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?
