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.