Two seemingly at-odds statements from directors who are used to manipulating images. If we took one of those 24 frames, or images, would that represent truth, or would it be a misrepresentation? Since the video camera was invented, filmmakers have essentially pursued two separate objectives – to capture reality or to manufacture fantasy. It was assumed that the filmmakers who captured reality (documentaries) were showing the truth, while the fantasy makers (fiction filmmakers) were lying with the camera. Neither is true. In fact, both were creating their own truths, and recent developments in filmmaking have revealed that soon new films and filmmakers will be using techniques from both genres.
In terms of audience awareness, these two categories have already begun to go beyond what is normally expected of them. Documentaries like “March of the Penguins” or “Fahrenheit 9/11” are huge hits, because audiences have begun to accept that a documentary can be as much of a rollercoaster as dramas. On the other side, “The Blair Witch Project” was a fiction film, but through clever marketing got people to believe it was a recovered document. Mockumentaries such as “Best in Show” have sizeable audiences as well.
On the technical side, dramas have stolen techniques from documentaries, while documentaries have lifted their developing style from dramas. It is now often common for fiction films to utilize the hand held camera, little-to-no lights, and underexperienced actors, all to bring the feeling of realism to scenes. The cynical view might be that reality television has poisoned feature films, but I think documentaries (along with some remaining influence from the French New Wave) are the real source for these developments. After all, documentations have been using these methods since before their genre was defined.
Meanwhile, documentary filmmakers like Errol Morris (“The Fog of War”) have employed fiction techniques, such as reenactments, dramatic scores, and manipulative editing. The first-person documentary has almost become a genre unto itself, with Michael Moore as its leading general. Of course, the reenactments used by Morris are not what actually happened; they are recreations to be the best approximation of what happened. But they are also specifically created to elicit some emotion in addition to showing what transpired.
Movies are classified into genres because it’s just easier to organize things that way. If a movie is a documentary, we can compare it to all the other documentaries made this year. The problem is, like any art, items in categories start to bleed into each other. And once the lines are blurred, it gets harder and harder to redraw them. Why treat documentaries as some sort of medicine, and fiction films as pure entertainment? They can be both, and often are.
Many of today’s pop art isn’t completely real, even if it is branded as such. Reality shows aren’t completely real. Memoirs aren’t completely real. If it affects someone, and really makes them think, does it make the reaction invalid if the piece is not the truth?
Some claim that documentaries should be the pure representation of truth, but, in fact, they never were. Any time you turn on the camera, you have an effect on the image that turns up on a movie theatre screen. So is the truth buried in one of those 24 frames? Does it matter? The truth of the situation, plus the truth of the lighting, plus the truth of the editing, and so on, all combine to produce the truth inherent to the film.
So what will the future bring to both documentaries and fiction films? That’s a question that can be argued endlessly, but I believe that films will continue to evolve, and genres will cross-pollinate, until finally some films will be in essence a combination of fiction and facts. And in special cases, they will be the truth, and they will be art.
A quote from another filmmaker (who has made documentaries, dramas, and everything in between) may be able to lead the way:
"Through invention, through imagination, through fabrication, I become more truthful than the little bureaucrats." - - Werner Herzog
Notable DVDs this month:
“All the President’s Men” (February 21) – The ultimate in ’70s paranoia, this Watergate film was the culmination of the partnership of Alan J. Pakula (director) and Gordon Willis (cinematographer). They combine lighting, angles, and pacing to make an exciting film about, basically, gathering and collecting research. The DVD is packed, including documentaries and a Robert Redford commentary.
“Dog Day Afternoon” (February 28) – this is Al Pacino’s movie, as he gives one of his best early performances as a befuddled gay bank robber strung out on pressure and adrenaline. John Cazale plays his quiet partner, and together with the bank workers they become trapped inside the bank, surrounded by an onslaught of policeman, reporters, and bystanders. Director Sidney Lumet gives a commentary on the DVD, along with a documentary.
“Network” (February 28) – The third media classic to be released this month, Sidney Lumet is back with this network news satire written by Paddy Chayefsky. The story begins plausibly, and slowly gets more and more surreal, until a scene with television executives discussing the ratings pros and cons of murdering their star anchor is completely believable. Another Lumet commentary and a documentary complete the DVD.
• Alex Mechlin writes on the first of every month, exclusively in Lumino Magazine.
