The Death of the Documentary
By Jean Painlevé
A film should be described as documentary when it is not an “interpretation” at the shooting or the editing stage. There would therefore be no documentary film beyond brute reality, since the very fact of being able to choose the angle of a shot constitutes interpretation. We are forced to extend the scope of the word documentary, to encompass some dramatic films, or certain parts of these films, even parts that have been recreated. The end result as screened should simply recount verifiable facts in conditions which are fixed or checked beforehand according to the methods of reporting. Documentaries can therefore also be created from things which have been invented, and, vice versa, some documentaries will be false even although they use real and accurately recreated scenes, because they tend to develop inaccuracies through their editing and the commentaries on these scenes.
* What potential do documentaries have?
Let’s start by considering education. A film can only be useful if it meets set pedagogical needs which ordinary documentaries do not. The converse is also true: an educational film would chase away a cinema audience. The cost of making a documentary is about 150 to 200 francs per metre (black and white cartoons cost a similar amount), so 300 metres of film (using current methods) comes to about fifty thousand francs. If a film makes 3 francs per metre, or 900 francs per copy, it is necessary to sell fifty copies just to break even. In addition, this would have to be done within a fairly short period of time, otherwise additional copies would have to be sold to cover the interest on the money invested.
These films are considered to be particularly well adapted: for this very reason their distribution is restricted, and they certainly do not benefit from the foreign market. It is clear that it is virtually impossible for them to be absorbed in the market given the present state of funding for educational cinema in France.
* Now let’s consider scientific research films. Whatever their cost price, these will be running at a loss, as the market can only interest a small number of specialists in the world and is therefore virtually non-existent. It is advisable to make these on reversible film in reduced format as far as possible, as there is no need for copies. It is also commonly possible to use colour, which is an advantage over 35mm film.
Let us consider the formula for a general audience in more detail, in particular for scientific documentaries. The optimum length is 300 metres: beyond that, the attention of a non-specialist audience will be overtaxed, unless the subject is treated superficially or humorously, or a number of different subjects are dealt with for 50 metres each. In this case there is not enough time to show anything, but the audience goes away with a pleasant memory and the feeling of having learned something, without really knowing what. This latter formula, an easy little pick ‘n’ mix, is the least expensive. But even this way, it can be difficult to recoup the production costs in a single country.
Only the producers of big budget films can bring out short films like this. Indeed, the same level of commercial organisation is required to release 300 metres of film as 2000 metres. And of course an independent film-maker cannot finish the seven short films which are necessary to justify the costs involved in a release in the same time as a big budget producer can… In other words, we are involved in a big industry and the making of short scientific films is by nature a craft industry. This is a crippling discrepancy. It’s totally different if one can draw on the budget of a big film, as a form of publicity for example, for the negligible sum required. Companies often make these short films at a loss as a means of publicity.
* It is possible to get scientific films cheaply: but they will be mediocre, using the whole of the film sparingly, replacing the scenes which could not be filmed by tendentious commentary, and settling for approximations – the element of surprise of a first viewing will be all the more effective if the audience does not know much about the subject dealt with. The documentary will have to be really bad for them to complain. This said, there is no shortage of such films.
For a good scientific documentary, one needs to shoot up to ten times more film than will make the final cut, especially with time-lapse film, when something needs to be clear, exact and, if possible, original. One is constantly at the mercy of chance, and prior rehearsal is impossible. It necessary also to have focused lighting and good shots, without jeopardising the development of scientific phenomena or the spontaneity of movements.
The simple issue of cooling light rays, in particular instances, keeping running water around the object studied without it moving out of shot, creating conditions similar to the natural conditions while taking account of interference from factors essential for the shot, adapting everything as each new problem comes along: all of this is a waste of time which is not possible in the production of a short film, given the state of the market. At best, it pays 1/33 of the programme.
* A scientific documentary aimed at a general audience cannot survive alone but only as part of a larger film production. Nor should it count on breaking even in schools, because it is not desirable to use it as educational film. The best that can be hoped for is use in further education.
The general international distribution of documentary films is restricted by Customs. Diplomatic bags cannot carry films for ever, especially as there can be abuses of this system. But a customs officer who is present at a screening during a cultural gathering will certainly remove some of the difficulties. Otherwise, you need days and days of procedures, favours from civil servants and measures bordering on the illegal in order to screen films, without furiously mounting deposits, before these films leave again, twenty-four hours later, for their home country.
Moreover, lifting taxes for cinemas which show documentaries cuts both ways. What will we end up defining as a “documentary”? The bankruptcy of some cinema owners does not help the genre either: I attribute the loss of everything which I had invested in film-making over ten years to such incidents… One might envy the theatrical tirades to which the majority of talking films sadly seem to be dedicated: “Another 300 metres of dreadful stuff… I could have had two minutes of beautiful shots.”
* So we can really only rely on the domestic market: people are very nationalistic abroad when it comes to this genre of films. And we are not championed very successfully by our representatives. Needless to say, we cannot encourage champagne and cinema at the same time – the latter, incidentally, was not as successful in this country as our vintage wine – until the slump in American film over the last few years.
But if we measure the effort of individuals in France, and the results they have achieved, often creating unique genres, such as completely animated graphics, it is evident that clarity and moderation have not yet breathed their last.
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.