Bruzzi, Stella. New Documentary, pp.1-7.
This piece is about the decoupage of documentary and what constitutes authenticity on screen. The use of the ‘family tree’, created by Bill Nichols categorises different types of documentaries. Nichols grouping of documentaries is often negative in that the modes are defined by what the documentaries do not contain rather then what audiences do see on screen. Nichols modes force documentaries to coexist as hybrids rather then fitting into specific categories. Everything overlaps and interacts. Nichols use of inverted commas around the word ‘real’ suggests that reality can never be represented. Can an on screen representation of a subject be a trustworthy account of that subject? Documentary does not have the capacity to bypass its own representation tools and establish a direct relationship with reality. Theorist Renov contends that the act of plucking reality and recontextualising it is a kind of violence that morphs the truth of reality. ‘There is nothing less inherently creative then non fiction representations both (fiction and non fiction) may create a ‘truth’ of the text.’ This means that within documentary the process of decoupage causes the film to become unfaithful to the source. Bruzzi suggests that theorist Renov is wrong to say that documentary can be as creative as fiction. Bruzzi speaks about technology advances and how that has enabled directors to create a realistic representation that deceives audiences of the truth. How will we tell the difference between imagery and reality? Do we require the mise en scene to consist of tangible items rather then virtual recreations in order to trust a documentary? All too often documentaries are considered failures because of audiences inability to accept that the representational qualities are used as tools of reproduction rather then contamination of the truth. Documentarians are expressing their point of view creatively through the lens and editing process. It is impossible to put their subjects onto screen without these processes. Films of Emile di Antonio are often categorized as ‘collage junk’ containing experimental montage sequences. When viewing documentaries people are people less likely to accept creativity of film decoupage? Do they want to see a direct portrayal of reality rather then a film makers rendition of it? Documentary film makers are unable to give truly reflexive, undistorted picture of reality. The second a piece of footage is cut and placed next to another piece of footage, that juxtaposition will create meaning. Even if the film makers sole intention of the cut is to shorted the footage from real time to a length that is viewable by audiences and will maintain their engagement. Cutting footage will loose detail, even minor changes will alter the overall meaning, The use of ellipses and montage is therefore impossible in documentaries without loosing authenticity. This severely limits documentary filmmakers ability to treat the material creatively whilst trying to adhere to its honesty. In Robert Flahertys ‘Nanook of the North’ he chose to re record an interview in the staged studio environment. This was a creative choice that enabled him to structure the interview as he wanted vocally and physically. However this caused the audience to question the authenticity of the interview. Removing the original interview and reacting it with this construction drew a boundary between the audience and their direct relationship with the subjects. Choosing to include the original interview, although more flawed footage as far as technique goes, would have enhanced the audiences empathy for their subjects. When consuming documentaries audiences are more likely to trust footage that is less polished and contains more imperfections. This makes it challenging for documentary film makers to have control or creative influence over mise en scene, decoupage, editing and montage techniques and the general aesthetic of their film without risking loosing audiences trust.