documentary
It's the 200th post. But rather than celebrate this meaningless (and frankly rather tardy) milestone with a poem or discussion of poetry - the supposed purpose of the blog - here's a piece on film. It's probably much more appropriate given the haphazard nature of this particular garden. Incidentally, apologies for the lack of links in recent posts including this one. There seems to be something wrong with the current browser which means the controls that would usually be available to manipulate the text and embed links are missing from the area where these posts are input. So until santiago figures out how to use html at even a rudimentary level you'll just have to put up with it unfortunately.
The most recent Sight & Sound features several articles on documentary filmmaking. One of those articles sparked an interesting train of thought. Its final paragraph began with the following sentence:
"These trends [the reappearance of documentary film to cinemas, increasing numbers of documentary festivals, and documentary movements across the world] have been extended and diversified by digital video and the internet, which encourage a variety of new forms and practices on the margins of the commercial industry."
Authentic talking cinema, Michael Chanan, Sight & Sound Volume 17 Issue 9 September 07, BFI, London 2007
It's quite likely you've just had the exact same thoughts that prompted this piece. That is that the coincidence of mobile phone technology and the success of forums like YouTube must increasingly affect the ways in which we think about documentary. Whether it be witnesses to/participants in events filming them, individuals or groups engaging in "Jackass"-like stunts, people filming friends or family (either informally or at more formal occasions), "happy slapping" or similar activities, or any other manifestation left out by this list it's easier than ever for people not only to film events but to share the product with potentially millions of others across the world.
At present such film goes under a variety of more or less belittling names, 'citizen journalism', 'amateur footage', 'user-generated content' and the like, which seem to imply that it is raw material, even a form of 'found footage', requiring editorial intervention to give it meaning. And of course much of it is technically and structurally crude. But to separate it in that way is to ignore a vibrant and often disturbing spectrum of verite that ranges from the often largely unauthored (CCTV, webcam), through things such as unauthorised video of concerts and the like, to more 'sophisticated' productions, including propaganda (for instance films of training, 'martyrdom' and 'insurgent operations'), 'amateur' pornography, and community history projects, to name only a few.
Of course, much of this existed before the internet and affordable digital video, but there are several crucial differences now that make such work more obviously significant than previously. Firstly the increasing compactness and sophistication of the equipment available enables film to be shot under circumstances where previously it would have been impossible, secondly the accessibility and affordability of editing software means material can be presented in a more 'professional' way, and finally the proliferation of platforms, from file sharing websites through blogs to social networks allows film to reach a potentially enormous audience extremely rapidly.
Does such sophistication and accessibility mean the definition of 'documentary' should be broadened, or does it (as seems more likely) indicate a point at which new genres and sub-genres begin to flourish and diverge from traditional 'documentary'? And since with that sophistication and accessibility the opportunities to present the worst of human behaviour to a worldwide audience in a sympathetic way are immensely increased will it mean that we'll quickly come to view 'documentary' film with suspicion?
The most recent Sight & Sound features several articles on documentary filmmaking. One of those articles sparked an interesting train of thought. Its final paragraph began with the following sentence:
"These trends [the reappearance of documentary film to cinemas, increasing numbers of documentary festivals, and documentary movements across the world] have been extended and diversified by digital video and the internet, which encourage a variety of new forms and practices on the margins of the commercial industry."
Authentic talking cinema, Michael Chanan, Sight & Sound Volume 17 Issue 9 September 07, BFI, London 2007
It's quite likely you've just had the exact same thoughts that prompted this piece. That is that the coincidence of mobile phone technology and the success of forums like YouTube must increasingly affect the ways in which we think about documentary. Whether it be witnesses to/participants in events filming them, individuals or groups engaging in "Jackass"-like stunts, people filming friends or family (either informally or at more formal occasions), "happy slapping" or similar activities, or any other manifestation left out by this list it's easier than ever for people not only to film events but to share the product with potentially millions of others across the world.
At present such film goes under a variety of more or less belittling names, 'citizen journalism', 'amateur footage', 'user-generated content' and the like, which seem to imply that it is raw material, even a form of 'found footage', requiring editorial intervention to give it meaning. And of course much of it is technically and structurally crude. But to separate it in that way is to ignore a vibrant and often disturbing spectrum of verite that ranges from the often largely unauthored (CCTV, webcam), through things such as unauthorised video of concerts and the like, to more 'sophisticated' productions, including propaganda (for instance films of training, 'martyrdom' and 'insurgent operations'), 'amateur' pornography, and community history projects, to name only a few.
Of course, much of this existed before the internet and affordable digital video, but there are several crucial differences now that make such work more obviously significant than previously. Firstly the increasing compactness and sophistication of the equipment available enables film to be shot under circumstances where previously it would have been impossible, secondly the accessibility and affordability of editing software means material can be presented in a more 'professional' way, and finally the proliferation of platforms, from file sharing websites through blogs to social networks allows film to reach a potentially enormous audience extremely rapidly.
Does such sophistication and accessibility mean the definition of 'documentary' should be broadened, or does it (as seems more likely) indicate a point at which new genres and sub-genres begin to flourish and diverge from traditional 'documentary'? And since with that sophistication and accessibility the opportunities to present the worst of human behaviour to a worldwide audience in a sympathetic way are immensely increased will it mean that we'll quickly come to view 'documentary' film with suspicion?
Comments