Since this week’s topic involves an examination of documentaries “in the Postmodern Era,” it’s useful to begin our discussion by determining the definition of “postmodern.” It’s a phrase that has been thrown about in popular culture for years, but what precisely do we mean when we say that something is “postmodern”?
Scholar Fredric Jameson famously theorized the postmodern in his 1991 work Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (and yes, get ready for a brief VM200 Media Theory and Criticism refresher). Jameson identified 10 characteristics of the postmodern, and claimed that the following features inform our contemporary lives:
- Aesthetic populism (there is no difference between “high” and “low” culture anymore)
- Depthlessness (everything is reduced to an image, flatness, the primacy of the surface)
- Waning of affect (Our emotional responses to our cultural phenomenon is changing, now our emotions are impersonal and free-floating)
- The end of the subject/ego (there is no more individuality, no more unique style, no more unified concept of identity)
- Pastiche (a “cut and paste” decontextualization and recycling of artifacts from the past, collage; there is nothing original being create)
- “Historicism” over history (we are disconnected from our past, our history no longer bears any resemblance to our current experience, we can only “signify” the past without ever being able to access it)
- Nostalgia (our longing for the past, our attempts at recapturing idealized visions of what the past was like - whether these visions bear any resemblance to what the experience was actually like has no relevance)
- Schizophrenia (the fragmentation of the self, feeling disconnected from your lived experience, the breaking down of the “signifying chain”, free-floating and unrelated signifiers)
- Radical Difference (everything in life is a “text” that we read and it only gains meaning through how it is different - and not how it is the same - as everything else)
- The Hysterical Sublime & Our Relationship with Technology (technology now seems to dominate our daily existences to such an extent that we have an ambivalent relationship with it; we simultaneously experience euphoria, delight, and marvel AND we are terrified by it; our human brains also can’t begin to fathom the implications of technology and all of this leads to the feeling of the hysterically sublime)
Given the above list and what you know about postmodernism, do you think that postmodernism has affected recent documentary filmmaking? If so, how? Can you give examples of recent non-fiction films that you consider to be “postmodern”? Do agree with film historian Lucia Ricciardelli when she characterizes Errol Morris’ The Fog of War as “a paradigmatic example of American postmodern documentary films” (35)? Why or why not? How does viewing the work through a “postmodern lens” help us understand how Morris (re)presents McNamara and history?
Is Fog of War really that postmodern? It certainly uses postmodern techniques - pastiche, non-linear storytelling, Morris' open-ended interview style, etc - but it uses them for a surprisingly traditional task: a moral lesson. The way the film is broken into small parables reminds one more of a Greek play, warning against hubris and power, than a a documentary disinterested in empirical truth. There is also a dialectic element in the film's philosophizing, a concern with contradictions and paradoxes, that would be familiar to those in the modernist era.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the Vietnam war, its portrayal suffers not so much from a postmodern historicization - i.e. turning historical events into parodies of themselves - but from the politicization of history by those who were themselves involved. With Vietnam still in living memory there is a struggle to define the terms on which the story is retold. The question then becomes, do the perpetrators of atrocities get to help tell the stories of their crimes?
To look at Fog of War through Jameson's postmodernism lens, I would say that the documentary is an example of a postmodern documentary.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I noticed most strikingly was the stark contrast between McNamara's interview set (the sleek, stainless steel walls) and the subject matter at hand (WWII and the Vietnam War). This juxtaposition suggests to me a type of schizophrenia or separation between Robert McNamara in 2003 and Robert McNamara in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.
McNamara's account of his military and managerial experiences (taking surveys, conducting studies, drawing inferences about the military and his business from this conducted research) seems to represent Jameson's "historicism." The scrawled handwriting on yellowing paper containing facts and figures about bomber airplanes from WWII are images that clearly represent the past, for these images would seem alien in 2011's era of computers and electronic file storage. McNamara's commentary on the past creates a demarcation between war tactics of mid-twentieth century and those of the present. Similarly, Morris' images are signifiers of the past and not realistic indexical signs of the present.
McNamara's relationship with technology also exemplifies one of Jameson's tenets of postmodernism. Initially, he speaks with delight and wonder regarding the new bomber planes that were capable of dropping bombs from higher altitudes. But then he speaks of his fear of nuclear warfare and the situation with Krushev that almost ended disastrously. This simulatneos awe and fear of technology aligns with Jameson's definition of postmodernism.
Is it possible to focus on the heart of the story without grasping at social movements like postmodernism? Why is it necessary to analyze the film through a postmodern lens to see what is really going on? Can't the film stand alone without having to fit into a larger body of work/art?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't find the need for it. My initial reaction to the film was not, "wow, what great use of a postmodern editing style" but rather "wow, what a great story." Sure, The Fog of War couldn't have been the same movie without the postmodern conventions that Morris utilized and that McNamara helped present in the making of the film, but at the root of the movie is the life story of Robert McNamara and that's what found the most interesting. It was the content in relation to the presentation of said content that made it a great film. Without McNamara's willingness to talk on camera and present his life in such an open and self-reflective way, there would be film, postmodern or not. And for every point that Jameson makes about its postmodernism, there is a counter argument as to why it isn't postmodern. There is so much emotionally connection in this film because we can all relate to having made mistakes in the past and owning up for them.
I don't mean to sound harsh but I think this discussion is somewhat arbitrary in the totality of the film and should not be the focus of our discourse. I find talking about Morris' interviewing techniques much more fascinating and relevant to the film.
Of course post modernism has influenced recent documentaries. But I feel that it really is just an influence; something thats only a part of what creates a documentary. Film's like Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine definitely contains post modernistic elements but I don't think the film could be labeled as entirely post modern. The exaggerated parody style cartoons Moore uses to quickly layout the history behind gun control is quite obviously a disconnected view of the past that falls in with the "Historicism over history" criteria for post modernism. However he completely counters that when he uses home video's from his childhood and thereby creates a very strong link and sympathetic emotional connection with the past. This could just be a question of how far back in history can we go before we start to feel disconnected but I feel like theres only individualistic answers for that question which vary greatly from person to person. With all this said I feel like I can't really bring myself to call the Fog of War a “a paradigmatic example of American postmodern documentary films.” Though I would agree that The Fog of War is far more post modern than Bowling for Columbine, in my opinion for any film to be completely post modern would mean a total abandon of close to all familiar and established documentary film making techniques. In all honesty I feel that it would be impossible to escape the influence of established film making techniques and cultural ideas as long as you remain within the society that established them meaning that it would be impossible for anything to ever be entirely post modern.
ReplyDeleteI guess I didn't really think about the film being post-modern as I watched it, but I it does have a lot of elements of that. I talked about my opinion on that in class, I think anything made nowadays will inevitably have post-modern elements.
ReplyDeleteI know that it's important to think about the film from a post-modern perspective but I think there is also something to be said about looking at the film as what it is, without the attachments of categorization.
Overall, I still think that this film is about a moral dilemma. Regardless of what you think about McNamara's guilt/innocence, I think it's pretty clear that this film is about difficult decisions he made, and ethical questions that those decisions raise. It's not so much about whether or not he made the "right" decisions -- it's very hard to grasp what those decisions would be, even in hindsight-- it's more about getting into McNamara's perspective, a man who once held incredible power and influence, and seeing firsthand what it is to make decisions that influence nations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the post-modern filming/editing techniques are "out there in the wind" now, and when that is coupled with (relatively) easy access to modern digital film and editing systems... all the "isms" of filmic techniques are up for grabs. I think that's why it's harder to categorize any type of "film movement" today, then it had been in the past.
ReplyDeleteIf F.W. Murnau had posted "Nosferatu" on Youtube and within months or even days, everybody around the globe was using his style and techniques... would we be calling it "German" Expressionism? Or just Expressionism? Or would it all have morphed into something else altogether and now we would be calling it... what?
Whatever and however we may "categorize" this film, one thing is very clear. It is a very powerful film. It makes you take pause, think, argue and debate. It did its job... and in the end... that's exactly what Errol Morris wanted. I also think that's what Robert McNamara wanted as well... not absolution.
Errol Morris exemplifies expressly contemporary nonfictional trends in documentary film making. Successfully combining styles of narrative and documentary-like investigation, Morris digs deep into the dark shadows of Robert McNamara's memories, holding his own 'trial' to explore and uncover truths and perspective about one of America's darkest times.
ReplyDeleteMorris' style and tone could not be more different than films/filmmakers like Michael Moore and his approach to documentary film making. Using unique interviewing techinques that provide great insight into McNamara's character and emotional status as he re-lives and experiences very disturbing memories from a very dark time. Had Morris used more standard interviewing procedures I feel as if the genuine honesty and guilt we see in McNamara would not be present in the film "The Fog of War".
With very high production values in his documentaries, especially the "Fog of War", Morris nonetheless questions 'historical, intellectual, political and philosophical aspects of McNamara's involvement in the events covered. As a film maker, does his criticisms of Robert McNamara hold up? Does Morris' over-stylized approach to his subject work? Is he representing truth with/and historical accuracy, while noting that 'historical truth' is necessarily relative to the varying perspectives which define them.
To me this idea of postmodernism is a label for a concept that I believe has been around for much longer than the period typically defines - but that's another story. I do feel, however that these characteristics of postmodernism are worth mentioning - especially for someone who creates media. It pleases me to know that scholars can acknowledge that nothing is completely original and that our surroundings influence our work. To be cognizant of that, and to nurture such behavior, is refreshing as an artist. Pastiche is a technique that occurs both subconsciously and consciously in my work, synthesizing elements from several sources to create something else - not necessarily new or unique, but something else.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to films that employ such characteristics the list would be quite large. One that stands out in my mind is "The Same River Twice" by Robb Moss. This film is highly nostalgic in recalling footage and memory of a time in the 60s/70s. It also contemplates personal histories and our relationships within society/technology as it pertains to happiness, aptly utilizing postmodern techniques within the narrative of the film.
LOWELL! I'm responding to your post. I totally agree with you, in the way that we, as film students//makers//critics, interpret film in a way that MUST have some sort of subtext. In this case, postmodernism. I totally get your points about whether or not we even have to view this film through a postmodern lense...whether or not this is a "postmodern" film.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned Morris "utilized postmodern convention"...but did he really use them? Is it possible that the film has postmodern aspects without the intent of Morris? I think it is. I don't think that he intentionally set out to make a postmodern film about the Vietnam War. I think he set out to make a documentary film. His postmodern tendencies come out in the end result, but that may not have been his intent.
It's nearly impossible to view this film without the postmodern lens. The truth of it is, this war already happened, and Robert Macnamara had had years to reflect on his mistakes.
Kelly - I definitely agree that it's almost impossible to view films like this withOUT the post-modern lens mentioned here. I think there's a lot to say in that way just about how different social groups...perceive these types of things, and one aspect of THAT would be generationalism. McNamara and Morris are guilty of an interesting kind of narrative shape-shifting that seeks to interpret events that are very specifically ingrained in a certain generation's mind, and very fluid and ideological in the mind of our generation.
ReplyDeleteWhile that says a lot about our generation's (and in my opinion, our generation's media's) role is historicizing those events, it says more about the post-modern idea of the nostalgic, longing for an idealized version of the past. While McNamara's is certainly a depressing account of what went on to create the debacle in Vietnam, he seems to be trying to paint everything with a broad brush of idealized and over-simplified ideas, aided and abetted by Morris' "Lessons" motif.
Thoughts?
Yeah, I agree. At this point, we can't escape post-modernism. Everything has its influences.
ReplyDeleteWinnebago Man is a recent doc that's very post-modern. It's about a guy who wants to find and talk to another guy who was in a funny video on youtube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDQQfBrSUs0) It's got depthlessness, schizophrenia, and the hysterical sublime.
What John P. said about the nostalgic feel of the past is interesting. We normally think of nostalgia as a positive thing, where you are taken back to a vivid memory and you almost relive past events. That's certainly what McNamara is doing, but he clearly is not having a good time while reminiscing. He boils all the stories down to simple facts, and evades certain other questions, so it's hard to get a real sense as to what he's thinking.