Wreckage upon Wreckage

Paula Rabinowitz, “Wreckage upon Wreckage: History, Documentary and the Ruins of Memory,” History and Theory 32.2 (1993): pp. 119-137.

This article is a good summary of theoretical underpinnings of documentary-making. It is very useful for pointing out the origins of a documentary – really thinking about the importance of truth and honesty in its separation from many other forms of communication. By focusing on the differences between video and documentary and film and theater and writing, Rabinowitz eventually shows that they are all different ways of communicating a story. But of all of these, the documentary has been considered the most reliable transfer of information across recent history. This theory is systematically torn down by the author who kindly reminds us of the subjectivity inherent in documentaries as much as all the others.

This article's best strength is its way of saying quite obvious things, very elegantly. For this reason, I will include a smattering of my favorite quotes. At the end, I include an overall reflection of the article.

“Not only does it seek to reconstruct historical narrative, but it often functions as an historical document itself. These strategies are based on a desire to enlist the audience in the process of historical reconstruction. The documentary film differentiates itself from narrative cinema by claiming its status as a truth-telling mode. However, as a filmic construction, it relies on cinematic semiosis to convince its audience of its validity and truth. By looking at the history of documentary address, this essay outlines the rhetoric of persuasion and evaluates its effectiveness.”

“The historical documentary not only tells us about the past, but asks us to do something about it as well-to act as the Angel of History and redeem the present through the past.”

"From a historian's point of view," writes Sonya Michel, "these privileged subjects can become problematic if a film limits its perspective by relying on them as sole or even primary informants. While oral history subjects are frequently both engaging and uniquely informative, their accounts of historical events or periods can be partial, fragmentary, idio-syncratic and sometimes deliberately or unintentionally miseading."Testimony is always a partial truth, so when filmmakers authorize their subjects to speak and thus provoke their audiences to act, it can only be a supplementary gesture towards truth. syncratic "Testimony is always a partial truth, so when filmmakers authorize their subjects to speak and thus provoke their audiences to act, it can only be a supplementary gesture towards truth.

“This desire to dream, to provoke imagination, seems to lead the documentary away from the realm of history and truth into the realm of art and artifice. In documentary the viewer is asked to participate in a series of contracts -between film and its object, between filmmaker and audience, between reality and representation.”

Reflections

Video is communication. A very rich form of communication with an access level that is steadily dropping to the rungs of the common person. Even in rural Peru people have TV's. In fact, many of them would see the value in purchasing a $150 FlipCam - but unfortunately they are not available there. All electronics, in fact, are quite expensive and/or unavailable. In a country where we have it all, we often forget that the existence of technologies hanging low for us, may be out of sight for most of the world.

This whole discussion on the depth of historical documentary as a communication channel across cultures and time is very cool. As long as we keep in mind that everything we are watching is made to produce a response rather than portray a reality of truth, than we can learn great things from documentaries including historical facts.

I do like, however, how this article reminds the film-maker to at least make honest films. They will by definition be subjective and always a representation rather than a recreation, but its important to strive to tell an honest story when it comes to historical documentation. That is why collaborators from different perspectives, or non-biased perspectives working on such a documentation process would be preferred in my humble viewing opinion.