 |
 |
I have to agree somewhat with Matt Niednagel's statement > ...while there were certainly a lot of directors in the 70s & 80s who were > operating under much the same assumptions (see the work of Chris Marker and > Harun Farocki, or Peter Krieg during this period), you will be hard pressed > to find contemporary films that evince the same pedantic conviction... ... I think that part of the difficulty you will have in finding a contemporary example is that though they are numerous today they are no longer as starkly contrasting to their 'conventional' colleagues in their surface qualities; but I would offer that another form of REFLEXIVITY is not just in aesthetics, but in pretense to SCOPE. The conventional documentary may have already integrated certain superficial aspects of the reflexive style as 'hip', and I think the viewers are already instinctually opening to the validity of subjective truths, or at least their entertainment value...what I think is interesting now is to see documentaries which are unapologetically SPECIFIC in scope, and whether they are developing primarily an objective mode or a subjective mode, they allow that it is limited as a general truth, and don't attempt to draw it as such. They leave it to the viewer to make that projection reactively. HOW/WHEN/WHERE/FOR WHOM is this true? Becomes a central question in the viewer's reading, and I would offer this is what would be interesting to examine.