WORD COUNT: 1116
From both a sensual and metaphysical vantage point, to engage with the world predominantly through the eyes is to paradoxically blind oneself from the fullness of it. As humans we are equipped with several unique sensitivities; traditionally these are thought to encompass sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, in addition to other forms of embodied understanding which further enable us to experience phenomena.
As contemporary documentary film makers and media practitioners, we necessarily fixate on two of the sense organs while negating others due to the medium specificity of cinema. Consequently, it is this very constraint which gives documentary its mnemonic quality, as it simultaneously shows and defines the very reality it attempts to capture (Knopf 2008, p.117). Yet to apply this theoretical understanding of cinema as a guiding principle dictating the production of documentary practice is to fall prey to a range of artistic and ethical constraints. Acknowledging this, the following analysis will highlight some of the limitations to an observational mode of documentary filmmaking, and in doing so suggest avenues for more socially and formally complex representations of reality.
Broadly speaking, documentary films have been termed as an art form occurring at the intersection between journalism and traditional art (Nash 2011, p.226). The resulting ethical tension between the former’s position in society as an informative resource and the latter’s arguably amoral aesthetic preoccupations have since led to specific filmmaking trends which attempt to amalgamate and thus, transcend these dichotomous enterprises. One such attempt notably arose in the 1960s in France and came to be known as cinema verite or direct cinema in the United States, a mode of filmmaking which heralded minimal and non-interventionist approaches to representing, or more concisely, observing its subjects (McLane 2013, p. 324). As practitioners, it is perhaps necessary to draw from this historical context in order to note the ethical and aesthetic limitations to unmitigated observation within contemporary filmmaking practice.
Perhaps the first fallacy of direct cinema is the promise of untainted representation. Beginning on a technological level, the philosophical justification for a direct cinema approach to documentary is necessarily undermined by the very tools it relies upon. Born from the technological advancements of synchronous sound and lighter more portable cameras, direct cinema was an attempt to harness the camera’s increased accessibility as a technique enabling the director to become an ‘objective observer’ rather than an affective participant (McLane 2013, p. 326). Yet the practical limitations of this ideal are evident as it relies upon the distraction of its subjects from the camera/man in order to film an event in its unmediated form; a factor which enforces the unsustainable belief that a ‘compelling, truthful re-presentation’ of events is achieved most effectively through neatly intersecting circumstances rather than active filmmaking practices (Zuber, 2009). Consequently, if practitioners were to undertake this approach, arguably film making processes would be unnecessarily burdened by circumstances in which the camera’s intrusive presence spoils any footage of the reality it attempts to lucidly truncate.
Compounding this further, the practice of observing rather than orchestrating or participating in events is an artistic slippery slope as it impinges on our abilities to create, rendering documentarians as passive witnesses. For instance, the adoption of an objective observational mode of filmmaking has been criticised by Stephen Mamber as lacking the necessary cinematic qualities driving audience engagement, resulting in a ‘crisis structure’ of causality (McLane 2013, p.329). Augmenting Mamber’s view, in waiting for interesting events to unfurl, we implicitly promote documentary practice as an increasingly voyeuristic enterprise in which the camera becomes a weapon of viewership, the threat of an audience, an ethically problematic publicization of the private.
Additionally, while there may indeed be room for ethically aligned representations of documentary subjects through cinema technology, the embodied act of filming and recording events as they unfurl creates specific political dynamics between the director and their subjects which verge on exploitative. Arguably there are substantial economic and artistic drives behind the director, two factors which amalgamated form the basis of a complex relationship in which the director depends upon and thrives off of the subject and their lived experiences in order to realise their artistic vision. Therefore, guided by a principle of non-interventionalism, directors objectify the circumstances of their subject and hence disempower their subjects from actively participating in the depictions of their narratives. As suggested by Bill Nichols, making a film about a social problem is not equivalent to solving it (Jones 1989, p.75-79). We might go further yet and claim that making a film about social problems from an observational mode not only artistically irresponsible, but socially exploitative too.
But perhaps the most fallible principle of direct cinema is its assertion that unmitigated production values necessarily results in a less explicitly ideological or scripted film form. Such a point unravels when we acknowledge the social and cultural contexts an audience brings with them to a viewing. Illustrating this point is D.A Pennebaker’s Daybreak Express (1953, USA) a film which explores the chaotic orchestration of dense urban space, specifically, New York.
Structurally Pennebaker’s film is deeply engaging, defined loosely as a marriage between a frenetically paced series of short and abstracted shots and Duke Ellington’s buoyantly indolent soundscapes, Daybreak Express largely suggests an uncontrived, un-staged study of New York. Certainly, it is not attempting to edify us of New York’s various geographic or social landscapes, at least not in any conventionally informative way. Hence, in many ways Pennebaker’s argument is a quiet one; there are no intertitles, voiceovers, or coherent expository or narrative devices to advance a traceable perspective. New York speaks for itself, presented through various deracinated intercuts and observational vignettes. And yet, Daybreak Express in fact, speaks of Pennebaker’s New York, comprised of the various moments and fixations on ephemera which might have caught Pennebaker’s eye during all stages of production, but most importantly, during filming.
Consequently, directed by Pennebaker’s lens and artistic preoccupations and habits our eyes and ears are seduced by fast flowing imagery, rhythmic editing, lively soundscapes, factors which cumulatively spur our engagement. Bringing to the screen our cultural associations of jazz music, Pennebaker’s filmic choices arguably encourage a visceral entanglement leaning more towards the celebratory over a sombre, sustained reflection on the manifold implications of post-industrial revolution urbanity. Recognising this, we might posit that Ellington’s presence in cultural memory as a celebrated musician and our recognition of those thunderous big bang twangs, our reading of Daybreak Express is from the outset, triumphant. Perhaps then, as documentary filmmakers standing on the shoulders of our predecessors, it is perhaps fitting that we engage with more critically the eyes and ears of our audiences and ourselves, in order to foster a more inclusive and ethically aligned filmmaking practice.
Citations:
Jones, DB 1989, ‘Image Ethics: The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film, and Television/New Challenges for Documentary’, Journal of Film and Video, vol. 41, no. 4, pp.75-79, viewed 30 March 2016, <http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/docview/2167738?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo>.
Knopf, K 2008, Decolonizing the Lens of Power: Indigenous Films in North America, e-book, Editions Rodopi BV, pp. 115-119, viewed 31 March 2016,
<https://books.google.com.au/books?id=dNwFL-5b_9YC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=mnemonic+documentary+film&source=bl&ots=1D45y2TFVk&sig=gWh0Td6GPt75c_4Di60EwUg0InM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTiPnw-fHLAhWCFqYKHcUcCIUQ6AEIQDAH#v=onepage&q=mnemonic%20documentary%20film&f=false>.
McLane BA 2013, New History of Documentary Film, e-book, Bloomsbury Publishing, viewed 31 March 2016,
<http://RMIT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1190703>.
Nash, K 2011, Documentary-for-the-Other: Relationships, Ethics, and (Observational) Documentary, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp.224-239, viewed 30 March 2016,
<http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/08900523.2011.581971>.
Zuber, SL 2009, ‘”David Holzman’s Diary”: A Critique of Direct Cinema’, Post Script- Essays in Film and the Humanities, vol. 28, no. 3, pp.31-40, viewed 31 March 2016,
<http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/docview/2141746?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo>.
Bibliography:
Daly, A 2005, ‘Daybreak Express’, Senses of Cinema, no.36, viewed 26 March,
<http://sensesofcinema.com/2005/cteq/daybreak_express>.
Enwezor, O 2004, ‘Documentary/Vérité: Bio-Politics, Human Rights and the Figure of “Truth” in Contemporary Art’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art, vol. 5, no. 1, pp.11-42, viewed 30 March 2016,
<http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/14434318.2004.11432730>.
Zryd, MJP 1999, Irony in documentary film: Ethics, forms and functions, e-book, New York University, New York, viewed 31 March 2016, <http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/docview/304515322>.