Analysing Docudrama Through the Lens of Misinformation: A Case Study on ‘Holy Cross’ and ‘Bloody Sunday’

25 Jan

In this essay, I will uncover the use of docudramas as a way to blend fact and fiction together into one story. I will explore the use of docudramas as a way to tell a factual story and question if it is an effective genre. The first film chosen ‘Holy Cross,’ produced in 2003 and directed by Mark Brozel. ‘Holy Cross’ tells the story of Catholic schoolgirls who were harassed while walking to school through a Protestant area in Belfast (Brozel, 2003). The second film chosen to study is ‘Bloody Sunday,’ which was written and directed by Paul Greengrass in 2002. The film depicts the civil rights march in Derry in 1972 which ended in a massacre (Paul Greengrass, 2002). Both films’ centre themes were The Troubles in Northern Ireland. I will be analysing these docudramas specifically to understand the importance of stopping the spreads of misinformation. I will then consider the dangers and consequences of misinformation and misrepresentation in docudramas.

Documentaries and drama genre conventions are blended to make a new genre: docudrama. This is a combination which narrows in on the re-telling of history, both national and international, the representation of public figures as well as focusing on ordinary people during unusual circumstances (Baltruschat, 2010). Docudramas are similar to neo-realism, re-enactments and mockumentaries in the sense that they are a mix of fiction and non-fiction. Although these four genres adopt many fictional elements and are typically considered more fiction than not, they often are put in the same category and discussions as documentaries. Docudramas in particular draw a lot of their plot and character from real life events (Nichlos, 2010). Docudrama is now increasingly important to both television and film and they have continued to revisit and recount events from history (Paget, 2011). Docudramas allow us to “form non-perceptual beliefs by primarily involving the formation of perceptual imaginings” (Terrone, 2020). Docudramas differ from documentaries in more ways than simply being more dramatic. While they are researched the same, finding sources both primary and secondary accounts of an event which the docudrama or documentary is being focused on. Docudramas go through similar production process as pure fictional dramas, with a script being written and actors pretending to be a person they are not (Paget, 2011). It can, however, be difficult to define docudramas as it can be difficult to define documentaries. Austin Thomas even argues that “individual viewers will have their own preconceptions and expectations of material labelled ‘documentary’ (either by themselves or by others), and these may or may not accord with more established definitions” (Thomas, 2008). On the other hand, Paul Arthur proposes the idea that a documentary is more of a mode of production rather than a genre (Thomas, 2008). Additionally, it should be noted that more and more docudramas are using archival footage, not for research and verification purposes, but for drama purposes instead. While the use of archival footage may seem at first as straightforward and unimportant, it is actually more complex than it would first appear. Real archival footage is typically used at the end of a docudrama before or during the credits are rolling. The use of such footage not only authenticates the docudrama but also bridges the gap between a fictional piece and a documentary. It allows, and even promotes, the idea that this film or television series is real, or at least more fact than fiction. It blurs the lines between fiction and non-fiction even more to the point than what is real is indistinguishable.

Misinformation is a challenge that we as a society need to combat. It is an ever-growing issue and it becomes an even bigger issue when it comes to retelling historical events through a dramatized lens. Depending on the way that the story is told, it may influence the audience’s opinion and outlook on said events (Valenzuela & Brandao, 2015). Misrepresentation can be in the form of misinformation which can be a major issue in the docudrama genre. Filmmakers have to handle sensitive topics, such as the civil war in Northern Ireland, with empathy and tact. The consequences of not doing so can promote harmful mindsets and stereotypes (Fields, 2021). It is very simple to slant the truth without lying or making up information in order to manipulate an audience response in a certain way. Certain details can be left out of the story or deliberately highlighted. Writers and producers have a responsibility to provide correct information to their audience, specifically in docudramas where it is not always clear where the truth ends and the fiction begins. Audience members rely on the producer to provide them this correct information unless explicitly stated that it is fiction. When a production intertwines fact and fiction, this can be difficult to do. While docudramas have more creative liberty then pure documentaries, some people argue that it should be made clear to the audience that the film or television programme has been dramatized. Docudramas often rely a lot on memories of events rather than historical records and can be vastly dramatized. While audience members tend to take docudramas with a grain of salt due to knowing that characters are often entirely made up to move the plot of a story along, the issue arises when real people are portrayed in docudramas. When a real person is characterised in a film, it is vital that the producers of said film portray the character as similar to the person as possible. Otherwise, this can tarnish a reputation, and even if it is later disproved, people rarely recover from this. Audience members rely on the accuracy of filmmakers of what they learn through films. By misrepresenting an individual you can convince the public that a person was morally right or wrong and completely change how society views them. The audience also has the right to rely on the filmmakers to do research and produce an unbiased piece that does not distort the truth, but instead tell the event how it happened. The Supreme Court of America argues that in terms of docudramas that audiences expect a certain level of dramatization, that being said they still expect the story to be as close to the truth as possible. Whole scenes should not be created with no facts to base it on. The Court said that there is a moral obligation to stay as close to the factual truth as possible and inform the audience that the truth may be distorted. It is often easier to bend the truth by making up characters then to completely change the characterisation of a real life person (Cowan, 1998).

When it comes to retelling a historical event but dramatizing it for the screen, the idea that the dramatizing of real stories may influence audiences’ opinion and understanding of the political reality (Valenzuela & Brandao, 2015). This can be a potential issue in regards to the films chosen which have political themes, both of which depict events that were relatively recent. When producing a docudrama which has political and historical undertones it is vital to ensure that the piece does not favour one side over another. ‘Holy Cross’ highlights both sides of the story by showing the events primarily through the eyes of the children. The film focuses on two main families, one Catholic and one Protestant, both with young girls. The film opens with a shaky camera and it soon becomes clear that it is a video diary from the Protestant girl, Karen Norton. She introduces us to her family, her home and her area. She simplifies the differences between Catholics and Protestants by explaining that “they wear red because they’re Catholic” (Brozel, 2003). It is very innocent understanding and a visually simple way for a child to determine which side of the religious divide a person is. We are also introduced to Síobhan and her family who are Catholic and her father used to be in the Provincial Irish Republican Army. Although the main victims in this event are the girls who were harassed while walking to school, the film focused on both sides and each family got equal screen time. The story was told through a domestic lens even though it was a politically and religiously motivated event, it made it clear that the children, of both sides were the main characters. This evoked empathy from the audience as children are innocent. ‘Bloody Sunday’ on the other hand mainly told the events that occurred from the perspective of the Catholics. There were some scenes that the Protestants were the only characters on screen but it was under a very different light. While Ivan Cooper, who was the main figure of authority to the Catholics in this film, was depicted as a man of the people and a range of scenes in the film highlighted this with shots of him with his parents, with his girlfriend and taking the time to talk to everyone and anyone. Major General Robert Ford who was Commander of Land Forces at the time, was the main figure of authority for the Protestants that we see in the film, and unlike Ivan Cooper, the character that is created for this docudrama is one who is rarely seen out of his official uniform. This makes it difficult for the audience to see a human side of this man and instead creates the impression of a cold army general who has no remorse or sympathy. Whether this difference in the humanity of the leaders is deliberate or not, it certainly impacts how the audience perceives the two men. It can be argued that docudrama have a higher perceived reality in comparison to pure fiction films and television shows (Valenzuela & Brandao, 2015).

The reception of these docudramas must be taken into account when using them as case studies. The audience was apprehensive during the production of ‘Holy Cross’ as the parents and teachers involved with the event were concerned it would be too soon. There was a lot of suspicion surrounding what side the director and producers would take and the community was apprehensive about the making of this film. According to the director Mark Brozel, it was very important to hear both sides of the story. It wasn’t a black and white event. He wanted to uncover what drove the Protestant community to yell abuse at these young school girls. Despite this, he was determined not to excuse this behaviour or justify what happened. While Protestant children were also traumatised by the police and rioting, it wasn’t reported as much or at all in comparison to the Catholic children. Brozel included the scene where Karen gets separated from her mother on the front line amid a riot. While it is still inexcusable, there is a clear connection and understanding as to why Karen’s mother then goes on to hurl abuse at the Catholic families walking down the road (Brozel, 2003). The film was shown to members of the community in a pre-showing and despite the apprehensions leading up to the release, both sides of the community appreciated their representation on the screen. That being said not everyone was thrilled with the film. Some audience members did argue that there was no need to humanise the protestors and rioters and they didn’t deserve to be humanised (Phoblacht, 2003). ‘Bloody Sunday’ was heavily reliant on the book ‘Eyewitness Bloody Sunday’ written by Don Mullan in 1997 which had statements from witnesses to the tragedy (Museum of Free Derry, 2023). The people of Derry and the families of the victims of Bloody Sunday, although they wanted their voices heard, were unsure about Paul Greengrass being the one to produce the film as he is British and they were concerned that he wouldn’t tell the story accurately. However, that apprehension disappeared quickly as it was soon seen as two communities coming together to acknowledge this horrific event. Greengrass believes that, in comparison to ‘Holy Cross,’ years in between the event and the film were necessary. He argues that any film made sooner would have been filled with anger, whereas the space left between event and production allowed peace to settle and the film can be watched in a new light (Accomando, 2002)

In conclusion, docudrama is a blend of both documentary and drama genres, leading it to become a hybrid form of both fact and fiction. Like any genres it has it’s pros and cons. On one hand it is a way to tell the story of an event that happened without having to perform under the constraints and regulations of a documentary, but on the other hand it can lead to misinformation as it is not always clear where the facts ends and the fiction starts. The films studied are ‘Holy Cross’ produced in 2003 after the events in Belfast in 2002, in which Catholic school girls were the victims of verbal abuse from Protestant rioters. This docudrama was took into account both sides of the story without excusing the rioters’ actions. It made it clear that families on both sides of the sectarian divide were human and it highlighted this with focusing on the domestic effects and the children’s perspective. The audience was apprehensive at the early days of production as members of the community involved with the incident weren’t sure if their voices would be heard. But once the film was out in cinemas, it quickly became celebrated and praised. The second film studied was the 2002 film ‘Bloody Sunday.’ This followed the massacre in Bogside, Derry in the year 1972 and displayed the tragedy that occurred. While the director showed the events from the perspective of both the Catholics and the Protestants, the Catholics were more humanised. This film was well received as it finally shed light on one of the main events that started the 30 year civil war and highlighted what happened on that day.

Bibliography:

Accomando, B. (2002) ‘Film Review: “Bloody Sunday”’, KPBS.

Baltruschat, D. (2010) Global Media Ecologies: Networked Production in Film and Television, Routledge: New York, New York.

Bloody Sunday [online] (2002) Paramount Vantage, available: https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0052349F?bcast=31471884&playlist=57311 [accessed 28 Dec 2023].

Cowan, G. (1998) ‘The Legal and Ethical Limitations of Factual Misrepresentation’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 155–164.

Fields, N. (2021) ‘Opinion: Inaccurate Film Representation Reinforces Stereotypes, Spreads Misinformation’, The Reflector.

Holy Cross [online] (2003) BBC: UK, available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKLpjs6KO-Y [accessed 28 Dec 2023].

Museum of Free Derry, T. (2023) Eyewitness Bloody Sunday [online], The Museum of Free Derry, available: https://museumoffreederry.org/bloody-sunday-justice-campaign/eyewitness-bloody-sunday/#:~:text=During%20their%20campaign%2C%20families%20in,them%20on%20to%20the%20families. [accessed 28 Dec 2023].

Nichlos, B. (2010) Introduction to Documentary, Indiana University Press: Indiana, Indiana.

Paget, D. (2011) No Other Way To Tell It: Docudrama on Film and Television, Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK.

Phoblacht, A. (2003) ‘Holy Cross Through BBC-Tinted Glass’, An Phoblacht.

Terrone, E. (2020) ‘Documentaries, Docudramas, and Perceptual Beliefs’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 43–56.

Thomas, A. (2008) Rethinking Documentary: New Persoectives, New Perspectives, Open University Press: Berkshire, UK.

Valenzuela, S., Brandao, A.S. (2015) ‘Historical Dramas, Current Political Choices: Analysing Partisan Selective Exposure With A Docudrama’, Mass Communication and Society, 449–470.

Works Cited: