Import/Export

Written by Jake Finbow. Published on Sat Mar 14 17:46:54 2009 in the Alternate Takes section.

Photo from the article From the first days of cinema and the Lumiere brothers’ Arrival of a Train cinema has always enjoyed a complex relationship with reality. The camera captures truthfully what is in front of it, yet when projected onto a cinema screen it becomes a reflection of that event that can sometimes be convincing enough to be accepted as real. This supposedly happened in a literal sense for the Lumiere’s film when audiences fled a screen locomotive in the belief it would crash into them, but as audiences became more aware of what they were watching this acceptance became voluntary, and spectators instead able to allow themselves to be drawn into what they know to be a constructed world on the screen. In this way cinema’s most common use shifted from the documenting of real life to the telling of telling of narratives in a specially constructed world that can be based in ‘real life’ or purely imagined.

Despite the development of cinema’s relationship with illusion it has never fully shaken its connection to the real world: the documentary never died out and to this day audiences retain a strange fascination with images from ‘reality’. There is something innately powerful about seeing an event happen onscreen with the knowledge that what is taking place is not staged but life happening before your eyes. From pornography to footage of suicides and jihadist beheadings, knowing that the people in footage are actually having sex or dying changes the way in which we view them. Only recently the suicide of a teenager broadcast live on the Internet was given prominent coverage in the mainstream media here in the UK. In general it would seem that most of the internet video clips which find the largest number of viewers tend to be those which provoke a physical reaction in those who see them, such as laughter, in the embarrassing You’ve Been Framed-style clips, arousal in pornographic clips, or discomfort and fear in those of grizzly deaths or accidents. Though they are not always the most famous moments in movie history, documentary has given cinema some of its most powerful moments and striking images. From a man being force fed through a tube up his nose in Frederick Wiseman’s The Titicut Follies (1967) to Arthur Agee lifted aloft by his team mates after his basketball team reach the state final in Hoop Dreams (1994).


If one were to compile a list of these documentary moments, examples such as the basketball film may prove less common. Mainstream Hollywood fiction has historically specialised in uplifting moments, from It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) to Rocky (1976). In the ‘real’ world of documentary people are less willing to accept the last minute triumphs of the underdog: in Hoop Dreams, for instance, it stands out as a small triumph among many lows of characters battling to survive poverty in tough inner city Chicago. What documentary arguably does best is shock us, scare us and make us feel uncomfortable. More often than not its powerful scenes are simultaneously tragic and terrifying, and their horror stems directly from their basis in reality. In these scenes a side of the world - the same familiar, secure everyday world that we inhabit - is revealed to the comfortable Western viewer that is so cruel and alien, and yet from which we are separated only by the coincidence of a few chromosomes or the location of our birth. Above all it terrifies us because its reality refuses us the right to deny it.

It is this documentary horror that Ulrich Seidl imbues Import/Export with, both in literal and stylistic terms. The film is shot on digital video and uses natural light. Seidl uses long takes in which he edits through camera movement rather than with cuts, reproducing the impression of fly on the wall observational documentaries and real time continuity. This sense of time becomes crucial in heightening the feeling of unease in scenes. He begins with an early scene where Paul brings a large dog to his girlfriend’s flat even though he knows that she is afraid of it, and continues with Olga’s brief stint as a webcam sex worker. Though Seidl doesn’t show the lead actresses genitalia explicitly when Olga masturbates for the internet porn site, the shot itself is static as if it were a webcam. Beyond the point of view which implicates the viewer by putting them close to the position of the paying Western customer who barks his orders angrily in German, the lack of cuts creates an acute awareness of time which makes an uncomfortable scene grow more agitating with each second that passes. This technique is repeated when Michael picks up a prostitute and humiliates her in his hotel room,


Yet the film goes beyond this gritty digital stylistic appropriation of documentary horror by incorporating non-professional actors, explicit situations and real locations in order to capture it. Whilst using real locations is fairly standard practice for popular fiction films, it is rare to see anywhere like the vast Eastern European estate used as a camp by gypsies. Strewn with rubbish, bonfires burning, it is a claustrophobic maze of dark, narrow passages, which seem closer to hell than any CGI horror environment, especially for Paul as he is accosted by scarily convincing pimps looking to force him to have sex with a young girl. The other prominent real location is the old people’s home in Austria where Olga finds work. Seidl films in this drab, cold looking environment where the elderly, many of whom are suffering from dementia, are given only basic care as they wait to die. What is so shocking about this is partly that many of the patients are simply playing themselves, their decaying minds and bodies, incoherent and incontinent, are not staged and represent a very possible future to the audience.

What Seidl has realised is it is possibility that creates true horror. Documentary by its very nature deals in the possible and as such it is the true genre of horror. Wasn’t a significant portion of Herzog’s hit documentary Grizzly Man (2005) set aside to discussing the idea of listening to a man being eaten alive by a bear? And can fictional horror really conjure up anything more chilling than listening to the (subsequently executed) sociopath David Harris talk about his life in The Thin Blue Line (1988)? If cinema transports us to another world where we will see and experience things beyond our own lives and experiences then documentary cinema does so whilst all the more strongly reminding us that our lives are connected to the stories we see, and that one day the train really might come out of the screen.

Special FX

- Print friendly format
- Email article to a friend

More from this writer

- Man on Wire
- V For Vendetta: Alternate Take
- V For Vendetta
- Whatever Happened to the Movie Star?
- King Kong: Alternate Take