Ethics in documentary is something I believe that needs to be at the forefront of all documentary filmmakers minds before choosing participants for their documentaries and planning how to present their overall content to their audiences. There is a saying “Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story”, when making a documentary you have to be incredibly aware about letting fabrication and false truths get in the way of a good story or getting in the way of a good and honest participant/subject. I always take the necessary care in protecting my subjects as my documentaries thus far have been showing the amazing work of my subjects and the organisations or social businesses they are a part of. With different content, story structures and a variety of subjects how you portray you subjects and what you choose to conceal to your audiences will change but despite this always protecting your subjects and being ethically aware of their rights has always been paramount to me.

What to Do About Documentary Distortion? Toward a Code of Ethics

Questions brought to the floor in the reading were questions about how filmmakers approach ethics such as what responsibility does the filmmaker have for ensuring that persuasive techniques do not distort established facts, rules of evidence and the principles of sound debate? The filmmaker in my opinion would need to take full responsibility in how their subjects are portrayed and how the facts, evidence and principles of a sound debate are presented. They are in complete creative control and they have the final say in how certain things are manipulated. I often look at the way interviews are staged in a documentary how when the talking heads speak they are positioned in a way that’ll make the viewing audience think more or less of them. Often when I watch a documentary I look for subtleties that would be intentionally placed in a position for the audience to see to prompt them to think upon something or judge in a certain way. Think of photographs placed behind the subjects folders, trophies, books, awards, certificates places where we can see them in full, were they in this formation beforehand or has the filmmaker manipulated the interview set in a certain way to change the way we view the subject in frame? I question at times whether this is ethically correct, however I would assume if the subject was uncomfortable with the way the area is being set up they may not participate in the interview however if the subject is vulnerable then that can change their say in such a matter. With the filmmakers manipulation even with something as simple as the layout of an interview space I would question whether ethics would come into the filmmakers mind, because I know for a fact a lot of interviewing spaces are manipulated and strongly influenced by the filmmaker. However if the interviewee does have power in where they sit and what they display on camera, the interviewee are in control of their own ethics arguably.

The Art of Persuasion

A code of documentary ethics must focus on protecting the well-being of both film subjects and actual viewers. Its important viewers will believe certain things to be true and the filmmaker must shoulder responsibility for promoting those beliefs. As I said earlier manipulation is a huge factor in any documentary making, exaggerating the truth can be used as a deceptive ploy to lure the audience into a subjects vulnerabilities potentially at the expense of other social actors. Therefore the art of persuasion can often bring into question ethics as the subject lacking power can have a situation amplified twisting the extent of the truth making social actors look either better or worse. The Thin Blue Line uses this technique as discussed in the reading, Errol Morris chooses to exaggerate events through reenactments to give different angles and perspectives on events which may or may not have taken place. By actually reenacting an event to persuade an audience of an outcome can sway opinions and beliefs away from a subject or social actor of the filmmakers choice.

Ethical Code

“Do nothing that would violate the humanity of your subject and nothing that would compromise the trust of your audience.” There is a fine line making sure the rights of your subjects are respected and the way in which they are represented to your audience don’t reflect the filmmaker badly and their intentions or treatment of the subjects.

Filmmakers and Their Subjects

The difference in the power of filmmakers and their subjects can often be best measured by their relative access to the means of representation. Do subjects have the means to represent themselves? Do they have alternative access to the media apart from that provided by a given filmmaker? To the extent the answer is “no,” the filmmaker’s ethical obligation to avoid misrepresentation, exploitation and abuse rises correspondingly. Subjects who are dependent on the filmmaker to have their story told–subjects, that is, who occupy the lower social strata generally and who can most readily be cast into the position of victim–are most vulnerable to misrepresentation and abuse.

I often think back to Nick Broomfield’s documentary Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer, where the film was released after the subjects death, now Aileen a major participant in this documentary did not see the final product therefore would she have been represented fairly as she did not have a final say in the way she was shown on screen. Despite the fact she was criminal, on death row, whose rights would be limited, ethically after someones death should filmmakers still be held responsible for misrepresentation despite the subject not being able to comment on their treatment? Aileen was having fits of anger and rage, because of her mistreatment behind bars and possible “abuse” which isn’t mentioned in the film and acts irrationally because of it. It’s the final time we see her on screen and that’s the final impression the audience get of her, the question remains is that all that fair? Is that ethically right?

Navigating the River: The Hidden Colonialism of Documentary

“Searching for stories, we filmmakers depart the comfort of our own world and travel into another—our station in life, ownership of some camera equipment, and a stack of releases serving as currency sufficient enough to step into someone else’s town, house or soul.”

“When witnessing a situation, through whose eyes do we read that situation? To what conclusions do we jump? How does the lens of our unconscious bias inform, bend and determine the stories we tell, and how we tell them?” Often the filmmaker well before the interviews are had and the film is recorded the filmmaker will in their minds have a perspective and will tell the story in a voice. Whether that voice be mutual or their own, or a subject featuring in the documentary, the filmmaker will determine and has the power to determine whose eyes the story is told through. I would find it difficult to display the exact eyes or perspective of the subject in the piece without bringing in biases as after all you’re representing someone else not yourself, how hard would it be not to be bias.

“For decades upon decades, Western filmmakers—almost exclusively white men—traveled to other countries and cultures to extract resources (footage), which they would exploit (edit) for the benefit of their home culture (theaters, film festivals, PBS, etc.). This flow of power, and along with it the control over these stories, historically traveled in one direction—from those without it to those with it.” I found this passage interesting as its from a Puerto Rican raised Bronx filmmaker. Not exactly a white privileged man and what he’s generalising is the average western filmmaker is a white man, privileged, destined to be recognised in the western world through taking titles at film festivals and whilst taking all the fame exploiting and manipulating the stories they’ve captured. That is one damning statement, one which I could understand as it would be frustrating seeing this happen again and again however recently I think this would not apply, nowadays the field of filmmakers is wide ranging and inclusive to all genders and races. But I do find this perspective interesting because perhaps the establishment of film festivals and theatres and the purposes of documentaries in the early days to maybe two decades ago were established and predominantly numbered with white male western filmmakers. Its a different perspective I haven’t heard before I did find that interesting but I must say when I make a documentary I do not do it to gain popularity at film festivals in my home country, I do it to recognise the heroes in the world community, to uncover injustices, bring to the surface inspirational stories of hope and courage and bring them to my national and international audiences and also make sure the documentary is shown in that country. What I did find though making a documentary in Guatemala was one of the major discussion points we had was the audience and if we were going to gain sponsorship and fundraise for our social business we would need to target a predominantly white privileged audience. In other words it does depend of the interests and intentions of the filmmaker that influences their decisions when choosing who the documentary will benefit.

Reference:

Nichols, B. (n.d.). What to Do About Documentary Distortion? Toward a Code of Ethics. [online] International Documentary Association. Available at: http://www.documentary.org/magazine/what-do-about-documentary-distortion-toward-code-ethics-0 [Accessed 31 Jul. 2017].

Michael Serpell