WHAT IS A DOCUMENTARY
Broadly defined by the average individual, a documentary is a non-fictional film based or showing a supposed form of reality. It is often defined as a film that is based on reality and that shows reality as it is happening. However, it is important to note that documentaries are not just about cameras rolling and filming aspects of events as they happen. Documentaries often explore unique points of view, and unknown aspects of the reality. Film makers are often pushed into the production of a documentary when they feel that a particular issue is not receiving the attention that it should.
Related Posts
(Freeland and Wartenberg 1995) however state that despite decades of documentary production and viewing, a depiction of reality is not a definitive definition of documentaries. He continues to indicate that it is quite difficult to suggest boundaries within which a movie should be produced in order to fit within the genre. While the foundation of documentaries is in fact reality, this reality is often subject to the producer’s definition and expression. Documentaries often though not always represent real people and real events, which in turn are interpreted to bring about social discussions on matters affecting the society today.
Thesis statement: documentaries are a branch of film which depicts the actual, shaping reality in the present and the past.
Questions
- Is there a relationship between fiction movies and the depiction of messages in documentaries using drama?
- Our understanding of the past is often heavily influenced by documentaries made at the time, is this perception of history based on truth?
TREVOR PONECH’S DEFINITION OF DOCUMENTARY
Ponech has been influential in directing and providing paths through which an understanding of documentaries can be made. According to him, there has never existed and will never exist, a true perspective and representation of reality on film. As long as a film is produced by a human being, then the truth and reality has been altered. Human beings are prone to emotions, to interpretations and even alterations that completely distort the reality. To Ponech therefore, a documentary film cannot be perceived as true reality. However, what makes a documentary film is not the production or message in the film but rather the intentions of the film maker. According to (Platinga 2011) documentary films are heavily influenced by culture, religions, social upbringing and even the nature of human beings themselves. Hence a film produced on one subject matter by one individual varies completely from the same film made by another individual. Is it therefore that reality has changes within the films? This is not the case, reality remains the same, and however, the human being himself perceives reality differently.
A good example of this would be documentaries based on wars. Two documentaries depicting the same war often provide varying views and different perspective even when made by the same film maker. According to Ponech therefore even a fictional film, based completely on fiction but in which the film maker intended to show some reality can be loosely defined as a documentary. Taking these statements into context, we can consider the two films: why we fight, produced by Capra Frank in 1942 and Casablanca produced in the same year. The first is a depiction of war through the ages with an attempt to find a solution to the conflicts facing the world. The film focuses mostly on the world wars, showing elements that could have been resolved to avoid the loss and death in the two wars. Casablanca on the other hand is a completely fictional movie. However as (Porter 2004) shows the two films have several similarities not just with regard to the lessons and social morals found in the two films, but also in the methods of production. Both producers intended to create a better understanding of the culture and events that existed in this period. The result is two movies that could be termed as documentaries or fictional. However since the Capra was more directed at providing education, his film is categorised as a documentary while Casablanca is fully fictional as it was intended for pure entertainment.
Ponech’s Characterization of Documentaries
Ponech has gone further to define some of the considerations which often influence the production of a documentary and these are:
Audience: it does not matter the genre of film, film producers make films with an aim to gather audiences to enjoy the creation. Everything that goes into the production of the film is directed at ensuring that audiences remain entertained. Tit is for this reason that documentaries also employ the same technology and manipulations as fictional film, such as sound effects, color enhancements and drama, (Allen and Smith 1997). As Ponech indicates however, the intention is not to alter the reality as is the case for fictional producers but rather to enhance it. In Casablanca, the loud bombings and shooting scenes are intended to show the risky life and danger under which the anti-Nazi resistance movement is operating. Audiences are expected to connect with and sympathize with Victor. In the documentary, why we fight, the loud bombings and shootings are intended to excite the audience and show the nature of the dire conflict ridden situation.
Social historical context: Ponech argues that film is greatly influenced by the artist’s upbringing and interaction with the environment. The film maker’s culture, socialization and past are likely to show in a film whether the film is a documentary or a fictional film. (Fumerton and Jeske 2010) further suggest that documentaries are actually a result of the film maker’s interaction with an aspect of society which they fell has been poorly documented or highlighted. This is why different film makers are renowned for different aspects of documentaries such as war, autobiographies and other social issues. Looking into their past, pen will find that they have encountered these issue at one point in their history.
Rather than focus on defining the realities and boundaries of documentaries as a genre, Ponech instead focuses more on an often ignored aspect in definitions of film genres, the film maker. To him, the film maker is the determinant of which style to employ in the making of the film and therefore the only one who can categorize the nature of the film. With his definition, it is therefore possible to have pure documentaries dependent on the intentions of the author. However, many have critiqued this definition indicating that each genre in film needs to adhere to some form of regulations and style to fit in whichever genre the film maker intends to fall under. To Ponech however, beyond the striking differences of human beings there exist similar expressions and intentions which are then used to define the genre of documentaries.
ROLAND BARTHES DEFINITION OF DOCUMENTARIES
Barthes is owned for providing a striking path breaking definition of Documentaries as a genre is film. To Barthes, the definition of documentaries as a depiction of reality cannot be further from the truth. Each form of art is heavily influenced by several factors which make reality impossibility. Instead the indicates that all film is a conveyor of some form of meaning. It is not upon the film maker to censure that the audience understand the meaning; it is upon the audience to get the meaning of the film. Film makers assist the audience by employing the sue of descriptions in the documentaries. This is because; continuous stringing together of pictures even with the inclusion of sound would not make sense to the audience. Therefore documentaries can be defined as some form of language in film through which film producers attempt to show a unique perspective of an event taking place.
Documentaries are heavily influenced by human perceptions over time. For example, in the movie Casablanca, the woman is subject to the film trend at the time, where women were often portrayed as damsels in distress and as an object to be desired. The make up and mannerisms of the actress are designed to shoe this. This perceptions are however to change over time as feminism comes into play in the next decades. This is what Barthes defines as “Signification”, the violence portrayed in the documentary why we fight, is an attempt to show the error of the human being in choosing war in the place of peace. The message is directed at the individual within the audience. This is the foundation of documentaries that is providing a clear “signification” or bringing to light an important matter relating to all individuals across generation. Fictions on the other hand rely ton “Signification that is likely to change over time. It is based on these assumptions that (Light 2003) concludes that Barthes is more focused on the reasoning behind an action rather than the action itself. While fictional films engage the audience through the actions, without possibly explaining the reasons behind a particular decision or action; documentaries describe and elaborate on an action, in an attempt to give more meaning.
Barthes’ Characterization of Documentaries
According to Barthes there are three types of messages which can exist within a film and these messages are the most likely to influence the genre of the film. These are:
Linguistic message: all images whether in pictures or in film what he calls moving pictures are guided by a basic message. In the documentary why we fight, the main message is war and the reasons behind or supporting war. The tankers, men with guns, and images of disheveled towns are all directed to this message. However, as (Currie 1995) states there are often several meanings that an be applied to the different images and actions. In the documentary for example, tankers are used to illustrate resources directed at war, in the movie Casablanca they are only used to sub text the danger under which the actors are operating. To ensure that audiences get the same message, documentaries often include descriptions that guide and focus the audience. Barthes indicates that the idea is to be able to guide the audience through all possible interpretations. However, as is often the case the “anchoring” is severely influenced by the film maker and his understanding of any particular information. Therefore, what audiences are actually experiencing is the reality of the film maker.
Denoted image: Barthes argues that only photography produces true reality once the audience has moved to the first stage of intelligence. In this case according to him, the audience is able to see much more than just a shape, but instead has the ability to combine several things such as shape, colour and texture in order to identify an object. Photography des not include any machinations and therefore is the only form of art through which the past can be presented in a realistic and factual manner. Photography connects directly with the past by using images that are present today. Film on the other hand has the ability to distort images using sound and movement thereby making them a lesser reality. In film for example a rose could have several meaning, such as connoting passion, love and emotion all of which are just myth. On the other hand, in photography a rose remains just that a rose.
Connoted message: This is the symbolism involved in the is of particular images. Casablanca for example makes much use of Red dresses by the main female character to connote passion and allure. Symbolism exists in both documentaries and fictional films. This therefore translates to the fact that documentaries are indeed some form of lesser reality. With the inclusion of movement, symbolism is much stronger in film and less in photography. (Caws 1991) concludes that it is important to note that the definitions by Barthes, begin by stating that all image is an imitation of the actual. When movement is added the imitation becomes les and less like the original and is heavily influenced by the film maker
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN BARTHES AND PONECH
Similarities
First and foremost both theorists agree that documentaries are heavily influenced by the reality of the film maker. They agree that dependent on the definition of a documentary, it is possible for such film to be produced. However, the definition sis not a depiction of reality but rather an analysis of events according to the film maker. The idea in the definition is to focus more on the film maker rather than the style of film.
Secondly, they both agree that various messages are possible within this genre. Each film maker has the ability to choose and direct the message for the audience. With each documentary even those on the same subject matter, various messages can be told.
Differences
Ponech indicates that it is the responsibility of the film maker to ensure the audience understands the message in his film. It is through this responsibility that he defines the genre of his film. Barthes argues that messages are interpreted differently and the responsibility lies with the audience to understand the actual message and therefore define the genre of the film.
Ponech finds that film depicts reality much better because it includes emotions, movement and film makers can make use of several effects to bring a clearer picture of reality. Barthes on the other hand argues that such effects in fact destroy reality making film a lesser reality as compared to other art forms such as photography.
REFERENCES
Allen, R., & Smith, M. (1997). Film theory and philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Caws, M. A. (1991). City images: Perspectives from literature, philosophy, and film. New York: Gordon and Breach.
Currie, G. (1995). Image and mind: Film, philosophy and cognitive science. Cambridge [England: Cambridge University Press.
Freeland, C. A., & Wartenberg, T. E. (1995). Philosophy and film. New York: Routledge.
Fumerton, R. A., & Jeske, D. (2010). Introducing philosophy through film: Key texts, discussion, and film selections. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.
Light, A. (2003). Reel arguments: Film, philosophy, and social criticism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Plantinga, C. R. (2011). Philosophy and film. New York: Oxford University Press.
Porter, B. F. (2004). Philosophy through fiction and film. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.
With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.
