See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271992552

Documentary as a statement: Defining old genre in a new age

Article  in  Journal of Media Practice · June 2014

DOI: 10.1080/14682753.2014.892698

CITATIONS READS

5 3,453

2 authors, including:

Jennifer Rock
University of Otago
119 PUBLICATIONS   1,131 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Population genetics of Antarctic fish View project

Science Communication View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jennifer Rock on 23 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Otago]
On: 29 April 2014, At: 15:53
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Media Practice

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmp20

Documentary as a statement: defining

old genre in a new age
a a
Nathan Smith & Jenny Rock
a
Centre for Science Communication, University of Otago, Dunedin
New Zealand
Published online: 15 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Nathan Smith & Jenny Rock (2014): Documentary as a statement: defining old
genre in a new age, Journal of Media Practice, DOI: 10.1080/14682753.2014.892698

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2014.892698

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Media Practice, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2014.892698

Documentary as a statement: defining old genre in a new age

Nathan Smith and Jenny Rock*

Centre for Science Communication, University of Otago, Dunedin New Zealand

Current definitions of documentary struggle to parallel the ability of the viewer to

easily demarcate documentary from fiction. This is because these definitions
generally attempt to distinguish documentary from fictional films based on the
premise that documentaries are factual representations of reality. Here we argue
that the two genres can be more clearly defined by focusing on the intent of the
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 15:53 29 April 2014

communication by the producer, rather than the content of the communication.

Specifically, documentary versus fictional films may be best distinguished by the
fact that one is produced as a statement of fact while one is focused on the art of
storytelling. Notably, a story and a statement differ in the extent to which the
intention for how the communication is interpreted is predetermined. Thus, a
documentary may be understood as a series of visually and/or audibly expressed
statements connected by narrative, and communicated from the author/authors to
the viewer with the intention that it be received as fact.

‘We seem to know quite well and instantaneously what a documentary is’ (Juel
2006: 7). Despite this, since the term was first coined by John Grierson in 1926, its
exact definition has remained a source of debate (Eitzen 1995). As late as 2009 La
Marre and Landreville argued the need for a clearer definition, with changing styles
increasing the confusion in current definitions. Nichols (2010) further developed the
thinking around the question of how to define documentary by creating categories of
documentary, from poetic and performative to observational and expository.
Despite these critical explorations of documentary, a huge disjoint remains between
theoretical definitions and Juel’s statement, which suggests that the line of difference
between the two genres should be so much simpler to define.
Current definitions of documentary all in some way attempt to distinguish
documentary from fictional films based on the premise that documentaries are
factual representations of reality. Nichols (2010) defines documentary film as being
‘about reality’, ‘real people’ and events that happen in the ‘real world’, and
Webster’s Dictionary (2013) similarly defines it as ‘presenting the facts about a
person or event’. Grierson’s (1926) original definition characterises documentary as
‘the creative treatment of actuality’. This is still considered to be one of the ‘most
serviceable’ definitions of documentary (Eitzen 1995), although it is arguably
breadth rather than precision to which this definition owes its longevity.

*Corresponding author. Email: jenny.rock@otago.ac.nz

© 2014 Taylor & Francis
 2 Nathan Smith and Jenny Rock

Ultimately, identifying documentary with ‘fact’ creates an association with

objective truths. This places us in the time-worn philosophical debate of defining
objective reality (Rorty 1991). Indeed, the Merriam Webster Dictionary (2010a)
definition of documentary directly includes expectations of objectivity: ‘of,
relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly: factual,
objective’. Yet in the case of documentary, as in other debates about representa-
tions of ‘truth’, the scope of the actuality (or reality, or fact) represented is
unclear. For example is it derived from consensus or a personal perception? Is it
permanent; and if not, on what time-frame or place is it contingent? When the
various subjective influences of the medium and its producing bodies are
acknowledged, most arguments of factuality and objectivity are quickly dismissed.
As all documentaries fail in some way to be objective it has been argued that this
association should be severed (Jenssen 2005). Issues of objective truth were
certainly at the core of Grierson’s initial use of the term ‘documentary’ in which
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 15:53 29 April 2014

he described recreations of the daily life of a young Polynesian in Flaherty’s

(1926) Moana as having ‘documentary value’. But specifically, he argued that it
was the presentation of the film as truth that gave it more appeal to the audience
(Grierson 1926). An important implication of this is the subtle but meaningful
difference between the presentation of a film of truth versus its direct representa-
tion as truth itself. Grierson never directly defined documentary as delivering fact,
only as a communication that succeeded in truthfulness through its implicit
association with factuality. In his words there was association with fact through
the ‘creative treatment of actuality’.
Eitzen’s (1995) attempt to better define documentary confronts issues of factuality
and objectivity by turning the question of ‘What is documentary?’ into ‘When is
documentary?’ Eitzen suggests that a documentary is a film to which the question ‘Is
it lying?’ can be applied. This brings us closer to a clearer definition by focusing on
the intended purpose of the film to communicate truth, rather than considering the
alignment between the content and fact. Yet this definition also fails to fully separate
fiction film from documentary film. For example, the film The Blair Witch Project
(Myrick and Sanchez 1999) was publicised by the producers using a website
containing what appears to be evidence to support their claim that the film was
made using ‘real’ footage (Wikipedia 2013a). This forced the audience to ask
Eitzen’s question, ‘Is it lying?’, despite the fact that it was a fully scripted and acted
fiction film. Eitzen’s definition also falls short when applied to fiction films that are
based on a true story, such as Frost/Nixon (Howard 2008). Many argued that the
film contained significant inaccuracies (Drew 2008), while others held that it was a
truthful re-enactment of events surrounding President Nixon’s interviews with David
Frost. Despite this, the film was classified as a ‘historical drama’ (Wikipedia 2013b).
Ultimately, posing the question ‘Is it lying?’ cannot definitively characterise what is
and what is not documentary. It does, however, focus us critically on the act of
intending to communicate fact, as we seek a better definition of documentary. Here
we argue that documentary versus fictional films are better distinguished not by the
content of the film but rather by the fact that one is produced as a statement of fact
while one is focused on the art of storytelling. Consequently, it is the intent behind
the communication that determines its form.
 Journal of Media Practice 3

Juel’s 2006 statement ‘We seem to know quite well and instantaneously what a
documentary is’ also provides critical questions. Why do we seem to implicitly know
what documentary is? Moreover, why has a changing and evolving genre remained
one so quickly distinguishable by the viewer? Expectations of documentary, held by
both the author and the viewer, have changed in the last decades (La Marre and
Landreville 2009). Should such changes not alter the defining characteristics of
documentary? In the past, entertainment value and interest inspired by a document-
ary could arise merely from the audience being given access to witness places and
cultures seldom encountered by the public. Today documentary does more than
present the audience with a view of the previously unseen, it in complex ways
‘engages and empowers publics’ (Aufderheide and Nisbet 2009: 456). Indeed,
engaging and empowering the audience has moved documentary film into new
territory. Many documentaries today seek as their primary objective to act as a voice
of propaganda, or to educate on social issues. One of the most famous cases can be
seen in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth (Guggenheim 2006), which served to
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 15:53 29 April 2014

support Al Gore’s campaign to inspire social and political movement to address

climate change (Murray and Heumann, 2007). Alternatively, a documentary may
have an objective to attack or defend special interest groups, as in the case of pro-
creationist film Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Allen 2003), or the anti-firearms
lobby in Bowling for Columbine (Moore 2002). At their base, these films are
arguments attempting to influence the way the viewer will interpret reality, rather
than attempts to document reality. And yet these films are all widely classed as
documentary. Thus, unlike what is arguably the case for traditional news media,
documenting reality can no longer be considered the primary goal of documentary
films. Often these films, like those mentioned above, argue a single subjective
perspective on reality. In fact, a drama such as Frost/Nixon arguably does more to
document a historical reality than the aforementioned documentaries. However,
films like Frost/Nixon have a distinguishing feature in their focus on story. They do
not require the viewer to explicitly believe in what they communicate. They simply
ask the viewer to focus on the film as story and enjoy its entertainment value
regardless of historical accuracy.
Discriminating between fiction and documentary films based on their focus on
story versus promulgation of fact can be likened to the difference between the
communication modes of conversation and statement. Fictional film equates with
the conversational telling of a story, while documentary equates with the delivery of
statement (or series of connected statements). ‘Statements’ are defined as: ‘a definite
or clear expression of something in speech or writing, [or a] formal account of facts
or events’ (Oxford Dictionaries 2013) and an ‘assertion [or] a report of facts or
opinions [or] proposition [or] an opinion, comment, or message conveyed indirectly
usually by nonverbal means’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2010b). Critically, while
multiple statements can form a larger statement comprising the form of a narrative,
the person originating the statements is still intending to communicate in a manner
that will be perceived as truth (even if a contingent personal truth). In contrast, when
a story is being told, the storyteller grants a certain freedom of imagination to the
listener. A focus is put on the greater metaphor, message or emotional journey
carried by the narrative, with the characters and events merely tools for this cause.
Even if fiction is based on truth it is released to the imperative of the story experience,
whereas in documentary, as in statements, it is not.
 4 Nathan Smith and Jenny Rock

What is clear in the discrimination between a story and statement is the extent to
which the intention for how the communication is interpreted is predetermined. This
in turn directs the way one communicates. Thus, a defining characteristic between
filmic genre is whether the intention is to focus on story or statement. Documentary
defined as ‘statement’ offers itself to the audience as a factual source of information.
It is not that they necessarily present the truth but that they ask the viewer to believe
in what is being communicated about the world. In contrast, fiction films do not
make such demands on perceived reality (Pouliot and Cowen 2007). This is
congruent with Nichols’ (2010) description of the filmmaker’s role in documentary
as one who ‘shapes the story’, as the action of shaping implies predetermined intent.
Problems arise where there is not a clear differentiation of the communication
style the author has chosen. A documentary that mixes perceived truths with obvious
fictional elements will clash with the audience’s expectation of factuality and will fail
to convincingly communicate either story or statement. As La Marre and Land-
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 15:53 29 April 2014

reville note:

theoretically … the perceived factual narrative (i.e., documentary) would require a

higher degree of external realism than the fictional version. Simply put, if audiences
expect a documentary to include a factual account of events, low external realism would
violate their expectation and call the film’s validity into question. (2009: 540)

These authors argue, for example, that a historical re-enactment does not undermine
validity when external realism is low. Thus, despite its apparent historical accuracy,
because Frost/Nixon was told as ‘a story’, it was granted freedom by its audience to
drift from factual roots, without them disengaging. The film was not communicated
as a statement. It asked the viewer to engage with an imagined reality rather than
presenting them with an argument of reality itself; truth was not as important as the
story.
So does this argument then create the singular bulletproof definition of
documentary? No; we agree that this film genre is best understood in its multitude
of variations (e.g. Nichols’ [2010] six modes of documentary, from poetic and
performative to observational and expository). However, we argue that it is useful
for contemporary definitions of documentary to discriminate based on the intent of
the communication, and not on the objective nature of what is communicated. As
such, a documentary may be understood as a series of visually and/or audibly
expressed statements connected by a narrative, and communicated from the author/
authors to the viewer with the intention it be received as fact.

Notes on contributors
Nathan Smith holds a Master’s of Science Communication endorsed in Science and Natural
History Filmmaking from the Centre for Science Communication at the University of Otago.
Jenny Rock lectures in Critical and Creative Thinking in Science Communication at the same
institution, with general research interests in the aesthetics of science, visual/sensory cognition,
and reciprocal interaction between science and society.

References
Allen, W. 2003. Unlocking the Mystery of Life. La Mirada: CA: Illustria Media.
 Journal of Media Practice 5

Aufderheide, P., and M. Nisbet. 2009. ‘Documentary Film: Towards a Research Agenda on
Forms, Functions, and Impacts.’ Mass Communication and Society 12 (4): 450–456.
Drew, E. 2008. ‘Frost/Nixon: A Dishonorable Distortion of History.’ The Huffington Post,
December 14. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-drew/ifrostnixoni-a-dishonorab_b_
150948.html?view=print. Accessed 11 November 2013.
Eitzen, D. 1995. ‘When is a Documentary? Documentary as a Mode of Reception.’ Cinema
Journal 35 (1): 81–10.
Flaherty, R. 1926. Moana. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Pictures.
Grierson, J. 1926. Unsigned review of ‘Moanna.’ New York Sun. Reprinted in Jacobs, L.
1979. The Documentary Tradition, 2nd ed., 25. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Guggenheim, D. 2006. Inconvenient Truth. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Classics.
Howard, R. 2008. Frost/Nixon. Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures.
Jenssen, T. 2005. ‘Cool and Crazy: Anthropological Film at the Point of Convergence
between Humanities and Social Science.’ Visual Anthropology 18: 291–308.
Juel, H. 2006. ‘Defining documentary film.’ P.O.V. Danish Journal of Film Studies 22: 5–14.
La Marre, H., and K. Landreville. 2009. ‘When is Fiction as Good as Fact? Comparing the
Influence of Documentary and Historical Reenactment Films on Engagement, Affect, Issue
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 15:53 29 April 2014

Interest, and Learning.’ Mass Communication and Society 12 (4): 537–555.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2010a. ‘Documentary.’ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dic-
tionary/documentary Accessed November 11, 2013.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2010b. ‘Statement.’ http://www.merriam-webster.com/diction-
ary/statement Accessed November 11, 2013.
Moore, M. 2002. Bowling for Columbine. Beverley Hills, CA: United Artists.
Murray, R., and J. Heumann. 2007. ‘Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and its’ Skeptics: A
Case of Environmental Nostalgia.’ Jump Cut 49. http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/
jc49.2007/inconvenTruth/ Accessed November 11, 2013.
Myrick, D., and E. Sanchez. 1999. The Blair Witch Project. Orlando, FL: Haxan Films.
Nichols, B. 2010. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Oxford Dictionaries. 2013. ‘Statement.’ http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/
statement?q = statement Accessed November 11, 2013.
Pouliot, L., and P. Cowen. 2007. ‘Does Perceived Realism Really Matter in Media Effects?’
Media Psychology 9: 241–259.
Rorty, R. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Webster’s Dictionary. 2013. ‘Documentary.’ http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/
documentary Accessed November 11, 2013.
Wikipedia. 2013a. ‘The Blair Witch Project.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blair_Witch_
Project Accessed November 11, 2013.
Wikipedia. 2013b. ‘Frost/Nixon.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost/Nixon_(film) Accessed
November 11, 2013.

View publication stats