Documentary Standing on the Ground of History |
On Documentary Cinema and Its Challenges in Contemporary Iran
Documentary cinema can be regarded as the birth of social critique within a visual structure—a cinema that derives its identity and function not from entertainment, but from awareness. The relationship between documentary cinema and the image of reality turns it into an expressive tool for narrating what exists. It is self-evident that when reality falls into crisis or departs from its normal and natural condition, documentary cinema can draw on its expressive capacities to address crises, their roots, and their causes; to describe and explain reality; and even to propose solutions and paths forward—provided that it does not itself dissolve into or become paralyzed by the very crisis it seeks to depict.
What remains open to question here is whether documentary filmmaking should merely reflect reality or rather represent and interpret it. The importance of documentary cinema is underscored by the fact that cinema itself was born with a documentary film. What the Lumière brothers presented in Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station was an image of social reality; in fact, the history of cinema begins with documentary. Although their initial aim in inventing cinema was entertainment, the trajectory of cinematic development moved toward awareness, such that cinema—especially documentary cinema—became intertwined with reality through its depiction, narration, and interpretation. From this perspective, social transformations were reflected both on cinema and within cinema: the former contributed to cinema’s growth as an art-industry, while the latter turned cinema into an important tool and medium for reflecting and representing significant social transformations. This is where the magic of the image merged with a presentation of truth, turning cinema into a means of enlightenment and of enhancing the quality of knowledge and awareness within society.
Over time, documentary cinema itself developed various genres. Although for many years audiences in Iran equated documentary cinema with the television series The Living Planet (or wildlife documentaries), documentary film is by no means limited to environmental or wildlife subjects. A wide range of social issues, phenomena, and events have become subjects of documentary filmmaking, and today many people are familiar with the notion of the social documentary. Social documentaries offer representations of reality, narrated for audiences through the lens of a camera. Although these realities are mediated and shaped by the director’s perspective, they often present a view of society that goes beyond the common gaze.
The social documentarian’s perspective is a critical one—motivated by reform, by revealing deficiencies and problems within segments of society that result from structural shortcomings. With the camera, the filmmaker captures aspects that have either received little attention or remained invisible to everyone except the documentarian. Beyond their critical stance, social documentaries are also research-based, and in many cases they can serve as references for social researchers and academic projects. Sociologists and anthropologists today regard social documentaries as an important part of their research sources, and at times documentaries even become the foundation of scholarly studies.
In cinematic theory, if the audience’s attraction to fiction cinema is explained by the pleasure of watching, the motivation for watching documentary cinema is often attributed to the human pleasure of acquiring knowledge. The relationship between documentary filmmakers and social reality can be divided into two categories: those who believe that an objective reflection of social reality is possible, and those who consider social reality to be inevitably subjective—a represented image shaped by interpretation.
Leaving aside theoretical debates about documentary typologies and their characteristics, what seems to necessitate greater attention to documentary cinema—especially social documentaries—in our contemporary history and present moment is the historical condition we inhabit, one more entangled with crisis than ever before. We are facing multiple crises: economic, political, social, and even personal and psychological. Social documentaries can play a central and mediating role in reflecting these crises—by articulating and narrating their causes and roots, and at the very least fostering collective awareness and understanding within society. Without awareness and comprehension of crisis, it is impossible to overcome it. And one of the most effective tools for understanding crisis is undoubtedly documentary cinema, particularly social documentaries, which can narrate pain and gesture toward healing.
For this to happen, cultural and cinematic policymakers must first arrive at a correct understanding of documentary cinema and its functions, and refrain from placing production obstacles in the path of documentarians through censorship and labels such as “blackwashing.” Clearly, social documentary cinema is not merely a catalog of deficiencies and failures; yet producing documentaries solely aligned with state policies reduces it to a propaganda tool. The spirit of social documentary lies in its critical approach to its subject matter and its analysis of social events. If we strip social documentaries of their critical language, we effectively block realism and the pursuit of truth.
Our society today needs truth-telling and transparency in order to depict the existing condition as it truly is and to find pathways toward solutions. Society and its realities can be observed through the mirror of documentary; the clearer this mirror, the more healing it can be.
There is no doubt that a meaningful relationship exists between documentary cinema and social transformations in any society. The question, however, is how this relationship should be articulated: as mere reflection of transformations, or as their representation and interpretation? If we understand social transformation more deeply than a simple transfer of power from one dynasty to another, then we must focus on culture and the general cultural level of society.
When John Grierson arrived in the United States on a scholarship, his concern was how to elevate the intellectual and cultural level of his society—a society in which the struggle for livelihood left little room for thought or study, and which was easily manipulated during political referendums. Under such conditions, Grierson sought to identify the most effective tool for raising social awareness in order to put an end to this troubling situation.
In the face of social crises, a documentarian can embody all of these roles: a witness and observer who records moments of crisis and social tension on film, and at the same time an interpretive narrator. In my view, during certain historical moments, yet another role can be envisioned for the documentarian—a participatory one. In this role, while recording events as they unfold before the camera, the filmmaker also collaborates with certain individuals in an effort to bring about change, attempting to steer reality in a direction they believe to be just.
In our current situation, marked by various economic and social crises, it seems that documentary filmmaking itself has fallen into crisis and is unable to fully demonstrate its expressive capacity in addressing these issues. When our entire cinematic ecosystem is fragmented under the weight of economic, social, and cultural crises and appears to be taking its final breaths, it is only natural that documentary cinema fares no better.
Yet precisely because the unstable conditions of contemporary Iranian cinema cannot persist—and I emphasize, cannot persist—the future appears hopeful. Documentary works addressing our social and cultural issues, created under these very conditions in recent years with fresh and innovative perspectives, have generated waves of international recognition and cinematic achievement. These works inspire hope for the future of Iranian documentary cinema. At the same time, innovative documentary methods and new styles—each opening a new window onto reality—form the foundation of this hope.
It may not be an exaggeration to say that a return to documentary is a return of cinema to its origins. Although today cinema is often associated with imagination and storytelling, the history of cinema began with documentary film. It is as if, at the dawn of its birth, cinema sought awareness more than entertainment—and this aim is realized more fully in documentary cinema than in any other cinematic form.