When deliberating the idea of observing the world as to participating in it, one would be already under the implication that the two are at odds against each other. Whilst observation provides a valuable insight into the world and can serve as the instigator in development of one’s own opinions, being solely observational would alter this development or perhaps greatly dictate its speed. Within the realm of documentary filmmaking, questions regarding the context of would need to be asked in order to understand the effects of observation in the first place.

Documentaries, at their core, provide a platform for arguments about the world to be made. Conceptually, Bill Nichols describes documentary as “representing reality”, and that “a good documentary stimulates discussion about its subject, not the subject itself” (Nichols, 1991). Whilst a popular misconception amongst many concerns terms such as “facts” and “truth” as necessary conditions for documentary (Juel, 2006), it is important to understand that documentary films are meticulously and intricately constructed to present the argument palatably, As such, relying on observation of documentary films can be dangerous for a balanced conception of the world, for documentaries provide only a specific version of the truth, based on the reality and perspective of the filmmaker.

One of the true pioneers of documentary filmmaking, Scottish filmmaker John Grierson emphasizes this. Grierson was one of the first to liken his role as the filmmaker to an orator, presenting his products with his implanted values and reality (Nichols, 2010). Whilst Grierson’s film catalogue focuses on the attempt to enlighten its viewers and promotes action on the issues at hand, his films were often created in a very one dimensional fashion, choosing only to explore the issues from a singular perspective: that for which he could identify with. As such, many of the people who appeared in his films were not given a platform to express themselves, but were rather puppets to Grierson’s oratory. One example where this is evident is in Grierson’s 1935 film Housing Problems, which tackled the housing crisis in the slums of England in a very dry fashion. It is considered one of the films that birthed the interview within documentary filmmaking, but also very effective in its careful composition, with some alluding to the film as “propaganda”. Much of the dryness of the film can be attributed to the way in which those on screen are represented. Grierson’s careful composition creates stance whereby those viewing feel above and more superior than of the subjects in the film, as the lens for which the film has been created in leaves the viewer detached from the emotional trauma for which the subjects are suffering. As such, for an audience to be observing the world simply through films like Housing Problems prove dangerous, as the film’s one dimensional take on the issue at hand would limit the development of thoughts and ideas, and as such provide little motivation for the viewers to attempt to participate in implementing social change.

A similar sort of effect can be seen in more modern documentary filmmaking. One of the most acclaimed yet controversial documentary filmmakers of the modern era, Michael Moore is known as one of the key figures in the political documentary landscape. Moore had a similar approach about documentary to Grierson in that his films often were created with the purpose of enlightening, or displaying a different interpretation of the reality for which is generally seen. Known to often create his films with the view of inciting reactions from audiences. This is evident in Moore’s 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11, which was a critique of George W. Bush’s presidential tenure as well as the War on Terror. Critical of American institutions, the film contended that American media supported the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003; demonstrable through the lack of objectivity in analysis and coverage. Moore carefully composed the film to present a strong left wing perspective on the issues at hand. As such the film, like that of Grierson, had been formed from his own personal reality, as Moore has been open about his political stance. Whilst it had been stated “there is more to Fahrenheit 9/11 than partisan ridicule. … What’s remarkable here isn’t Moore’s political animosity or ticklish wit. It’s the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion” (Thomson, 2004), it’d be similarly dangerous for one to develop their opinions of the world solely through observation of the film. More serious allegations about the film, including that much distortion and fabrication was contained in the film, “It is [also] a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery” (Hitchens, 2004). This raises an even bigger concern for viewers, as the potential for consuming distorted information about the world makes for a very altered development of perspective.

Both Moore and Grierson lend their expertise in filmmaking to deliver a fraction of the reality, this is not to say that documentary film is not flexible as a form. The participatory mode of documentary involves an interview between the filmmaker and the subject. This allows the filmmaker to address people who appear in the film formally, as opposed to addressing the audience through the Voice of God style of commentary. According to Bill Nichols, a film of this mode “gives us a sense of what it is like for the filmmaker to be in a given situation and how that situation alters as a result” (Nichols, 2010). As such, audiences are offered an insight into the perspective of the filmmaker, and are likely to feel less detached from the information at hand, and feel more of an emotional connection, increasing the probability of social change.

Whilst one’s observation a positive in the sense that it shows thoughtful intent to discover about world, relying solely on observation is extremely dangerous, as it gives rise to skewed development of ideas, as well as being susceptible to an emotional detachment from the issue’s finer details. For documentary film, it is more important for filmmakers to participate by allowing for a connection between the audience and the filmmakers’ ideas and concepts. Through this, viewers are more likely to react in a way that encourages action, which is not only beneficial for the society on which the subjects at hand exist, but also as a reinforcement of documentary as an impactful mode of art.

 

Hitchens, C. 2004. “Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore”. Slate.com, [Online]. Available at:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/06/unfairenheit_911.html.

Juel, H, 2006. Defining Documentary Film. On Documentary Film, [Online]. 22, 1. Available at: http://pov.imv.au.dk/Issue_22/section_1/artc1A.html.

Nichols, B. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington & Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, pp.300-313

Nichols, B. 2010. Introduction to Documentary Film. Bloomington & Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, pp.179-194

Thomson, D. 2004. “Fahrenheit 9/11: Connecting with a Hard Left”. Washington Post, [Online]. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/articles/A34917-2004May17.html.