4.0 INTRODUCTION
4.1.7 V ARIOUS R ESPONSIBILITIES OF THE F ILMMAKERS
4.1.7.2: P RESENTATION OF S ELF
Documentaries are agreed from a certain vie point and if that changes, it can completely alter the story
— or at least how the audience feels about a character or situation. In other words, the person telling the story determines how the story is received and interpreted by the audience. Colt (2017, p. 35) summarizes this point as follows:
“Each story is set in a specific time and place, yet sequence by sequence, as the audience look at events happening on screen, where do they locate themselves in space to view the action? This is point of view – the angle taken to look at the events and characters, their interactions with each other and the environment in the film. The scriptwriter’s choice of point of view or POV makes an enormous difference on how the audience views the film. This is because who or whatever’s POV is shown is the person/thing that is telling the story to the audience.”
From the above, it can be inferred that the reception of a story is dependent on how it is told and how subject is presented. According to Bruce (2005), each shot in a film expresses a point of view, or narrative stance, which changes often — sometimes with each new shot. Grega (2014) supports points out that the point of view is the main and continuously dynamic tool of structuring the narrative. Given that it is the filmmaker who makes and present the film, what is the ethical way to present his/herself in the film? There are various ways in which a filmmaker can be presented in the work.
The first of this is the onscreen presence of the filmmaker. This is when the filmmaker is visible to the audience. The audience can visibly see the filmmaker and put a face to him/her. In the film
“We Have Feelings Too”: Sex Work in Zimbabwe, we actually see the filmmaker, Sibongile Mtetwa who is the Coordinator of Sisters with a Voice. The film cuts between her on-screen address to the audience and her voice-over narration. In this instance, the filmmaker is present in the film getting screen time.
Ethically, when the filmmaker appears on screen with the subject, a sense of equality is established between the filmmaker and the subjects. Given that “We Have Feelings Too”: Sex Work in Zimbabwe is about sex workers who are working with Sisters with a Voice, the appearance of Sibongile Mtetwa on the film presents a sense of equality between the sex workers that are featured in the film and the organisation. As such, the organisation manages to assert itself as client- centered and not profit centered organisation. Both the subjects and the filmmaker are equal in the film and jointly plead for safe sex.
Another way a documentary filmmaker can present self within the film is by voice presence. This is when the filmmaker can be heard via the narration he/she gives via voice over. In this instance, we do not get to see the filmmaker, but we can hear him/her via voice over narration. The inclusion of a voice over allows a filmmaker to efficiently provide information to the audience in a way that is easy to understand. Documentaries often use a voice over to provide the viewer with relevant information through the film's soundtrack (Nichols, 2011). Epworth Commercial Sex Chronicles produced by New Zim TV uses voice over narration with the voice of the reporter being heard over B-Roll footage. Also, the documentary Stolen Dream: Children Selling Sex produced by Katswe Sistahood makes use of voice over narration. At no point to do we get to see the filmmaker, but we hear the filmmaker throughout the film as she does narration.
In contrast to when the filmmaker is visually present in the film, voice over narration distances the filmmaker from the subject. In the case of the film Epworth Commercial Sex Chronicles, we are aware that the filmmaker is just giving an account of events distant from them.. This can be justified by the point that this was more of a news report that just served to show prostitution in Epworth. In the case of Stolen Dream: Children Selling Sex it can be seen that the filmmaker distanced herself because she wanted the subjects’ personal stories to be center stage, and hence appeal more to the audience.
There is a misconception about NGOs where members of the public perceive that organisations misappropriates donations meant for subjects. To this end, it can be argued that the filmmaker in Stolen Dream: Children Selling Sex distanced herself from the subject so as not to have the organisation cloud the perceptions of the audience. However, the ever present logo of the organisation throughout the narrative somehow dismisses this claim as it is clear that the filmmaker wanted to maintain visibility. To this end, it follows that the filmmaker took into consideration how the presentation of self would impact the intention of the documentary film, and decided to not be visually present in the film but maintain visibility through the organisation logo.
Also, a filmmaker can choose not to be visually or aurally present in the film. In this instance, the filmmaker is neither seen nor heard in the film, but all attention is given to the subjects who appear alongside given B-Roll. The narrator will not be present, but text information is given alongside visuals and interviews of the subjects and B-Roll. Such is the case with the film Persecution of Gays Surfaces in Bulawayo where the filmmaker is not present. The film has no voice over narration nor is the filmmaker part of the documentary. Text narration is used as information is written on the screen for the audience to read. In this way, total detachment between the subject and the filmmaker is achieved. Here, the issue at hand becomes more focal as information is shared via text and via the subjects.
To some extent, one can argue that absence of the filmmaker also serves to protect him/her, especially when the issues being discussed are very sensitive. This can be the explanation with the Persecution of Gays Surfaces in Bulawayo which focuses on LGBT persons and their treatment in Bulawayo. Homosexuality, according to the constitution of Zimbabwe, is a crime. As such, the possibility of being arrested and criminally charged with misconduct is high for the filmmaker. In order to protect herself from persecution, she decided to be absent in the film and just present the issue. She hides herself just as she hides the subjects in the film hence protected. From this, it can
be deduced that some of the Zimbabwean documentary filmmakers focusing on KPs are considerate in framing self, especially in cases where there are sensitive issues.