I would not consider myself to be one who watches a lot of documentary films. Mostly just those that documents my interests such as music or sports. Hence, my knowledge of documentary films are limited to those that are about music. Documentary films such as Montage of Heck 2015, directed by Brett Morgen, Foo Fighters: Back and Forth, 2011, directed by James Moll and Amy, 2015, directed by Asif Kapadia, are just examples of the documentary films that I’ve been exposed to. The film screened this week, Grizzly Man, 2005, directed by Werner Herzog, was definitely an eye opener and left a very strong and lasting impression of the way documentary films on me. My view and interpretation of documentary films have changed after watching that particular film.

Grizzly Man uncovers the story of a man going to live in the Alaskan green forest in the summer to protect and study the bears who roam wild and free. It is almost like a documentary about e documentary, as there were 2 levels of plots in the film, or at least that’s how I look at it. We have the story of Timothy Treadwell, the man who goes out to live with the bears, and we have another story about the bears and how they live in the forest of Alaska. And in many ways, both plots are intertwined together, but in other ways, they are very much individual to their own stories, and Werner Herzog did a very good job in linking both ends together. Another story that might be slightly more subtle than the 2 in the fore would be the relationship and comparison between Herzog himself and Treadwell as well. In the film, both men endeavour to make documentary on a particular subject matter, for Treadwell’s case, it’s about the bears and protecting the wildlife, for Herzog, the death of Treadwell and the life he led. Both of them had certain things in common in terms of making a documentary and as a filmmaker, but of course, both man had their own set of thinking and ideology.

There are so many ways to tell a story, and documentary would be the most straight forward and explicit way, as oppose to maybe a reenactment or a remake of a particular event or biography of a person. The latter may be a little more entertaining, due to the extra headroom for exposing a little more creativity in telling a story. In a documentary however, there should be a certain form as discussed in the reading by Boredwell and Thompson. From my understand, documentaries can be made in 2 forms, the Categorical Form and the Rhetorical Form. Both must have a certain form of factual information of the world. They are assumed to hold some credibility and trustworthy in presenting facts about the particular subject matter. At times, the public or critics may question the truth of facts that are mentioned in a particular documentary film, but that’s for the public and critic to debate with the filmmaker, which in turn may lead to boycott or lower rating to the film.

In general, the concept of documentaries have changed over the years from just a platform where information is transmitted over the big screen to something more dramatized and well constructed in order to maintain and engage the audience’s attention. Gone are the days of documentaries on TV or film where it just shows the subject matter carrying out an activity with a voice over commenting and narrating over the pictures. There is more than meets the eye in terms of thoughts and decision making when it comes to making a documentary film just as much as when it comes to making an action film. And all these decisions are to ensure the greatest experience the filmmakers might promise to the audience in engaging them.