I love documentaries! I love how they’re more effortless to enjoy than reading biographies or non-fiction novels. Also, all of my favorite movies are “based on a real story”. I think documentary story telling is extremely difficult because it involves a lot of different mediums, but I also think it is easier because there isn’t as much effort going into the acting and the reactions and content are genuine. As I write this, I realize that this is only really true for observational and interactive documentaries that were described in the first text Documentary Modes of Representations. For other types of documentaries, like the historical documentary described in Story Telling “Approach” are considered expository and don’t really have the advantage of first person content or interviewee reactions. These expository or reflexive documentaries that recount an event that has already occurred require more effort in their story telling because they must combine more factors like voiceover narrations, photographs and images, reenactments, or retrospective interviews. The third text Documentary Storytelling has me conflicted on how to categorize this documentary. The author describes it as a two story documentary with one story about his brother’s tragic accident and the second of his road trip journey to commemorate his brother. Rather than having the stories placed separately, they run sort of parallel if I understand how he described it correctly. So this documentary would be observational in that there are interviews, but not really because the author is including himself in the documentary as much as possible and not using the “fly on the wall” approach that Documentary Modes of Representations describes. I think this documentary could most accurately be categorized as interactive, even though one of the stories of the film is retrospective. It’s a really interesting concept to have both of these stories included and I’d love to watch the film.
An un-documentary? Hard to imagine what that definition entails. If I had to speculate, I would say that it would be a film that does the opposite of exposing a story or event… Yet I have no idea how that would be possible. Maybe if the subject of the film is to destroy all evidence of an event ever occurring so that it was never documented… I don’t even know what that would entail necessarily. I think the key in the definition of documentary is that something, some event, someone, or some idea is exposed. The “un-documentary” would have to be something that is “unexposed”.