Documentary Film Analysis

1178 Words3 Pages

The label of ‘documentary’ can be applied to a heterogeneous mix of ideas and expressions with often-contradictory modes of address, tone and subject matter. It is for this reason that documentary is a film practice that is difficult to define; there is no limit to the range of styles, techniques and forms that documentary film can encompass. John Grierson, the man who coined the term ‘documentary’, has offered a definition that, while at parts is insufficient, critics consider to be the “starting-point” for defining this flexible type of film (Izod and Kilborn, 1998 p. 427). He purports that documentaries are a product that presents reality in an aesthetically pleasing way in an effort to have a specific impact on the consumer, whether that is to persuade, to be informative, or enlightening (Hardy 1979 p.35-46; Izod and Kilborn, 1998 p. 426-427). Discussion of different modes and features of documentary has shed some light on the genre, however most of the distinctions that have been made are not fixed, and can be manipulated and molded to present a truly unique product. Jonathan Caouette’s Tarnation is one such film as it uses and subverts the fundamental documentary modes to produce a subculture of documentary, the autoethnographical documentary.

A true lack of a subjective input is impossible to achieve. According to Izod and Kilborn, a documentary’s “view is determined… by the filmmakers own preconceptions, by the perspective from which the events are witnessed, and by the structuring principles according to which the material is edited” (1998 p. 428). As Caouette is creating a documentary that centers on his own life, it is inherent that his pre-conceptions ‘colour’ the film’s creation. In an interview with Laurence Hegar...

... middle of paper ...

...om varying modes and subdivisions such as autoethnography. Caouette utilizes both the observational and interactive of Nichols modes of documentary in order to fluctuate between objectivity and subjectivity. While he attempts objectivity in the beginning of the film, Caouette’s subjectivity becomes clear through the use of the interactive mode and in particular his involvement in the shooting of the film, the pressure placed on the subjects to perform and his poetic and careful editing in order to convey a particular message. This is in accordance to Izod and Kilborn’s premise that true subjectivity is impossible. The purpose of the film lends itself to the autoethnographical, as Caouette aims to discover his own identity in the context of his mother. In this way, the film is a pastiche of not only footage mediums, but also of filmic modes, techniques and genres.

Open Document