Since the term appeared in the 1960s, ‘direct cinema’ has been a source of confusion for some, frustration for others. Not only is the ‘directness’ of direct cinema questionable, but the term is often used as the Anglo-American equivalent of cinéma vérité (the latter coined by Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin in France in 1960 to describe their experiments in interactive documentary). For example, in 1971, Alan Rosenthal observed that the terms direct cinema and cinéma vérité were being ‘used interchangeably [in the US] in accordance with general practice’ (Rosenthal 1971: 2). Outlining precise divisions between the two approaches can be tricky, as they tended to overlap in many ways – especially as, over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, proponents of both direct cinema and cinéma vérité started to question and adjust their assumptions and practices.

Direct cinema and cinéma vérité, however, both have distinct origins and features; in particular I want to look at US direct cinema's narrative traditions, style and audience expectations. William Rothman dismisses the term, since ‘direct’ implies ‘unmediated’ (1996: 7), but this is actually a reason I want to maintain it here, since as a movement the idea of sidestepping or minimizing mediation was paramount. With its shaky, hand-held visuals (‘wobblyscope’) and on-location sync sound (or ‘direct’ sound, usually supplemented by on-location ‘wild’ sound) direct cinema can deliver an impression of disordered immediacy and tactility that stands in sharp contrast to the deliberate scenes and soundscapes of more traditional documentary. Mobile tracking shots, on-the-spot interviews, integrated close-ups and cutaways home in on marginal, telling details: physical gestures, facial expressions, unexpected or awkward reactions.