[B     The recent postings about documentary on this list suggest
 
that whether it is called "ethics" or some other "tag" there may be
a renewal brewing in our thinking and research about documentary.
From the postings of the past few weeks I get the impression that part
of the current lack of progress in examining documentary comes about
because the discursive context for the discussion of it is very limited.
        Perhaps a better way to put this is to suggest that like
aesthetic film theory and history only some of the most prominent
features of documentary film history and theory have been mapped out
or noted.  In other words, we seem to be able to see the high points of
documentary cinematic *texts* (i.e., "masterpieces") and to associate
them with great communicators (i.e., "film artists") but our
concentration on individual works, creators, and techniques causes us
to miss the larger communicative contexts in which documentaries exist,
particularly the economic and social ones.
        In many cases our shortsightedness appears to be intentional.
For example, in an essay which is otherwise exceptional for covering
the contemporary discourse about documentary theory, the author,
Jay Ruby, dismisses study of the audience with these words,
"This essay has not dealt with the complexities of audience."
(Journal of Film and Video 44.1-2, p.58)  Perhaps I have overstated
this case, for what Ruby does after that statement is to concentrate
on the television medium as a force for cultural centralization which
may make media diversity unlikely. This part of his essay *is* an
examination of a larger communicative context.  However, unless
I am mistaken, there is not much of this type of inquiry.
        Your reactions to these observations will be appreciated.
exit