Introduction to Documentary - Bill Nichols summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Riassunto libro Introduction to Documentary by Bill Nichols...

Description

Introduction to Documentary – Bill Nichols

Introduction In the intro to Introduction to Documentary by Bill Nichols, Nichols introduces the lay out of the book. The book is organized into chapters by a series of questions involving issues of definition, ethics, content, form, modes, and politics. The introduction discusses the differences between documentary and fiction saying, “documentaries address the world in which we live rather than a world imagined by the filmmaker, they from the various genre of fiction in significant ways” (Nichols xi). A few of those significant ways are different assumptions about purpose, different quality of relationship between filmmaker and subject, and prompt different sorts of expectations from audiences. However, these differences guarantee no absolute separation between fiction and documentary. The notions of what is distinct to documentaries and what is not has changed over time. According to Nichols, the documentary tradition relies heavily on being able to convey an impression of authenticity. The introduction continues with summaries of each chapter and the questions asked by each. Nichols ends the chapter with his hope that the strong link between production and study will remain vital.

“We feel as distant fascination when we witness the lives of other who seem to belong to the same historical world that we do.” (Bill Nichols)

Chapter One

Question One: How Can We Define Documentary Film? To answer this question Nichols uses seven different sections. The first one is called, “Enter the Golden Age”. In this section he discusses the current Golden Age of documentaries, which began in the 1980s and continues today. “Documentary has become the flagship for a cinema of social engagement and distinctive vision,” says Nicholas (2). He then discusses the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and their acknowledgement of many bold and Oscar winning documentaries of the Golden Age, including The Times of Harvey Milk (1984) and Down and Out in America (1986). In the next section, “The Search for Common Ground: Defining Documentary Film” Nichols repeats the idea that “documentaries are a distinct form of cinema

but perhaps not as completely distinct as we at first imagine” (Nichols 6). Nichols then gives us John Grierson’s definition of documentary, “creative treatment of actuality” (Nichols 6). This definition balances the creative with respect to the historical world. However, common sense ideas about documentary prove a useful point. Three common sense assumptions about documentary are: •

• •

Documentaries are about reality; they’re not about something that actually happened. Documentaries are about real people. Documentaries tell stories about what happens in the real world.

Giving us a definition something like this, “Documentary film speaks about situations and events involving real people (social actors) who present themselves to us as themselves in stories that convey a plausible proposal about, or perspective on, the lives, situations, and events portrayed. The distinct point of view of the filmmaker shapes this story into a way of seeing the historical would directly rather than into a fictional allegory” (Nichols 14). In “Fuzzy Concepts & the Process of Change,” Nichols talks about how documentaries cluster into different types or modes. He also reminds us that definitions of documentaries are always playing catch-up and adapting to changes in what counts as a documentary and why. The reason for most change occurs because of what goes on in one or more of the following four arenas: 1. Institutions that support documentary production and reception 2. The creative efforts of filmmakers 3. The lasting influence of specific films 4. The expectations of audiences

The next three sections contain extended discussion of these four factors, institutions, filmmakers, films, and audiences. Lastly, in one of these sections, “A Corpus of Texts: Conventions, Periods, Movements, and Modes” Nichols discusses the six principal modes of documentary filmmaking. They are:

•

Poetic Mode—emphasizes visual associations, tonal or rhythmic qualities, descriptive passages, and formal organization.

•

Expository Mode—emphasizes verbal commentary and an argumentative logic.

•

Observational Mode—emphasizes a direct engagement with everyday life of subjects as observed by an unobtrusive camera.

•

Participatory Mode—emphasizes the interaction between filmmaker and subject.

•

Reflective Mode—calls attention to the assumptions and convention that govern documentary filmmaking.

•

Performative Mode—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.

“In a time when the major media recycle the same stories on the same subjects over and over, when they risk little in formal innovation, when they remain beholden to powerful sponsors with their own political agendas and restrictive demands, it is the independent documentary film that has brought a fresh eye to the events of the world and told stories, with verve and imagination, that broaden limited horizons and awaken new possibilities.” (Bill Nichols)

Chapter Two

Question 2: Why Are Ethical Issues Central to Documentary Filmmaking?

Within this chapter Nichols discusses how documentaries represent the world, the ethics of representing others, the overall purpose of ethics, and the filmmakers, people and audience. He starts with the 3 ways documentary engages with the world by representing it. 1. Documentaries offer us a likeness or depiction of the world that bears a recognizable familiarity. This is based on the belief that “we see what was there before the camera it must be real (it really existed or happened)” (Nichols 42). Also the ability of the photographic image to reproduce the image before it, its indexical, makes us believe that it is reality itself represented in front of us, while the story or proposal presents a distinct way of regarding this reality.

2. Documentaries also stand for or represent the interests of others. Documentary filmmakers often provide the role of the public representatives. 3. Documentaries may represent the world in the same way a lawyer may represent a client’s interests. They make a case for a particular interpretation of the evidence before us. They don’t not simply stand for other or represent them in ways they cannot represent themselves. However, they actively make a case or propose an interpretation to win consent or influence opinion. Nichols gives The Selling of the Pentagon as an example, which “represents the case that the U.S. military aggressively fuels the perception of its own indispensability and its enormous need for continued, preferably increased funding” (Nichols 44).

When it comes to ethics of representing others in non-fiction or documentary the “people” are treated as social actors rather than professional actors. A social actor is basically someone who lives their life more or less as they would normally with cameras. Their value to the filmmaker consists not in what a contractual relationship requires but in that their own lives embody. Nichols says, “Their value resides not in the ways in which they disguise or transform their everyday behaviour and personality but in the ways in which their everyday behaviour and personality serve the needs of the filmmaker” (Nichols 46). Of course, like for all films, you must obtain a release form for anyone filmed.

The importance of ethics especially comes in to question when you are filming someone’s real life. With questions like should we disrupt someone’s life to tell he/she that they’re making a huge mistake? Or that the film could be used as legal evidence against him/her? Nichols gives a common litmus test for answer many of these ethics’ issues, which is the principle of “informed consent”. In other words, the participants should be informed of the possible consequences of their participation.

Relating filmmakers, people, and of course the audience is very important when it comes to documentary films. Nichols gives us the most common formulation of this three-way relationship. •

I speak about them to you. Basically, the filmmaker takes on a personal persona, either directly or through someone else.

•

It speaks about them (or it) to us. This one has a sense of separation between the speaker and the audience. The film or video appears to arrive, addressed to the audience, from a source that lack “individuality”.

•

I (or we) speak about us to you. This one puts the filmmaker into a position of separation from those he or she represents to a position of commonality with them.

Chapter Three

Question 3: What Gives Documentary Films a Voice of Their Own?

Within this chapter Nichols discusses the qualities of voice, categories of voice, and documentary and the voice of the orator. According to Nichols, “having a voice involves more than using the spoken word”. For example, when using the “We speak about it to you” approach, it speaks through its composition of shots, its editing together of images, and its use of music, etc. Everything that is seen or heard in a documentary represents not only the historical world but also the why the film’s maker wants to speak about that world. The voice of a documentary can make claims, purpose perspectives, and evoke feelings. It seeks to persuade or convince us by the strength of their argument or point of view and the power of their voice. However according to Nichols, the voice of documentary is not limited to the voices of unseen “gods” and visible “authorities” those who speak in the film.

The voice speaks with all the means available to the filmmaker. The following decisions can create the voice of the documentary: 1.

When to cut, or edit, and what to juxtapose

2. How to frame or compose a shot (close-up or long shot, low or high angle, artificial or natural lighting, colour or black and white, whether to pan, zoom in or out, track or remain stationary, and so no) 3. Whether to record synchronous sound at the time of shooting, and whether to add additional sound, such as voiceover translation, dubbed dialogue, music, sound effects, or commentary, at a later point 4. Whether to adhere to an accurate chronology or rearrange events to support a point or mood 5. Whether to use archival or other people’s footage and photographs or only those images shot by the filmmaker on the spot 6. Which mode of documentary representation to rely on to organize the film (expository, poetic, observational, participatory, reflective, performative).

When it comes to categories of voice there are two forms of Documentary voice. First is direct address, if embodied meaning you see a person or social actor, it is usually either the voice of the authority (news anchor reporter) or an interview. If it is disembodied meaning you do not see the speaker, it is either the “voice of god” (voice over commentary) or titles/inter-titles. The second is indirect address, if embodied in this case meaning conveyed by social actors, is just observation. You just watch the actors live their lives, much like reality television. If disembodied in this case meaning conveyed by film technique, is film form, where the filmmaker tells us things by means of editing, composition, camera angle, music, effects, etc. Leaving it up to the audience to interpret how these choices add up. According to Nichols, “the voice of documentary is often that of an orator, or filmmaker, setting out to take a position or offer a proposal regarding an aspect of the historical world and to convince us of its merit”. However, he asks an important question, “how do we proceed when we proceed rhetorically? The classical rhetorical thinking identified three divisions and five “departments” each of which carries over to documentary film, they are invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Nichols then reviews these five departments which are discussed in chapter four.

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. Then comes the story of the viewer. “Every viewer comes to a film with perspectives and motives based on previous experience”. 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. 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.

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”. 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. 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”. Metaphors help us understand the deeper message within the documentary film.

Chapter Five

Question Five: How Did Documentary Filmmaking Get Started?

In this chapter Nichols considers how documentary filmmaking found its voice. He points out that no one set out to invent this voice or build a documentary tradition. Today, it comes with the desire of filmmakers and writers to understand how things got to be the way they are. The goals of those before them were to make a film that answered their own needs and intuitions about how to represent the subject of their choosing. There are two origin myths of documentary filmmaking, they are: 1. The filmmaker was a hero who travelled far and wide to reveal hidden corners and remarkable occurrences that were part of our reality 2. Film images possessed the power to reproduce the world by dint of a photomechanical process in which light energy passed through lens onto a photographic emulsion. The combination of these two qualities forms the mythic foundation for the rise of documentary film. However, like many mythic origins there are problems that arise within them. One example Nichols gives, the capacity of film to provide rigorous documentation of what comes before the camera leads in at least two other directions besides documentary: science and spectacle (124). Nichols then provides us with four key elements that form the basis for documentary film. 1. Indexical Documentation (shared with scientific images and the cinema of attractions) 2. Poetic experimentation 3. Narrative story telling 4. Rhetorical oratory

The next three sections focus on the last three elements of the four key elements. Poetic experimentation in cinema comes from the cross-fertilization between cinema and the various modernist avant-gardes that flourished in the early part of the 20th century. As well as poetic experimentation, the development of an even more dominant narrative element cinema continued after 1906. History and biography usually take the form of narratives but in a nonfiction mode. Next, rhetorical oratory, a classic voice of oratory sought to speak about the historical world, addressing questions of what to do, what really happened, or what someone or something was really like.

Chapter Six

Question 6: How Can We Differentiate among Documentaries? Categories, Models, and the Expository and Poetic Modes of Documentary Film

Within this chapter Nichols discusses the need to classify documentaries, documentary film and its relationship to other kinds of film, models for and mode of documentary film, the poetic mode, and the expository mode. He starts with differentiating between documentaries. To do this we need to review a few definitions: 1. We define documentary as a form of cinema that speaks to us about actual situations and events. 2. Documentaries involve real people (social actors0), who present themselves to us in stories that convey a plausible proposal about or perspective on the lives and situations, and events portrayed. 3. All with distinct points of view of the filmmakers which shapes the story. These definitions help us distinguish different types of documentaries. We also might see films clustered into both fiction and non-fiction films. A few examples of this are neo-realism, re-enactments, mockumentaries, and docudramas. This goes for documentary and non-documentary as well, including mere footage, newsreels, TV news reports, industrial or sponsored films.

Next, Nichols gives us two major ways of dividing up documentaries: 1. Pre-existing nonfiction models. Documentaries adopt...