Preview

Vestnik VGIK

Advanced search

Animated Documentary: Problems of Classifying the Hybrid Forms of Post-Digital Culture

Abstract

Animadoc has become a phenomenon of post-digital culture.
Such films are created by means of animation, but their stories are based on
documents, facts, and real events. Synthetics, the use of images of varying
degrees of iconic isomorphism are typical for animadoc. The problem of
classifying animated documentary arises from its hybrid nature, resulting from
the combination of documentary content and fictional form.
For the first time, there are three main tendencies of research in the sphere
of animated documentary based on the analysis of the corpus of scientific texts.
The first tendency views the animated documentary as a genre or form
of performing documentaries. The advent of digital technologies brought
about a fundamentally new understanding of documentary, rethinking the
concept of authenticity, reality, screen document. Subjective and performance
tendencies are becoming more prominent in documentaries. This makes it
possible to legalize documentary animation with its reconstructive, reflective,
and interpretive constituents.
The second tendency looks upon animadoc as a genre or a new kind of
animation. It expands the thematic boundaries and visual means of animation.
It goes beyond its traditional areas. Animation is no longer considered a tool
intended solely for the presentation of fantastic and fairy-tale worlds and the
space of children's imagination.
The third trend in research considers animated documentary a hybrid,
experimental form of supersensory visuality, representing invisible areas of
reality, as an optical practice and a form of alternative vision, which instead of
the surface focuses on the "folds", the zones of concealment and ellipsis.
This tendency makes no emphasis on the specific and genre differences.
What matters is how animadoc builds new forms of communication and
becomes a new type of observation. The socializing and therapeutic functions
of animadoc are emphasized, and it begins to be understood as a form of screen
media of post-digital culture.

About the Author

Natalia G. Krivulya

Russian Federation


References

1. Abdulaeva Z. (2011) Postdok: igrovoe/ neigrovoe [Postdoc: fiction/ non-fiction.].

2. Moscow: NLO, 2011.

3. Animadok: o lichnom bez perenosov i inoskazanij [Animadok: about personal without

4. hyphenation and allegories]. URL.:https://www.svoboda.org/a/30345605.html (дата

5. обращения: 15.10.2020). (In Russ.).

6. Artemov S. Brodskij, Lennon i terroristy: Gid po dokumental'noj animacii[Brodsky,

7. Lennon and the terrorists: a guide to animated documentary]. URL.:https://www.kinopoisk.

8. ru/media/article/3161195/ (дата обращения: 08.11.2020). (In Russ.).

9. Vertov D. (2008) Iz naslediya: Stat'i i vystupleniya [ From heritage: Articles and speeches ].

10. Moscow: Ejzenshtejn-Centr, 2008. (In Russ.).

11. Dokumentalistika nikogda ne byla slepkom real'nosti: scenaristy i kinovedy o suti

12. biograficheskogo kino [Documentaries have never been a cast of reality: screenwriters

13. and film critics on the essence of biographical cinema]. URL.:https://theoryandpractice.ru/

14. posts/10470-doc-biography (дата обращения: 08.11.2020). (In Russ.).

15. Kartashov A. Ot mok'yumentari do hroniki: vse vidy dokumental'nogo Kino

16. [From mockumentary to chronicle: all types of documentary]. URL.: https://arzamas.

17. academy/materials/1712 (дата обращения: 15.10.2020). (In Russ.).

18. Rabiger M. (2006) Rezhissura dokumental'nogo kino [Directing the documentary]. Moscow.:

19. GITP, 2006.

20. Tereshchenko M. Mul'tfil'm kak dokument [Cartoon as a document]. URL.: http://os.colta.ru/

21. cinema/projects/198/details/19732/page1 (дата обращения: 08.12.2019) (дата обращения:

22. 12.2019).

23. Chagall M. About Art. URL.: http://www.m-chagall.ru/library/Ob-iskusstve-i-kulture.html

24. (дата обращения: 19.11.2020).

25. Beige L.A. (2009), When Docs Get Graphic: Animation Meets Actuality. Documentary,

26. (2009), 28: 2 (Spring)., pp. 22–26.

27. Bruzzi S. (2006) New documentary: A critical introduction (2). New York: Routledge.

28.

29. DelGaudio S. (1997) If Truth be Told, can 'Toons Tell it? Documentary and Animation//

30. Film History, vol. 9, no. 2, 1997, pp. 189–199.

31. Ekinci B.T. (2017) A hybrid documentary genre: Animated documentary and the analysis

32. of Waltz with Bashir (2008) movie. CINEJ Cinema Journal, vol. 6.1 (2017), pp. 4–24.

33. Hann J.S. (2012) A Case For The Animated Documentary. — Montana: Montana State

34. University. 2012. 24 p.

35. Mclane B. (2012) A. A New History of Documentary Film. London: Continuum Press.

36.

37. Min-ha, Trinh T. (1993) The Totalizing Quest of Meaning. Theorizing Documentary.

38. New York: Routledge, 1993, pр. 90–107.

39. Roe А.Н. (2013) Animated Documentary. London: Palgrave Macmıllan Press. 2013.

40. Winston B. (2008) Claiming the Real II: Documentary – Grierson and Beyond.

41. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 2008.

42. Sobchack V. (1999) Toward a phenomenology of nonfictional film experience.

43. J.M. Gaines & M. Renov (Eds.), Collecting visible evidence. Minneapolis, MN: University

44. of Minnesota Press. 1999, pp. 241–254.

45. Strøm G. ( 2001) The animated documentary. Norsk medietidsskrift 02 / 2001 (vol. 8),

46. pp. 51–65. /https://www.idunn.no/nmt/2001/02/the_animated_documentary

47. (дата обращения: 26.10.2020).


Review

For citations:


Krivulya N.G. Animated Documentary: Problems of Classifying the Hybrid Forms of Post-Digital Culture. Vestnik VGIK. 2020;12(3(45)):102-118. (In Russ.)

Views: 32


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2074-0832 (Print)
ISSN 2713-2471 (Online)