Participatory mode (Response #5)

The participatory mode is the type of documentary I am most comfortable with and most interested in. As a form of artistic expression, it makes sense for the filmmaker to be actively involved as much as it makes sense for political or social reasons. The participatory mode gives the filmmaker much more control. Barnouw compares observational and participatory modes in regards to the role of the filmmaker. In the first, the filmmaker must hope for some form of action or confrontation as he or she sits back. In the latter, the creator can (and often is) a catalyst for action. Perhaps it’s my bossy and domineering personality that draws me to this form, but I enjoy being a participant in the documentary films that I produce.

Probably the most annoying person I've ever had to watch repeatedly in different classes. Michael Moore takes participatory documentary to an whole new extreme in not only fabricating all sorts of situations, but purposely editing so as to mislead the audience. I hope I'm not that horrible. 

As discussed in class, the most common form of participatory documentary that I deal with is home videos. Whoever is running the camera often asks questions, instigates action, and directs the subject’s responses (“How old are you today?” “Show me your dance routine.” “Stand away from the window so I can see your face.”). An observational approach would seem cold and unnatural for a family setting. Even in dance recitals or soccer games you can often hear the camera operator (mom or dad) shouting encouragements, gasping, mumbling, clapping, etc. Participatory documentary lends itself to a more intimate and personable film experience.

click HERE for a home video I edited. While clearly participatory (as made clear by the instructions to wave at the camera) I covered most of the talking with music so as not to seem SOOO directed. 

Alan Berliner’s 1996 film, Nobody’s Business is a perfect example of the benefits of a participatory mode. Many aspects of Berliner’s film could easily have lent themselves to an expository film or even an observational, but it’s his interaction with his father that makes the film such a standout. The fighting and bickering give both the subject and the filmmaker flaws and personalities that the audience can’t help but identify with. His father’s stubbornness infuriates the audience, but the son’s persistent picking also allows us to sympathize with his father at times.

The biggest risk, I feel, in the participatory mode is the appearance of candor. Because we can hear Berliner’s questions, we can feel the annoyance in his voice and sense the tension between him and his father, we assume that we are getting the whole story. We must remember, though, that the filmmaker still has full control over what is kept in the film and in what order the scenes are edited together. Berliner choosing to end the film with his father bashing his career choice leaves us with a bit of a bad taste in our mouth. But, as Barnouw says, “artificial circumstances could bring hidden truth to the surface.” I believe that the editing choices of Berliner revealed much more about his own insecurities and weaknesses than it did about his father.

Just like in all media, if we use our brains when watching a participatory film we will be able to ascertain much more than what’s on the surface.