The Art of the Documentary

Every film - be it documentary, fiction short or feature - contains values and structure relevant to the culture from which it was borne. These values reflect the social relations of that culture, preaching them to any viewer regardless of the viewer’s thoughts, and so a form of propaganda is at work.

Whether a film tells a true story, or attempts to convey its meaning metaphorically into a fictional setting, it projects a certain set of moral, social, psychological and cultural codes that the audience is expected to adopt. However, the term propaganda is usually associated with the negative, with a lack of trust and objectivity best exampled during those films produced during the Second World War.

World War II marked a turning point in the production of government-funded propaganda and instructional film. Both the Axis and Allies utilised this highly effective medium to convey messages of their prospective ideologies and aims, at the same time condemning the opposition’s use as manipulative and unjust. Once the war had finished in 1945, the US government continued to create these films for its own citizens, whilst criticising other governments’ use of propaganda as immoral, in particular the Soviet Union. The most prolific examples of propaganda come during the Second World War itself, as both the Nazis and the Allied forces were pushed to their very limits and so required a great deal of trust and belief from their own citizens.

Joseph Goebbels started the ‘Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda’ shortly after Hitler came to power in 1933, giving Germany a head start on propaganda upon the outbreak of war. There was somewhat of a reluctance to initiate a similar system in England due to the democratic values they upheld – propaganda was seen as the influence of a governing body’s views upon an unwilling public. Eventually though, the British government realised they would have to do it ‘for the ultimate good of the British people’. This antipathy towards the idea of propaganda was deeply ingrained within the British psyche and was therefore a difficult psychological hurdle for the authorities to overcome before launching any major home campaigns. Thus when analysed alongside similar German productions, these English films appeal more to the viewer as an individual rather than as a member of a collective. Frederick Bartlett, a Cambridge Professor of Psychology, identified two essential differences between the propaganda of totalitarian governments and that of democratic countries, in his book Political Propaganda: “Dictatorial governments use emotion as a major element in their films, whereas democratic institutions utilise reasoned argument in equal proportion to the use of emotion. Democracy in theory would also allow for multiple differing arguments to be shown, whereas this would be forbidden in a dictatorial regime.”

Propaganda film can be represented in one of three forms: black, grey or white. John Hughes believes that white propaganda is simply the selection and arrangement of factual information in such a way as to persuade a rational person to its perspective; grey propaganda mixes correct information with half-truths whilst never hiding the producer of the information and hence allowing the viewer to see the intended outcome; and black propaganda utilises all fabrication with very few correct truths to achieve a hidden goal. This could lead to the assumption that the defining feature of propaganda would be intent, but here it is necessary to understand the idea and use of the word ‘intent’. All communication is used in order to convey information, and that information will carry some, if not all, of the sender’s ideas and opinions on a topic. A non-biased, completely objective point of view is next to impossible due to the human psyche. So the intention of the propaganda producers may not even be apparent to themselves, but it is there. It is the use of the term propaganda that creates problems, assuming it refers to conscious, forethought of action.

More often than not documentary filmmakers will lay claim to ‘objectivity’ as their answer to achieving truth. They work to produce a balanced effect through counter posing points of view. Objective documentary filmmaking asserts that a reasoned argument shown in equal rights and wrongs will complete itself within the viewers mind, ignoring that those images were selected and arranged by the filmmaker. This creates the image that documentaries, by omitting the fictional creations used to sway other ideals in feature filmmaking, will be able to merely record actual events and allow the viewer to reach their own decision. The medium of film does not allow this; it is the common assumptions about the abilities of film that lead to misunderstandings of its power. Film cannot create a definitive snapshot of the image or situation it is recording.

It is interesting to note that is normally only expository productions that are called propaganda films. This leads to the conclusion that in order for a film to show information in a persuasive manner, it must first have established that the intention is to call that information truth. Were a film to be of a reflexive nature such as Errol Morris’ Mr Death or Ross McElwee’s Sherman’s March, the opportunity to point out propagandistic features of such films becomes increasingly difficult. So here again the original intent of the filmmakers is an important part in how the work is received as a truth. The viewer will take McElwee’s information as truth merely because it is told and seen from a very personal perspective, but as has been shown by the genre of ‘mockumentary’, this is not always a good indication of its truthfulness. In the Peter Jackson film Forgotten Silver the distinction between truth and real story telling are questioned within the very fabric of the film, but to take this film as a contained entity for outside appearances, the truth lies in the ironic image it holds up to its contemporaries.

German filmmaking during the Third Reich, under the yoke of Goebbels, was attempted to create a cinema of pure entertainment that would empower the people, get them active and involved in their country. He was in this aspect of a differing opinion with Hitler on the use of Triumph of the Will. Leni Riefenstahl directed this work, which is celebrated (and contested) as her most influential contribution to the worlds of both documentary and propaganda cinema. Triumph of the Will documents several speeches and rallies given by Hitler throughout 1933-34, the most important being held at Nuremberg and which has been constantly under debate as to which of these two categories it best belongs. It cannot be denied that Triumph of the Will is a recording of an actual event; the rallies did occur, and they occurred in the same way as being shown literally through the camera’s images. However, the editing and positioning of cameras has a far greater influence on the final emotional outcome. The film commences with images of Hitler arriving via plane to towns around Germany, cut with shots of villagers looking up to the heavens in amazement as the plane lands and Hitler arrives on the ground like a deity. At the rally, the soundtrack of Wagner and marching of troops works up to a frenzied excitement as finally the Fuhrer takes the stand and begins to talk to his smiling, happy troops. It has been widely accepted that the Nuremberg rally in particular was staged purely for the cameras, something not attempted until then. Throughout the film the viewer is continuously bombarded by the voracity of the images; swastika flags being marched in perfect time past the camera as it swoops above the masses; beaming troops in adoration of their fearless leader standing above them. It is this unnatural movement of the camera that stands out throughout this film – had the same event been recorded by several fixed cameras positioned at natural head height around the stadium, the same emotions might not have been achieved. By positioning cameras at valuable vantage points and then co-ordinating the marching and cheering around those points, the illusion is one of an objective, pure recording of an event, however this links directly with the hallmarks of a black propaganda film by obscuring the situation around the camera in favour of what is being recorded.

The label of propaganda is easy to attach to a film such as Triumph of the Will due to its political associations; however, another work by Riefenstahl, Olympia which documents the 1936 Olympic Games held in Munich is not always considered to be the same. In this work the physical prowess of the athletes (focusing mostly on the Germans) is the focal point, not the actual events of the Olympics. For example, footage of a shot-putter winding up for a throw, close-ups of the biceps then no actual throw. This has been attributed to the ideals Hitler held so important, that of the physical strength of the Aryan race, as it was again at the request of the Nazi party that Riefenstahl created this film. However, the recording of an event such as the Olympic Games still must have some factual information within it, as indeed this film does. While portraying through its choice of subject matter ideals held close to the Nazi party, it is also a record of both the Games and the activities of that time and place.

Both films exemplify the struggle of labelling any film documentary or propaganda. To take either on face value would probably earn them a propaganda marking, however the situations arising around them need to be analysed as well. At that time the manic fervour that was sweeping Germany in favour of the Nazi party missed only a few, and the attitude of those making the film would have a dramatic influence on the emotions in the finished product. Riefenstahl herself denies Triumph of the Will as a propaganda piece, stating “The film is purely historical… it is film-verite…I know very well what propaganda is. That consists of recreating certain events in order to illustrate a thesis…” On the one hand she is ultimately correct, but it is the political undertow that effects the ultimate labelling of a propaganda film.

Whilst it is easy to describe films with a political nature as propaganda, it is much harder to draw distinctions with those documentaries that focus on neutral topics. Sir David Attenborough has for decades presented nature related documentaries for the BBC, and his series The Life of Birds chronicles the variety of bird life that exists around the world. This documentary series has all the hallmarks of traditional expository filmmaking and it can safely be said that the facts are always well researched. It is the traditional view of what a documentary ‘should’ be. So can it be a skewed version of propaganda? The subject, being not necessarily the most important but easiest to start with, is of birds and the differences that exist between both themselves and us. The presenter is a respected celebrity with a reputation for upholding the truth in his reports. The believability of the subject matter as what is real and what is shown to the viewer is therefore more or less assured. However, it is not the analysis of the internal functioning of a documentary that reveals its intent, rather it is necessary to think of the film as an entity itself. The Life of Birds intends to engage and entertain the viewer by showing information that has not been seen before, or information that exemplifies the diversity of life. To do this, a select amount of information must be omitted for the final cut. By doing this, the director has decided for the viewer what shall be shown, fulfilling the criteria for white propaganda: the selection and arrangement of factual information in such a way as to persuade a rational person. Sir David insists these works carry no message; “As Samuel Goldwyn said, sending messages is for the Western Union. What I am doing conforms to the great Reithian values (Lord Reith founded the BBC) – ‘to entertain, educate and inform.” His films do carry a message to the viewer, one intentionally placed by those involved in production. However, the outcome was not ultimately political so the propaganda label as it is seen by most cannot stick.

Most of those films studied as persuasive texts would be feature films such as those listed above, but the generic television special cannot be omitted from the firing line. The Life of Birds is a series of productions that do not exactly fit under this category, as they were not made specifically for a television audience. However the TV series A Current Affair is a good indication of propaganda, in its political sense, working through television. This show features stories that appeal to a generic population, showing incomplete and sometimes flawed evidence to substantiate its claims, fulfilling the criteria that will earn it a grey propaganda rating under Hughes’ definitions. In this case the intention of the producers can be seen quite clearly, usually in the form of ratings, but it is the emotions used to achieve those ends that are so iconic, the most common of which is the ‘pity effect’. A typical story will run along the lines of an “Aussie battler” who is being hurt by a faceless government because of circumstances out of his control. The audience will feel pity for him, and this will make them feel good. Hence more viewing pleasure, ratings go up and the propaganda produced by the Nine network worked perfectly.

It is, however, rather harsh to judge a television network and label them in the same category as Nazi filmmaking. After all, propaganda is an integral part of advertising and marketing, two aspects of business that are inseparable from television. Brian Winston summed it up rather nicely: "It is no longer possible to maintain the old economy of truth and representation in a world where 'reality' is entirely constructed through forms of mass media feedback, where values are determined by consumer demand (itself brought about by the endless circulation of meanings, images and advertising codes), and where nothing could serve as a means of distinguishing true from merely true-seeming (or ideological) habits of belief." By this he refers to our ability to discern the truth using our own knowledge and understanding, something that becomes increasingly difficult as we rely more and more on mass media to report our documentaries to us. All documentary films are a recording of a particular time, place, idea or emotion but it is never an accurate recording, nor is it ever purely propaganda. The danger lies in assuming that the word ‘propaganda’ relates solely to political issues and therefore has no place in describing other areas of film. To take it for literal meaning would classify all texts, be they documentary, feature, book, music etc. as propaganda merely because they hold a set of values that could conceivably be adopted as real truths.

First published in Rabelais
Re-published on Vibewire.net

Not all that bad

I cannot believe how beautiful this present is. Like I mentioned before, Lefa gave me the best birthday present by taking me away, and now she's outdone that with this one.

She bought me this print of Bruce Petty's Mad Century.




For those of you unaware of Bruce Petty, he's a cartoonist for The Age, with a very scratchy, scrawled style. But it's his animations that are truly amazing. Mad Century is his depiction of the period 1901-2001, and it is truly amazing.

XMAS

Hooray. The one day of the year that everyone loses their self-reflexivity, self control and any sense of shame, and makes everyone around them feel like shit.

Birthday fun

It's my birthday today, and I'm knackered.
With good cause though... I got a hell of a surprise from Lefa for my present.

After a great night out at Yelza (apologies to Mel and Tash who couldn't get in...), I woke up rather tender and sore, and ventured out into the rain for a decent cafe.

Since the options around here are Chadstone or a shitty suburban strip, I was thoroughly disappointed and so trundled back home to veg in front of the Lifestyle channel. Ahh.... Lifestyle...

I digress... So Lefa comes into the room and hands me a bag. In it is a wierd collection of maps, whistles, medi-packs and other things that, in my bleary state I assume have something to do with some unknown sex act I'm not privy to. On the card is written "You have 15 mins to pack".

Freak out time.

I'm not the best at handling a lack of control. I rarely let anyone else drive my car, or even drive their own car with me in it. I have to know where my wallet, keys, phone and now iPod are at all times. If anything gets moved in my room I can't handle it, and have to put it back immediately. It all makes for rather a neurotic situation.

So needless to say, the idea of not being in control for this one freaks me out. She explains that since I've been talking about how I wanted to go hiking for a few weeks now, she'd organised for us to go down to Cape Otway for 3 nights, to relax, chill out and go for a few hikes. That is, I go on the hike, she sits in a cafe. Sounds good to me. We load up the car and by the time we're driving through Werribee, I've calmed down and am actually looking forward to the adventure.

So we arrive at the first place. Just outside of Apollo Bay, at the end of a bloody long dirt road in the middle of the rainforest, It's a little cabin which is basically a tiny version of a small flat. Within 10 minutes of settling, there's a kookaburra sitting on the railing outside, so fat he won't eat anything we give him, and just content to look at us while we pat him. We bum around til dark, when 15 minutes of stumbling down a gully allow us to check out the local attraction of the glowworms.

Pretty cool little guys, with their glowing bums and all.


Day Two - I hike. Lefa drops me off at Blanket Bay, which is halfway between Apollo Bay and Cape Otway. Middle of nowhere territory here. Her paranoia about me being killed by random wildlife means I have a pack stuffed with emergency supplies. Like nuts. Can always use nuts. Anyway, the walk is beautiful. For 5 hours I see no-one. Just cliffs, ocean, forest, rivers, wombats, kangaroos and even a blue tongued lizard who wouldn't move out of my way. I meet up with her at the lighthouse at Cape Otway, and we stay in the Lighthouse Keepers House, which has been converted into a B&B.

Day Three - We already knew from my brother and his gf's holidays down that way that the Otway Fly was worth a lookin - basically it's a private enterprise in the middle of some damn fine forest scenery. They built a great big steel walkway through the forest, right up to the canopy, 45 metres above the forest floor. Sounds pretty cool, except that I have a rather un-nerving fear of heights. I managed the walkway ok, but the tower up to the top of the trees had me gripping everything in sight. Came down from there, and on to our final accomodation: Boomerang Lodge.

Cheeziest name ever, but this place was actually really really nice. The guy who owned it had designed it himself - all the cottages were shaped like boomerangs, with the outer edge being a giant wall of glass looking out over the mountains. Very beautiful, and very well designed. Wouldn't mind one myself.

So that was my birthday present. Thank you Lefa, it was fuckin brilliant, and I loved it.

David Hicks: Australian Citizen?

In the past few years, Australia has reached a new low on a world scale. Disgusting human rights treatment in detention centres, backhanded involvement in Iraq, electoral scandal surrounding the children overboard debacle, not to mention the recent legislation regardling IR and VSU. Now it seems, not only are we happy to treat immigrants and people of other nations as less-than-human, our Government is abandoning one of our own citizens.

David Hicks was charged in 2004 with being part of a terrorist organisation plotting to attack the United States. This charge came more than two years after his arrest and incarceration at that lovely resort down in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He has plead not guilty before a US military commission, however his case is now on hold pending US Supreme Court hearings on whether the commission itself is constitutional. The problem here arises when our own government does nothing to help this man.

Throughout Hicks’ trial, the Australian Government has shown no indication that it would intervene in the United States’ insistence that he be held without trial in a military camp with no media or personal access. Fine, you might say, the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ that captured Hicks was made up of some Australian troops, so by taking part in the conflict in such a way, we forfeit some rights to the sentencing process. However, the British Government has a little more backbone.

The remaining nine British citizens being held at Guantanamo Bay, after aggressive insistence from London, have been returned to the UK, to stand trial for crimes of terrorism under British law. Why then, is Hicks a special case? Do the US not think Australia capable of holding such a trial, or is it simply a case of Howard not wanting to be the bad man? It has now come to the extreme eventuality that Hicks’ lawyers have successfully obtained him British citizenship status, based on maternal bloodlines. This automatically allows him extradition to the UK to stand trial under British law; something one would hope would be less painful than having to deal with a bunch of rednecks in Cuba.

There may be varied opinion about Hicks’ innocence, but the fact remains that he is an Australian citizen, and has a right to the protection and support of the Australian Government. By utilising a loophole in dual citizenship, his lawyers may have secured a temporary release from Guantanamo, but the very fact that this was necessary; that Hicks could not rely on the foreign policy of Australia to stand up against the US, disgusts me.

First published on Vibewire.net

A World of iPod

I now have the aforementioned iPod.
I rules.
I can't understand how such a small, carefully marketed piece of machinery could be soooo cool.

Cool facter number 1: It's damn funky lookin'
Cool facter number 2: It has so much storage it's ridiculous - I have already put over 30 hours worth of music on it, and thats about 4% of the storage
Cool facter number 3: Podcasts. Losing my mind over this. I already have all the Triple J Hack reports for the past two weeks, and am constantly on the lookout for good casts.
Cool facter number 4: I got the new video one. I thought it was kind of a wank, but I also figured there wasn't much point buying an outdated model for $50 less... Couple that with:
Cool facter number 5: People podcast old video. Anyone ever check out the Internet Archive? It's a great collection of old, out of copyright video that is being uploaded, open source and in high res, to anyone on the internet, free. Anyone see The Corporation? All the archival footage is from the Internet Archive.

Welcome to the digital revolution. And I am so a consumer whore in the middle of it.

x-posted on livejournal

Final results

So.
Final results for that shithole of a place called La Trobe Uni finally came out today.
After 4 loooong years of slogging it out in the depths of Bundoora, it's all over.
I PASSED!
True, it seems in keeping with the trend, my teachers took pity on me and gave me a 50, but that's still a pass! A 49 would have really been a kick in the teeth, but the 50 is sweet sweet music to my ears.
So that's it. I have a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in Media and Cinema studies.
Thank god.

x-posted on livejournal

iTimmy

I have finally succumbed to the kitschy-ness of Apple's technology. I'm buying an iPod.
Had anyone asked me a year ago what I thought of these little wierd-music thingy, I'd have had to say very little.
But with the problems attached to working off multiple computers, without my central store of files and documents, I can see the need for carrying around a load of information.
I attempted to solve this a while ago, when I thought the purchase of an external hard drive case coupled with a free 10g HD could solve all my problems. It can't. The thing is too bulky and heavy, and goes all wierd when crossing PC / Mac platforms (something I do a lot).
There is, of course, always the option of using the several USB drives I have floating around - but managing 512MB and having to pick and choose what I carry is difficult, not to mention trying to sync the data.
As of next year, I will no longer have the luxury of being able to drive to uni - tram and train it is... all the way. So having something that plays sweet sweet music is always a plus.
And naturally, I like the cool factor. They do look fuckin cool.
Man, am I good at self-justifying to myself or what?
YEAH!

x-posted on livejournal

Aint nothin funnier than this

I know... I know.. it's terribly wrong to laugh at other cultures and their mistakes with the English language.

But this is pretty funny.
















x-posted on livejournal

Bored at work again

I shouldn't complain - my job is actually really good. I work for the local council - in a renovated town hall that is now a community space for hire. My job is simple - man the building, tidy up after groups and re-set the rooms ready for the next day. It's incredibly over paid and I frequently have shifts of over 8 hours where all I do is surf the web, listen to music, read books and generally fuck around.
Right now there's a bunch of 'fully' Italian boys (underage), hanging out in the foyer trying to look cool in their hired tuxedos they were forced to wear to their mother's 40th birthday party. That's it. That's all that's going on today, and I have to wait around until 1am until they leave.
As I said, I shouldn't complain - it's an easy job.
But boring.

x-posted on livejournal

New IR laws passed

So the Australian senate today passed new Industrial Relations laws.

Great.

With a vote count of 35 yes to 33 no, its nice to know that even with a large proportion of senators against the legislation, a majority of assholes can still push through whatever they want.
I'd really like to know the percentage of people who actually believed in these laws, or whether they were just voting with their party.

x-posted on livejournal

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter – not your average moody teen. But then again, he’s got a lot to be worried about. The fourth film in the series, Goblet of Fire opens the floodgates on the dark side of magic, and successfully scares audiences of all ages.

The phenomenon of the Harry Potter films is one I have always welcomed. Having never been a part of the giant craze behind the books (which I am sure are worth it), the easily digestible films offer great escapism, the likes of which haven’t been witnessed since Indiana Jones. It’s pretty obvious that these films must mature (as do the books), as their audiences get older and are able to follow the characters closely; The Philosophers Stone sees very young, very immature, scared Harry and friends coming to terms with their magical powers. Next comes Chamber of Secrets, in which they are slightly more aware of their capabilities, yet still apprehensive. Prisoner of Azkaban turns things a lot darker, with death and suffering a clear overtone, clearly distinct from the happy, bright attitudes of the first two films. Well, you aint seen nothing yet – Goblet of Fire brings a whole new boardgame of dark to the series, and its guaranteed to scare the shit out of you regardless of how calm you were throughout Event Horizon.

The film starts peacefully enough, with Harry joining Ron and the Weazleys travelling out to world Quidditch championships campsite, in a setting that recalls what life at a World Cup qualifier must have been like in Henry Tudor’s time. In the middle of these festivities, Lord Voldemort’s Death Eaters attack the camps of thousands, turning a weekend picnic into a scene from Braveheart. The cup is therefore cancelled, and it seems an awful lot of the magic world is worried about their future.

Due to these ‘dark and difficult times’ (a phrase too-oft mentioned in this series), Hogwarts is on high alert, as they are all set to host the Triwizard Tournament – a competition to find the most capable, powerful and resourceful magic student in the world. Two other school compete against Hogwarts this year for the trophy: the Beauxbatons Academy from France and the Durmstang Institute of Hungary. Trouble arises when, after the Goblet of Fire has already chosen the three finalists, Harry’s name is also chosen to compete. Being well under the required age to compete, controversy surrounds his credibility and ability to perform.

The challenges the four finalist face become the basis of the entire film, becoming a story that certainly doesn’t fail to entertain. Each challenge brings the contestants into considerable danger, with creatures and elements snapping out from all sides. I’m going to have nightmares about evil eyed, sharp teethed mermaids for a week.

The real darkness in this film comes to light after the tournament, with a face-to-face showdown between Harry and the newly resurrected Voldemort. It’s clear the very obvious death of a main character was the cause of the controversy in rating Goblet of Fire – it’s a traumatic event even for an adult audience. There’s an awful lot of blood for a children’s film, and the overall vibe is quite clearly one that is designed to give you bad dreams.

The three child acting main characters feel good in their own characters, but then again that’s not surprising due to their 5 year commitment. Daniel Radcliffe as Harry is brilliant as the troubled teen, still maintaining a quiet sensibility that one can well imagine in a character with his past. Rupurt Grint and Emma Watson maintain their great performances, definitely improving on the previous three films and their former failures. For once, the tension between the three friends as they pass through the emotional roller coaster of adolescence is very believable, oh-so evident in one scene where Ron, having refused to talk to Harry, stands less than 3 metres away relaying his conversation through Hermoinie. It is this stupid but serious behaviour that is so stereotypical of growing up that makes their performance so believable.

One choice for voice acting did seem rather peculiar to me: Lord Voldemort is played by a raspy Ralph Fiennes, which comes across as quite a waste of such a good actors talents; why both with someone of Fiennes talents when his usually distinctive voice cannot be distinguished behind the voice effects. Miranda Richardson makes an appearance, in a very badly scripted gossip column reporter for the Daily Prophet, irritating both in dialogue and mannerism. Far too obvious is the love interest between Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Beauxbaton's Headmistress-Giant Mdme Maxime (Frances de la Tour), which is never brought to any end.

Goblet of Fire makes the jump very easily from Disney-esque family film to teen/adult adventure. The calibre of acting, story and action greatly surpasses anything seen in the previous three films, and it’s going to make for a great re-watchable film on DVD release, as well bloody scary in the cinema.

Rating: 9/10
Director: Mike Newell
Writer: JK Rowling & Steven Klowes

Review published on Vibewire.net