4.0 INTRODUCTION
4.1.9: P RESENTATION OF S UBJECTS
Zimbabwean documentary filmmakers are producing dull documentaries that have very little aesthetic value because they are more concerned with the information and issues being presented at the expense of aesthetics.
The producers place value on the information and not on the beauty of the film. While this is understandable, one questions the extent to which these films, with bad composition, bad sound and basically of poor quality, can effectively communicate the intention of the filmmakers – since in visual communication – packaging is everything. The audience deserve good quality films, and Zimbabwean documentary film makers focusing on KPs are failing to produce professional productions.
It should also be noted that there is difficulty in determining the reception of each given documentary film despite the way it is presented. Hartzell (2003) argues that since images are polysemous it is impossible to predict how each, viewer will interpret a film. This follows the point that images have more than one socially generated meaning depending on the context in which they are viewed and, on the individual,, who is viewing them (Ruby, 2013).
The interpretation of images depends on the label that is attached to the film (i.e. title), the context in which it appears (i.e. television, film festival, etc.) and what the audience expects from the person who created the film (i.e. anthropologist, student, artist, journalist, etc.) (Ruby 2013, p.
141). Expectations based on all of these variables by audience members can influence their perception of the film itself. Although filmmakers cannot be expected to anticipate all the ways in which each viewer will perceive their films, it is crucial that they keep their intended audience in mind to avoid ethical infractions that can breed misinterpretation and contempt for the films as a result of poor packaging.
that fulfills his/her intention. He/she, however, has to be ethical in this presentation given that how the subjects are presented can either have positive or negative consequences.
The core issue that the documentary filmmaker should consider is the authenticity of the subject in his/her presentation. The audience, already aware of the conventions of the documentary film as a presentation of truth, facts and reality expect to see an authentic subject giving information that is also credible. However, a subject can cease to be authentic in front of a camera. Stewart (2006) argues that by introducing a camera into the subject's life, the filmmakers are also introducing an audience.
This is thought to destroy the authenticity of behaviour because the subject now acts for the benefit of the audience; they are performing an exhibitionist routine and not their authentic behaviour (Stewart, 2006). As Bruzzi notes, “performance has always been at the heart of documentary filmmaking and yet it has been treated with suspicion because it carries connotations of falsification and fictionalization, traits that inherently destabilize the non-fiction pursuit” (2000, p.
125). The implication of this is that subjects presented in a documentary give a performance of the truth they retell, and the telling of this truth is a performance that can either be presented to be interpreted as false.
The documentary film Prostitution In Rural Areas opens with images of two women singing and dancing in front of a hut. They can be heard saying the following:
Woman 1: Nyaya yechihure yakaoma (loosely translated - Sex worker’s issues are a difficult case).
Woman 2: Nyaya ye hure yakaoma akomana (loosely translated - Indeed, a sex worker’s issues are difficult).
While the women allude to the difficulties faced by sex workers, they make a farce of the issue by the dancing in front of the camera. The farce of the sex worker’s plight is further heightened by the point that while the voice over narrator gives an exposition of prostitution in rural areas, the two women are seen dancing and enjoying themselves. Here, one is justified to argue that the performance by these women point to a celebration of sex work rather than a loathing of it. In this
instance, the performance given by the subjects does not portray their authentic need for help out of the trade.
Furthermore, during the interviews, the subjects laugh while narrating how poverty drove them into prostitution and challenges they are facing. The performance given by these subjects can possibly be interpreted as being a farce hence devaluing the issues they narrating.
However, the point of presenting the subjects as being authentic or false can be countered by the point that a filmmaker demands of the subject an authentic performance that does not take him/her out of the comfort zone of everyday performance. A subject is often asked to remain calm and be natural, but in doing this he/she is aware of the presence of the camera. The awareness of the camera brings an awareness of being watched, and this elicits from the subject a performative side that the director makes use of.
The sentiments above imply that a subject cannot be said to be false just because he/she performed in a sort of way. Indeed, the dancing of the women featured in the film Prostitution In Rural Areas could indicate their being expressive rather than false creators of reality. These are women who, not by choice but by circumstances, have found themselves in a dire situation - sex work. They dance their pain away expressing their humanity and not their profession. They laugh and smile during their interviews to relive stress, as they ponder the misfortunes forced on them by poverty.
The same can be said about subjects who feature in the film “We Have Feelings Too”: Sex Work in Zimbabwei.
Likewise, subjects in this film are well dressed and smile, at times laughing during their narration.
They are presented as being calm and comfortable in their own skins. The level of calmness indicates an expressiveness that goes deeper than the expressiveness of pain if it’s not genuine. To this end, one can argue that while the audience may raise questions about the performance of the subjects in a documentary film, particularly when it does not meet his/her expectations of certain behaviour associated with a certain role, the subject’s personal expressiveness makes the filmmaker ethical. The filmmaker is ethical in that he/she presents the truth of the subject’s performance, and not created reality.
Also, one has to consider the consequences that characterize the aftermath of performing for the camera. This follows the point that a subject in a documentary film is seen and, because
documentary film is based on facts and reality, the audience can recognize the performed behaviour. When the audience have recognized this behaviour, the subject remains with the prerogative to ascertain what they would have said. Otherwise they stand to contradict themselves.
Accordingly, Butler (2004, p. 91) argues that “a fraudulent documentary performance would place the performer in a precarious position, for at any moment in their performance an event may occur to catch them out and badly contradict what they have openly avowed, bringing them immediate humiliation and sometimes permanent loss of reputation”. To this end, one is justified to claim that the consequences that follow the presentation of a documentary film demands the ethical consideration of an authentic performance from the subjects. Stewart (2006, p. 8) concludes that the filmmakers are committed to maintaining their documentary's impression of authenticity, and if they are skeptical of the sincerity of a subject's performance they will not rest the film's credibility upon it.
4.2. Analysis of NGO Produced KP documentaries Category (Generally produced