The Different Typologies
Introduction
There are lots of different theorists out there who all have different interpretations and opinions about documentaries. In this essay I am going to go over the statements of Bill Nichols compared to other theorists. The different ways theorists have tried to categorise them, the advantages and disadvantages of each theory, and my personal opinions after having read all the different theories.
The theories
Let’s go over Bill Nichols’ (Platinga, 2005, p. 105) statements first. He proposes six modes a documentary can be divided into: expository, observational, poetic, participatory, reflexive, and performative. Over time the different modes have fallen in and out of favour, yet documentaries continue to be made in each of the modes and so they remain a viable way to chart the documentary terrain. An attempt to characterize the documentary must take into account the differing natures of these various subgenres.
Then there is John Grierson (Platinga, 2005, p. 105), a Scottish filmmaker. A documentary is, in his words: A characterization that simultaneously distinguishes the documentary from fiction film. Although the distinction between nonfiction film and documentary cannot bear much theoretical weight, it might be useful to think of the documentary as a subset of nonfiction films, characterized by more aesthetic, social, rhetorical, and/or political ambition than, say, a corporate or instructional film.
Lastly, Nicholas Wolterstorff (Platinga, 2005, p. 107) theorises that ‘a nonfiction film is a film in which a filmmaker takes an assertive stance (as opposed to a fictive stance) towards the world projected by the film’. Wolterstorff argues that through every representational work or art an agent projects a world, or state of affairs. When a writer or filmmaker takes an assertive stance toward the world projected through the work, he or she asserts that the state of affairs making up that projected world holds or occurs in the actual world.
Conclusion
After going over each interpretation of documentaries, I personally feel the most satisfied with Bill Nichols’ stance. Although there can be deviations from the original six modes, there is always a factor that can be traced back to one of, or multiple of the forms. They work well in categorizing documentaries and are still useful in today’s day and age.
For John Grierson’s theory, personally, I believe separating a documentary from a fiction film according to his characterizations is quite difficult. There are documentaries about fictional universes or characters, that prove a non-fiction insight for the viewer to see. And there are also fictional films that do have a political agenda or rhetorical ambition. I feel like it doesn’t quite clearly portray the borders of what a documentary is.
As for Nicholas Wolterstorff, I believe it is still possible to have a fictional stance in a documentary. It doesn’t always have to be truthful or realistic. Take a mockumentary for example, in that film, the filmmaker can both be assertive or fictive, depending on what he wants the audience to believe.
Bibliography
Platinga, C., 2005. What a Documentary Is, After All. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63:2, pp. 105-117.