Even though Culloden's mockumentary format was more akin to a Monty Python production than most of the BBC's work, its use of interviews had the distinct feeling of realism.
Considering that the topic took place in the 1700's, Director Peter Watkins wisely chose to infuse modern elements like documentary style question/answer segments along with battlefield commentary from the sidelines.
As the film wrapped up, it became apparent that it was the gritty handheld camera work, and extremely close shots amidst exploding bullets that made the viewers feel like they were actually there. The interviews actually provided an intimacy that would have otherwise been lost.
3 comments:
I agree, the camera played more like a character than a camera and one could argue that character is the most important and influential in the film, which is kind of a paradox since it's the most impossible and inauthentic element of the film - yet it is vital.
I think what also gave it a sense of realism, was the use of narration to give technical details of the battle, such as time, death count, and who these people were (as we see their worn, tired faces).
Eli Horne has the right idea. His Culloden article explains simply and clearly how the audience gets wrapped up in what is going on, even though they know that what they are seeing is staged.
Post a Comment