The Ambitions and Limitations of the Observational Documentary Mode

The Ambitions And Limitations Of The Observational Documentary By Jay Humphreys The observational documentary. A style of documentary defined as abandoning the usual conventions of interviews, voice-over narration and soundtrack/music, and instead records events and people as they happen; real life unfolds. It encourages the audience to make their own conclusions of the film and its characters (Hooper, 2011). In this essay I will be breaking down the ambitions and the limitations of the observational documentary in regard to ethical and exploitive issues by analysing Grey Gardens (Maysles et al, 1975). I will also discuss how authentic the documentary is. The film follows a Mother, Edith, and her Daughter, Edie, as they live out their days in a decaying, pest infested, Long Island mansion. Throughout, their personalities clash. I will be using the works of Nathan Rabin, Ilona Hongisto, Bill Nichols, Yoommy Nam and Eric Brightwell. The ambitions of Grey Gardens are to capture Edith and her Daughter, Edie, at their most natural states. The filmmakers want the subjects to be comfortable in front of the cameras and for them to be themselves. The Maysles quickly become friendly with the subjects, making themselves and the two subjects at ease around the cameras. Edie, when alone with the filmmakers, seems to show genuine pleasure and enjoyment. Rabin writes: Beale performs one-woman dance recitals for the cameras throughout Grey Gardens with a look of joy on her otherwise-grim face. The look registers as real pleasure instead of the forced smile that is every dancer’s default expression. It’s the joy of someone putting themselves on display, an exhibitionist’s pleasure in being seen, even if that means being gawked at. Part of the reason Grey Gardens…is so deep and endlessly rewatchable is that the Beales’ pleasure in being seen is matched by the Maysles’ joy in watching. Theses exhibitionists found the perfect voyeurs, and vice versa (Rabin, 2014, para 4). They, the Maysles, get what they want; they capture Edie being herself and showing the world her talent. Edie does not care about the camera; in fact, she seems to like the attention. This results in the footage feeling raw and authentic for the audience. This does not feel exploitive as the filmmakers do not push Edie into performance of these songs and dances, it is a part of her personality, she simply just does it. It is a fair representation of who she is. Through most of the documentary, Edie seems miserable but, in these moments, where she performs, she seems full of happiness. Edie wants to be seen and the viewer can see this. The Maysles were there to simply capture these moments without force or encouragement, it feels extremely natural and actually paints her out to be quite a unique, entertaining character. The filmmakers are successful in gaining footage that is real. The Maysles also want to capture the truth of Edith and Edie’s Mother and Daughter relationship. They want to dive deep into the past of the two characters. There is a scene in Grey Gardens where Edith and Edie are looking through old photographs of themselves when they were younger. We see photos of Edith with her children, in which we also see a young Edie, Edith on her wedding day, Edith’s husband and Edith’s singing days. Seeing these pictures brings back some memories. The filmmakers splice together images of the pictures and then close ups of the subject’s reaction, suggesting their attitudes towards the present are a reflection of the past that these photos have brought out of them (Hongisto, 2015). Edie starts explaining how Edith disciplined her but never her two brothers with Edith’s excuse being that they did not need disciplining like her. Edith also mentions how she was a singer and how successful her marriage was even though she was separated. This suggests that Edith misses these days and the great things she once had. Hongisto (2015, p.76) goes on to say “… The documentary expresses the past as a vestige for performances in the present. Here, the film follows Edie’s lead and her claim that “it is difficult to keep the line between the past and the present”, which is actualized in the series of takes the Maysles refer to as the unfolding experience of life”. The Maysles are not exploiting these reactions and emotions, they are just trying to capture the essence of life and people’s reactions to the past and how it affects them in the present. It allows the audience to understand the subjects’ behaviours and the scene flows naturally as Edith and Edie begin to argue and talk over one another. However, during this same scene Edith and Edie begin to argue over showing a picture to the Maysles and the camera. They fight over the picture and end up tearing the corner off and Edith shouts at Edie while Edie just cares about showing the camera. It feels like Edie is trying to impress and the Maysles do not interfere. This could be seen as exploitive. The Beale’s seem at ease with the cameras and the Maysles shooting inside their mansion that is falling apart. Plaster peels from the walls and raccoons live in the ceilings and walls. The house is littered with junk. The place is falling apart, but the Maysles capture every filthy detail. They don’t say anything, and the Beale’s never acknowledge that their behaviours are peculiar. Nichols raises these questions: They are at ease with the camera and spontaneous in their interactions, but they seem to have no idea that others will judge their eccentric, reclusive, highly codependent lifestyle to be bizarre, even unhealthy. How can filmmakers simply observe and pass along what they see if what we now see becomes fodder for diagnoses of illness or judgements of dysfunction? Did they have no ethical obligation to confront these concerns more directly? Do they in fact do so in the quality of their interaction and the trust the women place in them? (Nichols, 2017, P. 134). This raises the debate that the Maysles are gaining the Beale’s trust to capture the most over the top reactions on camera. The Maysles filmed the two subjects knowing they are exposing themselves, acting strange and living in poor, unhygienic conditions. In doing so, the filmmakers gain entertaining and dramatic footage at the expense of the subjects. The audience may become concerned for the mental health of the Beale’s. It feels like the Maysles just care about getting worthy footage while the Beale’s play up to the cameras, living in their poor ways. This is unfair and exploits the Beale’s. The Maysles are described as making direct cinema documentary films. This type of format is where the filmmakers do not plan a scene and let the story unfold naturally in front of them as the camera rolls. This is opposite to cinema verité, where the filmmakers actively participate as a subject observer, the subjects are aware of the camera unlike direct cinema (Nam, 2015). Grey Gardens is unsuccessful is following direct cinema. The idea of the subjects being unaware of the camera is not true. The scene where Edie is dancing by the stairs is a great example of this. Throughout the scene she waves the flag and walks towards the camera, knowing full well she is being filmed. There are many scenes where the Beale’s seem to fight for the camera’s attention, both speaking and performing for the Maysles. They are aware of the cameras and they like it. Brightwell writes: The attempt to hide the filmmaking process is a dishonest lie used universally in fiction films to keep viewers from thinking about the fact that they’re watching a film. The impression of non-interference is false—everyone acts differently in front of a film crew (unless they are unaware of it). One of my favourite examples of this happening in a cinema direct film occurs in Salesman. The salesman is welcomed into a home and (realizing he’s being filmed) the homeowner walks over to his stereo and starts blasting what sounds like 101 Strings or Mantovani, clearly showing off his system (Brightwell, 2007, para 4). It’s hard to capture true life in front of camera, everyone acts up. When the Beale’s act up to the cameras, it gives the Maysles the chance to exploit and record entertaining footage, footage where the cameras have fuelled unnatural reactions creating a false presentation of the subjects. Overall, the debate over Grey Gardens continues. The film is not successful in presenting a neutral view and the subjects relish the thought of being on camera, they perform songs, dances and they fight for the filmmakers’ attention. The Maysles most likely shot hours and hours of footage and only chose to use the scenes they deemed entertaining (the scenes of them arguing and Edith telling Edie she cannot sing). The Beale’s trusted the Maysles and they use that to explore their past and present it in the film. The film does have some successful elements based on the few scenes where Edie seems happy and free when performing; it feels like she is being herself. The ethics of the Maysles is questionable. It seems that they weren’t interested in the fact they were filming the Beale’s in a vulnerable state which could cause concern, they only cared about creating an entertaining documentary. Grey Gardens is a controversial film that raises many questions and debates and will continue to do so.