CUEING THE VIEWER: HOW REFLEXIVE ELEMENTS IN DOCUMENTARY FILM ENGAGE AUDIENCES IN ISSUES OF REPRESENTATION

A thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen

Charlotte Govaert

2011 University of Aberdeen Kings College Aberdeen AB24 3FX Scotland

Know thyself

Declaration

The thesis has been composed by the candidate. It has not been accepted in any previous application for a degree. The work has been done by the candidate. All quotations all quotations have been distinguished by quotation marks and the sources of information are specifically acknowledged.

Summary

Documentary theorists such as Brian Winston and Bill Nichols have theorised the merits of reflexivity to issues of representation in documentary film. They advanced the reflexive mode as a conscious effort to heighten the viewers awareness of the problematic relationship between the documentary image and that which it represents. Yet, how viewers read reflexive elements, and whether they raise the viewers consciousness with respect to the problem of authenticity in documentary film, has remained under-researched. In general terms, reflexivity is the procedure by which a particular piece of communication turns back upon itself and addresses its inner workings. If communication is constituted by six elements, as Roman Jakobson theorized, then reflexive texts may take as their subject the sender of the message, the production process, its form or inherent structure, the context to which it refers and/or the receiver of the message. Building on this theorization of reflexive strategies in light of Jakobsons paradigm, a film was produced for this reception study, entitled Silver City (2008), which was edited in four versions that employed various forms and levels of reflexivity. Each film was subsequently screened and discussed in three focus groups. In total, 76 informants participated in this qualitative study. The findings demonstrate that reflexive elements in documentary film do not automatically raise consciousness in viewers of the problematic relationship between the historical world and its representation in documentary film. A wide variety in response was found, ranging from definite susceptibility to categorical rejection of the reflexive elements. The evidence underlines that reception is a complex and hyper-individual process that is determined by a myriad of variables, which include structural competence, personality, (media) experience and the viewing situation. These factors subsequently interact with specifics of the particular strategy that is employed as well as its intensity.

Table of Contents Summary Acknowledgments Introduction Chapter One: Redefining Documentary and the Jakobson Paradigm The heritage of the Griersonian dichotomy Defining documentary Jakobsons model Roman Jakobson Applying Jakobsons model: a discussion Chapter Two: Constructing a Case Study Author Author: culture, ideology, socio-economic class, gender and point of view Context Poland Aberdeen, Scotland Media context: the UK Production process Preproduction Involving others Production Things not covered Underpaid Postproduction Involving others Production Silver City 1-3R Text Story Space Discourse Time Audience The referential and the expressive function Other functions Code Chapter Three: Complexities of Reflexivity Current approaches to reflexivity A Jakobsonian approach to reflexivity The expressive function The procedural function The referential function The poetic function The conative function The metacinematic function Chapter Four: Designing Context for Viewer Response Research questions Research assumptions Research methods in audience research Research methods: Silver City 4 7 9 19 20 23 30 36 38 48 48 51 53 56 57 58 60 60 62 64 66 69 73 76 77 78 79 82 83 84 85 88 94 98 102 102 107 116 116 117 118 118 119 126 128 129 130 131

Focus groups: strengths and weaknesses Study design Sampling and recruitment Two moderators: advantages and disadvantages The stimulus: Silver City Silver City NR (51 min) Silver City 1R (54 min) Silver City 2R (62 min) Silver City 3R (62 min) Chapter Five: Interpreting Reflexivity Through Silver City Silver City NR Response to reflexive strategies in NR Silver City 1R Response to reflexive strategies in 1R Silver City 2R Response to reflexive strategies in 2R Silver City 3R Response to reflexive strategies in 3R Chapter Six: Reinterpreting Reflexive Theory Conclusion: Reflexive Afterthoughts Appendix Bibliography Filmography

132 134 135 139 141 141 143 146 150 160 162 165 176 177 189 190 206 207 222 238 239 243 248

Acknowledgments

Many people have been indispensable to this project, and I am grateful to them for their encouragement and support. Kathryn Ramey and Jan Roberts-Breslin were advisers for my Masters thesis at Emerson College in Boston (US), and they both encouraged me to continue my trajectory by pursuing a PhD. Two colleagues at the department of Drama at the University of Manchester (UK) took me on as their PhD student. They were Alan Marcus, and Rajinder Dudrah, whose areas of expertise, respectively issues of representation and reception studies, were of great significance to this project. I am particularly grateful to Alan for his friendship and practical support and to Rajinder for continuing his involvement with the project when I followed Alan to Aberdeen (Scotland) after he had accepted the post of Reader in Film and Visual Culture there. I owe many thanks to everyone who worked with me on Silver City. They are, first and foremost, everyone who appeared in front of the camera, in particular Pjotr (Peter) Narojczyk and Agnieszka Swiderska, as well as Justyna Topczewska, who helped me out behind the scenes as boom operator, translator and first viewer. Alan Dodd not only appeared in two reflexive versions of the movie but also acted as my sounding board during pre- and postproduction. At the other side of the world (Los Angeles), Rachel Eisengart was on standby for editing advice. In the Media Lab at the University of Aberdeen, Linda Stephen and Wilf Howie helped me out with Mac issues. Once I had a rough cut, it was Steef Meyknechts remorseless critique that helped me to improve Silver City NR, which subsequently served as the basis for the three alternative versions of the film. I am indebted to Sally Newsome, who did a tremendous job moderating ten out of fourteen focus groups. Sociologist Tony Glendinning answered any question I had regarding methodology and gave me feedback on the sections in this thesis that cover

methodology and the presentation of the findings. The focus groups were made possible with awards from the Small Grants Fund and the School of Language and Literature, both at the University of Aberdeen. Thank you to all focus groups participants, including my fellow PhD students at the School of Language and Literature who partook in the trial sessions. I thank my family and friends for supporting me all these years I do not need to mention your names, you know who you are.

This study is dedicated to the memory of my beloved Steven de Vogel (1956-2001), who, as a hard-core journalist, might have snubbed the topic but who would have commended the effort.

 Introduction

The opening scene of Far from Poland (Godmilow, 1984) is unusual in comparison to other documentary films. As in most documentaries, the first few minutes of the film are utilized to introduce the theme and create a mood, but filmmaker Jill Godmilow adopts an unconventional strategy to prepare her audience for what is to come. She personally enters the frame and explains in a direct address to the viewer why she felt compelled to make the film. Far from Poland is a key work in the debate on reflexivity in documentary film, which emerged in the late-1900s. Documentary theorists such as Bill Nichols and Brian Winston and (visual) anthropologists such as Annette Weiner and Jay Ruby theorized the merits of reflexivity regarding issues of representation and authenticity in documentary film. Identifying key case studies, they advanced the reflexive mode as a conscious effort to heighten the viewers awareness of the problematic relationship between the documentary image and that which it represents. In particular Nichols Representing Reality (1991), and Winstons Claiming the Real (1995) are landmark studies in this respect. Yet, where the advocates of reflexivity in documentary film arrive at their analysis there remains a paucity of empirical data. The question of how audiences actually read reflexive elements, and whether they raise the viewers consciousness with respect to issues of representation as these theoreticians of reflexivity suggested, has remained underresearched. This study addresses the gap between reflexive theory and reception practices by investigating viewer response to reflexive elements in documentary film. In general terms, reflexivity is the procedure by which a particular piece of communication turns back upon itself and addresses its inner workings. If communication can be broken down in six elements, as Roman Jakobson (1987) theorized, then reflexive texts may take as their

 subject the sender of the message, the production process, its form or inherent structure, the context to which it refers and/or the receiver of the message. Building on Jakobsons paradigmatic theorization of reflexive strategies, a film was produced for this doctoral study, entitled Silver City (2008), which was edited in four versions that employ various forms and levels of reflexivity. In order to obtain viewer response, these versions were each discussed in three focus groups. In total, 76 informants participated in this qualitative study. The empirical evidence gathered provides useful data on viewer response to reflexive elements in a documentary film. Jakobson introduced his theory in 1956, but although several theorists have made references to his work, it has arguably never fully received the recognition and application it merits in the realm of documentary film. In this study, by critically reinserting Jakobsons paradigm in the field, it not only becomes possible to analyse reflexive strategies in documentary film in new ways but to reconsider aspects of documentary theory in general. The recurring debate about the definition of documentary, and in particular the attempts to demarcate it from other genres, gains a new and practicable dynamic if considered in the context of Jakobsons proposals. The main focus of this study is an investigation of claims made by the aforementioned scholars with respect to the effects that reflexivity in documentary has on viewers. If we want to understand how viewers interpret media content, a reception study is appropriate (Schrder et al 2003: 122). Reception research is based on the assumption that media output is merely encoded meaning potential, which needs to be actualized by the reader in their individual, social and cultural context (ibid: 124). Until recently, audience research was an under-utilized resource in rhetorical criticism that engages popular culture texts (Stromer-Galley and Schiappa 1998: 27), in particular in the area of documentary film. In the past few years, however, two texts were published that are valuable contributions to the field. Annette Hills Restyling Factual TV (2007) is a

10

 comparative and broad study that investigates how audiences in both the UK and Sweden navigate the changing landscape of television programmes including documentary, docudrama and reality television. Watching the World (2007) by Thomas Austin is a collection of several studies that investigate at the reception of recent and popular documentary films including tre et avoir (Philibert, 2002), Touching the Void (Macdonald, 2003) and Capturing the Freedmans (Jarecki, 2003). As these studies demonstrate, reception research employs different strategies to gather data. They may look at actual viewer response or purposively generate data through surveys or interviews. Schreier (2004), for example, investigated messages that were posted on website forums. For some of his studies, Austin (2007) handed out questionnaires in movie theatres where the film in question was screened. Annette Hill, whose study did not address particular texts but investigated the reception of the factual genre in general, applied triangulation as the method of choice by using surveys and semistructured group interviews to obtain the data, thereby combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. For this examination, an experimental element was introduced in the study design. Silver City, the film that served as the research tool, is a documentary about a young Polish man who came to the UK after Poland joined the EU. Like many of the approximately 1 million Poles who migrated to the British Isles since 2004, he works in the service industry; he is the manager of a low-end hotel in Aberdeen. The film looks at immigration from the vantage point of the immigrant, and we see how Peter connects with both Scotsmen and compatriots through his work ethic, his music he plays the harmonica and his sense of humour. For the purposes of this study, the film was edited in four versions, one nonreflexive and three reflexive versions that each draw from the reflexive repertoire. While the first version resembles the average television documentary and does not wittingly

11

 attempt to engage audiences in issues of representation, the second version applies some of the mild reflexive strategies that were employed in Lonely Boy (Koenig and Kroitor, 1962). The third version of Silver City contains an on-screen evaluation by the participants in the film, which resembles the discussion at the end of Chronique dun t (Morin and Rouch, 1961). The fourth and most reflexive version borrows several reflexive strategies that were employed in Far from Poland. Together these four versions of Silver City employ all six functions of Jakobsons communication paradigm in the reflexive mode, and to different degrees. By using variants of a film that display different forms and levels of reflexivity, it was possible to obtain a wider range of responses than if one film from the reflexive canon was screened and discussed with audiences. The inclusion of more films from the canon would have made it difficult to make comparisons, as each film is unique in terms of topic and treatment. The selected approach largely compensated for this demerit. Another advantage of the study design was that viewers were interrogated about their interpretations of reflexive elements in documentary in response to actual media content. By comparison, if asked, either through questionnaires or interviews, whether they would like to know how reality was constructed for the screen respondents would most likely respond with the socially desirable answer (who could be against transparency?), even if this would not necessarily reflect their response if confronted with reflexive elements in documentary film. Every approach, however, has its merits and limitations, and the approach that was chosen for this study is no exception, as will be discussed in detail in Chapter Four. My interest in issues of representation developed during the ten years I worked as a journalist for KRO Television, one of the public broadcasters in the Netherlands.1 Annette Hill (2007: 98) describes journalists as schizophrenic because they believe in the ideals of news and its public and social value while recognizing the realities of news production and

12

 the difficulties in achieving such ideals. Indeed, I considered myself a professional who contributed to the public debate by providing the audience with the impartial and balanced information they need to make up their own minds about controversial issues such as lifeand-death decisions in intensive care units and euthanasia, which were the topics of some of my productions. At the same time, I realised that made-for-television documentaries construct rather than represent reality. What disturbed me in particular was the translation of the aesthetics of reality (realism) into an ideologically informed representation of reality. That is, a reality as manufactured for the screen by filmmakers with their own sub/conscious preconceptions about the world, which cannot be transmitted in toto to receptive audiences. Yet, it is precisely on what counts as public knowledge that viewers ground their opinions and actions as citizens in our society today. As television journalists are always in a rush to meet the next deadline I never had the time to sit back and reflect on my profession, thus I left my job to do a Masters in Media Arts at Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts. Professor Kathryn Ramey, who had studied with Jay Ruby, pointed me in the direction of reflexivity as a means to address what turned out to be a veritable area in documentary studies issues of representation. Over the past decade, the debate about reflexivity appears to have lost some of its momentum, but my interest was raised. Two concerns in particular fuelled my curiosity. The first was the lack of data. All proposals with respect to reflexivity as the answer to issues of representation were made based on personal observation and argued evaluation rather than evidence. While theorizations are an essential first step in academic research, we do not know how viewers interpret reflexive elements in documentary film or if they help them to understand documentary as a construction rather than a slice of unmediated reality until we ask them. The second concern that sparked my interest was the difference in attitude between scholars and practitioners of documentary film with respect to reflexivity. In the field, and

13

 in particular in the domain of current affairs, it is considered good form to hide behind the camera and assume a stance of disinterestedness. Revealing the self as the maker of the product or any other reference in the film to the production process is not only looked upon as unnecessary and untidy and therefore unprofessional but also as navel-gazing if not plain narcissistic. Most likely this attitude is enforced by the cultural code of egalitarianism in my country, which prescribes restraint; standing out in the crowd is traditionally not encouraged in the Netherlands, and putting oneself on the screen would all too soon be considered a sign of self-importance and vanity. Although intellectual and professional inquisitiveness were the main sources of inspiration for this investigation, its subject gained social relevance when Hill (2007: 110) reported that trust in television as a device for witnessing the world has dwindled over the past decades. In Restyling Factual TV, she describes two criteria that viewers use to assess the authenticity of factual content. The first is referential integrity; factual content is expected to be authentic and true to life. Another widespread view is that factual programming should contain facts and provide knowledge about the world. Viewers may therefore also assess a programmes status by evaluating the level of information provided, and how objective or impartial the facts are in that particular context. Current affairs and documentary, however, do not unreservedly meet the viewers expectation. Hill found that programming in these categories was regarded to be less true to life than viewers thought they should be.2 In opinion formation too, documentary and current affairs play an insignificant role for significant numbers of viewers.3 Britain, moreover, is not an exception. In the US as well as in France, the large majority of citizens consider the media to be biased, as Hunter and Van Wassenhove (2010) reported.4 While the producers of factual content like to think of themselves as the source of independent information, viewers increasingly consider television to be a tricky witness (Hill 2007: 110). This view raises serious questions with respect to the social value of their

14

 work. News, current issues programming, documentary, docusoap, or reality television perform the essential task of facilitating civic engagement and participation by informing the public about the world they live in. Television and in particular news play a central role in trust and identity formation, as Hill (2007: 20) says in drawing on the work of media sociologist Roger Silverstone. Yet, the evidence indicates that these institutions no longer unreservedly perform that function. Producers of factual programming may therefore want to reconsider their practices and explore ways to reconnect with their audiences, and reflexivity presents itself as a viable option. As a form of intra-textual transparency, the strategy has the potential to reengage viewers by including them in a debate about how factual content is produced and brought to the screen. If journalists and documentary filmmakers are already aware of the problematic of a concept such as objectivity in the context of representing reality, they may and perhaps should communicate a sense of this in their programmes and films. Journalistic ethics already have begun to move away from the criterion of objectivity; the code of ethics of the US Society of Professional Journalists for instance abandoned the term in favour of a greater transparency (Hunter and Van Wassenhove 2010: 4).5 The SPJ Code of Ethics (SPJ 1996), in fact, specifically encourages journalists to clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct. This is exactly what reflexivity as the answer to issues of representation envisions. The outline for this study is as follows. Chapter One is devoted to the definition of documentary, which has generated such a heated debate between practitioners, critics and academics since the inception of the genre. While literary theorists have long abandoned the idea of defining their art with ontological, epistemological or teleological finality, documentary theorists are still struggling to provide a statement that describes the essential nature of their study object. This study contributes to the debate by reintroducing Jakobsons communication paradigm, which offers a structuralist approach to

15

 documentary. By looking at how it functions, rather than at what it is, documentary is defined by the interplay between the six elements that constitute communication. The approach thereby is inclusive; no a priori distinction is made between current-affairs television programming, art house documentary and films in the domain of visual anthropology. Chapter Two is an elaboration of this approach, describing the film that was specifically produced for the purposes of this study in terms of the six elements that constitute documentary communication. Silver City is analysed in terms of author, text, context, production process, code and reception and in particular how these elements interact in order to create meaning. The analysis provides a rationale for the selection of the films topic but also demonstrates how authorial intentions may fail to materialize while viewers for their part may not transform realised meaning potential in actualised meaning. It addresses the many decisions that were made during the production process and how they impact meaning potential as available from the final product. Particularities of the filmic device and how they influence available meaning potential also pass in revue. In Chapter Three, the available literature about reflexivity is discussed, after which Jakobsons model is utilized to define six forms of reflexivity. In order to investigate the usefulness of the proposed method, it is subsequently applied to nine documentary films that may be considered more or less reflexive, ranging from Man with a Movie Camera (Vertov, 1929) to Biggie and Tupac (Broomfield, 2002). Since only a reception study can establish how meaning potential is actualised by viewers, the chapter culminates in an apologia for an investigation of actual viewer response. Chapter Four describes the studys research design and contains a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the selected approach as well as an elaboration of how the four versions of Silver City function as operationalizations of the theory that is proposed in Chapter Five. The advantages and disadvantages of focus groups as a means to interrogate

16

 viewer response to media content are discussed and the actual set-up of the investigation is described. The results of the case study, presented in Chapter Five, underline that viewers appropriate media content in hyper-individual ways. Personal as well as media experience, textual preferences, expectations with respect to the documentary genre, the time and place of consumption; they jointly determined how individual viewers appropriated the meaning potential that was offered in the version of Silver City they saw, including its reflexive elements. In fact, a wide variety in response was found, ranging from definite susceptibility to categorical rejection of the reflexive elements. These responses were analysed by placing them in a useful context and discussing them in detail. Chapter Six synthesizes the findings and offers explanations for the wide variety in the response to reflexivity in either version of Silver City. The reception of reflexive strategies is best described as a collision between viewer specifics on the one hand and reflexive strategies as actualised in the text on the other. Viewers who see documentary as the filmmakers subjective view, for example, may respond differently to reflexive strategies that purposively address the expressive function of communication than viewers who expect documentary to be true to life. Because reflexive elements in documentary film do not have the straightforward effect that the reflexionists would expect, alternative strategies that may be more effective in engaging audiences in issues of representation are discussed. The existing literature is reassessed in light of the findings, and the chapter is completed with suggestions for further research. The Conclusion contains an evaluation of the utilized method. I reflect on the study by discussing the assumption that reception is individualist in relation to assumptions that are received wisdom in sociology and certain factions within media studies, which stipulate that readership is socially determined. The limitations of the adopted approach and data analysis are addressed. The final paragraphs of this study describe my personal

17

 experiences with reflexive strategies, and my expectations regarding the results, which were only met in part.

1 Knowledge is partial, as in particular feminist theorists have argued since the 1980s, because it is produced in social situations that are shaped by the researchers personal identity. Reflexivity too calls for clearly stating ones positionality. I will therefore use the first person to refer to myself in my position as researcher and filmmaker rather than adhere to the norm, which describes that I should be avoided in scholarly writing. 2 91% of the participants in Hills study, for instance, stated they considered it fairly important for current affairs programming to be true-to-life while 72% perceived the genre to be as such. For documentary, the gap between ideal and perceived degree of authenticity was even bigger, respectively 75 and 53%. 3 23% of the British participants in Hills study said they learned quite a bit or quite a lot from documentaries while the numbers for news and current affairs were respectively 66% and a mere 35%. 25% of the British respondents furthermore said that documentary always or most of the time helped to form their opinion; the numbers for news and current affairs were respectively 61% and 30%. 4 74 % of the American public considers the news media as influenced by powerful people and organisations compared with 20% who say they are pretty independent; the numbers indicate a significant decline since 1985, when they were 53% and 37% respectively (Hunter and Van Wassenhove 2010: 6). In France, 66% of the public currently believes that journalists are not independent of political or commercial powers in deciding what and how to report, and as in the US, that percentage is increasing significantly (ibid). Comparable figures for the Netherlands were not available. 5 The British equivalent of SPJs Codes of Ethics, the Code of Conduct from the National Union of Journalists, is rudimentary compared to the SPJ document and has not made a comparable update as far as I have been able to establish.

18

Chapter One: Redefining Documentary and the Jakobson Paradigm

Over the years, documentary has proved to be notoriously difficult to define. Attempts to find an adequate set of generic criteria have failed, John Corner (2008: 19) concludes in his inventory of approaches to the study of documentary, which emerged as an area of inquiry in the early-1970s. In the early-1990s, Bill Nichols (1991:12) had reached the same conclusion. Documentary practices, he asserts, are the site of contestation and change. As a concept or practice, the genre occupies no fixed territory. It mobilizes no finite inventory of techniques, addresses no set number of issues, and adopts no completely known taxonomy of forms, styles or modes. In response to the supposed indefinability of documentary, Michael Chanan (2008: 33, 34), with reference to Wittgenstein, suggests to abandon the idealist mode of searching for definitions, clear distinctions and definite differences altogether. A genre consists of a family of works. There may be clusters of conventions but no single defining characteristic or set of attributes which all documentaries satisfy. Yet, while theorists fail to provide adequate descriptions, viewers have at least some notion of what documentary is or should do. At the start of the focus group sessions for this study, for instance, participants filled in a form (see Appendix), which introduced the studys topic as follows. We are interested in the reception of documentary film by viewers such as you. There are many definitions of what documentary actually is. In this study, a documentary is a documentary if you think it is a documentary. Not one participant expressed confusion as to the type of media text that the study addressed. In spite of the problems associated with defining documentary, in other words, viewers appear to have a working definition of documentary, which may be different from the working definition of other viewers but individually they assume they know a documentary when they see one. They recognize a family resemblance, as Chanan would 19

 argue. Yet, if familiarity is what connects a particular group of texts, the question arises what causes the family members to look alike? What is the DNA of documentary? If the genre is not to be defined by a set of fixed categories, conventions, conditions either necessary or sufficient (Chanan 2008: 34), a fruitful approach may be to descend to a more fundamental level and investigate the underlying structure of documentary. According to Jakobsons communication model, any form of communication, including film, is constituted by six elements (sender, message, receiver, context, contact and code) that each co-operate with all other elements. In the realm of documentary studies, Jakobsons paradigm has been largely disregarded, and this is unfortunate. This chapter, therefore, may count as a conscious effort to re/insert Jakobsons paradigm in debates regarding the fundamentals of documentary. It starts, however, with a discussion of prevailing approaches to defining documentary with the particular aim to understand where they are missing the point.

The heritage of the Griersonian dichotomy John Griersons infamous definition (Bruzzi 2006: 121) of documentary as the creative treatment of actuality is the obvious place to embark on a critique of attempts to define this particular group of texts. Often quoted as a definition in an ontological sense, the phrase effectively establishes the genre as a contradiction in terms as it is required to meet conflicting demands, i.e. to both document events as they naturally occur and to deliberately structure the resulting images, that is, to select, sequence and otherwise treat them in such a way that a narrative occurs. According to Brian Winston (1995: 11), the suggestion that there is any actuality left after a creative treatment is at best naive and at worst deceitful. Indeed, the terms actuality and treatment suggest contradicting notions; while actuality has the aura of natural or unprocessed, treatment amounts to manipulation. Yet, untreated imagery

20

 equals disparate footage, not film. Treatment and actuality, in other words, are inherent to the medium. In fact, the concept of actuality itself is problematic because of the same duality; it suggests that it is possible to capture events as they unfold without any interference from the filmmaking apparatus. Staging, either prompted (the suggestion of particular actions or responses by means of an interview) or unprompted (self-conscious pro-camera activity, including shy behaviour, or the opposite, performing or promoting the self) is never out of the question if only theoretically because it is impossible to know what would have happened if the recording device had not been present. Interference between the many variables that make up documentary communication further obfuscates a neutral gathering of evidence. A clip of CCTV footage, conceivably the most random form of image gathering, is intentional and therefore not value-free.1 Even before treatment, in other words, actuality is biased by decisions that were made in order to obtain it. Editing, by definition a process of selection and suture, subsequently removes the representation even further from what was to be represented. The decision to follow this event rather than another in order to address for instance a social issue, to subsequently film it from a particular angle, in close-up with a wide-angle lens and then to add voice-over in postproduction all coincide and determine together how (not that) the topic is represented. However, questions of foregrounding and framing, and decisions regarding the cameras placement and when to switch it off or on, are crucial as to what may or may not be conveyed about the event that was to be documented as well as inherent to the filmmaking process. From the previous, it follows that somehow the two elemental components, creative treatment and actuality, are integral to documentary communication but they do not exhaustively describe the phenomenon, apparently because of interference from factors that are not identified by either term. Griersons characterisation, in other words, is not nave or deceitful; it is incomplete.

21

 More importantly, then, the question is posed how and why Griersons definition achieved its status? His dichotomy of documentary as the creative treatment of actuality has a curious history. It first appeared in the form of a throwaway line in an article for Cinema Quarterly in 1933 about the job of a documentary producer (Jones 1981: 6-8), and was an effort on the part of Grierson, according to Jones, to reconcile his admiration for two extremes in the filmmaking business, Eisenstein and Flaherty.2 The phrase was then taken out of this context by Paul Rotha, the historian of the documentary movement, for his book The Documentary Film (1952: 70). Jones argues that Griersons description of the genre was not meant for the dictionary and should have been probed for its ambiguity rather than taken at face value. The definition furthermore captures Griersons philosophy of documentary only to a certain extent. The emphasis on social responsibility and the promotion of social change, which characterised not only his documentary films but also his theorising, is notably absent in what became the pivotal definition of documentary film. The mere fact, though, that Griersons characterisation of documentary became the most-quoted definition of a particular corpus of texts has meaning in itself. Although the dichotomy failed to provide the genre with a clear focus and is at least in part responsible for the contestation that Nichols mentions, it served its purpose in the construction of a history of documentary film. It confirmed Grierson in his role as the founding father of the British documentary movement3 and helped to identify the film that is widely accepted as the first documentary in film history, Nanook of the North (Flaherty, 1922) (see Winston 1995: 99-103 for a discussion). Perhaps this explains why the Griersonian dichotomy, despite its shortcomings, attracted a wide following in theoretical approaches to documentary film. Michael Renov (1993: 11), for instance, defined documentary as the more or less artful reshaping of the historical world, while John Corner (1996: 2) entitled his book The art of record to

22

 indicate what is by now a widely recognised and problematic duality in documentary work its character as both artifice and as evidence. In New Documentary, Stella Bruzzi critiqued these approaches because they imply that it is possible to collapse the difference between reality and representation altogether. Conversely, Bruzzi (2006: 4, 6) argues that documentary is best understood as a negotiation between reality on the one hand and image, interpretation and bias on the other. It is this compromise or collision that constitutes documentary film. Bruzzis propositions are reminiscent of Jakobsons ideas, which will be discussed after some other questions raised by current approaches to the definition of documentary have been addressed.

Defining documentary Implicitly or explicitly, current definitions of documentary are aimed at separating this group of texts from fiction film whereby the privileged relationship to the real is identified as the distinguishing feature. As Brian Winston (1995: 6) writes, I know of no theoretical position, no definition of documentary that does not in some way reference that relationship from the phrase coined by John Grierson, the founder of the British documentary film movement, who described it as the creative treatment [that is image making] of actuality [that is pre-existing reality] to Michael Renovs direct ontological claim to the real: Every documentary issues a truth claim of a sort, positing a relationship to history which exceeds the analogical status of its fictional counterpart (Renov, 1986, p. 71). It is hard to see how the documentary, in all its current guises, can find a replacement for such truth claim legitimations. These truth claims originate in the evidentiary status of the photographic image, Winston (1995: 127-137) argues, and in particular the indexical bond between the image and that which it represents. Noel Carroll (2003: 113) calls it the naturalisation effect, the rhetorical force of realistic imagery that leaves the impression that what it depicts is really the case. Photographic images, however, can be manipulated or digitally enhanced while other kinds of images such as animation may issue comparable truth claims. Indexicality is 23

 a guarantee nor a prerequisite for authenticity. Consider for instance Persepolis (Paronnaud and Satrapi, 2007) and Waltz with Bashir (Folman, 2008), two recent films that both use animated images to bring lived experience to the screen, respectively a girls youth in fundamentalist Iran and an Israeli soldiers war in Lebanon. Despite the absence of an indexical bond between the events these films describe and their representation on the screen, the animated images have documentary value. They are accepted as a viable method to convey truths, most likely because they depict authentic life events as experienced by the filmmakers (in the case of Persepolis they were Satrapis). An iconic relationship between signifier and signified proved to be enough to create the established effect.4 At a broader level, definitions of documentary that foreground the relationship between the image and the real are problematic because every film has a particular relationship to the real. Even a film that is set in a place and time that is not our own bears a relationship to the world as we know it, if only in the most abstract way, otherwise we would not be able to make sense of what we are watching. Referentiality, in other words, is a matter of degree and therefore not suitable as the sole distinguishing feature. Other definitions recognize that documentary is not an unmediated representation of events or affairs; they frame documentary as interpretations rather than representations of reality. Documentaries reflect and report on the the real [sic] through the use of the recorded images and sounds of actuality (Corner 1996: 2); they require a representation or argument about the historical world (Nichols 1991: 18). Yet fiction films may serve as reflections or arguments about the historical world as well. Its a Free World (Loach, 2007), for instance, is based on a scenario that introduces invented characters, yet the film is a straightforward comment on a current social phenomenon, namely the vulnerable position of immigrants from Eastern Europe in the UK. Social analysis or commentary,

24

 therefore, is not suitable either as the quality that distinguishes documentary from fiction film. Nor is the non-fictitiousness of the characters. Unlike their fictional counterparts, non-fictional characters are people with lives that extend beyond the screen (Nichols 1991: 109). They were not created to serve a plot or represent a particular idea although they may be cast as such. They live their lives and were invited at some point to make themselves available to appear in a film. It is impossible, however, to draw a sharp line between the fictitious- and non-fictitiousness of film characters. Some biopics, in which historical figures are embodied by actors, may be meticulously researched and as factual as possible while participants may play themselves in scripted or unscripted scenes in what counts as documentary. Performance, in other words, is relative and therefore not suitable as a distinguishing factor between fiction and non-fiction film either. For Unmade Beds (1997), for example, director Nick Barker interviewed four single New Yorkers about their lives and then used these interviews to write a script, which the interviewees performed in front of the camera. Ethnographer Jean Rouch made several films in the 1950s and 1960s that were based on the principles of psychodrama (MacDougall 1998: 111) by inviting participants to improvise in arranged situations. For Jaguar (1967), Rouch asked three collaborators to accompany him along a well-travelled labour migration route in West Africa; afterwards, he screened the film and asked for their comments, which were added to the soundtrack. Unmade Beds and Jaguar have nothing in common; the former is highly stylized through the employment of strategies that are typically associated with fiction, such as tracking shots and frame compositions, which both involve careful planning, while the latter is filmed with a loosely held spring-wind camera that appears to follow the action as it unfolds. Yet, both employ performance to explore the human experience, an approach that exploits the artifice of film to attain new or perhaps higher levels of authenticity, exemplifying in the process that performance, or at least performing the self, has a

25

 legitimate role to play in documentary. From this follows that performance is not exclusive to fiction, for which reason it cannot serve as the feature that separates fiction from nonfiction film. Over the years, Nichols (1991: 107), Winston (1995: 113-119) and many others have pointed out that textual organization is not the distinguishing feature either. As in fiction films, the expos is presented in the form of a narrative; a formal structure that consists of two parts, the story or plot, which specifies what happens to whom, and the discourse, which is how the story is told. In Western culture, cause and effect form the organising principle of the discourse. By posing and subsequently answering questions such as What is the problem?, Why is this problematic?, What are the causes and how can we solve it? the exposition progresses. In Hollywood cinema as well as in many nonfiction films, characters are introduced who find themselves in conflicting situations and the story evolves as challenges are met and new dilemmas surface, a recurring process that finally ends with resolution and closure. In documentary too, sequences in which tensions rise, are alternated with more subdued sequences. Even documentaries that do not introduce a main character but consist, for instance, entirely of archival film exploit the dramatic tension that arises from juxtaposition and repetition, two well-established narrative devices. The Atomic Caf (Loader and Rafferty, 1982) and LOeil de Vichy (Chabrol, 1993) are good examples in this respect. There is no fundamental difference, in short, between factional or fictional narrative.5 In film criticism, this conclusion was presented as proof that documentaries are in fact crypto-fictions that pose as non-fiction. Certainly narrative is traditionally associated with fiction. Aristoteles theory of tragedy as proposed in his Poetics, the oldest surviving treatise on literary theory, prescribed that a plot should be a whole with a clear beginning, middle and end. From this does not follow, however, that every form of human communication with a plot automatically counts as fiction. In fact, narrative is not

26

 exclusive to texts at all. Van Dijk, for instance, distinguishes between natural and artificial narratives, whereby the former relates to events that were experienced by human subjects in the real world and the latter to individuals and actions belonging to an imaginary or possible world (Eco 1979: 12). According to psychologist Jerome Bruner, the narrative form is a basic psychological principle that helps to cognitively organise experience, thereby facilitating our interpretation and understanding of the world (Hijer 2000: 191). His argument would explain why narrative is a crucial element of historiography, as Hayden White has argued, or any form of human experience that is shared with others in order to convey meaning. If narrative is not the distinguishing feature that separates fiction from non-fiction film, then production values or styles are not the distinguishing feature either. Participants in Unmade Beds (Barker, 1997), as already mentioned, re-lived scenes from their personal lives but the film looked like Hollywood fiction. Conversely, The Blair Witch Project (Myrick and Snchez, 1999), about three film students who went missing after they set out into the woods to explore the myth of the Blair Witch, exploited the wobbly-scope camera style that is associated with documentary. Although some theoreticians would argue that a film is a documentary if the audience thinks it is and many viewers interpreted The Blair Witch Project as such (see Schreier 2004) there are good reasons to classify the film with its invented plot as fiction and Unmade Beds as documentary. United 93 (Greengrass, 2006), a film about one of the four planes that were hijacked on 9/11 and crashed in an empty field, is another example that challenges conventional conceptualizations of documentary. Directed by a former journalist from World in Action, a current affairs programme that aired on British television from 1963-1998, the film was researched to be as historically accurate as possible. Since no one survived the crash, there are no witnesses who can testify what exactly happened on board United 93 during that fateful flight. Yet, the events as depicted in the film were based on all available information, in particular

27

 what was relayed by passengers who called loved ones from the plane as soon as they realised they would not see them again. Unless we decide that deduction from all available information is not a proper source of knowledge, this is a justifiable approach to investigate historical events. Yet, the film was marketed as drama, albeit historical drama that derived at least some of its spectacle from the fact that it was based on actual events. This raises the question whether it is the labelling that ultimately determines the texts identity, or, as Carroll (2003: 214) calls it, its categorical intention as revealed through intra- or extratextual information. Carroll is referring to clues that enable viewers to activate certain genre expectations, such as title cards or credits, which are pertinent to the films indexing, as are advertisements, interviews, reviews and word of mouth. The wider context in which a particular film is screened has relevance too in this respect; a documentary on television, for instance, may be recognizable as such because it is broadcast as part of a series or in a time slot that is dedicated to documentary film. Although Carroll accepts what has been called the intentional fallacy, which was formulated by William Wimsatt (1954) and stipulates that the authors intentions are not accessible via the work and certainly do not explain the works meaning, it is his opinion that categorical intention is of a different order: filmmakers know exactly whether they are engaging in fiction or non-fiction filmmaking. Yet, because there is no agreement on what constitutes documentary, viewers, whether professionals or not, may have diverging opinions. In the case of Ford Transit (Abu-Assad, 2002), the director insisted he had delivered a documentary while his commissioners thought the film should be qualified as docudrama at best.6 Other filmmakers and this is assuming Abu-Assad was sincere consciously deceived their audiences, as Brian Winston (2000) demonstrated in Lies, Damn Lies and Documentaries. Filmmakers may have their reasons to mislead the audience. This is why reliance on the filmmaker to determine the films categorical intention is best qualified as precarious, even though most documentary filmmakers act in

28

 good faith and adhere to the ethical and professional standard which prescribes that audiences are not to be deceived about how the images were obtained. As already discussed, furthermore, some films intentionally play with genre expectations in order to achieve certain effects, for frivolous (the ultimate horror sensation in The Blair Witch Project) or not so frivolous reasons (the exposure of documentary and in particular direct cinema in ...No Lies [Block, 1974] as a genre that has the potential to violate peoples integrity). United 93, on the other hand, was labelled drama while the label documentary would have been as justifiable; the events as they unfolded during that particular flight could not be represented more faithfully than they were in the film. The label, in short, may not always accurately or straightforwardly identify the films genre. At a more abstract level, moreover, it is somewhat unsatisfactory to found the definition of a genre on external and relatively random factors, such as the marketing or the label. Preferably, a definition should describe features or processes that are inherent. In conclusion, scholarly endeavours to define documentary have not been entirely successful. Implicitly or explicitly based on the assumption that a distinction exists between fiction and non-fiction film, these attempts have not effectively described documentary. On closer examination the differences turned out to be gradual while counterexamples refuted the proposed theory altogether. Examples as described earlier suggest that documentary operates in a grey rather than black or white area, and is not determined by one textual property such as authorial intent, textual organization, historically situated context, production process, conventions or reception alone but by all elements to a certain extent at the same time, a process which is best described by Jakobsons communication paradigm. Indeed, a way out of the impasse is to consider documentary as a particular form of communication, that is, a social process, within a context, in which signs are produced and transmitted, perceived and treated as messages from which meaning can be inferred

29

 (Worth and Gross cited in Ruby 1980: 173). Rather than describing what art or any form of communication is, Jakobsons model looks at how it functions. Proposed in 1956 but never properly introduced in the domain of documentary studies, it still has not lost its relevance.

Jakobsons model Jakobson (1987) identified six fundamental factors that must be present for communication to be operable. Universal in scope the schema applies to all cultures at all times (Waugh 1985: 145) these six elements are the constitutive factors of any act of communication, including art. A sender sends a message to the receiver. This process takes place in and with reference to a certain context. The communication process furthermore requires a code, a language that is at least partially common to addresser and addressee, and a contact, a physical channel and psychological connection between the addresser and the addressee, enabling both of them to enter and stay in communication (Jakobson 1987: 66). A sender and receiver, who have a common code, can send a message via a channel between them about the context or world, a process in which meaning is produced.

CONTEXT SENDER MESSAGE CONTACT CODE RECEIVER

The constituents of communication do not have fixed meaning but acquire meaning only in relation to the other elements. It is this interaction that produces meaning. Each factor furthermore corresponds with one of the functions that language may have. The expressive function focuses on the sender, and in particular on their attitude towards what they are speaking about. An orientation toward the receiver denotes the

30

 conative or appellative function. A message that is mainly concerned with its own structure performs the poetic function. Most common in communication is a set toward the context or referent. This is an application of the referential function that language may have. Some messages, on the other hand, focus on the channel or the production of the message, which is the phatic function. Other messages perform the metalingual function; they are communications about the communication itself.

REFERENTIAL EXPRESSIVE POETIC PHATIC METALINGUAL CONATIVE

These functions are all present in any utterance but they are hierarchically integrated with one function being dominant (Waugh 1985: 144). From this follows that functions may be suppressed but they are never absent. Each function invokes all other functions and vice versa, each function is invoked by all other functions. Jakobson modelled his paradigm on speech, and although his schema is pertinent to all forms of communication including documentary, there are some issues that deserve further attention. Speech, with non-verbal communication one of the most basic forms of the human capability to exchange information through the use of a shared system of symbols or signs, is a mode of interpersonal communication in which participants often (but not always) alternatively assume the role of sender and receiver. Although there are examples of films that were made in response to another documentary a recent example is The Great Global Warming Swindle (Durkin, 2007) that was aimed at countering An Inconvenient Truth (Guggenheim, 2006) with Al Gore receivers generally do not respond to a film by producing a new one, to which the documentarian then responds with another

31

 film ad infinitum. Arguably the Internet, and in particular popular sites such as YouTube, has started to change the distinction between sender and receiver in the context of audiovisual communication. Traditionally, however, documentary communication tends to fixate filmmakers in their role as the sender of the message and viewers in the role of receiver while speech does not. From this does not follow, however, that the sender of the message controls the conveyance of meaning. It is the viewer who completes the meaning producing process by interpreting the texts meaning potential, thereby fulfilling the function of reciprocity. Another and more important difference between speech and documentary communication is the medium per se. While the code for speech is a natural language, English or Dutch, the code for documentary communication is the moving image, often sustained or enhanced by sound, including speech. (Code refers to a system of signs that has the potential to convey meaning.) From this follows that documentary communication necessitates a production process that is very different from speech. While speech is instant and requires the physical and cognitive development that nearly all humans possess from an early age on, film production takes place over time and requires skills and technical equipment that are not typically available to everyone. More importantly, unless crew and sole subject consist of one and the same person, documentary communication involves the cooperation of fellow human beings both in front and behind the camera, which not only has inevitable consequences for the realised meaning potential (see Chapter Two for a more elaborate discussion) but also raises important questions as to the films authorship. A third point regards the metafunction. The term metalingual refers solely to code, a code that furthermore is associated with speech. Because Jakobsons writings also suggest that the metafunction applies to the whole of the communication process, i.e. including sender, textual organisation, context, audience and production process, the term metacinematic seems more appropriate.

32

 In applying Jakobsons model to documentary communication, contact refers to the screening of a film, whether on a television through broadcasting systems, DVD or any other media (VHS, digital tape), on a computer (Internet streaming) or on the big screen in a cinema, as well as the physical production process that is necessary to establish that connection between sender and receiver. Code refers to the moving image with/out sound as well as the strategies that define how stories in a particular cultural context are told.

CONTEXT SENDER MESSAGE PROCESS CODE RECEIVER

REFERENTIAL EXPRESSIVE POETIC CONATIVE

PROCEDURAL METACINEMATIC

As each element of the communication process is integrated with all other elements, they are best understood in relation to each other. The sender in documentary communication is the originating subject (Foucault 1977), a person of flesh and blood whose vision drives the production process as well as the instance whose existence is implied by the text and assumed by the viewer. The filmmakers vision comprises not only ideas about reality as may be reconstructed from the text, but also their individual poetics, that is, a cluster of

33

 opinions about what documentary is and what it should do in relation to the audience they intend to reach.7 The message is understood to be a text, a term that is used here in opposition to film or work, which both refer to the physical object one may put in a projector or DVD player. The text is a construction that was devised by an author in order to be consumed by an audience. It is also the result of a production process that involves the capturing of moving images and/or animation. A text does not have fixed meaning as actualised by the filmmaker, the film process, its relation to an external reality or the viewers interpretation alone. It is merely a form of meaning potential that was envisioned and produced in relation to a particular context, and is made available for consumption by the interested viewer. This meaning potential is presented in the shape of a narrative, a formal structure that is subject to conventions and is aimed at informing, entertaining or influencing the audience. The context refers to the world as we know it, which, as Bakthin pointed out, does not present itself directly to us but only through the filter of particular ideologies. In this view, cinema does not call up the world; it represents its languages and discourses. Film is a mediated version of an already textualized socio-ideological world (Stam et al 2006: 217), a filmmakers reconstruction of what is already a social construction, or a reconstruction of a reconstruction as reconstructed by the interpreter for their personal consumption, a description which underlines that filmic reality is in fact not once but twice times removed from the reality it claims to represent. Context also refers to potential procamera activity, as well as the filmmakers object and the interpreters frame of reference. The receiver is the interlocutor who interprets the text and, in a sense, mirrors the encoding process by decoding the available meaning potential whereby meaning is produced. The reader transforms the texts meaning potential into actualised meaning, which is unique for each separate reading. A group of readers who receive and interpret the

34

 same text is called an audience, or interpretive community. Although reception is a separate stage in the meaning making process, the receiver already exists, at least subconsciously, in the authors mind during the production phase as the intended audience. The receiver furthermore is implied by the text, as it requires interpretation in order to fulfil its function. The code in documentary communication is film language, a term that refers to the moving image as well as its conventions. The grammar of this specific language consists of a pre-existing, finite number of categories that include mise-en-scene, framing, focus, camera movement, lighting and colour. Elements that belong to these categories have the capacity to convey specific forms of meaning, just as nouns, adjectives or verbs do in natural languages. The art of the sender consists of choosing, combining and producing these elements in order to make a statement in relation to the world,8 a process that results in a multilayered pattern of meaning potential that is subsequently made available to audiences for consumption. In fact, filmmakers have more than one code at their disposal as film is multicodic. Other signifying systems that the medium may exploit are gesture, natural languages, as utilized in non-/diegetic speech or projected as text on the screen and non-/diegetic sound. A particular form of signification that is exclusive to audio-visual media exists in the relationship between the images and is created through editing. Splicing is subject to conventions, such as the use of establishing shots and maintaining spatial continuity, as well as the filmmakers personal style and the effect they intend to achieve. Consider for instance Riefenstahls melting edits which are strategically anti-dialectic, erasing discord and dissonance, as opposed to Eisensteins edits, which are best described as collisions (Dargis: 132). A separate but important aspect of code is autonymy, i.e. communications capability to comment on its own workings. This metafunction manifests itself by

35

 foregrounding the role of the author, the production process, particular textual properties, and/or the viewers interpretation in the encoding and decoding process. Most often, however, this function, which has become a synonym for reflexivity (Stam et al 2006: 17), is concerned with the constructed nature of representations of the historical world. In documentary film, the prevailing mode is the mimetic mode, a situation whereby the referential function is dominant while the metacinematic function is suppressed. An alternative mode is reflexivity, whereby the autonymy function is more pronounced. The former encourages the viewer to engage with the film as an unproblematic representation of the real while the latter encourages the viewer to engage with the idea of film as a construction. From this follows that referentiality and reflexivity are not mutually exclusive; they coexist depending on how vigorously the metafunction is employed, a matter which will be fully explored in Chapter Three.

Roman Jakobson Roman Jakobson (1896-1982), a Russian linguist and literary critic who pioneered the structural analysis of language, art and communication, is often described as one of the founders of modern linguistics. Associated with Russian Formalism in his younger years, he moved to Czechoslovakia in 1920 after the Russian Revolution and became one of the founders of the Prague school of linguistics. During World War II, he fled to New York where he met and worked with Claude Levi-Strauss at the cole Libre des Hautes tudes. In 1949 Jakobson accepted a position at Harvard University; in 1957 he also became an Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he headed the Center of Communication Science. Jakobson worked on various aspects of phonology (phonological systems and relations, child language, acoustic definitions of the features and the sound shape as a whole) but his work was not limited to theoretical and general linguistics. He had a vivid

36

 interest in art and literature, in particular poetry. In the 1950s and 1960s, Jakobsons attention shifted from language to communication. Other fields that his ideas contributed to are semiotics and structural anthropology. As a student, Jakobson was particularly influenced by the ideas of Ferdinand de Saussure, who defined language as a system of signs (Waugh and Monville-Burston in Jakobson 1990: 3). In response, the Russian Formalists conceptualised art as a system of signs and conventions instead of a registration of natural phenomena. They consistently referred to artworks as constructions, and were the first to employ Saussurian formulations in order to explore the analogy between film and language (Stam et al 2006: 11). Another strong influence on Jakobsons thinking was the turbulent artistic movement of the early twentieth century (Jakobson 1990: 4). In particular, he was taken by the avant-gardes unique feeling for the dialectical tension between parts and the uniting whole, and between the conjugated parts, primarily between the two aspects of any artistic sign, its signans and its signatum (between signifier and signified). Jakobsons work has a strong emphasis on relations, especially part-whole relations, on their constitutive character, and on the importance of contextualization (Waugh and MonvilleBurston in Jakobson 1990: 4). As a structuralist,9 he was an exponent of a general shift away from the nineteenthcentury preoccupation with the temporal and the historical as evidenced by Hegels historical dialectic, Marxs dialectical materialism and Darwins evolution of the species to the contemporary concern with the spatial, the systematic and the structural (Stam et al 2006: 6, italics in the original). Precisely because the model is not concerned with historical change but with underlying patterns that are present in any utterance regardless of culture and historical circumstance, the model is practicable in current debates involving documentary film.

37

 Applying Jakobsons model: a discussion Jakobsons paradigm effectively schematizes documentary communication, whereby the sender is a filmmaker who constructs meaning potential from moving images, either photographic or animated, which were obtained through a particular production process that is subject to culturally determined codes and conventions and point to the social world as we know it. The resulting text is received and interpreted by an audience as such. By postulating that each element of the communication process invokes all other elements, the model stresses the productivity between them. It explains, for instance, that the filmmakers relationship with the historical world as well as their understanding of documentary production processes, textual organisation, codes, conventions and audience reception are integral to documentary communication. The model also explains how the viewers relationship to the world as they know it, as well as their understanding of production processes, textual organisation, codes, conventions and authorship are equally integral. The same can be said of each individual element of the model in relation to all other elements. In practice, this means that the filmmaker will have certain aims that they want to achieve (a reference to the expressive function of communication). They will have sub/conscious views about the historical world (context), which they will bring to the production process, as well as ideas about documentary in general, for instance what it is and should do (code) and about this film in particular, for instance, as to how to structure the text (message). Last but not least, the filmmaker will have a target audience in mind, that is, a conceptualisation of the viewers they intend to reach, not only in terms of demographics, level of education and political leanings but also in terms of the desired effect, i.e. to persuade or to inform. The viewer, for their part, will in a sense mirror the filmmakers encoding process by drawing on the elements of the communication process too. In order to interpret a film, they will construct a frame of reference that is strictly

38

 individual and incorporates not only personal preferences with respect to film but also knowledge about the social world, whether acquired through real-life experiences or media consumption. They will have at least some structural competence, that is, knowledge about documentary production processes, conventions and opinions about what documentary is or should do as well as assumptions about the films or the filmmakers intentions, either based on intra- or extra-textual information. The site of meaning production, therefore, is not the sender and not the viewer nor any of the other elements of documentary communication. Documentary meaning is the result of the interplay between all functions of the communication process and consists of an intricate web of relations that is established at each individual reading. The functions of documentary communication are not a simple accumulation; they are interconnected and form a very coherent synthetic whole which should be analyzed in every single case (Jakobson 1985b: 77). One of these functions is dominant while the other functions act as a subsidiary, accessory constituent (Jakobson 1987: 69). Many documentaries for instance are predominantly referential; they employ the referential function to report on the world as we know it. The other functions, however, may be suppressed but they are never absent. Clearly, the referential function is dominant in a film such as Titicut Follies (Wiseman, 1967), yet it remains to be produced by a filmmaker who had certain preconceived ideas about institutions such as Bridgewater State Hospital. The documentary is also the product of a particular production process, a certain textual organization and the attention of interested viewers who see and interpret the text, i.e. a form of meaning potential that complies with certain codes and conventions, about inmates of the aforementioned institution. Jakobsons model does not make a clear distinction between fiction and non-fiction film. Instead it suggests that there is no fundamental difference between the two and that differences that may be found are a matter of degree, as they are determined by how all

39

 functions of the communication process including individual readings operate together. In a sense, fiction and non-fiction are the two extremes of one continuum, which may be approached but never met. Even the purest form of fiction, with an invented plot that evolves around characters that are played by actors and takes place in a time and space that only faintly resembles our own is to a certain extent a record, one of an originating vision or idea, of actors assuming their roles and acting the part. Conversely, even a strictly observational documentary or experimental film such as Ernie Gehrs Serene Velocity (1970) which consists entirely of the juxtapositions of a closer and a wider shot of the same hallway, present a discourse, in the case of Gehrs film an argument about how framing interferes with the experience of space. Fiction and non-fiction film share the same code as well as at least some elements of both production process and textual organisation, which may explain the confusion in the past over narrative and fiction. Newspaper journalism and literature too share the same code and, to a certain extent, the same production process. The same distinction can be made in the realm of film between television journalists and documentarians, whereby the former exploit the referential function in their work while the latter may centre on any function of the communication process. The model, in sum, defines documentary in terms of its constituting elements, how these elements relate to each other and how they relate to the whole that is the domain under scrutiny, whereby the emphasis is on process rather than state. It does not reveal how these elements work together in one particular instance, that is, with this particular text in this particular viewing situation. Jakobsons model only stipulates that all elements need to be taken into account when analysing the meaning-making process that documentary is. This corresponds with the findings that were discussed earlier in this chapter but has as a minus that the model as such does not define documentary with ontological, teleological or phenomenological finality. None of the definitions that have been proposed to date,

40

 however, have performed that function while Jakobsons model has some advantages that present theories do not have to offer. The model for instance explains differences between documentary subgenres as groups of texts that share the same dominant function.10 The prototypical documentary, for instance, primarily exploits the referential function and is concerned with objects, events and actions that take place in the historical world. Documentaries, however, may also be expressive, or subjective, centring predominantly on self-expression on the part of the documentarian. Alternatively, they may employ the conative function by aiming to create a certain effect in the viewer, for example to persuade them to a certain viewpoint as propaganda films do, while other texts are not concerned with audience response at all and mainly focus on exploring the documentary form itself. Another category of documentaries are mostly process-oriented, or procedural. Documentaries that exploit the metacinematic function not only talk about their topic but also address how they talk about their topic. These subgenres, however, are not sharply divided entities because for every category, a particular function may be dominant but the other functions are not switched off; they are hierarchically integrated. A Jakobsonian taxonomy explains spill-over between categories by its emphasis on the interaction between all elements of the communication process. The schema also helps to categorize research methods in the area of film studies, albeit in broad terms, and provide an insight as to how they relate to each other. Romantic approaches such as author studies for instance focus on the role of the sender and therefore the expressive function of art and communication. Realist approaches emphasize the context and include Marxist as well as feminist theories. Modes of enquiry that explore textual organization, such as narratology, centre on the poetic function. Psychoanalytical approaches and reception studies both foreground the viewer, thereby emphasizing the conative function of artistic discourse. Semiotics, finally, is particularly concerned with code.

41

 Jakobsons model sheds light on the problem with the Griersonian dichotomy, which, as already established, does not comprehensively describe the constituting elements and their interaction. The creative treatment of actuality gestures towards the expressive, the referential and the procedural function but does not sufficiently distinguish between these three functions while ignoring the three other functions of communication entirely. The model also explains the problem with current definitions of documentary; they not only isolate the referential function from the other functions of the communication process, they also overemphasize its significance. Indeed the referential function tends to be dominant but it functions only in cooperation with five other functions and should be studied as such. Jakobsons work, however, is not alien to current theoretical work, on the contrary. Although his ideas have not been applied systematically within the realm of film studies, several theorists have referred to his work. Allan Sekula (1978) mentions Jakobson in his article Dismantling Modernism, Reinventing Documentary, but only in passing. Michael Renov (1993: 21) describes four documentary modes in Toward a Poetics of Documentary, which more or less correspond with four of the six elements of Jakobsons system. Some of Bill Nichols theorizing echoes Jakobsons taxonomy, for instance when he defines documentary in terms of a community of practitioners, an institutional practice, a corpus of texts or a constituency of viewers in Representing Reality, or in his sixfold taxonomy of documentary modes in Introduction to Documentary.11 It also reverberates in Chanans (2008: 21) description of documentary as a strange new form of historical evidence with an elusive character, in which the immediate sight of the past (or the present which becomes historical through the act of filming it) is mediated by the contexts in which it is made and then seen a shifting relationship between the subject, the apparatus, the film-maker, the medium, the viewer and the viewers situation. Also indebted to Jakobson is Stella Bruzzi, who critiqued approaches that foreground referentiality in New

42

 Documentary. By describing documentary as a negotiation between reality, image, interpretation and bias, she too stresses the interaction between the separate elements of the communication process without a reference to Jakobsons work. Jakobsons model not only locates and addresses some of the important questions that are still unsettled within the domain of film studies; it also provides a framework for received theories of documentary. From this follows that Jakobsons model is still relevant, not just for this inquiry but for the whole of the research area that is concerned with film. The structuralist approach to film, however, is not widely accepted. In fact, it has attracted fundamental criticism since the 1970s from politically inspired theories such as Marxist and feminist methodologies. Both approaches frame film as a formative force in social relations, which perpetuates the existing order by structuring experience itself (Allen cited in Stam et al 2006: 22), a process that needs to be exposed. An alternative model for film analysis that also emerged in the 1970s is psychoanalysis, which identifies the spectator as the desiring subject on which the cinematic institution depends as its object and accomplice (ibid). Realist and psychoanalyst approaches in film studies have often presented themselves as a rupture with structural approaches. Effectively, they formed a retreat to historical methodologies. Jakobson, on the other hand, was primarily interested in the poetic function of art, not its social or historical function, which explains why his theory neutralizes place and time. His paradigm is useful as a heuristic device that is aimed at identifying underlying networks of relationships, not at understanding or promoting historical change, as Marxist and feminist methodologies are. Yet, synchronistic and diachronic approaches are not mutually exclusive by definition; they each are valuable on their own terms and complement each other. As already indicated, socially oriented film theories are not precluded by structuralist conceptualisations such as Jakobsons model; Marxist and feminist theories tend to focus on the referential function while

43

 psychoanalytically oriented theories foreground the conative and/or the procedural function of communication. From the end of the 1960s on, however, structuralism was also attacked from the other side, i.e. by fellow-semioticians such as Derrida, Foucault, Kristeva and Lacan who shared a distrust of any centred, totalizing theory or metalanguage which might position, stabilize or explain all other discourses (Stam et al 2006: 23). Critical of structuralisms systemacity, which bears with it a methodical disregard for phenomena that do not fit the pattern, these post-structuralists argued that the sign is in fact subject to change, whereby meaning shifts constantly and each text refers to preceding codes, tropes, conventions and texts. Post-structuralism furthermore tends to critique structuralism at the level of the sign and not at the level of communication as a whole; the Derridian notion of intertextuality is in fact not contradictory to Jakobsons model at all, and has been included in some representations of the scheme as an additional element. Yet, the fundamental criticism that structuralist approaches negate phenomena that elude the proposed structure but may nonetheless be significant is a point of concern. As already has been pointed out, Jakobsons model does not provide an objective set of criteria that a media text needs to satisfy in order to be identified as documentary, just as none of the definitions proposed to date have been able to do. Jakobsons model only stipulates which elements need to be taken into account, and that these elements need to be taken into account conjointly. The referential function is most likely relatively high in the hierarchy of integrated functions, but not by definition, and even if it is, it is balanced or counterbalanced by particular configurations of the other functions. By defining documentary as a particular form of interaction between six elements of which at least one is constantly in flux, namely, the viewers interpretation, it remains impossible to positively identify a particular text as documentary. The closest we can get is: this is a documentary according to this reader or this interpretive community at this particular point

44

 in place and time. The elusiveness of this definition may be disappointing but in fact it is a theoretically sound conclusion, which literary theorists have adopted already in relation to the object of their area of expertise.12 In conclusion, if we accept the problems associated with genre classifications as identified by Nichols, Corner and Chanan but want to be able to account for the viewers working definition of documentary (see p. 19), Jakobsons communication paradigm provides a good starting point. We do not know how the six functions interact for communication to be documentary but it is likely that the six functions of documentary communication cooperate in particular configurations, which produce the family resemblance that Chanan mentioned. Unfortunately, this is not the place to investigate the matter any further but in the context of this study it is suffice to distinguish between these six functions and to understand them as an integrated whole. Jakobsons model furthermore presents itself as a solid foundation for a study of reflexivity in documentary film (see Chapter Three). What follows in the next chapter is an elaboration of Jakobsons theory by analysing Silver City, the film that was specifically produced for this project, in terms of the six functions of documentary communication.

1 CCTV cameras, like any camera, are put up with a purpose; they are not installed randomly but mounted at places where defiant behaviour is anticipated. The images are framed accordingly, thereby introducing issues of foregrounding. Most passers-by, at the same time, are aware, at least at some level, that their behaviour is being monitored (this, after all, is the point of camera registration) whereby it is regulated and therefore, to a certain degree, staged. 2 As a socialist and a reformer, Grierson saw documentary as a means of public education; he disapproved of Flahertys romantic choice of subjects and themes, and cheered those of Eisenstein. But Flaherty inspired Grierson because he convinced him that the camera was by instinct a wanderer. The cameras capacity for getting around, for observing and selecting from life itself implied that documentary would photograph the living scene and the living story (Jones 1981: 7-8). Grierson admired Flaherty because he soaked himself in his material, lived with it to the point of intimacy before he gave it form (Grierson cited in Jones 1981: 7-8). Eisenstein, on the other hand, was detailed and cold in his shooting, and he warms his stuff to life only when he starts putting it together. Yet, 45

 Grierson was an admirer of Eisensteins power of juxtaposition and his amazing capacity for exploding two or three details into an idea (Jones 1981: 7-8). 3 Coinage of the term documentary was also attributed to John Grierson who used the word in 1926 in a review of Flahertys second film, Moana, although it later emerged that the term was used before by Edward S. Curtis in 1913 and Boleslaw Matuszewski in 1898 (Winston 1995: 8-9). The term gestures towards the evidential value that documentary may have, which, as has already been pointed out, is problematic. Grierson himself did not like the term either. Documentary is a clumsy description but let it stand (Grierson cited in Winston 1995: 12). Possibly it was for political reasons that Grierson decided to hold on to the label. Alberto Cavalcanti, a key member of the British documentary movement, remembered a conversation he once had with Grierson in which Cavalcanti maintained that documentary was a silly denomination because films are the same, fictional or otherwise... The Grierson argument and I remember it exceedingly well was just to laugh and say, You are really a very innocent character. I have to deal with the Government, and the word documentary impresses them as something serious (Sussex 2006: 116-117). 4 Photographic images are iconic in that they function through resemblance but indexical in their causal link between pro-camera event and actual representation (Stam et al 2006: 6). 5 One argument that challenges this statement is brought forward by the French literary theorist Gerard Genette, who explored the difference between fictional and factional narratives, and in particular the question of Who is speaking? Literary theorists distinguish between Author (A), Narrator (N) and Character (C) in order to identify certain types of narratives. In factional narrative, Genette argues, A is identified with N by definition (A=N) while this is not the case in fictional narratives (AN) (Genette et al: 764). In autobiography, furthermore, C is identified with A and N. Unfortunately this is not the place to pursue Genettes line of thought but it is clear that it deserves further exploration in the area of film studies. 6 Ford Transit, by Palestinian filmmaker Hany Abu-Assad, was aired on Dutch public television as an episode of the documentary series Dokwerk (12 December 2002). In the film, the camera follows Rajai, the driver of the cab after which the film takes its name, as he shuttles passengers between checkpoints in the occupied territories. Politicians, social scientists and fellow filmmakers come along for a ride and comment on the situation in the West Bank. There is an incident at a checkpoint, in which Rajai is hit in the face by an Israeli soldier, and an incident whereby a gun was fired at a secret road that Rajai takes to avoid a roadblock. After Abu-Assad received the international film critics award at the Thessaloniki film festival and was honoured for his courage in filmmaking at the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival in New York, an Israeli journalist found out that the cab driver was not a cab driver but instead an acquaintance of the filmmaker who impersonates a cab driver (Ockhuysen 2003). Both the incident at the checkpoint and the gun shot at the secret road turned out to be staged, as were some other scenes. Abu-Assad insisted his film is a documentary. A documentary meets the requirements if it doesnt lie about the situation (ibid). But broadcasters did not agree. VPRO, the broadcasting company that aired the film in the Netherlands, distanced itself from the film, citing they ordered a documentary, not a docudrama, and BBCs Storyville demanded its money back. Since then, Abu-Assad has resorted to fiction. His Paradise Now (2005) was nominated for an Oscar in 2006 in the category best international film. 7 Filmmakers may have diverging opinions of what constitutes a good documentary. Consider for instance the difference in opinion between Joris Ivens and Lindsay Anderson regarding documentary. Ivens thought that film should not only inform and move viewers, it should agitate mobilize them to become active in connection with the problems shown 46

 in the film (Ivens 2006: 140). Anderson, on the other hand, rejected the idea that film is foremost a tool for social betterment. The first duty of the artist is not to interpret, nor to propagandize but to create (Lambert 2006: 212). In terms of Jakobsons model, Ivens foregrounded the conative function of documentary while Anderson centred on the poetic function. 8 Jakobson describes this signification process in an article about film that was written in 1932. As he explains, we can refer to someone as hunchback, big-nose or big-nosed hunchback (1981: 732-3). The object of the conversation remains the same but the sign changes. Film functions in comparable ways. We can shoot the person from behind, which will show his hump, we can shoot him en face, which will show his nose or we can shoot him in profile so both will be seen. The resulting shots each communicate something different but the person remains the same. This is how film translates matter into signs. 9 In fact it was Jakobson who coined the term structuralism. Were we to comprise the leading idea of present-day science in its most various manifestations, we could hardly find a more appropriate designation than structuralism. Any set of phenomena examined by contemporary science is treated not as a mechanical agglomeration but as a structural whole, and the basic task is to reveal the inner, whether static or developmental, laws of the system. What appears to be the focus of scientific preoccupations is not longer the outer stimulus but the internal premises of the development; now the mechanical conception of processes yields to the question of their functions (Jakobson 1990: 6). 10 Barbara Babcock (1975) developed a comparable scheme for fiction in literature. 11 In a personal conversation at the 2009 Visible Evidence conference at USC in Los Angeles, Bill Nichols explained he did not have Jakobsons model in mind when he described his categories, which are similar to Jakobsons typology but not exact matches, but he acknowledged the resemblance. 12 See for instance Herrnstein Smith: A descriptive definition of a term such as poetry is primarily responsible to a history of usage: it attempts to specify the conditions governing the conventionally sanctioned use of the term in a given linguistic community (Herrnstein Smith: 770, italics in original).

47

 Chapter Two: Constructing a Case Study

In order to demonstrate how Jakobsons model can be usefully applied to theorizing documentary film, this chapter offers an analysis of Silver City, a film that was produced for this doctoral study. Each element of Jakobsons model is taken as a new starting point for a discussion of the film. As explained in Chapter One, the six elements each function in connection with all other elements, a phenomenon which comes prominently to the fore in this chapter. It is impossible for instance to describe author without broaching context; Polish immigration in Aberdeen was selected by the author as the topic for the experimental film because it was a current issue at the time of production. The opposite however is also true; at the time, there were many current issues to choose from and the fact that this particular topic was chosen is revealing of the author. This observation underlines that every element of the communication process points to all other elements and, vice versa, that each element is projected onto each individual element in return. Overlap will therefore be hard to avoid in this chapter. The Silver City project consists of not one but four texts, one non-reflexive and three reflexive versions which each comprise the non-reflexive version plus some additional footage (see Chapter Four for a more elaborate discussion of how the texts relate to each other). Unless specified otherwise, the evidence that is presented here relates to all versions. Viewer response to the reflexive elements is discussed in Chapter Five.

Author Jakobsons model postulates that authorship, and indeed any element, is defined in connection to all other functions of the communication process. As the source or originating subject (Foucault 1977), the filmmaker sets and keeps this process in motion, but they do so in relation to the self as well as all other elements. This section therefore

48

 describes which considerations led to determining the topic of Silver City in light of textual, contextual, conative, procedural and metacinematic considerations. My ideas and sub/conscious motivations, however, are probably best described by the decisions that were made during the whole of the production process, not just during preproduction but also, and arguably more prominently, during the shooting and the editing phase of the film. A discussion of these decisions and what motivated them is to be found in the appropriate sections.

The origins of a documentary film usually lie in a decision about the topic. For this studys film, the subject and its angle could be anything in theory, but in practice they had to suit the studys needs while addressing practical concerns. Since reflexionist claims regard documentary in general, the first consideration was that the film that was to be produced as a research tool had to function like any other documentary, i.e. it had to have the potential to attract an audience and establish a mode of communication with them that allowed for metacommunication about the problematic relationship between the real and how it is constructed for the screen. This consideration refers to the conative function of the communication process. In particular the film would have to appeal to its intended audience, which meant that the topic and the treatment had to speak to the young men and women studying at the University of Aberdeen who would be participants in the focus groups. The film would have to look like a traditional documentary; experiments with form or any other aspect of documentary communication might interfere with the topic under investigation (this is a reference to the poetic function of the communication process). In fact, it would have to look like a film that might be broadcast on national television rather than the academic exercise that it actually was, even though this prerequisite conflicted, at least for the reflexive versions, with the reflexionist demand for transparency. The topic

49

 also had to allow for the employment of the different manifestations of reflexivity in the reflexive versions. Since this would involve the introduction of me as the filmmaker, I was searching for a subject matter that would genuinely interest me and that would afford a treatment that suited my personal style, a reference to the expressive function of documentary communication. Because my work tends to explore topics that are relevant to public debate, I was looking for an issue that was already on the agenda but had not been explored to the fullest yet. Because I was keen to avoid the deus ex machina-effect, I wanted to find a story that was related to my life so that I could insert myself in a natural and implicit way. This consideration turned out to be the starting point for the decision-making process. In the media, immigration from Eastern Europe was a hot topic at the time and it occurred to me that I was a foreigner in Aberdeen, just like the many Polish citizens I encountered in the city (these are referential considerations). According to Alan Dodd, a Scotsman and fellow PhD candidate who had been living in Aberdeen since he went to college and who was my sparring-partner in thinking about the film since production began, the Polish presence had become an issue in the previous six months. People are really starting to notice the Poles. In restaurants, shops They seem to be everywhere. I would like to know why they are here. Why specifically them? Why now? Id be interested in the mechanics.1 Since most focus-group participants would be living in Aberdeen I speculated they might have the same questions as Alan Dodd. The topic would have social relevance, while setting the stage in Aberdeen would simplify the production process. Soon after I had met Peter (See Production process for a discussion of how I found him), we had a long discussion about the films angle. Although the exact story was still unclear, we agreed that the main objective of the film would be to give the Polish perspective on migration to the UK. According to Peter, who had been following reports about Polish immigration in the media, this perspective was new. Another specific aim was

50

 to show the Polish as rounded characters with hopes and desires like anybody else and to avoid existing stereotypes of Poles as a hard-working and hard-drinking people.

Author: culture, ideology, socio-economic class, gender and point of view Another way of addressing the expressive function of the communication process is by describing the self, as Ruby (2000: 139) formulates, as someone who has a culture, an ideology, who comes from a particular socioeconomic class, is identified with gender and has a point of view. Since his requirement is particularly relevant to the study design and the reflexive versions of Silver City, I will attempt to identify myself by applying his categorization. I am a white middle-class woman, who was born in the Netherlands in 1964. My ideology, or point of view with respect to immigration, which in this case is probably most relevant, is harder to capture in all its nuances. Historically, migration is a fundamental characteristic of human endeavour that may be motivated by (a combination of) political, social, cultural and economical factors, rendering it almost impossible to give an opinion in general terms. In this context, my statement would have to be that although I do not have fundamental objections against immigration because of the benefits for both individuals and society, I also see the disadvantages. Migration has the potential to disrupt the social fabric of both the country of origin and the country of destination. Noticing furthermore the potential abuse from traffickers and employers, social exclusion because of language problems and prejudice in the destination country as well as psychological distress caused by, for instance, the feeling of being disconnected from loved ones, I cannot help but feel that immigration appears to cause as many problems as it may solve. Rubys requirement postulates that it is possible to know and define oneself in the terms he mentions and, more importantly, to understand how these characteristics translate into filmmaking. As a person and a filmmaker, however, I doubt whether I am able to fully

51

 access and comprehend all of my motivations and how they subsequently inform my filmmaking practice. To a certain degree, Silver City seems to reflect my opinions about migration, that is to say, it was my firm intention to address the displacement and disconnection associated with migration, but that is not how all viewers interpreted the film. Many viewers read Silver City as a success story, as an advert (C4-NR) for immigration (see Production process and Audience for a further discussion), providing evidence for the conviction that authorial intent is irrelevant for the interpretation of a text, as literary theorists such as Wimsatt (1954) have argued. (More about the relation between intent and interpretation follows in Audience.) At the same time, Rubys requirement ignores aspects of the self that seem equally if not more important in the decision-making process. Most filmmaking decisions are informed by sub/conscious processes, in which not only Rubys categories play a part but also personality, (media) experience and taste. In particular ideas about what makes a good documentary are instrumental to decisions as to what is filmed and subsequently inserted in the edit. In literary theory, these ideas are called poetics. They may be made explicit, that is, either addressed within the text itself or elsewhere, or they may remain implicit and reveal themselves in the filmmakers oeuvre as consistencies, which is usually the case. My work for instance typically displays sympathy towards the main characters, yet it also shows a tendency towards detachment and relativization, often realised through humour and/or by addressing both the advantages and the disadvantages of a particular situation. These qualities are conceivably somehow related to personality and taste but there appears to be no other way to describe it than state that I dislike sentimentality. At a practical level, in short, Rubys requirement does not appear to produce the straightforward and unequivocal result he envisions.

52

 Context Silver City tells a story about Peter (Piotr) Narojczyk, one of the nearly one million Polish migrant workers who came to the UK in search of work and a better life after Poland joined the EU in 2004. He now lives in Aberdeen, Scotland. Like many Eastern European immigrants in Silver City, Peter works in the service industry; he is the manager of a lowend hotel in the city centre. His co-worker Agnieszka Swiderska, who is a chambermaid in the hotel, is the films second protagonist. The film gives an impression of both their lives as immigrants in the UK. In 2007, when Silver City was filmed, Polish immigration was a social issue of importance in the UK. Two developments since then have altered the perception of the Polish presence, and they are partly related. The first is that it became clear in the course of 2008 that Polish immigration was different from previous immigration waves. While Indians and Pakistani moved to the UK to stay, many Poles who had come since 2004 were returning to their native country, deflating some of the tension that Britons had experienced as a result of Polish immigration. At least in part this was related to the second development, the economic crisis, which had been building up and hit the UK and the rest of the world in the fall of 2008, drawing attention away from immigration and towards the effects of the downturn. By definition, a documentarian reports on phenomena that belong to the past, as there is a time lapse between the recording and screening of the final product. In this case, however, the speed with which Polish immigration disappeared from the agenda was cause for wonder for everyone who was involved with the project. This section gives an overview of the social reality with respect to Polish immigration in the UK, which was reconstructed with the help of public sources such as government reports and media coverage. As it was my intention to address Polish immigration at a personal level, the figures and facts that are presented here were not mentioned as such in Silver City. Several viewers, however, clearly missed this

53

 information while others particularly liked the narrowed-down pespective that the film offered (see Audience for a further elaboration). The referential function, in other words, is closely linked with at least the expressive, the poetic and the conative function of the documentary communication process.

On 1 May 2004, ten formerly communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe joined the European Union in what was the biggest enlargement in EU history. From that day on, nationals of the new member states had the right to live and work in any country throughout the EU. In the lead-up to the accession, there had been widespread concern in the UK about the unprecedented EU enlargement and the impact it would have on migration. Fears of a mass exodus of accession nationals into the labour markets of existing members competing for jobs, deflating wages, and disrupting social cohesion were whipped up and intensified by sometimes vitriolic press coverage (Pollard et al 2008: 13). In order to counter these concerns, existing member states were given the right to regulate access to their labour markets and to limit the entitlement to benefits (Accession Monitoring Report May 2004-September 2007[AMR]: 2). In the UK, nationals from eight of those ten countries, the Accession 8 or A8, were required to register with the Worker Registration Scheme if they wished to work here as an employee for a month or longer (AMR: 3), allowing the government to monitor the influx. Of those who applied, by far the most had the Polish nationality. By 30 September 2007, 475.000 Poles had registered with the Home Office, which was 66% of all approved applicants (AMR: 8).2 Most of the people that came to the UK were young; 82% of the workers were between the age of 18 and 34 (AMR: 2). Just a small percentage (6%) had dependents living with them at the time of registration. Three out of four workers stated that they were paid (just over) the minimum wage (AMR: 16).3

54

 The government had largely under-estimated how many people would move from the new EU countries to the UK. A total of 15,000 accession nationals per year would arrive here, Whitehall predicted (BBC News 2006). In reality, a total of 228,000 were approved by the WRS in 2006 alone. The response to the steady stream of migrant workers coming in from these new member states was mixed. The government insisted that they contributed to the economy by filling in the gaps in the labour markets an assessment that at least in part may be sustained with evidence4 but not all Britons agreed. Its unfair for the Polish people to come down here and nick our jobs when we want them is how one unemployed man in Sheerness put it (BBC Home 2006). The sentiment may be explained at least in part by the fact that many A8 workers moved to areas that had not been exposed to large-scale immigration before. As many migrant workers did manual labour in agriculture, a large percentage went to work and live in areas such as East Anglia and south-west England, which historically attracted very few migrants (BBC News 2007). A8 workers were half as likely to live in London as other immigrants (Pollard et al 2008: 6). Indeed, the patterns of post-enlargement migration are different from patterns of older migration waves to the UK, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), a progressive think tank which published a report on post-EU enlargement migration flows to and from Britain in April 2008. While other groups of migrants came with the intention to stay on a (semi) permanent basis, many A8 nationals come only for a certain period of time and regularly visit home. In fact, about half of those A8 nationals that came to the UK have already left, according to IPPR estimates (Pollard et al 2008: 5). As economic conditions in the A8 countries improve and those in the UK worsen, one of the most important reasons for migration has reduced in intensity. Since other EU member states loosen their restrictions on immigration of A8 nationals, many of them may choose to move to these countries rather than the UK. Nevertheless, migration from these new

55

 member states is one of the most important social and economic phenomena shaping the UK today. This movement of people has dramatically changed the scale, composition and characteristics of immigration to the UK, Pollard et al (2008: 7) concluded.

Poland In 2006, according to estimates by CSO (the Polish Statistical Office), 580,000 Poles5 were living in the UK, which is 30 per cent of all Polish migrants living in the EU (Pollard et al 2008: 24). This makes the Polish the single largest foreign national group resident in the UK, up from 13th largest group in early 2004 (Pollard et al 2008: 5). The decision to leave ones home country and move elsewhere is based on a complex mix of push and pull factors, many of them economic in nature. In 1989, Poland had emerged from its communist past as an impoverished country. Although it was the first post-communist country to reach its pre-1989 GDP after the transition to a market economy, its GDP per capita was still 50 per cent of the EU average by the time it joined the EU in 2004 (Pollard et al 2008: 41). Moving to a country such as the UK with a GDP of 118 per cent of the EU average offered Poles the obvious opportunity to earn more money and raise their standard of living. The strength of the British currency, moreover, allowed money earned in the UK to go even further at home. A survey among high-skilled Polish workers in the UK found that two thirds were saving some of the money they were earning, and that 60 per cent of the same group were sending money home to Poland (Pollard et al 2008: 43). At the same time, the level of unemployment in Poland served as a push factor. In 2004, Poland had an unemployment rate of 19 per cent and a youth unemployment rate of 40 per cent (Pollard et al 2008: 41, 43). According to qualitative research by IPPR, a fifth (22 per cent) of the Polish migrants went to the UK in order to take a job they had been

56

 offered, another fifth (20 per cent) came to earn more money and 13 per cent came to look for work. The reasons to move to the UK, however, were not entirely financial in nature. One in ten Polish interviewees said they chose the UK because they wanted to learn or improve their English; one in six said they were looking for adventure or experience living abroad while others, in particular those who were gay, mentioned they felt they had more freedom in the UK than they had at home (Pollard et al 2008: 43). Despite the reasons to leave Poland, a rather large percentage has returned home since, as the IPPR research indicated. Missing home (36 per cent) and wanting to be with family members in Poland (29 per cent) were reasons the most cited by the Poles that were interviewed for the IPPR survey (Pollard et al 2008: 44). Other reasons were that they only came to work seasonally/temporarily (18 per cent) or always intended to return once they had saved a certain amount of money (16 per cent) or after a certain amount of time (14 per cent). Fifteen per cent returned home to continue their education.

Aberdeen, Scotland Scotland is one of the areas in the UK that traditionally had not attracted large numbers of immigrants, yet the country drew a significant proportion of post-enlargement migrants (Pollard et al 2008: 28). About 60,000 A8 workers moved to Scotland (AMR: 17). Many approved WRS applicants settled in Edinburgh (8,210 or 12 per 1,000 of the local population) while Glasgow attracted 6,925 workers (8/1,000). Aberdeen, Scotlands third city, attracted 3,195 A8 workers or 10 per 1,000 of the local population (Pollard et al 2008: 63, 64 and 65).6 Aberdeen is the regional capital of the northeast of Scotland and has served as the hub for the North Sea oil industry since the 1970s. The city has a well-developed service economy, which has replaced traditional industries such as fishing and shipbuilding and

57

 has boosted the local economy. Unemployment is low at 1.5% in January 2007 it is significantly lower than the UK average of 2.6% (Unemployment Bulletin January 2007: 1) and the standard of living is relatively high. Aberdeens population of 207,000 is predominantly Scottish; 84% was born in Scotland as Behind the Granite: Aberdeen Key Facts (Aberdeen City Council, 2007) states. Yet, the city has the highest proportion of migrant workers in Scotland (4.3%). The Polish form the largest group by far; 36% of the migrant workers with a national insurance number cites Poland as their country of origin. In comparison, the second largest group are immigrants from India, one of Britains former colonies, who make up 10% of migrant workers in Aberdeen.

Media context: the UK In the context of this study it was impossible to do a thorough examination of all media output with respect to Polish immigration. Based on what was retrievable through the websites of BBC, ITV and Channel 4, however, it appears fair to say that a large proportion of media reports looked at Polish immigration from the angle of the destination country (the UK). This impression was confirmed by various remarks from viewers in the focus groups and by Peter, who had watched several programmes on television about Polish immigration, none of which represented the Polish perspective. In most media reports, the presence of Polish workers was problematized by addressing the concerns of the native population. One concern that was voiced more than once by native citizens was that migrants take UK jobs without contributing to the local economy.7 In more balanced reports, these allegations were refuted by British officials who pointed out that migrant workers provide cheap labour, which has obvious benefits for the local economy even if they send money home. Employers as well as co-workers would stress that the Polish are pleasant employees because they work hard.

58

 To gather an idea of how the right-wing press reported on Polish immigration, The Sun was briefly examined. Some examples of their coverage of Polish immigration are: - Headline: EU opens floodgates (6 January 2004); - Headline: Thousands of Polish gypsies are set to flood Britain on one-way tickets costing just 8 (24 February 2004); - Under the headline Migrants out of control: Britains schools, hospitals and housing are facing meltdown amid a massive surge in immigration, a secret Government report reveals (31 July 2006). The report is not further identified, which makes it difficult to verify The Suns claims; - An article about one million immigrants who have poured into Britain in the past two years is accompanied by a cartoon from Bill Caldwell, depicting the globe, with the North Pole and the South Pole pointed out and the UK as a tiny country in relation to the rest of the land mass, which is signposted as All the Other Poles (23 August 2006); - Under the headline Quizzing is futile...were full columnist Jon Gaunt ridicules Home Secretary Jacqui Smith while stating that the Home Offices strategy will do nothing to stem the flow of migrants from Europe who, after labours signing away of our country, have every right to settle here (28 February 2008). Apart from the job market, education was mentioned as an area that was negatively affected by opening the borders to A8 workers (At the moment there are at least four different language needs in [my daughters] class alone and the school cant afford special help). Health care was mentioned too (The NHS is overstretched because foreigners are coming to use it). These examples are from an article that was published on 18 October 2007 and includes not only the view point of several native speakers but also, by exception, a 24-year old female Polish worker.

59

 Production process This section describes the production phase of Silver City as a decision-making process that is driven by the filmmaker in relation to all other elements of the communication process. The filmmakers views about the social world is just one of the many factors in the actualisation of meaning potential. Other aspects such as textual considerations and assumptions about the intended audience but also technical and practical issues including the co-operation of those involved come in to play. In this enumeration, the various elements of the communication process may be recognized, which underlines again how the elements of Jakobsons model function as a coherent whole. The documentary production process is usually divided in three stages: preproduction, production and postproduction. In broad terms, preproduction is concerned with determining the topic, doing research, developing a script or an outline, securing funding and project planning. The actual filming takes place during the production phase. During postproduction, the film is edited, a process which includes transcription of the tapes, the actual editing process, audio postproduction and colour correction, and preparation for distribution. These three stages are not necessarily strictly separated, yet it is a useful classification to describe Silver Citys production process.

Preproduction As explained above, the production process of the film that was to serve as a research tool for this study started with determining a topic. To be able to introduce expressive elements in the reflexive mode, the aim was to find a subject that was somehow related to my personal life. Acknowledging furthermore that successful documentaries have a sense of urgency, that is, they have a story to tell that is relevant to an audience in a certain place and time, the presence of Polish migrant workers in Aberdeen soon presented itself as a

60

 viable option. In order to be able to determine the exact angle, the next step involved getting in touch with Poles to hear about their experiences. At this stage, my thoughts returned to a conversation I had with Stuart Buthlay, the proprietor of the B&B I stayed in when I first arrived in Aberdeen in January 2007. He told me about a young Polish couple that ran a hotel close to his, and who, according to him, were exploited. They had to work long hours for a minimum wage while they were required to pay a commercial rent for their flat in the basement of the hotel. His description struck me as the quintessential experience of a migrant worker. The day-to-day business in a hotel, furthermore, would have the potential for a visually attractive story. Instead of showing participants talking about their experience, the reality of their lives could be accessed by showing everyday actions and whatever else would present itself as contributing to a story, even though it was still unclear at this stage what the storyline would be. This approach illustrates some of the sub/conscious processes that drive the filmmaking process. Rather than locating participants or cases that challenge their opinions, filmmakers generally search for examples that agree with their views. More than purposively constructing reality or propagating ideology, however, this is a psychological principle humans tend to look for evidence that confirms rather than refute their beliefs which nonetheless may have widespread repercussions. It explains for instance how stereotypes are perpetuated through television content as filmmakers usually do not set out to locate examples that disprove prevailing ideas. To most filmmakers, this would sound like a counterproductive approach to filmmaking, unless they would be able to transform the approach into one of the films themes. I introduced myself to Peter as a PhD student at the University of Aberdeen who wanted to make a film about the Polish experience in Aberdeen as part of my research, and he immediately expressed an interest in participating in a film. His girlfriend had left two

61

 weeks before to conclude her studies in Poland and I suspected that he was lonely, that the prospect of making a film would provide him with the distraction and personal attention he needed at that point in his life. Participants often have private reasons like these to participate, that is, to devote their time and patience for free, and submit themselves to the filmmakers vision. A filmmaker can use and even exploit these personal reasons to persuade prospective participants to participate. Peter had the charisma to perform the role of the main character. He was smart, articulate and his command of English made it easy for me to communicate with him. He had many contacts in the Polish community in Aberdeen, which might be profitable later in the production process, when ideas about the film would be more developed. When we discussed the angle of the story, Peter aired some of his frustration regarding the representation of Poles in the British media, which according to him always obeyed the stereotype of hard-working and hard-drinking Poles. We agreed that this film would establish them not only as workers but as individuals with interests and personalities of their own. We also discussed several possible storylines, the most significant of which was Peters attempts to start his own band. Most importantly we would just start the filming process and see what would develop.

Involving others Despite Peters command of the English language, I had come to the realization that I needed a native speaker on my side of the production process. Steef Meyknecht, a Dutch visual anthropologist, had advised me to enlist a Polish national who could assist me with the audio. With intimate knowledge of the language and cultural values, this person would serve not only as an interpreter during the filming process, which would make me less dependent upon Peter, but also as a separate form of access to the Polish community that was unrelated to appearance in the film.

62

 Justyna Topczewska, a Polish student in her third year of Political Science and International Relations, was the first to respond to my ad on the university website. She did not have any previous experience with the production of audio-visual media but she was eager to do voluntary work that involved her language and culture. I explained to her that she was my eyes and ears on the set and that her input was most welcome. Justyna subsequently established her own relationship with Agnieszka, which was useful. There was a moment, for instance, where I wanted to ask Agnieszka, who does not speak English, if we could do some filming with her while she was making the beds but Justyna advised me to wait because Agnieszka had just had an argument with one of her co-workers in the kitchen. Unable to follow the conversation, I had not paid much attention. Justyna on the other hand had not only followed the discussion but, already knowing Agnieszka better than I did, had also realized it would be advisable to give her the opportunity to settle down first. Another moment occurred when we were walking home after filming the scene, in which Peter has a telephone conversation with his girlfriend. I had interviewed him afterwards and asked him whether being in Aberdeen was worth being apart from her. He answered that he missed her but that if you want something in your future life, you have to put some work in and that he was glad with the opportunities he had. Somehow that remark struck Justyna as very Polish, which is why it was eventually included in the film. Justyna furthermore conducted the interview with Agnieszka and translated the quotes. In the editing phase, she was my first viewer. Although I made all the decisions, I listened carefully to her comments, not only as a reality check (Do you think this is what we filmed?) but also because, as a 21-year-old student at the University of Aberdeen, she was representative of the target audience. Justyna was indispensable to the project and so was Alan Dodd, a Scottish 25-yearold fellow PhD student and friend, who, like Justyna, was closer to the target audience in terms of age and perspective than I was. During the production phase he and I sat down on

63

 a regular basis to discuss the films progress and in particular the decisions that drove the production process. I took notes from these conversations, which were used to write the scenes that were filmed and included in Silver City 3R. Al also accompanied me to the screening at the hotel as the sound person (Justyna was in Poland at the time) and contributed to the evaluation afterwards. He gave me feedback on all versions before they were screened in the focus groups.

Production Filming started soon after I had met Peter, with the bulk of the filming taking place in November and December 2007. Since Peters interest in music was going to play an integral part in the documentary, we started by filming the Halloween musical performance in The Clubhouse Hotel. To cover the event, Justyna and I brought two cameras; one captured an overview of the situation while the other was hand-held. Coincidentally, Peters first job in Aberdeen as a kitchen porter was in The Clubhouse Hotel. I hoped to be able to speak to some of the people he had worked with in those early days or at least make some shots of the kitchen, but the music was so loud that it was audible throughout the hotel, making it impossible to interview people (interviews with music in the background are difficult to edit so they are best avoided). We decided to go back later, which, in the end, we never did. Several days later I returned to Colwyn Hotel. My visit was meant as a research excursion so Justyna did not accompany me but I had brought the camera. It was the last day of the month, and Gavin Gray, the owner of the hotel, arrived to pay bills and wages. (At the time, Peter did not have access to the hotels bank account.) Gavin did not object to being filmed. In my absence, Peter had informed him about the film project but it is unknown how much he had told him about the topic of my research, which I had discussed with Peter. Gavin did not pay much attention to me, except when he quizzed me about the

64

 angle of the film and suggested a few names of people I should contact. The scene was included in 1R. I did not particularly like Gavin. If Buthlays assessment of the situation was right, this was Peters suppressor, even though Peter and Gavin appeared to be friendly and Peter did not behave submissively. Nevertheless, I consciously sank to my knees while filming Gavin writing the checks because the resulting frog shot would make him look like an emperor on a throne (this is a reference to code). I was also pleased with the scene of the embroidered underwear in fact it was crochet work and how Gavin fumbled the craftwork back into the box, shouting down the microphone, and snatching the bow before he returned to his seat. For me, his behaviour was a metaphor of the exploitation of Polish workers. The hotel was the perfect setting for a film. As much of the service industry in Aberdeen, it was run entirely by Poles, with the exception of Ian Jolly, who, as Peter never tired of pointing out, served as his assistant while the more obvious division of labour, in terms of seniority and nationality, would have been for it to be the other way around. In a sense, the situation represented the fears of those Britons who opposed Polish immigration: surrounded by Poles in their own country and even squeezed out of their jobs (a referential consideration). Yet, Ian and Peter had established a fine working relationship and indeed had become friends, which would provide a non-stereotypical twist in a story about Polish migrant workers. The story did however need a second storyline, preferably devoted to a woman, not only to offer female viewers more options for identification (a conative consideration) but also because nearly half of the Polish workers are women (a referential consideration). Agnieszka emerged as a possible second character when Justyna and I followed her and Peter to the Housing Office. The scene underlined the solidarity between Polish workers (a referential consideration), who not only pass on jobs to each other, as a closer look at how

65

 everyone at Colwyn Hotel found employment suggested, but who also make themselves available to each other in case they need help in dealing with the authorities. It also appeared that Agnieszka had a son, who was living with his grandmother in Poland; I found out about this exactly the same way the viewer does, that is, when Ian refers to him in conversation and both parents subsequently compare pictures of their sons. Securing a flat and then bringing her son home looked like a promising storyline, in which Michals arrival could serve as the storys climax (a textual consideration).

Things not covered A climax for Peters storyline was harder to produce. We filmed him when he went to a music store in Union Street, Aberdeens high street, to put up a notice, in which he invited musicians to contact him to start a band. We filmed him when he was jamming with Robb Nemo, whom Peter envisioned as the vocalist and guitar player for his band one of the songs made it to the final edit; the ensuing discussion in which they fantasized about taking it on the road did not (a textual consideration, see below). My hope was that I could film Peter while interviewing prospective band mates, cover the rehearsals and other joys and frustrations, which would culminate in the first public performance. It did not happen. No one responded to Peters ad, and Robb often did not show up for rehearsals and performances. Peters attentions shifted as well. Gavin had asked him to set up a restaurant in The Clubhouse Hotel, and he also started a course in Health and Safety Management at the Open University. Other events proved difficult to film and/or produce as well. Peter played soccer at a relatively high level and trained three times a week with a Scottish team. His sportsmanship showed another aspect of his personality while his membership of a Scottish team was further proof of his ability to integrate into Scottish society, but Peter would not allow me to film him during practice, citing practical reasons. The football field

66

 was outside town, and he would not be able to give us a lift as he did not own a car. I suspected that this was not the real reason; in any case I was not impressed with his reasoning transport is my responsibility, not his, and if I chose to be there I would take a cab but he was determined. There was another discussion, however, in which I was able to convince Peter to cooperate. Peter was also averse to filming him when he was smoking. I wanted him to smoke, not only because, like many Poles, he is a heavy smoker, but also because I envisioned him smoking during what has since been referred to as the wall scenes. I was convinced it would relax him and lend those scenes the casualness that I hoped to achieve. An important aspect of making a documentary film that is often overlooked is the ability to secure access, that is, not only finding people who will command the audiences attention because they have a story to tell and know how to tell it, but also being able to persuade these participants to cooperate at moments that are crucial to the film. In fact, the social skills involved in bringing out the best in participants may be the most important feature in a documentary filmmaker. A film may have technical imperfections, the story line may have flaws and Silver City has both but if the characters fail to persuade the audience they are worth their emotional investment, a film will fail to attract an audience. From earlier situations I had learned that impediments perhaps more often than not are insurmountable but that solutions may also be surprisingly simple. When I probed Peter about his refusal to smoke in front of the camera, he said he did not want his parents to know he is a smoker while he did want to show them the film. I then offered to edit a version without the wall scenes, which he readily accepted. (His parents did see the wallless version and thought it was a good film.) Agnieszka presented us with a different problem. She did not oppose to being filmed when she was going about her business but interviewing her demanded a tremendous amount of encouragement and persuasion. At one point, Peter, as her boss,

67

 almost ordered her to comply, a situation which bordered on the unethical. Again Justyna proved to be an invaluable part of the production team. She informed me of what Peter had said, which offered me the opportunity to explain Agnieszka that her participation in the film was voluntary and that we would look for other ways to tell the story if she seriously objected.8 Agnieszka complied. I failed in securing the (continued) participation of other co-workers. Small Agnieszka initially cooperated but withdrew her participation along the way because the camera made her self-conscious. Martin (Marcin) also avoided the camera, but for a different reason, it appeared. His behaviour may be best described as unimpressed with the cameras presence.9 He returned to Poland to resume his studies before filming was concluded. Agnieszkas brother, with whom she was living for the larger part of the production phase, did not want to be filmed at all. As is clear from this description, it is not just the filmmakers vision that determines what may be included in the film. The production process is possibly best understood as a negotiation between intentions, social situations, technical im/possibilities, and financial and time restraints. If the desired situation does not present itself within the allotted time frame, if participants refuse collaboration or at least in part, if the sun does not shine on the day you need rain or vice versa, then the vision is compromised, and it always will be. Documentary production, more than non-fiction film production where shooting conditions are much more controlled, is about creating circumstances in which lucky accidents may happen. It is also the result of a clash of interests, which takes place in a particular context. I am not arguing that a filmmaker is powerless. There are many conscious decisions that directly influence the final product: the selection of characters, the angle to the story, when to switch the camera on or off. In the case of Silver City, there was furthermore the deliberate choice to give the film a strong sense of time and space. Peter is

68

 presented in his current situation rather than the past, for instance by showing pictures of his youth, or the future, by discussing his plans for the next stage of his life. The story is set in Aberdeen, the city after which the film takes its name, and not partly in Poland, which could have been easily achieved by accompanying Peter on one of his trips back home.

Underpaid By mid-November, I had not yet determined the exact angle of the film. If my goal was to make an issue-driven or current-affairs film, I would have to build a case with social relevance, for instance revolving around Peters wage. This appeared to be a viable option. In May 2007, the trade union had launched a campaign to make A8 workers more aware of their rights. The accompanying booklet (Living and Working in the UK: Your Rights) is not limited to discrimination in the work place, yet it is clearly one of the TUCs main objectives. Apparently, the issue deserved attention and I did not anticipate difficulty finding a representative of the trade union who would present the TUCs point of view and assist in establishing the injustice by putting me in touch with more Polish workers or eastern European immigrants who were underpaid. It meant, however, that I would have to decide against another option, which was to make a more or less observational film about a particular hotel in Aberdeen that was operated by a group of Poles and one Scotsman, and who were getting on fine. More importantly, Peter did not know what caused me to approach him. He knew I had heard about him through Buthlay, the proprietor of the nearby B&B, but I had not told him what Buthlay had told me about his wage. In a sense, the topic took care of itself. On 22 November 2007, The Guardian published an article by Tim Dowling addressing the outrageous claims about Britains newest arrivals. The Guardian is a left-wing newspaper, Tim Dowling is an immigrant himself albeit from a different category (hes American) and the article mocks some of the

69

 most persistent stereotypes regarding eastern Europeans in general, and Polish immigrants in particular. We had planned to film the next day, and I took the article with me, as the starting point for a discussion about stereotypes. To my surprise, Peter did not pick up on Dowlings tongue-in-cheek approach. He went off on a rant about stereotypes in the British press, perhaps thereby demonstrating his frustration even more than if he was asked to respond to an article in The Sun. When I said I thought the article was meant as a joke, he refused to accept my interpretation.10 In the conversation that followed, Peter said that he earned less money than a British person would in the same job. I did not have to ask him about it, it was his assessment of the situation and he brought it up himself. The situation changed, however, when the doorbell rang and Gavin appeared. He was in town and had come to the hotel to pay the bills and wages again. I switched the camera back on and confronted Gavin with Peters assessment. To my surprise, Gavin said Peter was not underpaid; in fact, he made more money than a British person would because he was doing such a good job. (Peter was not present when the interview took place.) At the time I did not believe Gavin but abandoned the topic for the moment because there were a few points to consider. First of all, I had Peters word against Gavins and it was not instantly clear how that could be used in the film. The second reason was that I had not yet concluded filming in the hotel and I did not want to risk being banned in case Gavin would not accept a questioning of his sincerity or intentions. As the proprietor, he had the right to refuse me the entrance to the hotel. A third consideration was introduced afterwards by Alan Dodd, who, in a conversation that was not transformed into a scene for one of the alternative versions of Silver City, expressed a concern for Peters relationship with Gavin. In bringing up the subject, he felt, I had jeopardized Peters job. A documentary filmmaker has several obligations, which are connected to different elements of the communication process and have the potential to clash. The first obligation

70

 is to present a faithful representation of the situation if that is what audience and participants may reasonably expect. The second obligation is to treat participants with respect and to weigh the harm that may be caused by their participation in the film against the possible merits. In some circumstances, for instance, the individuals interests are outweighed by the necessity to inform the public. The third obligation is towards the self, to be truthful towards personal aims and goals, which in this case involved making the point I wished to make (people should get paid regardless of where they are from) and to have a finished end product in the first place. The conflict of obligations is not always resolved satisfactorily for all parties, in part because there is only one possible outcome; there is only one film. In this case, I had the luxury to adopt a three-way strategy. Since the size of his wage in comparison to British workers was Peters personal assessment, which he had offered without probing on my part, and which was not unbecoming in a subjective story about his life, I felt free to use it in Silver City NR without Gavins rebuttal. With this version, I fulfilled the obligation towards the self, that is, to convey the point I wished to make, even though this was possibly not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I negotiated the possible misrepresentation of the actual situation by offering both Peter and Gavin the opportunity to comment on how they were represented in the film during the feedback session after the screening in the hotel. Gavin was critical of Silver City NR but not because he felt he was misrepresented as someone who takes advantage of immigrants. Even when I specifically asked him how he thought the size of Peters wage was represented, he responded with a concern for the overall quality of the film, which he felt was badly done.11 Peter did not complain about the treatment of the wage issue either. What he did say about his representation was included in 2R. Silver City 2R therefore fulfilled my obligation towards the participants. With 3R, I fulfilled the third obligation, which is to represent ones findings as accurately and as straightforwardly as possible.

71

 Gavins rebuttal was included while the initial omission was placed in the context of authorial decision-making. Shortly after filming his assessment of the size of his salary, and with Alan Dodds concern in mind, I asked Peter whether the issue had affected his relationship with Gavin. He assured me it had not. In a conversation Peter and I had much later, after the screening in the hotel, we addressed the issue more directly. By that time, Peter had had a chance to reassess the size of his salary, possibly encouraged by the film he had now seen and the ensuing discussion in the hotel. Peter said he felt he earned an appropriate salary, considering the fact that he does not pay living expenses. I refuted by saying that I was under the impression that he had to pay for his flat. He said the former manager of the hotel indeed had asked for rent, but that he was no longer required to pay for his accommodation since he took over this persons job, which, I now realized, had taken place sometime between January 2007, when I heard about Peter for the first time, and October 2007, when I met him. In other words, the situation as presented in Silver City NR represented a situation that had existed but had ceased to exist at the time of filming. It is not uncommon that it is not until after a documentary has been broadcast that the full truth, or a new or different truth, emerges but not necessarily because the filmmaker had a hidden agenda, as I arguably had in this particular case. Sometimes certain assumptions lead to research questions that in retrospect did not bring out what was most relevant to the issue under scrutiny. Sometimes it is the subjects themselves that change their position because the interrogation by relative outsiders or, in other cases, the final product, has caused them to re-evaluate the situation. Yet, the question remains whether I should have been more rigorous in obtaining the truth during the filming process. There is an adage among journalists that says one should not check a good story to pieces. Journalists may consider themselves exempt from

72

 double-checking a claim if it is made knowingly and voluntarily by a named source and if it serves the story well. Ultimately, it is up to the reader to decide how well reality was represented in the various versions of Silver City. In retrospect, I am pleased that Peters wage did not become the central issue in Silver City but for a different reason. It would have been hard to do so and avoid the introduction of a new stereotype, the immigrant as victim.

Postproduction By the end of 2007, I had captured several scenes that were representative of the work atmosphere in the hotel and the characters who worked there. When I returned, I did not witness anything that added to what I already had on tape. I had visited the hotel on about ten different occasions, sometimes for a few hours, sometimes for the whole day. In total, I had accumulated 15 hours of material, including the wall scenes and the interview that would serve as voiceover, which were shot right before the editing started. Michal had not arrived yet and there was still the possibility of the formation of a band but at this stage I wanted to see whether I could create a story line with what I had. The tapes had been transcribed as filming progressed. Technically there was no script but I did have an outline in mind. In order not to diverge too much from what is usually seen on television it was decided that the film should have a narrative that is comparable to the average documentary. It would address an issue by introducing several characters that represent the situation (Polish immigration in Aberdeen) within a certain context (Colwyn Hotel) and then weigh the benefits (the opportunity to build a better life, to broaden ones horizon and to make new friends) against the sacrifices (subjection to stereotyping and discrimination, missing family and friends back at home), all preceded by an exposition of 1-2 minutes that would introduce the main character, establish place and time and create a mood.

73

 Perhaps it is during the editing process that reality is re/constructed most emphatically and urgently. In choosing which scenes to include, how to build and subsequently sequence these building blocks, the editor constructs a reality that may or may not be representative of the social situation it points to. Editing is possibly best described as a series of decisions, in which many considerations are balanced in order to present a coherent and visually attractive story that represents the authors vision as well as the historical world and appeals to the intended audience. One may recognize the dimensions of the communication process in this description. As described in Chapter One, one element tends to be dominant, and it is not necessarily the referential element that tips the scale. Representativeness is also a matter of degree. In Silver City, as in many documentaries, the order in which the scenes are spliced is not necessarily the order in which they were taped. The scene in which Peter confesses he is fed up with Aberdeen and yearns to go home was recorded on the first day of shooting but it does not occur in the sequence until relatively late in the film. Within scenes, the order of events may be changed too. Paying the bills is used to introduce Gavin, but in reality it occurred after he and Peter had paid the wages. If the chronology is not critical to the interpretation of what took place, then changing the order of events is entirely acceptable to professionals, who consider this a form of poetic licence that is part and parcel of the documentary construction process. Sometimes editing takes the form of the active formation of reality. The following example illustrates this. As the night porter, Martin does not get up until late afternoon when most people are starting to think about dinner. In the film, we see Ian preparing fish and chips for a customer, and the kitchen clearly smelled the part as Martin came in to prepare his breakfast. Smell is non-transferable in film but sound is, so I copied the sound of sizzling oil and used it as an audio track while Martin pours cereal in a bowl and slices a banana.

74

 Arguably, not many viewers (consciously) noticed the effect but constructions like these are a source of satisfaction and professional pride in filmmakers, perhaps also in part because it is a mild form of manipulation, an exercise in controlling the audiences gaze. In terms of Jakobsons model, it was the conative function of the communication process that was dominant in determining what was to be included in the last example. In other editing decisions it was the textual structure or the poetic function that was dominant in determining what was to be included or, as in the next example, excluded from the final edit. After their acoustic performance in The Globe, Peter and Robb had an animated discussion about taking their show on the road. It established Robb as another Scotsman Peter had formed a close relationship with and expressed how much fun the two were having together when dreaming about a life in music. The conversation was not included in the film because it centred on leaving Aberdeen rather than coming or staying there, a motive which is closely related to Silver Citys theme. The expressive function is another factor in determining what to incorporate in the film. An example is the inclusion of Peters quote The people make the city nice. As soon as he uttered the phrase I knew it was going to be included in the film because I emphatically agreed with the observation. It is the only moment where I consciously included a segment because it mirrored my experience. Yet, the opposite occurs too. I was so apprehensive of the danger that my opinion of Gavin would dominate his depiction that I re-edited the first edit to create a more personable impression of him, introducing, as with any case of self-censorship, the risk of overcompensation. Another example of authorial intent is the deliberate choice to end the film with Peters phone conversation with his girlfriend. The scene underscores that Peter is alone in Aberdeen, away from those who are closest to him, which perhaps is all the more poignant as his situation is contrasted with Agnieszkas, who, as we have just seen, has been reunited with her son in Aberdeen. More than the scenes in which Agnieszka and Peter

75

 reflect on missing family and friends at home, these scenes convey my personal conclusion that immigrants pay a price for the opportunity to create a better living elsewhere. It is my evaluation and not Peters or Agnieszkas, who were not consulted when the decision was made. In order to make this point, I accepted as a consequence that it is Agnieszka, rather than the main character, who provides the storys climax. This is what I consider to be the weakest aspect of the narrative and indeed the whole film. It therefore struck me as surprising that not one viewer commented directly on this flaw and indeed that most viewers read Silver City as a success story rather than the wistful tale I perceived it to be (See Audience for an elaboration).

Involving others The editing of the non-reflexive version started in January 2008 and finished two months later in March, shortly after Michal had arrived. The reflexive alternatives were finished in November of the same year. Once I had a rough cut, I asked several people for feedback on Silver City NR. Steef Meyknechts comments were the most influential. He convinced me to keep interviews and voice-over to a minimum and to make the film as descriptive as possible, that is, to let the action speak for itself and accept that perhaps not everything becomes as clear as you would like it to be. One of his suggestions was the elimination of the quote in which Ian explains that he initially was a bit anxious with the arrival of a Polish worker (because it was unknown) but that he has discovered since that Peter is a very nice man and that they have a lot in common. Meyknecht argued that viewers do not need this comment; they will draw that conclusion from how Peter and Ian respond to each other in the rest of in the film. I on the other hand felt the clip enhanced the story because Ians initial apprehension appeared to be exemplary for the feelings of many Britons and because it added to an understanding of the depth of their friendship. Discarding the clip became one of the few suggestions

76

 Steef Meyknecht made that I did not adopt but I have wondered for a long time whether he was not right after all.12

Production Silver City 1-3R For the reflexive versions, Silver City NR was expanded with additional footage. 1R was edited with the material I already had but the production of 2R and 3R required a gathering of more footage. On 25 April 2008, I arrived at the hotel for the screening with the final cut of Silver City NR in hand. My adviser Alan Marcus was present, as well as Stuart Buthlay, who had mentioned Peter to me when I had just arrived in Aberdeen. The screening was captured as well as most of the ensuing deliberations. Several topics were addressed during the exchange of views, which soon was dominated by Gavin who argued that the film fell between two stools. His point was that the films aim was not clear. If Silver City was to be a movie about the Polish experience it should have contained comparisons between people who have done well in Aberdeen and those who have not. If it was to be a film about Peter, it should have included images of Peters younger years and of Peter playing soccer. As the discussion progressed, Gavin voiced his concerns in more explicit terms, and, at one point, started to question the PhD project as a whole. Of 70 minutes of discussion on tape, eventually 8 minutes were inserted in Silver City 2R. Gavins main point was included but his overall share in the discussion was reduced to a more modest and, given the fact that he was one of nine people present, representational size. Another deliberation was to limit the topic to the issue Gavin had brought up documentary should be objective, which according to him meant showing both sides of the coin or to allow more issues of representation to pass in revue. In the end, I chose the second option because a wider range of topics would potentially bring out more discussion in the focus groups.

77

 The additional footage for Silver City 3R was shot mid December 2007. Alan Dodd and I rehearsed the scenes in his flat the night before the recording was planned. To accustom ourselves to the cameras presence I had borrowed a small video camera so we could film each other while rehearsing. I did not have the intention to include the rehearsal footage in the film. Filming the next day, however, took more time than expected so we skipped the final scene we had prepared and rushed through the one before last. When logging the footage, I noticed that the boom appeared in some of the last shots on the tape, and also that one of Als best observations (Your slant is that you have no slant) was missing. Rather than return to the pub and finish our work, I decided to find a way to proceed with the material I had. Accidents like these are no exception in documentary film production; in fact, the resourcefulness that is required to make the most out of imperfect material and the material is hardly ever what was expected is a source of professional pride for many filmmakers, including me. This example underlines again that it is not always referential considerations that determine what is to be included. In this case it was the procedural function that dominated the determination what to include.

Text This section provides a close reading of Silver City as a text. Rather than a thing that is onto itself, a documentary text is the result of a production process that is driven by an author who has assumptions about the historical world as well as the intended audience. A reading by an individual viewer subsequently completes the communication process that documentary film entails. A complicating factor in this case is that author and audience are one and the same person. The interpreter thus has intimate knowledge not only of the authors intentions, which may or may not be actualised in the text, but also of the social context in which the

78

 text was produced. Inadvertently but inevitably, this background information will resonate in the following analysis of the texts structure.

Story As pointed out in Chapter One, documentaries exploit narrative devices that traditionally are associated with fiction, and Silver City is no exception; the film employs classic narrative tools to convey meaning, including the introduction of likeable characters and a build-up towards a climax. A narrative, whether fiction or non-fiction, consists of two parts: the story (a chain of events reconstructed in their causal-temporal order and occurring in space and time) and discourse (how the story is told). Like many fiction and non-fiction films, Silver City is character-driven; it employs the classic story-telling device that follows from the assumption that the average viewer is more likely to engage with fellow human beings than abstract phenomena such as issues, developments and structures. Polish immigration as such is intangible and requires materialization so viewers may be persuaded to consider the subject (a conative consideration).13 To discuss a particular issue, therefore, a documentarian often introduces a protagonist, who may function as a guide in the world that is depicted on screen, an agreeable character, who offers a chance for identification. The assumption is that once the implications of, for instance, a particular socio-political issue become apparent for this particular person the viewer will be more inclined to consider the issue itself. Unlike fictional characters, however, protagonists in documentary film are human beings with lives that extend beyond the text, as Nichols pointed out, introducing social and ethical concerns that may compromise the filmmakers vision (See Production Process). Documentaries like Silver City reduce self-actualising individuals to an exponent of the narrative (it is the exposition of Peters character that moves the story forward). Peter is also a vehicle for the authors ideas and obsessions, a representative of Polish

79

 migrants in the UK, and the object of the viewers gaze. In all these descriptions, the functions of the communication process may be recognized. The main protagonist is Peter (Piotr) Narojczyk, a former Philology student from Warsaw who decided to leave Poland for the UK because he wanted to change his life. I did not see any opportunities for me in Poland. I was bored of whole life, whole city, university Taking advantage of Polands recent membership to the EU, Peter jumps on a bus and arrives, more or less by chance, in Aberdeen (Scotland). Aided by his command of the English language, his communicative skills and his music (he plays the harmonica), Peter quickly finds a job as a kitchen porter and works his way up to become a hotel manager, making friends among people from both the Scottish and the Polish community. A second character in the film is Agnieszka Swiderska, a woman in her midtwenties who works as a chambermaid in Peters hotel. While Peter is driven, at least in part, by a thirst for adventure, her motivations to leave home are mainly of an economic nature (I wanted to improve my lifestyle, which is impossible in Poland), which were enhanced by the fact that her father and brother had preceded her and were already living in Aberdeen. At the beginning of the film, Agnieszkas son Michal is staying with his maternal grandmother in Poland but towards the end he arrives in Aberdeen to live with his mother. As a woman and a mother, Agnieszka offers viewers an alternative set of identification opportunities. She furthermore provides Peter with a chance to display an attractive side of his personality: his readiness to help other people and his loyalty towards fellow countrymen. He is the one who offers her the position of chambermaid in his hotel, saving her from a depressing job in a fish factory, and he is the one who accompanies her to the Housing Office to enquire about the flat she has applied for as Agnieszka does not speak English.

80

 Ian Jolly is the only Scotsman working in the hotel, and he is introduced by Peter as one good Scottish boy [], the best guy in here, which is Ian and he is my assistant. Peters introduction of Ian signifies a perhaps unlikely but nevertheless warm relationship between the young Polish migrant worker and the native Scotsman who could have been his father, a friendship which is not only determined by a smooth working relationship but also by long discussions about football and friendly banter. The film is mainly set in Colwyn Hotel, where Peter works and lives, and centres around the daily business of running a hotel, which, in Peters words, is very basic and mainly serves off-shore workers who need a place to stay before their shift starts early the next day. Other scenes include two musical performances, in which Peter jams with friends, a visit to Agnieszkas flat once it is procured and Michals arrival. Colwyn Hotel is owned by Gavin Gray, an Aberdonian businessman who lives in Berlin and relies on Peter to run the hotel for him although he still oversees the hotels financial affairs. The viewer also briefly meets Martin (Marcin), Peters old school friend, who has taken a break from his studies in Poland to earn some money as the hotels night porter, and Small Agnieszka, who, like Tall Agnieszka, works in the hotel as a chambermaid. The documentary shows an aspect of the Polish immigrant experience that is relatively unexplored. Silver City presents the subjective view of one immigrant who has successfully created a new life for himself and, to a lesser extent, the view of his Scottish friends. That is not to say that major issues associated with immigration remain unaddressed. The documentary specifically discusses some of the social and personal problems that Polish migrant workers are confronted with, such as stereotyping, underpayment and the pain of being away from home. By choosing the subjective view of Polish workers, Silver City is able to demonstrate some of the workings of immigrant networks. Migrants tip each other off

81

 when jobs become available, and those who are in a position to tender jobs will typically offer them to fellow countrymen. This phenomenon helps to explain why large concentrations of people from one particular social group run places like Colwyn Hotel. It also explains why some migrant workers have difficulty to acquire the language. At home as well as at work, Agnieszka speaks Polish instead of English and on other occasions, for instance when dealing with Scottish institutions such as the Housing Office, group solidarity prescribes that she is accompanied by someone who has a better command of the language.

Space If narrative is described as a chain of events that occur in space and time, then space in Silver City is Aberdeen, as the title denotes. There is hardly any reference to the lifes the protagonists led before they came to Aberdeen; we only know that Peter studied Philology before he quit his studies and left his home country. All events take place in Aberdeen and in reference to Aberdeen. Even Peters account of how he arrived at the place where he is now (in the wider sense), as conveyed in the wall scenes, is told in the context of his present life. Aberdeen may not have the lure of the US, where, according to myth, the streets are paved with gold, but the city clearly has an attraction for immigrants. Thats the reason why there are so many foreigners in Aberdeen, as Peter says. There is so much money in Aberdeen, theres so much work in Aberdeen and everybody can get work as long as hes able to work, and wants to work. The draw is expressed in the title of the film, which refers to the granite buildings that are characteristic of the city. When it is overcast, they appear rather dull and grey but on sunny days when the sunlight is reflected by the mica deposits in the rock, they come alive with a sparkle.

82

 Discourse The films story is presented using traditional cinematic discourse techniques. The first minute of the film, for instance, may be characterised as a classic expository scene, introducing the main character and the topic while creating a mood. We see Peter in front of Marischal College, one of Aberdeens most distinctive granite buildings, playing a lonely tune on his harmonica. The quote, which is delivered in voice-over, establishes that he is a foreigner who went to Aberdeen. After the title, and in the next few scenes, it becomes clear that Peter now lives and works in Aberdeen as a hotel manager. Silver City then continues to introduce the other characters, first Agnieszka and then Ian, Small Agnieszka, Martin and Gavin. The problems that are related to migration, such as stereotyping, underpayment and missing family and friends, are not introduced until the viewer has established a firm emotional relationship with the main characters. The exposition of character as a means to move the story forward is a wellestablished technique in narratives, but it is not the only classic story-telling device that Silver City employs. Once the characters have been introduced, the documentary starts to build towards a climax, which may be described as the resolution of the conflict around which the narrative evolves. Traditionally, the climax or reversal occurs at roughly 4/5 of the chain of events, as it does here. Rather unusual though is that it is not the main character who provides the discourse with the turning point, although he is instrumental in meeting the requirements (see Production Process for a further explanation), but the second protagonist. Michals arrival, and indeed his very existence, is introduced when Agnieszka explains to Ian that she needs her own place before her son can come over (I am not flat sic). In the meantime, she is sleeping on her brothers kitchen floor, as can be deduced from the scene, in which Agnieszka describes her happiness when she received the keys to her new flat. By then, the viewer knows how much she misses Poland, particularly at

83

 Christmas time, which is a very special time when you are normally with your family. (Agnieszka does not mention Michal by name but it is likely that she is referring to him in particular.) The reunion of mother and son in Aberdeen, therefore, may not resolve the conflict that arises from being subjected to stereotyping or underpayment, to mention two of the three main issues that the film addresses, but it does solve the problem of being separated from loved ones, in this case ones child.

Time A documentary narrative as well as a fictional narrative may be described as a chain of events that occur in space and time, whereby the story constitutes the events in their reconstructed temporal order and the discourse refers to how the story is told. Viewers come to the movie theatre or the television set with a willingness to make sense of what the film on the screen is trying to convey, a willingness that is exploited by the narrative as it actively engages the viewer with the topic of the film by summoning curiosity, anticipation, surprise and suspense. The element of time in particular offers the filmmaker the opportunity to involve the audience by manipulating the order, in which the events are disclosed and the timing of the actual disclosure. Silver City for instance presents the part of the story that deals with Peters journey, that is from the moment he leaves home to where he is now (in both the literal and the wider sense), throughout the discourse rather than at the beginning, where it would have been disclosed if the story was told in a chronological order. The first wall scene, which describes how Peter took the bus and arrived in Aberdeen without any solid preparation, is not introduced until it has been established that Peter is a foreigner who lives and works in the city. This first wall scene subsequently serves as a springboard to disclose Peters motives for leaving his home country, which are delivered in voice-over as we see Peter continue his work in the hotel. Sometimes the same principle functions the

84

 other way around, when the present invokes the past of Peters own travails, for example when Peter and Agnieszkas visit the Housing Office in an effort to secure a flat for her and Peter conveys in another wall scene how he struggled to find a place to stay. Thus, the wall scenes not only provide the narrative with a structure that pushes the story forward but also with a context for some of the larger themes of the documentary, such as the connection between past and present, dream and reality, memory and actuality, struggle and hope.

Audience The analysis of Silver City in this chapter is a demonstration of how documentary may be defined as the interplay between the six elements that constitute communication, and this section focuses on the element that centres upon the viewers response to the film. Before Silver City is analysed in light of the fifth element, however, a few words on reception theory and its conceptualizations of interpretation are in order. In classic mass media theory, which was developed in the 1940s, communication was perceived as the transmission of a fixed quantity of information that was determined by the sender or the source (McQuail 2005: 69). Reception14 was understood as the final stage of the communication process, in which the message was received and processed along preconceived lines. This linear and causal conceptualisation of communication was challenged by Stuart Hall in his seminal work Encoding/decoding (1974/1980), in which he argues that readers may decode the message as encoded, which is the dominant or preferred reading, in a negotiated manner or oppositionally. Hall was the first to conceptualise the consumption or reception of the television message as an aspect of the production process15, a view that ultimately led to a change in paradigm within mass media research, in which the receiver of the message is no longer construed as the passive absorber of media content but instead as the active constructivist of meaning.

85

 Halls theorizations gave rise to a new area in mass media research (reception studies). Although empirical research, in particular David Morleys study The Nationwide Audience (1980), soon revealed some of the shortcomings of his model, Halls contribution to the field can hardly be overestimated. As a Marxist, Hall was particularly interested in the ideological dimensions of texts and how they serve to control social relations. Effectively, this limited the models scope to class and class struggle while other social categories that are relevant such as age, gender and ethnicity as well as individual experiences, communication skills and preferences were ignored. In his critique of Halls model, Schrder (2000) argues against its central idea, i.e. preferred reading, which, as he demonstrates with evidence from a focus group discussion, cannot be a property of the text as Hall would argue. Preferred reading as inscribed in the text and found through textual analysis (Schrder 2000: 246), therefore, is not a useful concept for reception researchers. Epistemologically, the attempt to discover one privileged textual meaning is bound to fail, for the simple reason that any decoding, even that of a skilled textual analyst, is always already another encoding, that is, a product of the decoders cultural and communicative repertoires, and therefore marginally or substantially different from all other readings (Schrder 2000: 241). In fact, the opposite is also true, every encoding involves a decoding because the filmmaker would always consider how viewers might interpret the provided information. In Schrders view, the site of meaning production is not the sender, as the transmission model proposed, nor the text, as Hall argued, but the decoder of the message. In a sense, reception mirrors the expressive function on the senders side, as meaning formation is perceived as an active production process, which is unique: As the signs mental image for the user (the interpretant) is in itself a new sign, and so on, the chain of semiosis for any given individual is ultimately unique as the associative networks through which signs acquire their meaning depend on the unique discursive socialization that each individual has experienced, reflecting the individual collage of such social parameters as 86

 class, gender, ethnicity, etc. in addition to more coincidental biographical factors (Schrder 2000: 245). This study accepts Schrders reconceptualization of response to media content as a hyper-individual construction but unlike Schrder, it does not situate meaning production in the reader but in the interaction between all six elements of the communication process. Because the readers interpretation is the one element that is in flux every reading, even by the same reader, is unlike any other it is tempting to point at the audience as the site where meaning is produced. As already has been demonstrated in this chapter, however, more factors interfere. Authorial concerns, contextual realities, procedural practicalities, cinematic peculiarities, textual specifics as well as the viewers reception interact in order to produce meaning. Consider for instance the scene, in which Gavin Gray writes pay cheques for his employees. The arrival of Gray that particular day at Colwyn Hotel to pay the wages, my obsession with Peters supposed underpayment, the ensuing decision to capture the scene with the selected camera angle (a frog shot) and the subsequent placing of a selection of these images in the sequence resulted in a form of meaning potential that was made available to those who saw Silver City and transformed it in highly individualised meaning, as we will see below. Viewers perform this transformation by consciously or subconsciously executing thought processes that are necessary to turn meaning potential into meaning. Generally, interpretation is seen as a negotiation between a set of structured potentialities out there and the persons repertoire of knowledge representations and processing strategies (Livingstone 1998: 33). In this study, interpretation is seen as the active process of meaning production in which the viewer constructs a frame of reference that has the potential to make sense of textual properties for this particular reader at this particular time. Not only conventions or culturally determined norms and assumptions are employed in this process, that is, what Jauss called the horizon of expectations, but also (socially

87

 constitued) personal features. Reception thus depends on variables that are fixed, including relevant personal characteristics such as, in the case of Silver City, nationality but also on variables that are fluid, such as personal experience and media exposure. The fluid variables in particular explain why a reader may interpret the same text differently upon a second reading. In addition to effects that are the result of repeat viewings per se, such as details that suddenly attract attention now that the storys outline is already familiar, viewers may have seen other films or have acquired new life experiences.

The referential and the expressive function Silver City was announced as a documentary, and most if not all participants in the focus groups came to the screening anticipating to see factual content, which they, as the convention prescribes, would expect to be authentic and true to life (Hill 2007: 3). Viewers thus pay special attention to the referential integrity of factual programming. Indeed, the referential function, which deals with the relation between the text and the historical world, was a key factor in the construction of individual interpretive frames. For example, when asked What did you think of the film? one participant answered: It was a documentary, showing real facts that happen nowadays (F6-1R).16 A notable difference however existed between viewers who assumed that the film was a factual account and those who knew it to be a factual account. A British woman, who said the film seemed pretty realistic, added: Obviously Im not Polish and I would not claim to know about all Polish people, but before I came to university I worked in a hotel for three years and I met a lot of Polish people from different walks of life (F2-NR). For this viewer, it was personal observation that confirmed the films factuality. Foreigners in the focus groups often identified with Peter because they recognized his experience from their own arrival in Aberdeen. A German student said: I personally felt like the way he

88

 described Aberdeen, his first impressions, that was just exactly the way how I experienced it [laughter from many] so it was like o ja, I so know what you are talking about (B4-NR). For these viewers it was an experience they shared which Peter that validated the films factuality. The opposite occurred too, when personal observation and experience provided reasons to doubt the films authenticity. A Polish woman said: I might be wrong but I dont know anyone who would come to the country with such a good English, without any accommodation and work arranged before. I dont know any person, so some things for me are true and some are not... Because it is different when you see such a situation from the perspective of Polish person like me. I was working in hotel as well, I was cleaner, kitchen porter, then receptionist and I know something about this. I know feelings, I understand their language. And its hard to explain but for me they show Poland from very bad side. Its not us (D2-NR). In these examples, the referential function of the communication process interconnected with biographical specifics of the receiver in order to produce an interpretive frame. Especially viewers with the Polish nationality who had seen the non-reflexive version, which does not reveal the filmmakers national identity, questioned the films representativeness of the Polish experience in Aberdeen and acted as oppositional or resistant readers in this respect. They were keen to point out for instance that not all Polish people in Aberdeen are here to stay; some were students, like themselves, or here only temporarily to make some money before returning to Poland. (In fact, the film introduces Peters friend Martin as one of the Poles who came to the UK to make some money and then return to Poland.) These resistant readers were particularly wary of the aims the filmmaker may have had when producing the film, thereby introducing the expressive function of documentary communication in the construction of their interpretive frame. The filmmakers nationality in particular seemed critical in reconstructing authorial intent for Polish NR viewers. Before she came to the viewing, D2-NR had enquired in an email whether the filmmaker was Polish or not, and then again before and during the focus group discussion. Polish viewers who saw 1R-3R and therefore knew the filmmakers nationality had less difficulty 89

 accepting the films authenticity. As one of them said: That movie showed lets say a typical Polish person who emigrated; they usually wear those T-shirts and some necklaces, shiny [laughter] (E6-1R). Not just Polish NR viewers, however, were interested to know the filmmakers nationality. This is what a Scotsman said, blending expressive, contextual and conative elements while constructing his individual interpretive frame. Id like to know if maybe it was a Polish person who went to Polish people and so on or whether it was a Scottish person who went to Polish man and so on... because if its a Polish person making it they may just want to show it in a more positive light, because they want to present the people in a good light. If its a Scottish person making it or a British person, they want to show that all immigrants coming here arent bad people taking our jobs (C4-NR). This example indicates that reconstructions of authorial intent via the text formed an important factor in the interpretation of Silver City. Despite arguments from literary theorists who asserted that intent is not accessible via the text and/or that it is irrelevant (see p. 52), viewers may in fact actively look for clues in the text that reveal the filmmakers motives and, in this case, possible bias when making the film. The reconstruction of authorial intent as a meaning-making device is problematic, not only because intentions may not be actualised in the text, but also because decoding is in fact a new encoding. Indeed, the reception of Silver City provides several examples for this proposition. The first is that many viewers interpreted Silver City as a success story. All versions elicited this response from focus group participants, in particular NR, 1R and 2R, which unlike 3R do not specifically address the filmmakers intentions. In these excerpts, expressive as well as poetic, referential, procedural, and/or conative concerns are combined to arrive at this particular conclusion: People really arent like [Peter]. He was a real good advert. It was a positive view. Thats it (C4-NR); I think the director chose Peter because he has similar background as a lot of foreigners are going to have and he also suffered hard times but finally he succeeded (B6-1R); 90

 I believe this guy made himself a hero because he was successful, he was OK (C12-1R); It was a good film but it was a bit Hollywood-like. Good people, happy ending (F7-2R); I think the movie does show extreme optimism (D14-2R); I dont think it was reality [laughs]. Its very much painting a happy picture, they live happily ever after, ooh they work hard and they get a great life, American dream or Scottish dream, whatever [laughter] (A14-2R); Its just this is a Polish worker, he has come, made a success for himself, now look at the life hes got and everything (B8-3R). Although not everyone was oblivious to the hardship that Peter and Agnieszka endured, many viewers appeared to be particularly responsive to the idea that Peter had done well since he left Poland. This surprised me, as I am more sceptical about immigration in general and Peters situation in particular than this particular interpretation would suggest. A second inconsistency between intended meaning potential and realized meaning potential, or between preferred reading and actual readings, became apparent in viewer response to 3R, which is the version in which I explained what prompted me to make this film: as a foreigner, I was curious about other foreigners in Aberdeen. This disclosure led several participants in the focus groups where 3R was screened to believe that a link existed between my experience and Peters experience: It came out of her personal experience, that is, like she is carrying her experience, its probably what she felt like when she came to Aberdeen... because it starts with that thing, I am a Dutch person, I was interested to know other peoples life. And maybe the fact that she has chosen Peter is probably because she reminds him [sic] of her own experience. She thinks thats really interesting, because his life is quite like mine, that sort of thing (B8-3R); She once had to come in through the bus station and come out into Aberdeen, it was probably raining when she came too. So she could empathize with Peter a bit more than the guy could. She wanted to maybe try an idea of placeless-ness really or something (D9-3R). It appears that in particular reflexive elements that focused on the expressive function prompted viewers to draw conclusions that bear no relationship to actual events: I 91

 arrived by plane and then headed for the university B&B by cab; it was not raining that day and unlike Peter I had a clear prospect; I was looking forward to continuing my PhD research in combination with tutoring. This particular matter is put to rest here but will be resumed in Chapter Five, where it will be discussed in the context of the effectiveness of reflexivity as a means to address issues of representation. At this point, the previous allows for two conclusions. The first is that the referential function and the expressive function, including authorial intent, were important factors in interpreting Silver City and by extension perhaps any documentary film, even though authorial intent as re/constructed by the author (the preferred reading), authorial intent as actualised in the text and authorial intent as re/constructed by the viewer do not necessarily coincide. What caused these inconsistencies is explained by the evidence nor by Jakobsons model. Perhaps I failed to bring my message across; perhaps the media context in which Silver City operated, which problematized rather than accepted or welcomed Polish immigration, made the film stand out more like a success story. In the context of this study, however, the main conclusion is that authorial intent is problematic and should not be identified as the exclusive site of meaning production. That is not to say that authorial intent as reconstructed by the author and as reconstructed by the audience are incongruous by definition, as the following example demonstrates. She wanted to show Peter as a normal human being, and not, she wanted that the viewers dont have this talking about that, oh, hes only a Polish worker, but also hes a human being with feelings and thoughts of his own, so its good that she showed him in that positive way (C8-3R). My opinions with respect to immigration and/or Peters situation may have been cause for confusion, in other aspects I achieved my goals. Although some viewers were critical about certain aspects of the film, nearly all reported they enjoyed watching Silver City. They liked the main characters and appreciated the topic as something that was 92

 relevant to them, not only because Polish immigration was a social issue of importance at the time but also because it was set in the place they had a special relationship with. Two cases in point: I thought [Silver City] was great, yeah. It was hard not to like it, he was quite an interesting character and he was quite charismatic. He made you think hes the kind of guy youd get on with quite well, which helped you explain his situation and helped you sympathise with things and added something to the documentary. If it had been a fairly not very interesting person it might have been really different (G2-NR); Its to get a snapshot of our time in Aberdeen as well, our issues here; it shows Aberdeen (D14-2R). Peters likeability or charisma was often mentioned as an important factor in the appreciation of the film, although Agnieszka and Ian were mentioned as interesting characters (G2-NR) too. Gavins representation, however, received a mixed response. Although some noticed that the clips that he [sic] showed with them talking about the lingerie made him seem a bit stupid (A3-NR), most viewers thought the filmmaker held a sympathetic view of Peters boss because he was the one who offered him his job.17 For one viewer in particular, the lingerie scene illustrated the positive view the filmmaker had of Gavin. Hes fumbling with the boxes, hes really uncomfortable with the entire situation but he wants to support Peter in this endeavour, which I found really really funny and just heart-warming because it wasnt any mans business. Well, it could be a mans business [laughter]; I just thought that was a nice window into his affinity for Peter (F3-NR). In one of the PhD groups, however, the attitude towards Gavin was entirely different, where the fact that he was trying to flog handmade underwear contributed to the impression that he was just not a good person (E1-NR). Yet, it did not occur to the viewers that were sceptical that their impression may have been a matter of design, as the following interaction between one participant and the interviewer demonstrates. There was certainly a whiff of slumlord about him. But that was how he presented himself in the timeframe given to him. Weve been following natural interaction between the people...

93

 Did I hear you say he is presenting himself that way rather than that it is the filmmaker... [interrupts] No, its not the filmmaker, its rather his own personality and how hes communicating, his body language, his general demeanour just screams sleaze. I dont know why [softly] (B1-NR). While Gavins received a mixed response, the expository scene fulfilled its function as envisioned. He (sic) showed Peter on the background of something that is really, what makes Aberdeen, what makes this place easy to distinguish it is Aberdeen, because for us, we have passed it many times (E6-1R); Maybe he (sic) also wanted to show that he is a bit strange in his environment, this is not his typical, his original environment... It gave a bit of a sad sentiment, a bit of loneliness (C6-1R); I really liked that shot. I thought it was really cool. Because I thought it was background, in my head it was why the hell did they choose that [laughter] but really, why did they, this has no, what has a blues harmonica anything to do with Scotland, and then when he was playing I thought, yeah, thats clever (D7-2R); When it got to the end, I figured why they had done it, thats just to make us more personal to the character and we can relate to him a little bit more and I thought that was the reason. We all have something that we have a passion and he has his harmonica, thats his passion (G13-3R).

Other functions The referential and the expressive function often served as a dominant factor in the construction of an interpretive frame for viewers who saw Silver City. The poetic function, however, was utilized too. My first impression was that in the beginning that they did not introduce those people well enough so the viewer was kind of long thinking who is this person. He did not introduce himself or his background. The documentary you have to follow quite far before you start to realise that his background... of course then the picture formed later on but I think it would have been better, there could have been some kind of introduction, or he could have explained his background, who is he and where did he come from. Then you would have concentrated on more substantial things straight on instead of trying to pick on his story (H2-NR).

94

 Other participants did not think that an introduction was necessary. These viewers actually liked the process of piecing together the information they needed to derive meaning from the story. I quite liked the snap shot effect, because it doesnt explain everything but I dont think the documentarys purpose is to explain everything. It is just to show his life in Aberdeen as a Polish person (F12-1R). One viewer likened this process to the every-day experience of getting to know people, which perhaps added to his evaluation of the authenticity of the film. I think its like knowing people. Its more personal. Its not like you are reading a newspaper and everythings all there. Its like you get to know people two time. They give you a layer on a layer of a story and you get to know and you only have limited time so you cant know everything about the guy but some of the story you learn from this, from them (H4-NR). The absence of an introduction was mentioned in six of the twelve focus groups and with respect to all four versions of the film. Some of the questions these viewers had related to the wider context of the story. E7-2R for instance would have liked to know how many Poles entered the UK and how much they have contributed to the economy since while other viewers appreciated the narrowed-down perspective. I liked the fact that the director went deeply inside the situation. Like you said before, if you went into detail, just because we have only two people and it was possible for her to go into detail, and through these details she showed us, she provided us with a really good amount of information (E101R). There were viewers who wanted to know more about Peters personal situation, for instance his age (F4-NR), for how long he had been in Aberdeen and whether he was sending money home (G12-1R). Several participants mentioned they would have liked to know more about his life before he came to Aberdeen while others were curious about his plans for the future. What determines the difference between viewers who would like a firm direction of their gaze and/or positioning of the story in a wider context and those who do not is not explained by Jakobsons model. Personal preference is a likely factor, but perhaps

95

 personality traits play a role too. Prevailing reception theories tend to focus on socially and culturally constituted factors, not on the psychological structure of the individual reader. Another poetic concern that was mentioned, sometimes in connection with contextual and/or conative concerns, was the pacing of the film. Some thought it was slow while others liked the tempo. There were definitely a few parts that were a little slow for me. Just in terms of... just a little details, daily transactions and things. But other than that, I mean thats part of life and it definitely captures a very authentic experience, just going through their day-to-day (D3-NR). But in point of time, is my feeling, is really good. You managed to do a 60min documentary without losing the interest of your audience, at least me. I was really, kept watching. In some documentaries, especially when they are about families, there tends to be the same things happening and then you just You kept it interesting for 60 minutes (A11-2R). From the preceding it follows that viewers sub/consciously apply the functions of Jakobsons communication model in the construction of an interpretive frame. The referential function was often dominant but other functions such as the expressive, the poetic or the metacinematic function (see next section) served as the dominant function in the construction of individual interpretive frames as well. The other functions were more often suppressed; not many participants in the focus groups consciously took the position of the receiver, more specifically their own subjectivity, in account. The procedural function was rarely employed either, that is, in both cases as can be derived from what these viewers reported spontaneously when talking about the film. (The response might have been different if they were asked directly whether they think that their subjectivity is a factor in interpreting documentary film, or whether they think that procedural factors influence the final result of the film and therefore their interpretation.) The opposite occurred too, that is when viewers would arrive at the same conclusion while drawing on different functions of the communication process. An important aspect that surfaced in every group discussion, for instance, was Silver Citys perceived one-sidedness. As Hill (2007: 3) suggests, viewers not only may assess the 96

 referential integrity of factual content but also examine the knowledge status by evaluating the level of information provided, and how objective or impartial the facts are in that particular context. While some viewers appreciated the films subjectivity or at least were not troubled by it, others felt the Scottish perspective on immigration should have been included. To sustain their particular stance, however, viewers called on different functions of the communication process. For example, of those who did not think that the films subjectivity was problematic, some called upon the expressive function of documentary film to make their point: Is it not her prerogative though that she can choose what she, what choices, what side she is deciding to cover? She wanted to just show the life of a Polish person working (B11-2R). Others founded their evaluation predominantly on conative concerns, for instance because the personalised view helped them to identify themselves with the situation: I like it when I have got some, some point of view where you can really attach yourself, which leads you through the theme (F11-2R). Some viewers accepted the films bias because introducing the other side (G12-1R) would have created an imbalance in the narrative, thereby introducing a poetic concern in the construction of their frame of reference: It wouldnt work. It would be such a big difference; it would be such a big contrast (D2NR). Procedural concerns were mentioned too in this context because a wider perspective and in particular the presentation of facts and figures would have necessitated a gathering of figures and data, as D7-2R presumed. I guess I dont think it is fair to expect this sort of film with this budget and time frame and ability and skill of all people involved, to say youve got to get these numbers. Those who felt the Scottish perspective should have been introduced cited referential and poetic concerns. A6-1Rs argument belongs in the first category. I liked [the film], yeah. It is just, sometimes I felt it was kind of one-sided, in the way that it focused on two people that were successful, as opposed to 97

 I believe there are many more who actually had to return to Poland because they just didnt work it out. E7-2R, a Polish national, called on the poetic function of the communication process when he said he felt that not dealing with the argument of the other side [...] weakened the film.

Code In Jakobsons model, code refers to the signifying system or language that is utilized to convey the message. In his writing, Jakobson pays special attention to the distinction between two levels, the object language, which speaks of items extraneous to language as such and the language we use to speak about the code or any other aspect of the communication process itself. On these different levels of language the same verbal stock is used; thus we may speak in English (as metalanguage) about English (as object language) and interpret English words and sentences by means of English synonyms and circumlocutions (Jakobson 1985a: 116-7). Film is multicodic, as we have seen, but its most distinguishing code is the moving image, which may be used to comment on its own function. The metafunction, in other words, not only describes the particulars of cinematic language but also the films level of self-awareness, the degree to which it addresses itself as film or the result of a particular documentary communication process. The metacinematic function thus instructs the viewer how to read the film. Many documentaries encourage their viewers to read the text as mimetic, that is, as an imitation or an unmediated representation of the historical world. In these films, the sixth function of the communication process is suppressed. Other documentaries invite viewers to reflect on the cinematic apparatus or any other aspect of the communication process that mediates the representation of reality in film. In these films, the metacinematic function is dominant. The four versions of Silver City each employed different levels of reflexivity, which means that the metacinematic function was suppressed to a larger or lesser extent. A description of these different forms and levels of reflexivity and how they relate to each 98

 other can be found in Chapter Four, where they are discussed in detail as part of a description of the study design. For this reason, the matter is not further explored here.

In this chapter, Silver City was used as an example of how documentary may be described in terms of the six elements of the communication process. By adopting each element of Jakobsons model as a starting point for discussion, particulars that added to the texts meaning potential in specific ways came to light. The analysis indicates that documentary is not defined by the texts relationship to the real alone but by the interplay between all elements of the communication process. Jakobsons model, however, does not predict how the actual interplay of forces will turn out for one particular reading. It just identifies the constituing elements and suggests how they may resonate together in order to produce meaning for a particular viewer at a particular moment. A detailed account such as offered in this chapter could only be provided because the filmmaker and the analyst, or encoder and decoder, were one and the same person. Some of the information that was conveyed is typically unavailable to critics and theoreticians of documentary film, in particular information about the films production and reception. This consideration is why the approach as offered in this chapter is not suggested as an alternative method to analyse documentary film; it rather serves to demonstrate how documentary and more specifically its depiction of reality is determined by particularities such as the co-operation between all involved both in front and behind the camera and, for instance, chance. Not many viewers expressed an awareness of these factors, which in itself is a call for reflexivity. The procedure will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

99

 1 I took notes from these conversations, which were transformed into scenes for the reflexive version of Silver City. See Chapter Five. 2 The actual number may be higher. Self-employed workers such as builders did not need to register and were not included in these numbers (AMR: 3). Furthermore, not every worker registered with the WRS. According to Mark Boleat, another 100,000 workers had arrived without registering (BBC News 2006) On the other hand, workers were not required to de-register with the WRS when they left the UK. 3 In the period from October 2006 to September 2007, 72% of the workers stated that their hourly rate ranged from 4.50 to 5.99. 4 A significant part of post-enlargement workers moved to areas where recruitment can be difficult, bringing significant economic benefits and assistance to regional development (Pollard et al: 29). 5 The number includes self-employed workers and dependents, who are not included in the WRS numbers. 6 Numbers refer to the period between May 2004 and December 2007. 7 An example is Inside Out: Kent v Polish Builders (accessible via BBC Home 2007). 8 I am aware that this may be perceived as emotional blackmail. 9 According to Peter, Martins father works as a cameraman for national television in Poland, which may explain why he was underwhelmed with the cameras presence. 10 It is fair to say that Dowlings article is misrepresented in Silver City, because the suggestion is that Peter was reading an anti-immigration piece while in fact he was not. Although the source is not named, avid Guardian-readers will recognize the distinctive letter type and layout from the close-ups and may be puzzled by what appears to be the articles message. I never contemplated removing the scene though because I felt it was the least contrived way to introduce the topic and Peters anger, even though I brought the newspaper (Peter does not read the Guardian). Perhaps I could have found a way to do more justice to the jest of the article, but I felt that providing the actual context would distract too much from the scene and its assigned function in the narrative. The newspaper scene became one of those occasions where a filmmaker accepts a little injustice to the truth to address a larger truth. I would have to agree though that there is some irony in addressing misrepresentation by misrepresentation. 11 The transcript of that discussion reads as follows. Me: Were you able to tell from the film what my opinions were with respect to some of the issues that were raised? Gavin: No. Me: How did you feel the wage issue was dealt with? Gavin: By the person that was filming Me: Just in the film. Gavin: Were back to the issue whether this is a film about Peter or a documentary. And Im trying to be constructive Me: I know but the film does deal with the fact that many Poles are underpaid. Gavin: I dont think it does deal with it. Theres never a suggestion. Peter says there are people, and I agree with Ian there are people who are lazy in Aberdeen. This is the perfect example in Aberdeen. If you cant get a job in Aberdeen There is zero percent unemployment, so a perfect example. It doesnt address that question at all. Me: But it does talk about that Peter feels he does not make the same kind of money that a British person would make. Gavin: But he does make the same money as British people make. I can tell you now that his wages are compared to Charlie [the manager of The 100

 Clubhouse Hotel, Gavins second hotel in Aberdeen]. He is on par with them which with his flat come up to the same amount. That didnt come across in the film. Whats very important is that people get rewarded for the very good job that they do. Who they are whether Polish, I dont care who they are. They are doing a good job. My point to you now, you may think its critical but it falls between two stools. If its a film about Peter, its badly done because he is a lot better. If I was doing a film about Peter, Id do a lot better. Me: What would you put in? Gavin: Hes just a super guy to me. Id have him play football, him in his young daysIf thats what the film was about. 12 In fact, I took it out for the festival version while inserting another scene in the sequence, in which Peter is trying to make a deal with Charlie, the manager of The Clubhouse Hotel, by offering to buy the television sets that Charlie wants to replace for Colwyn Hotel. 13 It is this materialization, Michael Chanan (2008: 129) argued, which accounts for the problematic relationship between documentary and the historical world. Documentary, he contends, is built on structuring absences. Some things can be shown through the visible signs of their effects (like the wind). However, the invisibility of social processes is something else altogether. Sometimes their effects are very visible like slums and hovels and shanty-towns but the process as such is not a physical object, nor indeed a singular thing, but more like history, which refuses to present itself promptly in front of the camera but remains an absent cause; with the consequence that the signs of those effects are at best amorphous, ambiguous and open to interpretation. 14 Some theorists distinguish between reception, interpretation and meaning. In this study, the terms reception and interpretation are used interchangeably; they both serve to produce meaning. 15 The consumption or reception of the television message, Hall (1974/1980: 130) argued, is also a moment of the production process. 16 This section draws from response to all versions of the film. If viewer response is quoted, the particular version that the viewer saw is mentioned in the code that points to the individual viewer. An overview of the differences between these four versions of Silver City is provided in Chapter Five. 17 With the exception of B2-NR, who did not think that Gavin was portrayed in a nice way: The inclusion of him, they could have easily glossed over that bit, did we really need him? But they put it in there, because hes the big boss man, he pays the wages and comes over, does a bit of business and then he buggers off to Berlin again. He is not as affectionate, because he is just there for a little bit and he is saying all these good things but what you dont know as its going on that Peter gets paid less than the average person would and works harder. All the boss gets is that he says that his work is invaluable its only valuable to him because hes the one getting money from good business so I thought it was slightly negative but at the same time the fact that he was going to help out Peters mate with the bras Im not sure, its quite ambiguous, I think theres more of a negative slant to that bit.

101

 Chapter Three: Complexities of Reflexivity

In the previous chapters, problems associated with the definition of documentary were addressed through a critical discussion of prevailing approaches and the re/insertion of Jakobsons paradigm in the debate about the genres fundamentals. This chapter focuses on another central element of this study by introducing a Jakobsonian approach to reflexivity. A theory of reflexivity based on Jakobsons paradigm has as an advantage that it enables the identification of different forms of the procedure. First, however, current approaches to reflexivity in documentary film are discussed.

Current approaches to reflexivity In the last decades of the 20th century, scholars such as Weiner (1978), Ruby (1980), Nichols (1991) and Winston (1995) have theorized the merits of reflexivity to issues of representation and authenticity in documentary film. They advanced the reflexive mode as a conscious effort to heighten the viewers awareness of the problematic relationship between the documentary image and that which it represents. In general terms, a reflexive text does what it talks about, and talks about what it does, thus breaking down the traditional boundary between the critical and the creative space and transforming the narrative into a metanarrative (Babcock 1975: 2). In its most paradigmatic form, the reflexive documentary prompts the viewer to a heightened consciousness of their relation to the text and of the texts problematic relationship to that which it represents (Nichols 1991: 60). Reflexivity argues against the given-ness of documentary reality and for its constructed-ness, thereby documenting the very limitations of verisimilitude (Allen 1977: 43). By no means, however, reflexivity is confined to media output; every human endeavour that involves communication, such as speech, computer programming, art or academic writing, may have reflexive elements.

102

 Although the advocates of reflexivity agreed on the necessity of transparency, they arrived at their conclusions from different angles. Weiner (1933-1997) was a cultural anthropologist whose main body of work was unrelated to (ethnographic) film; she specialised in the study of the value and circulation of goods among the Triobranders on Papua, New Guinea (Eichhorst 2002). Ruby is an Anthropologist too but he is a specialist in visual culture; his work includes Picturing Culture: Essays on Film and Anthropology (2000), and two books which he co-edited with Larry Gross and John Stuart Katz, Image Ethics: The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film and Television (1988) and Image Ethics in the Digital Age (2000). He also edited A Crack in the Mirror: Reflexive Perspectives in Anthropology (1982). Bill Nichols and Brian Winston are leading theoreticians in the area of documentary film, who both wrote extensively about the problematic of documentary representation; Nichols Representing Reality and Winstons Claiming the Real are essential reading for those who study issues of representation. Some of the most provocative thinking with respect to reflexivity, however, comes from anthropologists Weiner and Ruby. Confronted with the limitations of film as a valuefree documenting device in social science, they concluded that filmmakers should refrain from perpetuating the myth of an existing ethnographic reality. Ethnographic film must address itself to the issues of film as construction rather than film as truth (Weiner 1978: 757). Analogous to written texts, in which syntactic conventions and a tradition of epistemologically constructed models cue the reader into observing the authors formulations as apart from other realities, filmmakers should construct appropriate conventions and develop a discourse, which confronts the problem of epistemological perceptions of reality (ibid: 752). Ruby (2000: 139) frames documentary as the interpretative act of someone who has a culture, an ideology, who comes from a particular socioeconomic class, is identified with gender and has a point of view. Filmmakers, therefore, have the moral obligation to

103

 inform the audience about who they are, and how their identities may affect their films (1988: 67). Reflexivity, however, does not amount to autobiography (1980: 156). While the self is at the centre of an autobiographic work, the filmmaker can be unselfconscious in the presentation of this personal life. Reflexivity, on the other hand, is purposive and intentional; it requires an author to consciously decide what aspects of self to reveal in order to achieve the intended awareness in viewers without being merely narcissistic or accidentally revealing (ibid). It should be clear, for instance, that the producer wants their product to be regarded as reflexive. One is reflective, therefore, if one is self-conscious without being conscious of that self-consciousness; or if one is self-conscious without using that self-consciousness to metacommunicate about issues of representation. The filmmaker is reflexive, by contrast, if she or he deliberately, intentionally reveals the underlying assumptions which caused one to formulate a set of questions in a particular way, to seek answers to those questions in a particular way, and finally to present his findings in a particular way (Ruby 1980: 157). Another form of referring to oneself in film as described by Ruby is self-reference, which is not autobiographical or reflexive but concerns the allegorical or metaphorical use of self, for instance when the makers life becomes symbolic of some sort of collective, like all filmmakers, all white middle-class men, or everyman (Ruby 1980: 156). Films that are self-referent in the sense that they have as their primary goal to reveal assumed difficulties of production or heroic acts performed by the filmmaker to obtain the footage are not reflexive, because they do not lead an audience to a sophisticated understanding of film as communication, but rather cause them to continue to marvel at the autobiographical exploits of the intrepid adventurer-film-maker as cinema stars (ibid: 167). Over the years, reflexionist claims have been received as a welcome contribution to an important debate in film theory but they also have met with substantial criticism. Some

104

 of the objections against reflexivity appear to be based on a poor grasp of the concept, for instance when reflexivity is dismissed, in Trinh Minh-has words (1993: 101), as pure formalism instead of the ontological and epistemological enterprise it aims to be. The aversion for reflexivity, Trinh admits, goes hand in hand with its widespread appropriation as a progressive formalistic device in cinema. It has become commonplace, for instance, for the narrator to exclaim A film is a film, reducing reflexivitys function to a harmlessly decorative one (ibid). Other critics however have a fair understanding of the reflexive stance but doubt the effectiveness of some of its propositions. As Hilary Lawson (1985: 10) points out, situating the narrator within the narrative itself, in an effort to demonstrate the narrative form while at the same time trying to elude it, is destined to fail because the narrative is always merely a narrative and identifying it as such is no means to escape its character. Lawson also critiques some of reflexivitys presuppositions by spurning their relativist origin. Statements like There is no reality or There are no facts are paradoxical because they undermine themselves if there are no facts then the fact that there are no facts is not a fact either (Lawson 1985: 9). In a sense, resorting to reflexivity is opening a can of worms. If statements made in a documentary film employing the reflexive mode are deemed to reflexively turn back on themselves as well, then how can we trust those statements? Reflexivity taken to its extreme destroys all meaning. Most reflexionists would not see this as a disqualifier though, on the contrary. Trinh (1993: 105) welcomes the resulting void as an ultimate gift to [the works] constitution; a gift, by which the work is freed from the tyranny of meaning as well as from the omnipresence of a subject of meaning. In his book Mystifying Movies (1988), Noel Carroll critiques a major influence for the reflexionists, playwright Bertholt Brecht. One of Brechts key concepts, illusionism, states that representational practices cause several illusions of reality, of inevitability

105

 (what is represented had to happen and it had to happen as depicted) and of identification between spectator and character (Carroll 1988: 92). According to Brecht, whose poetics were greatly influenced by his political views, these illusions each in their own way make spectators susceptible to ideological falsehood preventing social change. Carroll (ibid: 94) rejects the notion that representations are illusions. They are not deceptions; they are proxies with a distinct cognitive, emotional and/or aesthetic function. If we want to understand how a motor works, we are better off with a (simplified) drawing than with the real thing. Moreover, in order to perform these functions, representations must be recognized as proxies, and they typically are. Carroll (ibid: 104) also doubts the existence of a causal relationship between pictorial representation and a paralysis of the spectators critical abilities. Indeed, several media effect studies have found that a persons attitude or belief with respect to social issues is rarely the result of exposure to one particular text alone; far more often it is the result of an amalgamate of influences, including social background, peer pressure, personal experience, media consumption and the various interactions between them. Yet, even if a causal relationship between unproblematized representation and an arrest in critical thinking would exist, there is no guarantee that reflexivity has the opposite effect. In short, Carroll (ibid: 105) concludes, reflexivity does not result in a heightened critical awareness, nor does mimetic representation cause lowered critical awareness. Perhaps the most damaging reproach to the reflexive project states that reflexivity may only serve to enforce reality claims rather than diffusing them. In this view, furnishing the discourse with referentiality is not a harmlessly decorative effort but a deliberate attempt to legitimize the assertions made in the film by claiming a privileged relationship to the real (Scheibler 1993: 136). Filmmaker (and theoretician) David MacDougall, whose keen interest in questions of epistemology has frequently resulted in experiments with reflexivity, phrased it this way:

106

 There was always the danger, though, that the self-reflexive stance would be taken as a stamp of authenticity because we acknowledged the constraints upon our view, that view would be more completely believed. In effect, self-reflexivity tended to be crudely interpreted as erecting a structure of explanation around ones work to legitimate it. This nurtured the nave positivist view that science really could describe external reality accurately if all the filters of subjectivity were identified and done away with (Barbash and Taylor 2000: 11-12). Most objections as brought forward by these critics of the reflexionists point of view appear to be relevant but their arguments, as well as those of the advocates of reflexivity, are based on assumptions and theorizations and not on empirical evidence. Both sides of the debate, in other words, have made claims in reference to audience response while actual data were not available. Therefore, as I have argued elsewhere (Govaert 2007), a reception study is needed in order to determine which of these arguments may be sustained with evidence. Such a study should start with a model that allows for a systematic description of the body of texts in question. As a descriptive theory, it would have to account for the intuition that a film like Chronique dun t (Morin and Rouch, 1961), one of the key films in the reflexive canon as identified by the proponents of reflexivity, is reflexive in different ways and to a larger extent than, for instance, Shermans March (McElwee, 1986).

A Jakobsonian approach to reflexivity Since documentary is described as a form of communication, it may be hypothesized that reflexivity in documentary film is achieved by a particular exploitation of the six functions of the communication process. In her dissertation about reflexivity in novels, Babcock (1975: 23) adopts a similar approach when she points out that self-focussing may occur with regard to any of the individual elements of the communication process or the entire event in general. Key in this process is the metafunction. Because this function not only concerns the language or code that is used to address objects or events that are extraneous to language but also the language that is used to comment on the code and/or any of the 107

 other elements of the communication process, it has the potential to instruct the viewer how to read the information about actions and events as conveyed in the documentary. If the metacinematic function is suppressed while the referential function is dominant, the viewer is instructed to read the information as mimetic, as an unmediated slice of reality. By contrast, if the metafunction is dominant, the viewer is encouraged to interpret the message reflexively, that is, to consider not only the topic of the film but the communication process itself as well by focussing on one or more elements that constitute communication. An expressive documentary thus becomes reflexive if the filmmaker not only expresses their views but also consciously and purposively comments on how their identity informs the communication process. The actual result remains a matter of degree as it depends on how vigorously the functions are deployed and how they are integrated. Before discussing the principle in more detail for each element of the communication process, nine documentaries that may be regarded as reflexive will be introduced. They were selected to serve as examples of how the reflexive documentary film may employ one or more functions of the communication process in the reflexive mode and how these functions may contribute to an understanding of the constructed-ness of film. A mix in terms of style, topic, intended audience and release date, they are from a predominantly Western context. Some of these films surface regularly in the debate about reflexivity, others will appear to be less obvious choices as they are included to illustrate certain aspects of (pseudo-)reflexivity. The films are introduced in chronological order. Man with a Movie Camera (Vertov, 1929) is considered a landmark in reflexive filmmaking. At first glance, the film is a celebration of life; it is shown in all its daily aspects: waking, bathing, going to work, play, and we witness some of its most defining moments: a wedding and a birth, divorce and death. We also see how these events are transformed into film; how they are captured with a camera, edited and, as a third layer, how the finished product is presented to an audience in a movie theatre.

108

 Vertov, a Russian revolutionary whose real name was Denis Arkadievich Kaufman, wanted his audience to develop structural competence, that is, to understand how films work in a technical, mechanical, methodological and conceptual way. In his opinion, viewers should develop a sophisticated and critical attitude towards film (Ruby 1980: 168). Filmmakers, on the other hand, were not recordists of reality but creators of meaning. In juxtaposing or superimposing shots in a meaningful way, they should open up new (socialist) horizons. Chronique dun t (Morin and Rouch, 1961), an ethnographic film about this strange tribe living in Paris (Barnouw 1993: 254), is generally regarded as the pinnacle of cinema vrit. The filmmakers present themselves deliberately and explicitly as provocateurs of the action (ibid: 255). They interview students, workers, artists, une cover-girl and random Frenchmen in the street, in part with the help of a female interviewer, and discuss their interview methods and their prospective results on-screen. Towards the end of the film, they stage a screening and review the results of their endeavour with the interviewees themselves. The result is included in the film. Chronique dun t questions the possibility of strict observation. Because of their academic background in social science, anthropologist Rouch and sociologist Morin were aware of its intrinsic difficulties. They realized that the camera does not capture what people do; it captures what people do who know that they are under observation, an effect which in popular culture is often somewhat mistakenly referred to as the Heisenberg principle.1 Instead of trying to minimize this effect or flatly deny it, as most documentarians do, Rouch and Morin make the act of observation and its pitfalls an integral part of their filmmaking. Based on the principle that anthropologists should systematically and rigorously reveal their methodology and themselves as the instrument of data generation (Ruby 1980: 153), they enter the frame, not only when conducting their

109

 interviews, but also when contemplating the possible effects of their probing and when assessing the results. Lonely Boy (Koenig and Kroitor, 1962) is a portrait of teenage-heartthrob Paul Anka by two filmmakers from the National Film Board of Canada (Unit B). Roman Kroitor and Rolf Koenig were admirers of both Henri Cartier-Bresson, whose candid photography combined spontaneity with an acute sense of form, and the scriptless approach of the British Free Cinema group (Jones 1988: 136). The film appears to be random, and looks almost sloppy despite its tight structure there are jump cuts in the interview; the microphone appears in a shot. Like their direct-cinema colleagues, the filmmakers follow their subjects around with lightweight equipment. There was no script and no rehearsal of the action, which was still relatively unusual in those days. Yet, while their American colleagues Ricky Leacock and Robert Drew would pose as invisible bystanders for Primary (1960), the Canadians did not hide their presence on the set. At some point Anka bursts into the dressing room and is noticeably surprised to find the camera crew waiting there for him with their equipment switched on. There are more references to the crew (dont mind them). Most remarkable is the scene in which the owner of the Copacobana nightclub kisses Anka to thank him for the photograph the singer just gave him and the director asks him (off-camera) to kiss Anka again because the camera moved. Television producer Ira Wohl aimed the camera at his family for Best Boy (Wohl, 1979), which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 1980. The title refers to Wohls cousin Philly, a mentally challenged 52-year old man who lives with his elderly parents. Ira is worried about what will happen to Philly when his parents, Iras uncle and aunt, die and decides that Philly should become more independent. He initiates a three-year process, which he subsequently follows with a camera.

110

 In the most crucial scenes, Wohl enters the frame; sometimes he is heard offscreen, and in many other instances we simply feel his presence, for example when his aunt is pictured alone but seems to be muttering to someone in the room whom she is familiar with. As a concerned cousin, he convinces his aunt and uncle that it is in Phillys best interest to become more independent; he takes Philly to the zoo for his first day out without his parents, finds a day centre for him, and, towards the end of the film, persuades his aunt to allow Philly to move in with a community for people like him. As a filmmaker, on the other hand, he not only instigates all the action we see in the film, he also narrates the story the first sentence of the narration is My name is Ira Wohl and this is my cousin Philly, introducing the filmmaker before the main character. Yet, Wohl never comments on his double role as both concerned cousin and filmmaker, and how the two might interact. He does not problematize the referentiality of the film either, on the contrary, in the first commentary text, Wohl literally says, This film is a record of what they did [to make his cousin more independent] and how it changed Phillys life (emphasis is mine). In Far from Poland (Godmilow, 1984), Jill Godmilow examines whether it is possible to make a documentary about a situation in another country without physically being there. The film about the revolution in Poland is (almost) entirely shot in the US and consists of an eclectic collection of footage, which varies from traditional newsreel to reenacted interviews, for instance with Anna Walentynowicz, the female crane driver whose dismissal from the shipyard caused the first strike in Gdansk, and from highly stylized images of somebody packing a suitcase accompanied by a voice-over in which Godmilow recounts other peoples point of view to a clearly scripted soap-opera style debate between the filmmaker and a friend, who questions Godmilows motives for her involvement with the Polish movement (You are using the Poles [] because you want to proof you are right).

111

 Far from Poland questions how real-life events and their representation on film relate to each other while challenging traditional discourse in documentary film and experimenting with new forms. When we finally see a newsreel clip with the real Anna Walentynowicz, for instance, we ask ourselves which sequence conveys more meaning, the re-created interview with an attractive actress or the real-life Anna, who seems less amiable. Juxtapositions like these are not only created between scenes but also between shots and even within the frame, when Godmilow shows a round-the-table discussion with Polish friends and how the event is caught on tape as represented by the images on a television screen in the same room. All along, Godmilow presents herself as the driving force behind the filmmaking process and consistently explains her actions while making the film. In Naked Spaces Living is Round (Trinh, 1985), a film about African domestic living spaces and their inhabitants, avant-garde filmmaker and theoretician Trinh Minh-ha refuses to tell a story. Rather than instructing us how we should interpret the images and the culture they represent, she shows us what she sees and what thoughts those images inspire in her. In the context of this film, as Trinh explains, personal does not mean the individual standpoint or foregrounding of a self. I am not interested in using film to express myself but rather to expose the social self (and selves) which necessarily mediates the making as well as the viewing of the film (Trinh 1992: 119). In her films, Trinh Minh-ha, who was born in Vietnam, critiques conventions of popular cinematic representation of other cultures (MacDonald 1993: 147) because they are less revelations than systematic cultural impositions (MacDonald 1993: 156). She literally refuses to take a position with her camera and shoots the same object from slightly different angles, causing jump cuts in the final edit. Her films feature shaky pans, audio issues (video/no audio), video issues (audio/no video), reframings and repeats, which consistently draw attention to the constructed-ness of film.

112

 In Shermans March: A Meditation on the Possibility of Romantic Love in the South during an Era of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation (McElwee, 1986) filmmaker and cameraman Ross McElwee sets out to retrace the steps of general William Tecumseh Sherman, who conquered the South during the Civil War in the US. This plan crumbles to dust when his girlfriend breaks up with him in the initial moments of the film. More important than retracing the Generals steps, then, become romantic interludes with women from the South, former girlfriends with whom the relationships are at various stages of resolution, and new infatuations. Shermans March also addresses McElwees fear of a nuclear disaster, his insecurities and his futile attempts to film the quintessential Southern man, Burt Reynolds. Shermans March is arguably a film about its own making (Plantinga 1991: 43); product, process and producer are a coherent whole. Some reviewers, however, dismiss Shermans March as autobiography, if not a narcissistic selfportrait of an eccentric Southerner (Williams 1993: 21). Indeed, McElwee focuses on people and events from his personal life without problematizing their referentiality. Building on the direct-cinema tradition, he observes the world he inhabits from behind his camera. Yet, at the same time, he uses the filmmaking process in his interactions with the people he meets, relating to them in an almost Rouchian sense. The camera is not simply recording McElwees domestic life, it is witnessing changes in his life made possible, in part, by the presence of the camera (MacDonald 1988). Another hands-on filmmaker who communicates a sense of self is Nick Broomfield; the Briton who records the sound for his own films. His topic, however, is not his personal life but other peoples lives, mainly (American) celebrities. For Biggie and Tupac (Broomfield, 2002), he sets out to unmask the killer of rap stars Tupac Shakur, who died in 1996, and Christopher Wallace, a.k.a. Notorious B.I.G., six months later. Armed

113

 with his boom, headset and recorder, Broomfield marches in front of the camera like a modern-day Don Quijote (Wise 2002: 18), leading us ultimately into the prison ground where he will confront Marion Suge Knight, the alleged killer. In his films, Broomfield lets the viewer in on aspects of investigative journalism that usually remain unaddressed in the text but may have serious consequences for reality as reconstructed for the screen. Prospective informants refuse to talk or initially agree to an interview and subsequently bail out, or only agree to talk in the presence of their lawyers. In Biggie and Tupac, for instance, we witness a scene, in which the police officer, who is charging the LAPD of impeding the investigation of Biggies murder and who had promised to cooperate, produces just one sentence as soon as the camera is rolling, which is that his lawyer has instructed him to keep his silence. We also witness Broomfields surprise and disappointment. For a second attempt, we see how Broomfield enters the lawyers office, only to be told off again: Would you please stop rolling, this has nothing to do with and the camera is switched off on-screen. Some reject Broomfields presence in his films as self-reference but the filmmaker himself insists he includes the interaction between filmmakers and those being filmed because he wants the audience to be aware of that interactions so they can make decisions of their own (Wise 2002: 16). In the voiceover, he also consistently introduces the participants with sentences like This is or We are on our way to see The filmmaker literally takes us on a tour there are many shots from a car visiting with informants that allow him to build the case he is trying to make. Procedures like this may help remind the viewer they are watching a reconstruction that heavily depends on who Broomfields sources are and what they are prepared to say on camera. Metallica: Some Kind of Monster (Berlinger and Sinofsky, 2004) is a traditional making-of documentary about one of the worlds best selling heavy metal bands and how they work on the album that is mentioned in the title of the film. Like Broomfields film, it

114

 is aimed at mainstream audiences. The film analyses the relationship between the two founding members of the band, drummer Lars Ulrich and singer James Hetfield. For twenty years, they have been channelling their basic adolescent experiences of alienation, frustration and rage (Scott 2004) into their music, without having to grow up. Now married with children and in their early 40s, this life style is beginning to take its toll. In the middle of the production of both the film and the album, James Hetfield disappears into rehab to deal with his alcohol problem, only to re-emerge after 11 months as a man who can work for no more than four hours a day because he has to tend to his family, an attitude which thoroughly frustrates Ulrich. Although Some Kind of Monster would typically not qualify as a clear-cut example of reflexive filmmaking, there is one scene in the film that represents an aspect of every documentary production process that is almost always obscured from the viewer. After his return from rehab, James Hetfield tells his band mates how uncomfortable he feels when followed around with a boom over his head. The camera pulls out to reveal the cause of Hetfields dissatisfaction. Then filmmaker Joe Berlinger enters the frame. Maybe there should not be a film, he says. Bruce Sinofsky: You should feel comfortable. The last thing we want is to impede on the music. Every filmmaker knows how much tact, encouragement, persuasion, negotiation and sometimes sheer insistence it takes to persuade people to cooperate. A filmmakers success depends largely on their ability to work with people, their subjects but also gatekeepers, crewmembers and sponsors, and this scene is an example of such participation-ensuring action. In this respect, the scene reveals a sense of procedure, although the customary trade-off remains undisclosed.

Now the films that will provide the examples of reflexive filmmaking have been introduced, a more detailed description of the six documentary functions in the reflexive

115

 mode can take place. These descriptions are not intended to be exhaustive; they just demonstrate how Jakobsons communication paradigm may be useful in describing reflexivity in all its diversity.

The expressive function The form of reflexivity that focuses on the sender may present itself in two subcategories: - the filmmaker enters the frame as the driving force behind the film-making process; - the filmmaker reveals their relationship with the topic, the interviewees, the spaces or any other aspect of the film. Jill Godmilows employs both forms of the expressive function in her on-screen appearance in Far from Poland. In Chronique dun t, Edgar Morin and Jean Rouch too position themselves as the instigators of the action, but they refrain from revealing their relationship with the interviewees, most of whom were their friends (Winston 1995: 185), thus employing only the first form of the expressive function.

The procedural function With regard to the procedural function in the reflexive mode, the filmmaking process may be transparent in the most literal sense, i.e. showing the equipment involved in the making of the film. More sophisticated is an application, which reveals elements of the decisionmaking process. In general terms, the procedural function may be formal or concerning the content of the documentary. - Formal: Microphones appear at the edges of the frame, the framing is sufficiently wide to expose the lights that light the set, a second camera or the interviewer; - Content: the decision-making process and its trade-offs are made transparent.

116

 A subtle example of the procedural function may be found in Lonely Boys nightclub scene. The owner accepts Ankas gift with no real warmth, as Jones (1988: 137-8) observes, which is confirmed by the casualness with which he repeats the gesture at the request of the director. The scene not only underlines Ankas loneliness but also the filmmakers determination to capture this for their film. A more robust example of the procedural function is found in Biggie and Tupac, which communicates a strong sense of process in firmly utilizing both forms of the function. Another form of reflexivity concerning documentarys procedural function is more fundamental and regards the evidentiary status of the camera. In that case, the act of observation itself is under scrutiny, as in Chronique dun t.

The referential function Reflexive films that employ the referential function problematize the relationship between film and reality. For instance, they give participants the opportunity to re-structure the previous reality with a commentary of their own and hence exert a measure of control previously reserved for the film-maker (Allen 1977: 39). If this happens off-screen, as is often the case when participants in the film are politicians or other personas who have an image to protect, the procedure is not reflexive because it does not contribute to a more sophisticated understanding of the filmmaking process. If, on the other hand, the reconstruction of reality occurs on-screen, the audience is offered the opportunity to understand that reality in film is a construction at the hands of the filmmaker. This is how the function is employed in Chronique dun t. Films may exploit the referential function in the reflexive mode by emphasizing the relationship between non-fiction and fiction, as in Far from Poland. They may also refuse to present a one-dimensional reality, either by presenting different versions of the truth,

117

 again as in Far from Poland, or in refusing to create a one-dimensional representation of reality altogether, which was Trinh Minh-has approach in Naked Spaces.

The poetic function Documentaries that focus on the poetic function in the reflexive mode are formalist; they attempt to avoid the dualism of fiction and reality (Babcock 1975: 49) by addressing issues of structure, a definition that may be applied to documentary filmmaking as well. A formalist work of art presents itself as a unique self-contained object (ibid: 49). Films in this category may employ two sets of devices that prevent a smooth experience of reality as constructed for the screen, thus constructing itself as an artifice without a context. - during production: camera adjustments such as focusing, rough pans and tilts, conflicted lighting and bad audio. They may also use fictional elements to get at non-fiction and for instance create a situation in which actors act lived experiences; - during postproduction: edit decisions such as jump cuts, repeats, sound/no video and vice versa and other disorienting devices such as a narration that defies the image. Trinh Minh-ha employed both forms in Naked Spaces, resulting in an acute awareness of the constructed nature of cinematic representation (Odin 1997: 601). A mild form of the postproduction alternative is found in Lonely Boy.

The conative function Documentaries with reflexive elements that focus on the receiver break down what in theatre is called the fourth wall, the distinctive but invisible barrier between actors and audience that prevents the first from noticing the latter, allowing them to continue with their business as if unobserved. When a filmmaker directly addresses the audience, in

118

 person or as a disembodied voice, for instance to instruct them about how to understand the events that will take place on the screen shortly, they are employing the conative function. Jill Godmilow rigorously employed this function in the opening scene of Far from Poland. A milder form is found in Shermans March, when McElwee is dressed up as Sherman and addresses the viewer by looking into the camera to admit that the general has always fascinated him. Sometimes a more implicit employment is at play, for instance when a filmmaker acknowledges the viewer as homo significans, an individual that interprets signs and attributes meaning to them in relation to their gender, culture, ideology, socioeconomic background, gender and point of view. Trinh Minh-ha explored this alternative in Naked Spaces.

The metacinematic function The sixth function in the documentary communication process instructs the viewer how to read the text. Most often, the metacinematic function is suppressed while the referential function is dominant, inviting the viewer to understand the documentary as mimetic, as bearing an indexical relationship to the historical world. Sometimes, however, the metafunction is dominant. The code is reflexive; we are encouraged to consider the text not only as a message about a certain topic but also as a discussion about the communication process itself. Although Ruby insists that reflexivity is purposive by definition (Ruby 1980: 156), it is arguable that some reflexive films are more purposive than others. The metacinematic function therefore expresses the level of self-consciousness that the film displays with respect to its reflexivity. Evidently, the six reflexive functions are not distinctly separated entities. Some show a considerable overlap by definition, in particular the expressive and the procedural

119

 function as Godmilows introduction to Far from Poland shows. Sometimes various expressions of one function fuse into one. It also appears that these functions may be employed to a larger or lesser extent. Best Boy employs some mild forms of procedural reflexivity, Biggie and Tupac does so to a larger extent, but Man with a Movie Camera takes this form of reflexivity to its extreme. Furthermore, it is likely that filmmakers, who are prepared to share their motives for making the film with the audience, are also interested in conducting poetic experiments. In other words, often more than one function is employed in the same film. An example of this phenomenon is Man with a Movie Camera. The film, described as an essay on film truth by Barnouw (1993: 63), is reflexive in nearly every aspect. Although Vertov is more concerned with revealing process than with revealing the producer as a Marxist, he thought of filmmaking as work instead of a magical or artistic performance (Allen 1977: 40) and of the filmmaker as just another worker (Ruby 1980: 167) the film does employ the expressive function in the sense that the filmmaker enters the frame as the driving force behind the filmmaking process. In its juxtaposition of shots, e.g. the opening of the windows following the opening of the eyes, the film employs the poetic function. Man with a Movie Camera exploits more editing devices that present reality as a construction for the screen, such as superimposures and other trick shots, for instance when the camera puts itself together in one sequence, or appears to be the size of the Eiffel Tower in the next. The film is procedural because we literally see how the cameraman sets out to film the images, which are subsequently selected and sequenced by the editor. Man with a Movie Camera also employs the conative function when it addresses the viewer as an audience, literally inviting us to take a seat and watch the show. An evaluation of the other films that were included in this chapter results in the following chart. For every reflexive function, 0-3 plusses were awarded, depending on how

120

 vigorously the employment of the function was carried out. The films are ordered from least reflexive to most reflexive.

Expressive Poetic Conative Referential Procedural Meta Total Metallica: Some Kind of Monster Best Boy Shermans March Biggie and Tupac Lonely Boy Chronique dun t Man with a Movie Camera Naked Spaces Far from Poland 0 1 2 + + ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ 5 6 9 11 11 14

+ ++ + ++ + ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ +++ ++ ++ ++

+ + ++ ++ +++ +++

Since the chart is based on the interpretation of one individual viewer, it is not presented here as the ultimate truth about reflexivity in these films but as discussion material. Nevertheless, it suggests a possible answer to the question why films like Chronique dun t and Shermans March are both reflexive but in different ways; they employ different functions of the communication process in the reflexive mode, and to a different extent. At the low end of the scale we find films that are not rigorous in the employment of one or more functions of the documentary communication process in the reflexive mode. The relationship between producer and his subjects in Best Boy, for instance, is an essential part of the filmmaking process, yet we understand that to be the case because it is inherent to the situation, not because the filmmaker insists on raising our consciousness with respect to the constructed-ness of film. Best Boy does not employ the expressive function in a reflexive way, nor does it employ the referential function. The film provides the 121

 viewer with a smooth experience of reality as constructed for the screen, and the viewer is not addressed once. Yet, although Rouch believes Wohls film fails to expose process and producer (Fulchignoni 1989: 115), the viewer might get a sense of process through Phillys frequent acknowledgement of the camera. There is also the emotionally charged scene in which Ira talks to Philly about his deceased brother, in which the camera pulls out to reveal that Philly is holding the hand of the sound recordist. The same explanation applies to Shermans March. Obviously, the expressive function is dominant in McElwees film, but he does not employ the function reflexively; he does not use his presence on the screen to raise the audiences consciousness with respect to the constructed-ness of film. The referential, the poetic nor the metacinematic function are employed. Although one of the participants asks the filmmaker to switch off the camera, a reference to the procedure of documentary making, the film does not employ the procedural function as defined earlier. Yet, Shermans March is arguably a film about its own making (Plantinga 1991: 43), and therefore procedural. Metallica: Some Kind of Monster is not reflexive. Apart from a discussion early in the film, in which performance enhancement coach Phil Towle discusses the possible impact of the film on the bands image, issues of representation remain unaddressed. (Towle is hired by the record company to diffuse conflicts between the two main band members.) The movie provides the viewer with a smooth viewing experience; there are no jump cuts or on-screen focus issues for instance. Although the television interviews with band members reveal lights and flags, these scenes serve to provide the viewer with a behind-the-scenes feel rather than a raised consciousness regarding the filmmaking process. In short, the film does not employ the reflexive mode with respect to the expressive, poetic, referential, or conative function. There is, however, the scene that was described earlier, which may be seen as procedural. One wonders though how the filmmakers want us to interpret the situation, in

122

 particular because it is one of its kind in the film. More than raising consciousness with respect to the filmmaking process, it appears to exploit the referentiality of the documentary, positioning the filmmakers as cinema stars who seize Hetfields continued cooperation through humble veneration. As mentioned earlier, Ruby qualifies this type of referring to oneself as self-referent and therefore not reflexive (Ruby 1980: 156). The evaluations that are presented here are based solely on the decoding of one viewer, who is already very much aware of the problematic relationship between reality and how it is constructed for the screen. How larger audiences would respond is unclear. We do not know, for instance, whether reflexive strategies such as employed in the scene in Chronique dun t, in which reality is reconstructed by those present at the screening, helps viewers to understand that reality in documentary is a construction, unless we ask them. We do not know whether Jill Godmilows approach in the on-camera explanation of her interest in events in Poland would result in a better understanding of the problematic relationship between the text and that which it represents, or the situation in Poland for that matter, unless we ask the audience. The reverse is also true; based on the definitions as presented in the literature, Metallica: Some Kind of Monster is deemed not reflexive, yet we are not sure how viewers interpret the on-screen discussion between the members of the band and the filmmakers about continuing the filming process. Perhaps McElwees subjective probing from behind his camera is more successful at raising consciousness in viewers with respect to issues of reality than Trinhs refusal to take a position. Only a reception study can establish how viewers interpret reflexive elements like these in documentary film and, more specifically, whether they raise the viewers consciousness with respect to issues of representation as suggested by the advocates of reflexivity.

From the previous, it follows that a conceptualisation of reflexivity based on Jakobsons communication model offers a systematic description of the procedure in its various

123

 manifestations. It explains how different conformations of reflexivity are achieved by conscious and decisive interrogation of one or more functions of the communication process but it also raises several questions. One of these questions is how the metafunction performs its task; one may wonder, for instance, whether the effect is entirely created by the sixth function or whether reflexivity is an inherent property of each element that simply needs to be switched on (or off) by the metafunction. Another question is whether the prototypical function of reflexivity is the problematization of referentiality, as Nichols (1991: 60) and Allen (1977: 43) maintained. The theorization that is offered here suggests that any function of the communication process may be problematized, not just the referential function, although it may be that through a questioning of any function ultimately a questioning of the referential function is achieved, which would be further ground for the argument that referentiality is the primary function of documentary. Indeed the referential function is paramount for many viewers, or at least their point of departure as the previous chapter suggested, rendering this function the prime object for reflexivication. Yet, not all viewers prioritize the referential function, as we know from the previous chapter as well, while a film such as Naked Spaces seems to snub referentiality altogether, not interrogate it. Since this study is concerned with the reception of reflexive elements in documentary film and not further theorization, this is not the place to pursue these issues. A conceptualisation of reflexivity based on Jakobsons model as presented thus far, however, does provide a useful starting point for an empirical investigation of viewer response to reflexive elements in documentary film. The different forms and manifestations of reflexivity that are deployed in the variants of Silver City are based on the taxonomy that was offered here. An elaboration is to be found in the next chapter, which addresses the design of the actual investigation.

124

 1 The Heisenberg principle, which is named after the founder of the quantum mechanics, is usually explained as the notion that observation changes the act under observation. This is not quite what the uncertainty principle, as Heisenbergs principle is also known, implies. The uncertainty principle itself states that the more precisely the position [of a subatomic particle such as an electron] is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa (American Institute of Physics/Cassidy 1998). While Newton assumed a real world independent of human observation, Heisenberg argued that concepts in nature do not exist unless and until we observe them (ibid). One of the implications is that a concept has a meaning only in terms of the experiments used to measure it. Applied to documentary filmmaking, the Heisenberg principle therefore does not suggest that observation changes the act under observation; it merely describes the notion that filmed observations have relevance only if we understand them as observations made in the context of a filmmaking process.

125

 Chapter Four: Designing Context for Viewer Response

Audience conjectures, that is, claims about effects and meanings of a text for groups of viewers, should be supported with reception research because it is not safe to make assumptions about effects without empirical data: All we need do is think of one case where two people were affected differently by a movie, song, novel, or television show, and we can safely assume that mass-mediated messages do not always have an universal effect (Stromer-Galley and Schiappa 1998: 27, 31). Vorderer and Groeben (1992: 367) made the same observation. Questions about the conditions and impacts of media usage cannot be adequately answered only by describing or interpreting what media presents. Without also considering the desires, motives, attitudes, intentions, and cognitive processing of the viewers, one cannot describe, much less explain, either what they perceive or what they do. Reception research is based on the assumption that a media text needs to be actualized by the reader in their individual, social and cultural context (Schrder et al 2003: 124). The methodology is empirical and often qualitative in orientation. Rather than testing a hypothesis and projecting the results to a wider population, it is aimed at an indepth investigation of the range of peoples perceptions. Media effects studies, which investigate how media output may influence opinions and attitudes in audiences, have been conducted since the 1940s; one that involved documentary film is Mary Jane Rawlins study (1964), in which she compared the effects of a fictional and a documentary treatment of a controversial issue, in casu the desegregation problem. As an area of enquiry in film studies, reception research is relatively new. Until the 1980s, the study of film was dominated by a (post)structuralist text-oriented approach as formulated in the journal Screen, which understood meaning as an inherent property of the text that is determined by its structure (Ang 1989b: 98). In the 1980s, however, the realization grew, not only in film but in the wider area of discourse studies, that textual

126

 analysis alone is not sufficient to understand meaning and how it is conveyed. Structural as well as cognitive and social psychological aspects are relevant too, as texts or any form of discourse are essentially a form of social interaction, as Van Dijk (cited in Wolf 1988: 140) contends. Discourse is not only a semiotic object but must continually be related to other contexts if its dynamics are to be understood. David Morleys (1980) groundbreaking work, The Nationwide Audience, examined the reception of items in the television magazine and suggested that audiences with different socioeconomic backgrounds produce different readings. Dahlgren (1984) and Wren-Lewis (1984) considered audience response to television news. Corner and Richardsons (1986) research, which possibly comes closest to the aims of this study, investigated the convention of self-effacement within documentary language. They interviewed a sample group of viewers who had seen A Fair Days Fiddle, a 50-minute documentary for BBC2s Brass Tacks. In their discussion of the response, the researchers make the distinction between mediation reading in viewers, that is, interpretations that are intention/motivation-conscious, and transparency reading, where viewers appear to understand the depicted world as a directly perceived reality (Corner and Richardson 1986: 149). The discussed mediation readings, however, are not triggered by reflexive strategies in this particular text but by extra-textual experience. In a twin publication, the authors used the same documentary to investigate whether viewers recognize non-fiction TV as motivated discourse despite its conventions of naturalistic representation (Richardson and Corner 1986: 485). Other studies that examined the reception of documentary include Harindranath (1998) regarding the interpretation of environmental documentaries by audiences in India and Britain. Many reception studies in the area of visual culture, however, have been devoted to popular texts. Janet Staiger (1992) wrote about the reception of Hollywood cinema in both mainstream and not so mainstream audiences, and Rajinder Dudrah (2006)

127

 about the reception of Hindi films in the diaspora. Liebes and Katz (1989) investigated the reception of Dallas by audiences of different nationalities, and Brown and Schulze of Madonnas music videos of Papa Dont Preach and Open Your Heart (1990). This study is a first examination of the claims made by those theorists of documentary who have advanced the reflexive mode. The aim of this study is to achieve a better understanding of how, if at all, reflexivity raises consciousness in viewers with respect to documentary as a construction of reality rather than an unmediated window onto the world. To this end a film was produced, which was edited into one non-reflexive and three reflexive versions that each display different levels and modes of reflexivity. These versions were screened and discussed with audiences in focus groups, an established qualitative research method which is often used to gauge viewer response. In this chapter, the design for this experimental study is presented and discussed in detail. The research assumptions and the actual set-up are explained, as well as the selection of focus groups as the research method of choice. The findings are discussed in the next chapter.

Research questions As theorized in the previous chapter, there are six forms of reflexivity, each corresponding with one of the six functions of Jakobsons communication paradigm. Based on these theorizations and the claims of the reflexionists, the following research questions were formulated. - Do reflexive elements in documentary film heighten the viewers consciousness of the problematic relationship between the images and the social reality they claim to represent? - If they do, how do reflexive elements in documentary film heighten the viewers awareness of this problematic relationship?

128

 - Do different levels and/or modes of reflexivity raise the viewers consciousness in different ways?

Research assumptions Most viewers appreciate documentary as a story about the historical world and the people living in it. Stories, whether fiction or non-fiction, offer their readers or viewers the opportunity to gain knowledge about this world, to engage as social beings with other people whether fictional characters or actual human beings and to experience through them some of the bewildering challenges that life may present us with in the relatively safe environment of a movie theatre or the living room. As such, stories are cathartic and play an integral part in the human experience. Documentary stories typically re/construct events in a logical and temporal-causal order, posing a question or introducing a problem that is subsequently answered or resolved before the end of the film is reached. Consciously or subconsciously, most viewers are aware of the artificiality of such a structure, and therefore, in the case of documentary as well as fictional film, willing to accept that some kind of construction was involved in bringing this particular representation of the world to their screen. At the same time, a foregrounding of the construction process interferes with an unproblematic engagement with the story and its protagonists, which has as a prerequisite a non-relativist belief in this is how it is. Subverting this belief may have the ability to raise important questions about the construction of reality in documentary film but at the same time it undercuts one of the major attractions and purposes of the genre for large groups of viewers. Viewers may therefore respond to reflexive strategies with surprise, or dismay, thereby acting as resistant readers who decline to be engaged in issues of representation. In other words, reflexivity in documentary film need not automatically raise consciousness with respect to how reality is constructed for the screen.

129

 Research methods in audience research The next section describes the empirical method that was employed to produce data with regard to the reception of reflexive elements in documentary film and in particular how they may raise awareness of issues of representation in audiences. Regardless of method, it is important to realize that the findings in audience research are constructions by definition. Reception is elusive, as it does not exist in historical record; it can only be reconstructed through the intervention of research (Jensen cited in Livingstone 1998: 168). Most methods that investigate the processing and interpreting of textual strategies furthermore rely on self-disclosure, presupposing that informants are willing and able to observe their own cognitive behaviour and then truthfully and accurately report the findings, which may not always be the case. This factor is one of the reasons why some researchers favour experimental study designs (Vorderer and Groeben 1992: 365). Results from experimental studies however may be compromised by problems with external validity, that is, the extent to which results are applicable beyond the experimental setting. Non-experimental study designs on the other hand, such as observation and interrogation, have other potential disadvantages. The object of study is a form of cognitive behaviour that takes place at least in part at subconscious levels and asking informants to bring their processing and interpretive behaviour to the fore in order to observe and describe it will inevitably and irreparably alter the object under observation in ways that are neither predictable nor controllable (Schrder et al 2003: 16). Not one single research technique, in other words, will give direct and unobtrusive access to the individuals meaning-making process. All available methods, whether field experience, surveys, interviews or laboratory experiments, will produce an approximation of the process we want to uncover, not the events they try to describe (Thomas 1998: 685). That is not to say that audience research is irrelevant. Problems associated with knowledge

130

 construction and validity are by no means unique to audience research. They are inherent to any form of research and should be addressed and accounted for in the study design while the findings are to be presented and interpreted with these reservations in mind. Like much of the research in social science, audience research is capable of producing insights that are meaningful contributions to ongoing public, professional and academic debates.

Research methods: Silver City The experimental design for this study involved the exposure of groups of viewers to different versions of one film that each employ different modes and levels of reflexivity. The film was produced specifically for the aims of this project. Films with an established reputation have as an advantage that they have a circulation history; they have proved to be able to speak to an audience. A specifically produced film lacks such credentials. Reflexivity, however, manifests itself in very specific (combinations of) forms and intensities, for which reason the application of one existing film would limit the studys conclusions. The introduction of more films that each exploit different manifestations or levels of reflexivity would conflict with the ceteris paribus principle, which requires that all other elements in experimental settings remain the same. Producing a film specifically for this project thus had as an advantage that the reflexive elements could be manipulated, whereby strategies were borrowed from the reflexive repertoire as exploited in texts as diverse as Man with the Movie Camera (Vertov, 1929), Chronique dun t (Morin and Rouch, 1961), Lonely Boy (Koenig and Kroitor, 1962) and Far from Poland (Godmilow, 1984), while the rest of the narrative remained unaltered. Because of my experience as a producer/director for public television, it was expected that the film that was to be produced for the project would have the ability to function as a regular film, which was confirmed when the non-reflexive version of Silver City was selected for the Beeld voor Beeld film festival 2009 in Amsterdam.

131

 Focus groups: strengths and weaknesses Another critical element of the study design regards the method of data collection. Focusgroup research is an established research method in social science as well as in marketing, and may be described as group discussions that are aimed at gathering as many different opinions and attitudes towards a topic or a product as possible. Qualitative rather than quantitative in orientation, the method aims for range and depth rather than an estimate of how these views are distributed among the population as a whole. As a method, focus groups have several advantages in comparison to other techniques. Unlike surveys, they invite informants to articulate assumptions, experiences and opinions in their own words. Although it is the researcher who determines what the parameters of the discussion are, it is the participants who subsequently bring their own conceptualisations of these variables to bear. This is particularly helpful if the study, such as the present one, is exploratory in nature. The interpretation of media content, furthermore, is an individual as well as a social process; it does not take place in a vacuum but is situated in a socially shared context. Audiences are not aggregate[s] of atomized opinions or attitudes, but individuals who are located in concrete social groups who construct meaningful social action partly through the discursive interrogation of texts (Lunt and Livingstone 1996: 85). Focus groups, therefore, are particularly suited to investigate reception practices because, as a research technique, it draws upon both the individual and the social. The interaction with other individuals makes participants more aware of their implicit perspectives and encourages them to explain or defend their viewpoint (Morgan 1997: 46). In this sense, focus groups mimic the social setting of the natural viewing experience, as media content is most often consumed and interpreted in the presence of and in relation to other viewers. Thus, the group interaction gives access to experiences and perspectives that may not have been revealed through individual interviews. At the same time, this interaction is

132

 also a concern because it favours a tendency towards conformity, in which participants withhold information they might have offered if interviewed individually as well as a tendency toward polarization, in which some participants express more extreme views in the focus group than they would in private (Sussman, Burton, Dent, Stacy & Flay in Morgan 1997: 15). The group dynamics, in other words, may also exclude certain responses. Much depends however on how the moderator manages these kinds of group behaviour, for instance by encouraging informants to offer alternative points of view and by diluting polarizing behaviour. The inclusion of a relatively large number of focus groups in the study design is another way of obviating these concerns; every group has a different dynamic and these particular forms of group interaction do not occur in every focus group. The groups are composed by the researcher with the specific aim to engage informants in a discussion about a predetermined topic. In comparison to ethnographic research, therefore, the setting of focus-group research is less naturalistic than a typical viewing situation at home or in the cinema. Some of the criticism Morley received, for instance, was that his focus groups for the Nationwide study failed to capture genuine social interaction because they consisted of informants who were not related (Schrder 1994: 341). Schrder (1994: 344) therefore favours an ethnographic approach, in which informants are interviewed in their own social environment or interpretive communities, that is, relatively close-knit interactive groups whose discourses both enforce and develop the dynamics of meanings and norms that characterize the practices of their members. Indeed, focus groups may consist of participants who do not know each other but focus group composition, nevertheless, is based on bringing together individuals who have something in common, a specifically created experience, for instance, such as watching a film together. The advantage of focus groups over Schrders approach or participant

133

 observation furthermore is that it offers a large amount of interaction on the topic in question in a limited period of time (Morgan 1997: 8). The technique, in short, acknowledges that the processing of meaning potential is both an individual and a social process. Most of its weaknesses may be obviated by purposive moderation and a carefully thought-out study design. In comparison to individual interviews and ethnographic media research, focus groups are relatively efficient in gathering data. Focus-group results are scientific in terms of reliability (the collection and analysis of the data are systematic and verifiable) and validity (the study design captures what it intended to investigate). Although the method typically does not produce results that are statistically representative of the target audience, they provide rich, in-depth insights into the behaviour of informants, which is one of the reasons why focus groups are often used within media organizations such as television stations to gauge viewer response.

Study design Reliability and validity are major concerns in developing a study design and in this particular case the validity was potentially compromised by what is termed reactivity. Since I am identified as the filmmaker in the reflexive versions of Silver City, I was unable to moderate the sessions that followed these versions, as viewers might find it difficult to express their opinions and interpretations in front of the films director. In terms of validity, the inability of participants to talk about the issues raised had to be factored in, for instance by including a sufficient number of focus groups. In order to collect as many different opinions or interpretations as possible, therefore, each reflexive version of Silver City was screened and discussed in three focus groups. A control group consisting of three focus groups was treated with a non-reflexive version of the film. Three to five groups are considered to be sufficient within focus group

134

 research because after this point saturation occurs: additional focus groups do not generate more understanding (Morgan 1997: 43). The focus groups that involved the non-reflexive version took place in the spring of 2008 (March) while the reflexive versions were screened and discussed in the fall of the same year (November/December). Both rounds of focus groups were preceded by a trial focus group in order to practice the proceedings. These focus groups were slightly different from the actual focus groups because the participants were fellow PhD students in literature and film, who were acquainted with the studys objective and had a personal connection with the researcher. For these reasons, their response was not included in the general analysis. Still, these participants proved to be valuable informants. On the whole, their evaluation of the reflexive elements in the version they saw (respectively NR and 3R, for a description of the differences between the versions, see below) appeared to be more outspoken as well as more informed. Some of their responses are therefore included in the next chapter, which reports on the outcome of the focus group conversations, clearly marked as coming from a viewer in one of the PhD groups. Each focus group lasted 2-2.5 hours. Before the film was screened, participants completed a questionnaire, which was aimed at gathering general biographical information (see Appendix). All focus groups started with the question, What did you think of the film? From there, the discussion was allowed to take its own course, although the moderator ensured that some key elements were addressed. The discussions were videotaped and then transcribed for analysis.

Sampling and recruitment Participants were recruited from the student population of the University of Aberdeen. As students at the university, they not only belonged to the same discursive context but they also entertained a specific relationship with the city where the films story is set.

135

 The ad that was published to recruit participants did not mention the topic under investigation; it merely invited students to come in and give their opinion about a documentary that was produced in the context of a PhD project. The announcement, which also contained a brief description of the content of the film, was posted on the university webpage and, in the case of the reflexive versions when a larger group of participants was needed, also sent as an email to students throughout the university via their school offices. Participants were offered 5 as compensation for their time. Those who were interested to participate were invited to send an email stating their major, year of study, nationality and hours of availability. In response, they were sent personalised emails that confirmed time and place of the screening and then again a reminder the day before the focus group was to take place In total, 76 informants participated in the study; 24 informants saw NR; 18 saw 1R, 18 saw 2R and 17 saw 3R. To avoid cross-referencing, each informant participated once and thus saw only one version of the film. More than two thirds of the respondents were foreigners, as table 1 shows. Why foreigners in particular responded to the ad is unknown. Perhaps they were more open to extra-curricular activities than native students; perhaps the theme of displacement struck a particular chord with them but these possible explanations are speculation rather than conclusions based on evidence. Because there is no reason to assume that the interpretation of reflexive strategies is informed by nationality or other sociocultural factors, the overrepresentation of foreigners in the sample was not deemed to be problematic.1

136

 Nationality British English Scottish Polish Finnish German Irish-Australian Norwegian Swiss Czech Estonian HungarianRomanian Romanian Slovakian Angolan Kenyan Nigerian Vincentian Chinese Hong Kong Indian Indonesian Thai Canadian Korean-American US Total 1-3R 7 1 6* 10 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 53 NR 4 3 4 1 1 total 11 1 9 14 2 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 76

4 23

*including D13-3R: Scottish Mum Polish Dad (I call myself Scottish) Based on the provided information, focus group composition was controlled for sex, year of study, study topic and nationality. Men and women were distributed evenly amongst the groups, as were students in language, (social) science and applied sciences. The aim was to have 4 natives (Scottish/British/English) in each group, plus 1 or 2 Polish nationals. Students from Eastern Europe, Europe, North America, Asia and Africa were distributed evenly among the focus groups as well.

137

 Attendance, however, interfered with group composition. Because non-attendance is a known factor in focus-group research, sessions are typically over-recruited as was the case here. Still some groups were under-populated; in one case only half of the participants showed up. The focus groups that concerned the reflexive versions suffered specifically from no-show; 23 informants or a third of those who were expected to make an appearance did not attend, that is, not counting those who cancelled before their focus group took place or explained their absence afterwards. This number was significantly higher than the number for non-attendance during the first round of focus groups. In order to be able to rule out a systematic error, a mini-questionnaire was sent out by email to establish what caused the no-show. Thirteen no-show participants responded; one email was returned undeliverable. Some informants quoted a combination of factors but on average the response suggested a general disinterestedness (I completely forgot) or work-related issues (Someone phoned in sick at work, and I was offered a 5 hour shift. 25 vs 5). Since the questionnaire was not sent out to no-show participants in the first round of focus groups asking them why they failed to attend a meeting 8 months earlier was not deemed productive the results of the questionnaire have to remain inconclusive although the nationality of the 23 who did not show up appears to be significant. Scottish British English Scottish-British Polish Estonian Norwegian Chinese Malaysian Total 7 5 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 23

138

 Thus it is fair to conclude that the overrepresentation of foreigners in the sample was further enhanced by the no-show of native students. In focus group research, participants may have different backgrounds and no previous connection but they need to have at least something in common. Viewing a film together and having a conversation afterwards while sharing a drink was considered sufficient to create group cohesion, in particular because the participants were recruited from the same social group and discursive context. In fact, the setting was comparable to tutorials, in which small numbers of students are expected to engage in conversation with peers they do not necessarily know and exchange points of view.

Two moderators: advantages and disadvantages The focus groups that involved the non-reflexive film were moderated by me but since my identity as the author is revealed in the reflexive versions of Silver City, I did not moderate the sessions that followed these versions, as participants might find it difficult to express their opinions and interpretations in front of the films director. Sally Newsome, a PhD candidate in literature at the University of Aberdeen therefore conducted these focus groups on my behalf. Despite her avid interest in literature and film as well as the current project, reflexivity is not Sallys primal area of expertise. In preparation of the focus groups she therefore read a specifically produced document, which contained the studys outline, an exposition regarding reflexivity in theory and (documentary) practice as well as a possible itinerary for the group discussions and a list of probing questions. She saw all versions of Silver City before the focus groups took place, and we discussed and evaluated her task as a moderator before and after she conducted a trial focus group, and on several occasions in between sessions.

139

 As a tutor, she had experience in encouraging students to engage in a debate about the interpretation of art and although she had not moderated focus groups before, she had participated in the PhD focus group following the non-reflexive version as an informant. She had a clear understanding, therefore, of what focus group research entails, in general as well as in this particular case. Each moderator however has a unique personal style. As an interviewer for currentaffairs programming, I have a tendency to shape the interaction with participants by consistent probing while Sally was able to let the interaction take its own course. The transcripts for instance revealed that I interjected nearly twice as often as Sally, which may explain why my focus groups, who had more or less the same duration, resulted in about 25% more pages of transcript. This observation raises the question whether differences in style produce different results, and, consequently, whether the data she produced may be compared to mine. There is no indication that the arrangement produced systematic errors but in retrospect it may have been better if Sally had moderated all focus groups. Another concern regarding the arrangement is that I analysed the transcripts from all focus groups, i.e. I analysed data that were produced by a moderator other than myself. Qualitative researchers often have a feel for their (interview) data that facilitates or possibly even enhances the analysis, an effect that does not exist in secondary analysis. In practice, however, this was not problematic. Because I also transcribed all video tapes, I was able to access and interpret much of the non-verbal communication that contributes to the in-depth understanding that primary analysis offers, also because I had moderated the focus groups that followed the non-reflexive versions and therefore easily recognized interactions that occurred in response to the film. The involvement of a second moderator also had an unforeseen benefit. As a relative outsider as well as a perceptive observer, Sally was able to give me feedback on the films that others who were more intimately involved in the production had not been

140

 able to give. It was Sally, for instance, who pointed out that the non-reflexive version in fact was not entirely non-reflexive (see p. 142).

The stimulus: Silver City Silver City was edited into a non-reflexive (or minimally reflexive, see below) version and three reflexive versions. Each reflexive version consisted of the non-reflexive version plus or minus a few frames to ensure a smooth transition, and some additional footage that employed one or more functions of the communication process in the reflexive mode. The four versions of Silver City, which each employ different levels and modes of reflexivity, may be seen as operationalizations of the reflexive theory based on Jakobsons model as outlined in Chapter Three. The next sections provide a detailed description of the non-reflexive and the three alternative versions of Silver City, and in particular how the reflexive versions relate to the non-reflexive version and to each other. The R in each title stands for reflexive, while the number (1, 2 or 3) refers to the level of reflexivity these films display. The non-reflexive version is referred to as NR (non-reflexive). The analysis is unique and in certain ways constrained because author, reader and analyst are one and the same person. As the author I have information that any other reader or analyst would not have, which introduces the risk of a particular form of tunnel vision. The discussion as offered here therefore has to remain provisional.

Silver City NR (51 min) The non-reflexive version of the film that functioned as a research tool was included in the study to be able to observe the difference between viewer response to reflexive and nonreflexive strategies. Silver City NR is labelled non-reflexive because it does not wittingly attempt to engage audience in issues of representation, but it is not a non-reflexive film in

141

 the strictest sense. There are moments when the construction process is acknowledged by those in front of the camera in subtle and less subtle ways. The first example of this form of camera behaviour is found in the expository scene. While playing his harmonica, Peters body is directed towards the camera, suggesting that he is performing for the person behind the recording device rather than passers-by in the street. When he tucks his instrument away, the frame dissolves to black and the title of the film appears while the audio continues off-screen, and we can hear him ask the filmmaker about the performance (Good?). Another example that involves Peter is when he awakes with a startle from his daydreaming as he is waiting to cross the road in front of Marks and Spencers because a sound signal indicates that the light has turned green. Lets go, he mumbles somewhat impatiently to what must have been the camera crew. These subtle examples may pass unnoticed by most viewers but other examples are more explicit. There are two instances, for example, where unsuspecting bystanders recognize the filming process by walking away. During the conversation between Small Agnieszka and Peter about cleaning the kitchen, the handyman enters the hotel lobby and immediately turns around when he notices the camera, whereas the customer whom Ian invites in during his interview (Come in, George, no problem at all) arguably shied away as well because of the cameras presence. The most obvious example of acting in response to the camera, however, is Tall Agnieszkas acknowledgement of the crew upon arrival with her son in the flat by greeting them excitedly (Good morning!), and by throwing a meaningful look in the direction of the camera right before she asks Michal what he thinks of the place. We also see Michals clear discomfort with the cameras presence and Agnieszkas recognition of his emotional state when she directs him to his bedroom (Dont be shy).2

142

 Technically, these scenes, which employ the procedural function in the reflexive mode, could have been edited out of the sequence but in most cases, such as Michals arrival at the flat, their removal was considered too great a loss for the film. A second consideration to retain these scenes, which were only minimally reflexive, is that although moments like these conflict with the aim to expose a control group to a non-reflexive treatment, they are hard to avoid and therefore quite common in documentaries that would be considered non-reflexive, most certainly in comparison to reflexive films. As Jakobsons model stipulates, reflexivity is inherent to documentary communication. The metafunction may be suppressed but it is never absent. Perhaps Frederick Wisemans films would qualify as 100% non-reflexive, but even in his films the flicker of an eye or behaviour that is just a little too expressive may be explained as camera-conscious. Children, moreover, are not aware yet of the convention which prescribes that in film production the camera is usually ignored, and they tend to acknowledge the camera while adults who do not want to be filmed turn away, rendering both forms of behaviour to a certain extent natural and therefore acceptable in this particular context.

Silver City 1R (54 min) The first alternative version of Silver City (54min) utilizes relatively mild reflexive strategies. Based on procedures as employed in Lonely Boy (Koenig and Kroitor, 1962), this version of Silver City remains entirely within the social realm of Colwyn Hotel as presented in the non-reflexive version (51 min) of the film. The only difference between this reflexive version and the non-reflexive version is that some scenes are expanded and that one scene is added. They are: 1. 02:02 Kitchen Peter is checking supplies. He opens the door of the fridge, and chuckles: You want to see whats in fria [fridge]?

143

 Peter directly acknowledges the camera and the person who operates it, which is a mild expression of the referential function. In the non-reflexive version, this comment was edited out. 2. 16:06 Hotel lobby. Interview Ian Ian has explained how Peter calls him his slave while he calls Peter Caesar. Ian: Maybe with the Ides of March Peter will become slave and I will become boss. In the non-reflexive version, Ian subsequently notices a customer and says jokingly: Come in, George, no problem at all. Caesar will serve you, a reference to Peter who is standing behind the bar while the interview with Ian is taking place. In this reflexive version the scene is presented uncut. As interviewer and camera operator, I ask what the Ides of March means, and Ian shakes his head in disbelief. The Ides of March, when Caesar was stabbed? I do not know what he is referring to and Ian points to some one beside me. She knows history. The camera pulls out to reveal Justyna who is wearing head phones and is holding the boom. I am from Poland, she says, as an explanation for her knowledge of history. Oh no, Ian jokes, they are taking over, a reference to the omnipresence of the Poles in Aberdeen. Where are you from? he then asks me, simultaneously addressing the camera. The Netherlands. Ah, the Netherlands, that is close by, Ian replies. I never met any Dutch persons. The scene then picks up where the non-reflexive version was left off with the off-screen customer and Ians remark that Caesar will serve him. This scene contains both referential and procedural elements. When the camera pulls out, some of the paraphernalia of filmmaking are revealed, thus drawing attention to the presence of a camera crew, which may have influenced events as they unfolded. Although this scene does not address authorial intent, it does become clear that both crew members are non-British citizens. In Silver City NR the nationality of the filmmaker remain undisclosed. 3. 23:23 Musical performance at The Clubhouse Hotel Peters performance is filmed with two cameras, resulting in a wide shot that was obtained with a camera on a tripod while a hand-held camera captured close-ups of Peter and the band. 144

 In all other versions of Silver City, the fact that two cameras were used may be derived from the footage itself but it remains unaddressed. In this mildly reflexive version, the procedure is underlined with the insertion of three alternative shots which each show me entering the frame while operating the hand-held camera, thereby employing the procedural function in the reflexive mode. 4. 36:33 Hotel lobby In this scene, Gavin, the owner of the hotel, quizzes me as the filmmaker about my intentions with the film. What you are trying to do is make it an unbiased account or you want to make sure that both opinions are definitely there, or do you want to come to a conclusion? He then suggests who should be interviewed if I want to produce the view that the Polish are not detrimental to the area, effectively advancing his personal view. This conversation between Gavin and me underlines how filmmaking decisions such as what angle to choose and whom to interview profoundly shape the construction of reality as represented in the film. Most viewers would consciously or subconsciously know that choices were made to be able to bring the events pictured to the screen, at the same time the realization interferes with the this is how it is assumption that is essential to an unproblematic engagement with Peter and the situation he finds himself in. Acknowledging deliberations like these may heighten the viewers awareness of how reality is constructed for the screen. They are expressions of the expressive and procedural function in the reflexive mode. 5. 40:26 Hotel lobby Peter is having breakfast and says: Do you want to go with me, Charlotte? Me: To Poland? Yes, Id be interested in going. Peter: Ill show you nightlife in Warsaw. Ha ha, you wont be back. This scene not only highlights the personal relationship between filmmaker and subject, it also demonstrates that activities in front and behind the camera mutually affect one other. As such, the scene employs both the referential and the procedural function of the communication process in the reflexive mode.

145

 6. 50:20 Stairs to the basement. In the final scene of Silver City, the crew follows Peter to the basement of the hotel, where his flat is located. It is dark, and the screen turns black. Me: I cant even focus in here. Peter: I want to give you more light. When the door at the bottom of the stairs is opened, light streams in. The camera turns out to be tilted and the shot is out of focus until it is readjusted. Me: Ah, here we are. Yeah, OK. Out-of-focus and light issues draw attention to the text as a construction rather than an unmediated window onto the world. They are expressions of the poetic function.

Silver City 2R (62 min) The second reflexive version of the experimental film that serves as a research tool also has the hotel as its setting, but this time the narrative has a film-in-film structure, a wellestablished reflexive strategy that may be classified as an expression of the poetic function. Silver City 2R starts with the arrival of the crew at the hotel for a screening of the film (Silver City NR) with the participants and ends with an evaluation of the film. Between the first and the last scene of NR, the film cuts back several times to the main characters, Peter, Agnieszka, Ian and Gavin, as they are watching the film in which they perform. Intercutting the screening of the film with the film itself is a reference to Man with a Movie Camera (Vertov, 1929). The evaluation of the film by the main characters is a recreation of the final scenes of Chronique dun t (Morin and Rouch, 1961). The following scenes in this version of Silver City may be characterized as reflexive. 1. 00:00-02:10 Arrival at the hotel Peter opens the door. Everyone are very nervous. Me: OK, good. Peter: Apart from me. Me: You are not nervous at all? Peter shrugs. I hand him the DVD from behind the camera. This is the film. Peter: Thank you very much. 146

 Me: Hope it works. Peter: Are you going to follow me? What about bags? Me: Ill keep them here. Peter: The boys will pick them up. Looks in the camera. Right. He starts walking down the stairs. Should I say something? Mum, I love you! No, should I say something? Me: No. Peter: Just walk in? Me: Just walk in. Peter: Should I introduce anybody? Me: You can do whatever you want. We are not here. We enter the lobby where a small group of people are awaiting our arrival. Ian, looking at camera: Oh no, go away. Go away with that camera. After Peter has introduced those who are present, the camera swings back to Ian, who says: How are you, darling. Me: Hello, Ian, good to see you again. Ian: Lovely to see you too. Peter holds up the DVD to the camera and says: This is what we are going to have now. He puts the DVD in the player, and waits anxiously for it to start. When it does (Here we go!), he tiptoes to his chair and takes a seat. There are some exclamations and remarks of those present (Ian: Oh no!) when they recognize Peter as he plays his harmonica in the opening scene. Peter: Shhh! When the expository scene has drawn to an end, the film cuts back to the opening shot of Silver City, which the viewer recognizes as the first shot of the film that the viewers in the lobby have just started to watch. This scene exploits both the procedural and the referential function in the reflexive mode. There is a reference to filmmaking equipment (What about bags?) and the camera itself is acknowledged as a device that shapes reality as it unfolds (Should I say something?, Go away with that camera). The latter may also be perceived as an expression of the unease that the presence of the camera may invoke in participants. You can do whatever you want. We are not here, emphasizes the convention, which prescribes that the cameras presence is usually ignored in documentary film. The friendly banter between Ian and me foregrounds the relationship between the filmmaker and their subjects. 2. Hotel lobby

During the viewing, the film cuts back four times to the main characters to reveal their response to what they are seeing on the screen. On two occasions, screening and film run parallel, that is in an OS (over-theshoulder shot) of Peter when he is watching himself on the screen (05:39) and in a frontal shot of Peter with Gavin in the background when the relationship between Polish workers and their jobs is discussed (37:26).

147

 The narrative of the film on the screen in these scenes remains intact, i.e. the audio is uninterrupted. On two occasions, however, there is a different relationship between film and screening. The first is when Ian is introduced and he exclaims: Oh no. Why did you show my bloody bald patch, for Gods sake? (14:30). Here, the screening repeats in part what the viewer has already seen, and in part what is still to come. The second occasion is when we see Agnieszka and Ians response to the arrival of her son (49:10). The screening now repeats what the viewer has already seen. These cutaways all serve as a reminder for the viewer that they are watching a film and not reality as it unfolds. As these scenes interrupt the narrative, they furthermore create a distancing effect in viewers because they have to reorient themselves towards the temporal order of the events unfolding on the screen. Drawing attention to the narrative as a temporal structure is an expression of the poetic function of the communication process in the reflexive mode. 3. 52:20-61:54 Group discussion Participants take turn holding the boom and at one point Peter takes over the camera. The editing is relatively choppy, the audio is a bit clunky and there are some rough pans and a random zoom-in, all of which direct attention to the filmmaking process and film as a construction, which is why these elements may be characterised as expressions of the procedural and/or the poetic function. The discussion itself focuses on the following topics: - The filmmakers intentions. Although I do not address them myself, they are mentioned, for instance when Peter says to me by addressing the camera: You wanted to show us, a different aspect of Polish people in Aberdeen, and when Alan Dodd says: Charlottes point is that it is possible to assimilate, and she is fighting possibly against that stereotype of Polish people or any nationality coming to a country and finding nothing but difficulties. These remarks are references to the expressive function of the communication process; - Subjectivity versus objectivity in documentary film. The question of balance versus bias is addressed when Gavin says, A documentary should not be a onesided view in my view while Alan Marcus defends the opposite stance. He says, 148

 There are an infinite numbers of approaching a film. If this was going to be a television current affairs programme about that issue, then, yes, of course, you probably want to look at it from a variety of different angles to get something in the round. If it is going to be an authored film, an authored documentary about any subject, whether it is this subject or something else, then I think that the issue of balance or bias is potentially irrelevant. These remarks are a combination of the referential, the procedural and the expressive function; - Issues of representation: how well do participants think the film represents them (Did you recognize yourself in the way you were portrayed in the film?). Ians comments, in which he jokes about his bald patch and showing his good side raise a related question: who determines whether someone is represented well? Perhaps somebody else than the person it concerns would be more suited, as the subjects perception of self may be biased by self-interest, self-deception, or vanity; - Issues of representation: who is qualified to represent a particular point of view (Ian: I think in the film if you had made, if you had put me on, being a Scotsman, being a British person, criticizing British people, it would have come over better). This statement refers to the referential function; - Issues of representation: the question whether certain remarks reflect the participants actual point of view. (Look, I actually said that after I read the article about criticizing Polish people. So I could be angry. So you cannot compare this to reality because I could be angry You dont know how real is that. Is that real or not? Because I was annoyed. After five minutes I could say something else. This comment refers to the referential function of communication; - Issues of representation: documentary as a heightened form of reality (the movie is more dynamic than actually real life because you have different actions, different

149

 situations on different days). This observation may be perceived as an expression of the poetic function; - Issues of representation: the ordering and selection process, inherent to documentary film production, results in a recreation of reality that is relatively random (You can take same material and do different movies, or even three movies. With same material, you can do whatever you want, actually, whatever you want to say. That [the film] was what Charlotte wanted to say.) This conclusion is a combination of the expressive and the procedural function.

Silver City 3R (62 min) Despite the added layer of the screening, the narrative of Peters life in Aberdeen remained relatively intact in Silver City 2R. In the third alternative version of the film, his story is still there but it is preceded, interrupted and rounded off with scenes and comments that have nothing to do with his social world. Peters story is subjugated to an entirely new theme; the balance has shifted from a story about him to a story about storytelling. The added elements in Silver City 3R complement each other and sometimes show considerable overlap in content, which in itself directs attention to the construction process, an employment of the poetic function in the reflexive mode. These elements are: - Intertitles that identify me as the filmmaker and voice some of my authorial intentions. They provide the film with a premise and a certain context while presenting some of the originating thoughts I had when making the film; - Scenes in a pub in which I discuss the film and the decision-making process with my friend Alan (Al) Dodd. A reference to Far from Poland (Godmilow, 1984), another key text in the tradition of reflexive filmmaking, these scenes are scripted reconstructions of actual conversations, in which Alan and I play ourselves. They

150

 are shot in the same HDV format as the story about Peter but in a soap-opera style, that is, with one camera but in more than one take; - Rehearsal scenes in which the aforementioned scenes are rehearsed. They take place in Alans flat and are filmed with a DV camera, as can be derived from the poorer quality of the images and a different aspect ratio (4:3). In these scenes, Alan and I pass on the camera to each other while reading the script; - Two scenes from the interviews with both Peter and Agnieszka, in which the interviewees are coaxed by the interviewer, Justyna, to say what she wants to hear. In chronological order, these scenes read as follows. Intertitles are specified in italics. 1. 00:00-00:16 Als place. Al: So how are we going to do these conversations, do you really want to script them? Me: Yes! Al: Allright, but why? We can have the conversations without them being scripted. And even if they were, how close would you want them followed? Would they have to be verbatim? [Immediately followed by] 2. 00:16-00:41 Intertitles Let me tell you how all this began. As a foreigner I am Dutch I was wondering how other foreigners were getting on in the city. I heard a lot of Polish on the streets, in shops and restaurants. The Poles form the biggest immigrant community here and I was curious who they were. What does their life look like? Are they happy? Is there a price they have to pay for being away from home? 3. 01:37-01:41 Title A film by Charlotte Govaert, identifying the I who was mentioned in the title. 4. 06:02-06:25 Als flat. Al is serving food Al, mockingly: This is what is called putting food on plates. Speaks wonders for her merit as an original documentarian. Me: Just serve it. Al: There we see authorship and dictatorship already.

151

 [Immediately followed by] 5. 06:25-06:35 Intertitles Al is a Scotsman and has lived in Aberdeen since he went to university. We are both interested in film and quickly became friends. [Immediately followed by] 6. 06:35-07:39 Rehearsal first scene I walk away from the camera, which I have just set up, and I take a seat. Al and I are each on a sofa, reading from the script. Me: Hey. Al: Hey, how are you? Me: Not bad, how about yourself? Al: Oh, fine, fine. Me: Im getting something to drink, what are you having? Al: Err, cider. Oh shit. Me: No, you were... Al: Those lines dont work, we are not in a bar. Me: Huh? Al: Those lines dont work, we are not in a bar. Me: No, but we are here so its fine. Al laughs. Me: OK. Your turn. Al: So hows the film going? Me: Pretty good, actually, can I bounce some ideas off of you? Al: Sure. Me: If the film is going to be about the Polish experience in Aberdeen, what kind of film would you be interested in seeing, an issue-driven film or an observational film about an interesting young Pole? Al: Observational films kind of annoy me; I dont really like them. I am always wondering what the filmmaker is wanting to do. Are they wanting to raise an issue? They cant just do nothing. So what are you wanting to do? 7. 09:13-09:58 Interview Agnieszka. OS Justyna Agnieszka: Are we done? Justyna: Actually, no. I asked you all the questions but Id like to come back to them once again because now you know what you want to say and you could say something more. Agnieszka: I understand but Wait. The question about how long I am here Justyna: Thats fine. Agnieszka: I dont have much to add. I have been here for seven months and thats it. Justyna: So maybe the question about why you decided to come here because it was a little bit scattered. You said that your father was here. Agnieszka: Actually, I dont know. Justyna: You can say 152

 Agnieszka: Ever since my brother came he has been here for one and a half year I have been thinking of it and I wanted to come too. 8. 19:26-20:15 First pub scene I enter the bar: Hey. Al: Hey, how are you? Me: Good, how are you? Al: Oh fine, fine. Me: What are you having? Al: Ive got this, I am alright. Me: What is it? Al: Cider. I walk away to buy a drink and return. Al: So hows the film going? Me: Yeah, pretty good. Actually, can I bounce some ideas off of you? Al: Sure. Me: If the film is going to be about the Polish experience here in Aberdeen, what would you be interested in seeing, an issue-driven documentary or more a human-interest style type of film about an interesting young Polish guy? [Immediately followed by] 9. 20:15- 20:43 Rehearsal second scene There is a silence because we are both waiting for the other to start. I begin to laugh. Al: Its you, oh no, its me! More laughter. Hows the shooting going? Me: Pretty good, we interviewed Ian the other day; he is the only Scottish person working in the hotel. Al: Have you got your slant yet? Me: I dont do slants. Al: So your slant is youve got no slant. Me, depreciative in a mocking manner: Oh thats very funny. Actually, you can help me out with something. [Immediately followed by] 10. 20:43-21:27 Intertitles Somebody once said that we are all actors in the story of our lives, playing the role of the leading character as convincing as only we ourselves can be. We write the script and rehearse the scenes by telling meaningful anecdotes over and over again, discarding elements that do not contribute to what it is we want to convey while highlighting those that do. Surely immigrants, more than those that work and live in the place where they were born, are the creators of their own lives and the stories they tell about how they arrived in the promised land and the hardship they had to endure take on special meaning. [Immediately followed by] 153

 11. 21:27-22:34 Continuation of rehearsal second scene Me: I am trying to think of a way to visualize how Peter came to Aberdeen. Its a great anecdote and its taking on these mythical proportions in the story of his life, and I think it really belongs in the film but obviously it has already happened without the camera being there to capture it. So I now have several options. I could interview him about it but I am trying to avoid interviews in the film, or, I could take him back to the bus station and ask him to tell us what happened while he was there. But perhaps theres a more creative way of doing this? Al: Oh, I wouldnt take him back to the bus station. Reconstructing the event by bringing him back to the very same location only heightens that romantic [I am leafing through the script and then take the camera from Al, turning it on him] idea, this kind of mythic thing that you have already spoken about. Of course it was raining, I mean, its Aberdeen, of course the fog lifted Me, protesting: I did not put that in; I specifically did not put Aberdeen in! Al: Its such a clich. [Al turns the page of his script.] No, I think what it keeps coming back to is this question of the tone of your film. [Cut to Silver City NR Peter: The thing is, I think I saw something but I actually wasnt sure what I saw. He giggles. You know, I wasnt really sure, is that actually tourist information board. But after when fog left, and rain as well, I saw that sign, and I says to myself, thats a good place to start. Cut to] 12. 22:57-23:22 Continuation rehearsal second scene Al: Why not have him describe it in an interview? That can be far more personal than there are all these things to distract him. Just put him against a brick wall, and film it, and ask him how he got here. Thats more realistic than having to do all that and certainly far more easier than having to wait for the right day in terms of rain and wind and weather and all that stuff that goes on. 13. 28:42-30:21 Second scene Al: Hows the shooting going? Me: Yeah, pretty good. We filmed Ian the other day, the only Scottish guy working in the hotel. Al: Have you decided on your slant yet? Me: I dont do slants. But actually, you can help me with something. Cut to shots from the pub, suggesting a time lapse. Cut back to Al: I dont know about taking him back to the bus station. From what you have told me of how he got here, and as you have just said, reconstructing it and being in the very same place would heighten that romantic idea. You were telling me before that it was raining and it was foggy and the fog lifted and all this. Of course it did. Its a bit of a clich, and by filming that again that makes it kind of even more over the top and elevates the mythic that you already spoke about. I think it comes down to this idea of the tone 154

 of your film. Do you want a romanticized human-interest story about someone who has come to a strange land or are you going to be a bit more clinical with it. This is him, he has left Poland, this is how he got here and this is what hes doing, or do you want to do a bit of both? Me: Both. Al: Yeah, its just I think reconstructions are a bit cheesy. 14. 44:22-45:25 Rehearsal third scene Me: We had an interesting shoot this morning. Al: Yeah? Me: Peter and I slipped into a conversation about how much money he makes and he said he gets paid less than he would have had if he had been a Briton. Al: And that surprises you? Immigrants always get paid less. Me: But it bugs me. I think that peoples wages should be determined by the contribution they make, not by their nationality or their gender for that matter. Al: Yeah, but thats how the world works. Me: But that does not make it right. Al: No. Me: I take issue with that. I am actually pretty sure that you agree with me. I audibly turn the page of my script off-screen. Al: No, I do. What does Peter think of it? Me: Well, Peter doesnt seem to mind. He makes more money than he would ever make in Poland, so hes happy. His boss is happy because he doesnt have to pay him as much as he would have to pay a Scotsman. So it is a sweet deal for everyone, I guess, and that is also the exact same reason the system works the way that it does. Anyway, you kept bugging me about a slant; this is my slant. I think people should get paid regardless of where they are from. 15. 47:13-48:07 Third pub scene Me: But it bugs me! Anyway, you kept asking me about my slant, this is my slant, I think people should get paid according to the contribution they make, and I actually think that you agree with me. Cut to a wide shot, which reveals the boom. Al: No of course I do. What does Peter think; it is him that it affects. Me: Well, Peter doesnt really seem to mind. Hes making more money than he would make in Poland, so hes happy. His boss is happy because he doesnt have to pay him as much as he would have to pay a Scotsman, so its a sweet deal for the both of them and I guess thats exactly why the system works the way it works. Al: The view youve had is a bit idealistic though. Me: Idealistic?! OK, maybe it is easy for me to say, coming from the affluent West and perhaps its sheer luxury to be able to have such a viewpoint, but thats the reality, this is how I feel. 16. 55:33-55:58 Third pub scene again, now conveyed in a single wide shot revealing boom, microphone and Justynas hand and arm

155

 Me: Anyway, you were bugging me about my slant, well, this is my slant; I think people should be paid according to their contribution. Al: Yeah, but its maybe a bit idealistic. Me: Idealistic?! So what, its not right. People should be paid according to I drop out of character by starting to laugh while I touch Als cheek as he apparently is making faces, Al, impersonating me: Its not right! We are both laughing. I pick up my script. Me: But it does bug me. [Immediately followed by] 17. 55:58-56:18 Intertitles This is a story with actors who play themselves, and an author who wrote the script. I handed Peter that newspaper to solicit his opinion. [Immediately followed by] 18. 56:18-56:26 Peter leafing through newspaper Me: No, its in one of the other sections. [Immediately followed by] 19. 56:26-56:34 Intertitle and I accepted Peters view on the size of his salary rather than Gavins 20. 56:34-56:41 Interview Gavin Me: But he makes the same kind of money that a British person would make in the same position? Gavin: Probably more. [Immediately followed by] 21. 56:41-56:49 Intertitle if only because it was more consistent with the story I wanted to tell. 22. 62:23-62:26 Al takes a bow Al: And scene. Although the reflexive elements in Silver City3Rs have a combined duration of 11 minutes, which is less than 20% of the total length of the film, all six reflexive functions are employed. In revealing my identity as a Dutch woman who recently moved to

156

 Aberdeen and wanted to know more about the Polish community, the expressive function is utilized. Scenes in which I give my opinion about the wages that migrant workers typically receive also belong to this category. Formal aspects of the procedural function are employed when Al and I pass each other the camera during the rehearsal scenes, when the boom and the person holding it are revealed, and during the interview with Agnieszka, when the viewer gets a glimpse of Justyna, the Polish interviewer, as she discusses the questions with the interviewee. The latter is also an example of the content-specific form of the procedural function. The decision-making process is the main topic of both the rehearsal and the pub scenes, which are also expressions of the procedural function. The conative function is employed when the audience is addressed as audience in the first intertitle (Let me tell you how all this began). An important theme in Silver City 3R is the blurred boundary between fictional and non-fictional narratives. Most prominently this comes to the fore in the relationship between rehearsal and pub scenes, which both are recreations of actual conversations, but also in the smoothness with which Peter tells the story of his arrival in Aberdeen. It is clearly a story he has told before, something that is pointed out in one of the rehearsal scenes. Several intertitles also refer to this phenomenon. The interplay between fiction and non-fiction may be characterized as an expression of the poetic function. The referential function is employed when an alternative version of the truth is offered, for instance when Gavin is given the chance to give his view on the size of Peters salary towards the end of the film. What constitutes truth is also raised by the relationship between pub scenes, rehearsal scenes and the actual conversations that they were based on, as it poses the question which of the three is more real. These three reflexive versions of Silver City are self-contained films that may function independently from each other; they can, or, in the context of this study, should be

157

 viewed without knowledge of the other versions. They are separate texts, as each set of added elements provides the same narrative with a different context, thereby irrevocably changing the meaning potential of each film. Yet, they are more related than any selection of individual films that each employ different forms and levels of reflexivity could be, as they share many important textual properties including the main protagonists and the situation they find themselves in, time and place and various elements of the discourse, rendering comparisons between the response to individual versions of Silver City more reliable than comparison of the response to isolated films from the reflexive canon. The versions address similar questions regarding the filmmaking process in different ways and to different extents while controlling for other variables as much as possible. Silver City 1R is mildly reflexive because the scenes that acknowledge the construction process do not subvert the narrative. These scenes only take up a small amount of the total duration of the film (3 minutes out of 54) and are entirely situated within Peters social world. Silver City 2R is situated in Peters social world too but a second layer is added to the narrative of Peters life with the addition of the screening and the subsequent evaluation. This procedure does subvert the narrative to a certain extent but at the same time leaves it relatively intact because most of what constitutes the second layer is distributed to the fringes of the narrative, i.e. the beginning and the end of the film, and because screening and film are still set in the social world of the hotel. In Silver City 3R, however, the narrative is constantly interrupted by events and considerations that bear no relation to Peters world at all. They disturb the narrative flow not only in content but also in form (intertitles, different cameras, different styles of shooting), forcing the viewer to not only consider Peters life but also the many decisions that were made in bringing his story to the screen.

158

 That, however, is the theory. How viewers actually respond to these different modalities and forms of reflexivity was gauged by focus group research, the outcome of which is presented and analysed in the following chapter.

1 In his study on the interpretation of environmental documentaries by audiences in India and Britain, Harindranath found little systematic difference in interpretation of the films across cultures to form a recognizable pattern (284, italics in the original). 2 Michals discomfort upon arrival in his new home may at least in part be due to the cameras presence, although, unlike the handyman and the customer, he did not walk into a filmed situation unsuspectingly. To reduce his anxiety as much as possible we had met Agnieszka and her son in the hall before we went upstairs to film their entrance. The positioning of the crew inside the flat had been a conscious decision. We had already filmed entering the flat by following Peter and Agnieszka on their first visit together, which would be the pure observational approach, and I wanted to get a different perspective the second time around. The first time the scene centred around seeing the flat, and by filming Peter and Agnieszkas entrance over-the-shoulder, the audience would see what they saw. In the second scene, the intention was to emphasize Agnieska and Michals response, which called for the positioning of the camera to be inside so the viewer would see their faces from the second they walked through the door.

159

 Chapter Five: Interpreting Reflexivity Through Silver City

Analysts should be more transparent about how they performed their analysis, Thomas Austin (1997: 186) proposes in his book about the reception of documentary film with reference to a view put forward by Anne Gray. For unexplained reasons, Austin subsequently does not follow Grays advice but it is evident that such an explication cannot be absent in a study that focuses on reflexivity. Analyses may be qualified as reconstructions of the research material; they are interventions based on a particular set of assumptions that are related to both research method and object under scrutiny. The byproduct of such a reconstruction is a loss of information that would not have gone unnoticed if a different procedure had been followed. By the same token, the procedure of choice generates knowledge or insights that would not have been found otherwise. Any analysis, in other words, produces losses and gains, and an explication of the procedure that was followed is one of the factors that enables the reader to assess the value of the analysis and subsequent conclusions. For this chapter, the response to each version of Silver City was analysed separately. The aim was to find themes in viewer response at individual as well as group level. As Morgan (1997: 60) states, focus group discussions are dependent upon both the individuals that make up the group and the dynamics of the group as a whole, for which reason our analytic efforts must seek a balance that acknowledges the interplay between these two levels of analysis. Therefore, a reconstruction was made as to what each participant contributed individually to the conversation. Group dynamics were preserved as best as possible by retaining the order in which contributions to discussions were made and by providing the context in which an individual offered their contribution. Subsequently these utterances were categorized using colour-coding1, a simple but efficient tool for organising and categorising data, while statements that seemed most relevant for

160

 discussion in this study were earmarked. For the presentation of the findings, I was then able to draw from these two reconstructions of responses to a particular version of Silver City, as well as the original transcript. The decision to analyse each version individually was based on the recognition that the response to reflexive elements may not be divorced from their particular manifestations. To be more precise, response to forms of expressive elements in 1R might be totally different from response to forms of expressive elements in 3R because of the shape each form of reflexivity takes in a particular version. An additional benefit to this approach was that it reduced the data to more manageable proportions, that is, four times roughly a quarter. This was particularly helpful as the analysis was done by hand a computer programme that is often used in the analysis of qualitative research was not available. The downside of this approach is that findings that were consistent across all versions are now discussed for each version separately, thereby gaining emphasis they do not necessarily deserve. This chapter reflects the analysis in the sense that it is divided in four sections, which each address the response to one of the versions of Silver City. The separation is not strict; if pertinent, comparison to responses to other version/s are made. Although NR is presented first, it was analysed last for the rather frivolous reason that I was more curious about response to the reflexive versions. Otherwise the order in which the analysis took place is retained. Each version generated a debate that was specific to the version of Silver City that was screened beforehand, both at content level and the level of group dynamics, which, if relevant, are discussed at the start of the section. The discussions in the focus groups that followed Silver City NR and 1R focused primarily on expressive forms of reflexivity while the response to Silver City 2R addressed referential and procedural strategies as well as expressive strategies. The response to 3R regarded all six forms of reflexivity. Rather than

161

 a systematic discussion of the reception of individual reflexive strategies that were employed in a particular version, the sections take a more intuitive approach. They start with an observation that commanded the attention and build from there, whereby the emphasis is on gaining a deeper understanding of how viewers respond to some of the reflexive elements in the version they saw. This approach allowed for comparisons to other statements from the individual viewer, either in reference to alternative reflexive strategies or biographical particularities, as well as the response of other viewers.

Silver City NR Although not entirely non-reflexive (see p. 142), NR was designed to function as the zero option in this study, that is, a stimulus that does not contain operationalizations of that which the study aspires to investigate. It was intended to represent the average television or festival documentary that is not purposively aimed at the engagement of audiences in issues of representation. NR for instance does not reveal any information about the filmmakers identity or intentions (see Chapter Four for more details). The group discussions that followed the screenings of NR may be qualified as pleasant conversations between participants who displayed a general benevolence towards the film. Each group however had a specific character, which at least in part may be explained by peculiarities of the participants. Four of the nine participants in focus group 2, for instance, already knew me, as I was their tutor on a film introduction course. They felt comfortable to talk to each other and to me about the film. The overall comfort level, however, was counterbalanced by another participant who was of Polish descent, and who arrived at the screening room with a distinct and anxious concern for the representation of her country in the media. Focus group 3 consisted entirely of foreigners not including Poles while three participants of focus group 4 had the Polish nationality. These group compositions explain at least in part why the representation of the Polish was a hot topic in

162

 groups 2 and 4 and less so in group 3. All groups however expressed a vivid interest in the nationality of the filmmaker, which was not disclosed until after the group discussions. Before the findings are presented, a word about the use of the term objectivity, which surfaced regularly in the focus group debates, is in order. Merriam Websters Online Dictionary, describes objective as of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind. As Corner (1995: 6566) has suggested, the term is not very useful in the context of news production, and by extension documentary communication, because it suffers from three limitations. First of all, the principle is absolutist, one is either objective or not and how much one falls short becomes relatively insignificant once failure has been established. Secondly, total objectivity is as unattainable for journalists as for anyone else, and to suggest otherwise is, philosophically speaking, nonsense. Thirdly, as a requirement, objectivity potentially masks actual problems of reporting, preventing the formation of a considered response to these problems. Moreover, the term is often confused or associated with impartial, balanced, or accurate. Viewers who saw Silver City NR indeed appeared to have different notions of the meaning of objectivity in the context of documentary film: - Presenting some general statistical information (E4, male, Polish, 1st Law and Management, 15-19)2; - Expressing a balanced opinion by presenting many angles (D4, male, Nigerian, PG Finance, 25-34); - Levelling out the bias by looking at both sides of the argument (B2, male, British, 1st History and Film Studies, 15-19);

163

 - A form of double subjectivity, i.e. how I would imagine that Peter would want the film to come across (F2, female, British, 1st International Relations, Philosophy and Film Studies, 20-24); - Not having an interviewer or someone asking or speaking in the documentary (B3, male, Swiss, 3rd Computing Science, 20-24); - Not being able to make assumptions about the filmmaker, in this particular case about their nationality (E4, male, Polish, 1st Law and Management, 15-19); - Allowing viewers to draw different conclusions or to form their own opinion (E4, male, Polish, 1st Law and Management, 15-19). Two participants, C2 (male, US, PG International Relations, 25-34) and C3 (male, Nigerian, PG Economics, 25-34) furthermore argued that objectivity is relative (C3); in their view a representation is objective if it agrees with their personal experiences or opinions. The meaning of the term objectivity, in short, is ambiguous. Viewers furthermore not only had different opinions about what objectivity entails but also about the question whether it is a prerequisite for documentary film or not. While some viewers thought that the filmmaker has the obligation to be objective, others felt they have the artistic licence (A2, male, Scottish, 2nd English, 15-19) to be subjective, that is, the right to determine what to include in the documentary, thereby displaying or promoting a particular point of view. Not all of those who applied the objectivity requirement to Silver City, however, believed that any documentary had to meet the objectivity criterion. The objectivity requirement applied to social documentary, or documentaries that try to construct an argument (B2, male, British, 1st History and Film Studies, 15-19); objectivity is then achieved by showing two sides of the argument or including multiple view points. Nature documentaries were mentioned more than once across focus groups, i.e. including those

164

 that followed alternative versions of Silver City, as a genre within the realm of documentary that was exempt from the objectivity requirement, mainly because they were considered to be unstaged and unscripted. In sum, some viewers expressed the view that documentary should be objective, whereby the term has multiple meanings, while other viewers do not subscribe to the objectivity requirement at all. Viewers, in other words, have explicit expectations regarding documentary and its representation of the real in preconceived but individual ways. This alone underlines that the relationship between documentary representation and the historical world is not only a matter of convention and formal organisation of the text but also a matter of reception.

Response to reflexive strategies in NR Much of the discussion following NR concentrated on the filmmakers role and their intentions in the construction of reality for the screen, as the following exchange between the moderator and a viewer exemplifies. Would you, and this is a question to all of you, would your interpretation of how well reality is represented in this film in whatever direction if you knew more about the filmmaker? I think it would change what you knew. The only thing I can think maybe if I found out that he was Polish or had some really deep investment with trying to get word out about this, I would maybe consider it a more subjective look, if I knew that (E3, female, American, 2nd Psychology, 1519). When asked whether that is something she would like to know when she is watching a documentary, she concedes: I dont know if thats necessarily something that I am terribly concerned to know about but since you asked it kind of makes you more think about it [A3 and somebody else agree]. Thinking more about it I can see why it might be interesting to know and you could maybe assess it better that way. The filmmakers nationality was one of the main features that the participants were interested to learn, a preference that was based on the assumption that a Polish filmmaker

165

 would be biased in favour of Polish immigration and their contribution to British society whereas a Scottish or British filmmaker would not, as the following excerpt demonstrates. Id like to know if maybe it was a Polish person who went to Polish people and so on or whether it was a Scottish person who went to Polish man and so on. [...] How would it have changed your interpretation of the story if you had known more about the background of the filmmaker? Because if its a Polish person making it they may just want to show it in a more positive light, because they want to present the people in a good light. If its a Scottish person making it or a British person, they want to show that all immigrants coming here arent bad people taking our jobs. They want to show it in a more representative way of the way immigrants live here. You could probably get another British person whod make a dead negative deal about immigrants or you could get... if its a Polish person, maybe Im generalising, its more relative or positive than it would be if you know its a Scottish or British person, then its quite good that its a positive film theyve made (C4, male, Scottish, 15-19). Another participant expressed a similar view. Maybe the filmmaker if he was Polish or maybe from any other country moving in, immigrating into another country looking for a job it would be interesting to see his motives for making the film. Like he was trying to show the way it is, kind of voicing the immigrants opinion. [...] I think it would be interesting to see if maybe he was trying to voice his own feelings using Peter in this piece to... voice that (A3, female, Scottish, 4th Sociology, 20-24). These viewers, in other words, would have used information about the filmmakers nationality to assess the films authenticity. Not everyone, however, felt that it was necessary to learn about the filmmakers country of origin. My opinion is maybe a bit biased but if I knew the filmmaker and I knew he was Polish it probably would not change my opinion about the movie. Its just a message he is trying to convey and he sends the message, you know [smiles] (C3, male, Nigerian, PG Economics, 25-34). C3 is not interested in knowing the filmmakers intentions either. I personally dont subscribe to the filmmaker coming in to say this is what I want to achieve. The movie, the documentary, should leave to the audience to decide what the message is. If the filmmaker comes on to say this is what I want to do, its going to create a lot of bias and that may eventually obscure the real message because it could create a lot of controversy. People begin to look at it from different viewpoints. But if people are actually left to determine what the crux of the theme is all about it is easier 166

 to say OK, I think this is what it is and you can make up your mind about the issues that are presented a lot better than when the filmmaker comes on and say this is what I want to achieve. For C3, the meaning of a documentary is determined by the viewer, who should be left to their own devices to decide what a film is about, and not by the filmmaker through the use of interventions that proclaim the films aims and purposes. Within this line of thinking, transparency creates rather than dissolves bias. Still, filmmakers may choose the approach they consider to be the most appropriate. It depends on what the filmmaker wants to achieve. If the filmmaker wants to achieve, wants a more critical view about it, then they may want to trade up and say, OK, let me see what people did. But do you want to know what the filmmaker wants to achieve? Personally, I dont think so. I think I can get that message. F2, on the other hand, was not particularly interested in knowing the filmmakers nationality either but unlike C3 she did express an interest in the filmmakers intentions as the following excerpt from an exchange between her and the moderator shows. Would you have liked to know more about the background of the filmmaker then? Err... yeah, maybe. Might have been nice actually to have had some... Not to know whether he was Polish or British I dont think that necessarily matters just to know more, what he... What would you like to know about the filmmaker? Just what he intended by the film and why he wanted to make it and what views hes expressing... [...] It would be nice to have that kind of background so you know where its coming from the start and its not as vague as perhaps it seemed at the start (F2, female, British, 1st International Relations, Philosophy and Film Studies, 20-24). For this viewer, a desire for knowledge about the filmmakers intentions tied in with a desire for a text with a clear introduction. Another viewer felt that disclosing information about the filmmakers nationality, for instance, might be of interest but not in this particular case. The movie is objective enough not to allow us to guess. Im not able to say at this moment if it was made by Scottish person, Polish person or Scottish nationalist or whoever. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I think its a good thing because it shows that the movie is in a sense objective (E4, male, Polish, 1st Law and Management, 15-19). 167

 For this viewer, a filmmaker is exempt from providing background information if the film is objective, which, as already discussed, is a problematic concept in the realm of documentary film. While E4 felt that a possible slant was indiscernible, other viewers said they were able to tell from the film what the filmmakers position was concerning the issues that were raised in Silver City, in particular underpayment and stereotyping. Obviously, with the newspaper, thats when you can tell how the filmmaker probably felt. How would you describe that, how do you think the filmmaker felt? That the Polish stereotypes were... at least Peter felt that they were held only by uneducated people and the filmmaker did not make any effort to show someone elses point of view so thats the way to me it all came across (E2, female, American, Biochemistry, 20-24). While the newspaper scene revealed the filmmakers bias according to this viewer, other viewers felt that the scene did not detract from the films objectivity. On the contrary, it added to the films objectivity because it expanded the films subject from the particular to the general. There was one scene in particular when he was just reading the article. And in a sense he is talking about the larger picture, hes talking about the whole issue of immigration and him coming and Poles coming, and how there is this negative discrimination and [...] in ways that Brits or Scots have treated them. I think it was really objective because you do have a lot of different angles because you are looking at an article and hes interjecting how he feels and how he sees it: you know, its not fair that people think that we are taking their jobs (D3, female, Korean-American, PG Sociology, 25-34). While D3 thought the inclusion in the film of the article and Peters response to it added to the films objectivity, other viewers were not as convinced because they realised the newspaper must have been planted. I was just thinking, OK, Im wondering if they handed him that and said, here, read this, and the way he said: I dont want to look at that anymore. I dont think he found it on his own. Would you have liked to know how that paper ended up on that table? Sure. Well, I think I know. Im pretty sure they gave that to him. [She laughs. Also laughter from A3 and C3] Does that bother you? Because thats constructing reality, isnt it? To some extent. At the same time, the article is really in the paper and he is really Polish, so I dont think they are making anything false or fictitious by 168

 putting those things together (E3, female, American, 2nd Psychology, 1519). . Two conclusions may be drawn from this statement. The first is that the potential to raise awareness to issues of representation is not limited to reflexive strategies; nonreflexive strategies may encourage awareness to issues of representation as well. The second is that some viewers accept the construction of reality in documentary film, at least to a certain extent, if it represents the social situation that the film aims to address in more general ways. The newspaper might have been on the table by chance so putting it there to elicit a response is a form of staging that is not considered tampering with the truth. Not everyone agrees, however. D3, who had just argued that the newspaper scene might be qualified as objective, is baffled by E3s conclusion. But you are leading to a certain... you want to find something out obviously... if somebody is putting that paper down there and say what do you think of this. Then you want that answer. D3 felt that this form of staging should be considered fishing for a particular response, which then becomes more representative of the filmmakers opinion than the speakers opinion. While some viewers felt that the filmmakers nationality would be indicative of their agenda and, consequently, that knowledge about the filmmakers background would expose possible bias, thereby neutralizing it, other viewers such as A4 considered knowledge about the filmmakers nationality irrelevant. Yeah, I was going to say it is irrelevant whoever it is, Scottish or Polish, because is it a bad thing that hes absent like that? In the actual video? It was in a relatively good light. So even if thats the case, is that such a bad thing? If it is slightly biased, that is. Im thinking that its probably not (A4, male, British, 1st Philosophy and Film, 20-24). A4s opinion is linked to his ideas about the job of documentary as the tool for selfexpression on the part of the filmmaker. For him, a documentary is more appealing if it expresses a particular point of view about the historical world. This may be derived from the following excerpt. 169

 Would you have liked to know more about the purpose of the film or the intentions of the filmmaker? Err... no. Not really. I think it should be [the filmmakers] interpretation, thats more the reason why it is created. Everybody is from a different background so basically if [as a filmmaker] you view it from your instance and have your way interpreted its going to appeal more than selecting some kind of minority. H4 subscribed to a similar point of view. He too regarded the filmmakers nationality irrelevant. When subsequently asked whether one can tell from the film how the filmmaker feels about Gavin, he replied: Why does it matter? Because it might matter in terms of how reality is represented in the film... Would you agree with that? Err... I dont think its significant. You said its irrelevant. What made you say that? Its not significant. Not its irrelevant but its not significant. I think.... I think when [filmmakers] have the idea to make their story they find the guy to tell a story and then he must have already thought that this people who play their role they will tell the story as he wanted (H4, male, Indonesian, PG Law, 25-34). Filmmakers, according to this view, have a vision of the historical world that they then reconstruct for the screen, at least in part, through the casting process. Viewers like A4 and H4, in other words, already know that reality in documentary is constructed by the filmmaker and reflexive elements such as disclosure of the filmmakers background is not very likely to enhance their understanding of the construction of reality for this film or film in general. Not all viewers, however, had a similar understanding of documentary production processes. In response to H4s remarks, B4 said: I just discovered am I really that naive? Is it really the filmmaker that goes out in a documentary and says, OK, this documentary I want to make and it is going to have that story line, and I am going to represent this and this is how its all going to work out together and now I am just going to make it. Or is it more like, OK, I would like to make a documentary, lets make a documentary about, mm [as in: let me think]... Polish immigrants and see how their lifes here in Aberdeen. Oh! And this is what I discovered. That would be more the way l would experience it and I really hope that thats more the way it is but I may be wrong (B4, female, German, 3rd Psychology, 20-24).

170

 From this follows that the study population displayed a wide variety in terms of genre expectations and structural competence, even though the participants are recruited from a relatively homogenous group, i.e. students at the University of Aberdeen. A viewer such as B4 might have benefited from the strategy as employed in 3R in which the planting of the newspaper is made explicit. This conclusion may be drawn from the following excerpt, in which B4 displays susceptibility to talk about talk; the focus group conversation clearly encouraged her to reconsider her opinions and expectations about documentary film. B4, you said earlier that there may be two ways of making a documentary. The filmmaker goes out to see what they find or they have this fixed idea and then they look in the world for people and stories that can represent their take on reality. And you said you were hoping it was the [former] but how does that relate to planting a paper on the table? Which of the two? B4: [silence] Probably the [second] one... making the story. Though... of course it is not fully possible to manipulate it in that case because at the end he is saying what he is experiencing. But yeah you are supporting something and you are already supporting a bias by going and filming him. You are going to push him to show himself from a certain perspective and you are going to encourage that throughout the documentary probably. Yeah, there is a lot of human interaction going on. Other viewers such as F3 persisted in their belief that reality exists independent of perception, at least to some extent. When asked whether they thought that filmmakers should explicitly point out within the film that the filmmaking process is a recreation of their take on reality, she responded by saying: I just wonder if they really recreate their reality in the story of an entire hotels employees lives. I just dont see how that much can be skewed. I just think that any filmmaker if they were to choose from a variety of people would be drawn to the most vibrant character or individual, the most outspoken or whatever in relation to the documentary.... I dont know if... I think its interesting what you are saying but are you saying that you think that there is a certain level of reality that is out there to be captured on film and is not really something the filmmaker can change in order for them to bring across their own ideas. Is that what you are saying? Yeah, I think they can skew it to a certain extent but I feel that there was such a strong message that was conveyed to the audience that there was no way that that could be 90% of the filmmakers view. It seems like it would

171

 have to be much more of the reality of the situation. I dont know.... Its not the filmmaker sitting in front of the camera speaking their truth. Would that help if a scene like that was included? Ha! [as in: you are kidding] In her response, F3 inadvertently hinted at the possibility of including reflexive elements in a film such as Silver City. Other participants in the NR group addressed the virtuality of the filmmaker expressing their opinions in the text itself more explicitly. One of them was C3, who argued that it is ultimately the viewer who determines the meaning of film, not the filmmaker, for which reason filmmakers do not have to be explicit about their intentions (see p. 167). Other viewers, however, saw the advantage of such an explication in the text itself. In a sense when you know about the filmmaker and where they are coming from and what viewpoint they are trying to express, you are left more free to make up your mind then when you agree with them because you know from the offset where they are coming from. So it loses the sense of being tricked into something, which I dont think that documentary did at all (F2, female, British, 1st International Relations, Philosophy and Film Studies, 20-24). From this follows that F2 might be susceptible to reflexive strategies. In any case she would be interested to know which questions were asked, just because it seems like we are just watching Peter and he just sat there and hes just rolling on his conversation and bringing up issues hes had but in reality that is not the case because he is being questioned on specific aspects. I think, to see that side you then have a different feeling of what you are watching. Including questions is a strategy that is widely used in documentary film; arguably it may function as a mild form of reflexivity with expressive, procedural and poetic aspects. For this informant, at least, the inclusion of the questions that were asked by the interviewer would facilitate an understanding of the filmmakers intentions. She does not, however, appear to be susceptible to one of the procedural strategies that were employed in 3R, as may be derived from the following excerpt.

172

 Are there any other ways that you can think of that would help you determine to which extent... Whose reality is being represented, presented here? The main characters reality or the filmmakers reality? Whose reality did you see? Maybe we should start there. [After a long silence] Its hard to tell I think because obviously you can never know what the director is leaving out of a film, which is more important than what he or she is putting in. Do you think there should be a disclaimer at the end of every film where you show what you are not... what you left out? No, no, no, I dont mean that. This suggests that viewers, who display receptiveness to one particular reflexive strategy may be unresponsive to other reflexive strategies. While some viewers saw the usefulness of expressive reflexive strategies, others held opposite ideas. If the filmmaker came and told you what he was trying to achieve you would not have anything to think about. In a film if you are watching you become passive rather than thinking for yourself what the filmmaker is trying to achieve with this piece (A3, female, Scottish, 4th Sociology, 2024). Expressive reflexive strategies, then, do not activate viewers, let alone encourage them to consider issues of representation. They are counterproductive. While F2 thought that some forms of transparency would enable the viewer to form their own opinion, other participants felt they would have the opposite effect. I dont think [filmmakers should be explicit about what they want to achieve]. I think it would take away a lot if they were to come on and say it or if you were to know what they want you to think. Like in psychology they say that if someone tells you their opinion you will find ways to make that your opinion as well, subconsciously, so I think that by not doing that it allows you to make your own judgement (E2, female, US, Biochemistry, 20-24). In this view, certain reflexive strategies will achieve the opposite from the effect it aims for because it leads to engagement with the filmmakers opinions and constructions, rather than disengagement. Another argument against expressive reflexive strategies was brought forward by D3 (female, Korean-American, PG Sociology, 25-34).

173

 I think that in just revealing the position, that can actually block people from understanding the message by just... for them... because they would just take a position and they might say, oh, this persons, oh this socioeconomic, this gender, I am not going to really listen because they are probably trying to say this anyway. And thats where a lot of the arguments, the debate come out of, just... you know, putting ourselves in certain boxes and say, OK, here is my position so I am not going to really listen because we dont agree anyway. But if you just watch it, if you are just trying to get certain messages, maybe you can actually open up a dialogue between people. In this point of view, the introduction of the filmmaker may conjure stereotypical ideas, which prevents the viewer from considering the films subject. One of the participants in the PhD focus group that followed the screening of NR also feared that expressive reflexive strategies may not achieve the intended effect, but for a different reason. If they come up at the start and tell you where they are coming from, what their opinions are and what they were hoping to achieve from the film, then your expectation is almost always going to be: does this meet this one specific expectation or requirement and I dont know whether or not that necessarily would be something It would certainly change the dynamic for me personally watching a documentary (D1, PhD English Literature, male, British, 25-34). This participant compared the effect to epilogues and prologues in Early Modern drama, which stir up another level of debate by framing the events that are to come. After pointing out that these asides very often are at odds with what actually happens in the play, he compares the effect that this strategy, arguably an early form of reflexivity, has to the effect it would have if applied in documentary film. For D1, expressive reflexive strategies do not shift the attention to the person of the filmmaker and how their background may influence the way they view and consequently represent reality but to the question whether the text is inherently coherent. Undoubtedly, this opinion is related to his poetics, which are structural in orientation; as he contends, the filmmaker and their opinions are not necessarily part of a coherent work of art. D1 admits he has not seen anything like it in documentary film but he assumes that the effect would be a concern with something that is somehow removed from what they are filming [...] it might alter the focus on the 174

 individual voices within the documentary, a term, quite naively I suppose, to give other people a voice and to let them speak and consider that before you then maybe turn to other elements. From the previous it follows that viewers have personal preferences and experiences, which explain at least to a certain extent how they respond to (expressive) reflexive elements in documentary film. I guess it depends on who you are, one viewer said, after she had explained that she thought expressive forms of reflexivity may encourage viewers to take a more critical look at the film and say, now I really dont agree with what this filmmaker is trying to convey, and heres why (F3, female, American, 3rd English literature and Education, 20-24). Confronted with the subsequent question what kind of viewer would like to be told what the filmmaker thinks and what kind of viewer would like to make up their own mind, she said: I think a viewer that is looking for a nice film to watch, would just have a relaxing night, would probably want to watch it for themselves, but someone who is going to write a paper about it or is really interested in sitting down and discussing it, not just the cinematic elements but also the factual components that are driving the entire film, that would be the type of person that would want something more to chew on and that might be the filmmaker coming in and saying this is what I think. Not just the viewers usage of the film is important; the physical environment in which a film is consumed interferes with the reception as well, as C3 (male, Nigerian, PG Economics, 25-34) emphasized. If you are watching it at home you are more relaxed, its just a TV channel, after the movie, oh, nice movie [sounding casual], and thats it. [...] Usually when I go to the cinema after a movie I try to think about it, oh, really nice movie [sounding attentive], what were they trying to talk about and all that. Because sometimes you are left blank after a movie at the cinema because you have paid to see it and you really want to digest it [lots of laughter all around]. You really want to digest it. But at home it is free viewing and [laughs], so that also would affect peoples opinion about documentary as well. Reflexive strategies may also be more or less appropriate, depending on who the filmmaker wants to reach. 175

 I think it depends on what audience you are looking for with the documentary. I think if you are putting the documentary on a documentary channel where people watch that want to learn all the facts. If you are doing something for maybe Panorama on BBC1, a mainstream channel. You want to make it so that people come out of the show thinking, oh, portions of it were great, or those people are snatching too many jobs in this country or something really about anything. Youll want to have an opinion at the end of it, if its a mainstream documentary. But if its... if you want it to be a properly educational documentary, youll need a reflective review (C4, male, Scottish, 15-19).

Silver City 1R The participants who saw NR made their comments after receiving the non-reflexive treatment; they were not exposed to strategies that were aimed at engaging audiences in issues of representation. They may have envisioned their response, but they did not make their statements in reference to a reflexive film. Those who saw Silver City 1R, on the other hand, made their observations after watching a mildly reflexive film. For their responses, they were able to refer to what they just had seen. The reception of 1R may be described as benevolent. Viewers typically enjoyed watching the film, although they were often critical of the reflexive elements. Six scenes in 1R exploit one or more reflexive strategies but most of the discussion in the 1R focus groups concentrated on two scenes in particular: the scene in which Ian asks the filmmaker about her nationality, and the scene in which Gavin quizzes the filmmaker about her intentions (scenes 2 and 4, see p. 144, 145). The other scenes were either not recognized by the respondents as relevant to the discussion that followed the screening of the film or they were recognized as such but outshined in relevance by scenes 2 and 4. In any case, viewers hardly commented on non-expressive forms of reflexivity in 1R.

Response to reflexive strategies in 1R The previous section may have served as a reminder that interpretation is an individual process that takes place in a particular social setting. Media experience, genre expectations, 176

 textual preferences, social particulars such as gender and nationality, they all contribute to the construction of the viewers frame of reference. Because these factors change from one moment to the next, each reading, even by the same reader, is unique. The highly individualised nature of reception is also apparent in the response to 1R and its reflexive elements. Some viewers, for instance, expressed an interest in learning information about the filmmaker because they recognize that filmmakers are naturally biased (E12, male, Polish, 3rd Management, president of Polish student society at UoA, 20-24), yet they receive that knowledge and process it in completely different ways. When asked for instance whether the information that the filmmaker came from the Netherlands and not from Poland or Britain affected how he looked at this film, one viewer responded: Definitively. And the fact that the filmmaker does not hide himself [sic] gives a bit of contribution towards the idea of her not having objectivity, total objectivity (C6, male, German, 1st International Relations, Economics and Politics, 20-24). This viewer not only received the disclosure of the filmmakers nationality as a form of metacommunication, he also processed and interpreted the information as communication about the problem of representation in documentary film. A participant in the same focus group expressed a comparable interest in knowledge about the filmmakers background. It makes it easier to get your own point of view if you know something about the filmmaker. It doesnt make a difference whether she is from Germany or the Netherlands but it does make a difference if she is from the Netherlands and not from Poland (A6, female, Czech, 1st Management and Psychology, 20-24). Like C6, this viewer recognized the information about the filmmakers background as a form of metacommunication but she is less certain about its use and ultimately interpreted it differently. I am still thinking what was she trying to show by showing herself? I [am not] sure but maybe she was trying to add up some reality, in a way that, when you are watching a documentary like this, you can get so involved in the Polish people, you just think it is like a story. By showing herself, its

177

 real, I am talking to these people, you get they are people and its actually happening These two viewers, A6 and C6, received disclosure of the filmmakers nationality as a form of metacommunication addressing the problematic relationship between reality and how it is constructed for the screen, whereby C6 interpreted the information as a problematization of documentarys claims to authenticity while A6 interpreted them as reinforcement. This means that a willingness to consider reflexive strategies not automatically leads to the intended effect in viewers. In other words, there is no direct relationship between receptiveness to reflexivity and a sophisticated understanding of issues of representation. When asked whether he thought that it is possible for a documentary to be objective in the representation of reality, C6 is explicit: No. As soon as you try to give a picture of the world, of reality, yeah, you show a picture of the world and it depends how you draw it. You dont show the world. You always have a certain angle, as soon as you start to put on the camera, you can either decide to have a frog perspective, or a bird perspective. Thats how it all starts. In every sense there is a bit of opinion. A6, on the other hand, is aware that there is a particular filmmaker behind the camera who has certain aims but maybe not exactly when the film is showing but after all when you think of it, try to form your own opinion, you would take that into account. This kind of negotiating occurs in many viewers who saw one of the versions of Silver City. At an abstract level, they understand that reality in documentary film is constructed by a filmmaker, who has a particular view and possibly an agenda but they hesitate to allow that knowledge to interfere with actual media consumption. Subsequently, they have to negotiate the tension between structural competence and preferred mode of documentary consumption, and they do so in highly individual ways. The resistance to elements which may serve as a reminder of the constructed-ness of film can take on extreme forms, as the next example shows. Viewers should have information about the filmmaker because the film is made by a person, is kind of

178

 perspective, looking from some perspective one participant (C12, male, Polish, 3rd Psychology, 20-24) conveyed. Yet, although he and C6 both understood documentaries as showing facts from the perspective of the filmmaker (C12), C6 thought it is impossible for a documentary to be objective in the representation of reality in the film, whereas C12 thought it not only possible for documentary to be true to reality, it is the job of documentary to be objective. I understand documentaries as showing facts from the perspective of the filmmaker. So I would expect all that stuff that you were talking about like being as realistic as possible. When I watch a documentary I just judge it on this one dimension, nothing else. I just watch and oh, its not realistic, and I turn it off. Thats it (C12, Polish, 3rd Psychology, 20-24). Receptiveness to reflexive strategies does not necessarily lead to a raised consciousness with respect to issues of representation. In fact C6 is the only viewer who saw 1R who recognized the expressive reflexive strategies and interpreted them as such. It is not very likely, however, that his consciousness was raised by the reflexive elements in 1R. During the group discussion, he explained he had worked in journalism a bit and his description of the journalists approach to constructing reality for the screen3 as well as his assessment of what the filmmaker was ultimately trying to achieve4 suggest he already had a heightened consciousness with respect to issues of representation when he saw 1R. There is no indication either that the reflexive elements in the film raised his consciousness further.

Like any other piece of information in film, reflexive elements are appropriated by the viewer in a highly personalised fashion, which means that they may not achieve the intended effect. When asked why she thinks the filmmaker may have included the scene with Ian, one viewer said: Maybe it has something to do with peoples preconceived ideas. Maybe if theyd watch the film and perhaps assume that the person making the film was Polish, then it might perhaps have biased the viewer towards a certain a viewpoint whereas when they found out that the person making it was 179

 actually from the Netherlands, they might have thought, well, OK, maybe this isnt necessarily from the point of view of a Polish person wanting to tell the story of Polish people moving to Aberdeen, maybe it is somebody who is impartial and perhaps has at least geographically nothing to do with the country but is just interested in the subject (D12, female, English, 3rd Biology, 20-24). This viewer recognized the reflexive mode, but interpreted it as part of an authentication strategy. Other viewers appropriated the same piece of information in the non-reflexive mode. A non-European participant, for instance, who generally does not think it is relevant to know anything about the filmmaker, explained that the information about the filmmakers nationality enabled him to assess the scale of the issue at hand. It can make me more able to understand. In this case the thing is that the filmmaker came from the Netherlands. It can show us that, how do I say, not only a small group of people are concerned with this but also the moviemaker is also concerned [...] if I know the filmmaker is Scottish or English, my interpretation would be totally different. Because if this movie is not taken by a foreigner, but taken by local people here then I will interpret that some people in England are really concerned with this problem and the message given by the movie would be totally different to me (B6, Hong Kong, 3rd Biochemistry, 20-24). For B6 the nationality of the filmmaker indicated that foreigners are more concerned with the problem of Polish immigration in the UK than the native population. Knowledge about the filmmaker then did not raise his consciousness with respect to issues of representation; he did not appreciate it as metacommunication but as information that helped him to reconstruct the context. In other words, while disclosure of the filmmakers nationality was intended as a manifestation of the expressive function in the reflexive mode, this viewer appropriated the information as a manifestation of the referential function of documentary communication in the non-reflexive or mimetic mode. Knowledge about the filmmakers identity may also establish a more intimate relationship with the subjects, as we have already heard from A6. This effect was mentioned in another 1R focus group too. If anything, you should feel more intimately involved. If it was just a British student doing a documentary on Polish people, maybe we thought oh we could have done this better, or maybe could have done this. If 180

 anything, it helps us to get closer to the subject, of what they are trying to achieve. Thats my view (D10, male, British, 2nd Music, 20-24). Paradoxically, this mild form of expressive reflexivity moved the attention away from the filmmaker and their inherent bias. The viewer appropriated knowledge about the filmmaker as a manifestation of the conative function in the mimetic mode. In sum, those who were interested to learn more about the filmmakers background did not necessarily interpret the divulged information in the intended mode; those who did, did not appear to have a heightened awareness to issues of representation as a result. More importantly, most viewers were not receptive to reflexive strategies that revealed information about the filmmakers background at all. I think its better when there is, we dont have to, there is no mention of the person behind the camera because it is not relevant because you are just, you are just presenting a story and its weird when you are watching this kind of movie and someone [laughs] is asking the person behind the camera questions. I think so anyway (E6, male, Polish, 2nd Neuroscience and Psychology, 20-24). When prompted, E6 conceded that disclosure of the filmmakers nationality may have been a form of metacommunication (maybe it was done so deliberately, just to show, because if it was directed by a Polish person it could be more subjective), yet he simply declined the invitation to participate in a dialogue with the sender of the message about the construction of reality in documentary film. He also made it clear that he was not interested to learn what was included in the film or not (an example of a procedural form of reflexivity). The question arises why so many viewers who saw 1R rejected the films reflexive strategies. Most of E6s resistance seems to be related to his media experience; he has never seen anything like the reflexive strategies that were employed in 1R (It was weird, maybe because we are accustomed to watching TV, it never mentions anything about camera person or director, just the movie itself), which encouraged him to believe they were the result of a lack of production values.

181

 This was an amateur production; you cant expect it to be as with some Hollywood movie. I cant imagine a professional movie and the characters asking questions to the camera person. I havent seen a movie like that before. More participants made that comment. In reference to the scene with Gavin, in which the films intentions are addressed, another participant said: It shows that she is not normally experienced about being the filmmaker. Because once I am shooting a film, I need to tell the person beforehand I am shooting the film for so and so purpose. You get the feeling the filmmaker did not explain the purpose of the movie to the characters in the movie. Thats what I believe (C10, male, Indian, Masters in Pharmacy, 2534). Although other viewers interpreted the scene as it was intended he was criticizing her filmmaking and trying to suggest other maybe more objective, more scientific ways to make a film and she was saying, but this is not what I am trying to do (B10, female, Norwegian, 3rd Biotechnology, 20-24) C10s remark exemplifies how several viewers handled the reflexive elements in 1R. They categorized them as the result of the filmmakers perceived inexperience. It is not unlikely that knowledge about the production context contributed to this conclusion the film was announced as part of a PhD project at the University of Aberdeen but the fact remains that many viewers did not interpret these strategies as signs from which meaning could be inferred. As another participant said: It was just something that happened and I really wouldnt have paid much attention to it if that hadnt been a question. It did seem, like it just, it came up, oh you Polish, you are everywhere, you Polish, oh you are from the Netherlands. [laughter] And then that was it, it carried on, on its way. It really didnt affect me at all (F12, female, Scottish, 4th Law, 20-24). This response raises the question whether some viewers might have been more receptive to reflexive strategies if they had taken a different form and/or intensity. The fact is that while some viewers simply refused to consider the employed reflexive strategies in 1R as deliberate communication, others was genuinely bemused. I have never seen such a documentary. Every time the director is hidden on the other side of the camera. I got confused to be honest [...] because I wasnt sure who the owner of the hotel speaks to [...] it was difficult at first to understand [and there was a problem with the angle] it was like, he was 182

 speaking straight to you, I mean you were watching it and he was speaking straight to you, and then you realize that the director was there, between you and the guy who was speaking (E10, Polish, female, Anthropology, 1519). Like E6, it was the first time that she came across such a thing in the documentary that the director speaks for herself. Unlike E6 and F12, however, E10 displayed a high structural competence, in particular with respect to the expressive function of documentary communication. For instance, she said it is good to have some background information about the filmmaker because she influences, or he, the work, she puts herself himself in the work, it interacts, if you create, you dont separate yourself from the work. She also recognized the filmmaker will have personal views about the subject which may have been expressed in the film, and she understood the conversation with Gavin as a means for the filmmaker to express her intentions. Yet, she was puzzled because the strategy did not agree with her understanding of the conventions of documentary film. Her response may be explained by the fact that she had never encountered reflexive strategies in film before but the explanation that the particular manifestation of the reflexive strategies employed in 1R played a part too cannot be ruled out. Other resistant readers recognized the distancing effect that reflexive strategies may have but they did not perceive the effect as a cue to consider the problematic relationship between the image and that which it represents. Before you hear them speak, you completely forget, well, you dont forget that its a film but you forget that there are filmmakers there filming it, it just seems more natural, I think, when you are watching them going about their work, and things, going down the stairs or whatever and then when you hear the people speaking it makes me think more about what was the filmmaker trying to achieve, and Id rather not think about that to be honest. I thought it was really interesting without having to think about who was the filmmaker (D6, female, Scottish, Law, 20-24). For this viewer, the reflexive strategies employed in 1R interfered with an effortless consumption of the film, an effect that was not appreciated because it detracted from the reality she was hoping to experience. Note how D6 and A6 (see p. 177) both understood

183

 the recognition of the filmmakers presence as a reflexive strategy but while it added to the realism effect for A6, it detracted from the same for D6. Other reflexive strategies probably would not have been more successful in raising D6s consciousness. When asked whether she would like to have an understanding of what was not included in the film, an application of the procedural function of documentary communication in the reflexive mode, she answered: It could be interesting but identity in a film, really, its not. Taking everything in consideration, she is not very enthusiastic about reflexive strategies in documentary film. [It shouldnt be all about how it was and how it was done] and who the filmmaker is. Its more about, like, it is just a film at the end of the day. As long as you are aware, at some level, that there is a filmmaker somewhere. D6 was one of those viewers who knew at an abstract level that the filmmaker is not separate from the work, who recognized the reflexive strategies that were employed to make that point but nevertheless declined the invitation to be engaged in issues of representation. One of the problems D6 had was the intensity of the reflexive strategies as employed in 1R, or, to be precise, the lack of it. Maybe if you had heard them speaking to them, asking them questions throughout, you wouldnt have noticed, but that moment [pulls a face like shes being hit in the face]. There were more viewers who commented on the particular manifestation of the strategy in terms of intensity or timing. F12, for instance, thought the scene where they learned about the filmmaker was just plunked in the middle and no reason for it being there and not edited out but not worked on either. In reference to the moment when the camera swung to Justyna, she said: It just seemed to be, oh, its nice to see the person behind the camera but I didnt see the relevance to the story, because all it did was show, all she said is I am from Poland and then she said Im from the Netherlands and then that was kind of it. Either it shouldnt have been there or there was something extra missing, a bit more information if they were going to conclude (F12, female, Scottish, 4th Law, 20-24). Another viewer commented:

184

 Maybe if she had followed through the point she was making when she told the audience that she was from the Netherlands, like if she had a particular interest in Poland or Polish communities or some kind of context for the information rather than to say I am from the Netherlands and then leaving it at that [laughter]. Its like, yeah, that is interesting to know but not really relevant to the story you are trying to tell (D12, female, English, 3rd Biology, 20-24). In some viewers, these comments about the particular manifestation of the reflexive strategies employed in 1R can perhaps not be separated from their overall rejection but a viewer such as C6, who proved to be receptive to reflexivity as a means to address issues of representation, felt the same. The way it was done was a bit weird [...]. The intention was not totally clear. It could have been more obvious. This general dissatisfaction with the low level of reflexivity suggests that intensity may be a factor in achieving the intended effect. C6s opinion appear to be related to a preference for clear introductions, which should firmly establish the topic, in this case, as he conceded, by giving numbers for the Polish presence in Aberdeen. In other cases too, the call for a more consistent approach to reflexivity was connected with poetic concerns. Some viewers preferred a discourse that is clearly structured, as the following participant explains. I expected something in the beginning that would set it up and I didnt get that. We were just thrown into the story and if you had narration, we would have got at the beginning aims and objectives. Now it just went into the film without something in our heads but I didnt get that. So you enjoy having some sense of the filmmakers intentions? Yes, of course (G12, female, Vincentian, Mres Marine Ecology, 25-34).

Like F12, G12 is pronounced in her rejection of the expressive reflexive strategies employed in 1R. However, while they highlighted a lack of textual structure for G12, who likes to be guided through the story, they emphasized the opposite, a surplus in direction, for F12. When asked if she would prefer a voiceover, that is, guidance rather than an indirect way of expressing the films intentions, F12 answers:

185

 I quite liked the indirect way. It was almost like fly on the wall, at points. If they had wanted to keep it indirect... it was just having the odd overlap when she was asked if she was from the Netherlands and then when she was talking to Gavin. That was what made it jarring. She should have continued more along the fly on the wall route if that was what she wanted (F12, female, Scottish, 4th Law, 20-24). The psychological make-up of the interpreter may play a part too in the interpretation of expressive reflexive strategies. Some viewers appear to have a problem with (expressive) reflexive strategies because they seek to control the viewers interpretation. The sentiment was expressed most prominently in the PhD group which followed the screening of 3R, the most reflexive of all versions. I find the filmmaker telling me how to read the film even if it is to question it makes it a really uncomfortable viewing experience. They are patronizing; they are trying to force a story onto you or to force you to question it in a specific way (B5, female, Scottish, PhD English, 24-35). Even modest forms of reflexivity may have the same effect. It was almost like a teacher, F12 said dismissively, it was almost like a teacher telling me what to do and you dont really want that in the middle of your documentary. That is not to say that viewers like F12 and G12, who resisted an expressive reflexive reading and instead interpreted the reflexive elements in relation to the poetic structure of the film, are unaware of the filmmakers inherent bias. A good documentary pushes you towards what they want you to think, F12 says. By watching a documentary, you kind of get what the person wants you to see anyway, G12 says. Expressive reflexive strategies are gratuitous, then, at least for G12, because when you are watching, you definitely would know what their angle is anyway. D10 too doubted the usefulness of expressive reflexivity but for different reasons; he was not convinced that biographical information about the filmmaker is helpful in reaching an understanding of the decisions that were made to bring this film to the screen. I dont think it so much depends on background or gender or religion. I think it has more to do where the producers influences lie (D10, male, British, 2nd Music, 20-24).

186

 He referred to Crash (Paul Haggis, 2004), an Academy Award winning fiction film about race relations in Los Angeles, in which a film director is advised to change the wording of the film he is working on for political reasons. The scene taught him more about the reconstruction of reality for the screen than the reflexive elements that were employed in 1R. One of the participants in the PhD group that followed the screening of 3R phrased a similar concern in response to the question whether revealing the filmmakers background may offer any insights as to the filmmakers perspective. You know, anthropologists, in anthropology it always starts with I am a white middle-class foreigner [lots of laughter] and I think, oh no, there we go again, it means that I should be able to pigeonhole this person, I know what kind of perception that is. So I am very happy not to know anything about the filmmaker (D5-3R, female, Dutch, Postdoc Anthropology). One viewer directed attention to the detrimental effect that personal information about the filmmaker may have if included in the film. If shed said right at the beginning, I am the person making the documentary and I am from the Netherlands, any preconceived ideas that the viewer perhaps had about stereotypes with people from the Netherlands or how they might view the Polish community or Poland, or whatever it is that the viewers bring to the their ideas of what the Netherlands or its relationship to Poland would be might influence the way that they viewed the film or the points that would be made. Maybe its a good thing that its left to the end so that you can form your own opinions before you start to automatically react in a certain way because of your biases (D12, female, English, 3rd Biology, 20-24). As this viewer points out, particularly expressive forms of reflexivity will introduce meaning potential that may interfere with documentary consumption in undesired and uncontrollable ways. For this reason, other viewers suggested to remove these elements entirely and offer them as bonus features on a DVD, leaving the decision to gather information about the realization of the film to the viewer. An extra edition was mentioned too as an option.

187

 D10 appeared to be unresponsive to expressive reflexive strategies as employed in 1R but his remark does suggest that he might be susceptible to procedural forms of reflexivity. The sequencing and in particular the question of what was included or not did not come up in conversation in his focus group but it did in other groups. Several viewers expressed an interest in knowing what was left in, left out, as the procedure was termed, but they felt it should be used as an introduction. Others thought it would be best to save this kind of reflexivity until the end of the film so viewers can form their own opinion about the topic and what the filmmaker was trying to achieve before comparing notes with the filmmaker. Several viewers, however, were not interested to learn about the filmmaking process and what was left in, left out. I dont think it would really help for me to interpret the message from the movie [quite decidedly, laughs] (B6, male, Hong Kong, 3rd Biochemistry, 20-24). The question of how the cameras presence may affect behaviour was not prominently brought to the fore by the strategies employed in 1R. The topic came up in conversation in only one of the three focus group sessions. Some participants in this group thought it was possible to act natural in front of the camera (B10, female, Norwegian, 3rd Biotechnology, 20-24 and E10, Polish, female, Anthropology, 15-19) while one participant thought it was impossible (C10, male, Indian, Masters in Pharmacy, 25-34).

From the preceding it may be concluded that the response to reflexive elements in 1R displayed as many nuances as there were viewers. Most viewers were not receptive to reflexive strategies while those that were did not necessarily draw the desired conclusion. Reflexive strategies that were aimed at addressing the problematic relationship between the image and that which it represents were appropriated as a strategy to reinforce authenticity claims. Acknowledgment of the crews presence, an exploitation of the referential form of reflexivity, added to the realism effect for some but detracted from it for others. Reflexive

188

 strategies were not recognized as such while non-reflexive elements unexpectedly performed that metafunction, as may be concluded from what one informant said in relation to how reality is constructed in Silver City: The only thing I did not think of in the movie, that struck me as maybe or it could be perfectly natural, but when the girl said, when I got the key it was the happiest moment of my life. Thats a quite strong statement, and I think if she just said it on her own it would be really I think it made the filmmaker very happy because it was the catchphrase for the movie and maybe she got the suggestion to say something like that? The thought crossed her mind that Agnieszka was prompted, although she also says: We cant know, we are just watching the film. Its such a strong statement, that made you think whys that?

Silver City 2R The second reflexive version of Silver City revisits the film-in film construction as pioneered by Dziga Vertov in Man with a Movie Camera (1929). 2R starts with the arrival of the film crew at the hotel for the screening of Silver City NR and ends with a group discussion with the cast centring on issues of representation, a format that was borrowed from Chronique dun t (Morin and Rouch, 1961). While the focus group debates following the screening of 1R primarily concentrated on the expressive function of the communication process, the discussions that followed Silver City 2R addressed the referential and the procedural function as well. The group discussion at the end of 2R, furthermore, also appears to have affected the group dynamics. Participants who saw 1R generally enjoyed the film but rejected the mildly reflexive strategies that were employed in that version for various reasons, which they explained to the moderator and their fellow participants when probed. By comparison, 2R generated more discussion among participants themselves, in particular between those who felt that the job of documentary is to provide both sides of the argument and those who appreciated the subjective quality as the good part of the film (A7, male, British, 1st 189

 Philosophy). This resulted in more lively debates, in which participants not only challenged each other but also displayed a willingness to critically examine their own assumptions.

Response to reflexive strategies in 2R In general, the audience was more receptive to the reflexive elements employed in 2R than those employed in 1R. While the response to the reflexive strategies in 1R was often resistant if not dismissive, the response to those in 2R was generally charitable and more equivocal. Although some participants appeared to be more receptive to reflexive strategies than others, not one complained about the filmmakers presence. This may be due to the timing of the crews introduction as participants in the film. In 1R, the filmmakers presence is not fully addressed until there is an exchange between the people in front of the camera and the people behind the camera halfway through the film, a procedure that was borrowed from Lonely Boy. In 2R, the crews presence is acknowledged in the opening scene of the film. From the start, therefore, it is clear that the filmmaker will play a role in the film, a fact that is subsequently accepted more readily by the audience. Not one participant, furthermore, commented on the timing or the intensity of the modes of reflexivity that were employed in 2R while many participants who saw 1R expressed their dissatisfaction with the timing and/or intensity of the reflexive strategies that were applied in the variant of Silver City that they saw. This general benevolence is also found in response to the question of authorial intent in documentary and whether it should be expressed in the film. The expressive function of communication is not reflexively explored in 2R; the audience does not find out about the filmmakers nationality or background from the film itself, yet the matter was discussed in the focus groups because the moderator introduced the issue or because a

190

 participant volunteered to offer their point of view in this respect. When asked whether he is interested in learning about the person whos made the film, one participant said: Yes, certainly, I think thats a very important aspect because it very much says why they are making the film, for what reasons. Thats important in interpreting the film (A14, male, German, 1st Law and Spanish, 20-24). This informant would be interested to learn about the filmmakers background, and possibly their political leanings. He even suggested that the filmmaker could have introduced herself more prominently. It could very much have changed things if she had presented herself in the camera more than behind, like in front of the camera instead of behind the camera; that would have been quite interesting. How would it have changed things? Theres a face to the person making the film. [...] It would have been interesting if somebody else was holding the camera and she was more in the documentary. That could have been nice. B7 (male, German, 2nd Biology, 20-24) is one of the participants who brought up the issue himself. When the question was asked whether they think a filmmaker might just go into a situation, observe it and try to capture some reality, he offered the following comment. I think it is important to know a bit about the author, about his background, his intentions, to understand what the documentary is about. What does he want to convey? If you can get this information, it is very good to watch it, to assess the message of the documentary. But the difficulty is getting this information. I dont watch documentaries very often, but if people want to do that, they would have to get a lot of information in addition to the documentary to understand it. So it should be the objective of the author of a documentary to put as much of information into it, into the film, to understand it without gathering more information from outside in a way. Aha. Thats interesting, so the filmmaker that comes to mind would be Michael Moore, who stands in front of the camera and says I am this man, I have this political perspective, Im American, I am white, and this is what I am trying to do, I am trying to take down George Bush, I am trying to start a national health service. Would you appreciate that? It primes you to what you are going to see, and it gives you a helping hand to understand. Another participant, however, did not think it is fair to expect the maker of the film to do a Michael Moore, and to say everything about them because that in itself could be a

191

 device (D7, male, American, 3rd Biology and Anthropology, 20-24). This participant recognized the suggested strategy as an established procedure in modern ethnography where a positioning of the self has become the norm. In the last 30 years its common, its expected, it is the minimum but I dont know if thats necessarily transferred over to film because I guess I might have seen that as a bit tacky. I just dont like Michael Moore but I hate that sort of thing where they are spoon-feeding everything to you because thats what it comes across to me. OK, sit down [impersonates kindergarten teacher] I am going to take care of you, this is who I am, just trust in me kind of thing. In his view, audiences have responsibilities too. He mentioned this opinion on two occasions during the group discussion. I think again it is up to the viewer to say, well, I am going to take this seriously, I am going to read about this person, I am going to see what else, what other films they have made or other credentials, where have they studied, how long were they there. Because we, they said in the documentary that it was about 15 hours of footage, but still I would have, knowing this now, I would like to go and find out how long they knew each other, was this over a period of months or weeks or days or how well did they know each other, or how did he become the key informant for this text that was done. But again just dont get up on the soapbox, this is who I am sort of thing. Another Anthropology student in a different focus group expressed the same point of view. Like D7, B14 (female, Hungarian/Romanian, 1st Anthropology and History, 15-19) thought that it is impossible to make an objective film, and although she does not object to the filmmakers presence in the film as long as they are not the main character, she feels it is her own responsibility as a viewer to research the filmmakers background. The emphasis, however, should be on the story and her point of view is emphasized anyway in the film so I dont feel it is necessary for her to be in the movie. This brings us to the question whether some documentaries may be more suitable for an expressive reflexive treatment than others. NR and 1R did not incite responses in this respect but 2R and 3R did. One participant who saw 2R did not see a role for reflexivity in a film such as Silver City but he could see how a topic that is closely related to the person of the filmmaker might justify a reflexive approach. 192

 It does depend on the documentary. With this documentary I dont think it really matters, because it is more a fly on the wall, just looking at these people. But I just thought of an example, I dont know if anyone has seen, it was on the BBC, it was about a woman who had made this documentary about her mother living with dementia or Alzheimer. In that context it was important for her to say, this is me, because it really brought home the personal-ness. She really needed to say this is me, this is my house, this is my family, this is who I am, this is my mother, this how were, saying I am dealing with this situation, because highlighting the point, the family had a personal approach to the situation. But this film really didnt need that. It wasnt too important (G7, 1st Law, Scottish, 15-19) Another participant also thought it depends on the subject of the documentary whether it is pertinent to provide background information about the filmmaker in the film, but he saw the usefulness of wider applications. If the topic is socially related, it would actually be beneficial if they told something about the [filmmakers] background because obviously it does affect the decisions in this thing as well. If its about something else, perhaps random opinions unrelated to those social issues, what type of music do you like, yeah [then it is not beneficial] (E7, male, Polish, 2nd Accounting, 20-24). E7s response raises the question whether his consciousness with respect to the filmmakers influences was raised by the reflexive strategies employed in 2R or whether he had a prior awareness. The latter seems to be more likely. Would you interpret this film differently if you knew nothing about the filmmaker or if you knew lots about the filmmaker? Wed probably try to guess the agenda, what they are trying to tell us. Initially, if you knew who the filmmaker is before watching the actual film. Thats pretty much it. From this follows that he understands documentary as the propagation of a particular point of view. F7 (female, Estonian, 1st Law, 20-24) expressed the same general attitude towards watching documentary. Would you approach a documentary always thinking the filmmaker had a point that they wanted to make or they are coming from a certain angle? Probably not always, but usually, yeah, you start to watch a documentary and the main question is what is it trying to say, and what am I supposed to do with it. So probably, and sometimes it is even interesting to watch it from the point of view of the author. What is his or her background, and for example here I understand it was a Scottish woman who presented the

193

 Polish issue lets say in Aberdeen, so it was kind of important Id say to know who she is. So if I was to tell you it was a woman from the Netherlands who made the film, would that change your interpretation of it? Well, yeah, even if she was Polish that would be different than if she was someone else. While most participants who commented on the expressive function of documentary communication professed an interest in learning about the filmmakers background, one participant responded negatively when the question was asked in his focus group. A11, you shook your head extremely decisively when I suggested the possibility would you be interested in the filmmaker coming out and stating their intentions. Well, yeah, thats kind of because If you limit the influence of your documentary, if the filmmaker before the documentary starts comes out and says I did documentary to prove this and this point, I was trying to [laughter all around] If thats not a list of points, but just then the filmmaker gives a perspective to me how and for which aspects of the film I am paying attention to and that basically limits my view on the film, just on this aspect what he was talking about. Thats why I dont agree with that (A11, male, German, Biotechnology, 20-24). For this viewer, who also stressed how much he appreciated the film, documentary is like nearly at the end of the film was said [...] something where you have two different points of view, which allows the viewer to make up their own mind. The purposive expression of the filmmakers intention would interfere with this principle. A11, in other words, trusts that objectivity may be achieved by giving two different opinions. He feels it is the job of documentary to capture reality and he does not doubt that it is possible to do so. At the same time, he knows that selection is a key element in documentary production. In response to the question whether they would go into documentary very aware of the fact that the filmmaker would choose to put certain scenes in and certain scenes out, he replied: Yeah, otherwise it would not be possible to do a documentary. For a documentary you have maybe 15 minutes film material for one minute in the film or even more. You have to choose, otherwise you could not come up with a film of only an hour. If you would choose to present all what you have filmed, no audience is prepared to sit for 50 hours in the cinema and appreciate your work. You have to choose and I think that everybody who watches the documentary is aware of this fact. 194

 Unfortunately, A11 does not comment on how this selection process, which he considers to be inherent to documentary production, relates to the objectivity standard he has set for the genre. We do not know either whether he came to the screening room aware of this selection process or whether his consciousness was raised in this respect by reflexive elements in 2R. In any case, A11 was not receptive to expressive strategies in the reflexive mode while he did display receptiveness to reflexive strategies that exploit the poetic function and, more prominently, the referential function of communication, as the following excerpt demonstrates: In this film we had the people in the film watching the film and having a discussion about the film at the end of the documentary, which of course forms part of the documentary, and I just wondered what you made of that aspect of the film. [...] Did those scenes raise issues that you werent aware of before? Yes. On the one hand to have these, how to call it, intra-scenes, these things in between when the people who are in the film are actually watching the film. You have one aspect of the film basically finished more or less and then you have these interruptions which give the audience or at least I felt like that, give me a break to think about the aspect in this scene before this discussion. In the end I found really good that these comments the people that were actually in the film which they made about the film, so for example, [where Peter] said something like you showed me in the film saying that and that but I didnt mean it like that and that, I saw it more like that and that. That was really good; it added an objective point of view. That made sure that you are really showing in your documentary that what the people really think and that you dont show just, OK, thats what I think the people think. The discussion, in A11s view, completed the film because it puts views which were presented in the film, it puts views in the right light. It puts views like how people wanted their views.

The discussion at the end of 2R provided viewers in the focus groups with the tools to discuss the relationship between reality and its reconstruction for the screen. A7 (male, British, 1st Philosophy) for instance borrowed Gavins words to talk about the films objective (What was the brief, I thought the brief was to represent a Polish family that had

195

 moved to England, I thought it did it really well). Others referred directly to the conversation at the end of the film to make their point. Two examples: It got mentioned in the end, in the discussion which they had in the end, that it was really a one-sided view, so you have only shown it from a perspective of Polish people who had success in Aberdeen and what I personally missed is, that you havent shown for example the perspective from a British person (A11, male, German, Biotechnology, 20-24). I liked the bit where the Polish guy would speak and he was talking about his view on him but then the guy with the headphones was talking about all this theory about how documentary is inherently [biased]. I dont think it was needed, it didnt add to the authenticity, it didnt add to the documentarys message (A7, male, British, 1st Philosophy). From these responses it may be gathered that the final scene encouraged the thinking about the construction of reality for the screen. However, although the argumentation in 2R allowed viewers to form their own opinion as may be inferred from the resistant reading that A7 offers in the second of these two statements, the response to the reflexive elements in 2R was limited compared to response to other versions. Viewers who saw 2R mainly considered the films perceived one-sidedness without regarding other issues of representation. The filmmakers nationality, for instance, which was hotly debated in discussions following NR and 1R, remained unaddressed, as did the question of natural behaviour in front of a camera. The views that participants expressed as to how authenticity in documentary film may be achieved strongly resembled Gavins opinion (documentary is required to present both sides of the coin) while viewers who saw 1R mentioned a wide variety of alternatives, including: - Not leading people to say certain things (D6, female, Scottish, Law, 20-24); - Presenting a contrast within the given situation (E6, male, Polish, 2nd Neuroscience and Psychology, 20-24); - Quoting statistics or objective sources (B10, female, Norwegian, 3rd Biotechnology, 20-24);

196

 - Using a large sample (C10, male, Indian, Masters in Pharmacy, 25-34); - Choosing a broad perspective (E12, male, Polish, 3rd Management, president of Polish student society at the University, 20-24 and G12, female, Vincentian, Mres Marine Ecology, 25-34); - Giving an impression of the average or the typical (E6, male, Polish, 2nd Neuroscience and Psychology, 20-24); - Offering the viewer a chance to reconstruct the films angle so they can form their own opinion (F6, female, Romanian, 1st Biomedical Science, 20-24); - Taking a position but also presenting (and rejecting) the counter argument (F12, female, Scottish, 4th Law, 20-24); - An alternative view in the entire media context (C14, female, Kenyan, 2nd Law, 20-24). Several viewers in the 1R groups also made the point that the evaluation of what counts as authentic and true to life depends on the observers perspective. D10 (male, British, 2nd Music, 20-24) for instance mentioned that Polish viewers will have a different point of view compared to the British while A6 (female, Czech, 1st Management and Psychology, 20-24) remarked that a viewer who perceives of Silver City as a story about these three particular people will possibly make a different evaluation as to the films authenticity than a viewer who perceives of the topic as the Polish experience in Aberdeen or the experience of every foreign person that has ever immigrated into the city. Nuances like these were lost on viewers in the focus groups that followed the screening of 2R; they either agreed or disagreed with Gavins assessment. One explanation for this difference in variety may be that alternative interpretations were available but not reported in the focus groups that followed the screening of 2R, but this is not very likely. There is no indication that participants felt constrained to offer other points of view because the debates were lively and because the response was consistent

197

 throughout the focus groups that followed 2R while a much wider variety in response was reported in the focus groups that followed alternative versions of Silver City. A more probable explanation is that the constricted response was incited by the particular manifestation of reflexivity. In 2R, the problem of authenticity in documentary film is addressed directly, that is, it is voiced by a participant in the film, and not indirectly by storytelling devices. As a protagonist, Gavin apparently has the authority to speak about the politics of representation, and he is a dominant speaker. Gavins opinion clearly structured viewer response to 2R. Although many other issues of representation were specifically addressed in the film, including representation of the self by others and the question of who may speak on behalf of whom (see Chapter Four for the full list), they were hardly discussed in the focus groups. These more ethical concerns were not addressed in any of the other versions of Silver City, so it is impossible to make comparisons across versions but one might speculate that Gavins overbearing presence had an impact here too. A possible explanation is that viewers from this particular age and social context are more concerned with the job of documentary and the question of subjectivity versus objectivity, and less so with ethical concerns as who is qualified to speak on whose behalf. This would explain why they were primed by Gavins remarks and not by other reflexive elements in 2R that passed in revue.

In the previous section, the relationship between reflexivity and a preference to be guided through the story by a tightly structured discourse was discussed. A comparable connection between narrative, reflexivity, reception and interpretive strategies was found in two viewers who saw 2R. One of them is A11, who already explained how the interludes in which the participants watch themselves on the screen offered him a chance to recollect his thoughts. You have one aspect of the film basically finished more or less and then you have these interruptions which give the audience or at least I felt like that, give me a break

198

 to think about the aspect in this scene before this discussion (A11, male, German, Biotechnology, 20-24). Another participant described how the discussion at the end of the film helped him to determine what to concentrate on. As a viewer, he explained, he likes to be reminded of the topic every now and then to be able to interpret the film. Thats what I get from that discussion, its not everything that is there []; there is a particular thing you are supposed to react to. It needs to give you an idea; oh, I should have looked at it that way [...] It did get at me. Its good; it did give you something to think about (C11, male, Kenyan, Msc Accounting Finance, 25-34). The last scene, in other words, helped this viewer to reappraise the film and it even motivated him to want to see the film again because maybe you havent seen something, hardly done or another perspective. You want to see it again and see what was I supposed to see. Remarks like these suggest that viewers who prefer guidance as they consume documentary film may be more receptive to reflexive strategies than viewers who like the indirect way, as F12 phrased it in the previous section. The last statement also suggests that susceptibility to reflexive strategies may not only be an exponent of textual preferences but also of a desire to be told what to think. Like some 1R viewers, participants who saw 2R struggled with the convention, which prescribes that documentary has the obligation to show more than one perspective and the recognition that it is impossible for documentary to be complete. To assuage the discord, several participants suggested the production of a series of documentaries, which also shows different points of view: people living under the bridge, people staying in Poland, unemployed Scots people (F11, female, German, 3rd English and Politics, 20-24). The feasibility or advisability of this approach was not discussed. The final scene and in particular the opportunity it offered the main characters to comment on their representation in Silver City appealed to most viewers who saw 2R. The strategy authenticated the film as a realistic account (B7, male, German, 2nd Biology, 2024); it legitimized the process (A14, male, German, 1st Law and Spanish, 20-24) or made it

199

 a little bit more objective (F11, female, German, 3rd English and Politics, 20-24). For A11 too, as we have already seen, the strategy completed the film because it puts views which were presented in the film, it puts views in the right light. It puts views like how people wanted their views. Yet, the effect was not univocal, as we already know from A7s response, who did not think that talk about the inherent bias of documentary added to the films authenticity. The strategy, furthermore, was not immediately transparent for everyone. While some viewers commented they had seen the procedure in a film before (I dont think it was that new or novel, to be honest [B11, male, British, 2nd Neuroscience and Biology, 15-19]), others were puzzled at first. It might be a positive thing but it can be confusing as well [laughs] (B7, male, German, 2nd Biology, 20-24). First of all, I thought thats not possible because they cannot watch the same film that we watch because otherwise they would be in it again and again and again [lots of laughter]. I took some minutes to figure it out [more laughter] but I think I kind of liked it because it gives a frame to the documentary, and weve also got this reflective element you could call it maybe, that the characters themselves can say, hey, its not like that and I did not like this and I did not like that so youve got another dimension which you wouldnt have otherwise so its a little bit more objective maybe than it would have been otherwise (F11, female, German, 3rd English and Politics, 20-24). Another participant arrived at the same conclusion, but from the opposite angle. [The film] is almost postmodern to the point of being too cute to be functioning. It gets almost just on that [cuff?] where its like, oh they are doing that to be cute, but I still think it is good that they are, its sort of like they are putting all their cards on the table and saying, yeah, we know this is meant to be a humane film, and heres why. I enjoyed the movie, I guess it was funny them seeing themselves. I guess it was walking that line of cuteness versus effectiveness sort of thing. They were useful, like the aside kind of thing (D7, male, American, 3rd Biology and Anthropology, 20-24). One participant expressed his confusion as to whether to understand the final scene as a postmodern strategy that was an integral part of the film or as revised commentaries (D11, male, Chinese, PhD Law, 25-34) and therefore separate of the film. For one viewer, the final scene resulted in a frustrating viewing experience, an assessment that was linked to his overall opinion of the film as well as his personal 200

 situation. Rather than one-sided, he thought the film was low-sided (G7, 1st Law, Scottish, 15-19); it did not really seem to have a message. I didnt really know what she wanted to say. It wasnt I dont know, it could be done in a subtle way but if it was maybe it was too subtle way. Or maybe Im not intelligent enough [laughter]. Thats what I thought.5 For G7, the film only acquired meaning when Peter speaks his mind about his situation as a Polish worker in Britain, comments he subsequently revokes in the final scene. You took basically your entire argument there from that one moment when he reads the paper. That is about 2 minutes out of 60. And thats really the only two minutes that you really get a sort of feel, or you can get a message of what he thinks. And at the very end, he says, well, no, its not what I really think. So when asked about his thoughts on the interludes and the discussion at the end and in particular whether that influenced or changed his interpretation or appreciation of the film, he said he thought these elements of the film were irrelevant. All irrelevant, except the one at the end. And the one at the end wouldnt be in a normal, well, normal, but it wouldnt be in a documentary because it doesnt really, it doesnt happen, it wouldnt be, its quite clear its not filmed to be in the documentary, it is just, it is a focus group [laughter] but the rest all the way through, I didnt really, I didnt see the point really. It didnt say anything. They were just watching it, ha ha, hugging yourself. For this participant, the meaning of documentary communication is to be found in the expressive function; the message should be a strong point of view. The fact that such statements could subsequently be revoked, and in particular the one statement that gave the film the little significance it had, led to a firm rejection of the reflexive procedure altogether. He also made a point that was heard more often in the focus groups that were held after the screening of 1R, which is that he did not think that the strategy would be employed in real documentaries. From the previous does not follow, however, that he was totally unresponsive to reflexive strategies. When confronted with the theory that prescribes filmmakers to identify themselves in terms of class and gender so viewers can better assess their take on reality, he recognized that as a viable strategy. 201

 I think documentaries on BBC3 would do that, documentaries on BBC4 probably wouldnt. But documentaries on BBC3 do that, a bit. Its got strong character, they are going to come out and say I am such and such, I am making this, they always say I am making that for. BBC4 things dont but I dont know what I was going to say. Do you have any opinions on that? Yeah, it is just sort of a high-brow low-brow sort of thing. They expect BBC3 viewers to not really... I think thats quite good. Sometimes youd want to know and I wouldnt always see it in that sense, that its intellectualism to question without being told and all of that, but I think its probably the reason why they are more straightforward. Here, G7 points at two aspects that may influence the consumption of reflexive elements in film, namely an association with a discourse of intellectualism and, in relation to this, the media context in which reflexive texts tend to be made available. G7 is conflicted about reflexivity; on the one hand, he seems suspicious of its aura of high-brow culture while he recognizes and welcomes its potential for transparency at the same time. For other viewers, however, the reflexive elements in 2R had a straightforward and positive effect, as may be gathered from the following two quotes. The way that after they watch themselves in the movie, they see things perhaps differently then they did in the movie, or the same way. It shows that there are too many different points of view. And the fact that they talked about it in the movie, it emphasizes that the filmmaker couldnt capture an objective view because it is impossible (B14, female, Hungarian/Romanian, 1st Anthropology and History, 15-19). It goes to show that you do, everyone has different views and everyone sees in a certain situation, you have your own way of how you would like to show it. That really showed that the director or the filmmaker had her own perception of how she wanted to see it but other people have a different perception (C14, female, Kenyan, 2nd Law, 20-24). These viewers displayed receptiveness to referential and/or expressive manifestations of reflexivity. It is likely, however, that these two viewers were already very much aware of the inherent subjectivity of documentary film before they saw 2R. As B14 said about objectivity in documentary film and before the discussion turned to the reflexive elements in 2R: It is just too many sides and you cant capture everything. You can capture 10, 15, 20 100 aspects but there are more and you cant build up a completely objective view. There is no such thing as an objective view. 202

 Thats not a view anymore. I dont think it is possible to make a completely objective film. Unlike B14, C14 thinks it is possible in theory to attain objectivity in documentary film but at the same time she thinks it is really difficult to do that as a director. I cant think of anything of the top of my head that I have watched that completely let me come to my own decision. Its always, there is little times when you can see they are leading you in a direction. Moreover, she fears the result would not be very entertaining. It will be a pretty boring documentary if it didnt lean in a certain way but if you were to give people like these are the facts, just like good newspaper articles do, just tell you this and this and this is the way it is, and this and this is how certain people have interpreted it and this is a different way of interpreting, and there is other ways of interpreting the same information. You could do that; it would be really difficult because the most engaging part is to see the different views of the filmmaker and whoever else, and the subjects inside. It is exactly the subjective quality, a combination of both the filmmakers view and the subjects personal experience, which lends documentary its authenticity, according to this viewer. Yet, despite her awareness with respect to issues of representation, 2R was able to raise it a even more. Did these scenes perhaps make you think differently about what had come before or what was being presented to you in the documentary? It makes me think I want to see the 15 hours now. Probably not in reality but I feel that Ive definitely got the filmmakers interpretation of everything. I guess it can make you quite uneasy if you quite like to make up your own mind about it. The most profound effect in viewers who saw 2R perhaps was found in F11. She reported an awareness of film as a process of selection and suture, but also admitted how this consciousness is subsequently numbed by the aesthetics of reality that documentary generally deploy. At least in the beginning, for me its always like in the beginning I am aware of people having edited the stuff but if its personalised at some point I just forget, I get into the point of view and take it for real. Its kind of dangerous sometimes [laughs]. Did these scenes kind of remind you of that fact? Yes definitely, and I especially liked it when the camera man got out from behind the camera and also said what he wanted to show and what he 203

 wanted to say what his own view was because you believe that the person behind the camera isnt allowed to talk like that very much (F11, female, German, 3rd English and Politics, 20-24). As mentioned before, some issues of representation were hardly discussed in the group conversations that followed the screening of 2R. There was one instance, for example, where the selection process and how that may affect the final result was discussed. (He said that with the same film you could do all sorts of different things, which is true because everyone has different views about subjects so if I have the same footage and you have the same footage, if we all had the same footage Im sure we would come out with something very different [C14, female, Kenyan, 2nd Law, 20-24]). No comments were made about the possibility of behaving naturally in front of the camera. Shots which reveal the microphone boom, included to remind the viewer of a certain artificiality in the situation in which the images were gathered, were rejected by those who commented on the procedure, including those who were already aware of the realities of documentary production. Yeah, it was a bit distracting because we all know this was reality: camera, microphones, et cetera, but I think it was not supposed to be there (F7, female, Estonian, 1st Law, 20-24). For 2R viewers, as well as for 1R viewers, this form of reflexivity added to the sense of amateurism, which again was more likely enhanced than reduced by knowledge that it was a student film instead of a professional production. One viewer commented on the onscreen focusing, which was inserted with the same aim as the boom shots. When they are interviewing people, I hate it when the camera zooms in on their face, zooms on something half-way through. Its like the cameraman wanted something to do with his camera [laughter] (G7, 1st Law, Scottish, 15-19). From these responses, it may be gathered that the poetic reflexive strategies as employed in 2R were not very successful in engaging viewers in issues of representation. Some reflexive elements in 2R were interpreted non-reflexively, as was the case with viewers who watched 1R. In two focus groups, a discussion developed about how 204

 Peter back-pedalled (D7, male, American, 3rd Biology and Anthropology, 20-24) in the final scene with respect to the comments he made after reading the newspaper article, offering his anger as an explanation of why they may not be representative of his opinion after all. People dont want to be portrayed badly. Youd always want to put your best foot forward. So something said in passion like that, he might not want people to think that he is that critical. I am guessing because he said that in a fit of emotion it is probably pretty close to the truth, but he wouldnt want people to think that he was anti-British or anti-Scottish (D7, male, American, 3rd Biology and Anthropology, 20-24). The thing he said at the end came out passionately as well, so you just pick up both sides of his character, not wanting to be seen as prejudiced towards British people and thats a point in itself (A7, male, British, 1st Philosophy). In another focus group, Peters response met with criticism from A14, a law student. He was excusing his opinions he expressed after he read the article. He said something about it not being fair that he is portrayed in that manner. At the end of the day, he is still liable for his opinions and actions. It may sound like a law perspective [lots of laughter]. I am only in my first year of law. So for you, that didnt make a different to you knowing the fact that he was angry when he said that. Excusing yourself that way, I didnt appreciate that. I didnt feel it was a plausible argument. I was drunk the other night, I did these things but thats because I was drunk. You cant wave things off that easily. You are always responsible for your actions (A14, male, German, 1st Law and Spanish, 2024). These three viewers, in other words, interpreted Peters remarks as an exposition of character rather than a comment on issues of representation.

Silver City 3R Of the four versions, Silver City 3R is the most rigorous in its employment of the reflexive mode. The narrative about Peter and his journey was interrupted many times by intertitles and acted scenes that chronicle the films production process. All six forms of reflexivity are employed in 3R, some of which are derived from Far from Poland (Godmilow, 1984). A full description of these reflexive strategies may be found in the previous chapter.

205

 Group dynamics in the focus groups that followed the screenings of NR and 1R were relatively similar, and although one of the groups that followed the screening of 2R may be characterised as slightly more upbeat than the other two, the dynamics in the 3R groups were most diverse by comparison. While the general attitude in focus group 8-3R was open-minded and constructive, the atmosphere in focus group 13-3R may be described as rebellious at times. Focus group 9-3R occupied a middle position in this respect. The turbulence in 13-3R was largely due to one participant (D13), who, in the course of the discussion, developed an appetite for undermining the conversation by offering views that were irrelevant or extreme. What caused this behaviour is open to speculation. One possible explanation is that rigorous reflexivity invites not only resistant readership but also resistant behaviour. Another equally speculative explanation is that his mixed heritage played a role in his disruptive behaviour, which he described in a pre-focus group email as follows: I am Scottish, born in the North Highlands. My mother is 100% Scottish and my father is 100% Polish. In his questionnaire, he noted Scottish-Mum Polish-Dad (I call myself Scottish). As already mentioned in Chapter Four, polarization is a known concern for focus groups, which potentially may produce two seemingly conflicting responses; conformity, whereby participants withhold information they might have shared in individual interviews, and the opposite, the expression of views that are more extreme than if obtained through private interrogation (Morgan 1997: 15). In relation to the analysis, this observation raises an important methodological question: how to treat data that are suspected to be the product of the research method rather than the topic under scrutiny? If we decide to reject these data, the question occurs how we may identify them. While extreme views are easily identifiable, conforming behaviour is hard to recognise and a decision to discard only the former will likely result in a bias towards average views. Extreme views are furthermore often balanced by remarks from other viewers, who offer 206

 their views in response. As said earlier, the interaction between participants is one of the levels at which analysis takes place, and discarding one sort of response would eliminate this advantage of focus group research. A final consideration to admit D13s contributions was that polarized behaviour occurs in real-world discussions regarding media output too.

Response to reflexive strategies in 3R Several viewers in the focus groups commented that they had never seen a documentary like 3R before. Some, including C8 (male, Polish, 1st English and German, 15-19), qualified watching the film as a good experience: We dont only see how Peter and Agnieszka see the whole thing but also we see through the film the concept of the filmmaker so its quite good to know what she is thinking of doing the film. Yet, other viewers, such as B9, thought that the staged scenes and the rehearsal scenes, although adding a layer, were odd, intrusive and contrived. For him as well as some other viewers, the repetitiveness in particular detracted from the film. Yeah, I sort of didnt see the point of that. I guess it hit us over the head with that whole slant thing, one or two times would have been fine (B9, male, Finnish, 1st English, Linguistics and Film). This does not mean, however, that he declined the invitation to consider issues of representation. When asked whether a film like Silver City might challenge his ideas about documentary, he responded: For challenging it is maybe a bit too powerful. It certainly made me reflect a bit about it, yeah, because we were shown, they were discussing the film itself was sort of background footage or extra material incorporated into the film. It made you think, and thats a good thing. Perhaps a more subtle approach might have achieved more, he contended. Indeed, it was a minimally reflexive scene that raised his awareness to issues of representation, if only temporarily. At least the scene when we see her child, when she says, dont be shy because obviously there is a camera there and she acknowledges that, that makes you, oh yeah, there is a camera there but it leaves your mind maybe 207

 a minute afterwards. Through discussion I am starting again but I dont know if it makes a lasting impression. For other viewers, however, the reflexive elements had a more univocal effect. They not only interpreted the scripted episodes as a form of reflexive communication but these scenes also had the desired effect. For D8, for example, the opportunity to know the filmmaker was something new but it also makes it more real in another way. It connects more because I can imagine it more than it being a snapshot from an omniscient narrator who doesnt appear but seems to know everything. The whole process makes it more understandable to me and also that the film script is not there suddenly [laughter] and everything comes together by itself and that everything needs to be thought about (D8, female, German, 3rd English and German, 25-34). The realness for this viewer is achieved by the transparency of the filmmaking process. To others, however, the film appeared to be less real (even synthetic [B13, female, Polish, 2nd Computing, 25-34]) because of the repetition and the ensuing idea of scripted-ness. Yet, the scenes seemed to have the same effect in both D8 and B8. In B8s words: Its an interesting way to do it and it makes you think more about how real is a documentary? Rather than just accepting, like, if we dont have those bits in we just accept everything we see as a viewer, this is a Polish worker in Aberdeen, this is what hes doing, but with those bits added in its like more about how much do we take from it (B8, male, Scottish, 4th Film and Philosophy, 20-24). From this follows that the evaluations real and not real, which are contrary, point to a similar point of view. For B8, the scenes are less real but at the same time the scripted-ness makes the film more authentic. People act differently in front of the camera. So its a more authentic way to make a documentary because... You see that sometimes the cameras focused on someone else, like the girl in the bar she sticks her tongue out and makes a face at the camera. People are going to act when they see a camera anyway, so its better that they have a script to act it because its going to make it more [inaudible] to it, rather than just say, if you are under pressure by the camera behave in a way not being themselves. Even though, its funny, they may be more themselves when they are told to be something. B8 demonstrated high structural competence. A film, according to him, can never be objective because a filmmaker chooses the topic and subsequently decides what is 208

 included and what not. The question thus arises whether B8s consciousness with respect to issues of representation was raised by the stimulus, or whether he entered the screening room with an already raised awareness. When asked whether the realisation that reality is constructed for the screen is always in the back of his mind when watching a documentary or whether he accepts what is presented in front of him as reality or truth, he replied: I think a lot of the time when you are watching, you forget. You forget that someone is filmed, his moves, when you are looking at him. Its not like, you dont think about the person whos made it as much, you just think about the content. B8 appeared to be pleasantly surprised by the film, in particular the scripted episodes because they made him reconsider aspects of the documentary film process. D8 had the same experience. It makes me think more about how films are made. Also this time, I had a film and text course and never before I actually thought about films and how they are made or narrated, and all these things. They were just there. So its still very new and exciting for me (D8, female, German, 3rd English and German, 25-34). For another viewer too, the reflexive elements served as an eye-opener. Some of it was overdone and too long and when they read from the script and oh... I did not see the point really. But this kind of reflecting on how to convey best or what moods or specific way of presenting things evoke, actually take him back to the bus stop or is this not too romantic, I found this quite interesting and I think I will see documentaries with a more, with a different eye, I will ask myself more: is this the best way to put it? Or what emotion evokes this and do I think it fits or would I be interested in something else, something more deeper (E9, female, German, PhD International Law, 25-34). Yet, despite her enthusiasm, E9 did not see how 3R could be screened in a movie theatre as it deviated too much from the norm, and even on television it would be a kind of odd. Again, reflexivity was not associated with real films that would be screened on television or in the movie theatre. While D9 said he could see the film in the Belmont, Aberdeens alternative movie theatre, she still hesitated. Perhaps the film could be screened as part of screenings of homemade or Scottish films. She saw the film more as a

209

 teaching device for 1st or 2nd year Film Studies students, who have no clue or havent really thought about these things. Other viewers, on the other hand, refused the invitation to consider issues of representation. One of them was D9 (male, Scottish, 4th Anthropology, 25-34). He did not think the scripted scenes and the rehearsals added anything to the story and even though he finds it very interesting to hear about immigration from the side of someone who is actually a part of it, he is dismissive of the films subjectivity. I think as well that documentary is a documentation of reality; it should be a representation of what is actually transpiring. I think that having a slant and having this motivation maybe corrupt the reality in some way but she should maybe have put the camera there and just let it explore if you like but I think that having an agenda does kind of bleed out the reality a little bit. D9s problem with the film was not the filmmakers acknowledgement of her bias but the fact that she had one in the first place. The Anthropology student has faith in the recordability of reality and expects documentary to be unbiased. In his own words: We are having this argument about her having a particular slant, a particular idea that could corrupt from the reality of the situation. If you are driving something towards something that you want to perceive, you could be driving it off the road and do something else. Viewers like D9 decline to be engaged in issues of representation because they do not believe there are any issues. Documentary shouldnt be more than what the camera is portraying. It might be my naive understanding of documentary, but I dont think that is what it is. His opinion about documentary, however, is not indicative of an entire lack of structural competence. In fact, D9 arrived at the screening with hands-on knowledge about interviewing practices. Its certainly an interesting point that the camera being there obviously manipulates peoples responses and to some extent is piercing into reality so then it becomes imaginary more than anything else. I had that issue as well doing my fieldwork in the summer with interviews. There is going to be interview effects, like the camera effects with documentary. People may tell you what you want to hear and the camera may elicit a response that is 210

 already been programmed into them through conversations beforehand with the documentary maker: this is what I want to do; this is what I am trying to do. So maybe subconsciously they are going to jump through the hoops, whether it is going to be intentional or just something thats unconscious, I dont know. Its an interesting point to talk about. And to say representing reality, then maybe the camera does in some way take away from there. I am not sure. Its interesting to think about. I am not there yet. From the previous, it follows that he was not entirely unresponsive to (procedural) reflexive strategies, although it was the discussion afterwards that made him conscious of the effect, not the film itself.6 For other viewers, the reflexive elements in 3R did not add to their understanding of filmmaking. In one case, they only led to a form of hypercorrection. When asked how it made them feel that the filmmaker acknowledged she gave Peter the newspaper to solicit a particular response, one viewer answered: I kind of already assumed that she had given him the newspaper to provoke it. They didnt really need to tell me that. So it didnt make any difference to me knowing that she had given it to him. And I kind of felt that with the photographs as well, when they were talking about their kids. I thought maybe thats a thing she suggested, that theyd talk about that (E13, female, British, 2nd Plant Biology, 15-19). Although this viewer appears to have some structural competence, she does not generally allow that knowledge to interfere with an effortless consumption of documentary film, as the following excerpt shows. When you watch a kind of documentary like this in general, would you be thinking certain things have been made by the filmmaker? Wow, thats really hard... I dont think I am usually aware of it. I dont know. It depends. Most links are engineered, arent they, because there is a way things come together. I think I just noticed it in that particularI also thought it was kind of strange. Because if she had been there for however long, how long has she been there?[Someone: Six, seven months?] Then they must have already been talking about their kids? I couldnt believe that was the first time. Maybe thats what made me think about it. Apart from those who read 3R as an eye-opener with reference to documentary as a construct and those who declined to accept the message because they reject such a conception of documentary altogether, a category of viewers existed who received the message but resisted the implications, each to a different degree. A9, for instance, is a clear 211

 example. She admitted that she appreciated the intertitles because they helped to put some of the films claims into perspective. In particular, she considered knowledge about the filmmakers position as an outsider to be useful information. When asked whether she thinks that a film like Silver City makes her more aware of the production process, she said: Yes, because it was kind of addressed, because you did not just have your film, you did have your narrator almost, you had the words that came up on the screen and stuff. You were made more aware of the further aspect, you were not just watching a film and becoming completely involved in it, you took a step back (A9, British, 4th English Literature). From this follows that the reflexive elements in 3R had the distancing effect in this viewer that the reflexionists would expect. A9, in other words, received the message and interpreted it at least in part reflexively. At the same time, however, these reflexive elements in 3R did not have the straightforward effect that the reflexionists would anticipate. When the group was asked whether they would agree that the function of documentary is to capture some form of reality or truth, she responded caustically, Well, if its job isnt to capture something of reality, what is it doing? Her tone incited chuckles all around and she continued: Obviously, you cannot get an exact reality because, yes of course, if you have got a camera there and it is going to change behaviour slightly and things are going to become a little contrived. But isnt that the purpose of documenting, to try and capture some aspect of what you are looking at? From these statements it can be inferred that A9 not only has authorial and procedural competence, she also has received the message and interpreted it reflexively. Yet, she does not draw the ultimate conclusion, which, according to the proponents of reflexivity would have to be that documentary reality is a construction manufactured for the screen by someone who has their own sub/conscious preconceptions about the world. This type of reader behaviour appeared to be a form of cognitive dissonance that, when interrogated, was met with helplessness, in least in this case.

212

 I know, its a huge question. Does a film like Silver City perhaps perhaps not a fair question to ask but does it prompt you to think in this way or ask these kind of questions? When we were because they kept talking about filming him against the wall, so when you saw him against the wall you were thinking about that wee bit of discussion. So you were aware of the fact that they were trying to give you a certain perspective, to give you a version of reality kind of thing. I think you are aware of this is a film, this is a documentary, this isnt, you are not just watching someone talking to you. [Softly:] I dont know what that means though. Some of the confusion may be due to the particular manifestation of reflexivity in 3R. Several viewers commented they found the film hard to follow, i.e. the change in location (E13, female, British, 2nd Plant Biology, 15-19) or the scripting back and forth (G13, female, Irish-Australian,1st Zoology, 15-19) between rehearsal and acted scenes. Another viewer (D13, male, Physics, Scottish, 20-24) commented that the film felt patchworky, which made it difficult to understand. As an example of the smoothness he prefers in documentary, he described an edition of Top Gear, according to his definition a documentary action show, which is scripted, as he conceded when reminded of this by a fellow discussant, but at least they make it feel like it is all natural. It felt fluid and it was moving instead of cutting with them and then go back to Polish guy and then back to boyfriend and Dutch girl. It felt more fluid and it was flowing, like a river going downhill. It would have been a lot easier to understand and comprehend instead of cutting between different people. The editing, in other words, interfered with the impression of realism, an interference which was perceived as disturbing. Other participants hinted at this effect as well. In A9s words, I dont think the scripted dialogue between the two friends really gave anything to the film and to some extent it was just interrupting. Immersion into a different reality is one of the attractions of film, and the aesthetics of realism, including a smooth presentation of the diegesis through film structuring devices, is an important tool to achieve this effect in viewers. In this respect, documentary has a disadvantage compared to Hollywood film, according to one viewer.

213

 I think with documentaries you do, a lot of the time you do question whether it has been scripted or whether it is real because it has to do with the view of people whereas Hollywood film is, or sort of is, factual. With Hollywood film, you can immerse yourself more into them because it is more of a film rather than real life. I dont know Just[wipes her forehead in exasperation]... Lots of things to distract you not think about theres a camera, theres a camera, theres a script or whatever (H13, female, British, 4th Property, 20-24). Because of the level of immersion they allow, Hollywood films in this view are more real than documentary films, to the point that they become almost factual, a counterintuitive but remarkable twist in a debate about authenticity. H13 is also one of those resistant readers who seem well aware of issues of representation in documentary film but prefers to ignore them. The same applied to G13. She too used Hollywood films as an example for documentary film in terms of the level of immersion they allow. But to come back to your question, do you feel it is being filmed by a camera, I dont think you should. Look at Hollywood films, you do feel when you are watching a thriller, whatever, you dont feel like you are watching a film, you are almost there and there are some documentaries where you feel that there is an interview, someone sitting in front of you, you do feel like they are talking to you. And I think thats an aspect thats important in a documentary (G13, female, Irish-Australian,1st Zoology, 1519). G13s appetite for realism, which involves a rejection of an awareness of the cameras presence, is coupled by a high level of structural competence. When asked for instance whether she would go into documentary thinking the filmmaker will have engineered certain situations, she replied: Absolutely. Theres two films we have studied recently, The Great Global Warm-up Swindle, and An Inconvenient Truth and both they completely contradict each other. They are both out to get one key aim and you have to have a completely unbiased opinion and take, and really, really look at a film, and look at that like shes been there for seven months, that cant be the first time they talk about their kids. And you have to really read into them to get the real facts out of it because they are going to be biased. People can edit and film whatever they want and make it look real. From this statement follows that G13 came to the screening with a raised awareness as to the procedural function of documentary communication. At the same time, however, she requires documentary to adhere to the traditional aesthetic of realism. She knows films are 214

 constructed but she reserves the right to suspend the disbelief, that is, at least for the duration of the film. Many viewers who saw 3R had (some) knowledge regarding the constructed-ness of film while maintaining a desire for the impression of realism. Several viewers for instance suggested that the scenes, which address the production process should be moved to the end of the film, if only to give the viewer the option to avoid them. As E13 (female, British, 2nd Plant Biology, 15-19) pleaded, You have to give the viewer that choice rather than integrating it because they are there to watch that film, not necessarily to see how it is made. This is contrary to what viewers said who watched 1R and commented afterwards that reflexive elements should be integrated in the film more.

Viewers not only commented on the reflexive strategies in 3R that were procedural and referential but also on strategies that centre on the expressive function of communication. Several viewers responded favourably while others expressed reservations or dismissed the reflexive strategy entirely. The arguments resembled the observations that were made in response to alternative versions of Silver City. Some were brought forward in favour of expressive forms of reflexivity and may be paraphrased as follows: - I want to know the background of the filmmaker and why she made the film because I want to know the difference between my opinion and the filmmakers opinion (A8, male, Chinese, PhD Geography, 25-34); - It is good to know the filmmaker and the things she has in her head while making the film because it is personal for her too (C8, male, Polish, 1st English and German, 15-19); - It was also good to know that it was not a Polish person or a Scottish person that had made it; she is a foreigner like us and it is kind of cool to see how other people

215

 in other countries see the issue of immigration here in the UK (C8, male, Polish, 1st English and German, 15-19). Some viewers had reservations, which were expressed as follows: - It makes it more honest to know but it makes you sceptical as well because you think, she just wants me to think that because she is like this (B8, male, Scottish, 4th Film and Philosophy, 20-24); - If we know the background of the filmmaker we can perhaps understand how she organised some aspects of the film but it is not necessary; it would not hurt the main body of the film if we take off the information about the filmmaker (C9, female, Chinese, 1st Medical Science, 20-24). Of those who were dismissive, some argued as follows: - I think you see the intentions in the film. You dont need to tell us. And I think when you do tell us, why are you telling us? I am reading your intention (B8, male, Scottish, 4th Film and Philosophy, 20-24); - Information about the filmmakers personal lives only works if it aides the overall theme, otherwise it detracts from what is relevant. It is like a talk show; if the host talks about themselves, then it is pointless. You want to hear from the person that they are interviewing (D9, male, Scottish, 4th Anthropology, 25-35); - Instead of the dialogue, she should have given a personal account of her experiences of immigration, or coming to Aberdeen, and compare and contrast that to Peters experiences (D9, male, Scottish, 4th Anthropology, 25-35); - I am not interested to know anything about the filmmakers background. Her agenda is of importance but I can get that from the film (C13, female, Polish, 2nd Law, 20-24);

216

 - Knowing the filmmakers identity is distracting. If she is a lesbian, you would think the whole time, she is a lesbian, she has got a girlfriend, instead of actually watching the movie (D13, male, Physics, Scottish, 20-24); - Anyone could do it, no matter where they are from, so it did not add to the film. It is the same with the last page of a job application where you have to state your nationality and religion. All of that is irrelevant to the actual job. The issues she raised are important and she should have concentrated on them (G13, female, IrishAustralian,1st Zoology, 15-19); - It did not add anything. If we want to know about the filmmaker, we can always go online and research about them (H13, female, British, 4th Property, 20-24). The effects of expressive reflexive strategies in Silver City 3R as a means to address issues of representation, in sum, are not straightforward. Some viewers furthermore appeared to be receptive to some reflexive strategies and irreceptive to others. B8 for instance was sceptical if not dismissive of expressive forms of reflexivity but responded well to procedural and referential forms. He realized the film was about the problems of making a documentary and was aware of the choices involved but he was not responsive to reflexive strategies that emphasized such choices. The scripted scenes, on the other hand, had an entirely different effect on him; they were the best scenes in the film, according to D8, because they made him more aware of the purposiveness of documentary production (see also p. 208). He also displayed responsiveness to the intricacies of performance in relation to documentary film production, an indication of his susceptibility to referential forms of reflexivity (ibid). The mixed response that many participants displayed, may also be exemplified by a participant such as E9, who was receptive to particular procedural strategies but resisted expressive reflexive strategies, at least to a certain extent, by emphasizing the limits of authorial intent on the film.

217

 She might have had an agenda to expose the hardship of life but at the same time the film, well, Peter is an agent on his own or an author, and it became quite clear, and also his sister Agnes [sic], they know why they are here, and they have this philosophy that they have to make sacrifices for their future now and that they are perfectly accepted and happy and dont understand why Scottish people complain, and are lazy, spoilt. It conflicts maybe with the agenda, but space is given to this insight, which is good (E9, female, German, PhD International Law, 25-34). Some viewers in the 3R focus groups commented on the relevance of reflexivity for specific subgenres in documentary, and in particular the kind of information that was deemed suitable for conveyance. I think it would depend on the subject. With that it was quite interesting, the fact that she was at university, the fact that she was female I dont think were as big a thing. The fact that she came from Holland and came to Aberdeen, I think that was quite important because you could see the similarity in the documentary. It does depend on what it is about. If you are talking about tigers and you are going, oh well, I grew up in [...] village [impersonates airhead and is drowned out by laughter] (A9, British, 4th English Literature). While several viewers thought that transparency is useful in social documentary and not in nature documentary, one participant expressed the opposite view. Like most documentaries like the one we have seen here is trying to show reality, so you dont want the filmmaker in the way, but in a nature one, showing the, you want to see them shooting in that environment, like [] he acts like the representation of reality within the animal world. Hes the narrator. It is very common to see in nature film (B8, male, Scottish, 4th Film and Philosophy, 20-24). The introduction of the narrator or filmmaker is then appropriated as a device to reinforce rather than problematize referentiality. D8 too recognized the procedure as a viable strategy in documentary film and interpreted it non-reflexively, but she emphasized the conative function of the onscreen appearance of the storyteller. If the film were about animals [lots of laughter] or some other world topic like poverty or something, it wouldnt really influence that much the subject matter, but knowing, getting to know the narrator or the filmmaker nevertheless, and his attitude and his experience, can also be inspiring and his enthusiasm [can be] infectious (D8, female, German, 3rd English and German, 25-34).

218

 Poetic reflexive strategies in 3R attracted the same response as those in alternative versions. One viewer (B13, female, Polish, 2nd Computing, 25-34), for instance, described the shot where my hand appeared in the frame to move the camera as not so professional, while another expressed annoyance with the on-camera focusing. The whole bit about zooming in and not being focused right. If you want to [do it], make it good (D13, male, Physics, Scottish, 20-24). He responded more favourably however to the introduction of the filmmaker in the scripted scenes plus rehearsals than others did. While G13 said their inclusion took the film down from a professional level, he felt it keeps it real because it makes it more like we could do it, like I could just grab the camera and make my own video. This underscores that viewers not only may be more responsive to some reflexive strategies than others but that they also may be more responsive to a particular manifestation of a reflexive strategy than an alternative. For B8, however, the perceived amateurism was one of the elements in Silver City that challenged his ideas about documentary and that made the film quite interesting. He was the only viewer in the study population who responded to this particular form of poetic reflexivity in anticipated ways. Little was said in the conversations about the selection process, even though some of the reflexive strategies that were employed in 3R were specifically aimed at this aspect of documentary production. One participant commented on the inclusion of the alternative quote from Gavin but only hesitantly and after insistent probing from the moderator. I really dont have a clear opinion in this point. I think it is quite interesting because in the back of our heads we are thinking, hmm, what the other point of view could be and what is shown in the other scenes that were cut out but I think it doesnt change how the film is presented. Does it heighten your awareness, would you say, that the film is constructed? Yeah, a bit, because if she cut out those scenes, we think why actually she didnt want us to see the scene, so she is playing with our thoughts a bit. Thats new for me in a documentary (C8, male, Polish, 1st English and German, 15-19).

219

 The same can be said about referential reflexive strategies. A few participants commented the acknowledgment of the cameras presence in the film. One viewer expressed appreciation for such a procedure. Because it is a more honest interpretation than when its not stated. If that isnt in it, then some of the moments youd think, oh, its just really scripted thing. You are aware of it anyway so its better that she tells you that rather than hiding it (B8, male, Scottish, 4th Film and Philosophy, 2024).

The evidence that was presented and analysed in this chapter demonstrates that the response to reflexive elements not only depended on the strategies that were employed in the film but also on a myriad of factors at the reception end of the communication process. The findings underline that reception is an intricate and individual process that depends on many mutually compliant variables. The viewers structural competence, their media experience, textual preferences, personality traits, opinions about the social issue at hand and expectations with regard to the function of documentary in general as well as the documentary they are watching are just a few of the factors that determine the reception of documentary film. Some of these factors, furthermore, are fluid. While personality traits are relatively stable, structural competence may or may not change over time as the result of expanded media experience. The uses and gratifications for documentary consumption may even change from day to day, rendering it extremely difficult to predict the effect that certain textual devices will have in one particular viewer. The ramifications of these conclusions for reflexive theory are discussed in detail in the next chapter.

1 Each colour represents a category of statements that have something in common. To be able to assign a colour, the analyst forms an understanding of the statements meaning in relation to a particular theme as well as other statements by the same individual and/or their peers. The procedure helps the researcher to familiarize themselves with the material,

220

 to see connections and distinctions and to assign meaning. In the writing-up phase, it facilitates a quick navigation of the potentially overwhelming mass of data. The categories were not predetermined but emerged by looking for underlying patterns in the data. They were: Objectivity versus subjectivity in documentary film Can documentary be objective? Job of documentary Reflexive strategies: documentary is a story Reflexive strategies: is this you? Reflexive strategies: addressing the problem of one-sidedness/bias Reflexive strategies: filmmakers intentions Reflexive strategies: whats left in, left out Reflexive strategies: act normal in front of a camera Response to reflexivity: manifestation (timing, level) Response to reflexivity: distracting/detracts from reality/weird/odd/never seen anything like it/may have negative impact/not relevant/unnecessary Response to reflexivity: effect in viewer Awareness of issues of representation Amateurish Guidance versus piecing information together Genre and reflexivity 2 Participants are identified by a letter and a number; the letter indicates where the participant was seated (starting left from the moderator). The number refers to the focus group. The information provided between brackets subsequently specifies sex, nationality, year, subject of study and age group. If information is not given,it was not provided by the participant in question. In addition, ... indicates a pause while [...] indicates that some of what was said is deleted for the purposes of readability. 3 In most cases, you are already looking for a certain story you want to present and Peter is one of the best examples you can give, because he can tell a story very well, he is charismatic and his whole experience in the bar Its a good story. [...] And he is representative for the overall experience, or he just may [be]. 4 Probably to give an insight, a personal insight about a political development or some bigger issue and a personal focus on it, which obviously concerns many people, because many people are affected by it and maybe the filmmaker wanted to show the audience what the private part of it is, what it can be like 5 Subsequently, in the course of the discussion, it becomes clear that he has decided to leave university at the end of the semester and return to the north of Scotland to work in the hotel he had worked in before. The film had not shown him anything new, it was some hotel workers going about their [business]; it wasnt anything really. As the remark about his intelligence already suggested, there was even a tinge of ill feeling involved, a combination of envy and jadedness, which becomes apparent when he has explained his personal circumstance and then adds Whats the difference? I am not in Poland, but it is the same thing. 6 Its only through discussion, I think. If I had watched this by myself, to be honest, I might just go to Google and get lost into something else. I think through discussion, it breeds that kind of shock into the mind, it makes you think.

221

 Chapter Six: Reinterpreting Reflexive Theory

The empirical data as obtained through focus group research were presented and analysed in the previous chapter. In this chapter, the implications of these findings for reflexive theory as well as documentary theory in general are discussed. From the literature regarding reflexivity in documentary film, it may be gathered that the reflexionists claim is in fact based on two assumptions. Firstly, that a problematic relationship exists between the social reality and its representations in documentary, and, secondly, a related but nevertheless distinct assumption that viewers who are not aware of this problematic relationship, or only to a limited extent, have the conscious or subconscious desire to have their awareness raised. In other words, the reflexionists assume that there is a direct and positive relationship between a lack of structural competence and a desire to be enlightened in this respect. The aim of the focus group research therefore was to investigate whether there is evidence that such a direct and positive relationship exists. This was achieved by examining how participants viewed the relationship between the images and the social world they claim to represent; if they considered this relationship to be problematic whether there was room for (a further) engagement in issues of representation, and, if so, whether the reflexive elements in the film rather than nonreflexive or external factors heightened the viewers awareness of problems related to authenticity in documentary film. From the focus group discussions it emerged that viewers may respond to reflexive strategies as exploited in the version of Silver City that they saw in various ways. In fact, five kinds of viewers were discernable: - viewers who were aware of issues of representation and wanted to be reminded; - viewers who were aware of issues of representation and did not want to be reminded;

222

 - viewers who were aware of issues of representation, at least to some extent, but were conflicted about an appropriate response; - viewers who were not aware of issues of representation and wanted to be reminded; - viewers who were not aware of issues of representation and did not want to be reminded. The first group consisted of viewers for whom reflexivity as a means to address issues of representation may be characterized as preaching to the choir. They already had high structural competence, which they acquired through extended media consumption, hands-on production experience, analytical observation or a combination of these factors. These viewers appreciated the concept as a viable strategy to engage audiences in issues of representation; they understood its aims and at least some of its manifestations. For viewers like these, reflexivity served as a confirmation of the fact that they are in the know. Reflexive strategies, however, did not raise their consciousness, because their consciousness with respect to issues of representation was already raised. Perhaps certain details enhanced their insight in particular aspects of documentary communication but certainly not in an overall, eye-opening sense. Viewers who belonged to the second group were equally competent media consumers but they resisted reflexive strategies. These viewers appeared to be allergic to anything that might be perceived as directive; they valued their autonomy as text interpreters and citizens in this world and they did not wish to be instructed as to how to read a film. Although they understood the concept of reflexivity and its aims, they were not receptive to intra-textual discourses that are aimed at raising the question of the problematic relationship between social reality and its representation in documentary film. Their rejection sometimes took the form of jaded dismissiveness.1

223

 The third category concerned a group of viewers who were positioned between Type 1 and Type 2 viewers. These viewers were aware, to different degrees, of the problematic relationship between the social reality they knew and its representation in the version of Silver City they saw but they did not want to be reminded of this fact, at least not for the duration of the film. They displayed a form of cognitive dissonance, as they had to negotiate the tension that existed between their awareness of issues of representation on the one hand and the desire to consume the film in uncomplicated ways on the other. For a fourth group of viewers, the reflexive elements in the version of Silver City that they saw had the effect that the reflexionists would expect, for which reason they may be described as the quintessential target audience for reflexive strategies as a means to address issues of representation. These were the viewers for whom the reflexive elements in Silver City served as edification; they made them more aware of how reality is constructed for the screen. From now on, they would see documentary with a different eye. The fifth and final group of participants consisted of viewers who were not aware of issues of representation and showed no desire to be enlightened. They were resistant readers because they did not see the problem with documentary communication, as it is difficult to value the concept of reflexivity if there is not a beginning of an understanding of the issues it attempts to address. Like most taxonomies, these groups or Type 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 viewers, are not strictly divided entities. Each interpretation of media content is individual; arguably, there are as many types as there are viewers and this classification is merely a construction that serves to provide an overview of viewer response to reflexive elements in documentary film. The typology indicates, for instance, that the reflexive elements in Silver City do not have the univocal and straightforward effect that those who promoted reflexivity as a means to address the problematic relationship between the real and its representations would anticipate. Reception is a strictly individual process that is controlled by many

224

 interconnected and mutually compliant factors that may interfere with the intended effect in sometimes unpredictable ways. One such variable is structural competence, or the viewers awareness of documentary construction processes. The relationship between structural competence and receptiveness to reflexive strategies, however, is not straightforward. Viewers who are aware that they lack structural competence may embrace reflexive techniques as a means to address the deficit while viewers who are not aware of their lack in structural competence or do not see this as undesirable will not be receptive. They are respectively Type 4 and Type 5 viewers. Competent media consumers, on the other hand, may accept (Type 1 viewers) or reject (Type 2 viewers) the senders invitation to re/consider the problem of authenticity in documentary film. Structural competence may also be partial. Viewers who have a better grasp of the expressive than the procedural function of the documentary communication process (or the other way around) will respond differently to expressive (or procedural) reflexive strategies. A factor that is related to structural competence is media experience, although the relationship is not causal; avid documentary viewers are not by definition the most structurally competent viewers. Through media exposure, however, viewers may have developed a slightly raised awareness to problems in relation to referentiality, which may subsequently serve as a breeding ground for reflexive strategies. The findings also indicate that those who have seen applications of reflexive strategies in documentaries before may be pleased to recognize the procedure or annoyed (respectively Type 1 and 2 viewers). The same can be said of those who were confronted with a reflexive treatment for the first time (respectively Type 4 and 5 viewers). Not only structural competence and media experience may intervene either positively or negatively with a readiness to be engaged in a debate regarding issues of representation; personality traits appear to be pertinent in an equally influential and

225

 complicated fashion. Participants who appeared to value their autonomy as media consumers rejected reflexive strategies because they reserved the right to determine which meaning there is to be derived from Silver City while viewers who would prefer to be told what to think resisted reflexive strategies because the invitation to make up their own mind confused them. The viewers personal opinions regarding the job of documentary come into play too. As we have seen in the previous chapters, each viewer engages one or more functions of the communication process to different degrees in order to interpret meaning potential in documentary film. By example, while the referential function in documentary communication was dominant for some viewers, others saw it as the filmmakers prerogative to voice a particular point of view, thereby allowing more room for the expressive function of documentary communication. These opinions are part and parcel of the individuals poetics, a set of conscious or subconscious opinions that viewers have about the documentary genre, which determines in part their receptiveness to reflexivity. A viewer, for example, who perceives of documentary first and foremost as a form of personal expression on the part of the filmmaker is potentially less concerned with issues of representation, and therefore potentially less receptive to expressive reflexive strategies unless they are a Type 1 viewer than those who believe that documentary should be objective. This phenomenon is further complicated by the fact that the term objectivity in relation to documentary film has different meanings for different viewers. In addition, viewers who prefer a clearly structured discourse, that is, documentaries with firm introductions, recapitulations and closing statements, displayed more susceptibility to reflexive techniques than viewers who prefer to re/construct the story from supposedly random scenes. The same can be said about the viewers personal opinion about the conative function of documentary communication. Those who think that it is the viewer rather than the filmmaker who ultimately determines what the film is about may respond

226

 differently to reflexive strategies in comparison to those who think it is the other way around. Conceivably, variables such as these are somehow connected to personality structure viewers who value their autonomy may prefer unstructured texts and assign great significance to the viewers role in the interpretation process but since a personality test was not part of the investigation, the study design does not allow for such conclusions. The time and place of media consumption is another factor that acts upon meaning production. As several viewers reported, the expectations that a particular documentary has to meet shifts with their mood and general condition as well as the purpose they have for watching the documentary. A tired mind may be less receptive to metaforms of communication than an active mind; those who watch a documentary because they want to be informed are more open to active opinion formation and, possibly, reflexive strategies than those who primarily want to be entertained. The physical space where media consumption takes place may be of importance too. Consumption in the theatre is more likely to invite or at least support the active engagement that reflexivity requires in comparison to the television screen in a living room with potential distractions such as ringing phones or talkative company. Not only the physical viewing situation, however, may interfere with documentary consumption. Certain television series or channels or movie theatres in which the reflexive film is screened may prompt the viewers expectations in such a way that they are more (or less) susceptible to reflexive procedures. In sum, a myriad of variables, including structural competence, personality structure, poetics, textual preferences, media experience and uses and gratifications controlled the response to reflexive elements in Silver City. These variables or characteristics of individual viewers subsequently interacted with strategies as actualised in the text. Some viewers, for example, were receptive to particular reflexive strategies while they were not, or less, responsive to alternative strategies. For example, if the text would employ expressive reflexive strategies while a particular viewer is exclusively receptive to

227

 procedural reflexive strategies (or vice versa), the available strategy would not achieve the intended effect. The participants in the focus groups displayed a wide variety in receptiveness when it came to particular levels of reflexivity. While viewers in the 1R groups, who were exposed to low levels of reflexivity, expressed a preference for higher levels, viewers in the 3R groups, who were exposed to higher levels of reflexivity, expressed a preference for lower levels, whereby more intense strategies appeared to incite stronger rejections. For other participants, however, the level of exposure corresponded with their personal needs at that moment in place and time. A detailed investigation of the reception of some specific reflexive forms indicated that some viewers welcomed information about the filmmakers background, in particular if the film in question would address social issues, while others expressed doubts as to the effectiveness of this type of disclosure. Another aspect concerns the place or spacing of reflexive elements in documentary film. Reflexive strategies that are employed throughout the film, that is, from the expository scene onwards, met with less resistance in readers than an approach whereby the reflexive elements were introduced halfway through the film. At the same time, however, some viewers stated that expressive elements should be used as an introduction while others argued it would be best to save them until the end. This would allow the viewer to form their own opinion about the topic and what the filmmaker was trying to achieve before comparing notes with the filmmakers own statements about their aims. In relation to procedural forms of reflexivity, which addresses the selection process that filmmaking entails, it was suggested that these could be taken out of the film sequence altogether and added on the DVD as bonus features, leaving the decision to access this information to the viewer. The DVD could also contain a nonreflexive and an alternative version.

228

 In some viewers, the reflexive strategies were cause for resentment. Some of this response appeared to be irrational, or without any ground. Several viewers in the NR focus groups for instance anticipated that reflexive strategies would render viewers passive rather than active because the filmmaker has already spelled out their intentions; others thought they would prevent, not encourage viewers from forming their own opinions with respect to the subject at hand as they would promote alignment with the filmmakers views. These negative effects were not reported by viewers who received a reflexive treatment. In other viewers, however, the reflexive strategies achieved the intended effect. Some of the focus group participants related that the reflexive elements heightened their awareness of issues of representation, as the reflexionists would expect. Several viewers commented on this raised awareness in general terms; they appreciated the reflexive elements in the version of Silver City they saw because it addressed the problem of documentary communication or enhanced their knowledge about production processes. For others, the strategies served as a reminder of something they already knew but tend to forget as soon as the aesthetics of reality, as employed in many documentaries, have established the sought effect. Some of the viewers who were receptive to reflexive strategies were more specific as they explained how certain forms or manifestations of reflexivity raised their consciousness. Certain techniques, for instance, facilitated the interpretation process by structuring the discourse. Others described the effect that specific strategies had. Knowledge about the filmmakers background, for instance, allowed them to assess the information as divulged in the film. The data also provides an insight as to what may prevent reflexivity from attaining the intended effect. Reflexive elements were considered odd, intrusive, contrived, jarring and interrupting. They detracted from the reality experience, one of the major attractions of documentary film for at least some viewers. Other viewers reported that they experienced the reflexive elements as distracting because they directed attention to something they did

229

 not consider to be the topic of the film. Expressive reflexive strategies in particular were perceived as gratuitous (I already know the filmmakers angle) or superfluous (Extraction would not hurt the main body of the film). These responses may not be divorced entirely from their actual manifestations. Indeed, some reflexive strategies as available for interpretation in Silver City did not achieve the intended effect because they were not well-chosen. According to one participant, the filmmaker should have given a personal account of her arrival, and compare and contrast that to Peters arrival in Aberdeen. Yet, most of the problems that were mentioned appear to be inherent to reflexive procedures. While some viewers appreciated or at least understood the aims of reflexive strategies as employed in the version they saw others were genuinely puzzled, confused or frustrated, effects that have to be qualified as counterproductive if the aim is to engage audiences in issues of representation. In particular the more extreme manifestations of reflexivity attracted this critique but some of the milder forms were perceived as equally confusing. Reflexive strategies may be associated with intellectualism or highbrow culture and miss their target for that reason alone. They may also be interpreted non-reflexively. Another problem for reflexive theory is that the explicit conveyance of biographical information about the filmmaker has the potential to activate preconceived or stereotypical ideas in the viewer. As one viewer phrased it, presenting information about the filmmakers background or their sheer appearance can make the viewer more sceptical because you think, she just wants me to think that because she is like this. The strategy then not only fails to achieve the intended effect; it promotes stereotyping too. Interpretation is a complicated operation and in order to simplify the information processing viewers used a kind of shortcut thinking that bears with it the risk of stereotyping, of overlooking individual diversity and the many subtleties of human experience. One of the principal interpretative strategies that viewers employed to assess

230

 the authenticity of Silver City, for instance, was to reconstruct the senders intentions through the text. The filmmakers nationality thereby functioned as an important clue. The assumption was that a Polish filmmaker would be naturally biased in favour of the Polish, and would therefore project a more positive view of Polish workers in the UK than reality warrants, while a Scottish filmmaker was supposed to be biased towards more national concerns. Knowledge about the filmmakers national identity interfered with the evaluations of the Scottish and Polish; those who saw a version of the film that did not reveal the filmmakers nationality were more suspicious of the filmmakers intentions than Scottish and Polish viewers who knew I am Dutch and therefore pre-supposedly not biased. The mere disclosure of my nationality, however, is relatively meaningless; I still might have had a special relationship with Poland or the Polish community abroad that is not made transparent by disclosing my nationality. It is not inconceivable, moreover, that a Polish filmmaker could be as critical of Polish immigration as the average Scotsman might be. The preceding therefore arguably offers a glimpse into the workings of what Wimsatt (1954) termed the intentional fallacy, which relates to the assumption that it is possible to access the filmmakers aims via the text (see also p. 28 and 52).

In sum, the empirical evidence gathered for this study indicates that reflexive strategies may raise awareness of the problem with authenticity in documentary film, but not by definition. The data demonstrates that reflexivity is met with a range of responses, which are only to a certain extent controllable from the senders end of the communication process. As a method, reflexivity may be confusing, counter-productive and alienating. Reflexivity therefore is not necessarily an effective and reliable instrument to raise awareness in viewers of the problematic relationship between the real and its representations in documentary film.

231

 The significance of reflexive theory as a contribution to the thinking about documentary, both at a practical and a theoretical level, is substantial. As a prescriptive poetics, it critically interrogates the theory and practice of documentary film, and as such it has brought renewed attention to one of the major challenges the genre needs to negotiate. Yet, the cure they propose for the problem of authenticity in documentary film does not unreservedly achieve the intended effect. In their theorising, these scholars have overlooked the intricacies of reception in general and the reception of reflexive strategies in particular. As the data underscores, viewers are individuals who appropriate meaning potential in exceedingly complex and opportune ways, and for some viewers the information processing is only complicated by reflexive strategies. For others, these strategies do not necessarily hamper the information processing but they do not enhance the meaning that could be derived from Silver City either. In any case, the reflexive strategies did not have the intended effect. Even if it were possible to fully comprehend and convey how ones identity affects the film, as Ruby (1988: 67) suggested, not all viewers would be interested to learn this information. Filmmakers may cue the reader into observing the authors formulations as apart from other realities (Weiner 1978: 757), but if the viewer prefers to ignore these signs, the effort is futile. While the findings do not support the reflexionist claim, they do not confirm the arguments that were brought forward by the critics either. Carrolls (1988: 104) assertion that viewers typically recognize documentary representation as such and not as an unmediated slice of reality is not sustained by the evidence. Indeed, there is no guarantee that reflexivity results in a heightened critical awareness, as he maintained, nor does mimetic representation automatically cause lowered critical awareness. Both effects, however, were found in some of the viewers who participated in this study. (In fact, the data indicates that one particular reflexive strategy may cause a lowered critical awareness in viewers. The discussion at the end of 2R, which was borrowed from Chronique dun t

232

 [Morin and Rouch, 1961], limited instead of expanded the viewers awareness of the range of issues of representation.) There is some support, however, for MacDougalls (Barbash and Taylor 2000: 1112) fear that reflexive strategies may only serve to reinforce authenticity claims. Some referential reflexive strategies in particular appeared to have this effect. Rather than sheer ineffectiveness, this hints at a potential danger of reflexive strategies, which is that they may be exploited to further the filmmakers standpoint under the guise of raising awareness to issues of representation. Reflexive strategies may be appropriated as a device, as this study demonstrated, if not as a progressive formalistic device (Trinh 1993: 101), then as a means to deceive viewers by highlighting one factor in order to conceal or at least deflect the attention from more consequential factors. An example of this is found in 3R, which states my reasons for making the film. The fact that Silver City was made as part of a doctoral study that investigates the reception of reflexive elements in documentary film was not disclosed to the audience. There were good reasons to do so, as knowledge about the production context might have interfered with the studys aims. Yet, the implication is that reflexivity does not ensure transparency and in fact may be appropriated, either consciously, as Scheibler (1993: 136) argued, or subconsciously, to deceive the audience. From the previous it does not follow that reflexivity is inherently flawed. It means that the technique, like many tools, is dependent upon the sub/conscious intentions with which it is applied, which, as this investigation also underlined, are not retraceable via the text. We do not have absolute certainty that reflexive elements in documentary film are a sincere effort to talk about talk, or that they result in more authentic texts. Since reflexivity is not a very efficient tool to raise awareness in viewers, other means to achieve the intended effect should be taken into consideration. Reflexive strategies do not have exclusivity when it comes to raising awareness to issues of representation, as the evidence already indicated. Not only intentional and corresponding

233

 material contributes to a heightened consciousness; non-related media content such as fiction films may perform a comparable function. One option is to examine extra-textual approaches that promote transparency. Nowadays, films reach viewers not only in theatres and through broadcasting but increasingly through alternative media such as DVDs and the Internet, which both offer additional means to communicate with audiences. News or current-affairs programmes have accompanying websites, which besides news updates and extraneous material such as integral (unedited) interviews or additional information could be employed for metacommunication. Transparency may then be achieved not only by uploading the journalistic code, which is the form these extra-textual approaches nowadays take at best, but also, for instance, by inviting the viewer to consider the production process, emphasizing thereby that the social world in reports and television documentaries are constructions rather than unproblematic representations. In particular journalists, whose work predominantly centres on the referential function of the communication process, have this responsibility, but documentarians, whose work may centre on any function of the communication process, should be transparent too about the choices they have made. Increasingly, films too have websites that could be exploited for transparency means. A directors statement for instance, which describes the filmmakers motivation for making the film and is often included in the press kit, could thus be made available to the wider audience. Production notes, comparable to the description of Silver Citys construction process in Chapter Two, or anything else that might be relevant to allow viewers to form an opinion of how reality was constructed for the screen could be uploaded too. This would not solve the problem of sincerity once releasing production notes has become the norm it will be a matter of time before a filmmaker invents a production backstory but until then it may be an option that deserves consideration.

234

 However, it is not just the sender of the message that has obligations; as some participants emphasised, viewers have a responsibility too. The engagement with documentary texts today requires active viewership, which entails not only a desire to be informed and entertained but also a consciousness of the complications that are inherent to communication processes, including the viewers own role. Not many participants in the focus groups displayed awareness in this respect. In fact, while some presented themselves as alert and competent media users, others held relatively naive ideas about the reality of documentary constructions. This finding argues in favour of media education as part of the curriculum of secondary or perhaps even primary schools. In particular the problems associated with retrieving the senders intentions via the text should be addressed. As the findings indicate, this is not a very effective strategy to assess a texts authenticity, certainly not if applied in isolation, firstly because authorial intent is not retraceable via the text, and secondly because it is not possible to reconstruct a particular perception from biographical information. Reviewers and critics, a particular subcategory of media consumers, also have a responsibility. Rather than centring on interpretations, which, like any reading, are highly individual, they should explicitly employ the metafunction in their communications and make issues of representation a recurring theme. Transparency then becomes a shared responsibility for both sender and receiver whereby the former provides and the latter utilizes the appropriate information. Ideally, viewers are also offered the opportunity to talk back, whereby the challenge is to find approaches that are innovative and profound. Over the past few years, news and currentaffairs programmes have tried to connect more with their audiences by experimenting with interactive formats (Internet forums, viewer panels, the invitation to suggest questions for the prime minister), which perhaps promoted viewer participation but did not provide any real insights. Less inconsequential and more thought provoking would be to reconnect with viewers by including them in a debate about issues of representation. One approach could

235

 be to report the same topic twice by choosing two different angles, by example the Labour perspective and the Conservative perspective, and present these two reports conjointly.2 Since production means such as cameras and editing equipment of near-broadcast quality are ubiquitous nowadays, another option is to exploit interactive approaches whereby the viewer is invited to re-edit a report with the provided images or by adding new or personalized material. Thus, an on-going, extra-textual dialogue would be established between producers and consumers about the opportunities as well as the problems that are inherent to documentary communication. Extra-textual approached like those suggested here would have as an advantage that they cede at least some power to the viewer, allowing them to decide whether and when they want to be engaged in issues of representation. However, since viewer response to strategies that bring documentary construction processes to the fore is varied, a differentiated approach would probably be more effective. Some viewers, most likely Type 3 and 4 viewers, might be served best with a mix of intra- and extra-textual approaches. Whether these approaches as suggested here would be more effective than intra-textual approaches alone could be the subject of follow-up research. Other follow-up studies could focus on personality traits such as autonomy or analytical skills and how they influence reception in general and reflexive strategies in particular. At a more general level, factors that influence the individuals poetics regarding documentary such as age, and media experience deserve further examination. Yet, perhaps a more fundamental question should be addressed first. By critically reinserting Jakobsons paradigm in the field of film studies, this study not only contributes to reflexive theory, it also invites a reconsideration of the ways in which the documentary genre is defined. While documentary has been identified in the past as a group of texts with a particular relationship to the real, thereby foregrounding the referential function of documentary communication, Jakobsons model invites us to conceptualise documentary

236

 as a particular interaction between six communication functions, that is including the expressive, poetic, procedural, metacinematic and conative function. Documentary is not only constituted by its relationship to the real but also by authorial intent, film language (including the metafunction), the production process, textual organization and reception. How these functions operate together for communication to be documentary, however, is still unknown. If viewers see a resemblance that connects a film to a group of media texts commonly known as documentary (see p. 44), it is likely that they recognize a particular configuration of functions. What these configurations may be requires further investigation. Further theorising regarding a Jakobsonian approach to documentary should also address the following. While current theories conceive of the relationship between documentary and the real as troublesome, Jakobsons model stipulates that the interaction between the six elements of documentary communication, including the referential function, is productive rather than problematic. The question that naturally follows is whether documentary is deservedly positioned by present theories as inherently flawed. Perhaps the duality of documentary is in fact a by-product of a definition instead of something that is inherent to documentary communication. In any case, if we accept a Jakobsonian approach to documentary, we will not only need to reposition the genre itself but also reflexivity. The procedure may no longer be construed as something that, in its most paradigmatic form, prompts the viewer to a heightened consciousness of their relation to the text and of the texts problematic relationship to that which it represents (Nichols 1991: 60) but as one of the six functions that is inherent to communication and may problematize any function.

237

 Conclusion: Reflexive Afterthoughts

This reception study is the first examination of claims made by scholars such as Nichols (1991), Ruby (1980), Weiner (1978) and Winston (1995), who have theorized that reflexivity heightens the viewers awareness of the problematic relationship between the documentary image and that which it represents. By investigating viewer response, this study illuminates the nuances of how viewers may appropriate reflexive strategies, how they may affect viewers and whether they may raise the viewers consciousness with respect to issues of representation, as those who advanced reflexivity as a means to address issues of representation maintained. To examine the reception of reflexive strategies a documentary was produced, which was edited in four versions that each deployed different forms and levels of reflexivity. These versions were subsequently screened and discussed in focus groups. In order to be able to exploit reflexive procedures in the film that was to serve as a research tool, nine documentaries from the reflexive canon were analysed. A close reading of films such as Man with a Movie Camera (Vertov, 1929), Chronique dun t (Morin and Rouch, 1961) and Far from Poland (Godmilow, 1984) indicated that reflexivity is not one single strategy but in fact a group of distinct strategies that each correlate with one of the six functions of Jakobsons communication model. The expressive function of the communication process, for example, may be reflexively explored by emphasizing the role of the filmmaker and how their views or background inform the construction of reality for the screen. Reflexive strategies that centre on the procedural function pay special attention to the actual production process while poetic reflexive strategies foreground the texts structure. Reflexive strategies may also focus on the referential, the conative and/or the metacinematic function of documentary communication.

238

 The analysis of the focus group data, which were presented and interpreted in the two previous chapters, was preceded by a reconstruction of individual viewer response to one of the four versions of Silver City, an approach that was based on the assumption that viewership is idiosyncratic. This position runs counter to received wisdom in sociology and certain wings of media studies, which assumes that reception is constituted socially. Indeed, viewing practices have social dimensions. As the findings of this study underline, readings are not entirely individualist; they reflect life-conditions and social backgrounds. There is ample evidence, for instance, that national identity played an important role in the interpretation of Silver City. Polish viewers responded differently to the films claim to the real in comparison to Scottish or British viewers, whose response in turn was different from the response of viewers who did not have the Polish or Scottish/British nationality. Scottish viewers more often than not thought that the film was prejudiced in favour of the Polish while the Polish felt the film projected an image of their social group that was not us (see p. 230-1). Participants who had the Polish nor the Scottish/British nationality typically did not import notions related to national consciousness in their interpretive frames. The responses of Scottish and Polish viewers, however, were not totally unrelated to personal preferences. In particular viewers, for whom the referential function of documentary communication was dominant reported readings that displayed a sense of national identity. By contrast, viewers for whom alternative functions were more dominant than the referential function, who for example accept bias as the documentarians prerogative, were less prone to readings that involved national consciousness. This finding suggests that personal and socially constituted factors interact in a highly complex fashion. It is not very likely, for instance, that a preference for certain functions of documentary communication is determined entirely by social factors such as class and gender. It is more

239

 likely that this preference is produced by a mix of social and individual factors, including personality, experience, competence and taste. The same may be said about the reception of reflexivity. It is not inconceivable that the susceptibility to reflexive strategies is determined in part by the individuals social context. Study subject is not only an indication of personal interest, it is also related to socio-economic class and the data raises the question whether participants who study languages may be more responsive to reflexive strategies than those who take natural sciences as their university subject. In the 3R groups, for example, there was a preponderance of natural science students and their responses appeared to be different from the typical responses of arts and social science students, who may have been more familiar with reflexive or experimental approaches. The response to reflexive strategies, in other words, may be situated, as the remark of the student who apologized for his law perspective (see p. 205) also appears to suggest. Presumably, the exposure to experimental strategies is at least in part class-based. Nationality too may influence the reception of reflexive strategies. Perhaps countries like Germany and Scandinavia have a cultural tradition that allows for more experimentation in mainstream media, thereby influencing what students already know about and feel comfortable with. To argue that reception is ultimately individualist, in other words, does not automatically imply denial of the social patterned-ness of viewing behaviour. My position is that social as well as individual factors interfere, whereby idiosyncrasies often tip the scale. Discussing media content is a favourite pastime of media producers and it has always amazed me how peers, colleagues who had the same social background, level of education and professional experience as me would interpret media content differently. Fixed social categories such as class, gender and level of education, in other words, appear to explain the complexities of viewership only in part. This studys findings offer a possible explanation; expectations, and therefore possible interpretations, shift with mood,

240

 aims, personal experience, general condition and the physical space, in which media consumption takes place. These are factors that appear to function predominantly at the level of the individual, not the social. While sociologists would overemphasize the social factors involved in viewership, researchers with alternative backgrounds or an aversion to social determination may overemphasize others. A study that is based on the conceptualisation of viewership as individualist is more likely to find idiosyncratic responses than a study that is based on a conceptualisation of viewership as socially constituted. To a certain extent, therefore, the reported findings and interpretations are limited. Yet, it is important to bear in mind that this studys aim was to inventory possible responses, not investigate what might explain them. It is the task of follow-up research to investigate remaining questions, such as: What are the social conditions of possibility that allow (certain sorts of) reflexivity? A certain kind of education? A certain distance from the exigencies of life? A certain level or type of wealth both economic wealth and cultural wealth? Is the ideal viewer for a film intended to be reflexive in fact a university-trained and -inhabiting bourgeois intellectual (as the reflections on the more apparently sophisticated thoughts as to reflexivity among the PhD students suggest)? What happens when readers, given their social backgrounds and capacities, lack those capacities?

In light of the topic, it may be appropriate to spend the final words of this study on my personal expectations and experiences during this project. When I started, I expected that milder strategies of reflexivity would be more successful than rigorous approaches. I commend the remorselessness of Jill Godmilows approach in Far from Poland but I realised I was responsive because I understood what she was trying to do, or at least so I thought, and because I do not feel the need to assert myself as a reader of film or individual by rejecting the reflexive strategies that she appropriated (I am a Type 1 viewer). Yet, I

241

 remember enjoying the subtle approaches that Koenig and Kroitor employed in Lonely Boy as non-obtrusive yet distinct reminders of their presence. The fact that this strategy was not announced in the exposition but only occurred when it appeared to be appropriate came across as natural to me but clearly the effect was different for some of the viewers who were confronted with a similar procedure in 1R. I did not expect that the reflexive elements in Silver City would be met with great enthusiasm but I was surprised at the small number of participants that embraced reflexivity as a method to address issues of representation. This low number may very well be explained by the eventuality that those who are receptive to reflexive strategies were underrepresented in this study; there is some evidence that suggests that the appreciation of reflexivity in viewers is related to media experience and the viewers in the focus groups were relatively young. Yet, because other factors that are more fixed interfere with reception as well personality structure, opinions about what documentary is and how its discourse should be structured, to name but a few this may not necessarily be the case. We cannot rule out either that the manifestations of reflexivity in Silver City influenced the reception negatively; perhaps the reflexive elements in Chronique dun t or Far from Poland would have been more effective, if only because these films could be presented as real films with a circulation history (Silver City was not selected for the Beeld voor Beeld film festival until after the focus groups were held). In retrospect, therefore, it would have been better to introduce Silver City as actual media output and not as a film that was made as part of a PhD project. The study confirmed that focus groups are an adequate research tool for gauging viewer response. A disadvantage proved to be that some participants did not comment on aspects that appeared to be relevant once analysis and in this case the reconstruction of each individuals contribution had taken place. It might have been beneficial therefore to include follow-up interviews in the study design with participants whose material invited

242

 further investigation, or whose statements were contradictory, as it was in some cases. The problem, however, would have been the time that has elapsed between the focus group interview and follow-up interview. Interpretations are fluid; the participant might have had new (viewing) experiences that altered the initial experience, or they might have used the time that has lapsed to reconsider the subject of conversation and change their point of view altogether. Another approach would have been to ask the assistant to take active note of what each viewer has said and what type of response was missing from individual viewers or the group as a whole. This approach, however, can only be successful if it is known beforehand what types of responses there are to be expected, which conflicts with the reconnaissance function that qualitative research often performs. Perhaps the best solution is to circumvent this potential downside by incorporating enough participants so that relevant data has the best possible chance to surface, if not through one participant, then through another, or, alternatively, to accept that this is a known problem for focus group research and incorporate this insight in the evaluation of the data. The decision to expose viewers to actual media output before interrogation rather than enquire in general terms about issues of representation and how they might respond to reflexive strategies proved to be a beneficial approach. From this study, it may be gathered that the screening of a film that is pertinent to the topic under investigation allowed participants to draw on actual viewing experience to form their opinion and illustrate their point of view in the discussions. The data furthermore demonstrated that there are differences between viewers who were exposed to the elements in question and those who were not. As already mentioned, some NR viewers anticipated negative effects that were not reported by viewers who received a reflexive treatment. Conversely, viewers who saw 2R and knew nothing about the filmmakers background thought they would be more responsive to expressive forms of reflexivity than viewers who were exposed to the

243

 procedure actually were. It appears therefore, that the selected method reflects actual viewer response more than investigations that do not follow exposure to media content. Before I undertook this study, I was already convinced that interpretation is an intricate exercise but I did not realise the extent both in terms of width (the large number of interacting factors) as well as depth (how profoundly each factor may influence reception) until after the analysis of the focus groups results. Ultimately, it is the complex nature of the reception of media content, which explains together with possible discrepancies between reflexive intentions on the one hand and reflexive actualisations in the text on the other why reflexive strategies do not always achieve the desired effect.

1 Although the most straightforward examples of this type of viewer were found in the PhD groups, several viewers in the actual focus groups displayed some of this oversensitive behaviour too. This suggests that age and/or media experience may have been a factor; the participants in the PhD group were generally older and for that reason alone more experienced media consumers than the participants in the actual focus groups. Their higher level of education and their area of interest, which is kindred to film studies, may have played a part too. 2 In the UK this approach might be precluded by the Broadcasting Act, which prescribes that any news given (in whatever form) in its programmes is presented with due accuracy and impartiality (Broadcasting Act 1990). This may prohibit the broadcasting of separate reports that are each biased, although balance and impartiality are achieved by broadcasting them side by side. In the Netherlands, impartiality and balance in news and current affairs programming are guaranteed by the broadcasting system as a whole, which allows access to any substantial interest group. Interested reporting is therefore not precluded.

244

 Appendix QUESTIONNAIRE We are interested in the reception of documentary film by viewers such as you. There are many definitions of what documentary actually is. In this study, a documentary is a documentary if you think it is a documentary. - On a scale from 1 10 (10 being the highest), how interested are you in documentaries? Please circle: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

- And in film in general, that is including Hollywood film? Please circle: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

- In the past year, how many documentaries did you see? Please circle. In the cinema: 0, 1-2, 3-5, 5-10, more than 10 On television: On DVD: 0, 1-2, 3-5, 5-10, more than 10 0, 1-2, 3-5, 5-10, more than 10

- On the whole, would you say you like or dislike watching documentaries? Like Neither like nor dislike Dislike

- Please explain what it is you like about them (if anything):

- And what is it you dislike about them (if anything):

239

- It is sometimes difficult to classify films but what types of cinema documentaries would you like to see in the future? You may tick more than one. Adventure Arts Biography Environmental Film and filmmaking History Music Natural world Political Science Social issues Sports Travel War - How important would the following qualities be to a cinema documentary you would like to see? Please tick if important. Clear Complex Controversial Dramatic Entertaining Informative Personal Realistic Uplifting Visual. How would you define documentary?

- Tell us about yourself. Please circle Sex: M/F Age: 0-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+ Marital status: Single, Couple/No children, Couple/dependent children, Couple/non-dependent children, Lone parent/dependent children. Religion: none, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, other (please specify) 240

If you consider yourself religious, are you raised in that religion, practising that relgion or both? Please circle.

Nationality: - During an average week, for how many hours do you watch television? Please circle. None Less than 6 hours More than 6 but less than 15 hours More than 15 hours. - Which of the following forms of programming do you watch? Please tick. Every day News Current Affairs Reality shows Soaps Drama Films Other forms: Please write in and say how often Others: Others: Please name some of your favorite television programmes. What is it you like about them? 2-3 times a week Once a week Once a month Less than once a month

Please name some of the television programmes that you dont like. What is it you dont like about them?

241

 How often do you watch YouTube? Please circle Every day 2-3 times a week Once a week Once a month Less than once a month.

How would you define the genre of the YouTube clips that you tend to click the most?

242

 Bibliography

Aberdeen City Council (2007) Behind the Granite: Aberdeen Key Facts, Aberdeen: Aberdeen City Council. Accession Monitoring Report May 2004-September 2007: A8 Countries (2007) London: Home Office, www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/ sitecontent/documents/ aboutus/reports/accession_monitoring_report/ report13/ may04sept07.pdf? view=Binary, accessed 16 Jul 2008. Allen, J. (1977) Self-reflexivity in Documentary, Cine-Tracts 1.2: 37-43. American Institute of Physics and D. Cassidy (1998), Quantum Mechanics, 1925-1927: The Uncertainty Principle, www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm, accessed 25 Feb 2006. Austin, T. (2007) Watching the World: Screen Documentary and Audiences, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Austin, T. and W. de Jong (eds.) (2008) Rethinking Documentary: New Perspectives, New Practices, Maidenhead: Open University Press. Babcock, B. (1975) Mirrors, Masks, and Metafiction (diss.), Chicago: University of Chicago. Barbash, I. and L. Taylor (2000) Radically Empirical Documentary: An Interview with David and Judith MacDougall, Film Quarterly 54.2: 2-14. Barnouw, E. (1993) Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film, Oxford: Oxford University Press. BBC Home (2006), Polish workers: Help or Hindrance?, BBC Kent, bbc.c.uk/kent/ content/articles/2006/12/11/polish_working_feature.shtml, accessed 20 May 2008. BBC News (2006), Nearly 600,000 New EU Migrants, BBC News, 22 August, news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5273356.stm, accessed 20 May 2008. BBC News (2007), Migrant workers: What we know, BBC News, 21 August, news.bbc.oc.uk/1/hi/uk/6957171.stm, accessed 20 May 2008. Broadcasting Act 1990, www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900042_en_2), accessed 15 Sep 2010. Bruzzi, S. (2006) New Documentary, Oxon: Routledge. Carroll, N. (1988) Mystifying Movies: Fads and Fallacies in Contemporary Film Theory, New York: Columbia University Press. Carroll, N. (2003) Engaging the Moving Image, New Haven: Yale University Press. Chanan, M. (2007) The Politics of Documentary, London: British Film Institute. Chanan, M. (2008) Filming the Invisible In: T. Austin and W. de Jong (eds.), Rethinking Documentary, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 121-132. Corner, J. (1981) Book Reviews: The Nationwide Audience: Structure and Decoding, David Morley, BFI Television Monograph Number 11, Media, Culture, Society 3.3: 197-200. Corner, J. (ed.) (1986) Documentary and the Mass Media, London: Edward Arnold. Corner, J. and K. Richardson (1986) Documentary Meanings and the Discourse of Interpretation, J. Corner (ed.), Documentary and the Mass Media, London: Edward Arnold, 141-160. Corner, J. (1995) Television Form and Public Address, London: Edward Arnold. Corner, J. (1996) The Art of Record: A Critical Introduction to Documentary, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Corner, J. (2008) Documentary Studies: Dimensions of Transition and Continuity, Rethinking Documentary, T. Austin and W. de Jong (eds.), Manchester: Manchester University Press, 13-28. 243

 Cousins, M. and K. Macdonald (2006), Imagining Reality, London: Faber and Faber. Dargis, M. (2006) Leni Riefenstahl, Art and Propaganda In: M. Cousins and K. Macdonald (eds.), Imagining Reality, London: Faber and Faber, 129-134. Dickinson, R., R. Harindranath and O. Linn (eds.) (1998), Approaches to Audiences: A Reader, London: Arnold. Dowling, T. (2007) They Come Over Here The Guardian, 22 November. Eco, U. (1979) The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Eichhorst, S. (2002) Annette Weiner 1933-1997, www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/ information/ biography/uvwxyz/weiner_annette.html, accessed 9 Jul 2010. Foucault, M. (1977) What is an author? In: D. Bouchard (ed.), Language, countermemory, practice: selected essays and interviews, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 113-138. Fulchignoni, E. (1989) Conversation with Jean Rouch, J. Ruby (ed.), The Cinema of Jean Rouch, special issue of Visual Anthropology 2.3-4: 265-300. Genette, G., N. Ben-Ari and B. McHale (1990) Fictional Narrative, Factional Narrative, Poetics Today 11.4 Narratology Revisited II (Winter): 755-774. Goddard, P., J. Corner and K. Richardson (2007) Public Issue Television: World in Action, 1963-98, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Govaert, C. (2007) How Reflexive Documentaries Engage Audiences in Issues of Representation: Apologia for a Reception Study, Studies in Documentary Film 1.3: 245-263. Gross, L., J. Katz and J. Ruby (eds.) (1988) Image Ethics: The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film and Television, New York: Oxford University Press. Gross, L., J. Katz and J. Ruby (eds.) (2003) Image Ethics in the Digital Age, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hagen, I. and J. Wasko (2000) Consuming Audiences? Production and Reception in Media Research, Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press. Hall, S. (1980) Encoding/Decoding In: Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies 1972-1979, London: Hutchinson, 120-138. Hall, S. (1988) Media Power: The Double Bind. In: A. Rosenthal (ed), New Challenges for Documentary, Berkeley: University of California Press, 357-64. Harindranath, R. (1998) Documentary Meanings and Interpretive Contexts: Observations on Indian Repertoires In: R. Dickinson, R. Harindranath and O. Linn (eds.), Approaches to Audiences: A Reader, London: Arnold, 284-297. Hill, A. (2007) Restyling Factual TV: Audiences and News, Documentary and Reality Genres, Oxon: Routledge. Hijer, B. (2000) Audiences Expectations and Interpretations of Different Television Genres: A Sociocognitive Approach, I. Hagen and J. Wasko (eds.), Consuming Audiences? Production and Reception in Media Research, Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press, 189-207. Hunter, M. and L. Van Wassenhove (2010) Disruptive New Technologies: Stakeholder Media and the Future of Watchdog Journalism Business Models, Insead Faculty & Research Working Paper, Fountainebleau: Insead. Ivens, J. (2006) The Spanish Earth In: M. Cousins and K. Macdonald (eds.), Imagining Reality, London: Faber and Faber, 134-140. Jakobson, R. (1981) Is the Film in Decline? Selected Writings III, The Hague: Mouton. Jakobson, R. (1985a) On Poetic Intentions and Linguistic Devices in Poetry: A Discussion with Professors and Students at the University of Cologne, K. Pomorska and S. Rudy (eds.) Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time,Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Jakobson, R. (1985b) Metalanguage as a Linguistic Problem, Selected Writings VII, 244

 Berlin: Mouton. Jakobson, R. (1987) Linguistics and Poetics, K. Pomorska and S. Rudy (eds.), Language in Literature, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 6293. Jakobson, R. (1990) On Language, L. Waugh and M. Monville-Burston (eds.), Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Jones, D. (1981) Movies and Memoranda: An Interpretative History of the National Film Board of Canada, Ottawa: Canadian Film Institute/Institut canadien du film. Jones, D. (1988) The Canadian Film Board Unit B, A. Rosenthal (ed.), New Challenges for Documentary, Berkeley: University of California Press, 133-147. Lambert, G. (2006) O Dreamland, M. Cousins and K. Macdonald (eds.), Imagining Reality, London: Faber and Faber, 212-214. Lawson, H. (1985) Reflexivity: The Post-Modern Predicament, London: Hutchinson and Co. Living and Working in the UK: Your Rights (2007), London: TUC Migrant Workers Project. Livingstone, S. (1998) Making Sense of Television: The Psychology of Audience Interpretation, London: Routledge. Lunt, P. and S. Livingstone (1996), Rethinking the Focus Group in Media and Communications Research, Journal of Communication 46.2: 79-96. MacDonald, S. (1988), Southern Exposure: An Interview with Ross McElwee, Film Quarterly 41.4, www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/news/ross/, accessed 8 Apr 2006. MacDonald, S. (1993) Avant-Garde Film: Motion Studies, New York: Cambridge University Press. MacDougall, D. (1998) Transcultural Cinema, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. McQuail, D. (2005) McQuails Mass Communication Theory, 5th edition, London: Sage. Minh-ha, T. (1992) Framer Framed, New York: Routledge. Minh-ha, T. (1993 ) The Totalizing Quest of Meaning, M. Renov (ed.), Theorizing Documentary, New York: Routledge, 90-107. Morgan, D. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, Second Edition, Qualitative Research Methods Series 16, London: Sage. Morley, D. (1980) The Nationwide Audience: Structure and Decoding, London: British Film Institute. Nichols, B. (1991) Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Nichols, B. (1994) Blurred Boundaries: Questions of Meaning in Contemporary Culture, Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Nichols, B. (2001) Introduction to Documentary, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ockhuysen, R. (2003) Documentairemakers: manipuleren mag, de Volkskrant, 25 September. Odin, J. (1997) The Edge of Difference: Negotiations between the Hypertextual and the Postcolonial, Modern Fiction Studies 43.3: 598-630. Plantinga, C. (1991) The Mirror Framed: A Case For Expression in Documentary, Wide Angle 8.2: 40-53. Pomorska, K. and S. Rudy (eds.) (1985) Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pomorska, K. and S. Rudy (eds.) (1987) Language in Literature, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Pollard, N., M. Latorre and D. Sriskandarajah (2008) Floodgates or Turnstiles? PostEnlargement Migration Flows To (and From) the UK, London: Institute for Public Policy Research. 245

 Renov, M. (1993) Theorizing Documentary, New York: Routledge. Richardson, K. and J. Corner (1986) Reading Reception: Mediation andTransparency in Viewers Accounts of a TV Programme, Media, Culture & Society 8.3: 485508. Rosenthal, A. (ed.) (1988) New Challenges for Documentary, Berkeley: University of California Press. Rotha, P. (1952) Documentary Film, Third Edition, London: Faber and Faber. Ruby, J. (1980) Exposing Yourself: Reflexivity, Anthropology and Film, Semiotica 30.1-2: 153-179. Ruby, J. (ed.) (1982) A Crack in the Mirror: Reflexive Perspectives in Anthropology, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ruby, J. (1988) The Image Mirrored: Reflexivity and the Documentary Film In: A. Rosenthal (ed.), New Challenges for Documentary: 64-77. Ruby, J. (2000) Picturing Culture: Explorations of Film & Anthropology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schreier, M. (2004 ) Please Help Me; All I Want to Know Is: Is it Real or Not? Poetics Today 25.2 (Summer): 305-334. Schrder, K. (1994) Audience Semiotics, Interpretive Communities and the Ethnographic Turn in Media Research, Media, Culture & Society 16: 337-347. Schrder, K. (2000) Making Sense of Audience Discourses: Towards a Multidimensional Model of Mass Media Reception, European Journal of Cultural Studies 3.2: 233258. Schrder, K. et al (2003) Researching Audiences: A Practical Guide to Methods in Media Audience Analysis, London: Arnold. Sekula, A. (1978) Dismantling Modernism, Reinventing Documentary (Notes on the Politics of Representation), The Massachusetts Review 19.4: 859-88. Smith, B. Herrnstein (1975) On the Margins of Discourse, Critical Inquiry 1.4 (June): 769-798. SPJ (1996) Code of Ethics, www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp, accessed 16 June 2010. Stam, Robert (1992) Reflexivity in Film and Literature, New York: Columbia University Press. Stam, R., R. Burgoyne and S. Flitterman-Lewis (2006) New Vocabularies in Film Semiotics: Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and Beyond, London: Routledge. Stromer-Galley, J. and E. Schiappa (1998) The Argumentative Burdens of Audience Conjectures: Audience Research in Popular Culture Criticism, Communication Theory 8.1 (February): 27-62. Sussex, E. (2006) The Role of Alberto Cavalcanti, M. Cousins and K. Macdonald (eds.), Imagining Reality, London: Faber and Faber, 112-118. Thomas, S. (1998) Artifactual Study in the Analysis of Culture: A Defense of Content Analysis in a Postmodern Age, Communication Research 21.6 (December): 683697. Unemployment Bulletin January 2007, Aberdeen City Council, www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ACCI/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=8495&sID=33 2, accessed 4 Jun 2008. Vorderer, P. and N. Groeben (1992) Audience research: What the Humanistic and the Social Science Approaches Could Learn from Each Other, Poetics 21: 361-376. Waugh, L. (1985 ) The Poetic Function and the Nature of Language, R. Jakobsen, Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time. K. Pomorska and S. Rudy (eds.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 143-168. Weiner, A. (1978) Epistemology and Ethnographic Reality: A Trobriand Island Case Study, American Anthropologist 80.3: 752-757. Williams, L. (1993) Mirrors without Memories: Truth, History and the New 246

 Documentary, Film Quarterly 46.3: 9-21. Wimsatt, W.K (1954) The Intentional Fallacy The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry, Lexington KY: University of Kentucky Press, 3-19. Winston, B. (1995) Claiming the Real: The Griersonian Documentary and Its Legitimations, London: British Film Institute. Winston, B. (2000) Lies, Damn Lies and Documentaries, London: British Film Institute. Wise, D. (2002) Boom Raider, Sight & Sound 12.5: 16-18. Wolf, M. (1988) Communication Research and Textual Analysis: Prospects and Problems of Theoretical Convergence, European Journal of Communication 3: 135-149.

247

 Filmography The Atomic Caf, Jayne Loader and Ken Rafferty, USA, 86 min, 1982. Best Boy, Ira Wohl, USA, 111 min, 1979. Biggie and Tupac, Nick Broomfield, UK, 108 min, 2002. The Blair Witch Project, Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Snchez, USA, 81 min, 1999. Capturing the Freedmans, Andrew Jarecki, USA, 107 min, 2003. Chronique dun t, Edgar Morin and Jean Rouch, France, 85 min, 1961. Crash, Paul Haggis, USA, 112 min, 2004. tre et avoir, Nicolas Philibert, France, 104 min, 2002. Far from Poland, Jill Godmilow, USA, 106 min, 1984. Ford Transit, Hany Abu-Assad, the Netherlands, 80 min, 2002. The Great Global Warming Swindle, Martin Durkin, UK, 74 min, 2007. Its a Free World, Ken Loach, UK, 96 min, 2007. An Inconvenient Truth, Davis Guggenheim, USA, 100 min, 2006. Jaguar, Jean Rouch, France, 110 min, 1967. Lonely Boy, Wolf Koenig and Roman Kroitor, Canada, 27 min, 1962. Man with a Movie Camera, Dziga Vertov, USSR, 68 min, 1929. Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky, USA, 141 min, 2004. Naked Spaces Living Is Round, Trinh Minh-ha, USA, 135 min, 1985. Nanook of the North, Robert Flaherty, USA, 79 min, 1922. ...No Lies, Mitchell Block, USA, 16 min, 1974. Loeil de Vichy, Claude Chabrol, France, 110 min, 1993. Paradise Now, Hany Abu-Assad, the Netherlands, 90 min, 2005. Passing Girl: Riverside, Kwame Braun, USA, 24 min, 1998. Persepolis, Vincent Paronnaud and Marjane Satrapi, France, 96 min, 2007. Primary, Robert Drew, USA, 60 min, 1960. Shermans March, Ross McElwee, USA, 157 min, 1986. Surname Viet, Given Name Nam, Trinh Minh-ha, USA, 108 min, 1989. Titicut Follies, Frederick Wiseman, USA, 84 min, 1967. Touching the Void, Kevin Macdonald, UK, 106 min, 2003. United 93, Paul Greengrass, USA, 111 min, 2006. Unmade Beds, Nicholas Barker, USA, 95 min, 1997. Waltz with Bashir, Ari Folman, Israel, 90 min, 2008.

248