There's an old adage that claims a picture is worth a thousand words. Could you write a thousand words about this picture in 1943? What do you think is going on here? Where in the world might this picture have been taken? What details do you notice?
I found Renov's piece intriguing as he constantly underscores the fact that nonfiction and more specifically documentaries "contain any number of "fictive" elements, moments at which a presumably objective representation of the world encounters the necessity of creative intervention." There is truth to this statement in that documentarians do take bits and pieces from everyday life, which to them is what are considered the significant and relevant parts of the story they desire to tell. However, a documentary does not emerge as such without a certain amount of artistry whether it be in the way scenes transition, the musical accompaniment, and just the way the whole piece is structured. Fact of the matter is, reality is greatly built on fiction and that which is artificial. This notion is extremely confusing because it becomes very difficult to set apart what is real and what is not if both entities overlap. The psychoanalytic part of Renov's argument was also very perplexing in terms of "questions of pleasure." Aside from this part of Renov's piece, as human beings, we are very much influenced by outside forces such as the media, literature, films and television. Therefore the realities that we construct for ourselves are not going to be fitting an essential Truth. An essential truth does not exist. The unreal parts of life make reality real, and this idea is just something that has to be accepted and dealt with.
Actually, I believe Corner might be helpful with the fictive elements such as camera angles, lighting, choice of shots, duration of shots---all fictive elements used to capture reality---that which is actual and not constructed.
The main point of the reading by Michael Renov is to call into question the authenticity and reality of documentary films. He demonstrates the striking linkages that exist between nonfiction and fiction films. Renov brings to our attention many aspects of documentary film that we often don’t consider when simply viewing these films at our own leisure. He argues that just like fiction films, documentary films also contain elements that seek to grasp the viewer’s imagination, often in ways that somehow distort the true “reality” of what is being presented. Renov explains that documentaries contain numerous “fictive” elements brought about by the director’s creativity. Some of these elements include the creation of characters, like we see in Nanook of the North (Flaherty, 1992), as well as camera angles and distinct musical selections of the director’s choice. Renov notes that throughout history, documentaries have been viewed and analyzed in different ways. The connotations associated with the name “documentary film” have changed throughout time. Near the end of the article he explains the dense psychoanalytic scholarship surrounding documentary film. He offers the Rodney King Case as an example of how images, no matter how “real” they may be, are interpreted differently by each of the viewers. It was surprising to learn how the lawyers in the case were able to manipulate the juror’s interpretation of the actual footage of the Rodney King beating. Renov explains that viewers often fall into a type of “delirium” in which each viewer interprets images in ways that suit their own personal motives and desires. He offers this psychoanalytic analysis to make us more cautious in how we view not just documentary film but all types of media.
The King example provides another window into Gregory Bateson's claim that context provides meaning---in this case, the context was provided by the legal team and the white jurors.
In Introduction: The Truth about Non-Fiction, Michael Renov argues that the boundary lines between documentary/non-fiction film and fiction film may not be so distinct after all. In fact, many of the film techniques used in fiction are inherent to documentary filmmaking such as narrative, musical accompaniment, editing, and camera angles. In essence, Renov states, “documentary shares the status of all discursive forms with regard to its tropic or figurative character and that it employs many of the methods and devices o its fictional counterpart” (Renov 3). Throughout the short reflection, Renov goes on to discuss “a whole series of intervals –between truth and beauty, truth and reality, science and art, fiction and nonfiction, constative and performative, self-representation and media coverage, history and theory –in a manner which will significantly advance current thinking about documentary film and video” (Renov 11). In his analysis of documentary and fiction film, on of the most interesting points discussed is the important distinction between truth and reality. At first, this concept was something that I found particularly confusing because typically, I have equated truth to be synonymous with what is “real.” However, Renov is in agreement with Derrida who states, “What is neither true nor false is reality” and “Reality simply is” (Renov 7). I had to reread this passage of the article multiple times. However, once I recalled some of our discussions in class, I was able to more easily interpret what Renov was saying. In class, we discussed the notion that everyone has their own truths based on their backgrounds and personal experiences. This discussion can then be applied to Renov who explains, “every documentary representation depends upon its own detour from the real, through the defiles of the audio-visual signifier” (Renov 7). These signifiers can be language, sound, camerawork, etc. In conclusion, even though this concept may have been confusing at first, I found it really interesting once I was able to work through it. I think that this will definitely affect the way I think about documentary work in the future.
Renov explicitly states on page three of the reading that he is arguing that “documentary shares the status of all discursive forms with regard to its tropic or figurative character and that it employs many of the methods and devices of its fictional counterpart.” He says that he does not believe non-fiction is “fictional” per se, but he instead uses the word “fictive” to describe the genre. I found it interesting that Renov related the analytic techniques of filmmaking to the Rodney King Trial. I found it surprising because I did find the example useful in discussing how powerful editing techniques are to the human psyche, particularly on the 12 jurors who ruled the four police officers who brutally killed King not guilty. My mind was focused on documentary, nonfiction, and fictional filmmaking techniques, then Renov made the choice to relate the “delirium” technique used in filmmaking to that made by the defense attorneys with the Holliday Footage. The most confusing part of the reading was not the content as much as the language. I understand that it is a scholarly piece, but certain points could have been made in a simpler way. I had to read a few paragraphs over a few times to decipher what he was trying to communicate. Otherwise, I found the reading very interesting and I was able to make connections with the past two readings that were assigned, Defining Documentary and Documentary Theory.
Renov discusses the controversy surrounding documentary film and the fictive elements that it contains. Many view documentaries as unbiased presenters of facts, and the content of these films are believed. However, the things presented in documentaries are "truths" which become personalized. Reality is something different than truth in that something only needs to be believed to be a "truth" while reality does not need to be believed. It is presented in front of us, not needing to be commented upon or consciously observed. Derrida states that reality "though cognitively constructed, entails no necessary assertion or claim." (Renov 7). The moment that we note something in our environment, instead of our senses bringing in raw information, we interpret that input in a way that makes it "true." Another person will interpret information differently depending on his/her experiences. This idea of viewing documentary films psychoanalytically was new and a bit surprising to me. I have always trusted documentary film makers without taking into account that my experiences are shaping how I'm viewing the footage. Renov says: "Only rarely has nonfiction been the subject of psychoanalytic criticism, due, perhaps to assumptions of a baseline of rationality and conscious inquiry" (Renov 6). This made me think of finding a good documentary as a process similar to finding a good cereal. The consumer should know who made the cereal, how it was made, its ingredients, how it is marketed, and how it tastes. The viewer of a documentary would benefit by knowing who made the documentary, why it was made, what techniques were used in the filming/editing, and what audience it targets. Most of all, a viewer should know that "fictional and nonfictional forms are enmeshed in one another" (Renov 2). Fiction is defined by the existence of nonfiction, and vice versa.
I think Renov's piece addresses some of the concerns we had about the film we viewed in class on Wednesday. Renov talks about how documentary is a mix of history, non-fiction and fiction films. There is obviously some history and pure "fact" contained in documentaries but as Renov adds there is an element of fiction in documentaries usually found in the development of the subjects as characters in the documentary. In my opinion this is important in films because it draws viewers in when they are interested in and can relate to the subjects of a film. So going back to Wednesday's discussion about the cell phone film, there was probably some fact in there but there was also fiction on the part of how the filmmaker set up each character and their conversation. The language used in this piece was pretty confusing for me which may be a function of this being the first media and communications or film studies class I have taken so my vocabulary is not necessarily up to par with the difficulty of this piece which is something I hope to grow in over the course of the semester.
Renov's writing is, indeed, dense, but you'll get the hang of things. Have faith in yourself. You're right about the video, The Intimacy of Strangers, using both fictive and real--actuality. Good job.
The overarching message of Michael Renov's piece, Introduction: The Truth About Non-Fiction is that everyone, from viewers to filmmakers must begin to think of documentary films from a new, more informed perspective. When considering documentary films, many tend to think of them as the visual dissemination of facts and take their material at face value because of this belief. Renov details how this mindset is anything but correct, saying "What I am arguing is that documentary shares the status of all discursive forms with regard to its tropic or figurative character and that it employs many of the methods and devices of its fictional counterparts". He claims that there are many nonfiction works can contain "fictive" elements such as camera angles, musical accompaniment, and construction of character. Choice equals voice, and because the voice of a documentarian is inherent to a documentary film, documentary filmmaking is inherently subjective. At times I it was punishing for me to ascertain the exact points that Renov was trying to convey to the reader. His prose dragged on, and on more than one occasion I found myself rereading certain passages just to get a sense of what he was saying. Other than that, however, I found this essay to be a very informative read; one that has to some extent steered the way that I had previously contemplated documentary film.
I found Renov's piece intriguing as he constantly underscores the fact that nonfiction and more specifically documentaries "contain any number of "fictive" elements, moments at which a presumably objective representation of the world encounters the necessity of creative intervention." There is truth to this statement in that documentarians do take bits and pieces from everyday life, which to them is what are considered the significant and relevant parts of the story they desire to tell. However, a documentary does not emerge as such without a certain amount of artistry whether it be in the way scenes transition, the musical accompaniment, and just the way the whole piece is structured. Fact of the matter is, reality is greatly built on fiction and that which is artificial. This notion is extremely confusing because it becomes very difficult to set apart what is real and what is not if both entities overlap. The psychoanalytic part of Renov's argument was also very perplexing in terms of "questions of pleasure." Aside from this part of Renov's piece, as human beings, we are very much influenced by outside forces such as the media, literature, films and television. Therefore the realities that we construct for ourselves are not going to be fitting an essential Truth. An essential truth does not exist. The unreal parts of life make reality real, and this idea is just something that has to be accepted and dealt with.
ReplyDeleteActually, I believe Corner might be helpful with the fictive elements such as camera angles, lighting, choice of shots, duration of shots---all fictive elements used to capture reality---that which is actual and not constructed.
DeleteThe main point of the reading by Michael Renov is to call into question the authenticity and reality of documentary films. He demonstrates the striking linkages that exist between nonfiction and fiction films. Renov brings to our attention many aspects of documentary film that we often don’t consider when simply viewing these films at our own leisure. He argues that just like fiction films, documentary films also contain elements that seek to grasp the viewer’s imagination, often in ways that somehow distort the true “reality” of what is being presented. Renov explains that documentaries contain numerous “fictive” elements brought about by the director’s creativity. Some of these elements include the creation of characters, like we see in Nanook of the North (Flaherty, 1992), as well as camera angles and distinct musical selections of the director’s choice. Renov notes that throughout history, documentaries have been viewed and analyzed in different ways. The connotations associated with the name “documentary film” have changed throughout time. Near the end of the article he explains the dense psychoanalytic scholarship surrounding documentary film. He offers the Rodney King Case as an example of how images, no matter how “real” they may be, are interpreted differently by each of the viewers. It was surprising to learn how the lawyers in the case were able to manipulate the juror’s interpretation of the actual footage of the Rodney King beating. Renov explains that viewers often fall into a type of “delirium” in which each viewer interprets images in ways that suit their own personal motives and desires. He offers this psychoanalytic analysis to make us more cautious in how we view not just documentary film but all types of media.
ReplyDeleteThe King example provides another window into Gregory Bateson's claim that context provides meaning---in this case, the context was provided by the legal team and the white jurors.
DeleteIn Introduction: The Truth about Non-Fiction, Michael Renov argues that the boundary lines between documentary/non-fiction film and fiction film may not be so distinct after all. In fact, many of the film techniques used in fiction are inherent to documentary filmmaking such as narrative, musical accompaniment, editing, and camera angles. In essence, Renov states, “documentary shares the status of all discursive forms with regard to its tropic or figurative character and that it employs many of the methods and devices o its fictional counterpart” (Renov 3). Throughout the short reflection, Renov goes on to discuss “a whole series of intervals –between truth and beauty, truth and reality, science and art, fiction and nonfiction, constative and performative, self-representation and media coverage, history and theory –in a manner which will significantly advance current thinking about documentary film and video” (Renov 11).
ReplyDeleteIn his analysis of documentary and fiction film, on of the most interesting points discussed is the important distinction between truth and reality. At first, this concept was something that I found particularly confusing because typically, I have equated truth to be synonymous with what is “real.” However, Renov is in agreement with Derrida who states, “What is neither true nor false is reality” and “Reality simply is” (Renov 7). I had to reread this passage of the article multiple times. However, once I recalled some of our discussions in class, I was able to more easily interpret what Renov was saying. In class, we discussed the notion that everyone has their own truths based on their backgrounds and personal experiences. This discussion can then be applied to Renov who explains, “every documentary representation depends upon its own detour from the real, through the defiles of the audio-visual signifier” (Renov 7). These signifiers can be language, sound, camerawork, etc. In conclusion, even though this concept may have been confusing at first, I found it really interesting once I was able to work through it. I think that this will definitely affect the way I think about documentary work in the future.
Glad you figured it out. Good job.
DeleteRenov explicitly states on page three of the reading that he is arguing that “documentary shares the status of all discursive forms with regard to its tropic or figurative character and that it employs many of the methods and devices of its fictional counterpart.” He says that he does not believe non-fiction is “fictional” per se, but he instead uses the word “fictive” to describe the genre.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that Renov related the analytic techniques of filmmaking to the Rodney King Trial. I found it surprising because I did find the example useful in discussing how powerful editing techniques are to the human psyche, particularly on the 12 jurors who ruled the four police officers who brutally killed King not guilty. My mind was focused on documentary, nonfiction, and fictional filmmaking techniques, then Renov made the choice to relate the “delirium” technique used in filmmaking to that made by the defense attorneys with the Holliday Footage.
The most confusing part of the reading was not the content as much as the language. I understand that it is a scholarly piece, but certain points could have been made in a simpler way. I had to read a few paragraphs over a few times to decipher what he was trying to communicate. Otherwise, I found the reading very interesting and I was able to make connections with the past two readings that were assigned, Defining Documentary and Documentary Theory.
Agree that his writing is dense. Just think about the pleasure of knowing it's in your head now!
DeleteRenov discusses the controversy surrounding documentary film and the fictive elements that it contains. Many view documentaries as unbiased presenters of facts, and the content of these films are believed. However, the things presented in documentaries are "truths" which become personalized. Reality is something different than truth in that something only needs to be believed to be a "truth" while reality does not need to be believed. It is presented in front of us, not needing to be commented upon or consciously observed. Derrida states that reality "though cognitively constructed, entails no necessary assertion or claim." (Renov 7). The moment that we note something in our environment, instead of our senses bringing in raw information, we interpret that input in a way that makes it "true." Another person will interpret information differently depending on his/her experiences. This idea of viewing documentary films psychoanalytically was new and a bit surprising to me. I have always trusted documentary film makers without taking into account that my experiences are shaping how I'm viewing the footage. Renov says: "Only rarely has nonfiction been the subject of psychoanalytic criticism, due, perhaps to assumptions of a baseline of rationality and conscious inquiry" (Renov 6). This made me think of finding a good documentary as a process similar to finding a good cereal. The consumer should know who made the cereal, how it was made, its ingredients, how it is marketed, and how it tastes. The viewer of a documentary would benefit by knowing who made the documentary, why it was made, what techniques were used in the filming/editing, and what audience it targets. Most of all, a viewer should know that "fictional and nonfictional forms are enmeshed in one another" (Renov 2). Fiction is defined by the existence of nonfiction, and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteA woman after my own heart to use food as examples. Fun!
DeleteI think Renov's piece addresses some of the concerns we had about the film we viewed in class on Wednesday. Renov talks about how documentary is a mix of history, non-fiction and fiction films. There is obviously some history and pure "fact" contained in documentaries but as Renov adds there is an element of fiction in documentaries usually found in the development of the subjects as characters in the documentary. In my opinion this is important in films because it draws viewers in when they are interested in and can relate to the subjects of a film. So going back to Wednesday's discussion about the cell phone film, there was probably some fact in there but there was also fiction on the part of how the filmmaker set up each character and their conversation. The language used in this piece was pretty confusing for me which may be a function of this being the first media and communications or film studies class I have taken so my vocabulary is not necessarily up to par with the difficulty of this piece which is something I hope to grow in over the course of the semester.
ReplyDeleteRenov's writing is, indeed, dense, but you'll get the hang of things. Have faith in yourself.
DeleteYou're right about the video, The Intimacy of Strangers, using both fictive and real--actuality. Good job.
The overarching message of Michael Renov's piece, Introduction: The Truth About Non-Fiction is that everyone, from viewers to filmmakers must begin to think of documentary films from a new, more informed perspective. When considering documentary films, many tend to think of them as the visual dissemination of facts and take their material at face value because of this belief. Renov details how this mindset is anything but correct, saying "What I am arguing is that documentary shares the status of all discursive forms with regard to its tropic or figurative character and that it employs many of the methods and devices of its fictional counterparts". He claims that there are many nonfiction works can contain "fictive" elements such as camera angles, musical accompaniment, and construction of character. Choice equals voice, and because the voice of a documentarian is inherent to a documentary film, documentary filmmaking is inherently subjective.
ReplyDeleteAt times I it was punishing for me to ascertain the exact points that Renov was trying to convey to the reader. His prose dragged on, and on more than one occasion I found myself rereading certain passages just to get a sense of what he was saying. Other than that, however, I found this essay to be a very informative read; one that has to some extent steered the way that I had previously contemplated documentary film.
Scholarly readings are often difficult but are usually worth your time. Glad you stuck it out.
Delete