So, Grierson has said that documentary, a term he coined whilst writing for a newspaper as a critic, had to represent reality as it happened.
But even from its roots, the purity of Grierson's reality has been muddied.
Especially when you're trying to make 'reality' as interesting as possible for the people paying for the film.
Take for example one of the first documentary film makers to make a documentary feature film - Robert J. Flaherty.
Flaherty's Nanook of the North (1922) , about the Inuit people on Belcher Island is a beautiful film. It is, to the eye at least, a documentary film.
However, and this isn't criticism, Flaherty was very aware of crafting a 'story' from reality. He wasn't shy about staging certain scenes to get the effect he wanted. Just like a... fiction director!
How much he did of this isn't known. But he did ask the Inuit people to use only clubs to hunt, even though they'd been using guns for some time!
What this brings up for you guys I suppose is that when you are filmming documentary you have a choice as to how much control you want to have over the subject whilst filming.
You are also under less pressure. You don't have to produce a film for a budget that someone has given you. In other words, you aren't dependent financially, on the success or lack of success of your film like Flaherty was. And Grierson.
Does money, or the absence of it, make different kinds of documentary films?
Here's a taster of Nanook of the North. There's a lengthy (2 min) intro of title cards, you can skip it and go straight to the meaty stuff by clicking about a fifth of the way down the play bar.
What do you think of it?
No comments:
Post a Comment