There is nothing wrong with observing the world. In this day and age, it feels sometimes as if people don’t do this enough. Many of us lead busy lives and hectic schedules, that observing the things around us can take a backseat. However, once we do make observations about our environment, I believe we, as a collective and as individuals, have a duty to do more than observe- and to instead be active participants in our realities.
As human beings, we are distinguishable from other animals by our superior mental development. Thus, we have the power to not only observe and perceive the world for what it is, but to construct our own judgements and opinions about our environment. These judgements can create divides between people, but they can also lead to powerful and passionate works of art, cinema, literature, etc. Sometimes, as unbiased and neutral as we wish to make these, our own opinions can unintentionally filter through. And at other times, we start a project with an initial political agenda. The documentary film is the perfect vessel for these agendas.
Erik Barnouw (1974, Documentary) writes, “The documentarist has a passion for what he finds in images in sounds — which always seem to him more meaningful than anything he can invent.” Documentary films have a power that other films simply cannot possess. As dramatic and intense as fictional films can be, they are still merely fiction, and leaving the cinema, the audience is well aware of this fact. However, documentary films have the task of dramatising and capturing real and true events. They not only have the ability to observe these events from an outsider perspective, but the practitioner can have more of an intimate involvement with an issue, thus allowing the audience to involve themselves too. To take the position of ‘observing’ when making a documentary, would be a missed opportunity to immerse ones self in the stories, passions, perspectives and chronicles of the communities/subjects involved.
The 1996 short film Blight (John Smith, in collaboration with Jocelyn Pook), revolved around the issue of the building of the M11 Link Road in East London. This proposal angered local residents, whom as longtime home-owners, wanted to save their homes and memories from the demolition. The documentary takes the side of these residents- ultimately viewing the M11 Link Road as a negative for the East London community. We, as an audience, hear the homeowners speak of their fond memories in their homes through voiceovers throughout the film. These are not straightforward interviews being played, however, and it does take a while for the situation to be placed into context. This audio is paired with music but also footage of the demolition, juxtaposing the two to create a somber mood in the film, which ultimately ends as quite sad once we see the demolition being completed. A.L Rees, A History of Experimental Film and Video, states the “rhythmic, emotive soundtrack is partly musical and partly a collage of the residents’ voices” and that the accompaniment of the composition “reinvent[s] a radical documentary tradition.” The audio and visual combination is powerful, and it is difficult to see how a documentary could hold the same power and passion if it were coming from a neutral position. This issue clearly had two contrasting sides with strong opposing views, and thus it was necessary to do more than just watch the chaos play out.
This shot from Blight depicts the machinery involved in the demolition as the enemy. It is evidently large and intimidating in this still, and continues to fuel the idea of the residents being the victims as their homes are demolished.
It is clear from this construction that Smith has a political stance on this issue, and is not simply constructing a film from a neutral perspective. Smith worked on the project over two years, from 1994-1996, during the demolition, gathering interviews from the local residents as well as footage of the deconstruction. Although, as the filmmaker in this scenario, Smith might be viewed as somewhat of an ‘outsider’ to the whole situation, forming an opinion and voicing the political views of the angered homeowners, proves that Smith’s documentary was more than just an observation. The overall mood of the film cements Smith as a voice for the people- an advocate that opposes the proposed M11 Link road Construction and instead fights for salvaging both the homes and the memories of the community.
“But factuality alone does not define documentary films; it’s what the filmmaker does with those factual elements, weaving them into an overall narrative that strives to be as compelling as it is truthful and is often greater than the sum of its parts” Curran Bernard, S. (2010). Documentary Storytelling.
I believe this quote sums up why an observational piece of work will never be as compelling as a documentary where the filmmaker has been actively participating in the story and background of the issue itself. Some filmmakers may have the passion and political view before they begin the project, and others may pick this up along the way. Understandably, in the example of the film Blight, Smith’s decision to give a voice to the residents makes sense in this context. Other documentary films may not have subject matters with the same level of political views as Blight does, yet I believe it is still necessary for us as practitioners to really immerse ourselves in the art we are creating, striving to create narratives that surpass factuality alone and do not passively observe the world.
