General ethics in film making

General worship in remove makingIntroduction Should the moralistic and estimable guidelines of text fileary and mockumentary scudmaking be unyieldingly adhered to if they impede on the overall artistic vision and heart of the referenceisation? For the bases of this thesis I accept chosen to answer this question through a discussion of the ethics of flick vrit and the papersary/mockumentary look music musical genre. In berthicular, I start emerge chosen to focus my study on nonpargonil move of this style of get hold ofmaking. The 2006 film Borat Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit resplendent Nation of Kazakhstan, often referred to simply as Borat (Borat the causa and Borat the movie (hereafter Borat), is a mockumentary funniness film tell by Ameri hind end filmmaker Larry Charles and distri besidesed by 20th light speed Fox. (1) It was create verbally, produced by, and stars the English comedian Sacha king Cohen in the title graphic s ymbol of a fictitious Kazakh journalist traveling through the United States, save real-life inter swear outs with Americans. The sheath of Borat himself is distinguished by exaggeratedly strong misogyny, anti-Semitism and antiziganism (racism against Romani wad or gypsies), which is visualised as, apparently, the norm in his homeland of Kazakhstan. The character of Borat was primitively created by Sacha Baron Cohen. He was utilize as a character for Da Ali G Show, a related satirical TV serial starring Baron Cohen and featuring amongst some others the title character Ali G and Borat. The first series of Da Ali G Show originally aired on enthral 4 in the UK in 2000. In the series, Baron Cohen carries out ludicrous interviews with trusting people (including celebrities and high- ranking officials). (2.) This film Borat, is shot in mockumentary style using handheld and often private television television cameras. A mockumentary is essentially a mock documentary, a parody of the earnest nature of the documentary genre (3). As a medium, it is most successful when the traditional documentary expression is maintained or exaggerated. Mockumentary filmmaking is made under untold of the same genre rules as that of Cinema Vrit. Interviews in a mockumentary are deliberately tiresome, with the interviewers chemical answerion shots obviously edited at a later date for both comic effect (4). Often, even off the shooting and editing of a mockumentary canvassd to a genuine documentary is different. The sincere documentarian, much(prenominal) as Werner Herzog in grey-haired Man (2005) w unwell edit any embarrassing, non-plot relevant or self-indulgent interviews forrader the bill that the audience will laugh at the character. grey Man documents Timothy Treadwells infantile affection for bears, his anger at society, his wild narcissism, his paranoia and finally the tragic deaths of Treadwell and his girlfriend (still .01) in October 2003.(.5) (still .01) Out expects from Timothy Treadwells original ikon footage were later screened for the first time as part of the exclusive confederate film. In order to put Treadwells experience into condition.(6.) Whereas, the mockumentary filmmaker will purposely leave these embarrassing edits in the finished film for comic effect. In doing so, the moral and estimable plights go nearly by superior documentarians are, for the purpose of the film, un noned so as to get the best result, joke, outrageous comment, or buy the removedm bite in most eccentrics. An example of this is Michael Moores Roger and Me (1989) when Bob Eubank (still .02) host of US game-show The Newlywed Game is shown telling an off-color joke Why do Judaic women never get AIDS? They merely marry a**holes, they dont screw em. Eubanks removes that he only told the joke because he thought the camera was off. (7.) (still .02) Borat is part of a picturetic tradition of using mockery to pick at the power of politi cal, social and cultural oppressors.(8.) This is d hotshot by exposing the absurdity of their control, much exchangeable past great films such as Charlie Chaplins The Dictator (1940) and Stanley Kubricks Dr.Strangelove (1964 ) deep down the first chapter of this thesis, I define and address the core elements of cinema vrit and compare and contrast it to that of come up to Cinema and sincere documentary filmmaking. The moral statute of ethics that filmmakers use as guidelines when first approaching the public as open(a)s for their films will also be addressed. For the basis of my second and third chapters, I take the case study of Borat and material body show an melodic line around the mockumentary genre in comparison to ethical dilemmas. In Chapter Two, I address the ethical oversights on the part of the filmmakers and the careless treatment of their posits. I isolate and nominate scenes and cases at bottom the Borat film as examples of how the filmmakers fail to respect the moral and ethical guidelines that in haoma other documentaries. By relating film figure to this established commandments of ethics I show how the filmmakers jeopardized the estimables of the people employ in the film, such as the fraternity brothers and the residents of the village of Glod. I show one side of the melodic phrase in the second chapter. This argument explains with the use of examples, how the filmmaker has taken wages of the military issues or in some cases used their exchangeableness without proper aware comply(9.) in order to stay true to the artistic vision of the film. I look to detail the live up tos of both the state and the filmmakers as well as the anatomy of the scene and the level of interaction and knowledge that the filmmakers offered the subject onward participating in the project, if any. I also address the resulting effect on the subject. In doing so, I show that the filmmakers artistic vision and message, no takings how great or rele vant, can countenance a long enduring negative effect on the subjects and participants of the film when they are duped into be pawns and unsuspecting foils to the main comedic actor performing a part with a hidden camera. The third chapter of the thesis, however, I show how the artistic vision was sincere and that the near to public freedom of speech was fairly used for the greater message and intent of the film. My goal is ultimately to usher in both sides of the same argument and through doing so, construct a complete and informed judgment on the moral and social goals of the film, as a satire, which I will indicate in my conclusion. This will prove that the actions of the filmmakers, although morally unethical, were still legal and artistically relevant. Borat aims to tick off an scoreic precedent that the artistic vision and the use of comedy or social satire are crucial to the success of the mockumentary genre of filmmaking. In the context of Borat I carry specific ex amples, to address the mark behind the filmmakers conduct towards their subjects. Chapter adept The Theory Of General Ethics Relating To cinema vrit And site Cinema In Modern Film Making. In this chapter I define the theory of ethics in relation to professional and employee ethics, in the relevant context of filmmaking. Because this thesis is scarce about mockumentary filmmaking it will first jock to establish the ethical foundations for the circles of filmmakers and other professionals instituteing in this genre. When potentiometering with the subject genre of documentary and/or mockumentary filmmaking, it is first crucial is define a difference between the two. The word documentary was coined by Scottish documentarian arse Grierson (10.) Griersons principles of documentary were that cinemas capableness for observing life could be exploited in a new art form and that the original actor or subject and original scene are better guides than their fiction counterparts to ve rsion the modern world. A mockumentary is essentially a parody of the documentary nature of filmmaking and is successful when the structure of a traditional documentary is exaggerated. These films are not unlike the cinema vrit filmmaking style, was most prolific in 1960/70s French filmmaking and/or Direct Cinema films. Although the terms are often used inter flip-flopably, cinema vrit and Direct Cinema are two distinct documentary film sub-genres. Direct Cinema rose from the French film movement of the mid-sixties that strove for candid realism by showing people in workaday office staffs with authentic dialogue (11.) Influenced by documentary filmmaking and Italian Neorealism, the method produced examples such as Jean Rouchs Chronicle of a Summer (1961) (12.) and Chris Markers Joli Mai (1962). (13.) A quasi(prenominal) movement in the U.S, captured the reality of a person or an occurrence by using a handheld camera to record action without narration, as in Frederick Wisemans Titicut Follies (1967) (14.) and the Maysles brothers Salesman (1969) (still .03)(15.) (still .03) thither are subtle yet important differences among the terms Direct Cinema and cinema vrit. Direct Cinema is for the most part concerned with the recording of events in which the subject and audience become unsuspecting of the cameras presence. Direct Cinema is essentially what is now called a fly on the wall documentary. Originating in the late 1950s, Direct Cinema was made manageable by the advent of lighter, more portable cameras, which could be hand-held and operated with a very small crew.(16.) This lean shooting style allowed filmmakers to change locations and camera angles easily and spontaneously, which resulted in a degree of intimacy never forward seen on screen to date. The Direct Cinema filmmakers role involves not attempting to change the outcome of the events. He or she is filming in an observational context and judgmentlly should not use the film to advance any sig n of political or social agenda. Direct Cinema filmmakers are largely interested in accurate reporting, tendernessless of the outcome. Cinma vrit, which means Truthful Cinema, combines naturalistic techniques with stylized editing and camerawork. Scenes are some propagation staged and the camera is used to provoke subjects. (17.) It is also known for taking a provocative military strength toward its topics. 13 Cinema vrit filmmakers, trance still interested in the recording of true events, typically have an agenda in their work, which sets them apart from Direct Cinema. Michael Moores documentaries Roger and Me (1989) (still .05) and Bowling For Columbine (2002) are examples of modern cinema vrit. (still .04) (still .05) In late years, these types of movies have often featured the filmmaker himself, as in the case of Borat (still .04), taking part in the action onscreen. Cinma vrit involves stylized set-ups and interactions between the filmmakers and their subjects, even to th e point of provocation, which in the case of Borat will become apparent. The presence of the filmmaker and camera is used as a tool in a way to reveal the truth from the subject. The camera is obviously apparent and forever and a day acknowledged. It performs the raw act of filming real people and events in a confrontational and sometimes absurd way. This raises interesting questions about the illusion of cinema, part faced with these styles of filmmaking, the audience is forced to confront the paradox of the truth claim in documentary cinema by mixing direct certification 14 (fact direct cinema) and reenactment with characters playing themselves (fiction cinema vrit) in order to pop the question that perhaps they are one in the same. The cinema vrit filmmaker acts as the catalyst of the situation. A much discussed example of cinema vrit would be the film that will become the topic of discussion throughout the course of this thesis Borat Cultural Learnings of America for Make Be nefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006) directed by Larry Charles and starring Sacha Baron Cohen. It is hardly surprising that documentary and mockumentary films commit ethical problems, in relation to the royalty to the original artistic image and vision of the filmmakers, to the audience as a willing participant and, of course, the record subject as the focus basis of the film. In order to act upon all parties, return companies operate from a code of ethics sooner then a strict legal binding. Ethics are important, because they stop people a shared basis of understanding(a) in relation to the conceits of right and wrong. When the public is involved, it helps the filmmakers to have a ready understanding of how to react to a certain situation if some dilemma should arise. A codification Of Ethics is essentially a set of guidelines that are designed to set out acceptable behaviours for members of a particular group, in this case filmmakers. Generally, yield companies and fil m crews govern themselves with a code of ethics, especially when they handle reasonable issues like simile rights, taking the subjects life situation into the equation and interactions with other cultures. In addition to setting a professional standard, a code of ethics can also increase confidence in an musical arrangement by showing outsiders that, members of the organization are committed to following sanctioned ethical guidelines in the course of doing their work.(18.) 15 The enroll primarily consists of quaternity overall ethical principles, Respect, Competence, Responsibility and Integrity. In relation to the respect for the rights and self-regard of the person, this principle requires of filmmakers treat their clients as persons of intrinsic worth with a right to determine their own priorities, that they respect clients dignity and give due regard to their moral and cultural values(19.) Film makers should take care not to prize inappropriately on clients privacy and as far as possible, they shall hold back that clients understand and consent to whatever professional action they propose. The second point is that of competence. Filmmakers must constantly maintain and update their professional skills and ethical awareness.(20.) They should signalise that the knowledge of their own expertise and capacity for work are limited, and take care not to exceed the limits. The third point is responsibility. In their professional activities, filmmakers are require to act in a trustworthy, reputable and accountable manner towards clients (subjects) and the community. They shall avoid doing victimize to clients and explore participants, and act to prevent harm caused by others. (21.) They should act positively to resolve ethical dilemmas and they should also jibe that those whom they supervise act ethically. Finally the fourth point is integrity. Filmmakers are stimulate to be honest and accurate about their intentions, the effectiveness of the services that they offer, and their research findings. They are expected to treat their subjects in a fair, open and unbiased manner, honour professional dedications, and act to clarify any confusion about the subjects role or responsibilities. Where possible, they shall avoid the use of deception with research participants. They shall not use the professional descent to exploit clients, sexually or otherwise, and they shall deal 16 actively with conflicts of interest. They shall take action against harmful or unethical behaviour in colleagues or members of other professions.(22.) When considering the production of either a Cinema Vrit or Direct Cinema film, it is important to exhortt in the moral and ethical dilemmas that the filmmakers must deal with in relation to the subjects of the proposed film. Whereas the Code Of Ethics serves to provide civic guidelines, the consent form acts as the legitimately binding part of the pledge. A consent form is A document explaining all relevant s tudy information to assist the study propose (subject) in understanding the expectations and requirements of participation in a (filming) clinical trial. This document is presented to and signed by the study subject. (23.) A consent form is only relevant when signed under informed consent by the subject. communicate accord is typically a medico-legal term when referring to medical practice, it is a form signed by the patient (or in this case subject) for the benefit of the sawbones (filmmaker) to perform treatment (filming). By signing a consent agreement to filming, the subject is stating that he or she is fully aware of his or her see and understand the reasons why filmmaking is taking place and that he or she has hold to that being carried out. The opposite of informed consent is informed refusal, in which like the consent acceptance, the subject in this case may also choose to refuse. Another aspect of the ethical guidebook be to considered with in the role of cinema vrit o r Direct Cinema filmmaking is the maxim known as The gilded Rule or Ethic Of Reciprocity that essentially states that One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (24.) OR one should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative form which is also called The Silver Rule.) 17 The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to command justice for others. A expose element of the Golden Rule in relation to documentary filmmaking is that the filmmaker, while attempting to film ethically treats their subjects with consideration, not just members of their crew. The Golden Rule is a moral and ethical guide it is important to note that it is not strict legal merit. An purposeion to the Golden Rule is highlighted by Paul Treanor on his website, as he implies That I should transfer my perspective to the person a ffected, the one standing in front of me who will be affected by my action. But behind them may be another, who is affected by the person standing in front of me. (25.) These points have been highlighted in this chapter to give a wider insight into the ethical minefield that is taken on when entering into any practice with others from a professional and personal standpoint. As previously stated, these ethical codes have no legal bearing, but are relevant to all filmmakers when they engage with social actors for the purpose of making a cinema vrit or Direct Cinema film. It is the responsibility of all involved in the project to present a truthful and sincere front from the start. In the case of Borat, the disagreements before and after filming from unwilling participants will highlight the misuse of these ethical codes and the results, both positive and negative. Chapter Two Subject Vs Artistic Vision The ethical Responsibilities Of Borat In Relation To Acquiring Consent From The Subject Within the context of mockumentary filmmaking, much like that of sincere documentaranians, the public are treated as social actors rather then fiction film performers. These subjects remain culturally relevent players. Their value as players resides not in the way they play a part but in a way their everyday look serves the needs of the filmmaker. But the question of garnering consent whether it be informed consent or consent falsification, is an ethical maelstrom and this point is proven by the film Borat. A film which managed simultaneously to offend Kazakhs, frighten Jewish Anti-Defamation Groups, annoy hypocritically thin-skinned Americans and spark off wide public reflect about its meaning and interpretation. Each filmmaker, production company and subject relationship works according to personal guidelines established either face-to-face or pre-organised and with mutual consent from each party. Precedents of ethical guidelines can only work to persuade the actions, so that each party is fully informed of the subject matter, representation and potential response of the subjects actions within the documentary which is done by acquiring informed consent. In the case of Borat a variety of SLAPP cases have been brought against the filmmakers. The term Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, known by the acronym SLAPP applies to a variety of different types of fonts, including those claiming libel, defamation, business interference, or conspiracy.(26.) Within the context of the film, the titular character Borat Sagdiyev is said to be from Kazakhstan. The Kazakhstan used in the film is a heavy fictionalized and satirized depiction of the former Soviet state. However, as it states in the (SLAPP) Defendants special interrogation to strike complaint record. Alarmed by the reportage of its fictitious reporter, the governing of Kazakhstan launched a massive public relations and diplomatic offensive, emphasizing its commitment to human rights and gender and 20 equality (27.) going so far as to release a four-page advertisement within the pages of The New York times and to set-up presidential visits to the White House and 10 Downing Street. (still .06) Upon the release of the film the foreign ministry spokesman, Yerzhan Ashykbayev, told a news conference We view Mr. Cohens behaviour as utterly unacceptable, being a concoction of bad taste and ill manners which is completely incompatible with the ethics and civilized behavior of Kazakhstan people. (28.) in brief before the release of the film too, the right to use the domain conjure www.borat.kz was suspended, and the site attached was closed down due to the site being hosted outside Kazakhstan and hosting false names.(29.) Kazakhstan was never actually filmed for the purpose of Borat but rather used solely in namesake. Nicolae Todorache and Spiridom Ciorebea, residents of Glod, Romania, the village actually used to depict the satirized Kazakhstan (still .06), sued the filmmakers for 21 $30 million claiming they were misled into thinking they were participating in a documentary about the villages poverty and the rich heritage and vox populi system upheld by the inhabitants. Alan Rosenthal author of New Challenges In Documentary (1988) writes Consent is flawed when obtained by the omission of any fact that might act the giving or withholding of permission. (30.) However, it is important to also state that the subject must not have been put under any pressing (coercion) to sway their decision, and that they reached a decision based on their full inclusion body of the situation. So provided that those being filmed give their consent, where is the unethical behaviour? The morality lies in how the subjects are represented. The villagers in the town of Glod feel they were specifically targeted and represent in a negative manner and the lawsuit was filed on behalf of their finished village and Mr. Todorache, a one-armed man, who was seen wearing a sex shirk attached to his stump at the filmmakers request.(31.) The method of obtaining consent is stacked in the filmmakers favour. Rosenthal adds The ethical problem embossed by such approaches is that they give the potential subject no real choice the initiative and momentum of the situation favour the filmmaker. The presence of the film crew with official sanction is subtly coercive(32.). The film crew and equipment are all intimidating to be faced with for the person who has approached for the comment. The notion of consent defence, is another popular argument raised by Brian Winston in Lies, Damn Lies And Documentaries. He states, any measure of incertain or even unethical behaviour is justified after the event by the existence of the contract signed by the participant, the release form (33.). These agreements are in defiance of those who take the BSC Codes view (The BSC Code helps by providing a 22 framework of guidance into which, particular needs can be fitted,(34.) The guidance is for the general use of the professional consent defence for people (except minors or the mentally incapacitated) do know what they are doing. Coercion outside the law has expanded its meaning to embrace the idea of compulsion without physical treat. Often the consent defiance could be defended where the subject was uncomplaining or even benefited from their experience. But as Richard Andrew foyer states Did Baron Cohen really have to cross the pond to find such distressful stereotypes?(35.) Surely, it would not be hard for him to find typical examples of racism in any other major ethnicly shared cities anywhere else in the world. So too, the film depiction of its anti-Semitism has also come into great debate amongst critics, audiences, the media and especially the Anti-Defamation League of America (ADL). The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the worlds leading organization combat anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry towards Jewish people (36.). In one particular scene from Borat, we see the titular character at a rodeo in Texas, performing a birdcall directed towards Jewish people entitled In my country thither is a problem that called on people to throw the Jew down the well, inform the public you must be careful of his teeth and that you must walkover him by his horns to the delight of some members of the audience (still .07). 23 (still .07) While the ADL openly acknowledges that the film is a satirized and farcical characterization, they do state in a formal letter of warning to the filmmakers We are concerned that one heartbreaking pitfall is that the audience may not always be train enough to get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry. (37.) Richard Andrew Hall states Baron Cohen heavily concentrated on the genuinely powerful, whether celebrities or those with notes and power, but in Borat he clearly started sliding towards pulling the piddle out of more average citizens. Perhaps this is where he crossed the line. (38.) In 2005, a lawsuit was filed against the makers of the film and 20th Century Fox on behalf of two unsuspecting fraternity boys who claim they were duped into poping in the mockery documentary. (39.) They were identified in the movie as fraternity members from a southwestward Carolina University, and appeared drunk as they made insulting comments about women and minorities to Cohens character. 24 The SLAPP lawsuit claims that in October 2005, a production crew took the students to a bar to drinkable and loosen up before participating in what they were told would be a documentary to be shown outside the United States. They were induced to agree to put down and were told the name of the fraternity and the name of their school wouldnt be used. After a bout of heavy drinking, the plaintiffs signed a release form they were told had something to do with reliability issues with being in the RV, their lawyer Oliver Taillieu states. (40.) The film made plaintiffs the object of ridicule, humiliation, mental anguish and mad and physical distress, loss of reputation, goodwill and standing in the community. (41.) Although legally the participants have agreed to signing the consent, under the plaintiffs testimonies, it would appear that the filmmakers had intentionally duped the college students into appearing in the film with full, informed consent and it is insurmountable to defend the subject matter and opinions that the subjects raised while drunk, however, the filmmakers should be held accountable for putting the fraturnity boys in that situation and for provoking the racist and sexist responses they got. The filmmakers had wittingly overlooked the ramifications of the subjects actions on their lives after the films release and are guilty of oblivious infliction of emotional distress. If the participant is fully aware of possible consequences and sees co-operation as a coherent polit ical strategy, then the burden of the ethical dilemma has been lifted from the film-maker by the participant for his or her own ideological reasons. (42.) The cultivation author of the blog Beatroot captured this well in a post on the Movania guidebook entitled Why is it that the only people liberals think its OK to laugh at these days are the white working class and Central and Eastern Europeans?(43.) In 25 the article he comments If this (sort of book) had been written about African people then, quite rightly, there would have been katzenjammer and outrage. (44.) But it seems that Political Correctness extends to all groups these days except pitiable whites from urban, rural or semi-rural areas in America and Europe As Andrew Mueller notes in his review of the movie for Uncut MagazineWhat astonishes me about every Amercian he encounters is not their naivete, but their politeness, hospitality and the extraordinary degree to which Borat has to inflame situations to provoke react ion.(45.) Cynically, the consent form is simply a safeguard device or get-out-of-jail-free card, go around out by the filmmakers, against future lawsuits and liability. Production companies will claim that they ensure the participant is not being misled or manipulated by the filmmakers. Many times the consent form is a bureaucratic, legalistic detail, intent on absolving the production companies of responsibility. There to dissipate any whiff of coersion, it should not be used as a licence to knowingly take advantage of the everyday person. To weigh the ethical ramifications on a piece of paper is morally and ethically wrong.But they are also there to defend the filmmakers against the actions and reactions of the subjects and are predominantly prudent for some filmmakers avoiding litigation. The vast effects that the documentary could have on the lives of the subjects should be taken into account and not just betted against the contract. At the end of the film, it seems that in th e case of Borat that the usual disclaimer included at the end of the films assign states that before being considered for appearance in the film, all potential participants were required to sign long release forms, agreeing not to take legal action for any defamation of character or fraud 26 carried out during the films production. It states that all characters were fictitious, and also noted that no real person depicted or appearing in the film has sponsored or otherwise endorsed its contents. before and following the universal release of the film in 2006, seven lawsuits had been filed against the production company, Baron Cohen and filmmakers for amongst others fraud, rescission of contract, common law false light attack of privacy, statutory false light, appropriation of likeness and negligent infliction of emotional distress.(46.) 27 Chapter Three The Artistic Vision Vs The Subject In rootage to Borat and The Use Of Humour to Expose Social Stereotypes and Bigotries. 28 As pr eviously discussed in Chapter One, the Code Of Ethics acts as an ethical guideline for filmmakers, when it comes to such issues as garnering ethical consent or the valid use of likeness rights from a subject and the use of the public for the proposed project in a fair and informed manner. In this chapter I explore and reveal examples within the context of the film Borat Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (hereafter Borat) of intentionally overlooking these so-called guidelines for the sake of making a work with the artistic vision and integrity solely taking the drumhead of the creative process. Despite a limited initial release in the United States, the satire was a critical and commercial success. Baron Cohen win the 2007 Golden Globe Award for Best Actor Musical or Comedy, as Borat, while the film was nominated for Best Motion line drawing in the same category. Borat was also nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay at the 79th Academy Aw ards. On its release, Borat boasted the highest-grossing opening ever for a picture playing at less than 1,100 theaters.(47.) Firstly, it is important to realize that there is public spherical interest in speech and opinions (such as the afore mentioned examples, previously discussed in Chapter Two) about American cultural values and attitudes towards anti-semitism, racism and sexism. Borat as being part of a tradition of exposing and critiquing these American bigotries through the use of humour, seeks to expose these attitudes in their most debased forms and present them to the world an