When examining the ethics of documentary filmmaking, we must first address the genre's inherent paradox: while striving for authenticity and truth, documentary films are conceived by artifice. Contrary to spectacle-driven storytelling, which often involves complex forms of story structure and sound design, the documentary style presents itself as a non-fictional storytelling device that seeks to capture reality for education and historical record. However, all forms of filmmaking involve artificial sources in some way or another. Camera angles, editing techniques, and even lenses all contribute to how a story presents itself and are deliberate choices made by the filmmaker.
American film critic Bill Nichols attributes the rhetoric behind documentary films in his article The Voice of Documentary to indirect commentary. He argues that the legitimacy of documentary films is independent of impartiality, but rather its unobstructive delivery and style. As such, documentary cinema creates experiences so natural that story manipulation is often made invisible. Here lies a contradiction between the perceived realness and ethical concerns surrounding a filmmaker's representation of truth, which poses the question: does ethical documentary filmmaking exist? If so, how do we achieve it?
This question is not merely rhetorical, as ethical standards in filmmaking have been heavily debated. Whereas ethical guidelines operate within every central institutional framework, such as law, politics, medicine or even journalism, documentary filmmakers as a collective have rarely examined ethical codes. However, as an endeavor directly involves individuals, often drawing from their lives in unfiltered and personal ways, documentary ethical guidelines are essential for ensuring responsible interaction and representation.
Doctors, politicians, and journalists are held to the standards of their respective professions, facing consequences for violations. These codes serve dual purposes: safeguarding the interests of the professional community from external interference and ensuring the well-being of individuals who interact with these professionals. Although there are no explicit ethical guidelines in filmmaking, ethical dilemmas frequently arise for documentary filmmakers, emphasizing the need for ethical considerations in their practice. Due to documentary films being an interruptive art form, imposing a singular set of moral standards would be unrealistic. Thus, a functioning ethical framework for documentary filmmaking should enable us to confront the prevailing ethical issue - the power imbalances between filmmakers and their subjects and audience. By viewing documentary films as an artistic endeavor, ethical conduct should be applied and achieved through the principle of trust and responsibility rather than a standard set of moral laws.
Before discussing the ethical principles underlying documentary filmmaking, it is essential to differentiate the terms "truth, authenticity and transparency." As contemporary filmmaking continues to blur the boundaries between documentary and fiction, filmmakers face persistent inquiries regarding the concept of documentary "truth." Documentary films create emotions that hold "a sense of authenticity" (Blumenberg 19). This form of authenticity can be achieved through the qualities of legitimacy and significance. Legitimacy can be best understood as something existing or occurring, manifesting in many ways. Whether a person is falling off a bike or a building is collapsing, legitimacy is established when the lens of a camera documents this action. This legitimacy is then made significant by the fact that it has been captured, or in other words, given purpose and meaning. Likewise, transparency ensures that a filmmaker's facts are accurate and verifiable.
Documentary films often delve into contemporary subjects and institutions while frequently inviting viewers to participate in public discourse. Despite this commonality, the definition of the genre also remains a topic of extensive debate and varied interpretation. While David Borwell and Kristin Thompson, in Film Art: An Introduction, characterize documentary as presenting factual information, John Grierson defines the genre as a "creative treatment of actuality." One universally accepted understanding, however, is that documentaries are a form of art - imbued with inescapable intention and subjectivity. What this means is that in the realm of film, the concept of "truth" is shaped by its presentation. This principle applies whether one is arranging images for a narrative film or selecting them for a documentary. A change in camera angle can alter the perception of the action. Likewise, a change in perspective can alter the interpretation. The cause and effects of each aesthetic technique used in filmmaking, regardless of intention, are produced by manipulation and, in turn, raise ethical considerations.
Documentaries operate under the assumption of "an implied contract of trust" between filmmakers and viewers, which entails the faithful portrayal of cinematic reality (Otway 8 ). There are many significant decisions that both filmmakers and viewers encounter, all of which compromise authenticity in documentary filmmaking. The first significant choice begins with the selection of a subject matter. Documentary filmmakers often choose subject matters in favor of their argument based on their perception of what the audience will resonate with. The next choice is how to document the subject matter. Filmmakers will use specific camera angles and movements to give the images an arbitrary sense of reality and "hence give a false feeling of authenticity" (Blumenberg 20). The third choice is more deliberate, and it is the decision to portray the subject's private moments or "penetrate the layers of protective devices" (Blumenberg 20). This selection calls on the filmmaker to balance the desire for authenticity with respecting individual privacy.
Furthermore, post-production manipulations through editing, sound design, and selective focus can all distort authenticity by enhancing certain actions. Put differently, a filmmaker's biases and preconceived judgments of an event will naturally influence the post-production process. Finally, a filmmaker could tailor their films to cater to specific audiences, which American philosopher and critic Hazel Barnes calls "playing to the group" (Blumenberg 20). In other words, when a film projects expectations and reactions from its audience, it unconsciously breaches authenticity.
These choices raise ethical questions and can be used as a criterion to judge authenticity. As a result, documentary filmmaking operates as a form of "rhetorical art" that persuades rather than just conveying information (Nichols, “Speaking Truths with Film” 155). Whether seeking to offer a poetic, fresh perspective on the world or advancing a political agenda, documentaries function as a persuasive medium where the emphasis lies in the tone or general mood of the film. While it may seem that any means are justifiable as long as they achieve the desired outcome, the concept of decorum suggests that not all rhetorical principles are "aesthetically suitable or ethically permissible" (Nichols, “Introduction to Documentary” 156).
Although often linked with persuasion and manipulation, rhetoric is not inherently unethical. In fact, rhetorical situations in documentary filmmaking employ expressive methods that mirror prevalent social assumptions, expectations, values and beliefs. These societal norms serve as the bedrock of a community, but various values and assumptions may coexist in a diverse society, resulting in disagreements. Therefore, ethics in documentary filmmaking should establish boundaries and ensure that these persuasive techniques are employed in a manner consistent with moral principles that rely on a mutually agreed sense of trust.
In practical terms, a code of ethics in documentary filmmaking must prioritize the well-being of two key groups: the film subjects, often referred to as social actors, who "play themselves without inhibiting self-consciousness," and the audience members (Nichols, “The Voice of Documentary” 20). While legal consent through release forms typically governs the use of the subject's image, there are no formal contracts outlining rights and responsibilities regarding the audience. Ethical guidelines should emphasize the importance of respecting both the subject and the viewer as autonomous individuals, ensuring that their relationship with the filmmaker is not characterized by "expedience, deception, or abuse" (Nichols,“Introduction to Documentary” 158). When considering the film subject, the ethical dimension intersects significantly with power dynamics.
For example, many documentary filmmakers have succeeded at the expense of the misfortune of others, leading to questions about the treatment of subjects and their portrayal as victims. British journalist Brian Winston has outwardly spoken about the "tradition of victim" in documentaries prominent in journalist reporting. Likewise, the relationship between filmmakers and their subjects can be similar in fashion and may resemble that of a dictator and their subjects. This potentially harmful alliance prompts reflection on the voluntary limits of a subject's dignity and rights, a prevalent issue raised in 1930s documentary films. As noted by Winston, British documentary filmmakers during the Great Depression adopted "a romantic view" of their working-class subjects (Nichols, “Introduction to Documentary” 159). Rather than portraying workers as individuals with agency, documentaries depicted workers as victims needing external intervention. For instance, in the 1935 film Housing Problems, slum residents were given interviews to voice their experiences. Although this marked a groundbreaking achievement as it was the first time workers were heard on British television, their voices were presented submissively- as if they were pleading for help.
Here, the portrayal of workers in a poetic light, under the guise of social concerns, is harmful as it continues to marginalize their agency, depriving them of equal standing with the filmmaker. The filmmaker retained complete control over their representations, leaving little room for genuine collaboration. This trend was particularly evident among the professional cohort of filmmakers, such as John Grierson, who adhered to their own ethical standards and institutional directives. This approach persisted over several years, resulting in workers being cast as central subjects of documentaries yet depicted as pitiful figures. As such, a valuable ethical code in a documentary must protect the power dynamics between a director and his subject.
While the filmmaker constructs the narrative, the documentary tradition assumes that the depicted events are rooted in factual and historical reality. Consequently, the cinematic narrator is viewed as a witness testifying to these real-life occurrences. This poses an additional challenge for documentary filmmakers dealing with unreliable narrators, as they must uphold their credibility while ensuring the portrayal of reliability within the narrative. The primary concern is for audience members to acknowledge the existence of an unreliable narrator. In fictional films, the implied author cannot be unreliable since they are the creators of their own reality. However, the relationship between story events and the real world is much more direct in documentary filmmaking. When examining director-audience relations, ethical considerations revolve around the accuracy of representatives, making filmmakers responsible as moral narrators.
Misrepresentation, for instance, can happen when a director irresponsibly relays false information to their audience. This is common through archival footage and reenactments of historical footage. The placement of archival footage can become intertwined with reenactments, making the two indistinguishable to the audience. One controversial documentary, Triumph of the Will, directed by Leni Riefenstahl, orchestrated a spectacle to capture the Nuremberg rally for the film. Furthermore, many scenes were reshot and combined with archival footage to create a seamless arrival sequence for Hitler. This documentary deceives viewers into believing the authenticity of historical representation and is often denounced by many as "carefully contrived propaganda" (Hinton 48). Although Triumph of the Will is the official document for the Nuremberg party rally, it raises issues on contemporary documentary standards. Appropriately utilizing archival footage can be contentious, as there are no definitive standards prevailing in contemporary practice. Accordingly, reenactments and archival footage should be used in a way where viewers and directors feel a mutually susceptible sense of trust.
Consequently, the quality of trust cannot be "legislated, proposed, or promised" (Nichols, “Introduction to Documentary” 158 ). An ethical code in a documentary must aim to foster and uphold trust, going beyond the requirements of contracts, production codes, or rating systems. It should prompt filmmakers to consider how they engage with subjects and viewers to earn trust in face-to-face interactions and mediated communication. Such an ethical code addresses the power dynamics between filmmakers, subjects and audiences, emphasizing principles like informed consent to respect the boundaries of subjects and cultivate trust among viewers. In essence, a guiding principle might advocate for actions that uphold subjects' humanity. Although this principle may seem vague, it raises questions about what compromises, trusts or violates someone's dignity. This vagueness reflects the contextual nature of ethics in documentary filmmaking, which is shaped by historical circumstances. While definitions in the documentary itself may be ambiguous, they reflect the evolving nature of documentary conventions and standards. Hence, it is crucial to recognize that creativity, justifications, and truth in documentary filmmaking can take various forms, and ethical considerations must adapt to these changes.
Ultimately, ethical documentary filmmaking can exist, but not in the conventional sense governed by rigid laws. The ethical landscape of documentary filmmaking is complex and characterized by a delicate balance between authenticity and artifice. The paradox of the genre lies in its pursuit of achieving authenticity while simultaneously defying it. While ethical guidelines are crucial in navigating the power dynamics between directors, subjects and audience, they must be flexible to accommodate the evolving conventions of the documentary genre. Thus, trust emerges as a central tenant in ethical documentary practice, transcending mere contractual agreements or institutional mandates. It requires filmmakers to engage with subjects and viewers in ways that foster mutual respect and transparency. By fostering this principle, directors can navigate the ethical complexities inherent in their craft, ensuring responsible storytelling.
Work Cited
BLUMENBERG, RICHARD M. “Documentary Films and the Problem of ‘Truth.’” Journal of the University Film Association, vol. 29, no. 4, 1977, pp. 19–22. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20687386. Accessed 2 Mar. 2024.
Hall, Jeanne. “Realism as a Style in Cinema Verite: A Critical Analysis of ‘Primary.’” Cinema Journal, vol. 30, no. 4, 1991, pp. 24–50, https://doi.org/10.2307/1224885. Accessed 2 March. 2024.
Hinton, David B. “‘Triumph of the Will’: Document or Artifice?” Cinema Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, 1975, pp. 48–57. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1225104. Accessed 2 Mar. 2024.
Nichols, Bill. “HOW HAVE DOCUMENTARIES ADDRESSED SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
ISSUES?” Introduction to Documentary, Third Edition, 3rd ed., Indiana University Press, 2017, pp. 159–93. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt2005t6j.12. Accessed 2 Mar. 2024.
NICHOLS, BILL. “Documentary Ethics: Doing the Right Thing.” Speaking Truths with Film: Evidence, Ethics, Politics in Documentary, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2016, pp. 154–63. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctv1wxtcp.22. Accessed 2 Mar. 2024.
Nichols, Bill. “The Voice of Documentary.” Film Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, 1983, pp. 17–30, https://doi.org/10.2307/3697347. Accessed 2 March. 2024.
Otway, Fiona. “The Unreliable Narrator in Documentary.” Journal of Film and Video, vol. 67, no. 3–4, 2015, pp. 3–23. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5406/jfilmvideo.67.3-4.0003. Accessed 2 Mar. 2024.
PRYLUCK, CALVIN. “Ultimately We Are All Outsiders: The Ethics of Documentary Filming.” Journal of the University Film Association, vol. 28, no. 1, 1976, pp. 21–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20687309. Accessed 2 March. 2024.
Comments