The director of a documentary film is a lot of things to the story being covered or the subject matter/topic being addressed. She is the film’s narrator and driver, and the catalyst in asking the right questions, seeking the right materials and finding the right shots for the film. Different film directors take different approaches to constructing their specific documentaries and these approaches are filled with unique styles and forms. Different styles and different forms are inspired by the director to convey the theme to the film and all its elements as well as the overall message to their storyline. One of the more favored stylistic approaches popular and not-so-popular documentary filmmakers utilize is the omniscient narrator. The omniscient narrator is when the director takes on an on-camera role greatly evolving the traditional role of a documentary film director who exclusively guides the film behind the camera. Here, the omniscient narrator asserts herself as a subject in the film driving the storyline to fruition. Catching the subject matter and all its important cast of characters in unison with the flow of the film makes the omniscient narrator a key contributing factor to documentary film storytelling. Similar to narrative storytelling in a novel—the first person omniscient—plays the role of the narrator who is inserted as a character in the story but omniscient enough to know the thoughts and feelings of all the other major and minor characters.

The role and tendency of the omniscient narrator was popularized from news broadcast of a television reporter or investigative journalist who appear in front of the camera to tell a sudden news storyline with intros and outros to the video. In some rare cases—in the beginning—the reporter/investigative journalist asserts himself into the news story by interacting with witnesses and digging up key evidence and discovering important facts for viewers tuning in. The tendency to use the omniscient narrator spilled into documentary film genre. With the documentary film works of Michael Moore, Nick Broomfield, Morgan Spurlock, and others the omniscient narrator became a dominant attribute in the genre used in covering a specific subject matter and telling a personable and relatable story. The award-winning English documentary filmmaker Nick Broomfield was the first to take this style of storytelling to the next level. Broomfield usually works with a minimal crew, recording sound himself and using one or two camera operators. He is often seen in the finished film, usually holding the sound boom and wearing the Nagra tape recorder. In his films Broomfield interacts with his characters in one-on-one scenarios in a personable approach asking intimate questions and seeking key elements to the story—evidence or commentary—rather than being the curious onlooker as a director peripheral to the story and its theme. It is for this “self-reflexive” film-making style—a film being about the making of itself as much as its about the subject—that Nick Broomfield is best known. His influence on documentary is clear since Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock have all adopted a similar style for their documentary film box-office hits. Filmmakers who use this style have even been referred in likeness to to the gonzo reporting style of Hunter S. Thompson. Broomfield’s metadocumentary approach in covering biopics greatly enhanced story-driven concepts vital to a documentary film in not only the impact of the storyline but the flow to a film itself in keeping auidence members engaged and entertained. In watching a Nick Broomfield-directed documentary a viewer feels he’s part of his journey of discovery and part of his probing work in deconstructing the film’s storyline.

It’s hard to see the omniscient narrator not being utilized in television news broadcast today. Nearly all TV reporters first appear on camera and report their topic with the camera following the reporter asking the hard questions and involving themselves in the report as a concerned investigator and probing correspondent. Along with her voice-over narration the reporter becomes a key character in the story being covered—if not, personally but intricately. The documentary filmmaker in recent times have employed this same methodology of storytelling when covering a hot topic, popular subject matter, or personable narrative. For them its not enough that the story tells itself but that there exists an outside engagement to stir the audience and one in which those same audience members can relate. Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock specifically carries themselves as “a typcial American” from American surburbia concerned by the specifics plights of the U.S. They seek their documentary film story with national pride and the best interest of their country in mind through their theme and message—whatever their political persuasions lean. This ethos of the documentary filmmaker adds to the dimension of the omnisicient, narrative storytelling process. In his Oscar-winning documentary film, Bowling For Columbine, Michael Moore presents himself as the voyeuristic character seeking an answer to America’s growing problem of gun control. His assertion as the ominiscient narrator to the film carries the storyline as the activist-on-foot asking the necessary and unpopular questions to politicians, lobbyists, and corporate leaders taking advantage of guns being sold and used in middle America. Morgan Spurlock in his Academy-Award nominated documentary film, Super Size Me, plays the omniscient role to its upmost respect when he takes on the challenge of eating exclusively McDonalds food for 30 days—while the audience members follows throughout his journey. Engagement, intrigue, and emotion all play in effect in the role of the onminsicient narrator—all key attributes to any storyline seeking an audience to relate, understand, and imbibe in.

Not all popular and less-than popular documentary filmmakers take on the omniscient narrator role in telling their film’s story. Errol Morris, Alex Gibney, Michael Kirk, Ken Burns, Barbara Kopple, Kirby Dick, Charles Ferguson, Kevin MacDonald and even Spike Lee all remain in the traditional role of the behind-the-scene director to their documentaries. Morris and Gibney may employ the “off-the-camera questioner” interacting with their cast of characters in on-camera, sit-down interviews but this is rather minimal in becoming a character to a film. Part of the motivation to use the omniscient narrator to a documentary film is to also add to the film’s appeal and marketability in endorsing its celebrity director in the likes of Moore and Spurlock for example. In fact, Michael Moore has created for himself the image and persona of a political pundit who uses the platform of documentary films in expressing his sociopolitical views.

From a distance documentary filmmaking and journalism can seem to be in contrast with one another from details of content, method of distribution, and the motivation to produce such specific works. But upon closer introspection and study the two endeavors overlap in many ways. If the term documentary is defined as any form of material used to communicate, document, and cover a real-life actual event, era, life story, etc. with factual accounts containing no fictional elements than journalism in many ways follows in that same vein and pursuit to truth. Reporting in the field of journalism is the attempt to document impartially the who, what, where, when, why, and how of a given topic, story or subject matter. Here, both endeavors in documentary filmmaking and journalism are investigative and motivated by matters of the truth. The difference comes between the two endeavors in the amount of content given, the turnaround time in production, the motivation in distributing such content and materials to a given audience of viewers/readers, the degree of neutrality and objectivity, and last (but certainly not least)–the tendency in doing art.

Documentary filmmakers are inspired like that of a philanthropist or an activist bent on tackling a complex issue, raising awareness on a problem for available solution(s), or plainly inspired for social, economic or political change. He or she in their pursuit of constructing a documentary film may be more moved in ways larger than just documenting a storyline or narrating a real-life drama. A meaning to the story and the importance in revealing the motif to the story is of high priority to the documentary filmmaker. This tilts or expands the degree of work in content building, story-telling, and distribution documentary filmmakers accomplish in contrast to journalists. On the other hand journalists are simply reporters out in the field determined to cover a storyline or real-life drama in one avenue of expression that prominently centers on the facts. A journalist’s motto would be: “Facts no commentary.” Journalists—depending on their method and access to distribution—are not exclusively motivated or inspired in the emotional telling of the story or any teaching/preaching moment of a lesson and motif germane to their storyline. Journalists aren’t working to give his or her audience a means to how to think about a given story. They are essentially there to give to his or her audience what to think about.

If journalist expands their area of expertise from print publication for distribution in his or her work into areas like video/film or television broadcast than the lines may blur to how “investigative” a reporter or journalist are in the likes of a documentary filmmaker. In other words, with new and popularly-growing 21^st century terms like a “photojournalist” “video journalist”, “multimedia journalism” and “digital communication” a journalist based on his or her motivation and inspiration and the amount/level of content ready for distribution can produce work that can, in fact, be parallel to that of a documentary filmmaker and his or her work. With the advent of rapidly growing digital technology, the popular growth in social media platforms, and the high importance in including the Millennial Generation different methods through digital video has changed the ever-shifting landscape in reporting the news and documenting the “Truth” to such a degree where traditional job descriptions of a journalist and documentary filmmaker no longer hold up. Moreover, in order to keep the attention span of a younger generation groomed in the digital world documentary filmmakers are constantly going back and forth in long-form to short-form content to telling their stories and inspiring their call to raising awareness.

Is a 30-minute investigation special on MSNBC purely a journalist at work or an example of a documentary short? Can the approach in production and editing an ESPN documentary be the same in CNN’s approach to cover a news topic? Are full-length documentaries on PBS Frontline not something a journalist can do especially if the documentaries follow the same method to reporting? Does journalism depend entirely on turnaround time of a given work or a TRT (Total Running Time) of the output of a given work? How much of journalism differs with documentary filmmaking based on the creative control and involvement both the producer and reporter have in their work(s)? Is it important in identifying if not creating a dichotomy between journalism and documentary filmmaking? To answer the latter question—the two endeavors may be argued for contrast to the degree of what motivates a given work to be produced and then eventually distributed. Long-form documentaries—depending on the budget—usually take 2-10 years to complete for the purposes of following a storyline for a thorough, balanced and focused narrative. Separate from producing today’s reality television shows with fast cuts, snippets of soundbites from sit-down, on-camera interviews tightly juxtaposed in the edit of a given episode, and multiple camera angles capturing real life moments—documentary films usually blend with the characters of a story as they follow a subject matter to such an important degree that the camera itself becomes a window to the story—through the cinéma vérité style. This makes documentary filmmaking deeper and more conscious. Journalist in using the video camera moves at a different pace, methodology, and motivation. He or she sees their content as “making air not art”—where timing is vital. A given turnaround time for a broadcast journalist may be in fact a couple of weeks if not days. This method in reporting will then require a different style to the one whose putting together a documentary film. More, importantly a journalist is more pressed with time in execution where the reward is in telling the story at the onset of its problem, popularity, and value. The reward in the documentary filmmaker is documenting a balanced subject matter in raising awareness on a given subject matter and producing film art—which incorporates emotion, feeling, and inspiration that comes with any and all artistic expressions. Journalists are reporters while documentary filmmakers are artists.

Art is a big factor in what documentary filmmakers do which is surprisingly often overlooked by the lay public as well as “experts” in the field. Creativity is what drives the director in telling a strong narrative and documenting a specific issue through film language. Symbolic imagery where the camera catches things, people, and occurrences on camera as a symbolic representations of the style of the story being told is a fundamental aspect to documentary film artists at work. Art takes documentary filmmaking to a different avenue and degree than video journalism where being impartial to story content is an unwritten rule. Art doesn’t necessarily hinder the objectivity and engrossing element to documentaries it only enhances the way the story is told and the way the issue(s) is being addressed. That focus in doing art takes a viewer into a world that they may not have entered otherwise. This essentially makes television or film documentaries much different that long extended news packages done in feature-length time.

However, objectivity and neutrality can always blur in any media platform—especially a media platform motivated in making money. Here, documentary filmmakers are no more immune to this reality than journalists are. One can argue that the notion of 100% objectivity in the sense of a reporter or documentarian who is simply on the outside looking in as a way of finding out what’s going on and highlighting the importance of the story is a mirage. It’ll be better in this sake for either person to come at an angle in telling a story or arguing a point no different than what one might read in a nonfiction book or expository essay. Journalist in comparison to a documentary filmmaker can get away with this more easily if he or she is out in the field in a limited time frame covering a hot topic that needs to go out to air or in publication. There isn’t enough time to spin a story or produce a work that critics and viewers may argue is propaganda within that structure. However, it is important to note that there is growing popularity and constant attention put on pontificating commentary where op-ed columns, editorials, lively pundits, and blogs get weighed upon more than factual reporting and political journalism. Documentary filmmakers exclusively operate in one angle of a given subject matter or narrative however subtly it is portrayed and conveyed. For example, Ken Burns’ historical documentaries on PBS usually affirms the belief in American exceptionalism and deep American national pride—whether it be in an anthology of the Civil War, Jazz music or National Parks or biographical documentaries on Mark Twain and Thomas Jefferson. The best documentary filmmakers do in regard to the level of objectivity is to keep it subtle where facts are not construed with commentary, the documentaries are thorough in research and provide valuable information and both sides of an issue or problem are represented and addressed in the film.

Journalism and documentary films overlap in production value, focus on truth, methodology of approach and the gathering of information and research. The two endeavors differ in distribution method, time frame of execution, level and degree of content and the motivation and inspiration in making art and news. The degree in raising awareness and reaching close to the Truth—with the capital T—is what delivers value in both endeavors. Both endeavors can be painstaking in information gathering and research, dangerous in going into the field and working on certain contentious subject matter and issues, and both require much diligence and determination to perform especially in their respective fields that are currently undergoing measures of significant downsizing due to economics and growing technology.