Truth in Documentary

          In Grizzly Man, directed by Werner Herzog, Timothy Treadwell is presented initially portrayed in such a way that, although it is clear that his actions are not those of your average person, he does not seem crazy. It seems in the beginning that the director has a great deal of respect for him and his work—there is a distinct tone of awe in the voice of the narrator when discussing Treadwell. The narrative follows Treadwell and uses his footage from before he was killed. As it continues, however, the viewer is slowly presented with evidence that demonstrates that Treadwell is hardly mentally stable.

            Herzog, in his essay “On the Absolute, the Sublime, and the Ecstatic Truth”, discusses the nature of reality and truth. He indirectly addresses what must be a regular critique of documentaries, that they only demonstrate a small part of the truth, the part that is visible on the screen. He gives the example of two Indian delegates who brought back bottles of the ocean in order to prove to their people that the Pacific Ocean existed. The Indian delegates concluded that since “…there is a bottle of seawater, then the whole ocean must be true as well.” The analogy to documentaries is clear that, although documentaries only show a small amount of the truth on screen, it is indicative of the entire truth. This, however, only holds if everything off screen is of the same kind as that on screen, and this is clearly not the case in any movie, even a documentary. This makes the presentation that the director gives that of the director. The only greater significance it has is the significance that the director is attempting to convey rather than some inherent truth that is there independent of the director’s presentation of it.

            It is clear throughout the film that there is a way which we as viewers are expected to feel at each part of the documentary. Whether it be through music, or a specific angle from which the director decided to shoot a scene, or some other form, the truth presented in a documentary is just as subjective as the truth presented in any other film or art form. The question is really whether or not one can call it a truth, argument, or opinion. Truth cannot be subjective, so if documentaries present are subjective they cannot present the truth.

       In the same way that we can trust our senses to present the world in a way that allows us to discover true things, I assert that film does so as well. Documentaries are presenting an account of an event of some size, shape, or form and they do so through a collection of images which are put together in a very determined and intentional way. It is clear to the viewers that this is what is being done, however, and so we are capable of evaluating the subject with this piece of information in mind. Effectively what we are receiving when watching a documentary is a third hand account of an event. The event occurs. An outsider, in this case, comes in and interviews the people who were involved in the event in anyway, synthesize the information, and present it in a way that demonstrates their evaluation of the facts as they see them. Whether or not each documentary is true, however, is a matter of evaluating the argument given by the director of the documentary. Just as in any book, film, song, etc., the viewer/listener must weigh the argument that is presented after evaluation of the presentation and decide whether or not the conclusion that they are being led to is valid.