Documentary: Filmmaker Lauren Greenfield

Lauren Greenfield is an American photographer and documentary filmmaker, known for films such as Beauty CULTure (2012), Kids+Money (2008), The Bling Dynasty (2015), The Queen of Versailles (2012), and her highly anticipated upcoming feature Generation Wealth (2018). 

The main theme of her films is wealth, and how this creates obsessions with image and fame in society. However, I decided to research her for this project because of the style she presents her documentaries in, which is observational and led by actuality, since this is how we have aimed to present our own idea. Therefore, her films mainly use sequences along with interviews, but since she is a photographer she also uses still pictures along with archive footage to show what is discussed by the interviewees. Her work also frequently shows that these are constructed films, with some shots showing crew members preparing interviewees for interviews or contributors talking backstage. 

All of these techniques allow Greenfield to investigate the topics and lives of the interviewees she features.

Beauty CULTure (2012)

Beauty CULTure is a short documentary, which shows how society has become obsessed with image through wealth, fame, and the widespread circulation of images in media such as fashion magazines. Lauren Greenfield has said that the techniques she used while making this film allowed her to 'look at how beauty has been an obsession in our culture historically' (Relth, s.d).

Archive footage, especially photographs is used to show history and to visually present what the interviewees talk about since much of the documentary is interviews. For example, when a young girl who competes in beauty pageants is being interviewed, archive footage from the previous TV show she was on, Toddlers and Tiaras is shown.

However, photographs showing fashion magazines are also used almost excessively, since the documentary shows 'works from over 100 world-renowned beauty, fashion and fine art photographers' (Annenberg Space for Photography, 2011). This is because Greenfield wanted to bombard the viewer in order to highlight how these images are always everywhere in our lives, and therefore can have a large affect on society (Relth, s.d). This seems especially true in the film as the pictures act as evidence to show how a lot of the same type of women are used as models because they are slim and tall, which is a topic the interviewees frequently return to.

Greenfield has stated she 'wanted to kind of break down the fourth wall and deconstruct those boundaries, so we also filmed the behind-the-scenes on our own set' (Relth, s.d). Therefore, attention is brought to the fact that this is a constructed film. It is obvious from the plain background that filming took place in a studio since it is a controlled environment, where members of the crew can be seen preparing interviewees for their interviews, and contributors are shown talking to each other before being interviewed.
Lauren Greenfield, the director, is also interviewed since she took many of the pictures that are featured in the documentary so can be said to be part of the story along with the other photographers interviewed. She has said she decided to include the interview with herself as, 'almost all of us in the film—and I include myself as a director—are part of making these images that then have this kind of effect in the world' (Relth, s.d). 
The main reason for conducting all of the interviews in a studio was that this film was a commission from the Annenberg Space for Photography, so had a tight schedule for production (Relth, s.d). However, by using a plain background more emphasis is placed on the interviewees rather than their surroundings which was important for this story since many of the stories the interviewees told were very personal, and by having them be the main focus it allowed their emotions to take precedence.

Some of the experts shown are a plastic surgeon and a New York Times Reporter. However, what was interesting about the reporter compared to the surgeon was that, while the surgeon was quite detached and only part of another interviewee's story in that he had helped them achieve the image they wanted, the reporter had a story similar to the other interviewees who were 'ordinary people'. This further helped with Greenfield's aim of wanting to deconstruct boundaries because it further highlighted how widespread the obsession is by showing it can affect everyone and anyone.

This was also shown when shots of some of the contributors were cut together to make a montage showing them sitting in front of the grey background at different times preparing to be interviewed. This helped to draw comparisons between the contributors as they were shown side by side, showing the wide range of people that share in the topic, who are all similar but also quite different at the same time.

Throughout the documentary, the interviewees are alternated between, sometimes coming back to one of them later when a point they have made links to a point another interviewee makes. This helps move the narrative along in a logical order along with the archive footage and sequences, but also allows Greenfield to show 'diverse viewpoints on beauty and its evolution through the 20th and 21st centuries' (Annenberg Space for Photography, 2011). Therefore, while each story is personal, together they make an investigation into why society is obsessed with these images, allowing the audience to evaluate the topic as a whole rather than just relate to the interviewees.

Varied shot sizes are also used with interviewees to get coverage for interviews. When interviewees make important points, the frame comes closer in, which stresses the importance of the point the interviewee makes, but also empathises their emotions.

Opposed or contrasting points are also shown by different screen direction. For example, one woman talks about how this obsession with image affected her own life, and she is framed screen left. The next contributor then talks about how images can attempt to be different from real life, and the contrast between his point and the last contributor is shown by placing him screen right.

Overall, throughout this documentary, both negative and positive aspects of the topic are covered from many different viewpoints allowing viewers to form their own opinions from the interviews given by models, photographers, body builders, pageant queens, and breast cancer survivors, among others.

Kids+Money (2008)

With Kids+Money Lauren Greenfield aimed to  'take the cultural temperature of a generation imprinted by commercial values' (Institute Artist, 2012). To do this, Greenfield interviews a wide range of teenagers from all over Los Angles, where there is a large divide between poverty and wealth. Even so, as the documentary shows, many teenagers will still do anything to stay ahead with the trends and buy designer goods in order to be popular.

At the beginning, a caption is shown to set the scene, establish the topic, time, and place, and most importantly, signify that the footage shown after this is representative of real life even though it may have been edited (Paget, 2004:197-8) as the caption claims this is only 'a selection' of the interviews which were conducted.

This is followed by a montage, which further establishes the topic and shows excerpts of the interviews that will be shown in full later in the documentary. This provides an introduction for viewers, since much of the audience probably doesn't know what it is like to have a lot of money as a teenager living in Los Angeles since it is a very specific experience.
Music used in the montage helps to set up the tone of the film as contemporary and young, since it is pop music. However, the lyrics hint at the topic of wealth being something these kids are used to.

The names and ages of the interviewees are given by captions, so they do not introduce themselves to the audience. This is more detached, but by doing this Greenfield establishes the piece as an investigation into these kids lives and habits, rather than trying to get the audience to relate to them. She also achieves this by interviewing kids ranging 'from rich to poor, Pacific Palisades to East L.A' (Institute Artist, 2012), even though as an editorial piece for the New York Times it doesn't feature many characters (Walters, 2010), but still shows the diversity of how widespread this obsession with wealth is in society.

By using a small cast of characters, Greenfield is also able to bring more attention to the environments around them (Walters, 2010). For example, all of the interviews are conducted in the interviewees' homes. This means that they can show the audience around and highlight what they spend money on, such as how Sean Michael (pictured above) shows the audience his collection of jeans and shoes. To highlight this excess, a sequence of the same shot used for each shoe shows several cut together in quick succession to show how many pairs Sean Michael has, much like the montage comparing the different contributors that Greenfield uses in Beauty CULTure.

However, Greenfield presents 'each interview as an environmental portrait, strategically choosing backgrounds and angles to add visual information to the frame. She subtly reinforces the words spoken by her subjects with images of their homes, families and prized possessions' (Krinsky, 2009). Therefore, details in the back of the frame can be seen, such as Sean Michael's shoes and jeans overflowing his closet, which provides information about him to the audience before he even starts talking.

For coverage when filming the interviews, cutaways of hands and reactions are used. For example, the last two girls interviewed are positioned so they are sitting one behind the other. Using this setup enables Greenfield to interview one of the girls, and also show the reaction of the other to what they are saying since one of these girls comes from a wealthier family than the other. They are placed on opposite sides of the screen which also shows this contrast.
The cutaways of hands helps show the wealth of one of them as she talks about how important what type of jewellery someone wears is, since this draws attention to her own bracelet and ring.

Overall, Greenfield has said about Kids+Money that, 'I think the kids in the film are truth-tellers for their communities and often the values of the adult world', since money is something which is rarely discussed (Krinsky, 2009). By using techniques such as a wide range of diverse characters in a small cast, montages and sequences to show excess, framing to show background detail, and cutaways to show detail and reactions, Greenfield uses this film to highlight the problem with society's obsession with wealth through the teenagers she interviews.

The Bling Dynasty (2015)

The Bling Dynasty documents China's growing wealth. It is split into six two-minute parts, each of which covers a different topic. To film this documentary, Lauren Greenfield spent 'a month in China looking at how the new Chinese Rich live, spend their newfound wealth, and discover luxury lifestyles' (Story Institute, s.d). It was a commission for GQ Magazine (Gonzalez, 2015).

Similar to Kids+Money, Greenfield uses a montage and caption to introduce the topic of the documentary. This begins with an expert stating a fact, then this being backed up by the pictures shown while he expands his point, before the caption places the audience in the time and place of the documentary. This again acts as a way of introducing the audience to a world they may have very little knowledge of quickly, and without it being confusing.

Captions are also used to verify a fact that an interviewee gets wrong. This shows the audience that the production crew have done research to verify what the interviewees have told them, but this therefore also draws attention to them, and that the film is constructed by them, similar to the breaking of the fourth wall Greenfield wanted to achieve with the backstage shots in Beauty CULTure.
This is also evident when the interviewer is heard as an interviewee does not answer in full sentences.  The suspension of disbelief held by the audience that they are gaining an insight into the country as it would be in reality could be punctured by this attention to the film's construction. However, this can also create the impression that another group of people are leading the audience through a country they themselves may be seeing for the first time, allowing a point of identification for them as they see things as they are presented by these people.
The fact people are capturing this to show to an audience is evident especially in a shot where the boom pole operator can be seen. This is because they have had to get close to the edge of a racetrack in order to capture the sound of the horses running, and therefore could not be avoided by the camera.

However, some interviewees introduce themselves, such as 15-year old Daisy. Before the interview, she is first seen by the audience in a sequence which shows her walking to class, and then sitting in class. This gives the interview a more personal feel because she speaks directly to the audience, and the sequence shown previously backs up what she says.

Within the sequence, there are also close-up shots which are cut into the wider frames, which show signifiers of wealth, such as technology, clothes, bags, and shoes. These highlight the importance of clothes and technology as status symbols, since as Greenfield has stated, many rich Chinese people buy these things to show class (Gonzalez, 2015). They are also the best way of showing how wealthy the kids in Daisy's class are since their homes are not seen in the documentary.

Still pictures are also used as examples as an expert discusses facts about China's wealth. These help to back up his comments and show how they apply to the real world, much like the visuals used in the montage, but in a much more personal way, since some of the people from the photos are interviewed so the pictures also act as a way of showing what they tell the audience.

Some of the experts and 'ordinary' people interviewed are linked by an event shown in the documentary. In the fifth part of the documentary, matchmakers are introduced as the experts, since they explain the importance of their business to China's economy. The 'ordinary' person is introduced as being a businessman who is too busy working to meet and go out with any women. Therefore, it is shown how the matchmakers hold an event, which the businessman attends.
By showing this, Greenfield is able to show how the experts she features are connected to the real world, verifying the facts they give about the situation they discuss since it is shown. The sequence presenting the event to the audience conveys that the matchmaking company works and is needed for China's rich, as the businessman is seen meeting a woman he would like to go out with in the future.

In general, all six parts of this documentary act to expose how China's wealthiest are spending their money in a 'practical way that means development for China' (Gonzalez, 2012) since they aim for exhibiting a higher class with a focus on yachts, polo, education, and etiquette (Story Institute, s.d). Greenfield shows this through these techniques of captions, a montage, still pictures as examples, and linking the experts and 'ordinary' people featured to introduce the audience to this world which they may have known existed, but may not have seen firsthand.

The Queen of Versailles (2012)

The Queen of Versailles is a feature length documentary by Lauren Greenfield, exploring the lives of the Siegel family and how David Siegel's time share business has made them extremely wealthy, so much so that they are building the biggest house in America, based on The Palace of Versailles in France. It mainly follows David's wife, Jackie, her past, and David's business, as well as showing the couple's eight children and several employees as Greenfield investigates the American dream.

Greenfield has stated that the documentary began when Jackie 'invited me to visit Florida and photograph their family. Little did I know this would be the first shoot of a three-year relationship with the Siegels, and the beginning of a film about their lives in turmoil because when I met them everything in their lives was triumphant' (O' Kelly, s.d).

The film begins with a two minute montage, similar to that from Beauty CULTure, which sets up the topic, and characters, by showing family photos, and newspaper article clippings which hang on the walls of the Siegel's house, as well as focusing on things which signify they are very wealthy, such as showing them in their private jet, and using close up shots of the gold around David's chair, which make it look like a throne. There are also close-ups of the couple's rings, and many shots of them together, which sets up their relationship for the audience. Music is also used to set the tone, since it is a classical, relaxed piece which, along with the signifiers of wealth, implies they are quite high up in society because they have so much money. However, as the montage ends and the film opens, one of the couple's children is heard crying, which sets a different tone, and foreshadows that things may begin to go wrong later in the film.

Jackie and David also introduce themselves, just like Daisy does in The Bling Dynasty. For example, when Jackie is first seen she states her name, age, where she is, where she is from, and how many children she has. Pictures are also used to show this to the audience. By doing this, Greenfield shows that the characters will lead the audience into their world, and that the documentary will be observational.

This is also shown by tracking shots which follow the characters, such as when Jackie is followed by the camera around the building site of the family's new house, showing her friend, and consequently the audience, what they plan to build. 

The Siegels are also introduced through how their interviews are framed so that details can be seen in the background since these show something about the characters, much like in Kids+Money. For example, behind David a stuffed dog can be seen, which he talks about fondly during the interview as it was his beloved pet. These dogs also feature prominently in the documentary since the Siegels own several of them, and David and Jackie's interviews are even linked by them as Jackie has one sitting on her lap for much of her main interview. 

All the components used in the documentary serve to link and move the narrative along. An example of this is that during the second house tour sequence Jackie is seen speaking to one of her children's nannies, which acts as an introduction to her for the audience as it then leads to an interview with the nanny.

Another example is that while the main interviews with the Siegels are conducted in their house, snippets are picked up later at different locations and times, such as during the house tour sequence with Jackie when she talks about the new house they are building. This sequence is even later repeated in a way as Jackie revisits the house after the market crashes. This helps show that the Siegels cannot afford to continue building and things have changed in their lives because of this event.

The market crash is shown through archive footage of news reports, since many of the scenes in the documentary were filmed a year after this occurred, in the middle of the financial crisis (Nocera, 2012). This not only helps to show that the crisis occurs, it also shows the extent of it, and places the film in historical context. 

However, because scenes were filmed after this, there are some gaps in the narrative, which are filled in using captions to show the time passing. 

Fade in/out transitions are also used to do this, but one is also used to signify a new phase of the narrative, as the financial crisis means David becomes stressed, changing the narrative from 'a detached, mildly amused cinéma verité account of people with unimaginable wealth' to 'the story of a family forced to cope with an apparent catastrophic reduction in their circumstances' (Gritten, 2012).

The effect the market crash had on David's time share business is one of many narratives about the Siegels which Greenfield intertwines and explores. She also covers Jackie's past by showing her go back to her home town, where the audience are introduced to her old best friend, and one of her neighbours, showing how far Jackie has come from being a normal country girl to being wealthy.

This is further shown by how her new life is also presented in a narrative alongside this through sequences showing her at parties, helping out charities, and spending time with her children, some of which are also interviewed.

The Siegels' wealth is also brought to attention through interviews with some of their employees, such as a couple of their children's nannies, and Jackie's driver. A shot in the sequence with Jackie's driver emphasises the space between them, which further exemplifies how she can afford to be driven around in a limo, unlike her driver, who she can afford to employ.

Overall, by intertwining these narratives Greenfield is able to show the rise of the Siegels because of the American dream initially, before the market crash leads to their downfall.

The Siegel's downfall is shown visually as Greenfield intentionally lets some shots linger for too long, capturing either an excess of things such as too many bikes in the garage, and piles of unwashed dishes in the sink, or signs of neglect such as dirt on the carpets, and a dead fish left floating in its tank. These highlight how far the Siegels fall after the market crash, since cracks in their seemingly perfect and glamorous life begin to show, and things that earlier in the documentary signified wealth, such as too many bikes, now also show neglect, since they all seem abandoned in the garage. 

Non-sync wides, especially those from the sequence which depicts Christmas, also show the abundance of stuff the Siegels have, but pay less attention to the mess, which can only be highlighted close-up, even though it can still be seen if the viewer looks close enough.

However, this portrayal of the Siegels caused controversy, since David Siegel thought that 'what we see on screen...is less a reflection of reality than a stringing together of out-of-context scenes designed to provide Ms. Greenfield her narrative arc', since many of the scenes were filmed a year after the market crash, but presented in the documentary as being beforehand (Nocera, 2012).

David Siegel therefore attempted to sue Lauren Greenfield for defamation (O' Kelly, s.d). This was because, in his opinion, she showed his time-share business in a way that was false, and critical (Nocera, 2012), but also because of how stressed he is seen to be, which causes him to seem ungrateful and impatient near the end of the film.

For example, in one scene, David will not come out of his office, but is still filmed from outside the door, giving the impression he did know he was being filmed, or did not want to be. This raises questions about ethics since David has admitted it is true that he was stressed and fed up, but not because of his business. Instead he has claimed he was sick of being filmed by Greenfield and her crew (Nocera, 2012), which is shown in the last interview of the documentary by the way he can be heard talking to Greenfield, dismissing one of her questions, and asking her 'are we getting near the end?', as the crew prepare him to be filmed.

According to Nichols (2017:32-3), drawing attention to the constructed nature of a documentary like this can show how participants' behaviour can be altered by being filmed, and they can therefore feel as if they have been used to present a false statement about themselves. This seems to be what happened with Lauren Greenfield and David Siegel, however, a judge claimed of the lawsuit that the film 'did not remotely establish the type of malice required for a defamation claim on behalf of a public figure' (Gardner, 2014). Therefore, Lauren Greenfield won the lawsuit, mainly because the techniques she used, such as the observational style which means it is as if the audience meet and follow the family, helped the audience to relate to them and even feel sympathetic towards them (Gritten, 2012).

At the end of the documentary, this attention to the film being constructed is further highlighted as the Siegels reflect on events Greenfield has filmed. Jackie even refers to the film being made when she states that she doesn't really understand what has happened in her life and will 'have to watch the movie.' By having the Siegels reflect on what the story documents, and highlighting that the film has been made, Greenfield allows the audience to come up with their own opinion on the Siegels and their situation, as it is evident that Greenfield has presented only a part of the Siegels' lives, not the whole reality.

The end also links back to the house tour sequences, since the observation deck at the Siegels' home which is under construction is shown, with fireworks going off above it, which Jackie had previously stated was the reason they wanted to build it, so they could watch the fireworks. Captions also tell what has happened to the Siegels since filming wrapped, updating the audience, and finishing the story.

Altogether, although it caused some controversy, through the techniques Greenfield uses, such as follow shots, close-ups, intertwining narratives and the awareness of the film's construction, The Queen of Versailles is able to 'disarm the reflex of superiority that the spectacle of her subjects’ way of life may provoke in some viewers' (Scott, 2012) since they are brought closer to the Siegels' lifestyle in a manner that makes the viewer feel both disgusted at how much they have, and sympathetic at how much they therefore have to lose.

Generation Wealth (2018)

Generation Wealth is Lauren Greenfield's upcoming film, which continues to investigate the theme which most commonly recurs across her work, wealth, but is also therefore very self-reflective. Therefore, it is said that 'Greenfield dedicates much of “Generation Wealth” to her own situation, interviewing her parents about what shaped this fixation she seems to have with status' (Debruge, 2018). Compared to her other documentaries, it seems that this film will show its construction even more explicitly, so it will be interesting to see if Greenfield can still investigate the topic and be detached, as well as reflect on her own life and career.




In conclusion, all of the techniques used by Lauren Greenfield give her films a personal feel, since viewers are introduced to the world of the characters mostly through the characters, yet they are still somewhat detached because of the distance which is sometimes put between the camera and the characters, or the amount of characters which are featured. This allows Greenfield to investigate the topics and subjects she chooses to feature.

Photo from The Bling Dynasty (2015) and Generation Wealth (2018)

Still frame from The Bling Dynasty (2015)

How Lauren Greenfield achieves this can be seen in this photograph and still frame of the same woman who was one of the interviewees featured in The Bling Dynasty. Much of the way Greenfield frames her films is similar to the framing of her photographs. It is said that her photographs, much like some of her film frames, 'are densely packed with visual information. These images and the ways in which the sitters present themselves are alternately shocking, humorous, touchingly vulnerable, and, often, unnervingly brash, a quality that reveals the trust she builds with the people on the other side of her camera' (International Center of Photography, s.d). This is how Greenfield is able to create a personal, yet detached feeling with her documentaries since, as shown in the example above, the woman takes the audience into her world, but Greenfield shows it to them from afar in places as well to capture the bigger picture, and encourage thought.

How Lauren Greenfield's work influenced our documentary:

Although we wanted to investigate our contributors' obsessions like Lauren Greenfield investigates the lives of her contributors, we mainly wanted the audience to be able to relate to them so that they may be empowered by their stories and encouraged to also take up a sport which they may have been afraid to take up because it is so male dominated. Therefore, we mainly used techniques inspired by Greenfield's work which would create a more personal feel by bringing the audience closer to the contributors since the topic is 'My Obsession' so we thought it should mainly focus on the contributors and their sports.

For example, to make it as if the audience are meeting the contributors, much like Greenfield does when introducing the Siegels in The Queen of Versailles, our contributors introduce themselves and tell the audience about themselves and their sports, leading viewers into their world. Similar to Greenfield's use of tracking shots, this shows that the style of the documentary will be observational and led by the characters.
This inspired us to also use a GoPro to get shots from the contributors' points of view, since this literally places the audience in their shoes, and makes it as if they are participating in the sport also, giving them a feel for what it is like.

Influenced mainly by Kids+Money but also by The Bling Dynasty, we also decided to use an opening montage since this helps introduce the viewers to the world, especially since the point of covering this topic in our documentary was to raise awareness of it because of how little is known about female skateboarders and roller derby by most people. This immediately makes the topic clear, and establishes it quickly, but not in a way which could confuse the audience since we tried to avoid this by using only basic, general shots of skateboarding and roller derby in this sequence.

At the end of this sequence, we decided to freeze the contributors mid action shot in order to slow them down and allow the audience to focus on them and what their sport is since the sequence is quite quick in places because of the speed of the sports. This was able to add emphasis, much like the still pictures in The Bling Dynasty acted as visual evidence of some Chinese families' wealth, but instead showing the skill involved in these sports, as well as the contributors more clearly since this acts as a first introduction to them for viewers so it is important they can identify them.

As Greenfield tends to do with most of her contributors during interviews, we also used interview locations which had details in the frame behind the contributor to imply things to the audience about them before they had even begun speaking. For example, with our roller derby player, Jasmine, we decided to interview her in the function room above the sports centre where her roller derby practise is held every week since not only did it provide clean sound, but also still fit with her obsession. It gave the interview a more personal feel than if it had been conducted in a plain or neutral environment as the audience still stay in her world.

To also help give the interviews a more personal feel, we varied the shot sizes to get coverage like Greenfield does in Beauty CULTure. To emphasise important or emotional points, we asked questions to the contributors again using a close-up shot, for example, when one of the female skateboarders, Kayleigh, talked about skateboarding being not a hobby, but a lifestyle. By emphasising these points like this, especially some of the more emotional and personal ones which revealed a lot about the contributor and their relation to their sport, the audience are brought closer to their story, and can further relate or empathise with them.

Because the skateboarders' skateboards, and the roller derby players' skates are so essential to them being able to carry out their sports, and are therefore very important to them, we used close-up shots to highlight this, influenced by how Greenfield uses close-ups in The Bling Dynasty to signify the wealth of one of her contributors and her classmates. This emphasises our contributors' obsessions with their sports, but also focuses the audience on details they may otherwise miss, such as the patterns on the skateboards, as they are not visible when the contributors are skating but are still very personal since they have been customised for, and even by, them.
Similar to Kids+Money, we also used a few cutaways in interviews to aim to do the same thing, and show our contributors' prized possessions being their skateboards and roller skates.

Instead of commentary, we decided to use a couple of captions to bridge gaps in our documentary's narrative, inspired by the montage from Kids+Money and points in The Queen of Versailles. This was mainly because we prefer this to commentary and didn't want to fill in too many gaps ourselves, since the aim was to have the contributors mostly lead the audience. Also, we thought the beginning statistic was clearer in a caption, and could get lost if said in commentary because of the fast pace of the opening sequence it would have been laid over.

References:

Annenberg Space for Photography (2011) BEAUTY CULTURE. [online press release] At: beauty-culture (Accessed on 15 April 2018)

Debruge, P. (2018) 'Sundance Film Review: 'Generation Wealth'' In: variety.com [online] At: http://variety.com/2018/film/festivals/generation-wealth-review-lauren-greenfield-1202667972/ (Accessed on 26 April 2018)

Gardner, E. (2014) ''Queen of Versailles' Filmmaker Beats Westgate's Defamation Claim (Exclusive)' In: hollywoodreporter.com [online] At: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/queen-versailles-filmmaker-beats-westgates-688730 (Accessed on 26 April 2018)

Gonzalez, D. (2015) 'China's Superrich: The Bling Dynasty' In: lens.blogs.nytimes.com [online] At: https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/chinas-superrich-the-bling-dynasty/  (Accessed on 21 April 2018)

Gritten, D. (2012) 'The Queen of Versailles: farewell to the American dream' In: telegraph.co.uk [online] At: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/9511619/The-Queen-of-Versailles-farewell-to-the-American-dream.html (Accessed on 26 April 2018)

Institute Artist (2012) documentary: Kids + Money // Lauren Greenfield [online press release] At: documentary-Kids-Money-Lauren-Greenfield (Accessed on 21 April 2018)

International Center of Photography (s.d) GENERATION WEALTH by Lauren Greenfield. [online press release] At: https://www.icp.org/exhibitions/generation-wealth-by-lauren-greenfield (Accessed on 27 April 2018)

Krinsky, T. (2009) 'It's the Economy, Dude: Lauren Greenfield Looks at Kidsumerism' In: documentary.org [online] At: https://www.documentary.org/magazine/it’s-economy-dude-lauren-greenfield-looks-kidsumerism  (Accessed on 21 April 2018)

Nichols, B. (2017) Introduction to Documentary. (3rd ed.) Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Nocera, J. (2012) 'House of Cards: 'The Queen of Versailles' and its Lawsuit' In: nytimes.com [online] At: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/movies/the-queen-of-versailles-and-its-lawsuit.html  (Accessed on 25 April 2018)

O'Kelly, D. (s.d) 'Bigger Than The Ritz: 'The Queen of Versailles' Tells a Tale of Conspicuous Consumption' In: documentary.org [online] At: https://www.documentary.org/online-feature/bigger-ritz-queen-versailles-tells-tale-conspicuous-consumption (Accessed on 22 April 2018)

Paget, D. (2004) 'Codes and conventions of dramadoc and docudrama' In: Allen, C. (ed.) and Hill, A. (ed.) The Television Studies Reader London: Routledge.pp. 196-208.

Relth, K.J. (s.d) 'Meet the DocuWeeks Filmmakers: Lauren Greenfield--'Beauty CULTure'.' In: International Documentary Association [online] At: https://www.documentary.org/online-feature/meet-docuweeks-filmmakers-lauren-greenfield-beauty-culture (Accessed on 15 April 2018)

Scott, A. O. (2012) 'Let Them Eat Crow' In: nytimes.com [online] At: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/movies/review-the-queen-of-versailles-by-lauren-greenfield.html  (Accessed on 26 April 2018)

Story Institute (s.d) The Bling Dynasty. [online press release] At: bling-dynasty (Accessed on 21 April 2018)

Walters, J.L. (2010) 'Lauren Greenfield' In: eyemagazine.com [online] At: http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/lauren-greenfield (Accessed on 21 April 2018)