Objectivity in Documentary

I think that the ideas that the author raises about intervention in an observational documentary setting are particularly interesting. When does the filmmaker have the responsibility to intervene? I think that this question ties back to larger ideas about relativism, objectivity, and perspective. For example, outrage over lack of intervention generally occurs when the filmmaker fails to interfere with an ethically objectionable act. Yet, the characteristics that define the ethically wrong are not static. They exist in relation to one’s cultural beliefs and priorities. As such, what might seem wrong could be culturally acceptable to someone else, especially depending on the context of the documentary. In this case, it would be somewhat ethnocentric and potentially problematic for the filmmaker to intervene. This ties into the idea of objectivity itself. If the role of the documentary filmmaker is to be an objective informant for his/her audience, this implies disengagement. As such, it would seem inappropriate to intervene, as it would change the documentarian from an “objective” bystander to engaged participant. However, the concept of objectivity is flawed. There is no such thing as singular objectivity—this is apparent in the examples of all of the documentary forms that the author discusses. Truth is malleable, truth is subjective.

The documentary The Act of Killing directed by Joshua Oppenheimer is one of the best I’ve seen at working with the subjectivity of truth. The film follows the right-wing paramilitary/”military hero” leaders of Indonesia. They gained control of the country following a military coup and a genocidal reign of terror. Once in control, they changed the historical narrative to fit their own priorities and benefit their regime. The filmmakers challenge these warlords to recreate the scenes of the killings in certain styles (Western, Gangster, etc.) In doing so, “the filmmaking process catalyzes an unexpected emotional journey for Anwar, from arrogance to regret as he confronts, for the first time in his life, the full implications of what he’s done.”