this assignment is for nerds

Obviously, both Night Watch and Star Wars portray the ideas of good vs evil. The films share many similarities in their presentations of good and evil as drawn from human experiences and emotions. For both the Siths and the Dark Others, the main source of power is raw negative emotions. Light Others and the Jedi draw their power from positive emotions. It seems that the "mission" of Light Others is to protect humans and make their lives better.

All of these star wars fansites that I am using as my sources are very complicated and seem to be very offended by the notion that perhaps the films meant to portray good and evil in very black-and-white terms. This is making writing this assignment all the more difficult especially because most of my knowledge of this series comes from the Lego Star Wars Wii game as I found the films boring as a child. (I pretty much only cared about Princess Leia and Chewbacca and could not tell any of the leading men apart).

One of the major differences between the films is that the Light Others and Dark Others seem to be, for the most part, getting along. Gesser and Zavulon are seen together multiple times, not only in battle scenes, but just sort of hanging out and discussing the future of the world. Much of the events of Night Watch seem to be left up to some sort of ancient prophecy, whereas Star Wars seems to be more about choosing your own destiny. Well, to be fair, everyone has to choose Light Other vs Dark Other or Jedi vs Sith, but the actual conflicts in Night Watch seem to be following a pattern that the leaders are expecting.
The major difference is that in Star Wars, we are supposed to always be rooting for the "good" guys, who are of course the Light Side of the Force. Night Watch is more about examining the concepts of good and evil and calling into question whether they can ever truly be separate. Anton seems to be breaking the thousand-year-old Truce more than any Dark Other (at least in the first movie), so how can he even call himself a Light Other? He is challenged by a few Dark Others with this very question a couple of times. Star Wars is much more formulaic while Night Watch asks the viewer to question the Light side just as much as we are questioning the Dark side. After all, the Dark Others are technically more honest if they can admit that they each chose the Dark side because it is easier to destroy the lightness in the world than it is to destroy the darkness within yourself. Yegor's choice to be a Dark Other seems perfectly rational given the options, whereas Darth Vader is clearly looked down upon for having chosen the Dark Side after being on the Light Side and noticing that there might be corruption in the Jedi forces. No character in Night Watch could be described as fundamentally good or fundamentally evil--not even Gesser and Zavulon, who are supposed to be the leaders of each other their sides.

Star Wars: A Very Traditional Story

Star Wars, stripped of its futuristic setting, could well be a classical epic. It follows a very clear "Hero's Journey". Luke starts of in a fairly humble position, dreaming of adventure. He meets his mentor, Obi Wan Kenobi, and receives and receives a call to enter an unknown world of strange powers and events. Luke accepts the call to enter this strange world and must face tasks and trials, in his case fighting the Empire. His unquestionably good, and the Empire is unquestionably evil. He faces the challenge of facing Darth Vader, after which he is a fully fledged Jedi Knight. This victory allows him to ultimately triumph and also to learn an important fact about his identity (leaving out this spoiler just in case). It is in its essence a classical example of Joseph Campbell's monomyth.

This may seem slightly off topic in regards to the question, but it isn't. The take-away is that George Lucas was not introducing challenging narrative and philosophical concepts in his movie. Good is good. Bad is bad. Evil is evil. Lucas continues the same ideas of good and evil that have been around for centuries. The force is not a thing of balance. If the dark side is defeated no harm is done, all is good because good has triumphed in the world. It even has religious leanings. Analogies can be drawn between the temptation of the dark side and the temptation of biblical sin and evil.

Night Watch has a very different approach. Admittedly, there are aspects of the Hero's journey, but there are also marked differences. Anton his not necessarily a 'good' person. We first see him as willing to abort a baby in order to win his wife back. He is not a hero in the same way that Luke is hero. Good and evil is not so black and white as it is in Star Wars.

More, crucially Night Watch is about balance. It is shown in the prologue in the beginning of the film that if the two forces of good and evil, the forces of light and dark, were to fight to the finish, they would annihilate each other. Due to their opposing nature, they must co-exist in order to survive.

This contrast between clear cut good vs. evil and a more balanced view is very evident in the interactions of the characters of the two movies. There is nothing but all out war between the Jedi and the Sith, there is no possibility of discussion or some sort of ceasefire. Luke must either destroy Palpatine, join the dark side, or be destroyed himself. There is no fourth option. In Night Watch on the other hand Anton lives next to an 'evil' character, they co-exist. There is the possibility for a peaceful world in which both sides can be a part. Even if it does not meet fruition, there is the possibility.

Without a doubt, Night Watch adds a tremendous amount to our understanding of good and evil. It establishes that the two are not black and white, but rather shades of grey. It also, very differently from Star Wars, establishes the need for balance. It also has evil triumphing to a certain extent in the end, which contrasts with Lucas' more traditional view of the the need for ultimate triumph of good over evil. Essentially it offers a view that is more relatable to the real world around us.

I Wrote Too Much About Harry Potter

In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, when Harry felt the most vulnerable to the connection he and Voldemort shared, his godfather imparted some advice on him, and I've been turning those words over in my head ever since.  "We've all got light and dark inside of us.  What matters is the part we choose to act on.  That's who we really are."  These words, coming from a framed murderer, who becomes one of Harry's biggest mentors.  Does that make Sirius wholly good?  He chose to turn away from his pureblood-supremacist family to fight a war against one of the darkest wizards of all time.  But, he was also prepared to kill Peter Pettigrew, a man he once considered to be a friend.  Does that make him wholly bad?

Let's turn to another, and perhaps the most controversial Harry Potter character: Severus Snape.  Regarded as the "bravest man [Harry] ever knew," his childhood friendship-turned-love drove him to spend 17 years protecting a Harry Potter, a boy who grossly resembled Snape's school-yard tormentor, James Potter.  The 17 years he spent living as a double-agent between the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix was done purely out of love for Harry's mother, Lily.  But because of his courage, nobleness, and apparent selflessness, he still tormented and traumatized students to the point of pure fear, as featured in Prisoner of Azkaban when Neville Longbottom's boggart (the embodiment of someone's true fear) was Snape.  Many argue that Harry should not have named his son after Snape because of the problematic nature of his character and motives.  He was the one who reacted rashly and called Lily a slur, breaking their friendship. 

The dichotomy in the Harry Potter lies between the Death Eaters, the followers of Lord Voldemort, and the people who disagree, the bravest of whom join the Order of the Phoenix.  The Death Eaters continue to represent something along the line of the Klu Klux Klan or Nazis, as many of them are affluent and influential aristocrats and hold high positions in the Ministry of Magic.  They are pure evil, as then strive to eliminate every muggle wizard until there is only one pureblood magical race.  Let's keep in mind that their leader, Voldemort, is name after his muggle father: Tom Riddle.  

Then we have Harry Potter and his rag-tag bunch of misfit school friends (Dumbledore's Army) and the organization built by Dumbledore when Voldemort first rose to power, the Order of the Phoenix.  The members of the Order are of the marginalized groups including people like the Weasley's, a poor pureblood family and Remus Lupin, a werewolf.  They are the resistance to Voldemort's power. 

The crux in the wizarding war is that since the murder of his parents, unbeknownst to Voldemort, Harry is a Horcrux.  A piece of Voldemort's corrupt, power-hungry, and evil soul lives inside Harry.  That's why the Sorting Hat suggested that he could belong in Slytherin, the house Voldemort was in (and is also a descendant of the house's founder).  That's why Harry can speak to snakes like Voldemort.  That's why Harry is able to infiltrate Voldemort's mind, and tries to shut him out because the more he lets Voldemort in, the more he falls prey to evil.  It isn't until the end, when Harry accepts the fact and goes to sacrifice himself, similar to how Svetlana accepts her curse, in turn breaking it.  Harry's brave act allows him to choose life or the afterlife.  He chooses life, and love, two forces of nature Voldemort will never be able to understand.

This brings us to Anton.  What Nightwatch is able to do so expertly is not only address the relations between light and dark, but also the extensive grey area that lives between the two extremes.  Characters like Anton and Snape are part of that gray area.  For most of the film, in my opinion, we are lead to believe that Anton carries more evil in him than the people around him think he does, even though he belongs to the supposed "light" side.  Even from the beginning, when he tries to kill his unborn son so that his girlfriend will love him again is undoubtedly selfish.  He breaks the Truce and kills a vampire.  He is blinded by anger which pushes him to the point where Yegor chooses the Darks over his own father.  And in that, we realize that even though Nightwatch protects against the "evil" vampires, Daywatch is much more benevolent and accepting than they lead on.

While Harry Potter presents a stronger and more recognizable clash between forces, both it and Nightwatch are able to humanize the characters on either extremes.  The Malfoy family, prominent Death Eaters, are able to realize that their family means more to them than a silly war.  The Darks grieve the loss of one of their own and Gesser and Zavulon make efforts to negotiate and interact with one another without immediate violence.

Like Sirius told Harry, we are all born with good and evil.  We are all prey to agression, anger, and fear.  But we naturally seek love, warmth, and acceptance.  I think the side we align ourselves with is the side we want to be accepted into.  We all live in the grey area, skidding between either side.  Anton joins Nightwatch, after committing a fairly evil act, possible to repent and to prove he can be better even though his efforts are not fruitful as Yegor turns away and justfully joins the Darks.  This is goes along with Harry, when the connection between him and Voldemort grows stronger, refuses to give in to his aggression and finds the light in himself to continue on in the war. 

Was this too much close analysis into Harry Potter?  Yes.  Any regrets?  None that I can think of.

Oooh Star Wars oh man oh man

The most obvious similarity between Star Wars and Night Watch is the classic good vs evil struggle that both sets of films are based upon.  Also, interestingly in both films this good vs evil theme is based off what is basically a religion that can only be followed by certain people who can be trained to use special powers, although these powers are much more limited in Night Watch.  Both sides of the struggle are run by separate but intertwined organizations that have been fighting eachother for hundreds or thousands of years.

Despite the clear good and evil factions however, in both the Star Wars and Night Watch universes the main characters still experience the temptations of the other side; such as when Anton drinks the blood in Night Watch.  Yegor is also extremely comparable to Luke Skywalker in that he is the son of an other who is destined to change the world, although Yegor's case depended on which side he chose, while Luke was always destined to "bring balance to the force."  In that way Yegor is also comparable to Anakin Skywalker however, in that Anakin was first thought to be the Chosen One except he turned to the dark side, while Yegor as the Great One should have become light like his father but instead turned dark.  If Yegor is Anakin, then Zavulon should be considered Palpatine, as he turns the Chosen/Great one to the dark side and takes him as his disciple.  One interesting part of Night Watch that separates it from Star Wars is that once you pick a side you cannot change back, you cannot change from light to dark to light as Anakin/Darth Vader did.

One interesting difference between Night Watch and Star Wars is that in Night Watch, the good and evil sides are at a temporary peace, and both sides are equally as strong as the other, at least until Yegor joins the Dark Others.  In Star Wars however, while the sides certainly are tipped by the Skywalkers, one side always has the strong upperhand, either the Jedi are in power or Sith are in power.  A fundamental difference between the films however is that while both sides certainly try to gain as much power as possible, having an equal balance between the two sides is emphasized much more in Night watch; in Star Wars bringing "balance to the force" apparently means the light side winning.  While in Star Wars the Jedi wouldn't even consider the idea of leaving the Sith leader alive, in Night Watch the Dark Others and Light Others each have their own separate police to watch the otherside.  This in turn makes up another fundamental difference: the idea of dark and light is questioned much more in Night Watch.  In Star Wars the Jedi as an order are inherently good and can do no wrong, despite being able to be influenced and possibly turn to the dark side.  In Night Watch however, while there is no switching from side to side, even the mere fact that both sides have police for the other side shows that the imperfection of individuals within the organizations are recognized. This idea is shown when Yegor chooses to be a Dark Other due to his father's past.  Even with this however, we as the audience don't find ourselves rooting for the Dark Others; we still want Yegor to join his father on the light.

I could have written about Lord of the Rings too but I didn't

Without sinking too far into the unnecessarily convoluted politics and bureaucratic trash that makes up a large part of the Star Wars Prequels, I'll try to address the basic missions of each side of The Force. From the very first installment in the series, it is made painstakingly clear to the audience that the Jedi are the good guys and the Sith are the bad guys. That's it. We need no further explanation, as everything is implicitly spelled out: It's the fascist regime of Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader with its homogenous army of faceless minions versus the relatable, peace-seeking, and ultimately human underdogs. The choice of who to root for is a no-brainer. 

That said, the Dark Side's mission is to rule all inhabited worlds in the Star Wars galaxy with an iron fist, and the Light Side's mission is to prevent them from doing that. In peacetime, the Jedi serve as protectors of the good people of the galaxy as well as advisers to its numerous governments. Since the relationship between Jedi and Sith is one of constant battle, with no negotiations of any sort ever attempted, their attitudes are hostile and uncompromising, and their decisions black-and-white. If a Sith confronts a Jedi, he/she will show no mercy (as seen, of course, in the famous first duel between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader) and vice versa. 

It becomes quite clear, then, that the dueling forces of Night Watch are toned down quite a bit. When the events of the film begin, the Light and Dark Others have been at peace (at a truce, rather) for hundreds of years. Things have quieted down, and each side has come to openly accept the presence of the other in their daily lives. Because of this now-traditional familiarity, Light Others interact, converse, and tolerate Dark Others, albeit not without a bit of underlying tension.

Jedi and Sith draw power from the same source: a seemingly sub-atomic, intangible presence of energy known as The Force. Once one discovers that he/she is able to manipulate the Force, he/she will have to make a decision regarding which side they will fight for. Similarly, in Night Watch, once one discovers that he/she is an Other, he/she must make a choice, as Yegor does in the final moments of the film. The common energy source of blood is another aspect that unites the Light and Dark Others rather than drive them apart. 

Ultimately, while Star Wars sends a message of the importance of standing up for what is good, Night Watch forces us to examine the subjectivity of good itself. Consider a war between two countries - Greenland and Australia, for instance. We know that not every single soldier (no matter which side they fight for) will necessarily be a good or bad person, despite the overall intentions of their respective governments. 

And so it is in the world of Night Watch. The final scene, in which Yegor defies his father and joins the Dark Others, makes it clear that the child's decision is not rash or uninformed. In fact, it makes the audience empathize with him and understand his motivations - we know that Anton is not a fundamentally good man, as Luke Skywalker or Obi-Wan Kenobi are. Consequently, we also know at this point that Dark Others are not necessarily evil. Thus, what Night Watch accomplishes that Star Wars does not essentially boils down to a more balanced and nuanced (and above all, realistic) vision of two warring establishments.

Star Wars without The Lightsabers but add vampires.

I didn't actually see the connection until Boswell said it but I think it was a very interesting point. I am going to break down my answer just like you broke down the questions. The first point is the mandates. The mandates of the Dark Side in Star Wars is to rule the galaxy. The mandate of the Dark Others in Nightwatch was to get the boy to join the Dark others but once again it seems to come down to a control thing. The mandates of Light Others and the Jedis seem to be similar. Their goal is to keep power and to keep the evil forces at bay. Although a similitary is it seems both are about a boy who could make the decision whether to be with the good side or the bad side and it seems in both he chooses bad. The Jedis and Siths only fight eachother. They never have tea or drinks together. They just seem to fight. On the other hand there seems to be a lot of just hanging out with the Light and Dark others. For instance Anton lives next to a dark other and the Yoda and Palpatine of the film seem to just like to chill out and help each others causes. The Jedis and Siths both get their power from their respective side of the Force. The Others all get their powers from blood whether they be Dark or Light. The line is not clear between the Others because they have the same rulebook. Its not like the Jedis where they have a different code of honor. The Others all have one rule book and both sides break it from time to time like when Anton tried to kill his son. My final point is I think that it does add something because it strengthens the idea that good and evil are the same. Star Wars makes it sound like evil can influence the good but Nightwatch takes that a step further and says that they are the same thing.

Robert Post 2

Night Watch tackles the ideas of good vs. evil in a way that is both more clear-cut but also  more vague than Star Wars. Unlike Star Wars, the “others” of Night Watch are forced to decide whether or not they want to be good or evil. In Star Wars, it is not so clear. Obviously we have the Jedis and the Siths and the good and dark side, but never is there a moment when a character must so blatantly assign themselves a label like the “others” do in NIght Watch.

At the same time, although Night Watch at first makes things more explicit, the Night Watch and Day Watch are never one dimensional stereotypes assigned by their position on the good and evil spectrum. Evil characters are capable of good, such as Anton’s neighbor lending Anton his mother's clothing, while good characters are capable of more evil tendencies, as apparent with Anton. While Star Wars does acknowledge that there is good and evil in everyone, with Anakin turning into Darth Vader and then ultimately saving Luke, as well as with non-Jedi characters, as apparent with the redemption of Lando Calrissian, it seems Star Wars offers less flexibility.

Star Wars is ultimately about good vs. evil, and the triumph of the good. Night Watch stresses idea of keeping a balance between good and evil. This balance is evident through the way Zavulon and Geser can casually meet and discuss issues regarding the truce. This truce, while under conflict, is still an official fortified presence that is nowhere to be seen in Star Wars. Since the Day Watch and Night Watch draw power from the bad and good in their counterparts, they truly need each other. Their Yin and Yang relationship lies in stark contrast with the overpowering Galactic Empire and the tiny Rebellion forces.

However, comparing Night Watch and Star Wars side by side can reveal striking similarities. In Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, the primary goal of the sith lord is to convert Anakin to the dark side, convincing him that the Jedis have betrayed him. In the final scenes of Night Watch, this is exactly what happens with Yegor. However, in Star Wars, the Jedis are not actually evil, and the sith lord has simply corrupted Anakin's mind. In Night Watch, Zavulon reveals to Yegor that Anton wished to have Yegor killed in the womb. Although Anton didn’t know it was his son that his ex-wife was carrying, it still shows that Anton, a Night Watch, was and is capable of evil actions.

Night Watch brings new ideas to the table in that it pushes away from the triumph of good, and tries to emphasize the necessity of both good and evil. Perhaps this idea stems from the setting being in Russia, a country which has been through immense political turmoil and is still very troubled today. Insert joke about “others” being good at winter olympic sports.

QUESTION #2: Take a Walk on the Dark Side

Night Watch (Ночной дозор, pronounced Nochnoy dozor if you ever want to talk about with your Russian friends) is a 2004 Russian film that might be described as an urban-fantasy-supernatural thriller directed by Timur Bekmambetov. It is loosely based on the novel The Night Watch by Sergei Lukyanenko.

My question for this post, however, is not about genre or adaptations.  I've got a philosophical question for you.  I want to know what the film has to say about good and evil.  Since the film features "Light others" and "Dark others" one can't help but make a connection with "the force" in the sci-fi fantasy epic, Star Wars (Lucas 1977), particularly its "dark side."  

In interviews George Lucas has explained that the Force is a symbol for all that is unseen in the universe. The light side is essentially a symbol for the unseen Power of good — while the dark side is a symbol for the forces of evil.  According to Lucas, the Jedi exhortation to "Use the Force" essentially means "Make a leap of faith."

For this post, I want you to compare and contrast Jedis with the Light Others, and Siths with Dark Others.  Specifically, I want you to explore the 1) mission/mandates of each of these groups, 2) how it impacts their behavior toward each other, 3) their source of power, and 4) why the line between the Others is not as clear as the line between the Jedi and Siths.  Ulimately, I want you to get at what Night Watch contributes to our understanding of good and evil.  Is it just a rehashing of Star Wars contribution or does it add something new?

Plog Bost

Documentaries usually expose or show an event and show some truth.

Honestly, documentaries don't really interest me. They interest me because I do enjoy learning about something new or more about something I already knew. But it's pretty easy to predict what you're going to see in a documentary: some footage about the topic, some interview, another interview, more footage, a picture probably, and then other things whatever it ends. Waltz With Bashir had those elements, but it also had so much more.

To say Waltz With Bashir is not a documentary because it's animated seems strange to me. The animation doesn't limit the documentary in any way. In fact, it makes the documentary more significant.

What really resonated with me was that .5% of the documentary that was not animated. I can't fully put into words what I felt when I saw the footage, but it was pretty hard-hitting. We knew it was a documentary the whole time, so everything we saw was real and it happened. Seeing footage from an event in a documentary isn't a new concept, but it's more enjoyable has a larger impact on the viewer.

Robert Post

Although Waltz with Bashir incorporates elements of documentary films, it should not be considered a documentary. This however, is not because of its use of animation, but because of the premise of the film. The film follows director Ari Folman as he attempts to remember what happened during certain parts of his time in the Israel Defense Force. The extensive use of dream sequences and hallucinations strays the film away from a certain level of realism a documentary should exhibit. No matter how accurate these dreams were replicated, it simply isn’t the same as archival footage that everyone can interpret the same way.

            Although the film isn’t a documentary, the film is in many ways much more effective. This is largely due to the amazing animation that helps to dramatize the various situations the film throws at the audience. The use of animation is more engaging and ultimately helps to make the subject material more compelling. The ending of the film where we are shown real life footage of the grieving Palestinians sits in contrast with the rest of the film. This only further reminds us that the film is not a documentary. It is something completely different, and probably better.

The Use of Animation

       A documentary is something that exposes "truth." More percisely, it digs into the "truth" and deepens the understanding of it. In that term, I think Waltz With Bashir is a great documentary even though 99.5% of its footage was animated. It used animation to get audiences closer to the factual and the emotional side of Lebanese Civil War.
       An animation may euphemize the horribleness or explicity of an event; however, it enabled Ari Foleman to reveal what actually happened on and off of the battle field. Generally, actual footage of men being killed or any other disturbing footage aren't permitted to show, nonetheless, animation enabled Foleman to explicitly show the footage of soldiers being shot by guerillas and one of the generals watching porno while in his mission. These footage reveal how soldiers were killed constantly at the war and how some of the generals weren't serious about the war. An animation can be greatly used to replace disturbing reality to euphemized animation, and ultimately show what truly happened to audiences.
       On the other hand, in Waltz With Bashir, an animation was used to show character's psychological state. For example, when Ari was inside the car (one of the car scenes...) he started to see the bushy battle field and bullets flying in the air instead of snowy woods. This flashback suggests how Ari was afraid when he was marching through the bushy battle field, where he couldn't predict where bullets come from. Another example would be the scene where one of the soldiers grabbed on giant naked lady and float away from the military boat. That figuratively showed the soldier's comfortableness of being off-duty and perhaps a greed for women. The animation helped audience to understand characters' "realistic" emotion through figurative expressions.
       The animations used in Waltz With Bashir helped Foleman to show actual events and express characters' most honest feelings--which both emphasize the realistic exhaustion and terror of the incident. Since a documentary is a film that exposes the truth, Waltz With Bashir definitely qualifies as a documentary.

I Guess We Do Have To

I think it is accurate to call it a documentary because it is the same as a documentary where they do a reinactment of the scene. Those battles that they show of the American Revolution, they dont have a camera going during the actual revolution. What they did is they found a field and they shot a recreation of the battle. Just because it is animated doesnt take away from the fact that it is a recreation. The second question which is "What can you achieve by using animation instead of photographs?" It is more effective to use animation because i felt like I was there with him as I watched him fight in battle. I wouldn't of felt the same if it was just a photograph. Also there are somethings that you can't photograph that you can animate instead.

Waltz with Boswell

Nothing to my knowledge suggests a rule against animation to display a documentary. Furthermore, no possible purposes of a documentary are harder to accomplish with animation. Documentaries are used for the most part to spread truth. Some may argue that animation is a lesser form of truth compared to film, but if we turn to all of history, the track record of any other form of recording and displaying truth, like paintings, text, etc., is about as accurate as film. Film and photography can lie just as easily as animation.

As a  matter of fact, I think in this film, the choice to animate actually helps better convey the truth. Things like the surreal vision of the soldiers naked on the beaches of Beirut may not be based in fact, but they show more than documentary footage could have; the mental and emotional effects of the soldiers, the fugue state of a soldier trying to remember, the detachment from society felt by a soldier on leave... All of these things are truths, yet they would be much harder to achieve with film.

Lastly, the juxtaposition of animation in the first 99.5% of the film with the footage at the end creates a striking and haunting imprint on anyone watching it. The whole film shows cartoon violence and the audience adjusts to that level of exposure, only to get knocked over by the real footage of torment and death. The surprise brings the direct impact of war home.

An animated narrative documentary?

Ari Folman's Waltz With Bashir is an interesting film because, while it is an animated film that tells a story, it is based off of real events that are described as the characters of the film remembering the events.  While the film is based off of real events and features interview-like storytelling, it is difficult to say whether or not it is actually a documentary.

First off, let's discuss whether or not the animation of the film could affect it's categorization as a documentary.  If we were to take a film that is undisputedly a documentary and then completely animate all of the footage, would that still be a documentary?  I would argue, for the most part, yes.  Even if we take a nature documentary such as Discovery Channel's Planet Earth and animate it, as long as the information being stated is factual and the presented images are not labeled as anything more than simulations of what actually was seen or happened and is presented as before as a documentary, then I would consider it a documentary.  On the other hand, however, if a documentary that contains no words or information apart from visual footage, such as Godfrey Reggio's  Koyaanisqatsi, is animated, could that be considered a documentary?  Technically I suppose it should be, as it would still be an accurate simulation of actual events, although the audience might not perceive it as such without any other information.  If the audience knows, however, that it is an accurate representation of what actually happened, then it would be perceived as a simulation and therefore definitely a documentary. In other words, animation should definitely not be a factor in the categorization of a film as a documentary.

Many documentaries these days feature narrative elements.  Susan Koenen's I Am a Girl! for example starts with a short narrative segment.  But is Waltz with Bashir a documentary with narrative elements, or a narrative with documentary elements?  More importantly, can a documentary be told as a narrative? To answer the second question, let's look at Brett Weiner's short film Verbatim, which premiered at Sundance Film Festival 2014.  While the film is told as any other narrative short film would be, the film is not only based off of true events, but is told verbatim-- word for word-- for an actual deposition filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio.  I however, would not consider this a documentary.  But wait-- why wouldn't I consider it a simulation, and therefore a documentary, like if Koyaanisqatsi or Planet Earth were animated?  Mainly, because of the way it's presented.  While the film clearly states that the main actions and dialogue are word for word from a court disposition, it is presented like any narrative would be.  Now any live action simulation of events is going to have fictionalized elements in it, but if those elements are presented solely in a narrative format, then they will be perceived as fictionalized.  If we were to take one of the simulated battles out of the History Channel documentary Rise and Fall of an Empire, I would consider that a narrative, but if inserted back into Rise and Fall of an Empire, it is a narrative segment of a documentary whole.  Similarly, if Verbatim were inserted into a documentary about the Ohio Supreme Court, I would consider it a narrative segment of a documentary whole. But presented by itself solely as a narrative, it is perceived as work of fiction based off of true events, not an accurate simulation of true events, and therefore should be categorized as a narrative short, as it was at Sundance 2014.

So a documentary cannot be a narrative, which brings us to the other question: is Waltz with Bashir a documentary with narrative elements, or a narrative with documentary elements?  The documentary is told through the characters recalling, or attempting to recall memories from the war.  The characters telling their stories however isn't presented as simulated interviews, it is presented as a story of a man trying to overcome his amnesia of the war; it is told as a narrative.  Neither the interviews nor the events in the war are presented as accurate simulations.  But what about the end of the film where the animation suddenly turns into real footage?  Well I would agree that the animation in this scene is a simulation and the footage is documentary, but this, like the other documentary-like parts of the film, is a documentary segment in a clearly narrative whole, not the other way around.  So taking everything into account, Waltz with Bashir is not a documentary.

Waltz with Bashir is quite a complicated work of art.  Looking at the evidence, it is an animated narrative film, based off of true events, with documentary elements.  It is an extremely interesting film, because in order to tell the story and horrors of the war and massacre, the film uses animation and a narrative structure to keep the story interesting, but then also uses the documentary elements to remind the viewers that it is a true story.  The animation allows Ari Folman to tell the story in a unique and interesting way, and also allows him to stress certain elements of the film for a greater emotional impact, also contributing to keeping the film interesting.

The 99.5%

The difference between a conventional narrative and a documentary is not the story, but how the story is told.  Waltz with Bashir could have very easily been a narrative-driven film about a soldier fighting his PTSD to seek truth in what he experienced when he was 19.  To me, it seems disrespectful to consider this as simply a narrative, when the strengths lie in the unadulterated intimacy between Bashir, his memories, and the people he encounters.

A documentary is meant to explore and record different perspectives in order to maintain an idea or historical record.  That's a pretty clinical definition, but Folman does just that.  It incorporates an investigative journalism premise, while creating drama and tension as, piece by piece, and puts together his memories and experiences and presents it.  As he moves through the people he remembers from the siege in Beirut, there is an air of subjectivity between all of the people he interviews and the haziness of this memories.  We know from the beginning sequence of the dogs, who terrorize the streets much like the soldiers did, that we are entering an certain hostile place in his mind.  And with that, it only builds.  Biege Luciano-Adams put it well in this article from 2009 when he says "Knowledge is subjective, but is also shared."  That makes his memories, and his quest to regain them back evermore stronger.  He finds that his thoughts and his memories are malleable and ever changing, which makes it so much more important that he spends the time recounting, recording, and portraying them.

As an answer to the second question, the director has so much more power with animation.  They have complete and utter control over lighting, composition, and color.  There is control over how the characters move within the setting.  The sequence in which the soldiers rise out of the sea, naked except for dog-tags and machine guns, is repeated over and over.  Matched with the same thematic music, it creates an almost poetic and romantic depiction of war and soldiers, like a rebirth or cleansing, when the situation could not be more opposite.  Perhaps Folman wanted to be cleansed of his guilt and suffering from the war, and that is how he repeatedly represents that.  Animation protects his integrity and the integrity of his memories.  It's so much easier to accept the horrors of what he went through when it is presented in a way that seems artificial, is aesthetically pleasing, and as a director, to know what is coming.  Animation protects him.

to documentary or not to documentary

Waltz With Bashir is certainly a unique documentary film, but not simply because it is animated. Apart from the medium in which the film is done, it follows many of the tenets of documentary style, especially documentaries about wars: interviews with participants, narrative elements, and recreations of key moments or battles. The main question about the categorization of Waltz With Bashir arises from the fact that it isn't technically grounded in reality. 

The film begins with a dream, and much of it is spent trying to unravel the meaning of the dreams the veterans are having. Through dreams, flashbacks, and semi-hallucinatory conversations, the story of the massacre at Sabra and Shatila is unveiled. If the film had been shot in live-action, it would have lost all of the dreamlike qualities that animation lends to the portrayal of the dreams and the flashbacks. However, it does raise the question: is a documentary told by dreams really a documentary?

To me, Waltz With Bashir is still a documentary, because although it is technically grounded in dreams--not reality--those dreams are a part of the veterans' realities. Without the dreams and flashbacks, the war would not have been the same for them. In some ways, Waltz With Bashir is far more accurate in its portrayal of warfare than any live-action documentary could hope to be in that it brings the viewers inside the minds of the soldiers as they experience the war. We are seeing the war through their eyes, and the animation lends a sense of disconnect that all of the soldiers describe themselves experiencing from the war. They did not believe that it was real at times--and so the documentary is animated, or unreal. 

A Unique Documentary

Waltz with Bashir is a harrowing film comprised of animated recreations of interviews, dreams and memories from the war the director himself was a part of. The questions surrounding whether or not Waltz with Bashir is a documentary should not be grounded in the fact that it is an animated film.  Animated films and documentaries are not mutually exclusive. However, there is an argument to be made against classifying the film as a documentary, not based on its animation, but on the fact that the entire film consists of recreations of real life events.  

This same concept can be applied to live action films.  There was a film that came out in 2010 called The Arbor which portrayed the life of the British playwright Andrea Dunbar through having actors lip sync along to the real voices of Dunbar's family.  If we say Waltz with Bashir is not a documentary based on the fact that it is entirely recreations of past events, then we must do the same for The Arbor. Personally, I believe both of these films to be documentaries because they are grounded in reality.  They are both factual accounts of real events.  Waltz with Bashir seeks to tell the truth about history and succeeds using its unconventional form.

After viewing the film, it seems entirely impossible for it to have been done any other way.  The surreal dream sequences and large scale war montages would have been extremely difficult to do with live action recreations.  The animation in Waltz with Bashir is effective because it allows for a contrast between the beauty of the animation and the grotesque, grim nature of what is being depicted.  By having the film be animated, the audience is alienated from the horrifying scenes that they are seeing and conscious of this alienation.  It allows to examine exactly how we perceive war.  This makes the final shot that much more powerful because we've been seeing similar images throughout the film although in an animated form.  When we are finally faced with the reality of what we have been witnessing, it is stunning and emotional.  

Can a documentary be animated?

In order to answer the question of whether Ari Folman's Waltz with Bashir can be considered a documentary, it might behoove us to first ask: is it accurate to not call it a documentary?

Wikipedia's definition of a documentary is a "nonfiction motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for purposes of instruction or maintaining a historical record." Nowhere in this (very generalized) description do we see the words "animated" or "live-action." Waltz with Bashir seems to otherwise check all of the boxes of what a documentary sets out to accomplish. Indeed, the film is firmly grounded in reality, and simply conveys its ideas and characters through animated frames rather than film stock.

Cinematically, documentaries have no set framework (as many narrative structures do), and constantly evolve and change with culture and global events. For instance, a serial television documentary on Earth's ecosystems will employ very different techniques than a documentary based on the American Civil War. An Inconvenient Truth will look and sound nothing like Koyaanisqatsi. Some documentaries will be rich with nonstop dialogue, while others, like Leviathan, contain no words at all. The very goal of the genre allows for loose and ever-fluctuating stylistic choices.

All this to say that Waltz with Bashir can and should be considered a documentary, albeit one in rare form. As far as its style goes, animation only serves to highlight and intensify much of Folman's vision. The film is told in retrospect - through a series of flashbacks and half-forgotten memories of several men who fought in the Israel Defense Force in the 1980s. While a conventional, live-action documentary might use B-roll or extensive archival footage of the actual events, Waltz with Bashir uses animation to put the viewer inside the heads of the veterans. Use of colorful motifs and surreal, dreamlike images allows the audience to connect with these memories on an emotional level rather than on a factual surface level.

The Use of Animation

I would say that the animation in Waltz with Bashir does not prevent it from being a documentary film. Plenty of documentaries, particularly targeting children, are entirely made up of animation. On the other hand the way in which animation is used in this film does bring to question its status as a documentary. It shows Ari Folman's imagination as well as the reality of the events around him. So the animation itself is no issue, but rather the use of animation to portray fantastical imaginations does reduce the accuracy with which Waltz with Bashir can be called a documentary.

The use of the animation has value for the same reason that the movie might not truly be a documentary. Animation allowed for Ari Folman to portray events within his own head. Additionally it allowed for him to portray events for which in all probability there is no archived footage.

To surmise my response to both questions; the use of animation allows for Folman to further explore his interpretation of events rather than the facts of the events themselves, and this focus on his own interpretation calls into question Waltz with Bashir's status as a documentary.