Part 3
Do
you think that in a documentary special effects breach the audience’s
trust?
I don't personally – but some audiences might. I
believe that it is the responsibility of the documentary filmmaker to tell what
they believe is actuality in the best way possible for the audiences that they
are aiming their film at. And most
audiences are cineliterate – that is they know how to read films and can tell
what is special effect and what isn't. If the special effect or filmic technique actually means a lie is
being told, then yes, I think it would breach the audiences'
trust.
I think you're absolutely right, by the way, to
think that trust lies at the heart of the relationship between the filmmaker and
their audiences. If we concentrate on 'reality' rather than 'trust' we never get
very far – because what is one person's reality is often another person's
imagination.
In
a documentary how are filmic techniques used to satisfy the audience?
I don't think they are necessarily any different
from those used by drama or fiction filmmakers. Audiences usually ant to be
educated and entertained in a doco – they may not want to be educated in a drama
but that's the only difference. But not all docos are about education – a
'rockumentary' about a rock concert is more about the pleasure of hearing music
and seeing the bands than education.
A good comparison to make is between film (drama
and doco) and writing (fiction and non-fiction): non-fiction writers also use
word, punctuation, paragraphs, chapters, have a narrative structure, use images
and symbolism to capture their readers and keep them interested. Doco filmmakers
use film techniques in the same way.
Thanks in advance.
The pleasure was all mine – these were extremely
good and well-thought questions.
Best wishes,
Jane
