“The main aesthetic problem for the movies, which were invented for reproduction is, paradoxically, the overcoming of reproduction”
(Richter cited in Dudley, 1976, p81)
‘Hark!’ The arrival of synchronous sound on film is projected to the masses, the year is 1927 and the golden era of silent film is unwittingly approaching an acrimonious end. Cinema is about to undergo a radical transformation in both theory and practice, a transformation that would not only alter the course of how film is produced but, equally as important, alter the way in which it was theorised. This technological development was the beginning of the end of of what is recognised to be one of the first major film theories; Formalism. The formalist school holds a distinctive place in contemporary film criticism. Considered by many as a pre-cursor to contemporary semiotics and the first major theory to thoroughly examine film form as a means of artistic expression, one of its most significant contributions to current film studies relates to its examination of cinematic narrative as a formal structure (Stam et al, 1992, p73). However, despite extensive research into formalism and it’s role in contemporary narratology, an injustice presents itself in this body of work, an area of disparity denied its importance in the understanding of how classical formalist theories impacted upon contemporary filmmaking, indeed, denied its place in contemporary film criticism. This is the role of classical formalist theory and its impact on contemporary processes of documentary filmmaking and documentary narration.
If we explore the core principles of documentary it comes as no surprise this mode of filmmaking was overlooked during the classical period of formalist criticism. Based upon the founding doctrine to observe, document and present life as it is, documentary immediately poses an opposition to the formalist approach to film. Formalism sought to explore the very aspects of its medium that differ from reality, aspects where technique could deform the viewers perception and create a distinct self awareness of form as a means of artistic expression (Dudley, 1976, p35). Indeed, documentary more aligned itself with the central opposition to formative theory during the early twentieth century; the school of Realism. Pioneered by early theorists such as Dsiga Vertov, this concept of filmmaking sought to liken film with science, to align the purpose of film with, as Vertov himself remarks, “a struggle to reveal truth, to decipher reality...observing and recording life as it is” (Vertov cited in Mamber, 1974, p6). However, if we scratch beneath the surface of documentary and explore the numerous forms inherent to the medium we find a highly stylised and constructive mode of filmmaking. It is a movement which brings in to question the very concept of ‘reality’ and constructs complex narratives based on a rich interplay between form and content. From poetic to observational we find a vast range of forms pushing the physicality of film in to territory, which in my opinion, can only be considered artistic by nature. This, therefore, begs the question of why such a diverse mode of filmmaking was not considered and, in fact, rejected from formalist film theory. To explore this, I will seek to provide suggestions from my own point of view on and examine how contemporary documentary narratives align themselves with the formalist theories of the early twentieth century, how these theories manifest themselves in contemporary practice and how contemporary documentary processes in narrative construction and filmmaking practice could be considered a new formation of classical formalism.