The Virtuality of Cinema: Beyond the Documentary-Fiction Divide with Peter Watkins and Mark Rappaport

  • João Pedro CachopoEmail author
Part of the Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress book series (NAHP, volume 11)


Drawing on Deleuze’s account of the “virtual” as no less “real” than the “actual”, this article considers Peter Watkins’s and Mark Rappaport’s cinematic oeuvres in view of a more general discussion as to whether and how cinema captures or expresses reality. Despite their differences, both filmmakers share an intense interest in the entwinement of fiction and documentary, whose peculiarity the concept of the “virtual” may help clarify. In particular, they both made films about non-fictional people and events—artists, battles, revolutions—which cannot be labelled as documentaries due to their formal characteristics. In the end, these works suggest that the strength of cinema consists in breaking the vicious circle of the actual and the possible. Rather than mixing reality and fiction, cinema would express the impossibilities of the past and the contingencies of the future, whose virtuality insists through the interstices of the world as its everlasting shadow.


  1. Baecque, Antoine de. 2012. Peter Watkins, Live from History: The Films, Style, and Methods of Cinema’s Special Correpondent. In Camera Historica: The Century in Cinema, 159–204. Trans. Ninon Vinsonneau and Jonathan Magidoff. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benjamin, Walter. 1940. On the Concept of History. In Selected Writings, Vol. IV 1938–1940. Trans. Edmund Jephcott, ed. Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings, 389–411. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cull, Nicholas J. 2001. Peter Watkins’s Culloden and the Alternative Form in Historical Filmmking. In Retrovisions: Reinventing the Past in Film and Fiction, ed. Deborah Cartmell, I. Q. Hunter, and Imelda Whelehan. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  4. Deleuze, Gilles. 1967. Différence et répétition. Paris: Seuil. English edition: Deleuze, Gilles. 2005. Difference and Repetition. Trans. Patton, Paul. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Jovanovic, Nenad. 2017. Peter Watkins: Intuitive Brechtianism. In Montage and Theatricality in Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, Peter Watkins, and Lars von Trier, ed. Brechtian Cinemas, 113–167. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  6. LaRocca, David (ed.). 2017. The Philosophy of Documentary Film: Image, Sound, Fiction, Truth. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  7. Marques, S.D., Mendonça, L., Vieira Lisboa, R. 2015. Mark Rappaport: ‘Interessa-me o ponto de vista da lagarta sobre a maça’ (interview). Accessed May 1, 2017.
  8. Rappaport, Mark. 2008. Le Spectateur qui en savait trop. Trans. Jean-Luc Mengus. Paris: P.O.L.Google Scholar
  9. Rappaport, Mark. 2013. (F)au(x)tobiographies. Kindle edition.Google Scholar
  10. Rosenbaum, Jonathan. 2017. Fictional Biography as Film Criticism: Two Videos by Mark Rappaport. Accessed May 1, 2017.
  11. Watkins, Peter. n.d. Media Crisis. Accessed May 1, 2017.
  12. Zourabichvili, François. 2003. Le vocabulaire de Deleuze. Paris: Ellipses.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations