Rbiger's Distinction Between True Documentary And Propaganda

1. What do you think is the most important thing you learned from this documentary?

While the other films involved in the lesson also seemed intriguing, this one really affected me. It practically made it obligatory for me to discuss it while also providing people with the opportunity to learn more concerning the event.

Discuss the relationship between truth and fiction in The Thin Blue Line. This should include reference to Bill Nichols’ ‘reflexivity mode’ in documentary filmmaking.

Documentaries are produced in such a way that positions the audience to accept a version of reality. As Tim Hetherington, a British photojournalist once said, “You can construct whatever story you want to. Documentaries are constructions, as is all journalism.” In Fahrenheit 9/11 specifically, viewers are presented with a critical analysis of the political agenda surrounding America’s decision to wage war on Iraq. Directed by American political commentator and filmmaker Michael Moore and released in mid-2004, the documentary’s central premise is that US President George Bush is, and has been from the start of his term, unfit for office and does not act in interests of the American public. Moore presents the idea that President Bush, as a result

Documentary films in particular have been the preferred channel for the diffusion of propaganda because of its association with ‘a truthful cinema.’ John Grierson, coiner the term documentary, defined it as “the creative treatment of actuality.” However, Hilmar Hoffman talks about film’s illusory power by explaining that what exists to the viewer is only what the camera ‘sees,’ and due to the absence of alternate perspectives, the viewer conventionally perceives the images shown as reality. In this regard, documentary films are able to influence, represent, and create a particular consciousness by doctoring events, thus making it untrustworthy and, ultimately, the ideal medium to communicate

6. What aspects of this film fit into the documentary film genre, and what aspects appear more purely propagandistic?

“The documentary tradition as a continually developing “record” that is made in so many ways, with different voices and vision, intents and concerns, and with each contributor, finally, needing to meet a personal text” (Coles 218). Coles writes “The Tradition: Fact and Fiction” and describes the process of documenting, and what it is to be a documentarian. He clearly explains through many examples and across disciplines that there is no “fact or fiction” but it is intertwined, all in the eye of the maker. The documentarian shows human actuality; they each design their own work to their own standards based on personal opinion, values, interest and whom they want the art to appeal to.

Documentary is a genre that has the ability to provide visual evidence of reality by means of filmic treatment of actuality. Intrinsically linked to the notion of ‘truth’, it relies on the mechanical capability of the camera to capture an image of likeness. In a dynamic and flexible genre, the possibilities are endless and as such, are constantly being redefined. Advances in technological factors have driven the genre’s complexity, expanding boundaries and allowing filmmakers the opportunity to create more precise and accurate visual representations of reality.

Those who pursue social science research (documentary work) walk quite a fine ethical line. Works of all types- from film to research studies to photography and videography including daily news stories- are open to criticism for the versions of reality they produce for their audiences. Indeed, there exist academic and professional guidelines explicitly itemizing set standards of practice for various mediums, for example- broadcast news stories, magazine articles and documentary films. And although they may have been meticulously outlined, these standards simply cannot account for all who make up the intended viewer or readership. Described as the study of human interaction and how it functions in society, social science research possesses an ethical dilemma that exists in large part because of an unavoidable subjective nature that can never be fully separated from the undertaking. American author and child psychiatrist, Robert Coles, contends this notion in his book

The author of this article, a woman named Megan K. Fox, describes several documentaries and how they showed bias in presenting evidence for the subject. She writes that it is extremely difficult for documentary filmmakers to remain objective as, even unconsciously, we become partial towards our existing views on the topic. Fox makes it clear what the most common ways we fail to be impartial in documentaries are, including making the subjects aware they are being filmed, failure to explore already biased topics, and issues with making decisions on what to edit after filming ends.

The creation of a documentary is a fine balance. One must be cognisant not to have misconstruing messages within the film, while still not trivializing those very same messages. It must strive to present its case with as little bias as possible. Moreover, that message must succeed in reaching the audience. With this in mind, Andrew Morgan succeeds in being a skilled documentary filmmaker with The True Cost; a documentary with hard hitting commercial implications, social/political implications and manages persuades the audience using facts and figures to its advantage.

When a social issue arises, many activists turn to different media outlets to voice their views and demand social change. For decades, actualities- known today as documentaries, have been used to give viewers an inside look on real life without being there to experience it firsthand. Often, directors use these films to persuade the audience into taking their side regarding various societal issues. Filmmakers help sway their targeted audience by using different codes and conventions to appeal their opinion effortlessly to the viewers. It can be seen in the films Kony 2012 by director James Russel, 2002’s

Each selection is an expression of his point of view, whether he is aware of it or not, whether he acknowledges it or not. While Bill Nichols maintains that to represent the event is not clearly to mean it, some scholars like Linda Williams criticize that documentary only generate ideologies and consciousness that force audiences to believe something as ‘true’. Fiske and Hartley point out that audience’s circumference of ‘reality’ determine how to accept a symbolic form as ‘natural’as it claims. On the other hand, Williams said “…truth figured by documentary cannot be a simple unmasking or reflection. It is a careful construction, an intervention in the politics and the semiotics of representation” (59-75). Whatever the debate may be, the credibility of presentation, wide range of witness to testify subject and viewpoint, cross-examination to verify reliability have provided a good platform for documentaries to speak for the ‘content of

The message is emotionally appealing and therefore it receives a stronger response from the audience, making it more memorable as it relates to their values and attitudes which helps Moore further manipulate the audience to side with the message and perspective he is portraying. Nevertheless, Moore advertises this film as a documentary which is meant to show both sides of the situation as it is informing the audience. The dramatic, obvious bias makes Moore’s documentation of the situation seem more opinionated and emotionally driven as it highlights the propagandist nature of the documentary. Through these deductions, the message Moore tries to portray is unjustifiable and baseless as it presents no neutral or unbiased points. Therefore, the

Although Netflix has brought significant improvements on the publication and production of documentaries, it remains a massive American profit-making business that does not follow the conventions of documentary filmmaking. As Lin Tay and Hudson explain, new media platforms such as Netflix, “disrupt the linear structures conventionally ascribed to documentary” (79). Many traditional documentarians and genre theorists are arguing about modern documentaries’ level of realness. As the genre evolves and adapts to the new generation, it loses much of its original conventions, one of them being the importance of facts rather than fiction (O’Flynn 147). By mixing genres and applying characteristics of science fiction blockbusters and reality television to the documentary genre, Netflix is sometimes manipulating the storylines and visuals to make the text more appealing. For example, the thrilling Amanda Knox (2016) documentary produced by Netflix, uses common conventions of