“Truth of the reality”- A discussion on the ethics of documentary film making.

Bill Nichols (an American film critic and theoretician) in his book ‘An Introduction to Documentary’ interestingly writes, “Every film is a documentary. Even the most whimsical of fictions gives evidence of the culture that produced it and reproduces the likenesses of the people who perform within it. In fact, we could say that there are two kinds of film: (1) documentaries of wish-fulfillment and (2) documentaries of social representation. Each type tells a story, but the stories, or narratives, are of different sorts. Documentaries of wish-fulfillment are what we would normally call fictions…Such films convey truths if we decide they do. They are films whose truths, insights, and perspectives we may adopt as our own or reject…Documentaries of social representation are what we typically call nonfiction…They give a sense of what we understand reality itself to have been…We must assess their claims and assertions, their perspectives and arguments in relation to the world as we know it and decide whether they are worthy of our belief.”

I agree but I also believe Every Film is Fiction.

Fiction is fabrication. To think non-fiction has no fabrication will be foolishness.

According to 19th century realist, exact reproduction, (without any selection) of reality is pure realism, like photography. Albert Camus didn't seem to be convinced by it as he asks a series of question regarding the nature of reality and criticizes photography as being not real enough. He also illustrates how practically impossible it would be to create and consume such realistic depiction. He concludes by saying "The only realistic artist, then, is God, if he exists. All other artists are, ipso facto, unfaithful to reality" Films cannot be made without interference and manipulation (Unless it is done in a candid way and the characters are unaware – this raises some other ethical concerns). Documentary is a film and not video journalism. Even direct Cinema, where the camera and the maker try not to manipulate, is not without certain interference. Presence of the camera itself in a place interferes with the usual & daily flow of actions – people change their behavior and become more conscious. Camera is powerful tool of spatial interference. On top of that if a director exercises ‘his right to performance’ and his interference brings a change to the actual situation, it is fabrication – it creates distortion and manipulation. There is always a difference between playing themselves and being themselves. In presence of camera people can hardly be themselves (if they are aware of it I mean). It is no more a pure non-fiction. It is a documentary with fictional elements in it. Realistically, it is almost impossible to create a pure non-fiction. However, this change in behavior can itself be documented and studied to see how reality is altered while film-making. From technical point of view, I can say, to narrate something clearly and impactfully certain amount of external interference is needed.

We know interference is unavoidable and there is also certain cinematic language one needs to adhere to so manipulation of the elements is also a part of the deal. So, what is the problem? The problem is, in audience’s mind the division exist and with it comes their believability about it. So what divides it? Where is the line? How much interference is too much interference to consider it non-fiction? When the film changes the truth of the event, person or situation for the maker’s gain or narrative structures benefit. So what?

Fiction and Non-Fiction varies just like a painting and photograph varies (Eg: A painting of a plant with black leaves might either be considered by the viewer a realistic representation or an expressionist one. That depends on the viewer’s experience and knowledge about Plants. Now if we show them a photograph of that plant, even the viewer (in most cases) who didn’t believe the painting to be real would consider that the plant with black leaves really exists. However, the plant might be a fake. This is the power of a photography – accepting things at a face value. The same idea and effect of face value works in case of genre division as well. Whenever we see the disclaimer "Based on a true story" before a film, we give a bit more credibility to scenes that seems a bit unbelievable. When the audience learns it is a documentary, the believability increases. For an audience ‘a film is a film’ concept do not always work. Even if they are not sure of the genre, certain form and style (like an unorganized or realistic look) make them more susceptible to blind belief. When we seem something that ‘looks like shot in an unorganized way’, it looks unscripted and unrehearsed thus more truthful. More then the genre tag, the believability comes from the technique of shooting.

When we pass fictional elements (that holds a bearing on the understanding of truth) under the veil of Non-fiction,(because of the concept: truth by association). we might take away the power of the audience to question the situation and understand the truth. An authenticity of situation which might have been questioned otherwise, when placed under the tag of non-fiction, can probably go unquestioned here. ‘Non-fictions’ enjoys certain power, with these powers comes the responsibility of representing the truth. And that brings us to the idea of Ethics.

Edward R. Murrow (American broadcast journalist and war correspondent) once said, ‘‘Anyone who believes that every individual film must represent a ‘balanced’ picture knows nothing about either balance or pictures.’’

Documentaries by its nature is representational. It represents and argues either in favor or against (and at times do both – an effort to create ‘balance’) of a person, group, institute, activity etc. Most documentaries through its presentation and arguments tries to modify our stand and win us over. Representation of anything can never be like the ‘original’ thing itself. The makers bias will always seep in and taint it. But how much of it is tainted is a major concern. This gives rise to a discussion on the ethics of documentary film making.

Why it is important to discuss about the ethics for non-fiction? Why do fiction get more ‘free-pass’ ethically than non-fiction: Firstly, Non-fiction represents real characters and events (biopic is a dramatized presentation of real-life people so it gets certain amount of free pass) in a supposedly non-dramatic way. Secondly, Non-Fiction are granted a certain level of believability from the start.

Authentic and truthful (as truthful as a human being can subjectively perceive and reproduce) representation is what sets the non-fiction apart from fiction. Ethics are considered to avoid misrepresentation and mistreatment of the people and the ideas involved. However, defining what is ethical is tricky.

Suppose, the interviewee has a stutter. The film-maker/editor for aesthetic purpose removes that stutter (as much as possible). The interviewee on watching that might react in 2 ways: 1. Being embarrassed of his stutter for entire life, he might feel glad that on screen at-least, in front of stranger audience his speech sounds good and that no one will know about his speech problem. 2. On the other hand, the person might feel that by editing out his stutter (which is a part of him), they are not representing him correctly and also making him feel that his stutter is an unacceptable thing in the ‘normal’ world, making him feel more conscious and disturbed. How individuals will react will depend on who they are. And that would define whether cutting out that stutter was ethical or not. There is no rule book containing the terms of (at-least here), it is variable situation and can only be decided by the people involved in it.

Is making someone sit in front of a camera (a tool of power) and asking them to narrate and relive their sordid moments and then selling those moments for riches or fame exploitation? Is this crossing any boundary? I think most of us would say, ‘yes’. But what if the person wants to bare his/her soul, wants to have a voice to share that story? What if she/he chose it? In these cases, the subject alone can decide the boundary. When it comes to the ethics regarding the treatment and exploitation of the characters or the issue, a third person- which is the audience - cannot decide and nor do the director has the right to conclude. As far as ethics is concerned, crossing the boundary and exploiting is unethical (as believed by a collective human society). Because these boundaries are varied and dependent on people and situation, it is hard to say which practices are ethical and which are unethical. Most importantly, the film-maker even though should possess her/his own set of ethics (which will be unique or different than others), she/he should never give the verdict on whether he/she made his film ethically or not. That power should solely stay with the subjects and characters of the film. Imagine, if we had a film-maker who think it is ethical to kill certain people and kills it for his film. Does that make it ethical?

Now there is another part of the ethics: the presentation of truth. When you say you are making a documentary, you are responsible towards not only the people or event you represent but also the person to whom you are representing it. You owe them the truth atleast the truth as you understood it. So knowingly manipulating the truth for you personal gain should be considered unethical.