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.

World at War

The World at War represents the expository mode of documentary film making because it utilizes the conventional voice of God type narration. The narrator in this documentary is Laurence Olivier. Olivier has the deep authoritative male voice that voice of God narrators are suppose to have. In addition to this quality though, Olivier was also casted as the narrator because the producer Jeremy Isaacs wanted to use a star personae in order to attract a bigger audience.

Throughout the documentary, Olivier's voice is describing what exactly is taking place on the screen. In the section of the documentary that we saw in class, there were no eyewitnesses or experts interviewed. Everything was controlled. This form of documentary film making is often criticized, though, because the voice of the narrator seems to take precedence over what is actually happening in the film. Instead of concentrating on the images, the audience is focusing more on the narration. Due to this, the audience is unable to make their own assumptions about what is happening since they are flat out told by the narrator.

Overall, the documentary World at War is remarkably objective. The goal of it is just to give the facts about World War II. Since the filmmaker had to do vast amounts of research on the topic before actually constructing the documentary, he is considered to be the teacher. The audience is the willing receptive pupils because we are listening to what the filmmaker is telling us about the subject matter.



In the 20th episode of the documentary, the final solution is talked about. As the narrator, Olivier says, "You will find it grim viewing, but watch it if you can. This happened in our time but must not happen again." At this point, the film goes from being objective to subjective. The documentary is no longer just stating the facts; it's telling the audience to do something.

Millhouse: A White Comedy

In the film "Millhouse: A White Comedy", de Antonio uses a film making technique similar to what he uses in his previous documentaries in that he stays out of his film and complies found footage together in a specific manner to make his viewers think a certain way. However, with this documentary, he puts an interesting spin on it by using comedy. The title alone shows viewers that de Antonio is going to be criticising and making fun of President Richard Milhous Nixon considering his middle name is the title. Before the film even begins, it shows young white girls singing in support of Nixon. De Antonio is trying to demonstrate how people had to be completely clueless and naive if they actually supported this man. For the first clip in the film, de Antonio decides to show people putting together a wax dummy that looks identical to Nixon. The significance of this clip is for de Antonio to show people that Nixon is like a wax dummy, cares to much about his image and being in the spotlight, and is overall a very creepy man.

By showing clips from speeches made by Nixon, de Antonio is trying to show his audience how Nixon contradicts himself and really does not know what he is talking about. At the same time, de Antonio is questioning the thoughts of American people and wondering how they could elect a man like this as their President. So many people fell for all of Nixon campaign tricks and the tactics he used in attempt to gain votes.

As a result of this film, new tactics for campaigning developed. People began taking clips of their opponents and having the content of the clip manipulated in order to make their opponent look bad.

In the Year of the Pig

When de Antonio created the documentary, In the Year of the Pig, many Americans already had their minds made up and were against the war. De Antonio's goal was to address those Americans who were undecided. He used found footage and created a montage by putting those clips of found footage together in such a way to get the audience to think that the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was morally wrong and that we as Americans should not be there.

De Antonio utilizes a unique style of documentary film making in, In the Year of the Pig, similar to what he used in Point of Order, his first documentary film. Since de Antonio does not like using the typical "voice of God" to narrate his film, he uses interviews and audio of actual people talking during clips. In In the Year of the Pig, de Antonio always shows the person who is talking for a few seconds, but as they continue to talk, he shows pictures and clips from his found footage and uses them in a way to support what the person talking and being interviewed in the background is saying. By creating the documentary in this way, de Antonio uses both synchronous and non-synchronous sounds.

At the beginning of the film, de Antonio shows a series of pictures from events that have taken place in Vietnam. While showing the pictures, he plays a unsettling sound in the background. This noise is what the Vietnamese had to listen to everyday. By introducing this noise at the beginning of the film, he is preparing his audience's mood for the rest of the film. This is an excellent technique he uses because it helps him get his audience thinking the way he wants them to think so that he can get his point across more easily. When showing the pictures at the beginning of the film, de Antonio flashes the image for a few seconds and then shows a black screen for a few seconds before showing the next picture. I think he does this so that viewers have time to really think about the image they just saw and the meaning of that image. Some of the pictures are very unsettling. The one of the Buddhist man burning, for example, was very shocking for people to see. There was also a clip of a U.S. soldier's hat which said, "make war not peace" which shows that Americans are the aggressors. Combining the pictures with the horrid noise is a great way to prepare the audience for the rest of the film.

Many Americans did not really know exactly why we were getting involved in this war occurring in Vietnam. De Antonio's mission is to show them why and that we really have no reason to be involved. The United States government helped get Diem, Diem's brother Nu, and Madame Diem installed at leaders in Vietnam. In the clips that de Antonio shows of Madame Diem, she is always wearing extravagant clothing while the people of Vietnam are in rags of clothing. De Antonio does this in order to convey that Madame Diem always put herself above the people. Her main concern is to protect her family and keep them in power. When de Antonio kept flipping between the interviews of General Curtis Lemay and General Mark Clark, it showed that American people had very different viewpoints on whether we should be involved. While General Mark Clark was speaking, the center of the picture focused on a woman, probably his wife. She kept looking back and forth between the interviewer and General Mark Clark. She represents the American public because she does not really seem to know or understand what is going on with our involvement. Overall, I think the film conveyed to many people that we had no need to be fighting in Vietnam. We fought our own civil war amongst ourselves and Vietnam should be fighting theirs without us intervening.