The question I’m aiming to answer is the following:
“Traditional documentary practice and dramatized documentary have differed one from the other over the years as far as the techniques and aesthetic strategies adopted are concerned. Assuming that both genres aim to portray reality, can the elements of dramatization of the docudrama present a more faithful representation of reality than that delivered by the traditional documentary practice?"
The In-depth study process I undertook both during the first and the second semester of this year concerning the documentary practice in all of its forms has allowed me to expand my knowledge as far as the documentary area is concerned. Learning about the characteristic traits of documentaries, and understanding how the genre has evolved over the years and has been shaped differently depending on the various artistic waves, has heightened my curiosity and consequently strengthened my will to delve into the area even further.
In particular, I found myself interested in the study of the dramatized documentary with its codes and conventions and more particularly in the great difference between the docudrama genre and the traditional documentary.
These two diverse practices have became distinguished one from the other over the years by aesthetic strategies, themes and technical expedients, but most importantly they have differed as far as the basic “philosophy of action” is concerned: where the traditional documentary practice tends not to stage and interfere with the objects of its investigation, docudrama relies on actors, scripts and reconstructions of events. It’s this substantial difference, lying at the very heart of the genre’s philosophy which allow us to relate to documentary and docudrama as two distinct cinematographic genres. The only things which always pool together docudrama and traditional documentary are the will of both practices to represent, as I point out in the question, something “real” and the need of both genres to entertain the audience. As John Corner points out in (Corner, 2002:139)
“…The documentary mode of working, placed as it uncertainly is between the realms of reference and imagination and between the imperatives of information and entertainment, of knowledge and spectacle… is a form that has been blurring boundaries and mixing categories…” (Corner, 2002:139)
The different aesthetic criteria through which docudrama and documentary portray real events has fomented debates between traditional die-hard documentarists and docudrama practitioners over which genre best manages to capture reality. This endless discussion is possibly one of the aspects which most drew my curiosity.
In particular I was attracted by a thought by Ernest Hemingway quoted in (Rosenthal 1999:107):
“a writer’s job is to tell the truth. His standard of fidelity to the truth must be so high that his invention out of his experience should produce a truer account than anything factual can be. For facts can be observed badly, but when a good writer is creating something, he has time and scope to make it an absolute truth.” (Ernest Hemingway quoted in Rosenthal, 1999:107)
This consideration made me reflect on the possibility of dramatized documentary to obtain a more faithful account of truth than that presented by traditional documentary practice, thanks precisely to the elements of dramatization which characterise the docudrama genre.
By placing this consideration at the basis of my dissertation, I plan to proceed as if I was dealing with a mathematical demonstration: I’ll start with the thesis I want to demonstrate, which is, as I said, that the dramatized elements of the docudrama can eventually lead to a more faithful portrayal of reality than does traditional documentary. I’ll then proceed analysing different examples of docudramas and documentaries made in different periods of time, and will delve into the considerations of critics and supporters of both genres, in order to eventually come to the point of formulating a solid hypothesis which will lead me to demonstrate my considerations and, hopefully, in the end, will allow me to arrive at a conclusion. A conclusion that wont be a mathematical, irreproachable theorem, but it will rather represent (I hope) a sharable point of view on a subject which is still object of an infinite number of debates.
As far as the research sources are concerned, the primary elements to draw information from are obviously examples of both traditional and dramatized documentaries. Due to the enormous number of films which go under the categories of documentary and docudrama, the material will have to be carefully selected in order to concentrate on the most significant models of each practice. This means focusing on those films which, over the years, have somehow contributed to define both genres.
As to the secondary research sources, a vast number of books has been written (and still is) around the subject, and it should be consequently easy to collect useful information about the argument. However, since I believe the point I’m presenting on the subject to be something quite unusual, and since nobody has managed so far to give a conclusive answer as far as which of the two genres best represents reality, the books and journals to draw information from will have to be carefully researched.
Specifically, I reckon it will be essential to compare the opinions of the main critics of dramatized documentary and those of the supporters of the genre in order to be able to better define my point on the subject.
A relevant secondary source of information will be Alan Rosenthal’s “Why Docudrama?” (1999). The book is mainly a collection of essays by several contributors such as John Corner, Derek Paget and Leslie Woodhead. All of the authors express different considerations on the use of docudrama and documentary over the years in different spheres, from television, to cinema, to journalistic reports. In my opinion, the book would represent a valuable source of information, since it presents the diverse conceptions of the essays’ authors around the docudrama in relation to its capacity to depict reality in different communication channels.
Another useful source would be Anne Jerslev’s “Realism and ‘Reality’ in Film and Media”. Like Rosenthal’s work, this book is another collection of essays by different authors focusing on the general concept of realism in the cinema and television business. The book tends to focus its attention mainly on current reality based programmes and the problems they’ve raised as far as realism is concerned, and it would obviously be a good source of information on the subject.
“…It addresses and contributes to the increased interest, both inside and outside academia, in questions of reality and the media in the broadest sense.” (Jerslev, 2002:7)
Sunset Blvd. 