THE DOCUMENTARY CRISISBY IAN F. SVENONIUS
ILLUSTRATIONS BY JIM KREWSON
Oil painting has been pursued for around 600 years. Screen-printing was developed during the Song dynasty in China during the tenth century, making it around 1,000 years old. Perhaps the oldest-known poem is the Epic of Gilgamesh, written in cuneiform in the third millennium BCE, making written poetry at least 5,000 years old. Music probably emerged along with Homo sapiens in Africa as an intrinsic feature of human culture 160,000 years ago. In comparison, cinema has had the life span of an American box turtle: approximately 124 years. Yet although just a babe in “art years,” today it faces an existential crisis.
Hailed by Lenin as “the most important art form” during its infancy and still transfixing the world just a generation ago, film now struggles for life, for relevance, for viewers, and even to resemble something worthy of discourse at all. Since film developed out of topsy-turvy industrial capitalism, this condition of crisis is not so strange. In fact, since capitalism’s persona is perpetual crisis, it makes sense that film—a chip off the old block—would be marked by the same manufactured hysteria that typifies the system that spawned it.
When it first developed into something more than a novelty, film was an extension of the theater, a way to tell stories about the world. But as opposed to theater, film was the industrial era’s contribution to art, and therefore—unlike other, more ancient media—it inevitably resembled new industries, such as steel and oil, with the same stratified division of labor, unions, strikes, insidious contracts, pitiless exploitation, and a monopoly-minded owner elite.
Indeed, since ownership of the means of production is the central issue in such types of industry, the great film houses—Warner Bros. and MGM—contrived a stranglehold on film, processing, supply, workers (actors and directors were bought and held under contract), and distribution so as to stifle, destroy, and otherwise discourage competitors.
Thus, like rock ’n’ roll in its “classic” phase, film in the USA was, almost from the beginning, an unaffordable venture for all except the Hollywood studios, with a few designated “auteurs” holding forth with their new offerings each season. Humanity was hypnotized by the fables they were taught in the hermetically sealed movie houses that dotted every city block. To be a participant in “the movies” was a glorious dream. Would-be actresses hurled themselves toward the merciless megalith of Hollywood like so much sacrificial foodstuff, and to be a director was a laughable, fanciful ambition, akin to being president or king of the world.
When video technology was proliferated on the cheap beginning in the 1980s, it was, like all new consumer gizmos, hailed as a revolution for the everyman. Video was cheap and portable, and it existed outside the film industry’s monopoly over the means of production. Now anyone who had the smarts and the ambition could make a film, not just those with show-biz connections, family ties, or the willingness to surrender on a casting couch. Like most supposed triumphs for “the people,” this was in truth a matter of one industry (Japanese electronics) asserting itself over another (Hollywood movies).
The only problem with video was its crudity and ugliness. The picture was rough, and it didn’t have the same magic sensibility that viewers saw in celluloid. Therefore, despite the almost immediate mass proliferation of video cameras, few films of any note were produced using the new equipment. Instead the now ubiquitous camcorders were carted dutifully to underground rock shows until another use—documenting sex acts—was discovered.
Hollywood responded to the threat of video democracy, though, by making their means of production even more unassailable. Films were driven by super-celebs and special effects more than ever before. Storytelling became a low priority next to monster makeup, interstellar explosions, and megastars. As cable television and rental video continued to smash away at the revenue of the cinema house, the desire to produce spectacle was more and more the overriding concern of the studios. For a film to have a theatrical release, it had to resemble a carnival ride with the attendant thrills, chills, and nausea-inducing spills. Breakneck editing, zany camera work, excruciating volume, and lurid, freakish violence have now rendered many films, ironically, unwatchable. Every year or so, due to forgetfulness, one may wander into a theater, lured by a hysterical advertising barrage, convinced that seeing a particular film is indispensable to one’s continued cultural literacy. Then, emerging sullied, degraded, insulted, and $20 poorer, one swears never to be tricked again. This life lesson is typically learned about once a year. In fact, movie watching in a theater is generally an exercise in nostalgia, akin to hearing a Drifters song on an oldies station.
This decline has been long coming. Jean-Luc Godard once memorably noted in an interview that when he discovered cinema in the 50s it was in fact “already over.” Indeed, in 1946 America, with a population of 141 million, 100 million film tickets were sold each week for a total of 36.5 billion tickets that year. Now, with the US population more than doubled, ticket sales for all of North America in 2007 (including Canada) were just 1.4 billion.
Of course, people are still passively watching their master’s morality plays, but now at home on television, so picture quality is no longer as important. Sensing an opportunity for breakthrough, video makers—people not necessarily anointed by the studios—started trying to exploit the enormous potential for a decentralized movie industry comprised of real auteurs and enthusiasts, similar to decentralized scenes of musicians, painters, and poets. But the video camera’s initial utilization as a tool of documentary was never shaken. Nor was the universal disdain for something that could film just anybody or be afforded by anyone. In a society with an institutionalized contempt for poor people, video’s very cheapness was actually a liability.
Because of its roots in recording music shows and pornography, video was seen as “truth.” Therefore, the new generation of filmmakers, barred from the use of film by its untenable expense, bothered themselves with making “documentaries” instead of dramas with their video cameras. Documentaries are now produced at an unbelievable rate. They are typically portraits of an unusual person, such as an archer with no arms or a vegetarian who hunts, or a political diatribe about a war, or a historical piece celebrating a particular rock group featuring testimonials from people who were “there” or were profoundly affected. Grants for documentaries are comparatively easy to come by, and documentary festivals abound.
While a portion of these video documentaries is interesting, what is truly fascinating is the volume that is being produced as opposed to traditional fictional narratives. What does it say about a generation that can’t seem to write a story with characters or a plot with tension? While music has gone absolutely fantasist (rife with “psych-folk” singer-songwriters warbling about magic and elves, electro composers proposing sex with robots, and alt-country crooners lamenting the passing of an imaginary world), new filmmakers are obsessed with presenting a picture of “reality.” They have a doomsday cult’s concern with presenting their time as they see it since they are disbarred from the official surreal dialogue that is being inscribed by imperialist lechers like the New York Times and the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward.
See all articles by this contributor Anonymous, on Oct 5, 2009 wrote:
ian needs to embrace minimalism w/ his literary endeavors. the physical flamboyance of his videos does not translate well in his writings. (or does it?) | | Anonymous, on Oct 5, 2009 wrote:
You had me until this paragraph... "The obvious answer seems to be that videos are produced to explain ourselves and our situation to some future alien race. The documentary’s careful and childlike elucidation of events is calculated to be understood by an exotic sensibility, and the genial idiocy on display seems to speak to an interstellar consciousness of which no subtlety can be presumed for fear of misinterpretation, and for which no common culture can be assumed. Why else would a film like Standard Operating Procedure be so asinine and simpleminded? Every human who saw that particular film must have been baffled at its apologist stance for what everyone knows is an ethics-free killing machine, the United States Army." Why do you think SOP was asinine or simpleminded. It wasn’t apologizing for anything, it had the subtlety and complexity that you somehow simultaneously criticize it for lacking and that your own argument is missing. Also that movie was beautifully shot on 35MM film so it’s a bad example for you doc=video oversimplification. | | Anonymous, on Oct 2, 2009 wrote:
Saw Chain in the Gang in Chicago. Yawn. | |
| rabies babies, on Sep 29, 2009 wrote:
hey dickwads. ian does make films in a way. watch soft focus assholes. it’s good for you and your musical taste. | | Anonymous, on Sep 29, 2009 wrote:
bittecunt | | Anonymous, on Sep 28, 2009 wrote:
"the problem with people like ian, is that he’s a guy who was in a band, that was really really shitty. much like the artist who’s work sucks, and rather than blaming themselves for their failures, they try to convince everyone that what they do is too complex for the "common man" to understand. or that they are misunderstood, and that the capitalist system has sabotaged their efforts.
really, you are just an aging, bitter man, who’s efforts in the art and music world have failed. so you need someone to blame. you are not able of contributing directly or positively, so you criticize. you are a brilliant writer though, i enjoyed reading this very much even though i disagree with almost every point."
This sums it up rather nicely, aside from the brilliant writer part. I didn’t find this article that well written, rather loopy. Again, the bitterness was so apparent that it made me uncomfortable. | | Anonymous, on Sep 28, 2009 wrote:
Wow. I really liked the first page, but the second page felt like listening to a teenage girl cry about just watching her boyfriend make out with another girl. Cry me a river. I’m not familiar with Ian, but I wonder if he’s ever tried to make a film, narrative or documentary. From the first paragraph of page two, he starts to just whine on about his disdain for modern documentary work when his examples are limited to only two pictures. The desire to display any part of one’s universe to others is at the very core of documentary work. I would argue strongly that the content of such films can oftern out-weigh the professionalism of the production, something Ian alludes to but never cares to define. His argument for a "crisis’ in documentary work is fragmented and scrambled at best. As I said, I know nothing about him and for all I know he could be in high-school, writing for his junior-level english class. It’s just sad, because I had nice expectations for possible turns this article could take - just not this second page drivel.
Really, I’m hoping this is meant to be a comedy piece of sorts. | | Anonymous, on Sep 28, 2009 wrote:
if you think about it this happens within every medium and area. take technology; for example, social networking sites used to be a thing of complexity, now they are everywhere. not that im comparing a website to oil painting, but we used to call people and now we facebook them. like everything we get lacy and hit looses its value. | | Anonymous, on Sep 27, 2009 wrote:
i loved this article. this perspective is new to me and i will certainly keep it in mind, because i’m someone who makes my living in the tv and film industries | |
| hemlocksociety, on Sep 25, 2009 wrote:
I agree with the way you summed up the film industry up into the video age. However, your summary of documentaries seems a bit limited. You seem to be referring to the “infotainment” genre where a specific point is being built through talking heads and a barrage of images and quotes. It often does come off as “propaganda” when it leaves the audience scrambling to understand the point of view without giving them a chance to take a breath and truly analyze what’s being presented.
The documentary style feels immune to these points is the “cinema vérité” style or “cinema-direct” as the Maysles brothers termed it. In this style, there is no specific agenda and often times the intended focus changes. Even though the subjects are “real” there is always an intricate process in the editing room that has to create the drama of the story. The drama extracted often taps into the same methods of narrative film.
Grants for vérité documentaries are not easy to come by and even the ones provided are rarely able to sustain the project through the entire process. It’s true that documentaries that set out to inform the audience about a certain idea or cause can more easily find funding from the appropriate group or foundation. For a “fly on the wall” cinema-verite film, this sort of production plan would be the complete antithesis of their process.
| | Anonymous, on Sep 22, 2009 wrote:
I can’t believe people think Michael Moore makes documentaries. | | Anonymous, on Sep 21, 2009 wrote:
its obvious people just want to do whatever to gain fame. theres just no heart in it anymore | | Anonymous, on Sep 21, 2009 wrote:
our perception of documentary has become incredibly skewed over the past few decades. | | Anonymous, on Sep 20, 2009 wrote:
have you guys ever heard of a little thing called satire? the guy hosts a show that entirely consists of two talking heads for fuck’s sake. | | Anonymous, on Sep 18, 2009 wrote:
times have changed. we are long gone from the times of lenin. | | Anonymous, on Sep 18, 2009 wrote:
its called people are lazy shits and think anything is art nowadays | | Anonymous, on Sep 14, 2009 wrote:
Hey Ian. Saw you DJ at ATP and thoroughly enjoyed every second of it. Thanks again. | | Anonymous, on Sep 14, 2009 wrote:
I feel like Michael Moore should make a shitty film based on this article. | | Anonymous, on Sep 14, 2009 wrote:
"i like how the article out, but the last page gets kinda out there and ridiculous (undergrad status)" -strongly agree | | Anonymous, on Sep 13, 2009 wrote:
Take note VBS.TV | | Anonymous, on Sep 13, 2009 wrote:
the problem with people like ian, is that he’s a guy who was in a band, that was really really shitty. much like the artist who’s work sucks, and rather than blaming themselves for their failures, they try to convince everyone that what they do is too complex for the "common man" to understand. or that they are misunderstood, and that the capitalist system has sabotaged their efforts.
really, you are just an aging, bitter man, who’s efforts in the art and music world have failed. so you need someone to blame. you are not able of contributing directly or positively, so you criticize. you are a brilliant writer though, i enjoyed reading this very much even though i disagree with almost every point. | | Anonymous, on Sep 12, 2009 wrote:
Thank you. I’ve been having similar thoughts. Cheap, formulaic, simplistic. Talking heads and the foreboding music in the background, we the audience must be led by the rings in our noses. No subtlety. The filmmakers may have the best of intentions, but they the guano that results is a testament to the bankruptcy of their imaginations. The worst sort of dreck seems to get a pass if the reviewer happens to agree with the politics. | | Anonymous, on Sep 12, 2009 wrote:
#1 sign of a boring article: the author uses the phrase "of course" more than once.
Seriously author, if you can’t find a better way to transition between thoughts, just stop writing. | | Anonymous, on Sep 11, 2009 wrote:
"only the threateed would bother to criticize"???! wtf thats such a bill oreilly statement! there are no absolutes and any and all intellectual and artistic work is up for critique its part of the process | | Anonymous, on Sep 11, 2009 wrote:
Liked the first page and the article does raise good points, but the second loses train of thought and becomes quite fragmented. Overall I agree with what he says but the last 7 paragraphs just feel disjointed and going off in a tangent that does not support nor conclude his previous statements or ideas.
"only the threatened would even bother to criticize"
Sure, I guess I’m really threatened by this article, because I absolutely love the shit on TV that panders to the lowest common denominator. | | Anonymous, on Sep 11, 2009 wrote:
Liked the first page and the article does raise good points, but the second loses train of thought and becomes quite fragmented. Overall I agree with what he says but the last 7 paragraphs just feel disjointed and going off in a tangent that does not support nor conclude his previous statements or ideas.
"only the threatened would even bother to criticize"
Sure, I guess I’m really threatened by this article, because I absolutely love the shit on TV that panders to the lowest common denominator. | | Anonymous, on Sep 11, 2009 wrote:
Ian is so smart it is kind of intimidating | | Anonymous, on Sep 11, 2009 wrote:
this reads like an essay of a film or community studies major, i agree the ending is kinda whack praising Alvarez, its not really a good alternative more like a contradiction. this essay would have benefited with some sort of death of creation ending. i like your point of view though
| | Anonymous, on Sep 11, 2009 wrote:
i like how the article out, but the last page gets kinda out there and ridiculous (undergrad status) | | Anonymous, on Sep 11, 2009 wrote:
Excellent article in deconstructing one of the main causes (mass media) for our infatuation with ourselves, releasing us of any true involvement with what we are forced to take part of as mere 3rd party observers, which I totally agree is a job for aliens and maybe people with time machines who can see them as brochures for their next vacation spot. Tackling what we once thought to be the only medium absent of such methods of detachment, just shows us how upside the fucking head we really are. | | | Next 30 comments > |
| |
