A DOCUMENTARY MUST INCLUDE
NARRATIVE TENSION
ENGAGING CHARACTERS
SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THE HUMAN CONDITION
THESE ‘RULES’ IMPLY THAT ALL DOCUMENTARIES HAVE INHERENT BIAS.
Josh Grierson’s definition of documentary filmmaking – ‘the creative treatment of actuality’ – summarises its overarching fallacy. The fallacy being that documentaries often purport to reveal truths, however by the very act of documenting actuality, the director inadvertently alters its ‘truth’.
Considerations on documentary filmmaking bring into question the entire concept of reporting – exposing or analysing ‘truths’ in any form – whether it be through writing or filmmaking, journalism or documentation. As people, if we are recording a ‘thing’, how can we prevent ourselves from affecting its progression or representation?
We cannot. Therefore, a documentary cannot ever be one hundred percent truthful – at least in the literal sense – ‘factually accurate’. So instead of getting all riled up about the ‘skewing of the truth’ or the ‘lies’ which documentaries purport, can we just frame all critical thinking around documentaries as texts for entertainment, education and/or art?
By definition, a documentary film is biased. Whereby the subject matter may be of actuality, the creative treatment of such actuality perpetuates a bias. Even if a documentary filmmaker were to record a line of ants, or perhaps the clouds in the sky, even the small nuances in the way which the subject matter is captured through film between directors introduces a bias – a perspective bias. The viewer will see what the filmmaker wants them to see. This is before any editing, music or cuts are further implemented to create, affect and alter context/meaning.
Well oh hot damn, I’ve just watched
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
for the first time. I regret to admit that it is the first Michael Moore film that I’ve ever seen. I’d intended to watch it at some point but as life goes, some films pique the spectrum of interest briefly and just flicker away unless they’re acted upon immediately. Before I peruse some further literature on the film, I’ll give my initial reactions.
Great film. America is a fucked up, scary place. Initial takeaway feeling is that the world would be a better place if America just suddenly disappeared. On a global scope, America is analogous to fear. Americans impose this most basic emotion of fear, because they themselves are afraid. Egocentric bullies.
Moving on, Bowling for Columbine is the best documentary film I have seen so far. Each subject matter broached operates within a larger concept – the Columbine High School Massacre – within the greater subject of school shootings – within gun violence – within gun ownership – within the people of America – within American military attitudes – within the American government – all housed in America, a Matryoshka Doll, a pressure cooker of distress.
Michael Moore couldn’t have chosen a more gripping, nuanced subject for a documentary than his own country. The traumatic stories within the film allow Moore freedom from responsibility to the clear bias in the film. Moore is the good guy, the everyman, who becomes a warrior for justice when he sees somethin’ tha’ jus’ ain’t right. He pursues the problem, humbly asking questions on behalf of his viewer’s indignation, but with the fervour of the best investigative journalist. The idea that as a documentary filmmaker, Moore is cultivating the viewer’s indignation, is not of issue, as the point he is trying to make feels wholesome and right.
When thinking critically on films, I often become engrossed in the variations in implications between authorship and genre. The problem becomes even further convoluted when I consider documentaries, which is further complicated when I consider the subject. Then again, the subject says a lot about the auteur, and the genre is linked to both. They are all linked intrinsically – the ven-diagram of documentary. Sure, documentary is a genre in itself, however the director is usually the auteur. Moore’s tongue-in-cheek auteurship runs strongly in Bowling – the film is certainly more of a Michael Moore film than it is a documentary on America’s gun problem.
HIGHLIGHT: the ‘Wonderful World’ sequence where found footage constructs a montage revealing America’s history as persistent aggressor in the warfare of the last two centuries, finally culminating with 9/11. The use of Lance Armstrong’s ‘Oh What a Wonderful World’ in juxtaposition to the shots and subject matter is glaring to the margin of trite, but considering Moore’s tone, his intended audience and possibly the greater American population – having the montage so clear, so obviously jeering, so mockingly ironic, pointing out the absolute simple truth – is exactly what is brilliant. The beauty of an ironic film is that it can enlighten all. It is not so often, that whilst being entertained by a film, someone is presented with such an explicit wake-up call to a very, very simple truth. I didn’t even know about half of the times America had ignited war, and after having seen that montage I still don’t know, as now I have forgotten the exact places and the exact times and the exact names. So where is the value? Well, when I saw that montage, it changed my perspective. It broadened my mind, just a little bit further, widened the margins of my understanding of America.
LOWLIGHT: Moore’s occasional piety throughout the film: cringe-inspiring.
