What is a documentary film but the search for a truth or a representation of reality, past and present? In this pursuit, a director can take any number of approaches—using experimental techniques, archival footage and photographs, interviews with historians, vérité camerawork, animation and more.
The history of documentaries as a film genre is a history of addressing the question of what constitutes the representation of social reality. The narrative film, however, is an attempt to create an imaginative conception of what is called reality. The blurring of these forms—documentary and fictional narrative—is a creative and interpretive challenge that filmmakers have been concerned with since the inception of cinema in the late 19th century.
So after reading “Redefining the Documentary: Experimental Forms Explore New Territory
” by Mark Johnstone and "Six Primary Types of Documentary Production
by Peter Biesterfeld. My teacher asked me to answer the following question about Ryan Garrett's Things to Remember. The questions themselves put things into perspective for me about some things after reading the article by Mark, and Peter. So here were the questions and I just answered them based on what I felt. Let me know if you guys feel the same in the comments below!
1. Considering the articles you've read for class today, which documentary mode or modes does the film borrow from? Please explain specific elements from the film to support your observations.
2. Why do you think the filmmaker chose to automate the voice of the narrator? What does it add or detract from the film?
The automate voice narrator is very distracting. It feels like a person decided to type a narration and allowed a computer to do the talking and pacing of everything. Since the narrator was automate it felt like it added to the fact that this is a work of fiction.
3. What were some of the more experimental aspects of the film in terms of image and storytelling?
The story telling and the pictures that was presented does not match up. Normally when people describe things for documentaries the video matches it. Over all in my opinion I believe that even though this was supposed to show a bit of “history” it can almost be taken as a joke because of how the information is given.
4. Does the film come across as a work of fact or fiction? Why?
The work comes across as a work of fiction. The reason I believe that it’s a work of Fiction is because of how the document is presented. There’s barely any human contact and the recording of this “documentary” doesn’t line up with how a documentary is normally presented.