Manifesto

MANIFESTO

 

 

 

 

Suffering and trauma will only be used for the purpose of developing a sense of empathy in viewers as opposed to shock value for its own sake.  

 

Some filmmakers try to shock viewers.  For example, in Roger and Me,  Michael Moore showed the “Bunny Lady” killing and skinning a rabbit.  I was unable to watch that scene and if I had, I would have felt empathy for the rabbit and not the lady who was trying to earn extra money by selling rabbit meat and fur. Susan Sontag in her book Regarding the Pain of Others, is quoted as saying “But there is shame as well as shock in looking at the close-up of a real horror”, and “In each instance, the gruesome invites us to be either spectators or cowards, unable to look”. 

 

Sometimes we are compelled to look but don’t know why except that we are unable to turn away and are ashamed of ourselves because of this.  While watching the Bunny Lady” scene I was a coward.  Even so seeing that split second before the act still leaves me with an unpleasant memory of the scene.

 

There will be no reenactment.

 

It is my opinion that reenactment is cheating and long winded interviews are boring.  The two go hand in hand from the viewpoint that they are unsatisfying.  Whenever I see a documentary film that uses actors I am disappointed not to be able to see the “real thing”.  As well, the question of truth is always in the back of my mind.  If they have to use actors, then perhaps they also had to fictionalize part of the story as well.  As Bill Nichols says in his essay What Types of Documentary are There, “Other films, such as David Holzman’s Diary represent themselves, ultimately, as disguised fictions.  They rely on trained actors to deliver the performances we initially believe to be the self-presentation of people engaged in everyday life.  Our realization of this deception, sometimes through hints and clues during the film, or at the end, when the credits reveal the fabricated nature of the performances we have witnessed, prompts us to question the authenticity of documentary in general…”.

 

A fictional film uses actors, and a documentary film uses “real” people.  A re-enactment using actors cannot possibly be thought of as a documentary film.

 

There will be no archival photography, unless these photographs are bearing witness to an important historical event.

 

Although I have seen archival photography used successfully and artistically in film, it often can look unprofessional as if somebody found some old snapshots and filmed them on a black background, placing them here and there in order to add filler to the story.  I would almost prefer hearing a voice over (in the Voice of God style) giving an explanation.  As Allan Sekula says in his essay Photography Between Labour and Capital, “Conventional wisdom would have it that photographs transmit immutable truths.  But although the very notion of photographic reproduction would seem to suggest that very little is lost in translation, it is clear that photographic meaning depends largely on context.  Despite the powerful impression of reality (imparted by the mechanical registration of a moment of reflected light according to the rules of normal perspective), photographs, in themselves, are fragmentary and incomplete utterances.  Meaning is always directed by layout, captions, text, and site and mode of presentation”.

 

Any resemblance to a TV reality show is to be avoided at all costs. 

 

Reality TV is trying to be a documentary and most of the time it fails because of the sameness of the subject matter as well as its glossy visual appearance. A documentary film should never be slick or too Hollywood and it can easily get away with looking a bit rough because that’s life!  I have sometimes found Michael Moore films to be too slick and commercial.  John Corner, in his essay Documentary in a Post, says that  “Extensive borrowing of the ‘documentary look’ by other kinds of programme, and extensive borrowing of non-documentary kinds of look (the dramatic look, the look of advertising, the look of the pop video) by documentary, have complicated the rules for recognizing a documentary.  They have thereby contributed to a weakening of documentary status”. 

 

It is my opinion that reality TV will never trump an excellent documentary film.  Although each have their rightful place in the media I find that reality TV programs have become overwhelmingly similar.  How many make-over, being pregnant, bringing up baby,  who’s the daddy of my baby, Nanny 911 shows do we have to watch before we finally beg for mercy and ask that they “stop the insanity”. 

 

Long winded interviews with a person who witnessed and was an integral part of a time in history will not be done unless archival film showing actual events is shown as part of the interview.

 

Interviews seem to be used as an excuse for not having access to the subjects that are being discussed.  Very often the film centers on the one character and eventually it becomes boring and we lose interest quickly especially if there is no relevant archival film footage.  As Bill Nichols says in his essay “Getting to Know you… Knowledge, Power, and the Body”  “but the matter of authenticity is not so easily settled.  In what ways is a reenactment less authentic than a recounting?  In a typical recounting, we hear what someone says about an event that has long since happened while we see “authentic” archival images of the event itself.”

 

In the film Hitler’s Secretary archival film footage was used which made the film fairly interesting and compelling. 

 

If a decision is made to use the Voice of God method (for reasons known only to the director), the use of a female voice must be considered very seriously.  In order to keep this fair and politically correct, when the Voice of God is male, subtitles will be used which will be pink with feminine cursive letters.  Alternatively, when the voice is that of the Goddess, subtitles will be written in a masculine block style.  The colour of the letters in this case will be black or dark gray.  This new concept should silence all the PCers once and for all.

 

The above is said with tongue in cheek.  However, I do find that this method is a bit dated and gives an impression of watching a travelogue.

 

 

All words will be left in, including when the subject says “is the camera running now?”

 

A documentary film has the advantage of getting away with a fair amount as long as the subject matter is exciting. In the film “Best Boy” the mother was related to the filmmaker and at times she looked directly at him to make a comment.  It had a charming effect.

 

 

Vomiting will not be filmed.  It has been done in comedies, documentaries and Hollywood dramas. Overdone, boring and disgusting.

 

Super Size Me was a terrific film but I really didn’t have to see Morgan Spurlock throwing up from his car. It’s bad enough when the family dog throws up – to see vomiting on the big screen is TMI.

 

When the camera person and director begin to film, subjects will be shown asking “who the hell are you and what’s up with the camera?”

 

It always amazes me when the film crew walk into a scene that there aren’t more people with an incredulous expression on their faces.  How is it that when Michael Moore tested his theory about how safe Canada is by walking into people’s homes nobody looked annoyed or put out. Surprisingly all the doors he tried were unlocked. Couldn’t possibly be Toronto.

 

Sound – lavs will not be used.  Although sound quality is of the utmost importance, the sight of a lav immediately takes away the spontaneous quality of any documentary, giving it a contrived talking heads appearance.  However, if it must be used as an emergency tactic, let it be seen prominently (rather than attempting to hide it in folds of clothing).  

 

Having a lav in full view further enchances the honesty we expect to see in a documentary film.