Boundary Riding: Notes on the Australian Documentary Field

Boundary Riding: Notes on the Australian Documentary Field Author Laughren, Pat Published 2013 Journal Title Screen Education Copyright Statement 2013 ATOM. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/57161 Link to published version http://www.metromagazine.com.au/screen_ed/issues.asp Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au

T he documentary film has long held a privileged place in the classroom. Most of the time, this has been because of its capacity to enrich the curriculum by artfully and credibly introducing relevant content, information, attitudes and themes.1 Until recently, however, it has been much less common for the documentary form itself to be considered as an object of study. But this may be precisely what is required as we encounter factual entertainments that challenge documentary s traditional claims on truth and the trust of its audience. These developments, often associated with reality TV, have caused some to ask whether a screen format that has been produced across decades of cultural, institutional and technological change has finally done its dash.2 Confident that the documentary project will continue to flourish, this article sketches the development of the documentary field in Australia and beyond, and offers a toolkit of critical approaches and resources to negotiate the overwhelming array of styles and interpretive avenues afforded by documentary.3 The Australian documentary field Since the Lumière Brothers agent, Marius Sestier, and Australian society photographer Walter Barnett filmed the 1896 Melbourne Cup, screen production grounded in actuality has been the glue sticking the Australian screen industry together.4 Across the years, the output of factual producers has circulated under a variety of labels, including topical, 66 actuality, travelogue, industrial, sponsored, newsreel, current affairs, reality TV and factual entertainment as well as documentary. Attempts to define and distinguish the documentary from this broader array of factual productions have often bedevilled its study, support and regulation. The task has been made no simpler by technological changes that have included the coming of the talkies and colour; the advent of television broadcasting; the development of lightweight 16mm cameras and sync sound recording; the introduction of portable video technology; and, most recently, the digital revolution and the convergence of communication and information technologies. Before television, documentary could be defined by its difference from the fictional narratives that dominate theatrical exhibition in other words, as nonfiction. But after television, where a good 50 per cent of all programming is nonfiction, this simple opposition proved inadequate. At present, the Australian Content Standard for commercial television defines a Documentary program as a program that is a creative treatment of actuality other than a news, current affairs, sports coverage, magazine, infotainment or light entertainment program.5 This definition, which is used to decide whether a factual production is a documentary and therefore eligible to access the producer offset that underwrites the Australian screen industry, is currently under review.6 The review stems from an Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision rebutting Screen Australia s judgement that Lush House, a ten-part series featuring cleaning guru Shannon Lush, was not a documentary but an entertainment, and thus ineligible for the 20 per cent tax break for broadcast documentaries.7

TEACHING MEDIA Who decides what a documentary is? The Lush House case supports American scholar Bill Nichols contention that the history, variety and relations of documentary and factual production make it unwise to settle on any one size fits all definition. Instead, Nichols invites us to consider how the term documentary is understood and used in practice in variety of arenas, which he terms axes of orientation. These include: an institutional framework of funders, distributors and regulators such as Screen Australia, ABC TV, SBS, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), commercial broadcasters, pay TV, and so on; a community of practitioners involved in the making of films, such as producers, writers, directors and editors; a corpus of audiovisual texts linked by sharing conventions such as narration, talking heads, social actors, archival materials, observational filming, dramatisation, provocation, and so on; and a constituency of viewers who share assumptions about the documentary as evidence from the world and have a desire to learn something from it. 8 Most people probably feel that they could confidently define what a documentary is. But the form has always been complex, and with the recent proliferation of reality TV, it is even more difficult to settle on an all-encompassing definition. PAT LAUGHREN outlines the methods of definition that have been used in the past, and proves that even in its ongoing transformation, the documentary continues to be crucial in the media classroom. 67

L R: JOHN GRIERSON; SHANNON LUSH; OUTBACK HOUSE Eighty years earlier, John Grierson who is generally credited with coining the phrase the creative treatment of actuality cautioned that Documentary is a clumsy description, but let it stand. 9 Readily acknowledging that it was an elastic category, Grierson stressed that the use of natural material separated the documentary from fictional film: Where the camera shot on the spot (whether it shot newsreel items or magazine items or discursive interests or dramatised interests or educational films or scientific films proper ) in that fact was documentary. 10 practices that can include narration, montage, observation, interview, dramatisation, docusoap, reality TV and more. The 2004 ACMA guidelines to the interpretation of documentary point out that program types are on a continuum, with movement over time as new styles of program emerge and others lose popularity. 14 Indeed, the guidelines themselves can be understood as a response to reality television, which from the mid 1990s was occupying an increasing proportion of screen time globally. 15 Reality TV meets documentary Grierson also pointed out that these different types of nonfiction represent different qualities of observation, different intentions in observation, and, of course, very different powers and ambitions at the stage of organising material. 11 For Grierson and his associates, documentary signified a higher category distinguished by its evidential status, social purpose, creative authorship and educative aims. To put it in practical terms, a documentary typically took longer to conceptualise, research, shoot and edit than its more formulaic factual cousins. Grierson, the producer, was determined that not all nonfiction funding should go to the newsreels, which he characterised as snipsnap that avoid on the one hand the consideration of solid material, and escape, on the other, the solid consideration of any material. 12 Since the establishment of the Australian National Film Board near the end of World War II, documentary making in Australia has largely followed Grierson in seeking to serve an educative purpose and has generally been supported as a public good, prized not for its profitability but for its social, cultural and aesthetic benefits. 13 Historically, of course, as the archive and the television guide both reveal, the documentary has not been, and is not, a single, stable object. On the contrary, the documentary project has accommodated a fluid set of coexisting Reality TV is a factual entertainment format that compiles raw footage from small crews, surveillance systems and the audience itself, and frequently incorporates elements of competition. 16 One of the earliest examples in this cycle of programming in Australia was Sylvania Waters (1992). This real-life soap opera was grounded in the experiences of a family in its own home, but factual entertainments such as Big Brother Australia The documentary project has accommodated a fluid set of coexisting practices that can include narration, montage, observation, interview, dramatisation, docusoap, reality TV and more. 68

(2001 2008, 2012) have increasingly explored the experiences of carefully selected casts in purpose-built settings. Most of these programs, which appropriated documentary s fundamental dynamics for a very wide range of more sensational and also more casual uses, were classified as light entertainment or infotainment. 17 But some, such as Outback House (2005) and The Colony (2005), were judged to satisfy the regulator s definition of documentary. 18 These productions typically involved modern day families or individuals being brought together to live in circumstances recreating those of a past era. The idea or theme of the series is that this synthesis will cast light on the historical period as well as on aspects of contemporary life. The programs convey information about the period in question; including the daily realities of life, rules of etiquette, the social structure and major events of the period; and compare these with contemporary circumstances. 19 Documentary and the critical toolkit So what do these shifts in the documentary field mean for teachers, students, audiences and makers of nonfiction, be it dubbed factual entertainment, reality TV or documentary? And what are the implications for the users of these forms in screen education and wider curricula? 23 As producers and consumers, just how should we proceed, critically and pedagogically? A modest starting point might be to acknowledge the obvious; namely, that we are engaged with a complex project, which is often caught at various crossroads: between commercial and public broadcasting; between divergent technologies for production, distribution and exhibition; and between the sometimes-conflicting goals of entertaining, informing and instructing. This complexity requires us to consider not just the content of a documentary but also the treatment employed in its construction. We need to analyse both what a documentary is about and how it has been made. Though its critics described The Colony as Big Brother meets Survivor in period costume, 20 its makers successfully argued that their living history series was eligible for documentary funding. Today, when network commissioning editors for documentary have largely been replaced by heads of factual or factual entertainment departments, many now regard the term documentary as a heritage brand whose use by programme promoters suggests that the work in question is going to make greater demands on the viewer s attention. 21 In light of this, some have questioned with what legitimacy the new hybrid forms of the factual (which clearly have many generic affinities with the talk-show and the game-show) can claim to be documentary, when they are so manifestly not concerned with engaging with important issues relating to the socio-political world. 22 Sixty years ago, in his Advice to Young Producers of Documentary Film, Brazilian-born film pioneer Alberto Cavalcanti reminded us that in the documentary three fundamental elements exist: the social, the poetic, and the technical. 24 Fortunately, this diversity has generated a rich critical literature that we can use to help us understand documentary as a flexible creative practice shaped by a variety of purposes, genres, technologies, institutional settings and ways of engaging audiences. There are also a number of online resources to aid this task. The australianscreen site currently lists over 500 titles under the documentary heading and offers a portal to the range of documentary production in Australia, as well as a useful chronology of Australian film and television and an interactive timeline of our audiovisual heritage. 25 Other excellent resources include 69

Screen Australia s DIY DOCO; A Place to Think, a site celebrating Film Australia s sixty years of documentary making; and the online version of the National Film Board of Canada s Capturing Reality: The Art of Documentary (Pepita Ferrari, 2009). 26 As we consider the range of documentaries and set out to understand just why and how a particular film has been made, we can draw on concepts that include genre, purpose, mode and project. Documentary and genre: What types of documentary are there? Genre is a widely used, if notoriously elusive, critical category. At times, the documentary field as a whole has been contrasted with the narrative feature film and regarded as a single genre. More usually, documentary is broken up into several (often overlapping) subgenres. Some of these are content-based, and readily discoverable in a television program schedule, a distributor s catalogue, or even in a broadcaster s guidelines for aspiring producers. Examples of subgenres defined by program content include natural history, arts, history, biography, travel, medicine, sport, religion, and science and technology. 27 Michael Rabiger adopts another approach and differentiates between programs by using the concepts of point of view and time, development and structure. Rabiger identifies documentaries organised around the following: the single point of view of a character in the film; the point of view of multiple characters in the film; an omniscient point of view; the personal point of view of the filmmaker; and a reflexive point of view. He also suggests we can distinguish between the event-centred film, the process film, the journey film, the walled-city film and the historical film. 28 Other documentary subgenres, such as the ethnographic, are linked to an academic discipline or cultural institution, or, as with the animated, observational or digital documentary, are identified by the use of a particular technique or technology. 29 Documentary and purpose: Why make documentaries? Documentaries are made for many different reasons, but for most documentary makers a commitment to documentary is a commitment to the possibilities of testimony and discovery, backed by a belief that ways can be found to document what is happening or has happened to real people, and confidence that the exploration of experience can be shared with an audience. American scholar Michael Renov identifies four distinct purposes that underpin documentary production: to record, reveal or preserve; to persuade or promote; to analyse or interrogate; or to express. 30 Of course, the production of any particular documentary may be motivated by more than one of these purposes, and most makers share a desire to engage their audience. Documentary modes: How are documentaries made? Bill Nichols suggests that the documentary maker has a range of modes available to employ when addressing an audience. 31 Over the years, Nichols and other scholars have revised this approach in response to various changes in production and distribution practices. Some familiar documentary modes include: The classic expository mode, which has its roots in the illustrated lecture. This mode, which often anchors the meaning of images by the use of voice-of-god narration, was established in cinematic documentary in the early days of film sound and played a major part in the tradition of citizen education promoted by John Grierson. At times, particularly in broadcast production, the narrator may be replaced by an on-screen presenter, or by the use of interview to advance the film s argument. Though familiar, this mode can still surprise us. Over My Dead Body (Ian Walker, 2007) explores the trade in body parts after death and is narrated by a fictional cadaver whom we follow through the perils of the body s afterlife. 32

The observational mode, which came to prominence in the early 1960s, uses portable cameras and sound-recording equipment to record a scene directly and then presents them from the viewpoint of an onlooker. This is often dubbed a fly on the wall approach, and is marked by its refusal to interfere with events or impose a master narration on them. In its pure form, it is characterised by synchronous sound, long takes, and speech that is overheard rather than directed to the audience. Excellent Australian examples are Rats in the Ranks (Bob Connolly & Robin Anderson, 1996) and Michael Cordell s Year of the Dogs (1997). 33 There are two distinct observational approaches: direct cinema, with its ideal of remaining detached from what is being shot, and cinema vérité, in which camera and crew are avowedly present and inquiring, ready to catalyze, if necessary, an interaction between participants or between participants and themselves. 34 Much of Dennis O Rourke s work, such as Cannibal Tours (1987), uses elements of the latter approach. 35 THIS SPREAD, CLOCKWISE FROM LEFT: CAPTURING REALITY; WAITING FOR FIDEL; WHO KILLED DR CHANDLER AND MRS BOGLE?; JOHN SAFRAN The participatory mode, which has developed from the early 1970s, uses portable cameras and sound-recording equipment to record a scene, but promotes communication between filmmaker and participants through techniques such as interview, talking heads and oral history testimony. The filmmaker often speaks directly to the participants in the film, and the camera is usually acknowledged. Multiple viewpoints are often encouraged and the argument is frequently left unresolved for the audience s final judgement. Two fine examples are Nicole McCuaig s Black Soldier Blues (2004) and Randall Wood s The Curse of the Gothic Symphony (2012). 36 The poetic mode may be traced back to pioneering city symphonies such as Walter Ruttmann s Berlin (1927) or Joris Ivens Rain (1929). These films typically foreground the exploration of formal and conceptual associations in the medium, such as those between graphic qualities of line, movement and colour, and the qualities of sound. Some films, such as Landslides (Sarah Gibson & Susan Lambert, 1986), adopt this aesthetic approach throughout, but this mode is also an element in the construction of sequences and the development of montage strategies in a wide range of productions. The docudrama mode uses actors in a studio or on location to represent past or present situations that cannot be otherwise documented. It can suggest details of experience and behaviour, evoke qualities of emotion or memory, or portray and interpret evidence from a particular perspective for viewers to assess. This mode has been used intermittently for technical and aesthetic reasons from the early cinematic days of documentary; it has also featured in experimental documentary and, increasingly, in television documentaries that incorporate dramatic entertainment values. 37 Peter Butt s Who Killed Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler (2006) is one of many fine documentaries that adopt this mode. 38 The repertoire of modes is not fixed, and in practice many documentary makers blend more than one. Other modes that can be employed include the reflexive, which foregrounds the processes involved in production, and the performative, where the documentary maker features on screen as a character or central protagonist. Examples of these include Michael Rubbo s Waiting for Fidel (1974), Cane Toads: An Unnatural History (Mark Lewis, 1987) and John Safran s documentary series John Safran vs God (2004). 39 71

Cultural projects of documentary: Who makes documentaries? British media scholar John Corner has identified some distinct cultural projects of documentary. By cultural project, Corner means a way of functioning that develops in a particular institutional or cultural environment such as broadcast television journalism so that participants recognisably share ideas and aesthetic forms, production and distribution arrangements, and ways of engaging with audiences. Projects identified by Corner include: Democratic civics the publicity for citizenship produced under official (often governmental) sponsorship that is often associated with the pioneering documentary advocacy of John Grierson. Grierson argued that an effective democracy depended on its citizens being well informed, and famously proclaimed I look on cinema as a pulpit, and use it as a propagandist. 40 The SBS series Immigration Nation (2010) is recent example of this cultural project. 41 Journalistic inquiry and exposition this is documentary as sustained investigative reporting and is particularly associated with the television industry and the development of broadcast journalism. It frequently features a mix of onscreen reporter and voiceover. 42 An influential Australian example of this type of investigative documentary is the ABC TV program Four Corners. 43 Radical interrogation and alternative perspective independent documentary makers seeking to provide a criticism and correction of official or institutional accounts already in circulation have been at the forefront of developing this form. Such practitioners often adopt an experimental formal approach to their productions. The careers of many Australian directors, such as Tom Zubrycki and David Bradbury, are grounded in this approach. Examples include The Diplomat (Zubrycki, 1999) and My Asian Heart (Bradbury, 2009). 44 Documentary as diversion this is often called reality TV and includes a wide variety of factual entertainment that may range from Big Brother style game-show formats to challenging series such as Go Back to Where You Came From (2011 & 2012). 45 After checking the fences At the turn of the millennium, the increasing dominance of reality TV where the most pressing questions threatened to be who s going to lose the most weight? or who s going to cook the best soufflé? saw John Corner proposing that we might be entering a post-documentary culture where diversion dominates. In Australia, some in the documentary community expressed concern that the rise of factual entertainments would displace the social documentary from the television schedule, thereby putting at risk the qualities of complexity, depth, cultural specificity and a questioning stance that have long been associated with the documentary form. 46 Corner suggested that in such circumstances we might do better to use documentary as an adjective rather than a noun. In Australia, some in the documentary community expressed concern that the rise of factual entertainments would displace the social documentary from the television schedule, thereby putting at risk the qualities of complexity, depth, cultural specificity and a questioning stance that have long been associated with the documentary form.

He recommended that rather than pose the question Is this film a documentary? we should instead ask Is this a documentary project? The latter approach, he suggested, would pay attention to the practice and purpose of a documentary production and not fetishise a fixed textual format. 47 In 2007 Michael Cordell, executive producer of the series Go Back to Where You Came From, sounded a similar note when he urged his peers to Let any idea about real people in the real world be based on its merits and relevance, not some arcane idea that one is, by definition, more creative, worthy or cultural than the other. There are gems and dross in all. 48 Based on the response to Go Back to Where You Came From when it aired on SBS over three consecutive evenings in World Refugee Week 2011, Cordell was on the money. The series followed six carefully selected typical Australians who had agreed to participate in a structured 25-day journey designed to challenge their ideas and feelings about refugees and asylum seekers. The use of our critical toolkit enables us to position Go Back to Where You Came From as an example of an emerging form of a reality TV style documentary one willing to move beyond a self-contained, diverting game-show scenario to engage with pressing debates in the public sphere. 49 There has since been a second series of Go Back to Where You Came From. Other recent documentary series such as Making Australia Happy (2010) have also employed elements familiar to us from reality TV. These developments, together with the daily broadcast schedule, the proliferation of dedicated factual channels, the online documentary phenomena, and our cinema and festival screens, all confirm not only the continuity and variety of the documentary project but also the importance of developing a vocabulary for its analysis. This article has been refereed. Pat Laughren is an Associate Professor at Griffith Film School, Queensland College of Art, Griffith University. His broadcast credits include The Fair Go: Winning the 1967 Referendum, The Legend of Fred Paterson and Red Ted and the Great Depression. An early version of this article was presented at the Screen Futures Summit, Melbourne, 2011. Endnotes 1 Boris Trbic, Australian Documentary in the Classroom, EnhanceTV, http://www.enhancetv.com.au/shop/product. php?productid=12668732&cat=0&page=1, accessed 21 March 2013. 2 John Corner, What Can We Say About Documentary?, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 22, no. 5, 2000, pp. 681 8. 3 Trbic, op. cit. 4 Trish FitzSimons, Pat Laughren & Dugald Williamson, Australian Documentary: History, Practices and Genres, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2011. 5 Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), Documentary OPPOSITE AND ABOVE: GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM; RIGHT: IMMIGRATION NATION

Guidelines: Interpretation of Documentary for the Australian Content Standard, ABA, Sydney, 16 December 2004. 6 Commonwealth Treasury, Film Tax Offsets Definition of a Documentary, http://www.treasury.gov.au/ ConsultationsandReviews/Submissions/2012/Film-tax -offsets--definition-of-a-documentary, accessed 21 March 2013. 7 David Tiley, AIDC 2013: SPAA-ing Partners Documentary Definition Legislation, 11 March 2013, http://www.screen hub.com.au/news/shownewsarticle.php?newsid=47123, 8 Bill Nichols, Introduction to Documentary, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2001. 9 John Grierson, The First Principles of Documentary, in Forsyth Hardy (ed.), Grierson on Documentary, Faber and Faber, London, 1979, pp. 35 46. 10 ibid. 11 ibid. 12 ibid. 13 Albert Moran, Projecting Australia: Government Film Since 1945, Currency Press, Sydney, 1991. 14 Australian Broadcasting Authority, op. cit. 15 Jane Roscoe, Television: Friend or Foe of Australian Documentary? Media, Culture & Society, vol. 26, no. 2, 2004, pp. 288 95. 16 Richard Kilborn, Staging the Real: Factual TV Programming in the Age of Big Brother, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2003. 17 John Corner, What Can We Say About Documentary?, op. cit. 18 Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Outback House, http:// www.abc.net.au/tv/outbackhouse, 19 Australian Broadcasting Authority, op. cit. 20 Stephen Gapps, Adventures in the Colony: Big Brother Meets Survivor in Period Costume, Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies, vol. 37, no. 1, 2007, pp. 67 72. 21 Richard Kilborn, op. cit., p. 5. New Zealand, 2011, http://dcrc.org.uk/blogs/expanding -documentary-jon-doveys-talk-about-emerging-mode -interactive-documentary, 30 Michael Renov, Towards a Poetics of Documentary, in Michael Renov (ed.), Theorizing Documentary, Routledge, New York, 1993, pp. 12 36. 31 Bill Nichols, op. cit. 32 VizPoets, http://www.vizpoets.com/dead1.html, accessed 21 March 2013. 33 See http://www.abc.net.au/aplacetothink/?#watch/mh_1990/ rats/watchvideo and http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/ year-dogs/, 34 Michael Rabiger, op. cit., p. 260. 35 Dennis O Rourke, Cannibal Tours, 1987, see http://aso.gov. au/titles/documentaries/cannibal-tours/, accessed 21 March 2013. 36 See http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/black -soldier-blues/ and http://www.gothicsymphonythemovie. com.au/, 37 Derek Paget, No Other Way to Tell It: Dramadoc/Docudrama on Television, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1998, pp. 116 39. 38 See http://www.filmaust.com.au/boglechandler/default.asp, 39 See http://www.nfb.ca/film/waiting_for_fidel/, accessed 21 March 2013. 40 Hardy, op. cit., p. 11. 41 See http://www.sbs.com.au/immigrationnation/about/, 42 John Corner, Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions, Television & New Media, vol. 3, no. 3, 2002, pp. 255 69. 43 See, for example, The Moonlight State, 1987, http://www. abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2011/08/08/3288495.htm, 44 See http://www.abc.net.au/aplacetothink/?#watch/mh_2000/ diplomat/watchvideo and http://www.frontlinefilms.com.au/ videos/asianheart.htm, 45 See http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/, accessed 21 22 ibid. 23 FitzSimons et al., op. cit., p. 242. 24 Alberto Cavalcanti, Alberto Cavalcanti: His Advice to Young Producers of Documentary, Film Quarterly, vol. 9, Summer 1955, pp. 354 5. 25 australianscreen, http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/, http://aso.gov.au/chronology/1890s/ & http://aso.gov.au/ timeline/, 26 DIY DOCO, http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/learn ing/diydoco/ ; A Place to Think, http://www.abc.net. au/aplacetothink/#home ; Capturing Reality: The Art of Documentary, http://films.nfb.ca/capturing-reality/, all 27 See, for example, advice from ABC TV Factual and Documentary, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/documentaries/ programmakers/genres.htm or http://www.abc.net.au/tv/ independent/factualdocumentary_about.htm, accessed 21 March 2013. 28 Michael Rabiger, Directing the Documentary, 5th edn, Focal Press, Boston, 2009, pp. 259 317. 29 Jon Dovey, The Emerging Mode of Interactive Documentary, paper presented at the Expanding Documentary Conference, March 2013. 46 Steve Thomas, Whatever Happened to the Social Documentary?, Metro, no. 134, 2002, pp.152 60. 47 John Corner, Documentary in a Post-documentary Culture? A Note on Forms and Their Functions, Working Paper no. 1, European Science Foundation, 2001. 48 Michael Cordell, forum comment, Australian Documentary Film Makers Policy Forum, 2 August 2007, http://lists. culture2.org/listinfo.cgi/tof-culture2.org, accessed 21 March 2013. 49 Jeni Thornley, Go Back to Where You Came From: Reality TV Encounters the Refugee Crisis, The Conversation, 21 June 2011, http://theconversation.edu.au/go-back-to-where-you -came-from-reality-tv-encounters-the-refugee-crisis-1905, 74