Online Response 3

Reflexive and participatory documentaries are overlapping but distinct modes of documentary filmmaking.  Both using the medium of documentary, they both utilize nontraditional methods of cinema to help us think about movies–and the way they are made–to help an audience come to an emotional understanding.  These methods are uniquely defined by the way the filmmaker relates to either the audience or the subject.  These can be powerful tools in creating captivating cinema.

Reflexive documentaries are defined by the way the filmmaker chooses to engage with the audience. In reflexive documentaries, the documentarian will choose to directly engage with the subject.  This can be accomplished in a variety of ways.  In Surname Viet, Given Name Nam, the documentarian, Trinh T. Minh-ha, draws in the audience with captivating and devastating stories from what the audience assumes are Vietnamese women telling their own story.  Then, half way through the film, Minh-ha reveals to the audience that she had been tricking them, using nonactors to perform the roles of real women.  This usage of trickery to make the audience think has been around since the early days of documentary.  After Nanook of the North received unprecedented levels of success, Luis Bañuel made a film called Land Without Bread.  Audiences at first believed it was a documentary like Nanook of the North about an indigenous people.  However, throughout the film, Bañuel openly mocks his subjects and makes editing decisions that make it clear the film was, to some degree, staged.  This caused audiences to think about Nanook of the North as well as other documentaries more critically.  Were those movies staged?  How did the director influence those documentaries?  The movie was not about an indigenous people. Rather, the film was about the audience and the way they perceived documentaries.

The participatory mode of documentary filmmaking is dictated by the filmmaker's relationship with the audience.  In participatory documentaries, the filmmaker will engage directly with their subject matter.  In The Act of Killing, Joshua Oppenhiemer, the director, asks questions and even goes so far as to interpret the scene for his subject.  This action places Oppenhiemer into the movie, showing the audience the effect he is having on the scene.  In Grey Gardens, the crew is seen placing mics, asking questions, and accepting gifts.  This helps show the audience that they are having an effect on the scene. In The Act of Killing the insertion of the documentarian is direct and intentional; in contrast, Grey Gardens shows the documentarians trying their best to be discreet and out of the way.  Though both participatory, both filmmakers approach this method in different ways.

Sherman’s March is a film that uses both methods.   Throughout the film, Ross McElwee interacts with his subjects.  Using the participatory mode, the film is solely based on his interactions with other people from behind or in front of the camera.  Additionally, using the reflexive mode, scattered throughout the film McElwee talks directly to camera, as if to an audience.  Combining these methods, we come to an intimate understanding of who McElwee is.

These modes are powerful tools to evoke emotion.  Using the methods in a variety of ways with a variety of subjects, both methods are unique ways of helping the audience understand complex human emotion.