The Struggle for Trust and Authenticity in Documentary Film

Paper by Dane M. Angus. Viewed on DVD.

There are plenty of different ways of creating a documentary film, and the filmmaker must decide which one works best for the type of film being produced if they wish to be a success. Bill Nichols, the man responsible for basically defining the documentary theory said that, “documentaries represent the historical world by shaping its photographic record of some aspect of the world from a distinct perspective or point of view.” Bill Nichols established a specific group of documentary modes that put certain documentary films in categories. Matthew Bernstein states in Documenting The Documentary, “Nichols’s categories of expository, observational, interactive, and reflexive modes affirm…there are many different kinds of documentary” (Bernstein 398). A documentary can have more than just one of theses modes present in a film and these modes can determine the level of authenticity given off to the viewers. A documentary film can either be produced in the Direct Cinema method or the Cinema Verite method. No matter the method chosen by the filmmaker, it is a main objective to gain the trust of the audience so they may relate the film to their own reality thus exposing the “truth claim” the filmmaker intends to create in their film. A triangle of trust must be established between the filmmaker, the social actors, and the audience. The three main aspects that pose a problem for authenticity in Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite are the level of intrusion of the filmmaker, the documentarian’s on-screen presence, and the use of “confessional” interviews within a documentary film; these characteristics benefit the revealing of the “truth” in the documentary films: Biggie and Tupac (2002), Super Size Me (2004), and Food Inc. (2008).

The documentary can be represented through Direct Cinema or Cinema Verite. Whether Direct or Verite, the documentary must make a case or present an argument. This is done using proofs within the film. The different types of proofs are: ethical, emotional, and demonstrative. These methods of filming a documentary share many similarities as well as differences in the way that they deliver the “truth.” Direct Cinema makes it possible to express the “truth” (authenticity) because the camera is unobtrusive; it acts like a fly on the wall. The filmmaker captures reality as it happens. However, Direct Cinema is not able to expose any authentic behaviors or attitudes of the social actors within the documentary. In Cinema Verite, which originated in France and used the same technology and similar approach to Direct Cinema had the camera and the filmmaker confront the social actors to hopefully obtain a possible truth. In this method of filmmaking the camera is used as a catalyst for authenticity. In Andrew Dickerson’s Masters Theses, Nothing But The Truth And The Whole Truthiness: Examining Markers Of Authenticity In The Modern Documentary, he states that the “…documentarians were ‘held to a duty to respect the rights of others’ and had ‘an obligation to disclose their intentions and to create unbiased depictions, in short, to ‘tell the truth’ to their audiences” (Dickerson 28). The audience must relate to the filmmaker and/or the issue being documented. Only with this trust between the two will the proper transfer of the “truth claim” be complete. Dickerson continues to express in his article that, “The direct cinema documentarist took his camera to a situation of tension and waited hopefully for a crisis; the Rouch version of Cinema Verite tried to precipitate one. The Direct Cinema artist aspired to invisibility; the Rouch Cinema Verite artist was often an avowed participant…[or] provocateur” (Dickerson 29). To be sure, the choice whether to uncover the camera to the subject is one of incredible debate in the documentary domain, as far as its impact both on the audience’s experience and the film itself. While both Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite can make a documentary successful, there are problems that threaten authenticity within a film.

The first problem of authenticity in Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite is the level of intrusion of the filmmaker in documentary film. This is gauged by whether the camera is hidden from the social actors or blatantly made apparent to them. In the film Biggie and Tupac the director, Nick Bloomfield, has a relatively high level of intrusion throughout the film. For example, in the scene where Bloomfield walks into the barbershop the viewers clearly see that the customer and barber feel pressured by the filmmaker, the customer goes as far as covering their entire upper body to hide herself from the camera. This is evident that the filming process is authentic. This footage allows for the audience to grasp the reality being captured by the filmmaker due to his intense level of intrusion. In the film Super Size Me the filmmaker, Morgan Spurlock uses a rather mellow amount of intrusion being the fact that he is also the main actor in the film. For example, the doctors expect Spurlock’s intrusions as well as the number of McDonalds restaurants he visits that are waiting to take his order. His social actors seem to notice the camera but do not change their attitude or behavior because of Spurlock’s level of intrusion, which suggests that the “truth claim” being represented is more authentic than not. Spurlock comes off with a certain amount of respect with his intrusion and I feel that this works for the overall authenticity of his film Super Size Me (2004). Lastly, in the film Food Inc. (2008) the level of intrusion by the filmmaker is extremely low to almost non-existent. For example, the interviews within this documentary film were scheduled and planned meaning that the filmmaker acquires authenticity without using intrusion on its subjects whom they hope to attain useful information in revealing a “truth.” The audience does not need to see the filmmaker intruding in this particular film because it approach’s the social actor on a planned out basis without the actual presence of the filmmaker. All of these documentaries resemble more of a Cinema Verite style of film and their level of intrusion whether high or low allowed for authenticity to reveal itself in all three of these films.

The second problem of authenticity in Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite is the amount of the filmmaker’s on-screen presence in documentary film. The presence of the filmmaker on-screen is a huge benefit in exposing authenticity; the filmmaker may just be expressing another version or persona of himself, which is just as much the catalyst for the “truth” as the camera is. This characteristic relates more to Cinema Verite as the filmmaker is a pat of the film and makes the production of the film clear to the public and social actors. This makes this type of film a reflexive film. The role of the filmmaker can either assist in the process of discovering/revealing truth or detract from it (Cinema Verite or Direct Cinema?). In the film Biggie and Tupac (2002) Nick Bloomfield has an extremely high amount of camera time where he is on-screen and this benefits the amount of authenticity felt by the audience. For example, authenticity is evident when we see Bloomfield on camera with the infamous record label owner Suge Knight in the background while filming a scene in a prison. This image of the filmmaker and an imprisoned “special” social actor allows for whatever “truth claim” to be expressed through the interview with Knight that followed this scene. Bloomfield’s large amount of on-screen presence is a positive aspect in revealing authenticity in the Cinema Verite documentary Biggie and Tupac (2002). Again we see the filmmaker, Bloomfield, in Biggie and Tupac (2002) taking risks by approaching subjects in public and making phone calls to unsuspecting people of interest while he is seen on camera. This further backs up his claim for authenticity and this gives him immense credit with the audience for filming his documentary with such a blunt and “in your face” type of style because he end up with a successful result. Bloomfield is a master at confronted the social actor so abruptly with a camera and large microphone in hand that the subject cannot act and this forces them into revealing who they truly are to the filmmaker. In the film Super Size Me (2002), the filmmaker is seen a number of times but this is also because he is the main actor in the film as well. For example, Dickerson says in his article,
“The ‘video diary’ form of documentary that Nichols cautioned against most notably presented itself in Super Size Me as Spurlock appeared in the film 46 times. To his credit, though, Spurlock presented plenty of expert testimony, computer illustrations, and footage of other subjects to make the film less of a self-indulgent piece and more of a representative cautionary tale in the best interest of the public” (Dickerson 29).

Spurlock and his large amount of on-screen time combined with illustrations and testimony arguably prove that it benefited the authenticity of the documentary and the “truth claim” about how unhealthy fast food is in America. The experiment he put his own body through with such a grueling, unhealthy diet surely bought the trust of his audience as the dedicated filmmaker. Lastly, the film Food Inc. (2008) is different than the other two films because the filmmaker is only seen on-screen once in the film when doing his own confessional interview at 1:20:10 although it does little to impact the overall authenticity within the film. For example, the filmmaker, Robert Kenner interviews the mother, “…Barbara Kowalcyk, a Food Safety Advocate whose son Kevin had died at age two due to an E. coli infection” (Dickerson 95) which stemmed from bad meat served in a hamburger at Jack in the Box. The audience immediately feels an emotional proof here as they sympathize for the grieving mother and this strengthens the authenticity of the situation being filmed and its “truth claim” about the dangers of food in America. The amount of the filmmaker’s on-screen presence certainly plays a major role in solidifying the overall authenticity of these three documentaries that fall into both Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite style films.

The third and final important factor that can cause problems with authenticity in Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite is the use of confessional interviews in documentary film. Eric Barnouw states that, “The Direct Cinema documentarist took his camera to a situation of tension and waited hopefully for a crisis; the Rouch version of Cinema Verite tried to precipitate one. Direct Cinema found its truth in events available to the camera. Cinema Verite was committed to a paradox: that artificial circumstances could bring hidden truth to the surface.” This incredible quote could not be more true for the reflexive documentary Biggie and Tupac (2002) with the confessional interview with Biggie’s very tall friend and bodyguard that revealed hidden truth and information about the mystery of Biggie’s killer. Bloomfield was surprisingly successful with this interview that I find to be the most important in the entire film. The reaction of the social actor is so genuine and authentic that the audience gains further trust in the filmmaker and his relationship with the subjects being questioned and recorded. Dickerson states in his article that, “…the impact the camera can have on the subjects’ on-screen actions, stating ‘the degree to which people’s behavior and personality change during the making of a film can introduce an element of fiction into the documentary process…self-consciousness and modifications in behavior can become a form of misrepresentation, or distortion, in one sense, but they also document the ways in which the act of filmmaking alters the reality it sets out to represent’” (Dickerson 31).

The confessional interview that Bloomfield conducts with Biggie’s bodyguard goes from the social actor maintaining a level restricted cooperation to say until the filmmaker shows him an image of the man’s face who he strongly believes killed Christopher Wallace a.k.a. Biggie Smalls. This social actor’s behavior changes quickly into a more appreciative and thankful manner by supplying him with this new knowledge. The audience sees the subject getting comfortable with Bloomfield as we see him taking of his hat and establishing a friendlier tone of communication as the interview went on. Confessional interviews given by the filmmaker Nick Bloomfield started a little rough but as the film progressed he scored with a number of heart felt and authentic interviews too create an absolutely beautiful documentary, Biggie and Tupac (2002). In the film Super Size Me (2004) the use of confessional interviews is immensely beneficial in revealing authenticity. For example, “…at 0:48:05 in the film, Spurlock featured a portion of an interview with Margo Wooten, Center for Science in the Public Interest, in which she addressed the lack of availability of nutritional information at fast food restaurants” (Dickerson 87). Spurlock routinely utilized the confessional interviews with expert testimony from dependable sources that validated the outcomes he personally experienced throughout his 30-day binge. These interviews gave extreme authenticity to the “truth claim” Spurlock hoped to get across. In the film Food Inc. (2008) confessional interviews contain an obvious level of trust between the filmmaker and the social actors, which easily spread to the audience of the film providing authenticity as the information they shared led to a very powerful documentary. For example, the filmmaker “…presented eight different scenes, such as observing courtroom testimony or riding along with an illegal immigrant worker who was shadowing border patrol raids, where the camera went unaddressed by the subjects. The camera acted in a very ‘fly-on-the-wall,’ observation-like manner” (Dickerson 32). This film takes a different approach by including much more Direct Cinema style of filming and this just added to the authenticity of the reality being relayed to the audience in this film. The confessional interviews were a success even when the social actors did not give attention or have knowledge of a camera being present during the process. The confessional interviews within the documentary films Biggie and Tupac (2002), Super Size Me (2004), and Food Inc. (2008) do a positive favor in revealing an authentic representation of the social actors and filmmaker alike creating trust between the triangle, including the audience.

Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite has different origins and different styles that have led filmmakers into creating a plethora of successful, authentic documentaries. There is always the issue of exposing the issue at hand and revealing the “truth” about the area of reality being focused on. I argue, that theses three aspects within documentary film greatly benefit and are the main proprietors for authenticity within both Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite; the level of intrusion by the filmmaker, the amount of on-screen presence by the filmmaker, and the use of confessional interviews in the films Biggie and Tupac (2002), Super Size Me (2004), and Food Inc. (2008) gain the trust and respect of the audience creating very authentic documentaries with pivotal styles and themes relating their particular say about the world. When it comes down to Direct Cinema and Cinema Verite, “documentary is rarely a matter of pure observation, however within both methods, there lays an opportunity for revelation even if mediated to greater or lesser degrees by both the camera and the filmmaker” (Cinema Verite or Direct Cinema?).

Works Cited

“Cinema Verite or Direct Cinema?.” Documentary Film For All. N.p., 28 Sept. 2007. Web. 5 Apr. 2014. <http://filmeditor.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/cinema-verite-or-direct-cinema/>.

Dickerson, Andrew V., “Nothing But The Truth And The Whole Truthiness: Examining Markers Of Authenticity In The Modern Documentary.” (2012) Master’s Theses. Paper: 1-109.

Grant, Barry Keith, and Jeannette Sloniowski. “Documentaphobia and Mixed Modes.” Documenting The Documentary. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998. . Print.