Philosophic Exchange
Volume 14
Number 1 1983 Volume 14
1-1-1983
From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
Noel Carroll
School of Visual Arts
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex
Part of the Philosophy Commons
Recommended Citation
Carroll, Noel (1983) "From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film," Philosophic Exchange: Vol. 14: No. 1, Article 1.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons
@Brockport. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophic Exchange by
an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @Brockport. For more
information, please contact kmyers@brockport.edu.
Article 1
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
C.arroll
5<.·hool of Vrmal A res
Nod
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
1
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
From Real to Reeh E ntangled in Nonfiction Fil m
Noel Carroll
I.
lutroductiou
Over
the
past
twenty
achieved a level of
other
period
of its history.
thought and discussion
film
fiction
Argumen�s of
selects
his
tably
film.
has
her
point
due
has
anv
for all the recent ener�y,
this
enterprise,
the
non­
one of the most confused areas of
challenge
1Daterials,
the
very
a
personal
or
film
idea
is
manipulates
of view and, therefore,
to framing,
the
inescapability
that
what
is
of
observed,
them,
inevi­
cannot pretend to
subjective vision
of
focussing, editil\2 -- necessitates
of
choice.
Whether
or
not
an
sta�ed, the act of filmin� involves structuring
results is an interpretation rather than
problem,
not
film
unequaled in
Objectivity is impossible if only because the medium
itself
The
Yet,
all kinds
offer us anything but
things.
event
nonfiction
The nonfiction filmmaker, it
or
a
the
pramtnence
devoted to
remains
theory.
nonfiction
years,
prestige and
simply
according
to
this
the
so
Real.
subjectivi�y argument,
that the film�ker can't
jump
out
of his akin,
is
one
can't jump out of the film medium either.
A
related
between
charged
and
of
arguments.
nonfiction.
quently,
editing,
it
it is proposed
in
one;
at�
like
with
presents
variation
both
devices,
its
shares
fiction
that filmmakers
fonns
the
one
hand,
narrative,
parallel editin�,
films
and
it
is
dra�tic
climaxes
and
that,
conse­
I
Or,
in
fictionally.
subjects
on the strategy behind
their
worries the distinction
On
that the nonfiction film
aesthetic
contrastive
a
set
fiction aud
the subjectivity ar�ument,
are
trapped
and contents;
within
that
the
ideolo�y,
posture
of
objectivity itself is a pose, indeed sn ideologically motivated
fiction.
any
cultural
cording
captures
time,
the
that
documentaries
to
event,
roles
photographed
and
genus
of
social
or not, is structured (ac­
folkways),
recording
one
the
ideological
Mfictiona�
of
2
place and people.
Perhaps the most extreme
boundary between
voiced by Christian
fiction
belong to the
Some commentators go so far as to suppose that because
because, for
and
nonfiction
ffetz -- he suggests
<purportedly)
literally in
fiction
e��mple,
that
film
all
merely
a
given
denial
�as
films
of
been
are
because they are representations, i.e.,
the train
the screenin� room.
�ou
see on the screen
To further complicate matters, there is a minority
is,
not
opinion
that
has
it
that
all fiction
films
are actuallly documen­
4
taries; .casablanca is about Humphrey
8ogart
in
front
of
a
camera
as well as being an archaeological fragment of American
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
2
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
NOEL CARROLL.
6
mores and
styles of the early forties.
theorist,
differance,
ap proach
a
proponent
of
advances
the
In fact,
Jacques
Derrida's
least
one
notion
of
nonficrion-ts-really-fictton
while simultaneous!� insisting
are docuaientariee.5
that
fiction
films
in many of these argu1Ents
The central concepts as employed
-- including
at
objectivity, subjectivity,
fiction,
document
�
are fraught with ambiguities and
<lownright misc onceptions.
But
to
in
the
before
examining
speculat,e
discussion
about
of
problems critically, it is
these
the
way
nonfiction
film
which,
reached
worthwhile
historically,
its
present
I think that the 1a0st important influence on the
state.
way
that
in
the
nonfiction fil• is currently conceptualized was the development
of
direct
sixties.
1cinellll8
The
Csomet1iaes
called cinema verite}
-- associated with the work of Robert
movement
Drew, the Haysles Brothers,
Frederick
·wise'll!n, Allan
prevailing
approaches
D.A.
King,
Pennebaker,
Chris
Richard
Marker
proposed a new style
of docusuentary
filmmakers escheved,
a1D0ng other things, the
voice-of-God
and direction
weight
to
narration,
of
cameras
any
nonfiction
re-enactments
sort.
and
sound
the
wing.
They
cine-a
life
on
parallel
cinematic
the
realism
avowed
sponsored
approaches were adopted that
think
to
the
for
himself,
evolve
imagery
him.
The
his
new
correlated
own
rather
doculDl!ntaries.
of
the
of
Andre Bazin.
encouraged
the
of
to
direct
species
of
Techniques and
the
to
spectator
the screen,
have the filmmaker interpret it for
than
of
Often
with
the
the filmmaker
soiae
sort
ftauthoritarianism�
the
new
style
and
spectator
of new MfreedomM in
was
epistemological breakthrough for
cineu.
spoke as if
guaranteed
with
light­
influence,
aims
to take an active role toward
spontaneity
to
staging
new,
interpretation of what was significant in
expressively
contradistinction
scripts,
in order to 1mmerse
objectives
by
These
of
use
employed
equipment
Many
repud.iated
film.
of events, and
themselves in events, to observe rather than to
catch
and others -
filmmaking that
the
Leacock,
of
traditional
promoted
Cr! tics
as
an
concerned
and, at times, participants in the direct cinema movement
the
new
techniques
presentation of reality.
the
filmic
re­
Of course, previous documentary filmmakers,
such
as
John
7
6
had never denied that they were
Grierson
and
Dziga
Vertov,
involved in
advocates
alle(iance
of
interpreting
to
direct
think,
violated
etyle
designed
mentary.
subject
interpretation,
their
to
conception
matter.
most
telling
no
to
11'.inimize
the
all
the
direct
to
cinema
evolved
a
of nonfiction film.
sooner
was
cineaa.
ways that direct
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
audience
for
that
the types of control exerted in
the
idea of cinet'IMl verit' abroad
than critics and viewers turned the polemics of
against
But
polemical,
of what it is to be a docu­
As a result, upholders of direct
the older styles
But
their
cinema, at their
A
direct
predictable tu quogue would
cine�
was
inextricably
cinema
note
involved
3
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
FIOM l!.AL TO REEL:
EMTANCLED IN NONFICTION FlUf
with interpreting its eaterials.
and
worms
then
got
narrow
discussion
their
field
e�hno�raphic f 1lm.
in
notes
order
quickly
arguments about selection,
arguments
about
Almost concomitantly,
related debate eroerged in
of
for filming
opted
the
to
cinema,
Anthropologists who
subjectivity
manipulation
and
eventually,
found
themselves
of
filming
of
was
stressed
events
recorded.
arguments from
ln
ideology.
that
Edgar Morin in Chronigue d•un Ete,
included
work,
and
their
intervention.
of
become
their
reality
the
first
as
they
merely
f iret-person
see
statement
to
With
a
the
to
to
insists
ten1e,
response
direct
�eneral,
admit
a
that
only
i.e.,
it.
for
that
For
the
argument
rise
boomerang,
film
they
hie
work
is
filmmakers
claims.
they
are
of
when
from
about
manipulation
example,
my
The
he
have
a
vision
of
Frederick
an
view,
large
parte
it
was
honest,
says ·The
at
are
also
of
the
interpretive and,
cinema,
a fortiori,
for
some,
debate
was
all
nonfiction
to
stigmati�e
cinema varieties,
we find Erik larnotJW
concluding
'
files with remarks such as these:
To be
sure,
objective--a
pretive
fiction
role.
is
surely
Re
selects
an
e�preesion
tetin
some
that
seems
communicator in any
topics,
subjective
people,
aware of it or not,
hie
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
history
of
whether
he
both
the
Thus,
documentary
claim
strate�ic,
endless
vistas,
words.
point
than
within the
to
be
but
1.t
to renounce an inter­
makes
Even behind the first step,
there is a 'llOtive.
film,
The documentariet,
medium,
sounds,
of
be
it was
as subjective.
documentarists
The clai1' may
meaningless.
juxtapositions,
hie
of
like a
rather
The combined force of these maneuvers
traditional and direct
my
First,
tradition
interpretive. Then,
than objective (and,
nonfiction).
least
two major wrinkles were
the dialectic snapped back; direct
was
and
They
presenting
films
rather
not.
outcome
Jean Rouch and
their
veracity
of direct cinecaa,
because
of
themselves in their
their personal
lot of nonsense.
certain experienoe.·8
ctnema repudiated
alleged,
In
on
to
act
the dialogue concerning the nonfiction film.
nonfiction
..
very
argu�nts
like
participation ,
reality,..
objective-subjective
film
filmmakers,
maintaining
"'subjective
Wiseman
added
the
direct cinema now guard their
point of view,
in
some
acknowledging their
proponents
have
In regard
order to grapple with both the
related
intrusiveness,
by
but also in regard
and
camera
subjectivitv
of
by
confronted
changed or was highly likely to influence the
the
a
so'C!ewhat
the
inescapability
it
the
avoid
to the anthropol ogical debate especially,
direct
a can of
Direct cineT1S& o�ened
eaten by them.
similar, and, in fact,
7
Each
of view,
like any
choices.
angles,
lene,
selection
is
whether he is
acknowledges
it
or
selection of a topic,
4
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
ROEL CAIBOLL
8
It is in selecting and arranging hie
• • •
that
expreeaea hiaself i
he
effect,
of
Ancf
commenta.
observer,
or chronicler or
quotations
choices
whether he adopts
escape his subjectivity.
the world.9
Hore
these
are,
in
the
stance
he
cannot
whatever,
version
He presents hie
could be added
findings
of
to Barnouw'a, which repre­
sents one of the more or leas standard
vaya of coming to ter11S
vith the polellica and rhetorical framework engendered by direct
But
that Barnouv'a
position rebounds so naturally
cinema.IO
froa
it,
the
direct
because,
cinema
aa I
debate is
hope to
part
of the proble� vith
ahow in the next section.
the pre­
auppoaitiona. of that diacuaaion are irreparably flawed .
II. •on.fiction Fil .. Ain't 8eceaaarily So
A. Nonfiction Fil• and objectivity
Though
signed
many
the
preceding arguments appear to be de­
to deal with issues ac>ecific to the nonfiction
moment'•
deliberation
devastating
erally
tivity in the
volve
shove
that
in their scope.
selection,
emphasis,
and
points
commentators not
objectivity
are
film,
far more
a
gen­
The possibility of objec­
from
c°"mentators
to
manipulaton
of
only
to
nonfiction
of
In fact,
the
film;
materials,
these features
possibility
they
also
the
they vill not
distinction
lectures and
in
simply
of
prompt
reclassify such filCDS as subjective.
the subjective/objective
film;
view.
withhold
these arguments have any force,
ffction
they
nonfiction film is denied because such films in­
interpretation
lead
of
Yet, if
demolish
regard
to
non­
texts of history and science
vill be their victi�a as vell.
Historians,
with making
about
for
example, are characteristically concerned
interpretations,
the
past,
aelectinR
rather than others,
events
and their
history ta.
for
Nor
iment
the
11
•nd
presenting
certain
•hove
the
some
then
unscathed.
of
the
That's
nonfiction
re•aomJ,
•clence
fil•
eo
is
just
ta
and
obje ctivity
interpretation.
in
In short,
selected
what doing
historical writing.
an
e�per­
theory without
the argument• against
nonfiction film are too powerful, unle.se their
proponents •re prepared to
•kepticiam
viev
subjective,
It ta hard to i.. �ine·
without .. ntpulation and sel ection , or •
emph ..ia
of
events for consideration
emphasizing
interconnections.
Thus, if
points
about
embrace
a
rather
thoroughgoing
proepecta
of
objectivity in general.
The defense of such a far-rangin g skeptical
position
would,
of course, have
ology
to be
rather than
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
the
joined on
in the
the battlefields of epistem­
trenches
of film
theory.
Indeed,
5
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
FiOM lt£AL TO lEEL:
ERTANCL!D IH NONFICTION Fl LH
if such a skeptical position were defensible,
fication
think
fila is
that
intend their
At
the
same
implication
of
as
their
a
mere
gloss
of
attack.
time, another danger in collapsing the dis­
to
distiTiguish
deavors -- in film, for example,
Hoep·ital and
do
But that, I fear,
line
tinction between the subjective and objective is that
still· have
be
1
that the nonfiction
remarks
on the notion that evetYthing ts subjective.
untoward
simply
1 mention this because
commentators who conclude
subjective
ts the
reclassi­
of the nonficton film as subjective would
a footnote to a larger ca�paign.
not
the
9
Maya
between
between
we
will
different kinds of en­
Frederick
Deren's intentionally
Wiseman'&
personal
At Land -
even if they are all said to be under the enveloping bubble
subjectivity.
But
how
will
these
Moet probably by reinatating something
subjective/objective
would
be
t ion
called
to
need
·objective"
tion;
return;
in
1f
the
First,
this
the
particular
basic
context
they are momentarily d1sm1ssed,
and
this
first
provides a good
place.
Second,
the
not
if
tive"
It
ts
to
For
all-inclusive,
there
counterpose against it,
ia trivial.
It
baggage,
easily
ts
a
piece
disposable
more than the obvious, namely,
cation ts
As
1Un-made.
an
it
are
But
initial
subjectivist
argue
is
that
vts-a-vts
more
the
not.
fully
tures
no
of
to
it
lamentably,
italicized
contrasted
of
of
excess
thing special?•
One
and
of the
in a nonfiction
says
and
on this later.
Tff1
nonfiction
opening
that
might
that
history
ts
science.
nothing
communi­
objections,
film
·subjective·
and
try
science
·aubJective­
being
texts
meaning­
and
lec­
is
of
is
positioned and aimed, what lens is chosen and how it
or
point-of-view
not;
tudes, feelings and beliefs
set.
Consequently, all film,
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
whether
in other words,
determine
involves
the
a
that
aware
or
perforce
the notion
shot
1t
to
makes
every
sonal viewpoint
a
But what is that ·some­
candidates
film
it ts
·ob.1ec­
theoretical
it
to the objectivity of the
history
little
the italicized �subjective"
Thus, when it is said that Hospital is
italicized
them
·aubjecttve­
serves
there is so mething special about film
the
are
classifica­
they must inexorably
so
because
inevitably subjective in a way
objective, •
concepts which
that all research
response
two points
·subjective"
italicized
it does no work, and
exclusive.
But
reason not to d1s�1ss
is conceptually lazy;
purpose.
film
contradt sti nc­
in
the nonitaltcized
represent
in
the
like
Wisefl\Bnts
"subjective-subjective.·
to be made here.
and
..uch
Perhaps
·subject! ve-object ive •
Deren's
indispensable
very
distinction.
of
boundaries be drawn?
per­
filmmaker ts
a life history of atti­
where
including the
the
nonfiction
camera
ts
film,
6
10
HO!L CAll.JIOLL
ia
neceaaarily
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
i .. �e
ia
indelibly
fil ...kere')
enable
ia
imprinted
not.
vith
a
That
the
personality vhereae there
stylistic canons
and
in
·subjective,·
personal,
historical and scientific writing
are
way that
each
ia.
fil1tmaker'e
certain
(or
protocols
of exposition in history and science that
practitioners
of those
disciplines to
subdue if
not
totally efface their personalities.
Bela
Balazs,
for
compoaition in the
one,
single
ie like the above,
can't be .ade vithout
that
conveying
expreeeive of the fil..aker.
nonfiction
(vhich
proposing
fila
alike,
to hold a position on
aeeas
shot
he calla
a
a
the set-up) that
representational
viewpoint
that
iaage
ie
eelf­
He vritee. concerning fiction and
that
!veTy vork of art must present not only objective
reality
but the subjective personality of the artist,
and this personality includes hie way
ideology
and
looking
hie
period.
All this ie projected into the picture,
liadtati�ns
at
of
the
even
!very picture shove not only a piece
unintentionally.
of reality but a point of
the
the
of
things,
view
aa well.
The
set-up
betrays the inner attitude of the man
behind the came ra . 1 1
of
camera
Balazs,
For
una vo idable
a
personal
point
But vill this vaeh?
•
view
of
l
suspect not,
reaaona.
To begin, the idea of point-of -v i ew i n
bundle
of
ideas,
character
eeea,
often
are
for
fil•
really
ia
literally
several
a
unrelated.
can refer to a spe ci fic kind of editing echeaa
•Point-of-view·
(a
tthich
in every ahot ie
looks
and then
off
there
screen,
ta
cut
a
ta a cut to vhat
he
back to the character);
it
there
to the
pos ition o f
the
ca.era
(t he camer�'•
viewpoint, or point-of-view, or perspective); or it
can
refer
can
to
refer
narrator'•
the
both
--
t. e.
1
event• in
the
the
t,ovard
film
and/or the authorial
fila
and/or
said
to
which
all
five
concepts
applied
atmultaneoualy;
probably
be a good place to
theless,
these
the
events -
creator's personal point-of-v tev.
in
point
of
vtev
or
to the perspective of a character commenting on
John
or
1t
can
refer
to
Undoubtedly there are
of
point-of-view
Wayne'•
aearch
concepts are
implied perspective
quite
for
e�"Plea.
discrete.
ehote
can
Green Berets
And
of
the
be
would
Never­
this
eugpata
that
at the heart of the position -- that a ehot ie,
of
equivocation.
eo ip•o, a point-of-view -- liee the fallacy
It ie
t�ue
that each rapreeentational ahot, eave those vhere
the
t..ge ia drawn on the fila, haa a point-of-view or a view­
point
or a pers pective
pla ce d aomevhere.
meaning
of
the
va ntage point .
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
Thie
in the
cineaatic
aense that
the ca•ra muat be
of ae the
l i teral
point-of-viev,
i.e., the ca 198ra ' e
llight
be tbou�ht
A pen:onal point-of-view ia yet aaother 11atter;
7
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
P'IDM REAL TO REEL:
indeed,
calling it a "point-of-viev" i s at
the language
using
of
physical
root
Proponents
of
ideas,
a camera
fallaciously
viewpoint
sity of a personal viewpoint,
phenomena,
though
of
bearing
point-of-view
reliably
the
from
that
the
symptomatic
hence,
is
not
name•
end
are
resulting
of
are
here.
the
distinct.
Rather,
same
the
because
the
is
betrays
invariably
personal
the
revelatory.
But
viewpoint
this, it seems to
to inscribe
his
personal viewpoint.
pected events can intrude into the
Harvey
Oswald's
personal vie�point to crystali%e,
lightning omn1sc1ence
scious.
Camera
st.ances,
like a police
positions
that is,
unless ve
the
can also
can shoot "wild,"
Lee
e.g.,
before there is time for a
to
barricade,
oppor­
Likewise, unex­
v i ewfinder
--
assassination
ascribe
ticte
and
leave the� running without reali%ing it,
thereby recording events upon which the creator has no
tunity
and
underlying vie�point.
Cameras can be turned on accidentally,
can
operators
l.a�e
the creator's
alvays
me , is implausible.
�or
the
each shot to the neces­
same
really
The viewing point inevitably
their
in
moving
point of view determines the camera's viev(ing) point
in such a way
and,
subject
equivocation can be met with the claim that the tvo
senses of
personal
the
suppressing the fact that the two
The debate, of course, does
charge
toward
of the omnivorous point-of-viev school
conflate tvo separate
necessity
metaphorical,
position to characterize the
values and feelings of the film's creator
de picted.
11
ENTANGLED IN NONFICTION FILH
wish
to
cameraperson1s uncon­
be
determined
by circum­
and a cameraperson pressed
hoping to "get somethin�" without
having any idea about or attitude toward vhat is happening.
of
One could attempt to assimilate these cases by means
rather extreme psycholo�ical theory,
a
arguing that vhen shoo,ing
wild the cameraperson
is in something akin to a. trance,
sciously selecting and
expressively framing exactly the details
that accord with subterranean interests.
imbuing
ad hoc.
!E!!.
that
However, this
apparently
Freud i s clearly
random
gestures
motives. wtshea a n d attitudes. but no one has
gestures
are
meaningful
everyday life.
cattteraperaon
aignala
It seems to me
an
that
viewpoint.
ing
police
of
the
correct
in
reveal hidden
ahovn
that
all
psychopathology of
indisputable
fact
that
a
can set up and move cameras with random attention
-- precisely like a remote-control
and
sounds
the unconscious not only with a kind of omni­
scieace but also of omnipotence.
saying
uncon­
video monitor in a baok
the result need not develop into a coherent personal
In re�ard t o adverse circueetances,
barricades,
it
aight
like constrain­
be argued that the ea11era­
peraon will always take up the position, out of all the
a v ail­
able ones under the circumstancaa. that beat suite his personal
point-of-view.
This
shooting" -- ia
ad hoc.
-- like the "trance"
In both cases,
complaints that the reeulta of shooting
eraper&on
vented
or needed?
solution
to
were not what the
Needless
.ake
to
aay.
a
at
unfal­
filmmaker could successfully
either a fiction or nonfiction film in
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
what
this
the coat of ..king the original hypothesis auspiciously
attempt to
cam­
One &!�ht aay that they got
they really v•nted (without knowing it). but one aaya
aif iable.
wwild
what are ve to 11ake of
which
8
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
I2
JIO!L CAR.OU.
f!!Very
ehot
ca.amtcated a �raonal
attitude.
Bue it effronta
credulity to purport that every ehot in every
film
ta
necea­
earily of thia Yariety.
Another
problea vtth the set-up
personal
•
vteton approach
1• that of ten the ·creator· of the film ta neither the
peraon
nor
conveyed?
fiction
the
fil•,
preordained
industrial
that
ao
vhoae
directors
and
ftlm
about
ta,
can
not
aeatgn.ent, but
e�c:eaafully
ca•raun1
of
not
according
a
and
have
a
abota
are
trary
to
vot11an.
an
without
a
r11 ...kers,
ahote?
an attitude toward their
an
attitude,
it
hie
documentary
to
the
c omae ntator,
thia
auch
perhaps
ude
ta neither
vtll
up
that in the latter
alvaye
excluatvely
no eore
88
out
not
of
that
ell
con­
undeTtake a
of aquarely
centered
Perhape it vtll be pro­
a trace of disapproval or irony
there to
be unearthed by a complex
But auch exerctaea in interpretation .. Y actually be
exegeata.
not
case
vtatble,
be
evidence
diapoattton, could
ahota of public attempts at seduction.
poaed
be
-king a
guidance nor that the caGera-n,
ordinary
film
ca�
There ta a ehot tn Kineatca where the
But
under
cut
..ke
1ngrained m>deaty, pull• �•Y from the acene of a aan
paaa at
non­
and
Blakean
technology
the
if they have
repre11ed.
viaton te being
fiction
are typically aeatgned
can't
computer
in any
only
even
both
Can't an atheiat ahoot
life of Chrtat, and
of repugnance
peraonal
in
vrttera
pointe-of-vicv.
a reverential
gli..er
edt�or:
And, more importantly,
ca�ra­
then face aavtag.
The poatttontn«
tndtcattve of a filmmaker'•
of a ahot ta juat
authentic
point-of-view
aa
aome ftlm theoriata let on.
Lastlv,
even
vere true, it
their
if
entirety.
•
a personal vtaton approach
films
in
A theorist vho movea from the putative fact
that every ahot in a
peraonal
the ahot
vould pertain only to ehota and not to
given
nonfiction
film
represents
a
point-of-view to the conclusion that every nonfictJon
f tlm is a peraonal vtaton com111.ts the fallacy
of
composition.
dectaton that fuaed the valuea and
of
a
For
even
such
if
each
could be
ahota
and vtth co•me ntary
inherent
ahot
in
the
vere
personally inscribed vith a
attitudes
asaembled
in
vaya
atngle
lifetit!le,
and combined vith each other
that
neutralize
ahota.
Hoet
the
attitudes
compilation films
demonatrate that the auppoaedly tntrtneic
personal
vtev
add up to the point­
in original individual
ahota don't
of-viev of the entire film that
The Pall of the l.omanov
whatever
expre11ed
poettive
tn
their
Dynasty
eenti�nts
footage
they
inhabit.
has
czar�•t
of
the
pointa-of­
?or
example,
no difficulty
turning
camera.. n
'•ight
royal family
�tcta• of the monarchy, crtttctem that doea not
have
into cri­
eeem
deacrtb­
able aa aubjecttve.
The
argu.. nt that nonfiction ftlm is aubjective htngea not
only on confuatona about the concept(a)
alao
about
point-of-view
but
the concepts of eubjecttvtty and objectivity.
The
charge of aubjectivity, ae
appea1'9
to
leveled
at
of
the
nonfiction
mean one of tvo1 often elided, thinga:
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
film,
ftret1 that
9
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
PROM� TO REEL:
a
ENTANGLED IN NONFICTION FltH
film is personal, o r stamped �1th a personal
second.
that
a
ftl�
is not objective.
first meaning of subjectivity.
which
a
film
is
said
status of nonfiction film
nonfiction
vievpoint;
as
and
When considering the
ve muat ask vhether the
vay
be personal is problematic
to
13
objective
as
vell
as
in
to the
whether
films are personal in a vay that distinguishes them
from nonfiction writing.
lf
by
,aying the nonfiction film is personal
any assertions or iMplied statements eade
by
mean that
we
such
films
are
episteaolo�ically o n a par vith statements like ·1 believe that
than
x,·
;s
vould be tempted
ve
subjective
in
'the
to reclassify the
sense
statements are only to be evaluated
the
But
mere
fact
as
its
of
clail&B
dishonest.
criteria
for
the
person
first
no more than those features suggest
�
that all historical vriting
subjective
or
honest
that selection and interpretation are in­
volved in a nonfiction film does not entail
status
film
nonfiction
that its assertions and implied
is
subjective.
We
have
inter­
evaluating the selections and inter­
pretations in both cases.
Undoubtedly
are enticed
even
because
film is a visual medium, C011'11e ntators
{incorrectly) into
its
flov)
as
a
identifying
the
imagery
(and
simulacrum or reproduction of vhat its
filmmaker aav; and they jump from
this
to the proposition
that
"That'a how the filmmaker sav it• (vhere seeing ts nonveridical
and.involuntary),
indisputable
vhich, in
turn,
and subjective.
·a sort of celluloid sense data.
over
the
point-of-vtev of
is
regarded
as
something
They also seem to treat shots as
Thia playa into the confusions
the shot and personal vision.
result the filmmaker is left in a doxastic cocoon.
is
no
reason
!ut
As a
there
to conceive of shots in film as celluloid sense
data -- either passively received or as unavoidable results
unconscious
structuring -- nor
necessarily have to
confusion
correspond
to
a
personal
is
to
be
prefaced
filmmaker might adopt
vith
this
"I see".
metaphor
cally made under this rubric nor are
necessitate
the
ca�ra-eye
they
film
in
may
lead
lrakhage's
are not typi-
presented
in
vays
ta
an
part because the camera strains fdr some
perception.
us to apeak of lyric-nonfiction;
moat cases, I
photographic
each
{I) metaphor in order to be
not force us to say that all nonfiction films
for
The
Though a nonfiction
films
sort of equivalence vith the filmmaker'&
In
that
The Act of Seeing With One's Own !yes
understood.
astonishing
film
result
consider
The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes
that
vision .
rests vith comprehending photography as nonveridical
vision and the camera as an eye -- vtth the
st�t
of
does the camera's point of viev
are
Such
a
but it does
subjective.
believe, certain misconceptions about the
supply
the
primary
grounds
component in film
convincing
aome
that
nonfiction film ta problematically
personal in a vay that verbal exposition in history and science
is
not.
These
notions
arise
(mistakenly)
camera to nonveridical, involuntary perception.
presuppositions
�
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
by equating the
Without
camera point-of-viev - personal vision,
these
and
10
l4
NOEL CAI.ROLL
ehooting
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
seeing
•
n1rr1tion •Dd
ve are left
�
com•ntary
vith elements
like editing.
aa the possible sources of
the
puta­
tive apeci•l aubject1v1cy of fit.. Yet, the •elect1v1ty and in­
tet�retation itNolved
no
.,re aubject1ve
since
in the•e proceaeee aee• no different and
than the
c•n ch1llenge
ve
tatio118 of nonfiction
atio118 that
For
the aelectio118, exclusion• and interpre­
f 11 ...kera by
.. ans
of the ••me consider­
uae to evaluate the nonfiction writer.
we
ex11aple,
The La Cu1rdia
in
production for hie TY aerie.
f 11"9t
practice• of nonfiction vr1tera,
election
Story,
Biography,
the
b&aia
of
Little
Wolper
1lawer'a
Mayor of Nev York ia presented solely aa a
aa
conaequence of hie attack on the corruption
On
01vid
•
the
the
of
T.... ny
Ball.
tnfon.tion on the acreen. the i•plied
interpretation ta that the people of M� York,
eppalled by
the
perversion of the A.erican ayate•, carried
their indignation to
the polls •nd averthr� the boaaea.
this
e•cludea
a
key
doean't accord
factor
nicely
in
vith
But
La Guardia'• election - one that
the
civic•
Wolper'• account: namely, La Guardia'•
leaaon
one
and
the lrtah. on the other,
and economic
pover in Nev York;
La
out of ethnic aelf-intereat.
Guardia
to accept the
roster
of
La
can alao ascertain the objective veakneaa
on
the
baaia
of
.any voted
for
election
leave it at
of
the
••me
the
sort
aa
that.
We
interpreta­
that
ve
vould
vhen re1di� a scholarly journal or a aagazine •rticle.
ia
subjective
not
because
aaid
anything
that
1a
other operative category;
th•t
nonfiction
ftl .. are unavotd1bly
peraon1l but hecau1e they are not objective.
that
the
We are not compelled
At tiniea, aome co�lm!ntetore 1ee• to argue
film
on
interaubjectively available f1cta 1nd
modes of reasoning of exactly
e•ploy
Italians,
Guardia••
indisputably Wolper'• pereonel vision and
tion
of
for political, aocial
in other vorda,
version
idealtaa
victory via an i•portant
part of an ethnic conflict be tween Jeva and
hind,
interpretation
The l�ic here is
not objective •uat fall into the only
the subjective bec<>11ea
the
c.a1tchall
for everything that doesn't auit the criteria o f the objective.
But vhat ia objectivity?
to
determine
means •true·;
or
at
hand•;
and
paraonal,
In film debates, three
the course of the diacuaaion:
second,
�
·having
theoretical,
etc.
no
--
These three different concepts of objectivity
viewpoint
vhataoever.·
do
The second concept
slip
vtlly-ntlly
fit
from
of objectivity aounde eore
like a political principle of tolerance -- •1et evet"Y
heerd· - then
not
though in the course of an informal dtacuaaion
after a nonf ictton fil• disputants 11ay
one to another.
all
vievpointa on the aubject a t
third, ·objective· .eana
together neatly,
seem
·objective·
·objective• .eans ·representative of
le1at all the major
political,
notions
Firat.
an epistemic criterion.
And
voice
be
eave for caaea in
vhich there ta only one uncontested and incontestable viewpoint,
or
those
vhich
ve
in vhich unavoidable indeterminacy rules
have ascended
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
(or those in
to the lofty poaition of Spinoza's god).
11
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
LS
FIOH R!AL to Rut: EN1'ANGLED IN NONF1C1'10N FILM
the conjunction of all
perspectives on a given topic amounts to
Moreover, the
cacophony, and contradiction rather than truth.
second and third
strictly
aemea of "'objective," ae outlined above, are
incompatible vith
other.
does any one of these concepts of ·objectivity� appear
Nor
viable tn aod of itself.
aay
each
exemplify
some
Canvassing eve1y
ideal
perfectly objective in their
without
mentioning
of
opinion on a subject
fairness but hiatoriana can be
dtecueeione
Heinrich
of
fti•mler'a
81�ler'e
aaeeea111ent
career
of
topic from no perspective
from two
different
notion
of
vhateoever rune
directions.
a perspective,
afoul of objections
Yirat,
aaaumtng
a
liberal
t t ta tmpoasible to conceive
subject totally unstructured by any conceptual framework;
t s no utterly •gtvenM;
11ld
1n
the
The idea that objectivity coincides with presenting a
Fuhrer.
the unadorned facta are both �unadorned�
•facta• relative to a conceptual acheaa
other words,
of a
there
or
potnt-of-vtew.
1 t ta self-defeating for ue t.o deund that a
nonfiction fil• be �untouched by human hands.·
Second, in some
f ielde a string of supposedly unadorned facta unayate1'Mltiied by
a
theory would be the paradigm of random,
tion.
Thus,
subjective observa­
ft'
Lucien Goldman attacks Chronique d'un
exactly
it 1 1 un1nfon9ed by a theoretically baaed principle of
1
Finally,
objectivity cannot
be equivalent to
because
aelectivity.
2
Such a requirement
truth.
science
ie far too strong.
The history of
ta littered with false theories which nonetheless vere
1 can offer
objective.
atatiettce -- for
objective reasons -- perhaps baaed on
the
conjecture
that
there
ta intelligent
life on other planets and, nevertheless, it could turn out that
we are
alone in the universe.
In such an tnatance, �y problem
would be that 1 was wrong and not that I was overly subjective.
objectivity ta not eQufvalent to truth, the two are
Though
related in a n important way.
arguaent,
In any given field of research or
there are patterns of reasoning, routines for asaee­
atng evidence,
means of
veighing the comparative ai�nificance
of different types of evidence, and standards for observations.
e:xperimentation and
sources
that
are
for
shared
the
by
use
of
primary
practitioners
in
and
secondary
that
field.
Abiding by these established practices ie, at any given
time,
believed
to be the beat aethod for getting at the truth.
exa�ple,
after Mani: economic evidence became ftlOre important in
continued research, these
practices
undergo
the study of history than it had been
while
aome
practices
still
have
a
shared.
are
being
previously.
revised,
others
Yet,
With
for
even
are still
Thus, in virtue of their shared practices, researchers
cOllUIOn ground for debating and for appreciating
the .rork of their peers.
in
light
it
can
of
ita
We call •piece of research objective
adherence to the practices of reasoning and
evidence gathering in a given field.
be
interaubjectively
atgumerit and evidence shared by
arena of discourse.
With this in mlnd,
knots
changes
that
tether
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
ve
the
It te
evaluated
objective
against standards of
practitioners
can untangle some of
nonfiction ftla.
because
of
the
a
apectfic
conceptual
The nonfiction film
12
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
16
NOEL CARROLL
ie not necessarily subjective;
objecti�e
when
like nonfiction vriting,
it abides by the norias
it
is
of reaaonin� and stand­
ards of evidence of the areas about vhich it purports to iapart
information.
This is not to say that a nonfiction film is one
that alvays abides by said standards;
that would be
tantat10unt
to proposinsc that the nonfiction film is necessarily objective.
Rather, ve should say that a nonfiction film is, at least,
one
that must be assessed agains.t the nonM of objecti�fty that are
practiced in regard to the type of inforiaation
the
film
pre­
sents to its spectators.
Soee 1'aY feel that this is not a �ery
from
the
helpful definition; how will we picK out the
the
fictions,
on
one hand,
nonfiction
filas
and the purely lyrical
fil�s, on the otherr
In
defeOBe
of
..,
partial definition,
let
lead
me
off by
postulating that we can never tell Tll!r ely by lookin� vhether or
not
a film is a piece of nonfiction.
This is because any kind
of technique or verbal assertion that is
nonfiction
ftla
can
be
The Battle of Algiers
of this.
examples
look of
and
the
David Holzman's Diary
are
faGM>us
for
expressive
purposes.
In
Battle
vievers'
Diary,
In David Holzman •s
outra�e
at
French
the doc umentary conceit
underscorea the conteaporaneity and specificity of the
the
110vie-crazy
sixties
distinction betveen film
many.
a
-­
documentary look helps to heighten the gravity
of events and thereby stokes the
c olonialism1.
of
a fiction filmmaker
Both are fiction films but both imitate the
do cu11entartes
of Algiers
characteristic
by
imitated
and
in
Nev
life
subject
York at a time vhen the
passionately
blurred
for
A spectator might be confused and believe, for a 1n0.ent,
that these films vere nonfiction.
be
cannot
classified
Rather, films
are
at
indexed
a
l)
But, like a sentence, a film
glance as fiction or nonflctioo.
by
producers,
When a
as belonging to certain categories.
distributors, etc.
their
creators,
film is indexed as nonfiction then ve know that it is
appro­
priate
to
aBsess it according to the standards of objectivity
of the field of which it is an example.
films,
of
course,
stories,
anthropological
nonfiction
correlate to different sorts of nonfiction
discourse -- nevspaper articles,
interest
Different
science
field
nevspaper
textbooks,
notes,
editorials,
instruction
psychological
case
human
manuals,
studies,
historical narratives, etc. "Nonfiction" is a term that ls used
tn contradistinction to fiction but it would be
think
it
pertains
a
mistake
only to one type of exposition.
aany different areas of nonfiction -- each vith ita
odological
routines
types of nonfiction
employed
sents.
in
-- and, therefore, there are
film,
pro�essing
each
beholden
so.
Yet,
such
a
film
can
insofar as its miatakea do not violate the
soning aod
own
a
the
meth­
variety of
restraints
the kind of inforwatlon the film pre­
A nonfiction film can be mistaken; that
necessarily
is,
it
ain't
still be objective
standards
of
rea­
evidence that constitute objectivity for the area of
nonfiction which it exemplifies.
to
to
to
There are
be open to
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
To be a nonfiction film means
criticism and evaluation according to the stan-
13
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
FR.OH ltE.Al.. TO lEEL:
dards
of objectivity
ENTANGLED
for
veyed. Interpretation,
IN NONFICTION
the type
selectivity,
of infonmtion being pur­
etc,
are, therefore,
priate insofar as they heed intersubjective
Rouch
and
Fernando
Solanas
nonfiction films •ust
appro­
standards.
Does it imply -- as suggested by
does this lead us?
Where
17
Fll.H
and
Octavio
Getino
that
not traffic in aesthetic effects?
all.
Nelson
Good183n1s
playful
alliterations
Not at
philosophical
writings
are
full
of
and
puns,
and
Edvard
Gibbon
1n the
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Eapire e�ploys
semicolons
to
sentences.
Yet,
Gibbon
are
create
very
dramatic
despite these
writing
effects,
fiction.
The Plow That Broke The Plains
from the order of nonfiction.
not
Art is
long
Goodman
nor
the elegant juxtapo­
.onumental
do
within
neither
Similarly,
sitions in Song of Ceylon and the
nonfiction;
pauses
compositions
of
disqualify those works
not
the
antithesis
of
a nonfiction fil1111Mker may be as artistic as he or
she chooses as long as the processes of
aesthetic
elaboration
do not interfere with the genre's commitment to the appropriate
standards of research,
For example, a
exposition and argument.
nonfiction fil�maker cannot invent new events or eliminate ones
that actually occurred
effect
where
this
for the sake of
falsifies
securing
history.
an
aesthetic
Imagine a docurEntary
called The Pearl Harbor Tragedy in which the filmmaker
changes
history a bit by havin� a PT boat with a broken radio racing to
Hawaii just behind the
to
warn
of
the
approaching Japanese air fleet in order
impending
assault.
Undoubtedly with enough
a
produce
crisp parallel editing, this invented episode could
great
deal
of
suspense.
But I think that no matter how �uch
suspense is achieved in this
aesthetic
effect
as
way,
we
would
not
accept
nonfiction filmmaker must be accountable to the facts
prospect
of
ability.
fiction
hei�htened
This,
and
of
the
a justification for chan�in� history.
effects
course,
nonfiction.
is
In
and
A
the
does not alter that account­
a
major
fiction,
difference
between
the past can always be
rearranged in order to enhance aesthetic effects;
but,
thou�h
cannot
aesthetic effects are legitimate in nonfiction, accuracY
be suspended in the name of art.
A
nonfiction
filmmaker
conveying the literal facts,
objective
procedures
of
is
Despite
the
genre
field
of
discourse
at
to
the
hand.
ftlmmaker
nonfiction
1
to segments of possible worlds, 4 albeit ones
refer,ence
that, at tiqies,
by
where "literalN is defined by
the
Another way of saying this ts
makes
camaitted
that
the
closely rese�ble the ectual world,
Vertov's
caveats
against
stagin�,
there
is no
reason why nonfiction filas cannot employ re-enactments -- like
the
postal
sorting
in
Night Mail
reconstructions of types of
a
ainuet
in
The Strong Survive.
at
Appomatto�,
from
or
the
even
past
historical
e.g.,
Bar<?Sue Dance -- or even reconstructions of a
specific event -- e.g.,
Prohibition,
events
the
etc,
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
the car robbery in
Likewise,
Scopes
Third Avenue: Only
re-enactments of the surrender
Monkey
Trial,
the
repeal
of
can all be accommodated within the framework
14
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
NOft CAAROLL
18
of the nonf1ct1on
accurate
as
This raises
fiction
long as such
given
qYe6t1on6 about
and
some
The Rise To
taken
fil� as
possible
Power
to
the
boundary
historical
of
insure
the
fiction,
XIV.
Louis
Yet,
dialogue.
fiction because
number
of
in
writings at mieeting4
is
no
of
interest
ment.
via
non­
detail
as vell as using
a
of Louis XIV
basis
is still
their
situations for �hich there
In this
vritings
intriguing
History,
between
historical personages 110uth
evidence.
114king the
line
Roberto Rossellini, has invented a
which
and in imagined
historical
history,
as
especially cases like
of the period as
The Rise to P°"'er
1ts creator,
events
are
In this film, great pains were
authenticity
actual memoirs and written docuraents
for
reconstructions
the state of available evidence.
come
way,
Rossellini animates
alive·
background
supplying
visual
detail and character 11110ve­
in other words, is rearranged and
altered
for
aesthetic effect.
The non1fiction filmmaker's commitment to
not
disallow
That is,
the
the
army recruit,
schizoid, a
representative case
(but
Native Land
composite)
and so on.
is
perhaps
generalization.
entities
aeant
used
in
psychology,
extent
experiences
study
of
teenager,
the
pli�ht
a day in
The dramatization of
arguably
an
the
they
respect.
Moreover,
the
of
theoretical
like
journalism,
These
history,
devices
sociology,
to
and
the
abide by the same constraints in their con­
that
to
in
example of this sort
kind of situation depicted.
struction
subject
an
of a
corruption
and they are legitisu.te in nonfiction film
portray
of
life
to summarize the normal tendencies and types of
areas
that
of
behavior of a
Such generalitin� devices project
events found in the
are
film of the
of the characteristic
unemployed
lltedieval serf,
does
use of devices like composite case studies.
one can make a nonfiction
avera�e
objectivity
analogous
devices
in
nonfiction
literature
such devices are rooted in the attempt to
literal
truth
objective
since
criteria
they
are
generalizations
in terms of intersubjectively
accessible facts.
Throughout
the
preceding
discussion I have relied on the
idea that the nonfiction film can be objective, indeed that
is
committed
to
the standards,
disciplines
routines and
and
norlD9
of
so
ideology
of
particular
To adopt this strategy,
·rebuke
from
Cine-Marxists
claim that the disciplines I am invoking
would
tenns of their content and
selves
evidence
modes of exposition.
however, is to invite a predictable
who
shot
that
it
objectivity, where objectivity is defined by
their methodologies
�
both in
_are
them­
through, or, better yet, so contaainated with
their
purchase
on
objectivity
is
extremely
tenuous.
The ar�ument from ideology,
theory,
is
often
central terms that
acholars,
ideology
like
underwritten
it
ia
borders
by
on
aany
arguments
ita
signified
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
and
Yor
many
virtually synonymous vtth culture;
signifier&
film
such inclusiveness in its
vacuity.
nonfiction film is a cultural item� in semiotic
ln
in
--
and,
jargon
film
any
both
therefore, it is
15
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
YIOM R!.AL TO ll!:EL:
unavoidably suffused with
assumptions,
conoept of ideology
leveled
ideology.
evetything
earlier
15
vnder
Clearly,
is
is open to the sa...-e variety o f criticial!t ve
at
the
italicized
concept o f subjectivity.
existing inetitution for the acquisition and
knowledge
!deology,
is
irretrievably
and
dissemination
necessarily
to proceed as though
In the c•se of ideolo�y,
i ste
that
disjunct,
it assumes
that
these
:sharin� no conmon ground.
some Marxists speak as if
only
Harx­
vere aware of the distortive potential of ideology.
non-Harxist
about
social
ideology
scientists
and,
in
it
there were tvo social sciences, the
Marxist variety and the capitali s t , and
schools are completely
of
ideoloii cal.
Another problem w i t h the Cine�arxist approach is
tvo
the
clear that ve would be easily convinced that evety
not
tends
these
is ideological and, consequently,
furthermore, were one to employ a narrower notion of
it
l9
ENTANGLED IM NONFICTION FILM
have
turn,
embraced
they
Yet,
Harxist
ideas
scrutinize each other's
findings for the possibility of errors due t o ideological bias.
That
is,
non-Harx ist
historians
and
social
sens! tive to the dangers of ideolof'y and it
methodological
scientists are
is
part
to be on guard against
framework
of
their
ideologically
determined mistakes.
I
When
refer
the s tandards and
to
disciplines , I do not conceive
chan�ing.
Rather,
these
of
routines of different
these
standards
as
and
static
routines
and
un­
are often
r evised, eo�etilDles in response to discoveries within the field,
sometimes
in
response to changes in adjacent fields and some­
times as a result of innovations in general epistemolo�y.
Such
revisions themselves are open to intersuhjective debate and can
be evaluated
afford
in light
of factors like the added
increased explanatory power they
they
coherence
both within a given field and with other fields,
provide,
the degree
block certain likely avenues of error, e t c .
to the ideolo�y arf'umen t , I would hold that an
of
the
Harxist
perspective
has
practices of history and social
social
scientists
are
aware
been
as
to
to
correct
another
for ideological error.
ideological
prejudices.
as
a
matter
Thus,
part
into the
extent
that
in
the
able
principle,
fair �afl'e, in
the
work
of
Thie is not to say that
but
only
that
social
of course, must answer charges that
their work ie misguided because
t ions.
the
I t is always
all social science is free of ideology,
scientists,
important
for one social scientist to examine
for
which
a matter of routine of
threat of ideological distortion, and are,
other words,
to
In reference
introjected
science
they
in the
of
its
ideological
preeump­
the existence of ideology d�s not preclude· the
possibility of objectivity since cognizance of it is built into
the
practices
of
the
fields
where
it is liable to emerge.
raises
that
of
propa­
The issue of ideology, of course,
I have argued that the nonfiction film is such that its
ganda.
practitioners are reepon&ible to. the
�tandards
matter.
that
of
norms
of
reasoning
and
evidence appropriate to their Particular subject
What of propaganda films -- like Triumph of the Will
intentionally
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
suppress all manner of
facts
�
-­
such as the
16
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
1IO!L. CAUOLL
20
purge of t h e S . A . -- in order
position�
Such
files
characterization of
designed
to
nonfiction
violate
trick i o the �ook
point ;
yet
vorks
endorse
to
be
film,
standards
rhetorical
and
to
appear
a
given
since they
of
are
object i v i t y ,
to �
of the
Will
expressly
usin£ e�ery
to away audiences to
like triumoh
political
counterexamples
their
are
view­
c l a s s i f i e d as
nonfiction.
To
handle
these
senaes
of
thing
•propaganda-
le•ical
cases
-propaganda . -
ends.
ve
it
c a l l o u s l y twists
if
a nd n o n f i c t i o n ,
p e r s ua s i o n .
to
be pe j o r a t i v e .
vtthout
bending
the
it
less,
second
is
that
this
is why
etymologies
propaganda
f ilms
atic
the
in
sense .
ted
is,
of
it
cause
ls
just
of
t h i s.
Neverthe­
in
unques­
it
is
film
sense;
the word
important
serve as
t o note
counterexamples
if
nonfiction
that
to flJ'j
propaganda
prop•ganda
of
the
took h o l d .
propa�anda f i l m s are
lie,
implied
giving
rise
"propagand a · ;
to
eeke
that ve
in the
i n the
problem­
·propaganda·
dovn and
in
fact,
is
of
only he­
political
•propaganda·
bother t o have t h e
vith
them respect
it
films
a subclass of
be evaluated
dirty
"propaganda•
of
to the unsavory connota­
nonffction
f i r s t sense.
to
that a l l
but,
are o b j e c t i v e --
films are
playing
persuasive
first
sordid
in
naine
A& a genre, nonfiction prop­
a � a i na t
When
like any other nonfiction f i l m .
them a s
second s e n s e it
the
in
nonfiction
1 have not
some
t h e second s e ns e
aganda
fiction
�propaganda·
only vhen the tvo senses
possible
that
·propaganda·
the
by saying that n o n f i c t i o n f i l maak ers are commit­
the vord
advocacy
po­
are
sense vere necessarily
position
cOtDmitn.entj
tions
only
nonfiction
to o b j e c t i v i t y ,
that
examples
abusive .eaning of
vould
That
for my
the
for
as
political
be successfully
that
"propaganda·
second
are c o nf l a t e d ;
are
films
notwithstanding,
files
characteri z a t i o n of
first
!Dllny
facts
especially
tvo
some­
1 think that B a t t l e o f C h i l e and
facts;
sense are also
tionably
But
true
the
thought of
i s u s e d in t h i s
A f1h1 •Y
The S e l l in! of t h e Pentagon
We ca l l
the categories of
pe r s ua s i o n ,
·propaganda"
need not
derisory.
can a l s o be
cutting across
devoted
When
is
d i s t i nguish between
first
But -propaganda-
name of a quasi-genre,
must
The
their
in t h e disdainful
objective
they
tU t e r i a l s ,
sense of
standards
are caught out
ve castigate
t h e vord.
Tll'J a t t empt to connect n o n f i c t i o n propaganda as a
genre vith objectivity ..Y be on a e t t l i � .
They might f e e l that
Por
some ,
propaganda
least
harkena
viz . ,
a
back
such
to
ia
inimical to o b j e c t i v i t y .
ori�ina
a
for
this
subject.
one
viewp o i n t ,
propaganda
propaganda
further
se�ual ,
cannot
hold
But,
be
propag a nd a ,
contending
objective.
that
first
a l l points of v i ew on
by d e f i n i t i o n ,
p o s i t i o ns .
Secondly,
primarily with values
social � i s
The
concept o f objectivi.ty already discussed,
e�cluding
deals
There a r e at
s e n t i me n t .
objectivity aeounta to representing
given
the
as
tvo posaible
one .. y feel
rather than
the realm of values
�
champions
Therefore,
ethical,
f acta.
that
and
political,
subjective rather than o b j e c t i ve .
Again,
consequence is that nonf i c t i o n propa�anda cannot be objec­
tive.
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
17
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
FRO� REAL TO REEL:
The f 1 r s t o f these positions i s Q ue s t ionable
its
concept
of o b j e c t i v i t y ;
it
a nd .
in t h e c.ase of
discourse
since
mistaken
reasoning.
I
they a r e governed by
protocols
of
pursue
our d i s a2reements
inevitably
position
is
Besides
that
do n o t ,
is
there
because
of
I cannot here
Obviously,
the
questions
issue
of
people
l i k e The Eleventh Year,
standards
for
t o the kinds
of
work they a r e , Two such genres are commemorations
Three Songs
o f Lenin
But
are
and
these
In the case of
they
are
I
as nonfiction
when
thing
One
W i t h A Movie
potential
that
Camera
of
it
is
that
pre-S t a l i n
is
of events and
Movie Camera a n d
beyond
the knowledge
and,
flawed
facts.
films
commemo r a t i o n s ,
think
A
Man W i t h
autobiographical
objective c r i t i c i s m in t e rms of
travelogues,
that
propaganda
o f n o n f ictton
objective
their claims d o e s not seem relevant
Lost, Lost, L.os t .
of
appear well characteriied by my
e v a l u a t i ng
--
that
objective
a r e o t h e r genres
it.
can e a s i l y
but w e can
But t o the degree
unconvinci n g .
on the face
f o r m u l a tions
intersubjectively estab­
the argument that
propaganda.
Morality
are o b j e c:· t i v e areas o f
do n o t say that we
subjective ,
fair­
The second
me t a - e t h i c a l ) di sputes .
obj e c t i v e l y .
debatable.
impossible
impo r t .
develop an a t t a c k on the view that
value are
is
(aud
to
respect
presupposi t i o n s .
politics
resolve a l l o u r e t h i c a l
satisfactorily
in i t s
propaganda,
l i shed
in
t s r e a l l y a principle of
n e s s rather t h a n a p r i n c i p l e w i t h epistemic
o b j e c t i o n a l s o seems
21
IN NONFICTION F l l..Ji
ENTANGLED
films
the
claims
for t h a t ma t t e r ,
perfectly
�
bounds
like
of
they roa k e ?
sponsored
reasonable
to say that
overlook
unpleasant
they
is p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e about Man
it
celebrates
Russia
while
knowledging p e r s i s t ing social problems
the
at
progress
the
like
and
same time ac­
unemployment
and
a l c o h o l i s t'll .
Nor
are
cine-autobiographies
I f w e observe
gible.
t h e United S t a t e s .
t e s timony,
s a t isfied
tions
he
never
according
evinced
f i lm . ·
facts
Of
imagine
course ,
the
way
immigration a n d
dealing
it
the f i l m was
a
I
have
s tandards of
incorporated
falling
research,
in
the
routines
priate
the
the
then
but
is
on
might
to
we
are
respond
no
province of
to
longer
with a pure l y r i c ,
in t h e
the
experience but
which
fictlon
the notion t h a t there are
evidence
and
interpretation
objectivity in a given area of
discourse and
that
responsible
to
of
the d i f f e r e n t
t h a t n o n f i c t i o n f i l m s can be
are
objec­
objectively
and practices of
constitute
is,
raise
there are
to take the measure
But
back
o f knowledge produc t i o n .
sense
l o s s , and was a
to
�ithuanian
argument,
fields
the s·ame
is,
nonfiction
these
in
That
to report Meka s '
would argue
been
of
in
eye-wi tness
might turn out in such a case that
not
displacement .
commentators
prope r )6
sense
position
me l a n c h o l i c
wit� a l y r i c
reliable
in a
that we could use
incorri­
i s p e r f e c t l y a t home
to
any
a�ainst Lost, Lost, Los t .
purpose of
some
that,
bourgeoi s , we would be
accessible
episte�ologically
that Jonas �ekaa
I
have
and are supposed
nonfiction writing
to whatever objective
subject matter they are
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
further
is.
to
argued
be
Such
that
o b j e c t i ve
film" ,
standards are
dealing w i t h .
that
appro­
This
is
18
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
llO!L CAlROLL
22
not
to say
they
that nonfiction f i l a:s
alvays meet the
are alvays
film
t he o r i s t s
nonfiction ftlu
nonfiction
standards
l
clai�.
deny
this
have
I
of objectivity
not
broached
that
the
are
11et
by
the
for�ltze
skeptical objection that my so-called standards
these questions
of
for
objectivity in any
s pe c i a l
chi.eras .
problec
of
My
as
tt
point
ts
o bj e c t i v i t y
those
8.
of other 110des
arguments
tn
the
features,
the
bevond t h e scope
that
there
includin�
employed to define
nonfiction
ts
fo�
the sawie
no
film
nonfiction
In fac t .
t o nonfiction f t l � are
the
bound
that t h e nonfiction film
fiction resemble
about
previous
subj e c t i v i t y .
.. nipulation,
Ae
A vezy
choice,
" f i c t i o n · i n such a vay
maneu­
such,
liberal
set
structure,
1• i m p l i c i t l y assumed or
t o imagine anything t h a t t s not
example ,
ts
confronting
saa.e weakn e s s e s .
the influence of ideology,
for
st�ply
purport ing t o shov
arguments
aa n t f eet -any of
objec­
�rapole v t t h
Fiction
! a really o r even necessarily
vers
against
of
of nonfiction expo s i tion.
Nonfiction F i l � and
The
to
t s for other nonf i c t i o n d i s c o u r s e s .
s t andards of objectivity relevant
to
to attempt
easy
issues about t'he po s s i b i l i t y of
because the concept o f objectivity
film
argument
they a r e - - i s
these are
fora.
a conclusive
Rut
important as
�
paper,
this
because
in any given area are not alvays
nor have 1 offered
!
as
problem that
to
really
But
precisely
can •et the same c r i t e r i a
vri t i n g .
are
tha�
intrinsically subjective,
the
tt v i t y
even
relevant standards of obje c t i v i t y .
do deny t h a t nonfiction fil� are
-any
true or
they
of
coding,
explicitly
that it ts difficult
Jean-Louts
fiction.
C omo l l t ,
virtually retreads e a r l i e r ar�u me n t s , exchanging
" s u b j e c t i v i t y • for
• t t c t i o n - in
his
assault on
direct
c i n e ma .
He v r i t e s :
I n r e a l i t y the very f a c t o f'
already
a
the aatertal recorded.
technical
rolling,
of
even
vhen
mo t ives
contained
s t arting
c u t t i n g , changing the
chooetng
the
rushes
and
e d i t i ng
The f11•-.aker ..Y well wiah
of
claim
that
therefore
cinelft&
.. nipulations
structure)
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
lene,
�
like
then
it
or
ft lm�document .
t h a t document,
It
does
not
did
as
lies at
the
ortgtfts
there ts antinomy betveen direct
ctne"8 and aesthetic .. n t p u l a t i o n .
direct
it.
llO&t
reportage, i t t s i t s product .
certain hypocri•y
the
the�
the
And
the
the cameras
or
to respect
but he cannot avoid 11anufacturing
pre�xist
by
vtth
angle
constitutes a .. ntpulatton of
A
F r °'" the 1'K>rtte nt the
intervenes a form of manipulation be�tns.
every operation,
not.
course
productive inte�entton which modifies and
transforms
ca.era
filmint' t s of
And to
engage
in
tf the inevitable inter·ventions and
(whi c h
not
produce
count
meaning,
effect
and
and vere purely practical
19
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
J'IOH llAL TO lll !n-: UTANCL!D
rather than aesthetic , i a in fact
aua
of
It
it.
t i s l i t i ee
and
to deaend the
aini­
�ans sweeping aside a l l i t s poten­
censo ring
and produ ctivity
23
I N NONFICTION FILH
i t e natural
creative
function
in the na� of some i l lusory hones t y .
non-intervention a nd hu�i l i t y .
consequence o f such a productive principle, and
A
automatic
.auld
conseque nce of a l l the
the
f t lm-docuttent
ta
.anipulationa
realtty•:
all
a k i nd o f f i c t ional aura a t t aches
17
filmed events and f a c t a .
the
Thia
sort of argument
vhich
a co-efficient of "non­
atteapts
to have ita
itself
to
cake and eat
it
I t posits t h e celluloid reproduction o f a ding-e n-stch aa
too.
the goal of n o n f i c t i o n , notea the impos s i b i l i t y o f the taak and
d e c l a res a l l f i l m f i c t ional rather
obvious
pre�ise
that
than
s t a r ting o f f
t h e n , a t t e�pting to ascertain vhich of these caeea
belon�
to
vith
the
in some sense a l l f ilae are mediated and,
fiction and vhich
to nonf i c t i o n .
of mediation
In and of i t s e l f .
f o l l oving the above approach -- that a l l
films
because
to the same vexations
they
are produced -- gtvea
rehearsed in regard to the
d i f f e rence
ta
that
now
rtae
eubj e c t i � i t y
ve
be
vill
see
the
line
f i c t i onal
argu me n t .
The
a�aktng o f
f t ct i o ns " and " f i c t i onal nonf tct ions . ,.
To
are
only
- f i c t ional
of counterattack i n bold r e l i e f ,
recall
Het z ' a aaaertion that all film ia f i c t i onal because
it
repre­
sents aometninA that ta not actually occurring in the screening
r o oa .
But i f representation
fiction
then
Cyril
ia
a
sufficient
condition
book , The Great War
Falla '
191�-1918,
for
ia
Het2 'a
theory,
fiction because there ta no mustard gas in i t .
taken
at
ita vord, implies that there are no book s , or f i l m s ,
o r epeechee l e f t t h a t
are
not
fiction,
thereby
aek i n �
the
conc.ept of f i c t i o n theore t i c a l l y uaeleea.
Thia
the
counterattack can be generalized t o other versions
f t c t ton
argument
that arguments baaed o n manipulation, choice ,
coding,
and the l i k e lead ue dovn the eame garden path until
structure
at the end
ve discover the shrubbery Aroving v i l d and e t t l l needing to
all
films
are
f i c t tonal
due
to
ta
a bit more comp l i cated atnce it
generally not only aaaumee an expansive definition of
fiction
ideology.
tion,
be
i n t o patches of fiction and nonf iction respectively.
separated
Perhaps the argument
that
contamination
ideological
i.e.,
of
ao that , par i pa s s u , v e c a n demonstrate
•
i . e . , ideology - culture.
the
f tctton,
ideology, but a l e o an expansive definition of
eoral
of
Yet even v i t h
the story ie the aame;
such undifferentiated concepts,
nothing
by
this
addi­
theoridng vith
vhataoever
ie
said.
Even
the
argument
t hat
nonfiction f i l es a r e f i c t i o n because
this
they employ the same narrative devices aa f i c t i o n suffers
For
narration
i e common t o t y pe s o f both f i c t i o n
l ia b i l i t y .
a n d nonf i c t i o n , a n d n o t a dtfferentia
gories.
To
say
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
nonfiction
fihas
betveen
the
are f i c t tone
tvo
cate­
because,
for
20
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
1IO!L CAIUID LL
24
example,
they use
flashbacks,
is
to
much
sveep
historical
writing i n t o the duatbin of f i c t i o n .
Hany of t he apparently paradox i c a l conclusions
rists
see•
to
derive
overblown conce p t s .
fil•
theo­
result from the use of 1 1 1-deftned and
The declaration
that
all
nonf ict1on
films
really
fictions
ta
a
aterltng example .
To rectify the
are
conf uaion requires a clartf tcation of the central terms of
the
discussion.
Nonfiction fil•s are those that ve evaluate on the
'bade of their knowledge claims in accordance with
the
t tve standards appropriate to their subject "8 t t e r .
w r i t e r s , directors , distributors, and
fil•a
nonf i c t i o n ,
ae
exhibitors
objec­
Produce r s ,
index
their
thereby proespttng us t o bring objective
e t andarda of evidence and argu-ent into p l a y .
We
don ' t
char­
acteri1tically
go
to
fil•a about which ve 111U &t guess whether
they are fict ion or nonf i c t t o n .
way
or
the
o t he r .
And ve
They are generally indexed one
respond accordin� to the indices,
1auapendtng objecttve standards if
b u t W>biliztng them if
the film ta marked as fiction
it ta called nonfiction.
Moreover , these responses are grounded
distinction
between
the
refers to the actual world.
,evidence
makes.
for
each
Fiction,
worlds.
1118of ar
exist,
of
there t a no
'knowledge
claill\s
the
howeve r ,
many
as
Thus,
i n principle,
Furthermore,
fict ions
the
refers
to
that
them;
poaeible
there
like
are
t he
ontolo�ical
Nonf ictton
there could be
segments
of
possible
of the entities in f i c t i ona do not
could
hence,
claims ta generally dropped altogether.
are tnco•ple t e :
an
knowledge claims that such a film
evidence
about
in
two fonaa of expos i t i o n .
serve
to
establish
t h e i s s ue o f knowledge
worlds ref erred to by f t. c t i ona
Queationa that might
notorious
be
asked
about
tlow many children has Lady
Macbeth?# -- that in principle have no answe r , even within
the
fiction.
I t is impos sible to d e a l w i t h such quest ions because
fict ional worlda are not fully articulated.
Fictions
do
very
often
contain
correspondences with actual persona, places and
event s , but they also
incomplete
contain
possible
descriptions
of
ontologically
persona or places or events , or of varia­
tions on actual persona or places or event s , that transform a l l
the
entities
i n the f i c t ional world i n t o ontologically incom­
plete poaa i b i l i t i e a .
laNllord
of
to Algiers ;
can
aay
little
no
Baker Street
digs
of
their history,
by
nature
apartments , ve
aave what Watson tells u s .
ontologically
inc<Jtaplete
it
• ense t o evaluate the• according t o obje�tive etand­
arda of evidence; no fiction i s designed to
Yerable
the
in the f i l m Pursuit
although ve know the address of the
Becauae f i c tion• a r e
•akee
Ve cannot know who, for example, vaa
Sherlock ' s
to
be
entirely
ana­
the canons of proof that are applied to discourses
about the actual world.
Thus, we diaregard such
standards
of
evidence
tout court
becauae
f ictione
are
not
the
kind of
objects to which such canons are pe r t i n e n t .
A
word
or
two about tndexin� ta in o r d e r .
ln the ma i n ,
films are distributed s o that the category they a r e intended t o
belong
to
is
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
public
knowledge
before
they
are
screened.
21
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
PIOM ttAL TO UEL:
Dr?ANGLED IN NONFICTION P'ILH
25
A f i l a is billed as a docu.ent ary, or an adaptation of a novel,
o r as
(only)
based on a
true story, or as a romance, e t c .
the
Indexing a f i l • as a fiction o r nonfiction tells u s vhat
f i l • claims to refer t o , i . e . , the actual world or eeg.ents of
possible worlds; and indexing tells us the
kind
of
reeponsea
and
expectations it 1& leg i t i..te for us t o bring t o the f i l a .
I n short . insofar as indexing fixea t h e atte•pted reference
of
a
given f i l a ,
indexing
i s constitutive of vlhether the given
to
f i l m is an inatance of fiction or nonf i c t i o n , vhich amounts
vhet�r
it
is
to
be
construed
aa
fiction
or nonf i c t i o n .
oae would
Because issues o f evaluation hing,e o n indexing,
it
in the interest of producers, and dist ributors to be
think
scrupulous in thia
llll t t e r .
Since
miatakea
and errors are
defects in documentaries. calling Star Ware nonf i c t i o n , a piece
of intergalactic history, •ight have disappointing
results
in
its critical reception.
Yet. t t does seem that there are cases
in which we are tempted to say that films are
indexed
improp­
erly.
For
i na t ance,
a nonfiction propa�andiet may stage an
i 111a g ined enemy atrocity in order to drum up support
for hie
country.
Here we mey
feel
that it ie be e t to · deecribe the
i n i t i a l indexing ae incorrect and that it should be indexed
ae
f i c t ion.
But I think that once it ie indexed as nonfiction, i t
i e mo r e appropriate t o eay
that
the a t t ributed
atrocity
ie
unfounded and that the f i l m i e being used t o l i e .
The original
indexing of a film i s
crucial;
inaccurate nonfiction
films
cannot
be
rechristened ae fict ions i n order to gain a second
hard
hearing, though a documentary director say take
a
long,
look
at
the
available
footage and decide to cut it in a way
d i f ferent froe what wae planned and, then, i n i t i a l l y index
the
result
ae
fiction.
From '1l'J perspective, the only tia-e 1t i s
correct t o speak o f improper indexing would be when a co�dy of
mixed-up film cans results in something like Logan ' s Run being
inadvertently screened on Nova.
But in this case, we speak
of
that
event ae an i t\8 t ance�improper indexin� because Logan ' s
Run hae antecedently and originally been indexed a s f i c t ion
by
1ta creators and promoters .
Films like C i t i z e n Kane and The Carpe t bagge r s
are
indexed
as
f i c t i o n s , but critics and viewers discover they bear strong
analogies to the biographies of actual people.
With such films
it
i e easy to imagine a plaintiff suing for libel and winning.
Here, one ..y be disposed to say that
though
the
f il• was
indexed
as f i c t i o n , the verdict shove i t is nonf iction.
But 1
am not sure that we are driven to this conclusion.
Rather,
we
might
merely eay that the film i e 11beloue instead of claiming
i t ie nonfiction where •libelous· means that the f i l m ,
though
fiction.
affords
a
highly probable interpretation, baaed on
analogies, that ('Aueed or tends to cause the
plaintiff public
i n j ury or disgrace.
What the trial proves i s not that the film
certain
is nonf iction but that the film produced daaa�e1s of a
s ort.
Ambiguously indexed f i l 118 , certain docudramas like t h e TV
aeries You Are There �
also seem to
raise
problems for the
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
22
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
llO!L CAUO LL
26
a 'ttet1pt
to differentiate
aeriea frow the
the paet
fifties,
fiction
e•enta, e . g . , Waahi�ton
interview aod the interviewer
introduction
i c a l l y inco.plete.
answer
to
tl�
viously .et
inclined
renders
q ue s t i on
to aay
co•pl etely
the referents of
For esa•pl e ,
of
Washington,
it
is
in
aome
v,e
fiction.
in ita
actual
purpose.
and
by
it
educational
is true
part educational
aa y
be l i e f s
that
does not
frot1
and
that
high
degree
Undoubt edly,
as
it
that the desire
well
of
this
economic
as
education ts often f actl­
But the fact that
People can l e a rn things f r oe
appeal
am
But in response,
to encourage a
i tated through entertainment.
new
This
vorld
was alao designed to entertain and
coneiderat i o ne ,
acquire
pre­
I
interview indicates
license on the part of i t a creators.
in
iapoe sible
Conseq ue n t l y ,
is
inforaation about the
deciaion vas .o t ivated
ta
and
the show ontolog­
perplesin� because t he program aeeas obviously
aa
to entertain vae strong enou�h
poetic
Both the
inve n t e d ,
principle
1756.
in
in aome aenee aucceeda
aeries
-.:>mentous
whether the interviewer had
say
11Ust note that the very uae of the
the
this
into
that though a•biguously indexed as a hybrid o f
deeigned to offer
also
In
travel
at Valley For�e.
were
fiction aod nonfiction, You Are There
a t r ike
nonf i c t i o n .
to interview fa-.:>ue persona�es eabroiled in
hiatorical
their
frot1
a fict ional reporter would
entail
fiction.
that
That
fictions;
what
to the authority of a fiction as
You Are There
it
ts nonf 1 c t 1 o n .
is.
people
can
they cannot do is
a basts
for
justifying
t hose beliefa.
In regard
1
f tlm
of
fiction
fiction
atreased
eaployed
for the
fiction
cepts that deny
by
are
in
to
that non­
fiction are unconvincing.
Like the
ftl�,
the arguments
the poasibi l i t y of
Second:
nonf iction in
every
medium
the boundary between f i c t .i o n and
nonfic­
order to suetain the distinction between two kinds of
on
•y
first
theorists
the ones
con­
I have tried t o sketch briefly
beset
this l a t t e r atte•pt
I aiay be wrong about
point;
foraulation of the concept of f i c t i o n and s t i l l be
film
nonfiction
the concepts
shov
Whatever inadequacies
reflect
theorists
and
Pirat:
advanced on the backs of overly broad
a narrower picture of
t ion
fila
necessary subjectivity of
and field of diecourae.
f i le.
fiction
two baste pointa.
films are r e a l l y
arguments
about
to the relation between
have
do
not
the proper
right
that
like C omo l l i need a much narrower concept than
they employ.
III. !q>e>eltioD and !videDee
The f i r e t eection
confusions
over
direct
cine...
direct
cine.a
preauppoa i t ione
and
of
this
nonf i c t ioD
eaaay
film
And though i t ia
brought
these
true
issues
that energize the
proposed
arise
thet
to
from
the
that
current
poleld.cs about
debates
about
a head, ..ny o f the
diacussion
are
deep-rooted
lon�-a tanding.
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
23
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
nDM ll.AL ro UEL: !NTANGI.ED IN NONFICTION YIU1
27
One source of the invention of cinema vae science,
e.�• •
certain breakthroughs i n the development of the a.otion picture
camera resulted from wor� like Marey 'a
in the recording of
Thus, the idea o f filra aa a recording device has been
.o t i o n .
w i t h the medium s i nce i t s inception.
Early detractors dia­
•issed cinema as a mere reproduction or automatic reproduction
of reality.
Thie dismissal was the bite noir of silent
film­
aa\c.era and
file theorists ali\te; in deed and vord they s t r ove
to ahov that fil• could artistically rearrange the world rather
than just
slavishly and mechanically duplicate i t . But with
the i n f l uential w r i t ings of Andre Batin the di alectic took a
new t u r n . 18
The recording aspect of f i l � vae again seen as
central, only t h i s time around it vas
praised aa a positive
virtue rather than chided aa a limitation of the medium.
For
Ba�in, the crucial feature of film is mimetic photography which
is
defined as the automatic re-p1resentation of the world.
!very film image ia a trace o f the pas t .
It is this viewpoint
on the nature of f i l m that leads some of the theoreticians
cited previously to clai• that all f i l m is nonfiction; �
With The Wind yields evidence about Clark Gable insofar as it
For B a % i n , it i a the
re-presents or is a trace of the u n .
nature of fil• to re-present the world.
B a z i n ' a position and i t s various reincarnations face s t i f f
proble•s, which have be e n forcefully stated by Ale�ander
Seaonske, in accounting for fiction f i l m and ani�tion . 1 9
But
the position nevertneleas has a special a t t ra c t i veness for
nonfiction f i lm. The notion of the automatic
reproduction of
reality a6 part and parcel of the essence of fi l m , for e1'a11"tple,
enjoined Caesare Zavattini to envision the ideal
film as a
atorylesa recording of ninety consecutive minutes of a day in
the life of an ordinary ma n . 20
q ue s t i o n , the naivete of the view that the essence
Without
or destiny of
film is to automatically reproduce reality
provoked
the subjectivity and fiction arguments reviewed
already. But the problem with
these responses
is that
in
a t tempting to show that cinema does not automatically reproduce
reality they go too f a r ,
insinuating that cinema can never
faithfully record,
document or bear evidence about the world.
In order t o deal w i t h some of
the problema
that muddy
thinking about nonfiction film i t is profitable to consider the
basic l'llO dea of representation in f i l m . Adopting some of Monroe
we note that each shot in a repre­
Beards l e y ' s
ter�inology, 2 1
sentational
photographic f i l m physically portrays i t s source.
the shots o f Rhett Butler physically
In Gone With the Wind,
portray Clark Gable.
!very shot i n a repres entational photo­
graphic fil� physically portrays i t s source, a definite object ,
that can be named by a
singular ter•· Thia
person or event
i s the point that Bazin is making when he aaya that film repre­
sents the past;
the shots in a representational
photographic
wtlatever our account of representation, physically por­
(Jlm,
persons and events that cauae the image.
If
t ray the objects ,
they
shots
are
only
used
t
o
physically
portray
their
aource
a
,
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
24
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
llOEL CA.HOLL
28
are
recordings
we speak
t rayal
fi l •
of
in the .ast
f i l 11&
in lli n d .
theory
that they
portrayal
essential
or _,st
aource
or
iaportant
of
in a
meaber
but
a
f i r e , a house ,
shot
Gable
White
it
but
House
describable
via
iaportant
about
Thus.
its
it
hammer throwe r .
in a
it
is
an
also depicts
it
iaaa �e
of a particular Ivan.
ieage
for
kinds
source
a pe c i f i c
given
film,
Cable
shot
can
there
coamun i c a t i on
be
what
is an image of a
that
it
it
depict
is
is
an
classes
they can be used
contexts
where
their
is irrelevant.
its
The
shot
i t also
d i f ferent
represented
which
we
than i t a
Rhett
aay
portraying
Butler.
or e d i t i n g .
person,
like
commentary,
use
of
shots.
fiction films.
But
nonfiction f i l m s , even t ho s e o t h e r
uae
of
atock
form
object
an
event
context
onioing
nominal portrayal
Obviously
it
it
is
the
i s a l s o indi spensable in
than
footage,
re-enact-
historical
for instance,
of s t r i k e
breaking in Union Maida or naval bombardaents i n Victory at
i s baaed on ahots
that
depict
apec1.fic eventa the
f i l m diacuases .
1 9 29
that
and
atates
that
Strictly •peaking,
repreaents
tbe
such
Capitol
common
nominally
at
atand
that
also
as
the
auch
accompany
a
soundtrack
a b i l l was passed
19 3 4 .
In
Buildi� .a t a t i me other than
We do not
take
t h i s use
in nonfiction production)
that of
of such a shot
to be a ma t t e r of
the
shot
vas
moment the b i l l was passed -- because we under­
shots can not only be
expos i t i on a l
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
the
FurtheTIDore, a ahot of t h e
might
lying -- unlesa the com�ntary e x p l i c i t l y claims
taken
portray
t h i s is a case o f nominal portrayal since i t
the ..king of the s h o t .
is
Sea,
policemen and battleships so that
they can be contextualized i n order to
C a p i t o l Building taken in
of
occurs
or
to i t s
t i t les,
ln l i i h t of f i l • history,
is the most iaportant
sine qua non of
This
c a l l nominal portrayal,
photographic provenance, due
as a reault of fac�rs
The
physically
d e p i c t s a aa n , and given the context of Gone With
when a ahot represents a particular
(which
a
a
is discursively
it physically portrays b u t
so t o apeak, pries the individual shot from
repres e n t a t i o n .
11e n t s .
depicts
referent and i n doini s o opens u p another p o s s i b i l i t v
The Wind,
story
a
Because f i l m images
of c i n e ma t i c represen t a t i o n .
Clark
and
of a Soviet a t h l e t e , not
in
the
by a general tenn -- a ma n ,
relation t o their e pe c i f ic sources
Depiction,
a man;
Each representat ional
well as phy s i c a l l y portraying i n d i v i d u a l s .
to stand
it6
portrays
is d i s c u r s i v e l y s i g n i f i c a n t about
that
the
Gone With The Wind
context in a way that what
is not what
W11 a t
is
portrays
phys ically
t n Kan With A Movie Camera
depicts.
or that it
also depicts a class
frOl!I
also d e p i c t s a house.
etc.
preaented
as
A
Clark
class
to
t o propose that
physically
f i l � physically portrays i t s
of
When
por­
use.
obje c t s .
portrays
House
the te nll .
is the only use of shot s ,
likewise a shot o f the
White
of
appear
(some s pe c i f i c object or event )
physically
it
soaetimea
the s a me tiae t h a t a f i l m
congeries
shot
sense
The proble• w i t h varioue realist appro�ches
is
phyaical
But a t
basic
as evidence we p r i aa r U y have phy sical
units.
used as
And
recording
nominal
units
portrayal
is
but
the
25
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
nott J.!.AL TO R!:!l.: ENTANGLlD 1 N NONFICTION FILM
representational
practice
that
m>at
facilitates
29
cineeatic
exposit ion.
d i s t i nguishing
By
portrayal
and
between
depict i o n ,
debate& of f i l m theory.
phasi�e
the
portrayal,
agency
the
e s pe c i a lly
invent
deprecation
in
their
a
ehot
be
to
on
imagine,
depict
an
guides
the
The
in
ice
in
it
i a probably
they aeem to be·
portrayal
but
did
they
did
If
editing.
in
not
depict
e x i e t ing
could 11111ke a clean,
cream
nominal
their
only
extreme
At t i ?M s ,
denying
the
in f i l m but a l e o claiming that
to
given
film.
of
110ntagiete
film
ite relationship to
made
overem­
portrayal
proponents
anything
i t e po e i t i o n i n an edited
amount of editing
to
photographic C011tp onent i n f i l m .
physical
can
(depending
hard
the
eome of the great
tend
way editing can function as an
portrayal
enthusiasm,
importance of
the
erred,
of
physical
representation.
nominal
110ntagiata
clarify
are
nominal
portrayal,
theorists
hand,
of
aggressively conceptuali�e
the
can
of
other
for th is type of
not
we
Realist
importance
Hontagi e t s , o n
physical
soda.
whatsoever
s e q ue n ce ) .
But
it
ie
eymbol eyetems,
how
medium long shot
of Lenin
I n f ac t ,
what
a ehot
any
depict&
110nta gi e t ' a selection of vhat shots will be
choeen
to
nominally
portray the
p e r s o ns ,
objecte
and evente
that
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
lly ,
CQQlprise
of
the
f
i
l
m
.
Neverthe
l
e
e
s
,
the subject
the
Soviets
portrayal
use
in
de-emphasi�ing
the
of f i l m than the r e a l i s t theori s t s .
The
distinction
between
d i f ferent
representation aleo enahles
belief&
us
to
on
the
i t does not f o llow that whole
basis
physical
individually
Veidt,
portr a y a l s .
a
film.
and Henreid, b u t
inappropriate
films made up of
Bergman,
it i e not
Raines,
of
On the
do
so
i t s eource.
such
shots
ehote that
Lorre,
a recordin� o f
a record of Bogart
cinea.etic
numbe r
nonfiction
Casablanca ie composed of
portray Boga r t ,
cultural
of
that every ehot phy s i c a l l y portrays
to see Casablanca as
of
110des
characterite
those who c l a i m that every film is
But
are
of physical
the
that sustain conundrums about nonfiction
one hand,
as
importance
we:re 110re right about the direction of
Dalio,
theee people:
in front of a camera is
aa eeeing a Catholic priest
at the Offertory
the Hsse ae a toastmaster.
Arguments
denying
a l s o often proceed frOUl
Theee
the po s s i b i l i t y of o b j e c t i ve nonfiction
overempha s i s
on
portrayal.
theoreticians presup1>0ee that f o r a film to be an objec­
tive nonfiction meana that the film w i l l
trayal
of
ice
of nominal
film.
physical
eourcee.
portrayal
Moreo v e r ,
though
as re-presentations
concept
is
not
or
Thue,
i.e.,
in
of
editing.
begin
por­
suspect any uee
putative
to whole
nonfiction
to
to many
the
portray a l ) ,
filme.
This i s one
nonfiction
theo­
wonder how f i l m s can be said
( p h y s i c a l l y p o r t r a y ) the p a e t ,
Their problem,
ueing the individual e h o t ,
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
physical
i t i e eaey t o think of individual ehots
readily adaptable
genuinely re-present
ellipse&
a
( i n the eenae o f physical
they
a
they immediately
depiction
reason why editing present& problems
rists,
be
in part,
is
given
that
unde r s t o o d as a physical
to
the
they are
portrayal,
26
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
WOEL CAl.IDLL
30
aa
a model
for vhat a nonfiction f i l m should
f i n d a l l t h e candidates vanttn".
the
tntu t t t on· that
paradigm of
The
shot
nonfiction
portrayal
ftl11
of
argu�nt,
type
evidence
of
t n f ormatton
it
that
ta
are to be evaluated
1'hia
to
thta
the sense
phy s i c a l l y
that
the
Portrayal,
1t
does
or
to the standards
are
appropriate
"y key point
aomettmea
to
tn t h t a
forgotten
the aaaerttona
the
portray
presented
that
but
to deny that
about
and
they are used to
ftltAS and f o,ota"e can also be
ahota
within the
f 1 1 � are
all
their aourcea and that t h e i r ae­
aa a reliable
record of
an
event.
aut
type of nonfiction f i l m ta neither the vhole of the genre
nor a prtvtleged or central
aany
In
instance
nonfiction f t l ms ,
it
thereof.
ta tmpoaatble for the viever
to t e l l by looking whether the footage t a
portrayal
the
of
represent,
n oai t n a l
not
drop
1a
tn general they are expos itory,
tn light of
is not
evidential io
auenctng ta
to
not nonf tc�ton tn
cc.mitment
presents.
nonfiction
f i l ms
phy s i c a l
repreaentat.ton
tta
t�portant
used
be t t e r
A ftl• ta
and exposition
regard t a t h a t what t a
make.
then they
portrayal
mixes
ctnel"Utic
doean ' t e•ploy, but tn terms o f
the
physical
and d e p i c t i o n .
terms of t h e modes
of
It would be
aa
and
ctne11attc nonf ict i o n .
typical
nominal
the
be,
objects,
ao we are beat
portrayals.
often present
source,
proffered
advised
to
Howeve r , thta
footage
a
literal
persons and events
as
greet
physical
it purp,orts to
such
images
as
t a not t o a a y that f i l ms do
a
physical
portrayal
of
tta
t.e.,
a s a t r atghtfoIWard recording.
Where foota"e t a
aa a recording i t ta
open
to
ques tions
about
tta
I n t h i s regard
authent i c i t y .
i t t a n o d i f ferent t h a n a n y other
document.
U l t t aa t e l y , some questions
t e niua
what
of
ta
production recorda a nd wttneaaea.
difficult
to
will not
be answerable t n
on the s c r e e n but w i l l require recourse t o
tell
B u t the f a c t that i t c a n
on the baata of
the
be
fil• itself whether or
n o t i t t a a legimete recording does not pose problems
for
the
p o a a t b t l t t y of uatng footage a s a record, atnce there are other
means for authenticating tta ortgt ns .
I n some instances,
f oota"e w i l l be used to provide a record
of a a pe c i f ic event aa
assertion
about
well
as
evidence
the situation it
in
support
refers t o .
ta again open to queations about whether or not
as
well
a a to question.a
the claims
ve
are
it
about whether
ta supposed to support.
shown
an
image
it ta
In
it
to
the
European
1�asion.
hardly
enough
The
back of
a
Where
sequences
aa
of
reliable
open to dispute;
tn
depicts some
But
this
ta
footage
ta authen t i c .
a r e s p l i ced together and are
recordings
authenticity arise a g a i n .
challenged
f rteze
chariot.
to
apaceahtpa
to substantiate f a�tltartty w t t h interplanetary
apace vehicles, even tf the foota"e
presented
for
Chariot of the Goda
of a Mexican f rteze that ta meant
whooshes sculpted onto the
an
ta authentic
good evidence
persuade u s that Central Americans had knowledge of
prior
of
Here the foota�e
of
events,
q ue a t t ona
of
The way the footage t a edited can be
be
edited
recording
aa&y
the adequacy of an
tents
of
w t t neaaea
and,
Published by Digital Commons
@Brockport,by
1983 a review of the out-take s .
contexts,
aa
occurs
in legal
27
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
ROH llAL TO REEL:
In
ENTANC1.£D I N NONFICTION FI LH
short� whether a nonfiction fil•
t ional
and
uses
foota�e
its
is
primarily
responsible
though
in
to
establi shed
the l a t t e r ca se
criticism
if
be
is
of o b j e c t i v i t y ,
open
to
further
the shared rhetoric of
the
defense
direct
cinema.
claims
vill
it
portrayal,
standards
the fil�
i l l i c i tly
it
e�posi­
to ne>minally portray events or
�hether it presents its footage as physical
still
3l
i t s footage i s a physical
portrayal of i t s s ubj e c t .
Iv.
of
A Digreaeion:
�alie• a nd Nonf i c t i on
So f a r , l have stressed
deep-focus
realis� -- the cine11)3tic s t y l e o f Renoir and the
Neorealists, advocated by B a z i n -- and that of
Indeed
a
recent
antholo�y,
shifts seamlessly
realism.
pieces
ctne11)3, of course,
of
on
nonf i c t ion
and
of
is
one
adopted
ctnema-ve r i te
Bazin ' s ) conceptions of
movement
Real i s m and the Cineiua,
of
and
fra�ing. of the
impression
there
that
is
a
of
style
i mPortance
of
style
deep-focus
encoura�es spectators
co ns t ruct i o n
relaxed
to
so
Directorial
.
re a lism
practi­
(and
carnera
of
of
practice gives
between one style
of
that
of
link
to nonf ict i o n f i l m
is defended because
participate
actively
more
for e xamp le
control
,
in
it
the
the style
appe a rs
to
be
the spectator appe a rs free to assimilate the
that
succession of imagery i n h i s
real i s tic
realism
on
The interplay
i n virtue
of meaning i n a f i l � than,
f i l mmaking
of montage
link
filmtb9king is more appropriate
than any o t h e r .
The
that
times
adapted Renoi r ' s
the value of spontaneity. 2 3
f ilmmaking and truthfulness, and
one
at
pieces
influence;
t he theory of deep-focus realism and documentary
the
to
The relation between the d e ep-focus s t y l e of
and d i rect
t ioners
fr�
because
it
is
own
vay.
anal ogous
This freedom
to the kind of
is
c&lled
choic·e and
inf or­
freedom ve e �p eri en ce when we scan everyday reality for
about
how
things
stand.
Purportedly, this s t y l e of
mation
realism enables us to make up our own minds rather than molding
the vorld according to the f ilm!IMlker1a preconceptions .
course ,
tion&
the notion of presenting the vorld
is
c i n ema .
Yet,
idea
that
the
style
of deep-focus realism i s
truthful or has a special potential for
is
problema t i c .
No
guarantees t r u t h .
And, of
preconcep­
alluring to the practit ioner of di re ct
particularly
the
without
cinematic
re-presenting
technique
in
and
For any f i l m technique o r s e t of
reality
of i t s e l f
techniques
can
appear
in
either
a
fiction
or
nonf ict ion f i l m .
Some
t e chniques may be h i s t o r i c a l l y associated
vith
docu-menta r t e s ;
but
they
ca n
always be incorporated f o r expressive effect i n
f i c t i o ns , e . g . , grainy,
i n fact ,
fast film stock.
is a n en&emble of techniques
Deep-focus
realism,
that coalesced 1n fiction
f i l m s , a s t range place f o r a s t y l e that i s truth-preserving
to
evolve.
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
28
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
•OEL CAbOU
32
The confuaion between realisa and
ariaconception
of
"hat
making real i s t i c .
or
a
style
it
In m:>at
real i s t i c ,
as a t r a ns - h i s t o r i c a l
f i l • or
f i l m style
deep-focus
style
is
real i s t i c ,
to
fore..os t ,
a
between
film­
a
fil�
then
it
is
in
any
is
don't
a
a pe c t a tor
ti o ns .
not
have.
realistic
simple
first end
it
points
is
to
call
of multi-plane
aeries
d i f fers
for
exampl e ,
compositions that
induce the
for d r a ma t i c
from
the
type
details
the soft-focus of Hollywood
wrealis�· m&rka
The term
"realism· used t o do
poa s i b i l i t y
is
the marking?
by
inhibited
and
i n f lec­
of compo s i t i o n found in
Soviet montage or in
than
cor­
f i l 11S , p a i n t i n g s , nove l s ,
films
Rules o f the Game,
to s c a n the frame
This
atyle,
s
a representation and r e a l i t y .
thirtie s .
a
to
this s t y l e .
to aotle f e a t u r e t h a t the i t e • s i n q u e s t i o n have that
fil 10
employs
employ
medium
the
to r e a l i t y ,
committed
to
any
1!
Renee.
r e a l i s m designates a style and i n this role
a t tention
thought
denominatinfi'
corresponds
urged
a two-term
Realism is
to r e a l i t y .
d i f f e rence between �ontrasting
other
t o signal
inclusively
To c:.a l l a f i l m o r a group of
etc.
of
f i l mma k e r i s
he
realism i n f i l m o r
But
relationship
to
reality,
a
style
taken
that corresponds
in
if an author calls
r eality.
category
a nd i ns o f a r a s t h e nonf i c t i o n
r ea ponding
is
f i l m and
�rounded
to consider a
writing,
this
relationship between the
of
means
truth i s
this
fillU
contrast.
Because
of
the
But why i s
spectator
scanning,
Soviet montage or the soft-focus
taken to be more like our nortl81 perceptual
behavior
our reaction to the composition i n alternate s t y l e s .
deep-focus r e a l i s m does not
correspond to r e a l i t y .
But
Rather
it
i a more lfke some a s pe c t s o f r e a l i t y when compared t o alternate
approaches
to
f i l 111m11 k i n g .
A film or f i l m
atyle
is
r e a listic
�hen it deviates f r om other & 'l)t! c i f ie d f i l m s o r atyles i n s u c h a
" aY that the deviation can be construed as like aome aspect
of
reality
that
was
hitherto repressed or merely absent
vious filDs or f i l m s t y l e s .
between
f ilms
Realism i s not a
f i l as and t h e world but a relation o f contrast bet�een
Given t h i s ,
it
is eaay to aee
Film Realism -- no trane-historical
Rather
there
are
aeveral
realiam which because of
tatian
life
Hol lywood
deviated
narratives
action
grounde d .
of
in pre­
relation
that ia interpreted in virtue of analogies to aspects
reality.
cl.aaa
simple
and
its maaa hero and
the
in such a way
l ow e r
class
reality
in
filQ.
Ita
variety
details
that
·realiamM ia
historical
a
arrival
realism
term
whose
comparisons,
it
had
aspects
did
of
prole­
been
dimension
force us to atop
recognize
that
introduced .
Because
u l t i ma t e l y
involves
application
should mot
reality,
were fore­
another
not
be used unprefixed -- we
s ho u l d
apeak of Soviet realiam, Neorealia�,
Super
realiam.
Kitchen
Sink
and
None o f these developments s t r i c t l y correspond
to or duplicate r e a l i t y ,
a s 'l)t! c t s of reality absent
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
film.
of
l i v i n g condi tions,
realistic but o n l y to
of
in
There i a Soviet
individualism and glamour of
Deep-focus realiam empha s i z e d yet
calling the Soviet f i l • s
another
atyle of r e a l i s �
ty'l)t!s o f realiam.
from
of
that there i s no single
but rather 1111 ke pe r t inent
from other a t y l e a .
(by analogy )
Furthet"lll o re, once
29
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
nDM l.l.Al. TO lt.!El.:
there
ia
correct
for
w e abandon t h e correspondence conception o f r e a l i s m ,
no
reason
to
presuUlle
33
ENTANGl.ED IN NONFICTION P I J.)(
that
one
cineaetic s t y l e
ia
a l l nonfiction f i l • .
T h i s ia not
espousal
of
U10vement .
the
far reaching.
the screen vas
apont aneous
redefined,
play of
like Warrendale,
of
regiae
de n y
importance
Renoir/Bazin
freedom
tive
may
aakin� a
sive
cinema ' s
choice
in
were
ua
(and
role in relation to
ua
the
act ive
to
decide
In
and
a film
whether
the
barbaric and irresponsihle, on
caring on the other.
the spectator and
The
ita precond i t i o n ,
evaluation on the part
of
rela­
the
rela­
the
film­
suggest one se1\8e of objectivity - - namely that of
-- i n fact
t i v i t y , not
of
that
And
egalitarianism,
direct
flourish.
But this
h i s t o r i c a l l y liberal -- concept of
an epistemic o n e .
emblem
s i xties,
this
place where a l l opinions �ay
political
direct
judRment and decision.
left up to
slackening of overt
aake r,
of
s pe c t a t o r ' s
i n s t i t u t i o n is
of
of
o f deep-focus and caaera
encouraging
opinion,
it is
that
The
the one h a n d , or curative and
tive
ethos
The expressive e f f e c t s
are)
still
to
t he
cinema ' s
indeed
it
is
as
an
is
a
objec­
expres­
a major preoccupation o f
the
adoption of the Bszinian creed i a
.aat signific ant .
V.
Concluding General JletMrlta
My overall atrate�y
there
raises uniOue
I
have
problems
constantly
writing
in order
inevitability
e.tc . .
in
larRer
to
it
the
h8B
e � i s t ing
adapted
ma\e
cine.a.
a s nonfiction.
the
process
of
therefore,
criteria
p r o j e c t s that
By
that
for
film
is p a r t of
film,
a
perhaps
incorporatinR
concerns.
Cinema bas been
drama and to .ake art a s
in short,
and
pre­
d i s covers i t s e l f i n
assimilating
goals and values.
applying
to the broader
or
previoualy
Understanding
the
concepts
older
cultural
urging t h i s perspective I a� �oing against the g r a i n of
e l u c i d a t i ng
film
what
is
theory w h i c h centered on d i scovering
unique
essent i a l l y ) cinema t i c .
the
s pe c i a l
to
The
processes
film -- what
notion
of
v a r i a t i o n , though a negative one,
rather
the
cinema m i me s .
traditional
from
believe
often depends o n
appropriate
way
115nipulation,
here,
and
e n l i s t ing
1a0at
in so�
approach,
to make
for•e,
fil�.
invented w i t h i n living memory,
The medium,
es tabli shed structures ,
that
imitating and
practices
that
f i l m w i t h nonfiction
special probleu
I
medium,
narrative,
well
film,
Hy
argue
of nonfiction
selection,
produce
primarily by
cultural
to
of
to
film as a medium that
notion
the charge
nonfiction.
of
been
to
non f i c t i o n
1110 des
is a recent
has developed
much
essay
the
answer
to cinema
conception
because
for
compared
to
of
endemic
regard
and
in this
i s nothing s tie c i a l or essential
than
outlinin� f i l m ' s
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
the
on
that
ia peculiarly
sub,jectivity
f i l m medium
this
ia,
and
(and
flows
in f a c t ,
tradit ional
a
theae;
peculiar, positive potent i a l ,
it
30
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
llOEL CMIOLL
34
wane
on
to acknowledge
the
f i l • ' • s pe c i a l
nonfiction
film,
in
contradi stinction,
ai>ecial epistemological problems result
f eaturee
of
which
are
derivative
?O•ition
ie
the
that no
distinctive
On the ieaue of the essential nature
the me d i u � .
and
aub.1ect
according to the categories
draae,
fr Otll
I hold that fil• hae no e e e e n ce, only
fil•,
of
My
limitations.
ueee,
�at
of
to analysis and evaluation
that apply
to
their sources
art,
�
narrative, nonfiction, and a o o n .
I n �phaeizing t he relatedness o f f i l m to
l
proj ec t • ,
a�
not
clai•ing
that
between film and the other media
pursued
but
only
a r t , or nonfiction,
s t i tutionalized
in coaprehending film aa,
film
and
ti..e
film.
and the reve l a t i o n of
would be d i f f i c u l t ,
a
vorde,
t o duplicate in w r i t t e n accoun t s .
thousand
thou�h, of
can do the work of a
if not
the
the
Rather
cinet1a.
in
inter­
!�ung Buah'9en i n
Sometimes
a picture i a worth
course, ao11eti11ea a single word
The upshot of
this
is
categorically belong to cinema and some to
unique
There i e no subject
the
igloo
language e nd that these can be antecedently plotted
lishing
vivid
practically impos s i b l e ,
thousat\d pictures.
not that some topics
the
the i n t i .. te
the
in­
Stone W e i r ,
the construction of
The Hunters
those
than questions
Undoubt edly,
econcray and society of
are
for example,
of
process in Piehing a t
immediate i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of
the North,
fra 111e vorka
are more fundamental
aa
cultural
projects
conceptual
portrayal
Nanook of
those
that
endeavor&
play of the rhyth�.
in which
the
about the nature of
of
larger
there are no d i f ferences
potentials
or lieitat ione
or project that
some films fail
is
and
Or
theae
a t t e111 pta.
ia a ma t t e r of
not of
unique features of the 11edium that
adverse
do not.
they
estab­
the medium.
inherently
others
be a r t i s t i c , objective, d r a ma t i c , e t c .
B u t thie
by
of
to
Films can
can
fail
in
individual caaee and
dictate
failure
in
advance.
To
underscore
enterprieee
for
f i l m '•
ita
indebtedneea
film theory.
how the f 11• medium is able
larger
cultural
broader
there
to incorporate
f ramevorke
that
ie
an
tion?
furthe�re,
98aa.
like a r t ,
of
aa
axpreaaion
whose
theoriata to illuminate.
of
direct
film
it
ie
develops,
nonfiction and
cine.a,
and
heir
i•plement
to.
operation
of
communica­
pursuing the
narrative,
i t ie
At certain juncturee1
it
not
that
have a
and
the task
like
the theoriat muat unravel and c l a r i f y .
But
aet by i t a
And
the
rhyme
topic of f i l m theory.
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
of
the
easential
of
of
new
film
riee
a nd
twent ieth
film­
Fil• does
poe&ibi l i t iea
it does have a unique history a e
uaed to articulate the enterprises of
ture.
ai111S
evolves
the onset of nev e ty l i a t i c option• precipi­
unique destiny,
limitationa.
the
For examp l e ,
tate• a dialogue or dialectic vtth tradit ional forms
••king
important
Queatione s t i l l re..ain about
hov does narrative e d i t i ng function a a a system
project•
cultural
..arching orders and to abandon the quest
for the cinematic is n o t to deny that
area of etudy called
to
century
it
ie
cul­
reason wi thin t h a t process is the
31
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
F&OM I.EAL TO I.EEL:
VI.
EllTAHCLEO IN NOHPICTION Fll.M
35
Poetacript: Miacelleneooe ArgQ m!!nta
S i n ce t h i s article vas completed several
the
art:umrnts
I
encountered before, or which I had forgotten.
three of the arguments briefly
review
I v i l l approach tvo of t he arguments
Stephen
Heath's
influen t i a l ,
Cineaa.
The quotation pertains
f11aa .
Heath be l i eves
by
to making historical nonfiction
a
present
such
f i l ms
standpoi n t ,
always
trapped
now
the
p a s t that such f i l ms "8aquerade
Z)
and
history
in
representation,
c1neaaa
the
la
the
fila;
no, f i l m la not a
its
actual
of
as-theme,
me mo ry , '
la
film
the complex
as
an
idealist
always
social
is
and
recover
an
The present
just
as
the
the
past
today •
I
As
�
• • •
past,
a
an elaboration
conBtruction
4
have already noted,
in
of
ideal
of
history
the
the
a
le
fact
presence
present,
there are at
the
'popular
alvaya p1reaent - a fact of representation not a
of
to
fil�
abstraction,
historical,
the
ahown today,
to
and an ideal of history.
is
of
of
be
past to
of
Which
conjunction
of
and
respect
cine-ma developed
a
present of any
of i t s e l f
in
than in
representing
representation.
t h a t t h e automatic
strategy for
other
of
historical
situation
i ne t 1tut1one
history
nowhere
document
cinematic i nB t i t u t ion and of
film
fact
Heath writes:
l e t'll a
precisely
proposed,
of
the
portraying
as
needs particularly to be emphasized here ie
What
say
determining
because such historical f 1las are in
merely constructionB of the p a s t .
that
while
are
the needs and
the
�
distorts
perforce
in
conc:ernB of
truthfully
which
Historical
picture
of
such f1lll\8
nonfiction
because they are trapped in
1)
films cannot achieve such a goal
in
qu
it i s an idealist fallacy if
hetweneutic circles � i . e . ,
to
�aaining a passage
book
e e t t ons of
recent
p r e t e nd to d e p i c t the past accurately.
locked
would li�e
because they are auch in
use at p r es e n t .
fro•
against
attention which 1 had not
fil• have come to my
nonfiction
of
for
least two arguments
in this denee passage. One of these holds that the research e r ' s
point-of-vi ew ,
rooted
accurate vi� of
of
a
as
it
the p a s t .
type with which
f1l1UW1kera who make
we
This
is
in
the
present , blocks an
is an argument
are elready faai l i a r .
historical
f1las
select
from
selection
Historians and
and
interpr e t .
They screen out certain facts and connect others. t n doin� this
screening out,
this selection and this interpretation,
�overned by the interests of the present.
give
us are
skewed
not
replicas
the pest
representations of the p a s t ,
issues of the present.
because
of
ve
they are
the f1lae they
but are perspectively
.indelibly imprinted by the
Moreov e r , ve are eaanared in such views
have no access to the past
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
Thus�
eave
through the optic of
32
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
36
"O!J. CARIOLL
the present.
past
fro.
The historical
the
concerns
fil mma ker offers
of
evidence for these theses on
present .
Coun t e r v a i l i �
conce r ns ,
the
will
Past.
We
f ilms really
anything e l s e .
are
tation
is
past
fro�en
reflect
is
We
accurately
preoccupations
.ode
f i l ms are not su�posed
take
little
history
be
not
to
do
the consequences of
restricted
ical
to be replicas
i n 1919
in his
not
as
opposed
to connect
unaware of.
If so,
H i s tory
for
the p a s t .
failed t o foresee
make
the
appropriate
-- aa
to argue
that
and
actions
to
consequences
the actions were of t e n
opposed t o chronicl ing - -
between events
actors.
the
histor­
is
and in many cases
about
the l a t e r
events be i n g connected to e a r l i e r events a r e unbekn01imst
history even if
then
replicas.
to mere records -- in general are
past events
connections
hiatortcal
seen,
ctneeatic account of the rise of
I n f a c t ve � i g h t even want
that the historical a�ents who performed
Making
such
were
the stern terma of the treaty does n o t mean
conne ctions
films
argumen­
to the purview of
that a nonfict ion f i l �maker sl�uld
expected
than
to be a replica of the
vtth
Juat becauae t h e A l l i e s a t Versailles
Third R e i c h .
more
Would it have to be a representation of the
history c l e a r l y has
cauaal
the
present
retrieve
of
events
depicted
exactly
as
they
past and past
experienced
a nd
cogni%ed by peoples in the past?
need
to
in the present and our historical
Indeed, vhat i t would
unclear.
sensitive
cannot
contemporary
that historical
the
of
of the concerns
not
t o be •de a g a i n s t this
The f i r a t point
of the pas t .
the ba s i s
evidencep
be overlooke d .
theses about
the pr�ent and alao s e l e c t s his
t o the
This does n ' t d i s q ua l i f y a f i l � as accurate
the
film i a not a mysterious a.omething called a
replica.
I f hiatory i s a ma t t e r of making connections between events
and
if
of ten
earlier
events
present . we have a t i l l not
necessarily
mired
in
a r e connected to events
ahown
the
that
historical
episte11M>logically· suspect
For even t f peat events are aelected and
events
in
line with present concerns ,
the claim& made by histories
atantiated
on
occupations.
that
the
grounds
Whatever causal
and
combined
it
they
films
satisfy
other
are
sub­
present pre­
events
a historical f i l m purports must be suppor ted by evidence.
of the present.
a historical c l a i m .
Only evidence w i l l support
a historical film makes.
available
Nor i s i t
to ua 1a the evidence
our present i n t eres t s .
find
present .
with
connections or threads of
S a t i s f y i t1${ the needs
to.
are
is not the case that
historical
that
in the
filma
such
evidence
that h as
tbat
as our present
warrant
whatever claims
true that the only evidence
ve vill aele�t because
For even i f on our own
there is nevertheless a vast
evidence
that t s , does not
we
could
of
only
needs and concerns guide us
accumulation
of
unavoidable
been bequeathed t o us by past generations of
historians whose ·present• interests led them to amass the many
details
that
must gibe with.
circles
our
historical accounts -- f i l aae d or written
(Moreove r . I aust a l s o object
notwithstanding -- that
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
it
i s possible
-­
he nneneutic
for researchers
33
Vol. 14 [1983],IN
No. 1,
Art. 1
YIOH UAL roPhilosophic
t.!!L:Exchange,
ENTANGLED
NOMFICTION
FIL.M
to
imaginatively
transcend their ties
present
ti-s
dif ferent
The
and
aecood
of
films
are
tions.
vith
argu�nt
found
i n the Reath paaaa�e doe& not
said
the
to be constructions,
fact
that
nonfiction
jective
films
film
of
thia,
repre9entations
constrvctions
• � entails
• •
that
do
mask
thought
not
be
a
they
deception
it
t a t iona
that
avant-�ard e ) .
t i o ns .
i t ia
vety
what!"'
One
are
What
a90unta
popular
a
ia,
among
All
ia
true.
itself.
Thia
unless
they
this mean?
ia:
of
the
All f i l ms are construc­
one
asks.
·rather
ia unde rscored.
things
like
t e l l normal
it
Of
course,
ia ao obvious that one wonders why
f i l tll8
do,
in
fact,
trip
to such and
the
the
t i t l e cred i t s ,
(as
eeein�
occur ,
wouldn ' t
advertiae.en t s , reviews, e t c .
i f they normally
the nonfiction films
f il•
refer to the
such a mountain village
But e v e n where this does not
viewers
than
"'rather than the very events - his­
nonfiction
the arduous
ac­
Godardian
process of production vhich resulted in the f i l m we are
e .g . ,
ia
contemporaty
to be made - acknowledged - within
Often
be ob­
nonfiction
constructions by �arut of represen­
doe&
Indeed,
point has
a
films including
torical or otherwise -- that the film represen t s . this
ia
deception.
t o f alaification.
f a l a i f i ca t i ona
·construct ions , "'
answer
is
they are constructions
to the f i l m ( i n the .. nner
said.
internally
construc t i o n .
is somewhat ob8cure.
they
intet'l\al
ccabination
d o not
That
that
are
that
nonfiction films are seen as
knowledge
in
- .. . . . no f i l m
that a film
acknowledge
Though t h i s argument i s
theori s t s ,
general .
this sort necessarily could not
the fact that
to
in
apecif1ca1·1y representa­
because i t i s necessarily a l i e .
by
there
such
t h e i r status u
document of i t s e l f •
film
to nonfiction&
W i t h i n conte•porary film theory,
acknowledge
that
con­
d i fferent cultures ) .
apply only to historical f i l .s but
the
to
of the past froa a l t ernative viewpoints - both those of
ceive
A
to the
37
needed
to
be
told)
in q ue s t i on are constructions?
that i a ,
ia i t neceasa1y to represent
proceaa
of the f i l � • s
or
to
Why,
acknowledge
construction within the f i l m i t s e l f ?
the
It
simply i s not the case - a s aome f i l m theorists might hold
that
viewers
take
films
without
such acknowled�nts to be
something other than construct ions .
pointed
out,
such
films
construction of a team of
of
production
like
And ,
fil..akera
e d i t ing
1Rans
a film aa a cons truction or a production,
that mo a t films have been produced
the
revealed
filas
supposedly
but that
have
- who employed
by
When many contemporary film theorists,
fact
1
aa
already
conve ntionally announce they are the
of
like Heath,
proceaaea
cred i t s .
refe r to
they have in mind not
by a team of
mask and which
the
filmmakers
- a
-.Jat be reflexively
films are constructed by spectators
�o
make sense out of the f i l ms .
SometitRes this process of making
25
sense
ia called auture.
Thia suturing is unacknowledged or
not represented
within the f i l m .
t h a t this aspect of the
s pe c t a t o r .
loom.
Aga i n ,
film'a
the charges of deception and
The spectator thinks the
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
Conse q ue n t l y .
i t is thou�ht
construction is hidden from the
f a l a i fication
film mekes aenae when in fact
34
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
18
IO!J. CUIOLL
the spectator ..kea (or construc t s ) aenae Oc.J t of the fil•. An
edited nonf iction fil• like Turkaib 1• conatructed bT the spec­
tator comprehending the "mEaniog of and ukiog connectione be­
tween the shots in t he fUa. HO'feve r , the fil• doe• not acknc:M­
ledge that the spectator ts performing this operation. There­
fore, the f .1 1 • l i n , deceptively ••king that it ia • construc­
tion. 'nle f i l • ' • veracity 1a called into question because the
f i l • doea not reaind the spectator - thrOc.Jgh ao• proceaa of
representation inteT"n.41 to the file � that he 1• deciphering
the ••ning of the f i l a .
Thi• argu•nt aee.. t o rely on a false dichotoay,
vi� . ,
either the fil• construct• it• ••niog, or the spectator doea.
It ia alao •••u•d that if
the spectator'•
interpretive ac­
tivity, hie suturing, ia not eaphaaized by the fila, then the
fil• deceptively insinuates that the film, not the spectator,
ta constructing ita ••ning. Sut clearly it .ia inappropriate
t o hold that there ia • univocal aense to the phraae ·construct
meaninR• auch that ve •u•t decide • coepetition between .u­
t ua l l y exclusive alterna tives euch •• "'either fil• or specta­
tor• construct ••ning, but not both.• A film is ••ningf u l ,
intelligible, e t c . in virtue o f i t a structure.
That t a , the
arrange•nt of it• .a teriala deterainea whether it ha• aucceaa­
f ully ·conatructed meaning· in what ve can think of •• the
•••age aenee of that phrase.
The apect11tor, in turn, in rea­
to
·cons truct ••ning � where
ponae to the film might be said
thia eignifiee the operation of • cognitive proceaa.
We •ight
c a ll thie the eeeeage-uptake eea.e of the phras e .
Thua, it ta
ca11patible
for the file to appear ••ningf ul -- to be the
eource of ••ning - while i t reuim for • a,pector to iapute
••ning to the f il• by mobilizing a cognitive proceaa. That
the fil• ie •aningfully structured doea neither preclude nor
the fact
that • spectator actively derives ••ning from
hide
the fila, i . e . , ·conatructs meaning• (according to thia 11e>de of
apeakin g ) .
And surely every spectator knows that aeantng in
the aense of the spectator'• recognition of meaning
(i.e.,
me•••ge-uptake) require• • s pe c t a t o r ' • discerning and compre­
hending the structure of • f ila. That i a , •the construction of
meaning , · where that refer• to the experience
via co�nitive
prooeaaing -- of intelligibility, obviously haa • specta tor'•
So why auat thia be acknowledged within the film?
portion.
Moreover, the legitimate though different and ca11patible aense
of
·meani� construction· (the meaaa�e aenee), which refers to
the structure or arrangement of • film'• .. teriala, doe• not
iaply that the apectator•a cognitive proceaaing of meaoing ta
in any way effaced or hidden.
I
waa reminded of
the final argument against nonfiction
f ila while watching the recent movie Lianna by writer-director
John Saylee.
In thia film, there ta • portrayal of • college
cineu claaa, c i r ca ,
it aeems to me ,
1970.
The lecturer
repeat• • point that wee • popular slogan in regard to docu­
mentary film in the aixtie• and early seventies. He notes that
quantua phyaiciata discovered that by observing aub-atoaic
--
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
35
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
P"IOM If.AL TO
OKI.:
events they changed C h e course of
by
introducing
situation.
a
is
the
events
lecturer
ta
that
e q ua l l y to the act
for
then
of f i lming
moreover,
just
f i l •ing
one
alvaya
i n& tance
hum.ans .
of
in
tion
behavior
must
alter
the
a
of
law
felt
it
d�astically
law
of
a t the sub-atomic
and mode of expe r i e n c e .
fact,
pable
this
howeve r ,
physical
level,
18 noc
J:'or t h e
the
effect
of observation
every
objecc
every person
so
them.
its
Thus,
the
the
in 11&ny cases
used
physical
resulted
unaware that
far away or
it
to
away
on
hid­
i s observing
repercussions.
habituated
Or perhaps
the camera ' s pres­
and j u s t
the
sub­
does n ' t modify
can be offered
his
the camera ta nearby.
to show that
this
on particles
claim.
in some
i n qtl.9ntum
For even
if
physical cha.ngea
unaware
change
frocn the vay i t vould have been
Nor can the d i s c overy of
of
camera
in
the preaence
change a s i tuation at
of
of
a
acroea
fact
the alley­
that a bat­
denying that the
change
it.
I
am
camera mu s t necessarily
the level of human behavior and that the
car&eraa must
f r am d i s c overies
tvo
I am not
a s i t u a t i o n might
of a
b o t h that
the s i t u a t i o n ,
t h e i r behavior despite the
presence
mechanics be
the
in
their vay.
had
the physical
the presence of
the private eye
tery of cameras is pointed
claim that
i n f l uence on
i t need n o t have an influence
other reasons
of observation
adulterous lovers
denying
f r o • t h e phys i ca l
that
the event
to suppor�
way w i l l not
Bue
the a r g u me n t .
to raise about
does n ' t c a r e
camera be e � absent .
camera
pal­
the presence of an observing camera does not nec­
ceaaarily change
eff ecta
level.
level.
subject a c t s naturally as a resul t . "aybe
These and hundreds of
that
little
macroscopic
no behavioral
ca.era is
because he
can be
!UCroacopic
The camera 11&y be very
emotionally carried
the
to every level
i s hypothe9ized
the
a
But even t f a
ject
behavior
as
behavioral e f ­
ence and
is
observed
holds
o n the people i t f i l me .
subjects are
it has
the subject of
t o every
presence
by e x t rapola t i �
vicinity.
i � films .
that
our
is,
Observa­
ta
whatever
aome a l UtO s t i nd e t e c t able
in i t s
be
eans
o n a n atom t o a putative
a calll! ra has
camera did have
applies
univ e r s e .
it
atom
Thia
an observer has
the
damning point
mo s �
a r g ,naen� proceeds
f e c t that
den,
at a l l on
e•a•p l e .
No f i l e can
that
since
the presence of
effect
fil•.
i s typically.
level applies
is also always f e l t drastically on
In
for
whatever
that
Therefore,
on the atomic
to
the a i t u a t i o n
events.
the physical
Thia argument dubiously assuaea
ma t t e r
it
as
changes
a s pe c t and order of � ing
thac
the obeervation o f the
o b j e c t i v e -- i . e • • can render an even�
camera --- because
the
to c•pture
applied
the c a me r a ,
rules
into
i n Lianna c l a i 11& 1
i n t roduced i n t o a s i t u a t i o n �
principle
39
they were s t u d y i ng
the s i t u a tion i t s t rives
People be g i n t o behave
changes.
applies
the
alters
the
necessary d i sturbances
Thia generalization
ca .e r a
T hu s ,
shows,
always
objectively.
Once
unforeseen but
Science
o bs e rv a t i o n
IN NONFICTION Fl �
!.NTANGLED
the
change human
behavior can be gleaned
physical ef f e c t a
of
observation upon
a t o 11& .
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
36
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
40
"O!l. CJIROLL
1'0T!S
1.
2.
Thie argument vas ..de fr 011 the floor at
the conference,
·pu 111 ,
the False Sociology , · at New York Unive t" s i t y 11 1 9 8 0 .
Michael Ryan,
·Mi l i tant
Documentaty: Hai-68 P a r Lui , · i n
Cine-tracts, n o . ? / 8 .
On pages 1 8 - 1 9 Ryan vrites
What Mai 68 demonstrates is that even 'natural '
life ia highly technological, conventional and
inati­
tuional.
Ita content and for� is detetmined by the
technology of langua�e and symbolic
representation.
The so-called natural vorld of Hai 68 i s as •uch a
c o ns truct as any fict ional object .
For
example,
the
various
actions
o f the
d i f ferent
groups
involved
in
the
events
vorke rs,
stude n t s ,
police,
union hacks, e t c . -- all
f a l l beck upon vhat can be called a
' scenari o . '
that
ts
hi�hly
over-determined set
of
cenacious and
uncoTl8cious prescriptions,
inscribed
in
language ,
1DOdes
of
behaviour,
forms
of
though t ,
role
models, clothtng, moral codes, e tc . , vhich give
rise
t o and mark out the limits
of vhat happened and vhat
vould have happened
in
May
1968.
There was an
unvritten
rule
that the students vould not use
arms .
Li�evise,
the vorkera
could not stot"Vl the
National Assemb l y .
Otherv1ee, the rule forbiddin� the
police from 1111> v ing them
all dovn vould have been
legitimately
forgotten.
The homes of the bourgeoise
vere not to be broken i n t o .
The ba t t l e was to be
li•ited
t o the streets and the factorie s ,
the pre­
scribed
scenes
of revolution.
The city was not
t o be aet on fire • • • •
Limita on action are detetmined by,
among
other
things,
role-giving concep t s .
The concept ( i n con­
junction v i t h the reality)
·police� determine& the
behaviour
of
the men hired to carry
out
that
epithet • • • ,
The role of
'fict ional ' con11 t ructa i n deter­
•ining
'real '
h isto ry
ia most clear in tet'lll e of
t ne t itutions and of lacwuage • • • •
the events of Hai 6 8 t he n ,
even i f they can,
a l a li-1te, b e called a real referent, are theruelvee
as
a play of representations. T1hey are
c o ns ti t u t ed
real, but not 'natural ' and uncontrived.
Rietory, but
a history which i a constructed. At the l i m i t of non­
f i c t ion i a another fonn o f f i c t i o n , just as
the goal
or limit of fiction
(in
film} i s a seemingly non­
fict ionalized event • • • •
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
37
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
FIOH Ill.Al.. TO U EL : !l'ITMCU:D IN NONFICTION Fll.M
My
po i n t ,
histoI� and
then,
posedly renders
is
by repreaent at1ons .
to
be
is
objective
histot'ica l .
r ed u c i n� f i c t ional
that
fact
the presence
vhich
i t a e l f cOt1priaed
F i c t i onal
Thie
be
Marxi s t ideology-critical m>ment
that
the supposedly natural
fil�
c.an be
complex
aet
vhose
ende d. -
3.
2,
of
reference
Christian Ket�,
No.
one
regi11te,
she
another
Sarah
Sarah Bernhard t .
speeches
Michael Ryan,
-- p o l i t i c a l ,
1
it
aocial ,
11 n g u i s t i c
is open­
Vol.
16,
t he theater
and
rejected
the
figurative
But
a t any
Phedre or
i n a type
would
if
the
play
of lllO d ern theater,
that
1 should see
rate,
be her shadow that would be
them
a f i c t ion f i l m . "
A C r i t i c a l H i s t ory
(New
1973).
·"Hili tant
when
Documentar y . "
examined
closely,
of each other such that
terms
other).
become each other
Thie
te t'11l s .
In
is a f un c t i o n of
Of Grammato logy,
r o o t , which is not
and
a
-At
Derri d a t s conc�?t of d i fferance holds
opposites
the
show
fiction.
( o r she would be offering
Nonfiction F i l m :
traces
to
he w r i tes
Evet-y f i l m is
Dutton and C o .
5.
is
non-fictional
in
her
Keran Barsam attributes t h i s view t o Andrew S a r r i s
Richard
in
as
the
The
At the cinema she could ma k e two kinds of
but
offering them to me
4.
this moment
referent of
to the other i n history
pe r i o d
Bernhardt.
too,
ovn absence ) .
is
the analya i s .
phy s i c a l ,
On page 4 7 ,
she might s a y ,
is
geature of
It
•the Iaaginary S i g n 1 f i e r , · Screen,
summer 1 9 7 5 .
from
of
preaentatio ns
conceptua 1 1
Sarah Bernhardt may t e l l me she is
were
the
i t s e l f d e s c r i be d as a kind of
imt itutional,
sup­
of and constituted
documentary.
decoNitructive equivalent of
o f real
docunientary
representation is ehovn
would
f i l m to
41
which
but
with
the
d i f ference,
have
d i f f�rance ,
except
strategically
could
is
philosophy . •
University
01 r i g i n
writes
unmonotonous
Press,
to
say
Jacques
Gayati Chakravorty Spivak
1974),
defines d i f ferance as
absence.
collapses
p.93.
"a s t ructure
as
of
the
·This cocl'tOn
the concealment of
nicknamed
polar
reveal
e l ,e me n t s of each
the o r i g i n
to t h e
i n s i s tence
of
d i f f erence- i t s e l f ,
trace,
reserve
or
limits
of
called w r i t i n g only within
be
that
s c i ence and
cannot be
common
Derrida
t h i s unnatneable 11110 vement of
torical closure,
t r a ns .
the dichotomy
the
two
ie n o t couuDo n be c a u s e i t does not amount
s ame t h i n g
that l
a root
that
deconstructed,
(or inanifest
E.P.
York:
within
the
the his­
Derrida, Of Gra 111ft& t o l ogy,
( B a l t i 1110 re:
In
and
Johns Hopkins
Positions ,
a
movement
Derrida
which
conceived on the basis of the opposition presence/
Differance is
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
the systematic
play of d i f f erences,
38
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
MOEL CAUOLL
42
of
the spa cing (eepace.ent ) by vhich element& refer
to one anot h e r . · Ryan vents to uae this concept and
t h e me t bo d of deconttruction to ahow that fiction
fil•a blur into nonfiction and vice-ve rsa.
See t h e
laat paragraph o f note
2.
by
6.
S e e Grierson on Documentary,
edited
(London! Faber ao.d Faber, 1 9 7 9 ) .
7.
D�iga
Vertov,
·selected Writings , ·
in Avant-�arde F i l m ,
edited by P . Ada .. S i tney (New York:
N ev York
Unive rs i t y
Preaa,
1 9 7 8 ) . Oo pa�e 5, Vertov vritea i1y road t a toward
the creation of a fresh perception of the vorld.
Thua,
l
decipher in a new vay t h e world unknovn to you.·
8.
Frederick
Action,
Wise.aa ,
by
Erik
Preas,
Barnouw,
Hardy
an interview i n The Nev Documentary in
Alan Rosenthal
(Berkeley:
California Preas, 1 9 7 7 ) , p . 7 0 .
9.
Forayth
Documentary
(New
Yor�:
University
of
Oxford University
1 9 7 4 ) , pp. 287-288.
1 0 . See for example Peter Graham, "Cine.a Verit e in Prance ,
17 ( S winE r , 1 9 6 4 ) ; Colin Young, ·cineraa of
Film Quarterly,
17
(Suwr,
1964);
Young,
Common S e ns e , · F i l m Quarterly
·observational Cine.,.· i n Principles of V i s u a l Anthropo logy,
edited by Paul Hocki nga
(The Hague:
Mouton Publi ahers,
1975).
l n theae articles the authors, though arguing that
film ta neoeaaarily subjective, do not
turn
this
into
a
rejecti,on of
the
prospects
of
docu.entary
filmmaking.
1 1 . Bela Balazs, Theory of Film (New York: Dover Publica tions,
1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 89-90 .
1 2 . Lucien Goldman, ·cine11fl and Sociolog y , • i n Anthropol ogy
-Reality -- Cinema,
edited my Hick Eaton (London:
Film Inatitute, 1 9 7 9 ) , p. 64.
British
aomevhat
shailar,
thou"h not
identica 1,
concept
of
indexing
i s used
in regard to artworks in "Piece: Contra
Aesthetica• by Ti1a0thy Binkley in Philosophy Looks at the
13. A
Arts,
edited by Joseph
Preea, 1 9 7 8 ) .
untVers ity
Margolis
{Philadelphia:
Temple
1 4 . The i d e a
of
segments
of
posstble worlds
derives
f r om
Nicholas Wolteratorff,
��orlds o f Works o f Art , - Journal
of Aesthetica and Art Criticism XXXV ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
1 5 . I recoamend that
film theorists
uae a
narrower
s e ns e of
ideology
than they presently use.
I would call an asser­
t ion -- like
·rhose vho a r e unemployed have only their own
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
39
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
ROH ll!Al. TO ltDL:
laziness
I)
ia
DUHCIED IM NOHFICTIOli FILM
to blaPe for tbeir
2)
false and
proble ....
43
ideological vhen
�
ie uaed to support &08E!
relation of
social do•ination or oppre.sion. Pil• theori s t s , of course.
also
vant to describe entire •Yllbol .syste8E!
or JanguaJ{e
-
a s ideological.
like cinema
�
Such aysteu are not true
But if an entire symbol syste• could be charac­
or false.
terixed
as ideol
ica l ,
I think it •ould be because it l )
Og
the representation of certain social
excludes or represses
2) is used to support social oppres­
facts or relatioas ar.cl
sion in virtue of the exclusions
it
entails.
So.e Mat"Xists have also disapproved of the globel con­
cept of ideol�y used
by fil• theori s t s .
In their criti­
cisftS
of
the Althusserian
McDonnell and
becoee
·a .
Xevin
Robins
We
total
vt"ite
that
take
phena.enon
of Screen,
'-evin
ideology
should
than it is for Althus­
a
serians vho identify ft with the cultural or syabolic as
whole.
less
tendencies
ideology
to be an abstract conce p t , re­
ferring only to the fetishised
which
uncri tically
capitalist sodal reality •
in
• • •
One Dimensional Marxism
Limited,
McDonnel l
assumed
by
thought
kobins ' s
• in 9Marxist Cultural Theory·
(London:
Though l
1 9 8 0 ) , p. 1 6 7 .
and
f oras
confronts the necessaty constrainls of
nation vith the rei�ing,
position,
disagree
I
inflated
correct.
Allison
and
vith
Busby
much
of
ideology
ls
think their cons ter­
idea
of
Since the c011 pletion of this essay I
have
discovered
voice
raised against the bloated concept of ideo­
.another
logy used
Reality
by film "heorists -
(Londo�:
British
Terry
Film
Lov e l l ,
Institute,
Pictures of
1 9 80).
McDonnel l and Robins, Love l l is a Marxist who is
the
Althusserian
apparently
a
mandarins
s�ort
of
of
gaining
British
film
popularity
is a mixed blessing.
Like
a��acking
theory
in
England.
Lovel l ' s
bo<*
tionably
me�aphoric but inept and riddled vith error.
in philosophy of science
is
not
The account of trends
only
turgid
and
ques­
exa�ple, the definition of induction offered o n page 1 1
philosophically
incorrec t .
some salutary things
that
ideology
semination of
is
On the other hand , Love l l has
to say about ideology.
Lovel l
argues
be' defined as the production and dis­
M1'8y
erroneous
soci.ally
�tivated . ..
dictates
the
beliefs
(page
51)
whose
Love l l
inadequacies
fonn
that ideological
one which is reflected in
Mane's
are
also provides a
useful sel"Vice by showing that this conception of
that
for
ideology
analysis should take.
method.
"To
establish
a given body of ideas or theory serve class interests
is always i ns u f ficient
to justify the label
ideol�y.
It
i s al�ays necessary first to apply episte�ological criteria
to
the· work
. . Th·e common practice o'f
discredit­
naluate
ing ideas
•
•'
by ref�rence to their social origin .1e not what
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
40
Carroll: From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film
44
llOEl. CA
I
I() LI.
i e •ant
by thia cr i t i q ue .
ways involved .
ovn
V e can
Questions
of validity are a l ­
learn a good deal here f r Oll Marx 's
pract ice. H i e pro�dure ie t o first of all establish bv
theoretical acalyeia,
whate-.-er ie in
conten t i o n .
c i ee l y in vhich
planatory power.
epec1f ic error•
A n e�ample
argu•nt aod evidence, an account of
He then
�oee on to ehov pre­
r ea pe c t e a rival theory f alle short of ex­
Only then does he attempt to relate those
to cbee aUgn�nte and the class e t ruggle.
of this •thod i s t o be found
in
Ill
Vol.
of
Capi t a l where h e conaidere the evidence given by bankens i n
the lleport of the Comld.ttee on Bank Acts of
1857. He aeses-
8ett
this eviden� in terms of i t e internal incons istencies,
and
its
theoretical aod
goea on
bankers vtthin
of the
that structure
for• which
capitalism,
bankers
and
He then
of social relatio�
relations
because
of the
particular
structure of
social
110
situated,
in
and
these
Thie
of
and the
Hia argu�nt i e ,
banking would ap­
are the categories
their day-to-day
business a c t i v i t i es • • • • '
position
relat ion•
that poei�ion generates .
would requ ire
because
take in general under
'thia t a indeed how W>ney aod
pea r t o people
they
social
within that
interests vhich
i n effect,
eepirical inadequacies.
that these view& are t o be e�pected frogi
to argue
conduct of their
procedure
ta exe•plat�,
but
is seldom followed by people wishing to egplore the ideolo­
gical
under�inninge of
their opponents'
fully
this
of
Manista
alysis
invoca tion
the ..aster
I n .,
Leninist
Ctn�
ovn
the guilt-by-association ( u s ua l l y
tactics that
v r i t i ag e I have
concept
of
are ao prevalent nowadays .
eometi•a
ideology
in
interchangeable v i t h ·poUtica l . ..
ca11mon uea�e.
of
used
a
l o oe e r ,
which ·1deologica1• t a
Thie i a
an
acce.p table,
Under this variant, a Man1at might a. pe a k of
•the c ommun i s t ideology.·
Neverthele s s , I
ideology outlined
think
that
the
in the preceding paragraphs ia
the eoat f\lnda.ental and correct.
keep
Hope­
shame
into adopt111$!; a aaore ri�oroua approach to the an­
of ideology than
free association)
aenae
though t s . ·
vill
It is probably
t he critical edge to the concept.
beat
One should,
fore, announce that one i s ueiftg the Leninist concept
to
there­
vhen
one adopt• i t in an acalya t a .
1 6 . Monroe C . Beardsley, The P08e i bili ty of Criticta• (Detroi t :
Wayne State University Preas, 1 9 7 0 ) .
1 7 . I n Realia• and t h e Cinema. edited by
(London:
1 8 . See
Routledge
especially
vol.
a nd
I
IC.egan
of
Christopher
Paul,
1980),
W i l l i ams
p.
226.
Andr' Baz i n ' a What le Cine.a?
t ranslated and e d i t ed by Rugh Cray (Berkeley: University of
California Preea,
Published by Digital Commons @Brockport, 1983
1967).
41
Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 14 [1983], No. 1, Art. 1
F10H llA1.. TO llEEL:
!NTABGIZD IN NONFICTION FILH
4�
1 9 . •the World Viewed , � Georgia Re•iev, Winter 1 9 7 4 .
2 0 . According
to £ric
Rhode
tn
·why
Neo-Realiam Fail led , �
Sigh t and Sound, 3 0 , (Winter 1960/61 }.
2 1 . Monroe c . Beards l e y , Aesthetics (New York: Harcourt, Brace
a nd World, 1 9 5 8 ) , especially Chapter V I , section 1 6 .
Also
aee
GOran
Herwer�n,
llepreaentation and Meaning in the
Visual Arts (Lund: Scandinavian University Books , 1969) es­
pecially Chapter I I .
22. Op. c i t .
23. I n
Cine11a Verit� i n America
(Bostu,1:
KIT
Preas,
1974),
Stephen l'ta•ber writes ·cinema •erite adopts Renoi r ' s idea
the
of the camera and uses it as a recording t o o l , so that
events themaelve s ,
' t h e knowledge of
man. 1
be come the
standard we use to judae the f i l • . - (p. 1 8 ) .
2 4 . Stephen Heath,
Questions of Cinema
(Bloo111 i n1gton:
University Preas, 1 9 8 1 ), pp. 237-238.
Indiana
2�. For
analysis
and
criticism of the concept of auture, see
Noel Carroll,
-Address
to
the Heathen, ·
October,
121,
Winter 1 9 8 2 , aections IV a nd V I .
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol14/iss1/1
42