Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning

3 Authority

59 3 Authority Documentaries are authored. They also generally speak with authority . And sometimes authorities give testimony on screen. Authority thus forms part of the complicated ways by which documentaries represent nonfictional reality. In fact, it is because documentaries speak to us with authority that we trust what they have to say. But where does that authority come from? And how can we recognize it? It is easy to answer these questions when we look at documentaries that rely on voiceover narrations or when the documentarian appears in the film. Authority , in these cases, seems to emanate from a specific place; it can be associated either with the disembodied voice of an unseen narrator or with a visible entity. In Bowling for Columbine (2002), for example, Michael Moore does both things: he adds his own voiceover narration to the images and appears on the screen, playing the role of reporter and commentator. Moore’s voiceover narration complements what we see and, every so often, provides information that is otherwise unavailable . Above all, it guides us through the film, helping us make sense of what we are watching. His screen appearances extend this presence to the visual track, creating a sense of rapport between the spectator and the filmmaker. They also situate the documentarian vis-à-vis the material recorded. We know where Moore stands in relation to his subjects. And we know what he does and how he does it. But not all documentaries use voiceover narrations. And even fewer include the filmmaker’s screen appearance. The sources of authority, in these other cases, 60 chapter three seem more diffuse. What allows the films to “speak” authoritatively is usually a variety of things. As we saw in the previous chapter, evidence adds credibility to a film’s truth claims, which in turn gives authority to the documentary. The same thing can be said about expert interviews, although these are clearly different in nature. Documentarians habitually call upon the knowledge of experts to back up their claims, or they combine interviews with evidential sources. Even seemingly unrelated material, such as fictional footage, can be used to illustrate or boost a particular point. Michael Moore knows this as well. In Bowling for Columbine, he draws not only on the power of his larger-than-life screen presence but also on various source materials that range from home movies to television news footage, from vintage commercials to fiction films, and from witness testimonies to interviews with authority figures. In general, it is the combination of these different elements that gives authority to documentaries. Isolated sources can tell us a great deal about a particular subject, and they can reveal something about the way filmmakers approach the historical world. When we watch a documentary, though, we usually look at each source in relation to the others. It is the overall arrangement of the materials, the “dialogue” between them, that makes them meaningful. More is involved in the concept of authority, however, than credibility. To say that a documentary “speaks” with authority is usually to assume that it provides a clear perspective on historical reality. Evidence is commonly deployed to substantiate a specific point of view. So are expert testimonies or any other source used by a documentary maker. There is no authority that is completely neutral. The question to keep in mind, then, may be not simply what documentaries can do to secure their authority but how that authority compels us to look at the referential world in a particular way. Who “speaks” to us, with what purpose, and to what effect? Making an authoritative documentary may look like an easy task. The documentary maker finds source material that validates a certain point of view, then constructs commentary that conveys that viewpoint. The unity and coherence of the documentary’s perspective should seem beyond all doubt. It should communicate information in a forceful and unambiguous manner, so as to leave little room for conflicting opinions. While this kind of authoritative documentary is still made, contemporary filmmakerssometimestakeamorenuancedapproachtothehistoricalworld ,acknowledging diverging points of view, refraining from making definitive statements, or letting it be known that what we are seeing and hearing are the personal views of the filmmaker. Some films explore the very nature of authority in nonfiction Authority 61 cinema, disclosing the means by which a documentary defines its perspective and inviting the spectator to assess the role of the filmmaker in this process. (Reflexive...