NARRATION GOOD, DRAMATIC RE-CREATIONS BAD?!


The question ending my last rant led me to this question. Does the 'dramatic re-creation' have a rightful place in documentary filmmaking? Or am I being as high and mighty as the nay-sayers of voice-over narration? Interestingly enough, the very same subject came up at the Berlin Film Festival this week. According to an indieWire.com report, Standard Operating Procedure producer/director Errol Morris was put on the spot for his use of actors and dramatic re-creations in his docuentary films:

Morris also faced some criticism today from a journalist who questioned his trademark re-creations and fictional footage. "With due respect I think this is nonsense talk," he told the reporter at the press conference, "There's this idea that truth is guaranteed by somehow the style of presentation, that if I run around with a handheld camera and I shoot with available light that is somehow more truthful." Continuing, Morris noted, "Truth is a quest...something that I have never lost sight of and never will."

"Truth is the process of thinking about the world, investigating the world and rying to figure out what is real and what is not."

Morris has a point here. All of us want the truth to be revealed, otherwise we wouldn't be doing what we do.

But truth be told, doesn't re-creation put an automatic air of incredulity on the film? I'm not talking POV shots that give a certain 'feel' to what the experience was, but outright play acting in dramatic style that is being sold as non-fiction.

I have to disagree with him on this point. If you want to bring attention to a subject and can't come up with a better way to fit it into a documentary without a casting call and wardrobe, then why not write a screenplay and produce that film?

Heck, it might even be easier to raise production money for that venture!