I’ve been on something of an artsy non-fiction binge lately and the following thought occurred with regard to cinema verité. The phrase refers to a style of documentary filmmaking that emerged in France during the 1960’s. It emphasized realism by capturing everyday life with minimal interference by the creators. Newly-developed lightweight equipment and faster negative stocks allowed them to use handheld cameras and available light to shoot spontaneous, unrehearsed action to varying degrees of effectiveness.
At the same time in America, a related movement was gaining momentum. The goal of direct cinema was to render complete objectivity through the use of an “invisible” camera and filmmaker. Directors Ricky Leacock (Primary [1960], Monterey Pop [1967]), Albert and David Maysles (Salesman [1969], Gimme Shelter [1970]), D.A. Pennebaker (Don’t Look Back [1967]) and Frederick Wiseman (Titicut Follies [1967]) led this effort to preserve reality exactly as it unfolded – and as if they weren’t there.
While their titles represent a valuable witness to the era, I never bought into their idea of an unvarnished actuality. Unless they shot in a single, unbroken take later presented to an audience without a cut – which they didn’t – there’s something disingenuous about it.
And even if they did work that way, observational, fly-on-the-wall recordings of people and events fall apart the instant a camera enters the proceedings. No matter where it lands, it represents a choice made by an outside entity whose presence can’t help but impose a point of view that somehow effects the reality in front of it. I’m sure Leacock, the Maysles, Pennebaker and Wiseman would’ve squawked, but this instantly negates the “truth” they wished to capture.
Nonetheless, I’ve been enjoying their films for the past couple of weeks. Casting myself as a civilian movie watcher, I ignored the theory and pretentiousness that underpins so much of what they did. But every so often I couldn’t help thinking: The camera can certainly be unobtrusive, but it can’t be somewhere and not be there at the same time.
Haskell Wexler, ASC, a master documentarian himself, always insisted the same – introducing a camera, and perhaps filmmakers, changes any situation to some extent – sometimes to a great extent. Same for edit decisions. Also true: those films and their like are fascinating and important documents, in spite of any questionable theories. Thanks, Richard!
Richard-
I don’t look at the documentarians as pretentious at all. I think it is always implied that any documentary film has been edited for many reasons if only for length. Any edited presentation becomes subjective, not objective. One just hopes that the filmmakers don’t edit to skew to their point of view which then becomes a sort of propaganda.
I don’t know that there is really any way to present something completely objectively apart from a live broadcast. Even an uninterrupted recording of events can, and often is, be edited which then changes the true objectivity. Whether it is edited for reasons of length or to remove objectionable images that changes the reality of it. But I believe that most documentaries, at last those that are not overtly political in nature, are done honorably and try to be as neutral as possible. “Just the facts, M’am”
Such a very fine razor sharp line…
I super appreciate when filmmakers ARE AWARE of this line, and consciously tread on the artistic and experienced side of subconscious effective emotion…
My experimental film professor called them point of view films. Once you choose certain angles and edit the footage, it is not truthful. Documentary is a perspective.