Documentary Genres/styles

Expository
This is characterised by ‘voice of god’ narration which addresses the viewer directly. This anchors the meaning of the images being shown and states the text’s preferred meaning. Images are used to illustrate the narration and make the voice over seem more objective and honest. They are usually centred on a problem that needs solving.

Observational (fly-on-the-wall)
They began with the techniques first used in American ‘direct cinema’ in the 1960’s. This was where lightweight camera equipment allowed crews to film right in the action, creating dramatic excitement. This style avoided voice-over and the camera is as unobtrusive as possible. Techniques that are used include: indirect address to the audience, diegetic sound, relatively long takes, demonstrating nothing has been edited out. These documentaries tend to focus on specific individuals. Events often unfold in front of the camera and the film makers have no knowledge of the outcome. The observational style has led to a greater interest in the personal and the intimate; people based documentaries. It is impossible with this style to create a genuine ‘window on the world’ because the very presence of the camera in a situation immediately affects the people being observed. The focus on personal issues means that they are superficial and apolitical. There is also a chance that the editor has cut things to make a situation more bias. This style is dominating in television documentaries.

Docusoaps
This style is a development on the observation genre and they are a hugely popular hybrid; this is a long running series (like big brother) that like a fictional soap opera follows a group of characters chosen for their quirkiness and entertainment. Docusoaps have been based in institution- Driving school, airport, a life of grime- in geographical locations- Paddington green- or around specific events e.g. the cruise. Docusoaps were the television find of the 1990’ and for the first time factual programmes rivalled drama.
Docusoaps were made possible by lightweight camera equipment which means that the intrusion is minimal and the film-maker becomes part of the story. However, they inevitably have a higher than average shooting ratio and therefore would have been far too expensive to make on 16mm film; digital camera and editing suites made filming and cutting material much cheaper. In fact, Docusoaps are three times as cheaper to produce as comparable light entertainment (Paul Haman, head of BBC Documentary Features, 1998)
They are episodic, soap-like structure, with several interweaving plot lines, each involving different characters, which tend to be given about three minutes of air time before moving on to the next. There is a relationship between characters, filmmaker and audience that was new in the history of documentary. If characters play up to the camera, we know it is part of the style. The ‘shallowness; of the genre has prompted criticism. They interested in the ordinary but reach such a level of success that they create and promote ‘stars’. The genre tells us nothing about society, only about individuals who know they’re one television.
Characters that have become nationally known personalities are people like Jane McDonald, a singer from the cruise, and Jeremy from the Airport.

Reality TV
Factual television is now characterised by a high degree of hybridisation between different programme types. This is something referred to as ‘infotatinment’, a combination of entertainment and the provision of useful information. Across British TV schedules, factual programming increased between 1989 and 1999, often in prime-time and pre-and post-watershed slots, mainly at the expense of sitcoms, game shows and quizzes. Reality TV is a mix of ‘raw’, ‘authentic’ material with the seriousness of an information programme and the commercial success of tabloid content. It is characterised by: camcorder, surveillance or observational camera work; first person or eye-witness testimony; studio or to-camera links and commentary from presenters.

Interactive (not as common)
This style of documentary acknowledges the presence of the camera and crew. Equipment is easily portable which means that post-dubbing was no longer required and allowed the film-maker to speak directly to the subjects, generally in the from of an interview. This interaction means that the focus is on the exchange of information. The audience is constantly reminded of the existence of multiple viewpoint, in contrast to the ‘voice of god’ offered in other styles.
Audiences may read interactive documentaries as being more honest because there is no attempt to disguise the camera and crew, which in itself is a manipulation of the audience.

Drama-documentary
This uses reconstructions and re-enactments which are as old as documentary itself. This method was partly due to the technology available at the time- there was no way of filming natural dialogue as it occurred on location until technological innovations in the 1960’s. Although the observational style has come to be seen as more natural and somehow closer to ‘reality’, reconstruction gained new recognition in the 1990’s, partly through its use by television journalists who set out to investigate issues through drama, making points that could not be made within the conventions of current affairs programming.
The following distinction may prove useful in discussing the genre:
‘Docudrama’- a fictional story that uses the techniques of documentary to reinforce its claim for realism.
‘Dramadoc’- a documentary reconstruction of actual events using techniques taken from fiction cinema.

Current Affairs
These are journalist-led programmes whose aim is to address the news and the political agenda in greater depth than news bulletins allow. The emphasis is on the investigatory and the political, seeking out atrocity and political scandal. Programmes are organised around a journalistic report, which may be arguing a case or proving a wrong.

Documentary Dilemma
Documentary footage is rarely broadcast unedited and once they have given permission to film, documentary subjects are in the film-maker’s hands. One problem, therefore, is how the film-maker balances their responsibility to those who appear in the programme with their legal obligations and their desire to make a successful programme and their responsibility towards the audience (entertain or inform?).