Ethics in documentaries

Derived from the Greek word ‘ethos’, which means ‘way of living’, ethics is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with human conduct, more specifically the behaviour of individuals in society. Ethics examines the rational justification for our moral judgments; it studies what is morally right or wrong, just or unjust. (Government of Canada, 2015) 

But what are ethics in relation to documentary filmmaking? According to Garnet and Butchart, (Garnet C. Burtchart, 2019) there are three common themes that can be identified: otherness, form, and digital techniques. 

The first theme, otherness, understood in terms of the relation between image-maker and subject, has been approached recently in innovative ways. One example of such an approach is Cooper, (Cooper, 2012) he discussed the existential issue or mortality, shared by image-maker and subject, as a point of convergence, rather than separation. 

Transfinite (Transfinite, 2019) 

Shinjuku Boys (Shinjuku Boys, 1995) 

The second theme, form, is called for by Formenti (Formenti, 2014). Reconsidering the questions of verisimilitude in light of animated docudramas, which she suggested is the sincerest form of documentary because of its ‘flagrant declaration of constructedness’. 

Flee (Flee, 2021) 

Waltz with Bashir (Waltz with Bashir, 2008) 

The third theme in recent documentary ethic scholarships is digital techniques. New ethical questions are raised regarding veracity during filming and during the editing process, such as the superimposing of images or layering of media. (Fallon, 2013) 

The Great Hack (The Great Hack, 2019) 

iHuman (iHuman, 2019) 

The different considerations of ethics 

The interviews conducted were part of a course on documentary filmmaking, the objective of which was to promote critical understanding of the process of that media tradition. 

Interviewers were required to gather information written about the film discussed, and to connect that information to academic sources related to documentary cinema. The intended learning outcome of the project was a new analytic tool, namely interviewing, to help build student understanding of the process of professional documentary filmmaking. 

The eight decision-making issues that emerged from the filmmaker testimony (respect, endangerment, law, artistic choice, and creative freedom, inclusion and exclusion of content, objectivity, attracting audiences, and truth) present significant ethical problems vis-à-vis audio-visual communication. These issues, and the ethical thematics raised by the reflections, are provisional, overlapping, and, at times, conflicting. They are fluid, not rigid.  

What we learn most of all from the filmmaker testimony is that respect of participants-the most basic and intuitive theme in the ethics of documentary filmmaking-involves decisions not only about respectful treatment of participants, but also the establishment of mutually beneficial relationships between participants and documentarians in the filmmaking process. 

“There were many instances where I wanted to achieve a certain effect, but I had to stop myself and refrain from shooting that scene. For example, before those Jews flew Yemen, they packed their belongings and the woman started to cry. The cinematographer was there at the moment she began to cry. This was hard for me to take, and I told him to back off. So, one of the rules was to observe some rules of decency. In the event, we ended up shooting her from a great distance. I’m not sure you can even see it in the movie. We distanced ourselves so as to not infringe on her privacy, even though we had to be there.” (Gilady, 2003) 

Reflections on decisions about the respectful treatment of participants, exemplified by these statements, extends to the issue of care when considering the more extreme, and in the case of Israel, urgent, problem of the potential for participant endangerment. 

The issue of care, as revealed by the filmmaker interviews, involves ethical decisions in the face of the possibility of participant harm not only during a documentary project, but also after its completion, when a documentary film or video is released and becomes available for public consumption. 

“I knew what emotional effect each scene would have on the Israeli public, but my only commitment was to the story. In any case, there was no mention of any Israeli victims in the film. If any of the women mentioned a name, I would not include it in the film. If a viewer who has lost a loved one in a terrorist attack watches Caira’s story, that viewer’s life is not in danger. He or she already knows the identity of the perpetrator. When deciding what to include in the film, I had to consider how it might impact the prisoners; those women could be murdered, or their daughter could be at risk.” (Assoulin, 2008) 

To reiterate, what is at stake with regard to participant care is not only decisions about interpersonal respect in the present moment of filming but also decisions concerning the enduring impact of a documentary film and actions potentially precipitated by it. 

The legal code of a specific filming location and a documentary filmmaker’s decision to uphold it presents a significant ethical decision-making issue. As professionals who support the principle of democracy and chose to abide by regulations of the locations within which they work, the documentarians interviewed unanimously believed that acting according to the law, for instance with regard to privacy and prohibitions of filming without permission, is a priority. 

“When I am armed with a camera, everything is permissible to me. Without a camera on my shoulder, my point of view is equivalent to that of everyone else. When I use the camera, the only rule I observe is not to break the law. Beyond that, everything is acceptable.” (Vloch, sd) 

The ethical decision there, which meets with potentially politically motivated intentions, is how to balance institutional demands with professional/creative demands to do justice to the complexities of a topic. 

As just indicated, of critical relevance to the challenge of building mutually beneficial relationships among participants and filmmakers while working within the legal framework of a location is the artistic choice and creative freedom of a project’s director. The director is a storyteller. He or she engages in the practice of factual filmmaking because of something he or she wishes to say about the world, and to bring perspective on issues that may lead to improved conditions of life within it. Reflection on decisions about artistic choice and creative freedom in that regard are therefore central to the process of ethically-oriented documentary filmmaking. 

“There is a tension, a very delicate balance, between being led by the characters, being their mouthpiece, and standing up to them while at the same time not creating something that they won’t want to watch afterwards. I can discuss this today, but I am not sure how to achieve it, and each time you make a film, it is a different story. Building trust, having a firm position, that’s what it takes. (Geva, sd) 

Decisions must obviously be made in the documentary filmmaking process of selecting visual, audio, and textual content to appear on screen. Based on testimonials about that process, we divide this decision-making issue into two parts: (a) inclusion and exclusion of screen content during filming and (b) inclusion and exclusion of screen content during editing. First, with regard to inclusion and exclusion of audio, visual, and/or textual content during filming, the following two testimonial reflections typify and sufficiently highlight how professional documentary filmmakers are acutely aware of the ethical implications of this part of the production process. 

“There were things I did not include in the movie, not because I thought they wouldn’t be effective, but becauseI feared they might offend my interviewees. Sometimes you have other objectives in making a movie, in which case you may not care. ... Here my aim was different, and I was very careful to protect the respect and reputation of my protagonists, not to show them in the worst light and in unfavorable circumstances. For example, there are scenes where Nurit throws up. I could have easily shown. ... Her dying scene is on record too. What more could I show?” (Lev-Ari, sd) 

What can be heard in much of the filmmaker reflections is that the process of including and excluding audio-visual content is closely related both to the issue of artistic/creative freedom and of treating participants respectfully. However, once the inclusion and exclusion of content is identified as being a unique part of the ethical decision-making process, our approach to understanding documentaries changes significantly. Focus shifts from the content and accuracy of a story and what it means, to a focus on the actions and processes of assembling and telling it, which in most documentaries is often invisible and/or inaudible on screen. In so doing, questions about the communicative power of documentaries to produce visible knowledge about the world, and the ethical-political implications of employing that power, are raised to the level of discourse (put squarely into view) for practical-professional and scholarly-interpretive consideration. 

The issue of objectivity concerns the challenge of grappling with conventions that traditionally define documentary as a distinct genre of cinema. Part of its appeal-what makes documentary authoritative in the first place-is its power to show and teach viewers something about the world and human experiences within it, what can be called its claim to the real. 

“For me, the most important thing is not to stage scenes, which is something quite common in contemporary documentaries. I personally don’t care for this practice. I don’t mind it when you call it “mockumentary,” but when I watch a documentary, I trust the director to explore the subject for me.” (Halachmi, sd) 

As indicated by these reflections, although decisions made about filmic objectivity aren’t always straightforward, there remains across the interviews a consistent, professional commitment to its common tenets to uphold the practice of documentary filmmaking as a credible mode of knowledge building and visual communication. Conscious awareness of such professional media standards, and reflecting on decisions about them, raises the seventh major issue: Audiences. 

What can be heard in the interview testimony is a critical tension between the issue of making documentary films with a view to attracting audiences and the issue of artistic choice and creative freedom in that process. On the one hand, we learn from professional filmmakers who create documentaries sponsored by television channels and other funding bodies that they are limited by industrial-economic expectations of a return on investment measured by audience share. Those professionals are legally obligated to meet contractual terms. On the other hand, we learn from the reflections that these filmmakers are also motivated, independently of industrial restrictions, by personal hope (whether creative, artistic, or political) that viewers may find their work important, that something can be learned from exposure to it, and that perhaps their artistic and creative efforts may provoke critical thinking and conversation about topics depicted in their films, which may lead to social change. 

“You should never hide important information from the viewer. You should not present half-truths, but try to 
show the entire truth. Now, truth is always complex, multilayered and broad, and in the film you have to reduce 
it, but this reduction has to represent what I find to be the truth of that particular person.” (Har-Gil, sd) 

As mentioned already, documentary obtains its identity as a distinct cinematic genre by way of its claim to reality, its truth claim. Although one may assert that cinema in general is a manipulation of reality, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that reality is not out there, somewhere, waiting to be found. To the contrary, visual representation of worldly phenomena participates in the constitution of it. Documentary is one agent in the process through which world phenomena are endowed with meaning  that shapes how they may be seen and experienced, and therefore thought about and judged. To that end, documentary filmmakers employ several cinematic manipulations while filming and editing to express viewpoints about the society in which they live, which itself is no less real than it is imagined. 

“The important thing is not to take anything out of context, not to lie, and to try to present the facts as they happened. What do I mean by not lying? Every documentary involves manipulation, to some degree; by choosing to position the camera at a certain point, you’re already not telling the whole story.” (Isakov, sd) 

This interview data raised other questions with regard to the issue of truth. For instance, when a documentary filmmaking project is sponsored by state agencies, should the interests of non-Israeli audiences be taken into consideration? To what extent, if any, should a documentarian in this situation feel obligated to place Israel in a favourable light? Should the filmmaker avoid contrasting perspectives, or strive for strict balance of perspective, that classic convention of objectivity? Because the goal of any documentary project is to produce quality films that inform viewers in credible ways, and perhaps even inspire them, is a documentary filmmaker obligated to disclose onscreen the moral and/or political motivations that brought him or her to make the film? Or, because every statement always contains the bias of its communicator, does that bias even need to be stated, leaving it instead to viewers to discern the truth of it for themselves? As indicated by the previous extracts, reflections on decisions made when faced with these kinds of questions reveal a fundamental aspect of documentary filmmaking’s ethical process. 

(Garnet C. Burtchart, 2019) 

Ethics is and always will be a difficult subject to handle. Multiple points of views, from different angles and backgrounds will make it difficult to come to a yes or no answer. Furthermore, it’s not always possible for there to be an answer at all. The most a -in this case- filmmaker can to is to talk to his participants, get their opinion and take their wellbeing and safety into consideration, but they must also not forget their audience and their funding partners.  

Personally, I think the best way to go about making an ethically correct documentary is to do research about the topic, or get a specialist involved that can advise you. Adhere to your participants wishes and respect their wellbeing and safety. Make rules beforehand about what you can and cannot film to avoid filming a private situation or wasting film hours. Perhaps get a specialist in ethics on board to make sure you are doing everything you can to ensure an ethical documentary. And of course, make sure your entire team and /or employees are well compensated and taken care off. 

Assoulin, N., 2008. Shahida [Interview] 2008. 

Cooper, S., 2012. Looking back, looking onwards: Selflessness, ethics, and French documentary.. Studies in French Cinema.  

Fallon, K., 2013. Archives analog and digital: Errol Morris and documentary film in the digital age.. Screen.  

Flee. 2021. [Film] Regisseur: Jonas Poher Rasmussen. Denmark, France: sn 

Formenti, C., 2014. The sincerest form of docudrama: Re-framing the animated documentary.. Studies in Documentary fiLM.  

Garnet C. Burtchart, A. H.-G., 2019. Reflection as Ethical Process in Documentary Film: Eight Decision-Making Issues. Journal of Media Ethics, pp. 1-16. 

Geva, D., sd The key [Interview] sd 

Gilady, N., 2003. In Satmar Custody [Interview] 2003. 

Government of Canada, 2015. Values and ethics of the public service. [Online]  
Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/values-ethics/code/what-is-ethics.html 
[Geopend 16 November 2022]. 

Halachmi, A., sd Channels of Rage [Interview] sd 

Har-Gil, A., sd Entangled [Interview] sd 

iHuman. 2019. [Film] Regisseur: Tonje Hessen Schei. Norway: Up North Film AS Made in Copenhagen. 

Isakov, G., sd Nurit [Interview] sd 

Lev-Ari, G., sd Happy Heart, Sad Heart [Interview] sd 

Shinjuku Boys. 1995. [Film] Regisseur: Jano Williams Kim Longinotto. America: sn 

The Great Hack. 2019. [Film] Regisseur: Karim Amer Jehane Noujaim. America: The Othrs. 

Transfinite. 2019. [Film] Regisseur: Neelu Bhuman. America: 13th Gen, Transgress Studios, Atmatman. 

Vloch, T., sd Daffi: A True Story [Interview] sd 

Waltz with Bashir. 2008. [Film] Regisseur: Ari Folman. Israel: sn