversial his documentaries are, I would believe, over a matter of time, he's figured this is the best way to get information from people.
Throughout my time watching the (few) documentaries of Louis', I felt as though he got involved in some activities in each episode, to ensure he is himself, documenting. But, a lot of the time he doesn't get involved which means that he is slightly out of the main "limelight"; he becomes impartial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVTmt1pa7xI 19-01-15
From 1:40 - 2:00, the footage gives us, as the viewers an idea towards the fact that this kind of documentary faces these kind of blips, and it is all part of the way the style of documentary is formatted to make it the way it is. The cameraman still continued to film even though the interviewee/film subject was pushing the camera away for it not to be filmed. During this small time frame, I also noticed Louis' reactions were very muted and he continued with the subject even though he knew the footage would be rough, as this creates the realism of the documentary, and thats what he wants us to see, and be able to understand.
Louis is very casual in the way he interviews the characters within each of his documentaries, as in they would probably not even consider it an interview, which would bring the most and best out of people, and considering how controversial his documentaries are, I would believe, over a matter of time, he's figured this is the best way to get information from people.
Throughout my time watching the (few) documentaries of Louis', I felt as though he got involved in some activities in each episode, to ensure he is himself, documenting. But, a lot of the time he doesn't get involved which means that he is slightly out of the main "limelight"; he becomes impartial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVTmt1pa7xI 19-01-15
From 1:40 - 2:00, the footage gives us, as the viewers an idea towards the fact that this kind of documentary faces these kind of blips, and it is all part of the way the style of documentary is formatted to make it the way it is. The cameraman still continued to film even though the interviewee/film subject was pushing the camera away for it not to be filmed. During this small time frame, I also noticed Louis' reactions were very muted and he continued with the subject even though he knew the footage would be rough, as this creates the realism of the documentary, and thats what he wants us to see, and be able to understand.
This was the footage captured at the point where the subject was not willing to be filmed, however Louis' didn't act any differently as he knew what was most important was being recording still - this was the sound and the words coming from the interviewee's mouth which is more vital and important than seeing his face.
Having watched clips from a variety of different documentaries of Louis concerning different subjects, they often involve shots like this which shows that this style of documentary is all about realism, and trying to show things within the footage exactly as they are, oppose to cutting and editing certain parts during post-production to envision a different way for an acquired portrayal that the film maker wants to put out there, and come across to with the audience. With Louis' documentaries, his idea of portraying his footage is by doing nothing to it, and people will be shocked by the harshness of reality, which he has captured.
Having watched clips from a variety of different documentaries of Louis concerning different subjects, they often involve shots like this which shows that this style of documentary is all about realism, and trying to show things within the footage exactly as they are, oppose to cutting and editing certain parts during post-production to envision a different way for an acquired portrayal that the film maker wants to put out there, and come across to with the audience. With Louis' documentaries, his idea of portraying his footage is by doing nothing to it, and people will be shocked by the harshness of reality, which he has captured.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzbz0HDVKEs 20-01-15
For this documentary, because of the realism about and towards the whole thing, the camera shots are literally like a person. For example, in the link and screenshot above, Louis and his team are in the Hilton hotel, and are being toured around, therefore this subject means that we need to see all of the surroundings, and the types of shots vary from long shots of the background and room space, to medium shots of the other characters and Louis himself. The camera is mostly eye level or just below, which suggests that the camera is a handheld camera. This would make sense as it allows the camera man to capture all footage from a persons perspective as if it was us walking around, almost like a constant point of view shot, but of the vast majority of the documentary.
Overall, I think that this style of documentary and interactive style documentaries such as the one I looked into about Michael Jackson, are most similar, and the way they are done in terms of camera shots and point of view style. Only the interactive documentary has more one-on-one set up interviews whereas Louis just goes with whatever happens, and doesn't plan for anything, and I also think interactive style documentary cuts and edits, not a lot, but more so than what is done in reflective documentary.
For this documentary, because of the realism about and towards the whole thing, the camera shots are literally like a person. For example, in the link and screenshot above, Louis and his team are in the Hilton hotel, and are being toured around, therefore this subject means that we need to see all of the surroundings, and the types of shots vary from long shots of the background and room space, to medium shots of the other characters and Louis himself. The camera is mostly eye level or just below, which suggests that the camera is a handheld camera. This would make sense as it allows the camera man to capture all footage from a persons perspective as if it was us walking around, almost like a constant point of view shot, but of the vast majority of the documentary.
Overall, I think that this style of documentary and interactive style documentaries such as the one I looked into about Michael Jackson, are most similar, and the way they are done in terms of camera shots and point of view style. Only the interactive documentary has more one-on-one set up interviews whereas Louis just goes with whatever happens, and doesn't plan for anything, and I also think interactive style documentary cuts and edits, not a lot, but more so than what is done in reflective documentary.