Nicholls Documentary Mode

The Expository Mode

Expository mode style documentary is the more typical, conventional documentary that is usually shown. It will often use a a narrator to guide us through the documentary, whilst we are seeing more artistic visuals.
The expository mode can mainly be seen in wildlife documentaries. David Attenborough's, Blue Planet is a good example of how an expository documentary is constructed. At (0:19) we see the waves crashing in a very rough ocean, whilst we hear David talk about the weather and how it is the roughest sea on the planet. By using an expository mode for a documentary it allows the audience to given this more direct approach to the subject giving us direct information whilst watching an artistic piece of content.
The documentary further uses a sense of dramatisation at (1:33) we see this long swooping tracking shot, following this one bird as it unveils a whole mass of them. This, coupled with the compelling orchestral music creates a more dramatic and entertaining visual for the documentary instead of showing the audience with a stationary camera. For the audience this keeps us engaged, creating this 'wow' factor as we see the vast size of birds on the island.
we then see a sense of realism in the documentary at (1:44) which denotes another visual of the amount of birds on the island but what perhaps makes it more real is what we hear from the narrator who tells us that its set in the Falklands. As the documentary gives the audience a sense of place it connects the visual and documentary to the real world, which ultimately engages the audience.

The Observational Mode

The observational mode of documentary is where the camera does not interfere with the action, we are seeing everything unfold from a neutral point of view. The action would happen even if the camera was not there, we sit and we observe what is happening on screen.
Through this documentary, Welfare by Frederick Wiseman, we see an Observational mode being used. At (8:09) we see a more heated conversation happening between an employee and 2 people trying to claim welfare money. The camera is left in a 2 shot for the entirety of the conversation, there is no music, no narrator, no graphics etc. This would really highlight the mode being used as either way that conversation would have happened if the camera was there or not. From an audience perspective the purpose of this technique is to present the action in a more raw form, it leaves us with the feeling that what we are seeing is more genuine because nothing is influencing the action.
As this style of documentary is very raw and natural it means that there is little manipulation used to add drama or realism because whilst they can choose what to show and what to cut and they can use different camera shots/angles ultimately all entertainment is based on action and reaction. At (9:03) we see the camera being used in a different way, the camera went from a 2 shot and into a close up of the woman's face as she explains herself. As she talks about her past which is very sensitive the camera dramatises this by moving in closer towards her, this not only shows the audience more of her emotions but it is mainly used to evoke more emotion from the audience.
We further see this sense of realism at (14:06) where the conversation thats lasted for roughly 8 minutes ends, but the next scene is just another conversation with a different woman trying to claim welfare. This encapsulates the mode of documentary and the realism that the audience are seeing, because there is nothing more too see. There is no different action that can be shown but rather the same thing is repeated just with a different person. The action can only be changed if the person decides to become more angry or have a certain emotion.

The Participatory Mode 

This mode is very different, instead of being neutral to the action the participatory mode invites a direct relationship between the filmmaker and the audience. The documentary would not exist without the filmmaker as they are actively seeking out an answer making this mode more investigative.
During this documentary Sicko, Michael Moore investigates health insurance and health care in america, however we see at (51:48) that he is actively going in to hospitals and waiting rooms, not jut in America but in Canada and in England. The scene though denotes him coming from one hospital where apparently he was lied too, and going across town to another hospital to ask the same question. This mode perhaps invites a manipulation of the audiences thoughts, because we are watching the documentary through the eyes of the filmmaker. We have to trust and believe what he says has truth to which it guides our thoughts on the subject too.
During Michael Moores visit to Britain he talks to a pregnant women and asks how much she will pay to receive her care, but it is the scene afterwards at (56:15) where she talks to the staff away from Michael that we see this sense of realism. We can see that she is surprised at the fact in the US people would have had to pay, this scene almost seems like an outtake yet they have left it in because now the audience can relate because we share the same view and emotion  that she does.
Michael Moore further uses this over dramatisation of the NHS by asking more people and more staff where is the bill payed and how much would it cost. At (56:36) he asks a couple, 'how much did you pay for the baby.' He has already interviewed and made his point that in Britain we receive free healthcare but he keeps on pointing it out multiple times adding this ignorant dramatic tone. But he does this to constantly show the audience, which are mainly Americans, a definitive contrast in health care systems. He uses this dramatic effect to manipulate the audiences thoughts and make them almost see how ridiculous their system is compared to ours.
dramatisation

The Reflexive Mode 

The reflexive mode looks at the story from multiple points of view. It takes us on a journey of on side of an argument or one persons story, the documentary will then flip to show the audience the other side.
The unknown known is a documentary by Erol Morris where he interviews a former secretary of defence about all of the memos that he had written over the years and poses the question to him about what was required of him in the job. At the beginning of the documentary the secretary of defence would reply by saying, 'to evaluate the unknown knowns' which perhaps is more ambiguous but a definitive answer. However by the end of the documentary the same question is posed and the former dance secretary answers very differently perhaps more inverted. The point of this mode is to make the audience see both sides, it wants to open the subject or the person up and really expose whats happened. In this instance the audience have been allowed to see the lies and deception and further see how they are covered up.
The realism happens during this documentary as Erol Morris asks an abundance of varied questions and topics, Whilst they talk about events that have happened e.g. Abu Gharabi they also talk about the, 'definition of terrorism' which is perhaps another topic all together. By having so much variation in the interview the sense of realism happens when Erol Morris is breaking things down to the fundamentals and by simply talking about a definition is something that becomes very real to the audience.

The Performative Mode 

This mode of documentary puts real emphasis on the subject, the filmmaker is actively involved in and around the action typically searching for an answer to a question they had at the start of the documentary. This documentary is perhaps more subjective as there is constant speculation throughout. 

Ross Kemp Extreme World is an example of a performative documentary as he is in with the action talking to Jihadist in Gaza where everything is very speculative. At (2:50) we see the mode in action, as he is in an undisclosed location somewhere in Gaza, interviewing the fighting Jihaddi militants. This mode of documentary leaves the audience almost with a sense of hope, the more direct approach taken feels as if we will get a more straight and honest answer, when actually we just receive more speculation. This mode is surrounded by drama yet the audience find a sense of realism because its someone we trust to be more forceful in what he asks. 

Another element to this documentary is the realism that it contains, which can be seen at (1:10) where we don't actually see very much, the camera is very shaky but what we do hear are the other crew members telling the cameraman to put the camera away. Of course this could have been easily edited out the documentary to create a more professionalism, however by leaving it in it allows the audience to really see the true danger that is happening. Whilst this does create entertainment for the documentary it also means that the audience become more anxious because of the severity of the situation that they are watching.
Lastly the documentary adds this heightened drama at (2:39) where we can see Ross Kemp in complete darkness talking directly to the camera, listing all the guns that the militants are carrying around. This again is a piece of information that didn't have much relevance in the documentary, but it almost keeps the documentary on a knife edge as we constantly get this feed of anxiety. By constantly highlighting the exceeding danger of the situation, it always keeps the audience hooked, we know that nothing will happen to Ross but there is still this lingering possibility that some could always happen.