The Objective Phenomenon

Derek Ustruck
McGowan-Hartmann
FTCA 4545
Derek Ustruck
FTCA -Film Theory and Criticism
John McGowan-Hartmann
04/07/11
The Objective Phenomenon
Jack Ellis and Betsy McLane assert that there are but three modes oI Iilm as an art:
documentary, narrative, and avant-garde.(14) There is a proIusion oI work by a number oI thinkers
and critics regarding all three oI these modes and all three are saddled, to an certain extent, with the
notion oI meaning. What is the author trying to convey? While the diIIiculties oI interpretation are
certainly diIIicult in narrative, and oIten nearly impossible in avant-garde Iilms- where the artist
Irequently obIuscates the meanings oI his Iilm behind layers oI allegory and where they are sometimes
entirely nonsensical- the documentary Iilm is burdened by a unique criterion oI representing reality or
at the minimum making assertions oI reality.
When dealing with assertions oI Iact, the situation becomes Iar more complicated. The narrative
Iilm, even in its most didactic mode typiIied by Iilms like Spielberg`s Schindlers List (1993) and
Kimberly Pierce`s Bovs Dont Crv (1999), could only claim that this represents the Iilmmakers
sentiments on the subject. Lacking the direct treatment oI reality, it is only possible to present deductive
conclusions synthesized by the Iilmmaker. The audience does not expect the treatment to be Iactual and
inIormative, the audience is present Ior the aesthetic value, or the reception oI emotion broadcast Irom
the screen space.
The notion that documentary Iilms are ones that are direct representations oI reality and, by
virtue oI this, are objective treatments oI reality becomes exceedingly specious aIter a simple perusal oI
the NetIlix documentary section. The genre oI documentary is populated by nearly 5,000 Iilms with
luminaries such as Davis Guggenheim's An Inconvenient Truth (2006), Banksy's Exit Through the Gift
1
Shop (2010) and Henry Joost and Ariel Shulman's Catfish (2010). None oI these Iilms are objective
treatments oI reality. In Iact, Catfish is completely contrived. There are, oI course, what one might
describe as more conventional documentaries such as Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington's
Restrepo (2010), Flaherty's Nanook of the North (1922), and Man of Iran (1934). All oI these Iilms Iall
into the broad class oI documentary Iilmmaking, but the viewer would be remiss in approaching all oI
these Iilms in the same manner. This typiIies the problem oI the documentary genre: is there a
possibility oI objective representation, and iI there is, how can the audience determine when it is saIe to
trust the Iilmmaker? An examination oI the history oI the documentary mode will help to understand
the synthetic construction oI the genre. The inspection oI use-instances (historical reIerents) will also
help to examine what is considered documentary Iilm and oI what its sub-classes are composed.
A Brief History of the Documentary Mode
While Flaherty's Nanook of the North was released in 1922, it was the release oI his subsequent
Iilm Moana in 1926 that led John Grierson in his review oI the Iilm in The New York Sun to apply the
term 'documentary as an adjective when speaking oI Iilm. He used the term with no explanation in his
review saying only: 'OI course, Moana being a visual accounts oI events on the daily liIe oI a
Polynesian youth and his Iamily, has documentary value. (Ellis and MacLane, 3) It was not until later
that he qualiIied his usage with a deIinition saying documentary is 'the creative treatment oI reality
(ibid, 4)
Grierson's deIinition gave a class to Iilm which already was already separate in nature Irom
Iilms oI the emerging narrative style such as The Great Train Robberv Iilmed in 1903 by Edwin Porter.
There are certainly Iilms oI the early cinematic period which pre-date Flaherty's Iilms and those by
such early documentarians as Margaret Mead and Malinowski Iollow much in the same vein as
Flaherty's in that they are ethnographic in nature. Ellis and MacLane ponder whether the Lumiere
brothers early Iilms such as The Arrival of a Train at the Station (1895) and Workers Leaving the
2
Factorv (1895) qualiIy as early examples oI the documentary class. These Iilms certainly maniIest
some oI the traditional qualities oI the genre, but are probably better looked at as a product oI
Iilmmakers nave to the capabilities oI the Iilm medium. Film theorist Rotha, in an early examination oI
the genre in his seminal work Documentarv Film classiIies Iilms oI the documentary class into Iour
categories: the naturalist, the newsreel, the propagandist, and the continental realist traditions.
The naturalist sub-class is represented by the aIorementioned and seminal works by Flaherty
and in the rest oI the socio-anthropologically styled Iilms. The Naturalists traveled and incorporated
themselves into the culture they intended to represent. This class has grown to include documentaries
oI biological nature, such as those made by the esteemed oceanographer Jacques Cousteau. The
Naturalists certainly embody many oI the qualities that are traditionally associated with the
documentary class in general.
They make attempts to accurately represent what it is to 'be their subject. The Naturalist details the
quotidian aIIairs and cultural structures oI the subject, and as such the inclusion oI the 'nature
documentary in the class seems to be a natural extension. Films such as Stevie (2003) carry on the
modern naturalist tradition, as Iilmmaker Steve James details, with as little approbation as possible, the
legal struggles and liIe oI accused child molester Stevie Fielding. James used his history as a Fielding's
Advocate Big Brother to gain unprecedented access to the mind oI someone who's mind is criminally
unwell. (Rotha, 79)
The Continental Realist tradition is the most ill-deIined, but Rotha qualiIies them as non-Iiction
Iilms that stem Irom the French tradition oI 'lart pour lart. Unlike avant-garde Iilms that were made
contemporaneously these pastiche Iilms relied on documentary style Iootage to provide an aesthetic
basis around which they Iramed their montage Iilms. Rotha describes the evolution oI these Iilms into a
more structured cinema verite style documentaries. Jean Aurenche and Pierre Charboner produced
Pirates du Rhone (1933) which investigates the methods and culture oI the river poachers on the Rhne
3
River and its surrounding areas, Rotha cites this Iilm as the highest achievement oI the Continental
Realist tradition. At this stage oI the evolution, however, there doesn't seem to be suIIicient diIIerence
between the Naturalist and Continental Realist tradition to warrant separate categories. Rotha's
separates these categories based on the diIIerent evolutionary paths the sub-classes took, bu this seems
to be immaterial to the taxonomy. Ultimately the only diIIerence between the Iilms is location- the
Naturalist explores Ioreign cultures while the Continental Realist examines the domestic. McLane and
Ellis describe the class more accurately as the Anthropological Documentarians, including also in the
group Iilms oI the travelogue style such as those made by Martin and Osa Johnson's Baboona (1935)
and Borneo (1937). McLane and Ellis also include the Iilms oI Frank Buck, who Iilmed the animals oI
the AIrican continent in their natural environments, citing Wild Cargo (1934) and Fang and Claw
(1935) with their droll narratives as seminal works oI the nature documentary type. (McLane and Ellis,
25)
Stylistically the Iilms oI Frank Buck aren't wholly dissimilar Irom the long running Warren
Miller travelogue Iilms that detail winter sports and their locations. Interestingly, Warren Miller's
Iilmmaking career began as he narrated at home his Iilms that he made detailing his skiing and surIing
exploits. The scope oI the Naturalist- Irom Warren Miller's Iilms to Steve Jame's Stevie to Kurt
Kuene's Dear Zacharv. A Letter to a Son About His Father ( 2008)- is the most grand oI all the sub-
classes oI documentary and includes those Iilms oI which one typically thinks when the term
'documentary Iilm is used.
Rotha's inclusion oI the news-reel as a type oI documentary seems a bit suspect. It is certain that
early news was disseminated through the cinema houses oI the day, and while news-reel Iootage
certainly shares many aspects oI the Naturalist tradition. As a class, news-reel Iootage lacks the
examination oI the :eitgeist in an earnest manner that the documentarian should demand, and at the
very least news-reel Iootage lacks the depth oI inIormation presented by most documentarians and their
4
Iilms. There seems to be an absence oI intimacy, the newsman doesn't love his subject in the manner
that the documentarian does. The disallowance oI news-reel type Iilms into the class oI documentary is
prompted Iirstly by the Iact that it Ialls within the journalistic arts, whose primary concern is
presentation oI Iacts, and secondly that it lacks the notion oI 'assertion'. Assertion is the quality sine
non qua oI documentary Iilmmaking as Grierson saw it, saying, I look on cinema as a pulpit, and use
it as a propagandist. (McLane and Ellis, 71) The notion oI 'assertion' is a problematic one. Even
Grierson concedes that the necessity oI assertion disqualiIies Flaherty's pioneering Iilms Irom inclusion
into the documentary genre. The deIinition oI 'documentary is a larger problem, and includes notions
oI assertion and intentionality, but will be discussed later.
Rotha's Propagandist sub-class certainly does not suIIer Irom the Grierson's deIined deIiciency
as maniIest in the news-reel sub-class. The propagandist is the most overtly assertive oI the
documentarians. Both the Germans and the Soviet Russians were early to the gate in terms oI utilizing
the nascent medium Ior the promulgation oI oIIicial doctrine and party dogma. Lenin himselI opined:
'OI all the arts, the cinema is the most important to us. (Ibid, 27) Vertov's Kino-Pravda (1923-1925)
series oI Iilms were some oI the Iirst pieces oI cinema dedicated entirely to the propagandist's agenda.
Vertov initially eschewed the use oI contrived, recreated, or manipulated subjects, writing: 'All people
must continue to act and Iunction in Iront oI the camera just as they do in everyday liIe. (ibid, 33)
Vertov's later Iilms are more in the vein oI some oI the continental avant-garde Iilms, although there he
may have Iound his greatest success, as The Man with a Movie Camera (1929) is, in all respects, his
most salient work.
The British wasted no time getting involved in their own unique brand oI propaganda. The
establishment oI the Empire Marketing Board in 1928 with the mandate to 'promote all the major
researches across the world which aIIect the production or preservation or transport oI the British
Empire's Iood supplies immediately put the British into the business oI propaganda and selI-
5
promotion. (Rotha, 96) John Grierson was a notable contributor to the Iilm units oI the Empire
Marketing board. Perhaps it was during his tenure here that he began to understand the power oI
cinema to aIIect public opinion, and this may have led him to strip Flaherty oI the status:
'documentarian'.
One would be remiss to omit the work oI Leni RieIenstahl. Her corpus includes two
archetypical pieces oI propagandist Iilm Triumph of the Will (1936) and Olvmpiad (1938). These Iilms
were made under the auspices oI JoseI Goebbels who traveled to Italy to study the Iilms oI Ruttman,
and returned to Nazi Germany with a keen understanding oI montage-style Iilmmaking as it applied to
propaganda Iilms.
Rotha wrote oI the documentary Iilms during the early years oI its development, and by
extension, his categorizations and taxonomic structuring oI the embryonic art seem a bit anachronistic.
However, in conjunction with the analysis oI the genre by McLane and Ellis, his ideas help to elucidate
the development oI the genre conventions that the modern documentary viewer has come to expect.
The intervening years have seen a proIusion oI Iilms made in the documentary tradition, but an
exploration oI the next eighty years oI documentary Iilm would not be germane to this discussion.
Rotha's traditions oI documentary Iilmmaking are the armature upon which the modern documentary is
built.
The Problem of Definition
The steps bv which the mind attains several truths.The senses at Iirst let
in particular ideas, and Iurnish the yet empty cabinet: and the mind by
degrees growing Iamiliar with some oI them, they re lodged in the
memory, and names got to them, and by degrees learns the use oI
general names. In this manner the mind comes to be Iurnished with ideas
and language, the materials about which to exercise the discursive
Iaculty.(pp 13)
Johne Locke
An Essav Concerning Human Understanding
The problem oI deIining a particular 'thing is a philosophical problem that has been explored
6
since the days oI Aristotle. Locke, with his tabula rasa postulate, believed that there exists no
knowledge in one's brain upon entrance into this world. The process by which Locke believed that
knowledge was integrated into the conscience was experiential in nature, and the reIerents Ior this
process are 'qualities'. Qualities that are 'primary' in nature are the ones that cannot be selI-
contradictory, and without which the 'thing' would indelibly changed. The rock is gleaming white
under the lamp, but upon extinguishing the light it becomes black. The color oI the rock is not a
primary quality. However, iI one were to grind the rock into a Iine dust it would cease to be a rock.
Size , thereIore, is a primary quality oI a rock. DeIining what qualiIies as a 'documentary' according to
this approach, is extraordinarily diIIicult. What are the innate properties, that without which the Iilm
would cease to exist in the class oI 'documentary'?
It was Grierson, who Iirst applied the adjective 'documentary to the Flaherty's Moana, but
later disqualiIied Flaherty's Iilms Irom inclusion in the genre when he Iurther qualiIied his statement by
asserting that the 'First Principals oI documentary Iilmmaking require that the Iilm be 'dramatic and
not instructional and that the documentary 'must have social purpose. (Plantinga, 27.) Immediately
the problems oI deIinition become evident. Using Grierson's 'Iirst principals' as analogues to Locke's
'primary qualities' seems to leave an overly restrictive genre qualiIication. Grierson's notion oI
documentary includes only propaganda Iilms. Only Iilms that were made to aIIect public sentiment
could qualiIy, and while there are notable examples oI this Iorm, the aIorementioned Inconvenient
Truth Ior instance, there certainly exist more Iilms that do not aim to inIluence the :eitgeist. Director
Ron Fricke's Baraka (1992) in this structure would qualiIy- the montage sequence oI the movie leads
the viewer on a tour oI the destruction oI the pure environment and its resulting eIIects on the human
populace. This stands contrapuntally to Grierson's belieI that Iilms in the tradition oI Baraka and its
antecedents Berlin 'are the most dangerous oI all Iilm models to Iollow. (Grierson, 152) There is
clearly a deIiciency in Grierson's concept oI documentary Iilm in general. SuperIicially, one might
7
assume that the deIinition is unnecessarily restrictive, but there is a deeper logical Iallacy at work:
Grierson's deIinition does not incorporate what a documentary 'is', only what it 'should be'. To say it
diIIerently, Grierson has described qualities that in Locke's conception are not primary qualities or in
the Platonic sense not a quality oI the Iorm: documentary. Despite his credit Ior coining the phrase, his
neologism- in both the psychiatric and lexicological sense- Ialls a bit short oI what is commonly
considered to be documentary Iilm.
The semantic approach to deIining documentary implicitly incorporate the common conception
oI a term's meaning. The semantic approach approximates an average oI use-instances. Essentially,
meaning is derived Irom use. Words themselves have no innate meaning, they are vessels oI symbol
transIer. The semantic approach pays its dues to Locke's ideas on the process by which ideas are
Iormed in the head. What are the traditional qualities that are associated with documentary Iilms, or
what qualities do Iilms have that are qualiIied as 'documentary Iilms'? The qualities that would satisIy
the semantic need are Iar more open-ended than Grierson's deIinition. They are: 1) The Iilm must be
non-Iiction and 2) the Iilm must rely primarily on capturing physical events and representing or
reproducing them on screen.
There is the exclusion oI several questionable sub-genres Irom the documentary mode with this
approach. This docu-dramas, recreations, and the like, but also includes Iilms that are not class
members in either voluntary or categorical manners. Michael Moore shirks reality in what Lopate
describe as 'its cavalier manipulations oI documentary verisimilitude. (Lopate, 262) Michael Moore
may believe that his Iilms are documentaries, but he has no desire to be included in the genre.
Additionally one may make an argument that his Iilms are not entirely non-Iiction. Michael Moore
describes his Iilms as 'an entertaining movie like Sophies Choice, any Chaplin Iilm that dealt with
social commentary. (Currie, 285) While Michael Moore does not Ieel the need to qualiIy his Iilms as
documentary pieces, they certainly perIorm admirably as documentary Iilms when the Iield is siIted
8
using Grierson's model Michael Moore's Iilms are expressly designed to aIIect public opinion. His
Iilms and the sensationalist Iilms in the same group, such as Robert Kenner's Food, inc. (2008) or
Mark Achbar and JenniIer Abbot's Corporation (2003) all exhibit this characeteristic. However, there is
a sentiment oI disingenuous representation that leads Michael Moore to qualiIy his Iilms as outliers oI
the genre. He seems to concede that there is an expectation oI objectivity in the documentary, and
having no interest in delivering on that expectation, the viewer should treat his Iilms as they would a
Irivolous melodrama.
The vagaries oI the semantic model led philosophers such as Currie to examine the
documentary Iorm Irom an ontological approach. What is the 'thing' that is known as 'documentary'?
What separates things which in all physical appearances are identical? To Currie, the ontological
criteria Ior documentary lay in the diIIerence between 'reproduction' and 'representation'. The
representative art Iorm utilizes the artist as an intermediary between event and audience- iI the event is
not purely conceptual. A reproductive art has the quality, regardless oI intent, oI replicating what is
seen Irom the camera eye. Bazin describes the phenomenon with regards to photography saying: 'For
the Iirst time, between the originating object and its reproduction there intervenes only the
instrumentality oI a nonliving agent. (Bazin, 7)
Currie expands the notion oI reproduction with respect to documentary Iilms and avoids neatly
the problem oI class inclusion oI Iilms such as docu-dramas. Curie Irames his ontological distinction
around the concepts oI 'traces' and 'testimonies'. A 'testimony' is the recounting, the representation , the
output oI an intermediary between subject and substrate. A 'trace' is a physical maniIestation; the
eIIects oI the photographic plane interacting with reality. The documentary, according to Currie,
represents those events that have primary causality. It is a direct representation oI the events. Currie, in
obeisance to his ontological Iramework, concedes that iI one wanted to view the Irames oI Casablanca
as a documentary, one might as long as they recognized that the documentary is one oI the ways that
9
Bogart and Bergman behaved during the particular time during which they were being Iilmed. Currie
concedes that while there are deIinite possibilities to mislead the audience in the documentary Iilm
space, there exist no intrinsically misleading aspect oI this representative art Iorm. (Currie, 288)
Noel Carroll, too, attempts to make an ontological assertion regarding what constitutes
documentary or art, in terms oI the type oI language employed. The language oI illocution is that which
is action by virtue oI being spoken imperatives and declarations. In the context oI illocutionary
language it is critical to determine the intent oI the author. The rules oI conversant semiotics are
certainly germane, but the intention oI the message is part and parcel to comprehension. Carroll stands
diametrically opposed to the position held by Barthes and explicated in his essay 'The Death oI the
Author. Barthes and his Iellow anti-intentionalist Beardsley share the conviction that once language
enters the aesthetic realm, the authorial intent oI meaning is irrelevant int the context oI maximum
pleasure in the aesthetic experience, while Carroll is want to Iind any real diIIerence in the language.
Carroll says:
I am not reverting to the notion that we pursue art in order to commune
with remarkable personalities. Instead I am making the more modest
claim that art is obviously in part a matter oI communication and that we
bring to it our ordinary disposition to understand what another human
being is saying to us.
'Interpretation and Intention 176
There is no diIIerence between artistic language and acts oI illocution. The hedonistic interpretive
advocated by the anti-intentionalism approach seeks to maximize viewing pleasure by interpreting the
art in the most most pleasurable manner to the audience.
Barthes' structures are problematic in the sense that the sole qualiIication Ior what qualiIies as a
piece oI aesthetic art is whether or not some audience Iinds it pleasing. In an admittedly reductio ad
absurdum counterpoint to Barthes' claims, his interpretive structure seems to place pornography at the
zenith oI the artistic spectrum. Judging art solely by the entertainment oI the audience is a rather
10
myopic view oI the value and importance oI art as a tool to expand understanding and discourse. II
there is a venue Ior the employment oI anti-intentionalism, its milieu would be solely in works oI pure
abstraction where the meaning oI the art work has been hopelessly obIuscated by the artist, iI there is
even an allegorical underpinning to the work.
Carroll responds to the anti-intentionalism movement, contending that intention is critical to
interpretation, and that the attempts by the anti-intentionalist to separate artistic language Irom the
language oI illocution is a Iruitless endeavor. Carroll proIIers the example oI Ed Wood's inIamous Iilm
Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) in an eIIort to discredit Iurther the schools oI Barthes and Beardsley.
Carroll contends that iI there were no room Ior authorial intention in critical analysis oI art, then Plan 9
from Outer Space would be an exemplar oI the modernist avant-garde movement that eschews the use
oI Hollywood conventions and is a Iilm that is transgressive in nature. The idea oI considering a Iilm
such as Plan 9 from Outerspace in the same category as subversive is ludicrous at any level oI
interpretation. Carroll asserts that 'given what we know about Ed Wood, it seems implausible to
attribute to him the intention oI attempting to subvert Hollywood codes oI Iilmmaking Ior the kinds oI
purposes endorsed by the avant-gardists. (Carroll, 176) In a similar vein, it would be remiss oI the
viewer to treat Greydon's notoriously bad blaxploitation Iilm Black Shampoo (1976) in the same
manner as Scott Sanders' spooI oI the genre Black Dvnamite (2009).
Carroll's integration oI intent makes the waters oI documentary interpretation treacherous.
Grierson's approach, which certainly integrates well with Carroll's model, necessitates that the author
intends to make an assertion. Now the onus is on the viewer to discern that intention, and while the
medium oI Iilm and documentary Iilmmaking is not intrinsically misleading, there is room Ior bias.
Carroll denigrates the suspicion with which empirical deconstructionists like White approach non-
Iiction narratives. Carroll sees no Iault in the principle oI selectivity: '.historians may produce
distortive representations oI the past because oI biased procedures, but this only goes to show that the
11
selective attention oI a given narrative may be distorting, and not that selectivity, in and oI itselI, is
distorting. (Carroll, 146)
While it is clear that, as Carroll indicates, an entirely comprehensive representation oI nearly
anything is impossible, he strangely indicates that 'there are procedures Ior ascertaining whether the
processes oI selection oI a given historian employs are questionable. (ibid) UnIortunately, Carroll does
not elucidate exactly what these processes are. He continues to apply the principles oI scientiIic
research to the heuristic oI intent, saying selectivity is not inherently problematic, because 'iI it were,
then scientiIic Iindings, which are also selective, would also, by parity oI reasoning, be Iictional. (ibid)
This seems a rather specious claim, because as Carroll would know there is quite a categorical
or ontological diIIerence between scientiIic research and non-Iiction narrative. Furthermore, the notion
oI selectivity in scientiIic Iindings is contradictory to the process oI the scientiIic method. Indeed, there
has been many a scientiIic discovery that has stemmed Irom a lack oI selectivity. As a contemporary
example, the Fermi-Lab just published results oI its latest particle collisions. The data that is most
interesting to particle physicists is not that which Ialls into the area which would be selected to support
the current quantum model, but that data which are statistical outliers.
Carroll's model synthesized into one statement seems to say: A Iilmmaker engages in the act oI
documentary Iilmmaking when they intend to do so, and iI there is structural or systematic bias present
in the Iilm, then the viewer, using some technique, will be able to Ierret out the disingenuous. Carroll
continues to expand on this notion oI intention in his essay 'Documentary and the Film pI Presumptive
Assertion. In his essay Carroll asserts that the Iilmmaker and the audience have a mutual
understanding oI the communication process in which they partake, or the viewer is savvy to the Iact
that the Iilmmaker is attempting to make a documentary. Secondly, the Iilmmaker, by engaging in the
practice oI making a documentary Iilm, intends Ior the audience to engage the Iilm assertively. The
notion oI assertive engagement relies on the viewer to bring relevant critical analysis to the aesthetic
12
experience.
Carroll continues to explore his intentional theory oI artistic interpretation in his book
Philosophv of Motion Pictures. While at once declaring that the intent oI the author to produce a
documentary and knowledge oI that genre intent is critical to interpretation oI the artwork itselI, Carroll
concedes that there is a virtual inIinitude oI genres and sub-genres and that it is quite possible that Iilms
occupy multiple categories, or what Carroll describes as the 'pluralistic category' approach. In a bit oI a
concession to those who are not Iully subscribed to the idea oI authorial intent, Carroll also notes that
historical and cultural context may provide Iurther grounds Ior categorization oI Iilms into appropriate
genres. This is a somewhat de-constructionist approach and seems contradictory to his root premise
that it is exclusively the authorial intent which qualiIies a Iilm or art in general as a member oI a
particular class. Carroll consolidates his views into a single maxim stating: 'Structural, intentional, and
contextual considerations then, provide us with reasons, oIten strong reasons, Ior categorizing motion
pictures a certain way. (Carroll, Philosophy, 212)
It seems that this system encumbers the viewer with the enormous burden oI knowing and
recognizing the genre conventions with which to judge a Iilm, in addition to historical and intentional
integrations. I suspect that most viewers would preIer the hedonistic or Epicurean approach to
interpretation the interpretive model that places the preponderance oI weight on the pleasure oI the
viewer.
Currie approaches the same problem oI deIining the term documentary, Ior we must know oI
what we speak to speak oI it. Currie analyzes some oI the logical problems in the deIinition oI
documentary itselI. To do so, he atomizes the construct oI the documentary Iilm to say: a given piece oI
Iootage is a portion oI a documentary iI it is a representation oI the physical world that services the
narrative oI the purported documentary. Currie immediately Iinds Iault in his original construction and
makes eIIorts to close the Casablanca issue, or the Iact that oIten times there are real traces oI objects
13
in Iictional narratives. He returns with the second construction in his dialectic, saying essentially that
the Iilmic trace portions oI the documentary can only be included iI they service the point oI producing
an assertive documentary. This is a rather circular deIinition, akin to describing a 'nation' as being
comprised oI people who assert that they are members oI the nation. The reductionist is immediately
alarmed when the a concept is deIined internally by itselI. This generally indicates that the analyst has
Iailed to atomize the concept correctly, or that the atomized parts are the sort oI secondary qualities
described by Locke. Ultimately, Currie's dialectic provides the analytic diagram that describes, in his
esteem, the nature oI documentary. Currie's analytic diagram oI the concept 'documentary' is expressed
as:
D
2
A,B}, iII (i.) A is part oI B, (ii.) A is a Iilmic trace oI P and as such
contributes to the (asserted) narrative oI B (iii.) the Iilmic parts oI B
consist primarily oI parts like A in this respect
Translated Irom the logic construction the phrase reads: being a part oI a documentary whole is
only possible iI the documentary part is indeed part oI the documentary, represents the subject P
directly, and contributes to the narrative oI the documentary, which consists primarily oI documentary
parts. It is no wonder that Currie inserts the proviso that the structure oI his deIinition is a bit oI a
hermeneutic circle, and aIter deliberating the merits oI his deIinition Currie seems to retreat to
intentionalism too, stating : 'To decide whether shots/Iilms are documentary in this stronger sense we
have to look, not merely at their status as traces, but at the intentionally produced narratives and their
constituent assertions, which those shots/Iilms support. (Currie, 293)
Plantinga approaches the problem oI genre and documentary in a manner somewhat similar to
Carroll's idea oI intent, but Plantinga senses that there is a problem with the idea that objectivity is a
phenomenon intrinsically related to the mode oI production. Plantinga conceives oI a principal called
the 'Assertive Indexical Theory. It's basic premise is explicated as such: 'NonIictions assert a belieI
that given objects, entities, states oI aIIairs, events, or situations actually occur(ed) or exist(ed) in the
14
actual world as portrayed. (Plantinga, 18)
Plantinga's conceptualization avoids the quagmire oI content and its source, seeing the core
quality oI non-Iiction being an assertion oI reality. The process oI interpretation and analysis by the
viewer requires the use oI indexical tools to determine the validity oI the Iilmmakers assertion.
Plantinga describes the concept oI indexing as one that is social in nature, one that stands aside Irom
the Iilmmaker's intent. 'Indexing is a social phenomenon and to a degree is independent oI the
individual uses oI Iilm. (Plantinga, 20)
This Iormulation still requires that the viewer be aware oI both the genre in which the
Iilmmaker is attempting to operate, and utilize this knowledge to examine the objective credibility oI
the assertion. Plantinga does not see the problem oI objectivity maniIest in the analysis oI the Iilm. To
him, credibility and objectivity are interrelated. A credible witness has presented their sentiments on the
state oI reality and the viewer must examine the statement based on this Iramework. This seems to
imply that the purest Iorm oI the documentary are those that are the most assertive propaganda Iilms.
The documentary is a class oI positive assertion, much as in the Grierson tradition, and the Iilms oI
Michael Moore the exemplar oI the class. Meanwhile, non-Iiction Iilms oI the montage tradition are
excluded Irom recognition as valuable contributions to the documentary art.
The attempts at deIinition by aesthetic philosophers are riddled with problems. The
intentionalism oI Carroll and the presumptive assertion oI Plantinga both Iail to describe the class
outside oI the viewer's expectations and the Iilmmaker's intent. Neither oI the two address the problem
that occurs when the audience has been cut Irom the communicative loop. What happens when the
viewer misconstrues what the authorial intent is? What happens when the audience encounters a
Iilmmaker who operates in bad Iaith? There has certainly been a proIusion oI Iilms that ostensibly are
non-Iiction, and are marketed as non-Iiction Iilms, but are entirely Iictional. The recent Iilm oI Joost
and Schumann, Catfish (2010), provides a poignant example. Here, verbatim, is the Universal Studios
15
press release Ior the Iilm, which is Iiled under the documentary section oI both IMDB and NetIlix:
In late 2007, Iilmmakers Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost sensed a story
unIolding as they began to Iilm the liIe oI Ariel's brother, Nev. They had
no idea that their project would lead to the most exhilarating and
unsettling months oI their lives. A reality thriller that is a shocking
product oI our times, CatIish is a riveting story oI love, deception and
grace within a labyrinth oI online intrigue.
Conspicuously absent Irom the Iilm's abstract is any mention that the Iilm, despite its
purportedly non-Iiction status is completely contrived. The events and many oI the characters are
Iabrications. How is the audience to receive the Iilm? II the marketing oI the Iilm is successIul, they
will accept as a representation oI real events. While the authors oI Catfish certainly make an assertion
about the state oI the world, they do so Irom behind the veil oI insincerity. Joost and Schumann are
certainly not the Iirst to attempt such a ploy. Films such as The Blair Witch Profect, Myrick and
Sanchez's 1999 supernatural thriller, which was released to a Ilurry oI publicity attempting to cement
its position as non-Iiction Iilm, to the ridiculous Robe Reiner Iilm Spinal Tap (1984) also operate in the
land oI intentional bad-Iaith. The author has disguised their intent to Iorce the audience to accept the
Iilm as a member oI a genre to which it does not belong. The trick is, in essence, categorical irony, the
author Iorces the audience to make a category mistake in classiIying the nature oI the Iilm, and thusly
the genre expectations are exploited Ior the Iilmmaker's gain.
Currie's analytical deIinition is certainly problematic as well. His reliance on the concept oI
'traces' disallows entire categories Irom consideration as non-Iiction or documentary Iilm. His
construction demands primacy oI events- in that recording the events themselves is necessary and
recounting them is suspect. Is it intellectually dishonest to say that statistical inIormation, by nature
non-physical and thereIore impossible to visually trace, is not germane to the documentary genre?
There are a number oI non-Iiction topics which can be addressed in the documentary genre, that have
no physical maniIestation. Are the topics oI philosophy, or quantum mechanics, or other ethereal
16
concerns out-oI-bounds? II so, to where are we to remand these Iilms, and how should we interpret
them in any oI these critical philosophies?
Synthesis
Given that the Iailures exist to accurately describe what the genre oI documentary actually is,
the problem oI critical interpretation comes to a stand-still. Currie hints at the notion oI a strong and
weak class oI documentary, which is a notion that may be applicable to the particular problem. Implicit
in the structure is the idea that there are Iorms such as the news-report, historical recreations, and docu-
drama that certainly Iall within the realms oI non-Iiction Iilm, but are not classically considered to be
members oI the documentary class. In accord with Currie, we shall lump these into the sub-genre oI
'weak documentary' and return to the description oI what are in the class oI 'strong documentary'.
What are the qualities, oI the primary type that biIurcates the class into the 'weak' and 'strong'
varieties? Let us propose a synthetic construction that describes the class oI 'strong documentary' as
such: 1) the Iilm must be non-Iiction in nature, 2) the Iilm must represent as directly as possible the
subject, 3) the Iilm must not use contrived events or characters, 4) the Iilm must appeal to a sense oI
epistephilia (the love oI knowledge) and not to scopophilia (the delight oI voyeurism), 5) the Iilm must
be oI either narrative or propositional structure.
The synthesis avoids the intentional Iallacies regarding authorial intent, while integrating the
once anathemic non-Iiction materials that many oI the documentary deIinitions disallowed out oI
convenience. The distinction between Iilms oI the scopophilic and epistephilic nature, a construct oI
Nichols, is imperative as it integrates the ideas oI assertion and eliminates the problems oI non-Iiction
Iound Iootage Iilms, montage Iilms, and other purely visual, yet non-Iiction, Iilms the Casablanca
problem. (Nichols, 178)
Given that the genre oI documentary is suIIiciently deIined, the problem oI non-Iiction
objectivity begins to become an issue. Michael Schudson describes Nave Empiricism as the category
17
error in which Iacts are not viewed 'as human statements oI the world but aspects oI the world itselI
given in the nature oI things rather than a product oI social construction. (Schudson, 64)
Without becoming mired in a lengthy discussion about synthetic and analytic knowledge,
Schudson is issuing a warning that any time inIormation passes through an intermediary, there is an
indelible mark made on the inIormation by the intermediary. It Iollows that those who are interested in
knowledge or truth be cognizant oI this process. There is no unadulterated transmitted knowledge. It is
Ior this reason that Wittgenstein was consistently dismayed with the translations oI his work, and a
problem that analytical philosophers have spent the greater part oI the last century ironing out. This
phenomenon is clearly an important Iactor to viewing and interpreting the non-Iiction Iilm, and also a
critical determinant in the issue oI Iilm objectivity.
The Problem of Representation
Filmmakers rarely represent the subject oI their Iilms directly. While Flaherty made every eIIort
to incorporate himselI into the culture oI the people oI Aran, he is still representing the culture Irom an
outsiders viewpoint, and biased by the cultural baggage with which he arrived. In Prylucks 'Ultimately
We Are All Outsiders he relays the tale oI Arthur Barron, who conIesses that oIten Iilmmakers must
misrepresent themselves Ior access to the subject: 'I must say that I wasn't totally honest in persuading
the school board to let me do the Iilm. There was, as in many Iilms, a certain amount oI conning and
manipulation. (Pryluck, 257)
OIten, the interpersonal ethics oI the Iilmmaker are at odds with the implied ethics oI the
documentarian. There is a conIlict between the ethics oI privacy and an implied kinship with the
subject that supposes they will be represented in a manner that is, iI not Iavorable, at the very least
impartial. This conIlict oI interest between the complete and objective documentarian and the human
that has social empathy makes the production oI objective documentary Iilms incredibly diIIicult.
The production process, itselI, is Iraught with subjectivity. The visual aspects, Irom lens length
18
to the location oI the subject geographically, aIIect the viewer's perception oI the subject in an indelible
manner. The credibility oI the subject can be aIIected by how the Iilmmaker decides to integrate the b-
roll material. OIten, the Iilmmaker is representing a subject that exists in a disparate socio-economic
and cultural landscape, and is compelled by economics to do so in a manner that is appealing to the
viewer. As a result, the Iilmmaker resorts Irequently to the most salacious or incendiary material, in the
eIIort to make the Iilm a more dramatic exercise in documentary.
Kuehl sees more problems in the pursuit oI truth than the aesthetic manipulations employed.
The genre itselI is Iraught with structural Iailures. Firstly, the documentary only represents one person's
viewpoint, and, as the principal oI nave empiricism dictates, this is dangerous territory. The
documentary only represents its subjects superIicially, in the sense that the only direct representation oI
the subject is done without the beneIit oI context or history. There is a limit to the type and nature oI
the historical data that may be included, and there are vast areas oI human experience that are closed to
the representational capabilities oI the genre. Kuehl charges the viewer, handicapped by lack oI
inIormation, to evaluate and establish a truth value in relation to the assertion oI the Iilmmaker. This is
perhaps a good approach, as it mirrors the process by which we are conversant with one another and
integrate inIormation about which we have no Iirst hand empirical knowledge. There are structural
problems with the idea oI objective communication in terms oI the genre and medium itselI, but there
also exist well-deIined problems with inIormation exchange in the linguistic sense, to which
documentary Iilm is beholden. In this context, is it possible Ior a documentarian who strives Ior
objectivity to achieve their goal?
The Principals of Semiotics
Semiotics is the branch oI philosophy that deals with the methods by which we transmit
inIormation symbolically through interpersonal communication. The discipline recognizes three
separate vessels though which this transmission occurs: syntactics, pragmatics, and semantics. The
19
problem oI IaithIul transmission oI symbolic inIormation becomes apparent in even a brieI exploration
oI the core principals oI the Iield.
Syntactics deal with the phenomenon oI conjunctions and disjunction the relationship oI word
order to meaning. The arrangement oI words in a sentence when the meaning is not clariIied by either
pragmatics or semantics is Iodder Ior irony and ambiguity, and results in a Iailure oI symbolic
transIerence. Without the contextual Iramework Irom which to analyze the utterance, the multiplicity
oI meaning and nuance hamstrings the recipients ability to understand the intended message. The
Kuleshov tests provide somewhat oI a visual analogue. The viewer is Iorced to integrate contextual
inIormation oI dubious credibility to decipher the message. A picture oI a child has no explicit
meaning, until it is projected in sequence with a crying mother.
Carroll in eIIect asserts that pragmatics alone are capable oI inIorming the audience oI the tools
that will be necessary to decipher the artist's message. Pragmatics are concerned with the physical
context in which the message is received, and the ability to decipher the broadcaster's intent. The
nature oI language and syntactic constructs are such that there is ample opportunity to encounter
ambiguity in even the simplest oI declarations. The assertion 'I made my bed. can be deciphered as
meaning 'I constructed a thing which is called a bed. or 'I have neatly arranged my sheets in a
manner that is commonly known as made. or 'In a version oI idiomatic speech, I am responsible Ior
my actions. Without the beneIit oI authorial intent any oI the these decodings are possible correct.
The idea oI semantics is particularly germane with application to documentary Iilm, as
Irequently there is an issue oI cross-cultural translation. Semantics Iocus on the reIerent symbols, or
the ultimate meaning oI speech. In the instance oI the documentary that details a Ioreign culture, the
direct translation, or transliteration, perIorms in an astoundingly ineIIective manner. The subtle
meanings oI idiomatic speech or metaphors are diIIicult to communicate eIIectively, unless there is a
lengthy exposure to the language and culture oI the transmitter. Edward Said spent much oI
20
Orientalism investigating the phenomenon. In a more contemporary example, the Chinese Olympics
payed particular attention to the language oI the translated signs, to avoid embarrassment.The website
www.engrish.com details in a somewhat comical manner, the problems associated with cross-cultural
inIormation transIerence.
Faced with the task oI decoding an incoming message, the receiver avails themselves, innately,
oI the semiotic toolset in an attempt to decipher the intent oI the author. This becomes increasingly
diIIicult as the receiver becomes separated Irom the broadcaster by either space or time. The vagaries
oI word meaning come into play as time alters the use, and ultimately it is not the denoted meaning
that is most Irequently used to determine meaning. There are two examples that spring to mind
immediately with regards to this phenomenon: 'boner' and 'prodigal'.
There is a little know Dr. Seuss book assembled Irom serial works and published in 1941 titled
The Pocket Book of Boner. I reIer to this book not to devolve into puerile humor, but to highlight the
Iact that while there may still be a dictionary entry that deIines a 'boner' as a 'gaII' or 'blunder', common
usage Iinds that the word hold Iar diIIerent meaning. There is little doubt that iI the book were to be
published today, it would appear with a slightly reworded title. The case oI 'prodigal' is another where
the common use oI the term is diIIerent Irom its original denotation. In this case, the parable oI 'The
Prodigal Son is likely to blame. Webster's deIines 'prodigal' as 'wasteIully extravagant, but common
use oI the word Iinds it used as a synonym Ior 'contrite'. One should be wary oI its use in modern
parlance, as there is a real risk that the intended meaning will be misapprehended.
The audience has the beneIits oI the orders oI semiotics to Iunction as a decoder ring. The
audience populates the decoder keys, not with a dictionary, but with the experience oI use-instances.
The audience likely has encountered similar symbols in their past in a similar context, and apply that
inductively to determining the intent oI the current communicator. This as implied earlier, is where the
savvy Iilmmaker Iinds opportunity Ior irony the intentional misleading oI the audience's expectation
21
oI symbol meaning.
The particular problem oI cross-cultural transmission is one oI great consternation Ior linguists.
Ryle drives at the notion that dividing language into atomic units is a Irivolous task. 'Language', he
says, is that which obligated to behave within the rules oI syntax and grammar, while 'speech' is
liberated Irom the burden, and its success is solely determined by the speaker's ability to successIully
transmit their intended message. Ryle credits Husserl Ior the idea oI Logical Syntax, which states that
there is no need Ior the Iormalization oI speech into a Iirst order language to ensure that there is
successIul symbol transIer, and assertions can be made without Iormal structure. Ryle, through
Husserl, is arguing Ior natural syntax, or the idea that symbols are Iormed in processes that are
universal, though their results may vary, but there is an innate ability Ior humans to decode messages in
a sympathetic manner. Humans inIrequently atomize the message they are receiving, instead they
examine the message as a whole to determine its value. There are problems with transmission, he
concedes, but the dangers are overstated because oI the natural ability Ior humans to communicate, and
as a sympathetic process the burden oI translation lies distributed equally between both parties. (Ryle,
59)
Fodor takes an opposing stance and claims that all language is Iramed in a Iormal logical
construct. The system is similar to the principal oI the use-instance recollection. Fodor calls it the
'empirical characteristic'. There are characteristics oI words that are built by the individual through
exposure or empirical valuations, and these valuations are the blocks Irom which we build meaning.
When he says: 'It is supposed that there oIten exist empirical correlates oI logically characteristic
Ieatures oI words. I shall say that such correlates are empirically characteristic oI the occurrences oI
the words. Fodor is describing the process by which humans apprehend word meaning. His assertion
is that words have no intrinsic meaning, and it is only their use which provides the meaning. This
approach eliminates the need to be overly concerned about the evolution oI language, because the
22
receiver, given they are aware oI the pragmatic situation, is able to recognize the disparate environment
oI the particular empirical characteristic, much in the same way that without knowing the content
explicitly oI Dr. Seuss' Pocket Book of Boners, one is still able to determine implicitly what the content
probably is not. The Fodor method serves the intentional model well, as the receiver is charged with
the task oI determining which empirical characteristic oI the message upon which the transmitter is
relying. In terms oI the documentary, it is the viewer who is responsible Ior determining the worth oI
the speaker's intuitions oI the language. (Fodor, 299)
The problems that mire meaning in speech, and by extension, any medium that transmits
symbols are real, but in practice how do they aIIect the principals pI objectivity in documentary Iilms?
The crux oI the issue is that there is never a possibility oI stripping ambiguity Irom symbol
transIerence, there are simply too many intermediary steps. II there is no reasonable expectation to
decode and understand all oI the inIormation that is being delivered to us as the audience, how then are
we expected to validate the message Ior objectivity?
Austin approaches the idea with a novel concept called perIormative-constative speech or
speech that is action. He Irames the concept oI perIormative-constative as antithetical to constative
utterances, which are simply statements like 'The sky is blue. The problem that Austin Iinds with
constative utterances is that they have the quality oI being either true or Ialse, while perIormative-
constative speech does not. Austin provides several examples oI the action speech: 'I name this ship
Liberte or 'I apologize. By merely uttering these phrases, the speaker has perIormed an action that is
unencumbered by notions oI veracity. Whether or not an action has occurred is a rather simple task to
accomplish, but assertions oI Iact like 'The king is Iat. provides a logical nightmare.
UnIortunately, documentary is necessarily the most assertive oI the Iilm arts. Every
documentary makes the assertion to the viewer: 'These events happened. Actions are Iairly easy to
validate. Did or did not the event take place? There is no room Ior ambiguity. The documentary,
23
though, makes a second assertion: ' Through the lens oI my mind, this is the most logical manner in
determining the catalyst oI the events, and deriving meaning Irom them. The relationship oI causality
is an assertion that proves incredibly diIIicult to establish. In addition, it is here that the problems oI
language begin to become maniIest. Symbol and reIerent are easily conIused, and assignation oI causal
relationships are oIten built on casual observances. The inherent subjectivity oI aesthetics when
treating documentary Iilm as constative utterances becomes an obstacle that is impossible to overcome.
It is here that many would hide behind post-structuralism the yen to take the assertion and discard it,
looking Ior meaning in other empirically veriIiable locations. 'The author's grandmother died in the
slaughter oI the BiaIra, and thence the author's anti-colonial views and other declaration oI meaning
that derive in no manner Irom the intended message oI the artist. This method may be germane in
determining the validity oI the artist's viewpoint, but seems to dodge entirely the purpose oI
communication and art. As Carroll intimates, art is, at least in part, the act oI conversing with the artist.
Integrating the idea oI perIormative-constative speech into the documentary provides a stable
and conversant method oI interpreting the art Iorm. The documentarian is still making an assertion in
the sense that both Carroll and Grierson demand, and our synthesized deIinition requires, but now
instead oI the constative utterance: 'This is the reason Ior that. or 'This phenomenon exists because
oI that. the Iilmmaker is making a perIormative-constative statement similar to: 'I invite you to look
at the subject in this manner. or 'I oIIer this picture oI my belieIs on this topic. This structure
liberates the Iilmmaker Irom immediate attacks on veracity, and at once makes way Ior the
eccentricities oI language and symbol transIer.
Furthermore, the viewer is invigorated and empowered by taking the documentary as the
perIormative-constative. No longer are they the victims oI the pedagogy oI the documentarian, the
viewer is invited to review the Iilm on their own terms be it aesthetically, inIormatively, or simply Ior
the sake oI exposure to novel thought or culture.
24
Documentary as the Subjective Art
Given the obstacles to interpreting the documentary Iilm as an objective art Iorm, or even the
possibility oI inIormal objective inIormation transIer, what does this mean Ior the art Iorm? As the
documentarian is not beholden to the rules oI journalism. There is room Ior debate whether the
somewhat implied desire Ior objectivity is necessary or desired. Flaherty's Iilms Iocused less on
capturing the reality oI the subjects oI his Iilms than capturing the essence or :eitgeist oI the
documentary`s subjects. Film critics have Iound Iault with his manipulations oI reality. For instance, he
removed the room oI an igloo during the production oI Nanook of the North so that he was able to
capture the domestic scene with the incredibly bulky and light-hungry cameras available to him at the
time. However, iI it were not Ior this maneuver, even Flaherty's conception oI the domestic culture oI
the Inuit people would be absent Irom our examinations. While Flaherty's somewhat romantic
tendencies as an anthropological documentarian color his picture with bias, to a certain degree all
inIormation is bastardized by every vessel that it inhabits.
Outside oI direct empirical experience, any seeker oI knowledge or truth is Iorced to integrate
the method by which the inIormation arrived into their determination oI credibility. The principals oI
nave empiricism admonish the audience Ior not recognizing that the human vessel is one oI the poorer
transport mechanisms Ior Iactual inIormation. The viewer oI Iilm oI any variety, is at their leisure to
approach the Iilm in the manner which is most satisIying to themselves. II they are interested in
making decisions regarding the validity oI the Iilmmaker assertion, it behooves them to incorporate all
oI the methods Ior determining not only what the Iilmmaker's assertion is, but also the level oI
credibility that they accord the communicator.
The act oI Iilm viewership in this Iramework is genre agnostic, the same criteria Ior
determining the validity oI the non-Iiction Iilmmakers assertion are used Ior similar gain in the analysis
oI Iiction Iilmmakers as well. When Stephen Spielberg presented the atrocities oI the Holocaust in
25
Schindlers List (1993), the Iictionalized evil oI the Nazis is just a real, representatively, as the evil
presented by the picture provided by documentary Iilms such as Arnold Schwartzman's Genocide
(1982), or even literary treatments such as those Iound in Art Speigelman's graphic novel Maus.
Documentary Iilms have been done a disservice by the somewhat arbitrary demands Ior the
type oI objectivity purportedly Iound in the journalistic arts. There is no strict corollary relating
objectivity and truth. It is completely possible to provide a larger picture oI reality by reIusing to be
beholden to the principles oI objectivity. As insinuated by the anecdote oI Arthur Barron, the
documentarian is Iorced to temper his/her desire Ior comprehensiveness with the need Ior the subject to
accept and trust the Iilmmaker. II the Iilmmaker is incapable oI establishing a level oI trust with the
subject, then the chances oI realizing Vertov's idea oI natural behavior are almost nil. Which actions
jeopardize the intent oI the Iilm the most? It would seem that the pursuit oI objectivity implicitly leads
to a shallower depth oI inspection. Michael Moore, you have been allowed back at the table, but watch
your behavior.
26
Works Cited
Austin, J.L. 'Intention and Convention in Speech Acts. The Philosophv of Language ed.Searle, J.R.
OxIord UP, 1971 pp 13-22
Fodor, J. 'On Knowing What We Would Say. Philosophv and Linguistics. ed. C Lyas. Macmillan,
1971.
Bazin, Andre. 'The Ontology oI the Photographic Image and Hugh Gray. Film Quarterlv
Vol. 13, No. 4 (Summer, 1960), pp. 4-9
Beardsley,Monroe. 'Intentions and Interpretations: A Fallacy Revived
Carroll, Noel. 'Documentary and the Film oI Presumptive Assertion Film Theorv and Philosophv
Carroll,Noel. 'From Reel to Real: Entangled in Non-Iiction Film Theori:ing the Moving Image
Carroll ,Noel. 'Photographic Traces and Documentary Film: Comments Ior Gregory Currie The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58, no 3 pp. 303-306
Carroll, Noel 'The Intentional Fallacy, Bevond Aesthetics. Philosophical Essav. Cambridge UP,
2001
Currie, Gregory. 'Visible Traces: Documentary and the Contents oI Photographs Philosophv of
Film and Motion Pictures. An Anthologv pp. 141
Ellis, Jack and Besty A. McLane. A New Historv of Documentarv Film. Continuum, New York. 2005.
Grierson, John. Grierson on Documentarv. ed. Forsyth Hardy. Faber, 1966.
James Kuehl, Philosophv and Phenomenological Research Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 212-224
Locke, John. An Essav Concerning Human Understanding. OxIord UP, 1975.
Lopate, Phillip. 'In Search oI the Centaur. Bevond Document. Ed Charles Warren Wesleyn UP, 1996.
Nichols, Bill. 'Representing Reality Indiana U P 5-6
Plantinga, Carl. Rhetoric and Representaion in Non-fiction Film. Cambridge UP, 1997.
Pryluck, Calvin. 'Ultimately We are All Outsiders. New Challenges for Documentarv. ed. Alan
Rosenthal. U oI Cal, 1988.
Ransdell, Joseph. 'Semiotic Objectivity Semiotica Vol 26, No 3-4, pp 261-288
Rotha, Paul. Documentarv Film. Faber and Faber, London. 1939.
27
Ryle, Gilbert. 'Use, Usage, and Meaning Philosophv and Linguistics. ed. C Lyas. Macmillan,
1971.
28
Filmography
The Arrival of a Train at the Station, dirs. Auguste Lumiere and Louis Lumiere, 1896.
Baboona, dirs. Martin Johnson and Truman Talley, 1935.
Baraka, dir. Ron Fricke, 1992.
Black Dvnamite, dir. Scott Sanders, 2009.
Black Shampoo, dir. Greydon Clark, 1976.
The Blair Witch Profect, dirs. Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, 1999.
Borneo, dirs. Martin Johnson and Osa Johnson, 1937.
Bovs Dont Crv, dir. Kimberly Peirce, 1999.
Casablanca, dir. Michael Curtiz, 1942.
Catfish, dirs. Henry Joost and Ariel Schuman, 2010.
The Corporation, dirs. Mark Achbar and JenniIer Abbott, 2003.
Dear Zacharv. A Letter to a Son About His Father, Kurt Kuenne, 2008.
Exit Through the Gift Shop, dir. Banksy, 2010.
Food, inc., dir. Robert Kenner, 2008.
Fang and Claw, dir Frank Buck, 1935.
The Great Train Robber, dir. Edwin Porter, 1903.
An Inconvenient Truth, dir. Davis Guggeheim, 2006.
Kino-Pravda, Dziga Vertov, 1922.
Man of Iran, dir. Robert Flaherty, 1934.
The Man with a Movie Camera, Dziga Vertov, 1929.
Moana, dir. Robert Flaherty, 1926.
Nanook of the North, dir. Robert Flaherty, 1922.
29
Olvmpiad, Leni RieIenstahl, 1938.
Pirates du Rhone, dir. Bernard Clavel, 1957.
Plan 9 from Outer Space, dir. Ed Wood, 1959.
Restrepo, dirs. Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger, 2010.
Schindlers List, dir. Stephen Speilberg, 1993.
Sophies Choice, Alan Pakula, 1982.
Stevie, dir. Steve James, 2002.
Spinal Tap, dir. Rob Riener, 1984.
Triumph of the Will, Leni RieIenstahl, 1935.
Wild Cargo, dir. Armand Denis, 1934.
Workers Leaving the Factorv, dirs. Auguste Lumiere and Louis Lumiere, 1895.
30