Development in the documentary
In his 2001 book, Introduction to Documentary (Indiana University Press), Bill Nichols defines six narrative
‘modes’ of documentary – different ways/styles of delivering their stories , from the early poetic to the
latest reflexive/participatory modes.
These roughly correspond to developmental phases in the genre, when new generations of documentary
makers have challenged the forms and conventions that have gone before, and re-invented what
documentary means for them.





This doesn’t mean that the ‘older’ styles aren’t used any more, as the expository mode is still a popular
form of tv documentary, in particular.
We are specifically going to look at the development between ‘Expository’ and ‘Direct Cinema’ forms.
We need to identify the changes, explain why they occurred, and analyse the effect/impact of this on the
documentary form and as a reflection of the time these changes occurred.
We need specific examples of the different modes to support your points.
There are many examples of the different modes on youtube as well, if you wish to do ‘wider reading’
Development of the genre.
Here is a possible focus…
Specific to the documentary genre is the development of narrative style brought about by the technological
developments in the film industry at the beginning of the 1960s, particularly in portability of cameras,
mounted lighting and synched sound. This portability allowed for a new breed of filmmakers coming out offilm
schools or other areas of journalism to develop a less mediated style of documentary, coined variously ‘direct
cinema’, ‘cinema verite’ (film truth), fly-on-the-wall or, more recently, the ‘observational mode’. The influence
of the “Realist” School of filmmakers in Europe such as Bazin and Rosellini and the jump-cut style of the French
“new wave” in fictional film also impacted on these young filmmakers. Therefore, “Direct Cinema is the result
of two predominant and related factors--The desire for a new cinematic realism and the development of the
equipment necessary to achieving that desire"(Monaco 2003, p. 206))
(The timing of this technological development was critical for other news media, as they used this technology
to record the horrors of the Vietnam War, that were broadcast nightly into homes in the USA. Audiences
realised that simply being told that something was true by the Government was not necessarily so – now they
could draw their own conclusions from material presented.)
Because of the technology change, the Direct Cinema style of narrative altered, “creating a grainy, hand-held,
authentic-sound, go-anywhere’ style of film that was entirely new. Documentary had entered its direct-cinema
phase” (Brian Winston, Technologies of Seeing, London, BFI, 1996. These developments didn’t mean that the
expository documentary died – it is still the most popular narrative style in documentary as it is the most easily
digested by audiences, but it opened the scope of the documentary form to new ways of telling their stories.
Cameras could gain access to places previously impossible (notice how this trend has continued with the
continued development of more portable cameras, and digital technology.)
Documentaries prior to the 1960s were generally heavily mediated by the limitations of the equipment
available and the desire of documentary-makers to ’educate’ via editing and selective narrative construction.
An extreme example of this expository mode is the propagandist series “Why we Fight”, Directed by Frank
Capra (a Major in the US Signal Corps) which attempts to persuade us of the reasons why the US have entered
WW2, using typical expository techniques… [add specific examples such as authoritative voiceover, graphs
and ‘patriotic’ or mood-enhancing soundtrack. Also refer to Reifenstahl perhaps…]
In contrast, the development of the style that came to be known as Direct Cinema documentary genre
originated between 1958 and 1962 in North America. It was characterized initially by filmmakers' desire to
directly capture reality and represent it truthfully. The first film recognised as a Direct Cinema film was Robert
Drew’s “Primary”(1960), following JFK on the Democratic Presidential Primary campaign trail. Their approach,
offered an alternative to the Edward R. Murrow (ie. traditional expository) style of documentaries. "It was as if
we were butterfly hunting. We knew there were butterflies in the woods, but we didn't know what kind, and we
didn't know how we were going to catch them; whereas in the journalistic (ie. expository) documentary, a
reporter says, 'On my left, hidden in the bushes, are thousands of butterflies.' And then the camera cuts away
to the bushes. Drew, with 'Primary,' broke that mold.” Al Maysles
Another excellent example of Direct Cinema is “Gimme Shelter” by the Maysles Brothers is typical of the Direct
Cinema that became popular in the 1960s, primarily because of technological development. This film explores
the Rolling Stones’ tour of the USA in 1969, culminating in the disastrous Altamont Speedway concert. Because
of the development of portable cameras etc, the film was able to capture a more intimate look into the world
of a band at the height of their success. The lack of external narrative from voiceover or presenter, handheld
footage over lengthy takes give a sense of almost voyeuristic observation into the lives of the band on the
road. The development of portable camera and sound equipment was ideally suited to the ‘rockumentary’
subgenre, and coincided nicely with the development of modern rock music and all of its pretensions to
expressing alternative ways of looking at the world. In many ways, rockumentaries like Don’t Look Back and
Gimme Shelter demystified the public mythology built up around these ‘stars’, dimensionalising them, or at
least humanising them in some sense. The direct cinema approach gave a sense that we were there,
witnessing the highs and lows and being able to make our own judgements on what we had witnessed.
However, it is important to note that at times the subjects had, to an extent at least, some editorial input into
what finally screened. This lessens the claims of “greater objectivity” suggested by this form of documentary.
This narrative change eventually led to further experimentation with the doco form, as a reaction to the such
as the inclusion of dramatisations and reconstructions, direct participation of the documentary-maker
themselves etc. The documentary will continue to change as technology and audience taste/demands develop.
Regardless of the style, all documentary is, to a degree, subjective: a ‘creative treatment of actuality’
determined by editorial choices, selection and omission that Fredrick Wiseman described as “reality fictions”.
It is impossible to know how much the very presence of a camera can influence a subjects thoughts and
actions. However, Direct Cinema is perhaps the most unobtrusive in its presentation of ‘truth’.
Conventions of the two styles
1. Expository Documentary
 Audience given direction as to expected response– set up argument and then prove it
Conventions include
 archival footage
 interviews, often in a studio or on location
 dramatisations/re-enactments
 Voice-Of-God narration that is authoritative, direct and (often) anonymous
 Can be poetic and evocative
 Claims ‘objective’ knowledge – when watching we have to ask what assumptions, values, purposes
motivate the knowledge
 Stylistically conventional, polished, carefully constructed
 Form can be complex and lyrical
 Can be polemic (strongly opinionated) criticism of an aspect of society
 Propagandist documentaries often use this form
2. Cinema verite, Direct Cinema or Observational
 Termed variously Direct Cinema (US), Cinéma Vérité (France), and Free Cinema (Canada and England),
this documentary style strove for immediacy, spontaneity, and authenticity—an attempt to bring the
filmmaker and the audience closer to the subject.
 Direct or immediate style of filming
 The style seeks to become ‘transparent’ capturing ‘untampered’ events
 a dramatic fiction-like structure employing ‘found’ stories as they unfold
 appears to leave conclusions and interpretation and management of information to the audience
 a avoidence of obvious constructed meaning
 stylistically has documentary textuality, muddied and inconsistent sound, sometimes out of focus, poor
lighting, grainy film texture – leads to a sense of authenticity, long shots or panning shots, shaky
camera
 War zone filming – running from dangerous situations, chaos etc
 captures spontaneous activity in a wide variety of situations
 no v/o narrations/almost no non-diegetic sound
 HOWEVER, choices about shooting and editing even though it is seemingly direct and naïve
 associated with the new technologies available from the 1960s (see below)
 TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT enabling this mode
 Using newly developed, lightweght, hand-held 16mm cameras with synchronized sound, (developed in
1959 by Drew Associates in the US) a new generation of young filmmakers in the US and Europe
reshape the form of documentary film.
 This, along with camera-mounted lighting, and faster film stock for low light situations led to, “creating a
grainy, hand-held,authentic-sound, go-anywhere’ style of film that was entirely new. Documentary
had entered its direct-cinema phase” (Brian Winston, Technologies of Seeing, London, BFI, 1996)
 These films are often characterized by the use of real people in unrehearsed situations, as opposed to
actors with scripts. Voice-over narration is avoided, and directorial intervention is kept to a minimum.
Sets and props are never used and most films are shot on location.
 In 1960 Drew Associates produces Primary, the first film in which the sync-sound motion picture camera
is able to move freely with characters throughout a breaking story (John F. Kennedy and Hubert
Humphrey in the 1960 Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary). Primary is widely regarded as the
earliest example of American "Direct Cinéma."
 Major directors included: Leacock, Wiseman, Pennebaker and the Maysles Brothers