Cinematography - Social Issues in Documentaries - Essay Example

Cinematography - Social Issues in Documentaries Cinematographic industry is abundant in various styles and genres, which are sure to satisfy every taste and even the most sophisticated viewer. As a form of art – which is also the reflection of the society and time - movies of different genres are meant to fulfill numerous functions: from educational to simply aesthetic. Some of them help us expand our imagination, opening a way to unthinkable fantastic universes and events; others depict lives and legacy of prominent people (artists, politicians, kings, writers etc.) celebrating their contribution and significance in the history. Except that, there are also “easy” movies that are intended to entertain and relax. However, there are rather serious genres that motivate people to think and read between the lines, implying deep inner sense. Among such genres, there are documentaries, films, which are often rather deprived of aesthetic embellishments and fancy fiction. These movies hold their own peculiar niche in cinematography, being rather different from fictional feature films, because they do not try to color the truth or distort reality. “Documentary filmmakers seek to capture on film a representation of the world “as it is” (or least a representation which is as undiluted as possible), (Tarantino, 2010, p.3). In a documentary movie, the author seeks to depict a real-life event or story objectively rather than through the prism of personal bias or perspective. According to academics, “documentary is a form of argument about the historical world” (in contrast to fictional imaginary and metaphorical worlds) (Warmington et al, 2011, p.462). Moreover, as far as many films focus on relevant social, political, religious or cultural issues, the filmmaker may use them to communicate his message to the audience. Although unbiased and rather succinct in their nature – and only sometimes with a pinch of sentimentality – documentary can make people consider serious problems and think over their resolution. The peculiar features of such films are that they are unobtrusive, often feature only real-life characters (not actors) and show real footage of the depicted events. According to Ward (2008), the documentary is the type of nonfiction motion picture, which provides a specific opinion on a certain issue along with presenting facts. Thereby, the documentaries are peculiar in their nature due to combination of objective facts’ presentation and clearly identified point of view regarding these facts. Documentaries focusing on social issues interact with and affect the audience and are likely to produce significant impact on people’s minds. For instance, films telling real-life stories of poor people of lower classes and their lives give a plausible and true view of poverty of an itching social issue and foster profound understanding of the problem in the society. Watching a movie of this kind, a person is expected to grow compassionate and sympathetic with the characters and change or improve his/her view of the issue. Thus, emphasizing a certain issue or set of issues, the documentary cinema seeks to transform the society through changing attitude towards them. This strategy appears to be very reasonable, because every kind of progress always starts with positive and involved attitude. As soon as people stop being cold and expand their outlook, changes are to come. The documentaries, which are to be covered and discussed in the current paper, revolve around acute social issues – serious, astonishing and even shocking. These are the films belonging to the category of documentaries addressing problems, most of which have existed in the world for ages: family and social relations, crime and justice, equality and gender issues. These are “Capturing the Friedmans” and “Sisters in Law”, the motion pictures belonging to modern documentary cinematography. Both of these films have powerful implicit sense and that makes them fulfill their function successfully. “Capturing the Friedmans” The first movie to be described and discussed is “Capturing the Friedmans”, the documentary shot by Andrew Jarecki and released in 2003. The narrative presented in the movie holds the Friedmans in the spotlight of attention – an average American middle-class family living in the nearly idyllic community, which became involved in a bitter drama in the 1980’s. Being rather long with the runtime of 107 minutes, the film depicts the story of a shameful crime alleged to an award-winning teacher, pianist and father, Arnold Friedman. The man was accused of sexual abuse, pedophilia and sodomy after the post service intercepted the forbidden journal of child pornography heading to Arnold from the Netherlands. As this evidence was detected, local police launched a thorough investigation of Friedman’s criminal activity, which later involved even his youngest son Jesse, who eventually plead guilty to charges of helping his father and participating in acts of abuse. What is rather interesting about this very documentary is that the director used personal home videos of the family – which were rather fond of taping their life – to depict the story and show the relations in the family. Combined with abundant interview material shot by Jarecki and voice-over narration, they demonstrate how the investigation went on and how lives of the Friedman family along with their surroundings changed. The author provided thorough overview of all the information relevant for the case including photos, important papers and even footages of the trials, but, despite all that, the viewer never gets an exact answer about Arnold’s guilt or innocence – neither from the evidences nor from the filmmaker. Moreover, the author himself didn’t know whether the main character was guilty or not (Ebert, 2003). As far as the author didn’t seem to aim at convincing the audience of one of the options, one could assume that this is not the purpose of the movie: Jarecki certainly didn’t seek to merely retell the story; instead, he sought to address extremely important social issues and convey multiple wise ideas. First of all, the issue that comes to surface is functioning of the national legal system and so-called witch-hunt which sparked in Great Neck, Friedman’s home community. As the investigation was launched, parents of Friedman’s computer students literally lined up to witness against him. However, the movie shows via interviews with policemen, children and their parents that the evidences of child molestation are rather ambiguous: whereas some children confirm being sexually molested, others deny such experience. To my thinking, Jarecki showed different viewpoints for reason: learning version of different parties, the viewer is likely to conclude that the community – and particularly students’ parents – was shocked and driven into panic by such shameful charges alleged to Mr. Friedman. The society was dazzled by blatant immorality of the alleged crime and thus was anxious about literally wrecking this individual and excluding him from the community of law-abiding citizens. Extracts of parents and students’ interviews included into the film show that many of alleged victims preferred not to reveal their identities – this indicates that the experience they are talking about is so shameful and destructive that it left imprints on their lives. However, the emphasized fact that Arnold never actually told that he did or didn’t commit the crime paint the image of witch-hunt and the society – a well-functioning mechanism – is trying its best to get rid of its imperfect detail. Another issue goes hand in hand with the previous problem – the issue of dysfunctional families, which have become a great concern for society in the recent decades, because their number has risen considerably. However, Jarecki showed an untraditional dysfunctional family – there is no drug- or alcohol-addicted parents or parents, who beat their children and deprive them of normal parental care; this family had always seemed to be quite okay. Here, the director deployed old home footages of the Friedman couple depicting Arnold and Elaine in their youth – loving and happy. On the other hand, bitter reality of the present was showed with help of home videotapes depicting family quarrels and fights between the mother, the father and sons. In this aspect, “Capturing with Friedmans” demonstrates the example of how welfare of the entire family can be ruined by a single misdeed of only one member. The crime alleged to their father, left painful traces in destinies of all sons, and one of them was even sentenced to imprisonment. Within this issue, relations of parents and children are also addressed in the documentary: warm and trustful relations that are inevitably impaired when one or several family members misbehaves. This aspect is supported by interviews of David and Elaine and home footages: when relationships between the parents were ruined, sons turned out to blame the mother, perceiving the father as a loving parent. However, the final meeting of Elaine and David with Jesse after the latter was released from prison makes the spectator think about soundness of family ties and realize their value. Another key issue addressed in the documentary is subjectivity and bias. People always differ in views of various conflicts and situations: everyone has his/her own perspective, which he/she considers the ultimate truth, but this perspective may be rather biased than objective. Thereby, different participants involved in the case of Friedman reveal different – or even opposite – points of view. Whereas Jesse’s attorney told that Jesse confessed to have been really molested by his father in childhood, adult Jesse denies this information stating that he was convinced by the lawyer to say this. Multiple points of view make the case very ambiguous and complicated, but, nevertheless, there are people who suffered in this situation indeed. Highlighting unevenness in opinions and judgments of the interviewees, Jarecki offers people to think and analyze on their way to finding out the ultimate truth. We understand that the world won’t become better, unless we learn to reserve our judgments (as Fitzgerald wrote) and to admit unbiased truth. Moreover, it is especially important for legal system and law enforcement as unwise decision might cost an innocent person a life. To add more, the director deliberately doesn’t focus on the outcome of the case, presenting is rather briefly in the epilogue – he is more interested in how the process evolved and how family and social relations transformed. That is probably why Jarecki devotes so much attention to the interviews of the direct partakers of the process, family members etc. “Sisters in Law” The second movie for consideration is similar to the previous one in terms of time period. It is called “Sisters in Law” – an award-winning documentary created by Florence Ayisi and Kim Longinotto and released in 2005. The runtime of this film is also quite considerable – 104 minutes, however, the movie is rather easy to watch even with subtitled Pidgin English; it keeps the viewer interested throughout the runtime. The story revolves around the town of Kumba in Cameroon, where two decisive and strong-willed women devote themselves to the noble purpose of establishing justice. Both African women – Beatrice Ntuba and Vera Ngassa – work in the local court in Cameroon, one of them is a court president and another one is a state prosecutor. These women are showed side by side in their everyday pursuits for restoration of justice in their community: through documentation and depiction of various cases faced by Ngassa and Ntuba in their professional activity, the authors of the movie show their social position and touch upon many topics relevant for the modern society – in many areas of the globe. The array of social issues highlighted in the movie is rather wide and familiar for many people: the movie shows how the legal system should deal with harsh family issues like, for instance, child abuse. In one of the cases, we see Vera Ngassa, the prosecutor, questioning a woman concerning child abuse – she is alleged to have beaten her little niece Manka. The father is holding the girl on his lap, and the aunt is sitting beside them. What is peculiar in the approach of the prosecutor is that she doesn’t simply accuse the person, instead, she virtually preaches to her (in a positive sense) and points to her mistakes. In other words, we don’t see an impersonal and cold approach. Through objective depiction of numerous legal cases handled by the two women, the filmmakers manage to address a burning topic of gender inequality, which is still present in many societies and cultures. Cameroonian society is still burdened by dominance of males; patriarchal traditions persist there, making women’s lives bitter and difficult. Males are still arrogant in their power over women, enjoying control and even daring at the personal freedom of the latter. When this arrogance reaches extremeness and women’s well-being and lives are endangered, there should always be the system designed to protect and help women. The film shows that Ntuba and Ngassa hold a rather special and privileged position in the modern society of their country – they are not only women, who can stand up for themselves, but also women granted considerable powers. Their firm social position is addressed in this documentary in a very bright way and the way this women are shown to handle their cases hints at their unbiased attitude. Well, of course, certain bias is likely to emerge due to arrogant behavior of men in patriarchal system, but “sisters in law” don’t want nothing more for women than they truly deserve. In their community, women often deprived of their elementary rights have to be protected by the law as far as they have no one to protect them in their families and immediate surroundings. While investigating the case of child kidnapping, the prosecutor actively condemns the fact that the child was forcefully taken away from her mother. And here, a phrase that can be called a leitmotif of the entire gender aspect of this movie: “Even though she’s a woman, she’s still entitled to her child” (“Sisters in law”, 2005). This short phrase reflect the whole sense of Ntuba and Ngassa’s struggle against inequality and oppression of women in their community. The sharp-tongued Ngassa questions the man, who virtually sold his daughter to a man from the village for 80 pounds, and tries passionately to restore the balance between rights of the man and the woman – the spectator can clearly see that the prosecutor is far from merely fulfilling her duties, she is filled with compassion and solidarity instead. Thereby, one of the most relevant and serious issues dealt with in this film is gender inequality. However, the depicted cases imply not just general problem of gender relations and patriarchal society, they also cultivate topics of child and sexual abuse to make the audience see the negative effect of these misdeeds both in legal and in personal sense. By this means, the movie encourages men (and women, too) mind carefully what they do and how they behave with others. Moreover, the documentary touches upon the concept of crime and guilt, which are closely connected to the system of moral rules existing in the society. The example of it was depicted in the movie: the man didn’t think he was guilty of beating his wide and explained that with the fact that the wife had committed adultery. In other words, the existing patriarchal values see nothing bad about hurting a woman (even though she commits adultery, which wasn’t, by the way, objectively proved). Another immense social topic addressed in “Sisters in Law” is an individual’s sheer enthusiasm and capability to make great changes in life. Based on the example of these two extraordinary women, the audience sees the confirmation of the fact that everything depends on desire and enthusiasm. Ntuba and Ngassa reflect all their desire for justice, equality and well-being in their judgments and decisions. Adopting a rather unconventional and daring policy for this community, they fight against oppression and injustice in their small town. It might seem that it is impossible to change anything in the lifestyle of the entire community, which has been forming for ages. However, enthusiasm and motivation are really able to bring fruitful results, even when these results concern only a certain town. However, all great changes in the world begin with a small spark, and thus efforts of these courageous women might change the world of patriarchal rule someday. This message creates optimistic atmosphere in the movie, despite all negative aspects of crimes: a raped under-age girl left bleeding by the neighbor, the woman literally sold by her father, a little girl beaten by her aunt and so on. Despite the core theme of dealing with blatant crimes, the documentary manages to preserve life-affirming, positive atmosphere of conflict resolution and restoration of justice; the movie was state to “positively soar” (Lee, 2006). The feeling that Ngassa and Ntuba do the right noble things helping people in need or in danger, uplifts the general mood of the documentary making it rather encouraging and inspiring than depressing. Acute social problems addressed in the movie, in their turn, are unlikely to leave at least somebody cold. In addition, I would like to mention, that the shooting technique of the movie is quite simple and minimalistic: there are no complex perspectives or assembling, and the director is highly unobtrusive; instead, there is a sensation that you are present, for instance, in Ngassa’s office yourself, observing everything that is going on there. Probably, this movie is even more deprived of the authors’ personal view; the reality is recorded in its natural state, without making any corrections or remarks. Conclusion Having watched, considered and analyzed both documentaries, one can state that they produce rather different impressions on the viewer. Whereas “Capturing the Friedmans” leaves the audience with a bittersweet aftertaste (the overall depressing nature of the situation is somewhat compensated with the warm and positive meeting of the family members in the epilogue); “Sisters in Law” produce more positive and even optimistic impression. In connection to this, I would even suppose that the first movie is designed to warn and prevent, and the second one, in contrast, is probably intended to encourage and inspire, inspire to dare, to change, to fight for one’s rights. The two films manage to cover a wide range of social issues, communicating their message to the audience. We have seen that they address such burning topics as family ties, crime and punishment, equal rights and social changes. The idea arising in both works is that a crime can easily ruin one’s life and strong family ties, but the second film focuses more on crimes committed against one’s family members. Both documentaries seek to depict the reality objectively and unobtrusively for the society to see the real state of things and draw their own conclusions based on what they see or hear. In my personal opinion, the messages implied in “Sisters in Law” and “Capturing the Friedmans” are communicated successfully to the viewers, creating enormous space for self-reflection. Moreover, the movies evoke sheer compassion: for the raped Sonita, for David Friedman, Arnold’s son, for Manka, a little girl beaten by her aunt, or for a woman beaten by her husband because of the alleged adultery. The fact that the viewer becomes compassionate means that he/she opens his/her mind and heart to the story and ideas conveyed in it. This in the long run helps to change one’s attitude towards certain aspects either for positive or negative – the purpose that should be set by each documentary filmmaker. “Sisters in Law” and “Capturing the Friedmans” are really the documentaries of the highest quality, which own numerous cinematographic awards deservedly. Our modern society has a wide range of serious social problems that are to be fought and solved in order to improve our general welfare and not to let our global community to rot. Thereby, the documentaries like the two we have discussed are the best way to pull the issue to the surface and later to get rid of it. References EBERT, R. (2003) Capturing the Friedmans. [Online] Available from: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/capturing-the-friedmans-2003 [Accessed January 13, 2015] LEE, N. (2006) In 'Sisters in Law,' the Wheels of Justice Grind Fine. The New York Times. [Online] April 12, 2006. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/movies/12sist.html?_r=4& [Accessed January 13, 2015] Sisters in Law. (2005) Film. Directed by Florence Ayisi and Kim Longinotto. TARANTINO, B. (2010) 'GUIDELINES FOR DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKERS', Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter, 14, 3, pp. 3-10, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text. [Online] EBSCOhost. Available from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.adams.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=fe6ebbbf-5838-4524-9f80-d44fa4bed436%40sessionmgr111&vid=0&hid=126 [Accessed January 13, 2015] WARD, L. (2008) "Introduction". Lecture Notes for the BA in Radio-TV-Film (RTVF). 375: Documentary Film & Television. California State University, Fullerton (College of communications). p. 4, slide 12. WARMINGTON, P., VAN GORP, A. & GROSVENOR, I. (2011) 'Education in motion: uses of documentary film in educational research', Paedagogica Historica, 47, 4, pp. 457-472, Academic Search Premier. [Online] EBSCOhost. Available from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.adams.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=17&sid=e63eba49-71b5-4c83-99c4-3bdc50bc87db%40sessionmgr114&hid=126 [Accessed January 13, 2015] Read More