Close relationships between filmmaker and subjects can prove to put a strain on on both parties. Due to the nature of the process of filming, they are bound to become reasonably close with each other. The article points out how the filming of someone who is in dire need or experiencing great grief can put directors in uncomfortable positions. For the sake of the film, however, the camera must keep rolling. It is the overall duty for the filmmaker to capture the entire truth. Though it is ethically concerning, those crucial moments make for the most compelling films. Other times, directors must see their subjects as friends first and step in and provide aid. Filming can truly test the trust between director and subject. This issue is vividly displayed throughout "Stevie."
It was important to director, Steve James, to feature Stevie's full life on on film. According to the article, James told Stevie that his intentions were to show him in a compassionate and sympathetic light. James also said that the tragedies that struck while filming did make the film better. I often wondered while watching "Stevie", how could Steve just stand by and let Stevie wreck the life of others and that of his own. But when I think about what Stevie's story represents, I get a sense why James stayed out of certain situations. James wanted to show these stories of abuse and redemption so that it may inspire audience members who may be sharing similar experiences. I'm sure James regrets not acting during some moments, but I'm also sure he's proud of the finished project. James says that he wanted to educate people and I think he does that with "Stevie."
For the past few weeks we have been discussing the ethical dilemmas of the relationship between filmmakers and their subjects. In Leeman’s article she talks about the line between capturing the full reality of the subject and showing compassion for their subjects. In the documentary Stevie, Steve James goes back to his hometown, to rekindle his relationship with his “little brother,” Stevie. Stevie is a very complex human being, who may seem simple to most. It is hard for us to fully understand Stevie’s reasoning, because not very many of us share a life story like Stevie’s. He was abused, molested and unloved from the people that mattered.
I believe Steve James did a good job on Stevie. It is not an easy story for him to do, because he already had a close relationship with subject, Stevie, from the past growing up. In the beginning Steve James wants the documentary to rekindle their relationship, which in many ways it does. The documentary, I believe, allowed James to get closer to Stevie than anyone else has in Stevie’s life. The film also gave James a glimpse of how Stevie processes things. Stevie is very stubborn during the movie and has an interesting idea of how things should be done. But, it also makes him a little hard to work with.
As the film goes on James’ outlook on the film changes, as he realizes more and more that the film is no longer about rekindling the relationship, but just capturing the story of another subject. You see James have ethical conflicts, which jump back and forth over this line that Leeman’s article has drawn. I thought Steve James did a good job capturing the story and a good job ethically in his relationship to Stevie. Some moments the blame is on James, like the night club scene. But, I believe any filmmaker would have struggled a little ethically, when working with a subject like Stevie.
Stevie raises a lot of questions about the relationship between filmmaker and subject. Steve James, the director, decided to reconnect with his “little brother” Stevie after ten years of separation to catch up and see how his life was going. James’ first visit with Stevie was short but was later reignited a couple years later due to a serious crime Stevie committed. Steve James came back to Stevie’s hometown to document the events that followed the crime.
In Leeman’s article “How Close Is Too Close?” she discusses instances where filmmakers help their subjects, usually in some financial way. In Stevie, James was limited with how much help he could give Stevie in his criminal situation but James’ presence did bring up the question of whether or not he was there just to capitalize on Stevie’s unfortunate situation by filming his downward spiral. Leeman’s article states that it’s only human nature to take advantage of a situation where one already has the upper hand, pretty much like James did. With the situation that James was already in, he might have felt obligated to carry on with the documentary he had already started. The crime that Stevie committed might have been a great motivation to keep filming. Throughout the documentary, it seemed as if James was constantly searching for a justified reason to continue making the film but never seemed to find it. Whether or not he ever found that reason, the final product made for an intriguing story.
There’s a major ethical dilemma at the heart of Steve James’ 2002 film “Stevie”. After serving as Stevie Fielding’s advocate big brother, Steve cuts off contact with Stevie. 10 years later, Steve returns, but now he’s a successful filmmaker and has an ulterior motive to reconnect: he wants to make a film.
This is the crux of the ethical issue with “Stevie”. Steve James is taking advantage of his relationship with Stevie for personal gain. Stevie has no interest in starring in a documentary, he just wants to reconnect with someone he viewed as the brother he never had. Despite filming Stevie, Steve really still isn’t there for him. James, at his wife’s behest, refuses to give Stevie bail money because he doesn’t want him back out on the streets. At times James creates distance between himself and Stevie. In fact, at some points, Steve James entirely ceases to view Stevie as a friend, instead considering him to simply be a documentary subject. This is the film’s tragedy. In its worst moment, James chooses documentary truth over Stevie himself. Had James prodded Stevie to show some sort of remorse for his crime, which he surely knew was important, 4 years would have been taken off his prison sentence. He may have been too stubborn to take that advice, but he would have at least had a chance. Instead, James (apparently) does nothing, because that would be out of character. It would have been dishonest to the story.
As the article mentions, “most of us walk a fine line between being strictly observational filmmakers and compassionate human beings”. Steve is simultaneously the most important living male figure in Stevie’s life and a filmmaker attempting to tell an honest story. Ultimately, he’s only successful in the later. “Stevie” is no doubt a great film, but to me the treatment of the titular subject is certainly unethical.
In Stevie, director Steve James comes back to his childhood hometown to visit his after-school program "little brother" Stevie, who was a troubled child, after ten years of Steve James' absence from his hometown. Steve James films the interaction, and determines that Stevie is unhealthy for his children to be around, so he leaves Stevie alone for 2 years, until the troubled man finds himself in a criminal trial for child molestation.
Here is where the ethical dilemma comes in. Steve James decides to come back and film the events leading up to Stevie's trial, while reincorporating himself into Stevie's life. This leads to some ethically questionable calls by Steve James, who often times puts his documentary ahead of his friend. For instance, in one powerful scene, Steve James allows recovering alcoholic Stevie to enter a night club and drink. Of course, this ends in disaster, with Stevie drunkenly making a fool of himself. Steve James says in a voice-over that he no longer saw Stevie as a friend, but solely as a documentary subject. It's almost as if Steve James can tell how his documentary portrayed himself. He knew that putting his film first wasn't appropriate, but he did it anyway.
Janet Malcolm's quote from the article seems very appropriate when she says, "[a journalist] is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse." Steve James certainly played into Stevie's needs when he made his documentary, and in my opinion, was unethical in his treatment of his childhood friend as a documentary subject.
The article talks about walking the fine line between capturing the subject in their natural habitat and needing to help the subject or showing compassion for their predicament. The filmmaker, Steve James, was Stevie's "big brother" and goes back to reconnect with him after being separated for 10 years. Although, the sole reason for reconnecting is that he wants to make a film documenting Stevie's life.
I was impressed and kind of shocked by how James could distance himself from Stevie throughout the making of the film. It was like he was filming a person he barely even knew when James was supposedly Stevie's "big brother" and role model. I did not think it was ethical to allow the subject to get into the kind of trouble that he got into. Clearly, Stevie was a damaged individual and needed help making his way in life. I found it highly inappropriate to allow Stevie to go to the night club and drink the way he did when the filmmaker already knew that he had alcohol issues. This must have been hard for James to stand back and watch these incidents happen. My moral compass would not of allowed me to do it. In the end I think James was looking for a reason to continue filming the subject and finish his story. The film is no doubt a great one but I definitely think it was unethical how the filmmaker got the finished product.
From the very beginning of Stevie I had questioned the director Steve James. As his big brother growing up, I thought it was nice that he was going back to visit Stevie after all of those years. But why did he bring a camera and crew with him to film this reunion? What were his real intentions on filming the reunion and what was he gaining from filming the reunion? The relationship they both have is a great one, with them being close and having the relationship they had it only seems right that Steve would be in front of the camera. But throughout the film there were moments where Steve would film the situation rather than help, as if Stevie were his film subject. It almost seemed unfair to Stevie that he was being treated as a subject rather than a friend, and that Steve as the director treated him like that.
When the article talks about how the subject and filmer should act toward eachother and how their relationship should be. Lisa Leeman makes good points in that the filmer should remain the filmer. She also brings up the financial side of things, whether or not they should offer money to the subject if needed or if something else could be offered. Many people have their own opinions of whether or not they should offer to the subjects but I believe it should stay how is. If the filmer agrees that they will not help then I believe that should stay true, but if in Steve's case where he is friends with Stevie, then I believe it is acceptable.
Ethical conflicts are raised in the film "Stevie" between the relationship of the filmmaker and the subject throughout the film. "Stevie" is about a man named, Steve, who goes back to visit his "little brother" he had 10 years ago through a Big Brother/Big Sister program, who he left when he moved to the city. Steve decides to document the reunion only to leave shortly after to then later return 2 years later after he hears about a crime that Stevie committed. When Steve comes back the second time, we see Stevie and his life unfold after being released from jail.
In the beginning, this documentary was used to as a way to rekindle the relationship they once had before Steve left. He gained Stevies trust again and was able to go through with the documentary. As you watch the film, you see Steve realizing that he didn't see Stevie as his little brother anymore, he just saw him as a subject to film for his documentary. It did bother me as I was watching the film on how he was almost okay with Stevie getting into the trouble that he did. It raises the question "How close is too close?" between fillmmaker and subject. Did Steve know he was getting too close and he had to to let Stevie make his own choices that was just giving him negative impacts on his life? Or did Steve just forget that the man he was filming was once someone important to his life and now hes just a subject for a documentary? Stevie is someone who from the beginning of childhood was just waiting for someone to hold him and love him and let know him someone cares about him and through out his whole life, hes had many disappointing moments that led him to be the man he is today. Just like most of the class agreed, I found it very unethical of the filmmaker to get what he wanted to finish the film.
I really enjoy all the works that I've seen by Steve James, this was no exception, a great documentary that will highly recommend to friends. Beginning this film, I really wondered what was James' reasoning for making this documentary. I felt Stevie was a little exploited. Yes, they have a previous relationship, but Steve James said right in the first ten minutes, "we were friends, then I left him, and haven't reached out to him in ten years." ---So Steve, what have you been doing then? Have you been gaining national attention in the world of film? It just rubbed me the wrong way, but alas, we push forward I tried to not it bother me any more than it already had. I feel like Janet Malcom's "morally indenfensible” term about the “kind of confidence, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse” is spot on for this particular documentary.
I am really glad Nick showed this documentary and I wish I had been in the class to participate with the ongoing in-class discussions. I think in Lisa Leeman’s “How Close Is Too Close?” she says as filmmakers, “most of us will walk a fine line between being strictly observational filmmakers and compassionate human beings?” I think that Steve James originally was a very big enabler, given his previous relationship with Stevie Fieldings. I think throughout the movie it becomes apparent Steve James really cares for this guy, but has to some how keep a safe distance and cross from the friend to filmmaker. One of my favorite scenes is the baptismal scene, It was very moving and powerful, and for a second you think he is making the change. Great film.
Watching "Stevie" raised a lot of questions for me. Specifically, of the director Steve James. In the first 10 minutes of the film it is understood that James was Stevie's "big brother" many, many years ago. James made it seem like he wanted to rekindle his relationship with his former, troubled "little brother." This was supposed to be a film about James coming back in to Stevie's life. After their brief first meeting, James left and did not return for 3 years. James only returned after a phone call with Stevie's grandmother where she told him that Stevie had been arrested for molesting his 8 year old cousin. Only then did James find it necessary to return. Did he think that after his first reunion with Stevie 3 years earlier had no cinematic value? It seems that James had changed his motives for the film after hearing of Stevie's arrest. Although I found "Stevie" very interesting, it was also very disturbing how James was taking advantage of his relationship with his "little brother," I think he got too close.
The article states that James had told Stevie that the point of the film was to make an audience feel compassion and sympathy towards Stevie. I, honestly, just do not think that is true. I think that James knew that he could not film an interesting documentary off of his first reunion with Stevie, and took advantage of his arrest to get a film that would get attention.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film and I am happy that it was the film I was assigned to. But, I do have little respect for Steve James as a filmmaker.
Close relationships between filmmaker and subjects can prove to put a strain on on both parties. Due to the nature of the process of filming, they are bound to become reasonably close with each other. The article points out how the filming of someone who is in dire need or experiencing great grief can put directors in uncomfortable positions. For the sake of the film, however, the camera must keep rolling. It is the overall duty for the filmmaker to capture the entire truth. Though it is ethically concerning, those crucial moments make for the most compelling films. Other times, directors must see their subjects as friends first and step in and provide aid. Filming can truly test the trust between director and subject. This issue is vividly displayed throughout "Stevie."
ReplyDeleteIt was important to director, Steve James, to feature Stevie's full life on on film. According to the article, James told Stevie that his intentions were to show him in a compassionate and sympathetic light. James also said that the tragedies that struck while filming did make the film better. I often wondered while watching "Stevie", how could Steve just stand by and let Stevie wreck the life of others and that of his own. But when I think about what Stevie's story represents, I get a sense why James stayed out of certain situations. James wanted to show these stories of abuse and redemption so that it may inspire audience members who may be sharing similar experiences. I'm sure James regrets not acting during some moments, but I'm also sure he's proud of the finished project. James says that he wanted to educate people and I think he does that with "Stevie."
For the past few weeks we have been discussing the ethical dilemmas of the relationship between filmmakers and their subjects. In Leeman’s article she talks about the line between capturing the full reality of the subject and showing compassion for their subjects. In the documentary Stevie, Steve James goes back to his hometown, to rekindle his relationship with his “little brother,” Stevie. Stevie is a very complex human being, who may seem simple to most. It is hard for us to fully understand Stevie’s reasoning, because not very many of us share a life story like Stevie’s. He was abused, molested and unloved from the people that mattered.
ReplyDeleteI believe Steve James did a good job on Stevie. It is not an easy story for him to do, because he already had a close relationship with subject, Stevie, from the past growing up. In the beginning Steve James wants the documentary to rekindle their relationship, which in many ways it does. The documentary, I believe, allowed James to get closer to Stevie than anyone else has in Stevie’s life. The film also gave James a glimpse of how Stevie processes things. Stevie is very stubborn during the movie and has an interesting idea of how things should be done. But, it also makes him a little hard to work with.
As the film goes on James’ outlook on the film changes, as he realizes more and more that the film is no longer about rekindling the relationship, but just capturing the story of another subject. You see James have ethical conflicts, which jump back and forth over this line that Leeman’s article has drawn. I thought Steve James did a good job capturing the story and a good job ethically in his relationship to Stevie. Some moments the blame is on James, like the night club scene. But, I believe any filmmaker would have struggled a little ethically, when working with a subject like Stevie.
Stevie raises a lot of questions about the relationship between filmmaker and subject. Steve James, the director, decided to reconnect with his “little brother” Stevie after ten years of separation to catch up and see how his life was going. James’ first visit with Stevie was short but was later reignited a couple years later due to a serious crime Stevie committed. Steve James came back to Stevie’s hometown to document the events that followed the crime.
ReplyDeleteIn Leeman’s article “How Close Is Too Close?” she discusses instances where filmmakers help their subjects, usually in some financial way. In Stevie, James was limited with how much help he could give Stevie in his criminal situation but James’ presence did bring up the question of whether or not he was there just to capitalize on Stevie’s unfortunate situation by filming his downward spiral. Leeman’s article states that it’s only human nature to take advantage of a situation where one already has the upper hand, pretty much like James did. With the situation that James was already in, he might have felt obligated to carry on with the documentary he had already started. The crime that Stevie committed might have been a great motivation to keep filming. Throughout the documentary, it seemed as if James was constantly searching for a justified reason to continue making the film but never seemed to find it. Whether or not he ever found that reason, the final product made for an intriguing story.
There’s a major ethical dilemma at the heart of Steve James’ 2002 film “Stevie”. After serving as Stevie Fielding’s advocate big brother, Steve cuts off contact with Stevie. 10 years later, Steve returns, but now he’s a successful filmmaker and has an ulterior motive to reconnect: he wants to make a film.
ReplyDeleteThis is the crux of the ethical issue with “Stevie”. Steve James is taking advantage of his relationship with Stevie for personal gain. Stevie has no interest in starring in a documentary, he just wants to reconnect with someone he viewed as the brother he never had. Despite filming Stevie, Steve really still isn’t there for him. James, at his wife’s behest, refuses to give Stevie bail money because he doesn’t want him back out on the streets. At times James creates distance between himself and Stevie. In fact, at some points, Steve James entirely ceases to view Stevie as a friend, instead considering him to simply be a documentary subject. This is the film’s tragedy. In its worst moment, James chooses documentary truth over Stevie himself. Had James prodded Stevie to show some sort of remorse for his crime, which he surely knew was important, 4 years would have been taken off his prison sentence. He may have been too stubborn to take that advice, but he would have at least had a chance. Instead, James (apparently) does nothing, because that would be out of character. It would have been dishonest to the story.
As the article mentions, “most of us walk a fine line between being strictly observational filmmakers and compassionate human beings”. Steve is simultaneously the most important living male figure in Stevie’s life and a filmmaker attempting to tell an honest story. Ultimately, he’s only successful in the later. “Stevie” is no doubt a great film, but to me the treatment of the titular subject is certainly unethical.
In Stevie, director Steve James comes back to his childhood hometown to visit his after-school program "little brother" Stevie, who was a troubled child, after ten years of Steve James' absence from his hometown. Steve James films the interaction, and determines that Stevie is unhealthy for his children to be around, so he leaves Stevie alone for 2 years, until the troubled man finds himself in a criminal trial for child molestation.
ReplyDeleteHere is where the ethical dilemma comes in. Steve James decides to come back and film the events leading up to Stevie's trial, while reincorporating himself into Stevie's life. This leads to some ethically questionable calls by Steve James, who often times puts his documentary ahead of his friend. For instance, in one powerful scene, Steve James allows recovering alcoholic Stevie to enter a night club and drink. Of course, this ends in disaster, with Stevie drunkenly making a fool of himself. Steve James says in a voice-over that he no longer saw Stevie as a friend, but solely as a documentary subject. It's almost as if Steve James can tell how his documentary portrayed himself. He knew that putting his film first wasn't appropriate, but he did it anyway.
Janet Malcolm's quote from the article seems very appropriate when she says, "[a journalist] is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse." Steve James certainly played into Stevie's needs when he made his documentary, and in my opinion, was unethical in his treatment of his childhood friend as a documentary subject.
The article talks about walking the fine line between capturing the subject in their natural habitat and needing to help the subject or showing compassion for their predicament. The filmmaker, Steve James, was Stevie's "big brother" and goes back to reconnect with him after being separated for 10 years. Although, the sole reason for reconnecting is that he wants to make a film documenting Stevie's life.
ReplyDeleteI was impressed and kind of shocked by how James could distance himself from Stevie throughout the making of the film. It was like he was filming a person he barely even knew when James was supposedly Stevie's "big brother" and role model. I did not think it was ethical to allow the subject to get into the kind of trouble that he got into. Clearly, Stevie was a damaged individual and needed help making his way in life. I found it highly inappropriate to allow Stevie to go to the night club and drink the way he did when the filmmaker already knew that he had alcohol issues. This must have been hard for James to stand back and watch these incidents happen. My moral compass would not of allowed me to do it. In the end I think James was looking for a reason to continue filming the subject and finish his story. The film is no doubt a great one but I definitely think it was unethical how the filmmaker got the finished product.
From the very beginning of Stevie I had questioned the director Steve James. As his big brother growing up, I thought it was nice that he was going back to visit Stevie after all of those years. But why did he bring a camera and crew with him to film this reunion? What were his real intentions on filming the reunion and what was he gaining from filming the reunion? The relationship they both have is a great one, with them being close and having the relationship they had it only seems right that Steve would be in front of the camera. But throughout the film there were moments where Steve would film the situation rather than help, as if Stevie were his film subject. It almost seemed unfair to Stevie that he was being treated as a subject rather than a friend, and that Steve as the director treated him like that.
ReplyDeleteWhen the article talks about how the subject and filmer should act toward eachother and how their relationship should be. Lisa Leeman makes good points in that the filmer should remain the filmer. She also brings up the financial side of things, whether or not they should offer money to the subject if needed or if something else could be offered. Many people have their own opinions of whether or not they should offer to the subjects but I believe it should stay how is. If the filmer agrees that they will not help then I believe that should stay true, but if in Steve's case where he is friends with Stevie, then I believe it is acceptable.
Ethical conflicts are raised in the film "Stevie" between the relationship of the filmmaker and the subject throughout the film. "Stevie" is about a man named, Steve, who goes back to visit his "little brother" he had 10 years ago through a Big Brother/Big Sister program, who he left when he moved to the city. Steve decides to document the reunion only to leave shortly after to then later return 2 years later after he hears about a crime that Stevie committed. When Steve comes back the second time, we see Stevie and his life unfold after being released from jail.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, this documentary was used to as a way to rekindle the relationship they once had before Steve left. He gained Stevies trust again and was able to go through with the documentary. As you watch the film, you see Steve realizing that he didn't see Stevie as his little brother anymore, he just saw him as a subject to film for his documentary. It did bother me as I was watching the film on how he was almost okay with Stevie getting into the trouble that he did. It raises the question "How close is too close?" between fillmmaker and subject. Did Steve know he was getting too close and he had to to let Stevie make his own choices that was just giving him negative impacts on his life? Or did Steve just forget that the man he was filming was once someone important to his life and now hes just a subject for a documentary? Stevie is someone who from the beginning of childhood was just waiting for someone to hold him and love him and let know him someone cares about him and through out his whole life, hes had many disappointing moments that led him to be the man he is today. Just like most of the class agreed, I found it very unethical of the filmmaker to get what he wanted to finish the film.
I really enjoy all the works that I've seen by Steve James, this was no exception, a great documentary that will highly recommend to friends. Beginning this film, I really wondered what was James' reasoning for making this documentary. I felt Stevie was a little exploited. Yes, they have a previous relationship, but Steve James said right in the first ten minutes, "we were friends, then I left him, and haven't reached out to him in ten years." ---So Steve, what have you been doing then? Have you been gaining national attention in the world of film?
ReplyDeleteIt just rubbed me the wrong way, but alas, we push forward I tried to not it bother me any more than it already had. I feel like Janet Malcom's "morally indenfensible” term about the “kind of confidence, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse” is spot on for this particular documentary.
I am really glad Nick showed this documentary and I wish I had been in the class to participate with the ongoing in-class discussions. I think in Lisa Leeman’s “How Close Is Too Close?” she says as filmmakers, “most of us will walk a fine line between being strictly observational filmmakers and compassionate human beings?” I think that Steve James originally was a very big enabler, given his previous relationship with Stevie Fieldings. I think throughout the movie it becomes apparent Steve James really cares for this guy, but has to some how keep a safe distance and cross from the friend to filmmaker. One of my favorite scenes is the baptismal scene, It was very moving and powerful, and for a second you think he is making the change. Great film.
Watching "Stevie" raised a lot of questions for me. Specifically, of the director Steve James. In the first 10 minutes of the film it is understood that James was Stevie's "big brother" many, many years ago. James made it seem like he wanted to rekindle his relationship with his former, troubled "little brother." This was supposed to be a film about James coming back in to Stevie's life. After their brief first meeting, James left and did not return for 3 years. James only returned after a phone call with Stevie's grandmother where she told him that Stevie had been arrested for molesting his 8 year old cousin. Only then did James find it necessary to return. Did he think that after his first reunion with Stevie 3 years earlier had no cinematic value? It seems that James had changed his motives for the film after hearing of Stevie's arrest. Although I found "Stevie" very interesting, it was also very disturbing how James was taking advantage of his relationship with his "little brother," I think he got too close.
ReplyDeleteThe article states that James had told Stevie that the point of the film was to make an audience feel compassion and sympathy towards Stevie. I, honestly, just do not think that is true. I think that James knew that he could not film an interesting documentary off of his first reunion with Stevie, and took advantage of his arrest to get a film that would get attention.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film and I am happy that it was the film I was assigned to. But, I do have little respect for Steve James as a filmmaker.