Given its complicated legal history, To Be and To Have challenges the definitions and audience expectations of documentary cinema. What is (or should be) the purpose of nonfiction films? Should they educate, turn a profit, or be a mode of artistic expression for the filmmaker (or all/none of the above)? Are the documentary subjects “co-authors” of the film, and should thus receive monetary compensation and film rights? Or is paying documentary subjects absolutely taboo, since it “would be to treat them as an actor, and that would be the death of documentary filmmaking” (according to Philibert’s lawyer, Claire Hocquet, as quoted in the assigned Bruzzi chapter)? Are the film subjects “social actors” or are they movie stars? Who ultimately controls the “image rights” to a documentary? And do documentary filmmakers have an obligation to their film subjects? If so, what kind of obligation? Financial? Artistic? Moral? Legal? Lisa Leeman explores some of these questions in her article “Money Changes Everything - Or Does it?” (also assigned for Monday’s class), and I am curious to hear what you all have to say on this topic. Given our class discussions so far this semester (especially our passionate debate about Michael Moore in Monday’s class), it seems that many of you expect documentarians to treat their subjects with respect and to present them in a “factually correct” light (in other words, many of you expressed the viewpoint that documentaries are responsible to educate their audiences and not to misrepresent their subjects). But what exactly does this entail? How does a documentary filmmaker go about fulfilling this mission? What happens when your film subject objects to his or her cinematic representation after the film is screened? Who has the final say in situations like these?
I feel that documentaries generally get their credibility from the assumption that what is being seen is factual and that we can be sure of that because the people on-screen are not actors. What incentive do they have to not be honest? The subjects of documentary films should not be compensated, at least until after the film is released, and if it makes enough money to allow for it. Of course, how to define “enough”, I’m not sure.
ReplyDeleteFilmmakers should not have to negotiate with every single person shown on screen or interviewed for the project. Can you imagine how much that would add to the cost of producing the film? Especially when a considerable amount of documentary filmmakers already have to put their own money (or at least find their own money) into the project just to get it made, not knowing if it will ever turn a profit. If having their story told is not enough motivation to be a part of project, perhaps they simply should not be involved.
In the case of Georges Lopez suing Philibert for his part in To Be and to Have, he clearly wasn’t all about the money in the beginning if he turned down the initial offer of 37,500 for his help in promoting the film. Who knows what his reasons were for turning it down, but then to come back and ask for 250,000? The film wasn’t even a huge commercial success. His claim that his class was an original creation that Philibert essentially counterfeited is absurd. Lopez gave consent to be a part of the film, and how does one even own the rights to a classroom and what goes on in it?
While the participation of the subjects in any documentary is to be greatly respected and appreciated, they are not the co-authors of the film. They are people living their day to day lives and being gracious enough to let someone capture it. If the filmmaker happens to make a large enough profit off of their work and feels inclined to share it with the subjects, then that’s just a perk.
In our class discussions it seems like there has been an attempt to give documentaries a purpose (or if not a purpose, expectations of things documentaries should NOT do). So far, I've heard that the media has the responsibility to accurately educate its audience. Someone stated that the reality is people turn to the media for answers, and therefore, it is our responsibility (as potential media contributors) to inform accurately and without bias.
ReplyDeleteBut is that really our responsibility? Why can't I make a film on any topic I want with any information I want to put in it. Van Gough didn't have to worry about making his stars proportional to the earth below in Starry Night. Tchaikovsky didn't concern himself with whether or not his music accurately portrayed the aura of swans in Swan Lake. Why can't documentaries just be? Can they educate? Sure. But do they have to educate. No.
The issue of paying the subjects of documentaries is a tricky one. Without Lopez, Philibert would have had no movie. But had he payed Lopez, perhaps the authenticity of Lopez's character would have been lost. What seems to make the most sense to me is to not pay the subjects of documentaries. Instead, they should be contractually alloted some of the film's monetary profit, if and when the film makes a profit. The reading made Lopez seems somewhat greedy for suing Philibert (and for his claims of copyright), but really it seems like Philibert is the greedy one for not recognizing Lopez's role in the film's success and offering royalties without Lopez having to sue for them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI will post a more thorough response after this discussion but this prompted a passionate, immediate response, so I want to get it out now.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of a documentary film is NOT journalism, and the filmmaker's allegiance is NOT to the subject. Our allegiance should not be to the ACCURACY of events, but to the VALIDITY of the emotions, passions, thoughts, and feelings that we show on screen.
I think one of the fundamental differences between "non-fiction-documentary film" and fiction-feature film is, there are no paid actors or performers... with the possible exception of "re-enactors" as may be used in some forms of docs like ones you may see on the History Channel, etc.
ReplyDeleteOnce you start to pay your subjects you take the chance of changing everything a doc is. When someone is being payed for their opinion, or view-point, in a doc, you take the chance of creating a situation where the subjects now have an "financial agenda" of their own. Also, the budget situation would change dramatically and it could price-out of reach, the ability for independent filmmaker to get films made. It would become an all-corporate enterprise (even more then it is now).
Outside of its greater social contexts, I thought the film was a beautiful piece on the simple things in life and recognized key relationships that form between mentors and pupils. All the subjects were intriguing in their own rights and of course George Lopez was a pleasure to watch and learn from.
ReplyDeleteI think the most interesting thing about "To Be and To Have" in regards to its greater social complications as an internationally successful and profit grossing documentary is the fact that it has sparked so much controversy over what it is to be a person and to maintain that image in front of the camera and an audience. Can you ever really be yourself on camera after your image has been digested, edited, color-corrected and your voice has been imported, equalized, and sound-designed? Can you be your normal self when you are viewed on a gigantic film screen for an ever-increasing audience who will study you and your movements, words, and mannerisms multiple times? What does the camera, and more importantly the filmmaker, do to you when you agree to take part in a documentary and how does that affect your image and your wellbeing as a person post release?
After today's discussion, it's clear that we may never know the answers to these questions. However, it's apparent to me that film is a deeply personal medium and communicating one's own interests and viewpoints is a relatively easy thing to do. It is much harder, however, to take someone else's point of view, words, and actions and reconstruct them through your own lens accurately and truthfully without altering their image and voice with your own artistic stamp.
Documentary film is a complex medium. Issues of legality, morality, artistry, and social impact accompany nearly every film. Still though, these issues are extremely ambiguous and subjective. In my eyes the filmmaker has a prerogative to his own ideas of morality - just as much as the reception of the audience can, and should, be based on their own moral notions.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of "To Be and To Have", I feel as though the legal & moral issues do affect the audience's idea of the film. To deny that would be naive. However, I do feel as though these issues allow the audience to formulate even more personalized reactions to the film, according to their own unique sets of beliefs. To me this concept is simple in the most complex of ways. Art is a way to communicate, and it is a form of communication that signifies something different for everyone. We make of it what we will.
I believe that whether or not the subjects of a documentary should be paid is entirely up to the documentary filmmaker. I believe for most filmmakers, paying a documentary subject "feels wrong." It's a gut reaction. For others the reaction may not be the same. We've talked a lot about the "purpose" of documentary films, but I think the only purpose that truly matters at the end of the day is the one brought by the filmmaker. If it is part of a filmmaker's purpose or cause to accurately present the purpose or cause of his or her subjects then that filters down into the purpose of the film but the only person that the filmmaker is ultimately responsible to is him or herself. An individual filmmaker can expand that responsibility to include other things: a responsibility to the subjects, a responsibility to the audience, etc, but it falls on the filmmaker to make that expansion. Since, in the end, it is his or her product that will go out into the world, it is his or her decision to select who they want to please. In the case of "To Be and To Have," Lopez agreed to let Philibert make the film. That's pretty much the end of his claim, in my opinion. Once a subject turns themselves over to the discretion of the filmmaker, he or she is stuck with what they get. Now some filmmakers may want to work with their subjects to create a final product that represents them the way they choose to be represented but again that falls on the filmmaker and it is my opinion that he or she only needs to hold this responsibility to the subject if he or she feels so inclined. I don't think this responsibility is innate.
ReplyDeleteAlso, just to touch on something I noticed while watching "To Be and To Have," this is almost entirely an observational documentary but I couldn't help but constantly be aware of the camera's presence. For example in the scene where the two boys, Julian and Oliver?, are getting in trouble for fighting, the one boy (Julian, I think) repeatedly looks at the camera. How would this scene have played out if the camera was not present? There are more moments like this in the film but this one stuck out in my mind. How much of the action in "To Be and To Have" was altered by the presence of a camera and cameraman? I know when I was young, any time a camera was around I felt the need to perform. It's always interesting to me to think about this need to perform and how (or if) it changes as we get older.
I think that non-fiction films for the most part serve the same purpose as fiction films and that is to entertain an audience. I don't see any difference in the two if the films are created on a budget and need to make their money back unless the person funding them is doing it out of pocket with no intention of ever seeing that money again. People don't go to the movies to learn they go to be entertained. Thats not saying that non-fiction has to be entertaining without be educational or informative. Docs are a relatively cheap way to make entertainment and that makes them great for startup or underfunded media makers and with the trend in reality television you just have to find something disgusting or scary or (in this case) cute to point a camera at and voila:entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI feel we had a pretty good discussion about the concept of paying social actors, although it also seemed to spur some intense emotional responses as well (from myself included). I think my initial opinion on the matter still stands: there is no legal backing for the families and Georges regarding the entire incident, but it is arguably at least an ethical debate whether the director "owes" them in any sense of the word.
ReplyDeleteI said in class that if I had directed the film, I wouldn't feel comfortable with my success without offering at least some help to the families who opened their lives to my lens. That said, I am also trying to remain open-minded about the other side.
One could just as easily say that it is unethical to pay social actors, because it might influence their behavior and result in a less than authentic "performance". Also, business is business and legally the director is in the right protecting his money. But I still believe that interpersonal relationships can never be totally divorced from business/art and that if you want to be effective at either you need to look at the way you interact with other people.
Also, the controversy surrounding this film has only helped to eclipse the ideas and themes it was exhibiting to being with. If I were the director, I would try to find a middle ground somewhere so that people can watch the film comfortably without thinking about external factors, and allow themselves to be fully immersed in the world that Filibert so effectively captures.
The issue of paying documentary subjects presents a huge moral issue. Legal right duels with ethical responsibility in a way that challenges and highlights many issues. First things first, just because it's legal does not make it right. It's that thought process that perpetuates this dog-eat-dog mentality that is so prevalent in our society today.
ReplyDeleteHaving a commercially successful documentary is such a long shot. When Philibert presented those legal agreements to the families, I really don't believe he or the families realized how successful it would be. It is therefore, in my opinion, totally unfair to hold those releases in the same regard after evaluating the success of the film. It casts a poor light on the film and the filmmakers.
No, Philibert did not have a legal responsibility to pay those families. But moral and ethical obligations cannot be thrown out just because it's legal.
I think it is within ethical boundaries to compensate the subject of a doc if the director wishes to do so. I don't think that it's OK for the subject to ask for more money, though, that kinda sucks. If they signed the release, the terms are exactly what the director decided on when he wrote the thing. It's not a legal issue, it's all in black and white in the terms agreed upon. It's probably actually the filmmaker's ethical responsibility, though not required, to compensate the subject(s), which is what Philibert offered in the beginning. But I think once you start paying out royalties for a person's performance of "copy written material" then they are an actor, and that certainly tarnishes the documentary name. The subject isn't the co-author of the film, they're supposed to pretend the camera isn't even there. Maybe Philibert should've just offered a little more the first time? I don't know. But once Lopez asked for money, there's no way he deserves it. I loved this movie, though.
ReplyDelete