The Value of a Documentary
Documentaries are unlike any other type of film. Because in a fictional film the director tells a story because they want to tell it, in a documentary the story is real. The filmmaker is only telling it because they believe it needs to be told, and there's a big difference. Documentaries are so effective at bringing issues to light because they force audiences to see the humanity behind the issue. Because what they see is real, or at least presented as real, it often makes people feel that they need to take action, even if it’s only while they’re watching. Many of the documentaries I looked at didn’t have very high production value, but I actually think that is to the film’s advantage in a way. When something looks like it was just shot by some nobody with a video camera, it really enforces the idea that these things can happen to anybody. Ordinary people are affected by the issue at the centre of the piece. A documentary isn’t necessarily bound by the constraints of conventional storytelling. They are more like essays, out to prove a thesis. When you have a string of interviews, of people giving their opinions on a subject, and it’s the same, or similar opinions, it can either cause the viewer to blindly believe what they are being told or immediately reject it. Some filmmakers actually do want this effect. Other films will give you many opposing opinions. Challenging the viewer to consider the arguments and decide who, if anybody, they think is right. Or the entire film may be out to disprove something.
In the documentary film “Licensed to Kill”, filmmaker Arthur Dong interviews prisoners who have murdered gay men. This is unusual for a documentary of this nature because it is normally the victims who are profiled. The entire film has an eerie atmosphere, giving the viewer a sense of dread and morbid curiosity, wanting to delve deeper into the minds of these psychopaths. The killers profiled all believe they have some sort of justification for what they did. Watching the interviews I had come to suspect It doesn’t matter that they all grew up with this view that being gay is wrong, it wouldn’t matter if they thought differently on the issue. They all would have killed no matter what, they just needed somebody or a situation in which they felt justified to kill. This re-enforces the idea that people in documentaries could be anyone. However, that may also be a problem for this film. If a homophobic person were to watch it, they could easily distance themselves from it, rather than thinking “well that could be me who ends up doing that”, they would much more likely think to themselves “well I’m not like that, I would never kill anybody.” So even though this is an engaging, well made and interesting film, I doubt it could change anyone's opinion. But it could very well educate people who don’t have an opinion. And I think indifferent people are the most important people to be reached, something documentaries, in general, are very good at doing.
“L is for the Way you Look” by Jean Carlomusto also wants to show us that people in documentaries could be anyone and that lesbians are just ordinary people. However, this film takes a very different approach. The film looks at the lesbian community and attempts to show us that it really is a community like any other. They have their customs, hangouts and even stories that get passed around. Carlomusto also talks about her own life and childhood in the film and takes the opportunity to discuss the women she and her friends looked up to growing up. Some of whom even indirectly help them realize they were, or come to terms with being a lesbian. Many of the women they discuss, such as Dolly Parton and Eartha Kitt, were considered role models for entire generations of women, gay or straight.
“The Times of Harvey Milk” is a documentary about the first openly gay San Francisco Supervisor, Harvey Milk. The film was directed by Robert Epstein. One of the many objectives of this film was to present Harvey Milk in such a way that the audience can’t help but like him, which falls perfectly into what I’ve been talking about with documentaries presenting us with real people we can relate to our own lives. “Harvey Milk must have been a great guy. You get the sense watching this documentary.”, said film critic Roger Ebert, in his review of the film at the time of its release. However, Ebert also criticized the film for not including any interviews of members of the jury who convicted Dan White. However, I think that this actually helps the film. By only showing interviews of people who were close to Milk, it shows the audience the way he affected people throughout his own life and brings us closer to knowing the person Harvey Milk, rather than the politician or the victim Harvey Milk.
Why do these films exist? I don’t think that they are trying to tell people what to think. They are here to tell a story, a story that needed to be told. They exist to bring light to something that had been being ignored. They aren’t here to shape anyone’s opinion, they’re here to tell a story. Of course, that’s not to say these films don’t each hold an opinion of their own, they certainly do. They present these topics that are not well known, to bring them forward. To get the public talking, and expressing their own opinions and concerns. They want to be heard, and paid attention to, just like the issues they raise.