Film Essays
info
With All Due Respect to Memory: An Analysis of Sarah Polly’s Stories We Tell
February 22, 2023
Sarah Polly’s Stories We Tell is a film that questions the conventions of documentary as a medium of truth, being in itself a commentary on the biased and selective nature of memory that alters how we tell stories on a personal level and inevitably in presenting truthful documentary. In this essay, I will analyze the techniques and observations Sarah Polly utilizes in her film in order to unravel this dual nature of truth and deceit in documentary despite its reputation as a factual medium.
The film begins as a memoir for the director’s mother, Diane. The mother’s family and friends are asked questions regarding what they recall of her, providing information that enable the viewer to perceive the essence of her personality. To anchor all these disparate voices along a single narrative, it’s important to note that it all follows the structure of Micheal’s short story of Diane, of which he is tasked to narrate in a sound studio in front of Sarah Polly. His account acts as the vehicle that pushes the narrative forward along a straighter path instead of losing focus from all the various voices giving opinions on who Diane was. Along with these accounts, the use of archival footage and images that show a young Diane and Micheal successfully allow Polly to be able to paint an informed image of her mother to the audience. In a way, we are looking back at the past with Polly herself as we look at these archives. In showing these moments in the documentary, it appears we are given the same amount of access to memory as Polly must have selectively seen as important and thus notably remembered for herself. Old 16mm archival film of Diane and her family playing on the sandy beach, in a party or swimming in a pool allow Polly to re-awaken the image of Diane for the audience as Sarah Polly sees it. Diane can be envisioned visually and descriptively as a loud, energetic and charismatic woman despite the fact that she had passed away years prior. In terms of audio, Polly’s family share very specific and distinct memories, such as Diane’s penchant for loud steps or being the center of parties. The archival nature of the various media together evoke a sense of nostalgia that aids in establishing the film as a recollection of the past, of which it certainly attempts to emulate.
While the film describes Diane quite effectively, it must also be stressed that the interviewees likewise provide contradictory answers to a variety of Polly’s questions regarding her mother as well. Michael and Harry for instance offer contrasting thoughts on what Diane may have been thinking during certain past events throughout the film. When asked if Diane knew she was going to die of cancer leading up to her diagnosis, Michael refused to believe this while Harry believed otherwise. In another instance, Micheal described himself as a husband that readily helped around the house, whilst his children’s responses were scattered and ranged from becoming very responsible when he started having children to always being completely incapable of helping around the house. The dissonance of memory being shown here is not unintentional by Polly. The inaccurate responses to these answers not only give narrative amusement, but in showing this, Polly also emphasizes the selective nature of memory and how it can differ from person to person. In a way, how we remember things shapes the person themselves, or alternatively reveals who we actually are from what we choose to remember. This is observed when looking back at the intro of the film. Polly shows pre-interview moments of her family, which was when they appear most candid and off-guard, as the camera isn’t officially rolling. These scenes make more sense on a second viewing, because you understand their behaviour and reactions more based on their interviews that follow the scene and make the film. It seems tangible that what each interviewee remembers and how they respond reveals something about the identity of the interviewees themselves, as if in searching for the memory of their mother, they are remembering the specific moments that shaped them. In effect, when they talk about Diane, it’s unavoidable that they all also reveal something about themselves and their unique personalities. In adding those candid scenes, she purposefully brings to the audience’s attention the effects of the inconsistencies of truth and the vagaries present surrounding it to our own behaviours.
Through these opposing opinions, she also attempts to make known the impossibility in providing a complete accurate representation of a person, whether from an intimate individual, a collective group, or inevitably through documentary. It can be argued then, that the documentary as a whole is in itself actually a subliminal interview of Sarah Polly the director, which carries all the inconsistencies of memory that come along with it. What she chooses to select in the documentary works in the same way we select what memory to share, and what she selects to be seen is what is ultimately shared with the viewer. In following this interpretation, Sarah Polly does beg one to ask the question of how truthful a documentary can actually be if its production relies on the biased memory of the filmmakers themselves. They select the truth from what they choose to shoot and have on a final edit, making film such as documentary just as selective as the memory of those they are interviewing regardless of the intent to remain truthful. Likewise, it is only through this repository of scattered and opposing memories that Polly can construct her truth with regards to who her mother actually was and in turn, herself and the audience.
The shift from a memoir of Diane into the more reflexive nature of the film that ruminates on these contrasting stories of her mother stemming from ephemeral memory is achieved quite seamlessly. This is done by shifting narrative focus from Diane, to Polly, and then ultimately to that abstract theme of memory which encompasses the whole story and all subjects. The film’s focus from Diane to Sarah Polly becomes sensible when Polly asks the question of who her father really is. They all answer it was Diane’s co-actor Jeff Bowes, but it appears they’re all wrong as it’s actually revealed to be Harry Gulkin. With respect to documentary, this is another testament to memory and its infinite grey area that muddles truth. What may be construed as true to all— which effectively does convince an audience in a documentary unless proven otherwise in most cases— may be false in reality. The scene also shifts the narrative focus away from Diane. By making the documentary personal, it allows Polly to approach the film in more dimensions that eventually reflect on this investigation of memory. The introduction of this intriguing plot enables the film to morph from its original depiction as a memoir to a self-reflexive auto-biography as Polly realizes that in searching for her mother then father, she is actually searching for herself. In an e-mail correspondence with her father/step-father Polly directly admits that the film has changed into “a search for the vagaries of truth, and the unreliability of memory rather than a search for a father.” To Polly then, in attempting that initial narrative intention of creating a complete figure of her mother and her real father was the journey that led her to investigate the nature of the formation of stories and its reliance on memory. Sarah Polly’s story along with her mother are at this point acting as conduits (albeit emotionally charged ones) that allow her to investigate this larger reflection on memory.
Aside from narrative elements to shift thematic focus in the film, visual and audio cues also facilitate this change in subject less jarringly. To do this smoothly and without surprising the audience from this switch, Polly purposefully involves herself as a character early in the film. Even when it appears that the film would concentrate on her mother as the film begins, the interviewees openly acknowledge the director behind the camera and Polly is visibly present throughout the film. She audibly instructs Micheal to re-read lines of his story. In another scene her brother directly asks her a question that was originally meant for him. These are not coincidental accidents left in the film but intentional selections by Polly to be included within the film early. In doing so, the audience becomes subconsciously aware of Polly’s presence from the film’s beginning despite not being the overwhelming physical present within it. This is important as it allows the film to recognize Polly before she becomes central to the film. One is not caught off guard that Polly takes the role of protagonist halfway.
Of note as well is the fact that the filmmaking set around the interviewees are not concealed as they usually are in films. Micheal questions the camera set-up in the sound studio. Microphones and film lighting equipment protrude within the frame in scenes involving Sarah Polly interviewing her siblings. Questions from the interviewees are directed to Polly behind the camera. In doing this she is making the audience aware of the filmmaking process and how constructed it is behind the scenes. She allows the audience to see what is usually hidden in films, and breaks down the constructed reality usually depicted within documentary and in films as a whole. In giving the audience this awareness, she allows them to question how much truth and reality we are actually witnessing and hearing considering the obtrusive nature of the camera present. This blurring of truth is further pushed by Polly from her reveal much later in the film that the archival footage is a fabrication. The footage of Diane in Montreal preparing for a play or of the whole family eating on the dinner table among others were all fake for example. In using old 16mm film, actors resembling her parents, shaky camera operation as well location and art direction that reflects the fashion and architecture of the time, she is able to convince the audience that the archival footage is real. Moreover, in interspersing these scenes with authentic archival footage and narration from firsthand sources deceives the audience into believing the footage to be true from assuming truthful association between images. This manufactured truth is however extinguished in a single scene that shows Polly filming the party celebration sequence that was previously shown earlier in the film as authentic.
The reveal of the presence of filmmaking and the act of deception employed by Polly creates a meta-documentary scenario. By having her presence within the film being felt throughout and in emphasizing her act of filmmaking as well as its deceptions, Stories We Tell can be described as a reflexive documentary. She engages the audience through her act of filmmaking to consider how memory flits between the false and true. In revealing the actual nature of the faux-archival footage, Polly raises the issue of the unreliable nature of memory on two levels: the personal and the documentary. By not revealing to the audience that the footage is a reenactment sooner speaks to the questionable reality of our own memories and in turn of any documentary film. In both, we only believe what our eyes see or what our eyes are directed to. Moreover, the building of a documentary relies on the memory of those making it, which includes those being interviewed as much as the filmmakers themselves. While this fabrication of truth is clearly acknowledged in the film, the audience is still led to believe it as truth up to that point and probably would continue to do so if it was never acknowledged. Furthermore as the storyteller and director of this film she had to piece together fragments of all these memories that invariably contradict each other. It begs to ask the question that if we can’t rely on our own memories for the truth, what difference does it really make in documentary if a scene is a reenactment or real?
Perhaps to Polly falseness and truth are blurred within memory and by extension also unavoidable in documentary no matter how truthful it attempts to be. What is clear, however, is that the film establishes that what actually holds significance to Polly is not the accuracy of truth in documentary, but actually more about the stories we tell. Stories are what build who we are irrespective of the reality and truth behind them after all. Hence, the name of the film and its respect—or lack thereof— when it comes to memory.