We all know that documentary films are not pure truth, nor do they claim to be. Sure, they shoot for the closest thing they can get to being truthful, but throughout the course of filming and editing, storytelling becomes priority. When a camera is pointed at somebody, they automatically adjust to the situation, possibly acting differently or saying things that they wouldn’t normally say if the camera wasn’t there. There are ways of getting your subjects to open up and become more comfortable in front of the camera, but there’s no doubt that it’s presence can’t be ignored. I know there’s been a few documentaries that i’ve been totally drawn out of due to some things that seemed a little too perfect, or somewhat contrived. The second i sense this, a red flag goes up and i begin to question everything in the film from that point on. This isn’t always a bad thing. If the drama of the scene fits the context of the film, it could work in its favour (The Films of Werner Herzog). However, if the film is claiming to be rooted in fact and the story depends on trust in the viewer, it could be devestating to both the film and the filmmakers credibility (Michael Moore). The question is, how far can the filmmaker go before you lose trust? How much freedom do you allow for storytelling before the integrity of the subjects and their stories are threatened? In Hearts of Darkness, the making of Apocalypse Now, we here Francis Ford Coppola exclaim “Martin Sheen isn’t dead until I SAY HE’S DEAD!”. In the context of the film, Coppola sounds like a raving madman who’s god like powers will stop even a heart attack from interfering in the making of his film. A great line and a dramatic scene. In reality however, he’s simply stating that the press shouldn’t report on Martin Sheen’s death until Coppola himself can confirm it. Not as exciting and pretty sensible. In the end, apparently it’s this line that has held up the release of Hearts of Darkness on DVD, with Coppola requesting the scene be removed from the film. So…where do you draw the line? How much truth are you willing to sacrifice for drama? What films have raised YOUR red flag? And in the end, did it really matter? Give us your thoughts.
Twisting the Truth: How Far Can They Go Before You Tune Out?
1 Comment
speak up
Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site.
Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.
You can use these tags:
Good question. I never really liked documentaries that claimed to ‘reveal’ something.
You give a good example of Herzog vs. Moore. They basicly, in my opinion, represent two schools of thought.
The Herzog documentary is the more quirky, artistic and personal film. It’s driven by a director discovering something unique, and wanting to share it with the world. March of the Penguins would apply to this school of thought, as would stuff like Metal: A Headbangers Journey.
Michael Moore is the other half of documentaries. The ones that claim to enligthen the viewer, and these are driven by not a desire to share something with the world, but a desire to convince the world of something. They are more commercial, and more controversial. The media are all over these documentaries. However, it is my personal conviction, that you never succeed in reaching anyone, except for the people who agreed with you in the first place. The no. 1 reason for this is as you stated, you can never represent the absolute truth, so there will be plenty of reasons why people would not agree with your points. An Inconvenient Truth, The Road to Guantanemo falls under this category.
The first one represents an amazing medium for unique stories to be told in an artistic way, and it holds quite a few gems that will ‘give you something’ without telegraphing it. The other one, not so much.