I‘m not particularly well versed in watching documentaries but as a regular girl who’s always looking for a good film, be it fictional or documentary, I’m always on the lookout for something interesting and I must admit that at the end of the day, a little controversy helps sell tickets.
Morgan Spurlock making himself sick for Super Size Me, Rob Stewart with his documentary Sharkwater and most notably Michael Moore getting himself in trouble with every film he makes are just a few examples that spring to mind (this shows my severe lack of knowledge when it comes to documentaries) of filmmakers who step over the line in the name of film making but how far is too far? Is putting your life in danger for the sake of telling a story that may not be seen outside of a festival circuit really necessary?
This all comes to mind as a result of a recent news story about a group of American film makers who were arrested in the troubled western Niger Delta while filming a documentary titled Sweet Crude about the oil production in the Nigerian Delta, an area also known for its gross level of poverty and environmental degradation. I can see how someone passionate about telling a story would feel inclined to, at any cost, get footage and a story of the area, but at what cost? From the various sources I’ve read, it sounds as though the crew entered Nigeria legally but under false presences and though it’s not clear what, if any repercussions will arise from the arrest, the story does bring up an interesting question: is there a point at which filmmakers should be stepping back and re-evaluating the possible effects of their actions – be they political or otherwise? Do we give filmmakers a certain amount of leeway as far as breaking the law (be it physically or morally) to allow them the chance to tell the important stories?
I’m not sure but I’m curious to see 1) what other people think and 2) if there are other documentary films out there that have “crossed the line” or stirred controversy in attaining their story?
One film immediately comes to mind. It’s called ‘Death in Gaza’.
SPOILER ALERT>SPOILER ALERT>
The film is about conflict in Israel and the creation of martyrs.
In the end, James Miller, the director of the film, is shot and killed. The film ends with a chilling scene in which men and children parade down the streets with giant pictures of Miller, thus turning him into a martyr.
Crazy stuff.
Then there was Theo Van Gough who was murdered because folks didn’t like what his films were saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)
Laws are made to be broken, in a very real sense. It is up to the artist involved to stake a claim of what is worth fighting for, what is worth capturing. What I like from documentaries is that they are affordable to make and they can get in there and say the sorts of things that regular productions would never have the license to say due to the politics surrounding the companies and the bottom line. They are essential in a way as a means of exposing the deception that goes on to enforce complicity in G8 activity. They need not be overtly political themselves, even an intimate character study has things to say which are rippled effects of the problems at large… think of Bubbles in HBO’s the Wire… granted not a documentary but… ok, Bus 184 (?).
>> Then there was Theo Van Gough who was murdered because folks didn’t like what his films were saying.
I think it’s a lot worse than just a few pissed of “folks” .. I have a couple European friends who told me the whole Islamic vs Western culture war over there is just getting started. In another 20 years and that will seem like nothing.
Good times in store for Europe!
Folk have got to get a copy of Tropa De Elite, José Padilha’s followup film to Bus 174. It is fiction, but done in a very long-form documentary social ills on display sort of way. I do love when documentary filmmakers go the fiction-film making route (see also Kore-eda)
This is good – I knew there were loads of other examples I simply wasn’t aware of.
Rot – my initial thought is that yes, if you feel strongly enough about anything, you’ll go to nearly any depth to bring light to it but when I step back and re-evaluate, I sometimes think that jumping all in might do more damage than good. I can’t think of any examples but I can just see some gungho filmmaker walking into a situation that sparks international debate and maybe even spark war. I realize that wars aren’t started over night but I have this nagging voice in the back of my head that keeps saying “Yeah…but it could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back”