Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DO NOT EXIST
Franz Burgmann
9617155
C190 406 344
Table
of
Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 14
Introduction
Documentaries make the claim that they are a "faithful portrayal of the real" (Kilborn
18). Bill Nichols dismisses this estimation, as he states that "[c]inema presents us with
the images of things. Images are mimetic distractions and counterfeitings; they cannot
engage our reason nor nourish our hunger for Truth" (Nichols 3). The French movie
critic Serge Daney, along similar lines, points out "c'est que le cinema a rapport au rel
et que le rel n'est pas le reprsent-et basta" ("that the cinema has a fundamental
rapport with reality and that the real is not what is represented - and that's final")
(qtd. in Andrew 5). However, even though, according to Nichols and Daney, no
(Kilborn 18), the question remains whether documentaries have the potential of being
true 'projections' of reality, i.e., whether the relationship between a documentary and
the reality it is trying to capture can be similar to the one between the two-
Most people have seen a variety of documentaries, and it should be a valid assumption
that they would not find it difficult to define characteristic features to distinguish them
from their fictional counterparts. If one dives deeper into the topic of documentaries,
however, not all of these popular definitions and notions of documentaries turn out to
For Bill Nichols, "every film is a documentary" (1). Nichols goes on to say that "[e]ven
the most whimsical of fictions gives evidence of the culture that produced it and
reproduces the likenesses of the people who perform within it" (1). Nichols' definition
documentary represents the producers, the social actors, or even something else, and
compared to Nichols; she claims that "[t]here is no such thing as documentary" (76).
What Minh-Ha means with the above statement is that regardless of whether or not a
'documentary' presents facts, it is never neutral and therefore does not deserve to
The present paper supports Minh-Ha's claim that documentaries are inaccurately
labeled (Minh-Ha 76). However, this paper follows a different line of argumentation; it
shows that, as far as people are involved as social actors in what filmmakers claim to
but rather actively create their social actors. This means that a truly uncorrupted
observational mode of representation (Nichols iv), in which the filmmakers use a "fly-
on-the-wall" approach (Nichols 92), is impossible to achieve and therefore does not
exist. The first and foremost reason for this is that the process of filming cannot help
but influence the social actors' behavior in one way or another due to the latter's
awareness of the camera, which is videotaping their every action and non-action.
Moreover, in some situations the social actors are not just passively videotaped but
are requested to enact the instructions of the directors a fact that documentary
'Camera-induced'
behavior
People
act
differently
when
they
know
that
they
are
being
filmed.
Even
when
supposedly everyday situations are filmed, the social actors' awareness of the
'normal' behavior. The apparent result of this is that their behavior on film does not
match the one that they would demonstrate in a comparable real life situation if no
camera was pointed at them. A study by van Bommel, which will be discussed later on
Some scenes of the highly acclaimed 1975 documentary Grey Gardens by Albert and
David Maysles will now be discussed in order to illustrate how the behavior of the
social actors of a documentary is altered by the presence of the camera. Grey Gardens
that is related to the 'cinma vrit' movement (Barnouw 254 55), which originated
in the 1960s in France. Both genres aim to interfere as little as possible with the
naturally-occurring stories that unfold in their documentaries, and the resulting works
interview conducted by James Blue in the 1960s, David Maysles defined the approach
Things
as
they
come
in
real
life
are
much
more
exciting
than
anything
that
you
can
invent
on
stage.
Writers
try
to
emulate
life.
They
feel
they
have
to
have
it
under
their
control.
We
feel
just
the
opposite.
We
observe
and
shoot
things
just
as
they
happen.
We
are
after
an
emotional
response.
[We]
don't
want
people
to
say:
'It's
a
documentary,
isn't
it?'
If
we
can
achieve
that,
something
will
have
been
accomplished
(qtd.
In
Notaras).
According to Vogels, the Maysles brothers used direct cinema techniques with the
main aim of "reassert[ing] the sanctity of the individual in a world increasingly prone to
identify people as parts of large, often opposing groups" (7). However, even in Grey
Gardens, which, as discussed above, belongs to a documentary genre that has the
primary aim "to minimize the mediating work of film-maker and camera on the
'real'" (Marshall 21), the influence of the camera on its social actors is conspicuous.
There is a scene at the beginning of the documentary in which Little Edie has an
altercation with her mother over some pictures that directly illustrates the social
actors' awareness of the camera. The daughter wants to show a picture to the Maysles
brothers, and the resulting argument escalates until they physically play tug-of-war
with the photo and it is partially torn. Part of the accompanying dialog between
BIG
EDIE.
No!
Give
me
those
pictures.
I
don't
want
to
ask
sixty-seven
times.
LITTLE
EDIE.
Come
on.
I
want
to
show
that
to
Al.
BIG
EDIE.
No,
I
want
LITTLE
EDIE.
I
wanna
show
it
to
Al!
(Grey
Gardens)
With 'Al', Little Edie is referring to Albert Maysles, one of the two filmmakers. As can
be concluded from the above dialog, the verbal as well as physical fight between
mother and daughter only comes into being because Little Edie wants to show the
pictures to one of the filmmakers, a situation that would obviously not have taken
place in the social actors' lives had the filmmakers not been present and thus shows
the camera-induced, altered behavior of the social actors. The two women seem like
children vying for the attention of their visitors, and one cannot help but wonder what
A scene similarly suited for demonstrating the social actors' awareness of being filmed
is when Little Edie reminds her mother not to get undressed in front of the camera.
Little Edie's exclamation "But the movie, the movie!" obviously serves to remind her
mother to adhere to socially appropriate behavior in the film that is being shot about
them. This reveals that the social actors are not behaving the way they otherwise
would. According to the way the two carry on before the camera, it seems rather
unlikely that Big Edie's threat to get naked would have even occurred without an
audience. What is even more important than the answer to this unanswerable
question, though, is that the scene demonstrates the social actors' awareness of the
Even though Little Edie's cautionary exclamation "But the movie, the movie!" could
easily have been eliminated from the film's final cut, the filmmakers evidently decided
to keep this scene. This could have happened in order to accentuate the fact that the
viewers are getting a direct window into the mother's and daughter's lives as well as
serving as further proof of the raw and untouched way in which the film adheres to
the influence that the camera has on the documentary's social actors and shows the
92) that followers of the direct cinema movement claim to pursue and what actually
There are more scenes in Grey Gardens illustrating the camera-induced and thus
modified behavior of the social actors. During a short dialogue about food, Big Edie
talks to her daughter about her own self-conscious feelings while she was having lunch
the previous day. Big Edie mentions that she was eating in front of the camera, and
she tells her daughter that she "was very embarrassed". Even though the scene to
which the mother is referring eventually did not make it into the final version of Grey
Gardens, her mention of it nonetheless emphasizes the fact that it was the presence of
the camera that induced her uncomfortable feelings and thus affected her, in the
present case, unfavorably. Another distinct example of the social actors' awareness of
the camera is the scene in which Little Edie asks her mother whether she should "tell
them about Gould". With 'them', Little Edie is referring to the filmmakers, which again
suggests a strong awareness of the presence of the camera and a desire to explain
aspects of their lives that would obviously not need any clarification in a conversation
Grey Gardens contains many scenes in which the social actors directly address either
the filmmakers or the camera. In one such scene, mother and daughter are listening to
an inspirational speaker on the radio, in the middle of which Little Edie turns around,
directly addresses either the filmmakers or the camera it is hard to distinguish since
it is not a close-up, but for the purposes of this paper the distinction is not relevant
and asks, "Isn't he terrific?". In another scene, before she starts dancing, Little Edie
asks the filmmakers whether she will "look funny dancing", which they both answer
with "no!". There is also a scene where mother and daughter are looking at pictures
that show Little Edie as a child, and Big Edie directly asks the two filmmakers for
confirmation that she had been a good mother, which the Maysles brothers again
answer affirmatively.
Grey Gardens also contains scenes in which the social actors directly address the
filmmakers for the purpose of getting instructions. At the very beginning of the
documentary, Little Edie asks a series of questions with the aim of finding out how
they should proceed with the day: "What do you want to do now? Where do you want
to go? Upstairs? Do you want to go up and photograph it from the top porch?" This
scene distinctly illustrates the fact that Little Edie was not going on with her ordinary
life at that time and possibly also for the whole time in which the shooting of the
documentary was taking place. In this scene, Little Edie's actions seem to be
dependent on the filmmakers' wishes or, at the very least, she is hoping for some
guidance from them which strongly contradicts one of the main objectives of direct
Camera-induced behavior is also apparent in scenes in which the social actors of Grey
Gardens are performing for the camera and the filmmakers rather than going on with
their normal lives. At the beginning of the documentary, Little Edie models her outfit in
front of the Maysles brothers, describing it as follows: "And you can always take off
the skirt and use it as a cape. So I think this is the best costume for the day." Apart
from the fact that she is apparently not proceeding with her daily routine as she
usually would without visitors which is illustrated through her interactions with the
filmmakers the fact that she calls her outfit a "costume" is also a strong indicator
that she perceives herself to be playing a 'role' in a performance rather than behaving
Little Edie's concern about her physical appearance in front of the camera further
demonstrates the fact that she perceives the filming process to be a special, out-of-
the-ordinary event, and that her behavior is consequently modified because of it. At
one point she apologetically remarks that she "[hasn't] got [her] makeup on",
indicating that she may have a ritual of primping herself before the Maysles arrive.
Most women would agree that they dress differently and may apply makeup for the
benefit of outside company, and viewers are left to wonder what Little Edie's physical
appearance might look on a normal day without the presence of the directors and
influenced by the presence of the camera, it can only be surmised how much the
There are many scenes in which the performance element is present to a high degree
in Grey Gardens. A striking example is the scene in which Little Edie reads the
horoscope out loud while she is apparently trying hard to look her best, which
becomes evident because she is constantly adjusting her headdress. Another scene
that illustrates the fact that the social actors are performing for the camera is when Big
Edie sings "Tea for Two". By the way the scene unfolds, it is obvious that she is singing
for the benefit of the filmmakers and the camera, i.e., her future audience. In another
scene, Little Edie gives a short dancing performance in front of the camera. Her view
of it as a show for the film is demonstrated when she directly addresses the camera
and admits that she was exhausted because she had been practicing the performance
Many of the scenes in Grey Gardens feel more like a talk show or an interview rather
than samples of real life. This becomes obvious in scenes where the social actors talk
about each other in the third person even when in close proximity to each other. One
of these scenes is when Little Edie explains her current situation of looking after her
mother: "I suppose I won't get out of here till she dies or I die". Another example is
when mother and daughter discuss various clothing items and, in the middle of their
conversation, Little Edie suddenly turns towards the camera and explains: "She likes
everything without girdles". The daughter repeatedly appears to treat the whole
filming process as a sort of in-depth interview about her life, but genuine evidence of
Further evidence of the interview-like nature of the film is produced in the many
scenes where the social actors explain and share details about their lives with the
filmmakers and the audience. One overt example is when Little Edie complains to the
Maysles about her spoilt life: "I missed out on everything. I missed out on the reunion
of my graduating class in Farmington. Because that was the fall that Jack Kennedy
campaigned to get in, and I was stuck here with Mother, the cats, the house and T.
Logan, and I couldn't go". The narrating element is obviously a product of the filming
circumstances.
There are a great number of scenes in which the Maysles brothers did not even
attempt to be 'flies on the wall' (Nichols 92). In one scene, one of the filmmakers
directly asks Little Edie: "Was your mother divorced or not?". In another scene, David
Maysles, this time addressing the mother, asks: "Didn't you expect that Edie might get
married someday?". In a scene where Little Edie talks about her difficult experiences
during World War I, David Maysles interrupts her and comments on what she had said
beforehand: "It must've been tough on people. I remember as a kid, so many loved
ones being killed. But you were the dating age". In another scene, David Maysles even
steps into the picture to help Big Edie get up from her chair. Furthermore, there is a
scene at the beginning of the documentary where the filmmakers even go as far as
flirting with one of their social actors, jokingly referring to themselves as "the
gentleman callers" and complementing Little Edie on her looks: "Edie, you look
fantastic".
10
As an additional aspect, it should also be taken into consideration that the social actors
behavior for their audience. Given the extraordinary circumstances in which Big Edie
and her Little Edie were embedded, it would not be surprising if the reclusive pair
the mother who was a retired singer and the daughter who was an aspiring dancer
would have relished the opportunity to perform for their company and the camera and
least amplified way. An additional indicator for this assumption could be that Little
Overall, the mother and daughter do not seem to be actually living their every-day
lives as they normally would in the absence of the camera. The documentary as a
whole leaves the viewer with the impression that it provides a big 'show and tell' for
the benefit of the social actors rather than a 'secret window' into the daily routine of
The 'camera-induced' behavior discussed in the above examples has also been
addressed by van Bommel in a recent study about public self-awareness. The study
comes to the conclusion that people behave in a different manner when a camera is
focused on them due to their reputation concerns (van Bommel 1). Van Bommel goes
11
documentaries. However, the extent of the directors' involvement in their films goes
beyond what meets the eye when watching the final product.
In the documentary Little Dieter Needs to Fly, director Werner Herzog instructed his
social actor Dieter to fabricate a scene that did not actually occur in real life; this
happened in order to achieve a dramatic effect. Herzog 'invented' a scene in which the
social actor Dieter, who had escaped from a Cambodian prison camp, is "opening and
closing the door obsessively from both sides, over and over, to make certain he isn't
locked in" (Blake). The viewer naturally concludes that this is something Dieter does
habitually, but Blake reveals that this is not at all the case and that Herzog requested
Dieter to act this way (Blake). Additionally, Blake quotes an undisclosed director who
referred to such an approach as "[l]ying the truth" (Blake). Blake herself interprets the
unnamed director's assertion, stating that "there is a greater truth to which you must
remain loyal, but the means by which you express this truth are a bit looser" (Blake).
Cheating in documentaries goes as far back as the very beginning of the genre. Ronald
Bergan claims that cheating started as early as 1895 with the first documentary ever
shown to the public, Workers Leaving the Lumire Factory, directed and produced by
the Brothers Lumire in France. The main evidence for Bergan's assertion is the fact
that none of the workers looks at the camera or walks towards it according to Bergan
a clear indicator that the social actors had been instructed beforehand.
12
Later milestones in documentary filmmaking have also been identified as having been
the North, which, according to Bergan, bears obvious signs of "an Inuit family [re-
enacting] their lives for the camera" (Bergan). For instance, as Bergan points out, the
hunting of a walrus with harpoons was something the family had not done in years and
just picked up because Flaherty asked them to. Additionally, for the scene in which the
Inuit family sleeps inside of an igloo, Flaherty had instructed his social actors to build
an igloo "twice the average size, with half of it cut away to allow in sunlight" (Bergan).
an interview with the filmmaker Sam Pollard. As Patricia Aufderheide reveals in her
report about the ethical challenges in documentary filmmaking, Pollard expressed his
regrets for having pushed a social actor in one of his documentaries so far that the
latter broke down. Pollard asked "a subject to redo an interview in order to get a more
emotionally rich version of a painful moment when he had been abused by police in
prison" (Aufderheide 7). Pollard stated that he felt he manipulated the social actor
(Aufderheide). In the interview, the filmmaker admitted: "I felt like a real shit for the
rest of the day, felt like I manipulated him for my personal gain" (Pollard qtd. in
different filmmakers, and one of the overall findings is that "[g]etting to 'higher truth'
13
following about how the Maysles approached the making of Grey Gardens: "I admire
the Maysles for refusing to help the viewers understand what they're seeing. They did
something I don't have the guts to do. They just let it roll" (Trench). If a documentary
lauded for the Maysles brothers' minimal intervention, one can only imagine the
Conclusion
In
the
scope
of
this
paper,
it
has
been
demonstrated
that
documentaries
are
not
an
accurate representation of reality (Kilborn 18), but that they rather, as Bill Nichols
aptly puts it, "[present] us with the images of things" (Nichols 3) and that they
therefore cannot satisfy our quest for veracity (Nichols 3). It has also been discussed
that, even though most people have a rather clear conception of what a documentary
is, further investigations reveal that the boundaries between documentaries and
scholars about the definition of documentaries; Trinh T. Minh-H, for instance, opposes
Bill Nichols' argument that all films are documentaries (Nichols 1) with her contention
Using Albert and David Maysles' Grey Gardens as an example, this paper has shown
that people start to behave differently the moment a camera is pointed at them. It has
14
been illustrated that, as far as people are involved as social actors, so-called
documentaries are not capable of simply documenting people's lives because the
camera, which is inextricably linked to documentaries, will alter people's behavior and,
as a result, depict them inaccurately. Consequently, social actors are created rather
than documented. As has been pointed out, these findings are corroborated by the
results of van Bommel's study about the relationship between public self-awareness
Additionally, using Werner Herzog's Little Dieter Needs to Fly and a few other select
perception if viewers think that the makers of documentaries are merely shadowing
their social actors. On the contrary, filmmakers often actively interfere by instructing
For documentaries that rely on people as their social actors, a truthful representation
of reality is not possible. The only true documentary would be one with a hidden
camera in which the social actors are unaware of the fact that they are being filmed. It
has to be argued, though, that such a documentary would still not be a true
representation of reality, but only a projection of the real. This is true due to various
issues discussed in this paper, such as Nichols' statement that any audiovisual
reproduction is only an image of the real thing (Nichols 3). Additionally, as soon as
footage from such a project is sorted and selected for a feature-length film, it loses
15
feature film can only ever represent a truth selected by the film-maker" (14).
Even if the above factors were not taken into consideration, legal concerns in regard to
the infringement of human rights would already prevent such true 'fly-on-the-wall'
documentaries (Nichols 92) in the real meaning of the word to come even close to
fruition. Simply put, true documentaries do not exist. Documentaries, as they have
been produced so far and as they in all probability will be produced in the foreseeable
future, do not deserve to bear the title of 'documentary' perhaps it would be more
(4,352 words)
16
Works
Cited
Aufderheide,
Patricia
et
al.
Honest
Truths:
Documentary
Filmmakers
on
Ethical
Challenges
in
Their
Work.
Washington,
D.C.:
Center
for
Social
Media,
2009.
Web.
24
Sept.
2015.
Andrew,
Dudley.
What
Cinema
Is!
Hoboken:
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
2011.
Print.
Barnouw,
Erik.
Documentary:
A
History
of
the
Non-fiction
Film.
2nd
Rev.
ed.
New
York:
Oxford
UP,
1993.
Print.
Bergan,
Ronald.
"Isn't
It
Time
We
Dropped
the
Term
'documentary'
for
Good?"
Film
Blog.
The
Guardian,
31
Mar.
2009.
Web.
24
Sept.
2015.
Blake,
Sally.
"Documentary
Filmmaking:
Truth
or
Fiction?"
Utne.
Christian
Williams,
Mar.
2012.
Web.
24
Sept.
2015.
Erickson,
Glenn.
"Grey
Gardens."
Turner
Classic
Movies.
TCM.
Web.
24
Sept.
2015.
Grey
Gardens.
Dir.
Albert
Maysles.
Perf.
Edith
"Big
Edie"
Ewing
Bouvier
Beale
Edith
"Little
Edie"
Bouvier
Beale.
Portrait
Films,
1975.
Film.
Kilborn,
R.
W.,
and
John
Izod.
An
Introduction
to
Television
Documentary:
Confronting
Reality.
Manchester:
Manchester
UP,
1997.
Print.
Kochberg,
Searle.
Introduction
to
Documentary
Production.
London:
Wallflower,
2002.
Print.
Marshall,
Bill.
Quebec
National
Cinema.
Montreal,
Que.:
McGill-Queen's
UP,
2001.
Print.
Nichols,
Bill.
Representing
Reality:
Issues
and
Concepts
in
Documentary.
Bloomington:
Indiana
UP,
1991.
Print.
Notaras,
Gabriela,
and
Richard
Philips.
"World
Socialist
Web
Site."
Two
Fine
Examples
of
"direct
Cinema"
-.
World
Socialist
Web
Site,
7
Sept.
2001.
Web.
24
Sept.
2015.
Trench,
Marianne.
"How
Grey
Gardens
Auteurs
Made
Us
Squirm."
The
Daily
Beast.
Newsweek/Daily
Beast,
28
Mar.
2015.
Web.
24
Sept.
2015.
Trinh
T.
Minh-ha,
"Documentary
Is/Not
a
Name."
October
52
(Spring
1990):
76-98.
van
Bommel,
M.,
et
al.,
Be
aware
to
care:
Public
self-awareness
leads
to
a
reversal
of
the
bystander
effect,
Journal
of
Experimental
Social
Psychology
(2012),
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.011
17
18