Weekly Response Week Ten

This weeks topic was documentay ethics.

As expected with discourses relating to documentary, objectivity is a common issue; and I was constantly reminded of Derrida and his discussions of our pursuit of justice, when ultimately we will never reach that utopian aim.
Real objectivity seems an unobtainable goal for filmmakers; however this is not to suggest that it shouldn't be sought. But perhaps, this idea of documentary as defined by Grierson, as the "creative treatment of acutality" seems enticing. Of course facts need not be distorted, but they can certainly be played with, and presented in new and exciting ways. Sure, talking head interviews are informative, emotiove, and engaging, but they should not be the be-all-and-end-all of the documentary mode. Though I haven't seen the film, 'Unfolding Florence' seemed really interesting.

As with many genres, the documentaries that seem the most intriguing are those that are successful in subverting the conventions. I think of something like Agnes Varda's later documentaries, 'The Gleaners' for instance. This ageing French filmmaker takes such a personal approach, and the most amazing moments occur not when she is interacting with the issue at hand, namely gleaning, but when she interacts with us, the audience. She exposes her fears, she admits her ageing for instance. One cannot help but be moved by this heartfelt, and honest approach to filmmaking. And it seems, her style couldn't be further removed from some other more didactic documentary frameworks.

There was talk in the class of the ends justifying the means in regards to the ethics of documentary ethics. This is a tricky subject. Further complicated I believe, by the fact that every case is different. In the case of the photographer of the African girl and the vulture; both sides can make valid arguments. Sure, perhaps he should have saved her instead of taking the photo; and yet, perhaps he would be more successful in saving her through taking the photo. Maybe this is why he cried. He knew how whatever he did he would probably be doing the wrong thing. What should have been a win-win situation, became a lose-lose. He took the photo; but what impact did it really have? If anything, there was more debate about the ethics of this photo than the content contained within it. Our society is saturated with images like this; perhaps whatever change they were going to impact has already been exhausted; and therefore, perhaps images like this then serve to desensitize us to the problems at hand. But say he didn't take the photo. Maybe (I stress the maybe), he would have been doing the right thing ethically, but perhaps the case for helping these nations would, in the future, be less supported.

The Good Woman of Bangkok seems a totally different situation. But is it really?
Are O'Rourke's attempts futile? What does putting it on film really achieve? Should government (and thus taxpayer) money have been spent on purhcasing Aoi a rice farm, and even more questionable, spent on O'Rourke hiring a hooker?

In art, much has been said about the benefits of the autonomy of art. That is, it's separation from the praxis of life. This is a notion championed by modernists, who turned their focus away from content and instead focused on the mediums of art practices themselves and what is magically inherent in them. Avant-garde movements felt differently and were convinced that art could impact real change in society.

Ultimately, I think film can be more successful in impacting change. There is something about the distinct 'contracts' that are entered when watching a film that differ from when you enter a gallery. Didactic messages often seem more heavy handed in art than in film; perhaps because films can incorporate more of a narrative, or perhaps because filmmakers often have more tools to, and I fear to say this, manipulate the audience; I'm thinking specifically of editing, music, recreations, interviews etc.