Truth in Cinema -- Candis Callison

Truth in Cinema

In Candis Callison’s paper, Truth in Cinema: Comparing Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite, Callison examines the role of the filmmaker in two different parts: the filmmaker gaze and the filmmaker stance. She also hoped to answer the following questions: What makes a film more or less voyeuristic? What is the role of the filmmaker in this process? Is it possible and necessary to hold to an ideal of objective filmmaking?

            Callison starts with the filmmaker gaze by discussing voyeurism and it’s role in observational films. Callison states, “As we have progressed onward to more observational films, this issue has only become a more important factor in deciphering truth inherent in film.” She discusses Frederick Wiseman’s approach with all of his films, which has been to make himself and his crew such a common presence that they are able to capture a “more true sense of reality”. However, she also makes a really great point about informed consent. This is due to Wiseman’s subject of his film High School and Titticut Follies later resenting their portrayal by him. After giving him complete access to their lives, they were disappointed with Wiseman’s edits and the public criticism. I agree with Callison’s argument that if a filmmaker follows the direct cinema method of “being a fly-on-the-wall, I do believe that the subject is unable to fully understand how little or how much a camera is capable of capturing as well as the effects the camera will have upon their actions. She also points out that direct cinema does not give the subjects an alternative solution for self-representation via interviews. Continuing to discuss direct cinema, Callison contrasts Jean Rouch’s work to Wiseman, Leacock, and others in direct cinema. She says, “[Rouch] is neither tied to examine the tiny details of lives, nor to any kind of exacting representation through constant observation, instead [he] facilitates truth by facilitating the human experience.” Ultimately Callison concludes that voyeurism is “about the power vested in those who control images and the ability to articulate in some fashion, their own gaze.” I also agree with her statement that without any disclosure from the filmmaker, there is a bit of truth missing even when direct cinema gives the audience a view into the lives of the subjects.

            In the next couple of paragraphs Callison discusses filmmaker stance. She starts by revisiting the idea that both direct cinema and cinema verite required their practitioners to become part of their subjects’ lives. However, it is truly the filmmaker who is responsible for what the camera does and does not frame and more importantly what the edited film contains. She continues with the idea that cinema verite took a different approach to issues of the filmmaker role and objectivity.  Citing that as writer Brian Winston pointed out, Rouch took on the problem directly and solved it by involving himself in the film. Jaguar is one of the few films within cinema vertie and direct cinema that deal with another culture than that of the filmmakers. Through this and his involvement within the film, Rouch creates a different kind of glimpse into what he would probably call “fragments” of truth there for transforming the role of the filmmaker into that of a contributor and participant.

            In her conclusion, Callison states, that “direct cinema and cinema verite, while construed very differently seek to bring out truth rarely seem on film.” Direct cinema unveils truth through detailed outward observation of events and/or subjects. Whereas cinema verite finds any means possible to explore ideas of truth and is basically an inward individual process slowly being revealed. She ends with a statement I completely agree with, “Documentary is rarely a matter of pure observation, however within both methods, there lays an opportunity for revelation even if mediated to greater or lesser degrees by both the camera and the filmmaker.” I do believe it is hard to completely be a fly-on-the-wall. People will ultimately always act differently with a camera around; it is just human nature. 

Chapter Nine

Chapter 9: How Can We Write Effectively about Documentary?

            Within this chapter Nichols discusses how to effectively write about Documentaries. It gives a sharper focus to writing about documentary film, however, the basic principles pertain to almost any research topic in the humanities. Most important to successful writing is having a purpose. A specific purpose, such as defending a position, advancing a point of view, or exploring an issue, endows an essay with interest.

The first step to writing an essay is preparation. Watching the documentary is the most obvious preparation, however, watching it more than once is also important. With the second viewing the process of asking and thinking about what you see becomes more central. Some viewers like to make notes but others find it too distracting, however, on the repeat viewing note provide the raw material that would later support critical writing about the film. Notes can track things such as:

·      The chronology of scenes (what comes first, second, and so on).

·      The types of camera shots (wide angle, telephoto, tracking shots, zooms, composition within the frame, etc.).

·      Editing techniques (continuity editing, point-of-view shots, unusual juxtapositions or jumps in time and space). 

·      The role of speech (dialogue, commentary), written words (titles, subtitles, inter-titles), music or sound effect in a scene.

·      Character development: how the film makes choices to enhance our sense of individual characters or personalities (camera angle, editing, organization of scenes, selection of what is said, and, possibility hints as to what is left unsaid or omitted.)

·      Rhetorical technique (how the film makes itself seem credible, convincing, and compelling, or not).

·      Modes and models (what modes and models the film relies on to organize itself and how it inflects them in a distinct way).

·      Other unusual qualities such as the degree of acknowledged presence of the filmmaker in scenes and the political perspective, if any, that the film conveys.

·      Aesthetic or emotional response to specific qualities of the film and what seems to prompt them in terms of technique of subject matter. (Nichols 254-255)

Taking notes is selective because you can only pay attention to so many aspects of the film. You may choose to focus on the camera style or poetic editing, on the filmmaker’s own presence or the development of social actors as complex characters, however, we can’t concentrate on everything at once.  One important consequence: there is no need to summarize the plot, in film criticism.

When conducting research you should utilize two distinct sources of research material, the World Wide Web and the library. Each offers a great deal of information in three different forms, which are primary source, secondary source, and tertiary source materials.   

Chapter Eight

Question 8: How Have Documentaries Addressed Social and Political Issues?

            Within this chapter Nichols discusses people as victims or agents, constructing national identity, contesting the nation-state, beyond nationalism: new forms of identity, redefining the politics of identity, and social issues and personal portraiture. For people as victims or agents, Nichols considers that to act unethically or misrepresent other involves politics and ideology too. He gives the example of journalist Brian Winston who argued that the 1930s documentary filmmakers in Great Britain took a romantic view of their working-class subjects. Ultimately, failing to see the worker as an active self-determining agent of change. Due to this the worker suffered from a “plight” that others, mostly government agencies, should do something about (Nichols 212). To this we take exception to the blanket condemnation of documentary and to the assumption that more radical documentaries alone will solve the pressing issues.

            Focusing on the construction of nationality and nationalism, which involves the construction of a sense of community. The word “‘community’ invokes feelings common purpose and mutual respect, of reciprocal relationships closer to family ties than contractual obligations” (215). To a community shared values and beliefs are vital, it often seems like an “organic” quality binding together by sharing a tradition, culture, or common goal. This even seems to be far removed from issues of ideology where competing beliefs struggle to achieve our minds and hearts. However, according to Nichols, the most insidious forms of ideology may be the ones that make a community seem natural and the sense of community always comes at the price of alternative values and beliefs considered unorthodox, rebellious, or illegal. “The politics of documentary film production address they ways in which this work helps give tangible expression to the values and beliefs that build, or contest, specific forms of social belonging, or community, at a given time and place,” says Nichols (216).  

            When challenging the Nation-State, many filmmakers proposed a sense of community based on actions, and changes, that governments seemed unprepared to accept, or make. Their documentaries opposed the policies of governments and industries. This eventually led to these filmmakers constituting the political avant-garde of documentary filmmaking. Nichols proceeds to give an example; in the U.S. this activity goes back to the efforts of the Workers’ Film and Photo Leagues of the 1920s and 1930s, which produced information about strikes and other issues from the perspective of the working class (223). These filmmakers adopted participatory mode, consistently identifying and collaborating with their worker-subjects, thus avoiding the risk of portraying them as powerless victims.  

            Going beyond the nationalism, new forms of identity began to arise. The formulation “we speak about us to you” took on a new emphasis that spread into a wide range of neglected corners of social life. Including the woman of many different cultures such as, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans, Latinos and Latinas, gays and lesbians. This is associated with the rise of a “politics of identity” which celebrated the pride and integrity of marginalized or ostracized groups, giving them a voice.

            Redefining the politics of identity has become the process of addressing the questions of alliances and affinities among various subcultures, groups, and movements. This represents another shift from the earlier construction of national identities to the recognition of partial or hybrid identities that seldom settle into a single and permanent category. As a result, an emphasis on hybridity and displacement exists in tension with the more sharply defined contours of an identity politics (238). Documentary filmmakers try to find a way to represent issues in ways that keep a sense of their magnitude in the lives of people who confront them.

            Two different emphases characterized the political voice of many of the films discussed in this chapter, social issues and personal portraiture.  These can be found at work in all six modes of documentary representation. Social issue documentaries take up public issues from a social perspective. Personal portrait films place their focus on the individual rather than the social issue. Some documentaries set out the try to explain aspects of the world to us. They analyze problems and propose solutions. Others invite us to understand aspects of the world more fully. They observe, describe, or poetically evoke situations and interactions.   

Chapter Four

Question 4: What Makes Documentaries Engaging and Persuasive?

            In this chapter Nichols discusses the triangle of communication, concrete events and abstract concepts, common issues, recurring topics, the challenge of persuasion, and the power of metaphor. The triangle of communication of every documentary includes at least three stories that connect: the filmmaker’s, the film’s and the audience’s. Considering the filmmakers previous work and continuing preoccupations is one of the ways in which you can discuss what a film is about. This gives you the opportunity to understand and explain his or her intentions or motives, and how these considerations relate to the general social context in which the work was made. When it comes to the film itself and your understanding and interpretation of its story. We tend to concentrate on what the film reveals about the relation between filmmaker and subject and what the film reveals about the world we occupy. Nichols points out that knowledge of the various forms, modes, and techniques of documentary filmmaker prove useful (Nichols 96). Then comes the story of the viewer. “Every viewer comes to a film with perspectives and motives based on previous experience” (96). Basically meaning each person understands the meaning of a film differently due to where he or she came from and what he or she has gone through. As an audience we often find what we want, or need, to find in films sometimes at the expense of what the film has to offer others.

Most concepts and issues within a documentary are almost always abstract and invisible. “We cannot see affluence or poverty as general concepts,” is the example Nichols gives (99). Explaining that we can only film certain evidence and indications of a wealthy lifestyle or depraved existence, to which we then assign the concepts affluence or poverty. When it comes to common issues and recurring topics, if a concept is not in doubt, there is no need for a documentary film to address it. Documentaries usually address debated concepts and contested issues. Specifically concepts and issues where there is considerable amount of social concern or debate or experiences that the filmmaker can provide as a unique perspective.

The challenge of persuasion starts which the uses of spoken and written language, which has led to a classification scheme that sketches out three broad categories. They include:

·      Narrative and poetics (for telling stories and evoking moods)

·      Logic (for rational, scientific, or philosophic inquiry)

·      Rhetorical (for creating consensus or winning agreement on issues open to debate)

These three categories are not mutually exclusive (103-104).

Rhetorical is the language of particular interest to the study of documentary film and video. There are three divisions that identify most issues documentaries address. The first is deliberative, “this is the domain of encouraging or discouraging, exhorting or dissuading other on a course of public action” (105). This includes political issues of social policy such as war, welfare, conservation, abortion, artificial, reproduction, national identity, and international relations. The next division is judicial or historical; “this is the domain of accusing or defending, justifying or criticizing previous actions” (105). Questions towards the past like, “What really happened?” are usually what filmmakers focus on. Questions of fact and interpretation, where guilt or innocence is at stake in relation to the law and truth or falsehood is at stake in relation to history. Lastly, commemorative or critical; this branch of rhetoric assigns praise or blame to others or a mix of both (107). It evokes qualities and established attitudes toward individuals and their accomplishments. The power of metaphor is the basic idea that we need metaphors to describe the concepts and issues. Metaphors “help us understand things in term of how they look or feel; they establish a likeness that involves our own physical or experiential encounter with a situation rather than our knowledge of a standard dictionary definition” (109). Metaphors help us understand the deeper message within the documentary film.

Chapter Seven

Question 7: How Can We Describe the Observational, Participatory, Reflexive, and Performative Modes of Documentary Film?

Continued from chapter six, Nichols goes deeper in to describe the last four modes of documentary film observational, participatory, reflexive, and performative.

           The observational mode was discussed in chapter one, “emphasizes a direct engagement with everyday life of subjects as observed by an unobtrusive camera” (Nichols 31). Unlike poetic and expository modes of documentary, the observational does not scarify direct engagement with specific individuals to construct formal patterns or compelling perspectives. Nichols brings up a good question, “What if the filmmaker were simply to observe what happens in front of the camera without overt intervention?” (172). That in a nutshell is basically what observational mode is. Some specific qualities of observational mode are:

•      It is an alternative to classic oration and poetic expression.  
•       It is limited by what occurs in front of the camera (hard to represent historical events).  
•       It treats knowledge as tacit sense of what we learn by watching, listening, observing, and making inferences about the conduct of others.
•       The sound is tied to the image by the indexical link of synchronous recording. Filmmaker gives up full control of sound to record what is said and heard in a given situation; refrains from voice over.
•      Time and space is continuous, with a strong sense of continuity that links the words and actions of subjects from shot to shot.
•      When it comes to ethical concerns, passive observation of dangerous, harmful, or illegal activity can lead to serious difficulties for subjects. Questions of responsibility toward subjects can become acute.
•      The voice characterized by patience, modesty, self-effacing. Willingness to let audience decide for itself about what it sees and hears. (Nichols 210-11)

            The participatory mode was discussed in chapter one, “emphasizes the interaction between filmmaker and subject” (Nichols 31). First appearing around 1960 due to the new technologies that allowed for sync sound recording on location. Unlike the observational mode the filmmaker does interact with his or her subjects rather than simply observe them. Some specific qualities of participatory mode are:

•        It is an alternative to passive observation and classic oration.
•         It is limited because it may cede control and point of view to others, lose independence of judgment.
•        It treats knowledge as what we learn from personal interactions; what people say and do when confronted or engaged by other; what can be conveyed by interviews and other forms of encounter.
•        The sound stresses the speech between the filmmaker and subject, especially in interviews. Heavy reliance on sync sound but may also utilize voice over; filmmaker retains only partial creative control of sound.
•       Time and space is continuous, it may interconnect a present tense time and space with a past tense (historical time and space).
•        When it comes to ethical concerns, manipulate or goad other into confessions or actions they may regret; a strong responsibility to respect the right and dignity of subjects. Questions of manipulation and distortion arise. 
•        The voice characterized by engagement, strong investment in the encounter with other or in presenting a historical perspective. (Nichols 210-11)

            The reflexive mode was discussed in chapter one, “calls attention to the assumptions and convention that govern documentary filmmaking” (Nichols 31). This intensified level of reflection on what representing the world involves distinguishes the reflection mode from the other modes.  Some specific qualities of reflexive mode are:

•        It is an alternative to realist representation that ignores that formal process of representing the world or social assumptions about the nature the world.
•       It is limited by increased sense of formal abstraction, detachment, loss of direct engagement with social issues.
•       It treats knowledge as contextual. Always framed by institutional constraints and personal assumptions that can be exposed and charged; ask what we learn when we ask how we learn.
•       The sound may metacommunicate about how communication takes place. Talk about talking about something as well as sync or nonsync sound.
•        Time and space is contextualized. Draws attention to how time and space may be manipulated by systems of continuity or discontinuity.
•       When it comes to ethical concerns, use or abuse subjects to pose questions that are those of the filmmaker and not the subjects.
•        The voice is characterized by self-quoting, a voice of doubt, even radical doubt about the certainty or fixity of knowledge. (Nichols 210-11)

                Lastly, the performative was also discussed in chapter one, “emphasizes the subjective or expressive aspect of the filmmaker’s own involvement with a subject; it strives to heighten the audience’s responsiveness to this involvement” (Nichols 32). Much like poetic mode of documentary representation, the performative mode raises questions about what knowledge actually amounts to. For example, what counts as understand or comprehension? Some specific qualities of performative mode are:

•         It is an alternative empirical, factual, or abstract forms of knowledge.
•        It is limited by personal POV or vision may become private or dissociated from more broadly social perceptions.
•        It treats knowledge as embodied, affective and situated. What we learn from direct, experiential encounter rather than second-hand from experts or book.
•        The sound often relies on filmmaker’s own voice organize the film; stress introspective, testimonial, essayistic forms of speech and dialogue. Mixer sync and nonsync; use music and sound expressively.
•        Time and space varies according to the expressive goals. May stylize time and space to emphasize its affective dimension.
•        When it comes to ethical concerns, degree of honesty and self-scrutiny vs. self-deception; misrepresentation or distortion of larger issues, lapses into wholly idiosyncratic.  
•          A strongly personal, engaged orator pursuing the truth of what it feels like to experience the world in a particular way characterizes the voice.  (Nichols 210-11)