The second article in our short series on the screenwriter’s role, looks at how employing journalistic skills can take a film to the next level…

When planning any type of fact-based film, there will always be an element of journalism coming into play. For example, in our analysis of American Sniper (2014), we discuss how writer, Jason Hall, went beyond the ‘facts’ laid out in the source material to find the truth about his protagonist.

However, the idea of the screenwriter as journalist can apply beyond just the research stage of writing a film.

In our analysis of The Killing Fields (1984), we use the phrase ‘dramatic reportage’ to describe the film’s approach to showing the realities of what was happening in Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

The term describes films, or elements of a film, which attempt to evoke the reality of a situation or series of events. A central narrative is often set against a socially or politically turbulent backdrop.

For example, in Born on the Fourth of July (1989), the main narrative follows Ron Kovic from idealist small town boy to paralysed anti-war veteran. In the process, our eyes are opened to the realities of the Vietnam War and the terrible conditions Kovic endured in the military hospitals that treated him, as well as growing domestic hostility towards the war.

Likewise, in Missing (1982), we follow Ed and Beth Horman as they try to find out what happened to their son/husband, who disappeared during the 1973 military coup d’état in Chile. In the process, we delve into the US-led coup and the government’s reaction when the Hormans start digging for information.

Films like this tell an emotionally engaging story and inform viewers about the world. Therefore, it’s not hard to make a connection between the work of the screenwriter and that of the journalist, with both doing their best to show the world ‘as it is’.

In discussing The Killing Fields, producer David Puttnam referred to the technique of showing the gruesome realities of Cambodia through “heightened fiction” – amplifying real life in order to make a wider point. Director, Roland Joffé went further, saying:

“[The film is an] attempt to get close to some reality and some sense that people might understand what life might have been like if you were living in that country.”

On some level, this can be likened to a reporter going in and showing how things are ‘on the ground’.

Indeed, the nature of film means the medium can be even more effective than a journalistic account.

Writing in Photogenie, Tom Paulus references a recent trend towards ‘realistic’ filmmaking, pointing to such films as Zodiac (2007) and the two-part Che (2008). He also homes in on the spate of 9/11-inspired films, such as Rendition (2007) and Zero Dark Thirty (2012), which he says employ:

“A run-and-gun camera style that brings the viewer into the moment, presenting an ‘eye-level’ or ‘boots-on-the-ground’ view of history.”

The personal nature of film also plays a part, as we follow one or more protagonists on their journeys.

In The Killing Fields, we share Schanberg’s outrage at how the suffering in Cambodia is spun in the US media. In Missing, we want to know what happened to Charles Horman. In Born on the Fourth of July, we recoil at Kovic’s treatment following his injury. In All the President’s Men (1976), we want Woodward and Bernstein to get to the bottom of Watergate.

Think about the dramatic reportage films you’ve seen. No doubt, on some level at least, you reacted either positively or negatively to the outrage expressed by the protagonist and/or the filmmakers – in the same way some media stories provoke a strong emotional response and invoke lively debate in the real world and on social media.

But this last point raises a question – When does a desire to reveal the truth in film cross the line into the preachy and self-indulgent?

So, in the last part of the series, we look at some issues relating to the screenwriter as social commentator.