First Principles of Documentary
JOHN GRIERSON
In this characteristic essay from 1934-6, Grierson, who never liked to be pinned down, comes as close as he ever did to setting forth the aims and methods of the British documentary movement.
First principles. (1) We believe that the cinemarsquo;s capacity for getting around, for observing and selecting from life itself, can be exploited in a new and vital art form. The studio films largely ignore this possibility of opening up the screen on the real world. They photograph acted stories against artificial backgrounds. Documentary would photograph the living scene and the living story. (2.) We believe that the original (or native) actor, and the original (or native) scene, are better guides to a screen interpretation of the modem world. They give cinema a greater fund of material. They give it power over a million and one images. They give it power of interpretation over more complex and astonishing happenings in the teal world than the studio mind can conjure up or the studio mechanician recreate. (3) We believe that the materials and the stories thus taken from the raw can be finer (more real in the philosophic sense) than the acted article. Spontaneous gesture has a special value on the screen. Cinema has a sensational capacity for enhancing the movement which tradition has formed or time worn smooth. Its arbitrary rectangle specially reveals movement; it gives it maximum pattern in space and time. Add to this that documentary can achieve an intimacy of knowledge and effect impossible to the shim- sham mechanics of the studio, and the lily-fingered interpretations of the metropolitan actor.
9 8 IMAGINING REALITY
l do not mean in this minor manifesto of beliefs to suggest that the studios cannot in their own manner produce works of art to astonish the world. There is nothing (except the Woolworth intentions of the people who run them) to prevent the studios going really high in the manner of theatre or the manner of fairy tale. My separate claim for documentary is simply that in its use of the living article, there is also an opportunity to perform creative work. 1 mean, too, that the choice of the documentary medium is as gravely distinct a choice as the choice of poetry instead of fiction. Dealing with different material, it is, or should be, dealing with it to different aesthetic issues from those of the studio. I make this distinction to the point of asserting that the young director cannot, in nature, go documentary and go studio both.
... With Flaherty it became an absolute principle that the story must be taken from the location, and that it should be (what he considers) the essential story of the location. His drama, therefore, is a drama of days and nights, of the round of the yearrsquo;s seasons, of the fundamental fights which give his people sustenance, or make their community life possible, or build up the dignity of the tribe.
Such an interpretation of subject-matter reflects, of course, Flahertyrsquo;s particular philosophy of things. A succeeding documentary exponent is in no way obliged to chase off to the ends of the earth in search of old- time simplicity, and the ancient dignities of man against the sky. Indeed, if 1 may for the moment represent the opposition, I hope the Neo- Rousseauism implicit in Flahertyrsquo;s work dies with his own exceptional self. Theory of naturals apart, it represents an escapism, a wan and distant eye, which tends in lesser hands to sentimentalism. However it be shot through with vigour of Lawrentian poetry, it must always fail to develop a form adequate to the more immediate material of the modern world. For it is not only the fool that has his eyes on the ends of the earth. It is sometimes the poet: sometimes even the great poet, as Cabell in his Beyond Life will brightly inform you. This, however, is the very poet who on every classic theory of society from Plato to Trotsky should be removed bodily from the Republic. Loving every Time but his own, and every Life but his own, he avoids coming to grips with the creative job insofar as it concerns society. In the business of ordering most present chaos, he does not use his powers.
Question of theory and practice apart, Flaherty illustrates better than anyone the first principles of documentary, (t) It must master its material on the spot, and come in intimacy to ordering it. Flaherty digs
THE BRITISH MOVEMENT 99
himself in for a year, or two maybe. He lives with his people till the story is told lsquo;out of himselfrsquo;, (z) It must follow him in his distinction between description and drama. I think we shall find that there are other forms of drama or, more accurately, other forms of film, than the one he chooses; but it is important to make the primary distinction between a method which describes only the surface values of a subject, and the method which more explosively reveals the reality of it. You photograph the natural life, but you also, by your juxtaposition of detail, create an interpretation of it.
This final creative intention established, several methods are possible. You may, like Flaherty, go for a story form, passing in the ancient manner from the individual to the environment, to the environment transcended or not transcended, to the consequent honours of heroism. Or you may not be so interested in the individual. You may think that the individual life is no longer capable of cross-sectioning reality. You may believe that its particular bellyaches are of no consequence in a world which complex and impersonal forces command, and conclude that the individual as a self-sufficient dramatic figure is outmoded. When Flaherty tells you that it is a devilish noble thing to fight for food in a wilderness, you may, with some justice, observe that you are more concerned with the problem of pe
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
纪录片的首要原则
我不是说在这个原则中，暗指工作室不能以他们自己的方式制作出惊人世界的艺术作品。 没有任何东西能（除了伍尔沃斯运行它们的人的意图之外）阻止工作室以戏剧的方式或童话故事的方式抬高自己的艺术水平。 我对纪录片的另一个主张是，在使用一些灵活的文章时，也有机会进行创造性的工作。 也意味着，纪录片媒介的选择与诗歌和小说的选择是截然不同的。 它们是完全不同的选择，处理方式也有很大的区别。
对于弗拉赫蒂而言，故事必须从现场拍摄，并成为一个绝对的原则，并且应该是（他认为的）故事的基本原则。 因此，他的戏剧是一年四季中的日夜剧，或者是人民维持生计的基本生活，或者使他们的社区生活成为可能，或者建立部落的尊严。
对主题的这种解释当然反映了弗莱厄蒂特定的事物哲学。一个成功的纪录片指数绝不会追求到地球的尽头，寻找旧时的简单以及人类对天空的古老尊严。事实上，如果现在可能代表反对派，我希望弗拉哈蒂工作中隐含的新卢梭主义就会以他自己的特殊自我去逝。自然的理论分开，它代表了一种逃避现实，一种苍茫和遥远的眼睛，它倾向于较少人眼中的感伤主义。然而，如果劳伦斯诗歌充满活力，它就会一炮走开，但它总是无法形成一种适合现代世界更为直接的材料的形式。它有时是伟大的诗人，因为卡贝尔在他的“超越生命”中会明确地告诉你。然而，这位诗人，他从柏拉图到托洛茨基的每一个经典社会理论都应该从共和国身上被移除。除了理论和实践问题之外，弗拉赫提比任何人都更能说明纪录片的第一原则，（1）它必须在现场掌握它需要的材料，并与它亲密接触。 弗拉厄蒂可能会用一年到两年的时间亲自融入到他所要拍摄的环境中去， 他和人们生活在一起，直到得到他需要的故事。（2）他的描述和戏剧之间的区别必须跟随他。 我认为我们会发现，除了他选择的电影以外，还有其他形式的戏剧，或者更确切地说，还有其他形式的电影; 但重要的是要区分仅描述主体表面价值的方法和更能爆炸性地揭示主体表面价值的方法。 你拍摄自然生命，你可以通过一些细节来创造它并解释它。
这是最终的创作意图，最有可能的几种方法，几种方法都可以让你可以像弗拉赫蒂一样去创造一个故事形式，以古老的方式从个人到环境，超越或不超越的环境，以及随之而来的英雄主义荣誉。或者你可能不会对个人如此感兴趣。你可能会认为个人生活不再能够横切现实。你可能会认为，在一个复杂而非个人力量指挥的世界里，它的特殊腹痛并不重要，并且认为个体是一个自足的戏剧性人物已经过时了。当弗拉厄迪告诉你在荒野中争取食物是一种邪恶的高尚的东西时，你可以用一些正义的手段来观察，你更关心人们在大量食物中争取食物的问题。当他提请你注意纳努克的长矛在其坚守的角度上是严肃的，并且在低下的勇气方面非常僵化的时候，你可以用一些正义的手段观察到，个人勇敢地持有的矛不会掌握国际金融疯狂的海象。事实上，你可能会觉得在个人主义中雅虎传统主要是对我们目前的无政府状态负责，并且立刻否认体面的英雄主义（弗拉厄蒂）和不雅的主角（工作室）。在这种情况下，你会觉得你想要根据一些现实的横截面来描述你的戏剧，这将揭示社会本质上的合作性或群体性：让个人在创造性社会力量的一举中找到他的荣誉。换句话说，你很可能会放弃故事形式，像现代诗歌和绘画和散文的指数一样，寻求一种令时代精神和精神更令人满意的事物和方法。
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[22251]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
