“Documentaries Are About the Truth.
If They Tell the Truth They Are Documentaries and If Not They Are Fiction.�? Essay Example
“I don't know what truth is. Truth is something unattainable. We can't think we're creating truth with a camera. But what we can do, is reveal something to viewers that allows them to discover their own truth.”
—Michel Brault
Current thinking points to the increasing lack of distinction between documentary and fiction film. Brian McIlroy has noted that “it is now common to read that, theoretically speaking, documentary and narrative fiction film ‘proper’ are indistinguishable as constructed realities” (McIlroy 1993, 288). Similarly, Dai Vaughan, a documentary film editor for over thirty years, suggests that there are many who, “in blind deference to semiological axiom, have made a point of denying that there is any distinction to be found between documentary and fiction. A sign is a sign, and that is that.” (1999, 184) The only difference between documentary and fiction film is the integrity of the film as being linked to our understanding of reality. Vaughan refers to the term ‘actuality’ to describe our belief in the reality of the film, stating that “this actuality…is the subjective conviction on the part of the viewer of that prior and independent existence of the represented world which is specific to the photograph” (1999, 182). In a discussion of what it is about documentary film that makes it more “real” than fiction, Bill Nichols suggests that in documentary footage “some quality of the moment persists outside the grip of textual organization” (1999, 231). Therefore the understanding we have of documentary has in some way depended on the ability of the photographic image to impart to us a belief in the existence of the represented beyond its filmic representation. To that extent, Vaughan suggests that “documentary may best be defined as the attempt at a materialist reading of film” (1999, 198), a way of examining a filmic text to decide on its position with respect to documentary.
Observational films seemed more truthful in large part because
—Michel Brault
Current thinking points to the increasing lack of distinction between documentary and fiction film. Brian McIlroy has noted that “it is now common to read that, theoretically speaking, documentary and narrative fiction film ‘proper’ are indistinguishable as constructed realities” (McIlroy 1993, 288). Similarly, Dai Vaughan, a documentary film editor for over thirty years, suggests that there are many who, “in blind deference to semiological axiom, have made a point of denying that there is any distinction to be found between documentary and fiction. A sign is a sign, and that is that.” (1999, 184) The only difference between documentary and fiction film is the integrity of the film as being linked to our understanding of reality. Vaughan refers to the term ‘actuality’ to describe our belief in the reality of the film, stating that “this actuality…is the subjective conviction on the part of the viewer of that prior and independent existence of the represented world which is specific to the photograph” (1999, 182). In a discussion of what it is about documentary film that makes it more “real” than fiction, Bill Nichols suggests that in documentary footage “some quality of the moment persists outside the grip of textual organization” (1999, 231). Therefore the understanding we have of documentary has in some way depended on the ability of the photographic image to impart to us a belief in the existence of the represented beyond its filmic representation. To that extent, Vaughan suggests that “documentary may best be defined as the attempt at a materialist reading of film” (1999, 198), a way of examining a filmic text to decide on its position with respect to documentary.
Observational films seemed more truthful in large part because