Ethics and the Documentary, Andy Gibson

Photo by Jeff Caperton

Ethics and the Documentary

Depending on the type of documentary the director is making, involvement with subjects can be a question of ethics. In the blog, blog.spout.com, the question of involvement is explored. Christopher Campbell looks at the Academy Award winner Born into Brothels in which the premise of the film relies on the interaction between subject and filmmaker. “There has also always been a debate with documentary regarding just how much interaction and intervention is okay.” And because the debate still rages, there really is no answer.  This is a factor that I will have to take into consideration because of my closeness with proposed subjects. I must decide whether to be completely detached from friends who are taking risks or to intervene if a situation arises that compels me to act.

The second source I found was risktaking.co.uk. The site concludes “the perception of risk triggers a cascade of physiological changes that are experienced as high arousal and unpleasant anxiety. This explains why we are motivated to avoid risks, and begs the question why people take risks at all.”  This is the central theme to my proposed documentary. I want to find what triggers these seemingly normal subjects to disregard these symptoms that the brain produces and to go through with their risk taking. A couple of my ideas for subjects were chosen because of their sporting choices.  Risktaking.co.uk says that people who chose to take risks for sport are typically very confident that they have the power to manage the risks involved and that they tend to have friends who also believe the way they do. 

An article by Paul Roberts in source three, psychologytoday.com, exemplifies why I am interested in the topic. Roberts writes that “Researchers don't yet know precisely how a risk taking impulse arises from within or what role is played by environmental factors, from upbringing to the culture at large… and scientists are divided as to whether, in a modern society, a "high-risk gene" is still advantageous.

There seems to be so little certainties in this field that I think it would translate well into a documentary.

I also plan to explore the sense of community in these risk takers. In source four, wright-house.com/psychology/sense-of-community, McMillan & Chavis (1986) explore the sense of community with this analogy that fits perfectly with my subjects.

            Someone puts an announcement on the dormitory bulletin board about the    formation of an intramural dormitory basketball team. People attend the             organizational meeting as strangers out of their individual needs (integration and      fulfillment of needs). The team is bound by place of residence (membership   boundaries are set) and spends time together in practice (the contact hypothesis).      They play a game and win (successful shared valent event). While playing,             members exert energy on behalf of the team (personal investment in the group).       As the team continues to win, team members become recognized and           congratulated (gaining honor and status for being members). Someone suggests       that they all buy matching shirts and shoes (common symbols) and they do so     (influence).

Lastly, an extremely helpful site I found, centerforsocialmedia.wikispaces.com, comments on many different ethical conundrums that a documentary director might face. Marty Lucas writes that the RTNDA ethics guidelines could apply to documentary filmmaker to a point. One point that differs is the paying of participants. Documentary filmmakers sometimes pay their participants and on the same theme often accept funding from someone who may have an interest in the outcome of the final piece.