The 5 Types of Documentary

If somebody wanted to really simplify the world of moving image programming down into two forms, then those two forms would probably be fiction and non-fiction. Fiction is more popular and more widespread in film culture, but what is a non-fiction film?



Typically called a 'documentary', these films by definition tend to show real events, with real people. It may be presented in any number of ways, but its definition at its core is its basis upon fact. Mainly, these facts can be presented in any one of 5 ways:

EXPOSITORY

Probably the most conventional, 'cliché' form of documentary, expository documentaries are those that show objective, non-intrusive footage of some event happening, with a disembodied 'voice of god' commentary describing what is going on to the viewer. As is always the problem with voiceover, it has the tendency to be very opinionated, and to tell people what to think. Much like 1958 documentary We Are the Lambeth Boys, someone watching gets the idea that the filmmakers didn't really have a high opinion of the titular boys, and the viewer is encouraged to feel the same way.



Some examples would be David Attenborough's traditional nature shows, or french documentary March of the Penguins (Luc Jacquet, 2005).

As an example of David Attenborough's nature programmes, Life consists of very deliberate and tight cinematography of wildlife, using techniques such as time lapse and and tilt-shift in order to give a view of nature that one could not normally experience. This is then accompanied with Attenborough's revered commentary, discussing and explaining what is happening on screen. It's the narration here that earns these TV specials their 'expository' title.

To be specific, take this one clip from Life in the Undergrowth:



Here, Attenborough explains and provides coherence and narrative to what the ants are doing, while the cameras show in more detail what we couldn't see with the naked eye.

OBSERVATIONAL 

These are quite similar to expository, except from the fact that their values lie solely behind complete objective delivery of an event. As a result, these documentaries lack a certain quality that their expository counterparts possess: the commentary. Observational documentaries try to encourage the viewer to make their own decisions and reach their own conclusions about what is being shown, as opposed to being told what to think. But this being said there is still issues about what the documentaries show. Even without the narration telling people what to think, filmmakers can still choose the angle you view something and select the nicest/worst light. Examples of these types of documentaries include Frederick Wiseman's High School (1968), or Armadillo (Pedersen, 2010).



Armadillo follows a group of danish soldiers as they're posted out in Afghanistan, at the base with which this film shares its name. There is no narration, and the film follows their entire tour from leaving Denmark to returning to Denmark.



There aren't many clips of the film proper online, but here is a trailer. You can see the sort of rugged, visceral camerawork that is involved, and also the distinct lack of any narration.

INTERACTIVE

Interactive documentaries are those in which the filmmaker is engaging himself with the subject matter and the people present. He/she is present on camera, and asks questions / takes part in what's going on. These documentaries normally have some form of agenda to go about, as they are either arguing or exploring their own ideas and beliefs. Louis Theroux and Michael Moore's documentaries are interactive, and in the sense of style one might argue that Dynamo's TV shows are also interactive documentaries.



The problem with these documentaries is that it isn't always clear whether what is being shown is the truth. It's difficult to make sure what you're filming is the truth with this kind of filmmaking as people will know a camera is on them as the camera is much more invasive and aggressive here. That being said, it's usually required to gain a release from people before you film them, and this will always influence the way they act on camera. It's similar to the famous Double Slit experiment, in which the act of observing the photons influences the way they behave. People will always want to protect that which is private to them, and when their lives are exposed to an audience of thousands then there are going to be some parts of their lives that they won't want to expose to said audience.

This being said, there are exceptions. Take news watchdog features that use 'hidden camera' techniques to capture attitudes from people that they would not want to show on camera, which is allowed so long as the person in question is over 18 and that the information being explained is in the public interest.

A good example of an interactive documentary that might use this power to slightly twist the truth is 2012 Academy Award darling Searching for Sugar Man, which supposedly chronicles two Cape Town residents as they try to find a once-popular singer that mysteriously disappeared. As it transpires, they find him living a quiet life in Detroit, apparently completely oblivious of his popularity in South Africa.



Or so the film would have you believe.

In fact, it was later revealed that Rodriguez, the mysterious musician, actually had a pretty successful career in Australia, including tours to sold-out crowds. This is slightly different from the apparently totally unaware 'average Joe' that the film depicts.

REFLEXIVE

This very special type of documentary is the one that tries to break the existing conventions of its genre and call documentaries out collectively on what they are and challenges them. They are experimental by nature, and as such it is hard to define exact characteristics of these kinds of documentary, and the term has become somewhat of a 'catch-all' to describe any documentary that doesn't fit into the other 4 types. As far as examples go reflexive documentaries are the most subjective of all to define, but Isaac Julien's Territories (1984) is a good example. One might also argue that while seeming like observational documentaries, BBC Wildlife Specials 'Spy in the [...]' series could be reflexive too, from the experimental method of capturing footage, and the fact that said method is a primary focus of the documentary.




PERFORMATIVE

The fifth and final type is possibly the most romanticized type, as it has the most features in common with fictional filmmaking, i.e. original score and reconstructions. These documentaries definitely exist to push the film maker's agenda, and are probably some of the most persuasive types in this list, possibly tying with interactive. Examples include The Imposter (Bart Layton, 2012) and The Thin Blue Line (Errol Morris, 1988).

Reconstructions certainly have their place in documentaries, but they're an interesting point because they begin to blur the line between fictional film and factual film. They're normally used when a film is being made about an event that happened in the past where no cameras were present, but they also help to make a film look much more stylized, and more interesting to the viewer as opposed to just having interviews and talking heads.

People's problem with them is that since they are reconstructed especially for the documentary, there's nothing to say that what's being shown is the exact truth, and it's difficult to prove. Reconstructions make it easy for the film makers to change minor details and end up twisting the truth far easier.

I, personally, think that documentaries are allowed a certain leeway in what they're showing, because if they didn't have they would be barred from making certain decisions that might have made a better film. In this sense, a certain contract with the viewer does exist in that there should certainly be a lot of truth involved, but in my opinion it's okay to perhaps simplify or shuffle some things around so long as the main message remains undeterred.

SOURCES

Teach Yourself Film Studies (2009) - Buckland, W.

The Top Ten Observational Documentaries ('SBS') - (25/02/14)