Dziga Vertov passionately questioned and defied cinematic conventions, becoming a key figure in the history of documentary film. His radical approach to film aesthetics transformed constructivist ideology into a new cinematic language. It functioned in opposition to previously established filmic forms that were dominated by cultural imperialism. While Sergei Eisenstein regarded Dziga Vertov's eccentric editing techniques to be, "camera hooliganism", Dziga Vertov's search for an alternative means of depicting "reality" presented a microcosm of the Soviet experiment of changing their world. As it pertains to the issue of "staging" and the evidentiary status of actuality images, Dziga Vertov's inclinations centered within the realms of two approaches; "life as it is", and "life caught unawares." The phrase "life as it is" refers to his goal to record life as it would be shot in the present and "life caught unawares" means life that is recorded when the subject is surprised or provoked by the presence of the camera. The extent of Dziga Vertov's manipulation of "reality" took its most dynamic form in the editing room, while the subjects themselves and the material world around them was largely unaltered during the shooting process. This illustrated a dialectical and materialist understanding of filmmaking, which denied illusion and façades. Dziga Vertov strived to achieve a cinematic rhetoric that is accessible and socially influential, with every frame exuding a political message. He argued that the cinematic apparatus itself should fight against the dictatorship over the proletariat. By constantly unveiling representational techniques Dziga Vertov attempted to demystify the medium, consequently exposing its propagandistic potential. This notion alludes to a degree of ethical and moral responsibility on the part of the filmmaker, which is a belief John Grierson strongly sustains.

A prolific documentary theorist, Michael Renov, asserts that social instruction needs to be separated from aesthetic elements of the documentary genre; nevertheless, John Grierson's goal is to instill education and persuasive qualities into the undercurrents of his cinematic efforts. He considers it a form of "active citizenship" when contributions to the medium embody socially useful elements. Grierson's documentary rhetoric reflects a balance of poetic and contentual aspects through the creative evaluation of the "really real" fused into the framework of social consciousness. He argued that you do not get "truth" by simply turning on a camera because "truth" is only attainable through form. Grierson elaborated by suggesting that the documentary medium inherently addresses the actual and the real; however, the "really real" is not as easily attainable. This profound "reality" is codependent on the artist's interpretation and perception, which Grierson argues lies at the root of "truth." He encourages filmmakers to use full capabilities offered by the medium to achieve an intimacy of knowledge. This enlightening quality becomes transferable onto the spectator through the infusion of formal and evidentiary elements. Grierson defined his treatment of the cinematic apparatus as a "creative interpretation of reality", which is partially achieved through the application of montage editing; however, he later disregards this notion in agreement with Andre Bazin, who suggested that montage interferes with the "real" perception of the world. Other influential theorists, such as Bill Nichols, further contributed to the debate on the issue of "reality" within the documentary genre.

Nichols suggest that documentary rhetoric involves recognition of the filmic "reality" versus the knowledge that what you are seeing is a representation and a construct of a formal "reality." Considering that the documentary form inescapably provides a forced representation, it inspires a pool of ethical questions. Nichols extends his analysis to such issues by addressing the responsibility that the capturer has towards his/her captives, or subjects. This becomes most relevant in the consideration of ethnographic documentaries, where according to Nichols people themselves make up the most essential element.

In regards to the overall cinematic apparatus and documentary rhetoric, Nichols argues that we have to think of documentary in terms of being potentially applicable to fictional features. He recognizes that documentary involve a process of signification that operates within a semiotic system. This system requires choices and offers a formally represented "reality", rather then a set of frozen photographic images. Nichols classifies documentary as primarily expository, involving direct address. He further suggests that documentary is a corpus of texts consisting of common traits, codes, and conventions; however, sound and narration are its main organizational principle (i.e. visual images are interconnected and sustained by commentary). In his analysis of the documentary rhetoric, Nichols distinguishes between evidentiary editing (based on logical argument rather then unified time and space) and continuity editing (traditional spatial and temporal unity). He argues that you cannot convey in an image what is communicable in words; thus, the spoken word is crucial in documentaries. He discusses the formal dynamic of documentary as a text of various movements, styles, and genres; just as there are in fiction films. Different values, strategies, issues define different movements of documentaries. He identifies four principle modes: (i) expository (voice-over), (ii) observational (cinema verite), (iii) interactive (activates the spectator/feedback), and (iv) reflective (poetic/lyrical). Each of these modes operates within their own conventions, strategies, goals and subject matter; nonetheless, a commonality of techniques informs the documentary community. The new modes often situate themselves in relation and opposition to the previous modes, creating a pattern of replenishment.

Furthermore, Nichols argues that documentary depends on the constituency of viewers. Nichols argues that a significant distinction between documentary and fiction films lies in their viewers and not their text. Central to this is the notion that viewers bring their own assumptions to the world and judge it accordingly. This complicates the issues of objectivity and impartiality in the documentary domain because the interpretation of the spectator is inevitably subjective.

In, "Towards a Poetics of Documentary", Michael Renov further disputes the claim that documentary is necessarily neutral and objective. He argues that one of the characteristic qualities of documentary film is the inclusion of an "argument", which Plantinga refers to as an "assertive stance." Renov attempts to blur the separation between science and art by questioning whether there could ever exist a neutral record. He identifies four fundamental goals of documentary that set it apart from fiction films. These goals include: (i) to record or to reveal, (ii) to persuade and to promote, (iii) to analyze or to interrogate, and (iv) to express (aesthetic function).

Plantinga offers an alternative approach to the difference between fiction and non-fiction films. He claims that their main distinction manifests itself in that non-fiction films present themselves assertively rather then fictively. Films employ categories of identification that function as clues or unspoken agreements within the community to which the text addresses itself. Plantinga identifies the “assertive stance” as the key characteristic signaling to a non-fiction film. He further elaborates by claiming that the spectator’s expectations of, and questions about, the film would vary based on its genre, marketing, production, and distribution. He insists that it is necessary to consider the function of the moving photographic image and its relationship to the filmic event. The conventionality or likeness of the image is crucial to the spectators' interpretation of its evidentiary status. Plantinga suggests that images that function as icons never threaten other arts and are mechanical by nature. He uses the term "veridical" to support the assertion that moving images present iconic images, automatically possessing a certain "truth." He disputes the notion that iconic images distance photography from the artistic realm. Bazin, on the other hand, went so far as to claim that the photographic image contains an ability to capture and communicate a more profound perception of "truth" then is available through the image alone. In referring to the ideology of the visible, he elaborated by asserting that photography greatly influences the manner in which we interpret the world.

Bazin’s claims about the superiority of the photographic image over the immediately accessible conception of the world, encompasses an array of issues pertaining to the analysis of the documentary form. It addresses the tension between neutral and unmediated "reality" versus the creative interpretation of "reality" and the relationship of the cinematic image and the material world. Other influential theorists such as Dziga Vertov, John Grierson, Bill Nichols, and Carl R. Planting, considered such conundrums and extended their analysis to include a number of other relevant issues to the study of documentary. These include staging, objectivity, ethics, "the evidentiary status of actuality images, documentary rhetoric, and the cinematic apparatus itself."