There are many parts that constitute any dramatic production, whether that production be based on fact or fiction, which can, regardless it be accidental or deliberate, change the original meaning behind the initial conception. In the domain of motion pictures, that deal with fiction, fantasy and entertainment, this variation or departure may not greatly effect public opinion, except to criticise the production! However, when dealing with documentaries, a different concept exists: a documentary is meant to educate and inform the public who would not normally gain that information otherwise. Hence, a documentary, or a docudrama, may give a correct or an incorrect version, regardless it be accidental or not, of the truth. This paper shall explore what documentaries and docudramas should accomplish and the significance of this privileged media. Correspondingly, it will examine three areas in a production, the writer, director, and actor, where the seeds of misrepresentation can occur, and how they relate to two Australian docudramas.

 Documentaries divides, like the news media, its purposes between the journalistic, which is basically a passive reporting of events, and the dramatic, where the world of imagination and drama can be used to stimulate and represent an action, while still being firmly anchored in reality . The first allows for the precision and impartiality of description, with emphasis upon the detached and dispassionate in techniques of presentation. The second frees techniques and approaches to advance the subjective purpose of drama in the presentation of the themes which are in the events recorded. Hence, the journalistic approach is controlled by the actual subject, while the dramatic approach is controlled by the theme. Control must recognise, and allow, for the possibility that both drama and reporting exist to a certain degree in any interpretation of reality. Yet it must represent a willingness to come upon an interpretation of events in a balanced way, with specific methods of presentation .

 Documentaries and docudramas are produced for the purpose of informing and educating their various audiences. This can be achieved on the television in the home, shown in a classroom, or in a cinema. Where ever they are watched, their principal service is in their educational content and subject matter . Importantly, television has the dramatic power to capture the imagination of those people, by the use of drama, especially in the docudrama, who would not read the same story in a newspaper or who seldom, if ever, attend a court hearing or a public meeting .
 Rotha points out the philosophy of the documentary:
 

Correspondingly, many of these documentaries succeed in providing insights and deepening understanding of any one subject. But, even in this area of basic structure, the temptation to over dramatise some items or actions and trivialise others is obvious .

 The rights and wrongs of any particular case illustrates the dangers of any documentary or docudrama. Television documentaries, in particular, face rigid time pressures owing to the nature of the programming process. There is also the limitation of television itself. It has a resistance to abstraction and uses personalities and stars to sell the product. Hence, even serious documentaries could be criticised that there is a danger that the subject matter could be replaced by the personality of its presenter .

 Television is a very powerful communication medium and:
 

Although the time has past when the fiction style docudrama, like Orsen Well's War of the Worlds, terrified audiences into believing that catastrophe was occurring , one, nevertheless taking the above quote into account, has to be precise as to the research gathered for a documentary or a docudrama: it should be an accurate reflection the original event.

 In contrast, the warped documentary, where only a one sided, biased, politically motivated theme is advanced, is propaganda. This may be an extreme example, but propaganda can have an intensely influential effect on the audience intended, regardless of its sophistication. In fact the more sophisticated, the more dangerous. Grierson, who saw this practice during the Second World War, realised the importance of this practise to keep British moral from falling at important moments, but questioned:
 

He continues by observing the importance the Nazis placed on propaganda documentary:
 

 An example, to illustrate Grierson's concerns and to demonstrate sophisticated propaganda, is Olivier's film version of Shakespear's Henry V. It was the era of the Second World War and England, when the film was first conceived, had suffered numerous reverses and was stubbornly and defiantly hold on: the people had suffered constant hardship and where now enduring the Blitz. In consequence, Olivier's film promotes British self-righteousness and morale. Furthermore, it is dedicated to the men of the R.A.F. and the various army units who were defending the country . Arguably, it is these factors that can explain why, which is opposite to the character and themes suggested by the text, the darker side of King Henry is not portrayed in the film. Needless to say, the British public would not appreciate viewing their great historical or current leaders, or for that matter themselves, as the inhuman invaders of Europe: that was the personification of the Nazis .

 Although, as stated, the propaganda documentary is the extreme example, notwithstanding this fact, in today's documentaries and docudramas manipulation can occur, whether intentional or not, that will alter the message communicated. When actors, or even an announcer, is seen on the screen of the television, or cinema, all kinds of subliminal messages will occur. The announcer could look tired or the viewer may receive the information that a button is missing off the announcer's jacket. Whatever occurs, there are dozens, even hundreds of pieces of information, some relevant, some not, all available at the same instant, in that scene. Thus, without doubt, any dramatic method, regardless of its intention, communicates messages at multiple dimensions, at any moment, and is almost inexhaustible in the amount of information and meaning communicated. Some of this information is taken in consciously by the viewer. Other items of information are perceived subliminally and can influence the viewers' conscious reaction to the scene, while other bits of information may remain quite unnoticed and, hence, ineffective .

 Accordingly, all this information can divert the correct meaning or message that the documentary is trying to portray, without any deliberate manipulation of the theme or message. The viewer must remember that the essential part in a documentary, and most definitely a docudrama, is that they are re-enactments of past events, and this introduces one of the fundamental aspects of drama: acting. However, before the actor can deliver the dialogue, a writer must first write it, while a director interprets the script, decide the themes and structure, and then finally the actor can portray the part .

 The writer of, even the most strictly researched and structured documentary, has still, like in a work of fiction, imagine the detail, the actions, and the feelings of characters, and then shape these imagined forms into an artistic form. However, even the exceptionally skilful writer, in imagining his or her characters and the dialogue they must speak, must still, nevertheless as indicated, enter into his or her own world of imagined feelings, to develop each character. Hence, each character emerges from the mind of the writer and will, in some sense, correspond and represent certain aspects in that writer's personal experience and psychological make up. A writer can never know exactly what is going on in someone else's head, so, unfortunately, imagination must always be based on at least a seed of personal experience. Here, therefore, is where, arguably, the first diversion of the original event can occur. It can occur by an unconscious act, due to the writer using their own experiences and imagination about a subject or character. Likewise, a subject or character can be deliberately altered to suit the ideas or themes that the writer is trying to portray.

 The director has a major role in any production, let alone a documentary. The director's duties may vary from one organisation and production to another, but the director has a number of essential tasks. First, the director decides the interpretation to be given to the script. Then the roles for the actors are cast. The director, furthermore, works with the designers and technicians in planning the production, while rehearsals are conducted with the actors. Finally, the director coordinates all of the elements, such as camera operation, sound, and so on, into a finished production .

 It is this power of the director to control what the viewer experiences, and the impressions that are, thus, produced, that can further create a distorted representation in a documentary. The pure research documentary, in which camera movement and angling are avoided, and the event is not reorganised by editing, is actually seen as a status of a pure research film, defining and upholding its own project of offering as an unbiased and unimpaired representation. It produces the truth through documented evidence which indicates that there is a lack of manipulation through dramatic events. In this way the risk of misinterpretation is reduced or eliminated by the text, which would present itself as wholly comprehensible, because it is seen as a true representation of events. However, with the dramatic approach, which has become characteristic of the television docudrama, in placing the spectator, film maker and camera alike in a position of entertainer, may reinterpret and confuse subjectivity with the purpose to entertain. Atmosphere and, hence, meaning can be produced with the use of camera angles and movement, the same that is used for dramatic effects .

 An example to demonstrate the power of a director, Branagh's Henry V, in contrast to Olivier's version, is thoroughly different: same text; different times, attitudes, and director. Branagh comments on the Battle of Agincourt:
 

 In like manner, the Australian docudrama Jo's Jury, screened on the A. B. C. at the beginning of 1993, employs certain camera shots and angles to give the impression of a crushed, enclosed, highly stressed, and agitated group of jurors, trapped in a room personifying the group. However, due to the fact that the docudrama is a re-enactment of the actual jury, we do not actually know the fact that the group was, in reality, behaving as portrayed. The problem this poses as a true representation of the actual event becomes self evident: such docudramas present themselves as a personal point of view by either the writer or the director. Nevertheless, integrity can be guaranteed by the writer's and / or director's reputation or the institutional status of the film producer.

 With an actor taking on a character in a docudrama, casting is one of the basic elements of any production. Actors generate meanings, intentional or not, by their very presence, and this presence is what a director is seeking. Furthermore, there is more than just the presence of an individual performer that can make an impression. There is also the interaction between several of them. Hence:
 

 The actor has an array of communicating devises, which can be defined as comprising those derived from the expressive techniques based on the use of the body. There is the use of the voice in different tones and rhythms giving meaning to the text; then there is facial expression; then gesture and grouping or movement in space; while there is also make up, props, and costumes which can give additional meaning to the original themes and educational values of the docudrama, or even the documentary. Hence, the meaning of the printed word of a screenplay, can not only be determined by the vocal delivery alone. All the other messages from the actor's repartee, whether it be a glum or cheerful expression, or a slow or fast movement towards or away from the character who is being addressed, will be evident, that even the simplest statement, sentence, or meaning can yield an enormous difference in the interpretation made by the audience .

 These variations can be seen in another Australian docudrama involving experienced actors recreating actual persons. In Police State, again from the A. B. C., we witness various actors recreating corrupt police officers of the Queensland police force. One such actor was Bill Hunter who has, by portraying a corrupt police officer having obviously  broken the law, a hero type status. This is, in fact, the opposite of the original police officer's character and has, unintentionally, changed the truth of the original event, by the characterisation given to the corrupt police officer through the star presence of the actor.

 Like any form of media, documentaries and docudramas can misrepresent a subject, whether it be accidental or otherwise, by a number of factors. The principle objective of a documentary and a docudrama is to inform and educate the public on any number of subjects, if not all: in a sense they can be seen as an extension of the news service. The viewer must be aware, however, that documentaries and docudramas may not be accurate, and must always be critical of the contents of any production, looking for propaganda, regardless of its sophistication, or the occasional misrepresentation or untruth that may be in any production. This can be a deliberate part, put in by a writer or director, or it may be an innocent misinterpretation of events that they, or the actor, has introduced.
 
 

Bibliography
 
 

  Bluem, A. W. Documentary in American Television, (New York, 1965)

  Branagh, K. Beginning (London, 1989)

  Brockett, O. G. The Theatre, Fourth Edition, (New York, 1979)

  Esslin, M. The Field of Drama, (London, 1987), P37.

  Esslin, M. The Age of Television, (San Francisco, 1982)

  Forbes, J. Sight and Sound, Autumn, 1989, P258.

  Giddens. A. Sociology, (Cambridge, 1989)

  Grierson, J. Grierson on Documentary, (London, 1979)

  Kuhn, A. `The Camera I - Observations on Documentary', in Screen, Volume 19, Number 2, 1978

  Marshall, I. and Kingsbury, D. Media Realities, (South Melbourne, 1996).

  Moran, A. `Constructing the Nation: Institutional Democracy Since 1945',in The Australian Screen, eds. Moran, A. and O'Regan, T. (Ringwood, 1989)

  Rotha, P. Documentary Film, third edition, (London, 1952)

  Seidenberg, R. American Film, November 1989, P63.

 Tiffen, R. `The press', second edition, in Media in Australia, eds. Cunningham, S. and Turner, G. (St Leonards, 1997)