Making Money: Profits & Ethics in Documentary Filmmaking By Beth Gilligan
Related Links
Tribeca Film Festival website
Cannes Film Festival website
Michael Moore's official site
Merchandise Links
Bowling for Columbine (Region 1 DVD) - Amazon.co.uk
Etre et Avoir (Region 2 DVD) - Amazon.co.uk
In a world where shows like American Idol, The Apprentice, and Survivor regularly win the TV ratings game, the increased public appetite for documentary films should come as no surprise. Just last week, Entertainment Weekly reported that Touching the Void (2003) had broken into list of the top ten grossing documentaries of all time. Based on opening box office reports and terrific word of mouth, Morgan Spurlock's Super-Size Me (2004) seems poised to join it, and there's always the possibility that Michael Moore's already-controversial Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) could trump the $22 million gross that made the filmmaker's previous effort, Bowling for Columbine (2002), the highest-grossing documentary of all time.
Not only have these films been prospering financially, but they have also been garnering the type of critical attention that has often eluded them in the past. Abbas Kiarostami's 10 on Ten (2004) and Jonathan Nossiter's Mondovino (2004) join Fahrenheit 9/11 in competition for the Palme d'Or at this year's Cannes Film Festival, while Jonathan Caouette's Tarnation (2004), made with an initial budget of $218.32 (approximately £125), drew a ten-minute standing ovation when it screened as part of the Director's Fortnight.
However, as documentaries grow more successful and find a greater space within the public consciousness, there remain a number of unresolved issues facing their filmmakers. On Saturday, May 8, the Tribeca Film Festival gathered a panel of insiders to discuss this changing landscape, most notably the perceived financial success of the genre and ethical issues such as whether or not a film's subject should be compensated for his or her participation.
In light of the recent lawsuit waged by Georges Lopez, the rural schoolteacher featured in the hit French documentary Être et Avoir (2002), against filmmaker Nicolas Philbert, the latter issue seemed timely. While Lopez is demanding 250,000 euros on the grounds that the film was partially his creation, Philbert has famously asserted that, 'one of the founding principles of documentary filmmaking is to not install relationships of subordination. If you start paying people in documentaries, they become your employees.'
While this specific incident was never broached by the panel, the issue remained in the air. Peter Gilbert, producer and cinematographer for Hoop Dreams (1994) and director of With All Deliberate Speed (2004), an upcoming documentary about the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, disclosed that he and Hoop Dreams director Steve James felt obligated to give the families depicted in the films an equal share of the profits. Not only had the directors forged a close relationship with them (filming took place for over seven years), but they also felt that withholding profits would be exploitative given the dire economic situations faced by many family members. Gilbert acknowledged, however, that this case was extraordinary, not only because Hoop Dreams was wildly successful, but also because few filmmakers commit to spending such an extensive amount of time with their subjects.
Panelist Daniel Anker, the producer and co-director of the Academy Award-nominated documentary Scottsboro: An American Tragedy (2000), and Edet Belzberg, director of the Oscar-nominated Children Underground (2000) and the upcoming Gymnast, recalled painful decisions where they were forced to omit key participants from their films because they refused to be filmed without receiving financial compensation.
Spellbound (2002) producer Sean Welch initially found himself in a similar bind with one of the families featured in his film, but was ultimately able to convince them to appear in the movie without being paid. Although this situation worked out for the best, Welch admitted that if he and director Jeff Blitz had had unlimited financial resources to tap into, they might have considered paying the family on the grounds that their participation helped make it a better film.
The discussion, moderated by Caroline Kaplan of IFC Entertainment, then turned to the film industry's reaction to the growing commercial success of the genre. Mark Urman, head of THINKfilm's U.S. theatrical division [which released Spellbound, Bus 174 (2002), and The Agronomist (2004]), pointed out that the $6 million grossed by Spellbound was probably about as much as 'Van Helsing (2004) made before lunch yesterday,' but nevertheless predicted that box office records for documentary films would continue to be shattered with increasing frequency. Urman also remarked that 'documentaries are the most exciting films I'm seeing [and] the most interesting films I'm seeing.' From a marketing perspective, they are also relatively inexpensive, as many come with what he described as 'built-in media hooks.' As an example, he cited the Sundance hit Super-Size Me, which has drawn volumes of free press coverage for its outrageous exposé of McDonald's fast food. Still, for every Bowling for Columbine, there are several less-heralded films that fail to do good business.
Still, with the explosion of affordable equipment and technology (Tarnation, for example, was edited on Apple's iMovie software), documentaries make an increasingly safe financial bet for studios and filmmakers alike. Urman cited the case of Bus 174, which despite garnering rave reviews only earned roughly $200,000 at the box office. Although this number may appear dismal on the surface, THINKfilm somehow managed to eke a small profit from it.
Whether this current fixation on documentaries is a passing fad or the shape of things to come remains to be seen, but with festivals like Sundance and Cannes continuing to place heavy emphasis on the genre and mini-blockbusters such as Capturing the Friedmans (2003) and Winged Migration (2001) putting dollar signs in the eyes of potential distributors, these films look like they're here to stay.
So where are you in the midst of this debate? What's your position?
Read more about all the films mentioned in this piece?
Can you trace any other ethical dilemmas before docuwallas? You can? You can't!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When geetika,mili,parul and me made a documentary(last year) on street children. i did go through a dilemna.We went to Ber Sarai to shoot the children who beg at the red light.Interacted with them, made them comfortable, then took them to a park to play,later to IIMC premises for the actual shoot,their interview. They came along innocently without demanding much. Later, Pawan sir from an NGO Khoj who teaches them,met us and told us that it was not right to get the kids from ber sarai till IIMC without their parent's permission, could be dangerous,he said. That made me realise how easy these kids are as target, as 'subjects'.Filming them is so easy,just lure them with sweets and play with them. Thats when it struck that it is becoz of their condition and living style. Go to a urban setup,try doing the same. One will have to face flak from parents.They wont be that accessible.
ReplyDeleteWe got our story,our movie out of them, but was it ethical or plain fine??......
A film maker is according to me a selfish soul. Once he switches on a camera he is almost certain what he requires from his subject. If its a case of a fiction where the subjects may be provided with screenplays and dialogues or a documentary, where he has done his homework and ground work befor switching on the camera after choosing his 'subject', he has to face the same dilemma.
ReplyDeletei do agree with Nicolas Philbert that once you start paying your subject he becomes your employee. It is almost as if you are making a film for commercial reasons. While i do also believe that some sort of compensation must be provided to subjects once the films are complete something like a niminal fee.
In the recent past i have encountered such situations where subjects refuse to come on camera if they are not provided with monetary compensation. Also i would like to exemplify here slumdog millionaire. The film raked success all over the world and earned millions but what happened to the little artistes who worked in the film? Once they were slum kids , they went of to become 'slumdogs' saw the world , won oscars and returned home to the same jhuggi which was however demolished sometime later.
How many film makers can afford to create a 'Jai Ho trust' ?
last year , i remember walking to siri fort auditorium and catching a kid on the street doing gymnastics, as i took a picture he left the cars he was 'performing' for , came to me and asked for money for clicking the picture. I feel more such instances will come in future. If a film maker can be a selfish souls and get what he wants from his subjects , a subject too can be selfish enough to ask for a price to give that!
before getting into the dilemmas of documentary filmmakers with regard to their subjects,i feel its important to understand the relationship between the two. is it jst knowing what you want and getting it out of your subject, or is it trying to understand and make note of her/his/its actions,rections and behavior at any given point of time or place? is it just filming what comes across as captivating, or letting your instincts or conscience come into play? is it a symbiotic/mutual relationship...which is to the advantage of both,or not concerning yourself with the others benefits/conveniences?
ReplyDeleteI have a questio,had slumdog not been such a big worldwide hit,would the slum children get so much attention and financial help from the producers as well as the state government,what about other such children?Can the state be partial?
ReplyDeletemili