When reading Bill Nichols book 'Introduction To Documentary' I came across the chapter 'Why are ethical issues central to documentary filmmaking?' and it poses the question:
is it right to have people repeat actions or conversations for the sake of the camera?
and it got me thinking about our own documentary and how we were considering asking Tango if he would do some more outrageous stuff for the camera because we had seen him do it in the past on YouTube videos and such but he never really did anything that outlandish while we were filming him. We didn't ask him to in the end because we though that would be a bit rude and I also thought its obviously something he just does when the mood takes him, it's not something he does at every game so if you showed him doing more crazy stuff all the time you wouldnt be representing him fairly. I also thought if you don't show any of that stuff then again you're also not showing him in his entirety because then people might think what's all the fuss about he doesn't do anything that different to the rest of the fans.
Just by thinking about this and actually making my own documentary I've realised how hard it is to try and produce something completely natural and unbiased because usually someone somewhere has an agenda or a point to prove or disprove. It's also difficult to film some one behaving how they normally would do because when we were with Tango most of the times we filmed him were for the interviews and we didnt feel comfortable enough to just film him even though I'm sure for some of it he would've been fine with it, so that's something we ourselves need to overcome and not being afraid to ask.
It was also hard to film him in completely natural surroundings because his family and someone he worked with all said they din't want to be shown in it so that took that element away.
It's also hard to get people to open up because off camera Tango was telling me and Paul about a time he did actually get arrested for his antics but when i asked him to talk about it on camera he said no, even though it wasn't that bad so it became obvious to me then that he didn't want everyone to know about a certain side of him so already it's becoming biased.
When we interviewed him we had to ask some of the same questions a few times and each time I noticed he gave sometimes a slightly different answer and sometimes a completely different answer, in answer to who would you support if not Sheffield Weds firstly he said Glasgow Rangers then he said no one and then he said Sheffield Weds Youth team so each time we asked the question he'd had chance to think of maybe a better answer which wasn't necessarily the most honest.
So before you've even got it to the camera in his own mind he's recollecting or saying things differently each time or thinking for something different to say so it's then impossible to think you can ever get a truly reliable documentary because nothing ever stays the same.
The book certainly brings a lot of questions to the surface but whether Nichols or anyone else for that matter can really answer any of them is another matter.
Sources:
Nichols, Bill (2010) Introduction to Documentary: Second Edition. Indiana University Press, Bloomington & Indianapolis
No comments:
Post a Comment