Shaelene G. Moler
Prof. Richard Simpson
History and Theory of Documentary Film
7 October 2020
More Questioning of Documentary Form
After viewing the films for this week, I can honestly say that the two which stood out to me the most were Regen and A Propos de Nice. This is largely due to the fact that, to me, they display hugely different approaches to documentary film, and ultimately raise the question on where we draw the line for the documentary genre.
In this week’s reading “Making Rain,” we get an inside look at the filmmaker Joris Iven’s philosophy behind making Regen. Although there were many quotes that caught my eye, the one that seems to explain Iven’s approach to documentary film best is “In Rain I consciously used heavy dark drops dripping in big pear-shaped forms at long intervals across the glass of the studio window to produce the melancholy feeling of a rainy day” (79). What this quote shows, is that documentary film is more than recording life as it happens, it is about recording life in a well-thought out, artistic way that displays the message or meaning you want to get across. Iven’s admits that this was an aspect of his film that he was most proud of with his discussion on how happy he was the audience searched for their raincoats after the films first screening only to be surprised it was not raining outside.
As for A Propos de Nice, this was a film, that seemed to be more “thrown together” than Regen, if you consider the filmmakers philosophy behind it. In the reading of “A Propos de Nice” this week, Kaufman wrote “I don’t know whether the result will be a work of art, but I am sure it will be cinema. Cinema, in the sense that no other art, no science, can take its place” (82). Kaufman’s approach, in my interpretation, was more free form. He did not outline like Iven did, and instead shot what he felt was needed whether this was some sort of fantasy sequence, or a compare and contrast scene. The film, in a way, was formed out of Kaufman’s imagination and opinions. Whereas Iven’s Regen, was formed by rain, or so he claims.
That being said, when it comes to documentary film, I think that for the most part it is a form up to interpretation; meaning, what we consider documentary, may not be considered documentary to another person, with some exceptions.
Shaelene, this quote and your reflection on its meaning is an excellent point: documentary is more than just showing what happened (events or narrative) it is also about evoking a feeling or message (a description almost). The city Symphony embraced the latter as a mode of documentation. Nichols will call it the "Poetic Mode".
ReplyDeleteKaufman's quote reminds me of Kracuaer: recall that he too was after what form was particularly unique to cinema as an art form. Do you recall what his answer was? And how would A Propos de Nice rank for Kracauer?
As for your last paragraph, if it is up for interpretation, then the genre becomes very political indeed. Who gets to decide what is and what is not a documentary? Comilli and Narboni of course began by stating how all films are political. In what way are the City Symphony's political?