Castleton Communication

by Dr. Robert Gershon

When motion pictures first arose it was only natural that pioneers such as the Lumiere brothers would train their cameras on actual objects, people and occurrences. The process of rendering these "fragments of reality,"(1) as Dziga Vertov was to call them, into an image on a screen seemed a relatively straightforward proposition. It has turned out otherwise as filmmakers and theorists from Vertov, through Flaherty, Greirson and Leacock, to current practitioners of network documentary, direct cinema and as-yet unnamed forms, all have suggested that their particular styles hold advantages in portraying reality to an audience.

The realities which non-fiction films render have two aspects: physical and factual. Physical reality includes those things which can be seen and heard; factual reality includes conceptualizations such a economic, political and social systems and situations. The screen renderings of these realities can also be split into two types of information presented to the viewer: direct and symbolic. These correspond for the most part to the two above categories. The former is generally brought to the viewer through simple exhibition--direct footage of people, events and objects, and audio recordings of ambient sound and speech. The latter requires explanation, most often verbal, but also graphic, and even musical. Since both physical and factual aspects of a subject have neither precise beginning nor end, nor do they generally occur in the same amount of time as the program, both exhibited material and explanation generally must be ordered and condensed. The three methods of rendering information in non-fiction film, then, are exhibition, explanation and ordering.

John Boorman, director of a number of feature fiction films, states that "the making of a film is the making of a world."(4) In the process of viewing a work the viewer suspends disbelief at least to some extent and enters its world, accepting as in some way real the set of constructs and observations contained within it. That suspension of disbelief may entail a leap of faith as great as the acceptance of the ability of a man to fly, or one as small as the acceptance of the shortened duration of an activity through use of a cutaway. In both cases the viewer accepts something which would make no sense within the physical world of his experience but which is perfectly sensible in the world of the work. Once the viewer has made the commitment to enter the world of the film she will accept the occurrences therein so long as they are internally consistent, no matter how inconsistent they may be with the external world.
 

In non-fiction film, however, the world of the film has been rendered from segments of reality within the external world. This provides a more complex relationship between the internal world of the work and the external world which includes both viewer's and subject's reality. Part of the world of the work in which the viewer suspends disbelief consists of subject material which has been rendered from the external world. The other part is comprised, as in fiction film, of the artifacts of filmmaking which in this case are the exhibition, explanation and ordering of the subject elements.

Leo Braudy suggests that films are related to the external world in an "open" or "closed" fashion. "In a closed film the world of the film is the only thing that exists; everything within it has its place in the plot of the film....In an open film the world of the film is a momentary frame around an ongoing reality."(6) Closed films tend to bolster the viewer's willing suspension of disbelief in the world of the program whicle open films tend to reestablish the viewer's realization of the reality of the world of the subject. While non-fiction film seems by definition to be open--"a frame around and ongoing reality," some styles of non-fiction are considerably less open than others.

While the "style" of a non-fiction work is seen in its use of all elements of filmmaking, and an infinite number of distinctions is possible, one can distinguish four stylistic elements (often blended into specific works) based on the manner of their provision of direct and symbolic information, which can be placed on a continuum between closed and open.
1. Authoritative perspective, which uses a voice over narrator to look at its subject from the outside in a highly controlled manner.
2. The guide or audience representative style (used in works as diverse as "Sixty Minutes" and "Wild Kingdom"), in which the cnetral figure is external to the subject and guides the viewer through.
3. Participant narrative, in which a participant in the subject relates his or her experiences to the viewer.
4. Observed activity, seen in "cinema verite," in which the point-of-view resides whilely within the subject, presumably unaware of the world of the program. Most non-fiction works draw on more than one of these styles, but more often than not one style dominates the overall form of the work.

Authoritative perspective is essentially the same as an omniscient point of view in literature. The structure and narration imply to the viewer that observation of the subject has been completed, and the results of that observation are ordered and presented in logical form. Authoritative perspective allows for enormous flexibility in its structure, as material can be ordered like an essay on the basis of any number of logical patterns, and the narrator can link verbally tenuous transitions in the subject. Because authoritative perspective conveys such an omniscient point-of-view of the subject, it is the most direct transmitter of explanatory information. Its voice, the authoritative narrator, is herself the creation of the work and has no existence separated from it. While the information she communicates is abstracted from the subject, the words and voice exist only within the program itself. When Wil Lyman explains the background of the American invovlvement in Vietnam in Vietnam: The 1000 Day War, the viewer must either believe what he says or end his suspension of disbelief and leave the world of the work.

The style most typically shows visuals of the subject while a narrator explains aspects which are visually unavailable. Thus the narrator of Renais's Night and Fog can, in a soft, understated manner, by identifying scenes with the activities which they sustained, indicate an importance which could otherwise elude the viewer. In other situations the need to communicate abstract information may necessitate verbal explanation with visuals to emphasize specific points. In the "Age of Uncertainty" series, John Gabraith discusses the chain of events leading to World War I--a compendium of economics and political science--while models of medieval armored men standing on a map of Europe are knocked down one by one. This information more typically would be covered by stock footage of Europe in 1914 or an on-camera narrator. Here the use of a simple contgrived visual concentrates the concept of a chain of events while avoiding the diffustion or distraction of the more typical shots.

The qualities of the authoritative narrator's speech make it extremely easy for the viewer to process. It is precise and carefully worded with none of the hesitations, minor flaws or colloquialisms the viewer associates with the actual speech of real people. Because of this the viewer easily disregards the speaker herself and concentrates on the words. The narrator is the voice of the work itself. Within the framework of the program in which the viewer, by watching, willingly suspends disbelief, the information of the narrator must be perceived as valid. Furthermore, as this speech has the least possible attachment to an actual person, it is the most direct method of information delivery, and is, therefore, most efficient in transmitting explanation.

The efficiency of the narrator is compromised when he is put on camera. Edwardson, Grooms and Proudlove showed that information recall of news audio increased when non-related video was substituted for video of the newscaster.(8) While the study's authors surmised that the interposed video excited the viewers to attention, consideration of the use of voice-over and on-camera announcers in non-fiction film suggests an additional possibility. When the announcer is seen, the personal nature of the speech is restored, interposing an impediment to the viewer's direct reception. It is not surprising, then, that non-fiction film and video tend to use only well-known people as on-camera narrators, or to use them in a series whiere they soon become well-known to the viewer. A work employing such a narrator exchanges the credence of the unseen narrator's voice of the program for the believability of a particular person in whom the viewer has devloped confidence. Interestingly, the most prominent use of this variety of narrator is in the form of video in which the owrld of the work is most suspect--the commercial. While in most commercials the viewer's willing suspension of disbelief is considered adequate to recieve a convincing message, often producers belive the mesage will be considered moe convincing if it takes on the added credibility of a respected narrator.

While point of view narration and essay logic organization serve to define authoritative narration as a style, other elements--music, graphics and caermawork--contribute to the style. When music is used in film, except where it is part of the subject (e.g. Scorcese's The Last Waltz) or incidental in the background, it is impoed on the subject. In classic authoritative perspective documentary such as The River and Night Mail, music serves to heighten excitement, drama, serenity or other moods. Like narration, it gives the viewer cues about the visual channel, leading him to react to the subject in particualr ways. These cues are less precise than the verbal cues of narration, but any viewer of Riefenstahl's Olympia can affirm its ability to attach emotional values to visual material. Similarly, The Unseen World juxtaposes ominous music over footage of common housemites resulting in the implication of a threat from these ubiquitous insects. I wonder how many viewers developed insomnia from its broadcast debut. Music, then, is a form of symbolic information, affecting the viewer's understanding of the subject less specifically, but every bit as strongly, as narration.

Like music, graphics and animation are constructive elements in film. Their function is the visualization of a subject in a manner that differes from direct footage of physiucal reality. They exist only within the film as indirect representations of the subject. They generally represent either abstract ideas (mathematics, gross national product comparisons, etc.) and are often associated with the "educational" sub-genre of non-fiction film.

Camerawork in authoritative perspective is generally transparent; it calls little attention to itself, allowing the viewer unimpeded vision of the subject. This is similar to the shot selection of most other non-fiction forms. Authoritative perspective, however, because of its omniscient point-of-view, has the ability to include what Calvin Pryluck refers to as "complex coding"(9) in its camerawork. The still photographs of historical documentaries such as Night and Fog or even much of the exquisite scientific photography of the Nova series would be difficult to fit into forms with less explanatory ability. The omniscient point-of-view makes complex coding viable as its footage can come from any perspective, its narration can cover any unusual or potentially confusing shots, and its "essay logic" organization can contain a great variety of perspectives within its structure.

The major advantage of authoritative perspective leads directly to its major drawback. Its efficiency in explaining tends to emphasize explanation at the expense of exhibition. The relative ease of informing through narration often leads to an emphasis on audio at the expense of video, therefore works that rely on the authoritative perspective tend to leave the viewer with a great deal of recallable information but comparatively little feeling of what the subject is really like. Thus, works organized in authoritative style often include sections of participant narrative, observed activity and interview. A further drawback stems from the fact that with narration as a basis, the work is structured verbally which gives its creator an ability to form the viewer's consideration of the subject that direct observation on film and tape does not. Ricky Leacock became disillusioned witrh authoritative voice-over because with it "you could in effect say anything about anything."(11) The efficiency of explanation and organization according to "essay logic," therefore, promotes a closed form, emphasizing the world of the work at the expense of the world of the subject.

In works organized around a guide or audience representative, narrators also take part in the action of the work. They are somewhat analagous to first person narrators in literature, relating to their audience the subjects which they explore. The camera also sees them in third person perspective as they take part in the action. They are at one time both part of the subject and part of the work. Perhaps the best known of these guides is the late Marlin Perkins of Wild Kingdom.

The guide narrator provides not only a familiar face for the viewer, but, more importantly, the organizing principle of his exploration. The exploration itself becomes a part of the subject providing relatively static and diffuse subjects with temporal and spatial structure. The guide, himself, becomes a participant in the subject, and his activities take place within the framework of the world of the subject. In this role he takes on a third person perspective with respect to the audience. However, the often adds explanation about the subject in voice-over and introduceds and concludes the program on camera. In these roles he becomes a first person narrator.

The guide narrator also can act as an audience representative, exploring areas and asking questions the viewer cannot. "Sixty Minutes" provides the best example. Most of the segments are set up in tuypical guide fashion, with the investigation by the reporter providing structure to the piece. ;Most often the subject is abstract--a corrupt political situation or a wrongly accused prisoner. The physical subject--what the viwer sees and hears--is the guide's investigation. The speed in which this this method can steer the viwer through a fairly rigorous investigation in twenty minutes is staggering. But the "Sixty Minutes" formula is nothing if not efficient. The on-camera narrator establishes the background of the investigation and his role in it in a minute or so. Then, through a combination of voice-over, wild footage and interview, he carries the viewer through a tangle of complexities to a neat conclusion. This is only possible because the guide can encapsulate the unseen connectingb links of the investigation in voice-over, and most imortantly, ask telling questions of participants, particularly those who are hostile to the process. Structurally the asking is as important as the answer, revealing the exploratory process. Here the guide acts as a representative of the audience asking questions the audience wants answered and persevering until the total assemblage of questions and answers reveals a neatly structured whole.

Removing the interviewer from the work and orienting the speaker as much as possible toward the camera allows for the direct relationship of the participant speaking to the audience in the first person. This is the most basic form of participant narrative. The participant speaks not with the precisely modulated and phrased speech of the narrator, but as one person to another, with occasional hesitations, flaws and colloquialisms; he is therefore perceived by the audience as a real person. His comments, while not a part of the actual physical reality of the subject, give a viewer a first-hand understanding of that reality from someone who has lived through an experience, participated in an activity, or gained a particular expertise. In many cases, in fact, the participant's personality itself becomes the basic subject. Jon Baggaley and Stegven Duck(12) showed that viewers tended to rate personalities seen at an angle as more expert than those seen speaking directly to the camera. Their explanation, that viewers tend to associate the former with experts on the subject and the latter with reporters and other voices imposed by the program, suggests that the presentation of explanation by the participant replaces the verbal and organizational efficiency of the narrator with the authenticity and expertise of a real person. Explanation by a participant gives the viewer an understanding of not only the subject, but also, through his own words, how a specific individual relates to that subject.
Documentary Narration and Narrative, Part II

Home  Programs Courses  Facilities  Faculty  Alumni  Student Work   News   Internships  Admissions 

e-mail CSC Communication Department

Last updated 8-4-02