[Geschiedenis Voor Een Breed Publiek]
![[Geschiedenis Voor Een Breed Publiek]](/img2/55/bill-nichols-introduction-to-documentary-1-3and6.webp)
[Geschiedenis voor een breed publiek][2011-2012]Professor: Prof. Tom VerschaffelHandboek: DE GROOT, J., Consuming History. Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture,2009.Gemaakt door: Andrea Bardyn (geupload, niet zelf gemaakt)Opmerkingen: PDF van de eerste editie van het boek Introduction to Documentary door Bill Nichols.Noch Project Avalon, noch het monitoraat, noch Historia of eender ander individu of instelling zijnverantwoordelijk voor de inhoud van dit document. Maak er gebruik van op eigen risico.
Introduction to Documentary
Bill NicholsIntroduction to DocumentaryIndiana University Press Bloomington & Indianapolis
This book is a publication ofIndiana University Press601 North Morton StreetBloomington, IN 47404-3797 USAhttp://iupress.indiana.eduTelephone ordersFax ordersOrders by e-mail800-842-6796812-855-7931iuporder@indiana.edu 2001 by Bill NicholsAll rights reservedNo part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in anyform or by any means, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying and recording, or by any information storageand retrieval system, without permission in writing from thepublisher. The Association of American University Presses’Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception tothis prohibition.The paper used in this publication meets the minimumrequirements of American National Standard for InformationSciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed LibraryMaterials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICALibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataNichols, Bill.Introduction to documentary / Bill Nichols.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.Includes filmography.ISBN 0-253-33954-5 (cl : alk. paper)—ISBN 0-253-21469-6 (pa : alk. paper)1. Documentary films—History and criticism.PN1995.9.D6 N539070.1'8—dc211234506I. Title.200100-0542670504030201
For the men and women who make the films
ContentsAcknowledgmentsIntroductionixxi1. Why Are Ethical Issues Centralto Documentary Filmmaking?12. How Do Documentaries Differ fromOther Types of Film?203. What Gives Documentary Films aVoice of Their Own?424. What Are Documentaries About?615. How Did Documentary Filmmaking Get Started?826. What Types of Documentary Are There?997. How Have Documentaries AddressedSocial and Political Issues?1398. How Can We Write Effectively about Documentary?168Notes on Source MaterialFilmographyList of DistributorsIndex179191201219
AcknowledgmentsMy greatest debt of gratitude goes to the students who have studied documentary film with me over the years. Their curiosity and questions haveprovided the motivation for this book. I am also greatly indebted to thosewho have gathered at the Visible Evidence conferences since their inception in 1993 to exchange ideas and pursue debates about documentary film.These conferences, initiated by Jane Gaines and Michael Renov, haveproven invaluable to the promotion of a lively dialogue about documentaryfilm in the broadest possible terms.The Getty Research Institute provided generous support that facilitatedthe completion of this book during the 1999–2000 academic year, for whichI am most grateful.Without the assistance of the filmmakers who so generously providedstill images of their work, this book would be greatly impoverished. I thankthem for their willingness to provide superb illustrations, often on shortnotice.John Mrozik researched the filmography; Michael Wilson initiated andVictoria Gamburg updated and completed the research for the list of distributors. Their assistance was timely and indispensable.Joan Catapano helped launch this project at the press, and Michael Lundell saw it to completion. Carol Kennedy did a thorough and felicitous jobof copy editing the manuscript. Matt Williamson did the layout and designfor the book and designed the cover. I am grateful to them all for helping toproduce a work that exceeds my expectations.No acknowledgment is ever complete without giving thanks to those whomake such work possible in the most fundamental sense of all, and fromwhom the time to do it is inevitably stolen—my wife, Catherine M. Soussloff,and my stepdaughter, Eugenia Clarke. Their contribution is far greater thanthey will ever know.ix
IntroductionOrganized as a series of questions about documentary film and video, Introduction to Documentary offers an overview of this fascinating form of filmmaking. The questions involve issues of ethics, definition, content, form,types, and politics. Because documentaries address the world in which welive rather than a world imagined by the filmmaker, they differ from the various genres of fiction (science fiction, horror, adventure, melodrama, andso on) in significant ways. They are made with different assumptions aboutpurpose, they involve a different quality of relationship between filmmakerand subject, and they prompt different sorts of expectations from audiences.These differences, as we shall see, guarantee no absolute separationbetween fiction and documentary. Some documentaries make strong useof practices or conventions, such as scripting, staging, reenactment, rehearsal, and performance, for example, that we often associate with fiction.Some fiction makes strong use of practices or conventions, such as location shooting, the use of non-actors, hand-held cameras, improvisation, andfound footage (footage not shot by the filmmaker) that we often associatewith non-fiction or documentary.Since notions about what is fitting to documentary and what is notchange over time, some films spark debate about the boundaries of fictionand non-fiction. At one point Eric von Stroheim’s Greed (1925) and SergeiEisenstein’s Strike (1925) were praised for the high degree of realism orverisimilitude they brought to their stories. At another point Roberto Rossellini’s Rome, Open City (1945) and John Cassavetes’s Shadows (1960)seemed to bring lived reality to the screen in ways not previously experienced. Reality TV shows like Cops, Real TV, and World’s Most AmazingVideos have heightened the degree to which television can exploit a senseof documentary authenticity and melodramatic spectacle simultaneously.And films such as Forrest Gump, The Truman Show, EDTV, and The BlairWitch Project build their stories around the underlying premise of documentary: we experience a distinct form of fascination for the opportunity towitness the lives of others when they seem to belong to the same historical world that we do.xi
In The Blair Witch Project (Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick, 1999)this fascination not only relies on combining documentary conventions withthe gritty realism of camcorder technology to impart historical credibility toa fictional situation, it also makes full use of promotional and publicity channels that surround the film proper and help prepare us for it. These includeda Web site with background information about the Blair witch, expert testimony, and references to “actual” people and events, all designed to marketthe film not as fiction, and not even simply as a documentary, but as theraw footage of three filmmakers who tragically disappeared.If nothing else, The Blair Witch Project should remind us that our ownidea of whether a film is or is not a documentary is highly susceptible tosuggestion. (Susan Stewart’s July 10–16, 1999, TV Guide review of a SciFi Channel program, “Curse of the Blair Witch,” treats it as a bad but authentic attempt to document the story of an actual witch rather than as apromotional tie-in to this clever fiction story.) Film, video, and now digitallybased images can bear witness to what took place in front of the camerawith extraordinary fidelity. Painting and drawing seem a pale imitation of reality compared to the sharp, highly defined, precise representations available on film, video, or computer monitors. Yet this fidelity serves the needsof fiction filmmaking as much as it facilitates the work of medical imagingthrough the use of x-rays, MRIs, or CAT scans. The fidelity of the imagemay be as crucial to a close-up of Tom Cruise or Catherine Deneuve as itis to an x-ray of a lung, but the uses of that fidelity are vastly different. Webelieve what we see and what is represented about what we see at ourown risk.As digital media make all too apparent, fidelity lies in the mind of the beholder as much as it lies in the relationship between a camera and whatcomes before it. (With digitally produced images there may be no cameraand nothing that ever comes before it, even if the resulting image bears anextraordinary fidelity to familiar people, places, and things.) Whether whatwe see is exactly what we would have seen had we been present alongside the camera cannot be guaranteed.Certain technologies and styles encourage us to believe in a tight, if notperfect, correspondence between image and reality, but the effects of lenses,focus, contrast, depth of field, color, high-resolution media (film with veryfine grain, video displays with very many pixels) seem to guarantee the authenticity of what we see. They can all be used, however, to give the impression of authenticity to what has actually been fabricated or constructed.And once images are selected and arranged into patterns or sequences,into scenes or entire films, the interpretation and meaning of what we seexii Introduction
Palace of Delights (Jon Else and Steve Longstreth, 1982). Photo by Nancy Roger, courtesy ofJon Else.A documentary film crew on location. Most of the components of a feature film are replicatedon a documentary production, though usually on a smaller scale. The “crew” can be as small asa single camera-sound operator/director. For many documentaries the ability to respond to eventsthat do not unfold entirely as the director intends, to, that is, “real life,” plays a central role in theorganization of the crew and in its working methods. In this case, Jon Else does the filming, witha 16mm camera, and Steve Longstreth records the sound with a Nagra tape recorder designed tokeep the sound synchronized to the image. They are shooting a scene about the “Momentum Machine” at the San Francisco Exploratorium.will hinge on many more factors than whether the image is a faithful representation of what, if anything, appeared before the camera.The documentary tradition relies heavily on being able to convey to usthe impression of authenticity. It is a powerful impression. It began with theraw cinematic image and the appearance of movement: no matter how poorthe image and how different from the thing photographed, the appearanceof movement remained indistinguishable from actual movement. (Eachframe of a film is a still image; apparent motion relies on the effect producedwhen they are projected in rapid succession.)When we believe that what we see bears witness to the way the worldis, it can form the basis for our orientation to or action within the world. Thisis obviously true in science, where medical imaging plays a vital diagnos-Introduction xiii
tic role in almost all branches of medicine. Propaganda, like advertising,also relies on our belief in a bond between what we see and the way theworld is, or how we might act within it. So do many documentaries whenthey set out to persuade us to adopt a given perspective or point of viewabout the world.Filmmakers are often drawn to documentary modes of representationwhen they want to engage us in questions or issues that pertain directly tothe historical world we all share. Some will stress the originality or distinctiveness of their own way of seeing the world: we will see the world we shareas filtered through a particular perception of it. Some will stress the authenticity or fidelity of their representation of the world: we will see the worldwe share with a clarity or transparency that downplays the style or perceptions of the filmmaker.In either case, those who adopt the documentary as their vehicle of expression turn our attention to the world we already occupy. They do so withthe same resourcefulness and inventiveness that fiction filmmakers use todraw our attention to worlds we would have otherwise never known. Documentary film and video, therefore, displays the same complexity and challenge, the same fascination and excitement as any of the genres of fictionfilm.Through the course of this book we will explore how the issues involvedin representing reality have tested the resourcefulness and inventivenessof documentary filmmakers.It may be useful to mention as a caveat that this is not a documentaryfilm history. Such a work would bear an obligation to identify the major filmmakers, movements, periods, and schools that have gone into constructing the documentary tradition as we know it today. Several books do thisalready: Erik Barnouw’s highly readable and engaging account of documentary, Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film, Richard MeranBarsam’s useful overview, NonFiction Film: A Critical History, and Jack C.Ellis’s carefully organized account, The Documentary Idea: A Critical History of English-Language Documentary Film and Video. Although each bookhas its strengths and weaknesses, in the aggregate they provide a helpfulintroduction to the historical development of documentary film.Introduction to Documentary complements these efforts. The historicalemphasis of these other books leaves some of the conceptual questionsand issues about documentary less carefully developed. What modes ofdocumentary filmmaking exist, for example, is a question that is partly historical (different modes tend to come to prominence at different points intime) but more basically conceptual (the idea of modes, or distinct types,of documentary itself needs to be thought through and developed before itcan be applied historically). How should a documentary represent actualxiv Introduction
people rather than trained actors is another question that is answered implicitly by the record of documentary filmmaking, but it, too, needs to be isolated and scrutinized if we are to come to grips with the ethics of documentary film practice, an issue most histories of the genre neglect.Introduction to Documentary will provide hints and traces of documentary film history since the issues and practices examined here arise in history and cannot be discussed entirely free from it. The book does not, however, attempt to provide comprehensive and balanced coverage of thevarious key filmmakers, movements, and national characteristics of the documentary genre over the course of its history. The works chosen for discussion here are indicative of specific questions or exemplify important approaches to certain issues. Although illustrative, they do not amount to ahistory of the genre.Identifying some films rather than others immediately suggests the ideaof a canon, a list of films that constitute the best of the tradition. I have triedto avoid constructing a canon. Such an approach carries implications abouthow history works (great artists, great works lead the way). My own view isthat certain artists, while extremely influential, are but one part of a largerstew of ideas, values, issues, technologies, institutional frameworks, sponsorship, and shared forms of expression that all contribute to the history ofdocumentary or any other medium.This book, therefore, runs the risk of constructing a canon through itsselective use of examples, but it also tries to indicate that the works chosen, while often extraordinary accomplishments artistically and socially, havelittle standing as uncontested monuments or icons. It is how they solve problems and exemplify solutions, how they are suggestive of trends, practices,styles, and issues rather than any absolute sense of value intrinsic to themthat takes priority here.Many of the works referred to in Introduction to Documentary are already part of a canon in that they are works frequently cited in other worksand frequently included in courses. It seems more useful to develop the conceptual tools proposed here by referring to familiar works rather than by relying heavily on less accessible ones.This book may therefore reinforce thesense of a canon, but wherever possible I have chosen at least two filmsto use as examples for a given point. In this way I hope to give a fuller senseof how different films find at least slightly different solutions to common problems and to suggest that no one film deserves the status of best or greatest, certainly not in any timeless, ahistorical sense.One final point: as an introduction to documentary film and video, thisbook leaves many similar, sometimes parallel developments to the side.Thevarious forms of realism in fiction films would be one example. Docudrama,Introduction xv
which has a complex and even more fascinating history in Britain than inthe United States, is another.These alternative ways of addressing and representing the historical world, from photography and photojournalism to radio reports and oral histories, are treated as peripheral to the central focushere. These forms are peripheral only in the sense that they lie somewhatto the side of this study, not that they hold less interest, deserve less attention, or bear less significance. A study revolving around photojournalism or photomontage might treat documentary film and video as peripheralin the same sense as I mean here.There is a specificity to documentary film and video that revolvesaround the phenomenon of moving sounds and images recorded in mediathat allow for a remarkably high degree of fidelity between a representationand what it refers to. Digital forms of representation add to the number ofmedia that fulfill this criteria. Some will see an expansion of documentaryinto media such as CD-ROMs or interactive Web sites devoted to historical issues and organized according to conventions of documentary representation. I see something closer to cross-pollination than a literal expansion or direct continuation as related media trade conventions and borrowtechniques from one another. Web sites, like photography before them, willsomeday deserve a history and theory of their own. For now we can treatall these related media as very significant but nonetheless peripheral to ourcentral concern.Digitally based media remind us even more forcefully than film or videohow much our belief in the authenticity of the image is a matter of trust tobegin with. Digital recording and editing techniques can begin with an image generated without any referent whatsoever in the historical world. Evenwhen there is such a referent, an actual person or event, they can modifysounds and images so that the modification is of exactly the same orderand same status as what would be called the “original” version of the soundor image in other media. Copy and original are just strings of 1s and 0s indifferent locations.In fact, with digital technology the whole idea of an original begins tofade. Whether this idea is necessary to the belief we tender the documentary image, though, is open to question. This book assumes that the bondbetween photographic, video, or digital images and what they represent canbe extraordinarily powerful even if it can also be entirely fabricated.The questions pursued in this introduction are not intended to allow us to decidewhether or to what degree fabrication has taken place so that we can determine what the referent is “really” like or what “really happened.” They aredesigned more to ask how it is that we are willing to trust in the representations made by moving images, when such trust may be more, or less,xvi Introduction
warranted, and to examine what the consequences of our trust or beliefmight be for our relation to the historical world in which we live.Introduction to Documentary pursues the following questions: “Why AreEthical Issues Central to Documentary Filmmaking?” in Chapter 1. Thischapter explores some of the ethical issues surrounding documentary andsuggests how they may diff
Noch Project Avalon, noch het monitoraat, noch Historia of eender ander individu of instelling zijn verantwoordelijk voor de inhoud van dit document. Maak er gebruik van op eigen risico. [Geschiedenis voor een breed publiek] [2011-2012] Professor: Prof. Tom Verschaffel Handboek: DE GROOT, J., Consuming History
in 1915 voor het eerst geformuleerd door Albert Einstein. Materie De elementen Onder materie verstaan we hier alles wat massa heeft. Daaronder vallen natuurlijk alle scheikundige elementen, van waterstof tot uranium. De kleinste hoeveelheid van een element is een atoom, opgebouwd uit een positief geladen kern met daaromheen een
Elke aanvrager waarvan het inkomen nodig is: verblijfsvergunning voor Nederland voor onbepaalde tijd, of verblijfsvergunning voor een EU-lidstaat voor langdurig ingezetenen, of verblijfsvergunning voor Nederland voor een niet-tijdelijk verblijfsdoel (artikel 3.5 Vreemdelingenbesluit)
Je kiest voor het mavo een vakkenpakket dat zo goed mogelijk aansluit bij één van de profielen van het havo. 2. Doe de nodige overstapmodules. Wil je wiskunde kiezen, dan moet je een overstapmodule voor wiskunde doen en deze met een voldoende afsluiten. Wil je een NG of NT profiel doen, dan moet je scheikunde inhalen. 3.
werd door Springer in de buitengracht een via een rustieke brug bereikbaar eilandje geprojecteerd. Er kwam een heuvel met rotsformaties en een "ravijn", slingerpaadjes en op het hoogste punt een muziekkoepel. Een stenen koepel, die vóór die tijd deel had uitgemaakt van de Amsterdamse Wereldtentoonstelling van 1883.
Een sociaal plan is een overeenkomst tussen de werkgever en de vertegenwoordigers van de werknemers: de vakbonden. Het opstellen en afsluiten van een sociaal plan met werkgevers is een van de kerntaken van vakbonden. De vakbonden, zoals FNV Bondgenoten, vragen aan de werkgever met een voorstel voor een sociaal plan te komen,.
Leslie, een Hohner Pianet, een Clavinet D-5, Solonia Strings en later op een Fender Rhodes, een Roland Juno 60, een MiniMoog, een Yamaha DX-7 en een Roland MKS-20 Piano. Flinke investeringen en een enorm gesjouw. Maar gelukkig waren daar de roadies: Ling Siem, Larry Gill †, Herbert Jan
Voor je ligt het Examenreglement voor het schooljaar 2018-2019 voor het vmbo. Het eindexamen voor het vmbo begint in het derde leerjaar. Het eindexamen bestaat uit een schoolexamen (SE), een rekentoets en een centraal examen (CE). In dit document vind je het examenreglement dat onze Scholengroep hanteert bij het afnemen van het eindexamen.
1550-1950, which she curated with Anne Sutherland Harris for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; the show was accompanied by the catalogue of the same title co-authored by both scholars. Linda Nochlin has written numerous books and articles focusing attention on social and political issues revealed in the work of artists, both male and female, from the modernist period to the present day .
