In her latest cinematic endeavor, Passage of the Spiral (2024), director Natalia Lassalle-Morillo presents a work that defies conventional classification, occupying a space often described as a “pseudo-documentary.” The film operates within a hazy framework where the parameters of performance and reality are intentionally blurred, forcing the viewer to constantly recalibrate their expectations of non-fiction storytelling. By weaving together disparate narratives and questioning the authenticity of the subjects on screen, Lassalle-Morillo engages in a deliberate subversion of the camera’s traditional role as an objective witness to historical or personal events.
According to reporting from Public Books, this approach is not merely an aesthetic choice but a structural interrogation of how stories are told and who holds the authority to tell them. The film shirks the rigidity of borders—between reality and fiction, between geographies, and between who is permitted to be the protagonist of their own history. This editorial analysis seeks to explore how such works signal a broader shift in contemporary cinema, moving away from the didactic nature of traditional documentaries toward a more porous, collaborative, and inherently subjective form of truth-telling that reflects the complexities of human memory.
The Erosion of the Objective Lens
The history of documentary filmmaking has long been tethered to the concept of the “fly-on-the-wall” perspective, a philosophy that suggests the camera can capture a pristine version of reality if it remains sufficiently unobtrusive. However, the work of filmmakers like Lassalle-Morillo highlights the growing obsolescence of this ideal. In the modern era, the act of filming is increasingly recognized as an intervention rather than an observation. By acknowledging the presence of the filmmaker and the performance of the subjects, these works embrace the inherent tension between the camera as a recording device and the camera as a creative instrument.
This shift is reflective of a wider postmodern turn in visual arts, where the “truth” is no longer viewed as a singular, verifiable entity, but as a composite of personal perspectives. When a documentary adopts the tools of fiction—scripting, staging, or even the deliberate manipulation of timeline—it does not necessarily become less truthful. Instead, it often captures a deeper, more emotional resonance that traditional journalism or observational cinema might miss. The “spiral” mentioned in the film’s title serves as a metaphor for this movement: a path that circles back upon itself, constantly revisiting the same ground from different elevations, acknowledging that every return to the past is colored by the present moment.
Mechanisms of Collaborative Creation
At the core of this cinematic evolution is the mechanism of collaboration, which fundamentally alters the power dynamics between the director and the subject. In traditional documentary models, the director often acts as the sole arbiter of the narrative, extracting stories from subjects who have little input into the final edit. In contrast, the methodology employed by Lassalle-Morillo suggests a shared authorship, where the lines between the person being filmed and the person creating the film are erased. This collaborative approach ensures that the subject is not merely an object of study but an active participant in the construction of their own representation.
This dynamic forces the audience to engage in a process of active decoding. When the viewer cannot distinguish between a “real” moment and a “staged” one, they are compelled to abandon the search for objective verification and instead focus on the thematic consistency of the film. This is not a deceptive practice; rather, it is a transparent invitation to recognize that all storytelling is a form of construction. By revealing the seams of the production, the filmmaker challenges the viewer to question their own biases regarding what constitutes a “documentary” and why we feel such a strong need to categorize films into binary boxes of truth and fiction.
Implications for Stakeholders and Industry Norms
For the film industry, this trend poses significant challenges to traditional distribution and critical appraisal frameworks. Festivals, streaming platforms, and awards bodies are built upon rigid categories that often struggle to accommodate works that refuse to be labeled. When a film exists in the liminal space between documentary and fiction, it risks being misunderstood by audiences seeking traditional narratives or, conversely, being dismissed by critics who demand a strict adherence to factual record-keeping. This creates a tension between the creative freedom of the filmmaker and the institutional requirements of the industry, which relies on genre-based marketing to reach specific demographics.
Furthermore, for regulators and cultural institutions, the rise of the “pseudo-documentary” raises questions about the responsibility of representation. As these films become more influential in shaping public perception of history and identity, the lack of a clear distinction between fact and fiction could be viewed by some as problematic. However, the counter-argument is that these films provide a more honest representation of the human experience precisely because they acknowledge the subjectivity of memory. The implications extend to the educational sector as well, where the use of film as a pedagogical tool must now account for the blurred lines of narrative authority, requiring a more nuanced approach to media literacy.
The Outlook for Subjective Cinema
The question of how audiences will continue to respond to these blurred boundaries remains one of the most compelling aspects of contemporary cinema. As viewers become more accustomed to the fluidity of digital content, the demand for films that challenge the traditional documentary format is likely to grow. The future of this genre will depend on the ability of filmmakers to maintain the delicate balance between artistic invention and the underlying emotional or historical truths they seek to convey. It is a high-stakes endeavor that requires a deep level of trust between the creator and the audience.
As we look forward, the critical challenge will be to ensure that this move toward subjectivity does not devolve into a total abandonment of reality. There is a distinct difference between exploring the subjective experience of truth and the outright fabrication of events for rhetorical gain. The most successful works in this space will be those that remain grounded in a rigorous, albeit non-traditional, engagement with their subject matter. As the industry continues to grapple with these evolving definitions, the conversation around the purpose of the documentary lens will undoubtedly remain a central pillar of cinematic discourse.
Ultimately, the value of works like those of Lassalle-Morillo lies in their capacity to provoke reflection rather than provide answers. By resisting the urge to settle into a single definition, these films allow for a more expansive understanding of what cinema can achieve, inviting the viewer to participate in the ongoing, ever-changing process of defining truth for themselves.
With reporting from Public Books
Source · Public Books
