how can we write about dopcumentaries

Chapter Title: HOW CAN WE WRITE EFFECTIVELY ABOUT DOCUMENTARY?
Book Title: Introduction to Documentary, Third Edition
Book Author(s): Bill Nichols
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2005t6j.13
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Introduction to Documentary, Third Edition
This content downloaded from
142.3.80.234 on Sun, 03 Apr 2022 23:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

194
HOW CAN WE WRITE EFFECTIVELY
ABOUT DOCUMENTARY?
This chapter assumes some general familiarity with essay writing for lm.
All introductory lm texts cover the topic, and other helpful guides to
essay writing also exist. This chapter gives sharper focus to writing about
documentary lm, but the basic principles pertain to almost any research
topic in the humanities. Some suggestions for further reading, includ-
ing more introductory guides to writing about lm, can be found in the
“Notes on Source Material” section of this book.
Crucial to successful writing is having a purpose. On one level, it
may be to get a grade or pass a course, but on a more concrete level, writ-
ing on a specic topic calls for an investment of curiosity, enthusiasm,
and effort. A concrete purpose, such as defending a position, advancing
a point of view, or exploring an issue, endows an essay with interest.
Simply summarizing a lm, repeating what others have said about it, or
describing parts of it without evaluating them—in essence, withholding
a personal perspective—detract from an essay’s interest. Finding a theme
or idea that holds genuine personal interest typically yields a better essay
than simply going through the motions of completing an assignment.
We will explore effective writing by using a concrete example: an
essay assignment on Nanook of the North (). The hypothetical essay
question below invites the student to assess the lm and respond to it.
Documentary addresses the historical world by shaping its representa-
tion of this world from a distinct perspective or point of view. Identify
the point of view adopted by Robert Flaherty in Nanook of the North and
consider some of its implications, based on what you have learned about
documentary lm. Demonstrate research on this topic by including at
least three research citations in your essay. Length: –, words.
The rst step for writing any essay is preparation. Seeing Nanook is
the most obvious preparation, but seeing it more than once is also impor-
tant. On rst viewing, we become immersed in the viewing experience.
We may ask ourselves some questions about what we are seeing, but on
a second viewing, this process of asking and thinking about what we see
becomes more central. We might ask, for example, why Flaherty begins
the way he does. What does this set up for the rest of the lm? Why does
he end as he does? How does this relate to the beginning? What kind of
relationship is there among Flaherty, the camera, and Nanook? How are
9
This content downloaded from
142.3.80.234 on Sun, 03 Apr 2022 23:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How Can We Write Effectively about Documentary? 195
scenes edited? What scenes stood out, and why? How is one scene joined
to another? What does the narrative structure of the lm revolve around?
How does Flaherty represent people from another culture? How does he
characterize them or convey a sense of their individuality?
Questions like these might be guided by a specic idea we already
have for a paper, or they may guide note taking before developing a spe-
cic idea. In either case, they increase our awareness of Flaherty’s distinct
approach and can rarely be answered by a single viewing.
Some viewers like to make notes on the rst viewing of a lm; others
nd it distracting. But on repeat viewing, notes provide the raw material
that will later support critical writing about the lm. In general, notes
can track such things as the following:
 Chronology of scenes (what comes rst, second).
 Types of camera shots (wide angle, telephoto, tracking shots,
zooms, composition within the frame).
 Editing techniques (continuity editing, point-of-view shots,
unusual juxtapositions or jumps in time and space).
 Role of speech (dialogue, commentary), written words (titles,
subtitles, intertitles), music, or sound effects in a scene.
 Character development (how the lm makes choices to enhance
our sense of individual characters or personalities by camera
angle, editing, organization of scenes, selection of what is said,
and, possibly, hints as to what is left unsaid or omitted).
 Rhetorical technique (how the lm makes itself seem credible,
convincing, and compelling, or not).
 Modes and models (what modes and models the lm relies on to
organize itself and how it inects them in a distinct way).
Nanook bites a record.
Is this an act of playful
hamming for the camera,
or is this Flaherty’s way of
demonstrating the back-
wardness of his subject?
The two sample essays that
follow take different paths
in interpreting this classic
documentary film. Nanook
of the North (Robert
Flaherty, 1922).
This content downloaded from
142.3.80.234 on Sun, 03 Apr 2022 23:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Introduction to Documentary
196
 Other unusual qualities (degree of acknowledged presence of
the lmmaker in scenes; the political perspective, if any, that the
lm conveys).
 Aesthetic or emotional responses to specic qualities of the lm
and what seems to prompt them in terms of technique or subject
matter.
Taking notes is a selective business. We can attend to only so many
aspects of a lm. We may choose to focus on the camera style or editing,
on the lmmaker’s own presence or the development of social actors as
complex characters, but we cannot concentrate on everything at once.
Notes provide a record of some of our preoccupations and interests. When
done in relation to an essay, they provide source material for the points
we plan to make in our commentary.
Let’s assume that two hypothetical students, Robert and Roberta,
have seen Nanook once and have formed an initial opinion. Let’s talk
through the process of moving forward toward a nished essay.
Robert What did you think of Nanook?
Roberta I hated it.
Robert Oh, I loved it.
As a comprehensive response to the lm, this type of comment barely
registers as a half-hearted attempt. It does provide a valuable starting place
for thinking about the lm, however. Each viewer has a strong response,
and that response can motivate writing an essay. It furnishes a purpose:
to defend a basic feeling about the lm. To do so, however, this initial
judgment has to be shaped into a critical analysis that relies on substantive
support to make its points.
At this point, our path branches in two directions. One leads to lm
reviews and the other to lm criticism. A useful distinction is that a re-
viewer writes for those who have not seen the lm, as a kind of consumer
guide. A critic writes for those who have seen the lm, as part of a critical
dialogue. Although some professional reviewers also pose issues that con-
tribute to a critical dialogue, classroom essays seldom serve as reviews: the
professor has already seen the lm. The assigned essay topic on Nanook
clearly expects the essay to be part of a critical dialogue among those
who have seen the lm.
One important consequence: there is no need to summarize the plot.
In lm criticism, unlike lm reviewing, once an essay begins to sum-
marize a lm or describe a scene, the essay’s analytic momentum may
come to a halt. Summaries are largely redundant because the reader has
already seen the lm, and once begun, they often compel the writer to
go on, summarizing more and more until the entire plot is clearly stated.
This reverses priorities. For criticism, it is more vital to make a point and
then provide supporting evidence through references to the lm than to
give a summary and then connect it to an overall opinion. Developing
arguments that convey your own considered thoughts about the lm
This content downloaded from
142.3.80.234 on Sun, 03 Apr 2022 23:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How Can We Write Effectively about Documentary? 197
has the highest priority. Describe scenes or techniques that support your
argument but avoid summaries that do not advance your own point
of view.
Robert and Roberta’s initial statements of love and hate are unsub-
stantiated opinions—they have not yet offered any supporting evidence
yet. Their opinions do not yet qualify as criticism. Let’s take them a bit
further.
Robert I loved the way Flaherty showed me things about Eskimo cul-
ture I hadn’t seen before.
Roberta I hated the way Flaherty made Nanook act like a typical primi-
tive who knew all about nature but couldn’t gure out a phonograph
record.
This gets the ball rolling. Each student has given us some sense of why
he or she loves or hates the lm. Robert has begun to put his nger on
the quality he admires about Flaherty. From here he could begin to think
about what Flaherty shows him and how Flaherty shows him these things:
what about the representation seems to deserve admiration? Roberta has
begun to link Flaherty with a set of misrepresentations in which tradi-
tional cultures appear like earlier, or more infantile, versions of our own.
From here she could begin to think about what Flaherty does to give her
this feeling and how Flaherty’s style contributes to it. Film viewing notes
will help this process.
Robert and Roberta may now make a preliminary thesis statement
or an outline for their papers. They will also view the lm again, looking
for scenes and moments that will support their theses. They may conduct
additional research as well, but let’s rst see how they can elaborate their
initial argument a bit more with a thesis statement and then see how
research can help support their evolving argument in written form. The
goal of the statement or outline is to indicate concisely what the point of
the nal paper will be.
Robert I loved the way Flaherty adopts the perspective of a single fam-
ily as a way to understand Eskimo culture. This gives us a convenient
handle because we are already familiar with family roles but not fa-
miliar with the specic problems and tasks facing this family. Flaherty
involves us mainly with Nanook, but he also shows how the kids begin
to learn Eskimo ways and how Nyla, Nanook’s wife, contributes to the
success of the group. Flaherty has a way of letting scenes linger; they
don’t rush to a conclusion. This is a really harsh environment, and
men must be very determined and skilled to survive.
Roberta I hated Flaherty’s hackneyed attempt to make us love Eskimos
by making us love Nanook. This is a trite way of saying that we should
admire other cultures because the people are cute and colorful—the
sort of thing I see in travel brochures for exotic locales. Nanook acts
like a ham when Flaherty gives him a chance to respond to the cam-
era, especially at the trading post. He’s more in his element when
hunting seals, but that’s where we expect him to be most at ease. Is this
Flaherty’s way of keeping him in his place? Nanook seems like Eskimo
brawn to the white man’s brain.
This content downloaded from
142.3.80.234 on Sun, 03 Apr 2022 23:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms