Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1468810
duction of an early "Nanook of the North" poster advertising the film as "A Story of Life and Love in the Actual Arctic." The film was made in the "actual (sub)arctic," and it is presented as a "story," in other words, a tale. Flaherty was certainly "Western- centric" in his views, as was almost every person making films in the 1920s. (In 1922, the year "Nanook" was released, approxi- mately seven films were made in China, 10 in Japan, 60 in India, and many thousands in the US and Europe). This does not make a We s te r n v i ew p o i n t " r i g h t " i n 2 022 , neither does it make the films "wrong." Another of Godmilow's topics, "Games Anthropologists Play" has been exploded in many documentaries. Sol Worth's and John Adair's late 1960s "Through Navajo Eyes" project and Australian Dennis O'Rourke's ten remarkable films made between 1976- 2004, all question the roles of the maker and the audience in portraying and consuming indigenous cultures. The Audience: Relatively few people have seen Farocki's f ilms. Fewer have seen Godmilow's. That and the fact that they do not make much money does not render them less or more valuable. Millions have watched "Hoop Dreams" and Ken Burns' work. The fact that they have huge audiences makes them neither more nor less valuable. Godmilow singles out Steve James' "Hoop Dreams" and Burns' and Lynn Novick's "Vietnam" series for special contempt. She categorizes "Vietnam" as "documentary war porn." She sees these as works that allow audiences to falsely feel that they understand the problems of inner-city black kids or the American War in Vietnam while reinforcing complacency, rather than prompting political and social action. Ken Burns makes historical films, and in fact considers himself first an histo- rian. Steve James makes films that focus on personal stories about how individuals and families make their way in the world. One can criticize both these filmmakers, but to excoriate their work as damaging ignores the vital ways that they offer information and insight to tens of millions of people. Most people who watch Burns' and James' films will never see Farocki's, and if they did, and if they could relate to the form and content, they would likely still not be moved to act. Fifty years ago, when Godmilow began making films, only a handful of English-lan- guage books devoted to documentary film existed. John Grierson's "Grierson on Doc- umentary" (1946), "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" by Paul Rotha, Sinclair Lewis, and Richard Griffith (1964), "The Documentary Tradition," a selection of essays edited by Lewis Jacobs (1971), and "Documentary Diary: An Infor- mal History of the British Documentary Film," 1928-1939 by Paul Rotha (1973) were, along with the writings of Frances and Rob- ert Flaherty, the main ones. The long-time authority, Erik Barnouw's "Documentary: A History of the Nonf iction Film," was first published in 1974, the same year that "Antonia: A Portrait of a Woman" was re- leased. Godmilow's approach did not stem from any of these traditional sources, nor from the hundreds upon hundreds of books about documentary published since then. [Disclaimer: my own book "A New History of Documentary Film" will be published in its Third Edition later this year by Blooms- bury.] Her inspiration comes from poetry and far left-of-center politics, combined in an admirable desire to create alternative nonfiction, inspire others to do the same, and have a great deal of fun along the way. This is a splendid ambition, but Godmilow's approach lacks understanding of documen- tary history and does nothing to secure audiences for postrealist documentary films, nor livelihoods for their makers. "Kill the Documentary" is published as part of the "Investigating Visible Evi- dence: New Challenges in Documentary" series. Visible Evidence is an organization of "scholars and practitioners engaged in research and debates on historical and contemporary documentary practice and nonf iction media culture." To be pub- lished under its auspices means that the key figures in current scholarly work on documentary find "Kill the Documentary" worthy, a status underlined by a forward from eminent scholar Bill Nichols. It is to the series editors' credit that they chose the book, which although not a typical aca- demic volume, is thorough in its footnotes, filmography, and bibliography, and has a list of "144 feature films you should see before you croak." It is a good list. There are other good things in "Kill the Documentary." Advice such as "Leave your parents out of this" is useful, especially for film students. While almost 80, Godmilow's liveliness and untrammeled spirit recasts 1960s and 1970s activism for new documen- tarians, who will hopefully be inspired. Her impassioned prose and obvious sense of humor are entertaining. Proclaiming that "the traditional documentary is the most enduring vestige of cultural imperialism" is intended to raise hackles. Those who agree with the statement might well focus their attention not only on film and television, but on the extraordinary cultural power of video games and social media to document the world. This book deserves attention; it is heartening to hear directly from a filmmak- er who is unafraid to stake out a position. "Kill the Documentary" also introduces readers to an array of fascinating documen- taries and may even get people to seek out the films of Harun Farocki. ■ "Kill the Documentary: A Letter to Filmmak- ers, Students, and Scholars" by Jill Godmilow Columbia University Press, 2022 189 pages Betsy A. McLane is a freelance writer specializing in film. 'Documentary war porn' is how Godmilow dismisses Ken Burns' 'Vietnam.' 56 C I N E M O N T A G E B O O K R E V I E W