SARAH GONG
Documented Reality
Exploring Ethics in Documentary Filmmaking
The University of British Columbia, 2017-2018.
This documentary explores one of the core aspects of documentary filmmaking—ethics. Using multimodal texts, documentary films invite spectators into the reality it showcases. This great persuasive power of documentary films requires producers to go through rigorous ethical considerations.
Two producers followed a team of novice documentary filmmakers and documented the ethical struggles they encountered in their production. The dilemma experienced by our participants has a great relevance for all documentarians. We hope our film opens up further conversations on the issue of ethics.
My contribution
-
Played a key role in managing schedules and executing the tasks, such as making proposals, footage shooting and video editing.
-
Liaised with participants and acknowledged their cultural and ethical concerns.
-
Actively sought professional advice from UBC professors and filmmakers during the production process.
-
Managed changes and risks when contingencies took place.
-
Premiered the documentary to over 20 graduate students and professors at the University of British Columbia (UBC).
Context
Because the ways in which how this documentary film is going to shape largely depends on how participants of this film (i.e., other filmmakers) approach their filmmaking. As such, in the most part, it is not possible for us to construct our story prior to the production period.
However, some of the key themes we wish to highlight in the documentary are:
-
the ethical choices filmmakers make in the process of filmmaking,
-
their use of camera (e.g., positionality, type of equipment),
-
the filmmakers’ positionality vis-à-vis their participants,
-
the ways in which they make decisions as a production team, and
-
post-production process (e.g., how they review with whom, how revisions are made).
These themes are highlighted in order to show the audience of Documented Reality that the documentary film is a representation of reality that filmmakers, together with their participants, construct.
Because the filmmakers we follow (Amir, Dan, & Anna) will highlight the international students’ financial struggle, we will pay particular attention to the filmmakers’ decisions and challenges regarding privacy concern.
Finally, we will include the story about the ways in which we, as filmmakers of our own, make decisions in the process of making Documenting Documenting. Because of the time constraint, we may not include narrative account of our own filmmaking process, but we will intentionally include our camera, our voices (e.g., when communicating with filmmakers), and our body, in the film.
Producers
Yuya Takeda
Yuya Takeda is a PhD student in the Department of Language and Literacy Education at the University of British Columbia. His research interests include critical literacy, digital (media) literacy, citizenship education, and discourse analysis. He is also an amateur photographer (Instagram @yuyapecotakeda). Combining all of his interests, his dissertation project will likely focus on critical literacy education through media production project.
Wenyi Gong
Wenyi Gong is a graduate student in Master of Digital Media program at the Centre for Digital Media. She earned her Master of Education degree in Educational Administration and Leadership at the University of British Columbia. In her spare time, she likes to run marathons, play the piano, watch films and make short videos. She likes to explore the intersection of education and digital technology.
Participants
Daniel Jordan gained his master’s degree in the adult learning education program at the University of British Columbia. His academic interests include exploring how documentary film can be incorporated into adult education curriculum. Daniel is currently on sabbatical from his family’s residential addiction treatment centre—Sunshine Coast Health Centre—located in Powell River. When Daniel is not studying or working, he is spending time with his wife and teenage children or playing sports.
Amir Jahanlou is a PhD student in Interactive Arts at Simon Fraser University. His research interests include developing more human-like computer interfaces for education, simplified visualization tools and virtual reality sw/hw for learning. A core aspect of his research interest is bringing visualization technologies to masses to help mobilize crowds producing and learning from visualized data.
My reflection
By using multimodal texts, documentary film has become one of the most powerful storytelling genres that aim to demonstrate reality and complex ideas in a more accessible way (Roy, 2016). The purpose of this paper is to reflect on mise-en-scène, scene of address, and the semiosis we applied in our documentary film project, as well as explore how they promote transformative learning.
Mise-en-scène, Scene of Address, and Semiosis
We put the mise-en-scène scene of address and semiosis into praxis and in turn have a deeper understanding of them. Mise-en-scène refers to all of the visual elements that are arranged before the camera (Saint-Jean, 2012), including set design, costume and makeup, use of space in a scene, movement of actors within a frame, cinematography, and directing. The filmmakers see the mode of address more as an event that takes place between “the social” and “the individual” (Ellsworth, 1997). Through the documentary Human, I understood how elements such as the close-up of interviewers’ faces, amplified subtle facial expressions and body languages, specific clothing, moments of silence, and the dark grey background create a powerful emotional bond with the audience.
In the process of making our own documentary film, Documented Reality, Yuya Takeda and I spoke at length in regard to what to include in the camera and how to present them in a meaningful way. No matter how objective a documentary film presents its contents, the angle of camera, selection and order of the scenes, choice of sound effects, and so forth are subjective decisions the producers make. Our intended audience is mainly our classmates. So in order to build a connection between the film text and the audience’s experience, we wanted to achieve a connection through our choices of visual elements. Thus, we shot most of the scenes on campus and included several symbolic buildings. Moreover, we found that the background made a great difference in signifying the participants’ stories. For instance, the interview with Amir (talking about the dilemma they encountered in the filmmaking process) was shot in a bright room with white walls. Later, we found that we should have shot the footage in a dark setting. Generally speaking, white walls convey very little depth of the field and come across as flat. A darker wall gives some depth of the field by making the viewer focus on the actor in the foreground when the actor is lit.
Semiosis is fluid. The seemingly irrelevant things in the footages might convey meanings when editing them (quote from class notes). Thinking of a proper beginning and ending was one of the most challenging tasks in producing our film. Yuya and I agreed upon using semiotic scenes. At the beginning of the film, Yuya and I stand at the far end of a slope with two pieces of paper in our hands. Then we run a few steps closer to the camera. However, the words on the paper are still unseen to the audience. The audience may wonder, what exactly is on the paper? Then we run closer to the camera. It is not until the fourth time we are at the front of the camera that the words on the paper are finally visible to the audience: “Documented reality”. We used this approach to start our film to signify that the reality a documentary film showcases to the audience is the subjective decision made by the producers. This process binds the signifier and the signified (Nöth, 1990).
Yuya and I tried to capture our participatory process in the production process in several ways. We intentionally included the scene of ourselves shooting the participants with the camera, as well as shoot the camera and scene with a second camera. Semiotic scenes also happened in this situation. When the first camera was shooting the participants, the second camera was shooting behind the first camera, moving from a close-up of the first camera to a zoom in/out of the whole scene (e.g., timeline 01:40, and 04:35). We even included two cameras in a third camera’s frame (timeline 02:40). One was the participant’s camera and the other was our camera.
Transformative Learning
The application of documentary films to adult learning plays a transformative role in constructing one’s identity, questioning and resisting hegemonic assumptions, promoting self-reflection and shifting perspectives (Sarkan & Beyazova, 2012). Transformative learning takes place when new feelings and ideas guide future actions, change prior perspectives, and shift frames of reference (Mezirow, 2000). Mezirow (2012) classifies ten phases when transformative learning may occur. He emphasizes that a linear path exists between these phases and that the next phase depends on the existence of the previous phases. The production of our documentary film underwent the whole process of transformative learning, especially in the following phases: a disorienting dilemma (phase one), recognizing that others share similar experiences (phase four), exploring options for actions (phase five), and building competence and self-confidence for implementing plans (phase six).
Documentary films typically mobilize the combination of reason (logos), emotion (pathos), and collective story (ethos) to display a particular version or versions of truth (quote from class notes). Documentary film is a representation of reality, and not reality itself. For this reason, the process of documentary filmmaking involves ethical choices and negotiations between interested parties (e.g., filmmakers, participants, funders) about how to represent certain reality.
Uncovering the profound content of our film topic itself is a critical reflection of documentary film and ethical dilemmas. So is the production process. In the beginning, we intended to capture the process in which our classmates (Amir and Dan) planned their filmmaking, collaborated and negotiated with one another, made choices, and framed their versions of reality. In the while-production process, the focus of Amir and Dan’s shifted dramatically, which put our team into a dilemma. Both groups had a positive attitude towards the unexpected dilemmas we faced, and regarded them as learning opportunities. We discussed the problems in depth, looked at them from a new perspective and ended up finding breakthroughs. With two groups, four members, and the instruction from Professor Mazawi, we took an active approach towards it and worked out a “Plan B” together. Hopefully, after viewing our film, the audience would learn new things from it. Therefore, the film and the whole production process are where transformative learning takes place.
Personal Reflection on Documentary Project
Documented Reality is a short documentary film produced at UBC by Yuya and me. My teammate and I shared the responsibilities equally. Both of us participated in every step and had a clear grasp of each detail. Due to the fact that our film project was contingent on the participants’ filmmaking process, we felt passive and sluggish at one point. Thanks to the professor’s suggestion, Yuya and I kept an open mind in the production process and kept the story open-ended. We also kept questioning and exploring ethics in the filmmaking process.
Above all, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my teammate, Yuya Takeda, a hardworking person with a passionate heart, versatile expertise, and profound thoughts who constantly inspired, enlightened, and encouraged me in the past four months. Moreover, I shall thank our participants Amir, Dan and Professor Mazawi who were supportive and cooperative from beginning to end. It was a delightful experience to work with them. Our passion, application of film theories, together with the filming and software techniques made our short documentary film come to fruition.
References
Ellsworth, E. A. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy, and the power of address. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. the jossey-bass higher and adult education series. ERIC.
Mezirow, J. (2012). Learning to think like an adult. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress, , 3-33.
Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Roy, C. (2016). Documentary film festivals: Transformative learning, community building & solidarity. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.10.1007/978-94-6300-480-0
Saint-Jean, E. (2012). Mise en scène. Retrieved from http://gorillafilmonline.com/features/film-stuff-explained/mise-en-scene/
Sarkan, O., & Beyazova, A. (2012). Documentary film as a means for transformative learning in adult education. (Unpublished ED 643 Mass Media and Adult Education,