More documentaries are made, but quality is dubious
March 5th, 2007 by Zsofia
OneWorld.net carries an interesting interview with John H. Biaggi, deputy director of the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival, who says that the recent boom in documentaries has caused a drop in quality.
“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 year’s 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.”
Biaggi also explains that it is increasingly important for documentary filmmakers to actively engage in promoting their films successfully so that they do have a larger impact. He also thinks that filmmakers have an obligation to help the subjects of their films. “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, in which the filmmakers helped members of the band members release their first CD album and undertake a successful US tour. “It’s 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.”
Biaggi mentions other documentaries that have had a big impact, including Black Gold, about Ethiopian coffee farmers, which challenged Starbucks and raised awareness about what “fair trade” should really be. “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.”
Finally, he criticises the use of voiceover in documentary films. “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: it’s inevitable.”
Read the full interview on the OneWorld.net website.
