Documentary film and Communication of data

Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Documentary film and Communication of data

Introduction

The collection and recording of data has always been crucial in any qualitative and quantitative research. Needless to say, researchers have used numerous techniques to obtain data depending on the dynamics of the particular cases. These techniques have continued to evolve with time in an effort to enhance the dynamics of the changing society. One of the most popular techniques of recording or even obtaining data in the contemporary society is the use of documentary films. The key importance of documentary films in recording events lies in the timelessness that they imbue in events. Individuals have the capacity to relieve the events and even make corrections in their data depending on the information provided in the documentary films. Nevertheless, the most crucial aspect of any recording method lies in the usage or utility of the information provided. While documentary films have gained widespread use in varied aspects, the most controversial one is in reflecting the interests of social movements and effecting social change (Stubbs 22). Aesthetically dressed, mediated and politically driven activist documentary films do not only have the potential of constituting political oratory, but has the capacity of becoming public communication between private individuals likely to affect social change.

For more than a hundred years, documentary films have prominently been featuring in the public arena as effective mediums of persuasion. Numerous parties have used documentary films in promoting their political goals. For instance, Stalin, in 1928 tried to make a documentary film whose content was purely political. This was the same case for the Nazi party, which incorporated a documentary film unit aimed at bringing the masses highly aestheticized graphic pertaining to political practice (Stubbs 24). The United States government was not left behind as it made heavy investments in documentary films aimed at selling war to teetering allies and soldiers.

Documentary films go beyond simply being a new, trendy, form of media entertainment as it incorporates significant rhetorical implications. They carry out numerous actions or tasks for which language has always been used. These include asserting, warning, ridiculing, informing and critiquing (Stubbs 47). It distinguishes itself from other data obtaining methods such as reading and hearing in the fact that it blends unique speech acts including word, sound and image.

Apart from depicting the information or data on as is basis, narrators or film directors are known to use documentary films to propagate an idea or even promote the making of certain conclusions. Prior to 1960s, documentaries were mainly used in promoting the interests of corporations. However, filmmakers started embracing the role of observers, where they changed documentary films from the ambiguous instruments of information to carefully directed instruments of forming opinions (Nichols 29). In this regard, documentary filmmakers do not leave their viewers to make conclusions pertaining to the information presented, whereas the content usually poked into places that were considerably hidden or ignored by the society. This was seen in Fred Wiseman’s films such as Titicut Follies (1967) in which he explored the state institutions for the insane, and High School (1968), in which he contrasted the egalitarian approach of public schools to education that is designed to eliminate the distinctions between the poor and the rich, against images of apathetic ad bored students that are inclined to rebelling against their teachers. It is noteworthy that the capacity and potential of this genre to effect social change lay in the fact that it legitimized groups relegated to societal margins, and foreground the speech and ideas pertaining to the film subjects thereby exploding the documentary’s rhetorical potentialities (Nichols 35). The role of documentary films changed from the previous era where filmmakers manipulated footages to support their arguments and influence conclusions (Corner, 56). In the new era, the methodological commitments that came with direct cinema necessitated that subjects make their own voices (Nichols 37). The capacity of technology to record synchronized image and sound from the film subjects meant that a significant interpretive control had been taken from the editors’ hands, in which case the audiences did not take the information provided as just another form of entertainment but rather a depiction of reality (Finnegan 56). In essence, these films attain their basic function, which was to bear witness to the events and allow their audience to make judgments. The increased respect emanating from this led most working class individuals to demand changes in their sociopolitical arenas as they took the presented information more seriously (Corner 63).

Evidently, documentary films have had an immense influence on the study of humanities in their entirety. Researchers have divided the study of humanities into varied aspects or categories including the physical, emotional, social, as well as spiritual. As much as these aspects have been examined individually, the social aspect of humanities has been one of the most fundamental. Examining the effect of documentaries in effecting social change cements the notion of development of behavior among human beings (Rabiger 63). It outlines the fact that as much as behavior may be formed or influenced by genetic predisposition, social aspects or the things that individuals are exposed to can determine the manner in which they act or react to situations. This is especially considering that individuals, growing in an era where filmmakers manipulated the content of the film and even fed the audience with their own conclusions, would make certain social changes thanks to the same conclusions (Rabiger 63). This, however, does not negate the capacity of individuals to interpret situations in their own accord and arrive at certain conclusions based on their past experiences. This is what the current day documentary films have been striving to do. They incorporate the voices and speeches of the subjects, and desist from making any conclusions on the viewers’ or audience’s behalf, leaving the audience to do it themselves (Rabiger 64).

While the main effect of the entry of documentary films may revolve around the social changes and revolutions, there were other deeply set effects in the society. This is especially in instances where its focus changed from narrators made conclusion to giving the subject a voice. Scholars note that baby boomers who had grown under the shadow of the civil rights movement and other antiwar movements saw the television as their window to the outside world (Schneider, 55). They strived to tell their story as it is all with the aim of enhancing democracy in the access to resources such as technology (Finnegan 46). This generation acknowledged the fact that political contestations would be solved through extending the unifying aspects pertaining to electronic media to everyone rather than undertaking a direct assault of the system as is the case with revolutions (Schneider 56). In essence, the entry of documentary films changed the manner in which individuals agitate for rights or issues.

Works cited

Schneider, Ellen. “Using Documentaries to Move People to Action.” Nieman Reports 55. 2001: 55-56. Print

Rabiger, Michael. “Documentary Filmmakers Decide How to Present Compelling Evidence.” Nieman Reports 55. 2001: 63-64. Print

Finnegan, Cara A. “Documentary as Art in U.S. Camera.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 31. 2001:37-68. Print

Corner, John. The Art of Record: A Critical Introduction to Documentary. New York: Manchester University Press, 1996. Print

Stubbs, Liz. Documentary Filmmakers Speak. New York: Allworth Press, 2002. Print

Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 2001. Print