History and Theory of the Documentary and Nonfiction Film Form - Literature review Example

 History and Theory of the Documentary and Nonfiction Film Form Introduction Ostensibly, the foundation of documentary film exists long settled. Louis Lumiere's primary films of the year 1895 revealed film's aptitude to document the world that surrounds us. It is worth noting that the birth of the documentary tradition went parallel with the commencement of cinema. The notable Robert Flaherty's Nanook of the North supplemented plot improvement, suspense, and set character to footages of the antique world. As a result, Robert availed to the documentary impulse renewed vitality. In 1929, John Grierson, termed as the documentary film movement's utmost champion, put into use his personal film portrait of North Sea fishing with the aim of convincing the government of British to inaugurate a filmmaking unit that will be positioned within the Empire Marketing Board. It is key to state that with Grierson precedence over an institutional foundation for documentary film production speared the documentary film practice into maturity (Sklar, 2002). Evaluation Documentary filmmaking has industrialized progressively over time. It is worth stating that three main turning points can be identified in the development of documentary film making. First, substantial changes took place in the 1960s, followed by the late 1980s and finally since the year 2000. The novel turning point can be highlighted to be the period when filmmakers declined to film simply chronicles and newsreels. It is worth highlighting that documentary filmmakers underwent harsh times as the film in ancient times were faithfully linked to the wishes of the government. However, regardless of this fact, a new generation of filmmakers germinated in the 1960s with an altered opinion on how documentary films ought to be. Therefore, this made the primary turning point for the development of documentary filmmaking. As a result, the documentary film advanced with marginally different characteristics in respective countries, nonetheless all with several bright characters. The second spinning point can be secured with the political alterations that took place worldwide commencing in the mid-1980s. This era was filled with numerous momentous occasions, which unlocked innovative possibilities of documentary filmmaking. With the conceptual boundaries gone (as a result of worldwide independence), the possibility of acquaintance with other documentary film makers pegged with the availability of other documentaries resulted into exchange of ideas. The third turning point was noted to be the years subsequent to the new millennium (Ellis, 1979). This is for the reason that new generation of filmmakers appeared that were noted to be more daring and highly experimenting. Vitols writes that “the blossoming of a new film culture was also due to the advent of television which fundamentally altered the role of documentaries in society. Previously, documentaries functioned much like the radio and the press, offering audiences ‘objective’ information, striving to efface any traces of a subjective authorship. The arrival of television effectively transferred this task of ‘objective’ information communication to television broadcasting, largely due to the new medium’s cost-effectiveness and rapid dissemination. This freed documentary filmmakers to portray their subjects in depth in a more complex manner” (Vitols, 2008: 14–15). When relating documentary cinema in the era of 1960–70s, one has the possibility to find numerous similarities and differences. Referring to Kleckins, the western world upsurge in documentary film occurred principally as a result to the technical advances such as lightweight cameras and novel sound equipment. On the contrary, some other countries such as the Baltic States owe their upsurge in the documentary film industry predominantly to the new generation that joined the industry. This is because their technical resources failed to change for a given period of time (Hepple and Taylor, 1980). The thematic progress that could be appreciated in the United States pegged with Canada in form of direct cinema (in France as cinema vérité) might perhaps have also been seen worldwide. Consequently, regardless of the iron curtain, the philosophies of documentary development diffused worldwide. As Vitols states, “the thriving documentary film even surpassed the achievements of literature filmmaking. By the 1960s and 1970s documentary personnels such as Herz Frank, Ivars Seleckis, Aivars Freimanis, and Ansis Epners, became recognized as a portion of the Riga School of Poetic Documentary. As a result, this movement provided audiences with films focused on artistic appearance, as opposed to a didactic delivery of news, facts, or state-endorsed propaganda, that encouraged metaphoric readings, frequently suggesting a subversive critique of the regime” (Vitols, 2012: 328). The reawakening of Lithuanian documentary film, moreover, took place through the 1960s, with the most successful period being from 1965 to 1970 (Culture Lithuania, n.d.). Correspondingly, Lithuanian non-fiction films stood termed as poetic documentaries. This referred to alternative documentary address compared to the one established by the official documentary filmmakers (Smith, 1989). The end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s can be described as quite unstable period in the era of change. If the beginning of the 1980s was a period of inactivity, when also in documentary field new trends did not appear and mostly filmmakers who started in 1960s continued their work, then the end of the decade brought new breath to everything. If the preceding rise of documentary film happened during the 1960s, then additional growth of the genre took place in the “Gorbachev era”, which carried many changes and ensued in the closure of the Soviet Union and reinstatement of independence for the Baltic States. In relation to the Soviet Union, “Gorbachev’s new-fangled policy of glasnost or “openness” established more freedom to the documentary filmmakers. As a result, the documentary filmmakers could speak about things and criticize the regime more openly. The 1990s was rather tough period for arts industries, so also for film industry, as the dissolution of the Soviet Union meant the disintegration of many of the thriving film industries in the former Soviet bloc countries. The years since then “has been a challenging period of creative, financial and administrative reconstruction and reorganization” (Vitols, 2012: 325). With reference to the 1980s and 1990s, the documentary film industry worldwide underwent quite parallel innovations. Several trends could be observed around the universe. These included the examination of society and its complications, efforts to finally tell ingenuous history regarding the world wars as well as films detailing the period of transition in several countries around the world. Unquestionably, a modification in themes and styles of filmmaking occurred several times. Commencement of the new decade tagged along the long-awaited liberty and independence of the film industry. However, this similarly meant the competition for existence regarding arts and principally films. Small novel independent film studios in numerous countries had germinated by the end of 1980s. However, in the 1990s, the films industry relied heavily on these individual insignificant film studios. As a result, documentary filmmaking expressively lessened. On the subject of the popularity of the films of this age, it was established that Podnieks received utmost prominence and appreciation in regards to his films of the late1980s when compared to other documentarists in the Soviet Union. As a result, he was regarded as an idol and hero for people. Owing to his work numerous people, possibly, for the first time familiarized themselves to a film category as documentary. On the contrary, the generation of fresh filmmakers in Lithuania, did not achieve such recognition (Sklar, 2002). In the new millennium, documentary filmmaking around the world appears to be immensely varied. Lacking ideological limitations, with more established film industry and with numerous fresh people impending into it, documentary has advanced towards several diverse ways. Many different influences, such as amalgamation of legislation, liberalization of labour power, free movement of merchandises and contemporary means of communication and transportation have favoured the globalization in film industry. As a result, documentary films currently can be prepared anywhere in the world (Ellis, 1979). Similarly, each filmmaker has to be unique and develop a trademark that will facilitate identification among the works of other filmmakers. As debated, in 1990s film industries were struggling for the survival. Since then, numerous important film studios have been recognized and function up to now. It is worth noting that in the new millennium, a lot of full-length documentary film projects have been developed worldwide that touch in nearly all areas of life. However, several countries still have film studios that can be termed as one person studios. This translates to the fact the studio is administered by the proprietor who is a producer, manager and often also executes other functions (Ellis, 1979). The modern situation of documentary film is pretty varied. If in earlier periods, certain subjects and issues were central, then today the variety of these films is much more. As the lifestyle of individuals has rehabilitated and variety is that what is encouraged today, documentarians react to that. As a result, they cover more diverse issues and topics. However, it is possible to differentiate between certain themes in which filmmakers give the most attention. The films focusing on historical themes entail story telling through the use of specific protagonists who have direct experience of wars, deportations and despotisms. It is noted that these stories, in most instances, are very emotional. Predominantly interesting illustrations of films concerning the history of a country are Edmunds Jansons’ film “Little Bird’s Diary” and Giedre Beinorūte’s film “Grandma and Grandpa” (Hepple and Taylor, 1980). Mutually, they put across the story through animation. Another predominantly untraditional method of dealing with ancient material can be found specifically in the work of Jaak Kilmi – “Disco and Atomic War”, where the antiquity of Estonia is being narrated in very humoristic way. Particularly, it focuses on the effect of Finnish television has founded on the Soviet Estonian culture. It is worth noting that these films step back from the gravity typically attached to these kinds of works. A different specific subgenre is portrait-film documentaries. These documentaries frequently deal with the examination of particular personalities. Portrait-films films can be linked to personalities of the ancient period like “The Bug Trainer” or “Klucis. These films, furthermore, deal with the modern artists. These artists are mostly those who are well-known both locally and internationally. In the eras of mass consumption where the consumer is the backbone, documentarists occasionally choose to incite and astonish people with the topics they discuss with the aim of attracting attention. These films are frequently related to the representation of subordinate class of society and marginal people of the society. This characteristic generally can be attached to the works of Latvian coupled with Estonian documentarists. As a result, these documentaries beg the question of ethics,, particularly to those watching it. A lot of of present-day documentarians incline to focus on discrete personalities which are whether curiosities, people with strange way of living, untraditional occupation or talent. It even appears that it is an assignment of documentary filmmakers to discover these individuals and select them as their characters. These films exist as “Breath” by Kullar Vimne or “World Champion” by Moonika Siimets. Conclusion From the beginning of time, changes have taken place around the world. With this, the documentary genre was also affected. It has been noted that initially, governments controlled the subject that was to be discussed in documentaries made in their country. However, with time, came documentary freedom. This resulted to the documentary filmmakers to venture into wider genres that are interesting. It is key to state that significant people contributed severally into the documentary industry as it is currently. As a result, such personalities ought to be uploaded with honour and respect. This is because without them, the current world would not have the pleasure and comfort of having documentaries easily accessible and interesting. References Culture Lithuania, n.d. 1997. Lithuanian Documentary Films, [E-book], Available through: http://www.culture.lt/Lietuva/esme/page3a.htm (Accessed on 19th December 2013). Ellis, J. C., 1979. A history of film. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. Hepple, P., & Taylor, E. D., 1980. The Stage and television today: 100 years 1880-1980. Sklar, R., 2002. A world history of film. New York, Harry N. Abrams. Smith, K., 1989. History and the Moving Image: The Historical Documentary. History and Social Science Teacher. 24(4), pp 194-203. Vitols, M.Z., 2008. From the Personal to the Public: Juris Podnieks and Latvian Documentary Cinema: Dissertation, The Ohio State University, [E-book], Available through: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Vitols%20Maruta%20Zane.pdf?osu1210796660 (Accessed on 19th December 2013). Read More