I want to continue my research on the blurred ‘line’ between fictional and documentary film. But just to clarify, I’m clear about that this topic is not the focus of this course, and I think the purpose of discussing the differences and similarities between two kinds of films is to encourage us to understand the both features of them and decide which of them we want to involve in our own project. I have decided and believe a drama is what I want to make in this semester.
So here I have two specific films I want to discuss, one is an animated documentary the Waltz with Bashir, and another is the Nanook of the North.
According to Betsy A. McLane in his book < A New History of Documentary Film>, the main characteristics that most documentary have in common, which are distinct from other types of cinema especially fiction film, are ‘Subjects and ideologies; purpose, viewpoints or approaches; forms; production method and techniques; and sort of experience they offer audiences, including actions that result from films’ (McLane, 2013). These characteristics picture an ideal form of documentary film, and also suggest the major differences between a traditional documentary and a fiction film. However, are they really sufficient to distinguish contemporary fiction and documentary films, especially those exist on the boundary or grey zone?
How much does the Waltz with Bashir meet these characteristics? The subjects in this film are apparently the director, his comrades and their lost memories during the 1982 Lebanon War. The purpose is considered as through retracing the fragments of their memories, to reveal the humanity in the war and the cruelty of the massacre. The point of views are himself and his comrades, but no one from another side or even the commander of Israel Army at that time. For the form and techniques of the film, it is remarkable to make the whole documentary (except the ending back to the reality) animated. This experiment means the total re-creation of the reality, which apparently challenge the traditional concept of documentary filmmaking. However, there is no convincing theory that argues a documentary cannot be animated, so it could also be considered as an acceptable re-creation of reality rather than fictional creation. But in most re-created documentaries, evidence like tape, photos and historical materials are essential to support the suggested truth. For example, in the Battle 360 series made by History Channel (Elliott, 2008), it is impossible to find actual footages which cover every single battle in WW2. So they use animation to re-create the key moments in the battlefields with the testimonies of the still alive veterans and photos shot by war correspondent to ensure the truth is reliable. But in the Waltz with Bashir, there is no guarantee on the reliability of the testimonies, but too many artistic and dramatic re-creation involved. As a result, it does have some of the characteristic, but also miss many.
And what about the Nanook of the North? Apparently, the subject is those Inuit lived in the northern Canada. The purpose is also obvious. The director was meant to show audience the primitive life of Eskimos. But here the question comes: was he more willing to show the Inuit primitive life which he thought it should be, or the actual life they were living at that time? In fact, the main viewpoints in this film, Nanook and his family are fictional character, which means the film can also be considered as an artistic re-creation. But does it mean this re-creation make the film all fictional and not a documentary? Some fictional elements may not totally deny the truth of the film. Not all the habits and customs in the film are made up by the director’s imagination. The man played Nanook was Allakariallak, an actual skillful hunter in Inuit tribute, and most characters in the film are Inuit living in the north (7), which does increase the realness to some extent. In terms of the techniques and form of the film, Nanook of the North as a silent, black-white film successfully uses subtitles to make up the lack of expressive force, and the fluent editing with skilled use of camera makes it an influential film at the early age of cinema. Again, it matches some characteristics that a traditional documentary should have, but also miss some of them. Therefore, it seems making a long list of the common characteristics that a documentary should have and compare them one by one with the film to figure out whether it is a documentary or fiction, is not a practical method to make a distinction, because as mentioned above, the hybrids always meet some but miss some.
Elliott, S., 2008. A Series and Its Sponsor Capture a Shared Link With History. [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/business/media/29adco.html?_r=0
McLane, Betsy A. 2013, A New History of Documentary Film, e-book, <http://RMIT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1190703>.