Abstract:

Advances in image recording, processing and distribution technology bring in new opportunities for documentary filmmakers to encourage action for social causes. Interactive forms of representation in documentary films such as virtual reality practices have particularly drawn strong attention due to their claimed potential for social change through encouraging people to take action. It proves difficult to anticipate particular social effects unless a documentary reaches a huge number of viewers, engage and encourage them to take action. In this context, it is argued that the production, processing, and viewing of 360-degree videos are relatively more affordable and easier compared to more immersive and engaging interactive documentary practices. Thus, 360-degree videos can reach and encourage more viewers who are expected to actively interact with documentary content. In the light of all these arguments, this article analyses two documentary films, Exiled (2019) and Behind the Fence (2016), through a comparative perspective. Exiled (2019) and Behind the Fence (2016) are documentaries both addressing the genocide of Rohingya people in Myanmar and the mass exodus of Rohingya to Bangladesh. While Exiled is a traditional one, Behind the Fence is a 360-degree documentary. By analyzing those two documentaries, this article asserts that besides the unique advantages of 360-degree camera technology for non-fiction films, it has also several disadvantages in terms of production and viewing of documentaries. 360-degree cameras might emerge as the proper option for the representation of particular social situations, social movements, conflicts, and actions due to their capacity to record and show from limitless points of view. However, a powerful social effect should not be expected merely due to the usage of 360 video in non-fiction films.

Keywords: