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 cinéma vérité 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 establishment—be 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 cinéma vérité
Cinéma vérité 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 cinéma vérité 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 cinéma vérité movement. T
Filmmakers opinions on this subject
In a 2003 interview (Zuber), Robert Drew explained how he saw the differences between cinéma vérité 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 Française]. I was surprised to see the Cinema vérité 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 along…maneuvering in the chaos of movement, recording movement, startling with movements of the most complex combinations.” (Michelson, O’Brien, & Vertov 1984) This emphasis on mobility became practicable in the early 1960’s 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 Vertov’s 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 Drew’s Primary (1960.)
Primary (Documentary)
Robert Drew’s 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 verité. 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 Drew’s 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 Kennedy’s 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 JFK’s 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 (Drew’s 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!