“BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE JAN.6 DOCUMENTARY”

      As consumers of TV headlines, we are used to the words, "BREAKING NEWS," splashed often across the screen. However, another relevant banner recently made its debut: JAN. 6: BEHIND THE SCENES AT THE CAPITOL.  Although these words were never actually aired, they seemed to clearly describe the recent release of footage featuring Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer's attempt at thwarting the attack on the Capitol. This enterprise was called a "documentary," shot by Pelosi's daughter, "an accomplished documentary filmmaker."

     The film's provocative nature should not be questioned considering the on-going findings by the January 6 Committee. In fact, it seemed like the most explosive and perhaps the most informative material revealed so far under the Committee's auspices.

      Yet some aspects of the work do need questioning. For example, the broadcasting of the documentary so close to the mid-term elections needs explanation. It appears as if the movie certainly favors the Democrats' good intentions, their handling of a serious crisis, and their ability to keep Americans safe.  Their message to Americans and to the world at large is clear: it may seem like our government has temporary lost control ( at least on Jan. 6) but we're gaining it back. Of course, the documentary's information was limited. The viewers really didn't know if Pelosi and Schumer's efforts had any meaningful effect, but that didn't seem to matter. At least they were trying. 

     No doubt about it: the Democrats just pulled off one of the most effective TV political " ads " in recent times.

     But there's more to question about this documentary, one concerning the very nature of the genre. Some film critics have always advocated that there can never be an authentic documentary ( which simply records real people, events, places, etc. ) taking place in actual locations and during real time. There will always be altered reality in a so-called non-fiction film. Thus, the only real documentary is a home-movie or a surveillance video. Even reality is altered in these examples due to the camera's placement and angle, for instance.

     The Jan. 6 work uses many of these reality alterations which are usually selected by the director. Consider the camera angle, like the bird's eye views of Pelosi's head, calling attention to her thinning hair line. Then there's the utilization of close-ups ( head and shoulder/ waist images ) versus long shots (panoramic images) including Pelosi and Schumer sitting on a couch ( close-ups ) and the Democrats forming a circle in the room ( long shots ) as they talk. Consider another related technique which questions authenticity:  for example, the film shows many subjects with their backs to the camera. Such point-of-view shots certainly convey a message.

   Lastly, is this documentary authentic in another important way? Are Pelosi and Schumer "performing" before the camera as they often do in many circumstances when being recorded?

It's been proven that this is possible with people who are experienced media speakers. Conversely, subjects who are in crisis and not used to the camera probably don't "perform."

    This critic believes that while the Jan. 6documentary must be questioned, Pelosi and Schumer were not "performing" per se, although they were still very careful about what they said and how they said it. Can you blame them?