DOCUMENTARY FILM

Two Extremes of the Documentary Tradition

                  Within the documentary tradition, there are many different approaches to presenting reality.  Dark Days (2000) and Koyaanisqatsi (1982) can be used to illustrate the endless possibilities when presenting "truth" .Utilizing aspects of the performative mode of documentary film-making, Dark Days uses the explicitly gritty reality of homeless people living in underground tunnels to heighten the audience's responsiveness to the issue of human rights and the mistreatment of those from lower social classes . More closely related to the poetic mode, Koyaanisqatsi “emphasizes visual associations and formal organization (31)” to help the viewer look at the world in a new way. Dark Days is an immersive experience for the viewer, bringing you into the miserable underground world of the Amtrak tunnel dwellers. Koyaanisqatsi on the other hand puts the whole world into perspective and allows for the audience to subjectively look at the whole of human existence from a distance. Both belong to the  documentary tradition because they both are “tangible representations to aspects of the world we already inhabit” . That alone gives us reason to study these records of history. Given that they are now part of our history, a closer look at the ethical issues presented within the films is necessary if we want to figure out what the directors are trying to tell us.

(Street art found in the Amtrak tunnels where the homeless "moles" live)

To better examine the ethical issues associated with these two films in the context of the documentary tradition, we need to look at the different relationships between the filmmaker, the subjects, and the audience. Using the verbal formulations that Nichols introduces, Dark Days can be described as an “I speak about them to you” relationship. That is, I (Marc Singer) speaks about them (the mole people) to you (the audience). The formulation serves this movie well because of the indication that Marc Singer is not a part of the group or population he is filming. Marc acts as a representative for the homeless people living in the underground tunnels. They themselves are not financially (among other things) capable of making a film about their struggles so Marc acts as a surrogate. The distance between the filmmaker and his subjects that the verbal formulation implies can also help us find the overall voice and message of the film.

(director of "Dark Days" Marc Singer)

Often throughout history we find stories of people from a higher position in society fighting to improve conditions for or to serve the needs of those who belong to lower classes. The fact that Marc did not share the “tunnel hut” lifestyle of the mole people who he was filming illuminates his humanitarianism and his desire to help those in need of assistance. As a result, “going out of your way to help those in need” is a theme that is unmistakably present throughout the film. Whether it is an interview with Mike Harris at the coalition for the homeless or Greg fixing a home cooked poison meal for his resident rats to help his neighbors. When Dee's house gets burned to the ground, Ralph takes her into his hut and gives her a temporary shelter. The films emphasis on helping the needy is inescapable. “The sense of speaking about a topic or issue, a people or individual lends an air of civic importance to the effort ” - Bill Nichols

(The Amtrak tunnel system)

 "why would I leave? There's free electricity down here" Greg

(Julio and lee reminiscing about old pets)

(Ralph ans Dee argue over a plastic cup )

Marc gets the audience to feel sympathy for the mole people by highlighting aspects of their lives that are similar to the lives of the audience members. For instance, most of the audience knows what it feels like to lose a pet. Most know what it feels like to flip through old photos of pets from the past and attempt to describe in words the love they had for that animal.  Roger, Rusty, Miss Peaches and Miss Bleaks connect you to Julio through your mutual love of animals. “Hey, Julio is just like me”. Julio also connects with us through how he stresses the importance of a home safety system. He exhibits a universal desire to be secure in one’s home, wherever that may be. When we realize that these people are just like us in so many ways, we have a tendency to imagine ourselves in their position. The overwhelmingly filthy damp, miserable conditions of the tunnels that are explicitly depicted on film serve the agenda of Marc Singer. ”The ability of the photographic image to reproduce the likeness of what is set before it, its indexical quality, compels us to believe that it is reality itself represented before us, while the story or proposal presents a distinct way of regarding this reality” -Bill Nichols. He wants to make you feel bad for the mole people because the worse it seems to the audience, the more likely they are to help change their horrible conditions in some way. His emphases on the explicit meanings of the images help to give his argument validity. Using the words of Greg “it beez that way”.

(Screenshot from  Koyaanisqatsi)

            When talking about Koyaanisqatsi however, this threefold relationship between filmmaker, the subject and the audience becomes a bit more complicated. It seems as though there might be more than one formulation that can describe Koyaanisqatsi. “I speak about it to you” is a valid formulation because the “it” represents an all-inclusive look at the human existence. The incredibly expansive variety of things that are depicted in Koyaanisqatsi leads the viewer to take a holistic view of the world around them in its entirety. The “it” is all that is our reality. “It speaks about it to you” is another good formulation that implies that the movie itself is an entity of its own, a creation of our reality. Since there is no commentary of experts giving their opinions, and trying to persuade us to think a certain way, one can argue that the images alone are speaking to us. The images alone are speaking about our reality to us. 

(An elderly man is forgotten by the bustling youth and cast aside)
(This often happens in today's world when we become so quick to forget about our elderly in assisted living homes throughout the country)

Although this is a valid formulation, I believe it’s still not the best one. It is true we don’t hear commentary from the director that can give us clues about the message of the film, but his opinions and feelings are still absolutely present. The reality is that Reggio is speaking to us through the images. We can hear the voice of the director through the way in which he has constructed the movie. What he chooses to film, what is juxtaposed to the images he shows and also the length of time he spends presenting each shot. These are all are tools Godfrey Reggio uses to convey his message and provoke the viewer to think in certain ways. For instance, the sequence of the tall mushroom cloud rising up from a surely horrific epicenter immediately followed by a family lying face down and motionless on a beach tells us a hypothetical story. This family is probably relaxed and having a great time at the beach, but shown immediately after a bomb exploding, the audience cannot help but to equate the motionless family to possible victims of this horrible bomb. Reggio is bringing reality into perspective for us. He is saying “bombs kill people” and that we must think twice before unleashing such a devastating instrument of death.

(Beach scene directly following the atomic explosion in "Koyaanisqatsi")

I believe a new formulation must be created for Koyaanisqatsi. “I speak about us to you” is the best formulation for this movie not only because it explains to us that “I” (Reggio) is speaking to us, telling us of his “nightmares and dreads” through images and music. But also, the “us” implies that Reggio is himself included in the human existence he is depicting on screen. Unlike Dark Days, where Marc Singer is removed from the population that is depicted, Reggio is exhibiting the human race as a whole and must be included because he is a human who lives within the world just like his subjects. He himself is a working cog in this big machine called the human existence.

(The shuttle that explodes at the end of  Koyaanisqatsi was actually an unmanned shuttle carrying supplies to the international space station. Even though nobody was hurt , the message still gets across : "Technology is a great power that can become very dangerous very quickly")

            Even though both movies are representing a part of our reality, the two movies deliver their messages to the viewer in two totally different ways.  When examining the variations in their method of delivery we have to realize that there are certain expectations that an audience member has when going to see a movie. Directors often like to tell their cinematic stories in a way that is most palatable for the viewer. Over the years certain cinematic techniques have been developed to ensure the audiences connection to the story and its characters. Rules (most obviously in fiction films) like for instance the 180 degree rule are designed so that the action feels natural, mimicking reality. The way in which Marc presents his story is closely related to the structure of a fiction film with designated scenes, dialogue , monologues (Dee) , an antagonistic force (Amtrak officials) , round characters (social actors), establishing shots and multiple plot lines .

(Dark Days , a buddy movie?)

           One can easily look at Ralph and Dees living situation as a fresh new revival of the odd couple. Wackiness ensues when Ralph accidentally throws away a mermaid cup that belonged to Dee. Their bickering is reminiscent of Fred and Ethel Mertz from “I Love Lucy” (1951). Tito and Ralphs conversation is filmed by Marc as he sits on the ground just like his subjects are. The profile shot of Greg walking while turning backwards to look behind him reminded me of the opening sequence of “The Graduate”(1991) when Dustin Hoffman is being transported on a people mover while shot in profile. All these cinematic techniques make the movie easier for the viewer to watch and understand. Strangely, the deep shadows of the tunnels and the industrial landscape even give the movie an accidental film noir feel to it.

(This screenshot from Dark Days looks very similar to the film noir detective flicks of the 30's)

            Koyaanisqatsi differs greatly from the use of time tested cinematic techniques to tell a specific narrative. Reggio is rather disturbing our preconceptions of what to expect of the structured plot of a movie. Scenes like the 10min long single shot of a plane slowly rolling toward the camera seems so out of the ordinary we can’t help but to comment on it. The shot provokes us to think twice about this painfully ordinary sequence. Images of speedy clouds and lightning fast people depict time in a way that seems foreign to us. The long gaze of the Las Vegas waitresses into the lens of the camera makes us feel uneasy. I felt as though they could see me. I was no longer a passive observer eavesdropping on the lives of others. I was directly addressed by them and they acknowledged my presence. Again, steering away from common expectations one would have about a movie.

(The camera lingers on these ladies for close to a full minute . They just stare into the lens and occasionally blink. What else is being said here? Is it how artificial their appearance is with huge hair and excessive makeup mimicking the florescent background? Is the shot commenting on the lowering of the magnificent human to a cheap gimmick?are they simply products of their environment?)

The unorthodox techniques used by Reggio allow for an audience to find implicit meaning within the shots. The long shots give us time to reflect and to cultivate a commentary within ourselves about the meaning of the shots. Reggio is stressing the implicit meanings of the shots he has gathered. Yes there is explicit value within the frames but since there is such a minimal input from social actors (who are often used to sway people’s feelings about a particular problem) the audience is left to their own devices to figure out for themselves what the message of the film is. The for instance do not have the help testimonials from social actors or statistics recorded on a fancy graph that plots the rising rate of mole people in each major city.

(The long stare of the jet pilot makes us uneasy , but why?)

When comparing these two documentaries, we can get a sense of how expansive the documentary tradition is. Coming from two different ends of the documentary spectrum, each exhibit methods of storytelling that are very different. When we examine the content of each film, we get a better understanding of the context from which the stories came from and vice versa. If there is any question about what the documentaries are about or trying to say, we need only to look at the content and analyze it. We must take the images at face value in order to understand the implicit meanings that may lay hidden. Like Greg says “it beez that way”.