Surrendering to the narrative - how does Stories We Tell construct a highly manipulative mode of address?

To what extent do we agree with the following statement: when we watch a film, we surrender to the will of the director, and allow ourselves to be emotionally manipulated 

What examples can we think of?

Why do we emotionally surrender? 

Is this an admission that directors have full control over us? 

And if so, what implications does this have? 

• Uncut Gems - bad decisions: the movie. Adam Sandler's constant bad decisions spiral in to an almost unwatchable collection of scenes, which makes the audience question if they are even enjoying it.
• Aristotle: all narrative is conflict 
• The Iron Giant - absolute misery! A highly manipulative story, involving the delightful character dying at the end of the narrative. A noble sacrifice for the greater good, which forces the young target audience to negotiate their own response. Is it morally justified making a film solely to make children cry?
• Whiplash - anxiety. Unrelenting, extended scenes of shouting, intense editing, and extended emotional intensity...
• Rocky IV - pain, indignation, hatred, anger, joy, elation, revenge!

Is manipulation a valid theatrical technique, or is it wholly unethical? And if so, how do ethics factor in to the documentary we have studied?

Yes, manipulation is a valid technique! But, as an audience, we allow it! The intense emotions that films present us not only allow us an escape from our own mundane experience, but they also more real than real life. 

Playing with diegesis 

Diegesis - the world of the narrative

In classical Hollywood cinema, what is diegetically explicated (as in, what is part of the world of the narrative), and what is non-diegetic is usually made clear to the audience. For example, in the Harry Potter franchise, despite the films featuring fantasy elements such as spells and monsters, we realise that the Harry Potter theme-tune is non-diegetic sound. It is not part of the world, and it cannot be heard by the characters. Additional examples of non-diegetic elements include the opening titles, which clearly and obviously do not exist in the world of Harry Potter. Harry Potter cannot see the name of the film floating in the sky. This is silly.

However, some films and other media products deliberately confuse the nature of diegesis. By way of example, Studio Trigger's subversive and chaotic anime Kill-La-Kill will often introduce characters and concepts with enormous red on screen graphics. This is vibrant and dynamic, yet also pretty conventional. Yet the show subverts the diegetic expectations of the audience by actually having the text as a physical entity within the show that characters can interact with. In the below image, the arch villain Harime Nui is seen leaning on her own name! This subversion of diegetic expectations isn't just for humour; it allows the producer to explicate exactly how powerful she is an an antagonist. She has the power to bend the narrative of the show itself, as well as the conventions of film making. 

Stories We Tell is arguably just as extreme as the above example in subverting the rules of the diegetic world that we might expect to see in a documentary. And like the above example, it does so in a playful, fascinating and meaningful way that will delight spectators.

Using micro elements to subvert diegetic elements

Sarah Polley inserts herself in to the narrative of her own documentary, subverting our expectation of diegetic continuity and the nature of reality itself. Here, in a highly complicated yet satisfying image, we see Polley filming Super 8 inserts for the documentary Stories We Tell, as part of the narrative of the documentary Stories We Tell. This 'story within a story' conceit is referred to as mise-en-abyme 

Each of the above films use micro elements to construct a clear sense of diegesis. However, Stories We Tell shatters the diegesis using micro elements throughout its runtime

How does this scene blur both the boundaries of diegesis, and the 'sacred' boundary of the interviewer/interviewee? (scene can be found at about 16 minutes in to film) What techniques does it use?

• Stories We Tell uses a complex combination of micro elements in order to present a complex yet ultimately satisfying narrative to the target audience
• Three separate Michael's a presented in this scene: the young Michael, played by an actor (??) seen in Super 8 style flashback footage, Michael in classic interviewee mode, facing the camera in a direct address in a mid shot (highly conventional of documentaries), and the third Michael, recording a voiceover for the documentary Stories We Tell. The director is playing with diegesis in a highly confusing, yet highly satisfying way
• A voiceover in a documentary typically take the role of an authoritative and expository mode. The tone of Michael Polley's voice is quintessentially, stereotypically British, and therefore stereotypically connotes authority, class and sophistication. It is highly conventional of the documentary genre.
• However, Sarah interrupts her own father to ask him to redeliver a line, which ultimately removes his authority as a narrator. Other confusing elements include the fact that Michael is reading his own book in third person. 
• In flashback ,the olde time music creates a sentimental and nostalgic mode of address. However, this genre of music is completely inappropriate to the era, however, it is entirely appropriate at constructing a sense of time and place.
• Use of talking heads, mid shots of real people discussing real events directly to the camera, highly conventional of the documentary genre. Elements of MES in the background of Michael's talking head shot include a mug of tea, an open packet of cigarettes, keyboard... these elements of MES combine to construct Michael's character
• In the voiceover shots, Michael is dressed completely differently, is putting on a more professional voice, and surrounded with the mise-en-scene of professional recording equipment
• We cut to a long shot of the very studio where the film is being recorded that situates Sarah roughly in the middle of the shot, and surrounded withy the MERS of the complicated and professional recording equipment. This shot completely breaks the diegesis and indeed the fourth wall of the narrative. Sarah literally interrupts the narrative, quietly asking "dad can you take that line back". By leaving the mistakes in the film, Sarah Polley serves to highlight the fact that everyone is capable of making mistakes. Far from being an alienating technique, it serves to humanise the film's diverse cast of characters.
• Sarah increasingly inserts herself in to the story of her father as the film progresses. After interrupting him as he is reading out his book
• Later footage shows Sarah filming with an old fashioned super 8 camera around Michael's apartment, which not only makes clear to the audience that the super 8 footage in the film is largely shot for the documentary, it also constructs an interesting contradiction. Sarah is being filmed making a documentary, as part of her own documentary
• Mise en abyme narrative structure, a framing device. This ridiculously complicated narrative device reinforces the complexity of the story of the Polleys. it also reinforces the fact that this is a voyeuristic look in to the complexities of a completely different family, told apparently in their own words.
• Stories We Tell uses complex narrative and cinematographic techniques not to alienate the audience, but to draw them in, to a warm, conflicting, confusing, yet ultimately pleasurable series of events. Ultimately, we as spectators are forced to surrender to the emotional manipulation of the director