Louis,
> 1) How is the "notion" of "indexicality" any less "shaky" than the
> notion of "trust?"
A very apt question. Seems to me there is an ambiguity here in relation
to indexicality. Thus, except for artificially produced images like
drawn animation etc., all film images are indexical, that is, linked to
the profilmic scene inscribed on the film when it’s exposed. This is
true whether the profilmic scene is factual or fictional. Therefore
appealing to the indexical quality of the documentary image doesn’t
answer the question.
An element of trust is involved because we know that we are
sometimes given images which purport to represent an authentic event
when in fact they’ve been faked. I’m thinking here of cases like ‘The
Connection’ which Brian Winston has recently written about. The
reconstructions of ‘Thin Blue Line’ are different – the film is not
meant to pull a fast one on the viewer but quite the opposite – to have
the viewer think about them, no?
It is instructive, however, that the television institution
isn't entirely satisfied that viewers can tell the difference between
reconstruction and 'the real thing', and (at any rate in Britain) have
established the convention that in certain circumstances reconstructions
in documentaries should be labelled as such.
> 2) Do "all documentary scenes" make an "appeal in that direction?"
> (Are the "notions" of "appeal" and "direction" not shaky?) One can
> argue that the re-enactment scenes in Thin Blue Line make such an
> "appeal," but the argument seems rather tortured. One might also say
> that they are non-documentary scenes in a documentary, but the very
> notion of a documentary scene also seems a bit convoluted - at least
> it seems to miss the distinction between a documentary and a document.
I am interested here in why you think the notion of a documentary scene
is ‘a bit convoluted’ – could you explain a little?
Michael Chanan
|