#1 What is Reality?

The one question throughout the course of studying these films and reading these assigned books that continues to ring through my head is, “What is reality?” In other words, at what point do the facts of a narrative become so distorted that they are no longer a form of documentary storytelling and have become a form of fiction? I’ve wrestled with this question, particularly with the viewing of Nanook of the North, trying to decide for myself where I draw that line. Is a film that sets up a loose narrative based on the reality of those in the film honest? Does only half of the information given have to be factual to qualify as a documentary? Are the terms “documentary” and “nonfiction” synonymous? How much can that label influence its viewers?

The idea of “the creative treatment of actuality” is one that concerns me as a consumer of media. In a world where both the documentaries we watch and the news we are shown not only contain bias but can be completely false, I feel a personal obligation to only portray absolute truth in my nonfiction works. However, truth means different things for different people. Robert J. Flaherty portrayed what he believed to be truth through his lens when viewing Nanook and his family. After losing his initial documentary footage, Flaherty decided to refocus on an individual subject with his later expeditions. During this, he set up various scenarios for the group to simulate to form a sort of narrative for his documentary. Was this honest? In a sense, yes. It was a creative treatment of actuality. Flaherty actually portrayed a somewhat accurate early Inuit life through this group of Inuit people. Was it infallibly accurate or absolute truth? Not at all. The igloo they filmed inside was made to fit the camera, the clothing and technology of the Inuits was outdated by several years, the family Nanook was with was not actually related to him, and Nanook’s real name was Allakariallak. In my personal opinion, this is a fiction film. However, in Robert J. Flaherty’s opinion, this was Inuit life as he saw it. This was fact with a creative twist. So the best answer I can give to the question of the relationship between documentaries and reality is that it’s about the intention of the filmmaker.

However, this doesn’t answer or change the answer to the question of how much a label can influence viewers. Whether or not your intention is to provide cold, raw facts, to educate about a specific subject, to argue an opinion, or even to deceive, the way you present your media has a major influence on those who view it. There are many people who still believe that the news cannot be false or be used in a deceiving way, even though there is no obligation for those creating it to be honest. The same applies to documentaries, and yet we take these things at face value because of that label. Once you encounter these things, you start to question everything with these labels. How honest is The Up Series by Michael Apted? Sure, we are getting straight from the horse’s mouth, but the use of film techniques like editing can alter reality. This goes back to that creative treatment of actuality. I have no reason to believe Michael Apted is being dishonest in his portrayal of the participants, but once you start questioning a label, it allows you to begin looking at things more critically.

Do we have obligations as filmmakers? At what point do our creative decisions affect reality? At what point does our alteration of reality skew our moral compass? These are all questions I can only answer for myself, but I hope everyone considering a career in nonfiction media really ponders these ideas.