InstructionIf the film is a documentary, is it factual, instructional, persuasive, or propaganda—or a blend of two or more of these documentary approaches? Consider the movie's relationship with the spectator and with relative truth. Does it appear to be attempting to present events and ideas in as objective a manner as is cinematically possible, or does it make a specific persuasive argument? What elements of form or content lead you to this conclusion? Look for ways in which the documentary employs narrative. Are the events portrayed selected and organized so they tell a story? Ask yourself how this movie compares to other documentary films you've seen. Think about your formal expectations of nonfiction movies: talkinghead interviews, voice-over narration, archival footage, and so on. Does this movie conform to those expectations? If not, how does it convey information and meaning in ways that are different from a typical documentary? Do you notice anything particular about the movie's presentation of cinematic space? What do you see on the screen? Lots of landscapes or close-ups? Moving or static camera? Does the director manipulate viewers' experience of time? Is this condensing, slowing, speeding, repeating, or reordering of time simply practical (as in removing insignificant events) or is it expressive? If it is expressive, just what does it express? Does the director's use of lighting help to create meaning? If so, how? Do you identify with the camera lens? What does the director compel you to see? What is left to your imagination? What does the director leave out altogether? In the end, besides showing you the action, how does the director's use of the camera help to create the movie's meaning?