Exploring the Power and Pitfalls of First-Person Documentaries
In the world of documentary filmmaking, the first-person approach has sparked both admiration and criticism. The idea of sharing one’s personal perspective on screen gained popularity with the rise of more accessible, portable cameras, making it easier for filmmakers to capture their own stories. But does this style help or hurt the documentary genre? Can personal reflection provide deeper truths, or does it risk turning the genre into something more fictionalized and self-indulgent?
The Roots of First-Person Filmmaking
The concept of a self-portrait isn’t new. It dates back to the 16th century in Europe, with artists reflecting on their own identities and exploring the idea of “self-awareness” that became central in the Romantic era. In cinema, this tradition is carried forward in what we now call the first-person documentary. Rather than merely recounting a subject’s life from an outsider’s perspective, these films allow filmmakers to reflect on their own experiences in an intimate, subjective way.
But unlike traditional self-portraits in art or literature, the film’s visual and auditory components add new layers to the story. The camera becomes an instrument of self-expression, and yet it also poses a unique challenge for filmmakers: how much should they let the “self” dominate, and how much should they focus on telling a truthful, objective story about the world around them?
The Challenges of Subjectivity
Critics of the first-person documentary, like theorist Michael Chanan, argue that filmmakers who overly inject their personal views into their work risk distorting the meaning of the story. He suggests that true documentary filmmaking should capture events as they are, without pre-determined interpretations or personal biases. For Chanan, a filmmaker should observe and listen to what’s happening around them rather than force a narrative driven by their own opinions or experiences.
Take, for example, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 11/09 (2018), which investigates the causes of Donald Trump’s election. Moore’s personal commentary, frequent appearances on screen, and emotionally charged cinematic techniques might seem to overshadow the real events. Chanan would argue that Moore’s highly subjective approach takes away from the documentary’s ability to be a true reflection of reality, turning it into more of a self-serving narrative.
In fact, critics have even accused Moore of narcissism, claiming that his films manipulate facts and edit footage to fit a specific agenda. His directorial style, which blends his personal views with political statements, often blurs the lines between documentary and editorial, raising questions about where the truth ends and personal opinion begins.
But not all critics agree. Many filmmakers and scholars believe that the first-person documentary offers something unique: an honest, vulnerable window into the filmmaker’s inner world. This perspective creates a connection between the filmmaker and the audience, allowing viewers to see life through the filmmaker’s eyes and emotions.
Filmmaker di Tella believes that autobiographical storytelling helps filmmakers see themselves as the other. By sharing their personal stories, filmmakers invite the audience to relate to their experiences, whether they’re reflecting on life’s struggles, triumphs, or everyday moments. This approach can feel universal, despite being deeply personal.
A good example of this kind of self-reflection is Agnès Varda’s Faces Places (2017), a collaboration with French street artist JR. The film explores the bond between the two as they travel through rural France, meeting locals and painting their portraits. Varda uses this journey to reflect on her own life, relationships, and memories. The first-person approach allows the audience to feel her emotions directly, as Varda narrates and appears on screen, guiding viewers through her thoughts. Even though parts of the film use fictionalized elements (like scripted dialogue and stylized shots), it doesn’t undermine the film’s emotional truth. In fact, these artistic choices only enhance the story, giving it a poetic, reflective quality.
The Balance Between Personal and Social
The first-person documentary isn’t just about the individual—it’s also about how the personal intersects with the social. Directors often grapple with how much to reveal about themselves versus how much to allow the audience to interpret on their own. Varda’s work highlights this balance, inviting viewers into her personal reflections while still addressing broader human experiences.
Michael Moore, on the other hand, uses his first-person approach to voice strong political opinions and critique societal systems. While Varda’s films focus on personal connections and introspection, Moore’s documentaries serve as platforms for political activism. Both approaches are, in my opinion, valid, but they show how different filmmakers use their personal perspective in distinct ways. While Varda’s reflective style encourages open interpretation, Moore’s approach feels more direct, urging viewers to adopt his views on social and political issues.
The first-person documentary has undeniably been a powerful tool for filmmakers looking to share their personal stories or tackle larger societal issues. Whether it’s through Moore’s political critique or Varda’s poetic reflection, first-person documentaries allow filmmakers to position themselves within their narratives, making their work deeply personal yet universally relatable. Ultimately, the genre’s strength lies in its ability to highlight the activist nature of film, revealing strong personalities behind the camera, ready to be criticised, scrutinised and sometimes even persecuted.
