Documentary Analysis

Documentary Analysis

Lift

Lift is the debut short film of producer Marc Isaacs. Mark sets up his camera in a lift in a tower block in London, a simple, normal apartment block. Marc then films people who enter the lift, which is odd if you're British, we just don't talk in lifts, that's just a matter of fact.

You really notice the discomfort  in the lift users at first, but when they relax so too does the atmosphere. We begin to witness the quiet, interesting synopsis of the British resident. Usually there's very little information you can gain from a stranger, but if you see that person every day for weeks and dare to ask some probing questions like Isaacs does, you get some really surprising insights into the people who occupy the plain, grey tower block.

The Lift represents the genre of participatory documentaries, these are documentaries that whilst having elements of observational and expository, include the filmmaker within the narrative. This can be as minor as the filmmaker's voice being heard behind the camera, prodding subjects with questions or cues - all the way to the filmmaker directly influencing the major actions of the narrative. The Lift uses most of these elements, although rather than influencing the narrative, Isaacs tries to aid the residents of the block in being more open with their personal stories, he doesn't write the narrative, he simply helps it feel more natural for the audience.

Most Hated Family In America Essay
 

Louis Theroux is an interactive documentary filmmaker. 'The most hated family in America' is a participatory documentary where Louis and his crew interact with the subject, in this case the subject is a family at the heart of the Westboro Baptist Church. The church is run by Fred Phelps and based in Topeka in Kansas. Louis interacts with the family by asking them questions, conducting interviews and he gets personal with the family to expose their way of life.

The main subjects in the documentary are the Phelps family and one in particular being Shirley the daughter of Fred Phelps and the main face of the documentary. She has raised her children (Jael and Becca) with her beliefs. Louis constantly tries to get through to the daughters with personal questions. Steve is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church after converting after once being a journalist visiting the family. Louis is one of the most seen in the documentary and in the interview he is frequently on camera seen interacting with the Phelps.

Religion is the main theme in the documentary however there are also issues raised by the family including homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church run a website called: www.godhatesfags.com and the posters presented by the family contain phrases such as 'God hates fags' and 'fag soldiers'. The family also believe soldiers are going to burn in hell for fighting in wars, they often picket dead soldiers funerals with pickets which would be highly offensive 'Fag Soldiers'. Another theme in the documentary is humanity and the controversy. The family take certain biblical interpretations and believe that every world tragedy has been Gods punishment. Contradiction is also a theme for example the family are religious yet often use swear words and vulgar terminology even in their church.

Louis Theroux has a small crew. We can tell this because of the style of the documentary. He almost fits himself right into their day to day life routines and this would not work with a big crew. Also there is no need for extra equipment as the documentary is designed to capture the family in their most natural and purest form and perhaps more cameras and crew would affect the behaviour of the family.

There is a wide range of documentary codes and conventions used in this documentary. Louis narrates the documentary with a voiceover throughout. There is footage of real events, nothing seems to be put on for the camera and the documentary is in a pure form. A convention of documentary making is that the footage is seen as real by the audience. Including natural sound and lighting into the documentary adds technicality of realism for example church choir singing, traffic sounds etc. Louis Theroux includes many interviews in the documentary and interacts with the family for entertainment reasons mainly and to expose the family more.

Theroux clearly achieves this as most of the audience experience anger and hate towards the family whilst watching it whilst others experience confusion. The documentary has been a big talking point on the internet through blogs and documentary views and anger is expressed towards the family by many people. The interview quite simply provoked an emotional response and entertained.

The documentary was very interesting as it draws the audience in with thoughts of confusion as to the beliefs of the family. It also entertains with humorous themes, for example when Louis has an interview with the Grandfather of the family-Phelps who is in charge of the church- none of the questions are answered seriously and the audience feel the awkwardness that Louis is experiencing.

The documentary contained contradicting themes for example the family are quite clearly very religious however do not care for the welfare of others or forgive others which is quite clearly in the Bible. Yet the family only focus on certain themes from the Bible (Sex, Wars etc) for example one of the Shirleys daughters states that if she got hit by a car then her father would be happy as she was being punished by God. They believe that all misfortunes are caused by God.

The daughter also seems brainwashed and confused, when Louis questions the hatred the family have towards homosexuals her response is that it is a sin and when Louis questioned which of the ten commandments stated this, her answer was adultery. The girl seemed very confused and Louis had an aim of changing the views of the family who seem to focus on elements of the bible and they do not picket towards any of the ten commandments 9yet only for soldiers, punishment and sexuality. Yet the church boasts to have the most knowledge of the Bible. It is almost as if the Church is living in the times of the Old Testament.

 

Catfish

When Catfish was released there was an abundance of issues surrounding the blur between reality documentaries and social media? To me, this film was so clever. It was filmed (or should I say edited) using all that Facebook has to offer; using a mouse to scroll over photos and the person’s name pops up etc.  Their target audience (which is also Facebook's target audience) could 100% relate and enjoy the film process because of these techniques used. The film makers have constantly defended the film as a documentary but there have definitely been a fair share of sceptics out there. Sceptics have even said “There’s a feeling that if events are so extraordinary then they must be manufactured”. To me that is an insane assumption. There is so much insanity and extraordinary things in this world and it’s sad that people think that that makes it fake. It’s also crazy to me that they think someone meeting someone on the internet and one of those people having a completely false identity is so out of this world. It honestly must be happening every day.  People use false identities all the time over the internet not just on social media sites but games as well.

Personally, I definitely thought that Catfish was real. I’m sure some scenes, especially the ones that were just the guys at home or going on the computer, would have been re-enacted. But according to the definition above that is what a documentary is?!  I also thought that this was definitely a documentary to educate their peers. This film left me feeling really gullible in a way, as Nev was feeling throughout the film and it left me with the same questions Nev was having during the time as well. To me this film almost seemed like it was trying and succeeding to put an attack against Facebook. Showing that with certain aspects of Facebook that make is so easy also means it makes it easy for people to deceive. Like facebook archive – it gives people the option of being able to go back and see what they wrote months before – this makes it easier for people to lie, exactly what happened in the movie. Due to the ease of Facebook, Angela was allowed to have several identities and look back on conversations as far back as she wanted to know what she told and what she didn’t.   On the other hand, the internet also made it possible for Nev to realise he was being duped due to the unlimited supply of information on every topic imaginable. Thanks to the internet and the digitisation of everything, Nev was able to realise that the songs “Megan” was sending him were copies of a professional singer. So really it’s a blessing and a curse.

People argue that the documentary genre is changing. I completely agree this, what I don’t agree with is how closed minded people seem about it; saying that the old documentary style is completely disappearing and a new type is taking its place.  I don’t think this will be the case. I think that some people will choose to change and others will stay the same, like everything else that is adapting.  Although Catfish might be about the internet I definitely still think it stuck to the old genre in regards to the type of film it was and the way it was filmed. In particular, academics have argued that documentaries are no longer a national cinematic form, a public service dedicated to the representation of place and public issues or is no longer an epistemologically secure project. Now, I’m not saying that Catfish covers all of these topics, but personally I think that Catfish most definitely relates to a public service relating to a public issue. The internet and Facebook in particular are huge public issues at the moment. Older generations don’t really understand it and younger generations trust it way too much.  All that documentaries are doing is adapting to the consumer. Our attention span is shorter we need things to get straight to the point and we need to be kept entertained, for arguments sake, let’s say Catfish was true, what is wrong with them filming/editing it in a way to entertain the audience. The point and the issue is still the same.

I think that at the end of the day documentaries whether they are online, like Kony 2012 or made to be a film like Catfish they are made to get people discussing the issues. It’s a shame that a lot of people can only discuss whether it was real or fake instead of the real issues behind it. I thought it was such a strong and necessary issue to bring to our generations view point that I couldn’t really care less if it was real or fake (although I do believe it was real) whether that specific instance was real or not the issues in Catfish are most certainly relevant. There are definitely people like Angela out there, and doing what she did every day. The film also brings up the issue of trust. Do we believe the film makers or not? Do we believe people we can’t physically see or hear? Catfish addresses this really well in the film as well, with all this new technology out there and the ease is which people can do and say things online – we do trust completely strangers way too much.