Just call it a documentary

(He's everywhere!)

The Thin Blue Line is one of Errol Morris' most well known documentaries. It has drawn large audiences outside the documentary world because it about murder, deception, and wrongful imprisonment. The film tells the story of Randall Adams who was wrongfully convicted for the murder of a police officer. Morris interviews people involved in all parts of the case, and shows reenactments of the events in each person's perspective. By the end of the film we are astonished by the extent to which our brains can deceive us. Part of the reason the film is still popular today is that as a result of the film and Morris' extensive investigation, Adams was released from prison.

Having taken a lot of classes that discuss documentary styles and whether "truth" can really be shown, I was not looking forward to reading more about it. However, reading interviews with Morris completely opened my eyes to a more clear way of thinking about documentary. I was surprised to find that, though the kinds of films I hope to make are different than Morris' films I share a lot of his opinions.

The article "The Myth of Objectivity in Journalism" by Richard Taflinger concludes that objectivity is impossible. Everyone has the same senses, but senses alone do not create experiences. Instead, our past experiences, cultures, education, and more contribute to our perception of an event. This is why two people can have such drastically different opinions about the same incident (as is seen in the Adams case covered in The Thin Blue Line). Since there is no singular absolute truth, objectivity is not possible.

This leads me to the frequently debated benefits of "verité" documentaries (more fly-on-the-wall observation) versus other more controlled forms of documentary. The debate generally involves verité purists claiming that interviews, direct filmmaker involvement, narration, etc. make films less truthful. On the other side non-verité filmmakers say that just deciding where to point the camera at what time is filmmaker involvement and that absolute truth is impossible (of course this generally mean they think their own way is better).

I believe our society is at a point where this argument is less relevant (though scholarly articles still insist on discussing it). My generation of millennials has generally accepted that nothing can be taken at face value. One article mentioned the early 90s picture of Roosevelt, Churchill, Groucho Marx, and Rambo all standing together. Today's youth are used to such images and they know that manipulation of the truth is easily and frequently done. At this point in time, the argument about verité documentary or not seems silly. People know that neither kind of doc is showing absolute truth. If the viewer wants to explore the subject even more they will do their own research (and isn't that the best compliment a doc filmmaker can get?).

Essentially, this debate comes down to the involvement of the filmmaker. In an interview by Michael Meyer, Morris asks, "Is the job of a journalist simply to have everybody weigh in on what his or her viewpoint might be? Or should the journalist find out what really happened?" I agree with Morris when he says it should be the latter.

This element of finding out what really happened is the key reason I believe there is no best way to make a documentary. In investigating a crime like The Thin Blue Line, a verité style would not only be less effective, it would be impossible. Morris made the film after the fact. He can't use realtime footage without interviews to show us what happened because we are relying on the memories of many different people. Since we are unable to film people's memories, Morris' controversial reenactments seem to be the best way to show us how differently people perceive the same event.

On the other hand, a film like To Be and To Have (a verité style doc about a one room school in France and its inspiring teacher) is not investigating such a hard hitting subject. The classroom in the film is very quiet, calm, and sweet. The verité style allows the film to maintain the same overall feeling whereas breaking the film up with interviews would probably be a little jarring for the setting. In addition, the purpose of To Be and To Have is really to show the viewer the scene. Nothing too dramatic happens, there is not a huge story line. The point of the film is just to observe.

Then there are verité style films like Fred Wiseman's Titicut Follies which takes a hard look at the state of mental institutions. An Errol Morris style could have been used and the film would probably be equally effective. However, Wiseman wanted the impact to really punch the viewer in the face. He decided a verité approach was the best way he could accomplish his goal. We see deeply disturbing scenes without people commenting about them and this reminds us that these types of events are par for the course in this mental facility. Though the verité debate was still very much alive at the time, the style of such a documentary today would really just be up to the preference of the filmmaker.

At this point I'll tell you that when I make documentaries I strive for a verité style. It isn't because it is better, more truthful, or anything like that. It's just because I like it. The few interviews I do remind me that I am far from perfecting that difficult skill. I am not a strict verité filmmaker. I do interviews now and then, but usually do them in the field and avoid talking heads. Titles and music are okay in my book and I understand that my very presence alters reality.

Though Errol Morris would likely never make a film like mine and vice versa, I very much admire his ideas. Morris says he uses an interview style in which he prompts the subject and lets them speak for long periods of time, following their own train of thought. This allows the subject to possibly uncover new things about himself while talking to the camera. It also avoids the stiff question and answer feel of many interviews. One thing Morris mentioned was that it is important to not listen, but pretend you are. If you actually listen to the person talking you might give them a subtle reaction that could discourage them or make them stop. My first reaction to this was confusion. Not listening to what your subject is saying? That seems crazy, not to mention rude. However, when I really thought about it it made a lot of sense. The less you interact in the "conversation" the more the person feels able to talk freely.

John Cook's article "Errol Morris: Brash, deep, and in total control" says that Morris likes to explore the world through the eyes of the subjects. I so admire this sentiment. It encapsulates my views as a documentary filmmaker. I want to share interesting people with the world. I want viewers to try to understand the subject and fall in love with them like I have. I guess that's why reading his interviews and seeing the doc world through his eyes helped me fall in love with Errol Morris.

Term: From article "True Detective" by Terrance Rafferty

"this is documentary as epistemological thriller"

Epistemology:

–noun

a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature,methods, and limits of human knowledge.

-Investigates what distinguishes justified belief from opinion