Critical analysis paper on Direct cinema and the observational mode
FEA 380 Documentary Film History & Theory
Spring 2023
Dr. Rowena Santos Aquino
Critical analysis paper on Direct cinema and the observational mode (15 points)
Length: 5 full pages (12-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, 1-inch margins)
Due: Monday, 13
th March, at 2:00PM in the BeachBoard dropbox
Late submissions deducted 3 points per day following deadline
Papers more than one week late will not be accepted; no exceptions
Direct cinema took advantage of lightweight equipment, zoom lenses, and synchronized sound to advocate an
observational, “fly on the wall” approach to documentary filmmaking. In our class screening of High School (1968), we
have seen how Direct cinema techniques are employed to construct documentaries with seemingly minimal authorial
intervention. Although Direct cinema filmmakers never made any claims to “objectivity” (which they knew was
impossible), by the end of the 1960s many critics had hailed their observational films as a new form of documentary, and
the filmmakers’ artistic use of handheld cameras, zooms, and montage had brought them “auteur” status.
Not all critics and filmmakers were convinced of Direct cinema’s merits, however, and some felt its stylistic techniques
and feeling of immediacy merely covered up a distinct point of view or compensated for a lack of ideas. With these
criticisms in mind, analyze ONE of the observational films listed below and consider how Direct cinema techniques affect
your experience of the subject. How does the observational mode convey meaning, and how do Direct cinema techniques
influence or shape the film’s ideas, themes, and representation of “reality” and/or truth(s)?
Some suggested issues to consider in formulating your thesis/argument and structuring your analysis:
● Title. Because Direct cinema usually avoids text and narration, how does the title of the film reflect the film’s content
and shape viewer expectations?
● Technique, Form, Style. How do the filmmakers structure their film to make meaning? How do they assert their
presence and/or point of view through form and style (framing, length of shots, shot selection, editing)? Do they ever
resort to expository techniques, such as using text or narration, to provide information, or other techniques that
“violate” Direct cinema “rules”? If so, why?
● Public and Private Life. One criticism of Direct cinema is its focus on public figures and public life, which often
takes the form of celebrity journalism. Does the mere act of gaining access to a public figure or institution guarantee
that a “behind the scenes” glimpse will be enlightening or truthful? (Remember that any act consciously made in front
of a camera is essentially a performance, and even a “performance” can reveal character.)
● The Media. Are there media representatives, such as television or newspaper reporters, seen in the film? If so, how
are they portrayed? Compare and contrast how the documentary filmmakers and these other media representatives
cover the same event(s) and/or figure(s).
● Direct cinema. Finally, does masking (i.e. making invisible) the filmmakers’ presence offer a more “direct”
experience of the subject? What kind of information or experience is being conveyed? Ultimately, what is gained and
what is lost by approaching the subject(s) or event(s) in an observational way?
In your analysis, you MUST have a thesis, a larger critical and interpretative argument or claim that you want to make
about the film. The bulk of your paper then develops your thesis through an analysis of the film’s formal, stylistic/visual,
and thematic elements and offers evidence in support of your thesis. You can draw on the lectures, readings, and/or
discussions to help strengthen and clarify your argument. You are not required to do any additional research for this
paper, but, you must use the required readings to support your thesis and/or individual critical points. When you
1
summarize, paraphrase, or directly quote the readings, they must be properly cited. Not properly citing sources is
considered plagiarism. (Refer to the writing handout for detailed writing and citation guidelines.)
Because this assignment is a short paper, be concise and try to focus on specific scenes/sequences in the film that will
illustrate and support your thesis. The key point to remember is that analysis is more than description. Do not merely
re-tell the story of the films. Assume that your reader has seen the films, so use descriptions sparingly, only to back up
your arguments and provide context.
Your paper will be evaluated according to the following aspects:
● Quality of thesis (coherent, insightful);
● Argumentation and organization of analysis (cohesive, persuasive);
● Treatment of film’s formal and thematic elements (clear and complex understanding);
● Academic writing (articulate, little to no spelling/grammatical errors);
● Mechanics and citation (follows writing/submission guidelines, correct citation format)
If you have questions about the assignment, see me during my office hours or contact me at rowena.aquino@csulb.edu.
Choose ONE of the following documentaries for your analysis. Whenever possible, streaming links to access the
titles will be provided and/or updated (links for CC require login with your Beach ID).
Robert Drew:
Crisis (1963) – Kennedy administration deals with integration of black students at the University of Alabama
D.A. Pennebaker:
Dont Look Back (1966) – on tour in England with Bob Dylan
The War Room (1993) – Bill Clinton’s campaign in the 1992 election (co-directed with Chris Hegedus)
https://www.historicfilms.com/tapes/54681
Frederick Wiseman:
Titicut Follies (1967) – close look at inmates-patients of a state prison for the criminally insane
https://archive.org/details/Titicut.Follies.DVDRip
https://smartplayer.captionsync.com/play.php?vid=1676067105csulb-admin_aaf46193c13ecc99 (CC)
Law & Order (1969) – following the daily routines of officers of the Kansas City Police Department
https://www.archive.org/details/FrederickWisemanPublicHousingDiscOne
Hospital (1970) – portrait of urban hospital’s emergency ward and patient-staff interactions
https://www.archive.org/details/FrederickWisemanPublicHousingDiscOne
Allan King:
Warrendale (1967) – observing the treatment of emotionally disturbed youths at a facility
https://smartplayer.captionsync.com/play.php?vid=1675791541csulb-admin_996e40c5c851cf27 (CC)
A Married Couple (1969) – wife and husband find their marriage in crisis
https://smartplayer.captionsync.com/play.php?vid=1675793060csulb-admin_9ead84fd9ec03f36 (CC)
Albert & David Maysles:
Salesman (1968) – on the road with Bible salesmen
2
https://smartplayer.captionsync.com/play.php?vid=1675794575csulb-admin_9461f25cada7284b (CC)
Gimme Shelter (1971) – Rolling Stones’ 1969 U.S. tour ends violently at Altamont Speedway
https://smartplayer.captionsync.com/play.php?vid=1675796107csulb-admin_96f14f52be5d2d51 (CC)
Grey Gardens (1976) – lives of Kennedy relatives & former socialites in a crumbling old mansion
https://smartplayer.captionsync.com/play.php?vid=1675797629csulb-admin_a5ba17d7744e372c (CC)
Barbara Kopple:
Harlan County, USA (1976) – striking miners & families face corporate power & violence in southeastern Kentucky
https://smartplayer.captionsync.com/play.php?vid=1676066888csulb-admin_ab1666500273da9b (CC)
American Dream (1990) – unionized striking workers protest wage cuts & daily struggles
https://digitalcampus-swankmp-net.csulb.idm.oclc.org/calstatelb346994/play/F23ECDDDBBE95EC0 (CC)
Lucien Castaing-Taylor:
Sweetgrass (2009) – shepherds guide sheep through the Montana wilderness (co-directed with Ilisa Barbash)
https://video-alexanderstreet-com.csulb.idm.oclc.org/watch/sweetgrass (CC)
Leviathan (2012) – accompanying a commercial fishing crew on an expedition (co-directed with Véréna Paravel)
*available on BeachBoard, Week 4 folder, alongside this assignment prompt
J.P. Sniadecki:
People’s Park (2012) – one-take exploration of a park in Chengdu, China in an afternoon
https://video-alexanderstreet-com.csulb.idm.oclc.org/watch/the-people-s-park?utm_campaign=Video&utm_medium=
MARC&utm_source=aspresolver
The Iron Ministry (2014) – encounters with passengers traveling by railway across China
https://docuseek2-com.csulb.idm.oclc.org/cart/product/1569 (CC)
Ross brothers
Tchoupitoulas (2012) – a night of experiencing New Orleans’sights & sounds through three brothers
https://video-alexanderstreet-com.csulb.idm.oclc.org/watch/tchoupitoulas?utm_campaign=Video&utm_medium=MA
RC&utm_source=aspresolver (CC)
Western (2015) –interactions, experiences, & perspectives in sister cities Eagle Pass, TX & Piedras Negras, Mexico
Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets (2020) – accompanying a Las Vegas dive bar’s last day/night with its regular customers
Style and submission requirements:
● Papers must be at least 5 full pages in length, use 12-point Times New Roman font, be double-spaced, and have
1-inch margins to avoid point reduction
● Papers must have a title that reflects your main argument
● Italicize all book and film titles; article titles should be put in quotation marks, journal names italicized
● Upload your paper to BeachBoard in the designated dropbox
3
CSULB and FEA writing resources
If you feel you need extensive help to develop your writing skills or to revise drafts of your paper, consider using the
University Writing Center (UWC), which offers tutoring services and workshops for students across the campus and is
open via Zoom. For more information or to schedule an appointment, please visit
https://www.csulb.edu/university-writing-center.
