Documentary films have intrigued the film critics and audience alike with the sheer quintessence of portrayal and textual value. There can be no denial of the fact that documentary films intrigue the audience with the truth and the audio-visual portrayal of occurrences and things that need documentation. One can take into consideration the documentary films, Restrepo directed by Sebastian Junger and First Cousin Once Removed directed by Alan Berliner so as to comprehend the intricacy of portrayal and the differences between the treatments to the subjects by the respective documentary filmmakers. A close introspection of the matter would enable one and all to have a much better understanding of the films in context and also the domain of documentary films in its entirety.
One can take into consideration the documentary film, Restrepo that goes on to follow the fifteen-month deployment of soldiers in the Korengal Valley in the northeastern part of Afghanistan. War documentaries “are fascinating from many perspectives, but they matter to us all now because they are active interventions in public life, on a topic that concerns each American in some way.” (Aufderheide 56) This documentary stands out with its portraiture of the ravages of war from so close quarters, yet keeping this objectivity in its approach that is characteristic of any documentary film. The voice of this documentary is made up of the perspective of the soldiers. The point of view of the soldiers is perfectly used in this cinematic work to reach out to the audience. It needs to be noted that the authority of the film is constructed via the use of the engaging cinematic techniques of showing the life of the soldiers in the valley. One finds indirect address in this documentary film. The spoken text and the images complement one another in description with the ambient sound being there.
The narrative of the film shows how the soldiers were aimed at clearing the valley of the insurgency so as to gain the trust of the local people. “Visual anthropology is not going to appear miraculously some day in the future. It is being created now, even if we do not always recognize it.” (MacDougall 293) This film can be regarded as a work of visual anthropology. The film vividly portrays the challenges of the soldiers, the war and the negotiations with the people living in the valley. The sound and the voice over narration together engage the audience to the utmost degree. The film provides new information about the soldiers at the warfront via the images that are shot during the time of the combat. However, one does not find the reflexive voice here. The texture and timber work to exemplify the effect of the documentary film in context. The film portrays the connotative view that war associates immense jeopardy and trauma. This is established through the denotative images shown on the screen.
As the narrative progresses, one gets to see the jeopardizing mission called Operation Rock Avalanche where the tragic consequences are documented. The film shows the soldiers at war as well as the civilians. The narrative is successful in engaging the audience to exert the affective appeal portraying the emotional distress of the soldiers after the tragic consequences. The main focus of this cinematic work is to show the trauma associated with the combat. It needs to be commented that this documentary is neither reportorial nor too pictorial in nature. However, the camera goes on to document everything with utmost immediacy. The film is shown almost entirely from the point of view of the soldier. The point of view of the narrative engages the audience who readily associate themselves with the soldiers at the warfront in Afghanistan. This goes on to provide a very valuable sense of routine military life, yet shows little of the personal toll of the combat on the soldiers. Indeed, “documentary has become the flagship for a cinema of social engagement and distinctive vision.” (Nichols 2)
In stark contrast to the documentary film on war, the film, First Cousin Once Removed directed by Alan Berliner portrays a family story that can be described to be an Alzheimer’s travelogue. While “Vertov’s own documentary footage” was “a celebration of what the director sees”, this film too is the portraiture of the objective interpretation off the director. (Power 1) This is a documentary film about this celebrated poet, critic, translator, Edwin Honig. The voice of this documentary is constructed via the personal portrayals and the voice over. In fact, the voices of the family members and acquaintances of Honig constitute the point of view as well as the audience comes to see the character from their perspective in this documentary. This film has indirect address communicating with the audience. Indeed, the retrospections of the interviews work to affect the audience. One can associate the images from archive and the ones recorded by the director with the gradual mental health deterioration of Honig.
The film documents the occurrence as Edwin stumbles among the ruins of his expression and understanding. One can be reminiscent of Luis Bunuel’s description of how the director of a documentary should have a detailed view and scrutiny of the subject matter of the film. (Sobchack 14) The director of this film shot it over the course of as many as five years so as to be able to portray quite an unflinching picture of Edwin’s life. This film establishes its authority on the audience through the narrative that shows the deterioration. It is as if the audience sees for itself how the man succumbs to the mental disorder with time. The talks with Honig come across to be a sort of self-revelation. The images and opinions of other people come together to bring meaning to the film. The film can be described to be a cinematic work that puts light on the new meaning to the understanding of mental health issue that affected Honig. The reflexive voice in this film also works to hold the story in front of the audience.
The director goes on to incorporate a number of visits as well as interviews with Honig. Also, his former students, friends and others are interviewed by the filmmaker so as to delve deep into the life of the man and gauge the responses of the people around as he descends further into the mental disease. The director also uses archival footage in the course of this film. The metamorphosis of Honig is portrayed to the audience through home movies, family photos, poetry readings, and so on. The interviews can be taken to be retrospective in nature for the audience to aid the film create its authority on the mind. The images that the audience sees are tied together with the spoken language that describes Honig and the experiences of the interviewees with him.
One can be reminiscent of Vertov’s words where he says, “By revealing the soul of the machine, promoting the love of labor for his instrument, the peasant by his tractor, the driver for your locomotive, we introduce the creative joy in every mechanical work.” (Vertov 1) This documentary engages the audience with the quintessence of portrayal. The film has a third person point of view and sees the occurrence keeping an objective perspective. In the case of this documentary, the “filmmaker is wise to draw upon the distinctive range of cinematic qualities at work in the interview” in accordance with the analysis by Grindon about documentaries. (Grindon 12) It has to be noted that the tone and timber of the film work to inflect meaning to the film as well.
It would be correct to conclude that documentary filmmaking has transformed from the days of the shooting of Flaherty’s Nanook of the North. (Rothman 3) While Flaherty can be deemed as the stalwart of this genre of filmmaking, the discussed works by Junger and Berliner show the immense power of documentaries to leave a lasting mark in the minds of the audience. Now, one can very well comprehend how the treatment of this film is different from the war documentary. In the war documentary, the video was taken at the time of action and the audio too is of the real-time action on the field. In the other film, the director incorporates retrospective interviews and uses archival footage. However, both the films are authoritative in their connection with the audience and leave a lasting mark in the minds. Both these films are greatly different from one another in subject and presentation. But, both are equally effective in stirring the minds of the avid audience to the very core with the perfect mesh of techniques, narrative, objectivity and cinematic value.
Works Cited
Aufderheide, Patricia. “Your Country, My Country: How Films About The Iraq War
Construct Publics.” Project MUSE. muse.jhu.edu, 2007. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
Grindon, Leger. “Poetics of the Documentary Film Interview.” UCSC. ucsc.edu, n.d.
Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
Leimbacher, Irina. “An Early History of the Interview.” SF360. sf360.org, n.d. Web. 13
Feb. 2016.
MacDougall, David. “The Visual in Anthropology.” uio.no. uio.no, n.d. Web. 13 Feb.
2016.
Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
2010. Print.
Power, Nina. “Vertov’s World.” Film Quarterly. filmquarterly.org, 2010. Web. 13 Feb.
2016.
Rothman, William. The Filmmaker as Hunter: Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2014. Print.
Sobchack, Vivian. Synthetic Vision: The Dialectical Imperative of Luis Buñuel’s Las
Hurdes. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2014. Print.
Vertov, Dziga. “Manifestos.” Contracampo. contracampo.com.br, n.d. Web. 13 Feb.
2016.
