What do we mean by "Documentary"?

John Grierson first coined the term “documentary” in the 1930s and defined it as “the creative treatment of actuality”. Since then a great deal of ink has been spilled on arguments about documentary practice and the ethics of editing and manipulating real events. These days the term has become debased by broadcast television to describe any non-fiction program from news and current affairs to wildlife; from illustrated lectures on science to oral history. Even reality tv is included and it has spun off new formats such as docu-drama and mocumentary.

On television the majority of “serious” documentaries are personal interpretations of reality by an on-screen personality such as Michael Moore, David Attenborough, and Robert Winston or by a film maker who pretends objectivity through the use of an off-screen narrator. Such programs hold up a picture of the world and essentially tell you what to think about it.

There is another type of documentary, rooted in the views of the early documentarians such as Grierson, Dziga-Vertov, Robert Flaherty and the cinema verité of Jean Rouche, Fred Wiseman, D.A.Pennebaker and the Maysles Brothers who believed that the film maker’s job is to present his “creative interpretation” without the intervention of a presenter or narrator and the audience is invited make up its own mind. This is also my approach to documentary.
In many ways this ethnographic or direct cinema is more complex than the scripted and narrated documentary. At the shooting stage the film maker is not in control; the events dictate what is filmed (and it certainly uses a lot more videotape!) Most of the creative decisions occur at the editing stage. Some of the best modern documentarians, where education is concerned, are Nicholas Philibert (Être et Avoir), David Macdougall (The Doon School Chronicles) and most recently Chen Weijon (Please vote for me)

Albert Maysles describes his approach:

As a documentarian I happily place my fate and faith in reality. It is my caretaker, the provider of subjects, themes, experiences—all endowed with the power of truth and the romance of discovery. And the closer I adhere to reality the more honest and authentic my tales. After all, knowledge of the real world is exactly what we need to better understand and therefore possibly to love one another. It’s my way of making the world a better place.
1. Distance oneself from a point of view.
2. Love your subjects.
3. Film events, scenes, sequences; avoid interviews, narration, a host.
4. Work with the best talent.
5. Make it experiential, film experience directly, unstaged, uncontrolled.
6. There is a connection between reality and truth. Remain faithful to both.

Call me old-fashioned, but this is also my approach to documentary practice. Here is the Synopsis of this project we have submitted to the AIDC

No school would say that it is not focused on the future, but Kingsford Smith School in the ACT has a fresh opportunity to set the priorities. KSS will open for business in February 2009. It will house 800-1,000 students aged between 4 and 16 from a local community that is a microcosm of Australia’s multicultural society. This documentary series will cover the first year in the life of the new school from close-up observation of classroom dynamics and staff room sociology to the big picture issues of steering a complex enterprise with a diverse clientele and – sometimes – conflicting expectations.
At the micro level it is a set of stories about individuals – students, teachers, administrators, parents – who are connected by the thread of school community. At the macro level it is a report on the state of Australian education: its expectations, achievements and shortcomings.
The bottom-up perspective encourages the viewer to identify with the various players and their stories, at the same time perceiving the complexity and universality of the education process. The style of the film is observational, rather than editorial; cinema verité rather than structured around interviews and set pieces. The one-year time scale allows us the freedom to investigate details, to develop narratives, to amplify themes. For example:
To follow a number of students throughout the year: pre-schoolers to teenagers, from a range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, with different talents and intelligences. We observe their learning, their friends, their families, their successes and frustrations.
To observe the lives and work of teachers (the quality of teachers is now recognized as the most important factor in the success of any educational process). Generalist and specialist, neophyte and experienced, we follow a number of teachers throughout the school year and register the interactions with their students.
To document the work of the Principal and his team, the bureaucrats and planners, the community leaders (school board and P&C) building a complex enterprise and then navigating it through its first year of operation; bringing the big vision into existence while dealing with the everyday petty details and frustrations of school life.
The school experience is common to all of us and a number of celebrated documentary film makers have provided unique interpretations: Fred Wiseman (High School) viewed the school as an agent for social control; Nicholas Philibert (Être et Avoir) romanticised the small rural school as a microcosm of traditional French life and values; Chen Weijun (Please Vote For Me) portrays the class of Wuhan 8 year olds as a microcosm of modern China. Our aim is more prosaic but no less ambitious: through the presentation of a series of individual but interwoven stories about a new school to come to some universal truths about the process of education.