Documentary Review - Restrepo

Documentary Film Critique-
Documentary films are among the principal achievements in cinematic history, and involve a complex array of different potential styles and approaches.  They do not simply record "the truth" in a purely neutral, objectively disinterested manner; they argue for positions and critique others, often in the interest of providing inspiration for social change.  Throughout the recorded history of world cinema, three principal aims drive forward production and reception: 1. entertainment, 2. artistic expression, and 3. social critique as contribution to, or instrument of, social change.  Of course many films and many cinemas have often aspired to meet two or three of these goals, and often use one as means toward the achievement of one of the two others, yet it is still useful, in beginning to come to terms with the different aims of different cinemas, to think of them as primarily oriented toward serving one versus the other two of these ends.  Documentary quite often works primarily toward end #3, toward providing social critique as contribution to, or instrument of, social change, and documentary maintains distinctively powerful kinds of creative resources to employ in working in this direction.  It is therefore important to approach documentary film as well as non-documentary film critically, and to ask probing questions about specific documentary films with some knowledge of how documentary films have been and can be put together, as well as why in these specific ways.

1. What is the principal subject of this documentary? What is its principal purpose? Does it argue for a position? Does it critique a position? What kind of impact does it seek to achieve with - and upon - its intended audience?
2. Does this documentary film make use of material (e.g., live action, scene location, and/or interview) recorded as spontaneously as possible subject only to the effect introduced by the immediacy of observation from the camera operator/director?
3. Does this documentary film make specific choices about what material is to be recorded in relation to the direct observation by the camera operator/director? If so, what kinds of choices, of what should be included and what not, and what kinds of images should be emphasized and what de-emphasized? What, in short, does the documentary film maker look at, and encourage us to look at - and to see - as most important about the principal subject of his or her film?
4. Does this documentary film combine recorded material with voice-over commentary in which the material directly illustrates what the commentary indicates? If so, how so and to what effect does the film make use of this kind of combination?
5. Does this documentary film use footage for symbolic or metaphorical purposes on top of, in addition to, or in preference versus the literal information available from the image? If so, how, and to what particular kind of (intended) effect?
6. Does this documentary film record seemingly spontaneous dialogue or interaction between two or more participants engaged in conversation/observed action? If so, how, and why?
7. Does this documentary film include directly solicited observation, information, reflection, or commentary by witnesses, experts, and other participants in relation to the documentary subject? What kinds of witnesses, experts, and/or other participants does the film maker find most useful, how does she or he use them to get the film's chief points across, and what kind of response does the film maker seek to evoke by using these subjects as she or he does?
8. Does the documentary film maker use any other kinds of illustrative or suggestive material (such as animated or still photographic images, and dramatic reconstructions or reenactments) to get her or his points across? If so, what, and to what effect?
9. Does this documentary film include voiceover or direct-to-camera address by a figure who is essentially directing the viewer in the reception of information or argument? If so, how, and to what particular kind of (intended) effect? Does the documentary film maker self-reflexively identify and account for his or her position - and stance - versus the subject of her or his film? How so, and to what effect?
10. Does the documentary film maker stage or compose the scene she or he records? How so? Why - to what end and for what effect?
11. Does the documentary film maker edit live footage, archival footage, direct interviews, retrospective interviews, and other illustrative or suggestive scenes and images to take a stance and argue for a position? Does the documentary film maker arrange the edited film according to a particular kind of logical pattern, and, if so, what is this pattern? What, in other words, is the organizing principle that the film maker follows in deciding what shots to place where and in what sequence? What kinds of proportions among these various types of images does the film maker choose in what she or he puts together to show us (his or her audience)? Why does he or she give priority to one versus another kind of (non-fictional) image as she or he does? What principal overall aims appear to guide the choices the film maker makes in editing the film as she or he does?
12. Does the documentary film maker accompany the image with sound that does not have its ostensible source in anything that we see within the frame (such as music)? How does he or she use this sound - to what effect?
13. Does the documentary film maker position the camera, and shift the position of the camera, in terms of angle and distance, to express and communicate a particular take or point of view on what the camera records - and, more generally, on the principal subject of his or her film? Does the documentary film maker change the lens from shot to shot or within the shot to express and communicate a particular take or point of view on what the camera records - and, more generally, on the principal subject of her or his film? Does the documentary film maker move with the recorded image in ways that express and communicate a particular take or point of view on what the camera records - and, more generally, on the principal subject of her or his film? Does the documentary film maker use particular degrees and variations of focus, exposure, sharpness, brightness, contrast, color and/or hue, to express and communicate a take or point of view on what the camera records - and, more generally, on the principal subject of her or his film? What kinds of main overall effects does the documentary film maker seem to aim to achieve by these cinematographic means?
14. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of this documentary film? Why?