Before we start discussing documentaries from the last 10 years, it's useful to first talk about what we mean when we use the term "documentary." I asked each of you to write down your own definition of "documentary," and here's a sample of what you said:
- "Non-fiction; non-narrative; portrayal of real and true events"
-"A documentary is something (media-related) that explores topics/events which are things generally unknown or unclear to common man. The purpose of the documentary is to explore these topics and enlighten others about things they may never learn in schools or be exposed to at all."
-"An attempt to subjectively capture and convey accurate accounts of the world as it is happening."
-"A film (or video) intended as a document of some political, historical, cultural, social event or events."
- "I think a documentary is a non-fiction account of a chosen topic. Documentary films present this account via movie picture and sound. A documentary may feature partisan personal interviews or original footage or reenactments, but the intention of all presented content is not to mislead, but rather present an assumed truth."
- "A documentary is a film that is presented as nonfiction. It is a filmmaker's attempt to capture and convey something 'real' on camera. It's a tough thing to define because you can't box it in. The more you narrow the definition the more you stifle the true potential of what documentary can be."
All very provocative statements! I think the sample of definitions above raises some important questions that I'd like for you all to address. What do we mean when we use terms like "real," "true," and "accurate" in this documentary context? Fiction films also portray real people and events (just think of films like "The Fighter" and "Schindler's List"), so what's the difference between fiction and non-fiction? In other words, what does it mean to be "non-fiction"? What does it mean to "document" something? What is involved in this process? What is at stake here? Do documentaries have to be non-narrative (in other words, can you think of docs that present information in the form of a narrative)? What about this idea of "intent" and the mission of the documentary filmmaker? Should the purpose of every documentary filmmaker be to "enlighten others" and never to "mislead"? Who gets to decide what is misleading and what isn't?
Next, you wrote down how you would characterize the last 10 years in documentary filmmaking. Again, here's a sample of your comments:
- "Last 10 years? Digital progression allows for more people to more easily document things they want to in places and ways that weren't exactly previously possible. Tarnation comes to mind of a perfect example of this new development."
- "Politicized. Recent docs seem to be 'over' the experiment-laden years of early, celluloid documentary film and are relatable to current events even if they do not depict them. The distribution capabilities of internet mean that current, highly political messages are more immediate/effective than ever."
- "A few things come to mind. One would be the ease of production afforded by improving video technology. Thus, there are many more docs these days than in times past, covering more topics. Another would be the embrace of destroying the 4th wall, with directors often taking active part in the films. It ends up blurring lines between journalism, documentary and activism further than they always have been."
- "I would say recent documentaries in the past 10 years are largely politically motivated with objectives to expose the human condition's shortcomings and correct it."
- "Documentaries in the last 10 years have been hugely shaped by national and global events. 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have informed not only content but style, as well. Disenchantment of government, war and politics has played a large part in the stylization of certain films. Also, technology has changed documentary. The availability of capturing image has been more readily available in the last 10 years than ever before. Not only traditional cameras, but through cell phones and flip-cams."
Politics and technology seemed to be the two aspects of recent documentaries that most of you highlighted in your responses. Many of you identified a certain urgency in the docs from the last 10 years, a predisposition towards activism and using cinema as a way to enact social/political/cultural change. Do you think this is something new? From what you know about docs pre-2001, is this interest in politics, this drive towards making the world a better place, this influence of technology - are these things something new and unique to the 21st century documentary filmmaking practice? Why or why not?
From the looks of your responses from class, we're off to an excellent start! We'll talk about these issues in class Monday (especially once everyone has read the assigned readings - we'll see how your ideas change/don't change particularly after the Renov and Nichols' chapters), but let's get the discussions going online now.
Let the debates begin!
When we use terms like “real” and “true” we are attempting to describe a potentially unknowable concept. In the context of documentary, the motive of many filmmakers is to convey their idea of the truth (though there are surely exceptions in motive). Essentially their perceived truth is exhibited on screen for the viewer to make their own conjectures. While a filmmaker may have every intention to objectively relay what they believe to be true/real, nearly every step in the production process deviates from their intent – subjectivity is added every step of the way. While I regret sounding so pessimistic, it seems that untainted truth and reality may be slightly out of reach, however I do believe subjectivity is one of the most beautiful of notions.
ReplyDeleteAs far as documentary subject matter is concerned, it seems as though activism seeking documentaries have been around for quite some time. From Why We Fight, the seven propaganda films of WWII, to the 2005 of a film with the same name contemplating the military-industrial complex, documentaries have attempted to convince or convey a political response. What may be more evident than a shift in subject matter is a rise in frequency of like-themed documentaries. Much of this can be attributed to sheer increase in accessibility to tools needed to create such films.
According to Renov, what is real (or, reality, as he discusses) does not have to be verified as true or false; it just simply is. By that definition, virtually anything can be described as real. "Accuracy" refers to the proximity of something in relation to the truth. Truth, however, seems the most subjective of the three. A documentary may claim to unearth the truth or recreate a scenario presumed to be true. However, Renov notes that while film used to be deemed an indexical sign (the photochemicals in film having the ability to perfectly recreate a moment in time), it is not because things like camera angles, lighting, etc. affect the frame and distort its "truth." Likewise, documentary film is distorted by the way it is received by its audience. This distortion leads to the claim that perhaps truth does not exist; a documentary cannot portray anything without the slant of the film maker's perspective or the effects of the camera. Even if it could defy these influences, the audience's perception is not guaranteed to align with the "truth" presented, resulting in an inability to communicate "truth."
ReplyDeletePolitically charged films, specifically documentary films, are not new. As we watched in class today, Triumph of the Will and Why We Fight are two WWII-era political documentaries. I think what differs between these documentaries and recent documentaries is their respective contexts in history. With the boom of the internet, we are currently in an information age where people who didn't typically have access to information now do. Take for example Why We Fight. WWII wasn't a televised war and the internet wasn't around, so people weren't exposed to extensive information about the war. So that particular documentary attempted to present information about the war, albeit biased. More recent political documentaries seem not so much to present generic information (something viewers are already assumed to have access to), but they tend to attempt to shed light on new information or things presumed to be unknown prior to the documentary's production. For example, in Michael Moore's Sicko, he doesn't simply present information about the United State's healthcare system (information Americans may know or have easy access to). He delves into facts and figures from other countries and attempts to make his argument using this information and presenting it as new evidence.
My primary objective for taking this class was generally, to expand my horizons. My entire concept of what a documentary really is has already changed drastically. I used to see them as merely educational tools that sometimes had the added bonus of actually being entertaining. But, as Armstrong discusses in his article, "Innovation in Documentary: Big Brothers, Non-Conformists and Hybrids", everything from reality tv to news programs, to hybrids like docu-musicals now fit into the category of "documentary".
ReplyDeleteI think that as more and more people realize that what they're already watching and enjoying on tv is rooted in the same non-fiction form as the documentaries that many view as boring or too high brow, the audience for documentary film will grow.
I had a similar experience as Danielle. For some reason, i had never thought of reality TV shows, shows on the History channel, or even the nightly news as a form of documentary- but quite obviously, they are. This epiphany made me wary, though, of the future of documentaries, or rather the future content of such films/television shows in the genre. Though it is so much easier for filmmakers to create documentaries (technologically speaking, that is), and though there appears to be a demand for more and more documentation of news, events, people, and politics (based off of the sheer number of reality TV shows that exist, as well as political commentary shows, news shows, etc.), i am afraid that there will be a decline in the importance or relevance of the content as well as the artistic portrayal of said content, as is apparent already by the content of many of these programs currently airing on TV. I don't know if TV's inherent nature of constantly producing hours and hours of non-stop entertainment will have an effect on documentary films in theaters and within the art crowds but it seems that the documentary style productions on TV are shows obsessed with seeing everyday people bicker, argue, and fight for the sole purpose of getting some cash or fifteen minutes of fame (i.e. The Real World, The Jersey Shore, Temptation Island, The Swan, American Idol, America's Got Talent). Besides some of the programs provided by The History Channel, The Discover Channel, and Animal Planet (though some of their shows could be considered less than educational), it is my fear that the majority of TV documentaries will contaminate the artistry and competence of motion picture docs due to their flashy presentations, lack of original storytelling, editing, and content, and failure to provide any educational or valuable information. Because in all honesty, I'd rather watch an overtly manipulative documentary that tries to bring facts to light or uncover the truth than TV programming like The Jersey Shore.
ReplyDeleteMan, these comments are intimidating. In the true essence of blogging, I'm going to keep my comments informal as hell (nothing against all yous guys INCREDIBLY well written and super detailed very scholarly type responses) and save my fancy writin skillz for my papers lol.
ReplyDeleteIm a believer of "there is no such thing as absolute objectivity". Everything is relative. So the assigned readings for me weren't sparking any epiphanies as far as the "true nature" of docs. Of course theyre different from narratives. But for me the main difference between docs and narratives is what the filmmakers goal was in making it. What influence were they trying to have over their viewers? For me a documentary is trying to move an audience towards and understanding or a new thought process. A doc tries to change the way a person thinks. A narrative on the other hand focuses more on how people feel. Narrative films try and elicit an emotional response in its viewers. Now I'm not saying that a narrative can't make people think differently or a doc can't change your feelings but to me it seems that if these two opposing film types do incorporate their counterpart's goals, its usually as a means to achieve their original goals. Put simply: Narrative uses thought to achieve emotion and Documentary uses emotion to change thought process.
I initially wanted to take this class, not only because it fulfilled a senior requirement, but because I have been taking a fair amount of documentary-oriented classes and thought it'd be a good experience to learn about and be exposed to documentaries made namely in my lifetime. Entering this class I perceived a documentary to be a work of media that explores a topic that is generally not very well know to the common man and woman. The purpose, I believed, was to enlighten people about important topics that they might never get the opportunity to learn about or experience. In the short time this class has been going on, I've seen that the 'documentary' can do essentially anything, expose and question uncomfortable societal topics that might otherwise never come to light, it is in addition a near perfect medium to stand up to and question individuals and ideals alike that one might never have the opportunity to confront in person.
ReplyDeleteThanks to previous classes I've taken with Maruta, I wasn't too blown away by the revelations offered in the readings. I've had plenty of time to accept the line of thinking proposed by Renov and company, and it's allowed me to come to my own conclusion about the myth of objectivity. Like Chris, I would claim that there is no "absolute objectivity," not just in the realm of documentary but in everything that we experience. Humans are capable of empathy but no matter how hard we try to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, we will always bring our own perceptions to the table. We're not blank slates. We have opinions and beliefs, and it's unrealistic to expect documentary filmmakers to somehow rise above that. We want our media makers to these stoic figures of truth and justice but as talented as many of them may be, at the end of the day, they're human beings and we can't expect any more objectivity from them than we can from ourselves. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Take Michael Moore, for example. His films are unabashedly biased, laden with his personal opinions and beliefs. But in that respect I consider them some of the most honest documentaries out there. Moore doesn't present his films with an air of objectivity. He doesn't pretend to be something he's not. I think it is far worse for something to claim to be objective and then not be. Most of society, however, believes that objectivity equals legitimacy. I think (and hope) that as the 21st Century continues, we will begin to see more and more documentary filmmakers embrace their own subjectivity and allow it to drive their films rather than strive for the fairy tale that is absolute objectivity.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite documentaries have been the ones that opened my eyes to a piece of the world in an interesting and creative way. Some of them were very driven by perspective while others tried to remain objective. But what matters to me as a viewer is how well they can represent truth.
ReplyDeleteTruth is entirely subjective, and because of this I think it's important to not overlook the importance of perspective and creativity. As an aspiring filmmaker myself, I always want to improve my understanding of genres and documentary is a genre I've always kept close to my heart because I began in the documentary format. I've come to understand through my viewership outside the class of documentaries that there is no limit to the potential of creativity possible in the documentary format.
A good example, I think is the 2009 film "Oceans" by Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud. Although in many ways it resembles a traditional nature documentary, the pacing and narration offer a poetic sense of wonder. I hope to make a film like that someday.
The fictive aspect of documentary is what has opened my eyes the most based on the reading//discussions. For me, there is a fictive way of looking at anything. Everything is filtered through the filmmaker/author/speaker of any subject. There really is no correct way of looking at anything. Aside from the cinematic elements of looking at documentaries, there are personal elements to be examined as well. (i.e. what was Juaqien Phoenix really trying to say with "I'm Still Here")...was it a cry for attention or a cry for intellectual examination?
ReplyDeleteWow! There are a lot of great comments here. In response to some of the posts… for me the non-fiction documentary film is still an individual filmmaker(s) artistic form of expression, as is any fiction or "feature" film and therefor is still open to that particular filmmakers interpretation of the events they are presenting. The one thing that still seems to separate them is the documentary film is “supposed” to contain facts and actual events (regardless if they a present day or historical) and not be a completely fictionalized story. Not to say that feature films don’t do this as in the afore mentioned “Schindler’s List” but if you watch the “companion” DVD that comes with “Schindler’s List” you will see how certain character’s and/or events were altered or “homogenized” by the film’s director and/or producers for one cinema-graphic reason or another… which is completely understandable when you’re trying to tell a story of such vast proportions as “Schindler’s List” does.
ReplyDeleteInformal, but hopefully thought-provoking. Begin?
ReplyDeleteIt's less of an issue of "what truth is" - that's a purely academic question with no answer.
The question is how your audience (in this class, and for our immediate future, probably Western, college-educated type i.e. type who would spend 7 bucks at Kendall or has a Netflix account) perceives the work, and essentially, perceives photography as medium. Even though American audiences are increasingly savvy of how crappy the CGI in The Sorcerer's Apprentice was, but can they know how the doc-filmmaker used some ridiculous L-cut to conjure a soundbyte? We have a perception that there is an inverse relationship to "slick" Hollywood shooting style and the "truth." What seems more 'real,' or verifiable? There are ways to shoot documentaries with locked-down, aesthetically beautiful images on film, but Michael Moore doesn't, partly because of cost, and partly because we expect a certain level of amateur photography to verify the "truth" of what we see.
Trying to conform yourself to a “life system” (Religious System) that is over three millennia old… a system created exclusively by men, who had the power through ownership of property… that grew into a group of “agricultural tycoons” and then became the Kings and aristocrats of court, or became the leaders of whatever religion, in the newly created “societies” that came out of the occidental-oriental regions of the Near and Middle East between 4000BC – 650AD. All known texts of the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Koran were written during this period in history, so… why go back to a time when “men” had no idea how to control large populations who by this time had wine and beer… and all sorts of sexual possibilities (for both men and woman, strait or gay)… I guess with people running around drunk and screwing everything that moved, some of the men in power decided to lay down some ground rules, for people to follow… very much like rules-of-the-road in driving… in order to create peace, productivity and general harmony.
ReplyDeleteWhat the came up with then… is very different from what “we” have come up with since.
I guess in the end, I have to say I did like the film… but it’s like when I was in Saudi Arabia. Everything is basically illegal (especially for women) but only a few miles drive out to the island of Bahrain you can drink, gamble, go to nightclubs and get your eardrums beat-out by Euro-techno-pop. Women (for the most part) can dress the way they like… and they do!
But… no one there would try to get his or her Imam or Mullah to say it was OK!
John-R
I'm having a pretty hard time considering whether or not a documentary should be non-narrative, but I mostly believe that it is because the term "documentary" is pretty hard to define. Some films and television shows quite obviously fall under the genre of documentary film. Things like Planet Earth, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Jesus Camp all fall pretty clearly into this category. However more narrative-style documentaries (like Waltz with Bashir) that document through a sort of narrative story, sort of blur the lines between documentary and nonfiction narrative films. This thought got me thinking much more broadly, taking into consideration things, like Danielle refers to, such as reality television, etc. These kinds of quasi-documentaries make it very difficult to define the term "documentary".
ReplyDeleteThe goal of the filmmaker should never be to mislead the viewers. We implicitly trust the information coming from a documentary because that's how we want to define it, as a documentation of events. However, we always have to own some form of skepticism because the filmmaker really does have the power to bend his film to his will. If the director wants to make a point badly enough, and what he has just isn't cutting it, he can just re-edit some parts to make it more like he wants.
ReplyDeleteSo everyone's viewing is subjective. But I definitely agree with the various sentiments over reality television versus actual documentaries. I know for a fact that reality TV is definitely cut to look more interesting, or embarrassing for the people involved. We just have to hope that a documentary film is of a much higher class than that.