Direct Cinema and Cinma Vrit - Coursework Example

Discuss the Differences and Similarities Between Direct Cinema and Cinéma Vérité Using Chronique Dun Été (Edgar Morin, 1960) and High School (Frederick Wiseman, 1968) As Case Studies. You Should Refer To the Opposition between the Observational and the Participatory/Reflexive Modes of Documentary [Name of Student] [Name of Institution] [Date] 2340 Words Introduction The purpose of this paper is to discuss the differences and similarities between Direct Cinema and Cinéma Vérité. In discerning these differences and similarities, Chronique dun été by Edgar Morin, (1960) and ‘High School’ by Frederick Wiseman, (1968), will be used as case studies. Specifically, the opposition between the observational and the participatory/reflexive modes of documentary will be discussed. Cinéma vérité emerged and was developed in France whereas direct cinema developed in the USA and Canada. Both genres emerged in the 1960s (Bruzzi, 2000). The two types of films intended to be alternatives to fiction films and traditional documentary forms (Bruzzi, 2000). This paper defines and discusses the concepts, differences and similarities of both types of films, focusing on areas of disagreement and discrepancy. In addition, the variance in the outlook and methods between the forms will be explored. In relation to the Cinéma vérité and direct cinema, Chronique d’un Été (1961) and High School (1968) will be discussed. Cinematic Verite and Direct Cinema Generally, cinematic verite and direct cinema are approaches to cinema that use lightweight filming equipment, mainly the hand-held cameras. The two cinematic practices also use live and synchronous sounds. The cinematic practices extensively used the emerging technologies of the 1960s in Europe, the USA and Canada (Bruzzi, 2000). Through these technologies, filmmakers of the 1960s had great avenues for eliminating huge film crews, big mounted equipment and large studio sets. There was also the decreased need for special light in film making process. Although the effect of technology on the filming industry should however not be the basis for the definition of direct cinema and Cinéma vérité, the film making philosophies of the period cannot be ignored (Bruzzi, 2000). In fact, the film making philosophy is a major difference between cinéma vérité and direct cinema. Apart from recording techniques, the two cinematic practices adopt two different philosophical stands, regarding the manner in which the world is being viewed (Bruzzi, 2000). The term cinéma vérité was coined by George Sadoul after he translated Vertov’s work Kino-Pravda into “cinéma vérité” in his 1948 Histoire du Cinema. The key supporters of cinéma vérité in France were ethnographer Jean Rouch and sociologist Edgar Morin. Through this idea of Cinéma vérité, they believed were best placed to describe their individual work, Chronique d’un Été, which is a feature-length film experiment on the lives and mores of Parisians. The term was also used to honour Vertov’s influences on the theories and aesthetics of film making in that period. In fact, Vertov played a rather key role in developing filming methods and techniques of the 1960s, greatly influencing the likes of Rouch and Morin. In the same period, in Canada and the USA, filmmakers such as Robert Drew, Richard Leacock, D.A. Pennebaker, Albert and David Maysles, Frederick Wiseman were also making their version of “cinéma vérité. However, the two regions’ films had unique and different outlooks, methods and philosophies. Thus, they adopted the name ‘direct cinema’ for their films. Nonetheless, the two cinematic practices had the same goal of eliminating technical, procedural and structural barriers between film subjects and the audience. Through film criticism, it has been possible to make clear the distinction between the French cinéma vérité and the North America’s direct cinema. However, the French proponents of cinéma vérité always regard direct cinema as fellow practitioners. ‘Cinéma vérité’ is a documentary characterized by self-reflection as the filmmaker places self in the frame to assure the audience of frankness or verite. The principle behind this cinematic practice is the existence of an observer, which changes the reality being viewed. In this type of film, the filmmaker not only places self in the frame but also participates in the film through interviews and interrogations (Grant & Sloniowski, 1998). This principle of cinéma vérité is opposed to the observational approach used in direct cinema. In direct cinema, the proponents sought to make observations in a low profile way. They intended to cause no intrusion into the reality being captured in the films (Grant & Sloniowski, 1998). Thus, the proponents of direct cinema avoided the use of intrusive methods applied in cinéma vérité such as interviews. Hence, whereas cinéma vérité is observational and participatory, the direct cinema outlook was observational without participation (Grant & Sloniowski, 1998). The two film genres or movements had a number of similarities. First, both entailed the use of new and exciting technologies of the 1060s. The shared technologies included hand-held cameras, synchronous sound and lightweight equipment (Grant & Sloniowski, 1998). Consequently, the two movements had films with somewhat similar visual and aesthetic effects. The new equipment and technologies of the 1960s are believed to have created the stylistic elements of the cinéma vérité and direct cinema films of that era. The introduced elements were fast, monochrome recording with restless and roving camera movements, fuzzy, gritty images with occasionally incoherent sound (Grant & Sloniowski, 1998). This type of sound is preferred to the authoritative voice-over narration. Contrary to the case of most of the documentaries, cinéma vérité and direct cinema shooting entail minimal preparations. In fact, the camera crews come at the latter stages of the preparations. This practice is quite typical of the direct cinema practice, imparting spontaneous and energetic quality in the filmmaking process (Grant & Sloniowski, 1998). For both cinematic practices, the use of portable equipment enables the filmmaker to follow action without dominating. This practice contrasts with the traditional paraphernalia of studio shooting, which consists of tripods, heavy lights and cables, which would have derailed the movement towards the modern methods and techniques of recording reality (Grant & Sloniowski, 1998). The other similarity between cinéma vérité and direct cinema is their focus on the truth, authenticity, reality and their resolve not to interfere with the manner in which life presents itself. Both practices seek to film what actually takes place in real life. They also focus on whether the filmmakers actually achieve the goal of portraying what actually happens in real life (Grant & Sloniowski, 1998). Consequently, the ability to shoot in private situations and public places has been a strong point for these movements since quite interesting scenes have been brought to public view. Through these movements and the techniques therein, value has been attached to little moments that do not necessarily advance a story (Grant & Sloniowski, 1998). In Chronique, the aspect of honesty or truthfulness is addressed in the opening scene, in which the filmmakers ask Marilou, a participant in the film; whether she feels that her conduct would be changed because of being in front of a camera. Although the participant says the presence of the camera would not alter her behavior, it is evident that while making the film, Rouch and Morin change the reality a bit through their interviews and interventions with their subjects (Brink, 2007). In fact, there are instances in which the subjects are thrust together in screening sequences. Nonetheless, the interviews and interventions aim at the realization of higher levels of honesty or truth. The argument in support of the interviews and interventions is the potential for the revelation of something essential that would otherwise not have been revealed. Hence, this essential idea or opinion is teased out through interviews and interventions with participants. Therefore, cinéma vérité seeks to film reality not only as it is but also as it is provoked by filming (Brink, 2007). This new approach to reality created a new form of truth known as cinema truth, resulting in the name cinéma vérité. In the opinion of the proponents of cinéma vérité such as Morin and Rouch, film has the potential and power to reveal, albeit with doubts, a fictional part of all life (Brink, 2007). For Rouch, this fictional part is the most real part of an individual. The camera provokes people to reveal themselves as imaginative creatures filled with fantasies and myths (Brink, 2007). These fantasies and myths, according to Rouch, constitute peoples’ most authentic selves. Therefore, the concern with the filming and capturing of reality, truthfulness and authenticity is a key similarly between cinéma vérité and direct cinema. However, the techniques or methods of achieving it are entirely different (Brink, 2007). While the French filmmakers take a more philosophically sophisticated but slightly vulnerable) position, the direct cinema practitioners combine observation, objectivity and impartiality in equal measures (Brink, 2007). Whereas in cinéma vérité, the filmmaker is likened to a diver plunging into the sea of real life situations, in direct cinema the film-maker is like a reporter with a camera and not a notebook. Cinéma vérité and direct cinema also have a common focus on the individual, the everyday occurrences and the contemporary. Both practices film real people in uncontrolled conditions in which the filmmaker does not function as a director or screenwriter (Brink, 2007). The movements’ use of real people stems from their commitment to uncontrolled shooting. The two film movements also refrain from using professional actors, unless they appear in their capacity as actors. The participants in cinéma vérité and direct cinema films are not told what to do (Brink, 2007). However, as noted earlier, the extent of intervention is higher in cinéma vérité than in direct cinema. The latter cinematic practise asks nothing of the interviewees apart from their consent to be participants. Chronique dun été (Edgar Morin, 1960) versus High School (Wiseman, 1968) The Chronique dun été (Edgar Morin, 1960) focuses on the individual, the everyday and the contemporary, which makes the substance of the film. It reveals how alienation and fear of death haunts the lives of Parisians. The main purpose of the film was to establish how Parisians lived and whether they were happy. The film focuses intimately on the private realm of the Parisians, delving deep into their characters and distinct features. The film also covers the way these people seek love, pursue happiness, work, live and think. Other contemporary issues such as the Algerian War are also covered. "High School" (1968) by Frederick Wiseman, is an example of direct cinema. The film profiles Philadelphia’s Northeastern High School through the observation of interactions among teachers and students. Through this film, the film-maker reveals the power plays in contemporary educational institutions. The film exploits the observational aesthetics of the direct cinema movement to observe the interpersonal elements of power. The film identifies the moments in the life of the institution that reveal the use of institutional power tools to control and training. The camera captures the institution’s authority such as teachers and deans use these apparatus in their interactions with students. The film largely ignores the processes by which the power systems are established, opting to focus on their implementation. Instances are also captured in which students interact with their elders as human beings and not as those with authority over their lives at school. Just like Morin’s and Rouch’s cinéma vérité, Wiseman’s direct cinema is a sociological examination of how institutions function in real life. Both films are therefore implicit indictment of real life institutions and experiences in their general and specific forms. A notable feature of ‘High School’ is the filmmaker’s formal choices and the usage of juxtaposition to create a narrative progression between scenes (Ellsworth, 1979). A film on a highly conservative American high school in 1968, ‘High School’ captures the impeding changes in society that even the changers in the film cannot fathom (Ellsworth, 1979). Evidently, the tow films differ on their perception towards and use of interventionism, which the makers of Chonique d’un Été, a cinéma vérité endorse but the maker of ‘High School’ does not use. Thus, interventionism separates the two films since Wiseman does not incorporate his perspectives into the film. In fact, he keeps authorial intervention to a minimum (Rosenthal, 1971). ‘High School’ achieves the objective of direct cinema, which is to show occurrences or people as they are. That is, it breaks the wall between subject and representation. It shows the events and people in the school in an unadulterated and original state (Ellsworth, 1979). Since the film-maker intended the audience and the participants to be in the “driving seat” he refrains from using techniques of false machination such as voice-over narration, interviews and the presence of film-makers in the frame (Rosenthal, 1971). Wiseman thus manages to represent accurately to the audience the execution of power systems, tools and controls in the school (Rosenthal, 1971). By adopting the direct cinema practice, Wiseman is able to record events with extraordinary ability to send faithfully what it records through observation, which relays the truth. Conclusion Despite their differences, the cinéma vérité and direct cinema studied are practices that seek to eliminate the conventions of traditional cinema, in the process discovering a reality that is closer to the truth of a situation. The respective filmmakers of ‘High School’ and Chonique d’un Été have achieved this objective by their shunning of the authoritative devices used in older documentaries. The eliminated conventions are narration, archive and thesis-led structures. However, the two films followed different methods and techniques. That is, whereas Chonique d’un Été used interventionism and self-reflexivity; ‘High School’ used pure observation. That the proponents of cinéma vérité and direct cinema want to create objective film has earned the ire of many film critics. Some critics describe the cinematic practices as full of lies and immature assumptions about what film is. First, the practitioners are accused of suffering from lack of feelings and convictions. The genres are also accused of setting the film industry back by more than thirty years. Nonetheless, direct cinema is considered the most significant intervention into documentary filmmaking history with enormous influence (Grant, 2006). The use of these different approaches is in fact, the main difference between the practices. It is worth noting that these films are not documentaries in the usual sense, neither are they fiction despite their being story-telling practices and their use of typical fiction film devices (Grant, 2006). Cinéma vérité and direct cinema alternative movements that emerged in the 1960s. Their impact emerged from their use of new technologies and definite cinematic philosophy. The influences of these movements are still being felt and appreciated even by modern day filmmakers. References Brink, J. (2007) Building bridges: The cinema of Jean Rouch. Wallflower. Bruzzi, S. (2000) New documentary: a critical introduction. London, Routledge. Ellsworth, L. (1979) Frederick Wiseman: A guide to references and resources. Boston, MA: G.K.Hall & Co. Grant, B. K. (2006) Five films by Frederick Wiseman. University of California Press. Grant, B. K., and Sloniowski, J. (1998) Documenting the documentary. Detroit, Wayne University Press. Rosenthal, A. (1971) The New Documentary In Action: A Casebook in Film Making. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1971. Read More