The genre of the documentary is not one of rigid, structured confines. Documentaries, like nearly all forms of literature, are in a constant state of flux, changing their shapes to match the desires and needs of the audience. As Nichols states, �Documentaries adopt no fixed inventory of techniques, address no one set of issues, display no single set of forms or styles. Not all documentaries exhibit a single set of shared characteristics. Documentary film practice is an arena in which things change� (Nichols, 21). This aspect of documentary creates a problem when attempting to define the genre. Since documentarians are always trying to push the envelope and create something unique, no sooner than a boxed definition is created, it is broken by exceptions. There is however, a very basic underlying desire to achieve �the real� found in all documentaries to some extent. It is this achievement of reality that gives the documentary its authority and helps it realize its goals, no matter how diverse they might be. It is essential to note that this reality is different from the reality found in a Hollywood movie. Hollywood attempts to create a reality out of fantasy, inviting its viewers into a different world full of characters and creates a narrative. Documentaries create a reality out of the world we inhabit, or that was inhabited in the past by humans. Granted, there are some Hollywood movies that also create a reality out of the world; the extent of the narrative is another way to separate the two genres. While narrative may be present in the documentary, it usually serves a very different function than in a typical movie.

There are many methods used to establish �the real� in documentaries. Often times these methods vary from film to film. Many documentaries utilized a variety of methods to ensure this sense of reality is met. One simple way to achieve realness is through the use of archival footage. Archival footage can be defined as footage not primarily intended for use in the documentary. This means the documentarian attains the footage from some other entity, and that it is usually filmed by someone other than the documentarian. Because of the fact that the footage is not tainted by the documentarian’s own ideas and own spin on the subject the footage appears more objective and true. Bill Nichols explains the value of archival footage in documentaries when he states, �A conventional notion of authenticity is commonly invoked that implies �These images are historical (old), therefore they are authentic (true).’ This functions as the equivalent of a default value with historical material: Unless we are given reason to think otherwise, we will accept them as authentic signs of their times� (Renov, 177). Michael Moore takes advantage of the implications of archival footage and uses a great deal of unflattering footage of George W. Bush in Fahrenheit 9/11 . By showing a larger portion of the footage than just the short sound bites heard of the news, Moore gives an entirely different view of the president. By using his creative freedom he turns the objective document into his subjective view of the subject. While many regard this act as deceitful, it is quite successful in achieving the authority Moore desires by ensuring its authenticity through the use of archival footage.

Another method used in many documentaries to achieve authenticity is the interview. The interview adds a face to an event or issue making it seem more personal. Interviews are used less to explain the subject and more to express a voice about the subject. Nichols states, �Testimony and commentary give priority less to what happened then in any pure sense than to what we now think happened and what this might mean for us� (Renov, 177). Interviews can often give the appearance of hearing numerous, varying views on the subject. Seeing a subject from different points of view makes it seem real and three dimensional to the audience. This enhances the authority of the film because it makes the film seem more credible to the audience.

American Movie uses interviews with the filmmaker’s family and members of his cast to offer contrasting views on Mark Borchardt. The family members recount his failures and tell stories of how they always knew Mark would never amount to anything. On the other hand, the cast members seem caught up in the fury of optimism that has kept Mark going despite insurmountable odds. The cast and crew members declare his perseverance, vision, and talent. Through the use of these two groups a more holistic view of Mark is accomplished. Instead of a character, Mark becomes a human in front of the camera and this enables the audience to feel an array of emotions toward him. Seeing the whole of Mark makes him feel real to the audience and allows them to empathize. The idea that Mark is a real person in the world is integral to the film, and that idea is brought forth through the use of interviews, amongst other methods.

Another method of achieving authenticity that has come up more recently is portraying the documentarian as an outsider. In front of the camera, this type of documentarian is not a smooth talking interviewer like those seen on the nightly news. Instead, they are decisively self-deprecating and flawed. Paul Arthur states, ��the new documentary’s most salient quality is an explicit centering of the filmmaking process and a heavily ironized inscription of the filmmaker as (unstable) subject, an anti-hero for our times� (Renov, 127). This method dethrones the filmmaker and places him on a level equal with the majority of viewers. This allows the audience to trust the filmmaker as one of �us.�

Michael Moore utilizes this method in Fahrenheit 9/11 to his advantage. By emphasizing that he is outside the realm of the powerful he makes himself more easy to sympathize with and adds a sense of credibility because he seems like the rest of the people that lie outside of power. In this way Moore marginalizes himself as an outsider. Lopez states, �The center- the nation- is always different when seen from its margins�� (Renov, 151). By looking at the system from the outside, the audience gets a more authentic view of the inside. The most visual representation of this marginalization is when Moore drives the ice cream truck in circles around the capital buildings. He is traveling the circumference of the powerful, but cannot penetrate the boundaries to actually tell anyone on the inside. There is also a comical aspect to this scene because we know that no one is listening to the patriot act as he is reading it, at least no one that has the power to change it. So, we see the failure of this act yet it works by convincing us that he (as well as normal people like us) are marginalized from legislative procedures.

Moore does not depict himself as only visual in the margins, but also that he is in the margins of all types of power. By his dress and the people he surrounds himself with, as well as the way he sympathizes with the poor, he places himself in that middle to lower class financial bracket, even if he is not truly. He does not go out dressed in a suit to interview as professional TV anchors would. Instead he wears jeans and a hat and usually looks relatively �sloppy.� However, this aids in his argument that he is on the margins of money and power. This also makes his arguments seem more authentic and real because it comes from someone who understands. This method is less about making an event, like a war or an election, seem real and more about making the argument and the emotion of the argument seem authentic. For example, when handling the issue of September 11, 2001 Moore does not try to make the scene true and accurate since those who were not there cannot possibly understand. Instead, he uses a black screen with sound to make the emotions, the empathy, feel real.

Achieving a sense of reality in film is not an easy task. As Trinh T. Minh-ha states, �You must re-create reality because reality runs away� (Renov, 99). This reality can be re-created by the use of archival footage, interviews, marginalization, among other methods. However, it is vital that a sense of reality is created through any means necessary in documentaries. Without realness the goal of the film is not met. Rather the goal is to record, persuade, analyze, or express the audience will agree to none of these without a firm impression of reality in the documentary.

Works Cited

American Movie . Dir. Chris Smith. Bluemark Productions., 1999.

Fahrenheit 9/11 . Dir. Michael Moore. Miramax Films., 2004.

Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary . Indiana : Indiana University Press, 2001.

Renov, Michael. Theorizing Documentary . New York : Routledge, 1993.

Class Written For : English 4300 (Rhetoric of Documentaries)
Word Count : 1,443