Filmmaking – The Message & The Aftermath
Williamsburg Graf – photo by M. Ulto, 2006
To me success means effectiveness in the world, that I am able to carry my ideas and values into the world-that I am able to change it in positive ways.
Maxine Hong Kingston
One does not find oneself by pursuing one’s self, but on the contrary by pursuing something else and learning through discipline or routine who one is and wants to be.
May Sarton
As a filmmaker, particularly a documentary filmmaker, I have to often question the motives of the people I shoot – why are they volunteering information, why are they on camera, what are they gaining. I have to question who is paying for the footage, the final product, and why – commerce, altruism, acclaim. Documentary filmmaking can be a parasitical business – one only has to look at “reality tv” to see the fallout of poorly crafted and poorly considered media to understand that not every situation or conversation has a place on the airwaves.
Sure, one can invoke the first amendment, free speech, freedom to do and say what you want. Fine and good. But where is the honor in manipulating and embarrassing the ill prepared, stupid and fairly naive? Those tactics were originally the province of journalists attacking the powerful, the criminal, the infamous and famous. Now its a tool used against the fame hungry, the 15 minutes of prime time demanding citizenry, to our mutual shame.
Perhaps its a necessary function of seeing our culture for what it is – parasitical in the worst way – our success on the backs of poor wage slaves in other countries and here at home. Our arrogance and avarice, our disdain for poverty, for difference, for intelligence. Our increasing lack of tolerance and apathy for truly important issues gives way to celebrity watching and emulating. It’s not so important that we do good, but that we look good. How much more superficial can our society get?
Filmmakers more and more insert themselves into the story, as narrators, on camera reviewers, editorializing and moralizing for the viewer. In my mind, documentary filmmaking should be approached initially as a hands off, voice off study, gathering empirical evidence, in a non-obtrusive manner. Interviews should be as bias free as possible. The conversation should build off those interviews and captured footage, not from a voice, god-like, playing over footage, telling the viewer what to think or even what questions to ask. A good documentary lets the story unfold in example and conversation.
Sometimes, however, if the footage is weak, a style choice is made and narration is needed. I personally find titling a less obtrusive method of editorializing. Not every filmmaker is a good writer (shock, awe), and capable to sum up the contents of a section in three lines or less. So narration, the easy option, allows for longer descriptions and nuanced intonation. Too often, documentaries these days come off as a mild version of a Christopher Guest movie – absurd people in a “normal” situation. Is it a Real World after all?
I was recently involved in a series of projects with some fairly unscrupulous “filmmakers”. One of the projects, Hip-Hop For President, was initially an interesting idea. But the group that gathered around this idea was clear the main goal was money – it was a “million dollar idea”, as they put it. I suggested we start with a voter registration drive and they balked, thinking of the cost, but changed their tune when they realized they could get it “sponsored”. They asked me to generate presentation graphics for Coke, amongst other companies. Coca-Cola has some of the most insidious domestic infiltration (read grassroots) marketing programs for inner cities, as well as being one of the top 10 worst corporations worldwide several years straight (179 human rights violations in Columbia alone). Sure, corporations should fund good works, but blood money doesn’t sit well with me. I mentioned it, was railed at for being a “hippie” and eventually one of the guys involved threatened me with violence over paying me, so I severed my involvement. I also found out they were conning other funders on other projects, basically scamming funds where they could for a hip-hop bougie lifestyle – a $3000 gold chain (aka bling), clothes, club hopping, bottle service, manicures and bad haircuts. And most of the organizers were white dudes from Connecticut and the Hamptons. The project still continues – these guys conning people in the hip-hop community into believing they are creating something with an altruistic motive to it, when it’s really just about getting paid. What do they plan to give back? Free Coke, free mobile phones, t-shirts and concerts. I think inner city communities need more than swag and freebies.
And then there are pieces that pierce you with content and excellent construction, that serve beyond the parasitical nature of the filmmaking industry. They serve the greater good, by educating and offering back to the communities where the filmmakers gathered their work. Born Into Brothels, an excellent example, by Zana Briski, started as documentary and became a full-on program for poor children in Calcutta – Kids With Cameras. The Corporation, a stunning example of a well-constructed argument and excellent usage of tone-free narration, has a website that helps viewers educate and mobilize against the massive marketing machines of corporations. If you take, give back. If you learn, pass on the information. If you expose, be ready to do something beyond the initial film. Where do you take your message next?
If you make media, make it count; make it a part of something bigger, serving humanity. That is our responsibility, as media makers.
Peace,
Melissa
