1
Nikzad Khansari
Cinema 726
Prof. Aaron Kerner
04/01/08
DEZLI
Theoritical Frameworks:
In the following pages I will attempt to explain the structure of a few documentary
films and the particular use of voice-over that provokes the idea for the use of voice-over
in this proposed documentary project. Moreover I will explore the notion of truth in
documentary films, especially in representing individuals’ memories which lies at the
core of this project.
One of the Iranian filmmakers whose films have always superbly explored the topic of
war is Ebrahim Hatamikia. His films are generally centered on the after effects of the
war, however; his portrayal of the war carries an allegorical syntax and a cluster of
meanings. Moreover, they are critical social commentaries on the political situation of
Iran. The landscapes covered by pieces of war equipments and also scenes that include
the secondary use of expended war materials by the characters of the films are all
illustrated in Hatamikia’s films. (e.g. The Red Ribbon, 1998)
Another filmmaker is the Kurdish Iranian, Bahman Ghobadi; his films center on the issue
of the war and the horrific living situation of the Kurds, especially in the camps.
Although the topic of this proposed documentary is similar to the works of these two
filmmakers, the structure will be very different.
Most of the documentaries or scholarly research on the relation of memory and trauma
were focused on the holocaust and the survivors of concentration camps of World War II.
Furthermore, the holocaust trauma was explored both in historical documentaries using
2
archival materials (e.g. “Night and Fog”) and in metanarrative documentaries
concentrating on individuals’ experiences (e.g. “Shoah”).
The issue of time and memory is currently being explored to a larger extent and also
the relation between memory and trauma has been extensively researched by examining
the holocaust and the survivors. The practices and systems of historical documentary are
similar to textual works on history. This story-based form can be divided into two
subcategories: traditional and modern. The traditional or narrative history explores and
presents the events in a chronological order. Moreover, narrative history offers a larger
scope in which a particular event has taken place. The major criticism of narrative history
is not about its structure but rather about the constricted or selective presentation that
demonstrate the cause and the effect of an event.
The modern or metanarrative history in a textual or visual form is narrower in focus.
Metnarrative falls under this category in which the historical event is singled out. It relies
and centers on an individual’s memories and in most cases it excludes the causality.
There are new subfields in memory and historical discourses that oppose metanarretive
structure that the syntax of these types of historical works reject the larger scope of the
history.
In terms of documentaries made in the last three decades, Linda Williams has
mentioned that, in the postmodern era, documentary films to a greater extent foreground
the processes of manipulation of the film medium, a strategy which calls into question the
very documentary nature of the subjects they allege to present (3). “Shoah” is a perfect
example of a metanarrative documentary film that deals with the notion of authenticity
without constantly offering and creating frames that are coded with meanings. However,
it is highly manipulative in its approach towards the notion of authenticity. Linda
Williams stated concerning Claude Lanzman’s film “Shoah” that truth exists between the
solid pieces of the worlds that we encounter (4). The effect of such a film is in the
presentation and representation of the internal and external experiences, the normalcy of
3
a location and the recalls of reverberations of the psychological traumatic experienced
and expressed by the interviewee.
This notion of ordinary in the environment, unnoticeable at first, will mark the
beginning of this proposed project. However, I will attempt to visually point out the
remainder of the war trauma subtly interlaced within the environment.
I intend to use a voice-over in this documentary in a tradition of narrator in films such as
“Night and Fog”, and “Sans Soliel.”
The use of voice-over in Alain Renais’ documentary, “Night and Fog” blurs the direct
correlation between the images and narration. Jay Cantor notes “if death were truly in the
image, one would feel, as the narrator of “Night and Fog” reminds us, an endless,
uninterrupted fear” (5). This type of narration would encourage viewing the historical
event further than one past-period in the history. Moreover, it doesn’t put the blame only
on one specific group but rather moves beyond its own frame of time and questions the
notion of the very act of war in a broader scale.
One of the stylistic choices made by Chris Marker in “Sans Soleil” is particular use of
the voice-over narration. “Sans Soleil” is a complex work of art. It comments on and
explores the various definitions and the process of many different phenomena such as
memory, culture, and the experience of the spectator, and fits in a format of an essay film.
The distant narration operates on many different levels which include the bridge that fills
the gap between memory and the presented images. The narration in “Sans Soleil” also
shifts between the “punctum” and “Studium”.
This leads into the discussion of semiotics. In the study of semiotics, the signifier
specifies the importance or the meaning of the signified. Furthermore, according to
Barthes an image can be described under two sets of categories: the “punctum”, and
the “studium”. The “studium” is identifiable; however, the “punctum” deals with
individual’s memory and depiction of the image. In this project, since the “studium”
offers various identities that could be contradictory, the “punctum” of the images
4
becomes a cluster of meanings. In addition, the voice over narration shifts and
navigates between these areas.
In this project, I must deal with the question of history and authenticity. Trinh Minhha, a filmmaker and a professor at U.C. Berkeley, explains that due to the tendency of
asserting meanings to every single image presented to us, the truth of the image relies on
the “undisputed origin.” This notion becomes much more complex when we deal with
individuals’ memories recalling a historical event (6). Moreover, the question of truth in
documentary films is highly complex. For instance Bill Nichols asserts that the notion of
“real” in documentary films has to do with including the quality of the moment persisting
outside the grip of textual organization” (7).
Therefore, the understanding we have of the reality of images in documentary films
depends on the capacity of the image to present to us a certainty in the existence of the
presented materials. Wolfgang Ernest suggests that in historical documentaries we see a
trace of events or a series of events, not the actual documentation of what has happened
(8).
The theoretical descriptions and explorations of the representations of reality in
historical documentaries “has moved away from the idea of an innate reality depicted
within a film text towards an understanding of how texts are read.” Bill Nichols explains
that truth in visual works, especially documentaries, depends on “a tension between the
representation and the represented as experienced by the spectator (9). Nichols’
understanding of documentary truth centers on the “foregrounding of the processes of
meaning construction, similar in the making of film to what it is in the human mind.
Nichols calls on the term “vivification – rendering felt what representations only allude
to, “which creates “a glimpse across the gulf between representation and experience”
(10).
In general, a film is template for memory (11). Whether it’s a documentary or a
narrative film, it consists and depends upon the memory in a structural process and
5
interpretive process of the filmmaker and the spectator. Moreover, it becomes even more
complex when it represents individuals’ memories within its contents. The use of these
war objects in the tea house building or even scattered about used in other parts of Dezly
town reflects on the memory of war trauma and is a response to that trauma.
The accuracy of memory in this project becomes secondary. These war objects could
belong to the Iran and Iraq war. They could also belong to the U.S. and Iraq war or even
they may belong to the attack against Iraqi Kurds during Saddam’s regime. The quest in
finding how these war objects landed at or were brought to this tea house or to various
other locations of Dezly town would play out while switching back and fort, between the
historical narrative and the metanarrative, between the recalls of individuals’ memories
and the distant voice-over.
The use of war artifacts can be considered as a response to the painful and traumatic
experience. In a discussion on visual art works, Jill Bennett refers to an “opposition
between affect and representation that subtends early work on trauma and memory” (11)
These expended war materials are marks from the trauma. In a post-traumatic period
the functions of these objects have changed; however, through a careful examination and
sometimes even at first glance they reveal their original functionality. Although the
signifier doesn’t hold a fixed signification, this idea of recognition correlates with how
memories and interpretation can emerge from an awareness of the process of recognition
itself. “Films that depict the process of the assembly of our understanding of reality are
alarmed with truth.” Nevertheless, the topic of truth in documentary films and textual
works can be considered as the truth of the process of making meaning.
The Sources:
1) Kasraian, K. 1998. The Images of the Kurdistan. Kabir press, pp.5
2) Fisher, Michael. M.J. 2002, Mute Dreams, Blind owls, and Dispersed Knowledge,
Durham, N.C. Duke University Press. pp. 265
3) Williams, Linda. Spring, 1993. Mirrors Without Memories: Truth, History and the
New Documentary. Film Quarterly. Vol. 46, No. 3, pp: 12
6
4) Williams, Linda. Spring, 1993. Mirrors Without Memories: Truth, History and the
New Documentary. Film Quarterly. Vol. 46, No. 3, pp:10
5) Cantor, Jay. Fall, 1990. Death and the Image. TVI Quarterly. No. 79, pp: 174
6) A conversation with Lynn Kirby and Trinh T. Minh-ha. Artweek v. 30 no. 7/8
7) Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary.
Bloomington: Indiana UP, pp: 231.
8) Ernest, Wolfgang. Summer 1983. The Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 3. No.
18. pp:399
9) Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary.
Bloomington: Indiana UP, pp: 232.
10) Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary.
Bloomington: Indiana UP, pp: 235.
11) Bennett, J. 2003. The Aesthetics of Sense-Memory. Theorising trauma through the
visual arts” in Memory Cultures. Memory, Subjectivity and Recognition,
London/Transaction Publishers. pp:174