based on a true story: the aesthetic strategies of hybrid documentaries.

(1)

(2)

1 Introduction

‘Reality changes; in order to represent it, modes of representation must change.’

– Bertolt Brecht

The documentary genre, although resorting to a vast array of practices, a lengthy history and far-reaching cultural implications, has often been ignored in regards to its aesthetics. One of the reasons why non-fictional films are prone to be misunderstood is due to the position they occupy in the media; defined as a mirror of reality, they are often reduced to being a tool of education, a concept the pioneer documentary filmmaker John Grierson believed in firmly. Nevertheless, by coining the term as ‘creative treatment of actuality’, the scholar paved the way towards understanding documentary as a complex form that is able to blend reality and art. In A New History of Documentary Film, Jack C. Ellis and Betsy A. McLane suggest that ‘documentary is purposive; it is intended to achieve something in addition to entertaining audiences and making money’, agreeing to non-fiction films adopting entertainment practices, but emphasizing the existence of an ulterior motive, which in this case is the educational and social effect, also called ‘documentary movement’ (Grierson). Hence, it seems like documentary film can in fact serve various purposes, and yet, it remains a ‘fuzzy concept’ that is difficult to grasp, for the filmmakers themselves as for the audience (Nichols 2010, 21). Recently, due to an increased interest in documentary films, this difficult balance between entertainment and education has resurfaced, challenging the understanding of a genre and pushing its boundaries. Albeit always present on the media landscape, with the emergence of fiction films, the interest in the documentary form noticeably declined before experiencing another high in the 20th_{century. What is curious about this development is that}

the rise of documentary did not just happen due to a craving for authenticity, albeit this surely also played a role. Mainly, it was triggered by finding new ways of representing reality: by focusing not only on compelling content, like true crime drama, which undeniably found a place in pop culture, but also by persuading the audience with aesthetic and narratological experiments.

When Netflix released Narcos and Making a Murderer in 2015, two contrasting stories related through its claim of truth, viewers from all over the world found themselves

(4)

glued to the screen and engaging with the shows through multiple media platforms. Especially the word on Making a Murderer, the true crime drama, spread immediately on social media, making people who did not watch the series within the first few weeks of its debut feel left out, and encouraging the people who did watch, to interact and get involved. Being part of the viewer base that eagerly followed every episode, researched newly learned facts, and now is impatiently awaiting the next seasons, I was intrigued by the concept of these shows. They left me wondering about the construction, the editing, the factual versus the fictional elements, all in all about why these storylines, different to other documentary based films or series, offer such a distinctive viewing experience. After reflecting on the audience’s reception in general and my personal engagement with Making a Murderer and Narcos, I became aware of the emphasis on audio-visual strategies and the experimental side of both series: incorporating documentary practices whilst asserting entertainment values. Ergo, these hybrid documentaries not only change the viewing experience and social involvement that may come of it, but they also blur the lines between fact and fiction effecting the evolvement of the genre and offering possibilities to overcome limitations. Since this is an ongoing development and highly controversial debate amongst professionals, as well as the audience, this thesis is relevant to contribute to research considering what the interplay of different filmmaking practices can do for and with each other, and what this ultimately means for the genre as a whole.

 My research question will therefore focus on how the relation between information and entertainment, or the interplay of fact and fiction, is constructed in the audio-visual aesthetics of the hybrid documentaries Making a Murderer and Narcos.

Consequently, documentary filmmaking will be approached from an aesthetic point of view, with a particular focus on the blending between educational material and elements of diversion. The analysis of the use of factual techniques versus fictional practices will also put an emphasis on the relationship between documentary and its, so to speak, natural antagonist, the fiction film.

In the second chapter I will introduce different academic approaches towards documentary in an attempt to contextualize the film form and its complex history. First the term itself needs to be explained to get a deeper understanding of what is considered traditional documentary filmmaking, its boundaries and aims. I will draw upon scholars such as Bill Nichols, Stella Bruzzi and Toni de Bromhead to get a general idea about the framework and claims of documentary, before looking into the concepts of audio-visual

(5)

aesthetics, which will serve as the preeminent theoretical basis of my thesis. Especially John Corner’s approach to ‘television, documentary and the category of the aesthetic’ (2003), and Bill Nichols’ view on documentary modes, will pose as the main foundation of my analysis. In the second section, I will then concentrate on the consequences that emerge when different aesthetics are mixed, and explain various terms and background information that will prove relevant to the analysis of Narcos and Making a Murderer. These definitions can all be directly linked to the development of documentary and its sub-genres, and lead to the last part of this chapter, the controversy that still surrounds the mixing and matching of audio-visual strategies in non-fiction films.

The third chapter consists of the analysis of Making a Murderer with the main focus on aesthetics and the construction of narrative, aiming towards getting a better understanding of the construct of information and entertainment. After having explained different factors that influence the aesthetics of the show, such as the medium it is streamed on, I will go into analysing the pictoral, aural and narratological strategies. This will be done by looking at different episodes of the series and applying the relevant theory to these excerpts.

Although a very different viewing experience, Narcos, the second series that I will discuss in this thesis, will be studied in a similar way: by looking at the Netflix effect and the aesthetics that lead to the show’s particularity. In both analyses, I will argue that their aesthetic approaches stem from a blend between fact and fiction, which consequently lead to a change in viewing experiences and therefore also have an effect on the boundaries of film forms.

In the conclusion the main arguments will be summarized to present a clear overview of my findings. Without ignoring critical standpoints and possible failures that may occur when boundaries are blurred, I will connect the main arguments in an attempt to bridge the divide between fact and fiction. Ultimately, I will come to the conclusion that introducing entertainment practices to factual techniques can in fact push the boundaries and add to the realm of documentary without dismissing its core values.

(6)

I think it's inevitable that people will come to find the documentary a more compelling and more important kind of film than fiction. Just as in literature, as the taste has moved from fiction to nonfiction, I think it's going to happen in film as well. In a way you're on a serendipitous journey, a journey which is much more akin to the life experience. When you see somebody on the screen in a documentary, you're really engaged with a person going through real life experiences. So for that period of time, as you watch the film, you are, in effect, in the shoes of another individual. What a privilege to have that experience.

—Albert Maysles

2.1 Documentary – a complex genre

2.1.1 Defining documentary

The practice of documentary filmmaking has been around since before the 1900s, capturing single shot moments on camera of a variety of real life events. It reached its peak level during the Lumière period; an era of beginnings, marked with the success of the then called actuality films. In the 1910s however, with the rise of fiction film, its glamorous stars, and the emergence of newsreel, the interest in documentaries declined (Barnouw,

Documentary 26). Although it did at that point not go back to its original success story, the

term and its practice sparked medial and academic interest again in 1926, introducing a new approach towards documentary filmmaking. This advancement was predominantly due to John Grierson, a prominent figure in the documentary movement, who ‘sensed that film and other popular media had acquired leverage over ideas and actions once exercised by church and school’ (Barnouw, Documentary 85). The idea that film as a medium has the potential to inspire and educate beyond traditional means influenced him throughout his life as an academic, and he came to believe that documentary was a powerful educational, but also political tool. Grierson coined the term itself as the ‘creative treatment of actuality’, implying that beyond being a socially relevant medium, documentary film offers more than a simple re-creation of reality. By connecting non-fictional storytelling with the term ‘creative’, he associated it with art, showing in a foresightful manner the multifold aspects that documentary as a genre represents. Although, many scholars agreed with Grierson’s

(7)

definition of documentary, it also aroused a great deal of criticism, as most people still held onto the belief that the core concept of documentaries ‘should be observational, unobtrusive, truthful, bear witness to actual events, contain interviews and, even, be objective’ (Honess Roe 3). While most viewers encourage and demand entertainment from television and cinema productions, they came to understand that this specific genre, which claims to produce actuality, should not be shaped by subjectivity; indeed, it should strive to achieve educational, authentic and most important of all, objective content. To think of documentary as a treatment, not to mention a creative one, hence seemed to various filmmakers and audiences oxymoronic, and they began to question documentary’s aims, techniques and the entire concept of the claim of truth. This ongoing debate has representatives from all sides. Scholars like Brian Winston for example, who believe in a more traditional approach and argue against Grierson’s statement, saying to presume that any ‘‘actuality’ is left after a ‘creative treatment’ [is] at best naïve and at worst a mark of duplicity’’; but also academics like Stella Bruzzi, who, although they accept the conventional paradigm, are more inclined to a new conceptualization (Winston 11). To assume that documentary can either be a representation of facts in order to perform as a teaching tool, or contain fictional elements in order to offer entertainment falls however short of the practice. Simply opposing documentary to the fiction film is not only aesthetically limiting but also dismissive towards the different approaches that have emerged throughout time.

One of the reasons why many film theorists struggle with the term documentary and, even more so, its works and definitions, is because it cannot be confined into a static and clearly determined category. The Board of the Academy of Motion Picture Art and Sciences, for example, in contrast to some previous theorists, defines documentary film in a broader sense:

[...] a non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on factual content and not on fiction. (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 2006)

As this thesis’ aim is to analyse non-fictional narratives which combine reality based stories and subjective or even fictional elements, I will look at documentary practices in an extensive way, including terms like docudrama, infotainment and true crime stories. Hence, this

(8)

definition published by the Academy on their site, mirrors the genre documentary in the way I will refer to it. Like the media world itself, its subjects, in this case the genre documentary, change, and so do film trends, techniques and functions, and with it their definitions. It is therefore useful to begin by introducing different relevant concepts of and approaches to documentary film, before observing the aesthetics and the relation between fact and fiction in modern documentary works.

2.1.2 The characteristics and modes of a documentary

In his essay Introduction to Documentary (2010) Bill Nichols points out several qualities a documentary should contain in order to fulfil the criteria of the genre. According to him, documentary works are balanced between reality and the filmmaker’s perspective, relying on ‘verifiable evidence’ whilst being able to interpret the presented actuality in a way of its own choosing (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 7). A factor that is essential to Nichols is the portrayal of social actors in non-fiction films:

Documentary film speaks about situations and events involving real people (social actors) who present themselves to us as themselves in stories that convey a plausible proposal about, or perspective on, the lives, situations, and events portrayed. The distinct point of view of the filmmaker shapes this story into a way of seeing the historical world directly rather than into a dictional allegory (Introduction to Documentary 14).

Considering this statement, one could argue that for a film to be considered documentary, re-enactments or performances should not be part of its aesthetics. However, Nichols indicates that self-presentation is an acceptable form of re-enactment as opposed to fictionally inspired acts (Introduction to Documentary 9). His argument, that the narratives as well as the re-enactments have to stay true to reality, and not delve into imaginative elements, seems to oppose the idea of mixing fact and fiction for documentary purposes. At a first glance, this approach could potentially pose a problem within this thesis, which is focusing on hybrid documentaries that are shaped by both fiction and documentary film practices. Albeit, if one were to look at Nico Baumbach’s look on Rancière’s conceptual understanding of documentary, and the fact that Nichols acknowledges the form to have a certain freedom in shaping its perspective on a topic, one could argue that the genre is not only open to

(9)

imaginative elements, but at its very core part of fiction film (Baumbach 61). Rancière’s approach to fact and fiction is essential in this thesis, and will be discussed at a later stage, when re-thinking the term documentary and discovering that the blurring of boundaries helped sub-genres and the mixing of techniques come to the surface within the sphere of non-fiction film.

Coming back to Nichols’ Introduction to Documentary, it is essential to get a brief overview on his modes and models with which he aimed to list ‘viable ways of using the resources of the cinema to make documentary films’, and get a grasp on the multifaceted genre itself (30). He established a framework of six modes, within which documentary films can be classified depending on their characteristics and the viewer’s expectations (Nichols,

Introduction to Documentary 158). These six modes are as follows:

1. The poetic mode, a model, which focuses heavily on form and aesthetics, reminding its viewers of a modernist avant-garde stance due to the abundance of traditional documentary use of time and space (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 162). As art is the strong suit of this mode, the representation of movements, rhythm and patterns comes first as opposed to social actors. Hence, poetic documentaries aim towards a more ambiguous representation dominated by feelings and a specific tone rather than other documentaries opting for a more straightforward and direct transfer of knowledge and information (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 162). In the poetic mode, Nichols draws upon the importance of creativity and expression, ‘we learn in this case by affect or feeling, by gaining a sense of what it feels like to see and experience the world in a particular, poetic way.’ (Introduction to Documentary 162). Filmmakers who want to integrate these techniques, rely on the transformation of ordinary footage by editing and arranging it in a revolutionary way. Thus, its potential lies in showing a known reality in a distinct manner, for example through animation, fragmentation or modernist approaches. Documentaries, which share traits with the poetic mode, can therefore not identify with traditional narratives and can only add to the experience of reality by stressing the mood, with the intention of affect.

2. The expository mode was the first mode to include the four elemental components of documentary film, and as opposed to the poetic one, it refers to a more rhetorical framing (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 167). In these films, viewers are directly addressed through a voice of authority, or a voice of God, to bring forth the

(10)

filmmaker’s angle. Considering this, the aural transfer of information is necessary for the expository mode, whereas the use of imagery only plays a secondary role, underlying the spoken word, which organizes the film from a seemingly objective point of view (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 168). Through evidentiary editing, the voiceover commentary and the already established framework, the expository mode turns out to be a quintessential, and the most commonly used, model when it comes to transmitting knowledge (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 171). When analysing the case studies later on, one can discover certain parallels with documentaries themselves.

3. The observational mode, also referred to as the ‘fly on the wall’ tactic, rejects the idea of constructing a documentary and simply observes actuality as it evolves spontaneously in front of the camera. It does this by renouncing the use of voice-over commentary, edited in sounds or music, inter-titles, re-enactments and interviews (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 172-173). As a result the audience becomes a sort of voyeur as the way of shooting and editing is witnessing events as if present ‘but filming it as if absent’ (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 178). This mode fuels the debate about ethics and authenticity within the documentary genre, a characteristic, which will be looked at further in the analysis of Making a Murderer.

4. The participatory mode, in contrast to the previous one, relies on the filmmakers to interact with the social actors rather than observing them silently (Nichols,

Introduction to Documentary 179). This interaction is mostly emphasised through the

use of interviews and the engagement between the filmmaker and his subjects. Here, the film gives the viewers a sense, not only of real life events, but also how to interpret them from a given perspective and how reality might have changed through documenting them in the first place. Especially the use of interviews, which helps participatory filmmakers to construct their narrative and present self-evident claims, proves to be an important characteristic of documentary practices, for example in

(11)

5. The reflexive mode ‘is the most self-conscious and self-questioning mode of representation’; it invites the viewers to look at documentary filmmaking and to understand representation as a construct, rather than an unbiased portrayal of reality (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 198). By doing this, the form challenges other modes and their truth claims and reminds the audience to question the genre, and society as a whole (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 199).

6. The performative mode, easily confused with the participative mode, is also built upon the engagement between the filmmakers and their documented story. However, rather than focusing on patently legitimate claims, the performative mode relies on personal experience and demonstrations to offer its viewers access to clearly subjective and ‘affect-laden’ knowledge (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 201). In order to convey such a rather unconventional documentary aspiration, the performative mode, like the case studies of this thesis, makes use of atypical techniques such as combining ‘the actual and the imagined’, or working with the ‘tradition of acting’ in order to present reality in an unconventional yet persuasive way (Nichols, Introduction to

Documentary 202-203). The practices of this mode can be connected to films that

offer historical knowledge in a performative manner, as for example in Narcos through the use of actors and re-enactments.

Even though, the different forms documentary can take are well represented in these modes and seem to portray a satisfying history of the practice, Nichols stresses that they do not completely and solely define a film in question. He argues that:

The characteristics of a given mode give structure to a film, but they do not dictate or determine every aspect of its organization. Considerable latitude remains possible. The modes do not constitute a genealogy of documentary film so much as a pool of resources available to all. (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 159)

(12)

films into categories, and assign them particular traits or styles, they do not limit or control its form. In fact, instead of overriding each other, documentary modes often overlap and depend on one another. The modes also take turns in terms of popularity, so that with every technical development and new era of media trends, the audience’s response towards what they want to see in a documentary, both in terms of aesthetics and content, varies. What is important here is that, ‘what changes is the mode of representation, not the quality or ultimate status of representation’ (Nichols, ‘what changes is the mode of representation, not the quality or ultimate status of representation 161). Hence a new mode is not so much about improving as it is about gaining a new perspective on how people combine film and reality. What Nichols’ system does first and foremost is give documentary, and its multiple forms, a paradigm through which different non-fiction aesthetics can be analysed and put into categories. This does not only give theorists, but also viewers a clearer idea of the documentary genre itself and the many forms it comes in. Granting what Nichols’ taxonomy of documentary has done for the genre, some scholars disagree with his view on non-fiction storytelling, deeming it a little too traditional, or even overly rational.

Toni de Bromhead, in her book ‘Looking Two Ways’ (1996), does for instance not agree with Nichols’ view on documentary as ‘discourses of sobriety’, and rather puts its cinematic qualities first (Henley 562). While the traditional conceptualization of documentary thinks of ‘striving to represent reality as faithfully as possible’ as the main aim, Bromhead celebrates the entertainment qualities documentary films exhibit (Bruzzi 186). Instead of clinging onto the issue between objectivity and truth, or cinematic versus facts, the scholar accepts subjectivity as a part of documentary, and disagrees with Nichols in seeing the practice as a tool of information, rather than filmic pleasure. Welcoming the concept that the filmmaker’s view on reality inevitably shapes a documentary film, speaks to the works of Stella Bruzzi, who believes that ‘documentaries are a negotiation between filmmaker and reality and, at heart, a performance’ (186). By relying on the idea that the making of a non-fiction narrative bridges the views of the production team and the reality they try to portray, Bruzzi introduces a new concept of documentary, one that is deeply and inevitably entangled in performance. Although this conceptualization is based on coming ‘into being as it is performed’, and hence stresses production modes instead of hiding them, it is not as detached from the traditional paradigm as one might think. Drawing on several performative documentaries, Bruzzi comes to believe that the concept of this new documentary form still first and foremost intends to accurately represent reality, but additionally, it offers to make aware of ‘inevitable falsification or subjectification such representation entails’ (187).

(13)

Nevertheless, by attributing more importance to the construction of a film and admitting a necessary level of subjectivity and performance, both from filmmakers and subjects alike, Bruzzi challenges conservative paradigms other scholar like Nichols have been following. This new paradigm sheds an unfamiliar light onto how drama comes into being in documentary, and raises new question within the claims of truth in the documentary practice.

2.1.3 Documentary aesthetics

Considering the difficulties film theorists had and still have pinpointing down the term documentary, and the vast range of sub-genres that have appeared throughout time, assigning a pre-fixed set of aesthetics towards the practice is impossible. Whilst in the early age of creating motion pictures, drawing on realistic assumptions and a traditional paradigm, ‘the teaching film and didactic documentary [which] has no other purpose than to present a reality whose power derives from itself attempting meanwhile to present that reality as objectively as possible’, new conceptualizations have appeared and changed the documentary landscape (Mitry 59).

John Corner, is one of the film theorists, who deal with the aesthetics of modern documentary, asking themselves which elements on screen still represent documentary as a practice, and what this means for television as a medium itself. In his essay television,

documentary and the category of the aesthetic (2003), the scholar implies that television has

received the reputation to have reached its full potential and is now consequently drained, trying to make the best out of its programs by using reality as entertainment (93). Corner distinguishes between two categories when it comes to aesthetics in documentary film: ‘thin text’ and ‘thick text’. Thin text is documentary work, closer to reality, emphasizing its seemingly objective content rather than showing imaginative or creative techniques, whereas, thick text encourages an experience for the viewers, trying to deliver complex narratives and creative framework (Corner, television, documentary and the category of the aesthetic 94). According to Corner, the aesthetics of documentary can be divided into three categories in a television spectrum: pictoral, aural and narratological.

From a pictoral point of view thick texts allow the audience to see and observe the object whilst calling attention to themselves, ‘their effect is to frame parts of the world in such

(14)

a way as to transform them into imaginary spaces’ without dismissing its ties to reality (Corner, television, documentary and the category of the aesthetic 96). In order to achieve this, filmmakers make use of kinetic properties and appropriate editing, paying attention to ‘temporal organization of continuity and change’ (Corner, television, documentary and the

category of the aesthetic 97). Thick texts apply a moving camera to represent a shifting

perception and in return stimulate the imagination of the audience by de-familiarizing aesthetics. Whereas, thick text encourages engagement and at times even calls for self-identity, thin texts offer the audience to ‘look through’ them. They keep their modes of construction transparent, by using techniques such as interviews and archive film extracts to keep aesthetic values low and remain observational (Corner, television, documentary and the

category of the aesthetic 97). Corner emphasises that only a balanced combination of both

forms results in proportionally interesting and relevant documentary work.

Although, not as decisive as images, the aesthetics of sound in a documentary matter a great deal in terms of style and audience reception. Primarily working with traditional documentary techniques, thin texts combine commentary voiceovers, anecdotes, literary speeches and music, alongside pictoral support, to unobtrusively frame the scenes (Corner,

television, documentary and the category of the aesthetic 98). Thick texts, on the other hand,

are not limited to working in a transparent mode and can therefore explore the possibilities of using musical aesthetics to emotionally influence their viewers. Here, Corner mentions the potential problems that accompany the extensive use of music in documentary, arguing that it may ‘undercut cognitive integrity and fair appraisal’ (television, documentary and the

category of the aesthetic 99). However, implying that this statement is just an assumption, the

scholar encourages the analysis of the aesthetics of sound, assuming there might be profitable elements to be discovered in this category.

The narratological part of television documentary aesthetics are presenting themselves as obvious in each form, whether it is the traditional storytelling through voice overs or commentary in thin texts, or the ‘action-development structures of observational modes’ in thick texts. Corner agrees that in thin as much as in thick texts, narratological elements show in editing, and have intensified throughout the years. This development of dramatizing even non-fictional filmmaking is relevant as to how entertainment and the hunger for information have changed. Corner comes to believe that thick text is using different techniques aesthetically and critically challenges itself and its viewers, by exploring the possibilities of textual display and performance, whereas thin text is relying on conventional use of

(15)

documentary aesthetics instead of concentrating on the idea of a beautiful image. Nonetheless, like Nichols and Bruzzi, he does not dismiss the idea of documentary practice being versatile in a way that aesthetical qualities, such as modes overlap.

The combination of Nichols modes and Corner’s approach to thick and thin text makes it possible to assign certain aesthetics to certain forms and techniques in order to ‘differentiate among different types of documentary films’ (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 158). By taking these two concepts as theoretical foundation for the analysis, one can identify the construction of frameworks within which filmmakers borrow certain designs to define their documentary. This process then offers a clearer insight into the making of hybrid documentaries.

Like mentioned above, with an ever changing media platform, there is a certain need and desire to regularly innovate representational modes, along with the development in technology and the expansion of creativity. Whereas once the observational mode had its heyday, with its ‘seeming neutrality’, so did the performative documentary later on with a more subjective and emotional quality (Nichols, Introduction to Documentary 160). What remained the same throughout these changing, and often critiqued aesthetics was the problematic relationship between reality and subjectivity. This unsettled relationship will be essential to the thesis in a first stance to understand and foreshadow potential issues that may occur when mixing fact and fiction, and finally to see whether documentary serves as a tool of education or rather of entertainment.

2.1.4 Concepts and approaches

Based on the theoretical framework of Nichols and Corner, the concepts that will be used to analyse hybrid documentaries emerge. Inspired by the latter’s approach, the aesthetics of the two texts, Making a Murderer and Narcos, will be divided into three main sections when related to excerpts: visual, aural and narratological strategies.

In the visual category, it is important to look at the mise en scène, as it connects all the aesthetic strategies used in different shots, to create a story represented and redefined by and in front of the camera (Martin 45). If one were to look at the mise en scène as defined by Sam

(16)

Rohdie, it is evidential that its elements contribute to the style of the whole film and thus also its form:

‘Mise en scène, as used by the Nouvelle Vague critics, referred to a specifically

‘cinematic’ and natural, realistic rendering of emotion and expression conveyed less by dialogue and the script, than by décor, performance, expression linked to the actor, to his movements and gestures, also to settings and the use of the camera and lighting.’ (5, 2006)

Considering the mise en scène as the embodiment of what constitutes the form visually as a whole, one has to take a closer look at the elements that contribute to its aesthetics. First of all there is the use of re-enactment, a concept that is often frowned upon in documentary filmmaking, albeit celebrated in dramatized documentary. Its controversy stems from the fact that on the one hand, it offers credible material, which would otherwise not be available to the camera, but on the other hand, its sequences remain recreations of reality and therefore need to a certain extent be deemed ‘fantasmatic’ (Nichols, Documentary Reenactment and the

Fantasmatic Subject 73). Another factor that plays into defining the aesthetics of a film or a

series’ is the camera work, whether that refers to the quality of the image, the lighting or the way in which a story is shot. All of these elements suggest, depending on how they are used, a certain form or style within which a film can be classified. So does the practice of editing, which assembles the shots to construct a coherent storyline. How this is done depends on the genre of the film, or the techniques it wants to incorporate. It does nevertheless always have an impact on the telling of the story, such as the viewing experience. Looking at documentary models for example, one can see that editing in the poetic mode shapes the rhythm, whereas in the expository mode it serves to formulate an argument (Nichols, Introduction to

Documentary 169).

As mentioned above, Corner divides the techniques of aural aesthetics into two categories, thin and thick text. Furthermore, the use of diegetic and non-diegetic sound, which, next to music as an element, is essential when analysing film forms and their practices. Non-diegetic essentially means that the sound in the film is neither visible on the screen, nor has it been implied to be present in the action, whereas diegetic sound visibly and directly refers to its source (Dyckhoff 1). Hence, diegetic sound has a strong link to reality and is evidently a well-used documentary technique. Non-diegetic sound, which rather serves to enhance the mood and is often used as dramatic effect, however also offers typical documentary elements such as the voiceover commentary. Playing with, and arranging both

(17)

aural strategies in a certain way can set the tone for films and therefore not only emotionally affects the audience, but also identifies whether a film is more reliant on actuality or fiction. By analysing the texts with the help of these audio-visual concepts and connecting them to Corner’s thin versus thick text approach and Nichols’ modes, one can thus categorize the films accordingly, differentiating between educational practices and entertainment purposes.

2.1.5 Genre blurring

Blurring the boundaries within documentary film by mixing fact and fiction did in the beginning not receive cultural acclaim, as ‘there was little public discussion about the validity of such techniques’ (Barnouw, Tube of Plenty 131). In the attempt to define themselves, completely away from any fictional aspects, documentary films often chased after an impossible goal of purity, to finally resume in their claim to being a tool of societal and educational value (Paget 123). Due to the struggle of deciding whether documentary should be nothing but a simple means of representation or whether the notion of true to life could include more creative means, variations of documentary, such as docudrama or infotainment, were virtually ignored for many years. When the situation finally began to change in the USA in the 1990s, non-fictional filmmakers who experimented with different genres, still spent their time justifying their aesthetical choices, defending their credibility and building their reputation. Whereas some people categorically opposed the idea of a remix between education and entertainment, many simply did not see the difference and were easily manipulated by its, at times, overdramatized storyline, leaving a bad taste of blurring boundaries (Paget 126). There were nevertheless also advocates for the changing film form, such as Andrew Goodwin, who understood the ‘clashes and connections…between television’s factual and fictional discourses’ as an important component of the representational media platform (Goodwin and Whannel 8).

In recent years, stories, based on ‘truth’, have been highly demanded by cinemagoers such as television audiences alike. It seems like the desire for non-fictional narratives, especially surrounding the historical world, reality television, but also true crime stories, has finally grown on viewers. Rohter sees not only a change in the audience’s preferences, but also recognizes shifting paradigms amongst contemporary documentary filmmakers:

(18)

The traditional ‘A-roll, B-roll, talking heads’ paradigm, influenced by journalism, is increasingly being challenged by experiments in which all of the standard features of the traditional documentary — like voice-over, music cues and narrative arcs based on real life — are being mutated or eschewed and devices from the world of fiction embraced. (1)

However, with this development in taste and audience responses, critical questions about the genre were raised. Many scholars wondered about the consequences of mixing fact and fiction, and had to reconsider what can, and should, be defined documentary. According to Nichols, our ‘hunger is less for information than for stories fashioned from it’, implying that audiences do not care for the documentary elements as much as they do for the added drama (Blurred boundaries 9). And although academics like Bruzzi admit to drama being an element that can be used in non-fictional filmmaking, and be counted as a valid documentary performance, others warn the film community about the probable issues that may occur when pushing the limits of a genre (Bruzzi 185). If one were to look at traditional concepts of documentary cinema, the first objection that presents itself is the limitations non-fiction film faces. In his discussion about the relation of documentary and fiction, Rancière argues that according to Aristotelian doctrines, documentary cinema is ‘generally excluded from the category of art’, as it ‘cannot be conceived as fiction’ (Baumbach 60). However, all controversy aside, the combination of educational and entertainment values are not new to the documentary world. In fact bridging the gap between the academic and the entertainment industry has been an issue ever since the term documentary has been coined, and the notion of representing the ‘truth’, although problematically phrased, has been generally accepted. As genres have multiplied, and subcategories and modes appeared to label films, it became more and more difficult to clearly define what documentary is, and what it is not. Furthermore, with the rising desire for dramatic yet reality based storylines, not only the separation between fact and fiction within documentary has become a difficulty, but also the filmmakers’ role and their ethics. In recent documentaries, for example, filmmakers tend to emphasize on imaginative elements to tell actual stories and influence the viewers emotionally. Bart Layton, filmmaker of the dramatized documentary The Imposter (2012), admits that through his practices, his portrayal ‘isn’t what must have happened, this is a visualization of what someone wants you to believe happened’, showing that next to raising theoretical issues of indexicality, the blurring of boundaries also questions the morality of this

(19)

development and the responsibility a documentary filmmaker should have towards his viewers. Nonetheless, even if this process may complicate the definition and the balance between information and entertainment, it proves that the impulse of documentary is to constantly seek ‘new avenues, new ways of capturing the social-historical, or ‘treating’ actuality and new ways of connecting with an audience’, hence resulting in the creation of subgenres such as docudrama, infotainment or true crime narratives (Nash, Hight and Summerhayes 1).

2.2 Rethinking documentary

2.2.1 True crime stories

One of the subgenres in documentary to experience its heyday in the 21st _{century, are true}

crime stories telling narratives of either the wrongly accused, or the wrongly acquitted (assumptions made by the filmmakers and script writers). As Barry Keith Grant and Jeannette Sloniowski noticed:

There is, at present, an intense interest in documentary, an interest perhaps unmatched since the 1930s. The Rodney King video and news coverage of events such as the Gulf War and the O.J. Simpson “slow speed chase” and trial have given documentary a renewed position of importance in daily life. (19)

This interest that both scholars already remarked in 1998 has since risen by finding its way into pop culture and the mainstream media. One of the reasons why viewers connect to true crime stories more than they might have before is the influence of social media, luring people into engaging with the storyline even outside of the narrative. However, also the mistrust in institutions and the justice system plays a role in the success of true crime stories such as in

Making a Murderer (2015), but also The Jinx (2015) or Serial (2014). What is interesting in

those documentaries is that the value of truth claim is high; hence the aesthetics play on the idea of wanting to show the ‘real’ version of events. Yet, having looked into different academic film theories, one can assume that the production of a documentary is a process shaped by its filmmaker, and therefore cannot be completely objective. Plantinga argues that:

(20)

audience come to form certain beliefs, but also implicitly asserts something about the use of the medium itself-that the use of motion pictures and recorded sounds offer an audiovisual array that communicates some phenomenological aspect of the subject, from which the spectator might reasonably be expected to form a sense of that phenomenological aspect and/or form true beliefs about that subject. (Plantinga 111)

By using different selected aesthetical techniques, true crime stories socially and politically influence their viewers. In order to achieve this, some elements are inevitable, such as real time court footage to make the audience feel like passive witnesses, and journalistic interviews and testimonies to give an authentic feeling. Needless to say, these moving images are then edited in such a way to emphasise juridical discrepancies, tension and a strong feeling of injustice. This of course calls into question whether a documentary, which according to traditional paradigms has a duty to remain objective, ought to portray reality in such a way, ignoring its moral obligations (Fuhs 781). True crime stories, appeal on its viewers’ sentiments and give them an unusual aesthetic experience by calling on their voyeuristic side. Still they do not only affect the audience, but can if their medial impact is big enough also call for an uproar and have a social or even political repercussion. The People vs.

O.J. Simpson (2016) for example is constructed on that sensationalism that had people

transfixed on the case from the beginning on. By blending fact and fiction for dramatic purposes, the FX series surrounding O.J. Simpson’s flawed trial mastered the balance between suspenseful elements and authentic information to make it a piece of entertainment that people would like to binge-watch, whilst at the same time being tempted to take their time learning about the true crime behind the aesthetically pleasing images.

2.2.2 Docudrama

As previously grasped from Bruzzi, drama can be an element of non-fictional narratives, especially in ‘Dramadocumentary’, where fictional elements are placed within documentary framework. The outcome is then called docudrama, a dramatized television film or series based on actual events. One of the reasons why docudrama was, and is, a valuable form in documentary is because it enables ‘to overcome certain limitations and to achieve a more broadly popular and imaginatively powerful effect’ (Corner 1996 in Rosenthal, 35). When something from the past is to be represented, and there are no documents, images or even people who bore witness to the real life event, the only way to represent it in documentaries in

(21)

an engaging way is to re-enact scenes. Nowadays, the need of re-enactment is not the only reason to include them, as many people have recently found an interest in non-fictional narratives that are slightly, or very much so, dramatized, to combine information and entertainment. Nevertheless, the docudrama remains relevant to educational purposes to a certain extent as ‘at a functional level the dramadoc/docudrama and the documentary proper share territory rather than dispute it’ (Paget 136). Hence, one can assume that the form, even if containing fictional or subjective elements, pays attention to its indexicality, honouring the values of traditional documentaries, which serve as social and political tool.

Indexicality is also one of the aesthetic techniques, that docudrama stays true to in order to first of all make sense and be placed in relevant context, and secondly, to remain in the realm of documentary filmmaking. By valuing its relation with reality more than pointing towards the dramatic side of filmmaking, docudrama tries to appear authentic. Therefore a certain set of aesthetics needs to be fulfilled, such as a pictoral accuracy, the act of editing out and a clear, not too derived storyline. Accuracy is an important term here, whether that concerns the look of locations, costumes, actors/actresses or the mise-en-scène. In order to make believe, the docudrama needs to stay as realistic as possible (Paget 75). Another production step that needs to be considered is the editing out, or adding in. In docudrama, unlike the traditional conceptualization of documentary film, certain aspects, events or characters may be left out or added in, depending on what the producers deem important in maintaining their audience’s attention. Producer Sita Williams explains that ‘in dramadoc you filter out the number of characters so that the ideas and the issues are open through a limited number of characters whom the audience get to know and relate to’ (Paget 79). The same goes for the narrative, little changes to make the story more appealing and entertaining are encouraged in docudrama, but in order to conform to the overall genre, the main storyline should remain as close to real life events as possible.

Resulting from these aesthetics is a product between reality and fiction, aiming to both inform and entertain. However, the allegation that dramatized documentary is by its very nature a heavily shaped media product and can thus not ‘live up to claims of accuracy’ is still a potential issue for many theorists (Woodhead in Rosenthal 108). Not only does this go against previously discussed concepts of documentary as a genre, furthermore it puts the filmmakers in a potential ethical dilemma as their audience can no longer ‘tell at what level of credibility to accept any particular sequence’, and is more easily manipulated (Woodhead in Rosenthal 108). In order to analyse the term and its connotations, such as its aesthetics

(22)

further, one has to look into how docudrama is presented. Here, this needs to be done not only in terms of aesthetics or script, but also regarding the platform: to understand the origins and the future impact hybrid documentaries carry.

2.3 A modern medium

2.3.1 The Netflix effect

In the beginning, being ‘born’ to the era of the Lumière brothers, documentary had its place primarily in cinema. Through time and faced with Hollywood blockbusters, the rise of fiction films and the hype around stardom however, people quickly lost interest in the genre and it subsequently moved from cinema to television. According to Corner:

There has been a tendency to regard television as a great deal by way of richness and depth in its own 'works'. The suggestion is that the medium has compensated for this symbolic deficit by exploiting its realist/relay functions and its potential for real or simulated 'liveness'. (Television Documentary and the Category of the Aesthetic 93)

The assumption that documentary television is often seen as dreary, uneventful and mostly not very exciting when it comes to its aesthetics, is widespread, however not the norm. Knowing that there are various forms of documentary, from observational and news-like formats, to aesthetically ambitious ones, documentary in fact ‘occupies an interesting position in the television spectrum’ (Corner, Television Documentary and the Category of the

Aesthetic 93). Following its roots, fact-fiction forms such as docudrama are welcomed films

or series in the realm of television, attracting mass audiences and turning the once so traditional TV format into pop culture (Paget 137). Nowadays, due to their sudden success, these documentary hybrids are common on television worldwide; keeping their audiences interested enough to remain a steady part of television scheduling.

Recently, another medium welcomed documentaries, but especially docudramas and true crime stories into their program, releasing a real hype around the genre and its crossbreeds. In late 2013, Netflix announced their start in investing into several documentaries, before adding to their collection by creating their first original docu-series. Amongst those are the shows Narcos and Making a Murderer, both released in 2015 and both

(23)

based on real life crime stories. The streaming server thus follows into the footsteps of HBO, the leading channel of original programming, who has successfully been challenging traditional television programming and their ‘prime time dominance’ (Santo 27). By adopting this practice, Netflix is not only enabling quality productions to be made in the coming years by investing beforehand, an aspect traditional television cannot guarantee, it is also re-positioning the genre. Coming back to the first point, Douglas Tirola, documentary director of

Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead points out that ‘there are not a lot of companies that finance

documentaries upfront’ (Bernstein n. pag.). The genre is thus often related to financial difficulties on the current media landscape, an aspect the platform could change, and with it, improve documentary production, aesthetics and all in all the quality. Secondly, Netflix is a current media trend, not only introducing people to all sorts of films and series, it also influences people’s viewing behaviours. People who never before had an interest in documentary, may now be more intrigued about the genre, as they already paid for the services, and might as well give it a try. With this approach, Netflix not only manages to dominate trends in the field of films and series, guiding its viewers towards their originals, the server also eliminates niche audiences, allowing for the documentary genre to be seen as a pop cultural artefact.

Another relevant aspect that differentiates Netflix from television is its distribution model, releasing for example all the available episodes of a series at once. This changes the viewing experience for the audience, who can now immerse themselves into the aesthetics of the documentary, by deciding themselves whether to watch it in one go or step by step. Furthermore, there is an advantage towards thick texts, because Netflix allows their members to go back and re-watch episodes, granting full understanding and experience of narratives. Through this, aesthetics are redefined and the showing of complex narratives with a wider ‘range of creative opportunities and palette of audience responses that are unique to the television medium’ were not only a possibility, but came more into focus (Mittell 29-30). An essential element complex narratives foster is the creative expansion within the construction of aesthetics, resulting in a ‘number of storytelling devices’ such as flashbacks, real-time narrations, dream sequences, an unconventional amount of details, etc. (Mittell 36). Besides offering viewers a certain depth to the story, viewers are now able to connect in a more emotional and elaborate way to the characters, intensifying the viewing experience even more (Mittell 38-39). Hence, this new form of television has fundamentally changed not only the audience’s relationship towards docu-series, but also opens up new possibilities for the genre

(24)

itself, pushing the boundaries of aesthetic pleasures and attracting a wider and more engaged range of viewers.

2.3.2 The controversy remains

Having briefly reviewed some of the history of documentary, its aesthetics and evolvement into subgenres, one can agree that it remains an ever-changing and highly controversial topic. Whereas at the moment, documentary in form of fact and fiction mixed films, such as true crime stories or documentary dramas, are part of contemporary pop culture, one cannot avoid the question of what this blurring of boundaries actually does to the genre, the media and its viewers over time. In his work ‘The Politics of Aesthetics’, Rancière argues that everything is a narrative, it just depends whether it is an ambitious or a realistic one. He explains:

The new art of narrative, film ... brought to its highest potential the double resource of the silent imprint that speaks and the montage that calculates the values of truth and the potential for producing meaning. Documentary film, film devoted to the ‘real’, is in this sense capable of greater fictional invention that than ‘fiction’ film, readily devoted to a certain stereotype of actions and characters. (38)

Taking this concept into consideration, together with other modern and open conceptualizations of documentary films, one could argue that the act of mixing fact and fiction is just a necessary development of the genre itself. Considering Paget’s words, in ‘no other way to tell it’, one could argue that by blurring boundaries and allowing the creation of dramatized documentaries, new narratives evolve that could not have been told otherwise (197). There are many upsides towards combining information and entertainment, often called infotainment, one of them being that it is what people desire at the moment, and should therefore not be limited because of potential boundaries. The term ‘infotainment’ refers to a type of media, aiming to entertain and inform at the same time, and can therefore be connected to the idea of postmodern documentary. In this ‘postdocumentary’, the main elements of non-fiction films continue to exist, yet, the setting and therefore its audio-visual and narratological aesthetics and documentation face radical modifications (Corner,

(25)

hybrid documentary is inescapable, it is also important to say that accepting documentary as an ever-changing form bears positive side notes and allows for education of a different, arguably more compelling, kind.

Nevertheless, even if one agrees with dramatized documentary as a tool of education, its social and political values should not be ignored nor put second to entertainment values. Thus the question arises whether entertainment practices should be allowed to outshine documentary techniques within non-fictional storytelling, or whether that would defy documentary aesthetics and their aims. With this in mind, ethical instabilities appear, alluding to the possible dangers that fact-fiction forms bring to the documentary practice. First of all, when dealing with a real life event in film, filmmakers bring the attention of mass audiences onto a specific topic and have responsibilities towards their viewers. Hence, subjectivity and truth claims are potential issues, considering that reality is not only told from a subjective side, but also might be enhanced by fictional elements in docudrama. The question that remains is whether the audience will be misguided and manipulated by the aesthetics of fact-fiction films, or whether they will benefit from the experience of mixing educational and entertainment content. In the following analysis of the documentary crime/drama series

Narcos and Making a Murderer, I will attempt to examine these issues, the resulting

aesthetics, and possible solutions or consequences to the merging of educational and entertainment aesthetics.

(26)

3 Analysis of

Making a Murderer

3.1 A hybrid documentary

In 2015, Netflix released Making a Murderer, a documentary series that sparked interest within different domains and captivated audiences from all over the world. Not only did the series make headlines in mainstream media, it also raised a number of theoretical questions within the documentary genre and its practices. Seldom does filmmaking rooted in documentary make such waves on an international media landscape; hence one has to wonder what exactly it is that makes Making a Murderer an extraordinary documentary form. From questioning its genre, to production details, to social and political implications stemming from the narrative, it is important to analyse the work of Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi documenting the case of Steven Avery to understand contemporary documentary filmmaking. This particular Netflix production is therefore an excellent case study for this thesis looking into how the relation between information and entertainment is constructed in the audio-visual aesthetics of the representations of reality.

3.1.1 The making of a story

Making a Murder premiered on Netflix on December 18 in 2015 and was written and

directed by Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi over a span of ten years. Before going into more detail of how the show was produced, or how its narrative was constructed, it is essential to get a deeper understanding of the show’s storyline.

The Netflix original depicts the life of Steven Avery, and more explicitly his troubled relationship with the American criminal justice system. The story first seems to focus on his wrongful conviction in 1985, where he was accused of sexual assault and attempted murder of Penny Beerntsen, a crime for which he got fully exonerated due to DNA evidence in 2003. Considering the first episode, viewers may come to the conclusion that the documentary focuses on Avery’s exoneration and the lawsuit he is about to file against the county and the flawed trial they presented him with. However, the series’ focal point relies on the happenings after Avery’s acquittal and his filed lawsuit. In 2005, the main character of said documentary

(27)

series becomes the main suspect for the case of missing, and as the viewers later on find out, murdered citizen of Manitowoc, Theresa Halbach. The filmmakers turn not only the murder mystery itself into a narrative but also, and most of all, the criminal justice system of the United States. After the flawed trial and wrongful conviction of 1985, the institution repeats its frowned upon methods on the 2005 case of Avery once again. Albeit, this time, Steven Avery is not the only character on trial, his nephew Brendan Dassey is turned into his accomplice, making him a co-starring social actor in Making a Murderer. Although a true crime and trial story, it is essential to view Demos and Ricciardi’s representation of reality as a constructed narrative. By documenting and editing actuality, the producers sell a narrative to their audience that is, although they may claim the ‘truth’, a product of compelling entertainment. In how far the series really pushes towards educating its viewers by inviting them to investigate and come to their own conclusions has been a thoroughly discussed and controversial topic on social media, and will be looked into in more detail when analysing the techniques used to produce the documentary series.

3.1.2 Streaming now

As mentioned above, the Netflix original took Demos and Ricciardi on a filmic journey of ten years. During these years of researching and filming, they not only commuted from New York to Manitowoc on a regular basis, but also had to come up with most of the production money themselves. The filmmakers had a deadlocked concept concerning their narratological strategy and production format, convinced of the idea of serializing their project. Whereas other Networks rejected this unconventional approach, Netflix, popular for producing binge-watch material, picked it up and offered funding for the true crime story. In fact, the streaming service went from agreeing to eight episodes to ordering a total of ten episodes for the first season, foreseeing the growing interest and rising trend of experimental documentaries. Hereby, they did not only encourage the development of hybridity within the documentary genre, they also strengthened their own concept of storytelling by sticking to their straight-to-series-model, reaffirming the importance of alternative viewing experience and therein resulting complex narratives. Instead of appointment viewing, where people have little control or access towards what they are watching, Netflix offers the audience a ‘possibility of non-linear access’, and thus, Making a Murderer the opportunity to adjust its aesthetics (Lotz 5). Therefore, one could assume that when the audience practices change, so

(28)

does its reception, providing creators with the opportunity to redefine the range of the show. The possibility for viewers to not only watch whenever they want, but also to go back and forth between different episodes, adds to the series’ value and its educational means. The storyline of Making A Murderer is a complex real life narrative containing a vast range of interviews, official documents and juridical language. As a consequence, there is a high possibility for the television audience, who is not familiar with the context, to be overwhelmed by the storyline. Through redefining ‘episodic forms under the influence of serial narration’, the streaming service facilitates this viewing process by offering the option of re-watching scenes or episodes as many times and in whatever order is needed to process the given information (Mittell 32). On the other hand, Netflix also benefits from the documentary series, as it furthers the documentary genre, its forms and aesthetics, and hence, may attract a more diverse viewer base. As a precaution, Netflix did however not only rely on their own platform and their own users, but extended the first episode to the social media platform YouTube. Expanding their marketing strategy by including another popular video sharing website, the producers of Making a Murderer managed to target an international mass-market instead of niche audiences.

Since January 2014 Netflix decreased their catalogue by 31.7%, firstly because their focus began shifting towards more original productions, and secondly to maintain an image of high quality, one could even say exclusive, television (McAlone n. pag.). This move suggests that Netflix acknowledges being in direct competition with other online streaming services, trying to strategically place itself somewhere in between traditional television and the online media world. By taking Making a Murderer into their catalogue, they are giving the storyline a certain validation, which in consequence markets it as high quality television, both in terms of educational and entertainment value. This is an essential element for Making a Murderer, as it needs to portray a certain sense of credibility in order to be accepted into the realm of documentary. At the same time, since the streaming service is not bound by traditional television boundaries, it allows for greater freedom in the use of techniques and practices, making it possible for the show to push boundaries and cross the genre’s limitations. Hence, as much as Netflix profits from Making a Murderer, the show itself benefited of the streaming service’s traits to develop its hybrid nature.

(29)

3.2 True crime aesthetics

Making a Murder, labelled a true-crime documentary series, fulfils certain conventional

roles of thin text documentaries, as its foundation is made of interviews, archive film extracts, pictures and documents (Corner, Television Documentary and the Category of the Aesthetic 97). Due to the extensive use of said aesthetics, the documentary, at times, feels repetitive and mundane, making its viewers feel like they were reading literature instead of watching a story unfold. However, by including certain practices that are standard for thick text, the series moves along the spectrum of aesthetics, from straightforward reporting to stylized high-end drama. Hence, the series, through its audio-visual and narratological choices, is styled like a documentary film, also touches, through its aesthetics, on fictional film practices.

3.2.1 Visual strategies

(30)

Fig. 2: news article [00:00:56] ‘18 Years Lost’, Netflix Fig. 3: Interview with Sheriff Kocourek

[00:01:14], ‘18 Years Lost’, Netflix

‘Here they come. Up the road. After 18 years’, an almost cheerful voice in the background proclaims, accompanied by the images of an amateur video (figure 1). On the screen it says ‘4:09PM9 and ‘11/9/2013’, pointing out the importance of a timeline, an element Making a Murderer repeatedly visualizes to implement the idea of authenticity (18

Years Lost). This amateur video, from [00:00:13] until [00:01-49], is the first sequence to be

shown and sets the tone and the location of the documentary. Starting the documentary by displaying non-professional footage of low quality material, the creators make a statement towards how they want the narrative to be received. By telling the story from an intimate angle, the impression that this could happen to anyone or that anyone could have recorded it is created, thus, the story connects to the audience on a personal level. The footage from the handheld camera, giving the viewers a direct emotional link to the story, is intercepted by interviews and news articles that have been cut into the frame (figure 2 & 3). Here, the creators construct their hybrid image by connecting the down to earth sense that the video portrays, providing an insider perspective, with the notion of credibility presented through outside sources, invoking a sense of journalistic objectivity. Hence, judging from the first sequence, based on reality and the idea of indexicality, Making a Murderer presents itself as a traditional documentary, relying on the filmed and photographed actuality, which has been edited into an observational form (Grierson 159). At [00:01:49], the first indication of the usage of thick text elements comes into being (figure 4). Here, the camera zooms in on Avery’s face, depicting a laughing Steven, until the frame turns to black, implying a shift in sensations. By having the social actor’s face fade from a humane state into a black screen, the filmmakers blend archival footage with an imaginative element, the connotation of blackness. Through this, they not only foreshadow how the storyline will evolve, the filmmakers also add suspense to the narrative by dramatizing documented material through the act of editing.

(31)

This introduction, from shaky camera work and in the moment filming to authentic footage and given statements, leaves the audience with the expectation that they are about to witness a factual yet unbelievable story.

Figure 4: Steven Avery [00:01:49], ‘18 Years Lost’, Netflix

After introducing one of the main characters, setting the tone and implying the turn the story is going to take, the title sequence of Making a Murderer, created by the design studio

Elastic, is introduced. The one minute and ten seconds long opening title is a montage of

short video clips blending into one another and predominantly focusing on the framework and the subjects of the show. Throughout the sequence, there is an emphasis on shots that depict Manitowoc, and more precisely locations within the county that can be directly linked to the Avery history (figures 5 & 6). At [00:00:23] old pictures of the Avery family members are shown with their salvage yard as the underlying background, which is slowly taking over the screen and swallowing up the photographs. Here, the lives of the social actors are directly linked to the importance of the setting, which is in turn accredited with authenticity through the use of photographic material (figures 7 & 8). Drawing on Corner’s Television

Documentary and the Category of the Aesthetic, one could say that the opening sequence of Making a Murderer, mixing carefully selected filmed and partly animated material with the