Who decides truth?

Based on a true story...

Based on a true story, something we’re all familiar with seeing at the start of a film. Of course documentaries rarely have this intro, it’s an expectation, assumption even that what you’re about to see is a true story. Even with narrative films, the audience must take what they see as “the truth” within the story.

I wanted to really dive into this idea of truth and documentary film, as it feels like it’s rarely talked about or considered in any depth, and yet every documentary is deciding a truth by telling the story in a particular way.

pre-production stills from a new film we’re working on with Damian Hall

Why is this important? When you put a documentary together, you’re saying, this is a true story - these are real people doing (or who have done) real things, in real places. Watching this film will contribute to the world view of the audience on the people, places, topics talked about - you cannot stop that, once watched, it cannot be unwatched. Unless you have one of those Men in Black memory flash things.

So what? So lots. Mainstream media is often talked about as propaganda, creating influence amongst the general public, with the ultimate judgements of “fake news” being thrown around too. The information we all take in changes how we think about things, how we vote, how we eat, how we travel and how we think about others. I find it really interesting that documentary film rarely gets the same attention and critique that the other more overtly journalistic media forms get.

When I first started to consider this concept, I mulled the idea that it was just documentaries with an agenda that would have to tackle this idea of truth. Political storylines, films about injustice or the climate crisis for example, they all present what they feel like is the truth to impact the thoughts and the behaviour of the audience. Okay well that’s clear, but what about a documentary of someone’s personal story battling debt, illness and then going on a long adventure, discovering new hope. Sorry, that’s a terrible intro to The Salt Path. When this book became more and more popular, eventually making its way onto the big screen, the truth was questioned by people whose truth clashed with that of the author, to the point there are ongoing court cases with the author who is also of of the main characters of the film. Since writing the first draft of this post, I’ve noticed a new documentary "The Salt Path Scandal”, directed by Jodie Besbrode, which exclaims to expose the fraud behind this award winning story.

This highlights another interesting point of truth and time. How some truths change over time, as new information is discovered for example and how at some point a truth becomes a historical truth. A truth inseparable from the time in which it was told, a great example of this is breaking records (achievements rather than vinyl, sorry, not sorry). Every impossible thing is impossible until someone does it.

Ok, ok, you might be saying, I’m overthinking this… truth is fact, simple! Is it?

You see a scene of someone on the floor, another person is running away from them. These two facts do very little to bring clarity to truth. The runner could be going to get help for the person on the floor, they could have just robbed them, or it’s possible there is no link between the two people at all (along with a hundred other possible scenarios). Of course in a film you could imply a truth by using sound effects, music, lighting, shooting style - all the technical skills of the craft.

Is truth knowing all the facts? Let’s explore that. Firstly, is it even possible? Is there anything you know everything about? Even just a moment in time. I’m not sure that there is, every time you think more about a topic or situation you might discover more and more information, it enriches your view but it also changes it. When you remember the same thing differently to others, you both might be remembering correctly, both are your own truth, and yet they might be contradictory at some level.

Although not a documentary, the Prime Video series “The Girlfriend”, directed by Andrea Harkin and Robin Wright, is a great example of where two conflicting truths co-exist and both are portrayed on screen. The same scene is shown twice, changing between the point of view of two characters. This change in little nuances completely changing the feeling in the scene, a new truth is created.

Whereas fiction films and series are based on the scripted “truth” of a character, or characters, documentary is more the truth of the filmmaker. This has an interesting effect because, even in the rare occasion that the filmmaker is on screen, such as Louis Theroux, you are guided to the their truth like a concierge.

some say he’s still waiting for that bus

Film durations can range from a matter of minutes to hours, is there really time to give all the “facts”? Of course not, in fact, it’s likely that the editor and director will have had to cut significant amounts of time, even whole scenes from the first cut of the film. Distilling the storyline, improving its qualities as a story, but at the cost of missing things out.

But why does this even matter if it’s not a political film (for example). All documentary filmmakers have a responsibility to their audience to show “truth”, a film might only last a short amount of time but its impact can be over a lifetime. Yes, a film alone may not be enough to make a noticeable change but it will contribute, and I believe that is a responsibility to be taken seriously.

So when a Documentary Filmmaker brings a story to the big screen, there’s a strong element of responsibility to tell their truth in a way that’s considered, well researched and well produced. They must find the truth they want to tell and tell it with conviction.

As storytellers, Filmmakers create a truth. Will it clash with other truths? Certainly. Will it co-exist with other truths? Of course. And will it still be true in the future? See you there.