Draw the line. On ethics and animated documentary

(1)

DRAW THE LINE

On ethics and animated documentary

MA Thesis Film Studies University of Amsterdam

Leonie Assink Supervisor

Student number: 5877857 Dr. E.L. (Eef) Masson

Words: 19683 Turfdraagsterpad 9

1012 XT Amsterdam E.L.Masson@uva.nl 2 June 2014

(2)

ABSTRACT

Documentary filmmaking relates to human relationships, between filmmaker and participant and between filmmaker and spectator. These relationships lead to ethical issues concerning the balance between the filmmaker’s perspective and artistic freedom on the one hand and the participant’s/spectator’s well-being on the other. Animated documentary has significant qualities that can bring specific solutions, as well as challenges, to the ethical issues that filmmakers and scholars come across. This thesis explores the issues and solutions, and discusses multiple animadoc case studies, in relation to the widely established discourse on ethics and documentary.

Keywords: ethics; animated documentary; animadoc; participant; spectator.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Many thanks to:

Eef Masson for her guidance and patience. Maarten Tellegen for his constructive remarks.

Theodoor Steen for trusting me with his precious collection of DVD’s. My parents.

(3)

INTRODUCTION

Documentary and animation are becoming more and more entangled with each other. Short animated sequences are used as part of the live action documentary, but also fully animated documentaries, or animadocs, are increasingly being made and exhibited. One need only to think of festivals who dedicate (part of) their program to animated documentary, like DOK Leipzig in Germany or DOCartoon in Italy, to see how animadocs receive more and more attention since the last few years. Not just among filmmakers and the public, but also among scholars in the academic field.

One of the main issues concerning these animadocs is whether or not animation can truly function as a form of documentary. Justifying how animation is or isn’t suitable as a form of documentary seems to be one of the main concerns of scholars. Paul Ward, and with him many others, states that animated documentary is indeed a plausible form because the ‘animation is used in a way of representing real things – emotions, memories, “ways of seeing”- that are not readily visible’ (2011, 295). 1_{According to these scholars it is this extra}

dimension of reality that animation seems to expose, that justifies it as a valid documentary form. Animation, therefore, can bring an entirely new range of options and possibilities to documentary filmmaking.

This thesis will not focus on the genre limits that are pushed by using animation as a form of documentary, neither on justifying the definition of the genre. It will focus on other boundaries that are pushed and shifted. What interests me in animated documentary is how it provides new insights into issues that have long been present in the field of documentary filmmaking and theorization. One of these issues is that of ethics and documentary

filmmaking. Questions like how a participant should be treated in the filmmaking process (e.g. no harm should be done) and which virtues are important (e.g. honesty, truthfulness, integrity) to make an ethically acceptable film are widely discussed in the academic field and

1_{Examples of academic texts that focus on whether animated documentary is truly documentary and how it can}

function as such: Wells 1997; DelGaudio 1997; Ward 2008; Luciano-Adams 2009; Rozenkrantz 2011.

While most academic texts still focus on whether or not animation is a legitimate way of representing reality, as is claimed of documentary, filmmakers acknowledge that audiences and distributors seem ready to accept animation as a valid way of representing certain aspects of life in a different way than live action documentary. Examples of filmmakers who acknowledge the readiness of the world to accept animation as a documentary style, see: Kriger 2012.

(5)

among filmmakers. This thesis will focus on the discourse on ethics and documentary and how animated documentary can offer certain solutions and new opportunities to the issues within this discourse. The research question in this thesis will be formulated as follows:

How does animated documentary relate to the ethical issues as discussed in the debate on ethics and documentary, which (new) solutions and opportunities does it bring to the problems identified in it, and which issues stay unsolved?

It is important to look into ethics and documentary filmmaking, because documentary filmmaking is a practice involving human relationships, between filmmaker, his/her participant and his/her audience. Documentary filmmaking balances between real-life occurrences and artistic expression which influences these relationships involved. If a filmmaker tends to shape and mould a participant’s “truth” into what he/she thinks will be an intriguing documentary, it will affect the participant, his/her trust in the filmmaker, and to a certain degree also the spectator. To affect another human being with your actions will evidently result into ethical issues and consequences. Documentary filmmaking may greatly affect the people involved, and to discuss the ethical issues and possible solutions to these issues is therefore an important feature of documentary analysis and, even, filmmaking itself.

Chapter 1 of this thesis provides an overview of recent literature on ethics and documentary and discusses the ethical issues and possible solutions as proposed by filmmakers and scholars. Mind that ethics and documentary is different than

ethics in documentary - i.e. the ethical content of the documentary. This thesis does not focus on the ethical content of documentary, but on the ethics of documentary filmmaking and the human relations that are involved in the practice - i.e. filmmaker and participant, and filmmaker and spectator relationships. This thesis will therefore not concern ethical criticism, which is ‘the task of elucidating the ethical content of the arts’ (Hagberg 2011, p. xi). It will focus on the discourse of ethics and documentary that revolves around human relationships and how the aesthetics of the documentary, in this case the animated form of animadocs, affects those relationships.2_{Note that both stances (ethics in documentary, and ethics and}

2_{I think documentary is very much an artistic craftsmanship, considering the aesthetic choices and political}

massages that are involved in the practice of documentary film(making). Considering the artistic value of documentary and especially of animated documentary (think for example of the link between hand-drawn animation and paintings) ethical criticism could be an important part of the ethical discourse of documentary. Curiously enough this discourse tends to focus on human relations showing the enduring assumption that

(6)

documentary) are very much linked to each other. The (un)ethical content of a documentary may also affect the relationships involved.

It is worth noting that the ethical issues discussed in the discourse on ethics and documentary are more or less moral-based issues as opposed to pure ethical issues. Scholar Garnet C. Butchart addresses this issue in his text “On Ethics and Documentary” (2006) and explains that the difference between morals and ethics is based upon the set of beliefs from which morals originate (like religion, norms, rules and ideology). Ethics, in contrast, are not determined ‘by judgments made on the basis of a set of known values’ (ibid., 430). Ethics concern that what should be done regardless of one’s cultural background and beliefs.3

Morals could therefore be perceived as applied ethics within one’s own cultural background. Since my focus will be on the established academic discourse and the stated problems within this discourse, my problems and issues will also have this moral-based point of departure.

Chapter 2 and 3 have a more evaluative character, in which I try to illustrate how animated documentary might produce new opportunities for the issues within this ethical discourse, that is; for ethical issues concerning documentary film(making) and the

relationships involved in this practice. Chapter 2 focuses on the filmmaker-participant relationship and how the animated form can affect the participant’s well-being in a positive as well as in a negative way. It will discuss how animation can function as a protective mask for vulnerable participants and how representation of the participant can cause ethical challenges for the documentarian. Chapter 3 focuses on the filmmaker-audience relationship and how the animated form can affect the spectator’s well-being. It will discuss how

animation can help to inform the spectator about the documentary’s constructed nature and about harmful or terrifying topics in an ethical way. Both chapters discuss a number of short animated documentaries as case studies. I've chosen to use short animadocs, because they seem to be more daring and experimental than the costly and therefore perhaps more risky feature-length counterpart.4_{It is in these shorts that the true opportunities and possibilities} documentary is a representation of real-life and therefore of human relationships.

3_{Butchart defines morals as cultural, mostly Western-based ideologies that pose questions and statements about}

right and wrong (2006, 430-431). He states that besides these moral issues, there is also an ethic to be found, one that is concerned with exposing the truth in a specific situation. The right thing to do, according to Butchart, is therefore exposing the truth in documentary, or in fact to expose the truth of documentary filmmaking.

4_{An example of a daring animated documentary short is An Eyeful of Sound (Moore 2010) about the experience}

of audio-visual synaesthesia. The documentary tries to reconstruct the experience of synaesthesia and though you here people talk about their experiences, including a specialist in the field of synaesthesia, none of these people get figuratively represented. We only hear them speak and see an impression of what they talk about. The amount of short animated documentaries is also significantly bigger than the amount of long, feature-length

(7)

of the genre come to life and it is because of this that animadocs can offer an interesting insight into the ethical discourse on documentary.

Before I elaborate on this discourse it is important to understand that different ethical principles form the foundation for the different visions, arguments and observations in the discourse. The differences between these principles arise from the ethical stance someone occupies. For example, someone who relies on teleological principles will judge something right or wrong in relation to the end the act serves, i.e. the consequences the act has. A filmmaker with a teleological ethical principle will, for example, take the possible after math of the documentary for the participant into account, i.e. what consequences his/her

appearance or words in the documentary might have for his/her safety, future position etc. Deontological ethical principles are concerned with the act itself, and not with the

consequences of the act. What a person does and whether or not this corresponds with this person’s duties he/she is trying to live up to, is more important than the outcome of the act, or the true intentions behind the act. A documentarian with a deontological principle might, for example, be more concerned with creating the documentary as he/she envisioned it. Utilitarian ethical principles are concerned with the act that brings the most happiness to the biggest number of people. A filmmaker with this principle might, for example, be more concerned with creating an entertaining documentary that can please the audience.5

All these different ethical principles are part of the discourse, which creates a versatile and multi-faceted discourse in which the issues and arguments have different focuses and intentions. To create a more manageable overview I’ll not discuss the visions and ideas on ethics and documentary from the different ethical principles, but I’ll discus those visions and ideas within the two main documentary relationships, between filmmaker and participant and between filmmaker and spectator. Most of the scholars and filmmakers who discuss ethics and documentary filmmaking relate to these two relationships themselves, regardless of their ethical principle. To structure the discourse by means of these two relationships allows me to pinpoint the overall issues and solutions and, later on, to connect those issues and solutions to animated documentary.6

1 DISCOURSE ON ETHICS AND DOCUMENTARY

2008).

5_{For the readers interested in ethical principles and a more extensive overview of the mentioned principles, see}

for example: Merrill (1997) and Norman (1998).

6_{From here on the filmmaker, as well as the participant and spectator, will only be indicated with ‘he’ instead of}

(8)

It is not possible to engage in documentary production for long without stubbing one’s toe on ethical questions.

– Kate Nash 2011, 224

The academic discourse on ethics and documentary is multifaceted and versatile in its discussed aspects and arguments. This is first and foremost due to the lack of a regulated ethical standard for filmmakers. The chosen ethics for filmmakers and scholars depend on the kind of principle that lies at the heart of one’s ethical position. A different principle (deontological, utilitarian, etc.) results in a different consideration of what should be done and how one is supposed to act in relation to the participant, the audience and one’s own artistic freedom.

These principles form the foundation of the different ideas that will be discussed throughout this chapter. It outlines the broad range of ideas on ethics and documentary, what issues are considered and what solutions are proposed in the literature so far. It will look into the different positions of scholars and documentary filmmakers who reflect on their work and the debate surrounding their work field. In doing so it is possible to give a broad overview of the discourse and what occupies the minds of those who participate in it.

1.1 In the beginning…

Documentary is about real people and events -therefore, representing them to an audience implies certain consequences for the people represented. It is generally conceived as

impossible by documentary filmmakers not the have an impact on the lives of those involved in their film, during production and afterwards. Ethical considerations on how to treat one’s participant and how to represent them to an audience are therefore much debated among scholars and filmmakers alike. The central features on which the debate focuses are the relationship between filmmaker and participant as well as the relationship between filmmaker and audience. I’ll use these two relationships to structure the debate on ethics and documentary.

Ethics in documentary is a matter of relationships and human interaction. How one positions oneself and treats the other are at the heart of the ethical discourse and at the heart of documentary filmmaking. Without participants it is very likely one can not make a

(9)

documentary (with the exception of documentaries that do not focus on humans) and without an audience there is no purpose to make one either (for who is there to watch the documentary?). This is how ethics and documentary come together and why ethics is such a widely explored phenomenon in the context of documentary.

Since the 1970s, with the rise of new cinematic possibilities, came the rise of a more prominent ethical discourse in relation to documentary film (Winston 2000, 154; Sanders, 2010, 535 and 2012, 388; Nash 2011, 224). New techniques brought new possibilities, and as a result also new issues. Calvin Pryluck, who is one of the firsts to address these new issues, focuses on the emerging of light-weight cameras and the aesthetic of direct cinema. He claims that this made ‘the ethical problem of the relationship of filmmakers to the people in their films […] more amorphous’, which results in less manageable ethical problems and therefore puts them more into focus (Pryluck 1976, 21). His article “Ultimately We Are All Outsiders”, published in 1976, set the mark for how ethics are discussed by scholars. In his text Pryluck mainly focuses on the filmmaker-participant relationship and how ethical issues and solutions relate to this relationship. But there is also some focus on the public’s right to know and how the filmmaker relates to the audience. While Pryluck didn’t focus on moral issues alone, there is already a significant hint in his work at the two main poles around which the discourse centralizes today.

Bill Nichols, one of the key players in the discourse on ethics and documentary, explains why it is necessary to look into the matter of ethics in relation to the field of documentary filmmaking:

The filmmaker controls the camera and thus possesses a power others don’t. […] Developing a sense of ethical regard becomes a vital part of the documentary filmmaker’s professionalism. (2010, 58-59)

Developing a sense of ethical regard is a responsibility on behalf of the documentarian. He should take into consideration how he positions himself in relation to the participant and of what nature their relationship is. This relationship is the main focus of Nichols, for it has great consequences for the participant as well as the spectator of the documentary (idem., 52). The way a documentary speaks about the people and events it represents, the

(10)

imposes the filmmaker’s own perspective on the matter. The consequence of this is that the filmmaker possesses the power to represent the participant and the participant’s story to the spectator as he envisions it. He can make the participant look good or bad in the way he edits the scenes and dialogue. He can be sarcastic, genuine, critical or witty, and in being so he affects the participant and the spectator, which might result in ethical issues.

While different scholars claim that a documentarian can not foresee all consequences of the practice of documentary filmmaking, how for example events will develop before the camera or how a documentary will be received and judged by the audience, they do see a great ethical responsibility ascribed to the documentarian (Thomas 2012, 333; Butchart 2006, 444; Krawitz 2010, 50). Since it is the filmmaker who possesses a power, it is he who should be accounted for the ethical issues that relate to the documentary. However, one might question to what extent this power is truly in the hands of the filmmaker or to what extent executive producers, distributors and/or broadcasters are pulling the strings on how a documentary should become (Aufderheide 2013, 379).

In what follows I will explore the two main perspectives on ethics and documentary in greater detail. What are the main issues, how are they connected to the

participant/spectator and what solutions are proposed to overcome these problems? Most issues relate to and show coherence with each other. Exploring the problems and the possible solutions will give a better insight into the discourse on ethics and documentary, which is not just occupied with pointing out problems but is very much engaged in finding proper solutions. These proposed solutions show how filmmakers and scholars are eager to find a way to deal with the issues they encounter. Solutions are a significant part of the discourse and will, as a result, be considered throughout this chapter. Discussing the issues as well as the possible solutions will create a useful outline to the upcoming chapters about animated documentary and how the animated form relates to the problems and solutions posed in the discourse on ethics and documentary.

I start with the relationship between filmmaker and participant(s). Most scholars seem to consider the ethics that relate to this relationship as the most important one in documentary. Agnieszka Piotrowska explains it is the relationship “inside” the documentary (i.e. participant-filmmaker) that have a great affect on the final text and as a result on the audience (2012, n. pag.). If the documentarian knows how to treat the participant in an ethical way during the production, than this will show in the final product on screen and will,

(11)

in effect, also be an ethical gesture towards the spectator who doesn’t have to watch an unethical relationship on screen.

1.2 Filmmaker-participant relationship

Despite the broad range of ethical principles that form the point of departure for the

different arguments given, there is still a general focus on the aspects of honesty, trust and a duty or responsibility towards the participant that the filmmaker is held accountable for. Because of the unequal power balance between the filmmaker and his participant, the filmmaker is obliged to treat his subjects in an ethical way. What exactly this “ethical way” is, varies according to scholars and filmmakers, but most seem to agree that the documentarian has a responsibility to work “transparently” or to inform his participant honestly about his intentions for making the documentary and why he wants to include the participant in his project on the one hand, and to minimize harm to the participant on the other.

In what follows I will first discuss the issue of transparency as considered by

documentarians and scholars, and subsequently the possible solutions. Secondly, I’ll discuss another important issue in relation to the participant, which is the issue of representation, and subsequently the possible solutions posed by scholars and filmmakers.

1.2.1 Transparency

The practice of documentary filmmaking lacks an articulated standard in ethics or a prescriptive code, but a much discussed and recognised necessity during documentary production is the idea of transparency towards the participant. This idea indicates that a filmmaker should be open and honest towards the participant about his intentions to make the documentary, how he envisions it, and what part the participant is ascribed to within the story of the documentary. In other words, what is expected of the participant and what the participant may expect himself. Transparency therefore touches upon a number of ethical issues related to trust, honesty but also to representation. Representing the participant and the participant’s story is such a complicated and elaborate issue that it will be discussed as a separate paragraph below.

One of the means by which transparency is accomplished is via informed consent. Informed consent finds its origin in the field of medical treatment in which it is demanded that a potential participant of an experiment or treatment should be fully informed of all

(12)

consequences and risks involved in participating and of the possible outcomes of the process before the participant can consent to actually participating. Aside from the medical field informed consent is also prominent in the fields of for example, anthropology, sociology, and as mentioned, within the field of documentary filmmaking. In this case a participant should also be informed of the consequences of participating, how the footage might be used and how participating might affect him or her during production and afterwards before a filmmaker may start filming. Only after the participant has been informed of these ideas, issues and possibilities, the participant’s consent to participation can be ethically endorsed.

There are a lot of questions regarding the possibilities of informed consent. To what extent should a filmmaker for instance expose his intentions and to what extent can or should he really inform about the risks involved (Nichols 2010, 54)? These questions

generally have to do with the balancing of minimizing the harm to the participant on the one hand and the freedom of artistic expression on behalf of the filmmaker on the other. The tension between these two important aspects forms a significant ethical dilemma for the filmmaker to consider.

For instance, to get the film done in the way the documentarian envisions might require that he doesn’t expose the full truth to the people involved. An example of this might be the making of the documentary Enemy of the People (Lemkin and Sambath 2009) in which filmmaker Thet Sambath approached killers responsible for the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge during the Pol Pot regime. Sambath did not inform his participants on the fact that he himself was a victim of the genocide in order to gain access to them.7_{If in effect this}

harmed the participant, e.g. because it negatively affected the relationship of trust between him and the filmmaker, this harming will make it an issue of transparency.

Another issue with informed consent is that it is considered impossible for the filmmaker to fully inform a participant about all consequences involved (Sanders 2010).8

Informed consent therefore becomes a matter of truth and deception. How much can one tell or should one tell and when is one deceiving the participants instead of protecting them from harm?

7_{See Agnieszka Piotrowska’s conference paper “The Documentary ‘Enemies of the People’ (2009) and the}

Question of Ethics” (2012) for a thorough discussion of the different ethical paradigms one could deploy to reflect on Thet Sambath’s decision not to come clean about his intentions.

8_{Willemien Sanders lists the following theorists who find this aspect problematic: Becker 1988; Gross, Katz and}

Ruby 1988; Katz and Milstein Katz 1988; Nichols 1991; Pryluck 1976; Rosenthal 1988; Winston 1988, 1995 and 2000 (2010: p. 534).

(13)

Informed consent may be materialized as a release form or a contract. To Nichols these release forms are problematic, for they grant the documentarian with an all decision-making power to do with the images as he pleases. A release form might result in the participant ‘feeling used’ (Nichols 2010, 47). And since it is considered the filmmaker’s duty to minimize harm, even outside the context of documentary filmmaking, this is ethically problematic. Besides the fact that it makes the participant feel disempowered, a release form is also perceived as incompatible with a relationship based on trust (Nash 2012, 328). This relationship of trust comes into being when the time spent between filmmaker and

participant leads to a feeling of trust on behalf of the participant. This accordingly grants the filmmaker with the informal right to act for and on behalf of the participant. Once

confronted with a formal release form the trust confided in the filmmaker is disrupted. Since the participant has made himself vulnerable towards the filmmaker, placing ‘core goods, such as personal knowledge and reputation’, in the hands of the filmmaker, he is relying on the so-called fiduciary conduct, ‘which, the participant anticipates, will cause the documentary maker to place the participant’s interest ahead of their own’ (ibid., 326). The release form signifies to the participant that the filmmaker is not just there to tell their story, but first and foremost to create his own vision on the story. It might appear to the

participant that the documentarian is not as much concerned with the participant’s well-being as previously assumed. The release form enables the documentarian to use the filmed material. In a way it enables him to express his artistic vision on the filmed material, but in doing so it also works to the benefit of the filmmaker. The balancing of fairly gaining the consent and trust and not abusing it on the one hand and not squandering the filmmaker’s own vision and freedom of expression on the other is what forms the main problem of informed consent:

Without the informed consent of the subjects, the [documentary] lacks ethical integrity; without freedom for the filmmaker, it lacks artistic integrity. (Anderson and Benson 1991, 151)

The balancing between informed consent and an artistic vision is not the only issue the filmmaker might be faced with. Ellen M. Maccarone points out that consent given by participants might not be genuine, for they might not fully understand the risks involved or

(14)

they might have a hidden agenda of their own, a reason to participate in the project -like a wish of fame or being memorialized (2010, 199). This will in effect also have consequences for the transparency and the relationship of trust between filmmaker and participant. While informed consent is an ethical measure to minimize harm and to allow the participant to make a good evaluation about whether he should participate, it doesn’t, once given, exclude all harm nor does it guarantee all consent is fully informed.

1.2.2 Solutions to transparency issues

Some scholars (and filmmakers alike) propose solutions for these transparency issues and the problems of informed consent. One radical solution is the right of veto that can prevent a filmmaker from using footage if the participant objects to the way his image is used. It allows the participant to retain a certain amount of control over their own representation. The right of veto therefore gives back some of the power lost with signing the release form.

Kate Nash shows in her empirical research on ethics in documentary filmmaking (which is based on interviews with filmmakers and participants) how the right of veto is conceived as an important aspect of documentary filmmaking (2012, 329). The filmmakers in her research offered this right to their participants, to maintain an honest and open

relationship of trust. In this case the filmmaker shows his willingness to respect the interests of the participant even though it is in conflict with the interests of for example funding bodies and other parties involved in the production and broadcasting of the documentary. Therefore, when a filmmaker offers the right of veto to his participant, it is mostly a solution to come to terms with his own ethical stance, regardless of a possible conflict with the interests of for example the funding agencies. According to Nash the right of veto is mostly an informal right because these agencies and other involved parties often don’t approve of it (ibid.).

Nash discusses how release forms as a materialized informed consent ‘protect the filmmaker […] against defamation, while ensuring a clean slate in terms of copyright and use of the participant’s image’ (ibid.). Informed consent is therefore not only an ethical problem in itself, as discussed above, but also a means to protect the documentarian against another ethical issue: the problem of representation. When the filmmaker acquires the participant’s image, words and story to mould it into one of its own, with its own intentions and

(15)

appear in a context that doesn’t correspond with his own intentions and beliefs.

Representational issues, which will be discussed in more detail in the next paragraph, might therefore arise when consent given by the participant was not fully informed.

To grant a participant with the power of veto allows a participant not only to reclaim some of his lost power and to regain some of the lost trust but also allows him to decide on whether or not he agrees on the way he is portrayed. Therefore the right of veto becomes a solution to the disempowerment and the disruption in the relationship of trust experienced by the participant and a solution to the problem of representation.

One argument against the right of veto again has to do with the filmmaker’s own freedom of expression and his artistic vision. It is feared that the participant will use his power of veto to prevent criticism and to censor his representation (Thomas 2012, 338), which leaves no space for the filmmaker to express his perspective on the subject. To offer the participant the right of veto therefore seems to be an exclusive solution for those filmmakers who are willing to collaborate with their participant, putting their participant’s well-being before their own. It all comes down to one’s own ethical principle, whether the filmmaker has a teleological principle and feels that the right thing to do is to protect the participants and to respect their privacy or whether the filmmaker has a deontological principle and strives for the completion of the project in relation to his version of the truth - this will lead to different solutions.

In the second case, striving for the completion of the project as envisioned by the filmmaker, a solution to the problem of informed consent might be to pay the participant in order to give them a notion of gratification for their “work” and collaboration. It might be seen as ‘[…] a reasonable way to address the power differential’ or to cover the expenses and lost work as a result of participating (Aufderheide 2012, 374). Paying the participant seems to be a taboo in the field of documentary practice. Paying or giving them a gift for their participation would result in an unfair representation of reality and is an example of what Willemien Sanders calls “Improper Reciprocity” which means that the filmmaker shows reciprocal behaviour but in doing so breaks the rules of documentary filmmaking (2012, 396). Paying money would result in different expectations on the participant’s and the filmmaker’s behalf and might taint the images and information garnered. Paying someone would reduce the film’s credibility for the filmmaker is ‘potentially purchasing the truth [he wants] to hear’ (Rabiger 2009, 380).

(16)

Michael Rabiger, who wrote a much acclaimed book on how to direct a documentary, mentions two exceptions to the non-paying rule: celebrities and people in need. Celebrities don’t include politicians or other public servants, but those celebrities of whom it is

‘appropriate’ to pay, depending on the circumstances and their role as participant, e.g. a host to the documentary (Rabiger 2009, 381). The people in need are for instance ‘hurricane victims’, ‘an African AIDS sufferer’ or other Third World cases (ibid.). Rabiger assigns the documentarian, as a First World inhabitant, with a duty to compensate the disadvantaged, even if it is just a little bit. The filmmaker is advised by Rabiger to pay afterwards to prevent endangering the good-faith exchanges between filmmaker and participant and between the final film and the spectator (ibid., 380-381).

1.2.3 Representation

Representation of the participant and his story in the documentary and especially how this relates to the participant’s idea of how he and his story should be represented might cause ethical issue, which are already briefly mentioned above. Representation relates

approximately to three different issues. The first is the nature of the representation, e.g. if the participant is represented in a respectful way. The second is the ownership of the representation, e.g. whose perspective is presented in the documentary, and how is this communicated between documentarian and participant (this relates to transparency). The third issue, which strongly relates to the second issue, is control of the representation, e.g. who determines what, how and whose perspective is represented in the documentary.

Such issues of representation raise multiple questions. Where should one draw the line between representing the participant in a truthful way and representing him in a way that serves the entertainment value of the documentary? Is it acceptable to stereotype one’s subjects if it serves justice to the point that one is trying to make in the documentary? To what extent should a documentarian protect the participant against himself in his

representation? And who is responsible for what can be seen in the documentary and, if possible, for the after effects it may have?

Nichols’ main ethical question ‘what do we do with people when we make a

documentary?’ is not only relevant in relation to what happens during shooting but also to the representation of the participant in the final text (Nichols 2010, 45). Transparency about expected or envisioned outcomes of a participant’s part in the documentary is an important

(17)

aspect of this, but since not all outcomes can be foreseen the documentarian seems to have to become a representative for the people he films. In some cases he becomes a

representative in a formal way, due to the release form which is signed by the participant and which allows the filmmaker to use the footage of the participant, but he might also adopt this position in an informal way, due to the established relationship of trust. This position imposes him with a responsibility or duty towards the participant. This responsibility or duty is what most scholars and filmmakers seem to acknowledge as the main ethical issue in documentary. The rights of the participant ought to be protected in the process of

representation in any case (Butchart 2006, 428).

As previously stated, documentary filmmaking involves real-life people, but it also involves a personal or even artistic vision which separates documentary filmmaking from objective journalism. Nichols’ definition of documentary illustrates the sophisticated balancing between the real-life people involved and the vision of the filmmaker:

Documentary film speaks about situations and events involving real people (social actors) who present themselves to us as themselves in stories that convey a plausible proposal about, or perspective on, the lives, situations, and events portrayed. The distinct point of view of the filmmaker shapes this story into a way of seeing the historical world directly rather than into a fictional allegory. (Nichols 2010, 14; my emphasis, L.A.)

The extent to which the participant truly presents himself as himself to us is questionable, for it depends on how the filmmaker expresses his perspective, and as others point out, on the extent the relationship of trust enabled the participant to express his own vision, and to let him be heard in the final product. This depends for a great deal on the ethics carried out during the production process, i.e. to what extent the filmmaker became a representative for the participant, how much he was willing to let the participant express himself and the extent to which the filmmaker preserved the participant’s perspective and vision in the documentary’s representation. The label “documentary” seems to indicate that the film will say something honest about the world around us but the documentary is not a simple mirror of reality. This is what causes ethical problems in representation. Nichols is right to point out the difference between reproduction and representation of reality, implying that the

(18)

documentary as a representation of reality is a result of someone’s perspective on the world (Nichols 2010, 68). It points out the two elements that come together in documentary, real-life occurrences and personal/artistic visionary, and also what lies at the heart of the problem of representation.

On the one hand it is the label of “documentary” itself that causes problems, because it generates certain expectations on the film’s truth claims about the world we live in as to the “truthfulness” of these claims. It is expected that documentary will say something true about the world and therefore that it will give a trustworthy representation of the people it represents. This might be problematic because documentary is not solely a representation of real-life occurrences but also of a vision which might impose a subjective worldview, a personal standpoint or ideology on the matters represented. Therefore, on the other hand it is the vision of the filmmaker, his perspective or voice, which causes considerable problems to the representation of others. How far may one go in adapting the participant’s story, directing the participant and stereotyping him? What is a respectable way of portraying and to what extent should a documentarian take the participant’s interest into consideration? What should be disclosed and what may be concealed? When does participation becomes exploitation? And how much mediation is ethical?

Patricia Aufderheide illustrates how documentarians cope with this representational issue in the editing room (2012). She points out how the filmmakers set aside traditional issues of friendship with the participant experienced during production and how they strive to serve the truth instead (ibid., 376). The documentary filmmakers she interviewed spoke of an overall ‘higher truth’ or ‘sociological truth’ that they wanted to offer the viewer. This suggests how filmmakers take matters into their own hands when it comes down to

representing people and events. In order to create the film they envision and to provide the spectator with a well-composed narrative and a compelling documentary, it is sometimes required to manipulate facts and to distort the representation of participants. This, as Aufderheide argues, was often experienced as uncomfortable by documentarians but not always (ibid.). They seem to make a distinction between the ‘higher truth’ and small distortions, and obvious manipulations and distortions. As long as the altering of reality doesn’t change the “reality” of what the filmmaker tries to portray, it is acceptable to the filmmaker to do so (Maccarone 2010, 195). According to this “truth” aspiration by

(19)

filmmakers, the participant ethics seem to be generally set aside when it comes down to creating the envisioned documentary.

The participant’s trust in the filmmaker to represent him fairly and the filmmaker’s respect of the participant’s vision seem to become secondary to the filmmaker’s vision, wants and beliefs during the editing of the documentary. The commitment to the film is of higher value than the well-being of the participant during the post-production phase

(Sanders 2012, 387). What seems to matter to filmmakers is the creation of an appealing film that reflects the artistic perspective of the filmmaker and that serves the spectator in an honest but compelling way. This indicates that ethical responsibilities and loyalties seem to shift during the different phases of production. While the focus is on the rightful treatment of the participant during shooting, the focus shifts to the interests of the spectator and the filmmaker himself during postproduction. Such a focus shift may lead to an unethical representation of the participant. Victimization, stereotyping, imposing one’s own interpretation of the participant’s story and other adaptations may lead to exploiting the participant for the benefit of the film.

The apparent shifting of the ethical focus of the filmmaker doesn’t indicate that all ethical rights of the participant are forgotten during postproduction. Filmmakers declare that when faced with ethical questions during production, e.g. on what to film and what not, they often postpone the decision on including the material until the editing of the film

(Aufderheide 2012, 370). During shooting they decide to keep on filming the events in front of the camera, even if they presume that the images would do harm to the participant if included in the final text of the documentary. Ethical questions on representing the participant are therefore not completely forgotten but are still very much an issue of the editing room.

1.2.4 Solutions to representation issues

The main solution offered to the problem of representation is a collaborative approach (Pryluck 1976; Thomas 2012; Donovan 2012; Sanders 2010; Nash 2011 and 2012). Collaboration between filmmaker and participant allows the participant to (re)gain some control over his image during shooting, and sometimes also during postproduction. Aspects of trust and individuality are considered important in this collaboration. Filmmakers working in such a power-sharing model apparently want to demonstrate their trustworthiness to the

(20)

participant (enabling a more comfortable relationship), but they also want to create a film more representative of the participant’s perspective (Aufderheide 2012, 373).

An example of the collaborative approach is to treat the idea of consent as a process rather than a definite once-and-for-all approval the participant has to commit to early on in the project, e.g. during the signing of the release form (Thomas 2012, 333). Consent as a process allows the participant to comment on the images during the full production period. It allows him to keep some control over his representation, the perspective that is

represented as well as the nature of the representation. Victimization or stereotyping beyond the participant’s liking becomes less of an issue in this way.

Another form of a collaborative approach is to allow the participant to express his own ideas during the filming process and to allow for space wherein the participant can help shape the film (ibid., 334-335). This space helps to gain the participant some ownership of the representation. The approach might call for a transparent negotiation of decisions, in which the participant is fully informed of the choices made. This allows for a better understanding and therefore a better control on the side of the participant.

One argument against this collaborative approach is of a practical kind. Collaboration requires more time and commitment, which might be problematic in relation to budgetary constrains and institutional priorities of broadcasters and producers (ibid., 341). It also requires the willingness to allow participants to collaborate in the production process and share the shaping of the film. Not all filmmakers, nor for example commissioning agencies, are open to this kind of cooperation. They fear alteration of their creative practice or consider their own perspective or truth-telling as more important (ibid.). Besides, a collaborative, power-sharing model does not necessarily seem to guarantee an ethical representation of the participant -one in which the participant is treated with respect and a notion of individuality.

As mentioned above, the right of veto might provide another solution to the issues that can arise when a documentarian represents a participant. It grants the participant with a significant power position, for if a participant doesn’t agree on the way he is represented he can refuse the images selected or the way in which they are presented. The right of veto gives the participant a voice in the process of representation but in a more limited way than a collaboration approach which might appear in many different forms.

(21)

Collaboration varies between space in which the participant may express his ideas to fully shared authorship. In allowing the participant to maintain control over his own

representation, the documentarian might risk telling a distorted story in which the truth isn’t placed first or where the participant manipulates the facts in order to shape the image he likes to see (Sanders 2010, 539). Whether this is truly problematic depends for a great amount on the intentions of the filmmaker and his ethical principle. A Kantian principle (which is a deontological principle), for example, considers the truth, besides duty, as the main ethical virtue (Piotrowska 2012). A filmmaker who acts from such a principle might find it problematic if a participant has control or ownership of the representation.

Some scholars seem to agree that a representation is only ethical if the filmmaker has a sense of alterity in the participant (Cooper 2010; Bergen-Aurand 2009). This sense might be accomplished through a collaborative approach but alterity is also an ethical stance in itself. Alterity is the ability to let the other be and in documentary it entails ‘not to see the face of the other as our own but to value and [valorise] distance from the filmed subject’ (Bergen-Aurand 2009, 462). This distance doesn’t correspond to indifference but emerges from a relation of extreme proximity (Cooper 2010, 58). Because of this proximity the filmmaker respects the otherness of the participant. It takes him beyond himself and generates a responsibility towards the other that is indisputably ethical. This idea of alterity is based on Emmanuel Levinas’ philosophy. In 1961 he wrote Totality and Infinity about ethics and the Other.9_{Other is written with a capital O to emphasize that it refuses the totalizing thinking of}

the “I” and that it will never be dissolved. How much of this philosophical idea can truly be of a practical aid within documentary filmmaking is questionable, so far it is primarily a

proposed solution by scholars.

There is another proposed solution to the problem of representation that points beyond the documentary film in which the participant is involved. The solution appeals to the filmmaker’s moral responsibility and duty to prevent harm to the participant even outside the bounds of his own documentary. The filmmaker should be concerned with issues of copyright and ownership in relation to the participant’s vulnerability, to protect the participant against misrepresentation in other media products. These might place the image and the story of the participant in new and different contexts. Being aware of this risk and as

(22)

a result protecting the participant’s representation for being re-used by other media, is another responsibility of the filmmaker.

1.2.5 Responsibility and trust

Beside the two main issues of transparency and representation, there are other issues discussed within the discourse on ethics and the documentary’s participant, although less extensively so. The right to privacy, for example, can create ethical problems when the documentarian interferes the participant’s privacy with his camera. Most of these issues are somehow related to each other, as for example the right to privacy and intervention by the documentarian in the events in front of the camera. Should the documentarian stop filming when highly personal testimonies or confessions are expressed? May or perhaps should the filmmaker interfere when the participant does something that is uncomfortable or

irresponsible according to the filmmaker? Can he use footage that was filmed without the participant realising? When may he use it and when may he not? Where does one draw the line?

Most of these issues only seem to be noticed by filmmakers and scholars when the participant’s ethical ‘rights’ collide with the filmmaker’s creative freedom, which is an important right in itself. When individual rights and interests create incompatible outcomes, ethical conflicts may arise. The documentarian should be able to create the documentary he envisions but should also take responsibility for the effect this envisioned documentary has on the participant and his well-being. Responsibility and trust are two of the most significant components in connection with the ethical issues concerning the filmmaker-participant relationship. A filmmaker who shows responsibility for a participant’s well-being and a participant who can trust a filmmaker’s good intentions seem to be returning elements in relation to all of the discussed ethical issues.

The solutions offered to these issues are still somewhat abstract or hard to realise in practice. Some solutions are presented as a fundamental principle; others are less rigid and speculate on how one might act or describe how others would act in such a situation. Some scholars believe that a documentarian has to act on a case-to-case basis, which would make a hard ethical code rather impossible (Aufderheide, Jaszi and Chandra 2009, 6). Different situations might demand different ethical considerations and the right way to act on a situation also depends on the ethical stance of the filmmaker, i.e. what he considers the right

(23)

way to act. The ethical stance therein influences to what extent the proposed solutions work when practiced within the field of documentary filmmaking and how much these solutions can be of help to the filmmaker (and maybe, as a consequence of this, to the participant).

1.3 Filmmaker-audience relationship

The other main focus in the discourse on ethics and documentary is on the relationship between the filmmaker and the audience. Ethics revolving around the audience-filmmaker relationship seem to receive less attention of filmmakers and scholars than those concerning the participant-filmmaker. Audience ethics are less extensively discussed in literature on the topic than ethics involving the participant. Opinions among scholars and filmmakers vary less widely and less ethical aspects are investigated or discussed.

This might be because the aspect that receives the most attention in the discourse is the effect of documentary practice on the person involved, i.e. the participant or the

audience. The effect on the participant is usually more significant than on the audience. For the documentary’s subject, participating might be life-changing; while for the audience the vast majority of them stays largely unaffected by the documentary they see (Winston 2000, 158). The filmmaker-spectator relationship establishes itself indirectly, through the text of the film, and not on a personal –i.e. face-to-face- basis.

The considerable amount of attention scholars and filmmakers pay to the participant-filmmaker relationship, affects audience ethics in a significant way. The relationship between filmmaker and participant inside the documentary is considered as an ethical gesture

towards the spectator. If the relationship ‘inside’ the documentary is ethical, then the relationship ‘outside’ the documentary, i.e. between filmmaker and spectator, is also considered ethical. The spectator is allowed to judge whether or not this onscreen

relationship is ethical, e.g. to judge whether or not the representation of the participant has integrity. The extent to which the spectator is allowed to judge on the ethics of this

relationship is an indicator for the ethics of the spectator-filmmaker relationship. The more transparent the relationship ‘inside’ the documentary, the more balanced and informed the spectator and his judgement will be.

The main ethical issues in relation to the spectator-documentarian relationship therefore revolve around the so-called “audience’s right to know” and on truth-telling and

(24)

trust. In what follows, these aspects (and their proposed solutions) will be discussed in further detail.

1.3.1 Audience’s right to know

The most often discussed aspect of audience ethics in documentary is the so called “audience’s right to know” or the audience’s right to be informed about issues that affect them (Butchart 2006, 428). Documentary in this case is imbued with a social value. The filmmaker has a responsibility to be honest, accurate and to tell the truth, without

intentionally misleading the audience (Butchart 2013, 3). According to Butchart the ethical issue of the audience’s right to know is linked to what audiences consider to be ethically right in journalism (2012, 4). The problem is that documentary in general doesn’t strive to provide a balanced and objective world-view like journalism does, but instead tells a story from a certain (creative) perspective. The ethical challenge is to align the filmmaker’s perspective with a fair representation that doesn’t mislead the audience and that is socially responsible.

It is this misleading, like misquoting, twisting facts, and the manipulation of images and sound that receives the most attention (see for example Maccarone 2010, 196). Deluding the audience seems unethical but it also raises questions about the filmmaker’s artistic voice and rights. Where should one draw the line between the filmmaker’s artistic license, his right to express his ideas and creative vision in his documentary, and between the audience’s right to be informed in a honest and trustworthy way? One of the more

problematic things about documentary is that when a film is promoted as a documentary, audiences will trust this film to tell something honest and true about the world. It is wondered how much creativity is allowed before a documentary becomes something else. Audience ethics are therefore related to genre assumptions, expectations and possibilities. If the audience has the right to be informed, then when does a filmmaker’s artistry becomes unethical?

The audience’ right to know raises questions on the artistic freedom of the

documentarian, but also on the participant’s right to privacy (Nichols 1991, 77). When does the documentarian stops serving a public function of informing the people and starts to get intrusive in personal matters that doesn’t concern the public? The audience’s “right” to be informed about the things that happen in the world might cause problems to the well-being of the documentary’s participant. Therefore, the audience’s right might cause ethical

(25)

problems for the participant-filmmaker relationship as discussed above. If a filmmaker becomes blinded by his project and the wish to inform, entertain and appeal to the public, he might lose contact with what’s best for his participant.

In some way this issue of violating the participant’s privacy and well-being is linked to expectations on ethical standards in journalism, e.g. celebrities and paparazzi. How far may a journalist/photographer go to get the perfect story? May he empty trashcans or take photos of unaware celebrities in their house if this will get him the wanted picture? While the documentary’s participant might have given consent to the documentarian to film, this issue of crossing an ethical line by trespassing the participant’s private space might still arise. Think of the work of provocative documentarians, like Michael Moore.10_{The audience’s right to}

know about everything is both apparent as well as limited.

1.3.2 Solutions to issues regarding ‘audience’s right to know’

As already briefly mentioned, most scholars who talk about ethics in relation to the documentary’s spectator seem to imply that when the participant of a documentary is treated ethically, the spectator is likewise treated ethically. When, for example, the

participant has been done no harm, the audience will in effect be unharmed. In this respect the audience seems to be perceived of as a scrutinizing body that will retrospectively judge the documentarian in his ethical stance. A solution to the issues caused by the audience’s right to know is therefore based upon transparency or reflexivity. The more transparent the filmmaker is in his work, the more he allows the audience to judge his ethical stance (Thomas 2012, 332). It shows to what extent the filmmaker is being honest and respectful towards his participant and in effect towards his spectator.

The reflexive mode of documentary draws a deliberate amount of attention of the audience towards the filmic process itself, by putting components of the cinematic apparatus, like the camera, on screen or to include the filmmaker himself when he asks questions to the participant. Reflexive documentary discloses how the filmmaker works and negotiates with the participant, rather than to conceal his intentions, perspective or

presence on the scene. It increases ‘our awareness of the constructedness of the film’s representation of reality’ and the problems of representing others (Nichols 2010, 32). In this

10_{See for example “Fahrenheit 911” (Marshall 2004), which discusses Moore’s work in context of misleading} the audience.

(26)

way it balances the artistic or personal vision with the audience’s right to know. It draws the audience’s attention to what the filmmaker did and in doing so it may shed a light on his trustfulness towards the participant (Thomas 2012, 339-340). It helps to maintain the viewer’s good faith in the filmmaker-audience relationship for it serves the interest of the viewer in relation to the documentary and the vision expressed in it.

Garnet C. Butchart states that acknowledging the presence of the camera/filmmaker on screen, something that can be done through what he calls doubling and redoubling, discloses the intent of the documentarian, it exposes the perspective of the documentary and the power of the camera, and it breaks the illusion of achieving complete objectivity (2006). In effect, bringing the visual mode of address into view clears the filmmaker of all charges that could be made against him for falsifying the truth (2006, 443). It becomes clear to the viewer that the documentary is but a depiction that reflects the filmmaker’s

intentions. And so, issues revolving around the audience’s right to know are accounted for. Butchart also sees a solution for the problem of the presumed “truth-telling” function of documentary in doubling and redoubling, exactly because the perspective of the filmmaker is exposed. Doubling and redoubling demonstrates ‘[…] the basic idea that documentaries do not mirror the world, but rather, they tell stories about it’ (2012, 11).

The problem with the reflexive documentary mode is that not all filmmakers are open to this specific style of documentary filmmaking. Not everyone (filmmakers, but also funding agencies, exhibitioners and audiences) is welcoming reflexive documentary. Sanders states that to force such a formal claim as a reflexive mode on filmmakers will endanger the artistic freedom (2010, 542). Besides, some claim that reflexivity is not a guarantee for a fully

informed audience. According to Charlotte Govaert there is no evidence for the audience’s heightened awareness of the film’s construction, or of how the filmmaker worked during production and what responsibilities he performed in a reflexive mode of documentary filmmaking (2007, 249). As opposed to this, Kate Nash does claim that there is evidence for the audience’s heightened awareness towards the truth claims of different documentary modes (2011, 237).11_{The audience, according to Nash, is aware of the different investments}

the participant and filmmaker had to make in the different kinds of documentary modes, i.e. reflexive, participatory or any other kind, and therefore also has different responses to the

11_{See Anette Hill’s “Documentary modes of engagement” (2008) for a report on audience responses towards}

(27)

“truth” represented in these documentaries. This suggests that if a documentary has a reflexive form the audience will response accordingly to the effect such a form has on the events represented.

Another issue of the reflexive mode is that it isn’t capable of providing the audience with all information about what happened during production and how participants and their stories were treated. For example, informed consent on account of the participant is not visible on screen. Some claim that ‘just because a person acknowledges the camera’s

presence [it] does not guarantee that consent is fully informed’ (Anderson and Benson 1988, 77). In this respect, reflexivity doesn’t shed a light on the filmmaker’s ethical approach towards the participant. So to what extent will the audience actually know how the film is constructed and to what extent do they truly understand what they see? Disclosure is in some way always a matter of concealment at the same time. One can never present the full story of what happened during shooting and moments of reflexivity are just as well open to ethical questions concerning the representation in the shots that ended up in the final text, informing the participant or the choises made during production.

1.4 Form and ethics

A somewhat distinctive voice in the discourse on ethics and documentary is that of the already briefly mentioned Garnet C. Butchart. Instead of looking at the ethics in human interaction he focuses on the ethics of documentary in itself. His ethic does not concern whether or not a filmmaker treated his participant in an ethical justice way, but whether or not he has strived to expose the truth in the specific situation, i.e. the documentary.12_This

truth is at once universal (it is the same for everyone in that situation) and singular (it only applies in that specific context; Butchart 2006, 432). This ethic of truths (acting accordingly to exposing the truth in a given situation) can be found in documentary in the so called visual mode of address, the documentary’s technologies and creative enterprise.13_{The only truth in}

a documentary is the presence of a camera that records the events and people in the film. Exposing this presence is the ethic of documentary.

12_{Note how Butchart’s ethics still differs from ethical content (or ethical criticism). It’s the documentary and the}

technologies through which the documentary came to be, that form the ethics of the documentary, not the content with which the documentary deals.

13_{Butchart based his idea of an ethic of truths on Alain Badiou ethic of truth. For Badiou see: Ethics. An Essay}

on the Understanding of Evil (2002). Piotrowska notes that ‘Badiou’s move is to dissociate himself in the

strongest possible term from the Levinasian ethics of the responsibility of the Other, placing the personal decision of the I at the heart of his ethics […]’ (2012).

(28)

Exposing the visual mode of address bears resemblance to a reflexive documentary mode as mentioned by Bill Nichols (2010).14_{The exposing is achieved by doubling and}

redoubling the visual mode of address on screen, i.e. acknowledging the presence of the camera/filmmaker on screen. Exposing the visual mode of address in the documentary will also expose that ‘which mediates reality and the real’, by which Butchart refers to the narrative that is constructed by the filmmaker (Butchart 2006, 449). When a filmmaker exposes this specific truth, other issues, like participant consent and the audience’s right to know, are also dealt with according to Butchart, because the tools that are used to make a documentary are not made invisible to the participant, nor the spectator (ibid., 442-444). This allows the participant and the spectator to judge on how things are done and what consequences they might have.

Butchart makes useful arguments in his articles in that he is one of the few who actually pays attention to the documentary’s form and the ethics involved. The

documentary’s form is significant for how the documentary is shot and how the people and events are represented, and in effect how they, the people and events as well as the

filmmaker himself, will be received by the spectator. The form and style influence the choices a documentarian makes during shooting and post-production and therefore are important aspects in relation to ethical decision making. Observational documentary for instance usually demands more time and involvement (or collaboration) with the subjects of the film than other styles, which influences the ethics the documentarian has to consider during production.15_{The documentary’s form is an important aspect that stays out of focus in a lot}

of texts on ethics and documentary. These general texts are more involved with the ethics of the filmmaking practice.

Butchart’s shift of focus towards a more visual approach (ethics based on what can be seen in the documentary) is useful because it is in the documentary and through the

documentary’s form that the story is constructed, that the participant and the events are represented and that the image of these people and events starts working in the spectator’s mind, shaping his opinions and judgements. With this visual approach in mind, I will turn to

14_{Butchart claims that the main difference between a reflexive mode and the doubling/redoubling that he}

proposes is that the reflexive mode is mainly concerned with moral implications while his doubling/redoubling is purely ethical: one has to decide on whether to include the visual apparatus or not. This decision is based on rational thinking as opposed to values of right and wrong.

15_{For an example of how ethics work in the observational mode see: Kate Nash “Documentary-for-the-Other.}

(29)

animated documentary and how the animated form affects the ethics of the filmmaker-participant relationship and the filmmaker-audience relationship.

This chapter outlined the discourse on ethics and documentary. Values like truth, honesty, trust and a responsibility one has towards the other, receive the most attention within this discourse. Opinions vary amongst the different scholars and documentarians on the different ethical issues and the solutions to these issues vary as well. Due to the absence of a centrally organised ethical prescription on how a filmmaker should act in certain situations, the “right thing to do” becomes a matter of personal initiative for the filmmaker himself. The kind of ethical considerations he brings to the project will decide how he should act in a given situation and what solutions might help best to live up to his own ethical stance.

Because of this personal decision-making, scholars seem to focus most on the filmmaker and the responsibility he is considered to have. Less attention goes out to ethics from the participant’s or spectator’s point of view: what motives they bring to the

participation or viewing experience is often not taken into consideration, or is not the main focus of scholars and filmmakers. Nevertheless, filmmakers tend to be more sensitive than scholars towards the participant’s/spectator’s own ethics in relation to the documentary.16

This is because their own ethical decision-making will directly affect the participant (e.g. to film or not to film, or to include scenes into the final version of the film or not) and the spectator (e.g. to be transparent about how things were handled during the shooting of the documentary).

In what follows I will take a closer look at how the discourse outlined relates to animated documentary. Which of the traditional issues discussed above are still valid? What new issues does animated documentary bring into focus? And, especially, what solutions might it provide?

16_{A significant exception to this is scholar Kate Nash’s text “Telling Stories” (2012), which focuses on ethics as}

(30)

2 ANIMATED DOCUMENTARY AND PARTICIPANT ETHICS

[Animation is] sort of a filter. It’s interesting to me because we’re interpreting someone’s personality, but in a way we’re also hiding them.

– Bob Sabiston.17