igofast
12-17-2004, 01:10 PM
Documentary visual arts have always been perceived as representing reality. From some perspectives, this is a true statement; a camera captures a real moment in time, as does a film or video camera. Despite the realness of the moment that is captured, there are other issues that may affect the piece that can not be seen in the product. The name itself, documentary, comes from the word document, implying an objective representation of the subject. Objectiveness however is something that is arguably impossible when it is a live person holding a camera, writing a script, or editing a film. For some, this lack of objectivity equates to a lack of credibility and worth, but is objectivity really the desire of documentarians, and even if it is, is their work void of any meaning or worth because it is not? Films like Roger and Me, Miss… or Myth?, and more clearly have subjective points of view, which may demand a calculated reading of the text, but important social and emotional messages can still be legitimately portrayed.
Documentary films began with a certain style called cinema verite, which translated from French means, “film truth.” This style has no voice over, interviews, or sets, it is simply a camera recording events as they occur. This is probably where the idea of objectivity in documentary film came from, and it has stuck, even with the emergence of several other documentary styles. Frederick Wiseman has made several verite films, one of his more famous films is Titicut Follies. Wiseman spent time inside a hospital for the criminally insane, documenting the prisoners, guards, and their interactions. Because Wiseman is an outsider and is apparently not effecting anyone’s behavior, Titticut Follies may seem to be an objective presentation of events that occurred in the hospital, but there are several factors that allow us to argue that that is untrue. The most obvious factor is in the editing. The film is not put together as one long, chronologically correct shot, it is broken into many shots in different times and places. When Wiseman chose the order in which to show the shots, he made decisions that begin to give the film a “voice.” The voice of a film is, in it’s simplest terms, the message that is conveyed to the audience.
By cutting one scene next to another, Wiseman evokes a response from the viewer. For example, shots of a prisoner interacting with guards are cut between shots of that same prisoner’s dead body in the morgue. This is obviously an impossible reality, and brings attention to the fact that someone has scripted and edited the shots that are shown. The response is not universal, some viewers may feel sadness, others may feel he got what he deserved, but it will invariably summon some sort of a response from the viewer. For me, Titicut Follies brought forth feelings of sympathy for the prisoners and disdain for the guards. To say that the reality of the hospital is one that deserves the same feelings is naïve. Instead of rejecting any emotional response caused by the film because of it is subjective, it would serve the viewer to accept that it is subjective and take what they can from it and realize that the real life experience may not invoke the same feelings and conclusions.
Still photography is often accepted as reality in a similar way that cinema verite is. There is a saying that says, “The camera doesn’t lie,” that seems to insist that a photograph is a clear and accurate representation of reality. It is true that an untouched photo is an image of a real time and space, but that does not make it exempt from causing untrue perceptions. A good example of how this is true is Arthur Rothstein’s photo “Skull, Pennington, South Dakota, 1936.” The photo is a simple one; a cow’s skull is seen alone on a dry, parched land. Howard S. Becker writes about the controversy in this simple photo in his essay “Do Photographs Tell the Truth.” He writes, “[Rothstein] had found the skull nearby and moved it around the square of bare dirt and some nearby grass, looking for the best light and angle.” The reason why this is significant is because the photo was used as a political tool to demonstrate the severity of a drought that was occurring at the time. The question ultimately raised was if Rothstein moved the skull to find the ideal photo, does it accurately demonstrate the reality of the drought? The answer is no, but the image still invokes emotions that are quite reel and not invalid. Because of the manipulation by the photographer, the viewer should be aware of the context, but it is still a powerful image.
Similar issues can be raised about Dorothea Lang’s most famous photograph, “Migrant Mother.” The single image of a woman and her three children captures intense emotion, but does it really belong to the woman in the photo? Lang took several shots of Florence Thompson and her family, but only publicized this one. “Migrant Mother” demonstrates Thompson as a pained mother, poverty stricken and void of hope. Perhaps this was a reality for Thompson, bet even if it was, everyone goes through similar moments in their life and perhaps it was unfair for Lang to share with the world one moment in this family’s life without demonstrating other aspects as well. Thompson’s face will forever be recognized in this light; her great-grandson has a dictionary that shows her face under the word “haggard.”
Using several modes of documentary filmmaking, Geoffrey Dunn and Mark Schwarz’s Miss… or Myth? is less subtle in it’s subjectiveness. Miss… or Myth? takes place in Santa Cruz, CA, during the time that the Miss California pageant is held. The film uses interviews, archival footage, and cinema verite to cover the pageant, as well as a reactionary pageant created by demonstrators entitled the “Myth California” pageant. Having had the privilege of hearing Dunn lecture on his own documentary, I am confident in saying that Dunn’s view on the subject is not objective, nor is his film. Dunn and his partners began the project with the desire to document the Myth pageant, but expanded to cover both pageants for funding reasons. Clearly the filmmakers held a bias leaning towards the Myth pageant, and many feel the film does as well, but not all viewers. The Miss California pageant officials screened the film at their conference, feeling it defended their perspective, while many protestors felt it championed them.
The film interviews several people involved in both pageants, but centers around Miss California, 1985, Lisa Gail Davenport, and protest organizer, Ann Simonton. The film ends with their interviews cut together in almost a dialogue fashion. Both of them speak intelligently and seem sincere. From this perspective, it is hard to see any bias at all. Salvatore Loero wrote in his article, “A Tale of Two Pageants,” “In the end, it almost doesn’t matter who’s right; they both are, depending on one’s point of view…” Loero’s point is proved by proponents of both pageants feeling like the film was on their side. While the voice of Miss… or Myth? seems to depend on the viewer’s own feelings on the subject, the film still enables the viewer to walk away with new thoughts and questions to consider, despite it’s lack of objectivity.
Perhaps the ultimate in non-objective documentary filmmaking is Michael Moore’s film, Roger and Me. Having no experience in filmmaking, Moore began this project after being fired from a magazine editor job in San Francisco. He returned home and decided to make a documentary about the ailing economy of his hometown, Flint, Michigan. The film follows Moore around Flint as he interviews residents and spokespeople, as well as attempting to interview the CEO of General Motors, Roger Smith. During the 1980’s,, GM closed many plants in Flint and other Michigan towns, putting many workers out of a job. Moore saw the social and economic state of his hometown destroyed by Smith’s decision to move GM’s plants to Mexico where labor is cheaper. Roger and Me is a satirical look at the relationship between corporations, their leaders, and the community in which they reside..
Controversy surrounded Moore’s first film soon after it’s release. He was accused of misquoting numbers and misleading the viewer by implying events happened in a different chronological order than they actually did. While the film never actually states numbers of jobs lost, Moore did in fact mix up dates. On top of that, according to filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn, Moore was also granted two interviews with Roger Smith, which there is no mention of in the film. The film’s misleadings could and did discount its relevancy and validity to many people. The subjectivity of Roger and Me was apparently too much for some.
Does that mean that all viewers should discount any messages in the film? Hardly. Carly Cohan writes in defense of Moore in “Reflections on Roger & Me, Michael Moore, and His Critics,” “From the beginning of Roger and Me, when we see super-8 snippets of the filmmaker as a moocow-cute youngster, Moore encourages us to see industrial Flint from a personal point of view, specifically Michael Moore’s own.” Moore knows that his view is subjective and invites the viewer to join him by putting themselves in his shoes as he moves through the film. Cohan also wonders if Moore was held to the standards of documentaries set long ago when objectivity was the goal and states, “It is after all called Roger and Me, not Roger and the Academia Francaise.”
When the debate over the validity of Moore’s film is put aside, the film has some powerful critiques and questions that are valid despite any controversy. One moment in the film has The Beach Boys blaring “Wouldn’t it be Nice” as the camera rolls by block upon block of boarded up houses and businesses, creating an uncomfortable irony. Another moment shows and assembly line worker addressing the camera as employees applaud the last care to be assembled in that plant. He says, “I don’t know why they’re applauding, they just lost their job.” These and other moments in the film arouse emotions and responses from the audience that can be used to intelligently consider relationships between any people, not just those in Flint, Michigan.
Documentary may have a reputation for being objective, but more and more people are accepting that it never actually is. Well known documentarian Frederick Wiseman even says, “Documentaries, like plays, novels, poems, are fictional forms that have no measurable social utility.” The art form has been criticized and shunned by some as a result, but to do that does not serve a person. Despite seeing a situation through the eyes of one ore more photographers or filmmakers, good can be had by experiencing the documentary form. It is just important to remember that the reality that is shown is filtered and judge from that perspective.
Documentary films began with a certain style called cinema verite, which translated from French means, “film truth.” This style has no voice over, interviews, or sets, it is simply a camera recording events as they occur. This is probably where the idea of objectivity in documentary film came from, and it has stuck, even with the emergence of several other documentary styles. Frederick Wiseman has made several verite films, one of his more famous films is Titicut Follies. Wiseman spent time inside a hospital for the criminally insane, documenting the prisoners, guards, and their interactions. Because Wiseman is an outsider and is apparently not effecting anyone’s behavior, Titticut Follies may seem to be an objective presentation of events that occurred in the hospital, but there are several factors that allow us to argue that that is untrue. The most obvious factor is in the editing. The film is not put together as one long, chronologically correct shot, it is broken into many shots in different times and places. When Wiseman chose the order in which to show the shots, he made decisions that begin to give the film a “voice.” The voice of a film is, in it’s simplest terms, the message that is conveyed to the audience.
By cutting one scene next to another, Wiseman evokes a response from the viewer. For example, shots of a prisoner interacting with guards are cut between shots of that same prisoner’s dead body in the morgue. This is obviously an impossible reality, and brings attention to the fact that someone has scripted and edited the shots that are shown. The response is not universal, some viewers may feel sadness, others may feel he got what he deserved, but it will invariably summon some sort of a response from the viewer. For me, Titicut Follies brought forth feelings of sympathy for the prisoners and disdain for the guards. To say that the reality of the hospital is one that deserves the same feelings is naïve. Instead of rejecting any emotional response caused by the film because of it is subjective, it would serve the viewer to accept that it is subjective and take what they can from it and realize that the real life experience may not invoke the same feelings and conclusions.
Still photography is often accepted as reality in a similar way that cinema verite is. There is a saying that says, “The camera doesn’t lie,” that seems to insist that a photograph is a clear and accurate representation of reality. It is true that an untouched photo is an image of a real time and space, but that does not make it exempt from causing untrue perceptions. A good example of how this is true is Arthur Rothstein’s photo “Skull, Pennington, South Dakota, 1936.” The photo is a simple one; a cow’s skull is seen alone on a dry, parched land. Howard S. Becker writes about the controversy in this simple photo in his essay “Do Photographs Tell the Truth.” He writes, “[Rothstein] had found the skull nearby and moved it around the square of bare dirt and some nearby grass, looking for the best light and angle.” The reason why this is significant is because the photo was used as a political tool to demonstrate the severity of a drought that was occurring at the time. The question ultimately raised was if Rothstein moved the skull to find the ideal photo, does it accurately demonstrate the reality of the drought? The answer is no, but the image still invokes emotions that are quite reel and not invalid. Because of the manipulation by the photographer, the viewer should be aware of the context, but it is still a powerful image.
Similar issues can be raised about Dorothea Lang’s most famous photograph, “Migrant Mother.” The single image of a woman and her three children captures intense emotion, but does it really belong to the woman in the photo? Lang took several shots of Florence Thompson and her family, but only publicized this one. “Migrant Mother” demonstrates Thompson as a pained mother, poverty stricken and void of hope. Perhaps this was a reality for Thompson, bet even if it was, everyone goes through similar moments in their life and perhaps it was unfair for Lang to share with the world one moment in this family’s life without demonstrating other aspects as well. Thompson’s face will forever be recognized in this light; her great-grandson has a dictionary that shows her face under the word “haggard.”
Using several modes of documentary filmmaking, Geoffrey Dunn and Mark Schwarz’s Miss… or Myth? is less subtle in it’s subjectiveness. Miss… or Myth? takes place in Santa Cruz, CA, during the time that the Miss California pageant is held. The film uses interviews, archival footage, and cinema verite to cover the pageant, as well as a reactionary pageant created by demonstrators entitled the “Myth California” pageant. Having had the privilege of hearing Dunn lecture on his own documentary, I am confident in saying that Dunn’s view on the subject is not objective, nor is his film. Dunn and his partners began the project with the desire to document the Myth pageant, but expanded to cover both pageants for funding reasons. Clearly the filmmakers held a bias leaning towards the Myth pageant, and many feel the film does as well, but not all viewers. The Miss California pageant officials screened the film at their conference, feeling it defended their perspective, while many protestors felt it championed them.
The film interviews several people involved in both pageants, but centers around Miss California, 1985, Lisa Gail Davenport, and protest organizer, Ann Simonton. The film ends with their interviews cut together in almost a dialogue fashion. Both of them speak intelligently and seem sincere. From this perspective, it is hard to see any bias at all. Salvatore Loero wrote in his article, “A Tale of Two Pageants,” “In the end, it almost doesn’t matter who’s right; they both are, depending on one’s point of view…” Loero’s point is proved by proponents of both pageants feeling like the film was on their side. While the voice of Miss… or Myth? seems to depend on the viewer’s own feelings on the subject, the film still enables the viewer to walk away with new thoughts and questions to consider, despite it’s lack of objectivity.
Perhaps the ultimate in non-objective documentary filmmaking is Michael Moore’s film, Roger and Me. Having no experience in filmmaking, Moore began this project after being fired from a magazine editor job in San Francisco. He returned home and decided to make a documentary about the ailing economy of his hometown, Flint, Michigan. The film follows Moore around Flint as he interviews residents and spokespeople, as well as attempting to interview the CEO of General Motors, Roger Smith. During the 1980’s,, GM closed many plants in Flint and other Michigan towns, putting many workers out of a job. Moore saw the social and economic state of his hometown destroyed by Smith’s decision to move GM’s plants to Mexico where labor is cheaper. Roger and Me is a satirical look at the relationship between corporations, their leaders, and the community in which they reside..
Controversy surrounded Moore’s first film soon after it’s release. He was accused of misquoting numbers and misleading the viewer by implying events happened in a different chronological order than they actually did. While the film never actually states numbers of jobs lost, Moore did in fact mix up dates. On top of that, according to filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn, Moore was also granted two interviews with Roger Smith, which there is no mention of in the film. The film’s misleadings could and did discount its relevancy and validity to many people. The subjectivity of Roger and Me was apparently too much for some.
Does that mean that all viewers should discount any messages in the film? Hardly. Carly Cohan writes in defense of Moore in “Reflections on Roger & Me, Michael Moore, and His Critics,” “From the beginning of Roger and Me, when we see super-8 snippets of the filmmaker as a moocow-cute youngster, Moore encourages us to see industrial Flint from a personal point of view, specifically Michael Moore’s own.” Moore knows that his view is subjective and invites the viewer to join him by putting themselves in his shoes as he moves through the film. Cohan also wonders if Moore was held to the standards of documentaries set long ago when objectivity was the goal and states, “It is after all called Roger and Me, not Roger and the Academia Francaise.”
When the debate over the validity of Moore’s film is put aside, the film has some powerful critiques and questions that are valid despite any controversy. One moment in the film has The Beach Boys blaring “Wouldn’t it be Nice” as the camera rolls by block upon block of boarded up houses and businesses, creating an uncomfortable irony. Another moment shows and assembly line worker addressing the camera as employees applaud the last care to be assembled in that plant. He says, “I don’t know why they’re applauding, they just lost their job.” These and other moments in the film arouse emotions and responses from the audience that can be used to intelligently consider relationships between any people, not just those in Flint, Michigan.
Documentary may have a reputation for being objective, but more and more people are accepting that it never actually is. Well known documentarian Frederick Wiseman even says, “Documentaries, like plays, novels, poems, are fictional forms that have no measurable social utility.” The art form has been criticized and shunned by some as a result, but to do that does not serve a person. Despite seeing a situation through the eyes of one ore more photographers or filmmakers, good can be had by experiencing the documentary form. It is just important to remember that the reality that is shown is filtered and judge from that perspective.