Authenticity In Film 

Paper by Thomas Olandt. Viewed on DVD.

The issue of authenticity is one often grappled in the world of cinema.  Movie making in its very nature is art, as it’s central processes include creating a replication of reality through inauthentic tools and endeavors. Documentary style cinematography is one of the forms of film that attempts to bridge the gaps between fact and fiction, between reality and art. The problem, however, is that any attempt at representing reality is by default already a convoluted representation of what is true. The style of filming is a direct contributor to the way in which a film is perceived.  Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite are different methods of documentary filmmaking. These styles try to capture authenticity, though “Direct” documentaries do not acknowledge the presence of the camera, while Verite films are reflexive and self-aware, calling attention to their cinematic nature.  On the surface, one would assume that the Verite style of movie-making would be naturally more “authentic”, as there are presumably no secrets being held from the audience. Robert Flaherty’s film, “Nanook of the North” show depictions of  what the audience believes to be presumably true through the style of Direct Cinema. “No Lies…” by Michael Block presents an intriguing argument to the Cinema Verite style of documentary. After viewing “No Lies…”, and “Nanook of the North”, we can see that both Block and Flaherty’s depiction of “truth” or “authenticity” is approached from different angles, and that neither can never actually be proven.  The methods for creation of a motion picture do not allow for unaltered ideas, scenes, or depictions, and as such, film can never be considered more than what it is – a mere representation of what the film maker calls “reality”.

In order to understand authenticity in these movements we must first understand what exactly each style of filming is. Direct Cinema was a style of filming that was made popular during the 1960’s.  It heavily relied on the idea of portability and movement to capture the real intimacy in filmmaking. Along with the new concept of mobility, it relied on the new technology that was being developed for movie-making. The idea of being able to record sound as it was happening was a big factor contributing to direct cinema, because it gave a more authentic feel to the sound and thus the movie itself. The crew would not have to record ambient noise after the fact, to dub over the video in order for it to seem real. Improvements in lighting was also a big contributing factor, as the idea of advent light coupled with the portable camera was yet another technique that gave the film a more real feeling.  Prior to these improvements in filming, it was the common idea that it was easy for film makers to lie or edit the pictures the way they wanted before this movement. The films were puzzles for the directors to put together how they pleased prior to this idea. However, we see in Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North, that even a film that employes the use of Direct Cinema, can be false in many senses. We learn that many of the shots were staged and that half of the movie, as depicted by Flaherty, was false. 

Cinema Verite is a style of film making that is not very different from Direct Cinema. It relies on the idea of the hand held camera, and the similar feeling of real life being told or shown before your eyes. Quick movement from the filmmaker give it the sense of real-life filming, much like direct cinema. However, the main points where these two styles differ is that Cinema Verite filmmakers believe that the only true and honest way to capture authenticity is for the camera to be known, and in some sense become a catalyst to the people being filmed. They involve stylized set ups and are aimed at the confrontation that might arise from the camera being there. It is not so much the activity that is being filmed but more the actions that come out of each character due to the acknowledged fact that they are being filmed, and what the effect that this overt filming has on each person.   “No lies…”, uses this style of filming; however with this film you see how this style can be broken apart and proven to be false.

“No Lies…” Completely turns the Cinema Verite documentary genre on it’s head, by exposing the fact that even “factual” movies have the ability to jar one’s sense of reality by depicting a situation that the audience initially believes to be real, and then completely reversing the situation with the revelation that it is, in fact, all false. In Nichols book he comes up with the idea that there is more then one rape happening in the film and thus breaking more then one truth. There is at first the rape of the girl in the film, with whom we invest our personal emotions Then there is the second rape of the filmmaker asking his questions and prodding into her personal life with stabbing questions and failing to believe her story. Then in the end, when we learn that the whole film was false, and that the people in the film were actors, and the things said, were from a script. This turns to the third idea of rape in the film, the rape of the audience. The audience invests emotion in this movie, siding with the woman in the film on the fact that her story is presumably true. We then find out everything to be false. This poses the question to the audience, what is real? 

It was Michael Block’s artistic decision to create a film that on the surface seemed to be Cinema Verite, but was in actuality the complete opposite.  He opens with an overt shot at himself as the “film maker”, and draws upon his character’s supposed discomfort with being in front of a camera, in order to generate the “at-home” movie sentiment.  Shelby’s discomfort automatically implies authenticity, as it appeals to general human emotion, and makes an immediate correlation between the character and the average human being, as unwitting attention usually generates discomfort.  Shelby’s light-hearted personality also contributes to the overall sense of legitimacy in the piece.  Not only does she seem genuinely taken-aback that her friend wants to film her, she continues to allude to other plans, thereby creating a sense of anticipation from the audience and an intimation of a different direction for the film.  When she starts to talk about the rape, she maintains a light-hearted manner, further confusing the audience.  She appears to be laughing it off, yet it is apparent that the topic bothers her, and that she is uncomfortable with expressing personal emotions while on film.  Block’s reasoning here is simple, yet genius – he strives to relate to his audience by highlighting a common insecurity among mankind – the fear of vulnerability.  Because Block introduces the film in a haphazard, off-the-cuff manner, the audience is more inclined to believe in it’s authenticity.  His cinematic choice to include cuts of the camera itself all go into the idea of the Cinema Verite style, and trying to make us believe his film to be true. The problem with films like this is the idea that because of the nature of the film we tend to believe it. We have no way of saying either way weather a film is true or not, and as we can see through a movie like this, Block is able to break down the traditional notions of truth as associate with his film and evoke real emotion out of fake emotion. 

Robert Flaherty’s Documentary, “Nanook of the North” was another documentary that goes to show that not everything you see is complete truth. This film furthers our argument that “truth”, in its very plainest form, really has no place in these styles of documentary filming. “Nanook of the North” draws on the idea of editing and staging to create the idea of truth in documentary. It was also one of the first documentaries funded by an outside source, a French fur company. This idea alone could have major implications on the film. It is possible that because the film was sponsored by this company that they would have more camera time then initially anticipated, and possibly creating a false sense of the characters ties with a place like this. It could pose the idea that maybe “Nanook” never even went to a post like this one. It is reasons like these that this style of Direct Cinema can be looked at as a form of deception. Similar to the way that “No lies..” was able to deceive the audience, Flaherty’s take on this Directly Cinematic movie is the same. It is showing only a representation of what is true. We find out that most of what is portrayed by the camera to be false. So much so that even his name; Nanook, was not his real name. The scenes in the movie where the family pull up in a canoe are all edited to seem like one consistent shot. The Igloo building or house that Nanook builds is only half of an actual igloo. Small details like these thwart the idea that a film of this nature could be 100% authentic.  At the time the movie was released this all looked completely believable to the audience because no editing to this degree had been done. In Flaherty’s attempt to create a non fiction documentary he allowed his ideas of how things should look or be seen take over the movie itself, and thus take over the authenticity of what was being filmed. It went from one spectrum to the other breaking multiple boundaries with the idea of “truth” in documentary film making. 

Through both films we can see that each movie lost a part of its authenticity due to these cinematic styles of filming. The problem with each of these styles is that neither one can convey the unaltered truth because that is to say that the film maker himself knows everything about what is being filmed. These styles of filming are good in the idea of trying to get a point across to the people that see them but as for their “authenticity”; it is very difficult to say that they have any. Direct Cinema’s fly on the wall approach is not authentic because even though the people act as though nothing is there, they still have to deal with the idea that a camera, is in fact there and that they are being filmed. Even in Cinema Verite’s method of explaining that the camera is there and the filming is going to take place before hand, one can not expect that this will not have a toll on the people that it films and on what they say while the camera is filming. 

As the idea of filming gets more technologically advanced, the room for “truth” or “authenticity” diminishes. It has become easier for film makers to create the idea of authenticity, without it actually backing it up with fact.  According to science, human emotion is primarily based on visual stimulation.  The fact that silent motion pictures were such a popular phenomenon in the 1930’s and 1940’s is a testament to this fact, proving that people are just as affected by moving pictures with audio accompaniment as they are by moving pictures with recorded speech.  Authenticity in film is nearly impossible to capture exclusively, as the processes that go into making a film are entirely fabricated.  As technology improves, the opportunity to manipulate versions of “reality” via film also increase.  Through their documentaries, both Block and Flaherty further prove the idea that no matter the avenue a filmmaker chooses to take – down to the very specifications of Direct Cinema versus Cinema Verite – nothing can be taken at surface value.  The idea of authenticity in film must therefore be redefined, if the idea of truth is to preserve any value.  Cinema is a canvas upon which ideas are to be created and tested, and in the realm of human imagination, reality has little impact.  Cinema Verite and Direct Cinema are still to be considered different methods of going about filmmaking, but in regard to authentic representation of human life, neither should be considered absolutely true – cinematography is, and probably always will be, a forum for freedom of thought and invention, not a place in which reality is to be sought.

Works Cited
Grant, Barry Keith, and Jeannette Sloniowski. Documenting the Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1998. Print.
Nichols, Bill. “Chapter 6.” Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington (Ind.): Indiana UP, 2001. Print.
Nichols, Bill. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991. Books.Google.com. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.