How do we make a documentary that is both political and poetic?

All works of art are political. Either an artist chooses to formally engage with political subject matter or they choose to bypass it. Either way, their choice is making a political stand to advocate change or support the status quo (Nance 2008). In our studio, The Art of Persuasion, we watched, made and explored poetic political documentaries. The purpose was to uncover how to make a documentary that was both political and poetic.

What is a poetic documentary?

Poetic documentaries rely on rhythm, symbolism and suggestion rather than hard facts. As opposed traditional expository (Nichols 2010) documentaries that feature voiceovers, continuity editing and images that support the narrative, poetic documentaries are more concerned with conveying feeling, mood, tone and affect (Nichols 2010). Blight (1996)  directed by John Smith, is an example of a poetic documentary that conveys a political message. The film initially appears to present images of demolition with unrelated shards of rhythmic voices and music. However, as the film progresses the viewer learns that these images and sounds are of people, homes and histories being destroyed to make way for a new highway. This is all achieved through Smith’s use of poetic elements, designed to make an audience gain understanding through feeling.

In our studio after viewing and discussing films like Blight (1996), our randomly assigned groups were asked to present a “cool clip” from a documentary that was experimental and weird. My group and I showed an animated documentary called Phobia (2014). The film was so abstract that my group and I each arrived at very different conclusions on the themes of the film. These conclusions hinted at our political mindsets which made the next part of the assignment very interesting.

a still from Phobia (2014)

Our group set about creating two poetic-political films, one with found footage and the other with original material. One of the first challenges of creating a political film was reaching an agreement on a topic. This is a roadblock that most filmmakers would not normally have to contend with as they would either work solo or with like-minded collaborators. Politics is often what is argued about (Latour 2003). What is important to one person may either not register with some and enrage others. In my group, for assignment 3, after disagreeing on many ideas, we agreed upon the relatively safe topic of waste. Our original film, The Reusables (2018), was an animated noir genre piece that was in-part inspired by our viewing of the animated Phobia (2014). Our found footage film, Reusable Future (2018), also influenced by genre, this time science fiction, did include some abstract sound bites, but too much of the sound was ‘matter of fact’ audio for the film to be considered purely poetical. The message in both films was made very clear. While both films were well made and conveyed an important message neither was agitational. In comparison, another group in our class who created the found footage film Sovereignty Never Ceded (2018), explored the treatment of Indigenous Australians which created a profoundly moving and uncomfortable viewing experience; one that was clearly more political.

a still from The Reusables (2018)

For the next project we were determined to make a film that represented the political in a far greater poetical manner. The objective was to create an experimental documentary that provided a social criticism. We also needed to adhere to some constraints of which we chose: no voice over, no interviews and we deliberately broke a convention of documentary by filming a fictional character interacting with the real world. As with project 3, issues arose in regard to political ideas. Our group decided early to do our film on ‘prejudice’ but we then argued about what prejudice actually meant. The result was Do you see it? (2018), a film that is far more powerful than my previous assignment. But whilst the sound and visuals have a deeper texture and are more abstract, the message is confusing. Is this film about prejudice or body image? The final product is poetic and political, but it could have been more concise in its argument. This mixed message is the result of attempting to create a poetic political film by committee. Democracy isn’t always a catalyst of great art.

To make a documentary that is both political and poetic a filmmaker must maintain focus on the message and the desired feeling they wish to convey. If working in groups a consensus is necessary in order to deliver a powerful film that delivers the intended impact. All art is political, but the creative process does not have to be.

a still from Do You See It? (2018)

References:

Latour, B 2003, What if we Talked Politics a Little? Contemporary Political Theory, 2

Nance, K 2008, ‘the spirit and the strength’, Poets & Writers; New York Vol. 36, Iss. 6,  (Nov/Dec 2008): 47-54.

Nichols, B 2010, “How Have Documentaries Addressed Social and Political Issues”, Introduction to Documentary, Second Edition, Indiana University Press, Bloomington