Analyse the oft-stated difference between cinema-verite and direct cinema using TWO documentary films as examples.

es. o you thin! this distinction is worth holding onto" ########################## $n the mid to late %&'(s the )agra sound recorder was developed* allowing filmma!ers to easily record sound on location for the first time* and to synchronise sound with image. This development* alongside lightweight %+mm film cameras* which could shoot in available light* birthed a new approach to the established documentary film format. $n the early +(s the terms cin,ma direct -translated in .nglish-spea!ing countries as direct cinema/* and cin,ma v,rit, -used in its original 0rench form/ were coined to describe new modes of filmma!ing that were being developed in response to the new technology. $n this essay $ will be analysing one film from each of these modes -0rederic! Wiseman1s Titicut Follies and 2ean 3ouch1s Chronique d'un t/* and in doing so $ will see! to define what distinctions* if any* can be made between the two* and whether these distinctions are meaningful when considering the history and future of documentary film. One of the first ma4or films to be made with the new cameras and synch-sound was 3obert rew1s Primary* which followed 2ohn 0. 5ennedy and 6ubert 6umphrey on the campaign trail of the emocratic 7arty nomination for 7resident of the 8nited 9tates in %&+(. $t was an early example of a style that would become !nown as direct cinema* in which the filmma!er would attempt to be as unobtrusive as possible in the events he or she was filming. These films avoided using voice-over* non-diegetic music or sound* and title cards* and they maintained the chronological order in which footage had been shot. The rhetoric of the time spo!e about this new mode as if it were an entirely scientific process of capturing reality. 1$t is life observed by the camera rather than* as is the case with most documentaries* life recreated for it1 -Taylor* %&:%* p. ;(%/ remar!ed filmma!er and critic 2ames <lue* while rew claimed that 1the film ma!er1s personality is in no way directly involved in directing the action.1 -<achman* %&+%* p. %;/. Of course* these statements implicitly denied the crucial editorial choices being made when these films were edited* and this view eventually fell out of favour* with the rhetoric shifting to include admissions that the films presented a mediated vision of life as seen by the director. 0rederic! Wiseman obtained permission to ma!e a film at =assachussetts >orrectional $nstitute <ridgewater* a centre for the criminally insane* in %&++. $ will be analysing the resulting film* Titicut Follies* as an example of direct cinema. The influence of direct cinema1s early pioneers li!e rew* 3ichard ?eacoc! and the =aysles <rothers is clear in Titicut Follies - from the outset* the film eschews narration* interviews* and non-diegetic music in favour of a series of long ta!es that bear witness to the many and varied cruelties committed against the inmates at =>$ <ridgewater. ?i!e most of Wiseman1s films* Titicut Follies follows a seemingly random* mosaic-li!e structure. 8nli!e 6ollywood* or even most direct cinema films* there is no clear central character. There is* however* an underlying structure to the film* with a few inmates emerging as main 1characters1* each illustrating some aspect of the $nstitute1s failure to treat its sub4ects decently or humanely. We settle for some time on the character of 2im* one of the many inmates who exist in a catatonic state and are always seen na!ed -presumably to protect them from harming themselves/. We see him being shaved and later cruelly harrassed by the prison guards* who apparently thin! nothing of antagonising him even in the presence of Wiseman and his crew. This scene is particularly potent in our acceptance of the camera as an invisible observer. The behaviour of the guards is so manifestly appalling that we have to assume they were either not conscious of the camera1s presence* -perhaps due to the length of time the crew were present/ or that their apathy and belligerence toward

inmates had become so habitual they failed to ac!nowledge the possible conse@uences of it being filmed. $n any case* we are led to the belief that this course of events would have occurred in exactly the same way in the absence of the camera. There are times when Wiseman very deliberately brea!s with the conventions of direct cinema. One scene in which an inmate is being force-fed is intercut with footage of the same man1s dead body being prepared for burial. $ntercutting was typically avoided in direct cinema* with the convention being that footage should be cut strictly in accordance with the chronology of when it was shot. There is another shot of an inmate singing and wiggling his ears. 6e is loo!ing toward the camera* seemingly @uite aware of the crew1s presence* and en4oying giving this 1performance1 for them A something which direct cinema had traditionally strived to avoid. These inclusions illustrate Wiseman1s famously ambivalent attitude towards direct cinema1s original lofty claims of ob4ectivity. 6e stated that 1The ob4ective-sub4ective argument is from my point of view* at least in film terms* a lot of nonsense.1 -3osenthal* %&:%* p. :(/. $n spite of all this* neither Wiseman nor any of the film crew are explicitly ac!nowledged in the film* and we are encouraged to feel that they are having a negligible impact on the events they observe. 6owever it is crucial to note that even as Wiseman sought to distance himself from an ob4ective ideal of filmma!ing* many of the techni@ues he employs serve implicitly to heighten the feeling of transparency and unmediated authenticity. 0or instance* when we consider that 1as early as %&;;* 2ames Wong 6owe was pointing out to his cinematographer colleagues that the authenticity of war footage was becoming bound up in the audience1s mind with sha!y blac!-and-white shots.1 -Winston* %&&'* p. %+B/* it calls into @uestion the decision to shoot in blac!-and-white - at a time when most TC news was broadcast in colour. As such Wiseman1s approach leads to a film which is both highly editorialised and carefully crafted* but designed in such a way as to imply the opposite to the audience. 9oon after Primary was released in the 8nited 9tates* the filmma!er and anthropologist 2ean 3ouch set about using the same e@uipment to very different ends. 6e coined the term cin,ma v,rit, and* with sociologist .dgar =orin* made Chronique d'un t in 7aris in the summer of %&+(. The film begins with a meeting between the filmma!ers and =arceline ?oridan-$vens* one of many 7arisians who have agreed to appear in the film. They are discussing some of the !ey issues which will come to dominate the film and the discourse following itD namely the problems surrounding an ordinary person1s authenticity on camera. As <arbet 9chroeder would later explain* the concept of cin,ma v,rit, rested on the fact that 1the camera* the actors* the director are all free to move and do what they want. 9ooner or later some !ind of story evolves.1-Eray* %&++* p.%F%/* and so it is with Chronique d'un t. We are shown a number of interviews and conversations with a variety of people* many of whom are apparently ac@uaintances of 3ouch and =orin* touching on some of the pressing social issues of the time. We hear of the hardship of factory wor!ers* African immigrants ad4usting to life in 0rance* holocaust survivors A and always from the lips of those affected. This in itself was a revolutionary step after decades of 2ohn Erierson and the li!e spea!ing on behalf of their -often wor!ing class/ sub4ects. $n this way the film ma!es a conscious effort to act on some level as a historical record* but unli!e direct cinema it is more interested in hearing people tell their story than in showing it. There are occasional moments of observational footage* such as scenes with Angelo* a factory wor!er* inside the 3enault factory and wor!ing out in his garden. One scene* in which Angelo climbs a huge staircase* was in fact staged for the film to provide a visual metaphor for the challenges Angelo faced - auman* B(%%/D a telling indicator of 3ouch1s disregard for the

sanctity of the observational mode. Another !ey element of the film is the persistent presence on screen of 3ouch and =orin* reminding us of the mediation that is occurring when they set the agenda for a conversation* or the effect their presence might be having on those around them. 3ather than shying away from the complexity of filmma!er-sub4ect relationships* cin,ma v,rit, sought to ma!e them central to the film. <y ac!nowledging the sub4ectivity of their wor! in such explicit gestures they set themselves apart from direct cinema and refused its claims that cinema could be mere ob4ective observation. As 3ouch explainedG H$t1s the same as in the humanistic sciences. When you observe people* you1re automatically present and there1s nothing you can do about itD so there1s a distortion of truth. The humanistic sciences are terribly sub4ective. .ven when you use a computer* the way the @uestion is posed influences the answer. The way of shooting influences whatever you1re filming. This may be the reason why $ wor! with a very small team and why $ want to be my own cameramanG to be sub4ectively responsible for what $ shoot.I -Ja!ir* %&:K/ This ownership of responsibility sets cin,ma v,rit, apart from direct cinema. 6ere 3ouch also references the humanistic sciences* which were integral to his filmma!ing practice. $ndeed* he had been ma!ing ethnographic films in Africa before =orin challenged him to study 1this strange tribe living in 7aris1 -)ichols* B((%/. =any times we are presented with a person on the verge of an emotional outpouring. This seems to be something 3ouch and =orin were see!ing from the outset* and is one of the boons of being able to shoot many hours of footage to be edited down to the most powerful moments. Often interview sub4ects become visibly upset by the topics 3ouch and =orin bring up* and the interactive nature of 3ouch1s approach comes into its own* highlighting the filmma!er1s role as a catalyst* a participant in the filmed event. 1The sense of the precariousness of the present moment* as the direction of the film hangs in the balance with every exchange* distinguishes the interactive or participatory mode of representation @uite sharply from the observational one.1 -)ichols* %&&%* p.;&/. The film includes a 1reflexive1 ending in which 3ouch and =orin show the film in front of a small audience* including many of the 7arisians who feature in it* before discussing whether the film was successful* and how. There are a number of dissenting voices who criticise the people shown for being disingenuous on camera* or for revealing too much about their private selves. This compounds the feeling that they want to be transparent with the audience about the process of ma!ing the film A and beyond - and the possible limitations of their approach. $n conclusion* $ would argue that there are a number of crucial differences in the theory and application of direct cinema and cin,ma v,rit,. While each mode purportedly see!s the same thing A a representation of some !ind of 1truth1 A they define it very differently. Though the two terms have often become entangled and misinterpreted* there lie behind them two fundamentally distinct approaches to documentary filmma!ing* and these distinctions are worth holding onto if we wish to obtain a thorough understanding of the way documentary films operate.