Ryan McNeil
Last weekend I watched the Oscar-nominated documentary SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN. While I enjoyed myself at that particular screening, I came away unsure of what I’d just seen. I wasn’t in love with the film, and it certainly seemed like a film I should be in love with. Something was amiss.
Was I unfairly comparing it to all the other amazing docs I’d seen in 2012? Had I (also unfairly) set my expectations too high? What was that nagging feeling that persisted so long that I never did take pen to paper and review the film.
Then yesterday, I was directed to Ropes of Silicon, and suddenly my misgivings had a hint of an explanation. I hadn’t fallen for the story because it wasn’t really the full story. It was another documentary where reality was being somewhat slanted.
The film presents the following:
- Rodriguez recorded two studio albums that went nowhere.
- Rodriguez was rumoured to have killed himself on-stage.
- Rodriguez’s music found a second life in the anti-apharteid movement in South Africa.
- Two music lovers – one writer (Craig Bartholomew Strydom) and one record shop owner (Stephen ‘Sugar’ Segerman) took it upon themselves to discover what happened to Rodriguez.
The Ropes article counters with these facts and theories:
- While neither Rodriguez album sold, he amassed a widespread cult following.
- Rodriguez played as the opening act for Midnight Oil in 1981, so his non-suicide wasn’t such a mystery.
- Rodriguez’s music was a large part of the anti-apharteit movement, but also played in England, Australia, America, and many other pockets of the world.
- The two music lovers had many resources available to them, even in a pre-internet age. So much so, that the lengths they went to “find Rodriguez” make them some of the worst detectives in history.
So what we have at best is a slanted story, and at worst is a skewing of the facts.
The directors of SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN are hardly the first to do this, and it should be understood up front that every documentarian skews their footage to tell the story they wish to tell. Where that leaves us to wonder is, as my friend Corey Atad would say, the difference in a documentary between fact and truth.
Nothing that SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN presents is made up. Everything the film presents is fact – from the lack of Rodriguez’s commercial success to the passion these South African enthusiasts had for the music. However, the film has gathered the facts around some particular characters. The thrust of the story comes from Strydom and Segerman, since it is primarily told from their perspective as fans. There is a little bit of perspective added from producers on the genius of his music and how distinct it was for the times, but precious little is discussed with other musicians, current musicians, or heck – Rodriguez himself! So while the details of the story as they are told by Strydom and Segerman are, to quote the musician himself, “cold fact”, it must be understood that they cloud the truth.
The truth is that while Rodriguez is a musician that never got his due, that he made a go of things far longer than this doc would suggest. The truth is that he was never as hard to find as this film would have you believe, even if your first attempt was to “follow the money”. The truth is that while Rodriguez was never a household name, Rodriguez wasn’t as deep an underground act as a viewer of this film would think. And the truth is that this film, while lovely, is an elaborate fan letter from two fans.
I’m holding SEARCHING’s feet to the fire here, however it is only the latest in a string of documentaries that blurs the line between fact and truth. Some films have held their hands up and said “we just filmed what we saw”, others have used the confusion to further build the myth of all involved. It’s never malicious, but one has to wonder about its effect on the subject matter and the art form as a whole.
The swell of interest for Rodriguez and the financial success that’s coming with it is a good thing. By any measure it is long overdue, and an inspiration for any artist who feels like they missed their chance. However, it is undeniably spurred by the documentary, and that documentary shone the spotlight on a ‘coulda-been’. The documentary wasn’t telling the tale of how Rodriguez’s label screwed him out of money (lots of labels did that to lots of artists)…it told the tale of wandering minstrel who wandered his way into complete obscurity.
This is the documentary’s version of “the truth”, and for many who saw the film it is “the truth”. They have collected the information like broken pieces of tile, and presented this mosaic for us to consider. It makes for a pretty picture, so pretty that we forget that the information is broken.
This is what happens every time a documentarian offers up a piece of work – their own bias is in there somewhere. The bias could be political, social, artistic, or ethnic. It seldom comes with mal intent, but it is always there whether the documentarian wants to admit it or not.
I think what my mild unease with SUGAR MAN has underlined, is the key for what documentary films face when balancing truth and fact within the stories they tell. I believe that we have all accepted that these films come with some latitude in their adherence to “what happened”. Not only is it human nature to shuffle the deck, but it underlines how we all recount our stories differently. However, when a filmmaker wanders outside of that latitude and begins to pull our perception, I can’t help but think that they do their subject a disservice. While I’d never go so far as to suggest that the filmmaker is lying, it certainly feels like some measure of deception has taken place when we in the audience learn what was omitted.
None of this was on my mind as I walked home from SERACHING FOR SUGAR MAN. As I said off the top, all I knew was that something was amiss. I walked away with a new interest in Rodriguez, and a smile that he was able to enjoy his South African return to the extent that he enjoyed it…but I walked away wanting more.
Maybe that is the ultimate result when a documentary muddles fact and truth: they skimp the portion one, and somehow leave us wanting seconds of the other.
My interest in documentaries have increased greatly in the past few years (probably partially due to the fact that one my final courses in University was Studies in the Documentary). The issue of how factual documentaries are have always been of huge interest to me.
I believe the first film I watched in my course was Errol Morris’ STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. There are some people who argue that Morris’ films should be labeled “Non-Fiction” instead of “Documentary,” because of his heavy use of re-enactments and an orchestrated score.
Another example of a non-quite-factual documentary is THE KING OF KONG, which apparently changed MANY facts, in order for the film to have the underdog story that was presented.
I think that the only real (sad) truth with documentaries is that filmmakers film months (or even years) of footage, makes sure that every subject signs a release form, and film creates the story they want to tell in editing suite, which may or may not be based in fact.
As for SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN, we don’t know how much footage was left on the cutting room floor. For all we know, the two seemingly incompetent subjects DID find out more about Rodriguez than what was presented. However, it makes for a much better story to present the film as if he dropped off the face of the earth.
Pointing out the facts that were omitted is just plane old nitpicking and, in my opinion, a lame way to try and lessen the film in the eyes of Oscar-voters. It’s still a decent film and that should at least count for something.
This is not nitpicking.
The director has shaped the story the way he wanted to shape it. I’m not concerned with what he left on the editing room floor, because I have no idea of knowing what was left there. He might have known all of this, or he might have known none of it.
This is nitpicking: Why didn’t Strydom dig deeper when he finally reached the American label head, since that guy is *clearly* ripping the artist off.
Getting hung up on a question like that and allowing it to curb one’s overall enjoyment of the film is a nitpick.
Asking a larger question about the director’s choices and understanding of the subject is a whole conversation – one I think holds merit every now and then. While there is a general understanding that nonfiction film is subjective and fallible, not eveyone sees it that way. Some look at documentary film and take it as journalism…which is sometimes the case, but not always.
This isn’t the same as saying “ZERO DARK THIRTY is pro-torture” or “How did Bruce Wayne get back to Gotham City”. It’s a question of the shape a filmmaker gave their work, and just how honestly that shape reflects reality.
Thanks for the clarification.
SPOILERS?
I liked Sugar Man overall but was pretty let down at the same time. I think a lot hinges on the degree to which you find his music a revelation, and whether or not you know about the reveal in advance. The people I’ve known who don’t know about the reveal seem to like this a lot more. I knew about it in advance so I was both waiting for it and thus unimpressed with what I assumed would happen next. Some sort of probing or profile on Rodriguez and what he’d been doing all this time, why he stopped recording, etc, etc. Instead it kind of skips ahead to the concerts, which are nowhere near big enough to fall into the humongous myth the movie had been building for the movie until that point. it made me not trust the film and the degree to which they have built up Rodriguez’ importance in South Africa. it seemed it wasnt enough that he was surprisingly popular there, he had to be “the biggest”.
So overall I think Sugar Man was more interested in it’s own magic trick than it really is about telling this guys story… because I don’t feel like I know much more about Rodriguez now than I did going in.
PS – dude , you need to change your “Submit” buttons. This light grey state tricks me every time. in web usability that kind of grey usually means that the button is not functioning, as in that it is not clickable yet bc a required field was left empty, etc. Get a color or a darker grey!
It’s interesting that you call it “the reveal”.
I mean, it is a reveal, so I’m not questioning that…but for me it didn’t play like any sort of key device that makes the whole film work that much better. It was a lovely moment to witness, and something that gave me a smile…but it didn’t change my outlook on the whole film.
You’re right though – what I wanted, what was missing, was more about Sixto himself: his artistic vision, his life philosophy, what he thinks about everything he’s gone through. he’s the titular persona and he’s given maybe three minutes of interview time.
Very strange.
PS – Thanks for the note about the submit button: Got my coder-extraordinaire to fix that.
I pretty much just posted this over at Corey’s article, but felt I should post it here too since you both were using the same film to explore the nature of documentaries:
I think the “genre” of documentary has expanded and morphed so much the last decade or so that in many cases it doesn’t even really represent “non-fiction”. So in many cases, you can’t blame a film for not being completely factual or being a real documentary if they didn’t necessarily intend it that way in the first place – but then you get your film tossed in the documentary genre for lack of a better place…That’s not to say Searching For Sugarman gets a free pass – I haven’t yet seen it and from what you described, it cuts a few too many corners – but I know that Tchoupitoulas got some criticism for trying to pass off the adventure as happening in one single evening. But that was the perception those people had – the movie didn’t try to cover anything up, it was trying to convey a feeling and not necessarily a straight line narrative. That’s what the filmmakers wanted, but they get thrown into the documentary pile so that sets the audiences expectations.
And to be clear, I absolutely adore Tchoupitoulas. Amazing film.
But I do agree with the general tone of your post. If you are clearly making a “documentary”, you can play with things to reach a larger truth (shall we say an “ecstatic” one? Herzog was way ahead of us all…), but if it starts impacting 1) the way people view the events and 2) even just the feeling you get from the story, then you’ve got some problems. Speaking of Herzog, how do you see his documentary films? I love ’em as a general rule, but typically don’t believe all the tiny details (e.g. I still don’t actually believe that Herzog actually had that audio tape in Grizzly Man – but doesn’t it give you a true feeling of the dread of that situation?).
The whole genre has taken a shift, that’s for sure. Perhaps I need to recalibrate my brain a bit when it comes to soaking up non-fiction.
Another film like TCHOUPITOULAS from last year’s Hot Docs – one that made the Oscar shortlist – was THE WAITING ROOM. It’s another one where a few nights are brought together in composite to tell the story of “one night”. I think in both of those cases though, the end result is still truthful. Not all of these adventures in NOLA or patients in the hospital came and went in one night, but they easily could have. Knowing that the night is constructed doesn’t ruin the overall effect.
Do give it a look (it was at The Mt Pleasant last weekend, might still be there). Would love to talk to you about it at the bar on Tuesday.
I saw Waiting Room during Hot Docs – though I don’t have a problem with its several nights in one structure, I was very surprised it made the short list. There’s some great stuff in there (that main nurse is a great character) and it effectively highlights many of the issues with the Healthcare system without coming out and stating them, but it felt a bit minor and hastily constructed. It wasn’t as compelling as I wanted or expected it to be.
Looks like I won’t be at pub night this time around – I’m seriously bummed about it, but I have prior commitments I can’t skip. So many good topics that will not be graced by my opinions…A Damn shame.
When King of Kong played a lot with the truth, I didnt mind for some reason I can’t intellectualize yet. with political documentaries I expect that they will cherry pick the facts that best make their case. That’s what people do, it’s not unique to that story or issue X.
With Sugar Man, I think I’m a bit annoyed. I think maybe the difference between Sugar Man and King of Kong is a sense of scale. It’s a matter of whether or not small elements of the film are lies to benefit the whole vs. if it fundamentally changes the entire story. In Sugar Man’s case for me I think it makes a difference.
I also think of the docudrama The Road to Guantanamo. I was amazed by it at the time but a lot of the stuff that came out after the fact makes me go :/
The documentary genre has changed so much over the years that you are seeing more hybrid docs, which mix non-fiction film with fictional elements. I think you have to judge it in case by case basis and see what the movie is going for. Many people here already expressed similar feelings so I won’t elaborate too much. As you alluded to, omitting facts is nothing new in the documentary genre (eg: Michael Moore’s movies are infamous for that). And someone here has already mentioned TCHOUPITOULAS, which is presented as an ‘one night experience’ even though it’s filmed over many nights. But the film is capturing a feeling, not necessary facts of what happened one night.
Two of my favorite films last year, STORIES WE TELL and THE IMPOSTER play with the truth in their films. STORIES WE TELL tries to find the truth thru different view points and re-enactments. But the truth in this case is so tricky that you can say there is no definite truth. And the film plays with that narrative and to Sarah Polley’s credit, it becomes a very moving film.
THE IMPOSTER does something even trickier, Bart Layton presents the movie in presence tense. Withholding information until the very last shot of the movie. It feels like a fictional thriller at times, and some people have harsh criticism for the film because of its manipulation. However, the movie is about a master manipulator and how we are so easy to be manipulated, so it fits the theme.
I rewatched SEARCHING FOR SUGARMAN again after reading the article last night. My feeling for the movie pretty much stay the same. I still cheer when Rodriquez sing ‘I Wonder’ in the concert. If I was a bothered by the revelation before the movie, I wasn’t really bothered by it while watching it. Perhaps I am being a little naive, since I always think that all movies do stretch the truth to some degree. Filmmakers decide to show you things that they want you to see. What would happen if those ‘truths’ are put into the film? I think it would make a worse film. So the interesting question is: What should or shouldn’t be allowed to present onscreen in a documentary film format? If you present truths on screen but omitting some facts, is it right?
Funny that you mention STORIES WE TELL.
Its slight of hand is subtle enough that it could easily fool an audience – I actually got halfway through the film before I asked myself “Wait, how am I seeing what I’m seeing”. However, by revealing its slight of hand within the framing of the film – and specifically when it does, re-establishes that honesty that Corey and I are so hung up on.
Had it not, I doubt that we would all be gravitating towards that film the way that we are.
Not to get too far off topic, but it’s like what happens when an athlete gets caught doping…or a politician gets caught in corruption or sexual misconduct.
If the person goes in front of a microphone quickly, speaks with contrition and simply owns their mistake, the damage is lessened. We see ourselves and our fallibilities in them and just feel bad that we all can’t stop fucking up. If the person ducks questions, prepares a position, and only sits down with one carefully selected interviewer, the resentment grows. We don’t buy the story, we’re left with questions, and they wear that red “A” for a whole lot longer.
I have to wonder if SUGAR MAN was a little more clear on where its hero was while all of this hunting was going on, that I wouldn’t feel as duped.
Interesting piece, Ryan. I purposely avoided reading much on the Sugar Man controversy before seeing it because I knew it would affect the experience. Going in mostly cold, I enjoyed getting to know the myth of Rodriguez and his music. I feel like the challenge for the director was that he was working from almost zero footage and talking with the South Africans about events from the 1990s. That said, it doesn’t completely let him off the hook for distorting the truth. He presents the story like a mystery, but it’s odd because these guys are recounting actions from a while back. Are they expanding on how hard it was to make the movie more exciting? Is it the director’s job to call them on the BS?
That’s the real challenge with this movie. I really enjoyed it and found a lot to like. Reading about him touring with my favorite band of all time Midnight Oil is a surprise and makes me question a lot of the movie, but I don’t think it really damages my original experience. The craftsmanship is there, and the point that Rodriguez is unknown in the U.S. is valid. It’s still great to discover his music, and if that’s the end result of seeing it, that’s okay with me.