lararosenoff

DOCUMENTARY MANIFESTO

1. Documentary must serve as counter-propaganda to late-capitalist communications and media; it must, therefore, be political and critical-emancipatory in nature.
A critical-emancipatory approach to documentary work seeks to ameliorate flaws in social interactions and communications by creating knowledge that will transform society in some way. It must never retreat from topics that are politically incorrect, difficult, unpopular or dangerous. It must also never shy away from the challenge of re-presentation. “…a retreat from speaking for will not result in an increase in receptive listening in all cases; it may result merely in a retreat into a narcissistic yuppie lifestyle in which a privileged person takes no responsibility for her society whatsoever.” (Alcott, L., 1991-2, p.17)

2. Documentary must seek to destroy mythological boundaries between “the other” and “the self”.
It must strive to instill a sense of Collective Responsibility, placing moral responsibility with individuals rather than with intangible systems, thereby linking participant-subjects to participant-viewers in a humanist enterprise. “Today in our global economy the assumption of a pure outside is almost impossible.” (Foster, H. 1996, p.178). “To set aside the sympathy we extend to others beset by war and murderous politics for a reflection on how our privileges are located on the same map as their suffering, and may-in ways we might prefer not to imagine-be linked to their suffering, as the wealth of some may imply the destitution of others is a task for which the painful, stirring images supply only an initial spark”. (Sontag, S., 2003, p.102-103). Documentary should not only spark, but must attempt to fan that flame.

3. Documentary must be disseminated in public spaces.
As counter-propaganda, it must be as visible as the proliferation of consumer capitalist “documents” (advertising) that are currently invading all public spaces. In addition, its meaning will be necessarily different than if viewed within a cinema or gallery context. By disseminating documentary in public spaces, attention of the participant-viewer will also necessarily be called to acknowledge consumer propaganda and to contemplate its effects on the individual. This experiential difference of the participant-viewer is key in a critical/emancipatory approach.

4. Documentary must use any and all stylistic and aesthetic devices to engage the public.
I find the debate of “aesthetic quality versus political relevance, form versus content…” (Foster, H., 1996, p.172,), a non-debate. Writers who write about politics do not write badly to be considered politically relevant. Beautiful writing skills, like beautiful aesthetics and formal elements in media, simply serve to engage the reader/viewer/participant. The revelations and knowledge gained from the work are dependent on the content that the writer or documentarian sets forth. Documentary must use any formal device available to increase effective communication. Both form and content are musts.

5. Documentary must seek partnerships with community groups, advocacy groups and policy working groups.
Documentary work should use these partnerships to give avenues of action to the participant-public, as well as to contextualize and disseminate itself. Habermas notes in 1975 that most people have by now abandoned the public and political realm, enabling elites to deal with crises unencumbered by lengthy public debate. He calls it “civil-privatism” and states that everyday life is a- or anti-political. How then can a critical-emanicipatory documentary approach realistically function if the audience (public) is disengaged from civil society and political life? Documentary must try to beak through the current phenomenon of Compassion Fatigue to re-politicize the public and spur change. “Compassion is an unstable emotion. It needs to be translated into action, or it withers.” (Sontag, S, 2003, p.101) “People don’t become inured to what they show…because of the quantity of images dumped on them. It is passivity that dulls feeling.” (Sontag, S., 2003, p.102 ). As a further note, collaboration with aforementioned groups will allow dissemination outside of the capitalist/consumer-driven media conglomerates.

6. Documentary must never dub over people’s speech.
If the goal is translation, films and videos must be subtitled. If you take the time to listen to somebody’s actual voice, documentarians have the responsibility to transmit that exact voice.

7. Documentary must not be profitable to its maker beyond everyday living allowances and sustenance.
Although this may be vague, it’s the principal that I am referring to. Documentary makers should not profit by pointing out horrors, social inequalities and the grave injustices in our world. Counter-propaganda must not profit from the system that it is challenging. If profit is made on documentary works, the money should be split between the maker for future works, major subjects if in need, and non-profit partners. i.e. No documentarian should buy a Ferrari with the profits of their work.

8. Documentary must be copy-left.
Copyleft protects the freedom of all others to practically use documentary works. It is in the spirit of free information, free dissemination, free art, free thought, and is generally opposed to the capitalist system. It is also a direct challenge to copyright philosophy.

9. Documentary makers must never ‘tell’ before they ‘show’.
Even after they’ve shown, the maker should not need to tell so much. Documentary work, as visual, aural or interactive based work should contain all the elements of revelation within itself. As well, documentarians must, as much as possible, keep focus on the subject of their work and not on themselves. “You know, I really think with a good part of myself that an artist shouldn’t talk very much about his work…but an artist is too special a man in society anyway.” (Katz, L., 1981, p.368-369). This point should be overridden however, in the context of lectures, when the documentarian takes on the role of teacher.

10. Documentary must refuse the possibility of objective truth, it must encourage dialogue, and it must value critical thoughts and questionings above certainty.
This disavowal is a “…a complex mode of refusal to acknowledge or to claim responsibility for the meanings and effects of documentary practices devoted to certitude –sober, certain knowledge….” (Renov, M., 2004, p.42)

WORKS CITED

Alcoff, Linda (1991-1992). “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique, Winter. NC : Oxford University Press, 5-32.

Habermas, Jurgen (1975). Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press, Boston.

Katz, Leslie (1981). “An Interview with Walker Evans,” in Vickie Goldberg (Ed.) Photography in Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present. New York: Simon and Schuster, 358-369.

Renov, Michael (2004). “Documentary disavowals or the digital, documentary and postmodernity” in Fullerton, John and Jan Olsson (eds) Allegories of CommunicationL Intermedial Concerns from Cinema to the Digital. Libbey Publishing :Rome

Sontag, Susan (2003). “Regarding the Pain of Others.” Farrar, Straus and Giroux, USA.

Wolfe, Charles (1987). “Direct Address and the Social Documentary Photograph: Annie Mae Gudger as Negative Subject.” Wide Angle 9:1, 59-70.