Under Construction: The Docs of Sundance 2008 and the Nonfiction New Wave (Part One)

Festival coverage sponsored by IndiePix.

At the end of a recent blog posting, Premiere film critic Glenn Kenny wondered aloud about some of the documentaries he’d seen at the Sundance Film Festival. Summing up his thoughts on Nanette Burstein’s hit AMERICAN TEEN, Kenny wrote:

“Burstein’s trim, fast-moving film utilizes tricks and techniques that would give old-schoolers such as Wiseman and the Maysles Brothers rage attacks. The pop soundtrack, the voiceovers, the graphic collages, the ANIMATION SEQUENCES illustrating the dreams and desires of some of its subjects…none of it’s a surprise, coming as it does from the co-director of the Bob Evans fantasia The Kid Stays in the Picture, but all of it does raise the question of just how documentary is defining itself these days.”

Kenny’s questioning reflects a decades-old discussion, often fueled by film critics (and sometimes by journalists or by some within the documentary community) over the use of construction – created or recreated content - within the context of nonfiction filmmaking. Often this is accompanied with a similar name check of a veteran filmmaker, with the implicit understanding that construction represents a shift in tradition within the genre.

In fact, you can travel back to the earliest days of documentary filmmaking to find construction - from Flaherty’s staging of scenes in NANOOK OF THE NORTH to Vertov’s use of enhanced techniques such as fast-cuts, split screens and, yes, animations. Despite the existence of construction from the earliest days of nonfiction cinema, some - more recently - have come to think of documentary as an offshoot of journalism, in which the camera, the director and the editor serve as invisible observers (and reflectors) of real events.

And as Frederick Wiseman himself has noted, “There are lots of different ways to make film. I don’t believe there has to be any orthodox way to making movies., or any rules. It’s what works for the filmmaker, and, theoretically, the audience.” Rage attacks, indeed.

Where once this debate was seemingly contained between the two dominant schools of nonfiction in the mid-1900s – direct cinema (where invisibility is the goal and the ideal) and cinema verite (which implicitly recognizes that the camera’s very presence alters the reality), over the past few years we have seen a Nonfiction New Wave that rejects dogmatic strictures of form and that is, ironically, a return to the genre’s roots.

This Nonfiction New Wave not only embraces every kind of stylistic tool (and is especially fond of animation and graphic design), it also seems not to fear that space between truth and fiction, between documentary and narrative. And it was on full display at this week’s Sundance Film Festival, which, over the past several years (as seen in 2007's MANDA BALA (SEND A BULLET), ZOO and CHICAGO 10, among others) has been a leading proponent of the movement.

This year in Park City, animation was nearly universal – seen in the dreamscapes of the AMERICAN TEENs, in recreations of the Watts riots in MADE IN AMERICA, in the moody, artistic transitions of SECRECY and in the graphic illustrations of I.O.U.S.A. and BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER*. Voice-over narration of the Michael Moore school (wherein our director takes us on a wry journey from small, personal story to large, encompassing investigation) was on display both in Morgan Spurlock’s WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? and the aforementioned BIGGER, STRONGER. Whole scenes were created (from scratch? as composites?) in the world competition doc A COMPLETE OF MY SEXUAL FAILURES. And a number of scenes in AMERICAN TEEN, wherein the subjects send and receive emails, texts and phone calls are clearly staged for cameras that likely were elsewhere when the event in question occurred.

For critics who tied themselves into knots over the limited construction in BILLY THE KID, the films of Sundance 2008 may seem sacrilegious, but they are really just the solidifying of a trend that reaches back several years. Even the Motion Picture Academy, which isn’t exactly on the front lines of innovation, recognizes that construction is a viable part of documentary – 3 of this year’s 5 nominees use extensive construction – from the traditional Moore approach to SICKO (complete with pop music soundtrack and boat trips to Guantanamo) to the re-enactments and portraiture of WAR/DANCE to the actors who supply the voice-overs to the animations of OPERATION HOMECOMING.

That’s not to say that more traditional (yet no less artistic) visions weren’t on display – witness the rapturous response to Margaret Brown’s THE ORDER OF MYTHS, the Grand Jury winner TROUBLE THE WATER and the double Jury/Audience winner MAN ON WIRE – nor that all of the aforementioned tricks of construction were entirely successful. Yet one would be hard pressed to watch the bulk of this year’s documentary competition without acknowledging that the line between traditional ideas of narrative and nonfiction is becoming ever more blurred. Whether one thinks that’s for the good or the bad may be a debate as old as the genre itself, yet it’s a debate that shows no sign of ending any time soon.

We'll be reviewing a number of the films of 2008 this week here on the blog, starting with two films with some surprising things in common - BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER* and WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN?

Few films were as anticipated at this year’s Sundance as WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN?, Morgan Spurlock’s follow-up to his breakthrough hit SUPER SIZE ME. So much of the project has been shrouded in buzz and mystery – from its initial screening of footage for distributors in Berlin (complete with confidentiality agreement) to the rampant internet speculation that Spurlock succeeded in tracking down the “most wanted man in the world” – that it seems nearly impossible to judge the film on the merits. If Spurlock doesn’t meet or interview or personally take revenge on bin Laden, are we supposed to feel cheated?

Viewed without the baggage of expectations, one can see WHERE IN THE WORLD for what it is, another step on the personal filmmaking journey that began with SUPER SIZE ME and continued with the television series 30 DAYS. The pop culture sensibility that informs much of Spurlock’s work is on high display in the film’s initial moments – a quick-moving introduction that’s as entertaining as anything we’ve seen from him thus far. Once Spurlock moves into more serious territory, trekking in the steps of bin Laden, the balance of tone becomes more tricky, not to mention the balance of the personal (the impending birth of Spurlock’s child) with the professional - both the cinematic hunt for elusive prey as well as the tacit acknowledgement that said hunt is a gimmick that forms the basis of the film.

Interestingly, Christopher Bell’s BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER*, an exceptional and often hilarious look at steroid use in America, comes from the same school of filmmaking as Spurlock, and Bell’s film feels like the breakthrough SUPER SIZE ME was several years ago.

Starting with the small, personal story of anabolic steroid use within his own family (his two brothers have used steroids for years, Bell tried them once and felt so guilty that he stopped taking them), Bell expertly expands the tale to indict an American culture obsessed with winning at all costs. Like Spurlock and Michael Moore, Bell leads us on this journey and proves to be an excellent guide, equally at home quizzing his family as he is questioning U.S. congressmen and sports heroes. But Bell (aided by strong editing from Brian Singbiel) does something more and equally unexpected – he challenges our preconceived notions about steroids. What if, he wonders, much of what we’ve heard about steroids is a lie or an exaggeration? The best nonfiction films get us to see the world in new ways and on this point, BIGGER, STRONGER is an unqualified success.

Next: A look at two very different films about musicians - PATTI SMITH DREAM OF LIFE and ANVIL: THE STORY OF ANVIL.

Comments

[Mike]

It was great reading this post... it was a great way to wake up this morning, it dealt with some things that have been on my mind a lot the last 2 years.

I know that the documentary I'm working on, will consist of narration, re-created moments, glimpses into moments that have yet to happen and probably never will (but as treated as fact), animation, etc.. that I've almost stopped referring to is a "doc", and most of the time, I categorize it as a "project".

And I'm still not sure, after reading this, which is right. Should I be a small part of pushing the genre' of documentaries... or should I not be (almost what I feel is) misleading in a what-to-expect kind of way.

It's something I'm sure I won't ever be sure of, even after the film is complete. But this post was a nice perspective on it.

[Jason Scott]

I treat recreation like nuclear waste, and often consider it to be a failure within the context of making a documentary film. If you have to recreate, I say, you're being lazy. I have the same opinion about narration, which tells you how far down the spectrum I am.

I come from the programmer mindset, the one that knows when you have to walk away or just accept that there's no "there" there. I am therefore one of those people who think that "Zoo" should have been a "this american life" segment and little else; he didn't have enough for a full movie but I guess he was committed.

I don't consider animation or crazy stupid collages that show off how many times you could sync to music to be "recreation", however, and nowhere in the same ballpark. At the end you're watching a film. But I get edgy even having a character making a positive statement about doing something while showing footage of others doing it. Juxtaposition makes me think long and hard.

But I restate: if you recreate, you failed, and need to take a step back.