documentary manifesto

1. Documentary film may not speak for others, but must listen to others and speak with them.

The question of speaking for others is a constant issue in filmmaking because if one is to focus on anyone except themselves, it is necessary to capture others.  For an outsider to film anyone else it is necessary to listen to the subjects rather than speak for them.  By denying a “speaking for” role as a filmmaker, one can avoid an intellectual, imperialist hierarchy that is usually associated with researching others.  Because one should not speak for others, a filmmaker must listen to others and assist them to speak for themselves, which can be achieved by involving the subjects in the process of documentary-making.  The involvement of subjects allows the filmmaker to speak with the subjects and allow them to tell their own story.

 

2. New documentaries must experiment with form.

As the genre of documentary is embraced by cultural critics, fine art historians, and the general public as both a form of entertainment and an educational tool, it is necessary to experiment with form.  Content and subject matter can be repeated, but if a new form is used, the intended message can be received differently by an audience.  A common platform used by experimental filmmakers is new media: either in interactive modes or web-based portrayals.  In order to continually keep audiences interested, a documentary maker must re-invent modes of portrayal in opposition to traditional forms such as expository and observational.  By using different types of postmodern documentary modes such as reflexive, poetic, and participatory, a filmmaker is able to renew interest in the subject of the “real.”

 

 3. Didactic “voice of God” narration should be avoided.

The traditional Griersonion model of narration has been over-used.  The propagandistic nature of the tactic has created a divide between the filmmaker and audience, much like the relationship between teacher and student.  There is an implied hierarchy of knowledge in which the audience sits at the lowest point.  A documentary  filmmaker should use voice-over from subjects in the film rather than an unknown voice reading a script.  The relationship the audience will have with the film and it’s subjects will be far greater in its capacity because of the subject’s connection to the entire film.

 

4. Interviews are essential to gaining information, but the filmmaker and subject’s credibility must be apparent to an audience.

According to Bill Nichols, particularly when referring to past events, an on-screen interview is now more credible than the previous use of re-enactments to re-create history.  Due to the impact that cinema verite had on documentary, the use of fiction to portray reality is not believable to a contemporary audience.  Storytelling is a large aspect of filmmaking so the use of interviews is necessary for most documentaries.  Although a character may be visually interesting, whether in their facial expressions or overall characteristics they emote, but the traditional “talking head” has very little visual interest.  Rather than having a frozen frame with the camera on a tripod, the filmmaker should encourage movement, both camera and subject.  By doing so, the interviewee is far more likely to project a comfortable attitude, and the filmmaker will capture much more about the subject, both their lifestyle and credibility, within their surroundings.

 

5. Documentary film must evoke memory.

As Roland Barthes claims, a photograph becomes a memory rather than evoking one.  In this respect, a series of photographs that creates a filmic moment must evoke a memory rather than become the memory.  As a filmmaker, one must be aware of the capacity that film has to evoke memory.  Despite fiction filmmakers’ ability to create memory, non-fiction can document the moments that embody those memories, both for the subject and the audience.  Susan Sontag claims it is impossible for an audience to place themselves within a subject’s specific situation, particularly in a photograph.  In documentary film an audience should be able to put themselves into the subjects’ personal lives, including their histories. 

 

6. Conventional tropes in documentary must be avoided.

Fiction filmmakers have embraced and most audiences recognize the many tropes of the “real” in films, so they have become over-used.  Certain aspects such as black & white color schemes, shaky camera movements, and scratchy audio have come to define documentary techniques.  In order to constantly renew the documentary image, filmmakers must not rely on these tropes to portray their subjects.  Experimentation with form such as camera angles suitable to the subject matter and clear audio can create a larger focus on the subjects themselves rather than the modes of filmmaking.

 

7. Despite contemporary audience interest in the performative documentary, a filmmaker must focus on their message rather than themselves.

Filmmakers such as Michael Moore and Nick Broomfield often become the subjects of their own documentaries.  Stella Bruzzi acknowledges there is much debate as to whether or not performativity is defying conventional modes of documentary films or the act of performance in a film is closer to reality because the moment a camera is observed, a subject automatically performs.  Despite the somewhat more “real” feeling one gets from filmmakers who are acting out their own documentary, the performance can be a distraction from the actual issue at hand.  Both Moore and Broomfield are professionals in playing an ignorant role, and have created an audience that appreciates it.  Unlike traditional directors who are known for their subjects and different ways of portraying them, performative filmmakers are known for their performance.  It is necessary to focus on the subject and the message they wish to convey rather than making their subjects appear ignorant to prove their point.

 

8. Because biases will always exist within documentary, the filmmaker should make their argument clear, and use opposing voices to enhance their argument.

On very rare circumstances, it is possible for a filmmaker to create a seemingly unbiased film, but since that is not common it is necessary for documentarians to embrace their stance on the subject matter and create the film around that.  As an art form, documentary film can take liberties with points of view while remaining true to its form.  A filmmaker may incorporate opposing points of view to create a more balanced piece, but it is not necessary.  The opposition may prove to enhance the filmmaker’s point of view, rather than detract from it.

 

9. Time should be used effectively in a film.

Documentaries have typically been judged by audiences as too long.  Although it is necessary in some instances to set up a background and dialogue for the subjects in the film, time is not used to the filmmaker’s advantage.  To create a feature-length documentary the filmmaker must continually keep the audience’s interest.  Vertov was able to do this with his soundtrack and experimental editing.  When a filmmaker can continually create interest in their subject, they have achieved the ideal documentary.  By using time effectively, an audience avoids boredom with the film, and therefore with the subject of the film.

 

10. Documentary film is an art form and should defy all connections to reality television.

Due to the recent outburst in reality television, it has become associated with documentary film because they both claim to portray the “real.”  Because reality television is created only to entertain it is necessary to separate the archival, activist, and artistic aspects of documentary media.  Performative documentary is closely associated with reality television because the audience is shown the means of production far more than most other documentary modes.  Reality television, if it can be considered a documentary form, is most certainly the least subject-supportive mode of non-fiction, and must be avoided as a means of portrayal.  

 

Bibliography

Alcoff, Linda.  “The Problem of Speaking for Others.”  Cultural Critique,  Winter 1991-1992.

Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography.  Translated by Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang, 1981.

Bruzzi, Stella. New Documentary. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Nichols, Bill.  “‘Getting To Know You…’ Knowledge, Power, and the Body.” In Theorizing Documentary, edited by M. Renov.  New York: Routledge, 1993.

Sontag, Susan.  Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003.