Ethics in documentary filmmaking is a very powerful thing. There are so many questions on whether or not something is good or bad. In the article, the authors address ethics in the documentaries in many ways. It is so important to be correct in a documentary overall because as they mention in the article, it breaks down into so many factors. One factor that makes it difficult to stay true is money. A budget is what makes it difficult for a filmmaker to create exactly what they want. This problem can cause damage to the realism of what they are filming, with budget cuts the filmmakers have had to create fake situations for the film. So how is that then a documentary? I believe it is hard for us to judge when they are asked for so much. When there is a lack of support for them it is hard to capture everything that is asked in such a small table. It is easier when the filmmaker is funding themselves because they can manage easier but when the filmmaker is working for a company it is hard to satisfy.
When working with a subject it is important to keep the right relationship. If it goes beyond the professional level then the filmmaker now feels like they need to make the film in favor of the subject. So many filmmakers keep the same mentality that they will defend the subject and will not take the film in a direction that can harm or embarrass the subject. With this mentality in mind it is also important that the filmmaker doesn’t make any promises or offer anything that could alter that way the subject responds. Many filmmakers even go far enough to create a more emotional atmosphere for their subjects to get more out of them. But to go back to the first paragraph, it is ultimately for the audience or to satisfy who ever they work for.
In relation to Saving Face, the filmamkers had to be very carful on whom to film and what to show. For two women, the husbands were also shown and interviewed, but only briefly. While the husbands got to say their arguments, it was still brief enough to where the audience remained sympathetic to the wives. But the biggest worry was whether or not it would become public where they lied and harm any of the wives involved in the filming. Surprisingly only one wife came out and claimed that the director offered her money and a house to speak, causing a court battle. This is a prime example of the ethics that go into making a documentary and the risks of interviewing people that you do not know well enough. While the other wives have seemingly been unreported of anything bad, it turned out to cause some question of whether things were offered or how much of the film was actually true. Ethics in documentary filmmaking is very powerful and it was proved in Saving Face.
According to Google, Ethics is defined as moral principles that govern a person or group's behavior. So mainly it depends on the person or people and their personal morals as to what makes something ethical or not. One filmmaker faced pressure to create drama or character conflict where none actually existed. Filmmakers may be encouraged to alter the story to pump up the excitement, the conflict, or the danger. "In one case, a filmmaker lacked exciting enough pictures of a particular animal from a shoot, and the executive producer substituted animals from another country. The filmmaker believed this to misrepresent the conditions of the region". When this happens, how is the audience supposed to know if they are actually watching a real documentary when the scenes and actions are skewed? Filmmakers should try to keep the actions real and to stay emotionally detached from the subject so that they do not feel pressured to do anything except what is natural to them.
Now when we relate ethical standards to the documentary Saving Face, the filmmakers had to proceed with extreme caution. The filmmakers made all the abused and beaten women seem like underdogs and made the audience extremely sympathetic to their situations. You have to be very careful when you are interviewing people that you don't know well, they are from a different country, and do not make much money. One ethical dilemma is that the women could of been lying about their husbands throwing acid on them, but I don't think this is the case. It was heart-wrenching in my opinion, but now I am concerned with how much of the film was dramatized and unethical. Ethics takes a strong play when one woman came forward saying the filmmaker made promises to her that he claimed he did not. It was essentially his word versus hers. Moral of the story, if you're going to make a documentary then you should of strong ethics and great integrity.
The ethics in documentary filmmaking play a large part in the decisions that a specific director or producer make. The majority of these ethical decisions will have an impact on either the audience’s perception of the film and its subjects, the subjects themselves, or the filmmaker’s themselves. These perceptions can also be the determining factor for the success or failure of a film. They can also lead to deceptions produced by the filmmaker. The online reading discussed how filmmaker’s could lead the viewer down the path of deception if he/she decides to not fulfill their ethical responsibility to avoid deception in their film, but to misuse it. A filmmaker’s intentional flaw could completely shift the entire meaning of the film and could undermine a filmmaker’s character. The in-class reading regarding Rukhsana possibly getting rewarded for participating in Saving Face is a way of deceiving the viewer. Whether the story be true or not, it makes one question her true character during the entirety of the film.
The article also goes into great detail describing the relationship the filmmaker has with his/her viewers as well as the differing relationship they have with their subjects. In the postproduction phase of a documentary film, the filmmaker must sever any previous friendship they once had with their subject and focus on presenting the truth to the audience even if it means to portray their subjects in a bad way. One possible example of this in Saving Face is during the interviews with the husbands that threw acid on their wives. The filmmaker(s) probably developed a friendly relationship with these men to get the most information out of them but later disregarded that relationship in the editing phase to deliver the truth and portray the husbands as evildoers to bring attention to the issue. Is this unethical and does it betray the trust between the filmmaker and subject? In this case most would agree that it’s the right thing to do. In some cases a documentary filmmaker must draw the line, but this example is not one of those cases.
The article about the ethics in documentary filmmaking forces the director to make certain decisions without causing any kind of controversy. The article also goes over several production stages of documentaries as well as ethical decisions the director must make. These ethical decisions challenge the director to gather as much information as well as the right information on his subject that is appropriate to show. The problem with the ethics in documentary filmmaking can make or break a story, because if the director isn’t able to take the shots needed for the story because of these ethical dilemmas. It could make the documentary incongruent or boring. This causes directors to go against the ethics of documentary filmmaking, to deceive their subjects on film, making promises they can’t keep to juice up the story. The article goes over the different relationships the director opens when they start a documentary film. The author talks about a story where she was trying to get a shot of a rabbit and they broke a rabbit’s leg just to get a shot. When the film is made the filmmaker must cut all ties to those relationships. These ethics in documentary filmmaking are guidelines of what is appropriate to show, but it is up to the director whether or not to follow these guidelines. Saving Face was a well done documentary on women in Pakistan, who had acid thrown in their face by their husbands. It was a well done documentary in getting the story across. The story captured and held my attention throughout the film. But, was it filmed in an ethical manor? The director’s story was clear and selected the right subjects to be in the film to capture the side of the women. However, there were a few stories that did cause me to question some of the films ethical decisions. Rukhsana was my least favorite story because it was not a sound story. She claimed her husband threw acid on her and his mother and sister burned her. But, when they interviewed the husband he claimed that she had a mental break down and burned herself. This story is not a strong story and made me believe the husband, when I saw she still lived in the husband’s house. If someone did that to me and I survived, I am pretty sure I would get the hell out of that place. In an article we read after Saving Face was about Rukhsana. It explained her life after the movie and that she didn’t accept the house given to her, because her husband wanted to hold out for more. This also made me question Rukhsana’s story. It constantly makes me believe she made it up to get some kind of compensation for it. I do understand the culture over there is different than ours and women are subservient to men, but a near death experience in such a gruesome way would make her leave her husband and live on her own.
One of the most relevant issues brought up by the reading, Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work, is that documentary filmmaking is by and large a freelance effort, and is therefore self-governed on the topic of ethical issues. For a long time, there was no ethical board or class with which to bring up important issues that documentary filmmakers might find themselves in. This clashed with the very public nature of media creation, as all documentaries are made to have an audience, usually a large portion of the general population. Public audiences expect for a film to be created with ethics in mind, especially when said film is a documentary which in itself calls to question ethical delimmas. Another conflicting interest in this debate are the networks, which also lend pressure to documentary filmmakers by pushing for vastly more entertaining content. Often times, this leads documentary creators to invent drama, excitement, and intrigue where there is none, misleading the audience and taking credibility away from the moments where drama actually exists.
The article also brought up an issue that we touched on in class with the controversy that popped up after the release of Saving Face, a documentary about Pakistani women who have been victims of vicious acid attacks. In class, we discovered that after the release of the film, one of the victims, Rukhsana, had gone public with a complaint that Sharmeen Obaid had not fulfilled a promise of buying her a new home and assisting in paying for her cosmetic surgery. Obaid responded with an answer that the article also brings up: while filmmakers strive to protect those who are made vulnerable by their work, there are certain lines which no filmmaker should cross. Obaid implied that she would never cross such an obvious ethical boundary, as her experience in documentary filmmaking gave her insight into how such controversies could be created. Having a clear cut boundary about how far a filmmaker can go to protect a subject is essential to protecting both the filmmaker and the subject from any legal backlash.
After Reading the "Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work" it really put into perspective, to me, how many ethical issues and questions are raised in producing a documentary. In Pre-production alone, you have to take time to think about what your audience target is and your story of your documentary. Will it offend people? Is it a plausible concept that you can financially achieve? Three principles stated in the reading that most documentarians try to live by are, " Do No Harm, Protect the Vulnerable, and Honor the Viewer's trust". These I feel are very important to achieving a well composed documentary, and after reading this I took a second to go back in my head and think of the last few documentaries I saw and did the director and producer and crew have these principles in mind?
I believe In "Saving Face" directors Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, definitely lived up to the principles of Do No Harm, Protecting the Vulnerable, and Honoring the viewers trust. The story was excellent, I was emotionally captured and involved from the first 2 minutes of the film, and wanted to learn more after the film as well, I trusted them to deliver a well thought out story. I believe the directors with their subjects achieved a humane working relationship with the burned victims while also protecting their integrity.
I feel from an ethical standpoint that the directors definitely did their research, as all documentarians have to do, and doing a good job of that, secured them being within the politically correct or favorable ethical side of the fence. I don't think this film was made to insult, hurt, or cast faults to anyone who's a victim or culprit, but to raise awareness that something of this magnitude is happening in this world and can't and will not be tolerated.
The reading "Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work" really opened my eyes. As I read the article, I was amazed at how honest many of the people in the survey were. I learned that some focus more on the honesty of the project and the safety of the people involved while some are more focused on making money and making a good documentary. I learned that while some movies are very real and captivating, some scenes have been “propped” to look that way. The part of the reading where it talked about breaking the leg of the rabbit really opened my eyes. In that particular case, they were more interested in gathering the film they needed, but had regrets after. I learned that many of the film crews are more likely to focus on the well-being and safety of the people involved because they have the personal connection with them since they are with them all the time. On the other hand, the producers seem to make more of the call of making money since to them, it’s just another documentary. I also realized in this reading that a lot more takes place in making a documentary than I thought. I never thought it could take a year to make a 40 minute video on someone’s life. But because of the time, that’s why the emotions are so raw and the documentaries are so good, because time allows the crew to create a professional, yet personal, relationship with the people involved in the films.
All in all, I really enjoyed this reading. I realized that in "Saving Face" directors Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy tried their best to protect the overall well-being of the people in the film. The topic of the film is current, tricky, and dangerous, and they did an excellent job portraying the real and raw lives of the women in that city. This reading helped me gain a better perspective of this line of work, and I feel I have more of a respect for the business of documentaries.
The first parallel I noticed between the reading and "Saving Face" was the idea of "Do Not Harm, Protect the Vulnerable." It was interesting because the subjects within the documentary had already previously been harmed. There could be no real way of preemptively protecting the subject. I feel that the subjects were very candid and open with the telling of their stories. They obviously felt comfortable with the directors. The filmmakers also chose to show the doctor, who served as an actual member of the cast who provided help and a sense of security to the victims. It was also risky because these women were telling about crimes their husbands had committed against them. If set free, these men would have done even more harm to them.
I applaud these filmmakers for taking on a story that would not usually be seen in mainstream media. The material was graphic but very important and compelling. "Saving Face" had very high ethical standards and I feel the creators tried their best to protect the images of their subjects. I definitely feel that the producers were honest and only portrayed situations for what they truly were. Everything was taken seriously and as the film ended I found immense respect for the filmmakers and their courageous subjects.
Ethics and the documentary form are fundamentally tied, whereas other media tends to put entertainment first, documentaries primarily seek to raise awareness or convey a message with contemporary importance. As the article notes, the purer values at the heart of the documentary run counter to the practical, financial realities of filmmaking. There are a host of other common ethical dilemmas as well, which the authors separate into three distinct categories: the subject, the viewer, and artistic vision. Examples of ethical dilemmas of the subject and viewer are particularly apparent in Saving Face.
Following the film’s release, one of the subjects, Rukhsana, claimed that she was promised money and aid in her rehabilitation. Being hearsay it’s difficult to determine the truth, but if the filmmakers’ goal was to help these women, rather than gain fame for a critically acclaimed film, it would seem to follow that Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy would seek to provide assistance in someway. In fact, she did promise royalties to victims, but this was contingent upon the film running in Pakistan, which oddly enough Rukhsana and the Acid Survivors Foundation prevented from happening with a civil suit. She also claims that she still wants to help Rukhsana but can’t because it would look like she’s “bribing her to get [her] film aired”, dubious logic at best.
As for the ethics of the filmmaker-viewer relationship, the message and raising awareness in Saving Face seems to take precedence over truthfully portraying events. Certain moments seem to take narrative liberties to tell a more poignant story rather than attempt to accurately document the events. Both Rukhsana and Zakia’s husbands (one filmed in a jail car, the other juxtaposed with shots of his shaking hand) were deliberately portrayed as villains while attempting to tell their side of the story. Even though their explanations seemed very suspect, the filmmakers seem to have made up their mind prior to filming, a rather unethical decision. Certain events also seemed manufactured for the film. For example, in the climactic moment where Zakia learns the fate of her husband’s trial, the lawyer deliberately waits to tell Zakia until they’re at a scenic location with the camera crew, and she slowly reveals information to build suspense, almost as though she was coached up beforehand, before finally revealing the verdict. It’s a powerful moment in the narrative, but lacks authenticity. All in all, Saving Face has an important message but also falls victim to some of the ethical dilemmas laid out in the article.
Within the first two minutes of the documentary “Saving Face,” my first reaction was shock. I had no idea that these acid attacks were happening, and I did not know why anyone would ever throw acid or gasoline on another human-being. When women started to be interviewed and telling their stories, a question popped in to my head. Were these women protected? I started thinking about how the community reacted to “Saving Face” and if the women that were interviewed suffered afterwards. And then when I read the reading, I kind of had some questions answered about the ethics in documentary filmmaking. I do think that the people who created “Saving Face” were very good people, and were concerned for the safety of the interviewees. I think that the story they told was organic, and that they did not create any situations to get the shot that they wanted. But what I learned from the reading is that some filmmakers, in fact, do create situations to get their shot.
I was really happy with the honesty in the reading. It is not often when someone will publicly come out and say “I was wrong.” The part where the filmmaker admits to being a part of a documentary that broke a rabbit’s leg so that it could not run from its predator kind of surprised me. Although, I have often wondered how documentary makers seem to always be in the right place at the right time when it comes to wild life scenes, I never thought of the possibility of the wild life being harmed for the film.
After seeing “Saving Face” and reading the reading for this week, it gives me a new perspective on documentary ethics. I think that some people really want to inform people, and tell a story; but, others just want to get that “one shot” and will do anything to get it.
Ethics in documentary filmmaking is a very powerful thing. There are so many questions on whether or not something is good or bad. In the article, the authors address ethics in the documentaries in many ways. It is so important to be correct in a documentary overall because as they mention in the article, it breaks down into so many factors. One factor that makes it difficult to stay true is money. A budget is what makes it difficult for a filmmaker to create exactly what they want. This problem can cause damage to the realism of what they are filming, with budget cuts the filmmakers have had to create fake situations for the film. So how is that then a documentary? I believe it is hard for us to judge when they are asked for so much. When there is a lack of support for them it is hard to capture everything that is asked in such a small table. It is easier when the filmmaker is funding themselves because they can manage easier but when the filmmaker is working for a company it is hard to satisfy.
ReplyDeleteWhen working with a subject it is important to keep the right relationship. If it goes beyond the professional level then the filmmaker now feels like they need to make the film in favor of the subject. So many filmmakers keep the same mentality that they will defend the subject and will not take the film in a direction that can harm or embarrass the subject. With this mentality in mind it is also important that the filmmaker doesn’t make any promises or offer anything that could alter that way the subject responds. Many filmmakers even go far enough to create a more emotional atmosphere for their subjects to get more out of them. But to go back to the first paragraph, it is ultimately for the audience or to satisfy who ever they work for.
In relation to Saving Face, the filmamkers had to be very carful on whom to film and what to show. For two women, the husbands were also shown and interviewed, but only briefly. While the husbands got to say their arguments, it was still brief enough to where the audience remained sympathetic to the wives. But the biggest worry was whether or not it would become public where they lied and harm any of the wives involved in the filming. Surprisingly only one wife came out and claimed that the director offered her money and a house to speak, causing a court battle. This is a prime example of the ethics that go into making a documentary and the risks of interviewing people that you do not know well enough. While the other wives have seemingly been unreported of anything bad, it turned out to cause some question of whether things were offered or how much of the film was actually true. Ethics in documentary filmmaking is very powerful and it was proved in Saving Face.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Google, Ethics is defined as moral principles that govern a person or group's behavior. So mainly it depends on the person or people and their personal morals as to what makes something ethical or not. One filmmaker faced pressure to create drama or character conflict where none actually existed. Filmmakers may be encouraged to alter the story to pump up the excitement, the conflict, or the danger. "In one case, a filmmaker lacked exciting enough pictures of a particular animal from a shoot, and the executive producer substituted animals from another country. The filmmaker believed this to misrepresent the conditions of the region". When this happens, how is the audience supposed to know if they are actually watching a real documentary when the scenes and actions are skewed? Filmmakers should try to keep the actions real and to stay emotionally detached from the subject so that they do not feel pressured to do anything except what is natural to them.
ReplyDeleteNow when we relate ethical standards to the documentary Saving Face, the filmmakers had to proceed with extreme caution. The filmmakers made all the abused and beaten women seem like underdogs and made the audience extremely sympathetic to their situations. You have to be very careful when you are interviewing people that you don't know well, they are from a different country, and do not make much money. One ethical dilemma is that the women could of been lying about their husbands throwing acid on them, but I don't think this is the case. It was heart-wrenching in my opinion, but now I am concerned with how much of the film was dramatized and unethical. Ethics takes a strong play when one woman came forward saying the filmmaker made promises to her that he claimed he did not. It was essentially his word versus hers. Moral of the story, if you're going to make a documentary then you should of strong ethics and great integrity.
The ethics in documentary filmmaking play a large part in the decisions that a specific director or producer make. The majority of these ethical decisions will have an impact on either the audience’s perception of the film and its subjects, the subjects themselves, or the filmmaker’s themselves. These perceptions can also be the determining factor for the success or failure of a film. They can also lead to deceptions produced by the filmmaker. The online reading discussed how filmmaker’s could lead the viewer down the path of deception if he/she decides to not fulfill their ethical responsibility to avoid deception in their film, but to misuse it. A filmmaker’s intentional flaw could completely shift the entire meaning of the film and could undermine a filmmaker’s character. The in-class reading regarding Rukhsana possibly getting rewarded for participating in Saving Face is a way of deceiving the viewer. Whether the story be true or not, it makes one question her true character during the entirety of the film.
ReplyDeleteThe article also goes into great detail describing the relationship the filmmaker has with his/her viewers as well as the differing relationship they have with their subjects. In the postproduction phase of a documentary film, the filmmaker must sever any previous friendship they once had with their subject and focus on presenting the truth to the audience even if it means to portray their subjects in a bad way. One possible example of this in Saving Face is during the interviews with the husbands that threw acid on their wives. The filmmaker(s) probably developed a friendly relationship with these men to get the most information out of them but later disregarded that relationship in the editing phase to deliver the truth and portray the husbands as evildoers to bring attention to the issue. Is this unethical and does it betray the trust between the filmmaker and subject? In this case most would agree that it’s the right thing to do. In some cases a documentary filmmaker must draw the line, but this example is not one of those cases.
John Wachs
The article about the ethics in documentary filmmaking forces the director to make certain decisions without causing any kind of controversy. The article also goes over several production stages of documentaries as well as ethical decisions the director must make. These ethical decisions challenge the director to gather as much information as well as the right information on his subject that is appropriate to show. The problem with the ethics in documentary filmmaking can make or break a story, because if the director isn’t able to take the shots needed for the story because of these ethical dilemmas. It could make the documentary incongruent or boring. This causes directors to go against the ethics of documentary filmmaking, to deceive their subjects on film, making promises they can’t keep to juice up the story. The article goes over the different relationships the director opens when they start a documentary film. The author talks about a story where she was trying to get a shot of a rabbit and they broke a rabbit’s leg just to get a shot. When the film is made the filmmaker must cut all ties to those relationships. These ethics in documentary filmmaking are guidelines of what is appropriate to show, but it is up to the director whether or not to follow these guidelines.
ReplyDeleteSaving Face was a well done documentary on women in Pakistan, who had acid thrown in their face by their husbands. It was a well done documentary in getting the story across. The story captured and held my attention throughout the film. But, was it filmed in an ethical manor? The director’s story was clear and selected the right subjects to be in the film to capture the side of the women. However, there were a few stories that did cause me to question some of the films ethical decisions. Rukhsana was my least favorite story because it was not a sound story. She claimed her husband threw acid on her and his mother and sister burned her. But, when they interviewed the husband he claimed that she had a mental break down and burned herself. This story is not a strong story and made me believe the husband, when I saw she still lived in the husband’s house. If someone did that to me and I survived, I am pretty sure I would get the hell out of that place. In an article we read after Saving Face was about Rukhsana. It explained her life after the movie and that she didn’t accept the house given to her, because her husband wanted to hold out for more. This also made me question Rukhsana’s story. It constantly makes me believe she made it up to get some kind of compensation for it. I do understand the culture over there is different than ours and women are subservient to men, but a near death experience in such a gruesome way would make her leave her husband and live on her own.
Gorman Houston
One of the most relevant issues brought up by the reading, Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work, is that documentary filmmaking is by and large a freelance effort, and is therefore self-governed on the topic of ethical issues. For a long time, there was no ethical board or class with which to bring up important issues that documentary filmmakers might find themselves in. This clashed with the very public nature of media creation, as all documentaries are made to have an audience, usually a large portion of the general population. Public audiences expect for a film to be created with ethics in mind, especially when said film is a documentary which in itself calls to question ethical delimmas. Another conflicting interest in this debate are the networks, which also lend pressure to documentary filmmakers by pushing for vastly more entertaining content. Often times, this leads documentary creators to invent drama, excitement, and intrigue where there is none, misleading the audience and taking credibility away from the moments where drama actually exists.
ReplyDeleteThe article also brought up an issue that we touched on in class with the controversy that popped up after the release of Saving Face, a documentary about Pakistani women who have been victims of vicious acid attacks. In class, we discovered that after the release of the film, one of the victims, Rukhsana, had gone public with a complaint that Sharmeen Obaid had not fulfilled a promise of buying her a new home and assisting in paying for her cosmetic surgery. Obaid responded with an answer that the article also brings up: while filmmakers strive to protect those who are made vulnerable by their work, there are certain lines which no filmmaker should cross. Obaid implied that she would never cross such an obvious ethical boundary, as her experience in documentary filmmaking gave her insight into how such controversies could be created. Having a clear cut boundary about how far a filmmaker can go to protect a subject is essential to protecting both the filmmaker and the subject from any legal backlash.
Michael Schroepfer
ReplyDeleteAfter Reading the "Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work" it really put into perspective, to me, how many ethical issues and questions are raised in producing a documentary.
In Pre-production alone, you have to take time to think about what your audience target is and your story of your documentary. Will it offend people? Is it a plausible concept that you can financially achieve?
Three principles stated in the reading that most documentarians try to live by are, " Do No Harm, Protect the Vulnerable, and Honor the Viewer's trust". These I feel are very important to achieving a well composed documentary, and after reading this I took a second to go back in my head and think of the last few documentaries I saw and did the director and producer and crew have these principles in mind?
I believe In "Saving Face" directors Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, definitely lived up to the principles of Do No Harm, Protecting the Vulnerable, and Honoring the viewers trust. The story was excellent, I was emotionally captured and involved from the first 2 minutes of the film, and wanted to learn more after the film as well, I trusted them to deliver a well thought out story. I believe the directors with their subjects achieved a humane working relationship with the burned victims while also protecting their integrity.
I feel from an ethical standpoint that the directors definitely did their research, as all documentarians have to do, and doing a good job of that, secured them being within the politically correct or favorable ethical side of the fence. I don't think this film was made to insult, hurt, or cast faults to anyone who's a victim or culprit, but to raise awareness that something of this magnitude is happening in this world and can't and will not be tolerated.
The reading "Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work" really opened my eyes. As I read the article, I was amazed at how honest many of the people in the survey were. I learned that some focus more on the honesty of the project and the safety of the people involved while some are more focused on making money and making a good documentary. I learned that while some movies are very real and captivating, some scenes have been “propped” to look that way. The part of the reading where it talked about breaking the leg of the rabbit really opened my eyes. In that particular case, they were more interested in gathering the film they needed, but had regrets after. I learned that many of the film crews are more likely to focus on the well-being and safety of the people involved because they have the personal connection with them since they are with them all the time. On the other hand, the producers seem to make more of the call of making money since to them, it’s just another documentary. I also realized in this reading that a lot more takes place in making a documentary than I thought. I never thought it could take a year to make a 40 minute video on someone’s life. But because of the time, that’s why the emotions are so raw and the documentaries are so good, because time allows the crew to create a professional, yet personal, relationship with the people involved in the films.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, I really enjoyed this reading. I realized that in "Saving Face" directors Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy tried their best to protect the overall well-being of the people in the film. The topic of the film is current, tricky, and dangerous, and they did an excellent job portraying the real and raw lives of the women in that city. This reading helped me gain a better perspective of this line of work, and I feel I have more of a respect for the business of documentaries.
The first parallel I noticed between the reading and "Saving Face" was the idea of "Do Not Harm, Protect the Vulnerable." It was interesting because the subjects within the documentary had already previously been harmed. There could be no real way of preemptively protecting the subject. I feel that the subjects were very candid and open with the telling of their stories. They obviously felt comfortable with the directors. The filmmakers also chose to show the doctor, who served as an actual member of the cast who provided help and a sense of security to the victims. It was also risky because these women were telling about crimes their husbands had committed against them. If set free, these men would have done even more harm to them.
ReplyDeleteI applaud these filmmakers for taking on a story that would not usually be seen in mainstream media. The material was graphic but very important and compelling. "Saving Face" had very high ethical standards and I feel the creators tried their best to protect the images of their subjects. I definitely feel that the producers were honest and only portrayed situations for what they truly were. Everything was taken seriously and as the film ended I found immense respect for the filmmakers and their courageous subjects.
Ethics and the documentary form are fundamentally tied, whereas other media tends to put entertainment first, documentaries primarily seek to raise awareness or convey a message with contemporary importance. As the article notes, the purer values at the heart of the documentary run counter to the practical, financial realities of filmmaking. There are a host of other common ethical dilemmas as well, which the authors separate into three distinct categories: the subject, the viewer, and artistic vision. Examples of ethical dilemmas of the subject and viewer are particularly apparent in Saving Face.
ReplyDeleteFollowing the film’s release, one of the subjects, Rukhsana, claimed that she was promised money and aid in her rehabilitation. Being hearsay it’s difficult to determine the truth, but if the filmmakers’ goal was to help these women, rather than gain fame for a critically acclaimed film, it would seem to follow that Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy would seek to provide assistance in someway. In fact, she did promise royalties to victims, but this was contingent upon the film running in Pakistan, which oddly enough Rukhsana and the Acid Survivors Foundation prevented from happening with a civil suit. She also claims that she still wants to help Rukhsana but can’t because it would look like she’s “bribing her to get [her] film aired”, dubious logic at best.
As for the ethics of the filmmaker-viewer relationship, the message and raising awareness in Saving Face seems to take precedence over truthfully portraying events. Certain moments seem to take narrative liberties to tell a more poignant story rather than attempt to accurately document the events. Both Rukhsana and Zakia’s husbands (one filmed in a jail car, the other juxtaposed with shots of his shaking hand) were deliberately portrayed as villains while attempting to tell their side of the story. Even though their explanations seemed very suspect, the filmmakers seem to have made up their mind prior to filming, a rather unethical decision. Certain events also seemed manufactured for the film. For example, in the climactic moment where Zakia learns the fate of her husband’s trial, the lawyer deliberately waits to tell Zakia until they’re at a scenic location with the camera crew, and she slowly reveals information to build suspense, almost as though she was coached up beforehand, before finally revealing the verdict. It’s a powerful moment in the narrative, but lacks authenticity. All in all, Saving Face has an important message but also falls victim to some of the ethical dilemmas laid out in the article.
Within the first two minutes of the documentary “Saving Face,” my first reaction was shock. I had no idea that these acid attacks were happening, and I did not know why anyone would ever throw acid or gasoline on another human-being. When women started to be interviewed and telling their stories, a question popped in to my head. Were these women protected? I started thinking about how the community reacted to “Saving Face” and if the women that were interviewed suffered afterwards. And then when I read the reading, I kind of had some questions answered about the ethics in documentary filmmaking. I do think that the people who created “Saving Face” were very good people, and were concerned for the safety of the interviewees. I think that the story they told was organic, and that they did not create any situations to get the shot that they wanted. But what I learned from the reading is that some filmmakers, in fact, do create situations to get their shot.
ReplyDeleteI was really happy with the honesty in the reading. It is not often when someone will publicly come out and say “I was wrong.” The part where the filmmaker admits to being a part of a documentary that broke a rabbit’s leg so that it could not run from its predator kind of surprised me. Although, I have often wondered how documentary makers seem to always be in the right place at the right time when it comes to wild life scenes, I never thought of the possibility of the wild life being harmed for the film.
After seeing “Saving Face” and reading the reading for this week, it gives me a new perspective on documentary ethics. I think that some people really want to inform people, and tell a story; but, others just want to get that “one shot” and will do anything to get it.
- Mia Wren