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.