Reality Vs Fiction

The intention for documentary film is to create a sense of authenticity and to mirror the real world through film. Paul Greengrass is a director, whose taste for realism first developed when he directed the documentary, World in Action (1985-1987), which has had an impact on his career in film. He uses realism frequently to create a sense of authenticity and trigger emotional responses from the audience. I will be focussing on sequences from his films; United 93 (2006), The Bourne Supremacy (2004) and Captain Phillips (2013), as I believe that they capture the essence of the realism that Greengrass uses within his work. But what I want to discover is why directors use realism in their work. Is it because the realistic techniques create a sense of authenticity? Which gives a greater, emotional response? Or is documentary film as manipulative as any other traditional film and Paul Greengrass is just as conventional as any other director?

Like any other director, Greengrass wants to achieve a certain emotional response from the audience. Films of the thriller genre often make the audience feel anticipated, anxiety and excitement, primarily due to the typical genre techniques. As The Bourne Supremacy is a part of a trilogy, consisting of the thriller genre, Greengrass has to construct the film in a way to conform to the typical genre techniques. This is to achieve the emotional response he wants from the audience. Despite the consistency of Greengrass' work with documentary aesthetic, Greengrass must use cinematic techniques in order to gain the typical emotional response. Does this prove that he is as conventional as any other director?