Documentary Narrative Styles and Cults

Holy Hell (2016), Children of God (1994), and Jonestown: Paradise Lost (2007) are three documentaries that present three different yet similar stories about cults. Each documentary exposes the deceit, corruption, mind-control tactics, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse present in all three cults. Each documentary drives its story along in three differing styles, and this post is going to explore those styles.

Holy Hell is told from an “I-perspective” — the story within the documentary is driven along according to the documentary makers Point-of-View. This means Will Allen the director, writer, and narrator of Holy Hell tells his story of his experience in the Buddhafield cult. Allen narrates the story using first person nouns; he uses interviews to support his points, rather than to drive the story, and he tailors the story to his own preference.

There are strengths and weakness to this style in Holy Hell. The first and by far the most powerful strength is how relatable this style can be. The story is not being presented by some emotionally disconnected and omnipotent narrator, but rather through the eyes of one of the chief participants of the cult. There is no filter on what the narrator says or feels. The viewer is in the shoes of the narrator so an emotional connection can develop for the viewer that would otherwise not be there. Another minor strength in this style is that the story develops as the narrator learns more and subsequently the viewer. This maintains high tension throughout the documentary. One excellent example of the viewer learning as the narrator learns is the sequence of Holy Hell when an anonymous member of the cult writes an email detail the sexual abuse of the cult’s leader. The narrator/director describes his shock, denial, and ultimate acceptance. The viewers emotions in this sequence directly imitate what the narrator feels.

There is a glaring weakness to Holy Hell’s narrative style: this format is obviously biased due to the one perspective of the cult. The documentary cannot provide a complete picture. Even the interviews used were to support the narrator’s points not to provide different perspectives. The viewer only gets to see Allen’s story, not the story of the people who stayed in the cult longer than Allen.

Children of God, in comparison, is told from a narrator-driven perspective. Narrator driven perspective is as its sounds: A Narrator either on camera or in a disembodied voice (Children of God’s approach) tells a documentary’s story through a script. This format uses interviews to support points and visuals to support points, not to drive a story forward. Children of God displays much of the strengths and weaknesses of this format.

For the strengths, a narrator-driven is an easiest method for organization and convey details of a documentary’s story. In Children of God this means that the narrator fills in the gaps in the Padila family’s stories. There are easy and smooth transitions by narrator into different scenes and sequences. Also, due to the narrator, there is no question on where the story is going. The viewer knows exactly why interview or b-roll is on screen.

For weaknesses, Narrator-driven documentaries have a few. First, there is a disconnect between the narrator and the characters involved in the documentary. Emotional involvement is more difficult to create. This is clear with in narrators unchanging tone as the Padila family’s time in the cult becomes more perverted. Eventually the various family members start breaking down into tears, but the narrators tone remained unchanged. Another weakness of narrator driven documentaries is that the viewer of the documentary can feel like they are being spoon-fed story beats, instead of the viewer witnessing beats as they occur naturally. Fortunately, Children of God relies on several interviews to avoid this feeling.

Jonestown: Paradise Lost, uses an interview driven perspective. An interview-driven narrative style. This narrative style constructs multiple interview bits in a way that presents the documentary subject in way that is engaging. It is important that this narrative style as with all stories should not take interview bits out of context. Now as with the other narrative styles there are some strengths and weakness.

A couple strengths of interview driven documentaries is that the story progression feels natural and personal as there is no narrator creating an emotional gap. In Jonestown the viewer can feel the sense of relief and community and the People’s Temple cult provided at first. Then the viewer can feel the paranoia and shock when secrets about Jim Jones sexual abuse is revealed. Than when Jim Jones orders a mass suicide, the viewer can hear the eyewitness accounts of the terror that went through interviewees. No other narrative style could achieve this.

As for weaknesses, there is one major weakness to this documentary style. It is very difficult to create a cohesive story from interview bits. Jonestown avoids this weakness by having so many interviewees, but an excessive number of interviewees creates another problem. Too many interviewees prevent the viewer from creating a connection. There are too many names and faces to remember, so by the end the viewer cannot distinguish the different characters.

All three styles discussed in this post have strengths and weakness. It is up to the documentary maker to address the weakness and utilize the strengths of their chosen style.