In non-fiction filmmaking, the pesky question of “are you altering or influencing the truth by filming?” unavoidably comes up. This becomes more relevant when the filmmakers have the opportunity to become part of the film. Cameras record truth, so does stepping in front of the camera to intervene or interact with the subjects of the film create an ethical issue of manipulating the truth? In Man Bites Dog, were Remy, Andre, and the rest of the crew culpable of some ethical misstep from the moment they appeared in their own documentary, even before they partook in the crimes?
I don’t think so. Because to me, becoming part of the film doesn’t somehow obscure the truth; it just creates a new truth. You now are part of your own subject, and you may be changing the direction the film goes, but I don’t see that as unethical.
I keep thinking of the movie Broadcast News. It portrays an ethical dilemma that is similar to the question at hand, of altering the truth in non-fiction, and in this case, I think it’s absolutely unethical. One of the reporters, Tom, is doing an interview with a subject, a one-camera operation that keeps the focus on her. Tom tears up at one point when the subject is talking, and afterwards, repositions the camera on himself and makes himself cry. He cuts the footage together so that in the final product, while the woman is talking we see him cry, for the purpose of trying to evoke more emotion from the audience. In this instance, he was inserting himself into his non-fiction work and really was altering the truth—because what he inserted didn’t actually occur at the time he is pretending it did, and he’s doing it to manipulate. But in a documentary like the one supposedly being made in Man Bites Dog, the filmmakers are part of the world within the frame, so I wouldn’t say they’re altering the truth they’re recording—they are the truth they’re recording.
But what if you’re completely acting as a third-party witness (as much as that can be done following a subject with a camera), and something happens that you have a choice to respond to or not—the subject gets hurt, commits a crime, etc. Do you have a responsibility to step in? For me, because the realm is non-fiction—real life—then you’re really you, and you have the ethical responsibilities of a human being, not just those belonging to the subset of filmmaker. I’m imagining a scenario: say I was filming a documentary about some guy’s life, not interacting with him at all, just being a presence. It’s me, the guy, and a camera in a room, and the guy has a heart attack. You can bet your bottom dollar and the bottom dollar of your best friend that I would step out from behind the tripod and do what I could to help him, even if that’s making me part of the world of the film. What it comes down to is that it’s just a movie. Maybe it would make a great dramatic arc for the guy to die on camera, but if I’m just a girl behind a camera in the same reality as this guy, I don’t see how the connection and responsibility can be ignored.
And let's get real: a world in which people don’t go to the aid of others in times of need isn’t one I’d want to document, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment