On Mediation with Senna

Within media studies we are told that all texts are mediated. Everything comes with its own messages, its own ideology. This may be clear in fiction cinema. Avatar (2009) hardly tries to hide its pro-environmental message! Documentary cinema is different; it always has a message, but often this message is presented as fact simply because the footage is ‘real’ and the people non-actors. The story also is based on true events. In fact, it is impossible for any medium to ever be entirely free from human influence. Even the most paired down documentaries have still been shot or edited by someone and that person has still made the decision where to point the camera and what to leave out. The fingerprints of their own ideologies, in some way, remain on the media text. Now in some documentaries, such as those of Michael Moore this is not difficult to see. It is even a stretch to rank his films under the genre umbrella.

The opposite of the Michael Moore documentary style is direct cinema, pioneered by the late British director and cinematographer, Richard Leacock. In June 2011s Sight and Sound, Leacock’s importance in advancing the non-interventionist documentary is chronicled.

“Leacock’s mantra was that the documentary should give the audience “the feeling of being there”. The audience should be able to make up its own mind about what it was seeing, without direction imposed by a commentary. Out of this came the Direct Cinema dogma: no tripods, no lights, no interviews, no commentary, no added sound. Of course, much of this was more honoured in the breach that the observance. For example, you weren’t allowed to interview – but you could film interviewers interviewing.”

Few documentaries comply with these strict criteria; yet the article goes on to say how the boundaries have been loosened, even if the ideology remains. A recent documentary that does come very close to achieving true direct cinema is Senna (2010) directed by Asif Kapadia. Senna is the story of formula 1 driver Ayrton Senna from his early go-kart racing days to his success and death in formula 1. Senna is comprised entirely of archived footage. There is no narration, no new footage. The dialogue only comes from interviews filmed at the time and the images are those of home video, news footage or race footage. The director has attempted to remove him presence from the on screen as much as possible. And this has been achieved successfully. The mark of Kapadia’s success is in the feeling of total involvement in the story. Even for non-fans of formula 1 this is an enthralling story and the way the footage has been edited together tells a thrilling narrative.

Yet, as mentioned, no media text, regardless of how ‘untouched’ it appears, and Senna does have that feeling of truthfulness, has been mediated. This remains a story and one that is pro Ayrton Senna. Another documentary could quite as easily present a pro Alain Proust story (Senna’s main rival) without using drastically different footage. This is not a negative comment, Senna is a great film and a wonderful insight into formula 1, but it is important to remember that even the most accurate seeming films reflect someone’s opinion.