Icebreaker: What Makes A Film A Documentary?
national media organizations including PBS LearningMedia Independent Television Services (ITVS) Latino Public Broadcasting HBO Documentaries Photo Forward .org
A national nonprofit media arts organization, American Documentary (AmDoc) strives to make essential documentaries accessible as a catalyst for public discourse.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/tc-amdoc-production/static/assets/images/favicon-64x64.png
The Distant Barking of Dogs by Simon Lereng Wilmont

Filmmaker Simon Lereng Wilmont’s documentary follows 10-year-old Oleg over a year, witnessing the gradual erosion of his innocence beneath the pressures of the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine.

Oleg lives with his beloved grandmother Alexandra in the small village of Hnutove. Having no other place to go, Oleg and Alexandra stay as others leave the village. Life becomes increasingly difficult with each passing day, and there is no end to the war in sight.

In the now half-deserted village, Oleg and Alexandra are the only true constants in each other’s lives, and the film shows both how fragile such close relationships are and how crucial they are for survival. Through Oleg’s perspective, the film examines what it means to grow up in a war zone. It portrays how a child’s struggle to discover the world is intertwined with all the dangers and challenges the war presents.

The Distant Barking of Dogs unveils the consequences of war bearing down on the children in eastern Ukraine and, by natural extension, the scars and life lessons this generation will carry with them into the future.

The Act of Killing by Joshua Oppenheimer

When the Indonesian government was overthrown by the military in 1965, small-time gangster Anwar Congo and his friends helped the army kill more than one million alleged communists, ethnic Chinese and intellectuals. Some nations with histories of similar crimes against humanity have created truth and reconciliation initiatives and even jailed perpetrators. In Indonesia, the perpetrators are still in power, and death squad members are honored for their patriotism.

In a mind-bending twist, filmmaker Joshua Oppenheimer and his Indonesian co-director (who remains anonymous for his own safety) offer Anwar and his “crew” a chance to tell their story in any way they choose. Their choice: to dramatize their brutal deeds in the style of the American westerns, musicals and gangster movies they love—with themselves as the stars. The result is a nightmarish vision of a banal culture of impunity in which killers joke about crimes against humanity on television chat shows.

For more information on the film and additional background on the 1965 Indonesian genocide, download the Discussion Guide for The Act of Killing.

On Her Shoulders by Alexandria Bombach

Twenty-three-year-old Nadia Murad’s life is a dizzying array of exhausting undertakings—from giving testimony before the United Nations to visiting refugee camps to bearing her soul in media interviews and one-on-one meetings with top government officials. Repeating her traumatic story to the world, this ordinary young woman finds herself thrust onto the international stage as the voice of her people.

In On Her Shoulders, filmmaker Alexandria Bombach follows this strong-willed young woman, who survived the 2014 genocide of the Yazidis in Northern Iraq and escaped the hands of ISIS to become a relentless beacon of hope for her people, even though at times she longs to set aside this monumental burden and simply lead an ordinary life.

For more information on the film and additional background on the 2014 Yazidi genocide, download the Discussion Guide for On Her Shoulders.

Give participants two minutes to make a list of as many documentary films as they can (preferably documentary films that they have seen). Ask for volunteers to share film titles from their lists and record at least five examples on the board. Discuss: What are some similarities and differences between these films?

Have participants imagine that they are talking to a person who has never before seen or even heard of a documentary film. How would they describe it? What are some essential elements of a documentary film? What distinguishes a documentary film from a narrative (Hollywood) film or a broadcast news story?

Give the participants two minutes to free-write descriptions of what documentary is, then have the participants organize into small groups to discuss their responses. Groups should collaborate on a working definition for documentary film that they will share with the other participants. (Groups can write and display their definitions on chart paper or on a whiteboard/blackboard.)

Reconvene the participants and discuss their definitions:

What are the similarities and differences?

What are some common objectives of documentaries?

What filmmaking techniques are used in the documentaries you have seen?

Footage: live action (vérité or contemporaneous), re-enactments, informal (smartphone, home movies), archival, animation, something else?

Dialogue: interviews, monologue, conversational, scripted, voice-over, narrator, singing, no dialogue, something else?

Shots/Angles/Transitions: close-up, medium, long, wide, point of view (POV), two shot, low angle, high angle, montage, something else?

How do these creative choices serve the topics and objectives of the films?

Are documentaries reproductions of reality or representations of reality? Why is this significant?

Why is it so difficult to specify exactly what a documentary is?

Share the following definitions and descriptions of documentary film and continue to revise and refine the participants’ working definitions as their understanding of documentary film evolves.

Definitions of Documentary Film

A documentary film purports to present factual information about the world outside the film.

— David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, Film Art: An Introduction

A nonfiction film about real events and people, often avoiding traditional narrative structures.

— Timothy Corrigan, A Short Guide to Writing About Film

Documentary [is] the creative treatment of actuality.

— John Grierson, Cinema Quarterly 2.1

A practice of filmmaking that deals with actual and factual (and usually contemporary) issues, institutions and people; whose purpose is to educate, inform, communicate, persuade, raise consciousness or satisfy curiosity; in which the viewer is commonly addressed as a citizen of a public sphere; whose materials are selected and arranged from what already exists (rather than being made up); and whose methods involve filming “real people” as themselves in actual locations, using natural light and ambient sound. Although filmmaking of this type dates to the earliest years of cinema (see actualities; travel film), the term documentary was not coined until the 1920s, when the founder of the British Documentary Movement, John Grierson, defined it as “the creative treatment of actuality.”

— Annette Kuhn and Guy Westwell, "Documentary," A Dictionary of Film Studies

Film Genres: Documentary films

A Dictionary of Film Studies

Documentary film speaks about situations and events involving real people (social actors) who present themselves to us as themselves in stories that convey a plausible proposal about, or perspective on, the lives, situations, and events portrayed. The distinct point of view of the filmmaker shapes this story into a way of seeing the historical world directly rather than into a fictional allegory.

— Bill Nichols, Introduction to Documentary

Documentary defines not subject or style, but approach. ... Documentary approach to cinema differs from that of story-film not in its disregard for craftsmanship, but in the purpose to which that craftsmanship is put.

— Paul Rotha, Cinema Quarterly 2.2

A non-fiction text using “actuality” footage, which may include the live recording of events and relevant research materials (i.e., interviews, statistics, etc.). This kind of text is usually informed by a particular point of view, and seeks to address a particular social issue which is related to and potentially affects the audience."

— Paul Wells, “The Documentary Form: Personal and Social ‘Realities,’” An Introduction to Film Studies

Resources:

Rogow, Faith. “Lesson Plan: Introducing Documentaries to Your Students.” POV,

http://archive.pov.org/film-files/introducing_documentaries_lp_lesson_plan_0.pdf.

Rogow, Faith. “What Makes a Documentary a Documentary?: What Filmmakers Have to Say.” POV, 2010,

https://pov-tc.pbs.org/pov/downloads/2010/pov-behindthelens-what-makes-documentary-lesson-plan.pdf.

Juel, Henrik. “Defining Documentary Film.” POV: A Danish Journal of Film Studies, no. 22, 2006,

https://pov.imv.au.dk/Issue_22/section_1/artc1A.html.

Kalow, Nancy. Visual Storytelling: The Digital Video Documentary. The Center for Documentary Studies at Duke University, 2011,

https://documentarystudies.duke.edu/sites/documentarystudies.duke.edu/files/kalow_Vis%20Stor.pdf.

I usually enter people’s lives at a time of crisis. If the tables were turned, God forbid, I would never allow them to make a film about my tragedy. I am keenly aware of the hypocrisy of asking someone for access that I myself would probably not grant.

— Joe Berlinger, documentary filmmaker

When filmmakers tell someone else’s story rather than their own, what responsibilities (if any) do they have to their films’ subjects, the community affected and the audience? What ethics should govern putting someone else on film?

These are among the questions that 45 professional documentary filmmakers and producers tackled as part of a 2009 study by the Center for Media and Social Impact at American University, “Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work.” Filmmakers identified two kinds of relationships that raised ethical questions: 1) Filmmaker with subject(s) and 2) filmmaker with viewers.

In most cases, documentarians believed strongly in “making informal commitments and employing situational ethics determined on a case-by-case basis,” as illustrated in the following excerpt:

Sharing Decision Making

The awareness of a power differential also leads filmmakers sometimes to volunteer to share decision-making power with some subjects. Notably, this attitude does not extend to celebrities, whom filmmakers found to be aggressive and powerful in controlling their image. This distinction accords with filmmakers’ sensitivity to the power differential in the relationship.

Most subjects signed releases allowing the makers complete editorial control and ownership of the footage for every use early on during the production process. The terms of these releases are usually dictated by insurers, whose insurance is required for most television airing and theatrical distribution. Perhaps because the terms of these releases were not their own, filmmakers often provided more leeway to their subjects than the strict terms provided in them. Filmmakers often felt that subjects had a right to change their minds (although the filmmakers found this deeply unpleasant) or to see the material involving them or even the whole film in advance of public screenings.

The informal basis upon which they operated also reflects the ambivalence they have about ceding control and their wish to preserve their own creative interests. The ongoing effort to strike a balance, and the negotiated nature of the relationship, was registered by Gordon Quinn:

We say to our subjects, “We are not journalists; we are going to spend years with you. Our code of ethics is very different. A journalist wouldn’t show you the footage. We will show the film before it is finished. I want you to sign the release, but we will really listen to you. But ultimately it has to be our decision.” In some cases I will say, “If there is something that you can’t live with then we’ll discuss it, we will have the argument and real dialogue. In the end, if I can’t convince you then we’ll take it out.”

Some also believed that seeing material in advance helped make their subjects more comfortable with the exposure they would encounter, thus avoiding problems in the future. One director recalled, “I knew personal information about one of the [subjects] that I thought would make the film richer, but she was confiding to me in person, not as a filmmaker … We discussed it with her, and then she felt comfortable. We showed her the piece first. Then she was okay.”

However, when filmmakers did not empathize with, understand, or agree with the subject’s concern, or when they believed the subject had more social power than they did, they overrode it. In one case, a subject who had signed a release asked Stanley Nelson not to use an interview. The interview was important for the film, Nelson said, and he believed the request was motivated by desire to control the film. He “wanted us to interview someone else as a precondition [for using his own interview],” Nelson said. “We did talk to that other person on the phone and then decided not to interview them for the film. I felt that my obligation was fulfilled.” In another case, a director decided not to show footage to a subject who wanted approval over material used, because he feared the subject would refuse to permit use. In both these cases, the choices not to honor the subject’s requests reflected the fact that the subjects—both experts, not less-powerful subjects—attempted to exert control over the film’s outcome that differed from that of the filmmakers.

Ultimately, the Center for Media and Social Impact concluded that filmmakers shared three general ethical principles that they attempted to balance in their work:

Honor your (vulnerable) subjects. Protect them from attack and don't leave them worse off than when you met them.

Honor your viewers. Make sure that what they understand to be true and real wouldn't be betrayed if you told them where and how you got that image.

Honor your production partners. Do what you contracted to do, even if you made that bargain with yourself.

Although these principles provide a clarifying framework within which to discuss ethics in documentary filmmaking, they also highlighted the degree to which filmmakers control the process, content and publication of their films and their subjects’ stories.

Thinking more deeply:

In circumstances where filmmakers are working with vulnerable subjects, how can they ensure that the subjects are able to provide informed consent? What other options did the subjects have? Were the subjects able to entrust their stories to this filmmaker because they were the best option (or were they the only option)?

What rights or protections should be provided to subjects who are survivors of violent trauma? Should their stories be handled any differently than those of other subjects? Why or why not?

Should subjects reserve the right to withdraw consent? Under what circumstances?

When children are the subject of a documentary, how can consent be fairly given?

What are the potential benefits and problems with parents or guardians having the authority to give consent on the child’s behalf? What responsibility, if any, does the filmmaker have to the future adult who will live with the decisions made on their behalf when they were young?

Further Reading:

Rogow, Faith. “Media Literacy Questions for Analyzing POV Films.” American Documentary-,

https://www.amdoc.org/engage/resources/media-literacy-questions-analyzing-pov-films/authors-audiences/.

Arthur, Paul. “Art of the Real: Standards & Practices.” Film Comment, March/Apr. 2007,

https://www.filmcomment.com/article/documentary-ethics/.

Aufderheide, Patricia, Peter Jaszi and Mridu Chandra.“Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work.” Center for Media and Social Impact at American University, September 2009,

http://archive.cmsimpact.org/sites/default/files/Honest_Truths_--_Documentary_Filmmakers_on_Ethical_Challenges_in_Their_Work.pdf.

Aufderheide, Patricia. “Honest Truths: Looking at a Groundbreaking Ethics Report, Five Years Later.” Documentary, Apr. 15, 2015,

https://www.documentary.org/feature/honest-truths-looking-groundbreaking-ethics-report-five-years-later.

Dentino, John. “Ethics in the Immersive Documentary,” Senses of Cinema, Dec. 2013.

http://sensesofcinema.com/2013/feature-articles/ethics-in-the-immersive-documentary/

Rogow, Faith. “Lesson Plan: Introducing Documentaries to Your Students.” POV,

http://archive.pov.org/film-files/introducing_documentaries_lp_lesson_plan_0.pdf.

Is Documentary Journalism?

Is documentary a form of journalism? For filmmaker Laura Poitras (Citizenfour), the answer is simple: documentary is “journalism plus.” Poitras and fellow filmmaker Alex Gibney (Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief), speaking on this topic at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival, argued that filmmakers are like journalists in that they “have to maintain a reputation for truth-seeking,” and require the protections afforded to journalists “in the pursuit of that truth.” They both conceded that documentarians have more freedom in the techniques and points of view they use to interpret the narrative for the audience, but that does not delegitimize their work’s journalistic integrity.

So, is documentary a form of journalism? Why does it matter?

Have participants wade into the debate and explore the issue from a range of perspectives. Introduce the article “Documentaries Aren’t Journalism, and There’s Nothing Wrong with That” by Ann Hornaday, film critic for The Washington Post, and the response piece “In Defense of Documentaries as Journalism” by documentary filmmaker June Cross for the Columbia Journalism Review.

Ask participants to analyze the writers’ arguments and further explore the relationship between journalism and documentary filmmaking and the degree to which these disciplines overlap, complement each other and/or are mutually exclusive.

Participants should establish their own positions on this issue and develop persuasive arguments using evidence from their research for support.

Further Reading:

Andrew, Liam. “Controlled Chaos: As Journalism and Documentary Film Converge in Digital, What Lessons Can They Share?” NiemanLab, Oct. 29, 2014,

https://www.niemanlab.org/2014/10/controlled-chaos-as-journalism-and-documentary-film-converge-in-digital-what-lessons-can-they-share/

Cross, June. “In defense of documentaries as journalism.” Columbia Journalism Review, Dec. 3, 2018,

https://www.cjr.org/first_person/documentary-film-journalism.php.

Das, Angelica. “Sundance: Is it Documentary or Journalism?” IndieWire, Feb. 4, 2015,

https://www.indiewire.com/2015/02/sundance-is-it-documentary-or-journalism-248215/.

Greenbaum Kasson, Elisabeth. “The Message Is the Medium: The Difference between Documentarians and Journalists,” Documentary, Oct. 8, 2010,

https://www.documentary.org/feature/message-medium-difference-between-documentarians-and-journalists.

Hornaday, Ann. “Documentaries Aren’t Journalism, and There’s Nothing Wrong with That,” The Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2018,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/documentaries-arent-journalism-and-theres-nothing-wrong-with-that/2018/10/04/a27201ee-c73f-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?utm_term=.3913008bae4c.

Having an Impact

In the past decade, the means of measuring a film's social effect have grown increasingly sophisticated, inspiring numerous studies that measure influence. At the same time, more and more pressure is being placed on filmmakers to prove that their films are having a measurable, real-world impact.

What Is Impact?

In this context, impact is social and cultural change that has been driven by a documentary film and its associated campaign strategy. This can include a perceivable shift in behaviors, beliefs and values within a group, system or community, as well as legislative or policy shifts in a government, organization or institution.

There are obvious benefits for filmmakers who can demonstrate the social value of their films to stakeholders as well as potential funders, but there is also the possibility that these new tools will come at a cost to documentarians, their subjects and their work.

Introduce participants to the article “Films are Films: Measuring the Social Impact of Documentary Film” from Philantopic and have them discuss the following in small groups:

What was Aggregate interested in learning through its survey of filmmakers at the True/False Film Fest?

72 percent of the filmmakers who responded to the survey believed their films could contribute to social change, but 66 percent of filmmakers “said they opposed the idea of using metrics to gauge the impact of their films.” Why? What concerns did filmmakers have about using metrics?

What impact could a reliance on metrics have on which film projects get funded and how stories are told?

56 percent of the filmmakers indicated they had no plans to do outreach to increase the social impact of their films. What were the biggest obstacles these filmmakers cited?

The author reported that Steve James (Hoop Dreams, The Interrupters) said that, although his films deal with important social issues, “he was a filmmaker, not an advocate.” According to James, who should be deciding how his films can be used to make change? What do you think about his response?

One filmmaker responded to the survey by saying, “Films are films. If they deliver a visually interesting experience, spark conversation and inspire people to engage in new ideas, they should be considered a success. Films should not be reduced to advertisements, no matter how worthy the cause. They need to exist on their own terms.” Do you agree? Why or why not?

Have participants explore additional resources on this issue and develop and “pitch” a strategy for measuring the social impact of documentary films that also addresses the concerns raised by the filmmakers.

Further Reading:

Byrne Fields, Alison. “Films Are Films: Measuring the Social Impact of Documentary Films,” Philantopic, July 23, 2014,

https://pndblog.typepad.com/pndblog/2014/07/films-are-films-measuring-the-social-impact-of-documentary-films.html.

Campolo, Alex, et al. “Impact Playbook: Best Practices for Understanding the Impact of Media.” Harmony Institute/Bay Area Video Coalition, 2013,

https://www.bavc.org/sites/default/files/resource/Impact_Playbook.pdf.

Finneran, Patricia. “Documentary Impact: Social Change Through Storytelling,” HotDocs, 2014,

http://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.hotdocs.ca/doc/HD14_Documentary_Impact_Report.PDF.

Napoli, Philip M. “Measuring Media Impact: An Overview of the Field,” Lear Center Media Impact Project, School of Communication & Information Rutgers University, Winter 2014,

https://learcenter.org/pdf/measuringmedia.pdf.

Renninger, Bryce J. “How Do We Measure the Impact of Documentaries?: Data from the Puma Impact Award Nominees,” IndieWire, Nov. 12, 2013.

https://www.indiewire.com/2013/11/how-do-we-measure-the-impact-of-documentaries-data-from-the-puma-impact-award-nominees-33061/

“Web Metrics: Basics for Journalists.” Understanding Media Metrics, USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center Media Impact Project,

http://www.mediaimpactproject.org/web-metrics-guide.html.