AMY REVISION
3 SEQUENCES
Younger Amy - after parents divorce
- Demonstrates Longinotto’s ideas as the clip is compiled of home videos of Amy Winehouse as well as narration about her childhood from Amy Winehouse herself.
- Home videos really meets Longinotto’s theory as the director doesn’t have any interjection in the video at all as they’re filmed previously. They let you see the raw personality of Amy Winehouse as a child without others giving their opinions on what they thought she was like.
- By using Amy Winehouse her self for the voice over, you get the truth about what she was like rather than hearing how other people perceived her. This completely links with Longinotto’s ideology as you’re getting the story straight from the main subject.
However, Kapadia was not conducting the interview used as the voiceover so who’s to say whether the original interviewer was altering or steering the conversation in a specific direction.
- Kapadia is editing the clips himself meaning he gets the final over all say. Whilst he is using home videos, and voiceovers collected from interviews he conducted himself, he still in a way shapes the story in the way he sees fit.
- Longinotto and Kapadia are different filmmakers, but Kapadia had no presence in the recordings at all; He knows the ending, so his work goes against the style longinotto develops.
Recording in Mark Ron-son's Studio:
- Voiceover
- Found footage
- Switch from diegetic to non-diegetic soundtrack
- Long shot of camera - positions Amy away, places her in a more natural environment
- Slow zoom in, quite romantic, nonchalant
Longinotto
- There is no intervention of Kapadia to influence narrative or perspectives
- In the scene the sings for herself, in touch with herself in this moment. The realism of the scene is reflective of Longinotto's philosophy on the moral scope of documentary, providing "ownership" to the documentary.
- Detachment from directors emotions due to the rawness of the footage.
- The camera keeps rolling, the position of the camera, a sense of "fly on the wall"
Counter-arguements
- Perhaps the subtitles of the song and mix of diegetic and non-diegetic music forms a more romanticised version of the situation, when the story in fact very sad, the song itself too.
- Poetic
- Raw footage of Amy being alone as a child, having tantrums, perhaps deliberate to showcase Amy having a negative upbringing, steering an outcome in terms of blame for her future misfortune
- Narrated by Amy, provides a sense of "truth" matched with the home videos before she was famous, no-one's opinion but her. Steers the honesty of the documentary.
- Voice is an excellent factor of authentication.
- Painting Mitch as a colt and out of understanding father.
- Over-egging the stereotypes of heteronormative families.
- Context, framing of narrative
- The start of the film, the root cause of all her problems
Primrose Hill with Blake
- Use of voice-over, Blakes voice, sharing his vulnerability in childhood
- Both discover they felt abandoned
- Context for Amy's fate...
- Is she only a victim?
- Cause and effect
- Authenticity of showing her original lyrics
- Part of the constant story of looking for someone to blame.
Apply one filmmaker's theory of documentary film you have studied to your chosen documentary. How far does this increase your understanding of the film?
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, 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. 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, as spectators we are not aware of the questions being asked, 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. For example, there are many moments of Amy as a child being alone, also having temper tantrums. These clips coinciding with her mother's VoiceOver saying "I was weak as a mother". Perhaps a very purposeful editing choice to paint a "blame" for Amy's future downfall, which most likely occurred because of her mistreatment in the media rather an upbringing that does not comply to a heteronormative family, something experienced by many people around the world that still manage to succeed healthily in the future. There is a strong argument that this scene falls into Longinotto's style of documentary due to the home videos and Amy's on VoiceOver. But Kapadia having omniscient knowledge on the ending of the documentary suggests that this specific sequencing of home videos matched with the voice overs demonstrate his ability to quickly form a blame for Amy's struggles throughout life - challenging how far it increases my understanding of the film as editing choice makes a steered narrative.
The next sequence I will be discussing is the recording in Mark Ronson's studio scene. The sequence in it's entirety is a clear example of how poetic documentary can be weaved into a film that focuses on an observational style. Firstly, the scene is entirely edited found footage, a elemental technique that seems to be used throughout the whole documentary. Amy sings into the mic, the camera being used to record her in the footage slowly zooming in as she engrosses herself into the song. However, the camera is initially at a long shot from Amy, positioning her in distant proxemic originally from the camera itself. The way this footage is filmed places her in a more natural environment, perhaps contrasting the onslaught of media/paparazzi that follows her daily. In the scene it seems as though Amy is singing for herself, she is in touch with the music. The realism and honesty of the raw footage is reflective of Longinotto's philosophy on the moral scope of documentary, providing "ownership" to the person or people it is about. Kapadia follows this idea by keeping the footage in its raw state, this does increase our understanding as spectators due to us seeing how developed Amy's style of music was, and her true passion for it. After all, the camera keeps rolling, enhancing Longinotto's "fly on the wall" technique. However, as the sequence continues, around one and a half minutes into the song there is a repetitive switch from the diegetic sound of her voice, to the non-diegetic track of the song itself, inter-changing every fifteen or so seconds. Additionally, the use of subtitles occurs while the song plays, these subtitles fading away once the line has been sung. These two editing techniques Kapadia has enforced suggest a more poetic interpretation of the situation, in fact, romanticising the moment. When in reality, the song is melancholic and truthful to Amy, the editing of sound and subtitles removed that honesty that was so evident beforehand - replacing it with a more "flawless" or "entertaining" depiction which may not have been truly necessary. Ultimately, Kapadia does stay strong with Longinotto's powerful techniques, yet there is a slight divergence from these more poetic methods of documentary used later on in the sequence, perhaps more suggestive of Broomfield's attitude towards filmmaking. Longinotto's impact on the scene increase our understanding of Amy's love for music, the only time she has "escape", as she said earlier in a voice-over, but the poetic adjustments at the end remove the soul of the sequence in order to be aesthetically pleasing.
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. Perhaps the participatory technique of Mitch contributing to Kapadia's chosen footage of his documentary used in this sequence increases our understanding of the pressure Amy was put under to be "perfect"; however, Kapadia influences spectators to hold certain people responsible for Amy's unfortunate death, though it may be obvious why she died.
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, Longinotto's style of documentary takes the majority of influence on the film itself, Kapadia using the "fly on the wall" technique throughout the entirety. However, "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 shifting spectators understandings on what is "true or false". Manifesting the paramount question, is what we see in documentary true to the real story or adjusted for entertainment?
Comments
Post a Comment