Rich Hill — Documentary subjects as storytellers
Rich Hill is predominantly structured around the testimony and narration of the boys and their families. This provides viewers with the sense that the film’s subjects are conveying their experiences directly to the audience. So the role of storyteller is fulfilled more by the people being profiled in the film than by the filmmakers. This technique prevents documentarians from unintentionally incorporating their own perspectives into the retelling of events and reduces the likelihood of accidental mischaracterizations.
One powerful example of testimony and storytelling in Rich Hill comes from 13-year-old Andrew, describing how his family has moved in with relatives while his father searches for a job. Andrew explains, “we have clothes on our back, we have food in our stomach, but we don’t have a roof over our head [sic].” Andrew also describes the way that his father alternates between different jobs, saying, “he does not like to hold a steady job… He wants to start to try to do new things. I mean, that’s my dad’s thing. It’s his life. He has to live it, you know? He only has one life to live.” This first-person description directly reflects how Andrew views his father and the circumstances that he faces.
The filmmakers’ decision to format the film around narratives by the boys and their families contributes to its pervasive sense of authenticity. This choice also prevented the filmmakers from misinterpreting their subjects’ statements. The testimony included throughout the film gives it a feeling of intimacy while providing viewers with an awareness of the subjects’ own views.
While allowing a film’s subjects to tell their stories contributes to an honest representation of their perspectives, this format could easily be challenged as being affected by the narrators’ subjectivities and biases. However, Rich Hill relies largely on observational footage to document the circumstances which the boys confront, as well as their families’ lifestyles. This footage provides the audience with context and an increased awareness of the challenges the boys face. But it also contributes to the film’s truthfulness by presenting viewers with opportunities to examine claims made by the film’s subjects and compare them to the events that occur. As media scholar John Ellis writes, in documentary “the viewer’s judgment is guided both by the commentary and by their own observation.”
One example of this in Rich Hill comes near the end of the film, when 12-year-old Appachey gets into a physical confrontation at school and is charged with assault. Both Appachey and his mother, Delena, describe what happened and explain that Appachey will be sent to a juvenile detention center. Before taking Appachey to court, Delena explains, “I do think it’ll be the best thing for him, but it still breaks my heart that he has to go. That’s my baby. But I’ve done everything I can for him.”
While Delena makes a clear claim about her role as a parent, viewers are provided the context of her interactions with Appachey and his siblings as a means of judging the veracity of her statement. This is also true in numerous other instances throughout the film, and it is evident that the filmmakers made a conscious effort to fairly depict reality while structuring the film around its subjects’ stories.
Rich Hill is centered around its subjects’ narratives and uses candid, observational footage to convey their lifestyles and experiences. However, like all documentaries, the format and organization of the film was considerably influenced by the filmmakers’ editorial decisions.
As writer Luke Dormehl explains, “documentary requires an editorial decision with regard to content, and furthermore demands a context that extends beyond merely a superficial document of events.”
This relates to the ways documentary filmmakers must evaluate the content of their footage in determining what to include and its relevance to the project as a whole. In crafting Rich Hill, it is apparent that Tracy Droz Tragos and Andrew Droz Palermo were careful to include footage that fairly represented varying aspects of the boys’ lives. For example, the film includes multiple instances of both Appachey and Harley smoking and engaging in heated arguments with their families. However, the film also depicts the strong bonds that exist between each of the boys and their families, even during moments of vulnerability.
Based on the inclusion of all of these divergent aspects of the boys’ lives, the filmmakers were cautious to incorporate scenes that fairly represented the boys’ reality, as opposed to selectively choosing footage with the motivation of conveying a certain point. One specific editorial choice in the film is the inclusion of an auction scene at the carnival, in which the auctioneer calls, “come on folks…it’s only money.” This brief sentiment easily elicits a response of indignation from viewers, who have perceived how valuable money is to the boys and their families. The insertion of this particular excerpt was a clear editorial choice on the behalf of the filmmakers, but it’s only noteworthy to the audience as a result of the powerful narratives that precede it.
Posted from my blog with SteemPress : https://selfscroll.com/rich-hill-documentary-subjects-as-storytellers/
This user is on the @buildawhale blacklist for one or more of the following reasons: