I guess I have trackbacks turned off, because I totally missed this Symposium update that mentioned one of my posts. And also this one!

I feel like I should have another Symposium notes somewhere, but I guess I lost it, or maybe got my numbering confused or something. Some of the questions put forward this week:

Rascaroli, Laura. “The Essay Film: Problems, Definitions, Textual Commitments.”

1. How would you distinguish between an essay and documentary film when both can have exploratory and creative elements?
2. How can you say a film essay is not a genre when it is categorised by the author as something else?
3. Films are about interpretation and personal knowledge – does this type of interpretation and personal knowledge transfer readily onto a k-film when making it into a type of essay?
4. With the emphasis placed on the viewer’s interpretation and the role it plays in defining meaning – is it possible for a piece of work based on classification being free from interpretation, opinion and speculation?

Those first two questions were actually mine, which is why they’re so terribly worded. I was really just curious to know if there was a line in the sand that divided essay and documentary film. As those who have taken ‘True Lies: Documentary Studies’ at RMIT know, documentaries don’t have to just be narration about lions in the Savannah or straightforward like that. Documentary film can be a dozen reconstructions of the same event played slightly different each time, or a clip that is later rewritten. (I’m thinking specifically of The Thin Blue Line and Forbidden Lie$ for my examples, but there are plenty of other documentaries that push the boundaries.)

In regards to the genre question, Rascaroli specifically says that essay film is not a genre, but then gives the essay film a set of attributes. I did find the symposium answer helpful – there is a difference between a mode and a genre. That’s a whole ‘nother essay right there, so I’m content with that answer.