The key word here again is "style". This is still the main argument of what documentary presents when we present it through our eyes. The vision of a good reality is to not be bound by constructions of what should happen, or what we think played out despite seeing something completely different. While it may be tempting to tell the story from our point of view, it's important to think about the subject of the film as the topic involved, not through the vision of the person or topic becoming involved by immersing themselves in the situation. Not arguing that one's immersion in the topic or situation being filmed is bad, it's just that their presence can become too overbearing in the context of the film. A good documentarist takes the piece for what it is and doesn't manipulate it to their liking, but looks at it from a whole, all the good and bad, and tries to piece it together coherently and simply, replicating the order of events and reactions similar to what the raw chain of events was when it played out.
This form of art is one of the purest. Or it should be. If done right, documentary should be the purest form of communication and inception. Purest doesn't mean clean or exceptional or divine, it just means that it accepts all forms of documentary, the ugly and the pretty. Mostly the ugly. The documentary should aim to fixate on the respondents to raw materials, which can be anything and everything. The idea is to have meaning behind every image shown. Every clip and material and person being shown has to relate back to the environment of the films meaning itself. Documentary should be kept to the most minimal stylistic appropriation possible, but show all the qualities of real life coherently and with meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment