‘Amy’ Critical Debates

Kapadia on ‘Amy’:

• Amy is looking at the camera- at the audience (start)
• We become the paparazzi- Amy attacks the camera- attacks the audience 
• Camera goes from being her friend to being violent and aggressive 

Film Vs Digital technology

Digital Technology:

The degree of the impact that digital has had on film since the 1990s is a developing debate. Some film commentators argue that although digital technology could potentially transform cinema, so far films, especially narrative films designed for cinema release have changed very little from pre-digital times. Others consider that the impact of digital filmmaking is only beginning to emerge, both in high concept Hollywood filmmaking and in much lower budget experimental work. Amy is a film which uses digital technology to tell its story. 

For Digital Technology: 

• We are all potential film makers (denied in the past due to lack of access to technology and cost)
• This can capture our reality 
• We can document key parts of our lives 
• Can reflect how we are feeling at a particular time 
• Use internet to distribute these films 
• Equally aesthetic decisions can be made on how the films look and how they are received 

Against Digital Technology:

• Use of our memories- this should be enough to document our own reality 
• Filming our own lives can be seen as self-obsessed and narcissistic 
• What viewpoint of reality is the point of view actually giving?
• Is it truly objective?
• Who is going to want to watch this?
• Without editing can the film ever create a coherent narrative?
• Is it too easily disposable to last?  

‘Amy’ and Digital Technology:

• Documentary has always responded to the possibilities afforded by new technologies. The growth over the years of more portable cameras and sound equipment have greatly added to the way that documentaries can show real innovation when reporting on their subject matter.
• In Kapadia’s film there is very little actual original footage shot. This seems to largely consist of captioned establishing shots of London – either with a helicopter or a drone. These few shots are very clearly digital and offer a brief counterpoint to the rest of the film’s style. 
• Amy is clearly the work of a number of film-makers and Kapadia’s skill as a filmmaker is rarely seen in the editing room. He has amassed a great deal of archive footage from media sources and placed these alongside more personal filmic insights into Winehouse’s life.
• The combination of both analogue and some early digital recordings of Amy Winehouse from her friends and in some cases her family do offer a revealing perspective on her childhood, adolescence and the early part of her career. 
• Where interesting debates may be developed is on the more controversial aspects of her life – her bulimia, her addictions and her ill-fated relationship with Blake Fielder-Civil. This may well focus on the selection and use of particular footage. 
• Interestingly we also only hear the interviewees and never see them. Kapadia would have spoken to these people and recorded their thoughts digitally and then used them to underscore his images. 
• The manipulation and crucially the montage effect of using the footage alongside the interviews is what give the film its power. 

Meaning and Response/Critical Debates:

• Documentary subjectivity – negative, mediated representation of Mitch (gave permission but objected to film)
• Kapadia denies agenda – “there is nothing there (in the film) that isn’t in her lyrics”
• Other criticism – spectator voyeurism (‘another icon who died young’ – fascination with troubled ‘celebritism’
• Interviews suggest early patriarchal control by Mitch – Amy seeking approval from him (see Rehab lyrics)
• Selection of interviews and narrative construction crucial to production of meaning e.g.. Mitch turning up in Jamaica with a reality TV crew
• Archive footage 
• Spectator challenged with a range of representations