Accuracy:
The accuracy refers to how close to the truth the documentary remains, whatever the subject is: how accurate it is is defined by how true to life and the topic it remains.
An accurate documentary will not deviate from the truth at any point, a prime example for this would be a 'Cinema verite' documentary; focused on suddenly turning the camera on out of nowhere and capturing what's happening.
An example of an inaccurate documentary would be Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine'. In one particular scene, Michael opens up a bank account which offers him a real working gun for doing so; allowing him to leave the bank armed.
This strongly conveys his message that America is too fond of their weapons, it shows the audience how easy it is for him to be on the street with a weapon in no time. The reason this is inaccurate is because of the fact that this would be impossible, there would be countless checks and clearances to run before he could actually be eligible to receive the weapon. Mental health and background checks would take place, ensuring the weapon was going to safe hands.
This bends the truth, focusing more on entertainment than realism; making it inaccurate. The audience comes into a documentary expecting truthful facts with hard evidence, an abolishment of this format can put some viewers off.
Balance:
Balance in a documentary is equal attention and chance given to both sides of an argument, if two opposing sides are presented; the documentary won't focus it's attention on one in particular. It will allow both opposing sides to explain and convey their message/opinion.
This is an uncommon theme in documentaries, you'll usually find that they seek one particular topic and highlight it in particular from one angle; perhaps giving some brief accounts of the opposite opinion.
This leads to the next point:
Impartiality:
Some documentaries achieve this balance, educating the audience on the topic without taking a specific side. An example of this would be 'Lock Up' the documentary about a maximum security prison.
In this documentary series a film crew gets full access to the max security prison, filming the lives of the prisoners and their guards.
The reason this holds an impartial view is because of the idea the prisoners convey that they are "innocent" or simply "Good people" and the narrator never disputes this for a moment. It lets the audience decide for themselves what they determine is the truth rather than expressing an opinion.
Objectivity:
The opposite to this would be objectivity, this refers to when there is a clear mission and purpose behind the video. An example of this would be "Supersize Me":
In this documentary Morgan Spurlock takes on a MCDIET, meaning all he eats for every meal is a large McDonalds feast. The purpose of this documentary is for Morgan to prove how unhealthy and damaging McDonald's can be on your health, this is what he sets out to prove from the opening and ends up proving through presenting the detrimental effects his body presents.
It is objective because he sets out from the get go to prove this idea, he doesn't suggest that there will be any other affect than a damaging one.
Subjectivity:
Subjectivity in a documentary is similar, but closer to a personal opinion or viewpoint. If a documentary is subjective, it will present the topic from one side; rather than remaining balanced. An example of this would be "The White Helmets":
In this short documentary we see the heroic "White Helmets" dive into the midst of open war to pull people out of rubble and falling buildings following bombings or missile attacks. The documentary remains very one sided, it's been criticised for almost being propaganda.
We see the white helmets doing their work with an extremely dramatised format, the music is upsetting and generally creates a very shocking mood when partnered with the disturbing images.
The people will often state things like "It's the Russians!" before a missile devastates a town and we are forced to watch the aftermath, the reason this is subjective is because we are forced to sympathise with them and only them rather than being given a full political rundown on why this might be happening. There is no explanation as to whether it may or may not in fact be the Russians and why they would do such a thing, this sheds an evil light on the Russians, making the audience believe they are the villain; which is potentially incorrect.
Opinion:
Someone's own personal decision is sometimes highlighted in a documentary, an example of this would be in the famous Louis Theroux documentaries. In one of his episodes focused on an extremist Christian group:
We are not only given their extremely strong opinions, but rather than remaining impartial; Louis constantly delivers his own personal opinion on the situation.
There are many points where he will come out and openly state something like: "I disagree with that" or even "I don't think God is real"
This is an interesting affect for the audience because it means that who we are supposed to be listening to and learning from has his own strong opinion that we don't necessarily need to perceive as correct. He provides no solid evidence that his opinions are even "correct" So we are completely left to believe what we want.
But with Louis being 'the good guy' whom we are supposed to learn from, it makes it very difficult to disagree with what he states.
Bias:
When a documentary is Bias, it leans towards one opinion as if it is correct. This is similar to subjectivity because the documentary presents it's own linear viewpoint that the audience is expected to believe. Bias would also apply to "The White Helmets"
This is because we aren't given the run down of the situation from any other perspective than those who are suffering and the white helmets themselves, making it very hard to feel anything other than sympathy.
Representation:
Ethnic disability how are people represented (Benefits)
Access:
This is when the subject of the documentary allows the director to film them. This essentially means that whoever appears on the screen has confirmed that they are okay with being filmed.
This leads onto the next point:
Privacy:
The subject might not want to actually be shown, this is why you will normally see a blurred out face or altered voice; this is to protect someone's identity and privacy per their demand.
Ensuring that someone's privacy is no being breached and they have consented is very important in documentaries like Louis Theroux's, this is because he often travels into the homes of the subjects he's interviewing; getting up close and personal and sometimes even spending nights in their homes.
It is important that they have allowed this, other wise he is purely invading their personal lives and he will likely get thrown out; losing potential footage.
Contract with viewer:
This is the filmmakers duty to the audience to tell the truth, coming into a documentary; you have a certain expectation as an audience member that what you are about to be told is all truthful and factual and will be backed up with some kind of evidence.
If the director chooses to bend the truth a little bit; giving incorrect statistics or facts, or even hiring actors. We are still likely to believe it is true because it is still of the documentary genre.
This is a direct breach of the contract with the viewer, it's lying to the audience to spark their interest.
The subject might not want to actually be shown, this is why you will normally see a blurred out face or altered voice; this is to protect someone's identity and privacy per their demand.
Ensuring that someone's privacy is no being breached and they have consented is very important in documentaries like Louis Theroux's, this is because he often travels into the homes of the subjects he's interviewing; getting up close and personal and sometimes even spending nights in their homes.
It is important that they have allowed this, other wise he is purely invading their personal lives and he will likely get thrown out; losing potential footage.
Contract with viewer:
This is the filmmakers duty to the audience to tell the truth, coming into a documentary; you have a certain expectation as an audience member that what you are about to be told is all truthful and factual and will be backed up with some kind of evidence.
If the director chooses to bend the truth a little bit; giving incorrect statistics or facts, or even hiring actors. We are still likely to believe it is true because it is still of the documentary genre.
This is a direct breach of the contract with the viewer, it's lying to the audience to spark their interest.
News:
How do documentaries and their factual nature compare to the news? Something made solely to deliver nothing but the truth:
Studio news readers:
The first most prevalent difference to a documentary would be a studio news reader:
These presenters introduce the story directly to the viewer, it can be compared to the expository style of documentary because of the 'voice of god' presenter.
The presenter being authoritative in an opening friendly manner encourages the audience to listen to what they're saying; it's a similar affect to being taught by a teacher.
This method of factual programming is riskier than a documentary, this is because it is live rather than pre-recorded. Messing up in this live state cannot be erased.
Field reporters:
A field reporter provides further insight into the story from a location usually relevant to the story
This develops the story, giving the audience an illustrative and auditory addition to the story by continuing the speech while including a relevant background.
Another problem with this is of course how it is live, there are countless situations in which somebody messes with the reporter; sometimes even shouting something into the microphone.
Links to studio:
Linking back to the studio is the transition from this field report back to the live studio report, this will normally be prefaced by the presenter stating "Back to you"
Mode of address to viewer:
The mode of address is the way in which the presenter speaks to the audience, as stated; you can expect that this is going to be formal and informative, as if it's a teacher.
Interestingly, what you'll notice is that when the station/channel changes, you can expect that the tone will change. This is comparable to how 'The Sun' and 'The Times' are both written differently to account for the dramatically different audiences.
Interviewing:
Interviews:
The format of interviews conducted for television is slightly different to documentaries, especially considering how they are normally live and with a stricter time constriction.
The kind of interviews you can expect would be similar to a documentary, experts and witnesses would normally be called on to develop the story and the viewers understanding.
How do documentaries and their factual nature compare to the news? Something made solely to deliver nothing but the truth:
Studio news readers:
The first most prevalent difference to a documentary would be a studio news reader:
These presenters introduce the story directly to the viewer, it can be compared to the expository style of documentary because of the 'voice of god' presenter.
The presenter being authoritative in an opening friendly manner encourages the audience to listen to what they're saying; it's a similar affect to being taught by a teacher.
This method of factual programming is riskier than a documentary, this is because it is live rather than pre-recorded. Messing up in this live state cannot be erased.
Field reporters:
A field reporter provides further insight into the story from a location usually relevant to the story
This develops the story, giving the audience an illustrative and auditory addition to the story by continuing the speech while including a relevant background.
Another problem with this is of course how it is live, there are countless situations in which somebody messes with the reporter; sometimes even shouting something into the microphone.
Links to studio:
Linking back to the studio is the transition from this field report back to the live studio report, this will normally be prefaced by the presenter stating "Back to you"
Mode of address to viewer:
The mode of address is the way in which the presenter speaks to the audience, as stated; you can expect that this is going to be formal and informative, as if it's a teacher.
Interestingly, what you'll notice is that when the station/channel changes, you can expect that the tone will change. This is comparable to how 'The Sun' and 'The Times' are both written differently to account for the dramatically different audiences.
Interviewing:
Interviews:
The format of interviews conducted for television is slightly different to documentaries, especially considering how they are normally live and with a stricter time constriction.
The kind of interviews you can expect would be similar to a documentary, experts and witnesses would normally be called on to develop the story and the viewers understanding.
This interview with MP Chloe Smith for example is conducted so that Paxman (The interviewer) can dig deep and try to understand the logic of the decisions behind the corresponding events from someone who will actually have these answers.
The other kind of interview would be a witness, you could normally expect this to be conducted by a field reporter, perhaps after a large event that people of the general public witnessed.
An eyewitness will describe the situation from their perspective explaining the events in detail to further the audiences understanding.
Report structure:
Interviews also commonly follow a structure, the interview will run a specific course and end in a pre-empted wind up or conclusion.
The general order of events is:
-Intro
The introduction to interview, greeting the interviewee(s) and establishing the topic.
-Developmental questions
Questions that push the conversation forward, without becoming too personal or pushy.
-Confidence building
Questions that soften up the interviewee, making them feel comfortable; in control.
-Key Questions
Questions that really nail the topic, the hard hitting questions that the audience came to see.
-Summary
Summarising what has been said, a chance to clarify.
-Wind up
The conclusion, saying goodbye and thanking your guests.
Actuality footage:
Actuality footage is when the broadcast cuts to real life pre-recorded footage, this is otherwise referred to as archive footage.
This is done for a similar reason to interviews, it enhances the audiences understanding and provides and illustrative example for what the audience is being shown. Similar to the expository format.
Documentary:
Documentary formats:
There are many alternate formats in which documentaries are created, the change in the codes and conventions alternate the genre and overall style of the production.
Poetic:
The poetic documentary was created in the 1920s as a response to the fiction film, it is commonly done in a montage format boosted by the soviet montage theory of the time and does not include a voiceover.
An example would be "Rain" from Joris Ivens, this movie shuns the traditional use of storylines and characters and instead focuses on utilising patterns and rhythms to create a pleasing and engaging film.
Expository:
An expository documentary is in the title, it 'exposes' something to shed a light on a topic for audiences. They most commonly include a voiceover referred to as a 'voice of God' or a 'voice of authority', they will also use illustrative footage to back up the points that they are making. An example would be March of the Penguins:
This cinematic documentary includes a voiceover from Morgan Freeman, while he describes what's happening; the background footage illustrates what he's saying.
Observational:
Observational focuses on purely observing the subject(s), the director remains distant from what's happening and does not get involved or alter anything.
It is somewhat of a fly on the wall format where it essentially spies on the subjects, this is otherwise referred to as "Cinema verite" Which is the idea of turning on the camera and just recording what you're witnessing without altering anything or resorting to dramatizing or using actors.
Observational documentaries also will not obviously involve the camera crew, meaning the interviewee's will not be at all aware of the crew.
An example of this would be "The Real Beckhams"
This documentary follows the family around, studying their personal lives in their own element rather than stopping them for interviews.
Reflexive:
Opposite to the observational, a reflexive documentary draws attention to the fact that it is constructed. It might show the cameramen and even acknowledge them.
It often uses dramatization and focuses on suggestion rather than factual evidence. It borrows techniques from fiction films in terms of the way it is formatted with dramatic intent.
Performative:
A performative documentary is formatted like an investigation; the presenter uses "I" during the commentary and normally points out the creation of the documentary. Including the camera crew.
It normally contains someone's own personal subjective experience. An example would once again be "Supersize me"
This is because of the way Morgan presents each situation, he uses "I" and talks about the personal effects that the McDonald's food is having on him.
Participatory:
Where the director/presenter is very involved and interviews the subjects themselves, normally in an informal manner.
The presenter will normally emulate the work of an anthropologist (analysis of human beings) by closely studying the people they are interviewing and trying to determine in a humane sense why they would have the beliefs and opinions they do.
Louis Theroux's documentaries would be an example of this, this is because he interacts with his subjects in an informal manner; often prompting them to answer deeply personal questions as if he is studying them psychologically.
Documentary formats:
There are many alternate formats in which documentaries are created, the change in the codes and conventions alternate the genre and overall style of the production.
Poetic:
The poetic documentary was created in the 1920s as a response to the fiction film, it is commonly done in a montage format boosted by the soviet montage theory of the time and does not include a voiceover.
An example would be "Rain" from Joris Ivens, this movie shuns the traditional use of storylines and characters and instead focuses on utilising patterns and rhythms to create a pleasing and engaging film.
Expository:
An expository documentary is in the title, it 'exposes' something to shed a light on a topic for audiences. They most commonly include a voiceover referred to as a 'voice of God' or a 'voice of authority', they will also use illustrative footage to back up the points that they are making. An example would be March of the Penguins:
This cinematic documentary includes a voiceover from Morgan Freeman, while he describes what's happening; the background footage illustrates what he's saying.
Observational:
Observational focuses on purely observing the subject(s), the director remains distant from what's happening and does not get involved or alter anything.
It is somewhat of a fly on the wall format where it essentially spies on the subjects, this is otherwise referred to as "Cinema verite" Which is the idea of turning on the camera and just recording what you're witnessing without altering anything or resorting to dramatizing or using actors.
Observational documentaries also will not obviously involve the camera crew, meaning the interviewee's will not be at all aware of the crew.
An example of this would be "The Real Beckhams"
This documentary follows the family around, studying their personal lives in their own element rather than stopping them for interviews.
Reflexive:
Opposite to the observational, a reflexive documentary draws attention to the fact that it is constructed. It might show the cameramen and even acknowledge them.
It often uses dramatization and focuses on suggestion rather than factual evidence. It borrows techniques from fiction films in terms of the way it is formatted with dramatic intent.
Performative:
A performative documentary is formatted like an investigation; the presenter uses "I" during the commentary and normally points out the creation of the documentary. Including the camera crew.
It normally contains someone's own personal subjective experience. An example would once again be "Supersize me"
This is because of the way Morgan presents each situation, he uses "I" and talks about the personal effects that the McDonald's food is having on him.
Participatory:
Where the director/presenter is very involved and interviews the subjects themselves, normally in an informal manner.
The presenter will normally emulate the work of an anthropologist (analysis of human beings) by closely studying the people they are interviewing and trying to determine in a humane sense why they would have the beliefs and opinions they do.
Louis Theroux's documentaries would be an example of this, this is because he interacts with his subjects in an informal manner; often prompting them to answer deeply personal questions as if he is studying them psychologically.
Realism:
When a documentary strives for realism, it presents ideas that are purely factual. This would for example mean that all of the interviews are true; with real people rather than actors. Then all of the facts, figures and statistics would be well informed rather than randomly generated.
This format normally negates a 'Gatekeeper', this is essentially someone who decides all of the content that the audience will be seeing. The gatekeeper would choose what is censored and what makes it into the video. They may for example, as is similar to the first point (Accuracy) selectively remove content to change the shape and message of the overall video.
Dramatisation:
Dramatization would be the effect of fictionalising a documentary in this way, the focus of dramatization is to engage the viewer and peak their interest. It gives a cinematic feel like you'd normally expect from a fiction movie.
The problem with this is that it is arguably no longer a factual program, removing the realism turns it more into a fictional drama.
Narrativisation:
The narrativisation of a documentary is how it is turned into a structured understandable narrative, how the clips are compiled.
An example would be Supersize Me, this is because of the way that the story develops in a chronological order.
The problem remains here still, having this construction of a narrative like a fictional piece potentially could be seen as moving away from the factual program zone and more into the fictional drama zone.
When a documentary strives for realism, it presents ideas that are purely factual. This would for example mean that all of the interviews are true; with real people rather than actors. Then all of the facts, figures and statistics would be well informed rather than randomly generated.
This format normally negates a 'Gatekeeper', this is essentially someone who decides all of the content that the audience will be seeing. The gatekeeper would choose what is censored and what makes it into the video. They may for example, as is similar to the first point (Accuracy) selectively remove content to change the shape and message of the overall video.
Dramatisation:
Dramatization would be the effect of fictionalising a documentary in this way, the focus of dramatization is to engage the viewer and peak their interest. It gives a cinematic feel like you'd normally expect from a fiction movie.
The problem with this is that it is arguably no longer a factual program, removing the realism turns it more into a fictional drama.
Narrativisation:
The narrativisation of a documentary is how it is turned into a structured understandable narrative, how the clips are compiled.
An example would be Supersize Me, this is because of the way that the story develops in a chronological order.
The problem remains here still, having this construction of a narrative like a fictional piece potentially could be seen as moving away from the factual program zone and more into the fictional drama zone.
