Developing an understanding of film form and the systems of logic that they usually follow assists us as students who are learning the medium of film, documentary and TV production. Specifically we need to study the relationships that weave excerpts of footage in with one another to construct projects that are logical yet still encourage the audience to suspend their expectations.
The different forms of film, and documentary, stipulate that different formats be followed (usually all to serve a different function). The categorical form of film is a logical choice for a documentary filmmaker to follow who isn’t seeking to persuade their audience to accept and assume a particular ideological standpoint. This form of film is more relevant for documentarists aiming at offering an objective presentation of its subjects, starting with a more general representation while becoming more specific as the film progresses. For instance, a documentary about a specific species of bird living in the Amazon (a subject that is based upon empirical and objective scientific evidence) is the perfect example of film that would far more logically follow a categorial system.
Because these films are not as provocative, however, the filmmaker risks boring the audience if the system of logical on which the film is based is too straightforward and boring. According to the reading, variation is highly critical to keeping a hold of the audience’s interest.
Documentaries that follow a categorial pattern or construction serve a valid purpose. However, personally I find rhetorical-based forms of documentary more provocative, more entertaining and more thought-provoking, often as a catalyst for change. Not only this, the primary function of rhetorical documentary – being to advocate for a certain cause or point of view – is more closely aligned to what drives me to pursue documentary making myself.
The power of the documentary is incredible in driving the change that often is required within a facet of a society. If the measure of success of a documentary is in its ability to convince the audience of its primary argument (a process that is usually associated with driving some sort of “change”) “Blackfish” (2013), by Gabriella Coperthwaite, was an incredibly successful film. In a nutshell the documentary tells the story of Tilikum, an orcha at the Orlando Seaworld responsible for the deaths of several trainers spanning over a duration of many years. Yet the film goes beyond merely detailing the events that transpired and instead adopts a subjective, rather than objective tone. The film creates relationships between different pieces of footage, ultimately to underpin and further the hypothesis that it was the inhumane capture and unnatural captivity of Tilikum that triggered the vicious attacks. The film then advances the over-arching message that the captivity of such large-scale mammals is immoral and irresponsible. This is especially when these mammals are exploited as vehicles for human entertainment aimed at expanding the capital gain of multi-billion dollar organisations such as Seaworld.
Hence instead of following a system of logic that simply laid out these threads of information in an unbiased fashion, Copperthwaite adopted a vigorous campaign to persuade the audience of her firm ideological standpoint. Evidence of her doing so is abundantly clear, as per the “Blackfish effect.” The film satisfies the four basic requirements of the rhetorical form, being to:
driving the audience to an emotional attitude AND action (which has manifested itself through the widespread and largely successful campaign to end orcha captivity – see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2971294/The-Blackfish-effect-SeaWorld-loses-25-4-million-documentary-criticizing-company-s-treatment-killer-whales-lowers-park-attendance.html);
in presenting the subject matter via well-supported arguments (which she again does well through the employment credible evidence ie. first-hand accounts, expert testimonies and interviews etc);
in presenting the evidence in such a way that creates maximum emotional appeal (particularly in foregrounding the taxing effect that the killings had on those close to Tilikum’s victims); and
in ultimately convincing a phenomenal wave of change, as evidenced in the massive loss of attendance that Seaworld has experienced in very recent years.
So ultimately, it is a director’s ability to drive momentum through widespread audience acceptance of their film’s argument that distinguishes the categorical and rhetorical forms of documentary between one another. It is also documentary’s ability to achieve such change that pushes me to pursue documentary making myself.
