Uploaded 1 July 1999
Introduction

For me as a television researcher, to address the question of what kind of influence John Grierson has had in the short history of Danish documentary is an easy, as well as an awkward, task. If we take a look at some of the documentary films made in Denmark in the 1940s, the sense of “Griersonism” and of British inspired film practice is obvious. But if we watch Danish television today and search for signs of a “documentary idea” comparable to the one launched by Grierson and the British filmmakers of his time, the influence is not so obvious. I think that the programmers in Danish television, and especially the producers, have only a vague idea of who he was and of what kind of thoughts and practices he set in motion world-wide. And consequently if you ask them in what way, if at all, Grierson and the early documentary movement inspire them, they would probably take it as a joke. This might not be so strange, and might not be a problem at all, but it gives some indications of how diverse and historically unstable is the notion of documentary – how the “documentary concept” has evolved.

So, my goal here is twofold. First I want to go back into the history of Danish film to show in what way Grierson did make a big impact on developments in Denmark. Secondly, I will turn towards television – the medium that took over, or conquered the visual documentary – and describe how the documentary in Danish television started off from scratch so to speak, and really never did take the cinematic documentary tradition into account at all. Behind this double feature lies a polemical motivation, driven by the unfortunate disintegration between a cinematic documentary discourse struggling for survival in an independent production milieu, and a television discourse heavily connected to journalism and forced to deal with the different demands which the medium faces, here at the turn of the century. Even though the situation in Denmark is unique and the “state of the art” is a result of specific developments, this disintegration seems to be symptomatic also in many other countries.

The documentary film movement in Denmark

The British documentary movement of the 1930s certainly did not go unnoticed in Denmark. On the contrary, the documentary idea made a big impression and found its admirers and disciples among the filmmakers of the time. It would not be wrong to say that a Danish documentary movement established itself, although it was about a decade later than big brother in Britain. On a personal level there were no direct connections – Grierson never went to Denmark, and there exists no account of correspondence between the documentarists in Denmark and their colleagues in Britain. Arthur Elton did come to Denmark shortly after the war, partly to produce and primarily as an advisor on a series of films made under the headline Social Denmark(Denmark 1946). But by this time the Danish documentarists had already found their own identity, and rather than teach the Danes how to make documentaries, Elton could benefit from skills already developed, when some of the finest directors and writers were drawn into the project. Elton has been quoted as saying: “I think England can learn a lot from Denmark, and that is why I especially will point out three qualities within the Danish documentary films: their technical eminence; their humanity; and their humour”.[1]  As I will return to soon, a lot happened during the war to definitively establish the documentary as a genre in Denmark. Developments in this period can be illustrated by comparing Elton’s post-war comments to a pre-war statement made by Grierson himself, following a screening of the Danish director Theodor Christensen’s film Iran – det ny Persien (Iran – the new Persia, Denmark 1939)[2]  at the first documentary film festival in Edinburgh: “In Britain we lynch people for less than this!”[3]

But the conditions that made this progression possible can be found by going back some years. In 1932 a new organisation Dansk Kulturfilm (DK.) (Danish Cultural Film) was established, which had as its goal to produce and acquire films that could serve as information and enlightenment, and could also promote Denmark and its business, trade and industry within the country as well as abroad. It was a private association encouraged by legal and economic provisions carried through by the Social Democratic government. The economic basis was a kind of tax, or fee, paid by the holders of exhibition permits. Running a cinema was a profitable business in those days, and the state took its fair share of the income. The idea was that these resources should be recycled within the film culture, but in a way that gave priority to enlightenment rather than entertainment. The significance of Dansk Kulturfilm never really became the production of outstanding films, either in numbers or in quality. Rather it became a pioneer in terms of building up contacts with potential distribution channels (schools/educational organisations, trade unions, professional societies, film clubs, workplaces, etc.) and in terms of getting state financial support to collect and administer a film archive.

In 1938, it was decided to stimulate film production and distribution of an informative character by passing a new film law. This resulted in the formation of Filmsfonden (the Film Fund), administrated by Filmsraadet (the Film Council), and Statens Filmcentral (SFC) (the State Film Centre), an organisation for the storage and distribution of the films produced, along with other films purchased according to their cultural significance. With this institutional confirmation of state support, the economic, juridical and organisational framework became firm and stable in a way that it was hoped would prove enduring. But in the 1930s the output still was limited and also the aesthetic quality or significance was moderate. The real boost towards a self-conscious documentary output came during World War II.
During the war, by accident, circumstances became ideal for the realisation of a long-standing wish of the Social Democratic government. The Social Democrats recognised the importance and the impact of the film medium in general, but were very dissatisfied with the total American dominance of the 1930s. Also they wanted to use the medium for the purpose of explicit state propaganda. But they could not get political support to carry out regulation of film importation or to support propaganda. The German occupation helped in both these respects, because it meant that no Hollywood movies were allowed at all (mainly German and Danish films were shown), and this opened the way for more Danish feature films. Also a film unit was established to serve the government.[4]  Its purpose was to provide the inhabitants with information about different matters connected to the wartime difficulties. The general idea was to inspire the Danes not to give up hope despite the circumstances.

Mogens Skot-Hansen, a man who was fully aware of the British documentary movement and a big admirer of it too, led the ministerial unit. He knew what he wanted then, and to create the films his first choice was a couple of people who had already started a film company before the war, with the ambition of making documentaries. An impulse was set in motion and within as well as outside the unit, filmmaking practices gradually developed which approached and dealt with reality in a manner till then unseen in Denmark. The combination of the descriptive with a personal and creative use of the filmic means of expression was an attractive cocktail for people interested in filmmaking, whether newcomers or experienced. Films were produced, and among the makers where Skot-Hansen himself (Amager bliver større 1941, Vi snakker færdsel 1942), the people already engaged in documentary-inspired filmmaking like Theodor Christensen (Skoven 1942, Gas under jorden 1942), some making their début like Hagen Hasselbalch (Kornet er i fare 1945), Ole Palsbo (Spild er penge 1943; Stop tyven 1945) and Bjarne Henning Jensen (Brunkul 1941; Papir 1942) and even Carl Theodor Dreyer started his revival within Danish film in this period (Mødrehjælpen 1942).[5]

The films made were shown in the cinema before the main films and replaced the UFA newsreel Wochenschau, which everyone hated. People loved these films, and not just because they swept the UFA-newsreel off the programme: they also had a brand new appeal in themselves. Even though they were commissioned work in terms of subject matter and length (a maximum of 6 minutes) the treatment and style were original and without resemblance to the bombastic, nationalistic wartime propaganda exercised elsewhere.[6]  They dealt with subjects like different kinds of shortage, alternative fuel solutions, recycling, the fight against vermin, rationalisation, etc. These were everyday problems that arose out of the extraordinary conditions in which the country found itself, and to which the films proposed solutions, while at the same time stressing the important heroic role of state institutions to help the citizens. The general tone was light, humorous and perhaps even elevated, the voice-over often elegantly balancing the serious with the amusing, perhaps joking or sometimes becoming lyrical. The most striking characteristic of the wartime short films remains the vivid aesthetic appearance, constituted of original footage and a swift, rhythmic editing pattern.

Apart from the opportunity for creating a new type of film, the war also generated a unique situation in terms of exposing documentaries before an audience. The fixed arrangement of having a short film as programme starter, as well as a generally high moviegoing activity among the population meant that the films were seen by an audience of a size and a diversity only matched decades later by television. About 50 short films were distributed in this way in the years between 1941 and 1946, and it has been estimated that on average between 500,000 and 800,000 people saw each film (out of a population of about 4 million) and that 45 % of the population saw at least one in this period.[7]

In this way the wartime and the following five to ten years became the “golden age” of Danish documentary. The people who joined the film unit were to become the core of a Danish documentary movement. Among them arose a sense of commonality, of a shared professional purpose. A great number of films were made dealing with all kinds of subject matter, from everyday life, through social problems to societal institutions. The light, optimistic tone which characterised the wartime documentaries was no longer found appropriate by the film makers after the war, and the films generally became more critical and serious in both approach and content. The restraints on the filmmakers’ freedom within the ministerial unit (which continued to exist after the war) gradually meant that the documentarists deserted it in favour of more independent production environments. But the supportive institutions DK and SFC stretched out a safety net and secured continuous production.

The relatively successful experiences during the war resulted in a post-war boom, but soon the winds were turning, and problems arose on all levels. Political goodwill was declining in the 1950s, when the cold war climate created bad conditions for film. At the same time the national economy was poor and the general cutbacks naturally also affected film support. On top of that, screenings of short films in cinemas gradually became less frequent and almost disappeared by the end of the 1950s. As the documentary was pushed out of the cinemas, its distribution was again limited to non-theatrical channels and marginally to television.

Nevertheless the impact of this “golden age” on the future should not be underestimated. A group of practitioners got together, a productive environment was established and the “movement” played a central role in the building up of an independent alternative to the commercial feature film. The cultural significance of the film medium developed a brand new dimension through the aesthetic renewal, and the emergence of production companies specialising in documentary and short film. The documentary and the short film were there to stay. At the same time the films of the period were actually shown before a mass audience, and this meant that the Danes in general grew used to the new genre and accepted it as a valid means of communication and of aesthetic expression. It became a part of the everyday life of the Danes, perhaps not a dominating part, but still a central factor in people’s education, information and orientation. Since those times, a tradition of film culture apart from the commercial product has continued in Danish society, and the documentary has always been a fundamental part of that, if not the fundamental part. The institutional organisation of state support has in essence remained the same until this day. There have naturally been political and structural changes along the way, most notably after 1964 when the commercial feature film also needed financial support to survive. But the principal structure has remained the same and has created the foundation for a vivid and long standing tradition of what we in Denmark call the “short film”. This is a generic term including not only the documentary but also educational films, cultural film, short fiction and experimental films and animation. Under the wings of, or in co-operation with SFC, audio-visual culture in Denmark has ever since the 1940s gained tremendously from this alternative to commercial film and video production.

Before leaving the film historical perspective, one central aspect should be elaborated. It has to do with the artistic/aesthetic comprehension of documentary, and the place the documentary came to occupy within Danish culture. While the political initiatives of the 1930s and during the war were bound to an understanding of the filmic endeavour as concentrating on information and enlightenment, the post-war understanding has oriented towards film as an art. At the outset, state support was given to factual output, along with a less explicit agenda of promotion and propaganda. But in the long run the administration of the funds changed towards a more conscious cultural support, meaning that the documentary has been seen as an integrated part of the cinematic art form. While this has been a favourable climate within which documentary (and the short film) can evolve, it also has had consequences: the intricate balance between art and record, between expressing and reporting, which has always been the principal hallmark of documentary, has within the filmic tradition in Denmark inclined towards the aesthetic dimension.

Among documentary filmmakers, one of the consequences of the “golden age” was an elaborated aesthetic awareness, which also contributed to the establishment of an identity within the aesthetic domain. Theodor Christensen (1914 – 67) was in many ways breaking new ground in this respect and at the same time he epitomises the link to Grierson and the British movement. At the age of 22 he, together with a fellow student, presented the first proper theoretical work on film aesthetics in Denmark. His guiding idea was to describe what he called “filmic principles”, and his obsession with the documentary came out of the assumption that it was the kind of film which best carried out those principles. He was familiar with the British movement, and he must have read Grierson when, in 1938, he wrote:

A documentary is without story line in the usual understanding. It has no actors, it is not made in a studio but in a real environment. (…) Documentaries dramatise their subject matter. They not only describe and depict events they also explain why and to what extent. They uncover the dramatic aspects, which are found everywhere within reality. All social and economic relations, which we have accepted in the everyday, constitute a drama – a conflict between options. The documentary’s task is to exploit the dramatic elements of the everyday world, with an artistic purpose. Documentaries are about the world we live in; they will show us this world in a new way. (…) It is moulded reality, reality in pictures, reality in tone, which together constitutes a narrative, a drama. The fiction/feature film projects a story line into a second order reality, it is a narrative on the background of a reality – real or imaginary. Documentary creates film of reality. (…) Exactly because the documentary is naturalistic it is forced to exploit artistic filmic potentials. The real is its substance; its purpose is to present it in a true and convincing matter. That is why the documentary is restricted from the character bound story line, which in the fiction film constitutes a literary element. That is why the documentary director – even if he uses actors – is not tempted to let the acting express the message of the film. Documentary is from the very beginning, in method and in purpose, filmic film. (…) It is not pictures of a story – but a story made by pictures….[8]

As you can see he did not become a documentarist by accident. He was carrying out certain ideas in his films, which were based on well-known aesthetic, creative and artistic principles. He was charismatic, enthusiastic and devoted to the documentary idea, and he influenced others to become conscious of what they were doing, and why they were doing it. He also worked as a columnist and film critic for newspapers. He was producing as well as directing films, and he became a teacher at the Danish film school as well as a driving force at the film school in Havana.
Christensen’s comprehension and appreciation of the genre illustrates the conceptual base, which has determined the direction in which the film documentary has moved since his time. Favourable conditions of production have made it possible to go on making film documentaries. But, as I see it, it also has contributed to isolating the film tradition from the other audio-visual medium, which was soon to grow up. While television gradually evolved as the dominant mass medium, exercising a significant influence on the social, cultural and ideological circuits in Danish society, the film documentary moved into a much more limited sphere, becoming partly an avant garde and partly an evening course phenomenon. Before I give some attention to this problem, we must take a closer look at developments within Danish television.

Danish television documentary

In British documentary television the film tradition has been a major influence over the years, as has been pointed out by John Corner.[9]  In other countries with a strong tradition of documentary film making there are indications of a similar influence. In Swedish television a special documentary section was set up from the beginning of the 1960s, and it was characterised by a close tie to the cinematic milieu through co-production, freelance assignments, etc.[10]

However, in Denmark this kind of tie and mutual influence has never been fully established. Although attempts has been made, they have always failed due to disagreements over copyright and money, and also due to a general tendency within the national Danish television company to ignore the possibility of this kind of in-house production.[11]  Instead it carried out a policy of buying programmes. In retrospect, it seems quite absurd that the Danish television company withdrew from the possibility of producing their own documentary material until the formation of the documentary group in 1988 – some 25 years after a similar department in Sweden, and about 40 years later than in Britain.

Until 1988 Danish television was a monopoly – Danmarks Radio (DR). DR is a non-commercial broadcasting corporation with a classic public-service profile. In the mid-1980s there were different experiments with local, regional and commercial television preparing the ground for the final breakdown of the monopoly in 1988 with the launching of TV2, a second nation-wide broadcasting company financed partly through advertising and partly through license-fees. TV2 is a strange hybrid both economically and in terms of its legal foundation, which provides for a certain measure of state-control and accordingly specific public-service requirements. The end of the monopoly also paved the way for local commercial television, and cable- and satellite reception, and the overall picture has now completely changed, with most of the population having access to an international diversity of television stations. TV2 has established itself as the most popular channel, and the Danes are generally fond of the national public service, with DR and TV2 commanding a combined market share of over 70%.

The monopoly era can be divided into three different stages, described below in terms established by Ib Bondebjergs.[12]  The first stage is the period of paternalistic television (1951-1964). During this period, weekly output increased from 8 hours to 25, while the number of licence payers grew accordingly: in the late 1950s there were around 250,000 and in the mid-1960s just over one million licences. This was the early childhood of the television medium. From the outset the medium was regarded as a secondary one, to be treated with suspicion and restriction. Its function was seen as that of a centralised monopoly:

The culture that was represented by the few and the well-bred, and which was the sum of the valuable, hegemonic culture was via a new medium supposed to be brought to even more people as pedagogical, decent, solemn and neutral as possible. The paternalistic cultural and political “his master’s voice” so to say, in opposition to “vox populi”.[13]

In the eyes of most politicians and also within the institution itself, the mission of television was not in the area of actuality coverage and current affairs. Its role was to enlighten the people and offer general education of the masses within the cultural arena, meaning that television provided an opportunity to expose people to correct, decent (high-) cultural values. Theatre, ballet and opera were transformed to fit into the medium, and the informative types of programmes also concentrated very much on the traditional highbrow arts including literature and painting.

The television department was only a small section within the radio institution and it had no self-contained group covering news and current affairs. Instead, subjects of a societal, political and social nature were dealt with in educational/informative programmes taking the form of school teaching. The period is therefore also known as “school-masters television”. In this environment, formed by the traditions of “enlightenment of the people”, in-house production of documentaries was non-existent and strangely enough was never even considered. Strangely, because the state-support within the area of short- and documentary-film production had been a well-established, firmly organised tradition since the thirties, as described earlier. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s a considerable number of Danish short- and documentary-films were shown on television, but these were produced independently and only considered as a supplement to television’s own production. Also a few documentaries from abroad found their way to the screen.

The second stage is the period of classic public-service television (1965-1980). Output increased to almost 50 hours a week while the number of license payers reached 1.8 million. This is the period during which DR’s own journalists took over. In 1965 a department for news and current affairs was set up to provide viewers with daily news coverage, but individual programmes, magazines and debate programmes were also made. This was done under close state control, sometimes taking the form of censorship in advance. Coverage of current affairs was subject to a heated parliamentary and political debate throughout the period, and several conflicts developed between the political representatives in the radio-council (the organ of political control) and the leaders and employees of the television institution. The point at issue in these conflicts was the ideology of objectivity:

The ideology of objectivity is connected to the political obligations of programming in the area of information and news, which traditionally make up the “hard” core in the historical development and fighting of the institution. The earliest and most visible conflicts are therefore tied to the area of the factual since this is the place of the central fields of the political public, and at the very centre of the overall democratic contract between society and the electronic media within the public service model.[14]

The requirements of objectivity and fairness presented profound limitations on the practical, creative work of programme making. The news and current affairs department covered the subject matter from the front stage of society. Political, economical, juridical and foreign affairs issues were the main concern and accordingly this part of television production was at the centre of public and parliamentary controversy. However, there was also another department within the factual side, the culture department, which among other issues took care of the back-stage of society. Here we find subject matters of a socio-cultural nature: reports on the everyday lives and problems of the Danish people, themes of a psychological nature, issues of the family and the locality and also a treatment of social institutions – hospitals, schools, kindergartens, old peoples homes, etc.

In this way two tracks moved along side by side. The front-stage track needed to develop journalistic norms and codes in line with the development of journalism outside Danish television, but faced severe problems and limitations. Documentarism, as a journalistic concept involving thorough research and investigation to disclose hidden facts, was never really established. Nevertheless, conventions and viewer expectations did gradually unfold. Due to technological changes, it also became easier to work creatively with recording and editing. Gradually television journalism developed new codes and norms, which changed the earlier, very official way of reporting on reality. From the aesthetic of talking heads, television journalism moved towards narrating and describing in moving images. Despite opposition, particularly from the political right wing, television managed to develop more professional standards and conventions of news and current affairs. This was triggered by the general tendency of a more complex and pluralistic attitude towards society, and accordedwith a growing competence among the viewers in the decoding-process, and the resultant heightening of demands and expectations.

The back-stage track did not have to work in the same way with its hands tied behind its back. It had greater freedom in the treatment of reality and developed more in the direction of actual documentary depiction. At the same time programmes of a more experimental nature began to crop up – spontaneous-games where people were asked to play themselves in a constructed situation, and docu-drama programmes. But still there was no self-contained documentary production, working consciously within or getting inspiration from this tradition. The documentary field was exclusively left in the hands of the film milieu, and television in this period only showed a limited number of its products.

This brings us to the third stage, the period of mixed culture television (1980-). While the number of license holders peaked by the start of the period with almost all households included, the output increased dramatically as a consequence of the breaking of the monopoly in 1988. In 1994, both DR and TV2 screened almost 65 hours a week and the commercial station TV3 more than 80 hours a week.

Until 1988 DR was still the only nation-wide television station, but by the nineties the seeds sown in the late 1970s were bearing fruit. Viewer expectations and competencies have grown and a considerable mixing of elements between genres is taking place. Current affairs journalists are becoming more oriented towards the spectators, acknowledging the need to capture their attention, and hold it, by using different means of narration:

The programming of the mixed culture becomes visible in the late 1970s, but has its breakthrough with the extensive break of monopoly in the 1980s. Now we find ourselves on the other side of the classical distinction between elite culture and mass culture, and as a consequence television programming has become far more heterogeneous. The mixed culture is on the one hand a mix of earlier, separated cultural circuits, which also creates hybrids. On the other hand the mixed culture is also a culture, which mingles the genres and the types of programmes in a new way, and it is a culture where the two main conventions of fiction and fact to a very high degree become hybrids of form.[15]

It still makes sense to distinguish between the two main tracks, but the overall picture becomes more blurred. The focus of attention within the department of news and current affairs is broadened and programmes begin to dig deeper into the social circuits concentrating on human destiny, the everyday life of people and other sociological topics. It has become more common that journalism represents the point of view of individuals within news and current affairs. Professional standards are raised along with a heightened orientation towards the viewers, and programmes with a tight dramatic construction of visual narration come forward. Demands on objectivity and fairness are not as profound as earlier on and programs often take sides in a case, which of course raises the need for explicit proof and documentation. Here again we find borrowing of fictional elements, and they typically take the form of a criminal investigation. The use of suspense, dramatised reconstruction and identification with “the detective” heightens the emotional investment of the viewer, and the digestion of the considerable amount of facts, which are often included, becomes easier and more entertaining.

Within the back-stage track one type of programme in particular takes advantage of the professionalisation and technical advances. In sociological reportage/montage, it becomes possible to take the viewer along to places in society were television has never been, at least not previously in the same way. With a subjective perspective drawing on fictional devices to create a sense of “being there” and an animation of the affective in everyday experience, the camera and microphone move out to catch the life and hear the voice of people within their own milieu, most often in the dark corners of society among alcoholics, drug-addicts, the mentally retarded and prostitutes.

A great deal has happened within the television landscape since 1988. In the area of factual television it is worth noting that the break of monopoly initiated the formation of specific documentary units in both DR and TV2 – respectively Dokumentargruppen (the documentary group), and Fak2eren (facts on number two). The purely commercial station TV3 soon joined the competition, with its own news and later with documentaries (about two-thirds of the population get TV3 via satellite or cable). The factual side of production is given high priority by the public-service stations, as a way of legitimising their license fees and also to underline their serious, public nature. TV3 is now attempting to compete and present a commercial alternative in the area of factual television. Another noteworthy tendency is the development of the “generic landscape”. The number of new formats and different kinds of current affairs programmes is increasing dramatically.

Looking back over the years it is possible to give some explanations for the lack of any significant crossover from the filmic milieu towards DR – of skills, people and inspiration. In the early days the television station simply regarded its purpose to be too far away from the aesthetic of the film documentaries. Later, when journalism replaced “school teaching”, objectivity and fairness became major obstacles for the intrusion into television of an audio-visual format which traditionally worshiped the personal and interpretative. At the same time it seems that perhaps times were too good for the filmic milieu:[16] (people working with documentary production were not forced to knock on the doors of a television company in order to get work, because the support for film production made it much easier to realise projects within this area. Finally, when television grew up and developed more sophisticated narrative and dramatic strategies it was in a way too late: the institution had matured and the tracks were laid down which limited further development.

Conclusion

To sum up, it can be said that in Denmark there is no obvious line of influence and inspiration to draw from the television documentaries of the 1990s to the documentary film movement 50 years earlier. Depending on the perspective we keep and the understanding of documentary we hold we can draw different conclusions.

If the perspective is a search for traces or remains from Griersonian principles, we do not find much of significant interest when we contemplate today’s television. But it is also certain that still within this perspective and understanding, we can turn towards film- and video production in Denmark, and especially towards the short film, the experimental video, the independent environment and find a self-conscious aesthetic practice which owes a great deal to Grierson. The lines along which this debt is constituted is, as I have tried to show, drawn on a personal level, through the people who were directly inspired and influenced by Grierson and who made an impact on the future of Danish film culture. On an institutional level, through the establishment of supportive structures of schooling, of production, of distribution and exhibition, these developments were not directly due to Grierson. Rather, the filmmakers who were able to profit from the structures, as well as from sponsorship, were inspired by the Griersonian way of doing things. The last avenue of influence I have pointed at, is the development of what could be called critical aesthetic thought. No matter what we think of Grierson’s writings, they surely served a provocative purpose in terms of the theoretical reflection, the thinking about purpose and means, and the aesthetic consciousness of relations between form and content, which became a part of the Danish documentary film tradition.

Finally I want to return to the question of perspective and understanding. The picture I have drawn is one of two different traditions, of two different cultures. In my view they are separated by a gap of misrecognition and of professional stubbornness. Earlier on the stubbornness lay mostly with the television stations, which wanted to mind their own business, and do things in their own way. Nowadays, I am not so sure this is so. My experience with the programme makers in Denmark tells me that they are in a state of turmoil. The competitive environment, in combination with to some extent worn out formats, is demanding alternative ways of treating actuality and reality that are taking the viewer, as well as the subject matter, seriously. Television documentarists are forced to experiment with new forms, but without a frame of reference, a tradition of qualitative valuation and a language through which to communicate their reflections. The need for renewal and for rethinking within television should in my view be regarded as an open invitation to the creative film tradition. But surely, this would require a change of attitude among the personal film documentarists. Instead of seeing the demands of television as restrictions and obstacles, they should be regarding these as a challenge to be tackled creatively. As is well known, the real auteur only proves her excellence when facing conditions of formal limitations.
As a former film student, I can appreciate the aesthetic experimentation and the progression of film language connected to the film tradition. As an informed citizen, I can accept and acknowledge the need for support of a space freed from commercial demands, where talent can grow and where an avant garde can point in new directions. But as a media researcher, I am bewildered by the arrogance and rigid attitude expressed by this culture towards the television medium. In the long run it might turn out to be a very self-destructive attitude. And why is it that they are so eager not to reach a huge audience? The social function Grierson among others intended for the documentary, obviously remains an unrealised potential as long as films do not reach a mass audience. In return, the aesthetic of television documentary could profit from the blood transfusion which the film documentarists could offer to the slightly confused and baffled journalists working within television.

I will give the last words to Thomas Stenderup, at that time the general secretary of the European Union media-programme, Documentary, because he makes the point well:

Does the documentary film in Europe have a future at all, as a distinct genre? I think it has. Within television. If the documentary film wants it. But it demands that television be taken serious in an entirely different way than earlier. (…) It is as if the documentary insists on being film in the traditional understanding, for an audience, which is not there. (…) I also think that there is an outspoken scepticism towards the television medium in the traditional documentary environments in Europe: the documentary belongs in the cinema. Television undermines the genre through its demands on form and length. Documentary becomes a slot-filler, a serialised compromise. This is not empty talk, for sure. But somehow it is a voice of nostalgia talking. What above all characterises the creative documentary is quality. And as opposed to journalistic news coverage and magazines is the documentary a product of personal involvement and creative expression. It is an expression, which leaves room for thoughtfulness and surprises. But there are in principal no reasons for saying that this kind of film hasn’t got a chance on television – no matter the formal limitations. (…) On the contrary there is a chance of communicating with an amazingly huge audience. And who – after all – does not want that?[17]

Footnotes:
[1] Translated here from Ebbe Neergaard, Historien om dansk film(Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1960), 121.
[2] The film is often considered as the initial breakthrough of Danish documentary.
[3] Cited in John Ernst, Theodor Christensen – om en handling af billeder (Copenhagen: Rhodos, 1974), 19.
[4] Different organisational efforts were made and actually more than one unit existed. For a detailed elucidation see Carl Nørrested & Christian Alsted (eds.), Kortfilmen og staten (Denmark: Eventus, 1987). The main point is that a group of filmmakers were enabled to develop their skills and create aesthetic, innovative short films within a framework of direct state support for production and distribution, often administrated by the existing institutions DK.and SFC.
[5] The films mentioned here are examples, not a complete listing. The titles translated by me in order of appearance: Amager becomes bigger; We are talking traffic; The forest; Gas beneath the earth; The corn is in danger; Waste is money;Stop thief!; Brown coal; Paper; Young mother’s aid.
[6] Of course this has to do with the fact that Denmark did not take part in the war, but was occupied.
[7] Nørrested & Alsted, 202.
[8] Translated from Ernst, 77 & 81. Originally a feature article in the newspaper, Nationaltidende, 22 December 1938.
[9] John Corner, Television form and public address (London: Edward Arnold, 1995).
[10] See Leif Furhammer, Med TV i verkligheten (Sweden: Stiftelsen Etermedierna i Sverige, 1995).
[11] Nørrested & Alsted, 495-502.
[12] Ib Bondebjerg, “Opbruddet fra monopolkulturen”, Sekvens 89 (Filmvidenskabelig Årbog: University of Copenhagen, 1989).
[13] Bondebjerg, 89. My translation.
[14] Bondebjerg, 98. My translation.
[15] Bondebjerg, 117. My translation.
[16] I am sure many a documentarist will disagree with me on this point!
[17] Thomas Stenderup, “Udsigten for den europæiske dokumentarfilm”, in KLIP 20 (August 1993),39-40. My translation.