The armchair activism of documentary film, as Rikki talked
about on Monday, is what I think is the most effective way to reach out to
the masses. The documentary itself provides awareness and knowledge of certain issues that
most likely need to change for the better. If a phone number is provided at the
end of such a film, it is a way to unite a group of committed citizens together
in order to work toward moving forward with solutions and progressing toward
positive change.
We all know a text message isn’t going to save starving
babies or rape victims. But providing immediate contact information to
communicate with those who are interested in taking action—even if that action
is simply sending a text—is effective in that it gives viewers the opportunity
to choose what to do with the new awareness and knowledge.
As Margaret Mead said, “Never doubt that a small group of
thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only
thing that ever has.”
A text message may seem inactive, but it may just be the
next step for rounding up that small group of people who are actually willing
and wanting to take further action to help.
On the other hand, to be justifiably wary about the benefits of
the call to action, as Jans mentioned, seems to be just human nature. We question
how this or that is going to help uncorrupt the FDA or a military justice
system, for example. But I believe it is this realm of thinking that holds people back from the attempt to even try.
If skepticism rules it kills the
potential to even budge toward change.
I believe the desire to know comes along with (maybe
subconsciously) the desire to act. I do not necessarily think documentaries are watched just to know or just to act -- it's a combination. When an audience is informed about a
situation or issue, many people are then able to sympathize or even empathize
with what was shown on screen. Whether it’s a campus shooting at Columbine high
school or the riots in Cairo, the vicarious experience (as Scott Carrier
talked about) helps us address these topics more sympathetically and therefore
more respectfully, because the footage is just sample
taste of what that may have
been like. And because the power of visuals (images and film footage)
trigger emotional responses in us, the potential to respond in some way seems more likely that just appealing to our emotions for the fun of it. So even if one begins watching documentaries just for the sake or pleasure of
knowing, I think eventually it is inevitable that the awareness will arise
action of some kind.
All in all, even if some documentaries instigate inactive social
activism, I think those who seek and watch documentaries have the desire to be
informed and the desire to know for the purpose of improvement of some
kind—whether personal improvement, societal or global. Once certain information
is known, it’s difficult to ignore the facts and seems almost impossible to erase
the visuals. That’s why docs have the power to change an audience; and the
change—whether it is in attitude, perspective, or physical doing (active or
inactive)— is still stepping forward in some way.
