Sorry about this. Academic papers can even drain the life out of people as rich and creamy as the Daniels we so adore. But here it is.
Daniels Depicted
Although Daniel Smith and Daniel Johnston never worked together, their artistic bodies of work bare a striking resemblance. Neither of them formally trained in music or art, both Daniels’ work may be described as having a raw, homemade quality well outside the mainstream. These similar styles, however, are portrayed in quite different ways in the documentaries Danielson: a Family Movie and The Devil and Daniel Johnston, directed by J.L. Aronson and Jeff Feuerzeig respectively. While Aronson’s style seeks to mirror that of the artist being documented, Feuerzeig’s style does not. By comparing these differing interpretations of similar subjects, we can gain a better understanding of the subjective nature of seeing one artist through the eyes of another.
First, a brief introduction of our Daniels:
Encouraged by his parents from a young age, Daniel Smith grew up producing a wide variety of art, from three-dimensional quilt-cars to abstract paintings to psychedelic rock music. Following his conversion to Christianity in college, Smith started performing under the moniker Danielson, expressing his newly-discovered identity as a son of God. To achieve a more full sound, Smith enlisted the help of his four siblings, the youngest of whom was only twelve at the time. When asked to play bass for the new project Daniel’s best friend Chris responded “But I don’t play bass,” to which Daniel replied “That’s okay.” And thus the Danielson Famile was born; an experimental gospel band with limited musical skills, a lead singer who sounded like a dying cat, and a big heart (which they wore in patch-form on their sleeves). Estranged from the Christian music scene because of their unique style often labeled eccentric, the band found a niche in the indie rock community. As each member got married, the “famile” grew to nine members, promptly assimilating each new spouse into the entourage. The arrival of children led to the diffusion of the band leaving its founding member to continue his solo career. Smith now tours as “Brother Daniel”, performing in a homemade tree costume and making records in his parents’ basement.
Equally intriguing is the life of singer/songwriter/painter Daniel Johnston. Raised in a devout Christian home, religion also plays an unlikely role in much of Johnston’s creations. Although admittedly not skilled at playing any instrument or singing, Johnston got by on pure originality. Dramatically affected by a teenage romance and a drug-induced mental breakdown, Johnston’s music is described by his fans as oozing with raw emotion. His later work marks a major deviation in content as his mental illness sparks an obsession with the Devil whom Johnston suspects of conspiring against him. A recent partial recovery sees him back on tour to an increasingly adoring fan base in art exhibits and concert venues across the globe.
The first shot is very important in establishing the tone of a film. Danielson: a Family Movie begins with a quite real-looking view of earth from space. As we move in closer, the pixels of the image become more noticeable. All illusion of reality is interrupted when sloppily-drawn cartoon clouds cross the screen followed by a closer aerial view, obviously taken from Google Earth. Not only does this point to the out-of-this world nature of Smith’s art, but the shoddy, seemingly homemade execution of this concept immediately puts the audience in a world where the common conceptions of artistic beauty are challenged.
The opening shot of The Devil and Daniel Johnston shows a home video Johnston made with a Super 8 camera in 1985 in which he greets the camera, introducing himself as “the ghost of Daniel Johnston” and promising to reveal information about “the other world.” Presumably mere jest to the young Johnston, the ominous music that follows indicates the prophetic implications of his statement just as a quote smoothly appears on the black screen: “I believe in God and I believe in the devil. There is certainly a devil and he knows my name.” Although the quality of the home video can be compared to the raw nature of Johnston’s art (most of his recordings were done on cassette tapes in his living room), its immediate juxtaposition with the film’s orchestrated soundtrack draws the audience back into a more detached perspective, like a witness to some Shakespearian tragedy. Unlike Danielson in which the audience is challenged to enter the mindset of the artist being portrayed, this film immediately sets up its subject for scrupulous examination.
Aronson’s interviewing technique greatly influences the exposition of the characters in Danielson: a Family Movie. Most often, clips from interviews done by other journalists are used. When direct questioning is required, rather than sitting his subjects down and going through a list of crafted queries, Aronson insights a conversation by having a third party, often a member of the band, casually ask an open-ended question, resulting in a very informal response in which the interviewer and interviewee often reminisce together. In the few instances when the interview is conducted from behind the camera, it is hand-held, allowing the subject to move around freely as if giving a tour. These unobtrusive methods give the film a laid-back, intimate quality in which all involved appear to be acting comfortably in their natural environments. This same technique can also be seen in Smith’s own creative process, about which he states in the film
“I kind of like the ?�Օ$�bZE
�r@��aɗH�e(��P�}NJ �P@�st exciting way as well because you’re just watching things happen instead of trying to pretend that you know better.”
<h1 stylest exciting way as well because you’re just watching things happen instead of trying to pretend that you know better.”
In contrast, The Devil and Daniel Johnston features many formal interviews in locations clearly selected to highlight a certain aspect of the narrative. One interview, in which the subject is questioned about his connection to an incident involving drug abuse, is conducted while the interviewee is having his teeth drilled in a dental chair to emphasize the severity of the event being discussed. Although this style of interview may at times seem contrived, it is useful in this film for constructing a comprehensive narrative. Feuerzeig’s sometimes aggressive questioning elicits a number of intensely moving responses. This rings true to the emotional urgency of Johnston’s music, but lacks its spontaneity.
The pure nature of Smith’s music is also reflected in the lighting of Danielson: a Family Movie. Just as Smith would not interfere with the innate beauty of his songs with excessive studio effects, Aronson chose to use no special lighting. At times this makes for some poor quality shots but over all it contributes to the film’s authentic feel.
Feuerzeig, on the other hand, uses extensive special lighting to influence the mood of many of the interviews and reenactments. The soft lighting used on the parents and close friends of Johnston serves to legitimize their observations while Johnston himself, who is only interviewed directly for less than a minute, is most often seen in gritty stock footage with poor lighting. Several key events are reenacted using heavily saturated colors which give them a profoundly dramatic look. All these techniques are in stark contrast to Johnston’s own artistic instincts which are even more raw and unrefined than Smith’s.
A wide variety of techniques are used in Danielson: a Family Movie to portray events that could not be captured on film. Smith’s college years are represented in the form of a simple cartoon with jerky movements and awkward figures that could easily have been drawn by a child. Just a few minutes later, Smith’s friend Chris recalls his inception into the band and again animation is used but by a different artist equally lacking in ability. These two sequences are so similar in tone and functionality that the slight difference in the drawings may be jarring to an audience who is used to unifying visual themes. It seems likely that this could have arisen from each sequence being put under the artistic control of the person whose story it was telling. This meshing of different artistic voices, however unorganized, is in perfect harmony with the frenzied, cumulative atmosphere of a Danielson Famile concert.
The gaps in the story of Daniel Johnston are filled by two kinds of reenactment. Several key episodes are portrayed with a single shot of an object, reproduced so as to appear original in a location representing that in which the action occurred. Often these shots are accompanied by the voice-over of an interviewee telling his or her version of what happened. These Errol Morris-esque moments, which never utilize actors, give the film the feel of an investigation during which multiple crime scenes are explored. The other method of reenactment used several times in the film is a first person point-of-view in which the camera lens substitutes for Johnston as we wield our way through the empty settings of his past. No such hauntingly overt dramatizations can be found in Johnston’s straight-forward approach to his craft.
The structure of Danielson: a Family Movie can be quite disorienting. During the first half of the film, the audience is guided through Smith’s story by four separate narrators. Each introduces themselves in a voice-over and then takes their turn giving a summary of how things happened from their perspective. When the initial exposition is complete, the audience is presumably caught up to the “present” (in the story-line) and then follows along with Smith for the remainder of the film. About three-fourths of the way through, however, the voice of one of the original narrators is heard again, leaving the audience to wonder from whose perspective the events are being unfolded. Smith’s own music is similarly disorganized in structure, often stopping and starting abruptly and even randomly inviting the audience to sing a verse of The First Noel. This quirky style, however never seems to border on disorientation to the extent the film does.
The Devil and Daniel Johnston is structured in a manner that could be described as traditional. Immediately following the first shot of a young, skinny Johnston in 1985, the film jumps to the older, obese Johnston playing in front of thousands at a concert twenty years later. This instantly sets the parameters of the film’s dramatic action. From that point on all the events portrayed and discussed in interviews are in more-or-less sequential order with some liberties taken to group together similar sub-plotlines. Johnston’s music, in contrast, is void of this sense of progression in time, often reverting back to old themes such as the lost love of his teenage years about which he wrote music well into his forties.
While documentary may be considered the most objective category of film, the wide range of possibilities a director has to choose from inevitably elicits an interpretation that can profoundly affect the audience’s reaction to its content. While all documentary subjects are complex, the task of portraying an artist is particularly delicate. Aronson and Feuerzeig’s approaches to these two similar artists have profoundly different results. The unconventional, improvised quality of Danielson: a Family Movie (or, Make a Joyful Noise Here) allows the audience to get better acquainted with Daniel Smith, but makes it likely to only gain the affections of those audience members who are in tune with his creative vision. Feuerzeig’s accomplishment with The Devil and Daniel Johnston is in the conversion of the inaccessible Johnston into a form that, because of its detached, pointed and systematic examination, could be found intriguing to a larger audience, even if they don’t identify with his artistry.
