1. While shooting these two documentaries, both filmmakers faced ethical dilemmas. One that stood out to me the most was the matter of privacy and exploitation. One could argue that, due to the mental state of the people being documented, it is hard to argue that they are in the right mind to consent. This is probably the biggest issue that I noticed that could cause ethical problems. These documentaries both, in a way, invade the lives of these "sick" people, and it is hard to know for sure that it is willingly; how can you know that the people know exactly what is being made out of their life?
2. I believe that all of the footage faces the same issues, so if they are going to use any of it, they have already exploited these people, and they might as well use all of the footage. Although, I do feel that they, for the well being of the people who were documented, should notice if there are any parts in particular that could cause harm to the reputation of the people being documented, and should try not to use those clips. (For example, personal information such as the subject's sexual activities in the Titicut Follies".)
3. In this situation, as a journalist or a documentary storyteller, I would try my best not to exploit the people who agreed to be a part of my project. It is a touchy subject, and everybody has their own opinions on whether the topic is alright to shoot, but with consent, it is technically allowed. I would try not to portray the people negatively, while still getting my point across. I would document the lives of these people, but avoid focusing on things that people in society can easily scrutinize. I believe the "Grey Gardens" film did the best job of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment