morality in different modes of documentary

The issue of morality in documentary films is always an interesting one. I feel like there are two crucial elements to such a discussion. First, viewers are often under the impression that because a film is a documentary, it depicts reality. It is important to remember that no matter how observational or removed a documentary might seem from the subject matter, there is still always a point of view that is being suggested. This is usually done through the editing process: what does the filmmaker choose to include and exclude from the film; how does he order the shots and scenes; what music does he pick, and so on.

As you can see, I am generally skeptical of documentaries that claim they are unbiased and are simply portraying a subject. However, I do think that Capturing the Friedmans does a very good job of presenting the audience with two sides, and most significantly, of refusing to commit to one side or other. You can watch the trailer here:capturing the friedmans

Secondly, the issue of morality tends to come up when talking about the vulnerability of the subject. Questions of dignity and the way the filmmaker chooses to portray the subject often come up in observational and expository documentaries. A great example of a documentary that has caused some debate about whether or not the filmmakers were somewhat cruel in the way they the exposed the vulnerabilities and eccentricities of their subjects is Grey Gardens. The film feels invasive and it is clear that the subjects, a mother and a daughter, have come to rely on the filmmakers in an inappropriate a way, a way that makes it easy for the filmmakers to take advantage of the two women. The Cruise is another great example of this.

As a side note, here is an example of a totally heartbreaking participatory documentary: dear zachary
The filmmaker is very closely involved in the story, and so it makes the upsetting subject matter all the more compelling and difficult to watch.