The Realism of Documentaries: An Argumentative Analysis

Documentaries are often regarded as a genre of filmmaking that delivers unfiltered, objective truths about the world. They are celebrated for their ability to inform, educate, and inspire by presenting the realities of life as they unfold. However, this perception of documentaries as the ultimate representation of truth and realism is fraught with complexities. The very act of filming introduces layers of subjectivity, manipulation, and performance that challenge the authenticity of the medium. As John Grierson famously described, documentaries are “the creative treatment of actuality” (Grierson, 1933), emphasizing that even the most realistic documentaries are inherently constructed narratives. This essay explores the limitations of documentary realism by analyzing the influence of the camera’s presence, the role of the filmmaker, and the performative nature of human behavior, supported by insights from prominent theorists and filmmakers such as Werner Herzog, Michel Foucault, Errol Morris, and Grierson himself.

The Camera as an Agent of Performance

One of the primary challenges to the realism of documentaries is the presence of the camera itself. When individuals know they are being observed, their behavior inevitably changes. This phenomenon is rooted in Michel Foucault’s concept of the panopticon, which describes how the awareness of observation alters actions (Foucault, 1977). In the context of documentaries, the camera becomes a modern-day panopticon, influencing the subjects to act in ways they perceive as acceptable or desirable for the audience. This aligns with the assertion that “The moment a camera is turned on, the truth becomes a performance.”

The performative nature of human behavior under observation undermines the claim that documentaries capture unmediated reality. Subjects often become conscious of their image, modulating their actions and reactions to align with societal norms or expectations. For instance, in observational documentaries that claim to adopt a “fly-on-the-wall” approach, the very act of filming disrupts the natural dynamics of the scene. As Errol Morris points out, “Objectivity is an illusion. Filmmakers choose what to include, exclude, and emphasize” (Morris, 1988). This critique highlights the paradox of the fly-on-the-wall approach: while it aims to present an unfiltered reality, it inevitably constructs a narrative shaped by the filmmaker’s choices and the subject’s altered behavior.

The Filmmaker’s Influence on Reality

The role of the filmmaker is another critical factor that challenges the realism of documentaries. Unlike fiction films, where the director’s creative input is explicit, documentaries are often presented as unbiased accounts of reality. However, as Grierson argued, documentaries are “the creative treatment of actuality” (Grierson, 1933), meaning that the filmmaker’s perspective and decisions play a significant role in shaping the narrative. From framing and editing to the selection of interviews and events, every aspect of a documentary is curated to convey a particular message or perspective.

Werner Herzog, a prominent documentary filmmaker, challenges the notion of pure objectivity in documentaries. He argues that “There are deeper strata of truth in cinema, and there is such a thing as poetic, ecstatic truth” (Herzog, 2002). Herzog’s concept of “ecstatic truth” acknowledges that documentaries are not mere recordings of events but are interpretive works that seek to evoke emotional or philosophical truths. This perspective reinforces the idea that documentaries, like other forms of art, are subjective interpretations of reality rather than objective reflections.

The Myth of Fly-on-the-Wall Realism

The term “fly-on-the-wall” is often used to describe a style of documentary filmmaking that aims to be as unobtrusive as possible, capturing events as they naturally occur. However, this concept is inherently flawed. As the statement “Fly-on-the-wall is a myth—every wall has cracks, and every fly has a perspective” suggests, the idea of complete neutrality in documentary filmmaking is illusory. The filmmaker’s presence, even if indirect, influences the narrative through decisions about camera placement, angles, and the moments that are included or omitted during editing.

Errol Morris’s work provides a compelling critique of the fly-on-the-wall approach. In his documentary The Thin Blue Line (1988), Morris uses reenactments and stylized visuals to challenge the conventional boundaries of documentary filmmaking. His approach demonstrates that documentaries are not passive recordings but active constructions of reality. By emphasizing the subjective nature of documentary storytelling, Morris challenges audiences to question the authenticity of so-called “objective” documentaries.

The Role of the Audience

Another dimension to consider is the role of the audience in interpreting documentary realism. Documentaries are often marketed as truthful representations of reality, which influences how viewers perceive them. However, as Grierson’s concept of the “creative treatment of actuality” suggests, audiences must recognize that documentaries are constructed narratives. This awareness allows viewers to critically engage with documentaries, questioning the filmmaker’s intentions and the authenticity of the depicted events.

Werner Herzog’s approach to documentary filmmaking further illustrates the importance of audience interpretation. His emphasis on “poetic truth” encourages viewers to look beyond the surface-level facts of a documentary and engage with its deeper emotional and philosophical meanings. This perspective challenges the conventional understanding of documentary realism, suggesting that truth in documentaries is not about factual accuracy but about evoking a deeper understanding of the human experience (Herzog, 2002).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the realism of documentaries is a complex and multifaceted concept that cannot be taken at face value. The presence of the camera, the filmmaker’s influence, and the performative nature of human behavior all contribute to the constructed nature of documentary narratives. As theorists and filmmakers such as Grierson, Herzog, Morris, and Foucault have argued, documentaries are not objective reflections of reality but subjective interpretations shaped by artistic and ethical considerations. Recognizing these limitations allows both filmmakers and audiences to approach documentaries with a critical eye, appreciating their narrative artistry while questioning their claims of authenticity. Ultimately, documentaries should be seen not as definitive truths but as platforms for exploring deeper emotional, philosophical, and social realities.