“Are Documentary Filmmakers (inherently, obviously, automatically) Good People?” This was the core question and title of an EFM panel held at the Event Hall of Berlin’s Documentation Centre for Displacement, Expulsion, Reconciliation on February 18. The talk, hosted by the Documentary Association of Europe (DAE) and moderated by Brigid O’Shea, saw the participation of IDFA artistic director Orwa Nyrabia and IDA’s Director of Artist Programmes Abbey Sun.
After O’Shea introduced the panel, the mic was passed to Sun, who explained that one of the crucial ethical questions today’s non-fiction industry should ask is who exactly is benefiting from participation at festivals, and what kind of impact such participation can have on audiences and on spreading certain values. “Often times, it benefits the host institution, especially those who are funded by corporations or national film funds [which] support certain types of filmmakers. The filmmaker benefits from a certain idea of prestige, but at least in the US, they don’t need film festivals [to get] a quite broad distribution or TV broadcast,” said Sun.
Nyrabia agreed but addressed the theme of the debate from a different perspective. “I think of it differently. I believe documentary filmmakers do believe they’re good people. It’s the starting place to become a documentary filmmaker. It’s working for the benefit of the others, for the public benefit. You’d like to see positive changes or progress in the world.”
That said, he offered a cautionary tale of self-delusion. “I was watching a British documentary with a conservative British philosopher. [There] an Indian-British woman asked something about British colonialism. His answer was: ‘Before we went to India you used to burn your women with your husband… We corrected that. Colonialism wasn’t just bad.’”
“This was said just two or three years ago, and I think this philosopher […] keeps on seeing the positive aspects of colonising India. He believes he is good. And this is what we’re fighting against,” he said, adding that the man is still active as a lecturer heading an entire university department.
After O’Shea touched upon topics of privilege and inclusive language, Sun stressed the importance of including “outside, peripheral” filmmakers, but also warning that involving them through dedicated initiatives to foster their talent shouldn’t be an occasion to “centralise” their presence within the largest towns of the States or other established production hubs, as these “powerhouses” could benefit from their expertise at the expense of marginalised areas and communities which need further development.
In addressing the subject of privilege, Nyrabia told O’Shea: “When we say the world needs to be rebalanced, […] it’s not about spending the next 100 years contemplating the guilt of people who were privileged over the previous century. Let’s get over it and move on.”
He admitted he is also getting more and more uncomfortable with the use of the word ‘ethics.’ “It is an ancient word from Greek philosophy, and often used by religion. Why did we take it back and make it fashionable again? Over the past 20, 30 years we’ve been depoliticising the terminology of everything we do and discuss. Ethics is an apolitical term [to describe] our political and social commitment.”
Nyrabia argued that ethics will lead people to judge everything in terms of ‘good or ‘bad.’ “Cinema tells me that villains are way more complex than simply considering them bad,” he said. Therefore, greater levels of nuance and complexity need to be demanded from filmmakers by festivals and funders, and should equally be applied in the way we look at films.
The discussion then moved on to the portrayal of protagonists within documentaries, and how to deal with them. Nyrabia observed how the question can arise when one compares good cinema with mediocre cinema. In mediocre docs, he said, “you will see a lot of attempts of being objective,” with the characters “remaining themselves in the film.” But the presence of the camera makes everyone a character (“that character is that person, but also not that person”). “It’s a contract with the audience…It’s you [the protagonist], but through the filter of the filmmaker.”
“Film is not a clinical study. Film is a creative processing of reality. […] Good filmmaking is complex and doesn’t allow for easy judgement,” he pointed out.
Speaking about cancel culture, the speakers agreed it may be used as a “tool of colonial control” and “narrative making” as it has been already used in the past to rewrite history or to pursue propagandistic goals.
Towards the end of the panel, Sun highlighted the importance of ‘honesty’ within the docmaking community. “[For example,] we’re at a place, getting paid a certain amount per year. […] I’d like people to start disclosing their own family wealth and how it is they’re able to occupy their space,” she said, adding that often times even “sons of billionaires” end up applying for support programmes, winning those funds and not leaving room for those who really need them.Finally, she spoke about how docmakers are placing themselves “in opposition to journalism,” and choosing different practices such as eschewing objectivity or paying their participants. She also reminded, however, that “there is still something to learn from journalism,” in particular in terms of “research practices and communities consultations.”
