Documentary film history and cultural impact

¶ … Film & Bill Nichols

What is the value of Nichols' system of documentary modes? The value first of all is in the fact that Nichols' system puts a microscope on the topic of documentaries. Nichols slows down the process of how critics and reviewers tell the movie-going public about certain films that are non-fiction films. Nichols attempts to break the discussion down into sections (components) that people can understand.

For example, the Nichols' "Poetic Mode" offers clarification that this form of documentary is probably what people would call "arty." That is, it will be slow and maybe dull. And historical material will probably be in this documentary, and it will be done in a "lyrical form, usually associated with the 1920s and modernist ideas," according to Nichols. Right there is value because if a teacher, for example, is looking for an interesting documentary to show to high school students, and that teacher has a copy of Nichols' Introduction to Documentary, he or she will definitely avoid a documentary that has "Poetic Mode" written on it by reviewers.

And the answer to the question about clarity, Nichols' system does give a clear definition of what kind of documentary is available to the viewer. But even though that is important in the Nichols' format, it is also true that not all of his modes fit exactly into a neat category. The documentary called "No End in Sight" that came out in the summer of 2007, is an example of when a documentary may have a little bit of two or more of Nichols' modes. There is nothing wrong with a documentary reflecting two or more separate modes, as long as a careful review of the modes has been given. This is not criticism of Nichols' modes, but it is fair to point out that there are some modes that don't precisely fit perfectly into documentaries, and they may in fact be too broad. Still, if two or three modes work well in describing a film, then those should be used so the person considering seeing the documentary can have a full understanding of what is in that film.

No End in Sight" is the documentary that questions the George W. Bush's strategy in carrying out the war in Iraq. This is not a documentary like a Michael Moore film, at all. A Michael Moore documentary would be far more aggressive in questioning people who had something to do with the war. This is a documentary where a lot of people who had something to do with the Bush Administration are interviewed. These are people who put in place the Bush policy in Iraq, and they are speaking about how Bush didn't want to hear any of their advice before the U.S. military went in and toppled the Hussein regime.

The stubbornness of the Bush Administration comes through here, but it is done in a way that is formal and polite. How would the documentary be categorized by Nichols' modes? Certainly it should be considered in "The Observational Mode" because there were cameras that did not need special lighting and simply were there to record interviews. This mode might be considered a bit "too expansive" because many films could fall into this category and yet be vastly different in tone and substance. But Observational Mode fits this documentary. Also, "The Participatory Mode" is appropriate here because "No End in Sight" has encounters between filmmaker and the subject in a way that the subject being interviewed is sharing experiences. How did Bush come to the decision that al Qaeda was active in Iraq? How did Bush come to the point-of-view that Saddam Hussein was somehow part of the plot to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? And what was Vice President Dick Cheney's role in all of this?

The Observational Mode allows the viewer to hear witnesses to these policy decisions, and the Participatory Mode is also involved because the documentary filmmaker is counting on the honesty of the person being interviewed to come through to the viewer of the film.

Why do viewers place faith in documentaries - more so than other formats? We place faith in the documentary because it is presented to the audience as a factual story, with real people doing real things, crazy and bizarre though those things may be. Reality TV is in a way like a documentary, because the viewer is led to believe that things are happening in real life just as it is being presented.

But the documentary usually opens with a narrator explaining to the audience why that audience should believe what is about to be shown. In the documentary "No Direction Home: Bob Dylan," the viewers know that the documentary was done by a famous filmmaker, Martin Scorsese. There sits the famous rock singer, Bob Dylan, answering questions. This is definitely real to the audience. The audience sees Dylan in concert, the audience sees Dylan during press conferences at the beginning of his career when Dylan rejected the "mainstream" media's questions because those reporters did not understand his lyrics.

The point here is this documentary gives every indication of being real, whereas the movie with Cate Blanchett, "I'm Not There," is a slick production that may or may not have honestly reflected what Dylan did or did not do during his career. Comparing "I'm Not There" with the documentary "No Direction Home: Bob Dylan" is like comparing pure entertainment with objective journalism, because the documentary style used by Scorsese (which is an example of both "The Observational Mode" and "The Participatory Mode") leads the audience to totally believe everything that is being presented. Nothing against Cate Blanchett's acting (she was nominated for an Academy Award for her performance) but a movie that is produced as an entertainment production has the license to fictionalize all it wants to.

The ethical issues in the "No Direction Home" documentary are very clearly established. The audience knows where Dylan was born, Hibbing Minnesota. The audience sees the typical small town American high school homecoming parade, and since just about everyone has been in high school at homecoming time, that is real and ethical to show the audience. The movie is typical of home movies. And then the documentary takes viewers to New York's Greenwich Village where Dylan began playing in coffee houses. But the ethical thing for Scorsese to do was interview a lot of people who knew Dylan back then.

So one by one, audiences see people like Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary, and others, talking about what Dylan was like, what his attitude was, how well his folk music was accepted.