Participatory and reflexive modes of documentary filmmaking provide an interesting contrast and compliment in style as well as message and ultimate goal.
As it implies, participatory mode is designed to engage subjects as the filmmaker often becomes directly involved, and often present in voice or image within the documentary. In this mode, the influence of the filmmaker and his or her bias is not ignored or stifled, but instead acknowledged and sometimes encouraged. It seems that this style of filmmaking is very often something personal to the filmmaker. There is a reason that the story is being told, but there is a personal reason for the filmmaker to be so involved whether it is simply a strong feeling towards a topic, or a personal need to share a story for cathartic value.
One of the most famous participatory filmmakers is of course Michael Moore, but a more favored filmmaker of mine is Ross McElwee and his documentary Photographic Memory. This documentary is told almost completely from the perspective of McElwee. His voice is the strongest voice in the film as he interviews those around his and makes voiceover observations about his life. The film is more about McElwee’s perspective on his topic regarding his son and his past, than the topic itself making Photographic Memory a great example of true participatory mode.
While participatory encourages participation, the reflexive mode almost takes it a step further by acknowledging that the bias of the subjects and the filmmaker can make a story less true, but more emotional. It seems to me that this mode challenges the definition of truth and challenges it in the face of a film form that has previously claimed to portray events in a real, non-fabricated way. The audience in this mode becomes aware of the filmic qualities of the story. It is a more “meta” style of documentary as the craft of documentary filmmaking is incorporated into the story and message itself.
A powerful example of the reflexive mode was seen in the film Surname Viet Given Name Nam as stories were told by Vietnamese women. It is revealed throughout the film that the women on the screen are in fact immigrants living in the US and the stories belong to women in Vietnam, not the women on screen expressing the narratives. At this moment of realization, the audience becomes aware of the sets, props, lighting, and tone of delivery that all contributed to the true, but not completely true nature of the documentary.
As mentioned before, these two modes both contrast and compliment one another as they provide two different methods to express the truth and challenge the meaning of truth depending entirely on the perspective of the story teller and the manner in which the story is expressed.