Select from one of the readings and briefly describe two points that you have taken from it. Points that excite you, something that was completely new to you.

In the reading Paul Ward explores the complex relationship between fiction, nonfiction and documentary as categories, and how they overlap. This relationship between fiction and nonfiction is increasingly what Bill Nichols would describe as a ‘blurred boundary’ with some of the more interesting work in the documentary area having always been that which explores the boundary between these apparent ‘separate’ modes. Consequently, the reading outlines how drama and documentary are seemingly separate, yet complexly intersecting modes through the discussion of such things as acting and re-enactment.

Ward notes, “…the ways in which actors perform the role of real people in reconstructed or re-enacted scenes, and, more contentiously, how real people/non-actors ‘play themselves’ in some way.”

This idea is really interesting, as we live in a world increasingly governed by surveillance and monitoring which in turn has affected the way individuals act. It’s arguable that whenever there is a camera around that participants are or can truly be themselves. So with a vital ideal to documentary being the depiction of the real, whether or not what the viewer is seeing is real or simply a performance blurs the boundary between fiction and nonfiction, acting and simply being. Ward furthers this idea by bringing in the argument that documentary (like all social interaction) involves people ‘acting’ in some sense of the term and that the distinction is arguably a matter of degree. Brining into question our understanding of what’s real and our perception of performance within documentary.

“Intervention and fabrication of material that commonly existed in actuality was therefore often the only way (the filmmakers thought) of bringing certain things to the screen.”

Using the example of Night Mail (Harry Watt and Basil Wright, 1936), which famously re-constructed the sorting coach of the train, Ward outlines the influence of re-enactment as a way to hold documentaries questionable rather than giving them the truthful version of reality. Ward talks about the different ethical and rhetorical registers we see in films that are ‘documentary’ and those that are ‘fictional’, many of which are blurred somewhat by films that are ‘fictionalised’ or ‘docudrama’ rendition of allegedly true events. I believe this idea of intervention and fabrication calls substantially into question the intent of the filmmaker and whether their purpose is to further the truth of the documentary or to push some sort of agenda, which in turn can have different effects on the viewer.

“Certainly, we might as viewers be aware that reconstruction, ‘cutting and pasting’ and so on, do occur, but this is being held up as a clear case of something different: deliberately misleading manipulation.”

This is where the ethical considerations of documentary filmmaking come into critical discussion, and whether what the film maker is depicting to the audience is a version of the truth or manipulated to become something else. Consequently, we will have to consider this delicate area of acting and re-enactment and its ability to fictionalise the content in the development of our documentaries.

Reference

Ward, Paul. Documentary; the margins of reality, (p. 31-48), London: Wallflower, 2005.