The role of documentaries in the modern society has expanded with the introduction of new technologies, and expertise. A lot has also changed in global demographics. For instance, according to a study, millennials are more likely to learn a new social issues than any other age group. Advances in technology have allowed for ease in production, distribution, and access to documentaries. This trend has also occurred throughout the film industry, and further created more tension between fiction, and nonfiction films (Schlachter, 2009). The roles and issues that each genre has focused on has greatly narrowed, while more genres have been introduced.
According to Nichols, cinema can only be “true” when it is a documentary because they convey real impressions, make accurate proposals, mount arguments, and offer specific perspectives. There is tension between documentary, and non-documentary cinema that originates from their unique traits. This work examines the relationship between documentary and non-documentary cinema on issues related to modern ethical problems. It finds support for Nichols’ view that cinema can only be “true” when it is documentary, but also documents inherent limitations associated with this perspective.
Documentary Cinema
In the words of Ann-Loiuse Shapiro, a documentary filmmaker, “the essential claim that traditional documentary films make is that there are unmediated facts because there is no script” (Cagle, 2012). Nichols (2010) refers to this as the “truth” in cinema; the absence of mediated scripts that distort materials, and the audience. Traditional documentary films are made to present facts, in a nonbiased way that allows the audience to use the information in their own ways. Nichols has taken the view that cinema can only be “true” where such an approach of unbiased filmmaking is used. The use, and presentation, of information in ways and means that are preferred by individual filmmakers limits access to truth.
Through a claim to truth remains as the focus of most documentaries, the scope of this type of cinema has expanded and the line between documentary and narrative blurred. It has become more common for ‘documentaries’ to make use of fiction and non-fiction elements. In turn, this has raised ethical questions. It obligated filmmakers to continuously make decisions on the extent of mediation that is appropriate. There have been multiple aesthetic choices on representation of characters. The issue of ethical consideration is not new in documentary; aesthetic assumptions have always had ethical consequences. In recent years, concerns about ethics in documentary film have intensified because of the lack of common standards, and significant changes that have occurred in the industry (Cagle, 2012).
Non-Documentary Cinema
Many of the ethical concerns associate with documentary cinema are non-existent in non-documentary cinema. They are different genres of cinema that make use of distinctive approaches to fulfilling their intended purpose. Unlike documentary cinema, non-documentary cinema is less constrained, and can take many various forms. in fact, this genre of cinema is considerably larger than documentary cinema. It takes many forms, and aims to meet multiple goals (Cagle, 2012). Conversely, documentary films are all aimed at providing “true” information that is unscripted.
The unrestricting nature of non-documentary cinema has partly contributed to the development of more tension with documentary cinema. Specifically, the emphasis on ethics has been intended to distinguish documentary and non-documentary cinema. There has been the need to implement stricter regulations that have to be met for a film to be categorized as a documentary. This line has been blurred by significant development in the industry, among other reasons. According to Nichol (2010), cinema should only be considered as “true” when it is documentary. This further emphasizes the need to implement a clear distinction between the two genres of cinema.
Ethical Problems
Concerns about ethics in documentary film have existed for decades. In recent years, these concerns have been intensified by a number of factors that include drastic changes in the cinema industry, and the lack of a common standard of ethical reference. Changes in the cinema industry in recent years have necessitated a clearer distinction between the two genre of cinema. Filmmakers have continually overlooked traditional distinctions by setting out to redefine them (Sanders, 2010). This has caused a challenge of identifying the “true”, from the “untrue”. Since there are no common standards in the industry that distinguish genres, documentary filmmakers have set out to develop ethical practices that should be applicable to all cinematic efforts.
Most documentary filmmakers agree that the main focus of the genre should remain the ‘claim to truth’. The extent to which aesthetic choices, and other cinematic techniques should be applied remains a contentious issue. The main issue associated with ethics in documentary cinema is because there is no consensus on a common set of standards that can define the genre. The challenge of creating frames of reference lies in the relationship between documentary and journalism. Both forms of films share common elements.
Responsibility to Subjects
A major ethical concern in modern documentary cinema is the responsibility that filmmakers have for their subjects. According to Nichols (2010), documentary cinema is “an institutional practice” with rules and constraints that have been developed over time. With major changes in the cinema industry, it is difficult to distinguish the social institution identified by Nichols. Further, the strong documentary foundations that constitute a standards of ethics are not clearly defined. However, this is the distinction that sets documentary cinema from fiction. These requirements emphasis the ‘true’ nature of documentaries because of an elaborate ethical foundation that focuses on firm institutional practices.
Journalism and Documentary
Nichols (1992) views the relationship between documentary and the news as derivative. This view presents documentaries to be similar to the news because both genres aim to inform the audience by providing truth. Because of this correlation, the news platform has been used in various instances as a vehicle to develop ethics in documentary film because of their inherent similarities. Both represent reality and observe the need to tell the truth. This view suggests that the genre of documentary cinema has for long been taking from journalism. There is no clear correlation between fiction and the news. As a result, ethical practices used in either genres is distinctive.
There are problems associated with this approach to understanding documentary film. The most significant challenge is that it obligates documentary filmmakers to adopt journalistic standards and codes of ethics. although this may present a number of benefits, it also poses a lot of challenges. Documentary film is broad, and surpasses the narrow journalistic standards. By forming an attitude that develops a correlation between documentary film and journalistic standards, it limits the scope for the performance of the varied and extensive nature of the documentary genre. It hence re-stages and evokes additional ethical challenges.
Situational Ethics
In search for specialized code of ethics for the documentary genre of cinema, some scholars have resorted to situational ethics. situational ethics can be categorized as forming part of greater utilitarianism. This ethical approach revolves around the idea of pleasure. It means that an act is immoral if it causes displeasure and pain on the subjects. Conversely, acts that result in optimal pleasure and least amount of pain are considered as moral. Situational ethics hold that pleasure and pain should not only help define actions, but also to establish whether they are appropriate and moral (Sanders, 2010).
Modifications have been introduced to advance the applicability of situational ethics in documentary film. John Stuart Mill focused on the original utilitarianism model by explaining that ethical practice should entail comparing the general consequences of all relevant agents before establishing the greatest good. In essence, situational ethics is utilitarianism but modifies the pleasure principle based on individual situations. It accepts the view that the end justifies the means, but the means cannot justify themselves (Sanders, 2010). This is because the model only acknowledges a foreseeable consequence as the only way to develop ethical meaning.
Consequentialist Ethics
Some consequentialists have opposed the view that all values can be reduced to a single ground such as pleasure and pain. As a result, they have presented a more pluralistic theory of value. This has been attributed to the realization that a variety of value influence consequentialist’s value against others. People have different values and attitudes towards others. Consequentialists cite this as the limitation of situational ethics (Sanders, 2010). Further, they explain that many values cannot be effectively evaluated or compared to others. Because of this, consequentialists recognize the possibility of irresolvable moral dilemmas. Though there are various points of consensus, there are also many divergent ideas on ethics between situational and consequentialist perspectives.
Filmmaker may decide to assess values differently. Such filmmakers may have to rank their responsibilities to their subjects and audiences. Some scholars deliberate that the greatest responsibility is towards documentary subjects because of the weighty consequences of representation. Hence, documentary filmmakers should prioritize their obligation to minimizing harms to participants. This view informs the issue from a distinctive stance that pays priority to individuals based on specified ethical models as compared to the application of generic models to resolve all moral issues in the production of a documentary film. It focuses on the potential consequences of actions (Sanders, 2010).
‘True’ Cinema
Documentary cinema’s rhetoric of nonintervention has allowed for a naïve stance of unmediated access to ‘truth’. Some scholars have argued against this view as fictional, and unattainable because it fails to recognize the realities of the production process. For instance, documentary production requires the interaction with unfamiliar subjects which ultimately alters routine; cameras may influence subject’s acts and hence representation. In Nichols’ depiction of documentary, there is emphasis on the ‘true’ nature of such cinema. According to this view, it is virtually impossible to attain ‘true’ cinema because of the many variables that affect the subjects.
However, Nichols (2010) in Introduction to Documentary acknowledges that documentary film have an impact of the subjects. He defines the documentary genre as an act of reorientation that has consequences for those represented. It is a diverging notion from the initial view that documentary is the only ‘true’ form of cinema. It questions the reality that documentary can remain unmediated like in the case of non-documentary cinema. With this in mind, it becomes more challenging to understand the distinction that is drawn between ‘true’ and ‘untrue’ cinema. In the case that documentary film is mediated, and affects the represented, it also loses the element of being ‘true’.
Consequentialist views take either stances of support and justify utilitarian approach to documentary film. This means that they support the principles of minimizing pain while maximizing pleasure. A significant argument made by scholars to distinguish documentary from fiction is that filmmakers are not free in their decision making. This supports the view that such filmmakers only report what they observe, and not what they want to observe. In such conditions, a situational approach to ethical conduct offers flexibility and attention to the themes and details in the documentary. Situational ethics allows for the use of specific tools and methods of production that relies on each concrete situation.
Summary
According to Nichols, cinema can only be “true” when it is a documentary because they convey real impressions, make accurate proposals, mount arguments, and offer specific perspectives. The essential claim that traditional documentary films make is that there are unmediated facts because there is no script There is tension between documentary, and non-documentary cinema that originates from their unique traits. This work examines the relationship between documentary and non-documentary cinema on issues related to modern ethical problems. It finds support for Nichols’ view that cinema can only be “true” when it is documentary, but also documents inherent limitations associated with this perspective.
Most documentary filmmakers agree that the main focus of the genre should remain the ‘claim to truth’. The main issue associated with ethics in documentary cinema is because there is no consensus on a common set of standards that can define the genre. The challenge of creating frames of reference lies in the relationship between documentary and journalism.
Nichols (1992) views the relationship between documentary and the news as derivative. This means documentaries are similar to news because both genres aim to inform the audience by providing truth. Because of this correlation, the news platform has been used in various instances as a vehicle to develop ethics in documentary film because of their inherent similarities. Both represent reality and observe the need to tell the truth. This view suggests that the genre of documentary cinema has for long been taking from journalism. There is no clear correlation between fiction and the news. As a result, ethical practices used in either genres is distinctive.
Consequentialism views take either stances of support and justifying the utilitarian approach to documentary film. It supports the principles of minimizing pain whilst maximizing pleasure. An important argument made by scholars to distinguish documentary from fiction is that filmmakers are not free in their decision making. This supports the view that such filmmakers only report what they observe, and not what they want to observe. In such conditions, a situational approach to ethical conduct offers flexibility and attention to the themes and details in the documentary.
*Cagle, C. (2012). Postclassical Nonfiction: Narration in the Contemporary Documentary. Cinema Journal, 52(1), 45-65.
*Nichols, B. (1992). Representing reality. Indiana University Press, 1992.
*Nichols, B. (2010). Introduction to Documentary, Second Edition. Indiana University Press.
*Sanders, W. (2010). Documentary Filmmaking and Ethics: Concepts, Responsibilities, and the Need for Empirical Research. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 528-553
*Schlachter, C. T. (2009). The New Transformation of the Public Sphere: Discourse through Documentary. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 87-98.