“The issue, finally, becomes one of judgement, and thereby a subjective matter: an opinion of someone whose mind has taken in all that information, that documentation, and then given it the shape of sentences, of words used, with all their suggestive possibilities.” (Coles, p. 21)
King Coal by Elaine McMillion Sheldon seems to me, at its core, to be an exploration of her feelings toward her home and her childhood. The opening caption of the documentary immediately jumps out as evidence of her deep connection to the region projected in her work. There are constant tones of conflict and an almost resentful reverence toward King Coal, as Sheldon narrates that she aims for the documentary to eliminate some of the “tension between loyalty and truth” (King Coal, Sheldon) that she has felt her whole life, having grown up there.
It is no secret then that King Coal ardently reflects the documentarian’s experiences and opinions- the first person narration, the callbacks to her own childhood, the editing choices (such as the warmth in shots about nature, and cold, dark lighting in shots about factories or coal), and the stories she chooses to foreground are plenty evidence of this.
As Coles suggests, all documentaries are, intentionally or otherwise, inevitably subjective. No matter the efforts to remain objective- in compiling evidence, and choosing what gets left in and what gets left out- documentaries are doomed to be subjective. Sheldon takes this idea and runs with it.
Her subjectivity in her documentary is intentional; it enrichens her work and adds a layer of vulnerability in her analysis of the area’s struggles. She uses it to her benefit by embracing the personal history she has with Appalachia and letting it be heard strongly in her narration. It evokes powerful emotions in the viewer and makes them feel more connected to the documentary. Her voice, that is to say, her ownership of the work is impossible to doubt in her methodology of the creation of this film.
With quotes such as “Any dream dreamt before that day was lost”, she manages to hit home the impact of the region’s identity becoming synonymous with coal mining due to the economic benefits, leaving no room for other dreams or other identities to exist, much less flourish. Her subjectivity, her use of “we” and “I”, is what softens her criticisms. It makes them seem less like a cold analysis or a mere relaying of sad fact, and more like a grief that has been echoed in generations before and will be echoed in generations to come.
King Coal becomes, in this way, irrefutable evidence of the power that lies in subjectivity and the use of voice in one’s works, especially documentaries.
Leave a Reply