The Voice of History

Paper by Jake Depass. Viewed on DVD.

Each documentary has its own voice, sometimes strong and sometimes weak but they always have a voice. In the 1930’s a US documentary movement was started by the government called the New Deal Documentaries. These films had this title because President Franklin Roosevelt passed a few different initiatives to give relief and aid to citizens of the United States and also the economy during the Great Depression, these initiatives were called the New Deal. The New Deal was, in Roosevelt’s words a “use of the authority of government as an organized form of self-help for all classes and groups and sections of our country” (Roosevelt). I will be focusing on and analyzing two of the New Deal documentaries and showing how they used style to be influential on the audience. I will also talk about a film made around the same time, but was not technically part of the “New Deal documentaries”. I will talk about three films and how these films used a certain style that created feelings of responsibility in the audience as well as used history to make an argument. These were some of the first types of ethical proofs, and paved the way for documentaries using history to prove things. I will use three films as examples: The Plow That Broke the Plains (Pare Lorentz, 1936), The River (Pare Lorentz 1938), and People of the Cumberland (1937). I will focus on how these three films all had similar and different styles, and analyze why this was. I will then do an in depth analysis of The Plow That Broke the Plains in order to show how these films used history, narration, and music to make public opinion sway towards a certain attitude. I will also focus on how Pare Lorentz revolutionized the film industry with his use of proofs and how he made these New Deal Documentaries in order to put the audience in a certain mindset through the use of music, narration, and images.

The style in which a documentary is filmed is very important to how it will be received. It is the way that the audience is able to understand the message in a way that the director wants them to, “Style facilitates the documentary voice” (Nichols 89). The film People of the Cumberland was produced by a company called Frontier Films who “saw a need to present the political situation of the 1930’s in a more realistic spirit than the purely aesthetic approach offered in earlier documentaries such as Lorentz’s The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936) and The River (1937)” (Hundley 38). These films are similar and different, there are some small differences in the style of the films. People of the Cumberland differed from the other two films because it was a reenactment of events, even though there was still some real footage. The River and The Plow That Broke the Plains both used the style of narrative storytelling, coupled with music and actual footage to convey their message. Nichols states this style of narrative storytelling “simultaneously reveals the voice of the filmmaker on the world he or she represents directly in nonfiction or creates allegorically in fiction” (132). They also focused a great deal on using music to go along with the narration in order to create an addition to the voice. These two films were filmed in the expository mode, which “emphasizes verbal commentary and an argumentative logic” (Nichols 31). People of the Cumberland was filmed in the performative mode, which “emphasizes the subjective or expressive aspect of the filmmaker’s own involvement with a subject” (Nichols 32). Even though the stylistic elements differ between the New Deal Documentaries and People of the Cumberland, they do have a few similarities. They both serve to present a political issue, and make it known by reaching people through the voice of their documentary. Grant and Sloniowski talk about how these three films are “indicative of a politically committed and aesthetically ambitious branch of American filmmaking which both dominated documentary discourse and helped define the terms by which documentary was understood in the U.S. up until World War II” (120). They are all in the same category because of the type of message that they were trying to get across. Another way that they are similar is because of the stylistic use of ethical, demonstrative, and emotional proofs. Each of the film used history, actual footage, and also a compelling argument in order to make the voice of their documentary clear. This allowed for all of these documentaries to not only be compelling, but also credible and convincing. As stated time and time again, style is so crucial to the message that each documentary conveys because it allows us to see the message in a way that the director wants us to. These documentaries were all made around similar times, and you can tell because of the information being presented. The differences come out because each director has their own way of trying make this information known and conveying the message.

A documentary that really exemplifies most of the films during this New Deal documentary phase is The Plow That Broke the Plains. This is because it “invokes history as a means of authorizing its narrative while also asserting the inevitability of the solution it proposes” (Grant and Slonioswki 125). This is how a majority of the New Deal documentaries were made in order to get the point across to the viewers. The film was about the poor planning in the Dust Bowl, caused by the drought. The goal of the film was to make people aware of this lack of planning, and how there are solutions to the problems that they were having. “Its incessant forward movement works both spatially and temporally, pointing the viewer toward the federal policies the film advocates” (Grant and Slonioswki 125-126). Even though the use of history was so powerful, the thing that had the most effect on people was the narration, and repetition in the narration. “Far from monotonous, this repetition of narrative phrases seems to intensify the mood of judgement” (Rollins and Elder 2). The narration gives the documentary its voice, through the narration the viewer is able to understand what Lorentz wants them to. “The film thus fuses persuasion and expression through a variety of stylistic means, but often locates its voice primarily within the atemporal qualities of the voice-over commentary” (Grant and Sloniowski 127). This film gave off such a powerful message because it instilled some scary truth in the viewer. It also left the viewer with the possibility of a solution, and how finding this solution was in their own hands. “The unadorned conclusion of The Plow is much more effective, since it places the responsibility of finding the solution in the lap of the viewer” (Rollins and Elder 3). This causes the viewer to feel like they can do something to make a change. This allows them to not only understand the voice, but also understand it in a way that the director intends them to. This invokes a feeling of responsibility, and this feeling is exactly why the voice of this documentary was so powerful. “Documentaries seek to persuade or convince us by the strength of their point of view and the power of their voice” (Nichols 68). The reason why this documentary was so well received was because the voice was so powerful and really spoke the viewers. This was what the New Deal documentaries were aiming for, and why The Plow That Broke the Plains really represents this documentary movement. Another thing that this documentary did really well was placing the images in a way that would send a message. Grant and Sloniowski bring up a scene that also came to my mind when thinking about the imagery in this film:
The manipulation of the imagery through editing creates commentary itself, as when juxtaposition equates tractors and tanks in the ‘wheat will win the war’ sequence, and montage produces the dubious cause and effect relationship linking 1920’s jazz, excessive wheat production, and the stock market crash (127).

This scene creates a link in the viewer’s heads and gives way to the idea that these are some of the main reasons for the Great Depression. The Plow That Broke the Plains shows through the use of style, narration, and music just how powerful the voice of a documentary can really be.

Many people hear the name Pare Lorentz, and think about his legacy and his effect on revolutionizing the documentary films by his incredible expository mode of filmmaking. Most people don’t realize though, that “when he was hired to run the first US government film agency, Lorentz had no experience in filmmaking” (Mcclane). He used his skills as a writer to create all of his New Deal documentaries. Pare Lorentz films came off as almost poetic because of his writing skills, he used this poeticism with music in order to convey messages in his film. “When critics took note of Lorentz’s style, they invariably made mention of the poetic recitative nature of its commentary and the evocative use of music, written by well-known American composer Virgil Thompson” (Grant and Sloniowski 122). Lorentz was known for his use of voice-over, and with voice-over there can be problems sometimes with the film coming off as trying to be too persuasive in a forced way. Pare Lorentz did a good job of staying away from this though, and was able to do it in a poetic way. Grant and Sloniowski state how this is able to be done:
“This potentially disruptive power of voice-over commentary could be offset in two principle ways: by investing other components of a documentary’s style with an immediacy and strength that would signal their own claims to authority and experience; and by rendering the commentary itself as lyrical, impassioned, contributing to the film’s style rather than overwhelming it” (123).

Lorentz was able to do this very well, and you can see this in The River where the voice-over is so well done and flows so smoothly with the whole film. With this film, Lorentz created a rhythm through the voice-over to which the viewers followed. The cameraman for Lorentz, Van Dyke, has a quote regarding the voice-over, “It was poetic. It fitted the film perfectly. It didn’t insult your intelligence by telling you what you were seeing on the screen, and it extended the dimensions of the visual images and the music” (Grant and Sloniowski 123). This style of taking voice-over and making it into a kind of poetry was something that had not been done before. The versatility in creating the voice of the documentary was shown by Lorentz in both The River and in The Plow That Broke the Plains because of how different each voice was intended to be received. As I stated before The Plow That Broke the Plains voice was powerful in saying there was something to be done about the Dust Bowl in a less than subtle way, but the voice of The River “subtly operates on three of our senses at once, allowing the viewer to gradually ‘discover’ his new attitude about the solution toward which The River flows” (Rollins and Elder 5). This documentary showed us the voice through narration, music, and images thus creating an equally powerful voice as that of The Plow That Broke the Plains. Pare Lorentz was also able to get his message across through the use of proofs: ethical, emotional, and demonstrative. Lorentz used history in both of these films in order to come off as credible, fulfilling the ethical proof. He used both of these films in different ways in order to fulfill the emotional proof, in The Plow That Broke the Plains he established a certain frame of mind for the audience; they felt as though they were responsible for finding a solution to the drought. In The River, he put the audience in the right mood by the use of poetic narration accompanied with music that skewed them into a particular point of view. Through the use of actual footage of the Mississippi river, and of the dry Dust Bowl, he was able to make a demonstrative proof. Even though Lorentz had never previously directed any films, he was able to create some really powerful documentaries through his use of style, proofs, narration, and music.

To conclude, these American documentaries made in the 1930’s were made with a strong voice, similar styles, and a convincing argument that was very influential on the audience. The documentary film movement of the New Deal documentaries were made to convince audiences, and they did it through history, powerful images, and narration which was revolutionized by Pare Lorentz. This documentary movement, that set out to sway public opinion towards certain solutions, succeeded in changing perspectives. These films take hold of social issues and bring them to the forefront of the audience’s mind, sending off a powerful message through their voice. They are only able to do this through the use of certain styles of filmmaking, and editing. When discussing American documentaries of the 1930’s, the three films of The Plow That Broke the Plains, The River, and People of the Cumberland are true representations of the center of the movement. At the center of these films is Pare Lorentz, who represented in his own way this documentary movement. Through research it is clear that the style in which these films were made, came to influence so many documentaries that succeeded them. An in depth analysis shows that these films were well put together, and did sway the audience’s attitude towards solutions. This is exactly what Roosevelt wanted out of these documentaries, and why the movement was so important to the documentary world.

Works Cited

Rollins, Peter, and Harris J. Elder. “Environmental History in Two New Deal Documentaries.” Film & History (03603695) 3.3 (1973): 1-7. Communication & Mass Media Complete.
Kiel, Charlie. “American Documentary Finds Its Voice. Persuasion and Expression in The Plow That Broke the Plains and The City.” Documenting the Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Eds. Barry Keith Grant and Jeannette Sloniowski. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1998. 119-133.
Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 2001. Print.
“The New Deal.” The New Deal. N.p., n.d. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1851.html. Web.
Hundley, Patrick. “People of the Cumberland (1937): An Attempt at Synthetic Documentary.” Project MUSE. N.p., Sept. 1976. Web.
Mclane, Betsy. “‘The River’ Runs Through It: The Legacy of Pare Lorentz.” International Documentary Association. N.p., Dec. 2007. Web.