Advertisement
I’m going to go ahead and answer the question I posed in the headline: No. Now, let’s back up a bit…
At Movie City News, Kim Voynar has written a column in which she admits that she has “just not been blown out of the water much by the docs this year”:
Maybe it’s the tightening of the economy overall making it harder for filmmakers to get compelling documentaries made. Maybe we’re just in a cycle of docs not being the preferred flavor of the month again…Many of the docs I saw this year, while they had interesting subject matter, were not what I would consider “theatrical” films. They were films that would have played just as well, or even better, on a television screen.
As you might have guessed, I disagree that this has been a weak year for documentaries. As I wrote last week, many of the most successful nonfiction films of the year have been challenging in form and idiosyncratic in content, and though I’m not cukoo-bananas for all of them, I think the fact that art seems to be trumping artless activism is encouraging. But that is not the aspect of Voynar’s piece that I take issue with. This is the aspect of Voynar’s piece that I take issue with:
She goes on to make a four-point checklist of what she considers to be requirements “for a great theatrical documentary,” and then concludes that only four films on the 2008 Oscar shotlist fit those requirements: The Betrayal, Trouble The Water, Man on Wire, and Encounters at the End of the World. She concludes by offering the four films the following compliment: “All of these films are not only good documentaries, but great filmmaking.” Which implies that a film could be a “good documentary” while not exhibiting “great filmmaking,” which raises a question or three.
Shouldn’t the quality of the filmmaking be of primary concern, regardless of whether or not the film itself qualifies as a documentary? What good could come from a critic systematically holding one genre of film to a different standard than all others? If we’re going to make guidelines for the evaluation of documentaries, should we also do it for animation, or for foreign films, or for all those Zooey Deschanel films that premiere at Sundance and then disappear off the face of the planet? Where does it all end?
The sheer fact that such a system of evaluation special to docs exists is, I think, possibly endemic of a larger problem. That documentaries are ghettoized by film festivals is one thing, but that attitude more often than not extends to the way nonfiction films are approached by the media. Last month, Toronto documentary programmer Thom Powers issued a call for a new breed of documentary critics who would, in part, “ignore the way most periodicals divide their reviews by formats of theatrical, television and DVD [because] these boundaries prevent meaningful connections.” Citing the influence of Andrew Sarris, Clement Greenberg and Lester Bangs on their individual frames of reference, Powers urgently wondered, “Where is the equivalent voice for today’s documentary scene?” The answer might be that many of those potential voices are hung up making the distinctions which Powers warns against.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Being a life-long connoisseur of the genre, I would like to personally volunteer to be the one who draws up the evaluation guidelines for all those Zooey Deschanel films.
I think what Kim might mean by the “great filmmaking” distinction is that certain docs may be more cinematic than others, as in they are more about visually presenting a story or argument. This isn’t to say I agree with there being a distinction, but I do think too many docs and too many doc critics think the genre is simply about documenting a worthy cause or arguing a certain thesis without truly taking advantage of the difference between literary and visual media. Sometimes, though, even docs that initially appear to be visually static, interview heavy and overly talky can ultimately be so well edited that they end up more cinematic than some critics might give them credit for. Of recent examples, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired comes to mind. Honestly, despite its technically being a cable-televised doc, that film is far more theatrically appropriate than Trouble the Water.
You could probably apply a lot of what Voynar says in her “rules” to fiction films as well, so I’m not sure it’s so off the mark. I think it’s poorly stated though to make a distinction between “good documentary” and “great film.” I mean, if I made a visually stunning, cinematically groundbreaking documentary about belly button cheese, I am confident that it would be accepted by most critics as a good documentary (although if I made it about my own belly button cheese, it would probably be called “indulgent”).
The real question to ask is whether there’s any inherent value to an unimaginatively-made, though still perfectly informative documentary, which is a strange netherworld that doesn’t quite exist in fiction film. One side effect of the doc resurgence has been that a lot of these kinds of docs that otherwise would have had a perfectly respectable life on TV have been thrown onto the big screen, where they don’t quite belong.
I mean, I have to review 8,739 of these films every year, and as uninspiring as I find them, I still find it hard to cast them to the trashheap because some (though not all) will obviously hold a great deal of interest to anyone who finds their subject matter fascinating. That’s a different standard perhaps, but these films are almost a genre unto themselves. And every genre kind of has its own standards — one doesn’t judge a Larry Cohen movie by the standards of an Ingmar Bergman movie, for example.
Karina writes: Shouldn’t the quality of the filmmaking be of primary concern, regardless of whether or not the film itself qualifies as a documentary? What good could come from a critic systematically holding one genre of film to a different standard than all others?
Just to clarify, Karina, I never said that quality of filmmaking shouldn’t be of primary concern in other genres, nor did I anywhere say or imply, as the title of this piece suggests, that docs should be held to a “different” standard than features (by which I assume you actually mean narratives, as opposed to docs, since “features” relates more to the length of the film than its genre).
This was a column specifically about the Oscar-shortlisted docs, though, and many of the points I raised have been raised by other folks, from documentary filmmakers like Jason Kohn (Manda Bala) to A.J. Schnack. Further, while I highlighted only four of the films on the Oscar shortlist, I clarified that I’ve not yet had a chance to see every doc on the list, and therefore couldn’t evaluate them yet one way or the other.
The points that both Chris and Bilge made in their comments are fairly spot-on. There are a lot of “issue” docs that get lauded more for the sympathetic nature of their subjects than for any excellence in the actual filmmaking. Well-made, theatrical documentaries combine both interesting subject matter with some degree of artistry in their filmmaking. There has to be some sort of distinction between “some random person with a camera” — which is what Trouble the Water would have been without the direction Tia Lessin and Carl Deal stepping in to turn the raw footage into an actual film with a narrative flow — and actual filmmaking.
And lastly, the four “rules” in my column were not intended to be (nor do I think I implied they are) anything other than the personal rules by which I evaluate documentaries. I’m certainly not advocating for some hypothetical standard based on my particular views on what differentiates a doc with interesting subject matter from a truly great documentary film. All of us who write about film for a living have our own standards by which we judge what we think about films, whether we write those perspectives down as a “list” or not — including you. If we didn’t all judge films — of any genre — by some sort of personal standards, whatever would be the point of writing our opinions on films to begin with?
I support anyone who can and does illuminate personal standards (Kim), since so few are able or willing to do so.
Karina implies she does not favor docs that have real access and empathy in favor of those that are “challenging in form and idiosyncratic in content,… trumping artless activism”. And for that she gets the “I am a filmmaker, therefore I will shove my craft down your throat” Critic of the Year Award.
Not to be vague, I meant Karina implies she HERSELF does not favor docs that have real access and empathy… so she earns the award this year. Schnack earned it last year — all his writing on the topic, and no sense of what his standards are, just “blah, blah craft; I judge because I purvey and consume, but can’t express anything to you, even though I’m writing thousands of words and have much that is valid to complain about.”
T Holly - I think you’re reacting based on preconceived distaste for Karina. Nowhere in her article does she imply she doesn’t favor docs with “real access or empathy” (as vague as you are in terms of clarifying “access” or “empathy”). Too many docs on the circuit and in the US theaters today substitute activism, delivering information, or presenting a cause in place of story and craft.
Unfortunately, documentaries are now equated with activism, sending messages, and bringing causes to the public’s attention (advocacy docs), as if somehow “the public” is too ignorant to know about the topic (global warming, environmental destruction, racism, etc etc etc) without the assistance of the Vanguard Documentary Hero delivering to them. Am I wrong? Just take a look at the number of grants that exist for documentary filmmakers (in the US). Sundance provides grants to activist films; Gucci Grant does the same; ITVS and many more do it too. Take Trouble the Water - go to their webpage and what do you see? Advocacy, telling you what to do, how to get involved, take Action, Green for All, Social Justice, Witness, blah blah blah. And Trouble the Water isn’t the only doc that does it. These kinds of films have subtle and strong political messages so the audience can leave the theater with a changed heart and mind that conforms to a particular political ideology steeped in messages instead of stories. These grants fund ideologies, not stories. Murderball and Man on Wire are excellent examples of story trumping message.
The true tragedy here is that Full Frame, Sundance, Tribeca, Silverdocs, IDFA, Hot Docs have all manufactured a strong link of equating documentaries with activism and cause based agendas. One only has to gain an understanding of programmers’ ideologies to understand where the agenda comes from and whether it’s conscious or unsconcious.
The vaguer issue, however is how to define “quality.” So much of quality is subjective, yet I think it’s impossible to have a universal set of criteria that outlines quality (nor would I want one, but Kim seems to have transferred her personal criteria to evaluate every film instead of another option: to examine the internal logic, aesthetics, and structure of the individual film by criteria that comes from within it instead of external to it). My number one personal interest when watching a narrative is how much of the actual story comes from the characters’ motivations instead of the hands of the editor, or the agenda of the director. I don’t evaluate the entire film based on that question, but when activism or agenda begins to replace literature and story, then I find myself walking away from the film.
Ballast and Trouble the Water both substitute/transfer the director’s attitudes and personal political ideologies in place of the actual characters who live in those regions in hopes of connecting to people who share those ideologies. Those films are the Two Biggest Disasters the Year that perfectly mimic the larger structural problem of equating films with messages. “What’s your message?” Who cares. “What’s the story!” Here is one exception to the rule, “Don’t kill the messenger.” Yes, it’s time to kill the messenger so the story can live.
Oh, T. Holly. I am proud to share any kind of award with AJ Schnack.
My bottom line on this: because I don’t see filmmaking as math, I can’t see criticism as a grading process. I don’t have a set of firm standards which I apply to all films, because I believe that each film requires me, as Kill the Messenger put it, “to examine the internal logic, aesthetics, and structure of the individual film by criteria that comes from within it instead of external to it.”
IndiePix is very pleased to be distributing End of America, a film that the NY Times critic Stephen Holden referred to variously as “documentary polemic”, “pointedly inflammatory” and “fiercely one-sided”. However, in its polemic, inflammatory, and one-sided way, it really is a very good film. The interlocutor (in this case, Naomi Wolf) guides the story which gives rise to genuinely heroic characters who variously go to prison, bury video tapes, and suffer arrest and harassment. This film could be judged on its filmic merit as a non-fiction film and I think it would do quite well. The audiences I have observed are moved by it in an emotional way, and they have an experience worthy of theatrical presentation. (But it’s not emotionally manipulative propaganda, either, which is a risk of well executed polemics.) I think I find myself firmly in Karina’s camp. The standards of filmmaking by which a film is judged don’t particularly depend on whether it is fiction on non-fiction. This film, End of America, could have been all the things Mr. Holden says it is and still not be the film it is.
Bob, The End of America is everything that’s wrong with films! Ahhhhhhhh! I give up.
Oh dear! That’s an unhappy ending indeed. Is there more? Can we talk about it?
I would like to offer up two films from that past year that are very worthy, but not successful as “theatrical documentaries.” Lack of polish make them hard to watch.
Godfrey Cheshire’s “Moving Midway” is sort of brilliant in concept and scope– taking on the South, slavery, cinema, and his own family’s history– but boy it could have been better with a bigger budget.
Irena Salina’s “Flow: For Love of Water” was an unfocused mess, but no other film impacted me personally as this one did. Much of the information conveyed was startling and new.
What do you do with an A+ for Substance and a D for Form?
Hehehe “Fest coverage sponsored by Indiepix.”