Thursday, October 2, 2014

Refining the Poetics of a Documentary Film Interview

One of the most recognized and imitated documentary film conventions is the interview. Since the invention of portable sound equipment and the television, the interview has become an ubiquitous presence in the non-fiction genre for half a century. As a dominant documentary technique, the interview deserves rigorous study, and yet academic writings on this topic are insufficient. Film scholar Leger Grindon attempts to fill this gap in the literature by proposing an analytical framework in his essay, “Q&A: Poetics of the Documentary Film Interview ” (2007) Grindon begins an important dialogue on the principles and aesthetics of the interview, but his approach neglects to cover important principles and aesthetic elements.He also fails to adequately address key perspectives such as the contributions of female and minority directors.

Girlhood tracks the lives of Megan and Shanae, two girls locked up in a juvenile detention center. In the tradition of Jean Rouch, director Liz Garbus asks questions that seek to uncover personal truths.  Megan's honest and vulnerable responses testifies to the trust developed as Garbus stayed involved in Megan's life for several years.
  

The limitations and oversights of Grindon's scholarship create an opportunity to craft a more refined poetics of the documentary film interview, one that is applicable to filmmakers and spectators alike. While Grindon's five categories form the beginning of an analytical approach to the interview, he makes the mistake of discounting Bill Nichols significant contributions to the topic. Nichols accurately contends that, “Like the ethical issues concerning the space between filmmaker and subject and how it is negotiated, a parallel set of political issues of hierarchy and control, power and knowledge surround the interview.”  By applying Nichols theory to Grindon's five categories, an enriched methodology begins to emerge. In addition, each category should be scrutinized for limitations and inaccuracies, as well as strengths. Presence should include point of view. If perspective concerns setting then time period, as well as location, should be a factor. Pictorial context should take a deeper look into the unique ways documentary films juxtapose interviews and images. Performance should consider the director's motivations and manipulation of the interview. Finally, polyvalence, as well as all other categories should consider the ways in which the hierarchies between filmmaker and subject influence the individual interviews, as well as the overall effect. All of these five categories should be applied equitably to the contributions of both male and female documentary filmmakers, as well as to minority directors. The practice, as well as the theory, should consider the politics of power and strive for “conversation” and not “psuedo-dialogue.” 

Director Sarah Polley uses a reflexive approach to interviewing her family members and friends in "Stories We Tell."

1 comment:

  1. Having now read the essay on paper and also seen it here, I can attest, as we discussed in class, that having the interviews THERE with your analysis strengthens and complicates your already sound contribution to documentary studies. I'd love to see the paper essay re-worked so all your examples are linked with the written analysis in a closer conversation: how cool would that be! Documenting the documentary. Or you could do your writing as an interview, even cooler! A strong essay, thoughtfully linking ethics, documentary positionality, and form.

    ReplyDelete