To improve my understanding of the documentary genre I have been reading Bill Nichols' "Introduction to Documentary" I have read the first chapter so far which gives a basic understanding of documentary principles and tackles some of the burning questions of documentary.
Nichols' book begins with an unusual statement, "Every film is a documentary". An odd thing to say at first but when you think of fictions as "documentaries of wish fulfilment", and normal documentaries as "social representation" it is a simple and beautiful idea that goes a long way to normalising the process of documentary structure, characters and storytelling. Documentary is difficult to define and Nichols doesn't particularly attempt to solve this with a simple definitions however he does say all things that are safe such as they represent what reality is, was or will be. One thing he does say that the aim of most doc's is to "convince us one view point is preferable to the others", as well as outlining the importance of this as it puts documentary over fiction when he says "We take not only pleasure from doc but direction as well." I think these statements definitely explain some of the popularity of doc's however poetic documentary seems to be outside of these aims.
The next large section is on the three ways Nichols believes Documentary engages with the world. The first of these is as with a "likeness or depiction of the world that bears a recognizable familiarity", this is pleasing because it helps the audience believe in the cinema, Nichols states "we see what was there before the camera; it must be true". He also acknowledges this is more of a cultural thing than a factual thing as images can clearly be altered during or after filming. Secondly "Documentaries stand for or represent the interests of others" and the others that it stands for or represents itself splits into three. Those that are the subject, those that sponsor the film and the directors own beliefs are all represented through one film. Thirdly and finally Documentary represents the world "in the same way a lawyer may represent his clients interests" as facts to make an argument for or against a specific point or a specific "view point ... preferable to the others".
The difficulties posed by representing others are next called into question by Nichols as he examines the ethics of documentary. Much of what he says is basic common sense and I think the mast interesting question posed isnt how should I represent people but how much about how I represent people should I tell them about? This is neatly confined to the issue of "informed consent" which allows film makers to have different levels of secrecy depending on the contract. Another of the interesting subjects Nichols touches upon in this section is the way filming people changes their actions in some way, the idea that this could ruin doc's is well battled with the idea that one of the points of doc's is to show how people act in front of camera and I believe this would be a fun idea to play with. The tension between film makers and subjects will always be high as Nichols explains subjects want to be shown in a flattering light however this isn't always the best for the film maker who has a career and reputation to make a living from, these arguments are clearly important to consider and the balance between a film makers wishes and keeping the subjects of the film or "social actors" happy appears to be one of the key aspects of obtaining a good documentary or at least an ethical one.
The rest of this first chapter is devoted to describing the "alliance" between the film maker, the audience and the subjects or social actors. He begins with a sentence that describes a common relation "I speak about them to you" he describes that an I is either a documentary film maker, usually with some kind of persona, or a voice of god type of narrator who from one perspective tells the audience a specific story or subject. The Them refers to a subject which can be expressed at both "What story shall I tell" or "What shall I talk about" two specific phrases which offer very different structures for different types of documentary. The you refers not only to the audience as a whole but to each single audience member as the specific person the film maker is addressing thus "activating" the audience. This is often done through rhetoric language which combines knowledge, poetry and narrative to construct a coherent argument. The sentences are thus "I speak about them to you" "It speaks about them or it to us" "I or We speak about us to you". I speak to them about you is pretty simple, it speaks about them or it to us however is much more about an unknown entity telling all audiences of something, to me these seem to be less documentaries and more info-mercials and adverts. We speak about us is again simple and deals with a group of people who express themselves and explore their own culture though documentary, this is also called "auto-ethnography".
The first chapter of Nichols' "Introduction to documentary" serves as a good introduction to some of the issues of documentary film making and offers some simplistic solutions to how to view documentary. From this introduction I have developed a list of questions to help me when I'm analysing documentary;
1. Which of Nichols' modes is it and does it fit well?
2. does it represent the world as a likeness or depiction of the world that bears a recognizable familiarity, or does it clearly take liberties and move away from a likeness we recognise.
3. Whose interests are represented (ie. the inquisitive public's)
4. What "case" is it Presenting. (ie. a mans struggle in harsh climate + a families strength((Rhetoric))
5. How does it use logic, narrative and poetic to for a cohesive rhetoric and what is this rhetoric?
6. How do representations of the subjects views relate to that of the film maker. Are they the same or different?
7. Is the doc fair and morale towards its subjects, was it ethical?
8. How does it treat the "three way" relationship?
9. Does is focus more on a story or more on talking about something?
10. How well rounded are "Them"? or are they just basic simple examples
11. Does the film activate us as audience members, making us want to pass on the news or make a change?
Hopefully these questions will help me implement some of the things I have learned from reading Nichols' first chapter of "Introduction to Documentary"
Bibliography
1. Nichols. (2001). Why are ethical issues central to documentary film making . In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p1-19.
No comments:
Post a Comment