Direct Cinema/Observational Mode

Dzigza Vertov Dziga Vertov argued for presenting "life as it is" (that is, life filmed surreptitiously)
and "life caught unawares" (life provoked or surprised by the camera). With the development of
new cameras, American filmmakers Pennebaker, Leacock and Drew formed Drew Associates,
along with cameraman Al Maysles.

Direct Cinema is a documentary genre that originated between 1958 and 1962 in North
America, principally in the Canadian province of Quebec and the United States. Similar in many
respects to the the cinma vrit genre, It was characterized initially by filmmakers' desire to
directly capture reality and represent it truthfully, and to question the relationship of reality
with cinema.[1]
Documentaries prior to the 1960s were heavily mediated by the limitations of the equipment
available and the desire of documentary-makers to educate via editing and narratiuve
construction. This tension was at the center of Direct Cinema and resulted in its formal style
and methodology.

Origins
"Direct Cinema is the result of two predominant and related factors--The desire for a new
cinematic realism and the development of the equipment necessary to achieving that
desire"[2](Monaco 2003, p. 206) Many technological, ideological and social aspects contribute
to the Direct Cinema movement and its place in the history of cinema.

1. Light cameras
Direct Cinema was made possible, in part, by the advent of light, portable cameras, which
allowed the hand-held camera and more intimacy in the filmmaking. It also produced
movements that are the style's visual trademark.[3] The first cameras of this type were German
cameras, designed for ethnographic cinematography. The company Arriflex[4][5] was considered
the first to widely commercialize such cameras, that were improved for aerial photography
during World War II. Easily available, portable cameras played an important part, but the
existence of these cameras in itself did not trigger the birth of Direct Cinema.

2. Sound before the 1960s

Before the use of pilottone (invented in 1954) and the 1957 Nagra III,[6] sound recording was
either done on extremely heavy or unreliable machinery. Many attempts were made to solve
this problem during the 1950s and 1960s.
In the best case scenario, documentary sound was recorded before, in interviews, or much later
on location, with a portable studio located in a sound-proofed truck. The sounds that were
captured were later synched (synchronized) in sound editing, thus providing the film with sound.
In other cases, the soundtrack was recorded, as in fiction films: with layers of ambient sound,
archival sound effects, Foley, and post-synced voices.
In other cases the documentary subject was brought into a studio. Sound taken directly from the
studio made the documentary nature of the recording arguable. For example, a production
might reconstruct a stable in the studio, with a sound engineer close by in a soundproof booth.
This mimics the production of some studio films and TV series, but results in a surreal situation
of cows in a studio for a documentary on farming, rather than in their natural habitat.
With improved sound, lighting and camera equipment available, the technical conditions
necessary for the advent of Direct Cinema were present. The social and ideological conditions
that led to Direct Cinema also appeared.
Direct Cinema seemed to reflect this new attitude. It emerged from a desire to compare
common opinion with reality. It attempted to show how things really are, outside the studio,
far from the editorial control of the establishmentbe it governmental or big press. What was
noteworthy was that the desire to test common opinion and show reality was constantly kept
in check with an acute awareness that it is easy to lie with sound and image. Direct Cinema, in
comparison to other documentary forms, as more strictly observational. It relies on an
agreement among the filmmaker, subjects and audience to act as if the presence of the camera
does not substantially alter the recorded event. Such claims of non-intervention have been
criticized by critics and historians as unrealistic.
A variety of philosophies drove this new way of capturing reality with various levels of
engagement with the subject being captured.
Regardless of these practices, one thing is certain: Direct Cinema had more to do with the
ethical considerations in documentary film making than with the technology.

Direct Cinema and cinma vrit

Cinma vrit has many resemblances to Direct Cinema. The hand-held style of camera work is
the same. There is a similar feeling of real life unfolding before the viewer's eyes. There is also a
mutual concern with social and ethical questions. Both cinma vrit and Direct Cinema rely on
the power of editing to give shape, structure and meaning to the material recorded.[17] Some
film historians have characterized the Direct Cinema movement as a North American version of
the cinma vrit movement. T
Filmmakers opinions on this subject
In a 2003 interview (Zuber), Robert Drew explained how he saw the differences between cinma
vrit and Direct Cinema:
I had made Primary and a few other films. Then I went to France with Leacock for a conference
[the 1963 meeting sponsored by Radio Television Franaise]. I was surprised to see the Cinema
vrit filmmakers accosting people on the street with a microphone. My goal was to capture real
life without intruding. Between us there was a contradiction. It made no sense. They had a
cameraman, a sound man, and about six more--a total of eight men creeping through the
scenes. It was a little like the Marx Brothers. My idea was to have one or two people,
unobtrusive, capturing the moment."[19]

[C]inema verite -- choosing moments where action might occur instead of creating it -- ... was
the brainchild of Robert Drew, an editor at Life magazine. He believed the magazine enjoyed
its success because it brought into the home pictures of action in the midst of happening --
four soldiers struggling to plant the flag at Iwo Jima, for instance -- and he wanted to extend
that concept to documentaries. "I thought all we had to do was put a Life photographer who
valued candid photography behind a motion picture camera, and we could make a new kind of
film." But thanks to an eight-man crew that had to stop and set heavy equipment on tripods,
action eluded capture.

Then Mr. Drew started to experiment with lightweight cameras and sound recorders. In 1959,
under the banner of Drew Associates, he put together a film crew, all of whom went on to
write their names on the pages of documentary history: Albert Maysles, Richard Leacock
("Monterey Pop") and D. A. Pennebaker ("Don't Look Back," "The War Room").

The film makers set out in the dark: they were making documentaries with no directors, no
scripts, no sets, no lights, little or no narration and no interviews. To be at the right place at
the right moment was everything. They considered themselves neutral observers who merely
recorded ongoing events and had, as much as possible, no point of view. Their first important
work was "Primary," which tracked Senators John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey
through the cold 1960 Wisconsin Democratic Presidential primarily...

Their approach, offered an alternative to the Edward R. Murrow style of documentaries. "It
was as if we were butterfly hunting. We knew there were butterflies in the woods, but we
didn't know what kind, and we didn't know how we were going to catch them; whereas in the
journalistic documentary, a reporter says, 'On my left, hidden in the bushes, are thousands of
butterflies.' And then the camera cuts away to the bushes. Drew, with 'Primary,' broke that
mold."

The observational mode of documentary developed in the wake of documentarians returning

to Vertovian ideals of truth, along with the innovation and evolution of cinematic hardware in
the 1960s. In Dziga Vertov's Kino-Eye manifestoes, he declared, I, a camera, fling myself
alongmaneuvering in the chaos of movement, recording movement, startling with
movements of the most complex combinations. (Michelson, OBrien, & Vertov 1984) This
emphasis on mobility became practicable in the early 1960s as, new, light equipment made
possible an intimacy of observation new to documentary, and this involved sound as well as
image. (Barnouw 1993) The move to lighter 16mm equipment and shoulder mounted
cameras allowed documentarians to leave the anchored point of the tripod. Portable Nagra
sync-sound systems and unidirectional microphones, too, freed the documentarian from
cumbersome audio equipment. A two-person film crew could now realize Vertovs vision and
sought to bring real truth to the documentary milieu. Unlike the subjective content of poetic
documentary, or the rhetorical insistence of expositional documentary, observational
documentaries tend to simply observe, allowing viewers to reach whatever conclusions they
may deduce. The camera, while moving with subjects and staying in the action, remains as
unobtrusive as possible, mutely recording events as they happen. Pure observational
documentarians proceeded under some bylaws: no music, no interviews, no scene
arrangement of any kind, and no narration. The fly-on-the-wall perspective is championed,
while editing processes utilize long takes and few cuts. Resultant footage appears as though
the viewer is witnessing first-hand the experiences of the subject: they travel with Bob Dylan
to England in D.A. Pennebaker's Dont Look Back [sic] (1967,) suffer the stark treatment of
patients at the Bridgewater State Hospital in Frederick Wiseman's Titicut Follies (1967,) and hit
the campaign trail with John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey in Robert Drews Primary
(1960.)

Primary (Documentary)
Robert Drews chronicle of the 1960 Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary campaign of
John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey is widely considered to be the founding film of American
cinema verit. It was the first documentary in which the synchronized sound camera moved
freely with characters through a breaking story. "At that time I was proposing that we make a
new kind of history of the Presidency," recalls Drew, "that we would see and feel all the things
that bore on the presidency at a given time -- the expressions on faces, the mood of the country,
the tensions in the room, so that future presidents could look back at this and see and learn."
(Robert Drew on Primary http://www.drewassociates.net/drew2story.htm)

Robert Drews Primary (1960) claims to be the first documentary with portable sync sound and
that does seem to be the case. Having John F. Kennedy as it subject makes it even more
poignant, but he does not share the screen alone. In a very impressive run for Kennedys money
before that became far too literal in politics, Hubert Humphrey comes off as very impressive,
going out of his way to reach the voters, talk to people, and talk the talk.

It is amazing how energetic he was, and how he could have nearly been the nominee. However,
we know better, and we can see how much harder the Kennedy road to the White House
actually was. The religious conflict also rears its ugly head in a much more powerful way than
we are usually reminded of. We also see how well Jackie Kennedy complemented and added
class to JFKs appearances.

Tons of footage was likely shot, and the choices made have great impact. Once you watch for a
while, you forget how old this documentary really is. It is that well edited, the footage that well
chosen. The Library of Congress was correct in putting this film into its National Film Registry,
and every future film and videomaker has got to make this must-see viewing.

The full frame 1.33 x 1 image is the same as the 16mm black and white frame, the way the film
was originally shot, and shot by four cinematographers: Richard Leacock, Terrence McCartney
Filgate, Albert Maysles, and D.A. Pennebaker. There are not any distinguishable differences and
the editing (which Drew managed) is the reason why. Next time, they are really going to need to
do a High Definition transfer, but this is more than adequate enough for a whole generation to
rediscover a film that has been a long-buried treasure far too long.

The Dolby Digital 2.0 is average and listed as Stereo, though most of it is really monophonic, with
the sound on all the older film footage being particularly limited in dynamic range. If the
material was taped on magnetic masters, these are all from optical tracks, and the compression
shows. In the later footage, there are brief stereo moments.

Extras include a text piece on Drew, about Drew, a gallery of other Docurama titles (some with
trailers), a 27-minutes long The Originators (with a brief 1962 interview piece in monochrome,
followed by a taped, color conference in 2003 about the state of news reporting today, among
other things), 30/15 (Drews 1993 editing together the most poignant 15 minutes he could of his
30 years of filmmaking with brief overlap with the previous piece), and a strong, informative
audio commentary by Drew and Leacock. On the shorts, the transfer quality of the film
segments are off of even older analog video masters than the feature, which have their softness.

One other comparison would be to this work versus the kinds of documentary work we see on
TV today. Voiceovers do not always need to be by name stars to keep the attention of the
audience. If anything anonymity is often a plus, because the right voice can keep things
compelling while you pay attention to the voice (Joseph Julian in this case) and not know the
face of the narrator. I like that. It becomes a metaphor. Documentaries need to stick to the
subject and not be distracted by theatrics. That is yet another reason Primary is still a classic,
even though it has been imitated endlessly. Impressive!
Pennebaker Dont Look Back 1965

Sometimes called "Pennebaker documentaries", these films, shot with an obviously hand-held
camera, typically eschew voice-over narration and interviews in favor of a "simple" portrayal of
events typical of the cinema verite style Pennebaker helped popularize in the U.S. Of such an
approach, Pennebaker told interviewer G. Roy Levin published in 1971 that "It's possible to go to
a situation and simply film what you see there, what happens there, what goes on, and let
everybody decide whether it tells them about any of these things. But you don't have to label
them, you don't have to have the narration to instruct you so you can be sure and understand
that it's good for you to learn." In that same interview with Levin, Pennebaker goes so far as to
claim that Dont Look Back, his celebrated record of Bob Dylan's tour of England in 1965, is "not a
documentary at all by my standards." He instead repeatedly asserts that he does not make
documentaries, but "records of moments," "half soap operas," and semimusical reality things."

Stella Bruzzi pits Nichols conception of performative documentary at the polar opposite of
observational documentary, commenting that performative pieces, confront the problem of
aestheticisation, acceptingauthorship as intrinsic to documentary, in direct opposition to the
exponents of Direct cinema who saw themselves as merely the purveyors of the truth they
pursued. (Bruzzi 2000)

Both direct cinema and cinema verit hold this principle in common as I see it, the proponents
of each were trying to lift the veneer that existed between audience and subject or actor. In a
mediated space like film, the veneer may never completely vanish, but new techniques such as
taking the camera off the tripod, using sync sound that allowed people to speak and be heard,
and engaging tools of inquiry despite controversy were and remain giant leaps forward in the
quest for filmic truth.

Though much about these movements grew directly out of technological developments, they
also grew out of the social changes that were taking place in the 1960s. According to
documentary historian Erik Barnouw, both direct cinema and cinema verit had a distinct
democratizing effect by putting real people in front of the camera and revealing aspects of life
never before captured on film.2 And according to Colin Young, both movements were a
reaction to didactic educational films and highly manipulative classic melodrama as
evidenced by their characteristic lack of narration and editorializing.3 However, this is where
the paths of Direct Cinema and Cinema Verit begin to diverge. Barnouw describes it best when
he contrasts cinema Verit filmmakers as provocateurs, participants and catalysts for crisis,
while direct cinema filmmakers are characterized as the invisible bystander, waiting for crisis and
only taking advantage of available events. 4 Essentially, it is the role of the filmmaker and how he
or she uses that role that is the decisive difference between direct cinema and cinema verit . In
this paper, I would like to examine the role of the filmmaker in two different parts: the filmmaker
gaze and the filmmaker stance. Specifically, I would like to answer these questions: What makes
a film more or less voyeuristic? What is the role of filmmaker in this process? Is it possible and is
it necessary to hold to an ideal of objective filmmaking?
Arguments against the objectivity of Direct Cinema
The essential characteristics of observational cinema will always make it vulnerable to charges
of voyeurism and duplicity. 5

Wisemans approach in all of his films has been to make himself and his crew such a routine
presence that they are able to capture a more truthful sense of reality. 6 In High School, this is
what makes the film so completely riveting. However, Wiseman is the first to disclaim any
ideas about film truth achieved by this method. Instead, he refers to his films as reality
fictions. 7 Perhaps, this is due to the fact that his ratio of film to edited product is often 20 or
30:1. There is much that the camera can and does capture, but the final product is hardly a
repository of the cameras steady, framed gaze.

It is interesting then that in the case of High School and Titticut Follies, the subjects later
resented their portrayal by Wiseman. They gave him complete access to view their lives or their
lives at work and were disappointed with Wisemans selective edits and the ensuing public
criticism. This raises an important point about informed consent. If a filmmaker follows the
direct cinema method of being a fly-on-the-wall, privy to most details and/or interactions of a
subjects life, then I would argue that the subject is unable to fully grasp how little and how
much a camera is capable of capturing, nor what kind of effect the camera will have upon their
subsequent actions. Also, direct cinema does not offer an alternative solution for self-
representation via an interview. These factors combined make the filmmaker the most
dominant presence in the film and his or her selectivity becomes tantamount to fair and
accurate representation.

Primary is an interesting anomaly, because it focuses on the lives of politicians. And in fact, it is a
tender portrayal of people hard at work in public service. By the sheer volume and pace of
public life as portrayed in the film, the viewer develops a kind of sympathy for the candidates.
And in the case of public officials, rightly or wrongly, there is a general feeling that we, the public
should have more access to their lives. I think there is also the sense that public officials possess
more power than the average private citizen putting them on a par with the power belonging to
the filmmakers ie. Though the filmmakers claimed total access, Kennedy and Humphrey handlers
would likely restrict some access to the candidate. In addition, the filmmakers did not go
home with the candidates, nor did they have Wisemans 20-40 days with the candidates.

Jean Rouch in contrast to Wiseman, Leacock and others in direct cinema is neither tied to
examining the tiny details of lives, nor to any kind of exacting representation through constant
observation. Rouch instead facilitates truth by facilitating the human experience and though
much of his work is experimental, he takes great pains to note that this is about human
experience, not experiment. 8 Chronicle of a Summer lays bare the heartaches and hopes of
many of the subjects in the film. Yet there is a sense of participation, rather than voyeuristic
gaze due to the fact that Morin and Rouch play with their own role in the film. They are never
disengaged or detached from the process of making the film. In fact, they act as provocateurs by
showing footage to some of the characters during the process, and by showing the entire film to
all of the characters and including their response in the edited film. Both filmmaker and filmed
are allowed the luxury of self-representation and reaction resulting in a sense of equality never
seen in direct cinema. And Rouch duplicates this effect in Jaguar, as well, by allowing the
subjects to play with their own identities and then react via narration.
Ultimately, voyeurism is about the power vested in those who control images and the ability to
articulate in some fashion, their own gaze. Dennis ORourke, a filmic descendant of Rouch, goes
as far as to say that an equal relationship between filmmaker and filmed subject is a myth. His
response is to reveal himself and his own gaze because as he says, The gaze reveals all. 9 There
is no doubt that the political action that came out of non-revealing direct cinema work like
Wisemans on Titticut Follies is important and necessary and perhaps, in light of the political
action that followed Wisemans gaze becomes more clear. However, ethnographic descendants
of direct cinema like Gary Kildea with Celso and Cora do not examine institutions or provide
documentary reporting. And more problematic still is the fact that Kildea is not committed to
examining his own his gaze as a filmmaker, nor does he provide any meaningful reflexivity other
than introducing himself to the audience. Without some kind of disclosure from the filmmaker,
there is a portion of truth that is missing even when direct cinema avails the audience to all the
details of the lives of the subjects.

Filmmaker Stance
the faith that many social scientists have in film as providing them with an objective
recording instrument is touching and almost sentimental. 10

Both direct cinema and cinema verit required their practitioners to become a part of their
subjects lives. That fact, in itself, compromises any mythical notion of objectivity. Primary, High
School, and Chronicle of a Summer all required some kind of a relationship with the subjects.
Yet, while Rouch is self-involved, ever-present in his films, many direct cinema filmmakers held to
an ideal of pure observation. Robert Drew goes as far as to say: The film makers personality is
in no way directly involved in directing the action. 11 I can empathize with their need to reduce
reduce intervention and thereby improve observation 12. But, as Colin Young points out film
aesthetics are about selectivity and subjectivity. 13 The filmmaker cannot help but be
responsible for what the camera does and does not frame, what the edited film does or does not
contain.

Wiseman is one of the few counterbalances within direct cinema who, while holding to the
stylistic terms of direct cinema, believed that his films were very personal and subjective. 14 But
even Wiseman believed that he had no preconceived notions about his subjects prior to
filming.15 When you consider his past history with Titticut Follies or the fact that he did go to
high school and then made a film about it, I find it hard to believe that he did not have any
preconceptions. In addition, so firm was his believe in his absolute right to control the final
product, he absolutely refused to acknowledge subject response or viewer response to his films.
Wiseman is quoted as saying: I dont believe in this whole business of testing out a film with an
audience, or asking somebody else what they think or even showing it to a small group and
asking for their reaction.16

Cinema verit took a completely different approach to issues of the filmmaker role and
objectivity. As writer Brian Winston points out, Rouch took on the problem directly and solved it
by involving himself in the film.17 In Jaguar, there is a constant sense of his presence though he
is never actually seen. In Chronicle of a Summer, both he and Morin feature prominently which
seems appropriate considering they were turning ethnographic study back on themselves and
their own city. This kind of participation, in both films pushes the subjects further than direct
cinema possibly could.
In comparison, each method uncovers two different kinds of truth. Take the example of
Chronicle of a Summer and High School: While Chronicle reveals inner motivations, ideals and
struggles, High School takes on the outward challenges of dealing with an institution. Chronicle
turns up the heat with invasive probing and focus on the individual, while High School watches
nameless, yet recognizable individuals respond to difficult events. One is a distinctly inner
revelation being pulled outward, and the other is a hopeful belief that the camera can and will
capture truth in reality, a truth we miss whilst going about our daily lives.

Jaguar is one of the few films featured within the bounds of cinema verit and direct cinema
that deals with another culture other than that of the filmmaker. Its special treatment and
adherence to neither the rules of neither fiction, nor documentary make it that much more
interesting, and its here that the role of Rouch as filmmaker takes on special significance. The
way that Rouch participates off screen in this film is very important. There is camaraderie
evident between subject and filmmaker. And there is a conscious awareness that the viewer is
seeing the journey of individuals rather than the portrayal of a culture. By using fiction and
involving himself, Rouch creates a different kind of glimpse into what he would likely call
fragments of truth transforming the role of the filmmaker into that of contributor and
participant.

Conclusion
Direct cinema and cinema verit , while constructed very differently seek to bring out truth
rarely seen on film, even by todays standards. Direct cinema hopes to unveil truth through
detailed outward observation of events and/or subjects; cinema verit seeks any means
possible to explore ideas of truth and is intrinsically an inward individual process gradually being
revealed. The role of the filmmaker can either assist in the process of discovering/revealing truth
or detract from it. In Rouchs case, he uses his role to participate thereby reducing the implicit
imbalance of power between subject and filmmaker. In the case of direct cinema, truth is what
steps in front of the camera and what the filmmaker chooses to highlight. Documentary is rarely
a matter of pure observation, however within both methods, there lays an opportunity for
revelation even if mediated to greater or lesser degrees by both the camera and the filmmaker.