Awareness Through a Lens
- Alex Zavalza
- Mar 12
- 2 min read
The reflexive mode and the participatory mode communicate truths to us through different paths and experiences. One of the aspects I believe is true for both is that they are self-aware. In participatory modes, the subjects and audience become aware of the camera because the trope of this mode is “I speak with them for you.” The filmmaker becomes a social actor, and their role as a filmmaker blends with their participation in the film. Participatory documentaries offer insight into the filmmaker's experience within a situation and how that presence influences the outcome. The events unfold because of the camera. Sherman’s March is a great example. The filmmaker interacts with the world around him, and many of his interactions come from having the camera. Because of it, he is able to follow a woman through her music journey or a girl with her acting career. It also influences the behaviors and actions of those filmed.

Reflexive mode documentaries ask us to see them for what they are. We become aware that they are constructs or representations. They are self-conscious and self-questioning as they build and play with our expectations. When they adjust these expectations, we become aware of the power that has been exercised upon us by the film. In Man With a Movie Camera, the documentary draws attention to the steps involved in making the film we are now watching. We see the camera, and later on, we see what it was filming. Or, we see ourselves in a theater watching what is being filmed. In some sense, participatory modes play with our reality, and this is a great example of it.

I believe we can contrast the awareness that comes from reflexive and participatory modes. In the reflexive mode, the audience becomes aware, whereas in the participatory mode, the social actors are the ones who become aware. I could describe it as a world within a world within a world, where a person realizes they are being watched, and those watching also realize they are being watched or analyzed. One of my favorite documentaries is called A Cop Movie. It follows the lives of cops in Mexico City as they go through their daily jobs and personal lives. The documentary plays a fine line between fact and fiction. At first, you think this is a real documentary, and those you are watching are actual cops. Later in the film, those same cops are revealed to be actors on a movie set, and we see them practicing their lines. However, at the end, we find out that the characters they are playing are based on real people, and then we get into the actual documentary with them. We compare how well the actors did at portraying the real cops. It’s a perfect example of a reflexive documentary because we are taken out of the experience and our expectations are challenged. We reflect on the orchestration of making such a film. Both the reflexive and participatory modes invite us to take a deeper look and think about our relationship with the world.




Your analysis of the reflexive and participatory modes does a great job of highlighting their self-awareness and impact on both subjects and audiences. I appreciate your point about how participatory documentaries, like Sherman’s March, actively shape the events they capture. Without the camera, many of the interactions in the film wouldn’t have happened in the same way. It’s fascinating how the filmmaker’s presence blurs the line between observer and participant, influencing the unfolding story.
Your explanation of the reflexive mode is also strong, particularly in how Man with a Movie Camera forces the audience to recognize the filmmaking process. I like how you describe the shifting expectations in reflexive documentaries, making viewers conscious of the medium itself. The example you provided…