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.
It's very interesting that you did not consider the film a documentary based on its premise. I'm pretty sure that a documentary can be about memories, dreams, and other "unreal" facets of the human experience just as much as the genre can cover more "real" events like a factual depiction of war. Wouldn't a documentary about, say, a schizophrenic person involve more depictions of their thoughts/hallucinations than footage of their experiences in the "real" world? I think that part of what Folman wanted to achieve with this film is to show that each person is experiencing what we collectively call "reality" in a different light. What is this film, if not a documentary? Also, how is it more effective than a documentary?
ReplyDeleteFor most parts, I agree with you because I felt like some scenes expressed characters' emotion and thought more like a non narrative film than like a documentary. For example, when Ari, the main character, was inside the car with his war mate, driving through the snowy woods area, Ari started to see an illusion of the battle field. Another example would be when that giant naked woman swimming across the ocean with one of the soldiers. I think these scenes can't be considered as "documentary;" however, by mixing those with factually accurate scenes will make this film something more than a documentary. So I wouldn't say it's completely different, but I would say it is a mixture of documentary and non narrative film, which probably is better than a mere documentary.
ReplyDeleteYou raise some good points but need to spend some time looking on the flip side to present a more rounded point of view. For instance, you say a documentary should present a certain level of realism. But don't the interviews provide just that? You are correct that the dream sequences are problematic, but aren't they based on actual dreams that were experienced? It seems a little unreasonable to suggest that the only way to visually capture those types of experiences is through archival footage which doesn't exist. Would it have been "accurate" to just play his description of the dream w/ a black screen? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteDocumentaries need to present some sort of truth. Are the dreams he decided to show exactly the way he dreamed them? How can a dream be visualized accurately at all? Unfortunately DC Minis aren't widely available yet. Just because the film sprinkles in animated interviews here and there doesn't excuse the rest of the film. The goal of the film is ultimately to have the same effect as a documentary, to explore some real life issue or subject. However, I don't think it matters what kind of film it is. The director of Waltz with Bashir probably did all these things to provoke conversation and debate.
Delete