Narrative or documentary?

The Buddy Holly Story (1978)
Director: Steve Rash. Writing credits: Robert Gittler, John Goldrosen, and Alan Swyer

The Real Buddy Holly Story (1985)
Director: Not listed. Produced by Paul McCartney


History tells a story. In film, this can be presented as a narrative or as a documentary. Based on the two films and the readings, which do you prefer and why?



There is always much to say about a legend, but how it is said is a completely different matter altogether. The preference of a narrative or a documentary differs from person to person, largely dependent on what one imposes upon the film to portray.

The Buddy Holly Story, a narrative, was more glamour and glitz than anything else. “Tell the legend, not the truth” was its mantra, and indeed, we saw why Buddy was remembered as a legend, but know nothing much beyond that. Where did he get his inspiration from, and how did it all begin? There are also instances where the reality of the film comes into question – do we honestly have sorrowful piano accompaniments and ominous weather when we bid goodbye to loved ones? Yet there is a need to mention the finer aspects of the film, where high adrenaline performances and witty jokes made the experience most enjoyable – all of which present the sell factor of narratives.

Narratives are undoubtedly, works of commercialism. Not all narrative works are works of fiction, but the general trend is for them to be more sensationalized than true. This gives it the entertainment factor and is the very reason for which it thrives. Narratives are at best, an excellent work of fiction, and at worst, a poor discolouration of the truth.

The Real Buddy Holly Story, a documentary, serves to fill in the gaps that the other leaves. Here, we get more personal recounts of Buddy; and despite it being only a few scenes, we see Buddy Holly himself, looking not quite like a star, but performing like he lived and breathed music. We are pulled into intimate details of his life and career – where he first recorded, the inspiration for his songs...drawing us closer to his character and appreciating his music even more.

Contrary to belief, documentaries need not be boring and dry. The Real Buddy Holly Story is testament of that. There is also the promise of authenticity in a documentary, where you see real people, events and recordings. The down side to documentaries however, is that without prior knowledge of the subject, one can very possibly become lost in the myriad of views and information streaming from the film.

There is the argument that narratives allow for more freedom of perception, because of the possibility for documentaries to be manipulated such that we only see events from a certain angle, yet narratives are at times guilty of the same ‘crime’. As such, it is up to the informed viewer to understand that all films seek to influence or spread certain messages, and it is up to the said viewer to discern and decide.

In ending, I prefer my stories with more truth and less flash, and there is the underlying fact that in narration, the actors, no matter the superb quality of their performance, will never equal that of the original. Hence, I would choose the non-pretentious nature of documentaries over the melodrama of narratives.