Historical Drama: While there is general agreement that the term historical drama refers to fictitious
events set in a historical context, there are some variations on this genre which
fall between the lines. For example, what
is one to make of the many historical documentaries done by the BBC and others
that now show re-enactments of historical events and characters?
By Vertov’s expressed standards, these
films would not be documentaries if they have theatrically re-created
events with actors playing the roles of historical figures; they may be
excellent docudramas, but they are
not documentaries. The issue is a fundamental issue of
directorial control: as soon as you have theatrical
re-enactments you are exerting dramatic control over the material which will affect the viewer’s perceptions
both consciously and subconsciously.
As soon as you show the face of, say,
the leader of the Visigoths as he prepares to sack Rome, you are leaving documentary, and entering the realm of historical drama. Some historical
television documentaries, like Simon Schama’s productions on BBC, carefully
observe this distinction by limiting their images to showing an on-camera
presenter, often speaking in present time from the historical location, which
is also shown in present time.
Among other things, historical
interpretation is a highly complex art, requiring extensive research, not to
mention funding for scenography and locations that are usually far beyond the
means of a producer of historical documentary. This challenge has inspired some
creative solutions.
For example, rather than do an inferior
re-creation on a tight budget, some directors, like the American Ken Burns, in
his highly successful series on the American Civil War titled “The Civil War” (1990) have carefully limited
themselves to use of authentic
historical images as well as contemporary texts such as letters read by actors,
and have managed to produce powerful historical
documentaries while remaining faithful to traditional documentary
conventions.[1]
On subsequent productions like “Baseball” (1994) and “Jazz” (2001), among others, Burns demonstrated
that it is possible to respect traditional documentary technique and tell
engaging stories about historical processes and events, provided one possesses
the aesthetic discipline and professional integrity required.
Burns has won two Academy Awards for his work, and
enjoyed commercial as well as artistic success; today his productions are used
as educational tools in many American schools, and his work has spawned a
generation of imitators. [2] Therefore,
historical documentaries would fall
within the realms of our definition, while historical
dramas or historical fiction would
not.
Reality Based Television: Sometimes referred to as reality television, or infotainment, reality based television refers
to genre of television programs in which real people are put in comic or
dramatic situations designed to evoke an entertaining response for spectators.
Examples from the early history of television include television game shows and talk
shows.
After strikes in the 1980’s by The
Writers Guild and The Screen Actors’s Guild, Hollywood television producers
sought new ways to produce entertaining television programming material without
paying for talent and scripts. The first
successful reality-based programs in the United States had a law and order
theme, such as “Cops”, produced by
John Langely and Malcom Barbour, which was first broadcast in 1989.
The concept of “Cops” was simple enough: a camera crew would be embedded with a
police unit, and would then follow them on their patrol as the police answered
calls and made arrests. Heavy emphasis
was placed on authenticity in the opening disclaimer, read by actor Burt
Lancaster: “Cops is about real people and
real criminals. It was filmed entirely on location with the men and women in
work in law enforcement.”[3]
Shot entirely in cinema verite style, “Cops” proved
to be a wildly successful program around the world. In 2012, the 850th
episode was broadcast by Fox Television,
the producer, in the United States. Over
the years, however, there have been questions about documentary ethics involved,
and in May, 2013, Fox Television announced it was discontinuing the series.[4]
Similar ethical issues arise with the so-called
docusoap, a term used to denote the
next generation of reality-based programming typified by the “Survivor” series. “Survivor” was first broadcast in the
United States in 1992; the program creates a highly charged but very artificial
situation by throwing a group of carefully selected contestants into an exotic
location where they had to pass a series of grueling physical tests to compete
for a cash prize.
Personal conflicts between contestants
are encouraged, and carefully recorded; the ideal result was a Darwinian snake
pit from which contestants would be evicted, one by one, until finally only one
survivor remained and was crowned the winner of the substantial cash prize. -
hence the title. Today, versions of “Survivor”are
produced in many countries around the world.[5]
Since “Survivor “and its various and sundry spin-offs are fundamentally television game shows, they cannot be
considered documentary, even if the
programs may contain documentary elements. Indeed, the producers of “Survivor” have never pretended the
program is documentary. The entire
situation is contrived, and the participants are heavily manipulated. Were it
not for the need for commercial television programming, the situation being
depicted would never exist at all. Therefore, what is being documented is a
fiction, with the only caveat being that the contest is supposed to be rigged,
like other game shows.
While it might seem self-evident that
game shows cannot be considered documentary,
Stella Bruzzi makes a fanciful case that docusoaps
are part of something she calls new
observational television, or factual
entertainment. She writes, ”As in the
case with cinema verite and direct cinema in the 1960’s, the evolution and
current extension of the parameters of observational film and television is in
large part due to specific technological advances.” [6]
While it is certainly true that
technological innovations have greatly facilitated the production of docusoaps and other examples of
reality-based programming, one can also say with certainty that the rapid
evolution of digital technology has greatly facilitated all manner of creative
endeavours, and not just docusoaps.
The technology does not just generate
the product; rather, producers use the new technology to create new products to
satisfy specific needs.
As was the case with reality-based
programs like “Cops”, the docusoap format was created specifically
to enable producers avoid paying television actors and screenwriters the fees
they were owed according to union contracts.
In addition, most docusoaps are never shot on location or in real-life situations;
instead, they depict the actions of individuals thrown together in a completely
contrived situation. In this situation, individuals are frequently manipulated
( and allegedly even sometimes scripted) off-camera, and are encouraged to
create drama for the camera.
All of these features might make for
titillating television entertainment, but they are all fundamental violations
of the ground rules for documentary. Hence docusoaps,
along with reality based television and infotainment,
although all contain some documentary elements, fall outside the parameters
of our operational definition of documentary.
As Rabiger has noted so eloquently,” the public has an insatiable appetite for
“infotainment” shows based on police recordings, accidents, and bizarre events
captured in home movie clips. By no stretch of the imagination are they
documentary, even though they do document how people react in trying
situations. They do, however, use documentary observation and provide work for
documentary crews. Perhaps they help us, in a roundabout way, to define what
documentary is not.”[7]
Propaganda Documentaries: The issue of what is, and what is not,
propaganda has also long been a bone of contention in the world of cinema. One
fundamental issue is that the very word propaganda
resonates quite differently depending upon who is using it. Patricia
Aufderheide defines propaganda
documentaries as being made with the goal of convincing viewers of an
organization’s point of view or cause, while
noting that they are “an important source of funding and training
for documentarians worldwide and sometimes an important influence on public
opinion.”[8]
Dziga Vertov, for example, was proud to
be making propaganda documentaries in the service of the communist party and
the Soviet revolution. As previously noted, his problems arose when his
ostensible clients in the party decided he was not making the kind of
propaganda they wanted. He was unwilling to sacrifice his belief in the
validity of his documentary canon to make the kind of films they wanted, so his
ideological and aesthetic adversaries succeeded in shutting him down. Before
that, however, Vertov managed to make a number of documentaries that are still
respected today for their cinematic value, unlike the pedestrian exercises in social realism produced by his rivals.
In this context, one should acknowledge
that both Stalin and Hitler were correct in their conclusion that fiction entertainment is a far more
effective vehicle for the delivery of a propaganda message than documentary;
the Hollywood classic “Casablanca” (1941)
was easily the most successful propaganda film of the war, and much of its
success was doubtless due to the fact that many viewers do not even think of it
as propaganda. The best propaganda does not advertise its intentions; rather,
it strikes a popular note in the guise of entertainment.
A far more controversial historical
example is presented by Leni Riefenstahl's “Triumph of the Will” (1935), a stunning film about a Nazi party
congress in Nuremberg which, politics aside, has long been recognized as
a masterpiece of technical perfection, and which was banned for years because
it was considered to be so inflammatory.
As shown in Ray Muller’s fascinating
documentary biography “The Wonderful, Horrible
Life of Leni Riefenstahl” (1993) Riefenstahl
insisted that she was just a artist providing a visual record of the event.
Indeed, she refused to ever admit she was even a member of the Nazi party, even
though it is clear she never could have made the film without Hitler’s
enthusiastic support.
When an incredulous Muller points out
she had enjoyed extraordinary access to Hitler, and that the entire event
appears meticulously staged and choreographed, she remains adamant that the
film was just a work for hire .Her denials are contradicted by the film itself;
every camera angle and camera movement is impeccable, and orchestrated . Nothing
seems to have been left to chance.
Muller’s close inspection of the
production reveals that a good deal was, in fact, staged for the camera. Indeed,
a strong case could be made that the entire rally at Nuremberg was staged for Riefenstahl'
s benefit, since Muller reveals that she had shot the entire event the year
before in the much less well-known “The
Victory of the Faith”(1933), which Muller implies was something of a dress
rehearsal.[9]
What with all this staging, and a dress
rehearsal the year before, “The Triumph
of the Will” is arguably not a documentary.
Rather, one might more correctly term it an industrial;
indeed, with 30 cameras and a crew of 172, one might even call it one the most
extravagant commercials ever made. [10] Ironically, the extraordinary production value
and aesthetic perfection of the film appears to have made it a somewhat unsuccessful
propaganda vehicle in Germany. In spite of a massive release, the film was not generally
popular; perhaps Vertov was right when he told his cameramen to avoid staged
events like processions and parades because they are boring. [11]
Regardless, in what has proved to be
the ultimate irony, the material in the film proved to be very useful for
anyone making an anti-Nazi propaganda film, and was used extensively for that
purpose.[12]
On the other hand, Riefenstahl’s
magnificent “Olympia “(1936), about
the 1936 Berlin Olympics, was a worldwide hit, and is arguably a documentary. While
the technical perfection of the mise-en-scene and the camerawork is exquisite,
there is much more drama, since the film shows real sporting events, with real competition,
and no staging or rehearsals.[13]
Riefenstahl defies easy categorization.
Even though she had a well-documented infatuation with Hitler and the Nazi
ideology, and was sent abroad as a glamorous international star to be used as
propaganda tool, she stubbornly refused to ever admit she was a Nazi or intended
to make propaganda films. Unrepentant to the end, as well as artistically
active and proficient, Leni Riefenstahl
remains something of an enigma[14]
Some critics like Susan Sontag, have
noted Riefenstahl’s seemingly persistent fascist obsession with strong male
bodies in her films, as well as in her later photographic books on the people of
Nubia in the Sudan, but Riefenstahl also became the first foreigner to ever be awarded
honorary Sudanese citizenship for her efforts to document their people. Even today,
her aesthetics are still influential, as can be seen in contemporary commercials
for Calvin Klein.
For students of documentary and cinema, Riefenstahl
and her work raise many difficult questions; at the very least, they provide important
case studies for anyone seeking to understand the nature of cinematic
propaganda, not to mention the role of the artist in the creation of such
propaganda. Curiously enough, even though Riefenstahl is widely recognized as
one of the great directors of documentary of all time (as well as easily the
greatest female director of documentary), it does seem a bit odd that some contemporary
documentary historians, such as Jane M. Gaines, and Stella Bruzzi ,do not even
find her worthy of mention in their books on documentary.
A more recent interesting twist on
propaganda documentaries is provided by French director Barbet Schroder’s “General Idi Amin Dada: A Self Portrait“(1974).
Hired to make what was supposed to be a propaganda film in the Riefenstahl
tradition about the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, Schroeder and his cameraman
Nestor Alemendros instead covered all of the awkward moments in the events
clumsily staged by their client, who appears to occasionally suspect that they
are not shooting exactly what he had intended to orchestrate.
As
the title indicates, Schroeder does not pretend that these events in the film
were not staged; quite to to the contrary, he reflexively relates Amin’s stated
intentions. However, Schroeder bravely and cleverly manages to reveal all the
intended manipulation, making a fool of Amin in the process. When the film was
praised in Paris as a brilliant comic expose of an African dictator, Amin was
furious. He proceeded to kidnap all the French citizens in Kampala and lock
them up in a local hotel.
He then gave them Schroeder’s telephone
number and, as the spectator is informed in a postscript to the film, insisted
that two cuts be made in the most embarrassing material. Schroeder made the cuts, and the Frenchmen
were freed.By any standard, “General Idi
Amin Dada: A Self Portrait “is an excellent documentary.[15]
IV.10. Conclusion:
Documentarians chose the documentary
genre as a mode of expression because they believe they have something to say,
and they consciously chose the documentary form. When documentarians make that
choice, they are also aware that they are making a compact with the audience
that they will respect and observe the conventions of documentary that are
currently the norm.
Out of necessity, therefore, digital documentarians must
adhere to the same basic aesthetic conventions as their predecessors who made
documentary films. While the technology has changed, the basic documentary conventions
remain – at least, for the time being.
These conventions are
grounded in documentary tradition, practice and theory, and therefore any
definition of documentary must have its roots in that tradition and theory to
be viable.
The choice of Vertov was not based on
sentimentality; Vertov is anything but sentimental, nor is his thinking
anachronistic. Indeed, there are some documentary historians, like Jeremy
Hicks, who feel that Vertov has particular relevance for Digital Documentary:
“Digital imagery
seems to herald a new scepticism towards documentary as an objective register,
further weakening the Griersonian realist tradition. Vertov’s explicitly
partisan exhortation, as well as his skepticism towards the image and the
recording process, echo central themes of the digital age. Indeed, it has been
argued that his search for non-narrative solutions to the organization of
material anticipates those of the database. Yet, for all his relevance to these
themes, Vertov’s revelation of the persuasive power of images was ultimately
rooted in record.”[16]
Chapter V, VI, and VII shall now
examine Digital Documentary Pre-production, Digital Documentary Production, and
Digital Documentary Post- production.
[1]
Link to the Gettysburg Address Sequence from “The Civil War”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCXUbQ4JjXI
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cops_(TV_series)
[4]
Link to an episode of ‘ COPS”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1L1APOGhLI
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docu-soap#Documentary-style
[6]
Bruzzi (ibid)p 121
[7]
Rabiger( ibid) p.40
[8]
Aufderheide ( ibid) p. 65
[9]
Link to “The Horrible Wonderful World of
Leni Riefenstahl”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azDS_1DKOEQ
[10]
Ray Muller, (The Horrible Wonderful World
of Leni Riefenstahl) (1993)
[11]
Link to “Triumph of the Will”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHs2coAzLJ8
[12]
William K. Everson (The Triumph of the
Will)Infinity, September 1964, from Jacobs (ibid)p.138-139
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl
[15]
Link to “ General Idi Amin Dada”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJoKP5TqR78
No comments:
Post a Comment