Please as understand that as a Moderator I post these things to foster discussions.
To what extent does the manipulation of footage through editing contribute to shaping public perception, and is there a responsibility for filmmakers to balance creative expression with ethical considerations, especially in documentary filmmaking?
3 people like this
This question was one of the most vitriolic debates our local film group back in the "listserv" days of post 2000 ever had. The basic underlying question has to to the fundamental belief of is there is such thing as "objectivity" in film (let's forget all other media for now). There is a group that believes such objective filmmaking is at least theoretically possible. There is another group (which includes me) that believes the act of pointing a camera, setting an exposure, framing a shot, deciding when to start and stop a camera is inherently a subjective act that can NEVER be accomplished objectively. Add the process of selecting a take and editing it to another and it's the furthest possible thing from objectivity by any reasonable definition of that word. However, despite, this the other camp will die fighting for the belief that some films are "more objective" or "less subjective" than others. They don't understand my camp beliefs all filmmaking to be 100% subjective by the fundamental process of filming and editing. The intent or goal or moral values of the filmmaker are irrelevant. I do believe looking at even the most famous documentary films, even those that accomplished much good, there would fail every true test of objectivity. But there is also an implication in this that subjectivity is somehow less than objectivity. I would argue that is is precisely because film and cinema offer potentially the most powerful emotional medium that we have and thus the one that can most effect change. Objectivity has it's use in science and perhaps legal or other arenas. To return to your question, all filming and editing is manipulation by it's very nature. It's a contract that should be consensual. The only problem I have is those that argue that their film is actual objective. It's not, it can never be. Like all consent, as long as both audience and filmmaker are fully aware and committed to the this contract of subjectivity, all is good.
2 people like this
I think genre plays a hand. I totally agree with Stephen - it's the nature of editing. But when actors, directors and editors aim for a scene, using the footage in the most potent way is the social contract. When editing a news interview or a doc on a subject that deserves reverence or respect, then keeping things as close to authentic should be the goal. Back in my reality TV days many years ago... all the footage was in play to deliver entertainment to the audience and the participants signed on for that - and I always felt the audience did too. So like may things, not sure its absolute. The moral compass of the project plays a hand.