AMY - Final essay

- Filmmaking can certainly be shaped by the filmmaker's approach. Regarding this genre of film, two main contrasts of documentary would be the well utilised approaches of observational and participatory. Observational technique being moulded by Kim Longinotto's classic form of "fly on the wall" - both the director and audience being voyeurs upon a story, reaching our own conclusion. Participatory filmmaking reflects the physical involvement of a director within the documentary, perhaps being a more "flawless" presentation of a narrative, shaped in a desired way for the audience. This theory stemming from Nick Broomfield's active participation in his own documentaries, constantly shifting perspectives with his own involvement. In the case of this essay, I will be discussing how Kapadia shaped the documentary "Amy" through the approaches he considered, majority being observational, though the end product may influence a certain suggestion of the real "truth". 

 

The first sequence that I will be discussing is the "Younger Amy" montage of compiled home videos as well as a voice over narration from Amy Winehouse herself. Kapadia makes a intelligent decision to begin the documentary using this style of documentary, certainly creating an honest  and chronological perspective to Amy's early years, further enhanced by Amy's voice over allowing the montage to be truthful and believable. The compilation of home videos definitely meets Longinotto's theory that Kapadia has used as his stylistic approach throughout the majority of the documentary. Kapadia has no interjection here as the videos were filmed previously, the montage provides rawness towards the spectators. This follows Longinotto's "fly on the wall" method, making the director and audience voyeurs to situation on screen. Furthermore, by using Amy Winehouse herself on the voice over, we are provided truth about what she was actually like, rather than listening to how other people perceived her. Linking completely with Longinotto's moral and ethical opinions of documentary, avoiding feeding a false narrative. Longinotto's approach would be to unravel the narrative by giving "space" to the parents, which is what Kapadia does by keeping the footage. However, Kapadia himself did not conduct the interview, so who is to say wether the original interviewer steered the conversation for a certain outcome. Kapadia also edited the clips, meaning he had the final say, shaping the story using the home videos in the ways he sees fit. Longinotto and Kapadia are different filmmakers, though Kapadia had no presence in the recording at all; he knows the ending, so technically his work here goes against the style Longinotto develops. 

The St Lucia sequence in "Amy" strikes me as an important scene depicting the exploitation of Amy herself throughout her lifetime. Kapadia certainly keeps the thin string of her exploitation as a key theme running within the entirety of the documentary, perhaps this was shaped by Longinotto's moral and ethical intent regarding documentary, sustaining the truth. Most of the public are well aware of Amy's harassment over her time in the spotlight, so Kapadia stays truthful to this. But, the St Lucia sequence is not in fact Kapadia's own work, instead the work of Mitch (Amy's father) who had created his own documentary on Amy - a participatory method used, allowing Mitch to have a scripted reality by bringing an entire TV crew, ultimately attempting a more "flawless" presentation. In this sequence Kapadia absorbed Broomfield's technique of steering an outcome due the specific footage chosen in the sequence. Yes, Kapadia does sustain the moral compass of what the documentary is truly about, though he also makes independent decisions on how he wants to portray a certain someone or overall affect, allowing him to fall more into Broomfield's approach to documentary in this scene by putting a "blame" on Amy's downfall; highlighting how significantly a documentary can be shaped by another filmmakers approach depending on the perspective desired to be portrayed. 

Lastly, Amy's Funeral sequence perhaps is the most suggestive of the exploitation the singer experienced that Kapadia decides to run through the entire documentary. One of Longinotto's most important theories regarding documentary was to provide ownership to the true people who had experienced the story, alive or deceased. Reflecting her own emotions away from the story in order to project rawness and reality. In this sequence Kapadia captures this by showing raw footage, at first with Amy's friend and bodyguard, discussing how they found Amy's body. Then shortly changing to Amy's actual funeral, shot by the photographers of tabloids disrespectfully attempting to get a picture of the funeral and Amy's loved ones. The second hand footage Kapadia uses is extremely effective in portraying how gut-wrenchingly ruthless these people were, the cinematography being handheld and shaky, further suggesting the wrongness of their actions. Kapadia sustains the moral and ethical intent that Longinotto preaches, staying accurate to what truly occurred, this sequence certainly being valid. Kapadia is influenced by Longinotto's approach to documentary, he makes the audience feel uncomfortable and even as if they are intruding on a private moment, which is what happened to Amy's loved ones. Though we are "flies on the wall", we still feel this intense aura of frustration and helplessness towards Amy Winehouse herself. Kapadia's true intention at heart. This scene certainly suggests the influence of filmmaker approaches on documentary, as Kapadia's intention remains clear while his own emotional opinion is disconnected. 

Kapadia is influenced to a great extent by Longinotto's filmmaker approach; he includes multiple techniques that Longinotto introduced to the documentary genre of film. Firstly, the "fly on the wall" technique remains constant through the documentary, this method being effective in disconnecting the director from the action on screen, allowing Kapadia to provide a true form of the story without interrupting with his own opinion. Additionally, Longinotto's moral and ethical intent regarding documentary is also something Kapadia decides to absorb in "Amy", doing this by maintaining the actual cause of her death being her exploitation in the media, a theme that repeats as a motif throughout the documentary. Though Longinotto's approach takes place as the majority of his work in "Amy", we must also consider Kapadia's inclusion of Broomfield's approach. The argument to consider is how Kapadia adjusts the narrative of the story minutely by purposefully picking second hand raw footage and editing them in a specific order to portray his own ideology of what truly took place, also influencing the audience watching. Overall, "Amy" is an example of how observational documentary can intertwine with certain aspects of Broomfield's methodical techniques, suggesting how separate filmmaker approaches can certainly collaborate in one documentary majorly influencing how it is filmed, edited, discussed and so on; manifesting the paramount question, is what we see in documentary true to the real story or adjusted for entertainment?