Amy essay - To what extent can it be said that your chosen documentary is shaped by the filmmaker's approach?

 To what extent can it be said that your chosen documentary is shaped by the filmmaker's approach? Refer to at least one filmmaker's theory you have studied.

Kapadia’s documentary Amy demonstrates that the filmmaker’s approach is instrumental in crafting audience perceptions to the events of the film, allowing Kapadia to create a narrative around Amy, whilst only using footage already made to give Amy the space to, as it were, tell her own story. Through this, Kapadia’s style of filmmaking is slightly removed from the more conventional extremities of documentary, seen through Longinotto’s observational style of letting events play out organically without any involvement from her, and Broomfield’s participatory style of putting himself onscreen to become a part of the story. Kapadia still uses elements of those theories in his editing of the footage, but his complete non-presence visibly in the documentary, in any form, hints at a level of separation between the content of Amy and Kapadia’s documentary approach.

An example of where Kapadia certainly does shape Amy through his approach is the Belgrade concert section towards the end of the film. By using other peoples’ recordings of the event, the spectator sees the concert through the eyes of people originally there, to help emulate the shock and awe at Amy Winehouse’s performance. In doing this, a key part of Kapadia’s editing is showcased; the way he calls into question the complicity of him and the spectator, in watching this film, in the same media speculation and publicity that contributed to Amy’s death. In seeing her perform through the eyes of the crowd, we are distanced from her as a person, which the film has shown more intimately before, and forced to mediate that sympathetic perspective of her with the alcoholic pop star on stage, less like spectators, and more like voyeurs. Whilst Kapadia uses this mediation to create a great deal of sympathy for Amy, in doing this, he exploits her at one of her lowest moments for the sake of the film. In that regard, this footage is not purely observational, but Kapadia enters the expository form in his attempts at steering the spectator into an introspective look at their own viewing of the film, and of Kapadia’s filmmaking. Whilst a filmmaker like Longinotto would leave the audience to decide what they feel about the people and events on screen, Kapadia has carefully constructed a narrative where he, silently and invisibly, edits with the “voice of God”. All this does suggest a large part of Amy’s substance is shaped by Kapadia’s approach; however, this isn’t always consistent throughout the film.

A scene which calls into question how much Amy is shaped by Kapadia’s approach is the scene in St Lucia where Amy’s Dad, Mitch, brings a camera crew against Amy’s will. In this scene, the footage used is directed by Mitch for the purpose of a different documentary and, therefore, the scene is somewhat crafted by a director, but not by Kapadia. This also suggests that Amy isn’t purely observational, with Mitch’s involvement steering Amy into the participatory form. Whilst a comparison to Broomfield’s participatory theory isn’t wholly accurate, given that there is already a pre-existing personal connection between Mitch and Amy, so the nature of the film is different, more than anything, it is a moment in the film where Amy is directly confronted by herself being documented, instead of footage being taken incidentally or personally. However, it is unfair to say that Kapadia isn’t involved here at all. Of course, he selected the clip deliberately to craft a narrative that paints Mitch negatively, and like in the Belgrade scene, demonstrates that Amy didn’t want to be in a documentary, so speculates about the ethical implications of his own filmmaking. If that is Kapadia’s consciously crafted approach, then Amy is completely shaped by it, as, even in moments where the footage is constructed by someone else for a different documentary, or the documentary form of the film shifts from observational to participatory, Kapadia is the one editing and choosing these clips to mould his narrative together, it’s just that his shaping role is not as a director, or as a physical filmmaker, but as an editor.

In that respect, when looking at a scene where Amy is performing to a camera at Mark Ronson’s studio in the Back to Black scene, it is only Kapadia’s editing that makes it shaped by a filmmaker. By repurposing someone else’s footage, it is impossible to determine the original intent for it through the lenses of film theories, as it has been recontextualised, both in light of it being in a different film, and in light of Amy’s death. Kapadia uses the poetic form in this scene to emphasise the power of Amy’s music, switching seamlessly from her recording of Back to Black to the completed version, and using on-screen lyrics to relate it back to her life. In doing that, Kapadia edits the scene to highlight the performative element of the whole film: Amy Winehouse was a pop star, and Kapadia shows that a key reason for her addictions and death was that nobody gave her a chance to stop performing. In a moment like Back to Black, the spectator sees Amy in control of her own performance, in a comfortable environment, and making the music she wants to make, which Kapadia deliberately places right there to create a turning point in the film towards a much darker future for Amy. That scene would not have the same effect without Kapadia’s shaping of Amy through his filmmaking approach, an approach built around the spectator’s dramatic irony of knowing the ending, but also the spectator’s misinformation about who Amy was. Both Broomfield and Longinotto create films where, whether they are purely observational or purely participatory, they do not know how their documentary will end as they are interviewing people and witnessing events as they unfold on screen. Kapadia’s unique hindsight, contrasted with footage from Amy’s life which, means that Kapadia has complete control in how he wants to frame Amy’s life to a spectator expecting her death.

All in all, whilst Kapadia does not craft any of the scenes, interviews, or footage, in Amy, as a director, his filmmaking approach as an editor means that he does craft a narrative through clips of Amy’s life which were made whilst she was alive. He can do this whilst apprehending her death and contextualising these clips in a way which points blame at certain individuals, including himself and the spectators’ complicity in observing Amy. Kapadia flits through hints of the styles of Longinotto in his detachment from the material, and Broomfield through his moulding of a narrative, but it’s his own approach, that does completely shape Amy as a film.