On the Documentary
By Jean Painlevé
“A poor genre for poor people…” and the famous producer added: “Where is spirit to be found when it is ruled by facts? What happens to creativity when one is satisfied with copying nature slavishly, dressing up observations more or less skilfully? Believe me, that beyond actors who are made to play the constructions of our imagination, or fictions which can indeed evoke reality but which are moulded with the aim of provoking an everyday emotion or a desirable one, there is no cinema.” A woman of the world strongly denied this, but went on to reinforce the producer’s final words in her first few: “I can’t stand the cinema, I only go and see documentaries. There at least there is no sophisticated arbitrariness, figments of imagination from brains tied in Louis XV knots, false dreams invented by old-fashioned children, cheap lyricism for fifth-rate theatre, so-called realist dramas filled with slang like that used by high school pupils to impress their parents. And this lack of sincerity on the part of your famous actors, intensified by close-ups and tinny loudspeakers… Your sordid distraction is symbolised by a kiss on the mouth, or rather often on the chin…” The conversation looked like becoming technical; all I remembered from it was that the two parties agreed that documentaries did not count as cinema, “In any case,” said the producer, changing the subject, “documentaries are so dull…” “But short,” retorted his antagonist…, “…and with a documentary one loses everything one wants, while with other films…”
We shall stop at this sledgehammer argument. It is certainly true that many documentaries are deadly dull, especially when they accompany well-made feature films. Just like in the music hall shows where there is one big star but where the other acts have been chosen on the cheap… But the proportion of bad films is no greater among documentaries than among feature films. As many of the former as the latter live on in the memories of those who have followed cinema for the last twenty years. Besides, there should not be too many good films - there would not be enough time to watch them, and that would be a shame. Nevertheless there have to be enough films to sustain all the cinemas… It has become commonplace not to mention the documentaries or their directors in cinema programmes. And not to pay these directors either. However, a decent documentary is not cheap: on average, in France, 3000 French francs per metre of standard sound film, 900 000 francs for ten minutes. By decent film I mean not only a film made with the best techniques and with a sufficiently in-depth and concise subject, but a film which does not skirt difficulties, which is not satisfied with alluding to things that have not been filmed with the aid of skilful editing or clever voice-over. One which records accurately the crucial moment instead of skilfully linking “before” and “after”, which enormously increases the workload and the cost price.
The descriptions “feature-length film” and “short film” are not enough to differentiate fictional films from documentaries. Documentaries are generally short, but “La Croisière Noire”, “Terre soumise”, “Nanouk”, etc… are feature-length films. On the other hand, experimental films (called “avant-garde” in 1930) are short and are not documentaries. A definition of a documentary will help clarify things: any film which, with the aim of providing an exclusive and accurate account of a issue (accompanied by its solution, if appropriate), collects together pieces of footage showing a phenomenon either observed directly or recreated accurately, or with the help of abstractions, while still paying close attention to reality.
The documentary spirit should therefore rule over documentaries. News items, often profoundly dry, are only affirmations of chance. On the contrary, a technical cartoon, created through abstractions, can be a documentary if it sets out its subject in a logical fashion. The documentary maker leads the way for events and not the contrary. We are now in a position to differentiate documentary genres.
The scientific documentary involves strict observation, but once a discovery is made it can be framed by an account of causes and effects. The educational documentary, on the other hand, starts from prior knowledge and leads to a result. The popularised documentary draws on both disciplines. The public documentary, finally, should suggest as much as prove, allowing the film-maker’s style to develop through the clash of conflicting images, the mutual support of similar images, poetic pithiness or haunting stretches, spectacular montage effects, etc… etc…
Interpenetration can happen between genres; however, in theory, the educational film will try to increase the centres of interest on a single issue while trying to avoid dividing attention. The scientific documentary, whose poetry is most pure when it is inherent in it, should never sacrifice the account of a discovery for any cinematographic effect. The popularised documentary should make people think and will not adhere strictly to the methods employed (including music, sound and speech). Although in theory the documentary should not last longer than thirty minutes, in order not to overtax the audience’s attention, this is different for some films aimed at the public and dealing with issues in which exoticism and folklorism stir up the imagination rather than exhausting it.
What characterises the purity of the documentary, even if it is made up of actions which are planned and recreated, is the impartiality in the subjects filmed, as regards the result on screen. An emotion achieved through the documentary will therefore be of greater value than any other. However, the documentary style takes greater and greater hold over the making of fictional films. From the famous Russian films of the 1920-1927 era to the Italian films of today, in all countries this is clear. American silent films, “The River”, or “The Vandal”, or talkies like “Trader Horn”, or “Africa Speaks”, French films, like “La Bataille du Rail”, or “Farrebique”, and in Switzerland, “La Dernière Chance”, all show the same heightened preoccupation as the films made in the name of propaganda by nations at war. In addition, documentary makers who are aware of the importance taken on, directly or not, by the cinematographic form they advocate, and who take care to stand up for their profession in order to be able to work freely, have created the “Union mondiale du documentaire” to secure artistic, technical and cultural development in all aspects of documentary films. This touchstone of cinematographic talent means that the most authentic film-makers have tended to try their hand at the documentary formula. Those who have not, dream of doing so, and it is only because they are caught up in large film productions that they cannot.
A country’s preoccupations can be defined by the subjects of its documentary films, considering only the high-quality ones. France is fond of clear educational accounts, or of subjects dealt with in a poetic manner, but without an immediate use. Great Britain deals in particular with subjects concerning the improvement of living and working conditions. The United States demonstrate modern industrial and constructional power. The USSR shows everything that can develop technical, scientific, medical and social knowledge among the people. Faced with this tremendous general movement, it is no longer a question of denying the indispensable contribution of the documentary to the development of our future.
Jean Painlevé
Les textes et les photographies ne sont pas libres de droits. Toute reproduction est soumise à l'accord préalable des Documents Cinématographiques. © Les Documents Cinématographiques.