[1] Richard Allen (2007). Hitchcock’s Romantic Irony. USA: Columbia University Press. p3-37

[2] Marsha Kinder & Beverle Houston (1972). Close Up. USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. p101-148

“Conventionally, the documentary is seen as a film that uses the camera to record external reality objectively rather than to express a subjective vision of experience.” (1972; 101)

“A documentary can be as expressive and subjective as any other film because it too is controlled primarily by one man’s vision of human experience.” Furthermore, the peculiar aim of documentary is not only to offer the filmmaker’s interpretation, but to focus explicitly on the perception of experience offered by the culture the film is scrutinising.” (1972;101)

[3] Robert Kolker ( 1999 ). Film, Form & Culture. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. p222-226.

“The master narrative of documentary is supposed to be it’s truthfulness, a faithful gaze at the world and the lives of the characters it observes” ( 1999 ;222)

“Observation is the guiding force of documentary, and the illusion of neutrality of the documentary filmmaker makes up its central generic element.” ( 1999 ;222)

[4] PAUL Rotha (1963). Documentary Film: The use of the film medium to interpret creatively and in social terms the life of the people as it EXISTS in reality. LONDON: Faber. p71-118.

“More imaginative and expressive than the specific publicity picture, deeper in meaning and more skilful in style than the news-reel, wider in observation than the travel picture or lecture film, more profound in implication and reference than the plain ‘interest’ picture, there lies Documentary. And the documentary method may well be described as the birth of creative cinema.” ( 1963 ;71)

“Idyllic documentary  is documentary without significant purpose. It takes romanticism as its banner. It ignores social analysis. It takes ideas instead of facts.” (  1963;108)

“No documentary can be completely truthful, for there can be no such thing as truth while the changing developments in society continue to contradict each other.” ( 1963 ;116-117)

“To postulate that documentary is realistic opposed to the romanticism or the story-film, with it’s theatrical associations, is again incorrect; for although documentary may be realistic in its concern with actuality, realism applies not only to the material but more especially to the method of approach to that material.” ( 1963 ;117-118)

[5] Bill Nichols (1991). Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. USA: Indiana University Press. p107-109.

Providing evidence to how Documentary fictional or unfictional are all closely linked.

“Documentaries are fictions with plots, characters, situations, and events like any other. They offer introductory lacks, challenges, or dilemmas; they build heightened tentions and dramatically rising conflicts, and they terminate with resolution and closure.” ( 1991 ;107)

“Documentary shares many characteristics with fiction film but it is still unlike fiction in important ways. The issues of the filmmaker’s control over what she or he films and of the ethics of filming social at ors whose lives, though represented in the film, extend well beyond it; the issues of the text’s structure, and the question of the viewer’s activity and expectations- these three angles from which definitions of documentary behind (filmmaker, text, viewer) also suggest important ways in which documentary is a fiction unlike any other.” ( 1991 ;109)

[6] Bill Nichols (2001). Introduction to Documentary. USA: Indiana University Press. p20

“But documentary is not a reproduction of reality, it is a representation of the world we already occupy.” ( 2001 ;20)

[7] Paul Ward (2005). Documentary: The margins of reality. London: Wallflower Press. p6-7

“The central tension that constitutes all debates about documentary: the relationship between reality and artifice.” ( 2005 ;6)

“All documentary films are nonfictional, but not all nonfictional films are documentaries. Added to this is the complication of what happens when films that are agreed to be documentaries use techniques and conventions more readily associated with fictional storytelling. As we shall see, there is nothing inherently ‘fictional’ about narrative structure and the editing styles that have developed to tell stories. The key distinction is never one of form or style, but rather of purpose and content. As mock-documentaries prove, we can have fictional, completely fabricated films that mimic the textures and ebb and flow of certain types of documentary.” ( 2005 ;7)

‘Seldom any splendid story is wholly true.” – Samuel Johnson.

[8] Gary D. Rhodes and John Parris Springer (2005). Docufictions: Essay on the Intersection of Documentary and Fictional Filmmaking. USA: McFarland. p1 – 18.


[9] Elizabeth Cowie (2011). Recording Reality, Desiring the Real. USA: University of Minnesota Press. p19.

“From the moment they become film and are placed in a cinematic perspective, all film-documents and ever recording of a raw event take on a filmic reality which either adds to or subtracts from their particular initial reality (i.e., their “experienced” value), un-realizing or sur-realizing it, but in both cases slightly falsifying and drawing it to the side of fiction.”

Jean-Louis Comolli, “Détour par le direct-Un corps en trop” ( 2011 ;19)

“ ‘How can we be sure that what we are seeing is true and not fiction?’ is the question that haunts documentary. If documentary, as Grierson defined it, is “the creative treatment of actuality,” Brian Winston asks what is “the nature of the ‘acuality,’ or reality left?” And what is the nature of the fiction that Comolli argues arises from the :slightly falsifying” process of the re-presentation of recorded reality?” (  2011 ;19)

[10] Jelle Mast. (2009). New Directions in Hybrid popular television: a reassessment of television mock-documentary. Media, Culture & Society. 31 (2), p231.


Article By Jonathan Rozenkrantz. “Colourful Claims: towards a theory of animated documentary.” – Kadesha_RESEARCH PAPER

“How ‘true’, then, is animation? Here, too, scholars seem to differ. Paul Wells, a central point of reference in the discourse of animated documentary claims that ‘the very subjectivity involved in producing animation […] means that any aspiration towards suggesting reality in animation becomes difficult to execute. For example, the intention to create “documentary” in animation is inhibited by the fact that the medium cannot be objective.’ At its best, animation can show a documentary tendency, by mimicking the conventions of live-action documentary film and engaging with social reality (Wells 1998: 27-28).”

“Wells thus rejects animation’s documentary potential on the grounds of its lacking objectivity, but the more ‘defensive’ discourse questions the idea(l) of objectivity itself. Journalist Beige Luciano-Adams, for instance, triumphantly proclaims that ‘the myth of objectivity has long been shattered. […] Witnessing is a complex act, and the cults of vérité and direct cinema often overestimate anchors of their own lasting, authoritative prowess’ (Luciano-Adams 2009: 22). Perhaps he is right as far as general documentary theory is concerned, but with Wells remaining an authority in animation studies, this ‘myth’ might not yet constitute a closed chapter in the book of animated documentary.”

Animated Documentaries – Debate referring to Paul Ward’s work. – Kadesha_RESEARCHPAPER

“To document differently”: random thoughts on a taxonomy of animated documentary.

By Paul Ward

“Within the term “animated documentary” we can see tendencies and nuances: a sense that it potentially covers a huge and slippery area where anything perceived to be “animated” meets anything that might be perceived to be “documentary”. Thus: documentaries that are completely animated; live action documentary films that contain animated scenes; animated films that have some sort of documentary tone or intention, but may be addressing related (and complex) areas such as memory, trauma, personal identity . . . all could fall under this elastic term – though we might then more properly come up with different but related terms such as “documentary animation” or “documentary with animation”, or even neologisms such as “documation” or “animdocs”.”

“In Jonathan Rosenkrantz’s article Colourful Claims: towards a theory of animated documentary. At one point, Rosenkrantz states:

“The real issue is the existential difference between the photograph and the drawing, where the former requires and gives evidence of its referent while the latter doesn’t. This doesn’t mean that the potential of animated documentary should be denied. It merely means that drawings document differently.” “

Animating with Facts: The Performative Process of Documentary Animation in the ten mark (2010) – Journal by Paul Ward


“This article examines how animated films re-present and re-interpret real world occurrences,
people and places, focusing on an area that has been overlooked to date: the process of performance
and how this manifests itself in animated documentary films.”