Film Review - Biggie and Tupac

Film Review

Biggie and Tupac is the title of the documentary. Choice of topic is clear that is going be investigating these two people lives. But these were no two ordinary people; they are the most popular rappers who were killed tragically. The filmmaker choice of subjects feeds people curiosity of what was the real reason behind their death and their life together in work and on personal level. People tend to find interest in other people's life especially on personal level, so how about if those people were the most popular rappers. A film like that would eventually get audiences of both fans and those who would be curious about such an incident, so its interesting on both levels.

In brief the documentary basically investigates the life and murder of the most popular rappers Biggies and Tupac. Using archival footage of the two rap stars and interviews with many of those involved. Broomfield the filmmaker uncovers significant evidence related to their deaths (Rovi).

Opening of the film was an archival footage that illustrates the crime scene and also some footage of the rappers together. The story begins with this along with a narration talking about the journey of both rappers together and eventually leading to their murder. However this fact storytelling catches the viewer attention with all the suspense in their life series of events. Objectivity lies in the first chapter of the film, where you can actually sense facts and truthfulness. Then happens a flip where the filmmakers view becomes obvious. We see the filmmaker's view walking in for interviews asking questions, and also reflecting on some challenges he is facing to get answers from interviewees (Ebert January 10, 2003).

However, regardless of that the topic that is of an interest itself, the filmmaker technique made it more interesting. As a documentary of telling and uncovering truth the camera technique used in the film, by running the camera constantly, even before the interviews begin, gained the film a sincere sense of capturing spontaneous moments and reactions of truth.

"A documentary film director may adopt the so-called "observational" mode of filming or try to be like "a fly on the wall" - but this is a process demanding a lot of choices both in the recording and in the editing phase. It is not just about recording what is there; it is also about selecting and presenting and editing in such a way that we see present conditions as wrong and begin to look for alternatives that should be brought about. Documentary film- making - and also the reception of documentary films - is all about ethics, politics and an aesthetic approach, and as such it is a highly subjective or personal matter, it is now argued" (H.enrik)

Questioning the degree of actually documenting the story and the degree of its objectivity and subjectivity is highly what distinguished a documentary form a fiction film. In this particular film people perception differ but also the more objective the auteur is the more perception is standard for the audience.

The film basic flow of technique was more of a direct cinema but also at some points self-reflective. Direct cinema in the sense of following out events as its happening without much of direct interfering, but obviously we could see the filmmaker standing asking questions, directions and holding equipment's.

Basically I would not consider the filmmaker asking as an interfering because it was for the story line of the film, however some times it was hidden sometimes it wasn't. This selection of what to hide and what not, and also in what degree of rational both would