Creative treatment of Actuality

Since the camera was first invented, people have used it to film and record moments in history – actuality, or to show the good and bad aspects of the world in which we live. The earliest films were, by definition, documentaries. They were simple, single shots of everyday moments captured on film. Whether it was a train pulling into a station (the lumière brother’s 1895 film) or factory workers finishing their shift.

These early films were dominated by the novelty of showing an everyday event, miles away from where it actually took place. These short films were called “actualities”. Pre-1900, very little story telling took place in the films. This was mainly due to technical limitations (cameras could hold very little amounts of film. Due to this, the first films/documentaries were only a minute or less in length.

In our life, the documentary forms an essential component of the entertainment industry; especially that of Television.

The subject of what makes a documentary a documentary and not a fictional film has been in debate for decades, ever since John Grierson labelled Robert Flaherty’s film “Nanook of the North” (1922) as a documentary because it was an example of what was to be known as “the creative treatment of actuality”.

Film makers like Robert Flaherty believed it was OK to add fiction to their documentaries, as long as the effect on the audience was real. It was content that mattered most and not the method of how it was achieved. As long as the daily routines of the subjects are the central focus of the film, any amateur can easily duplicate the routine.

Flaherty embraced the notion of Romanticism, often showing how his subjects lived 100 hundred years ago, not how they lived now (I.E. in Nanook of the North, Flaherty insisted that his Inuit subjects use harpoons to kill a Walrus, not their shotguns, putting them in danger).

Some of Flaherty’s fakery, (I.E. building a roofless igloo for interior shots) was done simply because of the filming technology available at the time. In later years, attempts to steer the action in this way, without the audience’s knowledge, have become considered bad form and contradict to the true nature of documentaries:

• To record, reveal, or preserve
• To promote or persuade
• To analyze or interrogate
• To Express

But the counter-argument is that both the content and storyline of any documentary is the filmmaker’s discretion. Though the purpose of a documentary is to present reality in its truest form, it is constructed and can only be a representation of reality. This blurs the line between reality and fiction; hence the debate of what makes a documentary.

The notion of artificially creating certain aspects of their documentary has stayed with filmmakers throughout the years. In the 1936 film “Night Mail”, a shot of the interior of one of the carriages was re-created in a studio, with the actors simply swaying to give the impression of them being on a moving train. Sound recording equipment was unable to record a realistic sound of the train going over tracks, so they resorted to using a model train being pushed back and forth over the joints of a model railway track.

Though the film makers don’t mean any harm in faking certain scenes, they can do more harm than good. The 1958 documentary “White wilderness”, technicians built a snow-covered turntable to create the impression of madly migrating lemmings and then herded them off a cliff into the sea. This fakery has distorted the understanding of lemmings even to this day; that they DO NOT commit mass suicide. At the time of its release, most of its viewers did not realise this fact.

Much of the battle footage during both world wars was also staged. They weren’t attempts to steer events as they were in the process of happening, but usually re-enactments of what had already happened. The cameraman would usually arrive on location after a major battle and re-enact scenes to film for Newsreels; often days, weeks or even months after the original battle took place. Frank Capra’s “Why we fight” was a Newsreel series in the US, commissioned by the government to convince it’s public that it was time to go to war. It was contracted as a propaganda series in response to Leni Riefenstahl’s German film “Triumph of the will”.

Though documentaries, these propaganda films were full of fiction and fakery in an effort to sway the viewing public’s opinions; rallying support for their countries armies. Propaganda isn’t just a notion of war, the documentary “The last Cigarette” uses the testimonies of various Tobacco company executives speaking about the virtues of smoking.

As the medium of Television became popular, documentaries no longer had to be shown in cinema screens. They could be broadcast into people’s homes. As TV became more popular, so did documentaries. As times and tastes change, so do documentaries. Now there are “hybrid” documentaries, growing their own genre tangent, filling our TV sets.

Docu-soaps, Docu-dramas, and reality TV shows are more likely to captivate more viewers with their half hour programs, then hour long documentaries. They still stay with the same format of showing the average person doing their average job. For example, the program “Airport” follows the daily, mundane, activities of airport check in staff. In every episode, or instalment, some customers are guaranteed to complain. The way in which they do so (shouting at staff, interrupting, insults, abusive language and attempts to be-little them verbally) seems un-natural and over exaggerated for the camera. As far as we’ve come in the world of documentaries, it is still impossible to tell when and where fiction begins and ends. Not denying that the cameras are there, people should still be able to converse civilly and as adults. The fact that they are “playing up” on camera reflects badly on them more so then the company they are attempting to insulting.

Another form of these “hybrid” documentaries is the realty TV show. These take the notion of showing life as it happens to the next level, by showing it continuously (I.E. the Big Brother cameras are filming constantly for 70 days). In these shows, if contestants don’t please the audiences, they are evicted out of the program. To increase their chance of staying on TV, the contestants act up to the cameras at all times; portraying themselves as “unique”, carefree and un-controllable. Yet every contestant that enters these shows will have the same thought. You can guarantee that as soon as the show ends, the contestants go back to their everyday lives again.

But it isn’t just on Reality shows that people act up on, people have been doing it for years. It’s almost instinctive to act up on camera (how many people have you seen waving at TV cameras during news reports?). In 1978 the BBC filmed a documentary for their show, “Panorama”, called “Fear and loathing on the road to Hollywood”. It followed U.S author Hunter S. Thompson and U.K artist Ralph Steadman from L.A to Las Vegas (re-creating the journey taken by Hunter Thompson in his book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas).

Thompson has always had a reputation of being a drug-fuelled, wild animal (impeached U.S president Richard Nixon once called him “A vile and disgusting man. He portrays everything wrong with this country”) and his personal life infrequently differs from his literary works. In the documentary Thompson acts like he’s deranged; shouting and yelling obscenities at things that aren’t there. His movement seems comical and even put-upon; flailing his arms and making odd hand gestures at all times.

There are certain parts in the documentary that, although they look too excessive, are genuine. At one point during an interview, Thompson is seen and heard sniffing cocaine behind a scene marker board, then screaming as he drops it on the grass. At another point, Thompson disappears for about 3 hours, then is found in his hotel room, face painted white and completely twisted on drugs and going crazy in the hotel room.

During filming, the director tells Thompson “we want to record reality” Thompson replies “that’s bullsh*t. as soon as you bring out those god damn cameras, everything becomes evil and fake” (Thompson then pulls a gun on the director).

The excessiveness and lack of personal safety may seem far too crazy to be realistic (he was sent to report on Ali’s Thrilla in Manila, but missed the fight and was found stoned in a hotel swimming pool) and to many, they wont believe it. He has built up a huge persona and reputation over the years, and some would say he doesn’t want to disappoint his fans, others (including Thompson himself) would say he doesn’t care.

There may be some place in documentaries and other forms of media for fakery where it is absolutely essential (I.E. the constructed igloo in Nanook of the North) but the viewer should be informed. There are media forms where it should be included for any reason such as:

• News reports
• Political debates
• TV programs that show real time political or social events, police incidents, trials, warfare and natural or disasters
• TV programs that show the achievements of the sciences
• TV programs that refer to finance and the stock exchange markets.

These media forms should not include fakery in any way because they affect too many people directly. Not only that, but any evidence of bogus footage and/or information would quickly be picked up by viewers and those involved in the information. What is reported in News broadcasts should be absolute truth, and nothing less. This doesn’t necessarily ring true with newspapers and magazines as they often print stories that don’t add up factually (I.E. the prisoner abuse photos that turned out to be fraudulent, doing more damage than good).

When items and information involve the public then they should be Gospel truth.

As I mentioned earlier, spurious footage may be considered OK for some documentaries, but it depends on its subject matter. The faked footage in Nanook of the North is acceptable because the social activities of the Inuit don’t affect that many people outside of their own community.

The assumption that any reality is left after the “creative treatment” is naïve. The only way we will know what and how much of a documentary can be taken as fact is if we are all involved in their creation. Documentary is an adventure in observation, but an adventure in which the crucial step was how to arrange those observations to reveal “real”.