Doumentary Reviews

'Nanook of the North' Review

Nanook of the North, made in 1927 by Robert Flaherty, is a landmark in documentary film making. Not only was it the first major successful project in the Ethnographic tradition of documentary film, its immeasurable influence can be seen in documentaries today. Following his father on prospecting expeditions into arctic Canada at the beginning of the 20th century, Flaherty came to be very familiar with
the landscape and its inhabitants. Returning years later to capture the visions he had experienced on film, Flaherty was apparently acquainted with a particular Eskimo of the Inuit named Nanook. Recording the daily hardships of this man and his family in the oppressive natural conditions of the arctic became his subjects. The film has a charm and beauty still, which must have been astoundingly affecting on
audiences of the day. There is no doubt that Flaherty has a great admiration and affection for the Eskimo, which translates to the film. However, some questions have been raised by cultural critics on the possible consequences of this bias in the construction and presentation of the film.

A preface by the film maker appears at the beginning of the documentary. In this the motives and origins of the film are attributed to numerous trips made by Flaherty to 'the North', on which he was accompanied by several Eskimos with whom he developed relationships. The film-maker also makes note of his inexperience in film making, and that the film is a result of overcoming great adversity. Amongst these adversities is the wrecking of a cruising boat. Such setbacks are explained to have only given the director a clearer vision about what the subject matter was, and a renewed motivation to pursue the production in the direction which he deemed appropriate. This meant a more personal approach to depicting the life of the eskimo, by focusing attention one or two particular individuals, being Nanook and his family. Flaherty cleverly initiates an intimacy not only between the subjects and the filming process, but between the film's subjects and their audience. Just before the introduction of Nanook and the other characters Flaherty the audience that not long after filming, about a year, Nanook had died. The film now takes on a
new complexity, and more importantly, assumes a sense of exclusivity, as providing a unique insight into a delicate and fragile condition of human life. The expository approach to the presentation of the film's

subject is very effective. The narrative, which because being prior to synch sounds, features no voice, adopts a type of 'Voice of God' style narration.
The presentation of which follows a step by step switching between visuals and on-screen text. There are many memorable sequences in Nanook of the North which highlight the admirable qualities of the Eskimo people and their unique way of life. These give an impression of the great determination and strength of character of Nanook and the Inuit people, and also of the peculiar activities that they must perform in order to survive. The sailing and construction of the kayak by which they travel the water, the construction of igloos, and the hunting of seals all reveal the nature of a way of life that is completely foreign to that of many contemporary audiences'. What these sequences provide in one sense is a form of cultural relativism, a contrasting way of life to that of the mundane contemporary developed one that many developed nations may experience. Another thing is on offer is an adventure story, featuring a hero who must battle against the forces of nature to ensure the survival of himself and his family. Obviously it also must have required great ingenuity on Flaherty's behalf to conduct filming and direction in the testing conditions and circumstances of the arctic desert for such sequences. It is especially commendable considering the limited sophistication of photographic equipment that was at his disposal. One such example of Flaherty's expertise and flair was the cutting away of half of an igloo to provide adequate lighting for filming of the interior of the structure.

Long after its release the film, having received sufficient treatment and analysis; many issues have now been raised over the place of Nanook of the North in Documentary tradition. In regards to conceptions that documentary should depict reality and not fiction many people have taken issue. It seems that Flaherty took creative licence by interfering in the subject of the film. More specifically he staged the majority of the scenes. Examples of this include Nanook's use of a spear to hunt when in truth he would normally do so with a gun, which were by now commonly used and readily available. Such lengths were made of course to create a more authentically eskimo record, and give an impression of living in the style of ancestors who existed prior to European influence. Other accusations are that some facts are completely fabricated. Nanook's real name was actually Allariallak. In light of these revelations Nanook of the North seems to cross sacred lines between documentary and fiction because it is much more like a reenactment of times past than it is a depiction of actuality. Under noble claims of attempts to confront the audience with lived experience, it is in truth deceitful. Flaherty had defended himself claiming that "one often has to distort a thing to catch its true spirit". This I find an interesting yet incomprehensible supposition. Despite this, Nanook remains captivating as a glimpse into an alien existence which is dangerously fragile, and perhaps now lost, but is motivated by the same basic necessities as any other. It also contains moments of humanity that are genuinely spontaneous and moving.


'The Thin Blue Line' Review

Errol Morris's groundbreaking documentary recreates a real life Texas highway cop killing in the late 80s and reopens the investigation of the crime’s prime suspects. The film opens with two interviews, one of a man named Randall Adams, and the other of another younger man named David Harris. Both recall events of a particular night on which they met each other and went out drinking, smoked marijuana, and went to the movies. At some point in their recounts, events seem to become distinguishable from each other. Adams claiming he went home to a motel where his brother was staying. The younger, Harris, that the two were pulled over on the side of the road where Adams shot a police officer. Throughout the recounts the crime is reenacted on the screen to paint a vague picture of the brutal events for the audience. This is a recurring theme throughout the film.

Very little information regarding the crime is revealed at the beginning of the film except the conflicting stories of two suspects. This reflects the precise availability of evidence that was enjoyed by any investigators immediately following the crime. The audience is carefully kept in the dark to any information that would create bias, and is thus positioned by the filmmaker to assume the role of investigator (Agent provocateur). There is also a lack of audio narration throughout the film which gives the film a unique narrative style. This is one way in which The Thin Blue line embraces aspects of the Avant Garde tradition. Morris adopts a cinema verite style approach to documentary film where filmmaker is directly involved with the subject(s) being explored. This film could also be seen as being observational, participatory, and reflexive. The consequence of this is that the filmmaker, and therefore the audience is not a 'fly on the wall' but a 'fly in the soup', intervening in the process of justice. In fact Morris' method appears to be in direct opposition to direct cinema, and is exemplary of the notion that the search for truth requires provocation.

A number of visual motifs can be found throughout the film especially in the reenactment sequences. The first set of visual systems can be found in the interrogation sequences such as the one presented immediately after the first reenactment of the crime. It is important to note that the recounts of the interrogation process between suspects and even between police officers differs greatly. Motifs used in this sequence include close-ups of a clock at different time intervals which highlights the passage of time and the slow progress of the investigation. Similarly burning cigarette butts in an ashtray suggest a passage of time. The other motif used in the interrogation is that of a camera shot down the barrel of a gun, which reinforces the interviewee’s claims of being interrogated at gunpoint. It also highlights the extreme lengths to which police are acting in the pursuit of justice. Another image system is the one used in crime reenactments which repeats images of red police siren lights and sounds, which indicate both a police presence and blood, because the two are synonymous in this case. Another image is of a thrown milkshake, out the window by a police officer after hearing the gunshot, which flies through the air before landing on the bitumen and spilling over the road. This cleverly allows the audience to gain a visual sense of destruction following the sound of the shot.

The mood and pace of the film are very effective in creating a sense of frustration and determination. Frustration at the progress of justice, and the lack of evidence , but increasingly by the miscarriage of justice and the corrupt nature of the police investigation. But it is a determination to find the truth. Morris achieves this by raising the stakes as the fim progresses. While a quest for justice is the first concern raised, further issues such as emotional involvement, the credibility of justice, innocence and guilt, and the integrity of witnesses complicate the investigation and the subject material. These complexities further highlight the Avant Garde in The Thin Blue Line. It is iconclastic because of the controversial nature of the suggestions of police negligence and the inadequacies of the judicial processes, especially within Texas state system. It could also be seen to fall into the categories of non-commercial and non-mainstream because of the radical leftist and anti-establishment undercurrents that pervade.

The Thin Blue Line can be recognised as a significant milestone in documentary filmmaking, not just by its use of experimental narrative and other Avant Garde elements, but also through the influence which it may have had on future documentarists of a similar style such as Michael Moore. I found it to be an interesting exploration of the miscarriage of justice and modern judicial systems, but more importantly, I found it to be a very human and compelling real life drama.


'Gimme Shelter' Review

At its simplest understanding, Gimme Shelter is a document of the last 10 days of the Rolling stones' 1969 North American Tour. A tour which culminated with a free concert at the Altamont Speedway near San Francisco at which Meredith Hunter, an 18 year old black man, was stabbed to death. But when considered in light of a number of truths (which I will explore later), which may or not be known by the uninformed viewer, Gimme Shelter becomes so much more, taking on as many significances as one might wish to create.

Gimme Shelter also represents a definitive moment in documentary filmmaking. It is exemplary of a shift which had occurred during the 1960s within documentary filmmaking towards actuality. Moreover it is a development in the tradition of the 'Direct Cinema' style of documentary film. Gimme Shelter also shows evidence of successfully integrating aspects of avant garde tradition. This can be observed in the unique narrative style, and by the use of visual motifs.Gimme Shelter is largely devoid of any definable narrative. The structure which resembles a film within a film is much better demonstrated by the following description. After footage of The Rolling Stones performing "Jumpin Jack Flash" at Madison Square Garden, Gimme Shelter opens with a transition revealing the performance being played on a small TV. The scene then introduces the Rolling Stones in an editing room viewing the film as it was meant to be seen. Fundamentally as a concert movie. Jagger sits by a monitor watching and listening to himself and smiles. His name then flashes on the screen. Likewise each member of the band is introduced in a sort of mini profile. The band then begin listening to a radio report on the disastrous outcome of their own free concert in Altamont. Decidedly the eventual outcome and general impression of the tour and of the production is Death. This event creates significances in the film that were previously non distinguishable and no doubt also creates a need to create space for intellectual contemplation on these significances. The band upon hearing this and accounts of the events at Altomont by callers, enter a kind of inward journey. This is best exemplified by drummer, Charlie Watts, who displays some feelings of remorse after hearing a Hell's Angel gives his version of events. Importantly the member of the infamous bikey gang suggests that it is not possible to assign blame on anyone in particular, which seems to give an impression that the band itself is not without their own role in the catastrophic events.This scene ultimately introduces the audience to a fundamental element of the film and one which implies being in realms of high culture. The constant knowing presence of the superego. A sense of reflection on behalf of the Rolling Stones not only on their role in the tragic outcome of the Altomont concert, but also about what it all means, not least for rock and roll. Not ant any point however is the filmmakers acknowledged or responsive to the events. Instead the filmmakers and the audience are gifted with a source of reflection by the change that falls upon its characters and/or subjects.The final result and impression of death is made available to the audience at the beginning of the film, the result of which is a lasting impression which motivates individuals to construct any number of possible narratives. We do this by asking ourselves several questions. What is the root cause of the Altamont tragedy? Who is at fault? Is it the hell's angels, certain elements within the crowd, event organisers? Or is it the Rolling Stones themselves, perhaps by the content of their music, or by their general behaviour and psychological impression. From my understanding there are a number of observable recurring visual motifs throughout the film which encourage such an interpretation. Such moments, because of their spontaneity and elusiveness, could possibly represent what Winston Brian has coined "moments of revelation" when referring to the advantageous aspects of the direct cinema "fly on the wall" style of documentary. In truth, there is no limit to the significances available to the audience because the material it is not greatly bound by the conceptions of the director. One visual motif which can be identified points to a character analysis and sort of ultimate moral judgement of Mick Jagger. This is simply the colour red. For example, Jagger can be seen wearing a long red scarf on numerous occasions, on and off stage, throughout the film. In "Jumping Jack Flash" Jagger taunts the crowd, is playful, joyous and appears to be rediscovering magic, something that may have been missing for a time. But Jagger is a seductive, and destructive figure as well. A Femme Fatale almost. Beautiful and hypnotic, but not to be trusted.

By the time Gimme Shelter was released in the US, public and professional speculation on the Altamont tragedy and the reasons behind it had already been developed. The release of the film was anticipated as not unlike a form of evidence, as a promise of truth and closure. Journalist, Amy Taubin made an astute observation by likening the film's release to that of The Zapruder in the wake of the assassination of JFK. Such is the aim of this school of documentary film – to uncover truth by unbiased direction- that the film seems perfectly suited to provide the answers. However, like the assassination of JFK, the death at Altamont is no more justified or understood because of Gimme Shelter. If anything it palpably captures a moment of panic and uncertainty which reflects a much more widespread number of concerns that was present at the end of the 1960’s. The death of rock’n’roll, the apparent death of the counter culture movement are just a couple. It is no wonder this film has developed a cult following with such magnitude. The music is great but also provides numerous significances with the visual accompaniment. It offers not only insights on the character of a band and its members but on the character of an entire generation and cultural movement. I really enjoyed this documentary film.


'The War Room' Review

The War Room is a historical,/political documentary released in 1993 by documentary filmmakers Chris Hedegus and D.D. Pennebaker. Pennebaker, an innovator of Cinema Verite in the United States and a well renown filmmaker, pitched the idea for the film to the Clinton Campaign team, who were more than willing to cooperate. The result is a documentary of the 1992 US Presidential Campaign from the viewpoint of the Bill Clinton Campaign, and the oranisation who ran it, and it's members. The film focuses particularly on a number of key events in the Presidential campaign including allegation of Clintons affair with Geniffer Flowers, The New Hampshire primary result, Clinton's success and Presidential election, and other developments. The film follows the personal lives and contributions of individuals within the Clinton camp and a number of sub-plots that emerge in this area. Two characters in particular emerge as heroe's for the Clinton campaign and protagonists the film's subject matter. James Carville, the Clinton campaigns Lead Strategist, and George Stephanopoulos, the Communications Director, the adventures of whom drive the narrative.

The War Room opens with numerous shots of campaigners and supporters for the various candidates, Kerry, Clinton, Brown, etc. The setting of the film is established as being in a time of war, with a number of different factions fighting for supremacy. But the conflict of this war is not one of physical violence but verbal debate. Hardly more humane though, the film members of all sides are equally aggressive and willing to tear down their opponents by slander and any other means available.

Typically in the tradition of Cinema Verite, the filmmakers present the film in a mode of observation, where the audience is a fly on the wall to a situation where they would otherwise be denied access, but the film is a hybrid of styles, incorporating many more creative elements as well. Clinton frist appears in the film on the phone providing personal details about himself and his private life. He is wearing very casual clothing including a cap and college T-shirt. Nearby, several other men sit in suits at a dining table reading newspapers and other documents, no doubt monitoring developments of the campaign. Very effectively Clinton is portrayed in a way which is not often seen. This has a number of effects on me as a viewer. The Clinton here is a normal man, who followed sport, relaxed on the couch, hung out with guys, and had moments of both vulnerability and guardedness. A personal connection is made and the viewer in turn commits allegiance to his cause, or at least that appears to be the aim. Also while Clinton propogates his personality to an unknown person on the phone, the focus switches to the other people, the guys behind the scenes who work endlessy in pursuit of his cause. We sympathise with them.

Truth is apparently a closed concept of debate, because not only does the observational approach insist on presenting actuality but all information provided is well publicised and documented, and thus generally accepted to be true. However, there is one argument that can be made against claims of truth which is that in politics there is always to sides to every story, in fact that is the very nature and purpose of politics, to provide the two or more sides of every story. Therefore to position themselves on one particular side inevitable creates bias. The bias can be seen in the selection of material and their presentation. So the question of truth needs to be addressed in terms of whether the subject is interpretive or reflective of reality. It is reflective, yes because of its mode of presentation, but at the same time it is undeniably interpretive of events from the Clinton camp and a Democratic view of politics. Clinton is good, Bush is Bad. So likewise, the audience is given no choice but to interpret events within this context. Yes, Clinton won the Presidential election because of a determined and innovative campaign conducted by its campaign members, and by Clinton's ingenuitive use of new news media to appeal to a mass population which yearned to be seduced by charisma. But on the other hand, or simultaneously, it may have just been a case of the public having had too much of Bush and his mundane policies, that something different must equal something better. This film will never answer this question.


'Man With A Movie Camera' Review

Man With a Movie Camera, released in 1929, and produced by Ukranian film studio VUFKU, seems to be a milestone in the evolution of film making, which displays qualities of a number of film genre and phenomena, which it may or may not have influence, including realism, neo-realism, Russian montage, documentary and even surrealism.

Dziga Vertov, who directed the film, founded a group of film-makers called the Kinok or Kinokis, who sought to portray truth and realism, as opposed to the conventional Hollywood-style storytelling narratives of the day. The Stalin totalitarian regime at the time enforced strict artistic regulations which meant that fiction was forbidden and that film's like all art should seek to celebrate the emerging future which the government would provide, and the Soviet Union and it's people. This suited Vertov fine, who in MWAMC explores the relationship between the environment, or at least the city, the people, and the rapidly advancing technology and industry. The film aims to document a single day in the Soviet city of Odessa and others, while exploring the many aspects of the society in a way that reflects reality. In this sense it can be seen as not only a great example of early documentary style film-making but also as a precursor of neo-realism, because of its use of real people, outdoor settings, and naturalism, no script, no intertiles, no sets, and no actors. The main difference however between this film and others of neo-realism is that MWAMC does not follow any plot or individuals, or seek to sympathise with the misfortune any particular social group or individual.

The film has a very unique and distinctive style, employing dialogue or sound effects, but which is effective both as a documentary and as an experimental and at times surreal art film. This unique tone is achieved through, what the film is most well known for, it's inventive use of a range of existing and experimental cinematic techniques. One of the most common elements in the film is montage, which enables Vertov to arrange numerous related images after one another over a soundtrack to reinforce a particular motif. In fact the whole film can be seen as a montage, or at least a series of montages, as it is structured into 9 orchestral type sections, each dealing with a unique aspect of society. The repetition created by this technique becomes almost hypnotising, and with the added effect of the avante-garde style musical compositions creates a vey emotive experience for the audience. An example of how this can be seen in the scenes which display close-up images of heavy machinery as well as men and women working in industrial settings and factories. The viewer is left with a intense impression of progress, which is achieved through this strange and increasingly symbiotic relationship between man and machine. Another stylistic element which is prominent in the film is the use of double exposures and intercuts which enable images to appear beneath or on a top of others and several images to be juxtaposed in a single frame or over a series of quick cuts. Another surreal element of the film is the use of superimposition and other techniques to depict the camera or cameraman in locations which he could not realistically reach or achieve. An example is a cameraman appearing in a beer glass, and another is a cameraman setting up a camera atop of a giant camera stand. Shots like this create an idea in the viewer's mind that cameras can go anywhere. This concept, that the camera can go any where runs throughout the film. When we acknowledge this fact it also becomes apparent that they are capable of providing us with perspectives of ourselves and society, which we are otherwise unable or even forbidden. This might be due to practical reasons such as the size of a camera and its ablility to fill spaces from which we are excluded, but also cultural behaviours and ettiquette which prevent us from taking a step back from convention and seeing the truth of our existence. In this way Vertov elevates the camera to a position of great power and influence capable, as he puts it, of awakening the citizen through truth and ultimately bringing about understanding and action.