Nichols writes, "The fact that there is more than one mode of documentary film strongly suggests that the representation of reality is not an objective, cut-and-dried affair. Although there may be only one historical world, and even if certain facts about it can be agreed upon as objectively true, the ways of seeing and representing that world, like the ways of interpreting it, vary considerably."
I think that by this statement he is trying to say that there are many different ways to interpret history or events. While the historical evidence may be cut and dry, the way the people take the evidence may very drastically. The way one person sees it may very well not be the way the next person sees it. Each person has their own beliefs and opinions on the matter. We learned from the reading about the six modes of documentary. Each mode takes on their own way of interpreting the evidence. They all vary drastically by the way they present the information. Each different mode touches base on each of the different paths when making a documentary. The expository mode may involve the use of a voice that speaks to the viewer directly, persuading them or feeding them the information. The poetic mode is much more structured and stressed form or pattern over an explicit argument. The observational has a fiction-like stress on the continuity of time and space. The participatory mode relies on recording synchronous sound and building scenes that have a strong sense of internal continuity. On the other hand, the reflexive mode makes the viewer aware of the conventions, leaving the expectations and assumptions usually unspoken. Depending on which mode the documentary uses, the viewer may be persuaded a certain way.
