All film is fiction?

(Carl Muircroft, 2011)

To ‘discuss’ this subject it will be difficult to come to a ‘yes or no’ conclusion. There are credited arguments that back both sides of the coin. All that can be accomplished is an exploration into the facets that make up the argument in order for the reader to come to some conclusion. This may seem as an admission of failure, but the reasoning behind this stance will be understood once the subject is explored in detail. To do this we will look at the birth of documentary as a genre, the nature of ‘fiction’ in documentary through film examples and the nature of ‘fiction’ in general.

 It is first important to truly define ‘film’. ‘Film’ is something that can be consumed by an audience in some way, a cinematic experience. As a genre it would on the surface seem that documentary would fall snugly into the ‘non-fiction’ category. Before the invention of film ‘The “document” and the process of “documenting” constituted a means of “objectifying” evidence that could then be produced and accepted as proof in courts of law’. (Candeloro, 2000) Film in its basic form can capture evidence (CCTV for example) and any film that can be used as evidence in court could be safely defined as non-fiction, but the definition of the (documentary) film genre is not so rigidly attached to the notion of ‘giving evidence’. To explain this it is important to explore the origins of the genre.

Creative treatment

 John Grierson, the man behind the documentary movement in Britain in the 1930’s provided the first definition that proves most popular; he coined documentary as ‘the creative treatment of actuality’. (Hardy, 1979) The ‘creative treatment’ is the production of footage into film; editing, sound manipulation, etc. But ‘actuality’ as a term in this definition has proved difficult to explain. Brian Winston’s Claiming the Real II (2008, pp.17) explains that Grierson and his students if anything, wanted actuality to be ‘a synonym for reality’. Winston also explains that Grierson ‘never really addressed himself to the fundamental issues raised by his use of the term ‘documentary’ and the definition he gave it; nor did any of his followers’. Despite no real rules of reality and fact set in stone the definition was enough for documentary to be established as a film form.

This definitive term was originally used in a review for Moana (1926). Grierson wrote that ‘the film ‘has documentary value’ (Hardy, 1979). The director Robert Flaherty had previously directed Nanook of the North (1922). William Rothman’s article The Filmmaker as Hunter (1998, pp. 23-26) explains that ‘It marks a moment before the distinction between documentary and fiction was set’. ‘Moana’ revolves around a Samoan native and his family. ‘Nanook’ similarly revolves around the escapades of an Eskimo and his family. Both films ‘document’ indigenous tribes in their natural habitats. However both films heavily rely on constructed events over true ‘actuality’. In a 1975 review of Moana, J. Rosenbaum revealed that ‘even the members of the central “family” are not all related to one another, having been selected for their photogenic qualities and thespian talents rather than their blood ties’. The same can be said for Nanook; Rothman comments that ‘much of what is on view is typical behavior for Nanook’s family (making igloos, lighting campfires). Some is not.’ Nanook is not even the protagonist’s real name. (1) Due to the technological age in which it was filmed, the film is silent; Flaherty uses captions to narrate the story. The scenarios are placed in order to tell a specific story, one of ‘man vs. nature’. Some of Flaherty’s events are staged (In particular the walrus hunt) and his ‘Nanook’ is characterized for the purposes of the film, but this does not mean that the characters are not real in some sense. These elements of ‘creative treatment’ make the film as a whole fictional. However, while recognizing that the protagonist is ‘painted’ into a mythological character Rothman differentiates between ‘Nanook’ and a true fictional film; ‘What is fictional about ‘Nanook’ resides in its fiction that it is not fiction at all’. The character was filmed in his reality; therefore his reality is documented despite being characterized. Grierson defended these practices by saying that “the original (or native) actor, and the original (or native) scene, are better guides to the screen interpretation of the modern world [than actors and sets]”. (2)

Subjectivity

 The only thing stopping a film from being appreciated as a true representation of ‘Reality’ is the creative treatment it seems. For students of the documentary genre this is one of the first notions taught. The book Introduction to Documentary Production by Searle Kochberg (2002,p.1) sums up the problem succinctly; “We recognize that truths are subjective, multiple and at times contradictory, so we do not suggest that you aspire to the impossible – the rendition of truth”.  Impossible may seem strong but to produce a true sense of ‘objectivity’ in film would at least be extremely costly and perhaps would be too great a viewing burden on an audience. ‘As noticed by Henry Breitrose, a truly “objective” documentary should be: “a 360 degree view… a continuous and unedited take, so that nothing that occurred in front of the lens is omitted; an invisible camera and production team, because awareness of process might alter the behavior of those being photographed”. (Candeloro, 2000) Documenters have no choice but to treat their moments of captured reality; thus making their films subjective representations. But this handicap should not be used to banish all documentary to fiction. Kochberg goes on to encourage students regarding what is possible with documentary film; “but rather that you see as valuable and achievable the articulation of truth in your work that illuminates and informs in an exciting way”. Kochberg shows through these words that ‘truth’ is attainable; despite documentary being subjective representations of truth they can still ‘illuminate’ and ‘inform’. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word ‘subjective’ in contrast to ‘objective’, its opposite; as; ‘dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence’. (3) The ‘subjective’ truth then first exists in the mind of the documenter; through creative treatment the audience will either see this same truth or their own truth if they are not so convinced. It is crucial to this discussion that we explore subjective truth with an example in film.

 Titicut Follies (1967) observes life in an institution for the criminally insane in Bridgewater Massachusetts. According to Barry Grant in the essay Ethnography in the First Person (1998,pp.238-241) it was the ‘first in a series’ that focused on American institutions. Other documentaries in the series by the director Frederick Wiseman included observing education, social services and the legal system. The films are all concerned with specific buildings related to the institutions they represent. Concerning ‘Titicut’, Grant explains how Wiseman used creative treatment with certain objectives in mind, mentioning that the film is ‘carefully structured to advance its makers sense of personal outrage’. Wiseman felt he had all right to voice these problems with the institution having long before witnessed what happened at the asylum. Wiseman taught courses in criminal law at university before becoming a filmmaker. Grant tells that during his years teaching, he took his students on visits to Bridgewater, ‘feeling that they should know where they might be sending convicted criminals later on when they became district attorneys and judges’. Grant goes on to mention Wisemans continuous ‘sense of shock’ over the conditions of the institution gave him the idea for the film. It is obvious that Wiseman had a ‘truth’ he wished to share, but like any other documentary it could only be shown subjectively. This subjective stance is shown though the way Wiseman conducted the documentary through the production process.

 Grant suggests that Wisemans approach to filming was that of ‘a detached observer’. Wiseman did not work the camera during the time filming, he used several hand signals to control what was shot. Grant observes that Wiseman’s great skill was knowing ‘how to capture images on film that resonate with meaning’ Wiseman did not however have control of the actions of the inmates and guards. However strong Wisemans first objectives were with the film we can see that because he did not have complete control over what happened at the asylum and what was shot, the preconceptions he first had were not completely true. Wiseman was said to have spent more time editing his film than shooting. Because of his strenuous editing practices it becomes clear that he understood the films subjective nature; ‘Wiseman readily admits the creative manipulation in his films’, describing them as “reality dreams” or reality fictions’. When we consider that the film is not even edited chronologically we see how Wiseman can admit how he sees his work. However heavy Wiseman’s hand seems on his work it is crucial to still point out that he doesn’t actually say anything directly to the audience; ‘there is no narrator’, this nature shows subjective intention towards the audience. Grant summarizes by saying ‘Wiseman’s cinema therefore is a dialectical one, always involving the viewer in teasing out meaning rather that documenting absolute truths’. Of course this is true, because as we have already asserted; absolute truth is something ultimately unattainable in documentary film.

Fiction

With these examples we can see how truth is represented while it is altered away from being absolute truth. But does creatively treat truth constitute fiction? In the paper Docu-fiction: Convergence and contamination between documentary representation and fictional simulation, Jean-Pierre Candeloro defines fiction films as ‘pure emotional articulation, fictional constructs of the imagination, growing essentially out of group interests and values’ (2000, pp.16-17). With this definition we can see a difference in the two film examples given. Flaherty’s work shows ‘fictional constructs of the imagination’ through the staged events of ‘Nanook’. This work strays heavily to a work of fiction by resorting to ‘make believe’. Wiseman’s work however shows no such fictional constructs; he shoots as an observer, his imagination is only allowed to take control of the project after the footage is shot therefore a subjective truth remains after examination. Candeloro goes on to explain the difference between ‘Make Believe’ and non-fiction; ‘When the spectator sees a fictional film and becomes absorbed by it he may find compelling images before his mind, but a documentary or whatever nonfictional product can stimulate the imagination in the same way’.(4) Reliant on subjective truth documentary has the power to make someone believe something, can omit truths without resorting to fictional construct. However documentary will be similar to fiction because through subjective reasoning a filmmaker makes the audiences believe something. Michael Renov backs this idea in the book Theorizing Documentary (1993, p.2) by saying ‘non-fiction contains any number of ‘fictive’ elements, moments at which a presumably objective representation of the world encounters the necessity of creative intervention’. Renov goes on to examine how these fictive elements show in every human endeavor of persuasion; ‘all discourse (including documentary) constitutes the objects which it pretends only to describe realistically and to analyse objectively.’ (1993, p.7) Fictional or not the nearest we can come to objectivity is to be present with said ‘object’. Any later discourse (be it film, book or word of mouth) is of a subjective nature.

 The idea that all objects (or truths) become subjective in later discourse allows this discussion to expand towards more conventional definitions of fiction. Films share a commonality with books, Candeloro (2000, p.21) talks about how to distinguish between fiction and non-fiction film in terms that fit this generalization. He points out that when you examine a film you are essentially ‘reading’ it. Books and film both persuade a certain line of thinking, both are governed by subjectivity. He explains how we can use this reasoning to make a decision of a films characteristics by saying; ‘If we find out whether the film is fictional (or not) by “reading” it, that must be because there is some quality of its words and visual sentences that makes it fiction (or not).’ Books are easily differentiated between the two, fictional works of literature with clear constructs of the imagination inhabit one side of a library while their non-fiction counterparts inhabit the other. However if we can assume that all discourses (including non-fiction books) are subjective representations of actual truth, then we can assume that some documentary films fall into the category of non-fiction. To cement this assumption I will use as example one of the books used in research for this assignment.

 In the afore mentioned Claiming the Real II, Brian Winston uses chapter three (pp.14-15) to dwell on the meaning of Grierson’s definition of documentary; ‘the creative treatment of actuality’. He points out that in the previous version of Claiming the Real he thought Griersons definition to be ‘naive at best’. However he mentions scholars (Henry Breitrose, John Corner) who disagree with his analysis. Without changing his mind completely Winston admits that he ‘failed to account for the cameras ability to capture images of the world’. By looking at this as an example we can see that some non-fiction books are based on the opinions of the author. Obviously through large amounts of subjective research the author develops an opinion that holds weight. But an opinion is still just an opinion and can be discredited by peers as this example shows. The author uses fictive elements in their writing when needed to explain and persuade regardless of whether the book is a fictional story or a non-fictional research effort.

 A research effort references other works in order to back ideas presented. Films, through creative treatment reference ‘reality’ via footage captured by the camera. If films were given this same leniency as books, then there would be no need for this discussion. However this discussion, like any discourse is subjective in nature. No ‘yes or no’ conclusion can be made because my discussion revolves around the opinion of scholars. In my own opinion I will go down as saying that not all film is fiction. I believe I have explained my reasoning, but that is only my opinion. The freedom subjectivity brings with it means I can be convinced otherwise. On a lesser note, this freedom brings with it a notion that it is up to the audience to decide what to believe. The one problem with our reliance on subjective truth is the freedom for scholars and filmmakers alike to misguide through persuasion. In his afore mentioned article Rothman summarizes my own sentiments well; ‘Documentaries and fiction films are equally liable to be instruments of repressive ideology, hence equally to be resisted.’ (5)

Footnotes

(1)    Actual name ‘Allakariallak’

(2)   Grierson, John (1934-36) “First Principles of Documentary”, in Jean Pierre Candeloro (2000) p.18

(3)http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/subjective?q=subjective

(4)p. 240

(5)The Filmmaker as Hunter p. 23

Bibliography

Candeloro, J.P., 2000. Docu-fiction - Convergence and contamination between documentary representation and fictional simulation, Facoltà di Scienze della Comunicazione [online] available at: < http://www.bul.unisi.ch/cerca/bul/memorie/com/pdf/9900Candeloro.pdf> [Accessed 5 March 2012]

Hardy, F. and Grierson, J., 1979. Grierson on documentary 3^rd ed. Great Britain: Whitstable Litho Ltd.

Grant, B. K., 1998, Ethnography in the First Person, Documenting The Documentary, Wayne State University Press: Michigan

Kochberg, S., 2002. Introduction to Documentary Production, Wallflower Press: London.

Renov, M., 1993. Theorizing Documentary, Routledge: London.

Rosenbaum, J., 1975 [online] available at: < http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=16639> [Accessed 3 March 2012]

Rothman, W., 1998, The Filmmaker as Hunter, Documenting The Documentary, Wayne State University Press: Michigan

Winston, B., 2008. Claiming the Real II, 2^nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan