Bill Nichols Introduction to Documentary Chapter 2.

Bill Nichols’ Introduction to Documentary offers many helpful insights into the world of documentary, the second chapter titled, How Do Documentaries Differ from Other Types of Film, describes the similarities and differences between Documentary and fictional cinema. This chapter is broken down into three categories of differences, institutional frameworks, communities of practitioners and audience reception. Nichols also talks briefly about the ways in which movements developed throughout documentary history, from this section I have noted some of the most important defining qualities and points Nichols makes however this chapters recounting of documentary history is rather sparse.

“ ‘Documentary” can be no more easily defined than “love” or “culture”.” This whole chapter attempts however to describe the differences between doc’ and fiction as well a working towards a definition of the “fuzzy” genre of documentary. Many people have attempted to define documentary and one thing most descriptions agree upon is that doc’ is a representation of reality or as Nichols says “it is a representation of the world we already occupy.” One of the interesting things Nichols points out about doc being a representation is that “We judge a representation more by the nature of the pleasure it offers, the value of the insight or knowledge it provides” this means that as an audience “We ask more of a representation than we do of a reproduction”, documentary strives to be more than a reproduction by using the rhetoric to make a specific argument or show a specific point of view.

In the sections in which Nichols talks about the institutional frameworks there isn’t much of importance said, his logic is admittedly “circular” but does still ring true that those films produced by documentary institutions, such as the Discovery Chanel, will be documentaries. He does again address the definition of documentary and its relationship with the “real”. The Documentary film maker John Grierson famously said that documentary is "the creative treatment of actuality" however Nichols states documentary must "also achieve a clarity or simplicity that implies that documentaries achieve direct, truthful access to the real" as it is "one of the prime attractions of the form".  I believe this is one of the many key conflicts for documentary film makers and one of the reasons it is such an interesting genre to work in.

During the section on documentary film makers themselves Nichols re asserts the same circular logic, Documentary film makers make documentary films, however he takes this one step further by highlighting the world in which documentary film makers inhabit. Professional doc makers have a language and common goal, they share distributors and meet at festivals and have a certain shared identity.

The next section is “A corpus of texts” in which Nichols describes documentary through different defining films, whilst doing this he makes some interesting points about doc’ on the whole. Firstly Nichols brings up the fact that documentary need not worry about continuity editing, rather the editing within documentary is a kind of “evidentiary editing” which he describes as shots cut and arranged “less by a narrative organized around a central character than by a rhetoric organized around a controlling logic or argument.” This seems to be one of the most defining qualities of documentary as it ties into the idea of using rhetoric language to make an argument, Nichols says it “not only furthers our involvement in the unfolding of the film but supports the kinds of claims or assertions the film makes about our world.” Also highlighted in this section, and by the description of evidentiary editing, is the importance of the spoken word within documentary, if the images are almost always used as evidence the point they make and the actual historical or contextual argument is to be made up of speech, Nichols puts it as “Speech fleshes out our sense of the world. An event recounted becomes history reclaimed.” This is a somewhat victorious sounding statement that shows the need for a strong spoken narrative within documentary. Again however Nichols has again neglected to point out that the poetic documentary often moves away from this convention, clearly as Nichols states none of the defining factors of documentary can cover all documentaries hence the “fuzziness” of the genre.

Nichols finishes this section by talking about periods, movements and modes. Periods are specific times in which documentaries changed or had specific identities, periods are simply the 30’s or 60’s in which documentaries had particular flourishes. Movements arise from “a group of films made by individual who share a common outlook or approach”, these also tend to be placed in specific times or places. Finally Nichols’ own creation, modes, are similar to movements but are more like genres within documentary. Nichols states that modes are created "partly as a response to perceived limitation in previous modes, partly as a response to technological possibilities, and partly as a response to a changing social context."

Finally Nichols’ discussion turns to the way audience see and react to documentary an important relationship as Nichols rightly believes “the sense that a film is a documentary lies in the mind of the beholder as much as it lies in the films context or structure.”  The indexical relationship between film and reality is what Nichols talks about next however his over use of examples outside of film and his general lack of explanation makes this section a little muddled and over complicated, the final conclusion alone makes enough sense, “Documentary re-presents the historical world by making an indexical record of it; it represents the historical world by shaping this record from a distinct perspective or point of view." Again Nichols touches upon the separation between documents and documentaries, he states that audiences expect to see the truth but that “the film as a whole will stand back from being a pure document or transcription.” This is a basic re iteration of what was said in the start of the chapter only this time it is from the perspective of the audience not the film maker. Nichols then extends this idea of representation and reality in what I think is one of his most important statements “we anticipate the oscillation between recognition of historical reality and the recognition of a representation about it. This expectation distinguishes our involvement with documentary from our involvement with other film genres.” It is a fairly simple statement but it is one of the best ways to define documentary or to at least separate it from fiction.

The importance and the popularity of documentary is reinforced in the final few paragraphs of this second chapter as Nichols talks about the “desire to know” or “epistephilia” that documentaries evoke in their audiences and the sobriety documentary carries with it. No matter how they are separated or how they are defined Nichols sums up the importance of documentary by saying “They are the vehicles of action and intervention, power and knowledge, desire and will, directed toward the world we physically inhabit and share.”

Bibliography

Nichols B. (2001). How do documentaries differ from other types of film. In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p20-41.