Skip to main content

The Documentary’s Digital Turn

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Geo-Doc
  • 357 Accesses

Abstract

As the documentary film moved from a production medium of recording on celluloid and exhibition in cinemas to the digital world of recording on computer chips and exhibition on laptops and mobile devices, the production capabilities and audience reach expanded exponentially. The traditional documentary film is still being made today, but the affordances of the Internet now provide a wealth of production and dissemination opportunities, reimagining how documentary film stories are told and how to engage its audiences in more profound activist ways. This chapter examines the affordances that best advance the activist intentions of the social issue documentary and explores what new technology and approaches in the digital world can accelerate and amplify these goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Engagement Strategists,” pbs.org. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.pbs.org/pov/filmmakers/engagement-strategists.php#.VedcF_lViko.

  2. 2.

    https://impactguide.org.

  3. 3.

    According to a report made by CBC News, June 21, 2018, Canada’s federal government budgeted $4.3 million to restore prison farms in the Joyceville and Collins Bay institutions in Kingston, Ontario. “Feds release details on plans to restore prison farm program at Joyceville and Collins Bay institutions,” CBC News, June 21, 2018. Accessed August 24, 2018. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/kingston-prison-farm-cows-goats-1.4716232. In a September 10, 2018, phone call with the office of Mark Holland, parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety, a spokesman said there was no influence of the film ’ Til the Cows Come Home regarding the government’s decision to restore prison farms.

  4. 4.

    Stated in a classroom lecture of the course Contemporary Documentary taught by Seth Feldman, August 18, 2015, York University, Toronto, Canada.

Bibliography

  • “About Us.” docsociety.org. Web. Accessed August 24, 2018. https://docsociety.org.

  • Aufderheide, Patricia, and Jessica Clark. Open Letter to FCC Commissioners. Washington, DC: Center for Social Media, 2009. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatoo, Caty Borum, and Angelica Das. Assessing the Social Impact of Issues-Focused Documentaries: Research Methods & Future Considerations. Washington, DC: Centre for Media and Social Impact, 2014. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovey, Jon. “Documentary Ecosystems: Collaboration and Exploitation.” In New Documentary Ecologies: Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses, ed. Kate Nash, Craig Hight, and Catherine Summerhayes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Feds Release Details on Plans to Restore Prison Farm Program at Joyceville and Collins Bay Institutions.” CBC News, June 21, 2018. Web. Accessed August 24, 2018. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/kingston-prison-farm-cows-goats-1.4716232.

  • Ferreira, George, Ramirez Ricardo, and Allan Lauzon. “Influencing Government Decision Makers through Facilitative Communication via Community-Produced Videos: The Case of Remote Aboriginal Communities in Northwestern Ontario, Canada.” Guelph: Journal of Rural and Community Development, 2009. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudenzi, Sandra. “Strategies of Participation: The Who, What and When of Collaborative Documentaries.” In New Documentary Ecologies: Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses, ed. Kate Nash, Craig Hight, and Catherine Summerhayes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “User Experience Versus Author Experience.” In i-docs: The Evolving Practices of Interactive Documentary, ed. Judith Aston, Sandra Gaudenzi, and Mandy Rose. New York: Columbia University Press, 2017. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Jeff. “Canadian Documentary Warns Tax Havens Threaten Democracy.” The Globe and Mail. Toronto: March 25, 2017. Web. Accessed February 21, 2018. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/canadian-documentary-warns-tax-havens-threaten-democracy/article23409274.

  • Karlin, Beth, and John S. Johnson. “Measuring Impact: The Importance of Evaluation for Documentary Film Campaigns.” M/C Journal 14, no. 6 (2011). Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klause, Olivia. “Plot: Sin by Silence.” imdb.com. 2009. Web. Accessed May 3, 2018. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074652/plotsummary.

  • Kopp, Ingrid. “Interactive Media Impact Working Group.” Tribeca Film Institute, sandbox.tribecafilminstitute.org. Web. Accessed February 2016. http://sandbox.tribecafilminstitute.org/impact.

  • Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, Daniel. “Documentary and Video Activism.” In Contemporary Documentary, ed. Daniel Marcus and Selmin Kara. New York: Routledge, 2016. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, Heather. “The Committed Documentary and Contemporary Distribution: A Look at Sin by Silence.” In Documenting Gendered Violence: Representations, Collaborations, and Movements, ed. Lisa M. Cuklanz and Heather McIntosh. New York and London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLagan, Meg. “Imagining Impact: Documentary Film and the Production of Political Effects.” In Sensible Politics: The Visual Culture of Nongovernmental Politics, ed. Meg McLagan and Yates McKee. New York: Zone Books, 2012. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, Kate. “Clicking on the World: Documentary Representation and Interactivity.” In New Documentary Ecologies: Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses, ed. Kate Nash, Craig Hight, and Catherine Summerhayes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014a. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “An Interview with Florian Thalhoffer, Media Artist and Documentary Maker.” In New Documentary Ecologies: Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses, ed. Kate Nash, Craig Hight, and Catherine Summerhayes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014b. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, Bill. Blurred Boundaries: Questions of Meaning in Contemporary Culture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nime, Nicole Marie. The Impact of Digital Technology on Documentary Distribution. London: University of London, 2012. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, Michael C., and Patricia Aufderheide. “Documentary Film: Towards a Research Agenda on Forms, Functions, and Impacts.” Mass Communication & Society 12, no. 4 (October–December, 2009). Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, Tom. “The Interactive Documentary: A Transformative Art Form.” Web: Policy Options. Web. Accessed February 21, 2018. http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/policyflix/the-interactive-documentary-a-transformative-art-form.

  • Rosenthal, Alan, and John Corner. “Introduction.” In New Challenges for Documentary (2nd ed.). Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2005. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, Louise, and Vinicius Navarro. Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press, 2011. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varner, Gary Matthew. “Koyaanisqatsi and the Posthuman Aesthetics of a Mechanical Stare.” Film Criticism 41, no. 1 (February 2017). Web. Accessed July 30, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3998/fc.13761232.0041.104.

  • Verellen, Emily. “From Distribution to Audience Engagement: Social Change Through Film.” The Fledgling Fund (August 2010). Web. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.thefledglingfund.org/impact/From%20Distribution%20to%20Audience%20Engagment.pdf.

  • Whiteman, David. “The Evolving Impact of Documentary Film: Sacrifice and the Rise of Issue-Centered Outreach.” Questia. Chicago: Cengage Learning, 2007. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston, Brian. “Foreword.” In i-docs: The Evolving Practices of Interactive Documentary, ed. Judith Aston, Sandra Gaudenzi, and Mandy Rose. London and New York: Wallflower Press, 2017. Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winton, Ezra, and Svetla Turnin, ed. Screening Truth to Power: A Reader on Documentary Activism. Montreal: Cinema Politica, 2014. Print.

    Google Scholar 

Filmography

  • ’ Til the Cows Come Home, Director, Lenny Epstein. Telltales Media and Milkpail Productions, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackfish, Director, Gabriela Cowperthwaite. Manny O Productions, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sin by Silence, Director, Olivia Klaus. Orange, CA: Quiet Little Place Productions, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Corporation, Director, Harold Crooks. Big Picture Media Corporation. 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Price We Pay, Director, Harold Crooks. InformAction Films, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urge Gov Brown to Pass AB 593 & AB 1593. n.d. SinBySilenceDoc, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp3dbPziiu8&t=2s.

  • VTR St-Jacques, Director, Bonnie Sherr Klein. National Film Board of Canada, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Terry .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Terry, M. (2020). The Documentary’s Digital Turn. In: The Geo-Doc. Palgrave Studies in Media and Environmental Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32508-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics