On Documentary Referentiality [Academic Essay]

I realise that I haven't posted on here in several months, so here's an essay I did last semester that I added pictures to. AYE WHATEVER.

The infamous Grierson smoulder.

Documentary as a mode or genre of filmmaking has been subject to much debate since it’s classification in the early 90s. In Britain the mode as we know it developed under the wing of John Grierson’s Documentary Film Movement and the GPO Film Unit (later the Crown Film Unit). It was Grierson who coined the troublesome phrase often referred to as a definition of the mechanics of documentary: “the creative treatment of actuality” (1966). Grierson’s definition, though widely accepted as adequate, has raised much debate over the referential nature of the form. The main question; how much “fact”/actuality can survive the creative/“fictional” treatment of film as an art form? (Winston, 2008). Winston notes that despite image selection and manipulation the camera does create a “residual relationship” between the image and the subject but believes Grierson’s definition to be inadequate, describing it as “at best naïve and at worst a mark of duplicity” (pp.14 – 15). It is the supposed naivety of Grierson’s definition that has sparked such debate, because how do we define what is fact and what is fiction in a medium where the two are so closely related as to be almost indistinguishable at times?

Trying to define the boundaries between fact and fiction, actuality and aesthetics is a difficult task, and deciding where different forms of documentary fit within them is even more problematic. It is debatable whether such a clear cut boundary can be drawn at all. Nothing captured on camera can be argued to be innately ‘true’, the difficulty of the semiotic relations between the image and imaged best illustrated by René Magritte’s painting La trahison des images (The Treachery of Images). Magritte’s painting portrays a pipe with the caption “Ceci n'est pas une pipe” (“This is not a pipe") written below. Both the iconic image and linguistic symbol are representations of a pipe that may or may not exist in reality (Harris & Zucker, 2011). Magritte pinpoints the issue of referentiality here, illustrating the fact that the image is not a pipe, it is a representation. Even an image captured on camera can only be said to be a representation of a form of reality. This is why we discuss documentary in terms of referentiality, the degree of reference it holds to what we term the real.

Dai Vaughan (1983) made the distinction between film and other arts, such as drawing and sculpting, saying that when the painter attempts to capture the image of what he perceives to be a horse all he needs are his equipment, paint and canvas. The photographer/filmmaker however requires both his equipment and the presence of the actual horse. When the film has been processed what we are left with is two horses, the ‘actual’ horse as it exists in reality and the horse signified by the image captured on the film. The subject (the horse) thus possesses a “dual existence” (p.27) as it simultaneously exists as the physical object and the symbolic image outwith the reality of time/space relations (Vaughan, 1983). Charles Peirce identified this relationship as the “indexical bond” between image and reality (Izod & Kilborn, 1997). 

“…the documentary impulse… is, at its most rudimentary and irreducible, a desire and a requirement that the representation should keep faith with the materials: that the two horses should become, in some sense or other, one.” (Vaughan, p.28)

Vaughan makes the distinction between fiction and non-fiction by claiming that the desire of the documentarist is to keep the representation fully faithful to a truth inherent in the material of actuality. But is this possible? The widespread illusion of the camera as an all seeing, invisible eye causes further problems here.

In the discourse of fiction, and some non-fiction (e.g. certain types of direct-cinema), the camera does not exist within the diegesis of the film and so creates an illusion of actuality which works to draw us into the created reality of that world. In documentary the camera does exist as a physical, intrusive object and thus has an effect on unscripted action. Using Vaughan’s example we can understand how the behaviour of the subject(s) change when aware of the presence of the camera and filmmaker(s). The horse would react differently when confronted with the presence of a camera crew as opposed to that of its owner or an empty field, and thus the filmic portrayal of the horse differs from the normal reality of its existence (Izod & Kilborn, 1997). Vaughan responded by charting a distinction between ‘pro-filmic’ and ‘putative’ events. The pro-filmic refers to all events which occur and are captured by the camera. The putative event is what would have occurred had the camera not been present. The behaviour of self-aware human subjects is particularly vulnerable to alteration by the presence of the camera and this is something that we must bear in mind in critical discussions of the genre.

While it is evident that the referentiality issue is not so simple as the view that what is captured on camera is indicative of reality, similarly nothing can be claimed to entirely fictional. Even the most outlandish feature still has a basis in reality, the rules of the universe and the laws of physics still apply. Even sci-fi and fantasy films still have an epistemological basis, no matter how fragile the referentiality may be. Bearing this in mind it is clear that the boundaries between fact and fiction are anything but clear cut. What is captured upon the film will always be an imperfect representation of actuality and arguably has no inherent truth quality.

Cousins and Macdonald (2006) wrote that rather than simply attempting to capture reality the various modes of documentary tamper with or organise reality in certain creative manners pertaining to their individual modes. Documentary is not just a mere recording of pro-filmic events. It is through the use of techniques of form and aesthetics that the filmmaker creates meaning, shaping the ‘fragments of reality’ into a coherent narrative which unfolds for the purpose of the viewer. This is where the distinction between ‘documentary’ and earlier ‘actuality’ films (such as those of the Lumière brothers) becomes apparent. In documentary processes of narrative and editing are used to shape the ‘fragments of reality’ into an ‘artefact’ and thus create meaning (Izod & Kilborn, 1997). At its core cinema is an art and as with all artistic form holds a degree of subjectivity (Harding, 2013). Aesthetic and form techniques traditionally associated with cinema such as narrative, framing and editing have a profound influence on the meaning of the finished artefact.

One of the earliest and most well-known examples of documentary that merged referentiality with aesthetics and form is that of Night Mail (1936) produced by the GPO Unit under Grierson. While Night Mail sets out to chart the actuality of the mail train it uses a mixture of dramatic and documentary techniques to do so. Night Mail features a casual narrative which charts a day and a night in the life of the workers on board the train, following it on its journey through England and Scotland. The ‘voice-of-God’ commentary of direct audience address is used to describe the onscreen actions, a tenant of the expository mode. Elements of the dramatic and poetic are brought in through aligning the rhythms of the train with the editing and both diegetic and non-diegetic sound. As the train approaches its destination the famous poetry/music sequence plays out alongside montage editing, the pace and rhythms building in time with the spoken word. Here Night Mail plays with the poetic mode as the visuals of the world are arranged with poetry and music to create an artistic artefact designed to evoke a specific mood, namely that of regional pride and unity (Aitken, 1998).

 The issue of reconstructed events is one that has been prevalent in documentary from its formulation. In Night Mail reconstruction was necessary in order to film the interior of a mail-truck, a space that was inaccessible to the filmmakers using the technology of the time period. The mail-truck was in fact a studio set, open at the side to allow the camera to film and built with a mechanism that allowed it to be rocked from side to side to construct the movement of the train (Paget, 2011). Reconstruction of this type was necessary as neither the video nor audio recording equipment of the period could be employed upon an actual mail train. The reconstruction itself was based in ‘prior witnessed reality’ and was employed as a means of telling the story of the night mail train. The same type of reconstruction is seen in Nanook of the North (1922) in which Flaherty reconstructed interior igloo scenes as actual igloos were too small and dark to film in (Silver, 1996). In instances like this technology and space limitations meant that this ‘fictional’ approach was the most convenient way to portray a sense of actuality. There was, as Paget wrote in the title of this book, “no other way to tell it".

Despite the fact that reconstruction is present Night Mail is still classified as expository documentary cinema rather than fiction. Beyond semiotics and the use of dramatic techniques further problems of referentiality are posed by the hybridisation of documentary modes. Just as it is difficult to draw a line between fact and fiction the classification of certain types of documentary pose difficulties as the different modes have a tendency to bleed into each other. Most controversial of the modes is that of dramatized documentary (docudrama). Docudrama is a mode which focuses on the dramatic, using techniques associated with fictional dramatization to create a semi-fictional story with a basis in documentary style research. Docudrama has long been a controversial mode in the documentary debate; frequently accused of blurring the boundaries of reality and fiction.  Indeed the definitions of the category itself are not set in stone, leading some to claim that docudrama is not a new mode but a non-classification which has always existed to an extent in all forms of drama and documentary (Goodwin & Kerr, 1984).

Ken Loach’s docudrama on homelessness, Cathy Come Home (1966), is one of the most widely discussed, partially because of the socio-political impact it was believed to have had upon its release. Docudrama works from a basis of facts but uses dramatization to encourage reflection and action from identification with the audience. Cathy Come Home utilises a blend of techniques associated with both fictional drama and factual documentary; a fictional narrative; conventions of documentary form such as voice-over and interview material; real life locations and a mixture of professional and non-professional actors (Stafford, 2013). It was based upon a “tightly referential journalistic core” (Corner, 1996, p.105) which assures at least a degree of the factuality associated with documentary. As we draw nearer the conclusion there is a moment where Cathy’s character appears to directly address the camera for the first (and only) time, but as the camera pans it is revealed that she was actually talking to Reg standing outside of the frame. The viewer with a mind aware of the conventions of the documentary mode is caught within an illusion of immediacy here, the effect unsettling. This scene more than any illustrates the mixture of documentary and drama, and how easily misled the viewer can be by the selection of certain images.

Paget (2011) stresses that docudrama is not a mode indented to convey absolute truth, rather “…composites intended to convey broad truths about something of social importance” (pp.15 – 16). He argues that the use of drama in docudrama is important in that it “excites” the audience and thus encourages social/political debate (p.19). The viewer’s interest and imagination are captured by the fictional reality presented in the typical drama film. Morris wrote “there is such a thing as truth, but we often have a vested interest in ignoring it or outright denying it” (quoted in Anthony, 2013). Docudrama uses a construction of dramatic techniques to make it harder for the viewer to ignore the truth of the situation. In docudrama they become emotionally involved through the immersion of the dramatic techniques whilst simultaneously anchored in referentiality with the ‘real world’ through the use of intrusive documentary style. At the conclusion of Cathy Come Home we are not pushed from that world but pulled further into it, reminded that Cathy’s world is in fact our own, her reality that of many young mothers in Britain. 

“…the relationship between film and reality is not a straightforward or literal one, but that of a metaphor.” (Cousins & Macdonald, 2006, p.5) 

The fact that Cathy, a character who never physically existed, can possess her own truth which corresponds with the actuality of what we would term our reality is a powerful tool in the effectiveness of docudrama. The character of Cathy reads like an extended metaphor or symbol, but while the artistry of the symbolic may be said to be a fictional construction there still exists a point of referentiality from which it stems. The events which happened to Cathy and her family within the fiction of the film happened to thousands of other families in reality (Sandford, 1971). She is an amalgamation of the situations of various different people, a point upon which Sandford and Loach have been criticised, accused of lumping together the worst occurrences into a single situation. However this criticism backfired when investigation revealed families in worst situations than Cathy herself.

So how is reconstruction out of necessity different from the reconstruction associated with docudrama? Can we say that the type of fakery used in Night Mail is acceptable but the reconstruction of wider social events such as those seen in Cathy Come Home (1966) is not? There exists a dialect of degrees of actuality that we must always be consciously aware of when discussing the division of fact and fiction in documentary. As previously discussed even the modes of documentary that are widely taken to have an inherent actuality claim cannot be said to be fully factual, and so such a claim that docudrama has no referential value seems based in an indefensible stance of epistemological confidence. Can docudrama be said to blur boundaries where in fact it is debatable that such boundaries even exist?

Apparatus theory teaches us that viewers are caught within a trap of false identification with onscreen events, and filmmakers such as Loach have been criticised for fooling the viewer into accepting fiction as fact through docudramas attempts to conceal the apparatus of documentary modes. But we must be aware both of the viewer as an active, thinking being and of the sliding scale of objectivity/subjectivity present in all forms of cinema. Though it may at times disorientate, documentary does not actively attempt to deceive the viewer with the blurring of fact/fiction boundaries (Corner, 1996). The fact remains that it is debatable that such boundaries even exist.