‘’Fact-based films are not just intriguing, they are also increasingly popular… intriguing stories and situations that would be rejected as impossible fictions if one couldn’t point to their undeniable base in reality.’’ (Rosenthal, 1995) The documentary film has certainly become more prominent with the growth and popularity of the docudrama sub-genre through the whole genre’s evolution. The ways in which the docudrama reconstructs events, ideas and people provides audiences with a new viewpoint on the genre and offers another level of entertainment for it. In regards to the question, it is interesting to uncover if what the docudrama sets out to do in the first place is right in regards to the subject it is based on, and if it’s portrayal is accurate to that subject. The World Union of Documentary agrees that the docudrama offers ‘sincere and justifiable reconstruction.’ This essay will examine whether this is the case, in regards to the question as well. There are many different ways in which a docudrama can be told, and this effects the answer to said question.

To begin, it is important to understand how the audience perceive the docudrama, and how it will affect them. This then allows us to understand whether the docudrama’s ends do justify its means. Alan Rosenthal explains:

‘’Clearly, two subjects cry out for more research and examination: the first is audience perception; the second, effect and action. Each is related to reception theory, a conceptual attempt to understand the position of the audience. Examination of how the audience understands the film would add a new dimension to the debate about whether the work is seen as truth or fiction or a peculiar mixture of both.’’ (Rosenthal, 2002)

Peter Watkins’ 1965 docudrama The War Game tells a fictional recount of a chemical and nuclear attack on a British town in the 1960’s. Watkins is well known for his fictionalising of events that he makes into documentary films, yet offers viewpoints that help connect with his audience and brings about fears that, the events that happen in them are real and could happen. The War Game documents the fallout and the effects of these attacks that happen on the people featured, to the viewer this is fictional but at the time of its release this would have felt all the more real, during a time of uncertainty of nuclear war. In relation to Rosenthal’s above statement, with The War Game as an example, audience perception will have been provoked to believe that while this isn’t real, it is a warning of what could come, and the way the film is shot as a documentary emphasises this. A viewer could argue this as being ‘justifiable reconstruction,’ and if the docudrama’s means of warning an audience of certain possibilities although fictional, then its ends are justifiable.

‘’The real challenge, then, may be the challenge of function – to determine what docudrama should be doing and how it can bring about more positive social change… I would like it to do more, to go on telling the stories that, as Woodhead puts it, cannot be told by conventional methods and focus on the major questions that concern all of us.’’ (Rosenthal, 2002)

 With this, it is evident that docudrama delivers a new kind of experience for a viewer than a regular documentary. Through providing new ways of thinking for audiences through a different medium of feeding information to someone, it is clear that documentary has evolved prominently into the docudrama form and through this, has even gained different sub-genres within it.

Peter Watkins has made other films similar to The War Game which have fictionalised ‘what if’ scenarios in the same style, being part documentary and part drama, which could even be regarded as a pseudo documentaries. Punishment Park, is an example of one of his films which examines a situation in which anti-war protestors are given the option to either go to prison or take part in ‘Punishment Park’ where they must traverse across a desert with no food or water, being chased down by the national guard. Whilst the film is fictionalised for the most part it’s impact on how it effected those who viewed it remains crucial. Many shunned Watkins as a British filmmaker for making a film that painted the American government in a negative light, including accusations of the film holding a communist philosophy. Watkins’ message in the film is that it was supposed to represent the views of the people in contrast to the government on subjects of war for example. He says this: "What was most important that in Punishment Park it was ordinary people...The kind of people whose thoughts are not ordinarily expressed in the mass media.” (Watkins, 2002, Buening, 2008) This is particularly interesting in regards to wether the ends of the docudrama do justify the means. Whilst many criticised this film, Watkins’ aims were to display the ideas of the people through it, in contrast to wide spread opinion put out by the media. His means were to use a fictionalised situation to provoke an emotional response of the real world, and using the documentary format strengthens how authentic and real the film comes across to its audience, almost seeming real and that this has exactly happened. Therefore, its reception should be received very strongly, by those who support and oppose it - whilst it is not authentic or real it’s message in broadcasting a certain viewpoint should be taken into account and depending on how it effects the viewer than its ends could be justified by its means or aims. On the other hand, this could be argued against due to the fact that it is fictionalised. The film is also regarded as a ‘mockumentary’ so to some it may not be taken seriously at all, and at the time many would have ignored the film in favour of actuality and forms of media that were completely factual. This could also be argued with The War Game, and the fact that many of the elements explored in the films such as nuclear weapons or the ‘Punishment Park’ have not been learnt of or may seem satirical and ridiculous. Whilst these films are more understandable to a modern day audience, back when these films were released it may have been a lot more difficult to perceive them in the same ways as audiences now do - especially in a time of patriotism towards the war on communism and American involvement in Vietnam.

The Biopic is a popular example of a docudrama, the retelling of a real person’s story but in the form of a drama. It is difficult to properly say whether a Biopic has documentary value, however there are examples that do contain this value. David Fincher’s Zodiac recounts the events of the investigation into the infamous Zodiac Killer, based on the book from investigator Robert Graysmith. With Graysmith’s first-hand experience within the case and the investigation as a whole, the fact the film is based on his book would help it be grounded and have historical accuracy. ‘’Graysmith worked with Fincher to make the film as accurate as possible. The director recreated everything from the wiring of the ceilings to the trailer of the main suspect, and even the clothes on Gyllenhaal’s back.’’ (Matthews, 2007) With this it is credible that the film is a ‘sincere reconstruction’ of the source material and due to its factuality and historical accuracy Zodiac’s ends do justify its means. Whilst the film is made for the purposes of entertaining it is set out in a way to inform the viewer and pose questions, as a documentary would do. Whilst well-known actors such as Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo have roles which may seem unreal to a viewer due to them being big names, the film constantly reminds the viewer of the fact that this is indeed based on true, unresolved events. In comparison a Biopic such as Ron Howard’s A Beautiful Mind contains many inaccuracies and missed details about mathematician John Nash, including his sexuality, illness and family, which would be important in the detailing of the life and personality of this man perceived on screen. The film is more a full on drama than part documentary. Where Zodiac entertains but also informs the viewer of what happened, A Beautiful Mind is made in a way that, whilst the subject was a real person, the film is made as if to be fictional, and this can mislead its audience. In a review from Alex von Tunzelmann from The Guardian, he says: ‘’Nash's mind and his life have been beautified according to Hollywood's standards. The result is an effective piece of cinema, but one that has little faith in its audience's intelligence.’’ (Tunzelmann, 2012) With that it is important in understanding that it depends on how a Biopic is made, whereas some can be factual and provide the correct truths, some are taken more seriously as dramas. In relation to the question then, the intentions of many Biopics are credible to fact.

Steven N. Lipkin argues that: ‘’Docudramas do not claim to be documentaries, and that docudrama provides a view or a version of the past, rather than ‘‘the’’ history of the events or figures it represents. What documentaries do offer, from their ‘’basis’’ in ‘’true stories’’ is a performance of their real life subjects.’’ (Lipkin, 2011) So there is a difference between documentary and docudrama as put, and with the docudrama in relation to Zodiac, it is told from somebody else’s point of view in this case Robert Graysmith’s, not the documenter of a typical documentary. With that in mind, the conventional documentary saying of ‘based on true events’ is well applied to the docudrama, with the word ‘based’ being of most importance – it’s only inspired to extents. Just like the Biopic, whilst a documentary is made to inform, the combination of drama urges the idea that it sets out to entertain as well, and that sometimes it shouldn’t be taken as seriously as a typical documentary should. Lipkin goes on to say: ‘’The fact that docudramas are produced, distributed, marketed and exhibited as feature films underline their function as entertainment products. Docudramas assert that they are ‘’based on’’ true stories, foregrounding their project to recreate known figures and events.’’ (Lipkin, 2011) The question is then, should the audience know what to take with them and not what to take after viewing a docudrama? With knowledge that it is just ‘based’ on an event or person, should a film such as A Beautiful Mind be simply seen as a film with the purpose of entertaining or a biopic with many inaccuracies to its central character? If the ends of the docudrama do justify the means, in this context, then a mostly factual film that sets out to just be for entertainment would be in support of the posed question.

The idea of reconstructing an event through the medium of documentary has always been an impactful way of affecting the audience’s mind-set and how they feel about the film or TV show. In shows such as Crimewatch, reconstructions are used to amplify the feelings displayed by the people who are involved with the crimes shown - the fact that these events are real make the reconstructions a lot more serious and warn people to be on the lookout for the criminals involved. In regards to the question, Crimewatch is not exactly an example of a docudrama but has elements of it, and with what its reconstructions set out to do in their aims of warning people suggest that the ends do justify the means here. The victims of these events have a lot of input on what is put in these reconstructions so in terms of accuracy their authenticity should be taken into consideration. The difference between a Crimewatch reconstruction compared to a biopic for example, is that the documentary still is a large factor in Crimewatch, and provide the main bulk for the show. Interviews and investigations are prominent in the show whereas the reconstructions back up eye-witness stories and as said, are used for emotional impact on the viewer, to allow them to see how an event unfolded from the victims point of view. Crimewatch is definitely not a docudrama but it does feature aspects of them in terms of reconstruction that should not be ignored as an example in answering whether the ends of the docudrama do justify the means. For Crimewatch, and other shows and films like it, this is very much the case.

To conclude, the question of whether a docudrama’s ends can justify its means cannot be answered without understanding what kind of docudrama it is, and what it really sets out to do. Without knowing what a docudrama’s aims are, it is difficult to process whether or not in the end it has done its job.  This cannot be just answered by one person, but the audience as a whole, and how the film has been directed at them through marketing for example, into what context they are in and what they want to get from the film. Derek Paget references the question here: ‘’Audiences might be persuaded to accept the angle of vision offered by the docudrama. So long as they can clearly see that the ends justify the means.’’ (Paget, 2016) So, it is up to the audience on how to experience and learn from one of these films. Whilst a documentary is a direct and evident way of offering information to the viewer, a docudrama offers a little more, depending on what it is, and who it is. 

Bibliography

Filmography

The War Game. (1965). [DVD] Directed by P. Watkins. UK: BBC.

Punishment Park. (1971). [DVD] Directed by P. Watkins. USA: Chartwell Francoise.

Zodiac. (2007). [DVD] Directed by D. Fincher. USA: Phoenix Pictures.

A Beautiful Mind. (2001). [DVD] Directed by R. Howard. USA: Imagine Entertainment.