Comparing Direct Cinema and Cinema Verité
Candis
Callison, Documenting Culture
Like most forms of art and
media, film reflects the eternal human search for truth. Dziga Vertov was perhaps the first to fully
articulate this search in “Man with a Movie Camera.” Many years later he was finally followed by
the likes of Jean Rouch, Richard Leacock and Fred Wiseman who, though more
provocative and technologically advanced, sought to bring reality and truth to
film. Edgar Morin describes it best
when, in reference to The Chronicle of a Summer, he said he was trying
to get past the “Sunday best” portrayed on newscasts to capture the
“authenticity of life as it is lived”1. Both direct cinema and cinema verité hold this principle in common – as I see it,
the proponents of each were trying to lift the veneer that existed between
audience and subject or actor. In a
mediated space like film, the veneer may never completely vanish, but new
techniques such as taking the camera off the tripod, using sync sound that
allowed people to speak and be heard, and engaging tools of inquiry despite
controversy were and remain giant leaps forward in the quest for filmic truth.
Though much about these
movements grew directly out of technological developments, they also grew out
of the social changes that were taking place in the 1960s. According to documentary historian Erik
Barnouw, both direct cinema and cinema verité
had a distinct democratizing effect by putting real people in front of
the camera and revealing aspects of life never before captured on film.2 And according to Colin Young, both movements
were a reaction to “didactic educational films” and “highly manipulative
classic melodrama” as evidenced by their
characteristic lack of narration and editorializing.3 However, this is where the paths of Direct
Cinema and Cinema Verité begin to
diverge. Barnouw describes it best when he contrasts cinema Verité filmmakers as provocateurs, participants and
catalysts for crisis, while direct cinema filmmakers are characterized as the
invisible bystander, waiting for crisis and only taking advantage of available
events.4 Essentially, it is the role of the filmmaker
and how he or she uses that role that is the decisive difference between direct
cinema and cinema verité . In this paper, I would like to examine the role of
the filmmaker in two different parts: the filmmaker gaze and the filmmaker
stance. Specifically, I would like to
answer these questions: What makes a film more or less voyeuristic? What is the
role of filmmaker in this process? Is it possible and is it necessary to hold
to an ideal of objective filmmaking?
Filmmaker Gaze
“The essential
characteristics of observational cinema will always make it vulnerable to
charges of voyeurism and duplicity.”5
Voyeurism is an issue I have
been wrestling with since we watched John Marshall’s film “An Argument about a
Marriage.” And as we have progressed
onward to more observational films, this issue has only become a more important
factor in deciphering truth inherent in film.
The above quote is in direct reference to Frederick Wiseman’s Titticut
Follies and the legal pressure that resulted from his work in a mental
institution for that film. Wiseman’s
approach in all of his films has been to make himself and his crew such a
routine presence that they are able to capture a more truthful sense of
reality.6 In High School,
this is what makes the film so completely riveting. However, Wiseman is the first to disclaim any
ideas about film truth achieved by this method.
Instead, he refers to his films as “reality fictions.” 7 Perhaps, this is due to the fact that his
ratio of film to edited product is often 20 or 30:1. There is much that the camera can and does
capture, but the final product is hardly a repository of the camera’s steady ,
framed gaze.
It is interesting then that
in the case of High School and Titticut Follies, the subjects
later resented their portrayal by Wiseman.
They gave him complete access to view their lives or their lives at work
and were disappointed with Wiseman’s selective edits and the ensuing public
criticism. This raises an important
point about informed consent. If a
filmmaker follows the direct cinema method of being a fly-on-the-wall, privy to
most details and/or interactions of a subject’s life, then I would argue that
the subject is unable to fully grasp how little and how much a camera is
capable of capturing, nor what kind of effect the camera will have upon their
subsequent actions. Also, direct cinema
does not offer an alternative solution for self-representation via an
interview. These factors combined make
the filmmaker the most dominant presence in the film and his or her selectivity
becomes tantamount to fair and accurate representation.
Primary is
an interesting anomaly, because it focuses on the lives of politicians. And in fact, it is a tender portrayal of
people hard at work in public service.
By the sheer volume and pace of public life as portrayed in the film,
the viewer develops a kind of sympathy for the candidates. And in the case of public officials, rightly
or wrongly, there is a general feeling that we, the public should have more
access to their lives. I think there is
also the sense that public officials possess more power than the average
private citizen putting them on a par with the power belonging to the
filmmakers ie. Though the filmmakers claimed total access, Kennedy and Humphrey
handlers would likely restrict some access to the candidate. In addition, the filmmakers did not go
“home” with the candidates, nor did they have Wiseman’s 20-40 days with the
candidates.
Jean Rouch in contrast to
Wiseman, Leacock and others in direct cinema is neither tied to examining the
tiny details of lives, nor to any kind of exacting representation through
constant observation. Rouch instead
facilitates truth by facilitating the human experience and though much of his
work is experimental, he takes great pains to note that this is about human
experience, not experiment.8 Chronicle
of a Summer lays bare the heartaches and hopes of many of the subjects in
the film. Yet there is a sense of
participation, rather than voyeuristic gaze due to the fact that Morin and
Rouch play with their own role in the film.
They are never disengaged or detached from the process of making the
film. In fact, they act as provocateurs
by showing footage to some of the characters during the process, and by showing
the entire film to all of the characters and including their response in the
edited film. Both filmmaker and filmed
are allowed the luxury of self-representation and reaction resulting in a sense
of equality never seen in direct cinema.
And Rouch duplicates this effect in Jaguar, as well, by allowing
the subjects to play with their own identities and then react via narration.
Ultimately, voyeurism is
about the power vested in those who control images and the ability to
articulate in some fashion, their own gaze.
Dennis O’Rourke, a filmic descendant of Rouch, goes as far as to say
that an equal relationship between filmmaker and filmed subject is a myth. His response is to reveal himself and his own
gaze because as he says, “The gaze reveals all”.9 There is no doubt that the political action
that came out of non-revealing direct cinema work like Wiseman’s on Titticut
Follies is important and necessary and perhaps, in light of the political
action that followed Wiseman’s gaze becomes more clear. However, ethnographic descendants of direct
cinema like Gary Kildea with Celso and Cora do not examine institutions
or provide “documentary reporting”. And more problematic still is the fact that
Kildea is not committed to examining his own his gaze as a filmmaker, nor does
he provide any meaningful reflexivity other than introducing himself to the
audience. Without some kind of disclosure from the filmmaker, there is a
portion of truth that is missing even when direct cinema avails the audience to
all the details of the lives of the subjects.
Filmmaker Stance
“…the faith that many social
scientists have in film as providing them with an ‘objective recording
instrument’ is touching and almost sentimental.”10
Both direct cinema and
cinema verité required their
practitioners to become a part of their subjects’ lives. That fact, in itself, compromises any
mythical notion of objectivity. Primary,
High School, and Chronicle of a Summer all required some kind of
a relationship with the subjects. Yet,
while Rouch is self-involved, ever-present in his films, many direct cinema
filmmakers held to an ideal of pure observation. Robert Drew goes as far as to say: “The film
maker’s personality is in no way directly involved in directing the action.” 11 I can empathize with their need to reduce
“reduce intervention and thereby improve observation” 12. But, as Colin Young points out film
aesthetics are about “selectivity and subjectivity.” 13 The filmmaker cannot help but be responsible
for what the camera does and does not frame, what the edited film does or does
not contain.
Wiseman is one of the few
counterbalances within direct cinema who, while holding to the stylistic terms
of direct cinema, believed that his films were very personal and subjective.14 But even Wiseman believed that he had no
preconceived notions about his subjects prior to filming.15 When you consider his past history with Titticut
Follies or the fact that he did go to high school and then made a film
about it, I find it hard to believe that he did not have any
preconceptions. In addition, so firm was
his believe in his absolute right to control the final product, he absolutely
refused to acknowledge subject response or viewer response to his films.
Wiseman is quoted as saying: “I don’t believe in this whole business of testing
out a film with an audience, or asking somebody else what they think or even
showing it to a small group and asking for their reaction.”16
Cinema verité took a completely different approach to
issues of the filmmaker role and objectivity.
As writer Brian Winston points out, Rouch took on the problem directly
and solved it by involving himself in the film.17 In Jaguar, there is a constant sense
of his presence though he is never actually seen. In Chronicle of a Summer, both he and
Morin feature prominently which seems appropriate considering they were turning
ethnographic study back on themselves and their own city. This kind of participation, in both films
pushes the subjects further than direct cinema possibly could.
In comparison, each method
uncovers two different kinds of truth. Take the example of Chronicle of a Summer
and High School: While Chronicle
reveals inner motivations, ideals and struggles, High School takes on
the outward challenges of dealing with an institution. Chronicle turns up the heat with
invasive probing and focus on the individual, while High School watches
nameless, yet recognizable individuals respond to difficult events. One is a distinctly inner revelation being
pulled outward, and the other is a hopeful belief that the camera can and will
capture truth in reality, a truth we miss whilst going about our daily lives.
Jaguar is
one of the few films featured within the bounds of cinema verité and direct cinema that deals with another
culture other than that of the filmmaker.
Its special treatment and adherence to neither the rules of neither
fiction, nor documentary make it that much more interesting, and its here that
the role of Rouch as filmmaker takes on special significance. The way that Rouch participates off screen
in this film is very important. There is camaraderie evident between subject
and filmmaker. And there is a conscious
awareness that the viewer is seeing the journey of individuals rather than the
portrayal of a culture. By using fiction
and involving himself, Rouch creates a different kind of glimpse into what he
would likely call “fragments” of truth transforming the role of the filmmaker
into that of contributor and participant.
Conclusion
Direct cinema and cinema
verité , while constructed very differently seek to bring out truth rarely seen
on film, even by today’s standards.
Direct cinema hopes to unveil truth through detailed outward observation
of events and/or subjects; cinema verité
seeks any means possible to explore ideas of truth and is intrinsically
an inward individual process gradually being revealed. The role of the
filmmaker can either assist in the process of discovering/revealing truth or
detract from it. In Rouch’s case, he
uses his role to participate thereby reducing the implicit imbalance of power
between subject and filmmaker. In the
case of direct cinema, truth is what steps in front of the camera and what the
filmmaker chooses to highlight.
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.
Notes
1.
1. Morin, Edgar “Chronicle of a Film” in
Feld, S. et al Studies in Visual Communication, A special issue on “Chronicle
of a Summer.” Vol. 11. No.1. Winter 1985
Pg. 4
2.
2. Barnow, Eric “Documentary: A history
of the Non-fiction Film” New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993 p. 262
3.
3. Young, Colin “Observational Cinema” in
“Principles of Visual Anthropology (2nd Edition) edited by Paul Hockings. New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 1995 p. 102
4. 4. Barnouw,
p. 255
5.
5. Anderson, Carolyn and Thomas Benson in
“Direct Cinema and the Myth of Informed Consent: The Case of the Titticut
Follies” in “image Ethics: The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film
and Television” edited by Larry Gross, John Katz and Jay Ruby. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. p. 71
6. 6. Ibid,
p. 75
7. 7. Ibid.
8. 8. Adams, John “ Jean Rouch Talks about
his films to John Marshal and John Adams” American Anthropologist, Vol. 80, No.
4 Dec. 1978 p. 1022
9. 9. Lutkehaus, Nancy “Excuse Me, Everthing is Not All Right: On
Ethnography, Film and Representation. An
interview with Filmmaker Dennis O’Rourke.”
In Cultural Anthropology 4(4) p. 431
10. 10. Young, p. 100
11. 11. Winston, Brian “The Documentary Film as Scientific
Inscription” in “Theorizing Documentary” edited by Michael Renov. New York: Routledge, 1993. p. 43
12. 12. Ibid.
13. 13. Young, p. 100
14. 14. Anderson and Benson,
p. 75
15. 15. Ibid.
16. 16. Ibid.
17. 17. Winston, p. 50
No comments:
Post a Comment