The Thin Blue Line

Over the years, there have been many different types of documentary films made ranging from those that are educational to those that have more of a performance component. Although most of the documentaries do inform the audience about the subject matter, hardly any of them have go beyond just informing and actually make a difference. One of the few documentaries that has made a difference is Errol Morris' film The Thin Blue Line. This documentary was sort of a murder mystery. Morris was trying to figure out who really killed police officer Robert Woods in the 1976/77 shooting.

The Thin Blue Line is an interesting documentary because of its interesting set up. Throughout the film, Morris uses three types of footage: interviews, archival materials, and reconstruction. Before this time, reconstruction was not a method used in documentary films. Critics felt that a filmmaker could not make a credible film using reconstruction. However, Morris proved everyone wrong. By using reconstruction, he was able to show the audience all of the different scenarios of what actually occurred on that night from the numerous testimonies he gathered. Basically, there were two suspects: Randall Adams and David Harris. Harris had picked up Adams along the side of the road after he ran out of gas. The car Harris was driving was stolen. Despite the fact that Harris already had a lengthy criminal record at the age of 16, the 28 year old Randall Adams was accused of the murder and found guilty. One of the big factors that played into the sentencing of Adams was that he was an adult and could be sentenced to the death penalty.

Harris was let go free of punishment but later got sentenced to prison time for killing a man. On December 5, 1985, Morris interviewed Harris one last time. During this interview, Harris admitted that Adams was innocent and that he himself was the one that killed the officer. It is ironic that the psychiatrist declared Adams as unsafe and that he would kill again when in actuality Harris was the murderer and did end up killing another innocent bystander.

In the end, Morris was able to prove Adams innocence. Exactly one year after The Thin Blue Line was released, Randall Adams was discharged from his prison sentence. Morris' documentary literally got Adams out of his life sentence and gave his life back to him. In addition to that, the film also proved that reconstruction can be effective.

Paris is Burning

Paris is Burning is a 1990 documentary film produced and directed by Jennie Livingston. In this film, Livingston examines the lives of gay men, specifically African American and Latino ethnicities. This documentary is interesting because the audience gets to see what life for these people are like. They were born male physically, but mentally they feel more like a woman.

Judith Butler, the author of Gender Trouble examines gender. Although many people would say that gender is innate, Butler argues that gender is merely performed. All gender has to be learned because babies are not just born knowing how to act. Different genders act the way they do based on expectations of society.

Livingston's documentary strengthens Judith Butlers argument. In Paris is Burning, they do not act the typical way men are suppose to. Instead, they act like a female. Although their sex is male, their gender is female because that is what they have learned and feel comfortable with.

In this documentary, the characters are always talking about and preparing for the ball. The ball is like a fashion show and is made up of different categories. These men love it so much because it allows them to be who they really want to be and escape from the real world. With each of the different categories, the men are performing.

Paris is Burning is a documentary all about performance. The men perform on stage, perform the women gender characteristics, and even perform in society and try to seem as normal as possible.

Nixon as a Performer

Media has played a significant role in the United States presidency for years. Presidents try to take advantage of this media and use it to their own benefit. However, when on camera or when being recorded, these politicians do not act like themselves. They are simply performing.

A great example of a politician who utilized the media is Richard Nixon. While on camera, he tried to be informal and act natural, but it is obvious that he is simply performing. During Nixon's Checker Speech, Nixon is sitting at his desk with his arms positioned perfectly. He has come before the camera because he has been accused of illegally accepting gifts. Nixon tries to prove his innocence by telling the nation where his money comes from, what he has in equity, and what he owes out. Nixon says that most politicians would either deny the accusation or ignore it. However, he is going to tell the "truth".


Although Nixon tries to make his speeches seem informal, it is obvious that they are carefully planned out. There are seven motifs that he usually incorporates into his speeches. He mentions that he is going to tell the truth and be honest and that his biggest concern is always that of what is best for the nation. Some other techniques he uses include portraying himself as a family man, as a poor man, and as someone the media hates. By doing this, he is trying to get sympathy from the audience. In a few speeches, like Nixon's Checker Speech, Nixon uses his wife Pat as a prop. She seems so sweet to the public so by using her Nixon hopes to gain some more approval. The final motif used by Nixon is telling the public he is not a quitter. Nixon says this in his Checker Speech as well as in his Resignation Speech. Although he does end up resigning, he wants the public to think he is doing what is best for the nation.

Every component of Nixon's speeches are very well planned and thought out. He is not just simply talking to the nation; he is performing for them and trying to get them to feel or think a certain way.

The Evolution of Editing

Documentary filmmaking began around 1895. Lumiere was a french filmmaker at this time and is considered to be the father of documentaries. The type of films that Lumiere produced were actualities where events were filmed exactly as they happened with no editing.

The first story film did not come around until 1903. The entire film used a wide angle long shot which was continuous. There were no close ups so no one person or detail was focused on. The audience had to decide what to look at and who to focus their attention on. The downfall of only having wide angle long shots is that the viewers cannot see the characters' expressions or any details which would help tell the story better.

When editing was finally developed, it was continuity editing. The film was cut and put together so that events occurred in sequential order and made logical sense to the audience. Another editing technique used involved showing the beginning of something in one cut and then showing the end of it in the next cut. Although the audience does not literally see what happened, they can assume what occurred in the middle by the start and the outcome.

Films began to get more complex when filmmakers discovered how to use parallel action. One part of a story would be shown and then the film would cut to something occurring in the other part of the story. The film basically has two or more stories taking place that it flashes between. In the end, they end up coming together for an overall story. Also around this time, a medium close up shot was used. With this shot, the audience gets to see more detail and expression.


Classical cutting is useful because it uses many angles and types of shots so there can be several cuts. This allows for more detail in the story. The juxtaposition of images to create new meaning not found in either shot individually is known as montage editing. This allows the audience to get a message without the filmmaker having to come out and bluntly say what is happening.

Editing is extremely important in documentary filmmaking because it determines how the audience views what is occurring.

Feed

Feed is a 1992 documentary film which utilizes direct cinema. This documentary takes a look at the 1992 presidential campaign. In this documentary, the audience gets to see how politicians act on and off of camera. In order to show this, the filmmaker intercuts official footage with unofficial footage. The documentary shows Governor Jerry Brown before he goes on air. Brown is really worried about his appearance and has to have his tie perfect. When he does go on air, he seems calm and concentrated on the issues. Although he may seem like he is only concerned about the political matters while on camera, he is really worried about his appearance before that camera is turned on.

Several presidential candidates are shown throughout this documentary. The audience gets to see the unofficial footage of them putting on makeup and nervously awaiting for the cameras to turn on so they can start their speeches. When they are not on air, they have casual conversations and talk about other topics besides the campaign. The candidates' attitudes and personalities completely change when they are on camera. They are not acting like their true selves. Instead, they are performing for Americans, trying to get the people to like them, and trying to get ahead in the polls. This documentary is interesting because the audience gets to see the candidates as real people and then as performers.

LBJ

John F. Kennedy is considered to be the first television president. He is able to manipulate the media for his own purpose. Kennedy is able to make it seem as if his political future is not at risk when in front of the camera because he is so at ease. That ability to be at ease and look natural in front of the camera is very beneficial for Kennedy because he does not look like he is performing. He let his image glorify him and Americans loved him. John F. Kennedy and his brother symbolized goodness.


In the 1968 documentary film LBJ, Santiago Alvarez casts John F. Kennedy's successor Lyndon B. Johnson as a villain. The documentary starts out with horror music and creepy laughing playing in the background. Santiago Alvarez shows pictures and clips of Johnson's daughter getting married in the white house. It is a happy occasion. Immediately after though, Alvarez flashes to clips of the fighting and shooting that is occurring in the war. After that scene, Johnson is shown being happy and then it goes back to the war. Alvarez is clearly blaming Johnson for the war.



The documentary shows how happy everyone is when Kennedy is president. Kennedy's murder is played and then it shows Johnson taking office. Later, Martin Luther King is shown and we hear his famous "I have a dream" speech but it is interrupted with the sound and image of guns firing. Robert Kennedy is shown dead soon after this clip. The film goes back to show Lyndon B. Johnson happily holding a baby and then to people on fire and burning to death. With this continuous cross-cutting, the audience gets the message that Johnson is simply performing in the white house. He acts like a good person and is constantly shown with family, but in reality, he has caused so many deaths due to the war and is somehow to blame for those of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy.

Primary

Primary is a 1960 documentary film made by the Drew Associates. This documentary represents direct cinema type filmmaking because the Drew Associates are trying to capture what is really happening during the 1960 Wisconsin presidential primary. The film follows senator John F. Kennedy and his rival senator Hubert Humphrey as they compete against each other in attempt to win the primary. Primary was filmed at a time when politics first began getting media attention. From this documentary, it is evident that media appearance does have an impact on political campaigns and that while on television politicians do perform.



In Primary, the focus jumps back and forth between Kennedy and Humphrey. Kennedy is always surrounded by a younger crowd which shows his youth and new political opinions. Humphrey is always seen talking to older people which shows his age and that he has similar outlooks as past presidents.

When on camera, Kennedy and Humphrey do not act like themselves. Before going on camera, they put makeup on so they look more attractive and they are positioned perfectly so that the light hits them at a great angle. When the cameraman starts messing with his equipment, Kennedy goes from being relaxed to smiling for the camera. Before Humphrey goes on air, he tells the shows host what questions to ask him and tells the cameraman exactly where to stand to make him look the best. Both candidates want to look good for the media, but Kennedy is much more attractive which had a huge impact on his success.

Performance is a key to political success. Candidates have to seem confident, intelligent, and friendly. At one point in the film Primary, Jackie Kennedy addresses the crowd. She looks beautiful and seems very confident to the crowd. However, the camera gets a close up of her hands behind her back and the audience can see that she keeps fidgeting nervously. Later, Jackie and John Kennedy are shaking hands with all of the people as they leave. Both look very happy to be meeting all these people and shaking their hands, but when the camera zooms in on Jackie actually shaking hands, we can see that she is letting go before the other person is done with the handshake. Her actions are simply a performance because she wants herself and her husband to be appealing to the voters.

Performance in Reality Television

Although reality television is suppose to portray "real life", there is actually a big performance component involved. Once an ordinary person gets in front of a camera, they do not act completely like themselves anymore. Sometimes they try to meet stereotypes. For example, a pretty blond girl who is actually fairly smart might begin to act stupid and naive once on camera to fulfill the "dumb blond" stereotype. Or maybe a sweet and kind guy who happens to be very built and muscular might start to act like a complete jerk and try to cause fits in order to fit the role of "Mr. Tough Guy".

In the article, When Bad Girls Go Good, the authors Alice Holbrook and Amy Singer talk about the reality show Charm School. The characters on Charm School are the girls who competed on VH1's Flavor of Love. While on Flavor of Love these women developed media personalities. The ladies acted inappropriately and always engaged in fights in order to seek attention. The contestants were given names on Flavor of Love like Krazy, Smiley, Hottie, Serious, and Buckwild. These nicknames gave the contestants a certain media personality. The point of Charm school is to attempt to change the ladies back to their true selves. In the article, Holbrook and Singer state that, "Charm School reverses the reality show formula, transferring contestants from 'media people' back into 'ordinary people'." Basically, Charm School is trying to help the contestants find their real selves again and get rid of the media selves that being on other reality shows created. The women get eliminated from the show if they are not succeeding at finding their true selves.

The video series Girls Gone Wild also represents a form of reality television that is performed. The article Guys Gone Wild? Soft-Core Video Professionalism and New Realities in Television Production by Vicki Mayer talks about the poplar series. Cameramen are paid to go around to different places and convince as many women as they can to expose themselves on camera. In real life, if a man walked up to a woman and asked her to take her shirt off, she would probably slap him. However, since these men have cameras, the women are more likely to do it so they can get on camera and get attention.

Jackass is another reality television show where there is a lot of performance involved. On this show, bored white males get together and do crazy activities and stunts to entertain themselves. Robert Sweeny discusses the performance component of Jackass in his article "This Performance Art is for the Birds:" Jackass 'Extreme' Sports, and the De(con)struction of Gender. Although the show wants the audience to think that everything done on the show is spontaneous and unrehearsed, it is very much planned. The characters plan exactly what stunts they are going to perform, take safety precautions, and even rehearse the stunts. Then they use home footage type video to make the stunts look real and like they have not been planned.

Despite what reality television producers want the audience to think, most of these so-called "reality" television shows do have some type of script or outline and are performed to some extent.

The Different Types of Reality Television

The term "reality television" covers a vast variety of different types of shows. One of those types include the reality television shows created for educational purposes. These types of shows are considered reality although they do have a documentary component. Malgorzata Rymsza-Pawlowska wrote an article called Frontier House: Reality Television and the Historical Experience which examines one of these educational reality shows. In the show Frontier House, participants have to live similarly to the way frontier settlers did in the 1880s. This is interesting to viewers because they get to see the family struggling to adjust to this new lifestyle. At the same time though, the audience is learning what life was like during that time.

In the article The Moral Economy of Person Production: The Class Relations of Self-Performance on Reality Television by Beverley Skeggs, Skeggs notes four major techniques used in reality filmmaking. One technique is social mobility through self-performance. The Frontier House would fall into this group. With this technique, people are taken from their everyday ordinary lives and placed into a new situation where they have to try and adjust. Drama is created by watching all of the people struggle as they let go of their old lives and try to survive in this new one. Another technique is called "measuring bodies, quantifying value". With this technique, the filmmaker tries to educate the participant on how to make their body healthier and how that will effect their everyday life. The audience gets to see the participant trying to do away with their bad unhealthy habits. To go along with "measuring bodies, quantifying value", comes another technique in which shame and guilt is used. The show tries to make the participant feel bad about themselves so that they are motivated to change. The fourth technique involves rules and advice. The filmmaker shows the participant what he or she is doing wrong and then tells them how to try and fix the problem.

In all these different types of reality television, the participant has to go through some type of change. The struggles of going through that creates conflict and drama making it appealing for viewers to watch.

The Representations of Race and Women in Reality Televison

Reality television has been around for years, and despite its popularity, there really has not been much written about it. There are two articles, however, that discuss this television genre. One of the articles is written by Mark P. Orbe titled Representations of Race in Reality TV: Watch and Discuss. In this article, Mark Orbe states that, "According to Murray and Ouellete, reality television represents an attractive form of programming given its low production costs, ease for foreign distribution, and independence from unionized actors and writers." The creators of reality television shows do not have to pay out high salaries to the people starring in the television shows because they are just "ordinary" people. Also, these reality T.V. shows do not usually have big expensive sets that they are shot on. Due to these factors, it does not cost a whole lot to produce these reality television shows and the money made is mostly profit. Most of these reality television shows are so general that filmmakers can copy ideas from the reality shows in other countries and even from other television stations.

Orbe also talks about how realty T.V. has actually contributed to greater diversity on television. The reason for this is due to the fact that the most popular reality television shows are the ones that have the most drama and conflict. How does a "reality" show create all that drama? They do it by hiring people of different races to star on the same show. Each race has a different set of values and beliefs. By having these people with conflicting beliefs around each other for such a long period of time, they are eventually going to start butting heads and fighting, which is exactly what the audience likes to see.

The article Domesticating Politics: The Representation of Wives and Mothers in American Reality Television written by Jim Brancato is another interesting article which examines reality television. The four main reality T.V. shows that Jim Brancato focuses on include The Supernanny, Nanny 911, Wife Swap, and Trading Spouses. The first two shows are essentially the same as well as the last two shows except for the fact that they air on different networks. In all four shows, the mother or wife is the character focused on. Her actions as a mother or wife are not ideal so the point of these shows is to transform her. Brancato notes that, " the audience will eventually be reconciled with the familiar expectations of indoctrination and fantasy." Basically, these shows are popular because viewers, mostly women, watch them to see everything these women are doing wrong. They are able to compare their lives to that of the women on these shows and think about how they would do things differently. In a way, it makes the viewers feel better about themselves after watching these reality television shows.
Whether for entertainment of watching drama or for the purpose of the audience comparing themselves, reality television has become extremely popular.

Sherman's March

In 1986, Ross McElwee made a journey documentary titled Sherman's March. This is considered a journey documentary for multiple reason's. Not only does Ross McElwee physically go on a journey in Sherman's March, but the documentary is also a spiritual, psychic, and emotional journey. Ross McElwee's intention is to replicate General Sherman's march. However, the film turns into McElwee trying to find romance with a southern woman.

Masculine conquest plays a significant role in Sherman's March. In addition to the fact that the original subject of the documentary was the historical Sherman and his military conquest and that the films ends up about the search for a woman, there are several other aspects that add to the film's masculinity. A phallic camera is used throughout this documentary, meaning that the camera shows the sexual power of the man. One example of this is when McElwee films Pat doing her cellulite exercises. When Pat mentions that she does not have underwear on, McElwee turns off the sound and just watches. During the film, McElwee also works on his car and talks about his dreams of nuclear war. Both are considered to be very masculine.

Sherman's March represents observational cinema. McElwee hides behind the camera and observes the people and actions which are taking place around him. Sherman's March could also be considered a participatory documentary to some extent because McElwee does interact with and talk to the people he is filming. It is a reflexive documentary since it is about Ross McElwee himself. Except for when McElwee shuts off the audio on the camera, Sherman's March uses synchronous sound. At one point in the film, the audience can barely hear the conversation McElwee is having with his old crush because of all the background talking and music. Sherman's March does make the audience feel something emotionally. They start to feel bad for Ross McElwee after being so unsuccessful in finding a woman. It almost seems like McElwee is a feminine character because all the women in his life end up taking charge.

London

London is a 1992 documentary by Patrick Keiller. It is suppose to be a reflexive journey documentary, however, it is not like most journey documentaries or travelogues. In this documentary, the audience gets to see the travels and hear the thoughts of two middle aged men. One man is the narrator. His profession is a cruise ship photographer. The narrator talks about his journeys with another man named Robinson. Robinson teaches fine art and architecture part time at Barking, which is a college that no one has ever heard of. The audience never gets to see either of these men which is extremely unusual. Not only are these men telling the story, but the entire documentary is about them and their travels. The audience never gets to see who the subjects are though. As a result of the mystery subjects and Robinson working at an unknown college, London is considered to be a mock travelogue. These men are not real people and they did not really go on this journey.

To go along with the unreal characters separating London from other normal journey documentaries, there are several other reasons why London is viewed as an avant-garde, or experimental, documentary. Most travelogues or journey documentaries try to make people want to visit by showing the beautiful side of the place and the notorious attractions. London, however, does not make people want to visit. In this documentary, there is nothing beautiful about London. Keiller shows the bad parts of the city instead of the popular places.

The way Keiller goes about filming London is unusual as well. The images do not match the narration. They only match nominally. At one point in the film, the narration is talking about romanticism. The image that is shown during this narration is a shot of McDonald's in a construction site. No relevance whatsoever. There are long periods periods of silence in the film as well. Keiller uses non-synchronous sound. An example of this is when Keiller shows the image of water, but instead of hearing rippling or splashing noises that water would normally make, the audience hears birds chirping.

Throughout this film, Keiller utilizes titles. However, it seems as if these titles are randomly thrown in. Titles are generally suppose to be important and introduce what is going to happen. In London though, the titles have no importance since they are only talked about for a few seconds.

Basically, Keiller is giving his opinion of London through the narrator who is talking through Robinson. It is a detached documentary film because it does not make the audience feel anything.

Ric Burns

On Wednesday, March 17, Aurora University got the pleasure of having Ric Burns come to speak to us. Ric Burns is a well-known documentary filmmaker that has received many awards and honors for his work. He came to visit Aurora at a great time because he had just finished up a documentary about whales that he has been working on two days earlier on Monday, March 15. Ric Burns was very excited to get to talk with us. We even got the privilege of seeing the first fifteen minutes of his new production which is not scheduled to air until May on PBS.

Based on the brief fifteen minutes which were shown, the documentary was very interesting. It seemed to really engage the audience. The documentary talked about how whales were a good source of oil. However, whale hunters killed so many of them in the past years to the point of almost extinction. In this documentary, Ric Burns uses the "voice of God" type narration.

In addition to talking about his new documentary, Burns also talked about what it takes to make a good documentary and be a documentary filmmaker. He said that when choosing a topic to do a documentary on, you must choose something that is interesting to you. A filmmaker has to work with this topic for a long time so you want to make sure that you do not get bored with it. After picking a topic, you as a documentary filmmaker have to research that topic immensely. Burns said that you end up becoming an expert on the topic and that it is your job to educate your audience. They are trusting you to inform them since you know all about the subject. One last important point that Burns mentions is that you must keep your audience interested throughout the entire film.

Seven Up

Seven Up is a 1960s documentary directed by Michael Apted. For this film, Apted selected fourteen British children to follow and interview. All of the children selected were seven years old. Seven Up is considered to be a social documentary due to the fact that the children who Apted selected to follow all come from different social backgrounds. Apted is trying to show the audience that social class determines everything in British culture. At the beginning of the film, Apted states, "Give me a child til he's seven and I'll give you the man." By saying this, Apted is trying to prove that at the young age of seven, British children already have the rest of their lives mapped out. Apted is showing the viewers that there is indeed a social script in Britain. One's class determines where they go to school and what type of education they can get. The education that they end up receiving will structure the rest of these children's lives. Seven Up happens to be an overly political documentary because Michael Apted is trying to tell people that it is unfair to get a different education simply because of social class.

Seven Up can be classified as the participatory mode of documentary filmmaking. In Seven Up, the director Michael Apted interacts with the subjects he is filming. Apted narrates and asks the children questions. A majority of the questions Apted asks the children are leading questions. He already knows the answers to these questions, but he wants to get the children to talk about it. One of the questions that the children are asked is where they are planning on going to school after they finish up where they are at now. By looking at the social class that these children belong to, Apted is already able to determine the answer to this question. In response to the question, the children are able to tell Apted where they plan on going to school next and even what they plan on doing after finishing up at that next school. These children are only seven and know exactly what their futures hold.

The original intent of this documentary was to make one film that showed that there was a social script which existed in Britain. However, Seven Up was so popular that Apted decided to make a new sequel every seven years updating the viewers on the lives of these fourteen children. By following these children over the years, Seven Up and the series that follow end up becoming an open documentary series. Apted does not know what is going to happen or what the final outcome will be.

One problem with Seven Up is the number of characters involved. There are fourteen people that the audience is trying to follow. It is hard for the audience to keep straight who is who, and they also have a difficult time making connections with the children

Salesman

Salesman is a 1969 documentary film created by Albert and David Maysles. This documentary was a part of the Direct Cinema Movement because it utilizes cinema verite type flimmaking. Cinema verite flimmaking involves using unobtrusive techniques to record scenes under the most natural conditions. In the documentary, four Bible salesmen are filmed for a period of six weeks. As the audience, we get to see how these salesmen live their lives. They are friends in that they spend most of their time together, share a temporary living space, and discuss the success and struggles of their job. However, they are sort of competing against each other. This is a declining profession, and if they do not excel, they could lose their job.

Although Salesman is classified as a documentary, there is a lot of drama involved. This is suppose to be an observational documentary in which we simply observe the subjects going about their everyday lives. However, Salesman has be carefully edited to tell a story and make it more interesting for the viewers. At the beginning of the film, the manager of the Mid-American Bible Company explains to the workers how they had to let some people go because their performance was not high enough. The filmmakers tend to focus on Paul Brennan as the main character since it is obvious that he is struggling to make sales. By doing this, the Maysles brothers create sort of a melancholia. Viewers feel bad that this salesman is having such a hard time and could lose his job. At the same time though, the audience does not like what the salesmen are doing. These men are lying to customers in an attempt to get them to purchase this expensive Bible. Most of the people they are trying to sell to are not really in the best financial situations and are having trouble just trying to make ends meet. This is where the drama occurs. We feel bad for the salesmen, specifically Paul, but we are also disappointed in what the salesmen are doing.

The many new technological innovations made direct cinema films like this possible. The filmmaker used 16mm film stock, portable wireless cameras. These cameras were lighter, faster, and more mobile. The cameras allowed the filmmaker to follow its subjects without having to lug around a ton of equipment or having to take time and set the camera up. They could follow the salesmen around and go into the multiple homes to capture events exactly as they occurred. Despite the fact that these cameras were suppose to catch life and events directly, it is not completely accurate because the filmmaker chooses what he shoots, people do not act completely like themselves when they are in front of a camera, and the film can be edited to make people feel and think a certain way.

Sans Soleil

Chris Marker's documentary Sans Soleil is a very unique film. Sans Soleil could be classified as an imaginary documentary because it contains fictional elements. Chris Marker is a male director who decides to use a female voice for his narration. The narrator, although female, is portraying Marker's thoughts. She is supposedly receiving letters, video clips, and images from a cameraman who is traveling to all of these places. The narrator then reads the letters like they are written to her, but they are actually to Marker since she is narrating his thoughts. In actuality though, the cameraman is non-existent and a fictional character. Although imaginary, this is still a documentary because actual footage is used and it is trying to convey a message.

This film looks at the relationship between consciousness, memory, time, and history. The entire film involves the narrator thinking out loud and commenting on past events. People seem to have a hard time remembering past events.

The title of the documentary Sans Soleil means sunless. At the beginning of the film, there is an image of three girls walking down a country road on a sunny day. The narrator comments on how happy they are. As the documentary progresses, we see big cities, robot models like the one of JFK, machines like the Zone that can change and edit images from the past, and electronics like video games. Obviously, we have become more advanced and industrialized which limits the amount of sun we get. Maybe having less sun has caused a decrease in our true happiness. People cannot seem to recall life before all these advances. They cannot remember history. All they can seem to do is think of the future. The narrator makes a comment about how video games offer a future for intelligence.

At several points during the film, the narration does not match the visual images shown. An example of this is when the narrator is talking about Japanese girls but the image shown on the screen is a rocket launching into the sky. Having an image that does not go along with the narration is very confusing. I think that the visual image should match the narration; otherwise, i do not know whether to concentrate on the image or the narration. If I listen to the narration, then I block out the unrelated image and develop my own image in my head that relates. If I concentrate on the image, I ignore the narration and create my own explanation for the image in my head. It is impossible for me to concentrate on two conflicting things.

Prison Terminal: Life and Death in a Prison Hospice

Prison Terminal: Life and Death in a Prison Hospice is a documentary by an independent filmmaker named Edgar. Edgar is a "fly on the wall" cameraman, meaning that he strictly observes. This is an observational documentary about a prison-based hospice program in Iowa. Edgar's aim was to follow a terminally ill prisoner and show his life in a hospice until his death. In order to do this, Edgar had to spend some time getting to know the prisoners, medical staff members, and correctional officers in order to gain their trust so that they would be somewhat comfortable with him having a camera lens directly in their faces.

This documentary brings about a highly controversial subject matter. Exactly how far should we go to take care of inmates? Many law-abiding citizens cannot afford health insurance. So how far do we go to pay for an inmate's health? In trying to show all the benefits of a prison-based hospice, Edgar is arguing that prison-based hospices are a good program to have.


I think Edgar makes his argument strong by choosing to follow Jack. Jack is an infirmary patient who got sentenced to life in prison after killing his son's drug dealer who caused his son to hang himself. Overall, Jack seems like a fairly nice guy who cared a lot for his son. He is not scary and does not seem mean or violent. He just wanted to make a criminal pay for the death that he caused.

The prison-based hospice benefits more than just the dying prisoners. Healthy prisoners can choose to be hospice volunteers. One of the volunteers said that he wished he could have done something like this outside of jail because he might have stayed out of trouble. By volunteering, the prisoners build character since they are helping care for other people.

Utilizing cinema verite style of documentary is very effective because viewers are able to formulate their own opinion and analyse what is happening.

The Times of Harvey Milk

The Times of Harvey Milk is a documentary which utilizes the voice of God type narration to an extent. However, the voice of God narration is combined with several interviews, recordings, and some news reports as well. I believe that this film represents the poetic mode of documentary film making. It is set up in a specific manner so that the audience feels a certain way about the subject matter. It is a highly subjective documentary in which a tremendous amount of artistic expression is used.


Harvey Milk was San Francisco's first openly gay supervisor. It is interesting that the director chooses to use an openly gay actor, Harvey Fierstein, to narrate this film which is about an openly gay politician. By choosing to do this, there is a connection between the main character in the documentary and the narrator. The narrator is able to relate to Harvey Milk which brings about an emotional aspect. The narrator feels sympathy towards Harvey Milk which results in the audience feeling the same way.

To start off the film, there is a news clip of Dianne Feinstein, the President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, announcing the shocking news of Harvey Milk being shot and killed by Dan White. This clip sets up what will happen later in the film; so it is a type of foreshadowing. After this clip, the documentary flashes back to when Harvey Milk was younger and it goes through his life journey. There are several interviews of people who knew Harvey Milk. These people were from all different walks of life, but they all had something good to say about Harvey Milk. By showing these interviews, a sympathetic portrayal of Harvey Milk is created. The audience believes that he is a good man. As Harvey's life story progresses and it comes to the point where he is killed, the clip of Dianne Feinstein announcing his death is played again. It is very effective to show this clip twice. The first time intrigues the audience and makes them wonder why this poor man was shoot. The second time is played in line with the progress of his life story.

On the other hand though, the portrayal of Dan White, Harvey Milk's assassin, is bad. The director wants the audience to have a negative opinion of Dan White so when they find out he only received two years in prison for killing two men, they become angry about him getting off so easily.