The ethics of documentary film making.

[Dr Lou Natic]

The purpose of the documentary is to capture real life, its imperetive that it is raw and real. A good documentary film maker would never interfere with the happenings in front of the camera, a good documentary film maker would need to be like a machine. There are no documentary making robots yet so you have to do your best to impersonate one.

I respect this, because I respect what the documentary is supposed to be, real life, not chapperoned or policed real life. They're supposed to be a fly on the wall view of what would be happening if no camera was there. The camera is not the supervisor.

But where would you draw the line if you wer making a documentary? Would you draw a line?
I'd like to think I wouldn't, but I can definately imagine some scenario's where I would simply have to. Animal cruelty would get me, not like a primitive tribe slaughtering a goat but someone setting a dog on fire or something like that would force me to throw the camera down and attack.
But I'd sit there filming some pretty nasty shit if it was just humans involved(or JUST non-human animals).
How about you?

Also what is the law like with this? If you are a documentary film maker filming a group of people beat someone to death do you have to do something or stop filming?
I don't believe you should have to. I think you should be immune from any law or anything like that. In the eyes of the law, documentary film makers should be in the same standing as surveillance cameras. Like machines that aren't expected to be decent or 'do the right thing', just do their job which is film real life as it happens.
Your thoughts?

 

[Raithere]

Film makers have ethics? Since when?

But aside from the joke can you really standardize ethics like that? I think it would depend on the ethics of the individual person(s) involved. I can tell you what would prompt me into throwing down the camera and interfering but that's my standard. And I think that documentary makers do sometimes have a point when they state that it's more important to continue filming and make certain conditions public rather than interfering in a particular situation, a greater good scenario which is always a bit tricky.

In regards to the law, the law does not mandate that you take action to prevent a crime. However, you may have certain responsibilities as a witness and your film would definitely be counted as evidence.

~Raithere

 

[everneo]

Also what is the law like with this? If you are a documentary film maker filming a group of people beat someone to death do you have to do something or stop filming?

If someone is beaten like a dog you might spring into action.

I don't believe you should have to. I think you should be immune from any law or anything like that. In the eyes of the law, documentary film makers should be in the same standing as surveillance cameras. Like machines that aren't expected to be decent or 'do the right thing', just do their job which is film real life as it happens.
Your thoughts?

If someone rapes a girl and you document it, law may not catch you for your indiffence but you may be prosecuted for setting up a rape to document.


But you are immune from the law if you are filming any crime in a confilict / riot / crime zone.

 

[SpyMoose]

Documentariens should get special issue hats from the government to let everyone know that they are uninvolved observers, documentary film crews should also be required by law to be lobotomized, or at least whacked out on valium if they are expected to be observing and not interfering with some act of cruelty, that way, in court, they can claim that they were, in accordance with the law, unable to interfere. Cause lets face it, stuff needs to be documented, and people like tranquilizers.

 

[Mystech]

Well, in most instances I'd have to say that one should put down the camera and stop any form of cruelty they might be compelled to stop if they didn't happen to be standing there with a camera making a movie. You're a human being with values first, and a film maker second. In other words it would probably be reasonable to go run for help if you saw a woman being raped, or try to stop her attacker yourself if you thought you could take him, but if you're documenting a war, generally you'll have to fight your human urge to run the hell away, and stay an observe rather than put down the camera pick up a gun and choose a side. All within human reason, you know.

When it comes to things like a goat being slaughtered in some tribal village, I guess it comes down to your own ethics. Personally I'd think that you'd be a real ass to run in and tell a bunch of villagers that they can't slaughter a goat because it makes you uneasy, after all you're there just to observe their doings, not to shake things up. . . well unless you're trying to document how this particular tribe reacts when some jackass insists that they not kill a goat.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I agree with not interfering on the goat slaughtering. You would be a shitty documentarian if you did that.

I think it depends on the kind of documentary, like I don't know if anyone has seen "boys alone"? They set up a house and let a big group of 12 year old boys live there for a week with no supervision just to observe human behaviour under those circumstances.
The boys found a cat or something in the back yard and were throwing things at it and trying to hit it with sticks and the film makers did interfere and I think thats ok because they set this up, its not documenting real life, its an unnatural situation so they can interfere if things go wrong. Obviously if one of the boys was being badly beaten by the others they couldn't just watch. The parents didn't sign up for that, but this is different than just documenting real life that would be happening whether you were there or not.
For example a documentary about the homeless kids of romania I saw, this is what made me think of the thread, a group of girls and boys beat the crap out of one girl and the camera just kept rolling.
I was thinking like "hey camera dude maybe you should do something?" But then I thought about it and thought this is an important reality to capture to let the audience know what its like.
Its seems interfering in this instance would have been akin to pulling a lion off a zebra.
Its not the documentary filmakers place to interfere, in "boys alone" the happenings were in a way the film makers responsibility but in the romanian street kids documentary it was happening whether the camera was there or not, the whole point of the film was to show people what their lifestyle is like so whatever happens is whatever happens.

Does anyone think the film maker was wrong to watch a girl get beaten by a group of people?
I personally don't, and strangely I might not be so forgiving of a bystanding citizen. Even though it seems they are in the same position I think the film maker is only there to film, this is a part of the bystanders life and he is a part of the reality of the beating but the film maker is just an eye capturing the reality.
Make sense? No?

 

[SpyMoose]

In his own way isnt the film maker doing something about it though? Lots of people are going to see that, and although its no comfort to the girl getting beat a documentary like that can be a force that can change the whole situation that let her get beat in the first place so it dosnt happen to others like her.

That said, I think the boys alone thing is a little bit like Nazi medical experementation on Jews during WWII. Thats a horrific thing to let happen, you even feel dirty for reaping any kind of scientific benifit from that sort of situation. I think the comparison is apt because both are very artificial and potentialy cruel experements, not mearly the documentation of awful events, but the stimulation of them.