You do something for me, and I do something for you.

The first time I watched Crystal Moselle’s 2015 documentary film The Wolfpack, I felt this underlying discomfort throughout the entire experience – nothing changed when I viewed it the second time. This time I was conscious about these documentary ethics surrounding consent that Rohan mentioned during our Wednesday class – as Paul Byrne’s mentions in his 2015 Sunday Morning Herald review – the underage kids, their mentally handicapped sister, and their clearly delirious and drunken father. However, as Steve Thomas mentions in his article, Moselle was able to maintain much of the focus on the older siblings who are of age and are old enough to make their own decisions.

Throughout the entire documentary, it becomes obvious throughout certain scenes that the film were staged and the entire process was a collaborative between the older siblings and Moselle herself. For instance, the entire narrative is told as if it were a three act structure with the escape of one brother is revealed during the climactic stage of the story rather in a chronological order and the mother contacting her estranged mother. Moreover, the decision for the brothers’ to visit outdoor areas such as Coney Island and the first time they visited the countryside at orchard outside New York City seemed engineered entirely by Moselle. But does this collaboration makes this film to be more of a dramatization and fabrication of the film? Certainly not. Thomas further mentions in his piece that “as the old editing adage goes, you can cheat but you mustn’t lie. That is the contract”.

For me, the collaboration works in everyone’s favour where the brothers get to gain a production company named after the film and Moselle gains praise and profit from the telling and permission of their story. Their collaboration also provides this focus for their close relationship with their mother and the optimism for the brothers’ future despite their father’s abuse – the abuse having never been explicitly mentioned but hints of physical abuse towards their mum. It somewhat reminds me of this underlying discomfort with the 2015 film Room where the torture faced by the mother and child are distinct but the perspective remains on the child’s innocence throughout the entire ordeal and the strong bond he has with his mother.

The irony of it all is their dad felt misunderstood and his decision to shelter them in the apartment was a way to protect them from “the outside world which is the real jail, full of drug pushers, guns and muggers”, however, the brothers’ have shot to fame and are now part of such a public and exposed industry. Moreover, the film being sponsored by VICE – a publication known for pushing boundaries, left-wing and constantly questioning societal norms.

We must commend the brothers’ for having turned out alright despite what they have been through their entire life and using the one thing that no one could take away from them – their imagination.

Resources:

Thomas, S. (2015), “The Wolfpack and The Ethics of Documentary Filmmaking”, Pursuit. Date accessed 4/3/2018. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-wolfpack-and-the-ethics-of-documentary-filmmaking

Byrnes, P. (2015), “The Wolfpack Review: a confronting and confounding true story”, Sunday Morning Herald. Date accessed 7/3/2018. https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/the-wolfpack-review-a-confronting-and-confounding-true-story-20150826-gj7tys.html