Research and Findings: Reflective Practice, Data, and Analysis
While searching for similar analyses and toolkits, I reflected on the definition of visual ethics. I became aware that in order to create a toolkit worth using for future filmmakers, defining the term visual ethics was imperative to ensure the toolkit is as equipped and informed as possible.
I reflected on my process and was mind blown by the sheer amount of material on ethics, arguments in documentary ethics, and what visual ethics is. However, finding information on what visual ethics means in the context of documentaries was a challenge.
I have researched this and now, with the combination of my own reflections, I have managed to categorise my findings and convey them in a constructionist manner whilst breaking down what I did at each stage of the production process. However, I feel it is valuable to define what visual ethics is and why it has become such a primary focus for this exegesis.
“Visual ethics is the study of how images and imaging affect the ways we think, feel, behave, and create, use, and interpret meaning, for good or for bad. Visual ethics includes the study of how we create and use images in communicating with others and ourselves.” ~ Newton, 2004
With this in mind, how can we apply this to each stage of production?
Research and Development
Here we find that research and development is arguably the most time consuming part of the production process. For my own capstone film this was a particularly gruelling part of the production primarily because I had wrestled with many concepts and ideas before I came to decide on the throughline for the film. I discuss in my methodology chapter how this stage of the production process is where it is imperative to consider how visual ethics can play a vital role in how the story is told. I provide a series of examples on hot to implement this. The primary question is this:
“How can I make impact whilst remaining visually ethical?”
In accordance with The Documentary Organization of Canada’s impact toolkit (De Rosa and Burgess, n.d.) and their key considerations for making an impact film, I answered their questions to see how my own film River Town People is sitting in the categories for impact.
Changing minds: to show governing officials that there is still a crisis in the Northern Rivers and their policies and measures failed to do what they were designed to do.
Changing behaviours: I aim to convince people to contact their local MPs, donate resources and time to charities and organisations that are making changes, endorse advocacy groups, etc
Guiding communities: To do community screenings and have local celebrities and officials attend and meet people in the community
Changing structures This is similar to the changing behaviours mode. However, here is where the film will act as a tool for advocacy and demonstrate how there is still an issue, and target key officials to encourage change.
With these points in mind, I began reflecting on Lester’s experience with the protesters. He had an idea, a purpose in mind. The above points was enough for me to develop a cohesive purpose for the film. What is the film trying to do or say? Considering Lester, here is the question that helped me answer the above points:
“If that were you, documenting the protesters (as Lester was), how would you choose to portray them?”
When I had asked myself this question, I was able to find my way to what I wanted to research for this exegesis and how I was going to practically demonstrate the research by the means of developing a toolkit designed to be a set of recommendations on how documentary filmmakers looking to produce impact films can remain ethical whilst still expressing themselves creatively and telling a story that will encourage engagement and action by the audience.
I needed all this information to help me figure out how I wanted to demonstrate this research in a way that could be used again, that it could be cited and incorporated into other productions. I knew I wanted this toolkit to be scalable and malleable to fit any form of production and any size. The foundations of the toolkit came into being. More to be discussed later.
Pre Production
Now that we have reflected on how we are approaching the ideas we have in a visual manner, we can move on to pre-production. Here, we are not only formulising the film on paper, but we are making decisions on the purpose of the film. This is important to remember as the decisions we make now will be followed throughout the course of the film’s life cycle.
In my own reflections, I have realised that most of the development for how I wanted to approach this film happened at this stage. I had started to develop an understanding of what visual ethics was but not sure how I was going to include it into my own project. Keeping a detailed diary meant that I could process my experiences and frustrations in trying to find how I was going to build this toolkit.
Based upon my own experiences of responding in a severe emotional way to some audio being played as archival in the docuseries The Vatican Girl, I wanted to see how I myself could make a film by limiting the use if archival. As the use of it in the docuseries was clearly to incite a reaction, I didn’t see the relevance the material had in building the story. The same considerations were made for my own film. This is how the idea of the toolkit came to being as I went on my own search for a guide or information where I could hold the producers of The Vatican Girl to account.
The toolkit is purely a set of guidelines, not a rulebook on what to do and what not to do. However, it takes into consideration the integrity of the story and the care of participants.
As discussed by Hartzell (2003), I wanted to understand more on how I could tell an impactful story about the 2022 floods that affected Northern NSW that was clearly about a family rebuilding today, right now, in 2023, over a year on from the disaster. After workshopping this idea with my research mentors, I started to develop the idea of working with borders. Here is where I was asking myself a whole new set of questions.
“What are the borders of my film? Who is telling this story and when is it set?”
Asking these questions ensured that I was honing the story in, using an in-depth carrier to tell of the bigger picture. Lucy, a mum, was raising her family from a caravan while she worked to rebuild her home. She was the carrier. The bigger picture was of course how many people remain displaced after the flooding, struggling to survive and rebuild their lives.
My decision to keep my borders tight meant I had to consider deeply how I was to make an impactful film that would encourage action and yet remain visually ethical. But what did that mean now? This was how I came to decide on omitting any archival material from the film and to focus on the present tense; so it felt like Lucy was stuck in a time warp or groundhog day. She would follow her routine day in and day out whilst still living in extraordinary circumstances. This is what the film was going to be about.
I made the creative decision to remain in the present throughout the film so the audience feels they are watching the story unfold in real time. The complications this brought was that the format of documentary had to be decided and to plan for anything that could happen. As an observational documentary, there is only so much planning you can do beforehand before it starts to take away from the point of the film being ‘observational’ and therefore spontaneous.
Wallace’s Creative Thinking Process acknowledges that creativity is a very cyclical process which was reflected in my experience of cycling between the incubation and illumination stages of his process. I contemplated how I was going to tell this story, remembering my borders, and also ensuring I was consistently applying the research I had made into visual ethics, and then finally having my ‘eureka’ moment. This ‘eureka’ came about when I was discussing consent with my participant Lucy and how prioritising her mental health was paramount.
This meant that she could opt out of the filming at any given time, that her children also had that in place, and that we would frequently check in to confirm we could in fact film in that given moment. The results of this is discussed further in our next part.
Fig.1 The original borders map I made to help me focus the story
Production
We are now in direct practice, applying all reflections, research, and understanding in a practical way. Our method here for incorporating visual ethics is revealing and our key considerations are primarily going to focus on what is the ‘truth’ of a scene and the ‘authenticity’ of the image. Every move in this stage could potentially skew or alter what is truly taking place in this scene. This was a daunting task.
As a director/cinematographer, this was particularly challenging. To be asking myself, how does this scene help tell the story? There were always ongoing conversations about consent, especially as I was living with the family for the period of the shoot. With the discussion of consent prior to filming, Lucy and I decided together that consent to participate in film can be opted out of respect for herself, and her three children. This meant that anything that was in fact filmed was with given consent and when Lucy did not want to partake in the filming, she would verbally tell me so.
However, I must add that Lucy rarely opted out and intrinsically believed that everything that was to be filmed was important to tell the story of what is currently still happening.
Hartzell believes that the relationship between the filmmaker and the participant contains a variety of ethical dilemmas primarily based around informed consent (Hartzell, p. 5, 2003). If we revisit Maya Newall’s process, she maintains that integrity to the story is paramount. She mentions that there is a need for collaboration with those that are in our films in order to challenge the exploitative nature and misappropriation of the media industry especially if we want to create and inspire genuine change (Studio, n.d.).
As I revisit my reflections from the test shoot, I can see how informed consent was navigated:
“Ollie is very receptive to my filming and has been helpful. He and Lucy are perfect to tell this story. It’s unique to see this tragedy from the perspective of a child and it helps he is so self reflective. I’ll try talking to him more about it later this evening.”
Despite the story primarily being from Lucy’s perspective, Ollie was receptive to the filming process. He was curious. After having my camera out and visible, even if it wasn’t being used, the children started to get used to it. At first, it did seem like they were intimidated by it, trying to avoid me when I had the camera out, whispering to Lucy about the camera. However, once the filming had officially began, the children had mostly become accustomed to it. They even called it Georgie which was incredibly endearing and helped with the process. There is a moment where Jack, who is the youngest of the three children, would play tag with me and the camera.
This is where I see both Newall’s and Hartzell’s explanation of the relationship between participant and filmmaker come to light. How we choose to have that relationship can greatly impact the film. A set of questions from Hartzell helped me develop my toolkit in this stage of the filmmaking process. As I formulated questions to be considered in each stage of production, here is where my inspiration came from (besides Wallace’s Creative Thinking Process):
Does the means justify the ends? (Hartzell, 2003). If I was to continue filming Lucy when she has opted out, what would be the benefit? I am risking my relationship with my participant.
Does the filmmaker need to have ethical motivations for being involved in a project in order for that project to be considered ethical? (Hartzell, 2003). Documentary is already exploitative. If a filmmaker is using ice caps melting and ecological collapse to be their primary focus of their film in order to win awards and accolades, they are still highlighting a serious issue. This does, of course, beg the question of purpose and why they need to be the one to tell that story.
If the final result of the project has actions or outcomes being met which benefits the participant, does it then matter if the filmmaker had ethical intentions? (Hartzell, 2003). This question requires an understanding of how filmmaking is exploitative. We set up the opt out rule with Lucy to ensure that we were not exploiting her trauma and to establish that this was, in fact, Lucy’s story.
When I was writing my reflections after each day, I found myself trying to answer all these questions again and again. I felt a sense of responsibility to my participants and the community the story was representing.
“Advocating for people like those I am lovingly surrounded by means I am able to help in some way. The level we are seeing climate change unfold at the moment is nothing humanity has seen before and it is important we continue to advocate for survivors and the planet. So how will this film do this? I’m still trying to figure that out. I have plenty of ideas on what I can do but it’s mostly up to coming up with a proper game plan. Feeling fairly inspired being up here means I can consider my options more.”
Looking back at my reflections, I can see that I did in fact have that intention from the very beginning. Whilst navigating the worst influenza season the Northern Rivers had seen for a very long time, not risking having my sound recordist getting ill, and completing the production mostly solo, it was a very challenging process to be able to physically and mentally carry these values through production.
Post Production
At the time of writing this, I myself am still in post-production for my film River Town People. However, based on my own research and reflections I have a few findings to discuss. Firstly, the start of post production was complicated due to my own failing when it came to following due process, from a technical stand point. This was something I should have established early in the production to limit any issues that may arise later.
However, during this time is when my toolkit was really starting to take shape the most. With the aid of my research mentors, I was able to brain storm ideas on how I could format the toolkit. By basing it off Wallace’s Creative Thinking Process, I was able to develop an iterative and recursive process which I was able to use River Town People as my primary case study.
To my amazement, it worked. Not only have we been able to create a film following the aftermath of a disaster but we could tell the story without utilising archival material to refer to. The story has clear and set borders which tells the story of a family rebuilding in the now in a way where the audience feels like there are there in the midst of it all.
However, there was still an issue of impact. I wanted to ensure that we were still achieving the emotional response that I had set out to accomplish; anger, frustration, sadness, and the need to do something about the problem. This takes me back to what was listed in The Documentary Organization Of Canada on measuring the impact of your film. Nonetheless, the measuring impact primarily takes place in the distribution stage, there are preliminary measurements we can do to see if the film is hitting those points.
I conducted a small group of study for the film at its fine cut stage with a small group of people who were filmmakers and non filmmakers mixed together. They watched the film and answered a short survey asking them about their experience watching the film. Here is what we asked:
How did the information at the start of the film make you feel?
Over 50% said they felt intrigued.
Over 30% said they felt sad.
Over 11% said they felt a mixture of intrigue and anxiety.
What are your thoughts on how Lucy was introduced?
Most responses outlined that Lucy was introduced in a cohesive manner with a clear understanding that she was the hero of the story.
One responder said it wasn’t spectacular, but set up the story well.
Explain your response to seeing the caravan.
Most responders said they were sad and had it play as a realisation of the circumstances they family had to endure. .
Was the information about the buyback scheme clear to you?
Over 44% said that it was somewhat clear.
Over 33% said they needed more clarification.
Over 22% said it was completely clear.
How did the information of the buyback back scheme make you feel?
Over 44 % said they experienced a variety of emotions such as amusement, confusion, and frustration, as well as neutral (or not getting the problem).
Over 34% said they felt shocked.
Over 24% said they felt angry.
Describe how you feel about the protest and the community response.
All responders understood the reason for the protest and felt empathetic towards the community.
Some responders commented on how it was hopeful to see the community coming together.
One responder didn’t seem to understand the purpose of the protest.
Would you recommend this film as an informative piece on the issues faced by those still surviving after natural disasters?
100% said yes.
If so, what has it inspired you to do?
Over 55% said yes.
Over 33% said maybe.
Over 11% said no.
How did you feel at the end of the film?
Many said they came out of the film feeling sad and disappointed in what the community is still experiencing.
Others said they felt quite invested in the story and wanted to learn more about the issue.
Others said they felt informed and interested.
“Lucy was introduced well, not spectacularly in any particular way but paced well enough. She fell into place very well in this film, she was the right one to tell the story.”
What information do you feel needed to be covered in the film?
Quite a few responses said they wanted to see more from other members of the community
The insurance and buyback scheme
What people can do to help
“Not surprised per-se, however rather more concerned and sorry. Seeing as how such a bustling family is confined to such a small space. Especially considering 3 young boys - they need space to grow and have fun while they’re little but nothing could be done. The caravan, while small and unaccommodating, became their sanctuary”
Would you recommend this film to others to watch?
Over 88% said they would.
Over 11% responded by commenting on the edit.
“They are protesting to an empty office. The people in charge would have ignored them even they knew the voice from the local community”
Did the film inspire you?
Over 44% said yes.
Over 11% said no.
Over 44% expressed a variety of mixed emotions such as spite, empathy, depression, and indifference.
If so, what has it inspired you to do?
A few responses were on spreading awareness about the issue.
Others said they felt hopeful that things will improve
One responder was unsure
“To make this situation more known to people around me, and look for ways to support or complain to the authorities”
“I think the information provided is sufficient. As someone who was not aware about this situation prior to the film, I got the gist of what the buyback scheme is and the impact of the 2022 floods.”
“Very disappointed that nothing concrete has really been done despite the community’s efforts to push the government to do something. Seeing the way Lucy was told that the government would not be able to help them when parts of their home was in shambles made me feel upset”
Were there any benefits from all this information? It was. Both my editor and I were able to perceive if we were hitting the emotional beats we wanted. For the purpose of the film was to induce emotional responses and inspire action, we were able to see if we were achieving this, and clearly we could see that we were close at this point.
Distribution
I haven’t come to this stage yet, however, there is a plan for distribution that can be followed. The primary focus here is where would the film be best shown to maximise the impact? Are we interested in accolades or making the information available? Here is where we would revisit the purpose of the film.
For River Town People, the purpose was to be used as a tool for advocacy to approach government officials with decision making power, to educate the general public, and to inspire action. Therefore submitting to festivals or film LABS has to be strategic and relevant to the purpose of the film.
We intend to distribute in the following order:
1. Film festivals
2. Film Development LABS and Impact Producing LABS
3. Self Distribution
4. Streaming
Our reason for going in this order is to focus on the reach we can get directly to audiences before taking the plunge on self distribution ourselves. Once we have exhausted the festival market, we intend to hold screenings for community in a small tour around the Northern Rivers, to allow the community to see themselves in the film and for advocacy groups to develop an interest. However, we will need the support from the resources we receive from the LABS we intend to apply for which will provide us what we need to develop a cohesive campaign which will underpin the film.
Here is a list of festivals and film LABS that we intend to submit to:
| Method | Findings |
|---|---|
| Film Festivals | • Hot Docs • Antenna • Sydney Film Fest • MIFF • St Kilda Film Fest • Melbourne Documentary Film Festival • Toronto Documentary Film Festival |
| Film Development LABS | • Distribution and Impact LAB - Unquiet Collective • SheDoc - Documentary Australia • Environmental Accelerator - Documentary Australia |
| Self Distribution | • Community Screenings • Advocacy Screenings • screenings for government (aiming for parliament) • Trailer to be available on a future website |
| Streaming | • Doc Play |
Furthermore, the toolkit on utilising visual ethics into impact documentaries was formulated through the extensive research and reflections conducted through the course of developing this paper. Many ideas and concepts had been constructed and destroyed in order to serve the purpose of the film River Town People. Can we say we have successfully implemented visual ethics throughout the course of producing this film? I would have to say no for a variety of reasons.
Visual ethics is still an evolving concept and a dedicated field of study. The way we incorporate visual ethics into our work will therefore be constantly evolving. Just as Lester says, we are ruled by our experiences and biases and typically make decisions based on these same experiences and biases.
I can, however, say I applied my research in a way that reflected my positions at the time of making creative decisions but I know I can do better.
You can read more of this in my toolkit.