How is the news, seen in newspapers, broadcast or cable TV, different than a documentary film on the same issue, topic or event?
Shooting an event using film, video, audio or still photography is recording actuality, something actually happening over which we have no control, nor is anyone trying to control on manipulate the event. It is still a subjective perspective, since a person chooses how to shoot; what lens to use, the angle, color or black and white and so on. But basically it is the actual unedited coverage of what the person recording it chose to cover.
In a news room someone takes that footage, edits it, narrates it with scripted third party voice over to be read by an announcer on the air. The announcer adds another level of subjectivity to it with their tone of voice, inflection and personality. The actuality becomes manipulated, completely subjective, and may have an undisclosed point-of-view (POV) based on the political leaning of the broadcast or cable company. What reaches the viewer is a subjective interpretation of the event focused only on what someone wants the audience to hear and/or see. The bias of the piece is not disclosed up front, as if what is being shown is the actuality.
Documentary productions using film, video, audio or other media are traditionally equivalent to nonfiction books that are written on any subject imaginable. Documentaries are nonfiction stories and they always have a point-of-view which is disclosed either in the title or is obvious to the viewer. Documentaries use actuality material recorded in someway to tell the story. Most documentaries use first person interviews to discuss various issues or as voice over to explain what we are seeing or hearing. Documentaries do not employ actors to “recreate” events. Documentary filmmaker Ken Burns does use actors to read documents or narrate other actuality sources, but they are not recreating anything. He seems careful not to allow the actors to dramatize what is read.
A documentary becomes propaganda when it fails to disclose its point-of-view, or hides the real purpose of the piece. Many films pretend to be serious nonfiction documentary efforts when in fact their actual purpose is to attack or demean a person or group. These productions are obvious propaganda thinly disguised as documentary.
Many documentary filmmakers like Michael Moore are strong advocates of reform or change in social or political areas. They don’t disguise their advocacy they put it right out there where anyone can see it. Advocacy documentaries go back to films made by John Grierson in the 1920′s and on. Grierson is quoted as saying, “Art is a hammer, not a mirror.” He believed that it was his duty to bring to light social issues. If advocacy documentary filmmakers have a flaw it is not giving the viewer enough information on opposing view points or background topics. They are focused more on pointing out all the issues and problems.
JRM
