The chapter on Ethics in Nichols

As Jans did on the chapter on voice, here are my notes on the preceding chapter:

Nichols carefully outlines why we need to consider ethics in documentary films. For the most part it concerns questions where there is no cut and dry answer to how to relate to the subjects of the film. There is a glorification of “informed consent” when it comes to agreeing to be on camera. Yet, how informed can the consent be without the “naturalness” of the subjects behaviors to change? Nichols uses Milgram’s film Obedience (1968) as an example. The film is about an experiment that would not have worked if the subjects had informed consent. How informed should the subjects be regarding possible consequences of their appearance in the film? Especially if the filmmaker doesn’t really know what those consequences are. Should they be informed of how the filmmaker will frame their appearance with editing, voice-over, et cetera.

The audience expects almost a direct cinema piece, as if the camera wasn’t even there.  How ethical is it then to the audience when the filmmaker directs the subjects, shape their behavior by letting them know exactly what you are looking for? But, there is also the question of what judgment is passed in the post-production and thus added to the film. Nichols mentions Jesus Camp (2006) where the filmmakers are basically leaving the audience with the choice of how to view what was documented without commentary leading them one way or another.

This chapter consists mainly of questions of how to treat subjects and the audience. Some of these questions are probably best asked to Scott and Jason today. How do they engage their subjects? How much of the project plan is actually disclosed? Do they feel as if their subjects are being themselves or involuntarily scripted? How do they package their work to the audience?