Filed under: media industries 2 | Tags: documentary, howtodieinoregon, seminar
Just continuing my MIFF documentary analysis in order to come up with some ideas on what makes a good documentary and some questions that arise from that. How to Die in Oregon documents people effected by the law in Oregon, which was the first state in America to legalise physician-assisted suicide. The documentary is for the most part observational, with interviews weaved in-between, with the majority of the documentary focused on one woman’s lead up to the physician-assisted suicide as she suffers more-and-more from stomach cancer. This documentary is touching mainly through this one particular story and also interesting through the other sub-stories, which a small snippets of other people that are either for or against this suicide.
In comparing this documentary to Project Nim it is a lot rawer and gritty in terms of it’s style. The interviews don’t have the same creative flare, yet present a more humanised interview through interviewing people in their homes or gardens, getting right to the think of the action. In fact what amazed me about this documentary is how much it seemed like the documentary subjects trusted the filmmakers. The main woman that is in it is so emotional in front of the camera, that you really feel an emotional connection to her story, where you witness her deterioration both physically and mentally, witnessing her good days when she smiles and her bad days when she cries with such raw emotion.
What I learnt from this documentary was totally different from that of Project Nim as I feel the documentaries were attempting to do quite different things, in Project Nim the camera de-humanises the subjects through these stark interview environments, which reflects the nature of the story being the really how humans humanised a chimpanzee into misery, whereas in How to Die in Oregon, it was important to feel the emotional connection with these people as they drew closer to the day they would end their own life. Therefore, you really felt this trust between subject and filmmaker as this person is letting a camera document the most difficult moments of their life, their struggle and pain and really she would have never seen the finished film, which creates an interesting relationship between filmmaker and subject.
What I learnt:
- If you want your documentary to be about difficult moments in people’s lives or difficult emotional circumstances there really needs to be an integral trust between filmmaker and subject. I think a question to draw from this is: How does a documentary filmmaker gain the trust of his/her subjects, especially regarding extremely emotional issues?
- If you want your audience to feel emotionally engaged with your characters interviews and observational footage in their own environments works a treat. Having the subjects comfortable within their own domain is really important, especially when the subject matter is quite grueling. It makes you feel like you know the character better if you see their surroundings.
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment
