Re: dem primary

["Peter T. Chattaway" <petert@interchange.ubc.ca>]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Aaron Edwards wrote:
> Sorry if this has been said already, but As a postmodernist, I have a
> hard time even believing that there is a such thing as a documentary.

Well, I don't see it as a strict either-or, but as more of a continuum --
I mean, *every* film "documents" something, even if it's just a
*performance* that *simulates* unrehearsed behaviour.  This is why we
never just approach a film like, say, _In the Cut_ on the level of
narrative and character development; we also tend to approach it on the
level of, "Wow, we see a lot more of Meg Ryan's naked body (and Mark
Ruffalo's, for that matter) than we ever did before."  I saw a very
interesting film last year called _Los Angeles Plays Itself_, which used
Hollywood *dramatic* films made in Los Angeles to show how these films
also *document* the changes that have taken place in the city, with regard
to its architecture and city planning and so on.  And shortly after seeing
that film, I happened to catch the last few minutes of _The Accused_ on TV
-- that was one of the earlier Hollywood films to be made in Vancouver,
and it was fascinating to see Jodie Foster and Kelly McGillis standing on
the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery back in '87, with the sign of the
now-defunct Eaton's department store just there in the background.

So, on the broadest possible level, *all* films, even fiction films, are
documentary (with, perhaps, the exception of computer animation? -- see
the "holy moment" discussion in _Waking Life_ for a subtly ironic take on
this -- the characters are talking about film's ability to capture reality
as it is ... but the film, which was shot on digital video, has replaced
all the live footage with animation), and *all* films, even non-fiction
films, are constructed narratives which reflect a director's point of
view, both in terms of what he decides to film and what he decides not to
leave on the cutting-room floor, as well as in terms of how he decides to
arrange what he keeps.  But I still think we can make useful distinctions
at different points along this continuum.  _Nanook of the North_, despite
its staged scenes, is more of a documentary than, say, the _Lord of the
Rings_ trilogy, despite its beautiful New Zealand scenery.

If we're going to place Michael Moore in the "fiction" or "non-fiction"
camp, I would have to say he belongs in the latter -- he makes films
where, at least ostensibly, he is dealing with real-life issues by talking
to real-life people and getting their spontaneous real-life reactions to
his various stunts and such.  True, Moore may be *lying* to us part of the
time, but then, I would say he is telling us "lies", not "fiction".

Though obviously that raises *another* round of questions regarding the
blurring of boundaries around this stuff.

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter@chattaway.com ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/