(as one document, the page numbers are difficult to negotiate)

OPTION ONE

INVESTIGATING GANG CULTURE: THE KEMP DOCUMENTARIES

DRA 710 SELOGADI MAMPANE

28430647Faculty of HumanitiesDepartment of DramaMR. C. BROODRYK

25 JUNE 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page1 PLAGIARISM FORM........................................................................... 1

2 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 2

3 THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL DOCUMENTARY......................................

3

4 “LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!”: HOW WE SEE AND HEAR THE WORLD OF THE FILM...............................................................

5

5 ACTORS AND THE OBJECTS THEY COME IN TO CONTACT WITH...................................................................................................

11

6 THE SPOKEN WORD......................................................................... 17

7 CONCLUSION.................................................................................... 18

8 SOURCES CONSULTED.................................................................... 20

1. PLAGIARISM FORM FORM A

UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA FACULTY _________________of Humanities___________________

DEPARTMENT _____________of Drama___________________ The Department ________________of Drama_________ places specific emphasis on in-tegrity and ethical behaviour with regard to the preparation of all written work to be submit -ted for academic evaluation. Although academic personnel will provide you with information regarding reference tech-niques as well as ways to avoid plagiarism, you also have a responsibility to fulfil in this re-gard. Should you at any time feel unsure about the requirements, you must consult the lec-turer concerned before you submit any written work. You are guilty of plagiarism when you extract information from a book, article or web page without acknowledging the source and pretend that it is your own work. In truth, you are stealing someone else’s property. This doesn’t only apply to cases where you quote ver-batim, but also when you present someone else’s work in a somewhat amended format (paraphrase), or even when you use someone else’s deliberation without the necessary acknowledgement. You are not allowed to use another student’s previous work. You are furthermore not allowed to let anyone copy or use your work with the intention of present-ing it as his/her own. Students who are guilty of plagiarism will forfeit all credit for the work concerned. In addi-tion, the matter can also be referred to the Committee for Discipline (Students) for a ruling to be made. Plagiarism is considered a serious violation of the University’s regulations and may lead to suspension from the University. For the period that you are a student at the Department of Drama___________________ , the under-mentioned declaration must accompany all written work to be submitted. No written work will be accepted unless the declaration has been completed and attached. I (full names) Selogadi Mampane Student number 28430647Subject of the work DRA 710Declaration 1. I understand what plagiarism entails and am aware of the University’s policy in this re-

gard. 2. I declare that this _assignment_____________________ (e.g. essay, report, project,

assignment, dissertation, thesis etc) is my own, original work. Where someone else’s work was used (whether from a printed source, the internet or any other source) due acknowledgement was given and reference was made according to de-partmental requirements.

3. I did not make use of another student’s previous work and submitted it as my own. 4. I did not allow and will not allow anyone to copy my work with the intention of presenting

it as his or her own work. Signature _ _________________________________

2.INTRODUCTION

Theories resound on the authenticity of the documentary film, raising the question ‘is what

we see real or fake’ for “verisimilitude constitutes documentary’s very reason for being”

(Allen 1991:103). In this paper, I would like to explore how and why what we see in the

world of the documentary film, appears to be authentic as well as what within the world of

a given documentary betrays the idea of authenticity.

It is vital here to consider theories of the real, turning to ideas on realism in order to con-

front the reality which the documentary presents us with. Barnard (2007:2) explains that

Documentaries bring viewers into new worlds and experiences through the presentation of factual information about real places, and events, generally por-trayed through the use of actual images and artifacts [sic]

If documentaries present the viewer with images of a real world and actions that occur in

actuality (however manipulated and impressed upon) and if realism as a film theory

grapples with the authenticity of the film image in reference to the objects as they exist in

the pro-filmic world, then the two must be considered in tandem so as to allow for a more

colourful, acute observation and analysis of the documentary film.

In the treatment of the film image, Kracauer asserts that the world photographed by the

camera, the real world, for him being the raw material of film, should be represented as au-

thentically as possible to as to preserve the iconography of the world displayed on the

screen (Andrew 1976:141). This he sees as the task of films which are located within the

realm of realism. He goes on to talk of the task of the documentary, according to him being

the portrayal of “actual reality” (Kracauer 1961:99). How then does one begin to re-repres-

ent, that is translate this actual reality, this real world outside the world of the film to the

film screen.

Kracauer’s observations are useful for he grapples with the film form, the manner in which

the image is and for him should be constructed, his concerns being mostly the world of film

realism. Bazin on the other hand is primarily concerned with “what has been done in

cinema”, rather ascribing to analysis of the film apparatus’ ability, the nature and style of

the film camera, most importantly that the filmmaker must recognise the “realistic nature”

of this raw material (Andrew 1976:142).

Bazin too proclaims that the material of cinema is reality. Andrew explains Bazin’s realism

as the “visual and spatial reality, the real world of the physicist” (1976:137) concerned with

the “realism of space” (Bazin 112). The documentary being concerned with portraying ac-

tuality is therefore concerned with this ‘realism of space’ the treatment of an authentic pro-

filmic world. This is true for the television documentary series which I will use as a point of

discussion.

Before diving into the crux of the matter, one must locate the documentary pieces under

analysis, namely the Ross kemp on Gangs (Philipson 2006; 2007a; 2007b; 2007c; 2008a;

2008b) television and digital versatile disc series, within specific sub-genre's of the docu-

mentary film. Kracauer speaks of the factual films which concentrate on “actual physical

reality” (1961:194), films which explore the natural world in-depth. These factual films have

the environment of the natural world as their focus, unlike fictional films the focus is not so

much on the individual but on the world in which they exist (Kracauer 1961:194).

The environment and events which occur within actuality are central to these factual visual

documents, Rotha (quoted in Kracauer 1961:194) expounds this “If there are human be-

ings, they are secondary to the main theme”. In the Kemp series, gang culture and the ef-

fects that this culture has on its environment is the key focus, there are human beings but

their main function is to shed light on this gang culture: they provide knowledge on this cul-

ture, the culture being the subject on which the series reports, the main subject at the

centre of the investigations.

3.THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL DOCUMENTARY

Visual anthropology has the documentary technique at its centre (Grimshaw and Ravetz

2005:3) as a style which is able to translate to the screen explorations concerning human

culture. In turn the documentary uses anthropological styles in order to capture individuals

in their environments in order to shed light on the culture of their lives. MacDougall de-

scribes anthropological films as those which “cover new ground through an integral explor-

ation of the data” (1997:76). In the Ross Kemp series, investigations reveal new insights

and never before filmed environments are brought to a wider public eye.

The manner in which these investigations occur fall into the sub-genre of the anthropolo-

gical documentary, as cited in Allen (1991). Allen describes the anthropological document-

ary as that which “seeks to record evidence of a cultural life style gained from naturalistic

or scientific observation” (1991:104). His observations and contributions in this regard are

valid and useful in my investigation as he locates a popular and specific mode of docu-

mentary film and television. Network television stations broadcast anthropological docu-

mentaries as ways of introducing their viewers to new worlds and the experiences of indi-

viduals in these worlds as Barnard states above.

This is not to say that an anthropological film is the exact partner of anthropological docu-

mentary. Robertson (2005), an anthropologist having worked on television documentaries

elucidates these differences. She prescribes the fundamental difference as “The process

through which the representation of people’s realities is arrived at” pointing to the lengthy

time taken by field anthropologists to grow in knowledge with groups under study. so that

the truth “is something attained together” (2005:52).

In film and television documentary, an anthropological style is used within the parameters

of the film and television mediums so that the investigation and arrangement of the artefact

is dictated by the demands of the specific medium. What dictates the explorations is the

goals of the television documentaries, which are what Robertson (2005:52) calls “predeter-

mined”.

In the Kemp series the goal is to highlight the negative effects of gang culture, revolving

mostly around the violence that terrorises individuals within and in contact with the specific

cultures. The canvas is not blank, gradually coloured by the knowledge the crew gains

from spending time in the various environments, at the start of each episode, the theme of

violence is introduced as a predetermined conclusion- the investigations move towards

gaining evidence on the type of violence used and the related effect it has on the sur-

rounding community.

Kracauer (1961) further explicates on these documentaries of investigation, calling them

documentaries of reportage. His analysis covers several film pieces which, like the Kemp

series, aim to “confront spectators” with real images of these impoverished slums (Kra-

cauer 1961:202). Linking to the use of an anthropological technique within pictures such

as these, there is a a tendency towards a “snapshot quality of the pictures which makes

them appear as authentic documents” (1961:202). This points to the naturalistic quality of

the film images, which is necessary i order to convince the viewer that what they see is

real.

The crew of the Ross Kemp series delve into the world of various gangs through observing

the life style of various gang members, through visual recordings and interviews that seek

to gain factual information concerning the activities of these gangs. The images seen at

times are simplistic and naturalistic, seeming to just capture real spaces as they exist,

therefore adding authenticity to the images presented to the viewer.

Monaco (2009), on Bazin’s thoughts concerning the function of the camera, calls to

Bazin’s desire for “Functionlism” (as opposed to Kracauer’s desire for Formalism) for what

the camera does- as it is the subject matter which influences the style of the

filmmaking(2009:457). As a point of departure I will at first explore the construction of the

images presented to the viewer through the Kemp documentaries- how their goals regard-

ing the subject matter result in the specific style of representation.

4.“LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!”: HOW WE SEE AND HEAR THE WORLD OF

THE FILM

The above phrase points to the importance of the visual surroundings when constructing a

filmic environment. The world seen is quintessential in the world of the documentary for it

is this raw material of the natural world which grants the documentary its authenticity and

plausibility- its “visual record” (Allen 1991:103).

Considering the nature of the Ross Kemp collection, (being an anthropological, document-

ary of reportage), the style in which natural environment or pro-filmic world is captured,

supports the function of the said genre and sub-genre's, which is to record information and

evidence as authentically as possible (Millar and Reisz 1968: 125) and (Allen 1991:104). It

is the environment seen which is of crucial importance for the very existence of the series.

With kemp as a constant, he remains at the centre of the seen world, he is our guide. Be-

ing British, Kemp as forming part of dominant racial group, the world around him may be

as foreign to us as it is to him.

Therefore, at the start of each episode, no time is wasted in acquainting the viewer with

the world of the documentary, immediately one receives information explaining why Kemp

has traveled to meet these gangs in particular. Kracauer explains that it is the world of the

documentary film that is of key focus rather than the personal passions and journeys of

particular individuals (1961:194) and so it is necessary to orientate the viewer to the spe-

cific environment.

Whilst individuals may be the key sources in detailing the events that occur in the pro-

filmic world such as is in the Kemp series, it is their interest, description and understanding

of the world around them that the documentary depends on (Kracauer 1961:194). Thus, at

the onset of each episode, photographic images of the actions that occur within the gang

spaces are thrown at us, multitudinously juxtaposed providing the viewer with mounds of

information through these flashing images. At the same time, our introduction to the envir-

onment is often accompanied by an interview with an individual directly in contact with the

environment.

As is seen in the episode Ross Kemp on Gangs: Rio De Janeiro (Philipson 2006), upon

entering the environment, after receiving information through a voice-over by Kemp, we

witness an interview between Kemp and his taxi driver. Kemp first introduces the conver-

sation coming conversation “What I hadn’t expected was to be told by my driver Ivan two

minutes form the airport, that I was now in the middle of a war zone, where rival gangs

fight it out for power”. Kemp’s initial voice-over at the start of the episode informs us of the

violence caused by the gangs of Rio De Janeiro, this is then confirmed by the taxi driver

who drives him form the airport, he says “two gangs shoot at each other across the road,

depending on the time- usually at night- the road will be closed because of the gunfire”

(the drivers words are delivered to the viewer through a translated voice-over).

On the documentary of reportage, Milar and Reisz further elaborate on the simplicity of the

film image, adding that “At its simplest it is concerned solely with the presentation of nat-

ural happenings” (1968:125). The above mentioned seen is shot in the vehicle as they

cross the road which the taxi driver says is plagued by violence. The scene is presented

as simply as possible, as naturally as possible and therefore authenticity is rendered to the

film image

Milar and Reisz suggest that the skill of the documentary filmmaker compounds into the

skill of an editor (1968:125). They further explain that in order to execute a “convincing im-

pression of actuality... a most elaborate editing process may have to be brought into oper-

ation” (Millar and Reisz 1968:126). Elaborate in being able to convey information and con-

struct meaning through the arrangement of the photographic elements, of the evidence of

the documentary in question.

Therefore, each episode, whilst pictorially depicting the gangs world, the location, displays

a series of images which immediately inform the viewer of the subject matter, juxtaposing

images which together, quickly locates the viewer in the given environment. Pace, rhythm

and tempo in editing and music here play a key role in constructing each locale at the start

of each episode. An informative and descriptive voice-over as well as an interview or con-

versation with an occupant of the given world come together to orientate the viewer.

For example in the episode Ross kemp on Gangs: Belize (Philipson 2008), Kemp opens

with the lines “I’ve come to Belize in Central America.... its only a small country but it plays

a significants part in the international, multibillion dollar business of cocaine smuggling”. At

first we come in to contact with Kemp but soon move to selected images of the location,

his words carry on as a voice-over as we witness vast landscapes shots, images of police

arrests, tons of cocaine and weapons being confiscated by police and military armed men

patrolling the streets.

Images of the natural world collide with related or unrelated images of drugs and guns.

The erie music moves to a fast pace tempo as we enter the world of the documentary, the

soundtrack of any documentary film, giving structure assisting in meaning making allowing

“arbitrary connections or association [to] appear natural” (Allen 1991:108). What is most

striking, is the excitement created through the use of music and the style of editing, gradu-

ally building up speed as we move from one shot to the next.

Steadily, the director accelerates the tempo, keeping the length of shots not longer that

seven seconds. Millar and Reisz, when speaking on pace and rhythm or the speed and

pattern at which images and sound move explain that when images follow one another at

an ever-increasing speed or accelerate, an effect of increased excitement is produced

(1968:242).

On the control exercised by film makers through the editing process, Millar and Reisz

speak of how “the director needs to distort and control the factor of time in order to make a

natural event arresting and life-like” (1968:126).

An interpretation of the images may be achieved because of the way the director, has al-

lowed the audience to participate in the experience through the representation of the im-

ages. According to Monaco (2009:461) Bazin’s mis-en-scéne theory, which refers to “deep

focus photography and the sequence-shot” brings the viewer in to closer contact with the

film images allowing them to experience them more fully. Drawing from Bazin, Monaco

(2009:461) explains that

He [Bazin] outlines why this is so: depth of focus ‘brings the spectator in closer relation with the image than he is with reality.’ This implies consequently ‘both a more active mental attitude on the part of the observer and a more positive con-tribution on his part to the action in progress.’... From the attention and the will of the spectator, the meaning of the image derives.

The construction of the reality of the world seen is action-packed, events in the film world,

in the world of the gangs, occur sporadically. Individuals, cities, guns and drugs are inex-

tricably linked making up the violent, volatile and turbulent world the film presents to us.

The above analysis is an interpretation of the images portrayed, the meaning arising from

this interpretation is informed by the juxtaposition of the images in the film supported by

the ominous and rhythmic soundtrack.

Each Kemp documentary, with its successful use of montage at its start informs the spec-

tator of the nature of the coming experience; Therefore, expectation is immediately ful-

filled. The spectator, who is at first greeted with what seems to be compelling evidence of

what the team has garnered through their travels, already receives a conclusion of the

evidence the team has gathered, what fuels further engagement of the material is witness-

ing just what type of evidence has resulted in Kemp concluding that violence rocks the en-

vironment under exploration.

When speaking on editing in documentary films, Millar and Reisz propose that “editing is

the film” [emphasis in original] (1968:123) and that theme (1968:124) replaces plot in doc-

umentary film then through the editing techniques used, through the images selected,

Philipson conveys the overall theme of each episode through his treatment of the filmic im-

ages at the start of each episode. The sequence and resulting theme which opens each

Kemp documentary, is in fact a montage.

Millar and Reisz (1968:112) describe a montage as “the quick impressionistic sequence of

disconnected images, usually linked by dissolves, superimpositions, or wipes, and used to

convey passages of time, changes of place, or any other sense of transition”. According to

Bazin, the use of montage prohibits any ambiguity (Monaco 2009:461), from the montage

that opens each Kemp film, the theme is easily identifiable- the violent nature of the gang

world and the degradative effects this culture has on the given environment. Eisenstein

suggests that it is through montage that new ideas and therefore new realities are created

(Monaco 2009:452) and it is through the meaning that each image imparts to the next that

meaning making occurs in the Kemp documentaries.

Together the images and music support the function of documentary films, which Allen ex-

plains is to to “supply evidence or proof in an argument” (1991:103). Through the selected

images and treatment of the locations under investigation, the Kemp series succeeds in

authenticity or verisimilitude. The world created is convincing in the selection of the seen

images and the manner in which the said images support and give meaning to one an-

other; the music moving to bind the images seen creating what appears to be a natural

whole.

Kracauer links newsreels with documentaries in that they both reflect the real world, re-

porting on actual events but in different ways, the former investigates in a “brief and neut-

ral manner” of supposedly general interest to the public and the latter further elaborates on

“natural material” for various reasons (1961:194). The Kemp series being a piece of invest-

igative journalism, incorporates a newsreel style in the construction of each episode. In

these investigation, Kemp asks the question “why?”, his aim is to discover what fuels and

perpetuates the gang cultures.

In order to answer this question, Kemp conducts several interviews with various parties for

it is these people that form part of each world under investigation that would be able to

provide real answers, as documentaries mostly feature “the individual... and the world he

lives in” (Kracauer 1961:194). In his interviews Kemp keeps a distance of emotion, not to

say that he does not draw favour but that his reporting style at most times is unemotional.

When analysing films of fact and reportage, Kracauer speaks of the distance the investig-

ator maintains when exploring the given environment. His analysis, as previously men-

tioned, is of documentary material that investigates socially de-gradated environments

and from his analysis he deduces that “Human suffering, it appears, is conducive to de-

tached reporting” (Kracauer 1961:202). Kemp further incorporates news pieces concerning

gang activities in the areas investigated, which further move to strengthen the authenticity

of the material, such as is seen in Ross kemp on Gangs: Belize (Philipson 2008).

However, in the series, never is a caption seen which identifies which has been filmed by

the crew of the series and which has been garnered from existing material. Therefore, the

constructed nature of the film, the “operation of manipulative processes” or the subjective

treatment of the filmic material is concealed (Allen 1991:104). Although this technique

adds an undeniable flow to the film, it also draws attention to the highly constructed nature

of what is seen.

An expository technique is used by Philipson where “an explanatory conceptual frame-

work, and images and sounds are used to illustrate or provide (loose) evidence for what is

stated by the voice-over narrator” (Platinga 2005:109). Platinga goes on to describe how

such narration's make “make an overt argument” which is true of the Kemp series. As

seen through the introduction of each episode, Kemp overtly describes the violence that

occurs due to gang culture. He provides evidence for his claims yet at times Kemp’s in-

vestigations are led by the teams own ideological and social views, the evidence included

in the product is guided by the ideological standpoint and aims of the director.

On the subjective nature of selection and editing in film, Allen (1991:104) states that

the anthropological filmmaker tends to find counterproductive any relativization of his/her perspective and to resist the notion that film incorporates a spectrum of decisions informed by the filmmakers cultural values. Like the other docu-mentarists the anthropological filmmaker uses film to state a truth, this time sci-entific, i.e. assumed to be outside the boundaries of ideology or cultural condi-tioning.

Using an anthropological style gives the impression that a more objective and un-

biased investigation is underway which aims to uncover all aspects of a given topic.

However, the knowledge garnered by Kemp and his investigative crew is constructed

by the choice of which individuals are sought out to give their side of the story and

which peaces of this information have been selected for representation in the filmic

document.

Therefore the construction of a reportage film is not free from the influence of the

ideologies of the crew constructing the said documentary. How many other perspect-

ives and voices have been left out of the Kemp discussions and given the strong

presence of the expository technique, which is heavily scripted (Platinga 2005:109)-

consider that many of the Kemp episodes follow the same narrative structure- there

is most definitely a particular perspective which informs the route of investigation.

On dramatic structure, Boggs and Petrie, make clear that whether the dramatic struc-

ture is linear or non-linear, both contain and depend on these dramatic elements: “ex-

position, complication, climax and dénouement” (2008:54). The Kemp documentaries

often follow the same dramatic structure for each episode: the situation is introduced,

next we become aware of the complications that arise from gang activities searching

for the reasons why the culture is so prevalent, Kemp attempts to make contact with

a powerful gang leader as a climatic point of the adventure and it all comes to an

end- observing the knowledge gained in retrospect whilst Kemp makes his conclu-

sions.

Each time the team makes to investigate a particular situation, they have a specific

structure in mind but what if adhering to this specific structure could also mean that

their investigative techniques and approach remain constant. If each situation is

unique, using the same approach to every story could result in loosing out on garner-

ing information specific to each situation.

5.ACTORS AND THE OBJECTS THEY COME IN TO CONTACT WITH

When critiquing the episode Ross kemp on Gangs: Kenya Special (Philipson 2008),

Simuyi (2009) makes light of this tendency to approach a situation with an already set

perspective and goals to be achieved which that results in what she terms a skewed

investigation (2009:[sp]). Unsatisfied with the Kemp teams approach to investigating

the matter and being a native of kenya herself, in her article Ross Kemp on a Kenyan

Gang: Mungiki (2009:[sp]) she begins to unravel the teams failed and biased investig-

ative techniques, stating that “his know it all attitude of interrupting everything his

subjects are saying to give his thoughts on what they are trying to say makes him

lose information”. In the documentaries, Philipson at times chooses not to dwell on

the political situations of each county to the extent that they expose institutional influ-

ence of the gang culture- this he may do, only when it suits him.

Simuyi further goes on to identify how his selection of interviewees and his approach

to certain authorities such as policing institutions is negatively influenced by what

seems to be his already biased attitude to the Kenyan investigation. The Kemp docu-

mentaries which lean towards sensationalism and action-packed footage, such as is

seen in Ross Kemp on Gangs: East Timor (Philipson), he chooses to move to an-

other area of the city as the policing and military authorities have subdues any viol-

ence that might occur, stating “Trouble seems to melt away when the GNR arrives so

we moved on to another part”.

By comparing Kemp’s his investigative technique in the particular episode with his

methods of investigation in others, Simuyi contrasts how the teams ideological stance

results in certain parties being denied fair exposure. Simuyi (2009:[sp]) finally con-

cludes

In a 90 minutes documentary, the police have only been given less than a minute... No victims of the gang are interviewed... It is a documentary groping in the dark, trying to tie in un-related sensational elements, lacks objectivity, gives misleading information as facts, and ends up painting a gang as more sinned against that sinning, simply because Kemp cavorted with them exclusively. It ranks as one of those documentaries... in the "how not to make a factual docu-mentary" class.

By diving in to the situation expecting to follow the same procedures and receive the same

support from institutional authorities resulted in the investigative team experiencing what

they felt was a brick wall. Attempting to interview policing authorities when they are at-

tempting to subdue a violent situation resulted in their questions being rejected. There-

fore, the team spent more time garnering information from parties who were more easily

available, thus the conclusions made on the situation in Kenya were informed from a

group of select people, the outcome being an exclusive investigation and a subjective

viewpoint.

Here, we have an individual, Simuyi, highly involved and informed in the reality of the situ-

ation of the pro-filmic world, who gains a platform on which to restructure the film reality,

this type of restructuring is usually only kept specially for the filmmaker (Allen 1991:105).

Considering the fact that a large amount of the information the Kemp team obtains come

from interviews with individuals involved in the reality in a specific manner, the information

and evidence obtained is of a biased nature.

The interviews Kemp undertakes are with what Kracauer calls non-actors pointing to the

“unstaged nature and his function as raw material” (1961:98). Here, the idea of naturalism

is suitable to describe the conditions by which individuals are constructed in the Kemp

series. Kracauer describes how film audiences have become acquainted with and expect

to relate to the camera portraying “nature in the raw” (1961:94). Given that the individuals

Kemp interviews are not trained for or accustomed to camera presentation, their manner

on the film screen may be said to fall in with a style of naturalism.

Therefore, the gestures and manner of these individuals when faced with a camera results

in spontaneous action (Kracauer 1961:98). This adds to the authentic goals of the series,

showing ‘real people in real places’- the question is simply which particular people in which

particular places. The spontaneity derived from filming individuals in non-scripted situ-

ations adds to the verisimilitude of each Kemp episode, therefore aiding in convincing the

viewer that what they are witnessing is real.

If every social actor plays their role in the documentaries when juxtaposed with Kemp’s

eloquent and precise speaking style, the viewer begins to believe that each individual is

real and not simply a payed actor. For Bazin, the cinema of the real automatically registers

the real world, recording what is really there, therefore reinforcing the spectators belief in

the authenticity of the film image (Andrew 1976:138).

By interviewing individuals within their natural environments, within an authentic reality, the

real nature of these individuals, that is the conformation of their actual involvement in such

activity is all the more convincing. Andrew expresses that cinema “registers the spatiality

of the objects and the space they inhabit” (1976:138), if the film representation occurs

within a natural setting, spontaneously and with real people, then little may be said to

question the authenticity of what is seen.

On the non-actor, Kracauer identifies the documentary films essential link and what he

calls “preference” to “real people” on the film screen as they are closely interrelated

(1961:99). Through Philipson’s use of varying individuals who together describe a syn-

onymous environment of gang activities, the viewer is moved to accept the information im-

parted through natural representation, repetition and reinforcement.

To describe the use of real people Kracauer refers to “typage” which he describes as “the

resource to people who are part and parcel of that reality and can be considered typical of

of it” (1961:99). The “typage” of the individuals mostly interviewed in the series are gang

members, family members of the gang members, members of policing and military institu-

tions and individuals who perform social work in the volatile communities.

The descriptions made by the news footage seen, policing and militant groups who aim to

alleviate the violence in the given areas and individuals who are personally involved in one

way or another with the gang members and activities all relate to one another. Con-

sequently, it is not only Kemp’s words that we are expected to believe to be true but the

words of the real social agents interviewed. By reinforcing each others statements, the

evidence supplied by the documentary then seems to be true and factual.

The gestures of the interviewees in front of the camera further points to a naturalness or

what Kracauer terms “casualness”, referring to the portrayal of an unstaged

reality(1961:95). The style in which interviews are conducted- in moving vehicles, in open

streets- and the manner in which these ‘type’ social actors are filmed- wearing balaclavas,

within their personalised environment, in dark alleys- adds to the naturalness and the real-

ness of what is seen. Although some of the gang members presented in the film appear to

violent to be true, the images and evidence of violent weapons and reinforcement of their

statements by authoritative figures, solidifies their statements.

For example, in the episode Ross kemp on Gangs: Belize (Philipson 2008), Corporal

Lonsworth of the Anti-Gang Unit describes how gangs in Belize City operate with heavy

machinery such as explosives, AK47s and AR15s. This is then followed by a clip of a tele-

vision news report, of the same news anchor the viewer has become accustomed to see-

ing in the episode, reporting on the explosion of a hand grenade in Belize City.

Later on in the episode, Kemp is on his way to an unknown location, having made contact

with a local gang who have promised to show them the kind of weapons used in the gang

wars. Unexpectedly Kemp appears before the camera holding a Nato Hand-Grenade.

Bazin, understanding that the object which the camera portrays is simply an impression or

fingerprint of the real object, points to the authentic re-representation of said object (An-

drew 1976:140). The image of the grenade in Kemp’s hands has a definite existence in the

real world, it exists complete outside the world of the film much like the gangsters and

other individuals interviewed. In this way, the information the viewer receives is constantly

reinforced by individuals who form part of the reality of Belize City.

In the shot of Kemp holding the grenade, we see him in a “straight record”, this simplicity,

the plain way in which he is filmed further moves to create an authentic image, taking on

the form of a “matter-of-fact account” (Kracauer (1961:203). However, Kracauer explains

that this simplistic shooting style is not the only manner in which documentary realities

may be conveyed, more personal portrayals of the pro-filmic world are also of use to the

documentary director(1961:203).

In the series simplistic record is combined with artistic representation, this creates a work

of film which holds authority in its professional execution. At one time the automative qual-

ity of the camera is reinforced in that it simply records what it sees whilst the “desire for a

perfect representation of reality” that Bazin claims is the aim of developments in film tech-

nology is reached (Andrew 1976:139).

The use of non-actors, real people in the film who constantly come in to contact with

Kemp, our constant, once more add verisimilitude to the world portrayed in the film. How-

ever, Andrew (1976:139) explicates that

For Bazin every photograph begins to affect us with a primitive psychological impetus derived from the fact that is is linked to the image it represents by means of a photo-chemical transference of visual properties. If we notice that the photo has been touched up after the fact or that the objects represented were tampered with before the fact, some of the psychological impetus will be lost.

Many of the interviews Kemp conducts in the series are with individuals who do not speak

English. In the episode Ross Kemp on Gangs: El Salvador, MS 13 (Philipson 2007) he

uses an interpreter to speak to the interviewees but in Ross Kemp on Gangs: Columbia

(Philipson 2007) there is no interpreter. In the latter, Kemp interviews a gang member

without a translator (the same language is spoken in both countries), this is not the only

time this happens in the series.

At times, interviews are edited in such a way that shows a lapse of time between the ques-

tion asked and the answer, this gives the interviews the appearance of being staged, tak-

ing away from the authenticity of the interviews. What is most striking is the that Kemp and

his crew are able to gain the trust of gangsters who tell their stories on camera for the

world to see, this also draws to question the authenticity of the interviews.

Allen, when speaking on the anthropological documentary talks of the selecting process of

the film images, stating that what the viewer is witnessing and experiencing is “not so

much a visual truth (the filmic document) as a verbal and conceptual one” (1991:104).

As most of kemp’s interviewees are conducted with gang members who carry with them

heavy weapons such as guns and rifles and are riddled with tattoos proclaiming the names

of the gangs mentioned in the episode, the construction of the gang member is accurate.

There is violence committed by gang members in various countries but given Kemp’s re-

peated easy access to these gang members, one has to question the authenticity of these

alleged gang members. Some interviewees appear out of nowhere, confess to murder and

then disappear once again in to the world under investigation. This seems to good to be

true.

When observing Deborah Patta in her investigations on Third Degree, she informs the

viewer of the path taken and the manner in which she gains access to her subjects, per-

haps explaining that after many attempts individuals finally agree to an interview. Kemp

does at times state that interviews lined up for him have been cancelled due to fear of be-

ing exposed or at times individuals cut interviews short due to fear of exposure but most of

the time is successful. However, when observing the Kemp series, the viewer is com-

pletely unaware of how these gangs are contacted, and how they are convinced to spill the

beans to Mr. Kemp.

6.THE SPOKEN WORD

One of the functions of an interview is to draw information out of the interviewees as con-

cisely and descriptively as possible. Yet, with no visible interpreter, and such a willingness

to expose the operations of their gangs one wonders as to the authenticity of the supposed

gang members in the Kemp series.

On language in the documentary film, Ohlin (1998:128) believes that every human has a

story to tell, drawing from Perrault he states that

And all people have something to say: ‘It is totally inconceivable that a human being would not have anything to say, It doesn’t happen. It all just depends on the questions that you ask him, on the space that you make available to him... And if you find a favourable space, you will get, in reply, his words his spoken language.’ Thus the camera not only produces a documentary record of an event but establishes a kind of liberated territory within which the individual is free to express and develop himself.

Now we stand at the question, if news media exists in these countries, and the media

means opening gangs and gang members up to exposure, then why would these individu-

als have such trust in opening up themselves to Kemp and his crew. Perhaps it can be

said that a platform is provided for these gang members to tell their stories, not for news

reporters or police officers or other institutional figures to tell their stories for them.

If death is the ultimate and inevitable end for a gangsters life, then perhaps it would suit

such an individual to leave a world mark of their existence: of their hardships, struggles,

power and ability to kill with little thought. However, many of the interviewees are young,

either forced to join a gang or feeling that it is necessary for survival, such as in the epis-

ode Ross Kemp on Gangs: Columbia (Philipson 2007). Some seem brainwashed by ideo-

logies they themselves are unable to explicate fully such as is seen by the Polish, racially

motivated gangs in Ross Kemp on Gangs: Poland (Philipson 2007).

Many of the subjects are not what appears to be high-ranking members of the gangs, who

strictly adhere to a code of sworn silence. Although, in the Belize episode, Kemp says to

have made contact with “a leading figure of George Street, the most feared gang in Bel-

ize”, on the interview, Kemp himself comments “I’m surprised by Jason’s honesty”. It is this

kind of self-reflexivity that knowingly or unknowingly calls to question the legitimacy of the

film world.

Allen speaks of self-reflexivity in documentary films, describing it as “any aspect of a film

which points to toward its own procedures of production... By presenting them self-reflex-

ively, a documentary film can make an audience aware of the processes of production as

a limitation on the films neutral stance” (1991:103). The commentary which Kemp provides

on the interviews, as is seen in other episodes, also points to the constructed nature of

what is seen.

By constructing interviews as a fluid conversation and responding to what the subjects say

through gestures which signify Kemp’s understanding of what is being said, Kemp under-

mines and subverts his own work. It seems, unknowingly, for Allen unpacks self-reflexivity

as a conscious effort, for “one would not expect to see documentary self-reflexivity in

areas which audiences accept professional authority and expertise in the absence of their

own” (1991:104).

7.CONCLUSION

The Ross kemp on Gangs (Philipson 2006; 2007a; 2007b; 2007c; 2008a; 2008b) series

whilst recording new environments in new light, bringing an unseen actuality to the the

television screen does so in a manner that is superficial. On the study of human subjects

within the realm of television, recognising the constructed nature of the programmes she

has studied Robertson (2005:52) identifies that “What was significant and had meaning

was chosen according to a set of criteria that exist outside of what was being filmed”.

Whilst the Kemp documentaries reveal truths, the truths revealed are selected according

to the criteria and desired structure of the show. In this regard, Millar and Reisz speak of

the selective filming process of the documentary film, in which the footage filmed must

lend itself to the ultimate desires of the director, stating that “the editing process must be-

gin long before the film reaches the cutting rooms” (1968:125). The focus being the violent

effects of gang culture and the reasons why the culture is so prevalent, the material selec-

ted and presented on the screen is aimed at fulfilling only these aims in a sensational man-

ner. Although the team do have the right to select material so as to advance their pur-

poses, it must be noted that it is only for the above mentioned purposes that the investiga-

tions ensue.

What must then be understood is that the truth seen is a selective truth and that the sub-

jects who enlighten the viewer are selected for the impact their words will have on the

viewing public, again taking from Robertson (2005:52), film material such as this is “pack-

aged in terms of televisions own frame work of understanding”. Packaged to shock, to at-

tract viewers episode after episode.

Kracauer furthers the notion of the documentary director who may “yield to an urge to pic-

ture reality in the light of his views and visions. His formative impulses will then prompt him

to select the natural material according to his inner images, to shape it with the aid of the

techniques available to him” (1961:203). Therefore, it would be necessary for the Kemp

team to ensure that the material photographed from each environment would fulfil the ex-

pectations of the viewing audience time after time.

The team then approaches each environment with an already set idea of what is to be

filmed- of what type of knowledge is to be gathered and which authoritative figures are

needed in order to authenticate the images the film presents to the viewer. The use of

montage is of special use in the Kemp documentaries, on the meaning making of mont-

age, Bazin says “the creation of a sense or meaning not proper to the images themselves

but derived exclusively from their juxtaposition” (1967::127) is what is seen, a reality se-

lectively constructed for the viewer.

Although success is garnered in creating an authentic environment, the evidence supplied

comes in to question. Yes these communities are plagued by violence and yes a gang cul-

ture exists and the prevalence of these cultures is authentically portrayed on the screen,

revealing a particular reality to the viewer. Yet, in spite of that, Bazin explains of language

of cinema that “Through the contents of the image and the resources of montage, the

cinema has at its disposal a whole arsenal of means whereby to impose its interpretation

of an event on the spectator” (1967:127)

8.SOURCES CONSULTED

Allen, J. 1991. Self-reflexivity in documentary, in Exploration in film theory. Selected es-says from ciné-tracts, edited by R Burnett. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press: 103-110.

Andrew, JD. 1976. The major film theories. London: Oxford University Press.

Bazin, A. 1967. What is cinema. Translated by Gray H. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bernard, SC.2007. documentary storytelling: Making stronger and more dramatic nonfic-tion films. Oxford: Focal Press.

Boggs, D & Petrie, W. 2008. The art of watching films. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Burnett, R (ed). 1991. Exploration in film theory. Selected essays from cine-tracts. Indiana-polis: Indiana University Press.

Grimshaw, A & Ravetz, A (eds). 2005. Visualizing Anthropology. United Kingdom: Intellect.

Kracauer, S. 1961. Nature of film. London: Dennis Dobson.

Macdonald K, & Mark C. 1998. Imagining reality: The faber book of documentary. London: Faber and Faber.

Millar, G & Reisz, K (eds). 1968. The technique of film editing. Second edition. Cornwall: Hartnolls.

Monaco, J. 2009. How to read a film. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ohlin, P. 1998. Film as word: Question of language and documentary realism, in Imagining reality: The faber book of documentary, edited by K Macdonald & C Mark. London: Faber and Faber.

Philipson, A. 2006. Ross Kemp on Gangs: Rio De Janeiro. [Video Recording]. United King-dom: Sky One.

Philipson, A. 2007a. Ross Kemp on Gangs: Columbia. [Video Recording]. United King-dom: Sky One.

Philipson, A. 2007b. Ross Kemp on Gangs: El Salvador. [Video Recording]. United King-dom: Sky One.

Philipson, A. 2007c. Ross Kemp on Gangs: Poland. [Video Recording]. United Kingdom: Sky One.

Philipson, A. 2008a. Ross Kemp on Gangs: Belize. [Video Recording]. United Kingdom: Sky One.

Philipson, A. 2008b. Ross Kemp on Gangs: Kenya Special. [Video Recording]. United Kingdom: Sky One.

Platinga, C. 2005. What a documentary is after all. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art and Criticism. 62(3), Spring”106-117.

Robertson, R. 2005. Seeing is believing: An ethnographer’s encounter with television doc-umentary, in Visualizing Anthropology, edited by A Grimshaw & A Ravetz. United King-dom: Intellect: 42-54.

Simiyu B. 2009. Ross Kemp on a Kenyan Gang: Mungiki. [O]. Availablehttp://www.kenyaimagine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2977&catid=268:society&Itemid=226Accessed 21 July 2011.