Comparing Reflexive & Participatory Modes
Reflexive and participatory documentaries take different approaches to storytelling. Reflexive documentaries focus on how films shape meaning instead of just presenting reality. They remind viewers that documentaries are constructed through choices in editing, narration, framing, etc. Participatory documentaries, on the other hand, involve the filmmaker in the events of the film. The filmmaker interacts with subjects, shaping the narrative through interviews and direct engagement.
Surname Viet, Given Name Nam (1989), an example of a reflexive documentary, presents interviews with Vietnamese women, but later reveals that the women are actors performing real testimonies. This challenges the idea that documentary interviews always present truth. It forces viewers to question what they assume about documentary storytelling. Trinh T. Minh-ha, the filmmaker, does not just tell a story, but she asks the audience to think about how stories are told and who controls them. This approach fits with what Bill Nichols describes as the reflexive mode, which questions documentary form itself and makes audiences aware that what they see is constructed rather than a direct reflection of reality. It also relates to other reflexive films, like Man with a Movie Camera (1929), which shows the editing and filming process to remind viewers that what they see is shaped by the filmmaker’s choices.
The reflexive mode often challenges traditional documentary methods, especially those that claim to present objective truth. By drawing attention to the way films construct meaning, these documentaries ask viewers to consider how their own perspectives shape what they believe. This mode is particularly effective when dealing with subjects that involve identity, history, and power. Surname Viet, Given Name Nam uses performance and layered storytelling to reveal how representation itself can be unreliable. Instead of offering a clear conclusion, it leaves space for interpretation, making the audience an active participant in understanding the film’s message.
Sherman’s March (1986) takes a different approach. The film starts as a historical investigation of General William Tecumseh Sherman’s Civil War campaign but quickly shifts focus to the filmmaker’s personal life. Ross McElwee, the director, turns the camera on himself and the people he meets. His presence shapes the film. He speaks with women he encounters, reflecting on relationships, loneliness, and personal history. The documentary does not present an objective account of Sherman’s march. Instead, it explores how personal experiences influence the filmmaking process. Surname Viet, Given Name Nam questions how truth is constructed and Sherman’s March highlights how a filmmaker’s involvement shapes a documentary.
Sherman’s March shows how a filmmaker’s own life can become the subject of a documentary, even when the original intent was something else. This approach makes the participatory mode feel more immediate and personal, but it also raises questions about bias. McElwee’s presence shapes not just the content of the film but also how viewers interpret it. On the other hand, Surname Viet, Given Name Nam challenges the audience more directly by making them question their assumptions about representation and truth. One film draws attention to the filmmaker’s role in shaping the story, while the other makes the audience question how stories are told at all.
Both modes challenge the idea of documentary as objective truth, but they do so in different ways. Reflexive documentaries expose how filmmaking choices influence what audiences see. They ask viewers to think critically about representation. Participatory documentaries show how a filmmaker’s presence affects the story being told. Both remind viewers that documentaries do not just record reality, they shape how we understand it.
I really liked the emphasis on the different approaches and the consequences of the medium and subject matter combined with the style of Documentary the filmmakers choose to explore. Sherman’s March shows how much a filmmaker’s own life can become the subject of a documentary, even when the original intent was not to be entrapped in the storytelling or filmmaking process. I really connect with this as I want to be an objective filmmaker unless I feel that including myself in the process would benefit the story or not. I wonder if in a way the participatory mode and reflexive mode or two different sides of how film can be therapy. Participatory filmslet the filmmakers live out and work through their angst both in relationships, in how they treated their ex’s or potential partners or the reflexive mode deconstructs filmmaking and helps victims examine and showcase their experience dealing with the ramifications of those outsider decisions of sexism, and hate and more like in Surname Viet, Given Name Nam.