The Impulse of Documentary-Fiction
NN
Transart Institute
Final Draft
1 June 2006
INTRODUCTION
If a documentary film is created using fictional elements can it be called a documentary? Can any combination of truth and fiction be considered true simply because the artist says it is true? What is the impulse behind a documentary that uses fiction? These questions are entangled within an emerging genre of cinema that is essentially a hybrid of documentary and fiction, recently referred to as ‘documentary-fiction.’1
The expected resistance and yet to be time-tested acceptance of this new form of documentary by filmmakers, viewers, and critics calls for a closer look.2 Audiences and cinema makers alike are most accustomed to the formula of documentary that is rooted in Western thought and measured against scientific truths.3 As documentary-fiction emerges, viewers and filmmakers are being challenged to reconsider these traditional documentary formulas. The developing use of fiction in what has traditionally been considered a true, or literal documentary film urges viewers and filmmakers to evaluate what constitutes the truth of documentary cinema. It seems the industry may have to come to understand that documentary films may encompass more than the truth that is governed by scientific rules and regulations, or the presentation of facts and figures for the new genre to be successful.4
Viewers, filmmakers, and critics alike are being asked to accept the possibility that documentaries are an art form as much as they are a record of an event or a person’s experiences. The acceptance of the documentary’s ability to contain art truth as well as scientific truth can and has begun to create an opportunity for experimentation with documentary film for the filmmakers who create them. This opportunity is granting documentary filmmakers the freedom to do more than capture the truth; it is giving them the freedom to create and present truth from alternate perceptions and creations of reality, experimentally and untraditionally. Francoise Romand’s film “Mix-Up ou Meli-Melo,” a French film about twins switched at birth, and the highly successful and controversial “What the Bleep!?,” a film that explores quantum theories, from American filmmakers William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, and Mark Vincent, employ uniquely different techniques and methods of creating truth by blending documentary and fiction.5 Arguably, “Mix-Up” looks a great deal like a documentary with simple re-enactments and “What the Bleep” lends itself naturally to unconventional methods due to the complicated subject matter explored in the film. These films have brought the genre further into focus as audiences have been asked to accept the style. Regardless of which technique the filmmakers utilized and their personal motivations, it’s clear that documentary and fiction can blend together successfully.
By examining these new methods - the truth of art vs. scientific truth - and the philosophical motivations of select documentary-fiction films, the potential for others can be explored. What remains to be seen is whether other films with less complex subject matters or ones that use fiction for more artistic purposes as opposed to temporal necessity, will be accepted.
TRUTH & DECONSTRUCTION
Truth is thought of as the primary characteristic of documentary film. For on most accounts, the documentary is expected to be true.6 The problem with truth is that not everyone agrees on what is truth - this becomes the primary limitation of the documentary. As a construct, truth tends to bend at will. For example, by Western expectations, certainly American standards, truth is that which is factual, actual, and provable. Eastern philosophies tend to have a more fluid belief of what is truth, understanding truth to be something that is perceived through the senses and through intuition.7 Enter now the documentary-fiction, and debate of truth enters a paradox. The very nature of the word “documentary” implies what we are seeing is evidence of truth.8 While the very nature of the word “fiction” implies what we are seeing is make-believe.
As Jacques Derrida’s boundaryless deconstruction illustrates, in order to accept and understand the documentary-fiction it is imperative that we reconcile our own unwillingness to accept make-believe as truth.9 Derrida’s deconstruction philosophy requires that, in order to find pure truth, one must alter his or her perceptions of what is known. In other words, deconstruction is concerned with decentering a thing, for the center is often what gives the thing it’s meaning.10 Derrida argued that deconstruction is not a method, a critique, or an analysis of something; rather, it is an event.11 When deconstructing the documentary, we attempt to remove all the preconceptions, truth, and “truth claims”12 upon which the documentary is centered, in an attempt reclaim its potential and to realize that documentary is bigger than its current boundaries rather than to redefine it, which defeats the purpose of deconstruction altogether.13 This reclaims the documentary’s inherent ability to reach limitless truth; thereby, allowing truth to be created as well as captured.
Films, such as What the Bleep, Mix up at Meli-Melo, Empathy14, and The Road to Guantanamo15 are doing this by using fiction and non-fiction together. As these films branch out of the traditional temporal necessity of using fiction as recreation, they stretch and redefine the reenactment altogether, stepping beyond its prescribed borders and creating fictional truth aligned with, and perhaps supported by, factual truth. In order to meld these two truths, we must consider Fredrick Nietzsche, recount Derrida, entertain the philosophical notions of truth, and break from our own perceptions.16
Nietzsche opines that humanity has an original, true impulse to create metaphors.17 Capturing events and moments on camera essentially hinders that impulse when filmmakers become bound by what might be called a ‘scientific truth.’18 The documentary story then becomes one centered on truth, as it happens and where it happens, with facts and evidence that lead us to present arguments in story form.19 The problem is that arguments limit us by creating an atmosphere of contentment that further binds us to tradition and limits our metaphor making.20
To be sure, metaphor making has been used before in traditional documentary with the use of the reenactment; but, this has not been done without heavy criticism and careful presentation. The reenactment and the impulse to re-create in the documentary arose out of a necessity to show what could not be captured on film in real time due to temporal or physical restraints. In line with scientific methods of labeling and categorizing, viewers are often informed that what they are seeing is a re-enactment of something that happened as opposed to the real thing.
Although they have widespread use, reconstructions are not free from their own debate of truth as the scientific truth of the documentary is violated.21 Perhaps, resistance to reconstruction stems from an unwillingness to accept the ‘artistic truth’ or, our impulse to create, that filmmakers employ as they re-create. When the documentarian, or artist according to Nietzsche, experiments with this impulse to freely create metaphors then the art, the artist, and truth can finally rest in the “creative contentment” to deceive through the use of metaphors “without doing harm.”22 If we accept Nietzsche’s theories about humanity’s instinct to create metaphors as artistic truth, we embrace what is real.23 However acceptable and functional the methods used to capture truth in documentary are, very little room is left to create metaphors of truth through interpretation, imagination, and intuition – something to which art is akin. Artistic truth is not truth that necessarily happened, per se, but carries with it a greater intangible truth such as love. The Bible is a good example of this principal. Some biblical books consist of stories that reveal moral or metaphorical truths as opposed to scientific truth, which would suggest that it is unlikely the world was created in just seven days. The impulse of the documentary-fiction then, is the impulse to use fiction to create metaphors of truth while simultaneously capturing the real thing.
By the very nature of our humanity, we want to tell and create stories. Good storytellers will tell you that, even when they tell true stories, they embellish because it makes the story better. The use of embellishment does not make the experience any less real. Perhaps what makes an artist an artist is her or his ability to hone in on this impulse to be a creator and to create from that experience, rather than to just capture experience. This ability comes from a desire to tell the truth of experience by creating experience as opposed to just capturing it and hoping others see and understand it. Documentary makers gain knowledge, or truth about their subjects and topics through years of interaction and study. They have the task of conveying that ‘truth’ in viewing time, which could be anywhere from a couple of minutes to several hours. Therein lies the central and inherent paradox of documentary works – creating has its limitations because of the contradictory and nearly impossible goal to capture objective truth.24 The documentary is based on non-fiction - the goal is to capture truth as objectively as possible – to present the story as it happens, how it happens. Linked closely to journalism and often mistaken for ethnographic cinema, the documentary label tells viewers that what they are watching is a real, true story. The people, the places, and the situations are real. Thus, this label has incredible power to it because viewers trust it.25
Defining truth for the genre, no matter how open, does not come without problems. Expectations, constraints, and the steadfast tradition formed by strict definitions of truth, strike hard against an artist’s original impulse and ultimately limits his or her potential and creativity.26
Nietzsche believed that “we are prisoners of our perspective.”27 Perhaps what is required to free us from this creative prison, is an alteration of our perspectives, and an examination of the creative process rather simply the end result. Only then can we understand how and why the documentary-fiction becomes an art form that can merge the scientific truth of capturing and representing that which already exists with the artistic truth that is brought forth through creative and narrative means.
THE PROCESS OF THE DOCUMENTARY-FICTION
The documentary-fiction creates the potential for filmmakers to blend scientific and artistic truth. The style provides filmmakers more room to explain, more room to imagine, more room to tell stories, more room to drive home the ultimate truths, than the genre has previously allowed. The debate over reconstruction becomes minor when compared to the tumultuous response to the documentary-fiction. One such reason for this response it that the techniques and motivation utilized in documentary-fiction may or may not stem from the necessity to create, or re-create, because of physical and temporal restraints. Issues of cost, cultural climate, and audience response also play a role.
Access to people and situations is sometimes limited, so documentary makers often miss important moments. Documentary makers don’t have access to the recesses of their subjects’ being, where transformation, motivation, and intimate emotions are harbored, so even when a subject recounts an event or expresses a thought on camera, the actual internal experience remains out of reach for the viewer. Filmmakers often lay witness to the transformation of people over time or see things in people that others might miss. For example, filmmaker Michael Winterbottom tells us that in making The Road to Guantanamo he saw a discrepancy between the public perception of the Tipton Three and his own perception of them. 28 This perceived contradiction motivated Winterbottom to present the story by interweaving interviews of the actual subjects as they retold their stories with fictional dramatization that illustrated and comported with the subjects’ public perception. Thus, documentaries may not be able to serve as vehicles in the quest for ultimate and intimate truths if they are bound to objectivity.
We seem to be at a point in our culture where we are starving for examples of human transformations, real experiences, and truth of self. The rise of reality TV is evidence of that craving. Empathy, while not a TV show, exemplifies this craving. The film explores the intimate and complex relationships between psychoanalysts and their patients by weaving a fictional narrative about an actress in therapy with documentary interviews with practicing psychoanalysts. This interweaving of fact and fiction exposes the psychoanalysts’ struggles in their real experiences, through interviews by an interviewer who, at times, asks rather provocative questions, such as “How is what you do like prostitution?”29
We can also see and know real experiences through fictitious ones, like the central charter in What the Bleep Do We Know? What the Bleep, stars Marlee Matlin, who illustrates the practical application of complex metaphysical concepts for viewers who follow her throughout the documentary. Through the use of her story, presented through fictional scenes, viewers can feel, see, and apply the concepts of metaphysics to their own daily lives that, in turn, provides an opportunity for viewers to digest a more practical truth of the material presented in the documentary as opposed to just the conceptual and theoretical.30
Both Empathy and What the Bleep use actresses to illustrate points through story. Some might argue both films could have used real persons to guide the films. While this may be true to a certain extent, the costs associated with monitoring a real life subject for several years with the hope of getting the material that the story requires, could prove cost prohibitive. Traditional documentaries cost a lot in terms of the time investment required. Impatient creators, distributors, and audiences want the movies now. While creating fiction may require additional production costs for the documentary, it has the potential to save time. For example, in “What the Bleep?” the makers could’ve followed a real person around to all sorts of events as they pondered life and waited for the “‘right footage’” to unfold. Yet, if you know what you want, why not just create it and get it over with.
CONCLUSION
Unfortunately, many documentary makers view the use of fiction as taboo. “How can it be true if you use fiction?” “Audiences will not trust you.” “Subjects will not trust you.” “Isn’t the truth enough?” “How are you objective then?” What the critics fail to recognize is that documentary has never really been objective. Why not, then, embrace the documentary’s ability to tell the truth – to connect real people, to show real life, to teach, to act - with fiction’s ability to entertain, to teach, to pull us out of ourselves, to suspend disbelief, to make us think, to make us dream, and to encourage us to imagine. Stark reality often has hopelessness about it, while fiction is filled with possibilities. That is why people go to the movies – to escape their own lives – to dream of the impossible. If the two can marry, maybe reality will become more hopeful.
Documentary provides us thoughts mostly as stories are told, parts are shown, and we get glimpses of experiences. Fiction gives us experiences and stirs our imagination. Truth is in both of these. In time, documentary-fiction may also develop a set of metaphor creating methods that will limit it. As we learn the methods to create in the style of a documentary-fiction, we may bind ourselves to its conventions and rules. However, if an understanding of these impulses and the characteristics of tangential truths can be accepted, then the reality of the documentary can be rendered truer than ever before.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. 75th Academy Awards Rules For Distinguished Achievements During 2002. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science website. 2002. 26 April 2006. http://oscars.org/78academyawards/rules/rule12.html.
Barnouw, Erik. Documentary: A History of Non-Fiction Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Blair Witch Project. Blair Witch Project online. 2006. 26 May 2006. http://www.blairwitchproject.com.
Bruzzi, Stella. New Documentary: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, 2000.
Bernard, Shelia Curran. Documentary Storytelling for Video and Filmmakers. Oxford: Focal Press, 2004.
Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc. The Rise of Mahayana, The Buddhist World, Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc. website. 2005. 26 April 2006. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/maha2.htm.
Caputo, John, ed. Deconstruction in a nutshell: a conversation with Jacques Derrida. Fordham: Fordham University Press, 1997.
Chicha, Nathalie. “Psychoanalysis on the Couch.” OffOffOff Film. Review. 2004. 1 May 2005. http://offoffoff.com/film/2004/empathy.php.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Gaines, Jane, and Michael Renov, eds. Collecting Visible Evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.
Goodhart, Benjie. “Interviews: Michael Winterbottom on The Road to Guantanamo.” Channel 4 website. 2005. 1 May 2006. http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/feature.jsp?V=3&SV=5&id=154599
First Run Icarus Films. “Empathy A Film by Amie Siegel.” First Run Icarus Films. 2004. 1 May 2006. http://www.frif.com/new2004/empy.html.
First Run Icarus Films. “Empathy Directors Statement.” First Run Icarus Films. 2004. 1 May 2006. http://www.frif.com/new2004/empy2.html.
Hart, Adam. “An Interview with Françoise Romand.” Senses of Cinema. December 2004. 9 Dec. 2005. http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/05/35/francoise_romand.html.
Kamuf, Peggy, ed. A Derrida Reader Between the Blinds. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Macdonalad, Kevin and Mark Cousins, eds. Imagining Reality: The Faber Book of Documentary. London: Faber & Faber, 1998.
Nichols, Bill. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1991.
Penn, Liz. “Empathy Whining and Dining.” The High Sign website. 2004. 1 May 2006. http://www.thehighsign.net/archives/review/empathy.html.
Powell, Jim. Derrida for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers, 1997.
Renov, Michael, ed. Theorizing Documentary. London: Routledge, Inc. 1993.
Rosenthal, Alan, ed. New Challenges for Documentary. California: University of California Press, 1988.
Shaner, Pete and Gerald Everett Jones. Real World Digital Video. California: Peachpit Press, 2004.
Vattimo, Gianni. Nietzsche An Introduction. Stanford: Standford University Press, 2002.
Vattimo, Gianni. The End of Modernity. Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press, 1988.
Winston, Brian. Claiming the Real. California: University of California Press, 1995.
Winston, Brian. Lies, Damn Lies, and Documentaries. London: British Film Institute, 2000.
FILMOGRAPHY
Blair Witch Project. Dir.Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez. 1999. DVD. 1999.
Derridra. Dir. Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering Kofman. Star. Jacques Derrida. 2002. DVD. 2002.
Mix-Up ou Meli-Melo. Dir. Francoise Romand. 1986. DVD. Lowave, 2005.
The Thin Blue Line. Dir. Errol Morris. Videocassette. Miramax Films, 1988.
What the Bleep Do We Know? Dir. William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, and Mark Vicente. Star. Marlee Matlin. 2004. DVD. 2005.
Connections to Art Project
Bust! is a documentary-fiction about women’s relationships to their breasts and has consumed my art project endeavors this year. The Impulse of the Documentary-Fiction, my research project, was critical to the development and production of Bust! The research provided a historical context for my work, identified key methods and motivations for the genre, and helped me develop a philosophical framework for creating the work.
Rigid rules and traditions have driven much of my art making processes in the past. My best work has come when I have loosened the reigns on the self-imposed genre regulations and followed my instincts. Ironically, it seems that by navigating through the historical context and deconstructing the tradition of art making, specifically documentary, I have been able to loosen the reigns around what I create, breaking further from the tradition than even more. This is attributed to the fact that the research has given my own creations a context that I am confident in discussing and debating. Furthermore, it seem as though really seeing and knowing the context of the rules and traditions in documentary, more specifically documentary-fiction (which is vastly open at this point) has allowed me to relax onto a foundation that is rooted in more philosophical motivations as opposed to technical ones.
Examining the philosophical motivations of the documentary-fiction through my paper influenced my attempts to create a documentary fiction on the screen. In the entire art-making process, I was prompted to examine my own motivations for and my own perceptions of the truth that I simultaneously wanted to show and create. Instincts contributed to my desire to make the project work, while the research informed and allowed me to analyze these instincts. In the past, taking risks in art making where the risk is based on instinct has been fruitless for me. I have feared that I would not be able to justify my work and that my instincts would somehow fall short of expectation – an ultimate blow to my ego. This project is my first success at taking instinctual risks since I was ‘schooled’ in film/video making, something I could not have done without the confidence the research provided.
Identifying some methods and reasons others have used fiction in documentary provided a point of self-comparison and prompted me to examine and understand my own methods. It also spurred new ideas that has led to further exploration and further questioning that is continuing to cycle and will likely unfold in the art and research yet to come. The research process itself has given me an untried avenue to explore my instincts both creatively and intellectually, thus providing a sort of safety net for the work I create.
More importantly, beyond the scope of this particular paper and this particular project, the exercise of researching something that does inform my art project and vice versa, has me beginning to develop a creating process that satisfies my artistic and intellectual needs, contributing to more mindful and innate creations. Furthermore, as I’m fascinated by relationships, it should come as no surprise that I have discovered understanding the intricate relationship between research and artwork, further enhances the relationship I have with what I create. In this manner, I was also prompted to explore my own relationships with myself as director, actor, and storyteller.