In the field of documentaries there are two types: Categorical and Rhetorical. Now I find that in order to learn their definitions I need practical examples. So, Categorical documentaries include pieces such as Gap-Toothed Women. The film is constructed around delegating subjects into categories and presenting them as such. Whereas Rhetorical documentaries include pieces such as: Making a Murderer, Bowling for Columbine and Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief in which the director aims to persuade the audience by presenting and argument with supporting evidence to portray and opinion or stance. Of these example, Bowling for Columbine is my favourite, Michael Moore presents blunt and poignant truths surrounding the pro-gun mentality in America and the horrors it is responsible for, specially focusing on the Columbine School Massacre. One sequence in particular features the song “What a wonderful world” overlaid with graphic footage of violence, war and death in third world countries, to which the United States contributes weapons. This almost sarcastic black humour bluntly presents Moore’s argument and persuades the audience beyond any doubt. I find I am personally more interested in rhetorical style documentaries, dealing with social and political issues. They can be blunt, insightful and I find that they are much more successful in being persuasive than say a journal article. People only respond to actual physical evidence when it’s right in front of their face, seeing is believing, and if they can’t see it, it simply doesn’t exist.