_____________________............._____
F I L M - P H I L O S O P H Y
Journal | Salon | Portal
PO Box 26161, London SW8 4WD
http://www.film-philosophy.com
Vol. 5 No. 19, June 2001
_____________________............._____
Stephen Charbonneau
A Documentarian's Call to Arms
On Vaughan's _For Documentary_
Dai Vaughan
_For Documentary_
University of California Press, 1999
ISBN 0-520-21695-4
215 pp.
'Documentary reality is a construction; and some of the viewer's blood goes
into it' (87).
It is rare to find a book on nonfiction film that is, overtly anyway,
emotional and intellectual, bombastic and scholastic, personal and
restrained. But Dai Vaughan's recently published collection of essays, _For
Documentary_, is an intensely provocative read to which I found myself
constantly either shaking my head in disapproval or nodding in unrestrained
enthusiasm. The quote above, I believe, offers a glimpse into Vaughan's
tendency to make strong intellectual points with the energy of a
propagandist. The result is an impassioned work that will hopefully promote
further debate regarding the status of documentary film and video, both
aesthetically and socially.
Vaughan's status as both a scholar and a producer of documentaries empowers
him to offer readers a unique and polemical collection of essays on
nonfiction form. Most interesting is his ability to draw upon his
production experience in such a way that it enhances his scholarly project.
Note, for example, the way Vaughan cites his experience as an editor on the
_Space Between Words_ documentary series to make a point about objectivity
and subjectivity. Moments of apparent technical pragmatism (such as when a
sound recordist can't pick up the words of a teacher in the midst of a
noisy classroom) are shown to construct a particular interpretation of the
situation. Had circumstances been marginally altered, perhaps an equally
legitimate but radically different conclusion could have been reached. In
similar instances throughout his book, Vaughan refers to his experience as
a film editor to underscore both the fluidity with which meaning arises
from documentaries and the fruitless struggle to stop the subjective from
emerging out of the objective.
Defining the documentary is one of the key projects of the book and Vaughan
does so with originality and insight. He insists on determining the
character of a documentary not in terms of any formal elements or claims to
objectivity, but from the vantage point of the spectator. 'A crucial fact
about the definition of documentary', he notes, is that it is characterized
as a 'mode of response' by the viewer (58). And such a response would
perceive the image 'as signifying what it appears to record' (58). By
arguing thus, Vaughan enables the discourse on documentary to transcend
banal distinctions between subjective/objective and fiction form/nonfiction
form. As a result, the definition of a documentary is opened up on the
formal front to allow for many different kinds of films, as long as they
embody at their core a direct relationship to the 'pro-filmic' for the
viewers (59).
The implications of this view are further addressed in his chapter, 'The
Aesthetics of Ambiguity'. Vaughan acknowledges that this definition hardly
makes a film student's job any easier. He notes the inevitable 'implication
that [documentary] is blind to the falsity of labels' (59). If the
documentary film is founded upon the viewer's perception of the images as
being connected to the real world in some fashion, then a betrayal of that
trust is always imminent. And, Vaughan emphasizes, it will always be the
viewer's job to determine the authenticity of a documentary 'on the basis
of signals intended or unintended' (59).
An obvious strength of Vaughan's definition is its refusal to rely on
formal elements alone. Suddenly, fiction films that appropriate visual cues
from the documentary no longer frustrate our definition of the latter.
Recent films such as _The Blair Witch Project_ (1999), _Best in Show_
(2000), and the earlier _Bob Roberts_ (1992) can remain categorized as
fiction with ease because they merely play with our understanding that
documentary retains a professed authenticity betwixt that which it records
and that which is real (the use of stars in the latter two examples
highlights this playful quality). And, conversely, Vaughan's definition
creates space for nonfiction films that hijack fictional strategies. The
films of Errol Morris (_The Thin Blue Line_, _Fast, Cheap, and Out of
Control_) come to mind, with their heavy reliance on formal elements such
as slow motion, color, and camera movement.
In addition to his definition of the documentary, Vaughan's discussion of
formal tools such as the zoom and slow motion are illuminating. This is the
case particularly when one considers the fact that, more than any other
type of film, the documentary has been straitjacketed by critics in terms
of stylistic formulas. But what Vaughan's aesthetic analyses demonstrate is
that documentary film is very much compatible with so-called fictional
strategies.
His chapter on the zoom effect, 'Rooting for Magoo: A Tentative Politics of
the Zoom Lens', is an excellent meditation on the unlimited applicability
of a particular technology. Vaughan traces the history of the zoom effect's
varying interpretations, which encompasses everything from 'spatial
dislocation bordering on the supernatural' to 'journalistic endeavour' to
'bad manners' (145). But while there is a wide spectrum of variation in the
development of the zoom effect, Vaughan is able to discern a fundamental
essence that renders the device most compatible with the nonfiction film.
And that essence has to do with the zoom effect's implicit affinity for
spontaneity. A zoom is suggestive of improvisation on the part of the
camera operator. It is an action that breaks with principles of continuity
editing by calling attention to the hand behind the camera. But by
asserting that the zoom effect tends to signify the 'unrehearsed', Vaughan
underscores the risk inherent in its use (147). Since documentary is
defined by the 'viewer's attribution of relevance to the anterior event',
the deployment of the zoom and the viewer's reception of it is a very
precarious situation (148).
Vaughan also conducts a fruitful comparative analysis of slow motion
techniques in two different documentaries, both of which are concerned with
the Olympic games. One, Leni Riefenstahl's _Olympische Spiele_ (1938),
deploys the device in conjunction with low camera angles to add dramatic
weight to an event (in this case, the pole vault). The competition is
transformed into an operatic performance in which the rhythm and sensation
of the athletic endeavor is to be marvelled at. The other, Kon Ichikawa's
_Tokyo Orinpikku_ (1965), embraces slow motion to further the sense that
the athletic event is a de-mystified product of human labor. Vaughan notes
how Ichikawa's film uses slow motion throughout the build-up for, and the
aftermath of the event (a marathon in this case). The use of slow motion in
this regard tends to characterize an Olympic event as an attainable human
goal, rather than as a sphere solely reserved for larger-than-life super
athletes. As a result, Ichikawa's film arrives at a rendering that is
entirely antithetical to Riefenstahl's, despite the fact that they are both
resorting to the same formal device, slow motion.
The textual analysis engaged here by Vaughan is welcomed by this reader,
particularly for its ability to underscore a quite obvious, yet often
neglected point. And that is that formal strategies, like slow motion, can
produce a variety of effects depending on the context in which they are
deployed. Vaughan writes: 'Slow motion, like most other elements of film
language, is capable of being invested, by its function within a given
text, with meaning peculiar to that text . . .' (96). Perhaps this
sentiment is slightly at odds with his essentialist reading of the zoom
effect, but it is an important point nonetheless.
Lastly, another key theme that emerges out of Vaughan's essays is
technology. Shifts in the means by which documentaries are produced have
spawned debates and proclamations concerning the new aesthetic that
inevitably results from technological advances. For example, D. A.
Pennebaker's innovations with regards to the portable recording of on-site
sound fostered the 'direct cinema' movement of the sixties whose adherents
included Frederick Wiseman (_High School_, _Basic Training_) as well as
Pennebaker himself (_Don't Look Now_). Such innovations granted a
documentary film crew increased mobility and spawned a refusal in some
nonfiction filmmakers to overtly 'author' their films through stylistic
flourishes and distracting voiceovers.
And the degree to which production conditions impact nonfiction films is
much greater, Vaughan argues, than the degree to which they impact the
stylistic strategies of fiction films (63). One can understand how this is
so by returning to Vaughan's definition of the documentary film. If it is
the case that a documentary film is a film in which the viewer perceives a
direct relationship between the image and the real world, then the reality
of technological constraints -- at the moment of filming -- plays a
determinative role in fostering that relationship. One anticipates illusion
from fiction film, whereas one anticipates a form of reality from
nonfiction film. This necessarily liberates fiction film to transcend
production restraints in whatever manner deemed necessary (for example,
dubbing sound and dialogue into a scene in post-production that was
unattainable at the time of shooting). While, on the other hand, adhering
to the limitations of production conditions helps foster the viewer's
belief in the reality of the image, which is critical for a documentary.
In keeping with the theme of technology and the documentary film, Vaughan
also turns his attention to digitalization and its ramifications in his
essay entitled, 'From Today, Cinema is Dead'. This was the most frustrating
and disagreeable essay in the whole book. The language in this essay grows
rather apocalyptic and simplistic in its rush to heed the pitfalls of
digitalization. While noting that manipulation has been inherent to
photography since day one, Vaughan asserts that, with the aid of
digitalization, we are increasingly approaching a state of affairs in which
we will no longer be able to rely upon the 'privileged relation between a
photograph and its object' (188). And when that happens, Vaughan continues,
it will have been 'because the accumulation of countervailing experiences .
. . have rendered null that 'trust' for which the idiom has simply been our
warranty. And once we have lost it, we shall never get it back' (189).
Vaughan even goes so far as to question our ability to sustain a democratic
progressive movement in light of the diminishing causal relationship
between an image and its referenced. Note these closing comments:
'If I am right, then documentary is the taproot of cinema, even of those
forms most remote from it; and if this were allowed to die, all else would
wither. It is more than possible that the cause is already lost, along with
that of social progress with which photography and documentary have
throughout their existence been strongly identified' (192).
These remarks are unfounded and extremely melodramatic in my opinion.
Despite the fact that Vaughan acknowledges that distortion and
misrepresentation have been intrinsic to photography since the beginning
(187), he insists on prophesying the end of our trust in the image. But
even if this were the case, would it really be the horrible case-scenario
he describes? I doubt it. Given the monopoly powerful interests enjoy over
society's images, I believe the reality of digital manipulation renders
overt the distortion and misrepresentation that dominant interests have
always enacted upon the image. The loss of the so-called 'trust' in the
image is a two-way street. In effect, it could mean that we, the viewers,
would perhaps develop a healthy skepticism towards what we see.
Aside from a few frustrations with the book, _For Documentary_ is
ultimately a stimulating read that forces the reader to hone and rethink
their perspective on nonfiction film. Each essay feels fresh and pertinent
to the present state of affairs in the global film industry. At a time when
we need passionate arguments for the continued investment (financial and
creative) in the nonfiction film, _For Documentary_ offers a persuasive
foundation from which such arguments can build. A better testimony to the
importance of the documentary film is difficult to imagine.
Portland, Oregon, USA
Copyright © _Film-Philosophy_ 2001
Stephen Charbonneau, 'A Documentarian's Call to Arms: On Vaughan's _For
Documentary_', _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 5 no. 19, June 2001
<http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol5-2001/n19charbonneau>.
________....
Discuss, contest, and continue this text by sending your thoughts to:
[log in to unmask]
______________....
|
