The documentary Hopptornet shows 67 people climbing a 10 meter diving tower and facing the dilemma of whether to dive or climb down. It aims to portray intrinsic human behavior rather than tell stories. However, the documentary still shapes situations and individuals may become symbols rather than individuals. While crisis could minimize camera influence, here crisis is the topic and camera presence may increase social pressure. Ultimately, it succeeds in evoking empathy and depicting a spontaneous mind-body challenge pattern across participants.

1. Hopptornet
!
!
Maximilien Van Aertryck’s and Alex Danielson’s Hopptornet (2016) is a short documentary
that represents human behaviour while trying to overcome human’s most cautious impulses.
The authors paid 67 people $30 to climb to the top of a ten meter diving tower in an indoor
swimming pool for their very first time. From there, the participants had to face a dilemma:
they could either dive or climb down. Only a selection of the recordings is shown in the film.
This documentary is, in the words of its directors, “something of a psychology experiment”,
where the attempt is to “portray human behaviour, rather than tell our own stories about it”.
The documentary took place in Sweden, and the subjects represented are Swedish, although
the directors claim that their movie elucidates something essentially human, transcending
culture and origins. The situation in which the authors put the participants was, according to
them, powerful enough not to need any classic narrative framework.
The art historian Adrian Strokes (1955), introduced the concepts of ‘modelling’ and ‘carving’
to describe the artists’ perception of their own role. When ‘carving’, the artist supposes
suggests that the block of stone contains within itself the form invented for it by nature. In
this case, the role of the artist is to liberate that form, to simply disclose the truth. When
‘modelling’, the artist gives the raw stone his or her own truth, or what he claims as such.
When adopting a modelling attitude, the documentarist is thus aware of shaping the
situation in the representation.
In the case of Hopptornet, the documentarists’ claims highlight that the they perceive their
own roles as ‘carvers’: Indeed they claim to represent human behaviour ‘rather than telling
their own stories about it’. In my essay, I will evaluate whether the authors succeed in their
achievement their purpose makes them succeed in trying to carve and show an intrinsic
truth. I will discuss mainly two of the decisions that the directors employed: the lack of
narrativity, and the situation of crisis.
Lack of narrativity
Hayden White claims that “where an account of narrativity is present, we can be sure that
morality or a moralising impulse is present too” (1980, p. 27). In order to give the viewer an
idea of unmediated access to the situation, Hopptornet lacks any narrative framework. Three

2. focalisers, fixed cameras that do not necessarily imply the presence of anyone behind them,
are alternated in the recording of the various scenes: a frontal focaliser framing the tower, a
side focaliser giving the viewer an idea of the height, and another frontal zoomed-in view.
Once a scene starts, usually when someone is reaching the tower or has just reached the
tower, the whole doubt-process is reproduced entirely, uncut and rough. It is, to put it in
Robert Drew’s words, a representation ‘without summary and opinion’. This sense of realism
include intervals of scenes edited in slow-motion, which draw attention to the body
movements and to the expressions of some participants who are diving. In these situations,
the viewers may instantly become more aware of the editing – and therefore of the presence -
of documentarists. Another reflexive choice that draws attention on the constructedness of
the situation is the presence of the microphone in the frame.
There is no commentary voice, the scenes are presented in the way of a historical
chronicle, not imposing upon the processes the form that we normally associate with
storytelling (White, 1980, p. 12). Even the last scene, when a professional diver jumps down
on the notes of Beethoven’s An die Freude, does not seem to immediately convey any sort of
specific and clear moral closure; it rather suggests an open interpretation. Until the very last
scene, there are no sounds apart from the heavy, typical background noise of the swimming
pool, which conveys a feeling of realism and presentness, the splashs of the divers, and the
comments of the participants on the tower and on the side of the pool.
However, White argues that even in chronicles there must be a story since there is
surely a plot (1980, p. 18), and the plot is given both by what was kept to be part of a whole,
and what was left out as not fitting in the whole. The film is indeed constructed also on the
basis of a set of events which might have been included but were left out; therefore the lack of
narrativity does not entirely solve the problem of authority.
Individuals as symbols
Bill Nichols defines a documentary as a film ‘making an argument about the historical
world’, whereas Carl Plantinga reshapes the definition in term of ‘making an assertion of
truth’ (Dirk, 1995, p. 83). To me, Hopptornet seems to fall better under Plantinga’s
definition. Indeed, the filmmakers are focused on showing a universal trait in human
behaviour: they assume that what they want to represent is simply intrinsic of every human,
everywhere, and at any time. It only has to be triggered and highlighted by the authors, who
are looking for a universal truth to show, rather than for a historical one.

3. For this reason, the subjects’ reactions are triggered in a completely abstracted
context: the viewer has a feeling that what is going on is an experiment in a sort of social
laboratory. Different from direct cinema and cinéma vérité, in which the actors were recorded
in their social environment, the tower becomes a rather de-contextualised display of
ahistorical humanity, and the subjects portrayed lose their individuality to become symbols
for human behaviour. The story is not about them, we do not even know their name and it’s
not important. The story is about all of us - with this it comes an ethical issue. Does the
symbolisation of the individuals lead to a universal homogenisation of human nature, or on
the contrary does it produce specific symbols for some human typologies and dynamics? In
other words, there is the young one, the old one, the man, the woman, the couple, the two
friends: do they become the representation of specific groups of people? For example, in the
case of the man and the woman together, it may be the case that the authors have chosen to
include the dynamics between these two people because, in their opinion, it is the best
representative of the dynamics between men and women in similar situations. In this case,
the man does not even put in discussion that he will jump first, perhaps to prove his own
virility. Similarly, the only teenager shown, who jumps without even looking down, may
become the symbol for young people’s recklessness. However, maybe a different choice of
footage to show would have represented different dynamics – therefore the risk is that the
authors are actually modelling rather than carving.
Indeed, the social dynamics depicted - which are necessarily specific and contextual –
may just be the signifiers of the directors’ ideas about those dynamics. Again, the directors’
perspective would be imposed by the mere selection of the footage to include.
Crisis situation
When trying to represent some truthful behaviour, a problem for documentarists lies in
determining how much the actors’ behaviour could be affected by the presence of a camera.
In some observational or interactive documentaries, we find the idea of looking for reality in
situations of crisis, as a solution to this problem,.
From the point of view of the filmmaker, a crisis serves to occupy the attention of the
social actors of the film in order to make them ignore the camera. When unfocused on the
fact of being recorded, behaviour seems natural and this ‘naturalness’ may be transferred to
the scene itself, strengthening the sense of realism. For example, the scene from Wiseman’s
High School (1968) direct cinema film, in which a boy discusses his detention and agrees to

4. take it “like a man”, succeeds in feeling very natural and truthful to the viewer. This is
because the boy looks too focused on the discussion, to be able to pay attention to the
camera and to act self-consciously. Even beyond that, Rouch’s cinéma vérité, for example in
Chronique D’Un Été (1961), attempted to precipitate a crisis, instead of hopefully waiting for
it.
Hopptornet locates itself halfway between direct cinema and cinéma vérité: on the one
side, as well as in cinéma vérité, the authors are themselves triggering the situation of crisis.
Even more, they build the whole circumstance within which the actors behave. On the other
side, after building the whole circumstance, the authors do not appear on the screen and
become silent witnesses, as in direct cinema. This approach conveys to the viewers the feeling
that, once some conditions are given, there is something intrinsically human going on in the
participants’ reactions, but it is up to the viewers to draw conclusions and generalisations for
themselves.
However, it cannot be stated that Hopptornet ‘uses’ crisis as a tool to enhance its
realism and truthfulness. Instead, crisis is not a mere tool, but the topic of the documentary
itself. The individuals are not ambushed by a crisis, nor is the crisis suddenly triggered by the
authors. On the contrary, they all have a previous agreement with the authors on what
exactly the situation of crisis is going to be. This may somehow change the viewer’s
perception of the actors. The viewer knows that the participants knew in advance what they
had to face. Therefore, here the question about the mutual influence between camera and
crisis works the other way around. The question is not anymore ‘Is the crisis bringing the
actors’ focus away from the camera?’, but rather ‘Is the camera affecting the behaviour in the
midst of the crisis?’.
Suspicion is raised in the viewer’s mind as to the authenticity of the participants’
reactions. For example, if we compare the dialogue from High School with the dialogue
between the man and the woman in Hopptornet, the latter seems less natural. The woman is
very talkative, and it makes us ask if it is because she is too conscious of the camera, and the
man looks annoyed by her talk but gives very polite answers, in a way that looks quite
unnatural. In other cases, for instance when the old woman or the young woman seem to
talk alone to themselves, the viewer is left wondering, if they are really talking to themselves
or rather trying to explain to the camera what is going on in their minds and bodies. The
idea that I want to convey here is that a situation of crisis undoubtedly exists, but the

5. relationship between crisis and camera may be reversed. The camera, instead of being
forgotten, may on the contrary increase the social pressure.
Conclusions
After acknowledging some ethical issues about the authors’ choices, we are left with the
necessary question revolving around trust. As I have shown, there is still a problem of
authority in regard to the selection of the footage to include; this may affect the way the
individuals are taken as symboles for humanity; and the presence of the cameras may actually
affect how the actors behave during the crisis.
Can we thus say that Hopptornet is truthful in ‘carving’ some universally human traits,
as claimed by the directors? I argue that, regardless of the issues pointed out, the
documentary has a truth value in two respects.
Firstly, it shows some undoubtedly spontaneous behaviour, and because of this, the
film brings the viewer to identify with the participants’ feelings. For example, in the scene
representing the man and the woman, at some point the man touches his knees. The woman
does it too, in such a quick way that cannot be anything but an impulsive reaction, due to her
empathy. The viewer, in similar cases, starts to feel empathetic to the participants, too. This
is also the reason that makes the film so entertaining for many people, which is perhaps also
the reason why also reality shows are so entertaining.
Secondly and more importantly, it is possible to find a carved up common thread
across all the scenes, regardless of the participants’ reactions, dynamics, words, or final
decisions. The thread does not look scripted, nor influenced by the directors, but indeed only
triggered and highlighted by them. Here is the thread: in the first scene, when the young
man is determined to dive, his body remains wobbling on the edge of the tower for a few
moments. “It’s impossible”, he says, and he gives up. In the second scene, the man tells that
as soon as he has decided to go, his knees have abandoned him. The third scene starts with a fairly
old woman with her hands on her knees; she keeps moving back and forth and touching her
knees until she closes her eyes and dives. In the fourth scene, also one of the two men bends
on his knees before diving. So far, what is common is that they all look weak in their knees as
soon as they decide to go. In the same scene, the other man says, significantly: “My heart says
no”. In the sixth scene, a young woman boosts herself by patting her own legs, saying “Go,
girl!”. The thread seems to me the idea of a mind-body challenge when facing dilemmas
concerning your own survival, in which some cautious impulses are stimulated and clash with

6. rationality. The film conveys the feeling that, even when you have made a rational choice,
your body still tries to sabotage you. Is it really a universal truth? We cannot be sure about it,
since a documentary, as every representation of reality, is always exploitative and
manipulative to a degree. However, Hopptornet manages to show a spontaneous pattern across
genders, ages, final choices and processes of thoughts. For this reason, I argue that it actually
carves up some intrinsic truth and the directors succeed in their purpose.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chronique D’Un Été, 1961.
High School, 1968.
Hopptornet (“Ten Meter Tower”), 2016.
Eitzen, Dirk, 1995. “When is a Documentary?: Documentary as a Mode of Reception, in
Cinema Journal, Vol. 35, no. 1 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 81-102. University of Texas Press.
Stokes, Adrian, 1955. “Form in Art.” In Melanie Klein, Paula Heimann, and R. E. Money-
Kyrle, eds., New Directions in Psychoanalysis, pp. 406-420. Basic Books, New York.
Van Aertryck, Maximilien (interview) 2017. Online on
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/ten-meter-tower.html
White, Hayden, 1980. “The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality in Critical
Inquiry, Vol. 7, No. 1, On Narrative (Autumn, 1980), pp. 5-27. University of Chicago Press.