Producers of documentary films do not operate in a vacuum but in a place where there are set conventions that guide quality production. Nichols (2006) writes that “an ethical code for the documentary filmmaking process would allow filmmakers to address the imbalance of power that often arises between filmmakers and both their subjects and audience.” Documentary makers, therefore; should see to it that their productions do not exploit participants.
This is particularly so for KPs whose rights are not fully protected by the constitution beyond freedom of expression under section 62 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Maccarone (2010) argues that “documentary filmmakers have ethical responsibilities to the “subjects” of their films because the information they access comes directly from the subjects. This is an important convention, especially in KPs documentaries where filmmakers tackle highly sensitive matters.
Unfortunately, Zimbabwean KPs documentaries producers, a large group of which is made up of amateur filmmakers and opportunists; do not subscribe to any ethical code of conduct.
This is partly due to lack of documentary/ film production code of ethics. In reference to this inadequacy, Mboti (2005) posits that documentary production ethics is work in progress. Plaisance PL (2015) defines ethics as a “form of inquiry concerned with the process of finding rational judgements of our actions when the values that we hold come into conflict (https://www.google.com/url ) In agreement, Sanders (2010) says ethics in documentary making
“is not about judging individuals actions or describing what is right to do in a given situation”, but
“about the principles that inform deliberations and decision about the right thing to do as a documentary filmmaker” (p.531). Without this understanding, documentary producers are bound to face ethical challenges.
In Zimbabwean film industry this is inevitable as most of the producers do not have professional training in their area of study, and also to herself as filmmakers. Due to lack of funding, most producers of KPs documentaries are funded by individuals making the producer susceptible to manipulation. Ruby (2013) says that “the filmmaker/ researcher often faces loyalties to funders, the audience, the subjects of her study, and also to herself.” She adds that “sometimes the responsibilities to these various groups of people may be conflict with one another and therefore create an ethical dilemma. Because of such motivations, documentary producers are likely to be influenced by interest of funders.
Hartizell (2003, P.145) concurs by saying “when a documentary receives funding from corporations that may potentially lose profits due to messages that may potentially lose profits due to messages that the filmmaker is giving, a conflict of interest may arise.” Drawing from the above submissions, it is a claim that sponsorship takes away the independence of documentary producer and may lead to him/her reflecting - through editing, narration, re-enactment and animations –
reflecting massage reality that appeals to the will of the funder and not a representative account of actuality.
Hartzell (ibid) says the “most ethical way for the filmmaker to battle this dilemma would be to think clearly about her intentions before setting out to film.” Related to this, the filmmaker should explain in detail to the subjects the motive for shooting a documentary.
Many a times KPs are lied to by filmmakers who misinform the public and misrepresent their lifestyles. In referring to power relations between subjects and documentary producers, Hartzell (2003) says that “the filmmaker the traditionally more powerful role, must be aware of the effects that pointing a camera at someone has on that person. She suggests that a filmmaker must have consequentialist eye in determining what to film, how to package a documentary about KPs to minimise harm. Other scholars have recommended that documentary producers should include subjects throughout the production process. Some even suggest that subjects and filmmakers engage in collaborative editing so that subject can voice their concerns on key population documentaries before they are published. “If one is serious about using valid statements about people, then collaborations should be welcome” (Pryluck, 1976, p. 265).
Such collaboration, in which the filmmaker functions like a facilitator to the participant and her story, is one strategy scholars discussed to deal with moral issues. However, others believe that such collaborations have associated problems and raise questions about the filmmaker’s position towards the topic of the film: can she still maker her point (Gross, 1988; Winston, 2000). Producers could also opt for provisional consent before asking for full consent (Pryluck, 1976). Some scholars suggest that subjects should be “invited to view the (edited) material and indicate what they prefer to be left out (Gilbert, 1981; Rosenthal, 1988; Winston, 19995).
The above proposal could be the best possible model of ensuring that KPs documentaries avoid victimising subjects and exploiting them or using them as a means to an end. Those who are for consent also believe that “Most answers to such accusations (of taking advantage of someone -) rely on some notion of consent (usual “informed) as the ethical touchstone” (Bekker, 1988; p. xii).
In documentary productions, especially sensitive productions on KPs, complete consent is problematic. Many agree that it is impossible to inform (potential) participants completely about all risks involved in participating (Beckker, 1988; Gross et al., 1988; Katz and Milstein Katz, 1988;
Nichols, 1991; Pryluck, 1976; Rosenthal, 1988b; Wisnton, 1988; 1995, 2000). This is further
aggravated by the fact that in documentary making there is no agreed protocols for informed consent (Sanders, 2003).