Research Statement

Research Questions

This project explores Terrence Malick through creative practice research, investigating how videographic criticism can bring new insights into his philosophically driven cinema. Working with Malick as a case study, the research evolved into a wider enquiry into my own ontological and epistemological position as practitioner-researcher: how can the act of making videographic criticism reveal embodied modes of knowing?

Two subsidiary aims guided the enquiry. First, to test a practice-led method I term videographic torpedoing, an improvisatory editing strategy adapted from Malick’s directorial process of “torpedoing” actors into spontaneous situations (Jagernauth 2013). This approach disrupts pre-planned analytical frameworks to find associative rhythms (Michaels 2009) through affective montage. Second, to use the video essay itself as a reflexive site of research into the researcher’s process, analysing affective responses during production as the source of data. This aligns with Jean Rouch’s notion of ciné-transe (2017), where the act of filming or editing provokes transformation in both the researcher and the subject. In this project, this comes to exist through placing myself into the diegesis as an active participant, thus shaping the outcome of the work.

Context

In the field of creative practice, there is a growing space to question what it means to be creative (Kaufman and Beghetto 2009; Kerrigan 2013; and Griffith 2021). When considering this within the field of academic videographic criticism, then we can turn towards studies (Keathley 2011; Grant 2016; Mittell 2019; Cox-Stanton and de Fren 2020; Lee 2020; and Scott 2021) to understand its emerging plurality as an academic practice. Having situated this work within the field of videographic criticism, this project develops from my PhD, which original sought to advance our understanding of what it means to embody the creative process. While Malick served as the initial subject of my videographic study, the focus eventually shifted toward developing my personal voice as a creative practitioner. As I explored Malick's use of Voiceover through practice, I began to draw on the use of voiceover in videographic criticism as a ubiquitous communication method. However, rather than relying on standard narration, I sough to infuse the voiceover with a sense of creativity, utilising a performative self-image as a primary mode of address. In doing so, I drew from established filmmaking disciplines such as documentary (Kerrigan and McIntyre 2010; and Gough-Brady 2020) to understand how converging forms of practice can become the source of research. 

By using the self-image, I became the "social actor" within the research artefact. This led me to question how I could become physically and socially involved in videographic work to both share my research and provide evidence through the form itself. This aligns with Ian Garwood’s assertion that academic videographic criticism should be supported by reasoned arguments and contextualised by examples that provide evidence (2016). Similarly, Catherine Gough-Brady notes, “the narrator of these films often uses the certainty of the authorial voice found in academic prose” (2020). Consequently, maintaining a balance between the authorial voiceover and the material content was essential. In this context, the evocative power of Voiceover used in Malick’s work became a mechanism to explore my own voice as a researcher within the video essay form, experimenting with the "Voice of God" method first (Nichols 1983), before moving toward a more embodied mode of address.

The implementation of a voice of God narrative would act as an ‘expository’ approach to help share research and my voice would be coupled with my self-image and the material content to provide context/ evidence. I would no longer be an observer from the outside of the artefact, rather, the focus would be to exist within it, expanding outwards as a part of the diegesis. As a result, it led me to the wider consideration of how we set up our performative space as the researcher, to meet the expectations of the spectator. 

Ben Spatz (2018) expands on the emerging performativity occurring within audiovisual cultures, acknowledging it as a mode of audiovisual embodiment. In doing so, we can begin to consider from a deeper philosophical position how we use audiovisual methods to further embody the video way of thinking (Spatz 2018). For Spatz, the embodiment of performative practice is “no more or less than the first affordance: the first site at which the dialogue between agency and materiality takes place” (2018). Through my work, I consider this "first site" through the three alternating perspectives using the creative triad as a form of embodied creativity. By starting my relationship with the material content, and subsequently the spectator, from within the diegesis, I create a vital encounter between myself as the author and the spectator to share the researched material.

Negotiating-Z represents the final practical iteration of the project exploring academic videographic criticism (Scott 2024). It builds on foundational work by scholars like Catherine Grant, who framed videographic criticism as a form of material handling lending itself to practice-based research (Grant 2016). This perspective views the editing process, where film material is refractively deconstructed and reassembled as a site of potentiality for generating new interpretations and ways of knowing about film form. In turn, this provides a useful space to analyse the authorship and process of making videographic criticisms, when treating it as a film practice. Rouch’s concept of ciné-transe then helps frame the filming process, where I become an affective participant in my own research process that transforms me into both subject and filmmaker (Rouch 2017). 

In my process, integrating myself as a participant also involves embedding my researcher’s voice and embodied response into the film. This process acts as a source of data sharing that integrates my know-how of documentary making, my ability to reflect critically on film, and my observational nature of watching film into a single iterative process. In doing so, the project treats videographic criticism not merely as analysis but as a site of experiential knowledge production. Doing so, enables my know-how to specifically explore the hybridisation of production modes, blending conventional videographic techniques like voiceover from the parametric mode of production from the middle bury workshops (Keathley, Mittell et al. 2019) with new techniques such as videographic torpedoing. 

Videographic torpedoing is an editing methodology inspired by Malick’s directorial process of torpedoing, a term used to describe his method of throwing actors into unscripted, spontaneous situations to provoke authentic responses (Jagernauth 2013). Translating this into videographic criticism, I adapted the concept to the edit suite: Videographic Torpedoing involves rapid, intuitive, and affect-driven juxtapositions of footage to unsettle premeditated analytical frameworks. This allows spontaneous associations to emerge as part of the research data, such as in (Figure 1), where three shots from different films highlight a similar characteristic. This match was serendipitous and utilised a similar use of motion, reflecting each other.

Unlike the Middlebury mode or deformative criticism (Ferguson 2015), which prioritises clarity and argumentation through structured commentary and the deliberate manipulation of film form to reveal hidden patterns through disruption. Videographic Torpedoing privileges immediacy and embodied intuition as the analytic mechanism itself. torpedoing foregrounds affective editing as a form of knowledge-making, a cine-poetic, improvisational process that merges creative and critical impulses along with documentary and essay film aesthetics to attempt to innovate my approach to the form (de Bruyn 2021).

For example, in the seventh iteration (Scott 2021), I reflected on the outcome through the eyes of the Spectator–Practitioner–Researcher; this triad created an active approach to my understanding and knowledge of audiovisual experimentation. Using aspects from the language of film to construct my mise-en-scène, where cinematic choices carried theoretical intent. For example, in one sequence I adopted a 2.35:1 aspect ratio and coordinated a dark green colour palette with natural imagery in the video that I am critiquing (Figure 2).

These aesthetic decisions directly reference Malick’s recurring motif of nature as transcendence, aligning the video’s form with its critical content. The conscious use of lighting contrast, with the “shadow-facing camera” approach produced a depth of field that positioned my on-screen persona both as subject and analyst, foregrounding my dual role within what I later define as the Creative Triad framework. This demonstrates how film language can serve as both critical commentary and evidence of practice-based enquiry, supporting Faden’s (2008) notion of media-stylo, where the use of production and editing software functions as a site of theoretical reflection.

Through iterative experimentation, Negotiating-Z extends the discourse of academic cinema by merging performative authorship with scholarly critique, offering a form of accountability that moves beyond the illustrated lecture or conventional voice-over. The work employs filmic strategies, such as inter-titles, sound bridges, and narrative rhythm, to balance critical reflection with cinematic immersion, positioning the piece as an autonomous film experience.

It is important to acknowledge that the self-declaratory mode adopted here, where I deliberately position myself as practitioner, theorist, and spectator, necessarily risks a degree of self-indulgence or even pretentiousness. However, this is a deliberate methodological choice foregrounding the entanglement of self and scholarship as integral to the research process. In this respect, I align with practitioner–researchers such as: (Grant 2018; Lee 2014; Mittell 2016; and Ferguson 2015), among many others who innovate the form through the experimentation with new methods. 

Methods

This research was influenced through the use of videographic criticism as a fetishist and repetitive practice (Mulvey 2006). The research methodology integrates creative practice research and screen production research, particularly drawing on the framework established by Craig Batty and Susan Kerrigan (Batty and Kerrigan 2018). This allowed the project to analyse video essay production as a filmmaking practice and provided a foundation for documenting the first-person perspective. As a production scholar, the use of Schön's (1992) concept of reflection-in-action could capture the nuances of the practical research process as it occurs. 

The research unfolded iteratively, to enable a critical enquiry through making and reflection, aligning with creative practice research models where knowledge is produced through doing (Haseman and Mafe 2009). In this case, the primary research site is the art of videographic thinking itself (Scott 2024), the process of thinking through and developing out of the creative process. By considering Susan Kerrigan’s (2016) use of filmology, and the embodiment of the filmmaker and spectator as one, I sought to include the addition of being the researcher. To do so, I wanted to adapt Graeme Sullivan’s (2001) transcognition theory, which posits that understanding is not merely transmitted from artist to spectator but is collaboratively constructed through their interaction. As a method of thinking about art practices, it involves a process of oscillating between embodied making (the practitioner) and responding to critical analysis (the spectator) to reiterate the process. In the context of Rouch's cine-transe, this oscillation is further amplified, as the immersive and sensorial engagement with moving image work becomes both a mode of inquiry and a method of reflection. Here, being the researcher is not only a cognitive position but a performative state within the diegesis, where the affective, perceptual, and bodily registers are brought into dialogue with analytic interpretation.

Catherine Gough-Brady (2020) similarly utilises autoethnographic methods in her documentary work to examine her shifting roles as video essayist, filmmaker, and scholar. Specifically around the embodied knowledge and how that fits within practice-led methodologies. Her work informed my use of autoethnography, so that I could understand what it means to be a creative practice researcher, and how I can creatively use my voice as a tool to share and examine ideas. For instance, in Iteration 4, I marked a pivotal shift in moving away from purely deformative techniques to focus on achieving coherence through cinematic conventions, particularly the synergy of voiceover and sound design (Scott 2024). 

This involved a deeper embodiment of the "Creative Triad" (Researcher, Practitioner, and Spectator), where the challenge was to translate practice into meaning for the spectator. Influenced by theories on editing rhythm (Pearlman 2019) and the lyrical voice in videographic criticism (Garwood 2016; Proctor 2019), the process deliberately situated the creator-theorist's voice within the artefact. The scripted voiceover, crafted as an academic screenplay (Batty and McAulay 2016), aimed to blend critical analysis with poetic expression to establish an authoritative yet reflective, documentary-like tone that sought to provoke questions rather than deliver definitive instruction.

Outcomes 

The research further developed the videographic methodology. First, using the analysis of Malick, the study highlights Malick's distinctive use of the cinematic z-axis, demonstrated through using different sequences that match Lloyd Michaels (2009) theory of associative rhythms to identify recurring auteurist themes. For example, in the artefact, there are several different instances, the opening sequence of the video essay is a demonstration of hyper-editing montage, that uses multiple clips from across Malick’s oeuvre, showcasing his use of nature [00:00:00:00 to 00:02:08:18] and then, the use of a medium close up in a vehicle [00:03:46:11 to 00:03:53:20]. Another example is [00:07:37:21 to 00:07:54:18]. The finding of these shots for videographic torpedoing relies on serendipity but they indicate a distinct vision from Malick as auteur, when he uses the same shot type from different cinematographers.

The innovation lies not in format but in method, translating Malick’s improvisational direction into a videographic editing strategy that extends the videographic PechaKucha approach. Whereas the PechaKucha’s rigid temporal constraints structure reflection through formal limitation, Videographic Torpedoing introduces improvisation and affective responsiveness into the edit. In doing so, it expands deformative criticism into a performative, reflexive authorship, an encounter between maker, material, and method.

This process reaffirmed the Creative Triad framework developed during production, extending Sullivan’s (2001) transcognitive model into a reflexive production context (Scott 2024). The project treats editing as thinking in action, with knowledge generated through self-reflection on the practice itself serving as research. This extends the typical “cognitive two-step” approach (Gibson 2018). Capturing the dynamic interplay inherent in practice-led audiovisual research, this introspective journey solidified the researcher’s position as a production scholar interrogating their own authorship and voice.

In doing so, I could see how the idea of auteur theory could be applied to the making of videographic criticism, as Christian Keathley (2011) had previously attempted to do, when positioning the video essayist as an author. By employing production techniques that extend beyond basic editing and voiceover, such as filming interviews and self-directed commentaries, the work enacts its own unique form of Gesamtkunstwerk (total art). Here, the creative choices used to share the researcher’s voice are unique to the author. This approach shapes the video essay through multiple  art forms. For example, I utilise screenwriting to craft the narrative (Batty and McAulay 2016; Scott 2024), and employ rhythmic editing (Pearlman 2019) and immersive audio (Faden 2008) to specifically focus the spectator's attention on Malicks unique cinematic style. This is certainly the case for more prominent video essayists such as Kogonada (2013), who has now gone on to produce world leading cinematic films. This approach to videographic criticism only goes to strengthen the video essay format as a creative expression of academic research. 

The final artefact, the docu-video essay Negotiating-Z, merges essay film elements with documentary aesthetics, advancing academic cinema as a creative outlet for videographic criticism. This alignment echoes Dirk de Bruyn’s call for pioneering avant-garde practices within academic contexts (2014). The creative triad provides a novel methodological approach for authoring such work, integrating theory and practice across the creative triad as three crucial perspectives.

Dissemination

As part of my PhD, the triadic process within this work has been disseminated internally at the University of East Anglia taught lecture and research seminar to MA students on the creative practice, film and television course.  I have more plans to extend the dissemination of this work through publication, by extending the scope of the concept to engage with creativity theory. 

Impact

This research offers contributions extending beyond traditional academic outputs:

1. Enhanced Dissemination: It leverages the video essay format to increase the publishing potential and accessibility of research, aiming to broaden its reach and impact (Scott 2021).

2. Pedagogical Innovation: The project contributes to pedagogical diversity by blending documentary and videographic modes (Scott 2021), demonstrating how creative production can underpin reflective learning in higher education. The Creative Triad offers a framework through which students can explore their own positionality as researcher, maker, and viewer, using each role as a site for researching the self within creative enquiry.

3. Methodological Advancement: The development of academic cinema challenges conventional scholarship modes and fosters interdisciplinarity. The documented process, particularly videographic torpedoing and the creative triad, offers a transferable methodological approach for research-informed documentary and essay filmmaking practices both within and outside academia.

By disseminating this research, the project aims to influence the evolution of the documentary/essay filmmaking landscape.

Bibliography

Batty, C. and S. Kerrigan (2018). Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry. Cham, Springer International Publishing.

Batty, C. and A. McAulay (2016). "The academic screenplay: Approaching screenwriting as a research practice." Writing in Practice: The Journal of Creative Writing Research 2: 1-13.

Cox-Stanton, T. and A. de Fren (2020). "Editors' introduction to issue 15: The Scholarly Video Essay." The Cine-Files Fall (15).

de Bruyn, D. (2014). Found Found Found. Online, Vimeo.

de Bruyn, D. (2021). "Lost and found: an avant-garde trajectory into the audiovisual essay." Media Practice and Education 22(1): 73-86.

Faden, E. (2008). "A manifesto for critical media." Mediascapes, Spring 8.

Ferguson, K. L. (2015). Volumetric Cinema. Online, Vimeo.

Garwood, I. (2016). "The place of voiceover in academic audiovisual film and television criticism." NECSUS: European Journal of Media Studies(Autumn).

Gibson, R. (2018). Foreword: Cognitive Two Step. Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry. C. Batty and S. Kerrigan. Cham, Springer International Publishing.

Gough-Brady, C. T. (2020). Exploring documentary from the filmmaker’s perspective: a relational approach to locating a meeting place of practice and theory. RMIT University, RMIT University. PhD.

Grant, C. (2016). "The audiovisual essay as performative research." NECSUS. European Journal of Media Studies 5(2): 255-265.

Grant, C. (2018). The Haunting of THE HEADLESS WOMAN. C. Grant, Vimeo.

Griffith, A. (2021). "Embodied creativity in the fine and performing arts." Journal of Creativity 31(1).

Haseman, B. and D. Mafe (2009). Acquiring Know-How: Research Training for Practice-led Researchers. Practice-led research, research-led practice in the creative arts. H. Smith and T. R. Dean. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press: 211-228.

Jagernauth, K. (2013). "Teresa Palmer Talks ‘Torpedo’-ing Christian Bale On Terrence Malick’s Knight Of Cups." Indywire. from https://www.indiewire.com/2013/06/teresa-palmer-talks-torpedo-ing-christian-bale-on-terrence-malicks-knight-of-cups-97370/.

Kaufman, J. C. and R. A. Beghetto (2009). "Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity." Review of General Psychology 13 (1): 1-12.

Keathley, C. (2011). La Caméra-stylo Notes on video criticism and cinephilia. The Language and Style of Film Criticism. A. Klevan and A. Clayton. Abingdon, Routledge: 176-191.

Keathley, C., et al. (2019). The Videographic Essay: Practice and Pedagogy. The Videographic Essay: Criticism in Sound and Image. Online, Originally Caboose.

Kerrigan, S. (2013). "Accommodating creative documentary practice within a revised systems model of creativity." Journal of Media Practice 14(2): 111-127.

Kerrigan, S. (2016). "The spectator in the film-maker: re-framing filmology through creative film-making practices." Journal of Media Practice 17(2-3): 186-198.

Kerrigan, S. and P. McIntyre (2010). "The ‘creative treatment of actuality’: Rationalizing and reconceptualizing the notion of creativity for documentary practice." Journal of Media Practice 11(2): 111-130.

Kogonada (2013). What is Neorealism? Online, Vimeo.

Lee, K. B. (2014). TRANSFORMERS_ THE PREMAKE (a desktop documentary). Online, Vimeo.

Lee, K. B. (2020). "New Audiovisual Vernaculars of scholarship." The Cine-Files Fall (15).

Michaels, L. (2009). Terrence Malick. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.

Mittell, J. (2016). "ADAPTATION.'s Anomalies." [in]Transition: Journal of Videographic Film & Moving Image Studies 3(1).

Mittell, J. (2019). Videographic Criticism as a Digital Humanities Method. Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019. M. K. Gold and L. F. Klein. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press: 224-242.

Mulvey, L. (2006). Death 24x a second: stillness and the moving image. London, Reaktion Books.

Nichols, B. (1983). "The voice of documentary." Film Quarterly 36(3): 17-30.

Pearlman, K. (2019). On Rhythm in Film Editing. The Palgrave Handbook of the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. N. Carroll, L. T. Di Summa and S. Loht. Cham, Springer International Publishing: 143-163.

Proctor, J. (2019). "Teaching the avant-garde practice as videographic research." Screen 60(3): 466-474.

Rouch, J. (1978). On the vicissitudes of the self: the possessed dancer, the magician, the sorcerer, the filmmaker, and the ethnographer. Studies in Visual Communication, 5(1), 2–8. 

Schön, D. A. (1992). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.

Scott, D. (2021). Following formats: Body language in the future of diversified E-learning environments. International Media Education Summit, Online, MES.

Scott, D. (2021). "Videographic criticism as research and exhibition artefact." Journal of Media Practice and Education.

Scott, D. (2024). A practical examination of academic videographic criticism through creative practice research: the art of videographic thinking. Arts, Media and American Studies. United Kingdom, The University of East Anglia. PhD.

Scott, D. (2024). "Videographic criticism and the art of creative thinking." Media Practice and Education: 1-23.

Spatz, B. (2018). "The video way of thinking." South African Theatre Journal.

Sullivan, G. (2001). "Artistic Thinking as Transcognitive Practice: A Reconciliation of the Process-Product Dichotomy." Visual Arts Research 27(1): 2-12.

Filmography

Malick, Terrence. "Badlands." USA: Warner Brothers, 1973. Film.

———. "Days of Heaven." USA: Paramount Pictures, 1978. Film.

———. "A Hidden Life." USA: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 2019. Film.

———. "Knight of Cups." USA: Broad Green Pictures, 2015. Film.

———. "The New World." USA: 20th Century Fox, 2005. Film.

———. "Song to Song." USA: Broad Green Pictures, 2017. Film.

———. "The Thin Red Line." USA: 20th Century Fox, 1998. Film.

———. "To the Wonder." USA: Magnolia Pictures, 2012. Film.

———. "The Tree of Life." USA: Fox Searchlight Pictures and Summit Entertainment, 2011. Film.

———. "Voyage of Time." USA: Broad Green Pictures, 2016. Film.

Peer Reviews

All reviews refer to the original research statement which has been edited in response to what follows

Review 1: Invite resubmission with major revisions of practical work and/or written statement.

The work makes two main claims: 1) Terrence Malick is an auteur director who incorporates philosophical concepts into his approach to filmmaking (cinematography, storytelling, etc). 2) In connection with the statement, the work wants to blend videographic criticism and documentary/ethnographic (particularly autoethnographic) filmmaking approaches.

In terms of practice-research, the statement argues that the work introduces “videographic torpedoing” as a new contribution to videographic criticism. However, I’m not fully clear on what this technique is, exactly—something that could probably be addressed by revising the statement. For example, it would be helpful to explain how this relates to (or differs from) deformative criticism, the Middlebury exercises, etc. In terms of the video itself, I would love to see more blending in of autoethnography, as this is definitely an area that videographic criticism could benefit from. But in its present form, the video operates more like an illustrated lecture on Malick; I don’t see the creator breaking from the mode of the knowledgeable (and very professionally filmed) academic.

I would love to see more of the scholarship on ethnographic filmmaking (beyond Catherine Gough-Brady, though certainly keep that), if that is the direction the creator wants to push in. Since the video already mentions cinema-verité, Jean Rouch and/or work related to his filmmaking would be a good place to start. The theoretical context of the accompany written statement (when supplemented as suggested above) is solid. What would be helpful is for it to be revised to relate more closely to the video work itself—for instance, explaining how/why some decisions were made or how the creator played around with the footage in order to come to the result, and how that relates to the theoretical material.

Review 2: Invite resubmission with major revisions of practical work and/or written statement.

This submission has definite virtues and potential, but it feels in some respects misconceived, and the author makes claims for the contribution of the work as form that seem to me unevidenced and therefore unpersuasive. In terms of virtues, the video makes fine use of the recources of Malick’s cinema itself. It provides a good answer to what makes Malick’s cinema distinctive. It has some interesting rhetorical choices, expecially the use of repetition (shots repeated across the video) and the use of footnote marks on screen.

Formally, the mix is of film footage, behind the scenes material and onscreen talking head, and I admit I found it hard to see how this relatively conventional dispositif represents (as author claims) a “contribution to the development of the video essay format”. Many explanatory/argumentative video essays could presumably be called “documentary video essays” (maker’s definition for his work), and the statement seems to state rather than argue the claims to distinctiveness or novelty here. The author has plainly engaged deeply with Malick’s work, even if, and despite the written register of the voice over (refs to Heidegger and Kirkegaard etc), there’s a sense that the video is composed in a celebratory vein that is more characteristic of Blu-ray extra or YouTube cinephilia than academic reflection. Does it risk the pretentiousness and narcissistic focus on the male that Malick’s films have been accused of?

The statement itself is rather abstract and unconcrete about the purpose of the research, the process undertaken and about the development of the video essay itself. The statement draws on a wide range of relevant scholarship, but doesn’t clarify the exact role of the works refered to in the development of this particular video essay, and seems to make a series of vague or unsupported claims. For example, how exactly does “the project [advance] videographic criticism by integrating self-reflection and practice-led methodologies, thereby contributing to the evolving discourse in the field”. Such methods are standard in the field, and no evidence is provided to gauge the specific contribution asserted by the author. (I had the impression of reading a meta-commentary on a more concrete statement not provided.) 

The section on outcomes seems instead to be a methods section, though with terms like “videographic torpedoing” and “transcognition” left unexplained. The impacts section is again excessively abstract and its claims seem hard to gauge and therefore overstated. I would recommend resubmission after significant revision to video and complete rewriting of the statement. The video essay needs to be revised to take account of audiovisual context (eg omit or make more digestible the highly written-register allusions to philosophers). I would suggest that the Malick footage be allowed to “breathe” more and not be so subject to authoritative commentary and voiceover. That said, I would advise reconfiguring the shape of the videoessay as a more explicit enquiry into the character of Malick’s cinema: note that the Christopher Nolan clip stages a question that the video essay itself can be said to answer. Nolan says the character of Malick’s cinema is elusive, but the video essay attempts to clarify that character.

The statement should be much more concrete, informative and precise about the work undertaken, the role of scholarship mentioned (in video essay as well as in current version of statement) and the specificities of the video essay (including the precise motivation for, and meaning of, the term “documentary video essay”, if it’s retained), and it should be much less assertive about the achievement or importance of the work—this is surely for viewers to discern and judge.

All reviews refer to the original research statement which has been edited in response