Documentaries - higher numbers, lower quality

OneWorld UK

By Daniel Nelson

The boom in documentaries has caused a drop in quality, according to John H. Biaggi, Deputy Director of the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival.

In an interview with OneWorld UK ahead of the groups annual London festival (21-30 March), Biaggi is particularly scathing about the frequent use of voiceovers, a device he complains is growing like a fungus.

As voiceover goes up, craft goes down: its inevitable, he says.

Biaggi insists that filmmakers have an obligation to help the subjects of their films mainly in terms of money, but also perhaps in helping people sort out their problems.

Bettering lives in a significant fashion is a central obligation of human rights filmmakers, he comments. I do not believe the theory that you are there to show the world a terrible situation, and not to fix the individual's problems.

He cites the example of The Refugee All-Stars by Zach Niles and Banker White, about a group of Sierra Leone refugees. Biaggi says the filmmakers helped members of the band members release their first CD album and undertake a successful US tour.

Its a remarkable story: bringing this band to the US for a tour, educating people through the music about the story of their country and about their lives.

He mentions two other documentaries that have had a big impact, at different levels - Black Gold, about Ethiopian coffee farmers, and Punam, about nine-year-old Punam Tamangs struggle to support her family. The filmmakers returned to Nepal to pay for an operation to fix the leg of her younger sisters.

They also raised money and supplies for the school that the three children in the film attend. Helping the family, says Biaggi, though its not on the scale of mobilising people, means so much to the subjects of the film.

Black Gold has challenged Starbucks, which in turn will ripple through the other large coffee chains and suppliers, to do more than they currently do to offer a fair price - one that the coffee farmers can actually live decently on - for coffee beans.

The filmmakers have been extremely effective in marketing this film, and in engaging Starbucks in the public media eye at every turn, he says. They have an amazing story about how Starbucks attempted to smother their film when it premiered in Seattle, as well as further sparring with the company over the past year of festival screenings.

I think they have succeeded in raising the level of consciousness for a large number of people on the issue of what fair trade really should be - and how it is currently just employed as a marketing tool to keep and expand fair-minded consumers for their product.

Which have been the most powerful films on human rights issues in the
past year? It really depends on what issues the viewer is captivated by, he says.

If you are particularly concerned about the post-Katrina hurricane debacle in New Orleans, and the racism that was in evidence in the lack of response, then Spike Lee's When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts would perhaps be the most powerful film you saw.

If you lived in the GDR (East Germany) in the 1980s, then certainly the Oscar-winning The Lives of Others would be the one.

If Abu Ghraib still makes your blood boil, then Rory Kennedy's excellent film, Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, is your top human rights film of the past year.

* Here are Biaggis comments in full:

Q. Can you give examples of the usefulness, and disadvantages, of film as a medium for mobilising people on particular issues or on human rights in general?

A. The first two films I've chosen are not in the London festival as the majority of the films in London are too new to gauge what they've accomplished in the larger world.

Black Gold by Nick Francis and Marc Francis.
There is a lot of press you can Google on what this film has done. Basically, the film has challenged Starbucks, which in turn will ripple through the other large coffee chains and suppliers, to do more the they currently do to offer a fair price (one that the coffee farmers can actually live decently on) for coffee beans.

The filmmakers have been extremely effective in marketing this film, and in engaging Starbucks in the public media eye at every turn. They have an amazing story about how Starbucks attempted to smother their film when it premiered in Seattle, as well as further sparring with the company over the past year of festival screenings. I think they have succeeded in raising the level of consciousness for a large number of people on the issue of what fair trade really should be, not what it is currently - and how this is currently just employed as a marketing tool to keep and expand fair-minded consumers for their product.

The Refugee All-Stars by Zach Niles and Banker White.
Overall, this film has had a robust festival tour, and has done television, reaching a large audience. But what is particularly
impressive is that the filmmakers helped the band members - central
characters of the film - get their first album released on CD and
available in the US market. They even partnered with them to organise a band tour in the US, which was very successful.

Its a remarkable story: bringing this band to the US for a tour, educating people through the music about the story of their country and about their lives.

Punam by Lucian Muntean and Natasa Stankovic.
On the micro-level, here is a beautiful short film where the filmmakers
have returned to Nepal to pay for an operation to fix the leg of the younger sister in the film. In addition, they raised money and supplies for the school that the three children of the film attend. I'm not sure what else they have done, or plan to do there, but helping on an immediate level, though its not on the scale of mobilising people, means so much to the subjects of the film.

Human rights films are almost always useful/effective as long as they are well-crafted, engage the audience, and are not poorly produced or lacking in a clear structure and focus.

Additionally, it becomes more important year by year that the filmmakers do not just tell these stories but actively engage in outreaching/promoting their films successfully so that they do have a larger impact. Otherwise, what is the point of making a human rights film in the first place?

I believe the filmmaker also has a particular obligation to the subjects of the film, to substantially help them - primarily I am thinking of monetary help, but also help they may need in working through a problem, or a bureaucratic issue where the filmmaker can assist in some way. Bettering lives in a significant fashion, I think, is a central obligation of human rights filmmakers. I do not believe the theory that you are there to show the world a terrible situation, and not to fix the individual's problems.

Q. Do you think feature films have more impact than documentaries?

A. I think it depends on your definition of impact. Feature films on human rights topics, when they are actually strong, well-crafted films (and not just strong on the human rights themes they portray) can have greater impact if they are well-marketed (which is rare), as they have greater and better theatrical and television options then do documentaries. This is more a reflection of the sad state of the film-going public than of the films themselves. If documentaries had the same access to the best theatrical and television avenues, I believe they have the greatest impact potential to actually change a situation, to inspire viewers to take some action.

Feature films have a built in fourth wall that is often not as evident or intrusive in the documentary format - hence the advantage of documentary.

Q. Is the nature of the films available and/or the films you select changing geographically or in terms of issues covered or the way issues are covered?

A. This is a complex question. Most evident each year is the sheer number of human rights films that are being made. It keeps going up. Whether that is a good thing is debatable.

Certainly, it is not a good indicator of the number of human rights issues that have either not been improved or which spring up each year.

Also, there is the problem of quality degradation. With so many human rights films being made, what I see is a lot of poorly produced and/or poorly conceived films. The actual percentage of each years films that are really good has not moved up at all. In fact, I might venture to say, it has gone down.

Really strong documentaries take time and skill and tremendous effort and follow-through. All of these are in shorter and shorter supply every year. The squeeze on funding sources, on people's time and ability to tell these stories, and the frantic siren calls of festivals and television (with their deadlines and premiere demands) make it increasingly difficult for any aspiring filmmaker to actually allow the film to unfold in its true nature, in a proper length of time.

Geographically, I think this years festival films are not so different from years past. But more and more of these films are relying on voiceover to tell their stories. This feeds into what I expressed earlier about the degradation of quality that is taking place each year. Voiceover is a lazy approach to filmmaking. It is not often that a subject truly demands voiceover.

When the main character in the film is the filmmaker, then there is an argument for using voiceover, but even then I would say use it sparingly, and try to tell your story on camera with you, the subject, moving about in the real world, not just telling us what you thought/felt/did in voiceover.

Outside of these personal docs, voiceover is used because it makes it easy and quick to glue together a film that won't stitch properly because you haven't covered the subject and the scenes you should have to make your doc in the first place.

It also is a weak device that grows like a fungus in a film, where filmmakers may have begun with the idea 'I'll just use a little voiceover where absolutely needed to explain an abrupt transition or time change' - and before long, they are using it all over their film, worried that the viewer has no brain to follow the story, or because their storyline is incomplete, or their ability to capture the subject is not there. It's a direct indicator of a loss of craft that is taking place throughout the documentary filmmaking world.

As voiceover goes up, craft goes down: its inevitable.

Q. Why do you think there has been such a revival of interest in documentaries?

A. Documentaries offer an opportunity to see and feel real emotions, and at least some semblance of a reality, and an environment, that hasn't been completely choreographed. As the media world becomes increasingly dominated by huge entities that consolidate vast holdings, churning out the same bland and undemanding (of the viewer) product, I think people have tried to escape this Orwellian reality by turning to the documentary form.

Q. What have been the most powerful films on human rights issues in the past year?

A. I'm going to turn this question a bit on its head. A whole group of powerful human rights films have been made this past year. It really depends on what issues the viewer is captivated by. If you are particularly concerned about the post-Katrina hurricane debacle in New Orleans, and the racism that was in evidence in the lack of response, then Spike Lee's When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts would perhaps be the most powerful film you saw.

If you lived in the GDR in the 1980s, then certainly the Oscar-winning The Lives of Others would be the one.

If Abu Ghraib still makes your blood boil, then Rory Kennedy's excellent film, Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, is your top human rights film of the past year.

Our festival consistently showcases many of the most powerful human rights films of the year: it all depends on the individuals past and present reality.

John H. Biaggi
Deputy Director
Human Rights Watch International Film Festival
350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10118-3299
Ph: 212 216 1263 / Fx: 212 736 1300 / E: biaggij@hrw.org
http://www.hrw.org/iff