As I’ve mentioned in the past, I have a sort of love/hate relationship with blogging. I love the idea of connecting with other like-minded folks and providing my own commentary on films and filmmakers, however I’ve never been able to consistently uphold the level of dedication that seems to come so naturally to other bloggers. Sometimes it’s laziness, other times I just don’t have much to talk about. Having said that, I’m ALWAYS watching films, and usually it’s a good doc that inspires me to load up the ol’ wordpress page and share my deepest, most personal feelings with you all.
In this case, I thought I’d share some thoughts on the whole process of writing documentary reviews. First off, I am in no way an authority on this topic. In fact, I’m exactly the opposite. Sometimes I find it difficult to sum up and sort out my thoughts on what are some of the most challenging films I’ve seen. The topics can be pretty heavy, the information dense, and the technique inconsistent. How do these critics do it? Well apparently many of them don’t. AJ Schnack recently posed the question ‘Do Print Film Critics Matter Anymore When It Comes to Documentary?’ This is in reference to an article by Gregg Goldstein of the Hollywood Reporter, pointing out the fact that many major newspapers aren’t reviewing docs upon their theatrical release. Not that surprising I suppose. Maybe they find it as difficult as I do? If so, maybe they’ll appreciate my list of things to be mindful of when reviewing docs.
Being Critical.
For some reason it can be tough to be critical when it comes to documentaries. It’s pretty easy to get caught up in films that are topical, but in my opinion, controversial or socially relevant subject matter does not automatically make a good film. As for filmmaking technique, people simply don’t know what to look for. Most people have a certain idea of what a documentary SHOULD look like. It’s somewhere between a 20/20 segment and Cops. (I love Cops.) Personally, I love a great non-fiction film that challenges those expectations, but I know I’ve had many discussions with people who think that brilliant cinematography cannot exist within a documentary film.
Is it shallow to pick apart the technical aspects of a film that explores important social issues or tragic events? Last year I reviewed a film called ‘Marshall University: Ashes to Glory’. It looked at the horrible death of the Marshall University football who parished in a plane crash. The story is tragic but inspiring and has been made into TWO documentaries (as far as I know) and a feature film adaptation by none other than McG. Unfortunately, I ended up giving ‘Ashes to Glory’ one star out of four based entirely on technique. At first I felt sort of guilty for slamming a film that clearly set out to pay tribute to the victims of this horrible accident. Unfortunatley, as I watched this uninspired, dreadfully paced and painfully cheesy film, I couldn’t help but think that the story deserved better. A commentor named ‘herdcrazy’ left me a message:
“…please realize Deborah Novak did not have a Hollywood budget to work on. She had to scratch and crawl for funds. The music was originally composed and recorded on the spot. I agree with some of your remarks, but you really don’t understand the documentary genre. Documentaries are not made with a Hollywood flare. Their made for truth and honesty. Deborah Novak and John Witek and(sic) very good filmmakers and I applaud them for ASHES and the upcoming documentary about Marshall’s greatest coach, CAM HENDERSON.”
The first point of interest is the commentor’s name, ‘herdcrazy’. An implied reference to the Marshall football team, otherwise known as ‘The Herd’. Obviously this story hits close to home for this person, and therefore my concern for craft comes across as petty. I applaud the filmmakers for telling this story and congratulate them on finishing a film. That’s a very tough thing to accomplish. However, it doesn’t mean I have to like the film.
Knowing Your Subject Matter.
In the span of one week, I’d received two copies of films dealing with illegal immigrants looking for work in small town America. After reviewing one of them (Farmingville, read my review here) I really didn’t know what to say about the second. Suddenly my movie review becomes an editorial about my thoughts on illegal immigration, something I know very little about. (Aside from what I’d learnt from the film.) I find this happens pretty often. I’ll watch a documentary about a certain subject, be it abortion, bull riding, evangalism…suddenly I’m writing a universit paper on the migratory habits of penguins. Some films simply don’t leave much room for the analyzation of technical craft. This is why it’s such a thrill when a documentary manages to combine non-fiction elements with a cinematic approach. (Manda Bala most recently comes to mind.) The non-fiction world can be pretty notorious for multiple films dealing with similar subjects. Off the top of my head, The Lost Boys of Sudan and God Grew Tired of Us. (Don’t even get me started on the Iraq and Global Warming films.) What’s going to seperate these films for me? The presentation of the subject matter, not the subject matter itself.
Style Wars.
Just to expand upon this idea a little more; style can be just as important in the non-fiction world as it is in dramatic filmmaking. Whether the approach is slick or sloppy, there’s a dependence upon accomplished filmmaking to capture a story properly. I’m totally blown away by Robert Richardson’s cinematography in the trailer for Errol Morris latest film, ‘Standard Operating Procedure’. Morris has always been breaking down barriers in terms of style in doc filmmaking. His consistent use of Hollywood cinematographers has given his films a distinct look.
Creative use of music is also another major plus that is sometimes ignored in the non-fiction world. Again, Manda Bala automatically comes to mind with it’s crazy-good 60’s and 70’s Brazillian pop score. I was blown away by Paul Matthew Moore’s brilliant score for Robinson Devor’s Zoo. I also remember being 100% sold on the film Rank, simply because of the epic church organ score that so perfectly accompanied the rodeo footage.
I suppose it comes down to deciding if a film could have benefited from these elements. Afterall, not all documentaries will benefit from a rock score and flashy cinematography.
Genre Bending and the Importance of Truth.
Personally, I try not caught up in the definition of documentary. Lately there’s been a wave of films pushing the boundaries of non-fiction filmmaking, subsequently re-writing the definition of documentary. Films like Zoo, Touching the Void and Manda Bala have been blurring the lines between fiction and non-fiction, refusing to shy away from dramatic techniques in telling their stories. Personally, I love this new sense of creativity, but others might be put off by the ambiguity of it all. Critics who sense something is amiss will most likely spend the rest of the film trying to figure out what has been staged rather then letting themselves become absorbed by the story. For me, it’s a case by case basis. If I think I’m being manipulated in order to serve the filmmaker’s own political agenda, I’m certainly put off. However, I’m always open to interpretation and I think some creative filmmaking can work wonders for helping a viewer get into the minds of their subjects. Do I care that the interviews in Errol Morris’ ‘A Brief History of Time’ were conducted on soundstages, recreating the subjects offices? No. How is it any less honest than sitting someone in front of a marble backdrop?
The best examples of a documentary blurring the fiction-non-fiction lines is of course, Errol Morris’ ‘The Thin Blue Line’. The film investigates the murder of a cop and the subsequent arrest and prosecution of Randall Dale Adams, whom Morris believed was falsely accused and wrongly convicted. The evidence was revisited and re-examined with extreme attention to detail as the film utilized re-enactments to portray the different points of view. If you’re reading this site, you’re obviously aware that the film is held in high regard as one of the best documentaries of all time. Oddly enough, it didn’t qualify for a Academy Award nomination thanks to its dramatized elements. Morris has recently discussed his use of re-enactments in great detail on his New York Times blog. You can read more about it here.
Anyways, there’s a little taste of what sorts of things go through my head as I’m trying to share my thoughts on some of my favourite, and not so favourite, documentary films.
Documentary film making, in my opinion, is a little like quantum physics. The fact that there is a camera present changes the outcome.
So we have to be careful and critical, because in some ways the documentary is like the written word was back in the day, when the general notion was that if it is written in a book or a newspaper it must be true. When someone says or does something on film, we see only what happens in the frame the film maker chooses to show us.
Personally I love Documentaries because of the truth in them and because they open my eyes to people and things that I would otherwise miss. Not because of how they are made. But certainly it is always a joy to watch a film by people who know what they are doing, like f.x. Wardance.
The digital revolution has enabled a huge growth in documentary film making allowing me and people like me tell stories that would otherwise be unheard.
I like your site a lot JC so keep up the good work. And my beer offer stands.
Cheers mate
You make some great points, especially regarding the delicate nature of commenting on a documentary without dissecting the subject itself.
Of course the first act in making a documentary is choosing a subject, and you can always question a filmmakers justifications for focusing in on a certain subject. Having those personally involved challenging your own criticisms is always going to be problematic, but don’t by any means feel the need to censure your opinion.
A crude analogy is to say you’re criticising the story-teller not the story itself. It’s not a case of having ‘Hollywood flare’ or the antithesis of that, but rather finding a suitable ‘voice’ for the story to be told, and ultimately that means working with your own means. Big budget or no.
Keep up the blogging, much appreciated reading!
Nice post, Jay. Personally, I am not really into dissecting films, documentary or otherwise. When a film is over, I either liked it or I didn’t. The degree to which I liked it isn’t as important to me. Despite this, I enjoy reading reviews, especially ones by people like you who know their stuff, not so I can decide what to see and what not to see, but because I’m genuinely interested in what people like and dislike about films and why.
As with most online reviewers these days, the bigger question seems to be why certain documentaries are reviewed and others passed over. You have to admit this site, like others, seems to give more blog space to the “bigger” docs that have a strong distributor behind them. That aside, you have the right to review a film in whatever style and manner you feel helps inform the reader of the success or failure of that film.
Hey Steve,
Good point. I guess there’s so many non-fiction films coming out nowadays that it’s hard for some folks to keep up.
As for this site, for every 15 docs I watch, I review maybe three. If I was running this site full time and making some sort of living off of it, I would make a point of reviewing every film I watch. Unfortunately, it’s just not possible at this time.
One thing I find amusing is how things are perceived as popular or mainstream within underground sub-cultures. I see this a lot in music as well. Bands that underground music fans consider popular amongst their circles are completely unknown to most. I feel the same way about documentaries. Many of the films reviewed on this site that doc fans might consider ‘bigger’ are totally off the average movie watcher’s radar. I guess the point of this site is to provide a resource for those people who are interested in checking out some great docs.
Having said that, I do hope to find the time to cover the smaller films as well. I’m currently considering a slight redesign of the site and trying to come up with a good way to post more news and reviews on the schedule I have right now.
Thanks for the comments!
Great post, Jay! I couldn’t agree more. Except that I don’t think Thin Blue Line was blending fiction and non-fiction – it was actually pretty rigorous non-fiction, as the subject required. And I don’t feel at all bad criticizing lazy, unimaginative filmmaking even if the subject is Important.
Check out doc-a-day.blogspot.com
On a related note (and I can’t remember if I ever posted about this on Film Junk), I find it very interesting that if you look at the top rated movies on Rotten Tomatoes for the past few years, I’d say probably at least half of them are documentaries. It seems like critics almost never give a documentary a bad review (at least, not the bigger studio-backed documentaries) as long as the subject matter is deemed important. So with this in mind, I think your first point about “being critical” is a really good one.
Hey doc holiday,
Just to clarify, in my comments regarding The Thin Blue Line, when I mention any sort of fictional approach, I’m referring to style alone. As in the use of a Hollywood cinematographer, the music and the dramatizations.
I’ll be sure to check out doc-a-day!
Ah. I see what you mean. Indeed, Morris is the great stylist of American documentary film (just like Michael Moore is the great bullshit artist).
But I’m not sure I would call the re-enactment sequences in Thin Blue Line dramatizations. If I recall correctly, they are very spare and exact illustrations of the evidence given by the various participants. In other words, these sequences are to drama as medical illustrations are to fine art.
In any case, I finally got my own copy of Thin Blue Line in the mail today, and will have to give it another viewing soon.
Great post, Jay. Would love to talk about this over a beer during (or after) Hot Docs. Get in touch!
Hey James,
Just trying to figure out my schedule for Hot Docs. We’re hoping to catch some films this Saturday. I think I may be out of town for part of the festival unfortunately.
Any films you’re planning on check out?
Jay, I wanted to reply to this post earlier, but I couldn’t formulate my thoughts into sentences.
I just read the review in “Exclaim!” for Errol Morris’ Standard Operating Procedure. The reviewer chose to discuss the subject matter without commenting on the film-making itself. Then it dawned on me what the problem is.
All films are documentaries. The genre of film called documentaries are stories that are filmed without scripts or prefabrication of material objects.
So Errol Morris is straying from the traditional documentary approach.
I wanted to clarify my statement that “all films are documentaries.”
A film “documents” a story that metaphorically reflects the point-of-view truth that a storyteller wishes to impart on a viewer. The genre of film called documentaries dispenses with the metaphor.
I use the word “metaphor” with all the importance that Ray Bradbury has assigned to it.
A pure documentary has no artistry.
I’m not so sure there needs to be a difference for reviewing documentaries, at least how I understand reviewing.
I go by Frampton’s Filmosophy approach where you forego the notion of the film as a constructed thing (auteur theory being a lazy shorthand) and look at the ‘film’ as a focused thought, and one should try to articulate what it is thinking about its subject, and then consider what you yourself think of it, and see where these two overlap if at all. A documentary still has a thought to it, it still focuses on some things to the exclusion of others, it observes what it portrays.
If your ignorance factors into the experience it should be a part of the review, we should not posture as experts of anything but engage and articulate precisely where the mix of thinkings occurs. This is not a profession for either of us, there is no mercantile logic to feigning some kind of impartiality or treat the film in commodity terms (unless the film thinks of itself as a commodity i.e. Iron Man).
Hey mike rot,
That’s exactly the point. There shouldn’t be a difference. It’s all film making, so docs should be judged not only on their subject matter, but on the craft as well, which is something a lot of reviewers seem to ignore.
I can understand why you would like to review the craft aspect of a film because you work in the field, its like a writer deconstructing how other writers succeed or fail and then using those lessons to his/her advantage.
But there is a lot of posturing out there by bloggers who review like they all want to approach films from a film-school deconstruction method, who just parrot what they hear either by the professional film critics or by the barrage of information that has come from behind-the-scene commentaries. Academics have pre-conceived notions of how ’story’ and ‘narrative’ should intersect, how genre adherence or deviation is more often than not the beginning and end of analysis. Which, again, is fine if your sole interest in film is the craft, but when you take craft out of the equation and you have the visual representations of a focused film-thought, you can confront that directly without having to go through the surrogate of supposed motivations of the puppeteer behind-the-scenes.
The spectacle should be enough, most filmmakers do not want you to look at their craft (granted the bad ones do).
mike rot:
The academic approach to things really grates on my nerves sometimes and I totally agree with the posturing of bloggers. In some cases it can be fun to really de-construct something, but I think it usually comes across as dishonest. I suppose the challenge reviewing any film, fiction or non-fiction, is finding that balance where you have something fresh and interesting to say without alienating any of your listeners/readers by spouting analytical bullshit. I just try and express why I like or dislike something. (Although I’m sure I’m occasionally guilty of the blogger posturing as well.)
As for docs…I don’t think reviewers need to dissect the films from an academic or film-school approach, but rather acknowledge the fact that they are indeed still FILMS. Maybe they could think twice about penalizing a non-fiction film for attempting to use basic film making techniques like music, cinematography or editing to help tell a story or set a tone.
Mike, if I understand your preference for reviewing, films are not graded. (I hope we don’t get back to the old subjective/objective debate here.)
I’ll have to look into Frampton’s Filmosophy approach. But it sounds like academic posturing from the soft sciences rather than the hard sciences. I can appreciate both perspectives.
This is a fantastic and honest post about the inherent challenge in reviewing docs. It’s something I thought about earlier this week when I saw At the Death House Door, which failed to impress me. In fact, I thought it was lacking both technically and thematically (and I expected a bit more from Steve James), so what do I give it as a “grade” (I give grades)? Like you, Jay, I don’t think it was a bad idea for a film, but it just didn’t work for me. Still, I don’t think I’ve given any documentary lower than a “B” because it somehow doesn’t seem right.
I’m starting to like stylish docs like Manda Bala, the upcoming American Teen (heavy use of animation) and Morris’ S.O.P., and I don’t think it takes anything away from the story. At the same time, I still enjoy traditionally told docs like Nerakhoon, Young @ Heart and Up the Yangtze. The filmmakers’ decision to craft their documentaries in many ways just makes the genre that much better, as far as I’m concerned.