Introduction

Documentaries as defined by Oxford Dictionary can be explained in three ways. The first two
being adjectives; “Consisting of or based on official documents” and “Using pictures or
interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a particular
subject”. The third, a noun, “film or television or radio programme that provides a factual
report on a particular subject”.
All three of these definitions fit to what audiences typically think of when the topic of non-
fiction or documentary is raised, however, a term that appears in both the adjective and the
noun is ‘factual report’. Whilst the official definition for this, again according to Oxford
Dictionary, being “concerned with that is actually the case”; a handful, if not all filmmakers
within documentary could be accused of either bending the truth or presenting a subject in a
certain way.
The intentions of this essay are to highlight and assess the question as to what extent these
filmmakers manipulate the way in which a subject is portrayed in order to guide audiences to
specific opinions that align with that of the film or TV show. As well as this, it is also aiming
to explore whether it can be still considered a documentary despite this and does it make it an
inaccurate representation of the subject.
Taking into consideration this general definition of the topic, can we really be sure that what
we are watching is the truth, or at least as close to the truth as possible? Or is it just “the
creative treatment of actuality,” (Grierson 1933; p.8).

Non-Actuality Footage

One of the biggest debates within the world of documentary is the authenticity of using non-
actuality footage. A common example of this shooting style can be seen through the use of re-
enactments. These artificial scenes are reconstructed sequences that are acted out based
around information collected from a true event. Used both as a stylistic approach or to fill in
the missing gaps of information that was unable to be collected, re-enactments give the
viewer insight into an event as if it is happening live. Technical approaches are used in order
to clearly differentiate the non-actuality from the actuality footage. Examples of these include
saturation or desaturation of the colour within the footage, blurring and lighting. Effects tend
to linger around the area of distortion and manipulating the footage in order to give it a
somewhat unnatural aesthetic.
Nichols questions whether reducing documentary “to textual figures” potentially reduces
“our sense of history itself” (Nichols, 1991; p.107). History is not just facts and figures, as a
race we have seen, smelt, touched and experienced history. Documentary allows us a gateway
through into fragment of history that may go unexplored by many audiences, utilising visuals
for a deeper experience of it. But are those visuals required to be the raw footage of the time
itself. As Nichols also references, “empirical verisimilitude provides no guarantee of
historical accuracy,” however it does manage to “secure an existential bond between image
and reference” (Nichols, 1991; p.171). Are we required to see visual evidence of the
information audiences are consuming?

Manipulation has been used in both the cinema and general media, dating back to the radio
adaptation of War of the Worlds (Welles; 1938). Even now, it is one of the most notorious
examples of how influential media can be on the audience, becoming so believable that
"thousands of listeners were seemingly convinced that martians were taking over New
Jersey” (Winston, 2000). If this could be achieved using just radio broadcasting, how far
could filmmakers potentially take this until it is deemed morally unethical.

Whilst the idea of recreating events could be perceived as ‘bending the truth’, non-actuality
footage can prove to aid a documentary greatly. Nichols put forth the idea that
“representations can take a great variety of forms” (Nichols, 1991; p.125), including that of
creative re-enactments. Commonly seen on crime shows across both UK and US TV that in
order to portray an event that has not been captured by the filmmakers themselves, they will
recreate the scenes. Crime Watch Daily (Syndication, 2015) is a prime example of this.
Frequently they will include both a spoken account of the victim of the crime, alongside the
use of actors in order to recreate the narrative. In an extract from Crime Watch Daily, this can
be identified as Kara Robinson explains her kidnapping to the interviewer.
!

!
(Syndication, (2015), Crime Watch Daily)

In doing this, the creators are able to give the audience something to visualise along with the
victim’s story. This technique prevents the show becoming what could be described as a
'talking heads’. It enables the show to reach a wider audience, connecting with those who
take information both verbally, and visually. It depends however, on the level of performance
put forward by those acting and those creating the sequence. Annette Hill’s ‘Restyling
Factual TV’, explores critically engaged audiences. They “are assessing levels of
performance,” Hill identifies, as well as becoming highly critical on the “ideal of a natural,
or authentic, performance” (Hill, 2007; p.124). From this it becomes essential that
reconstructions remain authentic and as near to the subject as possible. If not done
successfully, as Hill says, audiences become critical due to the lack of reality being shown
through what claims to be a visual representation of facts and narrative.

However, whilst sitting in the same category of the TV's 'docudrama', similar shows such as
animal rescues, adopt a slightly different technique. As it relies largely on capturing an
observational standpoint of the action taking place involving the animals, it utilises narration
created during the post-filming stages. This allows the audience to gain clarity during a fast-
paced action sequence. The details within the scene that may go unnoticed when shown on its
own can be pointed out to the viewer via the narration. It allows creative control on what
elements of a scene they want the audience to focus on in order to build up the narrative.

Alternatively, others take a more creative approach to non-actuality footage. Netflix series
Dark Net (Kochavi, 2016) uses constructed fiction scenes in order to convey a larger point
amongst the episode whilst embedding facts to help back up the sequences. An extract from
episode one, 'Crush', focuses on an online matched male and female that use technology in
order to play with the taboo subject of dominance and submissive intimate interaction. As
well as using a scripted narrative, they include scripted interview with the characters. It
allows the documentary to keep the generic conventions assigned with documentaries, whilst
still allowing full creative control over the piece. The subject covered is something fairly
intimate, one that the subjects may hold information back on or all together refuse to give an
insight this private world. Mati Kochavi has utilised this style in order to inform the audience
on this secret side of the internet they may have been unaware of beforehand.
!

!
(Mati Kochavi, (2016), Dark Net; episode ‘Crush’)

Similarly, to the issue with crime documentaries however, a film may be lacking in visual
sequences that would play a key part in the narrative, instead only having access to archived
audio. Brett Morgen encountered these problems when filming Kurt Cobain: Montage of
Heck (2015); he had access to audio clips that had been recorded by Cobain himself during
his youth, but no visuals to pair with this. In the same manner as Kochavi's creative decision
for Dark Net, it was decided that the audio would be overlay an animated sequence. Being
able to appreciate a scene visually helps the audience to draw from the narrative more as well
as getting more of an idea on the character they are learning about. This can be linked closely
with Bill Nichols ‘expository’ mode of documentary that tends to “include poetic or
performative segments” (Nichols, 2001; p.100). Visually, audiences become more stimulated
through the colours, movement, physical characteristics and style as opposed to a single
audio recording. There is more engagement with the narrative when able to appreciate all
aspects of the subject, even if it is not from using live footage captured by the filmmaker.

!
(Brett Morgen, (2015), Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck)
Clio Barnard’s ‘The Arbor’ (2010), carries similar issues. Barnard was unable to collect
visual documentation of her visit to the Bradford housing estate, however was successful in
collecting audio interviews with the multiple subjects. In order to solve this, she adapted a
series of re-enactments that mimicked the scene in which the interviewee was describing. As
well as this she also succeeded in withholding the interview mode of documentary by using
the actors to break the fourth, speaking directly to the viewer as if channelling the subject’s
response.
By engaging with these forms of non-actuality footage, it gives the directors full creative
control over how we perceive the subjects. In doing so, it can influence both a positive
outcome for the reputation of the subject, or potentially negative; dependant on the goals the
documentarian had set out to achieve with the piece.

From this, the question of the authenticity in how the subject is portrayed is raised. To what
extent can audiences trust the filmmaker’s perception of them? Released in the same year as
Montage of Heck, is Benjamin Statler’s ‘Soaked in Bleach’ (2015). Whilst Morgen’s
intentions were to focus mainly on the biographical history of Cobain, Soaked in Bleach
takes on an investigative mode of documentary, using interviews, embedded facts and non-
actuality footage to build a case of whether Courtney Love should have been accused for the
murder of her husband, Cobain. The film uses sequences similar to that of Crime Watch
Daily, recreating a scene that puts an interviewee’s point of view on an event into visual
context. However, a key issue present with this is that a majority of these non-actuality
scenes are based on a subject’s view who had not been present at the time of the event. What
separates this from the previous examples is that due to the nature of this documentary, being
an investigative film the audience are expected to build their own opinion on Love based on
the facts and cases provided throughout. However, if a biased representation of Love is being
portrayed, are viewers really getting non-bias side of the story or being spoon fed
information. Whilst this doesn’t negate the authenticity of the information, it brings up the
question of how biased are the statements and visuals audiences are being presented with.
 The Edit

A key part of manipulation within both nonfiction and fiction film stems from how the piece
is structured in the edit.

Cuts are a key element to filmmaking. And similarly, to fiction, documentaries also use them
in order to structure a story around the subject. It is near enough impossible not to be able to
use them unless the film decides to use one continuous shot but as is apparent in Alejandro
González Iñárritu’s Birdman (2015), it would be highly difficult to create a full-length feature
film without including cuts or some form of structural manipulation. However, the question
of whether cuts limit the realism of a subject is still a topic that is up for debate. Canadian
filmmaker Wolf Koenig “reverted to a familiar argument” in a discussion with critic Peter
Wintonick, “every cut is a lie but you’re telling a lie to tell the truth” (Aufderheide 2007; p.
73). Koenig is essentially asking the question of whether any non-fiction film is telling the
truth? Whilst on the surface some would immediately argue that yes, non-fiction pleasures
“arise not through make-believe or fictional enactment but by the representation of
actuality” (Gaines; 2006). Though when viewed in closer depth, it is largely suggested that
documentary is not actually as truthful as first let on.
In order to explain this particular concept, take for example a moving image adaptation of a
novel. Debates and arguments have arisen amongst audiences throughout cinematic history,
discussing whether or not a director has represented the novel in the correct way. However,
can there ever be a ‘correct’ way to visually tell a story. Every person will form a picture of
the world, characters, narrative structure and all other elements when reading a story-book.
Therefore, every visual representation that could potentially come out of a novel would each
have its own elements that have been tweaked or rendered different, depending on who is
consuming the text. This can be equally said for documentary. If you give three directors the
same subject to document, for example, the struggle of a single mother living off of benefits
in the UK, each one of those directors will represent the mother in three different ways. So,
were any of these representations the ‘correct’ way of visualising this particular subjects
narrative? Possibly. It could be suggested that none of them do, or even that all of them do.
And reverting back to the original point, it all comes down to a key element within the film,
which is the filmmakers style of editing, use of cuts, and structural choices of the narrative.

“It’s all lies” is heard commonly about the phrase ‘gossip’. What is gossip however? Oxford
dictionary defines the term as 'Casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other
people’ (Oxford Dictionaries English, 2018). Could it be said that documentaries are a form
of gossip? Each party will tell gossip about someone or something differently. Essentially
‘cutting’ out the unimportant or uninteresting elements in order to keep the listener engaged
with the story. Similarly, documentaries are a report about someone or something, and have
been cut down or structured in an alternative order, specifically to make the piece much more
engaging for the audience.

Is this a bad thing to do however? Immediately we associate the term ‘lie’ with negative
connotations, which largely is true; as stated previously by Koenig, “every cut is a lie”. But
unless audiences are present along with the filmmakers at the scene being filmed, it’s almost
impossible to see the scene that is taking place without at least some use of cuts or structural
alterations. The camera and camera operator, functions as an “all seeing view” as suggested
by Aufderheide, that shows a reality “that our own human perceptual apparatus cannot
perceive”. Documentary acts as a way for audiences to see into a world they don’t normally
have access into. Similarly, to fiction based films, the Uses and Gratifications Theory (Katz,
E.; Blumler, J. G. & Gurevitch, M; 1974), suggests that audiences potentially consume media
texts in order to achieve a level of escapism. This could be said about why audiences seek out
knowledge through documentary.
One of the most successful documentaries of the past two decades, March of the Penguins
(2005), originally produced in France by director Luc Jacquet and re-dubbed for US release
soon after is a key example of this. It gives viewers an insight to a world they would have
never gotten the opportunity to see in-person. “Some measure of reality must always be
sacrificed in the effort of achieving it,” suggested French film critic André Bazin.
On the other hand, cuts can be used for a not so truthful representation of the subject. It can
be used in order to manipulate the audience's into ‘agreeing’ with the filmmaker. Some may
suggest that it falsifies events in order to build and structure an opinion to be consumed as
desired. It reverts to a similar theory put forward by Nichols that could define this as a “see-
it-my-way” (Nichols, 1991) manipulation of consumption.
One of the key models in the industry who utilises this common editing technique is
controversial documentarian Michael Moore, famously known for his eye-opening pieces
such as Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), SiCKO (2007) and Roger & Me (1989). However, one of the
most well-known piece to come from Moore is his 2002 attack on gun use in America,
Bowling for Columbine. The film features a segment in which we see Moore conducting a
sit-down interview with successful American actor Charlton Heston about his promotion of
ownership of firearms in America and his involvement with the NRA. As shown in the
following images of Moore following Heston as he storms away from some heated questions
about his appearance at Columbine after the mass shootings; the editing techniques
previously discussed are prevalent. During this sequence, two shots have been edited together
in order to display both Heston walking away from the situation as well as Moore holding up
an image of a child murdered in the shooting.

!
!
(Michael Moore, (2002), Bowling for Columbine)

To hone in on the technical elements of this, it can be seen that the camera operator is
standing behind Moore as we watch Heston, however when the cut is introduced of Moore,
the operator is now standing in front and looking up at the presenter. Logistically, this would
be impossible for the cameraman to get both points of view at the same time without missing
out on some of Charlton Heston’s actions; which leads to a commonly used technique,
especially in narrative and presented documentary. Implementing cuts of the narrator’s
reactions.

Despite being a highly used technique within a large majority of participatory documentaries
such as Louis Theroux: Weird Weekends (1998), Life of Michael Jackson (2004) and a
handful of Moore's other works in non-fiction, it can be difficult to pinpoint when casually
watching one of these films. Due to the simplicity of the cut and how easy it can be to embed
it into a sequence without much disruption to the action, especially when the narrator is seen
in the documentary throughout, it becomes fairly easy to blend in and go unnoticed by the
viewer. Alternatively, it is key to take into consideration the strong influence of fiction film; it
relies primarily on reaction shots in order to convey emotion or a certain opinion of a
character, especially within scenes of dialogue.
Similarly, to editing, camera plays a key factor when picking apart the realism of a
documentary. This same scene in Bowling for Columbine features two contrasting angles; a
higher angle that looks down upon Charlton Heston as he exits the shot, and a lower angle,
looking up at Moore as he holds up the picture of the child. For this moment in the film,
whilst a commonly used technique in cinema, the camera plays a largely influential part in
manipulating how we view the two characters. Simply put, Heston is someone in the film
who's political and personal opinions and beliefs we should look down upon; Moore is
someone who we should look up to, his beliefs and opinions being the ones that we should be
influenced by and judge others upon, just as he has done to Heston.
Whether each character is in the right or the wrong, is it considered ethical in a documentary
to influence the audience to this degree, or does Moore have every right within his own film
to portray his characters how he wishes? Revising back on the definition explored in Oxford
Dictionary, it was stated that a documentary is “a film or television or radio programme that
provides a factual report on a particular subject”. When related to Bowling for Columbine,
we do see a 'factual report' on a 'particular subject' or subjects. The questions being asked of
Heston such as his appearance at Columbine are all factual, the photo of the girl Moore is
holding was killed as he stated. However as previously discussed, it may fit the criteria of a
documentary, but is it ethical? Or is Moore sacrificing Heston's reputation as well as bringing
in manipulative editing and filming techniques in order to state a point for the greater good?
“A perspective,” Nichols proceeds to explain, “and therefore a representation or argument,
differentiates a text from a “mere film” or raw footage” (Nichols 1991).

Alternatively, it could be argued that in order to influence audiences into believing a specific
ideology or negatively viewing a subject; it isn't necessary to include the straightforward
'attack' approach we commonly see within the work of Michael Moore.
Morgan Spurlock's notorious Supersize Me (2004), takes a slightly sutler approach in order to
rally his audience behind the movement against the fast-food industry. It can be noted that
throughout the film, there is a lack of opinion from the 'other side of the coin', relying only
on indifferent subjects, or ones that are with his cause and agenda. As opposed to adopting a
journalistic approach commonly seen within other ‘participatory documentary’ (Nichols
1991), Spurlock somewhat steps back and allows the audience to make their own decision on
the results of his experiment and facts provided. From that they can do with that information
as they please, which was found to be beneficial for the documentaries agenda as audiences
became more vocal, spreading further awareness about the fast-food industry off of their own
backs. The time in which these two documentaries have been released provides a great aid
when attempting to put forward a perspective, ideology or argument; such a Spurlock and
Moore are attempting. Social media acts as a secondary platform in which films can further
influence viewers, allowing a space to debate and conceive additional arguments based
around the rooted ideologies of the filmmaker. Paul Rotha constructed a similar view,
“Hollywood must face the accusation of having deliberately kept people from thinking, from
asking questions, from knowing”. In comparison to the time in which Rotha had coined this
belief, he also had suggested that documentary had “become too parochial” (Rotha, 1967).
This insinuation of a narrow scope on the world via documentaries eyes, despite still have
some constraints, had grown greatly through generations of filmmakers to what we know it as
today.

Some audiences however, learn and engage better with a documentary that uses primarily
facts, relying mainly on sit-down interview and observational visuals in order to reinforce
statements made. Planet Earth (2006) uses only diegetic sounds of the visuals along with
narration, embedding facts about the focus of the episode. Being the first nature documentary
to be broadcast in high definition and one of the more expensive projects to come from the
BBC, Planet Earth has become notorious not through just presenter David Attenborough, but
equally from a visual standpoint. By utilising the stunning footage collected by the
filmmakers as well as the carefully chosen facts, Planet Earth becomes a prime example of
documentary that successfully entertains and informs its audiences of the realism within our
natural world. However, as suggested by Grierson, documentary is still the "creative
treatment of actuality" (Grierson, 1933: 8). Unlike previous examples mentioned such as
Theroux's exploration into character narratives found amongst our world, nature documentary
relies on an animal who has no context or understanding of why filmmakers are observing
them. Though it may be easier to draw out a personality from a human subject, narratives
have to be constructed around animal subject in order to create this story. Derek Blouse
suggests that purely observing the subjects "provide insufficient material alone for a worthy
plot," whilst also noting that as an audience, the "truths of the natural world can be
understood through empathetic identification with individual animal characters" (Blouse,
2000). This individual animal character typically symbolises their species as a whole, and
said individual will embody characteristics that audiences are able to pair with typical
archetypes within narratives as theorised by Vladmir Propp as well as following narrative
forms and techniques as used within fiction film. As suggested by Nichols, documentaries
bear, “resemblance to fictional worlds,” however this resemblance is “fundamentally
metaphorical,” connoting primarily a narrative structural influence. An extract from Planet
Earth II (2016), features a scene in which an Iguana hatchling can be seen escaping from a
den of snakes. By creating a scene that utilises tense sound, fast paced editing and
camerawork that allows us to focus on the iguana as a central character, the filmmaker is able
to draw a clear narrative for audiences to follow. It makes it easier for the audience to take
key facts embedded through narration as the facts included add to the story being shown such
as the snakes ability to sense movement without being able to see.

!
(BBC One, (2006), Planet Earth)
 Conclusion

Throughout, the topic of whether you can define a documentary by a set of defined
conventions has been explored across a small handful of examples. Though, do any of these
examples fit into a cookie cutter definition such as given by Oxford dictionary. Have they
consisted of or been based on "official documents" or provided a "factual report on a
particular subject?” (Oxford Dictionaries English, 2018). When broken down, all of these
examples used have met the criteria of what officially defines a documentary.
However, just as a film adaptation of a book, the documentary acts as the film adaptation of
the subject. Every adaptation to be drawn from the subject will be perceived differently
depending on who has creative control over the piece. "Documentary encompassed the use of
images of the real world for the purposes of personal expression," (Winston, 2006), allowing
the ability for filmmakers to explore extensive creative outputs in the way audiences consume
non-fiction narratives.
A number of documentarians contrive a manipulative narrative using various techniques
common within not just the non-fiction industry but fiction also, however, it could be argued
that these filmmakers have not necessarily intended to draw a negative connotation from this.
It is possible to successfully reach out to a larger audience in order to spread awareness on a
subject such as Moore and Spurlock have done; to further educate the wider public on a niché
topic such as Planet Earth had intended or even just to express a personal story. And each
interpretation of these factors will be taken differently depending on the creator, the audience
consuming the product and the period it is released in. "Some measure of reality must always
be sacrificed in the effort of achieving it" (Bazin, 1971).
Are audiences benefitting in the long-term from consuming a non-fiction text that may not be
a raw version of the subject, compared to never having any information on it at all? As
Nichols cynically put, "the notion of any privileged access to a reality that exists 'out there',
beyond us, is an ideological effect. The sooner we realise this, the better." (Nichols, 1991).
 Bibliography

Aufderheide, P 2007, Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University

Press, USA, Cary.

Bazin, A. and Gray, H. (1971). What is cinema? Volume 2. Berkeley: University of California
Press, p.30.

Bouse, D. (2000). Wildlife Films. University of Pennsylvania Press, p.131.

Brett Morgen, (2015), Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck [ONLINE]. Available at: https://
amp.businessinsider.com/images/5548d4546bb3f7ab64f667da-750-375.jpg [Accessed 11
April 2018].

Brett Morgen, (2015), Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck [ONLINE]. Available at: https://
i.pinimg.com/originals/2e/83/e7/2e83e7db1a443f535ff2a1f4c38561e0.jpg [Accessed 11 April
2018].

Gaines, J. (2006). Collecting visible evidence. 6th ed. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press,
p.19.

Hill, A. (2007). Factual TV. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

JOHN GRIERSON, “The Documentary Producer,” Cinema Quarterly 2, no.1 (1933): 8

Nichols, B. (2010). Representing reality. Bloomington, Ind. [u.a.]: Indiana Univ. Press.

Nichols, B., 2001. Introduction to Documentary. Indiana: Indiana Univ. Press.

Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2018). Documentary | Definition of documentary in English

by Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
documentary [Accessed 20 Mar. 2018].

Oxford Dictionaries English. (2018). Documentary Definition of documentary in English by

Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
factual-report [Accessed 20 Mar. 2018].

PetaPixel. (2018). How Nature Documentaries are Fake: A Filmmaker's Perspective. [online]
Available at: https://petapixel.com/2017/04/26/nature-documentaries-fake-filmmakers-
perspective/ [Accessed 12 Apr. 2018].

Planet Earth. (2016). [video] BBC One.

Planet Earth II. (2016). [DVD] UK: BBC One.

Rotha, P. and Griffith, R. (1967). The film till now. London: Spring Books, p.34.

Syndication, (2015), Crime Watch Daily [ONLINE]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=RFh5fiLveJQ [Accessed 11 April 2018]

Winston, B. (2006). Lies, damn lies and documentaries. London: BFI Pub., p.20.