Ethics of Documentary Films - Essay Example

DOCUMENTARY ETHICS The film industry is art and art can be fiction or reality. Most films involve a lot of fiction to send the desired message to its audience. Documentaries as part of the large film industry take a totally different path from fiction. Documentaries describe an event just as it happened or the way it happens putting fiction to the minimum. Documentaries bring history back to life. They show the realities which have existed in the just as they have been. Documentary filming incorporates people (subjects) who are not professionals in the film industry. The subjects go about their normal chores and from that a documentary is brought to life. What is intriguing about documentary films is the reality all around it, compared to fictional films which depend on the creativity of the script writer. Having subjects in documentaries brings a whole new dimension to the point of view of the film. Because the subjects are not trained in the ways of the film industry, it is vital that documentary directors exercise a high level of humanity. Subjects who bring documentaries to life have inadequate information about the film industry. Some subjects do not know basics of film industry even like how to pose before the camera; it is, therefore, the responsibility of the producers of the film to assist them without changing the way they act normally. What makes the documentary films fascinating is their humanity. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the directors of the documentary film to exercise some ethics when filming “other people”; not professionals. (Nichols,2010) When it comes to documentary filming, everything should revolve around humanity. From the context discussed, it is the responsibility of the directing cast of a documentary to exercise their code of ethics even when the people involved may not be aware of such a thing. In any field, there exists a code of ethics. In filmmaking, the code of ethics is there to protect all parties involved especially those in front of the camera. The ethics code tries to ensure that the actors, as much as they might have difficult roles to play, have a friendly environment to work from. It is ethics that makes difficult work relatively easy. Ethics in the film industry will help an actor play an undesirable role with comfort. (Adam,2004) When it comes to documentary making, ethics should be practiced at all levels. It is well known that social actors (people being filmed in the documentary) are more vulnerable than professional actors and should, therefore, be protected at all costs. The social actors normally do not know their rights and if they know, not all of them understand what their rights stand for. Social actors are central to the making of a documentary film. Just as the raw materials in an industry, social actors are the most valuable entities of a good documentary film. It is not always that people are the social actors, at some point animals are. People might ask and demand their rights, what happens in the case of animals? Who makes sure they are aware of their rights? Who protects them? It is the director’s discretion to ensure that rights of all subjects are protected. (Nash, 2014) Exploitation is a bad word, it is even worse when used hand in hand with a person in the same sentence. When ethics are not observed, what follows is exploitation of the weak, vulnerable and ignorant. It is the utter responsibility of creators of a documentary film to ensure the subjects are not exploited. This paper will discuss in details the ethical issue considerations of social actors and subjects in a documentary film. From the award-winning documentary “The Gleaners and I” by Agnes Varda one is able to understand the ethical issues to be observed in documentary films. It is good that the documentary movie tells the story of the target group or society. A documentary film should have a very small; if necessary; director’s opinion. The story should be told just as it is and let the audience judge or make their own conclusions. From the documentary The Gleaners and I, the Gleaners story is told just as it is. From the film, one can see the gleaners going about their daily gleaning and actually showing pride in what they do. It can be seen clearly from the film how others (the socially well up) feel and judge the gleaners. (Varda,2002) The director brings the idea of the argument of both the gleaners and those who consider gleaners as poor (whether doing it for fun or due to necessity). The director has told the story without interfering with the social actors in a way that any audience will make his or her own judgment. From the short interactive documentary film Bear 71, the idea is the same. The director of the film Leanne Allison brings the real happenings to the screen for the viewers to judge and/or critic. An ethical documentary film director is a story teller; he or she tells the story just as it is without altering the message. Let the social actors be themselves. Let the subjects tell their story and not the director’s story in their words. After all, it is the director who approached the subjects, why should they tell the director’s story. From the documentary of the gleaners, there is consistency in the story. The gleaners are in their normal gleaning chores and they tell the story well; the seasons of gleaning, legal standards set forth, time and rules (in the case of oyster gleaners). The film shows gleaners speaking for themselves and justifying what they do “we are not afraid to get our hands dirty. Hands can be washed.” We see a gleaner proudly speaking of getting his raw materials from gleaning and in the same film non-gleaner talking down on the gleaners as “the poor, wretched and deprived.” Just because the different parties have different images and different perceptions of the other party, it does not make the director discard certain parts to favor one side but compiles them to tell the story. The film portrays the struggle the gleaners have to go through in their daily gleaning works. Since a documentary film is a nonfictional movie, it is ethical to ensure that it gets a clear picture of the real happenings. What would be the point of creating a non-fictional film in a fictional way? It is up to the director of any documentary film to see to it that the film conforms to the guidelines set forth. The short documentary film “Bear 71” shows how the human developments have affected the lives of wild animals. The film tries to bring to life the interaction between humans and animals just as it is. What would happen in a situation where a documentary is taken from an environment with a professional actor? Would they be paid as professional actors or would they be assumed just as social actors? Documentary films revolve around humanity; this humanity should be extended to the point of seeing the social actors compensated financially. Whatever name given to it; incentives, good will or even a bribe; but social actors should get something in return to seeing a film see the light of day. Documentary filmmakers should be sensitive. In the sense that they understand they are exposing a people’s way of life to the outer hostile world. It is good that the documentary directors do not focus only on the dark side of the situation or society but focuses on all aspects available. It is good that the directors stick to the important and more details compared to the lesser ones. In the film “the gleaners and I” the director focuses all her efforts on documenting the important details surrounding the gleaners. She does not invest a lot of time to the personal life of the gleaners which might make the social actors uncomfortable. A director should let his or her subjects be in their normal state. It is extremely wrong for a director to try force some things to the social actors; that is for the professional actors. In the event that a director forces a social actor to behave differently from the normal, that would not only be morally wrong but also ethically incorrect. The essence of a documentary film at the end of the day is to tell a story just as it happened(s). In the documentary film “Bear 71” the director shows the reality of things. (Nash, 2014) It shows how man has invaded animals’ habitat and how animals’ homes are getting smaller and smaller due to man’s activities. In the film “gleaners and I” the film has exhaustively shown the evolution of gleaning and the social responsibilities attached to gleaning. The film shows a contrast in earlier gleaning to modern gleaning where nowadays gleaning is done by individuals compared to earlier when it was done in groups. It is the moral responsibility of the director to ensure that the subjects of a film understand what it means to act their lives. In the fictional films, there is no problem since the actors play roles created through imagination and are compensated well for that, after which they go to their normal lives. The subjects of a documentary film should be made fully aware of the implications of acting their lives. Acting your life could cost you and could affect those who know you. In the documentary” gleaners and I” for example, it would affect the children’s school life to see their parents arguing that food past their expiry date is not actually bad food; which is what they consume. From the same film, it would affect the social life of the man who refers to gleaners as “the deprived” as being insensitive since he is speaking his mind. It is the responsibility of the film producer to ensure that the every person who is featured in the documentary is fully aware of the consequences of his or her actions. From the film discussed, it would be better if the oyster gleaners were made aware of the consequences which may arise from the fact that they admit knowing the limit they should not cross to the oyster farms when they confirm sometimes they do cross the set limit. It is all about being ethical, even if the director of a film may want to capture a certain unpopular event, it is important he or she makes sure the subjects are fully aware of the consequences and implications. (Nichols, 2010) In every society, there exists a less fortunate or a vulnerable group. In a film adaptation of that society, it is the responsibility of the film director to ensure those two groups are protected. At times these groups are small children, rape victims, commercial sex workers and much more. From the film “gleaners and I” there have been no such groups in front of the camera. Maybe not necessarily that they do not exist but because the director chose to protect them by making sure they are not featured. Mostly, documentary film crew alters the sound and appearances of such individuals. (Sixsmith, 2001) This is a very noble act; there is no point of creating a film that will negatively affect the social actors afterward. In the event there is a documentary film aimed at featuring a vulnerable group or groups, it is vital that the film cast protects their identity and if possible also offer some guidance to the featured parties. If a person was kind enough to help you tell their story, then the least you can pay him or her with is honesty. It is morally and ethically wrong to take advantage of subjects of a film industry; just because they are not aware of their rights. It is ethically incorrect to let someone be in a film and not compensate them financially no matter the argument. It is just not right to take advantage of the “other people” in the documentary film industry. References 1. Varda, Agnes, and Joanna Bruzdowicz. The gleaners and I. New York: Zeitgeist Video, 2002. 2. Nichols, Bill. Introduction to documentary. Indiana University Press, 2010. 3. Adam, Avshalom M., and Dalia Rachman-Moore. "The methods used to implement an ethical code of conduct and employee attitudes." Journal of Business Ethics 54.3 (2004): 223-242. 4. Nash, Kate. "Strategies of interaction, questions of meaning: an audience study of the NFBs Bear 71." Studies in Documentary Film 8.3 (2014): 221-234. 5. Sixsmith, Judith, and Craig D. Murray. "Ethical issues in the documentary data analysis of Internet posts and archives." Qualitative Health Research 11.3 (2001): 423-432. Read More

The social actors normally do not know their rights and if they know, not all of them understand what their rights stand for. Social actors are central to the making of a documentary film. Just as the raw materials in an industry, social actors are the most valuable entities of a good documentary film. It is not always that people are the social actors, at some point animals are. People might ask and demand their rights, what happens in the case of animals? Who makes sure they are aware of their rights?

Who protects them? It is the director’s discretion to ensure that rights of all subjects are protected. (Nash, 2014) Exploitation is a bad word, it is even worse when used hand in hand with a person in the same sentence. When ethics are not observed, what follows is exploitation of the weak, vulnerable and ignorant. It is the utter responsibility of creators of a documentary film to ensure the subjects are not exploited. This paper will discuss in details the ethical issue considerations of social actors and subjects in a documentary film.

From the award-winning documentary “The Gleaners and I” by Agnes Varda one is able to understand the ethical issues to be observed in documentary films. It is good that the documentary movie tells the story of the target group or society. A documentary film should have a very small; if necessary; director’s opinion. The story should be told just as it is and let the audience judge or make their own conclusions. From the documentary The Gleaners and I, the Gleaners story is told just as it is.

From the film, one can see the gleaners going about their daily gleaning and actually showing pride in what they do. It can be seen clearly from the film how others (the socially well up) feel and judge the gleaners. (Varda,2002) The director brings the idea of the argument of both the gleaners and those who consider gleaners as poor (whether doing it for fun or due to necessity). The director has told the story without interfering with the social actors in a way that any audience will make his or her own judgment.

From the short interactive documentary film Bear 71, the idea is the same. The director of the film Leanne Allison brings the real happenings to the screen for the viewers to judge and/or critic. An ethical documentary film director is a story teller; he or she tells the story just as it is without altering the message. Let the social actors be themselves. Let the subjects tell their story and not the director’s story in their words. After all, it is the director who approached the subjects, why should they tell the director’s story.

From the documentary of the gleaners, there is consistency in the story. The gleaners are in their normal gleaning chores and they tell the story well; the seasons of gleaning, legal standards set forth, time and rules (in the case of oyster gleaners). The film shows gleaners speaking for themselves and justifying what they do “we are not afraid to get our hands dirty. Hands can be washed.” We see a gleaner proudly speaking of getting his raw materials from gleaning and in the same film non-gleaner talking down on the gleaners as “the poor, wretched and deprived.

” Just because the different parties have different images and different perceptions of the other party, it does not make the director discard certain parts to favor one side but compiles them to tell the story. The film portrays the struggle the gleaners have to go through in their daily gleaning works. Since a documentary film is a nonfictional movie, it is ethical to ensure that it gets a clear picture of the real happenings. What would be the point of creating a non-fictional film in a fictional way?

It is up to the director of any documentary film to see to it that the film conforms to the guidelines set forth. The short documentary film “Bear 71” shows how the human developments have affected the lives of wild animals. The film tries to bring to life the interaction between humans and animals just as it is.

Read More