TMA 293
History of Documentary
Trevor Jackson
While reading about and watching old documentaries, I had one thought that kept coming back: how far can documentaries go until they’re completely fictional? In Nanook of the North, we watch the life of an Eskimo family. We see their day to day life and how they survive on the cold. On the surface, it appears that the movie is factual. When you read about it, you learn how much was set up. One small scene for instance is when the family sleeps in the igloo. Barnouw, in his book Documentary, mentions how they needed to recreate an igloo that the camera could film inside. To me, this creative treatment is trying to capture reality as best as they can. This isn’t a bad scene to create a ‘documentary lie’ for. However, learning more about the film, we find out the entire family isn’t a real family. Nanook isn’t a real person – he’s played by an actor named Allakariallak. The entire family was set up so we can experience what ‘Eskimo life is like,’ but even then, not all the activities they pursue are what the Inuit people would do.
Even if not all the events are factual, the creative process that was taken to record this film made it enjoyable. It added stakes, such as the fight with the walruses. The people don’t normally fight Walruses, but Flaherty wanted to add that in to add to the authenticity to the 'Eskimo race.' It may give us insight of how life may use to have been for those people, or at least the way Flaherty believed they acted, but in reality they were more advanced then the movie gives them credit for. Flaherty even said that he wanted to show their lives before the white man had destroyed them. Flaherty used his own sense of “Creative treatment of Actuality” to capture what he thought the people were like before technology came around.
Another film that comes to mind is Man with a Movie Camera. This was a city symphony created by Dziga Vertov that captures many events of everyday natural life. Once again, some scenes were staged, such as the chairs at the beginning, the camera moving around, and a few more parts. Overall, it felt the majority of the movie wasn’t staged in comparison to Nanook. The two staged scenes I mentioned aren’t things you’d see in everyday life, but there are other staged scenes such as people dressing that do happen. The creative choices to include this do show the realities and ‘actualities’ of our life, how it is something that we as humans do. The speed that this film shows clip and never stops show how busy life is too. It shows how it’s constantly going in the city. Though some scenes are staged, Vertov does his best to capture the actualities of life through creative means.
Creative treatment of actuality should be used to show factual events, but if taken too far those events can be staged or fictional. However, if done right, the movie is still a documentary. Sometimes a little ‘documentary lie’ must be told to stay true to its source. It may be hard to record something, but this is a way to get it into your film, staged or not. As long as the source is true and not too far off, the creative treatments can help the film go a long way.
Nanook of the North, Robert Flaherty, 1922
Night and Fog, Alain Resnais.
One of the black and white clips.
The Act of Killing, Joshua Oppenheimer.
Recreation of execution scene with the ‘test subject.’
The Act of Killing and Night and Fog
When it comes to war, there are many movies that discuss the terrible events that take place. Night and Fog and The Act of Killing are two of these. There are many similarities and differences about how these films go about war. For the similarities, both films talk about the amount of people who died and what groups were killed. They both were recorded after the respected wars and includes the filmmakers going to the locations where these terrible events took place. It was filmed during a time where there was ‘peace.’ They both discuss the trauma that took place and the psychological long term damage it did to the people involved, whether they be talking about the victims or the assailants. Both of these films went over different genocides that happened, and though they are similar in that aspect, it felt that there were more differences than there were similarities in the ways they were filmed. That said, both brought across the message of how horrible war is excellently.
For the differences, Night and Fog focuses more on the victims and what happened during the war while The Act of Killing focuses on the assailants and how it affected them many years after. In Night and Fog, we see many clips of the concentration camps. In Barnouw’s book Documentary, he discusses how Night and Fog switches from black and white footage of the extermination camps and then back to warm colors when it shows the former camp. The switch up of the footage, as Barnouw says, gives ‘a greater impact,’ giving the audience an even greater sense of dread during the black and white scenes. We see clips of the victims, those who are inside of the camps and how frail and weak they are. Not only that, but later on we see the dead bodies of many of the inhabitants pushed around. The documentary is also entirely narrated as the filmmaker speaks about the acts that happened, giving his own point of view. However, in The Act of Killing, the filmmakers are almost invisible, only giving occasional comments. In that film, we see from the viewpoint of the ones who committed the genocide rather than a third person.
For The Act of Killing, rather than viewing the victims, we view the assailants themselves. We view their aftermath and how it affects them. Whereas the victims suffered mainly physically, the assailants suffered mentally. They faced huge amounts of guilt for what they had done and it weighed on them terribly. At the beginning, they didn’t seem to care about what they do, but as we watch, we see Anwar slowly realize the terrible things that he did. We don’t see the killings itself, but we see the reenactments of them. We watch a fake killing of a ‘test subject’ near the beginning and then later we see a reenactment of a torture scene as Anwar is putting himself in the place of the victims. Unlike Night and Fog, we don’t actually see any clips of the real events – just these reenactments. However, even though they’re just reenactments, it doesn’t take away how brutal they are. Even Anwar felt horrible after going through it, realizing what it was that the people they tortured felt. We can feel the pain that he does and though we may not sympathize with him, we recognize the terror that the war has affected on him, especially as the man in charge of the genocides.
Though both of these films may go about recording these genocides in different ways, they still hit hard. They still show the audience the horrors of what happened. There are many different ways to get that message across, and these movies did excellently. There were also similarities, such how both were created in times of peace. To me, that shows that even when there are times of peace, we still need to remember these horrible times. That way, when we remember, we can do our best to avoid this from happening again.
Observatory Documentary:
Trick or Treat!
Doc Mode 1
The mode of documentary I went for was Observational. My idea was to go around with my sister and her kids while they were trick-or-treating on Halloween. Two of my brothers joined too. I recorded them as they went around while I stayed in the background as much as possible. In Grey Gardens, the Maysles recorded everything the family was doing while staying out of the conversation. We watched the two girls go about their day without any real intervention from the filmmakers. They may have appeared in the mirror a few times or have been talked about, but for the most part they were a ‘fly on the wall.’ I wanted to go with this approach and be a fly on the wall with my family. I did let them know the way I was doing it so they would know that when I was recording, I wouldn’t be talking. I purely wanted to record their reactions and interactions without any intervention for me.
There were a few clips where you could either hear me talking, breathing, or laughing. They were obnoxious to work with, but if it was a clip I wanted to use, I would do the best to clip myself out of it. Most of the time this led to silence for a few seconds in a clip. That said, when I did make noises or talk, it did nothing to affect what my family was doing. My sister was the one leading while my brothers and I followed her lead. I also wanted to record their costumes beforehand. I captured my brother applying his makeup and costume while staying out of the mirror. I purposely made sure that I wouldn’t appear in the reflection. I wanted to do everything I could to make it seem like I was invisible and a fly on the wall.
Nichols in his book Introduction to Documentary talks about how the Observer Mode captures real events without any planning or staging. That was a big intent in my documentary. I already knew my sister was planning on going trick or treating with her kids alongside my brother, so I decided to tag along too. I didn’t plan any of the events that took place that night, I just recorded things as they naturally happened. One question I had during the process was if there was a time I should intervene, but luckily that didn’t need to happen. I was able to stay invisible most of the time while filming, with only a few noises heard on the camera from me. Besides that, everything that happened was organic and in the hands of my siblings while I was able to sit back, watch, and record.
Since the way the video works on the website isn't the best, here's a link to it on YouTube if you prefer that: https://youtu.be/n2nqQqkYsdA
Sherman's March, Ross Mcelwee.
Ross talking into the camera.
Surname Viet, Given Name Nam, Trinh T. Minh-ha.
One of the interviews with subtitles on the screen
Participatory vs. Reflexive
When it comes to documentaries, there are many modes to film in. Two of these modes include the participatory mode and the reflexive mode. Both of these modes have similarities, but they also have many differences. For similarities, they both interact with subjects and ask them questions. They get involved in the world that they are filming. In the two movies we watched in class, Sherman’s March (a participatory documentary) and Surname Viet, Given Name Nam (a reflexive documentary), we see the subjects interacting with the filmmaker, whether it be in an interview style or talking to people out in the wild. Both of these modes brings the viewers into what they are filming and we can be apart of their process. However, even though there are these similarities, as stated before, they have many differences.
To me, the biggest difference is the intent in which it is filmed. Participatory documentaries are filmed to show the relationship between filmmaker and subject whereas reflexive documentaries are filmed to show the relationship between filmmaker and viewer. In Sherman’s March, we see the viewpoint of Ross and how he treats all the women he comes across. We learn about his relationships and the feelings he has for these girls, even though that wasn’t the original purpose of the documentary. In Surname Viet, Given Name Nam, we do see the interviews of the subjects but we never learn how the filmmakers feel about them. Instead, it’s up to us, the viewers, to gain our own opinions about them. The participatory mode also shows us the viewpoint of the filmmaker while the reflexive mode wants us to create our own viewpoints about the matter at hand. On top of the differences of viewpoints, the reality of the situation is different too.
The participatory mode generally records real events as they take place and the real reactions of the subjects and filmmaker whereas the reflexive is generally staged. Of course participatory modes can also be staged, it should feel real. Nichols mentions in Introduction to Documentary, this mode has been called ‘film truth,’ heightening the importance of truth. In Sherman’s March, we can feel how dedicated Ross is to these different women. He may not be completely dedicated to the original purpose of the documentary, but to me, that adds to how real the documentary is. Not everything goes the way that is originally planned, and we see that as the documentary ends up being about Ross trying to find a partner. Ross also talks to the camera himself, giving us a clue of who he is as a person, again heightening how real the film feels. In the case of Surname Viet, Given Name Nam, most of the interviews are staged. Nichols mentions that many reflexive documentaries relies on staged scenes and interviews. The original interviews were taken of women in Vietnam, but they were translated into English and performed by Vietnamese women in America. They mix a blend of reality and illusion, causing the audience to question what is true and what they should believe.
The participatory and reflexive modes both interact with the world, but they do so in different ways. The participatory mode relies on the relationship between filmmaker and subject, the director’s viewpoints, and generally real events whereas the reflexive modes relies on the relationship between filmmaker and viewer, the viewer’s viewpoints, and generally staged events. Both of these modes, however, can help us realize important concerns and how we should go about them. They can both make us question about what really is important in the world. They are both great modes that can change the viewpoints of the viewers.
Participatory Documentary:
Relict Crew
Doc Mode 2
For my second documentary, I decided to go the route of a participatory documentary. It took me a while to decide how and what I wanted to go about it, but as I was thinking about my AFP set, I had the idea to have an interview with a few people on the set. I also decided to take an introduction video and talk about myself on set too. My goal for the interviews were to talk about what each person’s role was and how they went about that role. I also wanted to take an ‘ignorant’ approach, to where it seems that I have no knowledge of what their role did. Even if I did already know what they did, I wanted those I interviewed to explain it themselves. I also wanted to include my own input at the beginning to make an introduction while also explaining my role. While I wanted to focus on the interviews of everyone else, I wanted to include some of my own input and participate in that way in order to get the ball rolling.
With the documentary, I wanted to space it out a bit of who was saying what. I wanted to introduce everyone first and what their role is before providing the clips talking about what they actually do. Though I’m not able to include everything that everyone said (every interview I took was roughly about 2 and a half minutes), I wanted to include the most important parts. I also wanted to keep the audio of me asking the questions to show that I am participating. I also occasionally added in a random comment or a joke, to further sure that I still am there and haven’t faded into the background. As compared to my observatory documentary where I went out of the way to keep myself out the shot, this documentary, though I wanted to keep the others as the focus, I made sure that I did participate. I wanted the audience to know that I was there, though I didn’t want to do it in an egotistic or narcissistic way.
It’s hard to pinpoint what exactly my inspiration for this was. Part of it was Sherman’s March again, at least the part where Ross talks with the girls or whomever he’s with. Another inspiration were the classic cliché interviews that you see inside many documentaries. However, I think my biggest inspiration was being on the set of Relict itself. I can’t remember if I was on set yet or if it was one of the days to be on set, but I was running through ideas for this documentary. As I thought about that and Relict, I had the idea to catch a few of the others who worked on Relict and interview them. I caught them wherever I could, whether it was in the auditorium, walking, or after a meeting. After I got all the clips, I compiled them in the way I felt was best. Though I couldn’t use all the videos due to the length, I’m still happy for what I learned. I’m also happy that I was able to share a bit about my role, though I was not as specific about my job as the others were. I did my best in this documentary to participate as much as I could while still letting the others have the highlights.
Apparently I can't post another video on my website, so here is a YouTube link to it: https://youtu.be/keG5K3sKQ4c
Voices from Different Backgrounds: Participatory Vs. Performative
One main reason I can think of to contain voices from different backgrounds in documentaries is to avoid bias. If we only include one side of the story, the knowledge the audience gains will be skewed in one direction. It’s important to include perspectives of people from many different communities to make sure we understand all sides. When we only get one side of the story instead of all points of views, then we make inappropriate judgements and stereotypes. If these documentaries are made with the points of view of everyone in mind, they are more likely to strive away from bias and paints the picture of how society treats them. Of course each person will have their own bias, but when we see the biases of everyone involved, our minds are more open. It’s important to note that depending on what type of documentary it is, it can paint the way things are seen in a different light.
In participatory documentaries, we can see the viewpoint of the filmmaker. We see their viewpoints on things and get a glimpse into their bias. They may also participate with others with different backgrounds to get a better understanding of things. In Minding the Gap, we see the life of Bing Liu, the filmmaker, and his friends Zack and Kiere. They each have different backgrounds and ethnicities, but they joined together because they have something in common: skateboarding. They weren’t raised in the same families, and each had their own story to tell. Since the filmmaker is participating in the story himself, we see what his bias is too. We know firsthand from Bing the life that he left and the hardships he went through. We don’t hear from a third party but from the source itself. Though Bing may be biased based off of his own life, we still learn a lot about what he and his friends go through. The participatory mode may be a bit more biased since it is of someone in the problem themselves, but Bing goes out of his way to also interview the parents of both him and his friends. His participation changes what we learn as we hear from both him and those he chooses to interview.
With a performative documentary, we hear from many different sources about a specific concept. Since a lot of performative documentaries are based on giving knowledge about specific things, performative documentaries based off of different communities will most likely be about the specific problem that they all face. Though the filmmaker may still interact with the film, they show us many sides of the story. We get the main knowledge from everyone else in the documentary. In The Gleaners and I, we watch as Agnes interacts with the gleaning community. We see their struggles and why they pick up waste from others. We also hear from the opposite side, the ones who are trying to stop the gleaning. In this documentary, since we hear from both sides, we learn a lot about gleaning – both the good and bad. Since the whole point of the documentary is to provide knowledge, whatever that knowledge may be, the filmmaker may be more inclined to learn and film all sides of the problem than in any other mode.
Many filmmakers of participatory documentaries may be someone who is inside or a part of the problem whereas a performative may be about someone looking in, just like in these two documentaries mentioned previously. Either way, as long as they include all communities and try to reduce the amount of bias all around, we can learn a lot about these problems and find where we stand on them. Participatory and performative may be different kinds of documentaries, but we can learn a lot from both of them. They may go about different ways of showing us a problem, but in the end it covers just what it needs to.
Minding the Gap, Bing Liu
The characters of Minding the Gap
(From left to right: Kiere, Bing, and Zack)
The Gleaners and I, Agnes Varda
A man talking about how gleaning is moral and shows compassion to the poor.
Performative Documentary:
My Bird Macoy
Doc Mode 1
For my documentary this time, I was originally planning on doing an expositional documentary but the more I thought about it, the more performative it seemed to me. I based it off the idea of the video I used to get into the Media Arts program, an expositional video I made about birds, but I wanted to twist the idea a bit. I eventually decided on doing a documentary similar to one about birds, however, this one is about a very specific bird. I wanted to create a documentary of my own bird, Macoy. I wanted to give information about him that is important to me, even if others don’t care about it. The reason I went more performative instead of expositional is because though I’m still giving knowledge about a certain topic, it’s information that most people probably don’t care about. That being said, it’s something personal to me and that I care about a lot.
Many of the information I give in the documentary isn’t much about the bird that Macoy is, that being a blue-fronted amazon, but more so about who Macoy is himself. I went over his mannerisms, what he likes, and what he can say and do. Though I wasn’t able to include it too much, I tried to include his relationships with people too. The whole thing is a way to showcase my bird while giving an information dump about him. The information that is given for him is very much giving knowledge for the sake of knowledge. It’s about how I perceive my bird and how I personally find him to be the best bird. To be honest, most of it is most definitely skewed and biased towards my opinion of Macoy, but again my objective with the documentary was to give information about him. What it comes down to mainly though is I created this documentary with the intent of filming something that I am deeply attached with.
Other inspirations for this project, besides my own documentary, was The Gleaners and I. I enjoyed watching as Agnes went around and spoke with gleaners, along with gleaning herself. She made a documentary about a topic that she found interesting, and I wanted to take that same approach and make one about something I find interesting, even if others don’t. I loved that Agnes was able to go around and record what she wanted without much care of what others thought of her making this documentary. That was a route I took to record something that I like without caring what others may think. Others may not care about my family’s bird the same way that I do, but he was still someone I wanted to show off. In order for him to show off, I had to talk and sing with him so he could mimic me. I ended with many good clips to include and to create this documentary that I care about a lot, even if others may not. Again, I wanted to give information about Macoy just for the sake of giving information, even if it’s not information that others care for.
Link to the documentary: https://youtu.be/lWBOtFwqX4Q
Between the World and Me, Ta-Nehisi Coates
The girl that Ta-Nehisi fell in love with who was a part of the LGBTQ community.
Paris is Burning, Jennie Livingston
The community in Paris is Burning.
BIPOC and LGBTQ Voices
Most of Between the World and Me focuses mainly on the black community as a dad writes a letter to a son about how to survive in the world. It doesn’t focus a lot on LGBTQ topics, though it does sometimes reference it. Near the end of the book, Ta-Nehisi mentions that’s since he’s black, he’s apart of a community. He relates that to different groups who are also in communities, and one of those groups was the LGBTQ community. Though they may not know each other, they all are connected for being in the same community. Ta-Nehisi also mentions earlier in the book of a girl he fell in love with who was a part of both the black and LGBTQ community. She was able to see live from both groups. With his relationship with her, she was able to teach him new ways to love. Even if a community is different than what you may be comfortable with, there are still many things to learn from them. Ta-Nehisi makes it a point to emphasize that each group is important and can teach you something new, as long as you take the time to be open. Though at the end of the day, though Between the World and Me does touch on the LGBTQ community, the book is mainly about surviving in the black community.
Paris is Burning on the other hand shows more of the LGBTQ side of things. However, both this film and Between the World and Me focus on people in the black community. In the film, there are people of other races, but for the most part is focuses on the black community. It goes more in depth about those who are LGBTQ and talks about their lifestyle. It talks about how they have formed a community and a club where they can all feel welcome, away from the rest of the world. Both of these medias talk about the struggle that each group goes through, especially those a part of both groups. However, even with all these struggles, they are able to find refuge with others who face the same problems. Just how Between the World and Me talks about how other communities can teach us, Paris is Burning does the same. We can learn from people who some may be uncomfortable to talk to. It’s important for us to be willing to talk to, learn from, and befriend others from all sorts of communities. One of the best ways to get through life is by accepting others, and both of these medias do a great job of teaching that.
Final Project:
My Bird Macoy 2.0
For my final project, I decided to expanded on my performative essay about my bird Macoy. I originally went into it wanting to do an expository, but the more I thought about it and filmed it, the more performative it seemed to me. In expository documentaries, the documentary takes it time to explain about certain things that most people should know, such as Fog and Night does about the Holocaust. In performative modes, however, it still ‘teaches’ the audience about something, but it teaches about a more specific, centered thing that most people wouldn’t know or care about. In The Gleaners and I, we learn about gleaning and watch as Agnes talks with those of the gleaning community. I would have never thought about ‘gleaning’ or honestly knew what that word meant before I watched that documentary. It’s a very niche thing that most people would survive just fine without knowing what it is, but the documentary still goes through what it is. Agnes gives us information about gleaning just for the sake of knowledge. I do the same thing in my essay.
I could’ve taken the route of filming birds and talking about them. However, that’s what I did for my documentary to get into the program and I wanted to do something different than that. As most could probably tell, I am a massive bird lover. They are my favorite animals, parrots especially, and that’s why I chose to do a documentary about them. As I was thinking about that documentary, I thought about my own bird (though technically my sister’s since she’s the one who bought him). I wanted to include him in the documentary and decided to do a documentary focused on him. I realized afterwards that the documentary was very specific information. It taught others about Macoy, my bird, just for the sake of giving other people knowledge. Most wouldn’t even care or know who my bird is, but I wanted to do this because of how much it means to me. It is very skewed to my own bias of Macoy and what I think of him.
Instead of doing a documentary about the type of bird Macoy is or parrots in general, I decided to go fully into who Macoy is. I went over his mannerisms, what he likes to say, how he sings, what he likes to do, who he likes, and things like that. It may give a general idea of how parrots act and what they do, but in the end I just wanted to show off Macoy and teach others about him. He is the star of the documentary as everything is centered around him. One piece of information that’s especially just for the sake of giving information is the relationship Macoy has with others. Parrots tend to become attached to one person, though they still have many they consider family, and that person Macoy has become attached to me. Meanwhile, he also has a relationship with my brother. For whatever reason, whenever Macoy sees my brother Robert, Macoy wants to attack him. We’re not sure if it’s Macoy trying to play or if he doesn’t like Robert, but adding this into the documentary was most definitely giving information for the sake of giving information. No one really cares to learn who Macoy doesn’t like, but it’s still fun to learn and watch. People don’t go in expecting to learn that, but it’s something they learn anyways, whether they wanted to or not.
Even though I said in the last paragraph that I didn’t delve into parrots in general, I still did cover a little bit about macaws. The main and only reason I did that was because many people think that Macoy is a macaw because of how similar the name Macoy is to macaw. The reason I give the information about macaws is to distinguish between what a macaw and a blue amazon actually is. It’s information that isn’t really necessary to learn about Macoy, but I still wanted to make the point on it. On top of that, there’s also a picture of a cockatoo. Cockatoos are still parrots but different to macaws or blue fronted amazons. To be honest, the main reason why the picture of the cockatoo is in there is because I found it when looking for actual pictures of macaws that I took at a zoo a while ago. Since the cockatoo was also with the pictures, I thought that I’d throw it in and teach people what a cockatoo is, even if they already know.
Going back to Macoy, I wanted to teach others about the noises he makes. His favorite word is hello, and I wanted to emphasize that. I also wanted to show that he likes to ‘sing,’ even if he isn’t a star at singing. He also likes to make weird humming noises, such as in the clip where he’s listening to a crow. I wanted to give others the knowledge that Macoy likes to hear noises. The same is with most parrots. When they hear, it triggers enjoyment in their brains. They also have certain words or noises that they enjoy more than others. For Macoy, as stated earlier, he enjoys the word hello. Though not stated in the documentary, he also enjoys listening to my voice. Every time I talk near him he starts to excitedly mumble, and that can be seen in a few clips in the documentary. One clip in specific is the one I set him on the ground. Before I do so and I’m making my commentary, Macoy is mumbling and getting excited. Once again, this is all information I myself am portraying to the crowd. I am giving others knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
On top of giving others knowledge for the sake of knowledge, I intertwined myself with the documentary. Without me, Macoy wouldn’t act the way he does in the documentary. I was a big part in controlling how Macoy acted and the final form of the documentary. I knew how Macoy would act to certain things and used that to get the results I wanted. I had an idea in mind and planned the video out around it. I showed Macoy in reality even if some of the stuff I said seemed scripted. I also included old videos of Macoy portraying certain events that added to the story I was telling. I would sometimes add in random information, such as about the macaws and cockatoo, that wasn’t about Macoy even though I was mainly focused on him. It was created using my perspective as I take people into my life and show them something I like.
Along with this being my perspective as well as being my own biases, what it shown and talked about is skewed towards what I see about the truth. It’s the way that I view Macoy. Others may not view him the same way, but I wanted to let them know how I view him. In this documentary, since it’s through my eyes, only my truth matters. Yes, it’s true that Macoy talks and ‘sings,’ but others won’t hold him to the same values as I do. I mention in my documentary that Macoy is “the best dang bird in the world.” To me, that is true. To others, it may not be. That is one thing that makes this a performative documentary rather than an expository. In expository documentaries, they talk about general truths or truths that should be undeniable. In this specific performative documentary, it’s the truth as I see it. It’s the truth that Macoy portrays.
I talked about inspirations, such as The Gleaners and I, earlier on, but the main inspiration was me wanting to make a documentary of Macoy. I wanted to show him off while also showing off my ego. I showed all sorts of clips to not explain what a blue fronted amazon is, but to show what Macoy himself is. My goal was to make a documentary that gives knowledge about Macoy for the sake of giving knowledge about Macoy, even if no one else would care about it. It isn’t as narration heavy as other expository documentaries such as Night and Fog is, but still provides goofy narration. Now after reading this and watching the documentary, people know more about Macoy even if they never sought it out. That was my main goal, to teach others about Macoy just because I wanted to teach others about Macoy.
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/BD2qRVI00ks
I think you bring up a really interesting tension that sits at the center of early documentary: how much “creative treatment” is too much? Your examples from Nanook of the North really highlight that line. On one hand, rebuilding the igloo so a camera can actually capture the interior feels pretty harmless and more like a practical workaround than a deception. But once you dig deeper and realize the family is not a real family, and scenes like the walrus hunt were created to fit Flaherty’s idea of what Inuit life should look like, it raises real questions about where authenticity ends.
I like how you contrast that with Man with a Movie Camera. Even though Vertov stages some moments, the film still feels grounded in real, everyday life. The staging supports the rhythm and movement of the city rather than replacing reality with something invented.
Your last point sums it up well. Documentaries can use creative techniques, but once the creativity starts rewriting truth instead of revealing it, the film starts to drift away from what it claims to be. That balance is what makes these films so interesting to look at.
Responding to your blogpost about Nanook of the North and Man with a Movie Camera
I really like the way you brought up the question of how far a documentary can go before it stops being “real.” Nanook of the North is such an interesting example because on the surface it does feel very authentic, and then you find out how much was staged. And not just the scenes, but even as much as the entire “family.” I agree with you that some creative setup, such as rebuilding the igloo, makes sense, but I believe Flaherty crossed into creating his own version of Inuit life instead of documenting true events that were actually happening.
I thought your comparison to Man with a Movie Camera was interesting too. Even though Vertov stages certain shots, it still feels more honest about what he’s trying to do. The stylization adds to the idea of capturing the chaos and energy of daily life rather than pretending that everything is purely observational.
Overall, I think you make a great point that a bit of creative treatment can help a documentary, but once it starts replacing the truth instead of revealing it, the line can get very blurry.
To your Trick or Treat film! This was great Trevor! I really enjoyed watching your family trick-or-treat. Your observational approach and your closeness to your family made me feel like I was right there with them, feeling like I was a part of the Halloween fun! I felt like we were following your brother quite a bit, even though your intention was to record your sister and her kids. He emerged as a main character. Him applying his costume makeup really set the precedent of watching and following him. It was interesting that we didn’t see his makeup until later in the video. We did not see that full process until the middle of the video. This is in part because of your aim of focusing on your nieces and nephews.This speaks to the content of your film as whole because of the nature of Halloween and trick-or-treating. What is getting dressed up in costumes without eating the candy at the end of the night? What is wearing a costume without showing it off to strangers? What is it without a costume contest? Everything to Halloween has a reason, and following your family really showed off the reason nicely, in a very objective way.