Documentary Films and the Problem of "Truth" Author(s): RICHARD M.

BLUMENBERG Source: Journal of the University Film Association, Vol. 29, No. 4, THE DOCUMENTARY IMPULSE: CURRENT ISSUES (Fall 1977), pp. 19-22 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the University Film & Video Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20687386 . Accessed: 01/08/2011 16:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and University Film & Video Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the University Film Association.

http://www.jstor.org

Documentary Films and the Problem of "Truth" RICHARD M. BLUMENBERG

College of Communications and Fine Arts Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

As traditionallydiscussed in relation to documen taryfilms, theproblem of truthisclosely associated with the problem of objectivity; i.e., how can a filmmost closely show events as they "actually" occurred. This latterproblem, I believe, is a false one. In any medium inwhich selection ormanip ulation is done, strictobjectivity is not possible. Yet, inmotion pictures,whether in fact a scene or even a shot gives a feeling of the emotions of an
event

In trying to answer this question, we should identify those critical criteria that apply to the documentary film. These criteria are not only those that describe the techniques and structures of filmmaking (the bases for aesthetic judgments of motion pictures), but they also become the bases for ethical judgments the observer/critic is
required to make.

that is frequentlyconfused with objectivity. Since medium?is objectivity?by the very nature of the to in achieve cinema, may authenticity impossible be desirable as a critical criterion for films that purport to show "truth."Authenticity is achieved by the two qualities of (1) legitimacy, and (2)
significance.

or action,

there

is a sense

of "authenticity"

It is, in fact, this ethical dimension that separates the documentary film?including cinema v?rit?? from other types of pictures. "Truth" is an ethical
concern?not

cern?and
actualities.

this iswhy the problem of truth is so important in films that purport to deal with

an aesthetic

or epistemological

con

Legitimacy shows by means of cinematography that events or actions actually happened. If one shows a brickwall being destroyed, or bubble gum bursting on a person's face, or an igloo being built, the photographic reproductionmakes these events
legitimate.

Ethics can be approached through several prob lems of value. I would like to investigate the problem here from a point of view that uses categories suggested by Hazel E. Barnes in her introductorychapter "The Choice to be Ethical" inExistential Ethics.1 I think that these problems can be used to help critically in describing, eval
uating, and understanding documentary films.

Anything can happen and be photographed. Sig

nificance results as events are made

only by virtue of the fact that they have been photographed and projected. In other words, out of all the events or actions that continually occur, those legitimatized by cinematography are, be cause of that attribute, special. The problem of truth in documentary films, following question: Is perhaps best rests in the there a direct, undeniable, critical relationship
between

important

According to Hazel Barnes, ethical in the "strict partly aesthetic, partly conceptual, partly more personally pychological, which stems from the conviction that one can rationally defend his life and justify it as a coherent structure" (p. 15). I thinkthata basic understanding thatgives impetus to the "experience of satisfaction" is the "need to justifyone's life" (p 9). Such a need arises from the ways our actions legitimatizeand give significance
to those events that create authentic experience. sense" is ". . . the experience of satisfaction,

graphed and recorded? Any investigation of this question requires ethical as well as
aesthetic considerations.

constructs and image I sound projected the visual-audial shape of the events photo

NY:

Knopf,

1967.

JOURNAL OF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION, XXIX, 1 (Fall 1977)

19

Miss

Barnes for

also

demands on

embraces the constant possibility of ignoringall

one's a consistent value system imposing that we choice life, the ethical requires as a part of all of the truth about man

says,

".

. . the nonethical

choice

(3)

The public showing ofprivate events. The decision to penetrate the layersofprotective
devices

the data on the basis of which we make our decisions" (p. 25). Our decisions about actions and about the "meaning" of actions (including that viewed in a documentaryfilm) might rest upon the need for a "coherent structure" that we justify throughaesthetic, conceptual, and psychological
experiences. This

recognize

moral

others) to show the private moment is an ethical decision of great moment. In a

context, attempts to achieve authen

(i.e., dress,

job,

behavior,

and many

ticityheremay not have so much effectas shock. In an ethical sense, a subject's psy chological need to protect his or her in dividuality may take precedence over showing a private moment that adds only shock or humor to content not needing it for purposes of authenticity. (4) The creation of legitimacy or significance bymeans of editing, sound, selective focus,
other similar cinematographic manip

ally arrived at, influences truth.

"meaning"

of action,

ration

and

one

Inmotion pictures, "truth" is relative to theway it is presented. This holds true, of course, whether
is structuring images for a narrative presenta

tion or choosing them for a documentary. A differentcamera angle presents a different"truth" of an action, or?in showing another side of an
object?presents color, zoom a different frame truth or

tion of that object. So too, of course, with lenses,

shots, rate speed, framing, film

representa

ulations. Decisions in thisarea evolve from considerations of using cinematic contri vance to distort or dilute authenticity to the point where only action signifies the actual event. Finding the action through the distortion may be a difficultpart of assessing its authenticity. (5) The a priori or imposed judgment of the filmmaker on the events shown. In this or editing case, any filmingand / manipula tion further influences interpretationand forms a filmwhich can be more polemic
than authentic.

stock, sound, and, especially editing. The very processes fiction filmmakers use aesthetically to structure theirworks pose ethical considerations for the documentary filmmaker. The question, "How much of the truth of the actual event or object am I manipulating?" requires ethical ans wers not influenced by artistic decisions. Let me list some of the importantdecisions facing both the filmmaker and the observer: (1) The choice of subject matter. The general subject matter a documentary filmmaker decides to deal with may frequently be influenced by what the filmmaker thinks thepublic already has seen or knows, as well as by a desire to give legitimacyand signi
to people, events, actions, or cir

(6) What Hazel Barnes, in another context, calls "playing to thegroup" can seriously impair or firmly negate any notion of makers make films to be played (either for with set ideas, then the film must be viewed
as not authentic. ethical in nature?can These acceptance or for controversy) to a group authenticity. When documentary film

ficance

form film criteria for judging the authenticityof a

documentary film.

problems?primarily

cumstances that otherwise would not be made available to other people. (2) The selection of actionfrom action occur ring around it.This process of abstraction can appear to be spontaneous in termsof reaction of the camera to the events it
shows, sometimes and even other

II

tion taking place by zooming, travelling

in, panning, camera manipula it photographs seem

showing

the selec

tions. The reaction of the camera to the and hence give a false feelingof authenticity to the event by making itappear spontan
eous. The isolation of actions?however be actions may artibrary

Ideas of aesthetics and dramatic, narrative and/or musical structures frequently form the criteria used to judge motion pictures. I feel, however, that the ethical structures of documentary films form values that should take precedence critically over aesthetic judgments. If this is done, authen will not give way to those values thatprovide ticity content imaginatively. The pleasure by structuring response to it,and thematerials filmedmay form or suggest structures in the editing room. But many fiction filmsdo this also. In addition, since audiences have in recent years developed their eye for techniques such as hand-held shots, zoom
event, as in "pure" cinema v?rit?', may control

provide material that is structuredby edit ingand thereforeisgiven a furtherimposed sense by the shotswithwhich itisassociated. 20

spontaneous

they may

in actuality?

as

shots, real people in real locations, grainy film, and other such devices, people will tend, falsely, to give authenticityto fictional constucts. As long they stand the chance of not being viewed as significantlydifferentfrom fiction films.
documentary films rely on aesthetic criteria,

have

In fiction films,events can appear legitimateand

that is, they appear true. Yet, significance; the creative for each sort of know, impulses actions that occur or are made

as we film

filmare usually quite different. The documentary

world. The narrative its own reality film structures to support a theme, to investigate one, or to one. Yet?for and narrate describe all this?we either

occur (or that are made to seem to occur) in the

records

to

Some films, of course, try to bridge the gap between the two, creating factual fiction films,
"docu-drama," or whatever else

called. These filmsare not disguised reality;rather, they are totally unreal, or unauthentic.
quasi-documentary, or pseudo-documentary

they may

be

know that thereare many documentary films that organize their structures in dramatic, if not in narrative fashion.2As long as films in one way or
another

Yet,

This

films appear to have high degrees of authenticity because theyshow events and actions thatoccur in an actual or easily identifiable world and they may have a basis in history. Their authentic qualities rest in the assumed functionsof the photographic image to verifyactions or events?to give them legitimacy and significance?by showing them. isusually presentedprimarilyby visual (as opposed
means. more aspect of "truth"?or verification of events?

and events, they are tied to the known or fabri cated world of experience. The fiction that results is only across the street from the truth that is suggested.And as all of film is unreal, so too are all films limited in their views. Narrative films, as in th? case of Paul Morrisey / Andy Warhol's Trash (1970), or John Cassavetes' Faces (1968), or Husbands (1970), can give us real locations embracing fictional or semi-fictional plots. The feeling forplace, shaped bymeans of a
"documentary"

representationally

show

objects,

actions,

to audial) The

visual

have a greater degree of immediately perceived likeness to objects or events in theworld?than those impressions received by the other senses. In this light,actions shown bymotion picture images
create or

image

appears

powerful?i.e.,

to

to fiction. While this is not eitherbad or undesir

aesthetics as a critical method?especially the ethical.

style, forces a sense of authenticity

when dealing with the value and meaning of

action?separates itself from

able,

stituteeither for the events themselves,or for their

substance.

influence

emotions

that appear

to sub

Often, ethical concepts become confused with

aesthetic or manipulation meanings. and

In a classic example such as Leni Riefenstahfs Triumph of the Will (1934-1946), the events ing through their filmic presentation, as in any number of scenes: the night rallies, the speeches of
the party leaders, preparations, the morning staged though they are?take on emotional mean

"truth" of a documentary picture is being

ethical problems and investigated, serve as critical methods can in fact procedures leading to

suggested

as themes emerge the so-called Where

understanding.

film, it is not important to the polemic purpose of the picture whether or not the emotions are
To a naive the emotions audience, arise from sym the

the montage review, more. and many In

of

this

Ill In practical terms, I think the following criteria should prove useful for judging the formative
values of a documentary film:

honestly portrayed. events seem true and

pathetic relationships between actions shown and the eternal verities felt by the viewer.
To take a well-known instance from

ethical

differentkind of film, in Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin's Chronicle of a Summer: Paris 1961,when Marcelline iswalking along the Place de la Con corde, reminiscingabout her familyand the holo caust, the double effectof what has happened to her life, and what had happened to her life, coalesce through the tension between image and speech, person and environment. The history or structure of the shot is ethically less important than the fact that the scene legitimatizesand gives honestly portrayed, then the emotions they ex
press appear valid and true. to a whole series of events other than significance the one this scene shows. If the events appear

quite

(1)

Is there justification in experience for the subject?

(2) Does the subject warrant the significance given to it by filming? (3) Is the structurecoherent, and satisfyingto the subject: aesthetically, conceptually, and psychologically?

2Lionel Rogosin's On the Bowery (1954), the films of the British "Free Cinema" group of the fifties, and such recent documentaries as Pumping Iron do this.

JOURNAL OF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION, XXIX, 1 (Fall 1977)

21

(4) Do we recognize something (a "truth") authentic about the human condition as a part of the visual and audial data given us in the film? (5) Does the film play to a group, or to a group idea, or is it free to explore the group in which its subject rests?

lead to psychological reactions and that can help form'attitudes about a subject. When the three aspects of aesthetics, concept, and psychology, described separately, work together, then something of the value of a f m
can be determined.

The first question is both elementary and neces sary. Put another way, does the event, action, or circumstance have the potential in its own exist ence for being legitimatized by the observation and description motion pictures provide?3 The experience of motion pictures, with its primary visual means for expression, might not be so accurate as verbal description. Therefore, a subject might not be so well justified for film as for
writing.

The data given us include all sound and visual materials shown in projection. This data provides an atmosphere that equally interacts with actions to provide events upon which we base judgments. The significance of the data will give us informa tion upon which to base judgments about the authenticity of the experience shown as subject we should of a shot, scene, or picture. From this, be able to see anew or have justified for us an
aspect of human or other existence.

subject may have the capacity for authentic rendering,yet filming itmay distort itsworth. A film of a person walking his dog may be of some interest, but the event may not be worth the significance filming gives it.

If the film plays to a group (even a group of film professionals) by subject or camera manipulation, thenwe can say that the picture is so specialized that it loses authenticity. To return to my earlier question, yes, there is a direct, undeniable, critical relationship between image/sound constructs projected and the visual audial shape of the events photographed and recorded. This relationship rests in the data that forms an atmosphere for a subject. If the ethical criteria suggested above, when applied to a film, suggest themoral shape of the actual events, then we can learn a "truth" about existence from the subject. This truthrests in the authenticity of the events shown, regardless of thedocumentary style in which they are aesthetically organized. The relationship that exists between film and life is that of the primacy of human experience inwhat ever form it presents itself to us. Life does not
take

quality of significance can be further strengthened by the structures built around the subject: (a) the film structures, including camera manipulations, sound and editing technique; (b) the concepts thatarise from theaesthetic structur ing of the subject in , as in Resnais' Nuit et Brouillard (1955), formed around the "extermina tion of the Jews" inWorld War II, gives ideas about the eternal inhumanity of humankind throughaesthetic techniques; (c) theseassociations The

This worth

is not

to be mistaken which really

by

filming," criterion.

applies

the question, "Is it to the second

This creation is ethical in itsorigin; hence, it can

be evaluated by means of moral criteria.

precedence

over

form,

but

rather

creates

it.

22