ABSTRACT
Documentary is an activity. It consists of filming without fiction. Documentary filmmakers take the world as it comes, or arrange the world so that it comes in particular ways, and then work on the resulting footage. Documentary is an organised activity of creation. It makes an object, a film, which then goes on to affect its viewers. Documentary is also a task. Its task is that of presenting reality, showing the world, explaining the world. Documentary has an ethical task laid upon it, bound up with the difficult question of whether or not truth can ever be shown. So documentary is both a physical activity and an ethical task. These two aspects are bound together in Grierson's definition of documentary as ‘the creative treatment of actuality’ (Grierson 1966). The implied tension between that which was actual or real, and that which is creative, has always caused controversy. If the supporters of any given documentary claim that it shows ‘the truth’, then the film itself will inevitably fall short of this claim. If any film tries to construct an argument painstakingly with all available evidence, then that argument can be proved wrong by someone, somewhere, to the satisfaction of themselves and perhaps others. If a filmmaker tries to create an emotional response in viewers to enable them to empathise with the subjects of the film, then this will also provoke accusations of manipulation. Nevertheless, documentaries continue to be made and watched; more and more so, if anything. Documentary and truth may be uneasy companions, but the problem seems to be on the side of truth rather than documentary. Truth is an absolute, unarguable for those who believe it. Documentaries provoke doubt, argument and dispute. Their status is always in play, never finalised. That is what makes them fascinating as documents.
