home films writings | ||
writings of Peter Tammer |
Recently
I went looking for the TV movie Shackleton starring Kenneth Branagh
in the lead role. I had not seen this film since its first release on
Australian TV in 2003. It made a huge impression upon me. This film was bound
to captivate audiences around the world because of the immensity of the ordeal
suffered by the entire crew, including Shackleton himself as leader of the
expedition, and also Frank Hurley who was the official photographer on this
ill-fated adventure. The images which Hurley recorded from the first part of
this expedition up until the men reached Elephant Island in April 1916 have
remained powerful icons of polar exploration and failed expeditions since they
were released to the public in 1919, although newspaper accounts of the entire
event including the rescue had been available after August 1916.
Movie
footage from this expedition was used to create films for release under two
main titles: “South” and “In the Grip of the Polar Ice”.
In his
NFSA essay ‘AKA. Home of the Blizzard’, Quentin Turnour wrote:
Hurley shot footage to complete the film, but the work doesn’t see release until 1919. “IN THE GRIP OF THE POLAR ICE” is the title of the Australian lecture film; the UK release is called “SOUTH”. As I
could not locate a copy of the “SHACKLETON” movie I watched the two hour Nova
documentary called “ENDURANCE” (click link) instead. I had not seen this doco
previously, but I found it totally gripping. I won’t bother to list its few
shortcomings. I was overwhelmed about this account of the expedition in so many
ways! The ship was well named “Endurance” despite the irony of the fact it
failed to endure the onslaught of the ice. Because the ship was so named, the
name “Endurance” now stands for Shackleton’s entire mission from the beginning
to end. It stands for the mighty effort of all the crew and team members, their
heroic performance under the most trying, debilitating circumstances; the fact that they survived as
a team despite their different personalities and temperaments; and most of all,
the astonishing qualities of leadership Shackleton provided throughout the
whole crisis. Finally, Shackleton got every member of his expedition home
alive, against all the odds which were stacked so heavily against them.
I now
return to the central throughline of my essay, “The Search for the Truth in
Documentaries”. Here we encounter a singular conundrum… the veracity of the original
films which were released about the Shackleton expedition compared with
the truthfulness of any films which derive from those early films,
including a documentary such as Nova’s, or a dramatised TV serial account such
as “Shackleton”,
featuring Kenneth Branagh and directed by Charles Sturridge.
Let’s
go back to the rare film and photographic footage of the period 1914 - 1919.
I begin
in 1914 because that is when Frank Hurley joined Shackleton’s expedition,
and I will end with 1919 because that is when these early versions of the
filmed footage were released as films. Near the end of that period Hurley was
engaged as a photographer in action in WW1, from 1917 to March 1918.
From Wiki:
In 1917, Hurley joined the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) as an honorary captain and photographed many stunning battlefield scenes during the Third Battle of Ypres. In keeping with his adventurous spirit, he took considerable risks to photograph his subjects, also producing many rare panoramic and colour photographs of the conflict. Hurley kept a diary in 1917-1918 chronicling his time as a war photographer.[7] In it he describes his commitment "to illustrate to the public the things our fellows do and how war is conducted", as well as his short-lived resignation in October 1917 when he was ordered not to produce composite images.[8] His period with the AIF ended in March 1918.
I will return to many of the points raised in this summary from Wikipedia later in the essay, especially the issue of “composite images” which caused so much criticism of Hurley.
On YouTube I found an interesting video compilation (click link), a “tribute” to Shackleton and his expedition. This is how it was described by its creator Pete Vassilakos:
This
tribute piece is created from some of the movie footage and some of the stills
shot by Frank Hurley. Running only 21 min 36 secs it is accompanied by a
soundtrack of music and sound effects, plus some human voices mumbling from
time to time, but it is presented without any narration.
I draw
your attention to this two minute
sequence. Have a good look at the shots as they now appear, without audio, and
see what conclusions you draw from them.
0.00 A man playing with a dog, other dogs in kennels, still on board ship.
0.15 A
wide shot with the ship in background, men and dogs running playfully in
foreground.
0.26 Putting the dogs into harness for pulling
sleds.
0.40 Dogs pulling sleds though crevices in the ice.
1.02 Dogs and sled on flat ice.
1.25 Man playing with a dog, lifting a dog off the ground.
1.35 Four pups eating.
1.39 Happy man with PIPE, playing with four pups.
After
you’ve thought about this mute assemblage of shots, and also
my descriptive notes, consider what you might add to them. Then play the same
sequence again with its audio track
I
think you will find that these two versions, the first without audio and the
second with audio, have a substantially different impact upon you as observer,
what you make of them, what you feel about them.
Let
us take this one step further, these same images have been used in the Nova documentary
called “Endurance”:
If
we skip on ahead we come to the shot of a man sitting in a kennel with a dog.
His name is given as Frank Wild and he is followed by Frank Hurley bonding with
‘Shakespeare’ the “Holy Hound”.
Then
we see images of the men and the dogs, the men working to disentangle the
traces for the sleds. There is conjecture about Shackleton watching and musing.
Later
we see shots of the snow tractor with an interpretative ironic comment that it
is “easier to pull it rather than to drive it”.
What
you have seen in these different versions are pretty much the same shots used
in quite different ways. In the Nova doco they are “explained” or
“contextualised” in some respects by the narration which was probably informed
by diary entries of crew members, and also derived from recorded reminiscences
or letters of crew members written to their family members.
Each
way of presenting these events gives us different levels of information, and
extremely different emotional responses to the visual material.
Now I
want to add something which will distress animal lovers. This is not included
in the “tribute” piece made by Pete Vassilakos, I only discovered it by watching the Nova doco:
Another video compilation telling the Endurance story shows a man with a rifle going off to kill the dogs followed by a gunshot. I can't find that sequence now, it must have come from some other version of the great misadventure. However the Nova documentary does give important background information relating to this momentous event in the unfolding of the story.:
But
this raises another issue when it comes to finding the truth in documentaries:
the very same shots can be used over and over, in different combinations and
sequencing. Different producers,
different script-writers and editors, will select bits and pieces of the
original footage which best suit their own intentions, or agendas. How can we
ever know what has been cut or what has been put in a different order? How can
we ever be sure that they have not introduced some footage from a different
event which is not the one they purport to display in its entirety?
The
answer is simply that we cannot be sure! Our experience of so many
documentaries derived from newsreels shot during World War One and World War
Two has shown that producers of compilation documentaries often plunder images
from other events than the ones they are describing.
CONTEXTUALISATION
I think
it’s clear from what I have shown so far that everything we see may suffer from
lack of contextualisation or from placing things in a context which is
unsupported by the material which has been selected. In the case of Hurley and
fellow adventurers of his time, their images, both movie footage and still
photographs were often presented in the form of “lectures” accompanied by still
photographs and including mooving pictures.
Hurley
was an inspiring person. From all accounts he had a lot of charisma and
hutzpah! He was incredibly athletic and put himself in really difficult
positions in order to get his images.
Let’s
look at this first example of some scenes of the Endurance which were filmed on her way south to the Antarctic
circle. You see the ship rolling in the big seas, the men high in the rigging
on a spar, rocking from side to side. These images must have been filmed from a
similar position in the rigging, high above the deck.
It
begins with the ship having left Buenos Aires, now heading south to the
Antarctic, the sea ice being split apart by the ship’s prow.
From 21 to 38 secs there’s a beautiful shot
of the Endurance approaching camera, including camera stops,
(jump-cuts). The ship is still moving through water but she’s not under sail,
so she must be powered by engines at this time.
From 39 secs the ship is now trapped in much thicker ice and men are using picks
and crowbars, trying to open up a channel in the ice.
From 52 secs through to 1.20 we see men using long ice-saws, two men pushing down while
four others are pulling on a rope to draw the saw upwards after each
downstroke.
1.20 - 1.29 Some men are trying to push the ice away with long
poles.
1.30 - 1.38 A long line of men pulling a rope coming away
from the ship.
It’s
possible to form your own interpretation from these images which might be
misleading. We now view many of these same images used in the Nova assembly,
and we can see that they have been contextualised. They remain just as dramatic but
they also are given new “meaning”: and “atmosphere”:
Verisimilitude
1.
the appearance or semblance of truth; likelihood;probability:
“The play lacked verisimilitude.”
2.
something, as an assertion, having merely
the appearance of truth.
I find it interesting that
this word can be used both as praise or as a put-down!
At 14.35 we saw Hurley bonding with his
favourite dog “Shakespeare” the “Holy Hound” which I showed previously.
From the 15 minute mark to the end of
the film (20 minutes) we see the arrival of the men in the boats at Elephant
Island, farewelling the rescue team as they leave for South Georgia in the remodelled lifeboat boat the “James Caird”.
There
are also shots of the men on Elephant Island waiting for the return of a
rescue ship. These are followed by Shackleton’s return in a steamship to rescue
the men on Elephant Island.
This
five minute section of the tribute film is mainly constructed from still
photographs.
It’s
lucky we have these five minutes because they certainly represent a most
important part of the entire expedition. From what I have seen in all versions,
I don’t think Hurley used his movie camera very often, if at all. No moving
pictures since the time the dogs were put down!
This “Elephant Island” period should
contain three categories of images:
a)
What occurs as Shackleton and
his small crew sail to South Georgia and land on that island.
b)
What happens with the men
remaining on Elephant Island while Shackleton is away hoping to secure rescue
for his men.
c)
And finally, seeing the men
being rescued by Shackleton returning from South Georgia.
At
20.10 we are shown images including information about Shacklton’s death, and
credits. But the film’s coverage of the expedition has really come to an end by
20.10.
15.10 Stills of the men landing the boats and
pulling them onto the shore. Unloading the boats, setting up camp. Food and
mugs of warm drinks?
16.34 Preparing the “James Caird” for launch
after the re-modelling which raised the height of the hull by a few inches.
17.30 Waving farewell and “safe return” to the departing men of the rescue
mission.
17.53 Making the camp more weather resistant, they have combined two boat
hulls to form a hut with a sail
covering, then we see shots of the men waiting.
19.04 TITLE: “August 1916” followed by steamship approaching.
19.16 A life-boat arrives at, or departs from shore, steamship in background.
19.38 The steamer arrives at a busy port? We are not told where that port is.
19.57 The rescued crew, all cleaned up and a much happier looking group of
chaps.
Now
dear reader, please remember, as I stated earlier, my comments are not an
attack on Pete Vassilakos’ work as his tribute film is very good. I’m merely
pointing out that so much of what is important is not addressed by such a brief
film, it simply cannot be addressed and I’m sure there are many significant
reasons for that.
Anyone
who stumbles upon that film but who does not see any other documentary works
covering this same subject would be quite unaware of what a monumental and
miraculous escape the crew lived to celebrate, and they would have no idea of
the hardships encountered by the men who went to South Georgia, nor the men who
remained on Elephant Island.
This is
where the Nova documentary called “Endurance” comes into its own:
I will
now show a few clips from this historical doco which will give you some idea of
the incredible daring of the rescue mission as well as some experiences shared
by the men who waited on Elephant Island.
What an
extraordinary expedition this was in the period of the first part of World War
1. At the “other end of the Earth” so far removed from all the terrible things
going on in Europe, a crew of 28 men fought for their lives against the great
adversary, “Mother Nature” in the icy seas of the Antarctic. They also fought
against the vagaries of temperament and idiosyncracies which would most likely
be found in any group of 28 people.
The crew of Endurance in her final voyage was made up of the 28
men listed below:
The names highlighted in yellow are the men who
sailed the “James Caird” to South Georgia.
Sir Ernest Shackleton,
Leader
●
Frank
Wild, Second-in-Command
●
Frank Worsley, Captain
●
Lionel
Greenstreet, First Officer
●
Tom Crean, Second Officer
●
Alfred Cheetham, Third Officer
●
Hubert
Hudson, Navigator
●
Lewis
Rickinson, Engineer
●
Alexander
Kerr, Engineer
●
Alexander
Macklin, Surgeon
●
James McIlroy, Surgeon
●
Sir James
Wordie, Geologist
●
Leonard
Hussey, Meteorologist
●
Reginald
James, Physicist
●
Robert Clark, Biologist
●
Frank
Hurley, Photographer
●
George Marston, Artist
●
Thomas
Orde-Lees, Motor Expert and Storekeeper
●
Harry
"Chippy" McNish,
Carpenter
●
Charles Green, Cook
●
Walter
How, Able Seaman
●
William Bakewell, Able Seaman
●
Timothy McCarthy, Able Seaman
●
Thomas McLeod, Able Seaman
●
John Vincent, Boatswain
●
Ernest
Holness, Stoker
●
William Stephenson, Stoker
Their
extraordinary story really falls into two main parts, the first part ends when
the entire crew arrived at Elephant Island, exhausted and starving. After a
period of resting the crew is split into two groups: a rescue mission led by
Shackleton with 5 other men, while 22 men remained behind on the island,
including Frank Hurley.
On
board the “James Caird”: Frank Worsley, Harry McNish, Tom Crean,
JohnVincent, Timothy McCarthy and Ernest Shackleton.
Now the
story becomes two separate stories but the only images relating to the
Elephant Island party are only still images captured by Hurley. I think he was
using a small “hand camera” rather than a large-format plate camera.
The
still photographic images showing the steamer arriving to rescue the men are
not “actualities” they were a set up: they were most likely re-enacted for the purpose of the film lectures which
would follow on return to Europe.
So all
that you could possibly see in Pete Vassilakos’s tribute film which run from
the 15 to the 20 minute mark, were stills taken by Hurley on Elephant Island.
And there are not many of those used in that film. The incredible voyage to
South Georgia and the crossing from one side of that island to the port is not
covered by any footage of any sort. That is where a dramatised documentary
comes into its own because it has so many ways of giving the viewer extraneous
information. The most obvious ones are:
A narration, formed from research of all
the records left by the men who were involved.
Interviews with descendants of the men.
Re-created footage standing in for missing
actuality footage, but made to look like Hurley’s footage seen in the earlier
part of the expedition.
Sometimes
an editor will “pinch” footage from other events and splice them into a film
where they do not belong. (Poetic licence?)
Interviews with historians.
Observational material featuring modern day
adventurers demonstrating the difficult situations which would have faced
Shackleton, e.g., taking accurate readings of the sun while at sea in heaving
waters, huge waves and wind, and almost sunless cloudy skies.
Animations of maps which indicate the
trajectory to be sailed compared with the actual journey which got them to the
island of South Georgia.
The
Nova documentary Shackleton's Voyage of Endurance (2002) uses all of the above techniques and
more, especially sound effects and music to heighten the drama of the events
which are depicted. It’s a fine piece of television documentary. I place it
right at the top when it comes to documentaries which present historical events
for TV audiences. I can’t vouch for its absolute accuracy, but it certainly gives the impression that it has been rigorously
researched and scripted and that it tries to depict the events “truly”, even
when it uses dramatised reconstruction to represent what could not have been
filmed at the time. It feels “authentic” all the way through.
Although
I had seen “Shackleton” the film starring Kenneth Branagh previously, in
many respects I preferred the Nova doco. Why do I think the Nova doc on
Shackleton is so much better?
It’s
more thorough, it gives overviews, it gives the viewer many important details.
It is a bit sentimental and romantic in its portrayal of heroic status, but it
does not wallow in sensationalism. It’s not mushy. It is also critical when it
needs to be. But the overriding impression I took from it was it has the appearance of being as truthful as
it could be to the subject, from small details to the broad scope of the
whole endeavour and its place among the actions of the world’s nations
during WW1. The feature length drama Shackleton with Kenneth Branagh
playing Ernest Shackleton is also a fine piece of work, but I won’t discuss it
from here on because it is a fully dramatised film of an
historical event, whereas I’m concentrating on the genre of “historical
documentary” in this essay.
Then
there’s the trouble between him and Hurley. They both knew the importance of
the images which Hurley had so painstakingly captured along the way but the
plates would be just too bulky and too heavy. As a filmmaker I can imagine how
distressing it must have been for Hurley, but really, so could anyone who has
lost family photos and films which are destroyed by fire or some other
catastrophe.
But
what about Shackleton making sure by supervising the
destruction of the plates which were to be left behind. What a vital piece of
information! It speaks volumes.
So, how
many different sorts of documentaries are there?
Do all
the films and videos which go under that heading deserve to be there?
Which
of those I’ve already mentioned really are documentaries? Or all they all just
different types of documentary?
Is
there a difference between a documentary and an actuality?
What
constitutes an “actuality”?
I’ve
tried to address this issue in two previous essays:
http://www.innersense.com.au/petertammer/1896.html
and
http://www.innersense.com.au/petertammer/flaherty_hurley_1.html
What do
you do when something which purports to be a documentary may be nothing but a
fictional piece of work which looks like a documentary?
Or when
a film is truly observational, but when the subject matter changes under the
scrutiny of the camera? Let’s
jump to some more recent examples which are well known. Take the Maysles
Brothers. I’m selecting my two favourites now… “Salesman” and “Grey
Gardens”. Are either of these films really documentaries? What I can
say about each of them is that they are definitely observational films which
“portray and intrude upon” the lives of their subjects. The subjects were compliant
with the filmmakers, but in Salesman the central character
starts to fall apart under the scrutiny of the filmmakers. There are also
moments in Grey
Gardens where elder Edie seems to be about to fall apart, out
of the film, but she hangs in there. Younger Edie plays the filmmakers to the
hilt.
Getting
back to Shackleton and Hurley… there are many images which Hurley took which
are clearly “set-ups”. You can spot these images immediately, situations where
it’s clear that he could only have got the picture if people performed for him
upon request. There are others which are more “casual”... where action is
happening, unfolding, the men are busy and all Hurley has to do is to be ready
and on the ball to get the shot. And then there are some in which Hurley is
being filmed as a crew member, which he probably set the camera for and asked
another person to operate the camera for him.
Should
we make any distinction between these types of images as being more truthful or
less so if they were set up for the camera, specifically performed for Hurley
rather than occurring naturally? If we were to reject set-ups as “lacking
validity” and not use them in an edited version of the work, the resulting
movie would be extremely brief. Some events can only be represented if they are
“performed upon request”. It would be virtually impossible for someone like
Hurley to lug all the camera equipment around and always film things only as
they occur. Even with modern highly portable equipment this is still the case.
Some
events are premeditated… the camera operator knows that the dogs are going to
be offloaded from the ship, sliding down a sail to the ice. So he selects the
camera position knowing that this event will occur soon enough, he can capture
it if he is prepared for the event. His only direct involvement in the action
is in signalling that he’s ready to film before they release the dogs.
Another
example similar to this is when the men are sledding through crevices and you
can see the dogs and the sled with the man behind it approaching camera. How
can Hurley get such a front-on shot if he can only record what is already
happening? Well, if there are three sleds going in a similar direction, if he’s
quick enough he can see that the first one has done such and such, so he may
hold up the second or third until he’s got the camera ready. With extremely
cumbersome equipment in such harsh icy conditions these sort of images are
always going to be difficult to capture even as still photographs, let alone as
moving images which may require “following” i.e., panning and tilting while
cranking the camera with a crank handle like a coffee grinder. These days when
all our new technology is so light and so brilliant giving us superb images
effortlessly, we still have the dilemma of how to capture events if they could
not be “repeated for the camera”.
Another
stream of criticism often levelled at Hurley is his “artifice” in tinting his
images, giving them some sort of hue additional to the
Black&White of the old film-stock. That is, he is considered by some people
to be manipulating the viewer’s response by giving a picture a bluish tinge, or
an orange tinge, rather than leaving it black, grey and white. These techniques
were becoming more common among moviemakers of all classes at that time,
indicating perhaps a “yearning” for colour and the emphasis of the moods which
such colour washes give, either a warmer or colder feel.
Then we
come to “superimposition” where the photographer can create an effect by
combining two images in the same print. This is much more easily achieved with
confidence when combining still images in a darkroom. But it can be done with
movie film, either by optical printing or by staging a double exposure as Méliès did in his
film “The
India Rubber Head”. That would be extremely difficult for Hurley to do
with his movie camera in those conditions unless he accidentally filmed over
something he had already shot before developing the negative, or unless he used
optical printing later in the post-production phase.
As I
can’t find a clear example of this technique from his Antarctic expeditions I have
chosen to represent it from his AIF images in WW1.
My friend Andrew Pike has written about this here.
This
criticism of “FAKERY” has trickled down to our time and you can see that bias
clearly in the following article published in The Guardian 2004. I regard the headline as seriously biased
encouraging the reader to assume that Hurley was some sort of fraud. However
the tone displayed in the headline is not the same as the tone of the following
text:
Shackleton expedition
pictures were 'faked' | UK news | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › World › UK News
Aug 21, 2004 - Shackleton expedition pictures were 'faked' ... They are the photographs
that show what is perhaps the greatest story of endurance and valour ever told, the epic ... Hurley's frequent use of
'artistic licence' was confirmed this weekend by ... of the footage from Antarctica in Sydney,
Melbourne and Adelaide.
My own
view is that Hurley felt he was entitled to do any and all of these things
because they were all part and parcel of what a photographer could do and they
were all viable techniques just like framing, panning or tilting. He would have
had some familiarity with selective focus: either “pulling focus” or selecting
one plane of focus so that only one part of a shot was sharp and the rest a bit
soft and fuzzy.
Let me
put a contentious argument here: if Hurley was to film a scene below deck on
the Endurance before the ship became icebound and if he added some artificial
light to enable the image to be caught, would we call that a fake?
In my
own filming in Indonesia I was filming in a Batik factory in Java where two
styles of Batik were being created. I had to resort to a “trick” to enable me
to get the shots of the “stamped” Batik technique because the light level in
that part of the factory was extremely poor and my battery light had lost power.
The only way I could achieve my images in that room was to record at 8 frames
per second instead of 24 FPS. I asked the women to go very slowly, which they
did, and I got a sequence which would otherwise have been impossible or very
poor. Was that “faking it”? By the way, no-one ever picked my effort there and
I never had to suffer any critical attack for employing that “trick”.
I’m
also confident to assert that Hurley did not see himself as a “scientific
recorder” like Muybridge with his “grids” placed within shots to register
images with “precision”. I’m sure that Hurley viewed himself as an artist, a new
kind of artist who had cameras and a wide range of photographic
techniques available to allow him to create images which would have emotional
impact upon the viewer, whether in a gallery, a cinema, or merely attending a
“presentation” lecture which included slides and movie footage.
I’m
full of admiration for Frank Hurley. I think his achievements were astonishing.
As a filmmaker since about 1962 I’ve experienced many of the issues facing
Hurley in far less demanding circumstances. I have never had to film in the
harsh Antarctic environment with all its attendant physical demands, let alone
the sheer dangers, the extreme hardships and exhaustion that these men endured.
Hurley with two different cameras he
used in the Antarctic expeditions.
I often
think of those intrepid people who make films of mountaineers. How in the world
do they make a film in those situations when most of us could barely climb
those rockfaces with the climbers who are the subjects of those films?
Fortunately I have never been required to climb a mountain let alone film those
events with climbers as they progress. I’ve also experienced the huge problem
of large, heavy, clunky cameras such as were available to Hurley and his
contemporaries.
So we can’t deny the fact that Hurley staged many of his memorable stills and moving images, and that he embellished them with various techniques such as double exposure, adding hues, etc. These “tricks of the trade” were later called into question by people who rejected his right to create images that would intensify emotional responses in his viewers. How
dare he be so bold!
Peter
Tammer
October
26th, 2019.
see also:
The Search for Truth in Documentaries
NOTES:
The NOVA DOCO: Shackleton's Voyage of Endurance (2002)
This link is for the Nova Doco, but only for the shorter 2 hour 6 min. version.
|
|