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.
Hey Zach!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points about the film's classification as a documentary. As far as the use of animation goes, I also agree with the point you make in your last paragraph. However, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on any OTHER possible intentions behind animating Waltz with Bashir. While the film's ending is insanely effective because of the animation/real-life contrast, is that the entire reason Folman decided to animate it? Let's assume for a moment that Folman had a budget large enough that he COULD recreate battles as big as he wanted. What makes him decide to go the animation route?
I agree that animation does not affect Waltz with Bashir's classification as a documentary, but I can't say that I would consider it one. While the film is largely made up of "recreations" (or "simulations" as I put it in my post) of Ari Folman's memories, those recreations are presented in the narrative format of Ari Folman trying to recall those memories and having conversations about them. There is no indication that these conversations and scenes of the film are recreations, and there are too many things that seem "fictionalized" to be considered documentary. It is more a narrative film with documentary elements than vice versa. There are plenty of films that are "based off of true events" that are "grounded in reality" but not considered documentary.
ReplyDeleteAren't all films "grounded in reality"? If they weren't, we wouldn't recognize them. The term documentary must mean more than this. The film does reference a specific conflict with a specific atrocity and specific participants, but it takes more than that to be a documentary, right? or is Schindler's List a documentary?
ReplyDelete