Kali Spencer
Richard Simpson
ENGL 342
11/17/20
Believing Is Seeing
Over the course of the semester we have time and time again been asked to challenge our notion of what constitutes a documentary and by extension what constitutes a fair representation of the truth. This week’s films and essays were no different. Drawing from some of our earlier discussions in class on the writing of Bill Nichols, Vsevolod Pudovkin, and Dziga Vertov, The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris (1988) and Roger & Me by Michael Moore (1989) ask us the examine how editing techniques and narrative structures can affect the audience’s interpretation of a story.
While the films fall into differing modes of documentary, The Thin Blue Line being reflexive and Roger & Me falling under the categories of expository and at times interactive documentary, they both have a certain viewpoint/argument they wish to articulate to the viewer. In The Thin Blue Line, this is achieved through Morris’ use of post-structuralist film-making techniques and an “interrogation of the technical and verbal paradigms of innocence constructed throughout the film” (Curry, p.153). This can be seen in verbal monologues and newspaper graphics but also in cinematic techniques like psychological images and sound effects. These techniques remind me of Pudovkin's approach to cinema where the filmmaker guides the viewer in the direction they want to go.
Roger & Me uses a different strategy. At first, it appears to be an interactive documentary with its inclusion of subject interviews and the filmmaker's “openly acknowledged and limited understanding”. However, as the film progresses it situates itself firmly in the expository mode of documentary. Once this is established Moore begins to use the editing strategy of "rhetorical continuity". This means that images shown on screen are there to back any verbal statements made by Moore. The combination of the narration, certain music selections, voiceovers, and images cause the viewers to extrapolate a clear cut argument which seeks to indict corporate malfeasance, by “constantly demonstrating the social and corporate elite's naive or thoughtless conceptions of working-class social realities” (Bernstein, p.8). It almost reminds me in some ways of the theory of intervals, just with more elements. My only concern with this is that technique has very little attention drawn to it and makes me wonder how an editor like Dziga Vertov would react to its use.
I believe that a lot of the critique surrounding these films is for this exact reason. The audience is left completely in the dark on the editing strategies used, the manipulation of the timeline, and the underlying psychological messages hidden within certain images/scenes. This feels, in some ways, deceitful.
Excellent use of Nichols mode of documentary to categorize the films this week. And the connection between Morris and Pudovkin is an interesting one, particularly since its Pudovkin there is an embrace of the authority of the cinematic lens, whereas with Morris there is a critique or suspicion of authority and the regime of visuality.
ReplyDeleteThe identification of rhetorical continuity as a formal technique in Roger and Me is also great! I see what you mean about the connection to Vertov's Intervals, perhaps utilized with subject matter and argumentation more than imagery and composition. When you say there is little attention drawn to it, do you mean in the way Vertov does? Perhaps we can say Moore draws attention to it with other things, like humor/sarcasm for example? What kind of attention would make it feel less deceitful in such a film?