How do filmmakers tell the truth?

The answer is not always a clear one, as films across

all genres tell stories of all kinds. Historical films are arguably more factual than romantic

comedies, but the truth of one story over another is entirely based on the perspective of the

viewer. Throughout the history of storytelling, the history of cinema, truth has been defined by

perception and perception is built around privilege.

Truth is a complex word to define, especially when it comes to art. Often, truth and fact

are conflated to be one in the same, but fact is a matter of objective correctness, while truth is a

matter of perception. “Many scholars today have come to accept the general argument that no

matter how good the scientific methods may be, truth claims can never be fully verified. For the

most part, we think of truth … as a relative matter of how one views the world,” (Butchart 2006).

Art as a perception of truth becomes more complicated. Not only is that truth held by one person,

it is also consumed by an audience that bring their own perception to that piece of art.

Historically, filmmaking has been a very expensive art form with very few varying perspectives

among filmmakers. Even in 2022, the vast majority of films in the box office are produced,

directed, and written by white men (Hunt and Ramón 2022). Because of this lack of diversity,

the story, the truth of most films has been limited to the experiences of few people.

Throughout the age of cinema, documentary film has developed as a system for

filmmakers to ‘tell the truth.’ Something about documentary film seems more honest to

audiences: the inclusion of real people, real situations, and real-life. However, that hasn’t

historically been the case. One of the most well-known examples is Nanook of the North

(Nanook of the North, 1922), a film about an Inuit family that struggle to survive in the artic. In

his quest to show how the Inuit live, Robert Flaherty included numerous falsehoods about the

Inuit lifestyle: how they hunt, how they use medicine, where they live, and the familial
relationships they had. As Fatimah Tobing Rony wrote, “As Flaherty himself explained, he did

not want to show the Inuit as they were at the time of the making of the film, but as (he thought)

they had been” (1996). Flaherty chose to tell a story about a ‘primitive’ community and shaped

the story as he liked for the ’civilized’ audiences back home. In this film, the truth of the story

being told has been filtered through the eyes of a stranger, the eyes of a white man who knew

what story he wanted to tell and who the audience for that story would be.

Truth is not only an important aspect of documentary storytelling, but narrative

storytelling as well. While there is more world building and character development in the

creation of a narrative story, the main goal is to create a story that appeals to audiences, that

allows the audience to go on a journey with the characters of the film. Narrative storytelling

depends on perspective, in that the audience is experiencing this fictional world through the eyes

of the main character(s). In other words, the lens that the audience uses to interact with the world

is held by the main character(s), and there is little reason to criticize the events of the film

because of this narrow perspective. Unfortunately, this perspective, the truth of these narrative

stories, is commonly shared top-down – the privileged determine what stories are told. The Birth

of a Nation (The Birth of a Nation, 1915) is a film about two white families during and

immediately after the American Civil War. One family is Northern, members of the Union, and

the other family is Southern, members of the Confederacy. The first part of the film occurs

during the Civil War, and men from both families fight and die for their respective sides. The

second part of the film takes place during Reconstruction, a period in American history after the

Civil War before the legalization of Jim Crow laws. Numerous events in this part of the film

vilify former slaves and idolize the Klu Klux Klan. Multiple white women are assaulted by

former slaves, white people are banned from the ballot boxes, and lynching is portrayed as a fair,
if not deserved, punishment. Maria Dimitrovska summarizes, “the film glorifies the superiority

of the clansmen over the savagely depicted and sexually predatory former slaves.” Originally

named The Clansman, this film is widely regarded as the most racist film ever made and is

“often associated with the re-emergence of the KKK almost to the year when the movie was first

released,” (2016). As a viewer in 2022, it is easy to watch this film and feel disgusted by the

content. Despite that, there are certainly communities in the United States that watch The Birth

of a Nation and feel as though it is a truthful representation of the Reconstruction Era. At the

time of the film’s release, D.W. Griffith and author of The Clansman Thomas Dixon claimed that

“the film was a result of [their] wish to tell ‘the true story of the Civil War,’” (Dimitrovska

2016). Despite the inclusion of many falsehoods, the ‘truth’ of this story still permeates

American culture today.

In the one hundred and seven years since The Birth of a Nation (1915) was released, there

have been numerous films about slavery and Reconstruction in the United States written and

directed by Black Americans. Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave (12 Years a Slave, 2013), Kasi

Lemmons’ Harriet (Harriet, 2019), and Nate Parker’s The Birth of a Nation (The Birth of a

Nation, 2016) are a few poignant examples. Nate Parker’s film of the same name tells the story

of Nat Turner, a black slave who is paid by white slave owners to preach to their slaves, hoping

to convince them to be complacent and that the Bible justifies their enslavement. Following the

rape of his wife and death of his grandmother, Nat organizes a revolt that results in the murder of

many slaveowners and the subsequent murder of hundreds of slaves. At the end of the film, Nat

is hanged for his organization and participation in the revolt. In an interview with Filmmaker

Magazine, Parker explained,

 Griffith’s film relied heavily on racist propaganda to evoke fear and desperation as a tool

to solidify white supremacy as the lifeblood of American sustenance. Not only did this

film motivate the massive resurgence of the terror group the Ku Klux Klan and the

carnage exacted against people of African descent, it served as the foundation of the film

industry we know today. I’ve reclaimed this title and re-purposed it as a tool to challenge

racism and white supremacy in America, to inspire a riotous disposition toward any and

all injustice in this country (and abroad) and to promote the kind of honest confrontation

that will galvanize our society toward healing and sustained systemic change. (Rezayazdi

2016)

Parker’s film explores the violence and horror of slavery in a way that a lot of other films avoid,

as well as staying clear of the ‘white savior’ archetype. Additionally, unlike Dixon’s The

Clansmen, Nate Parker has based The Birth of a Nation (2016) on a real person and a real slave

rebellion. Dimitrovska shares, “The aftermath of the rebellion had devastating effects on African

Americans … new laws were passed in order to control slaves and free blacks,” including the

prohibition of education, refusal of the rights of assembly, and control of the rights to worship

freely (2016). Even though Nat Turner’s story is based in factual events, the film that Nate

Parker created tells a ‘true’ story that resonates much more widely with Black audiences than the

story of D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation (1915).

Luckily, as film audiences and creatives become more diverse, we can see a shift in the

perspective of films being made. Not only that, criticisms of films that are problematic, racist,

sexist, homophobic, and otherwise bigoted are also becoming more widely shared. There has

been an increase in social movements to promote change in Hollywood, Oscars So White and
Me Too being recent examples. This increase in Black producers, directors, and writers is

directly affecting the perceptions of audience members across the world. More and more, films

with racially diverse casts are earning studios money. “In 2021, films with casts that were from

21 percent to 30 percent minority enjoyed the highest median global box office receipts, while

films with casts that were less than 11 percent minority … were the poorest performers,” (Hunt

and Ramón 2022). This shift, for narrative and documentary films, is changing our society’s

perception. Each year more filmmakers can share their truths with diverse audiences, a shift that

all storytellers benefit from.

Truth is important to documentary and narrative film because truth is informed by

perception while also informing the perception of others. Films of all genres and makes hold

influence over society. Films provide a unique opportunity to share the stories of diverse

communities across the world, and as the community of filmmakers increases in diversity, the

stories being told increase in diversity as well. The truth of today’s films may not be more factual

or more objective than the films made in 1915, but these truths are shared through a much wider

lens, and perhaps the truest they have ever been.

Word Count: 1587

 Sources Cited

12 Years a Slave (2013) Directed by Steve McQueen. U.S. Fox Searchlight Pictures.

The Birth of a Nation (1915) Directed by D.W. Griffith. U.S. United Artists.

The Birth of a Nation (2016) Directed by Nate Parker. U.S. Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Butchart, G. (2006). On Ethics and Documentary: A Real and Actual Truth. Communication

Theory Vol 16. Issue 4. International Communication Association. p. 427-452.

Dimitrovska, M. (2016). Race and the American Cinema: The Two Cases of The Birth of a

Nation. Belgrade Journal of Media and Communications. Belgrade Journal of Media and

Communications. p. 55-64.

Harriet (2019) Directed by Kasi Lemmons. U.S. Focus Features.

Nanook of the North (1922) Directed by Robert J. Flaherty. U.S. Pathé Exchange.

Rezayazdi, S. (2016). Five Questions with The Birth of a Nation Director Nate Parker.

Filmmaker Magazine. January 25, 2016. [Online]. Available at:

https://filmmakermagazine.com/97103-five-questions-with-the-birth-of-a-nation-director-nate-

parker/#.YpErPPPMJQ1 [Accessed: May 25, 2022]

Rony, F. (1996). Taxidermy and Romantic Ethnography: Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North.

The Third Eye: Race, Cinema, and Ethnographic Spectacle. Durham: Duke University Press. p.

99-126.

UCLA College of Social Sciences. (2022). Hollywood Diversity Report 2022. Los Angeles:

University of California: Los Angeles College of Social Sciences, Institute for Research on

Labor & Employment.