Errol Morris spoke of how,
“Truth is not relative, it’s not subjective. It may be elusive or hidden. People may wish to disregard it. But there is such a thing as truth. And the pursuit of truth: trying to figure out what has really happened; trying to figure out how things really are” (Voynar, 2009, para. 10).
As a genre, documentary has traditionally stood as the more realistic and honest window into our world than it’s cinematic counterpart, fiction film. Yet can contemporary documentary stake the claim of absolute truth that it perhaps once could? Or rather, can we argue that the need to constantly engage, shock and entertain media consumers who are disengaged (with a poor attention span) has overridden the need to serve the medium’s initial primary purpose? Essentially, is it naive to believe that documentary has retained this contract with the audience to articulate an absolute objective reality?
There is no such better example of this phenomenon than my favourite “reality” TV show, Survivor, which is a negotiation of what is actually taking place on the island. While not technically a documentary per se, the methods and tactics utilised while producing a show such as Survivor are arguably much the same in contemporary documentary film. These shows are not mere observations as we are presented but more so a deliberate manipulation of situation, subject and footage, to service a very particular entertainment function.
By nature of the shooting and editing process, some degree of subjectivity will apply (even inadvertent). But shows like Survivor, much the same as the contemporary documentary, cultivate an agenda and manipulate content accordingly: precarious social scenarios are provoked, facts are cherrypicked, conversations are ignored, conversations are highlighted at every level of the show’s creation.
As per the arduous application process, potential contestants are highly profiled to establish a group dynamic (as well as particular individuals) who will likely provoke some inner-group conflict or tension. According to my research (and prior knowledge), footage collected on the island can be taken apart and totally re-constructed (as referred to in the industry as “Frankenbeiting”), even to the degree that situations that didn’t actually take place would play out on the TV screen as though they did. It is in cases such as these that the weight of importance placed upon the entertainment value aspect of the show (to some degree in the documentary genre) outweighs the need to be totally truthful and honest with the audience in terms of what is depicted.
The same rules apply for another of my favourite reality TV shows, “Teen Mom” (yes, I probably should re-evaluate how I spend some of my free time). In much the same vein as Survivor, contestant who partake on the show certainly fulfil the program’s need for entertainment and shock value. Not only are these girls facing the challenges that come alongside premature parenthood, more often than not they’re also struggling with some other form of pain from their past or present (such as volatile divorce, unsupportive and conservative parents, alcohol abuse etc).
The cameras and producers also seem to conveniently be always at the right place at the right time, whether it be when a dramatic fight abruptly breaks out or a sudden and tense conversation takes place. From pre through to post production we can accurately hypothesise that that with which we are being presented most likely does not articulate an absolute nor un-compromised truth.
