Documentary Production Analysis
Introduction
In the following article i am going to be analysing the format of documentary production, i'm going to be delving in to the specifics of documentary filmmaking, these include codes and conventions, sector, format, ethical and legal elements of the process of producing a documentary film. So to begin with i am going to discuss the codes and conventions, then i will go into discussing the documentaries within each sector of the industry then the different formats and finally the Legal and Ethical side to documentary filmmaking.
Codes and Conventions
To begin with i am going to be breaking down the codes and conventions of a documentary production. Firstly i am going to list the codes and conventions of documentary production and then i will break each one down. The following are the codes and conventions of documentary production: Voiceover, Non fiction, realism, archived footage, archived photographs, interviews with experts, interviews with regular people who are connected or related to the subject of the documentary in some way, Use of specific dates, locations and times, frequent use of non diegetic sound e.g. music, set ups which can range from recreations of certain events as well as establishing the setting by showing the locations where those events take place and laying out where everything i and Visual coding e.g. Mise en scene, props etc. With voiceovers these are used to set up a scene as well as provide some extra information around what you are seeing on screen. Voiceovers are a key thing in documentary filmmaking as a voiceover is able to convey a large quantity of exposition whilst not boring the audience, the way that this is achieved is by having the voice over being played over interesting and or relevent shots and footage that match with the voiceover. Following on from this i am going to talk about how the product takes advantage of being a non fiction piece of work. The way that the product takes advantage of being a non fiction piece of work is by not having to worry about the people featured within the documentary because if the person is alive then you can use either use archived video footage featuring the person either representing themselves or being represented by a neutral party. This makes the job easier on the filmmaker because it means that if they just simply put the video clips in the correct context then the person cannot argue that they are misrepresented as the footage of them represents them as they are. On the other hand if the subject of the documentary is dead then the filmmaker might will be able to use archived video footage as well as recorded pieces of history e.g Written or audio. The advantage of centering a documentary on a dead person over a person who is alive is that you can portray the person within the documentary with little bias either way as you can just use the historical facts which will help in portraying the character as unbiased as possible.
Moving on from this is a lead on from the previous point and that is the use of archived footage, archived photographs and archived written accounts by and about the person. These are a staple of documentary filmmaking and are using in almost documentary production in some capacity. Archived footage and photographs are most commonly used as a way to convey points through evidence like for example if you are making a point about a important historical moment you would overlay some archived footage or a photograph to give the audience a more visual understanding of what your talking about. as a follow on point from this follow on point and that is the use of archived footage and archived photographs adds to the realism of the documentary as it shows that these events really took place which makes a much larger impact on the audience because it is something that actually took place and especially if the subject of the documentary is quite grizzly or serious. Moving on to the next point i will be talking about how documentaries utilize interviews with both experts and people who are connected to the subject of the documentary or even sometimes just the general public. The use of interviews in documentary filmmaking is primarily used for 2 reasons. The First reason is to provide a second opinion or a different take on the subject from the point of view of someone who has a different experience to the filmmaker or even similar depending on how broad or how specific the topic is. The second reason for using interviews in a documentary production is to offer a counter argument from the opposing side thus providing the viewer with a more rounded and unbiased view of the topic. The use of general audiences allows for the documentary filmmakers to give the audience an idea of how the world views the events of the documentary.
Documentaries also frequently use specific and important dates, times and locations that are significant in the serious of events. The reason for this is to provide some historical context so that the viewers
Format
Ethical
To begin with i am going to establish what ethics are as to provide context for the further analysis. Ethics are moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity. Ethics are the core of someone’s personal beliefs. Ethics affect how people make decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what you believe is good and what is bad. I am now going to discuss why ethics are very important when producing a documentary, ethics are important in documentary production because when creating and producing a documentary you are putting a real story about real people that have affected people. When interviewing people you need to consider whether it is morally right to show their face to the world which if they say something that is controversial they could potentially be at risk, you also have to consider whether they are happy with the way you have represented them within the documentary and if you have not manipulated what they have said to support the opposite opinion.
You want to make sure that you have treated them with respect so that they are more likely to be ok if their inclusion in the documentary film. An element of ethics within documentary filmmaking is when using persuasive techniques, now when considering ethics during the production of a documentary you should look and see if your use of persuasive techniques is appropriate and meets the ethical requirements of the documentary production. Persuasive techniques are used in documentary production for the purpose of showing the message and the point behind the documentary as clearly to the audience as possibly and in a subtle way persuading them to either side with or against the issue at hand however it never becomes propaganda as the documentary will show both sides of the argument thus leaving it neutral and letting you decide for yourself. Persuasive techniques in documentaries are most commonly used during interviews where the interviewer will employ persuasive techniques and different methods to get the responses that they want out of the interviewee.
Documentaries use persuasive techniques like powerful imagery and showing how people feel about these topics to encourage the audience to feel a certain way with the topic like for example in Louis and the Nazis the use of imagery like the racist depictions of black and Jewish people as well as the footage of the people within the community talking negatively about those groups is intended to give the audience an idea of that group and with their negative views and beliefs the audience will take a stance against the subject, however on the opposite side of the coin with a documentary about animal cruelty you would show powerful imagery and footage of the animals horrible lives and peoples beliefs when it comes to stopping animal cruelty the audience will side with stopping animal cruelty which is the message behind the documentary. The ethics behind the use of persuasive techniques within documentaries is quite complex but to summarise it is important when making sure that your documentary is ethically sound it is important to look at if you used persuasive techniques in a way that wont cause any misrepresentation of someone. Speaking about misrepresentation that is the next thing i will be talking about.
Misrepresentation is when you provide or misleading depiction of someone or something. Misrepresentation in documentary productions range from showing someone in either an overly negative or overly positive light to push a certain agenda to intentionally falsely represent someone to persuade the audience to side against them. Misreprentation can also occur if a documentary filmmaker gets to close and becomes attached to the subject of the documentary then they may intentionally leave out certain pieces of factual information as to change the perception of the subject of the documentary. Another thing to look out for when creating a documentary is conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is when the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible. An alternative meaning behind the phrase is a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or made in their official capacity. An example of conflict of interest within a documentary production is in the Michael Moore documentary Roger and Me, Moore examines the negative economic impact of general motors after they shut down several of their plants down in Michigan which cost tens of thousands of jobs to be lost and for tens of thousands of people to be unemployed and out of the job.
During the documentary Moore introduces himself to the audience and explains that his father was a employee for general motors. This a conflict of interest because while Moore is exposing General motors and their actions he is connected to general motors through his dad which gives him a close connection to general motors. However the way that he avoided it from being a problem was being very upfront about his connection to general motors which makes the story feel more personal and creates more intrigue.
Legal
In the following article i am going to be analysing the format of documentary production, i'm going to be delving in to the specifics of documentary filmmaking, these include codes and conventions, sector, format, ethical and legal elements of the process of producing a documentary film. So to begin with i am going to discuss the codes and conventions, then i will go into discussing the documentaries within each sector of the industry then the different formats and finally the Legal and Ethical side to documentary filmmaking.
Codes and Conventions
To begin with i am going to be breaking down the codes and conventions of a documentary production. Firstly i am going to list the codes and conventions of documentary production and then i will break each one down. The following are the codes and conventions of documentary production: Voiceover, Non fiction, realism, archived footage, archived photographs, interviews with experts, interviews with regular people who are connected or related to the subject of the documentary in some way, Use of specific dates, locations and times, frequent use of non diegetic sound e.g. music, set ups which can range from recreations of certain events as well as establishing the setting by showing the locations where those events take place and laying out where everything i and Visual coding e.g. Mise en scene, props etc. With voiceovers these are used to set up a scene as well as provide some extra information around what you are seeing on screen. Voiceovers are a key thing in documentary filmmaking as a voiceover is able to convey a large quantity of exposition whilst not boring the audience, the way that this is achieved is by having the voice over being played over interesting and or relevent shots and footage that match with the voiceover. Following on from this i am going to talk about how the product takes advantage of being a non fiction piece of work. The way that the product takes advantage of being a non fiction piece of work is by not having to worry about the people featured within the documentary because if the person is alive then you can use either use archived video footage featuring the person either representing themselves or being represented by a neutral party. This makes the job easier on the filmmaker because it means that if they just simply put the video clips in the correct context then the person cannot argue that they are misrepresented as the footage of them represents them as they are. On the other hand if the subject of the documentary is dead then the filmmaker might will be able to use archived video footage as well as recorded pieces of history e.g Written or audio. The advantage of centering a documentary on a dead person over a person who is alive is that you can portray the person within the documentary with little bias either way as you can just use the historical facts which will help in portraying the character as unbiased as possible.
Moving on from this is a lead on from the previous point and that is the use of archived footage, archived photographs and archived written accounts by and about the person. These are a staple of documentary filmmaking and are using in almost documentary production in some capacity. Archived footage and photographs are most commonly used as a way to convey points through evidence like for example if you are making a point about a important historical moment you would overlay some archived footage or a photograph to give the audience a more visual understanding of what your talking about. as a follow on point from this follow on point and that is the use of archived footage and archived photographs adds to the realism of the documentary as it shows that these events really took place which makes a much larger impact on the audience because it is something that actually took place and especially if the subject of the documentary is quite grizzly or serious. Moving on to the next point i will be talking about how documentaries utilize interviews with both experts and people who are connected to the subject of the documentary or even sometimes just the general public. The use of interviews in documentary filmmaking is primarily used for 2 reasons. The First reason is to provide a second opinion or a different take on the subject from the point of view of someone who has a different experience to the filmmaker or even similar depending on how broad or how specific the topic is. The second reason for using interviews in a documentary production is to offer a counter argument from the opposing side thus providing the viewer with a more rounded and unbiased view of the topic. The use of general audiences allows for the documentary filmmakers to give the audience an idea of how the world views the events of the documentary.
Documentaries also frequently use specific and important dates, times and locations that are significant in the serious of events. The reason for this is to provide some historical context so that the viewers
Format
The format of the documentary
louis and the Nazis is in the format of an observation documentary. Now before
I continue I’m going to establish the 3 most common formats of documentary
filmmaking. The formats are the following: Observation documentary, Expose
documentary and Investigative documentary. Observation documentaries are when
the filmmaker/presenter simply observes the subjects life and acts quite
friendly to them and let them say what they want to say and tend to not push
them unless they feel it necessary, Louis Theroux’s documentaries are for the
most part observational documentaries however there are exceptions like his
recent expose documentary on jimmy Saville. An expose documentary is a
documentary where the filmmaker/presenter creates a case study that reveals the
negative side of a subject, A very good example of this is the documentary
bowling for columbine
To begin with i am going to establish what ethics are as to provide context for the further analysis. Ethics are moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity. Ethics are the core of someone’s personal beliefs. Ethics affect how people make decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what you believe is good and what is bad. I am now going to discuss why ethics are very important when producing a documentary, ethics are important in documentary production because when creating and producing a documentary you are putting a real story about real people that have affected people. When interviewing people you need to consider whether it is morally right to show their face to the world which if they say something that is controversial they could potentially be at risk, you also have to consider whether they are happy with the way you have represented them within the documentary and if you have not manipulated what they have said to support the opposite opinion.
You want to make sure that you have treated them with respect so that they are more likely to be ok if their inclusion in the documentary film. An element of ethics within documentary filmmaking is when using persuasive techniques, now when considering ethics during the production of a documentary you should look and see if your use of persuasive techniques is appropriate and meets the ethical requirements of the documentary production. Persuasive techniques are used in documentary production for the purpose of showing the message and the point behind the documentary as clearly to the audience as possibly and in a subtle way persuading them to either side with or against the issue at hand however it never becomes propaganda as the documentary will show both sides of the argument thus leaving it neutral and letting you decide for yourself. Persuasive techniques in documentaries are most commonly used during interviews where the interviewer will employ persuasive techniques and different methods to get the responses that they want out of the interviewee.
Documentaries use persuasive techniques like powerful imagery and showing how people feel about these topics to encourage the audience to feel a certain way with the topic like for example in Louis and the Nazis the use of imagery like the racist depictions of black and Jewish people as well as the footage of the people within the community talking negatively about those groups is intended to give the audience an idea of that group and with their negative views and beliefs the audience will take a stance against the subject, however on the opposite side of the coin with a documentary about animal cruelty you would show powerful imagery and footage of the animals horrible lives and peoples beliefs when it comes to stopping animal cruelty the audience will side with stopping animal cruelty which is the message behind the documentary. The ethics behind the use of persuasive techniques within documentaries is quite complex but to summarise it is important when making sure that your documentary is ethically sound it is important to look at if you used persuasive techniques in a way that wont cause any misrepresentation of someone. Speaking about misrepresentation that is the next thing i will be talking about.
Misrepresentation is when you provide or misleading depiction of someone or something. Misrepresentation in documentary productions range from showing someone in either an overly negative or overly positive light to push a certain agenda to intentionally falsely represent someone to persuade the audience to side against them. Misreprentation can also occur if a documentary filmmaker gets to close and becomes attached to the subject of the documentary then they may intentionally leave out certain pieces of factual information as to change the perception of the subject of the documentary. Another thing to look out for when creating a documentary is conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is when the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible. An alternative meaning behind the phrase is a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or made in their official capacity. An example of conflict of interest within a documentary production is in the Michael Moore documentary Roger and Me, Moore examines the negative economic impact of general motors after they shut down several of their plants down in Michigan which cost tens of thousands of jobs to be lost and for tens of thousands of people to be unemployed and out of the job.
During the documentary Moore introduces himself to the audience and explains that his father was a employee for general motors. This a conflict of interest because while Moore is exposing General motors and their actions he is connected to general motors through his dad which gives him a close connection to general motors. However the way that he avoided it from being a problem was being very upfront about his connection to general motors which makes the story feel more personal and creates more intrigue.
Legal
Finally, I am going to be talking about the legal
considerations that you need to know about when producing a documentary. The
first legal consideration you need to look at is copyright issues. The reason
why you need to consider copyright issues is when you are using material that
is copyrighted e.g. Music, archived footage etc. Copyright protects the artist
and if you want to use copyrighted material then you need to respect the artist
so you have two options, which are to either ask for permission from the artist
or alternatively pay for the use of their work. Another legal consideration
that you need to make is to have people sign consent forms as a form of
evidence that said person consented to being featured within the film. The
reason for this is so that the person willingly consents so that it is their
choice of whether they want to be featured in the documentary or not. One more
major legal consideration that you need to make is that you respect people’s
rights and don’t push things too far just to get a shot or an answer that works
because you could risk serious legal ramifications, which can lead to you
getting into really serious trouble. If you fail to consider and sort out these
legal requirements then it is likely you could face anything from a lawsuit to
a cease and desist.
Evaluation of a Documentary Production.
In this section of the piece, i am going to be evaluating a documentary production as well as, discussing the legal and ethical challenges that came with the production. The documentary that i have chosen to evaluate is Micheal Moore's 2002 film Bowling for Columbine. The reason why i have chosen to analyse this documentary specifically is because it tackles quite a divisive topic in America. This as you would imagine leads to several legal and ethical concerns throughout the production of the film. Now, before i go and talk about the legal and ethical issues that the filmmakers would have run into during the production of the popular documentary i am going to be giving an analysis on the film as a whole. Bowling for columbine is a 2002 documentary directed, written, produced and starring Micheal Moore. The film follows Moore as he talks about the 1999 school shooting in columbine and the bigger issue around guns and gun violence within America. The film highlights the paranoia that is embedded within America and its history with violence, Moore shows this through news pieces which highlights how the American media feed this idea of everyone is out to get you and no one is there to save you. Moore makes the point that has been stated by every anti gun case which is that if there is little to no guns than there will be little to no gun crime. Moore backs this point up by showing evidence that countries like Canada, Australia and the UK which have stricter laws on firearm possession also have significantly lower gun crime. Moore makes the point that the amount of gun crime in America is nearly 3 times as high compared to similar countries.
Moore also highlights how simple and easy it is to acquire a firearm in the united states and emphasises how the process of getting a firearm should be much stricter. The interviews featured throughout the documentary consist of two types of representation and these are either a victim who has survived an incident involving firearm crime and the other is someone who has either been on the pro gun side of the debate or someone who has an experience with gun and even bomb crime and possession. The reason why Moore does this is because it highlights 2 key things, the first is that it shows how gun crime affects people physically, mentally and even the effect it leaves on their life as a whole. it also highlights how people justify the possession and use of firearms and why they are needed. He also shows how the constant fear mongering in the united states of America is causing some people to take drastic action to try and "protect themselves" from harm.
However, the documentary does empahsise and exaggerate some points and do present some things in a way that better suits the message of the documentary. Now, Moore does emphasise and focus on the negative uses of firearms which of course is the entire point of the documentary, but Moore firstly gets some facts wrong and or generalises them to better suit the documentary. However, Moore's point in the documentary isnt that guns should be banned but rather that there should be restrictions that lower gun crime. Now, if you have seen this documentary you are aware that it has quite a provocative ending. The documentary itself was quite controversal in some ways because in america their is quite a large for lack of better term "gun culture". this means that a documentary highlighting a lot of the things that are wrong with this gun heavy mentality and very much exposes the NRA who are the lead pro gun organisation in the united states there was some push back but overall this documentary did quite a lot to highlight the wider general public these issues. Sadly though as of 2019 a lot of the issues that were highlighted in bowling for columbine haven't been fixed nor solved.
Moving on, i am going to be discussing the legal and ethical considerations throughout the production of this documentary. Now firstly i want to talk about the ethical side of things because as you know the film features some potential uncomfortable footage, this ranges from quite graphic footage of killings as well as several clips of extreme gun violence. The film also runs into ethical issues in regards to the way the filmmakers show the deaths of actual people within the film. Ethical concerns are kind of difficult to work with and around , especially for a film/documentary with subject matter like bowling for columbine. Some people are likely to have problems with the content of the film, in some ways the film does exploit certain things to add more impact which could cause some people to be offended. Towards the end of the film, Moore interviews Charlton Heston and uses the picture of a young girl who was accidentally shot by a young boy in her class and the fact that the NRA seemed to take advantage of this tragedy. Moore shows Heston the photo or at least it appears that way. Now, where the ethical issue comes in is that the film portrays this moment as Heston walking away from Moore and the photo but upon further inspection it is very clear that this is not what happened because for this two occur you would have seen a camera i the frame of several shots. Now i'm not saying that it was entirely staged. This might have happened and the filmed charlton Heston and then later added the Micheal Moore scenes.
On the other hand. There are a couple of legal issues that the filmmakers might have faced during the production of the film. Firstly, i want to bring up probably the largest legal concern that they were likely to face during the production of the documentary. This is that the NRA may have tried to get the filmmakers into legal trouble as there is the potential that they made have tried to sue them for slander. The reason for this is that a lot of the documentary shines a light on the NRA and its shady decisions and ignorance towards gun violence, Whilst the majority of people including myself see that while the film exposes the NRA and the things that they probably dont want the general public to think about it isn't slander. Slander is defined as "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a persons' reputation". Now, i want you to keep the phrase "false spoken statement" in mind for the next part. Throughout the film Micheal Moore points out a number of things that the NRA has done in regards to shootings in america. For example the NRA have conveniently held pro gun rally's the day after a number of tragic shootings including the columbine high school shooting, the killing of the previously mentioned young girl and more. Moore states that the NRA take advantage of these tragedies to push there own agenda. This is not slander and so there is no legal grounds for the NRA to take legal action. The reason for this not being slander is quite simple, it doesn't match the definition. This is where the "false spoken statement" becomes relevant. Firstly, the statement isn't false.It least it can be argued that it is true. Secondly, the statement is spoken however it is also shown through video clips which would lead the audience to come to the same conclusion.
Another legal problem/concern that the filmmakers might have run into during the production of the documentary is that certain people who are featured in the documentary through the form of interviews may believe that they were misrepresented within the documentary and they could claim that this has caused damage to both their reputation and careers. They may attempt to take legal action because of this, their argument for this could be that due to their negative representation within the documentary, people won't hire them and so their financial well being is damaged, they could ask for money that they have lost or that they could have earned but they we unable due to the damage the documentary has caused them financially. The way that the filmmakers could have avoided this is is by firstly showing a contract/release form that the interviewee signed prior to the filming of the interview which would show that they consented to the interview. Secondly, the filmmakers could prove that the interviewee got final say in weather the interview was included in the final cut or not, the reason why this would help them is because it shows that the interviewee was OK with the interview being released and shown to the public and if they didn't want to be represented in that way then they should have said no to the interview being featured within the documentary.
Evaluation of a Documentary Production.
In this section of the piece, i am going to be evaluating a documentary production as well as, discussing the legal and ethical challenges that came with the production. The documentary that i have chosen to evaluate is Micheal Moore's 2002 film Bowling for Columbine. The reason why i have chosen to analyse this documentary specifically is because it tackles quite a divisive topic in America. This as you would imagine leads to several legal and ethical concerns throughout the production of the film. Now, before i go and talk about the legal and ethical issues that the filmmakers would have run into during the production of the popular documentary i am going to be giving an analysis on the film as a whole. Bowling for columbine is a 2002 documentary directed, written, produced and starring Micheal Moore. The film follows Moore as he talks about the 1999 school shooting in columbine and the bigger issue around guns and gun violence within America. The film highlights the paranoia that is embedded within America and its history with violence, Moore shows this through news pieces which highlights how the American media feed this idea of everyone is out to get you and no one is there to save you. Moore makes the point that has been stated by every anti gun case which is that if there is little to no guns than there will be little to no gun crime. Moore backs this point up by showing evidence that countries like Canada, Australia and the UK which have stricter laws on firearm possession also have significantly lower gun crime. Moore makes the point that the amount of gun crime in America is nearly 3 times as high compared to similar countries.
Moore also highlights how simple and easy it is to acquire a firearm in the united states and emphasises how the process of getting a firearm should be much stricter. The interviews featured throughout the documentary consist of two types of representation and these are either a victim who has survived an incident involving firearm crime and the other is someone who has either been on the pro gun side of the debate or someone who has an experience with gun and even bomb crime and possession. The reason why Moore does this is because it highlights 2 key things, the first is that it shows how gun crime affects people physically, mentally and even the effect it leaves on their life as a whole. it also highlights how people justify the possession and use of firearms and why they are needed. He also shows how the constant fear mongering in the united states of America is causing some people to take drastic action to try and "protect themselves" from harm.
However, the documentary does empahsise and exaggerate some points and do present some things in a way that better suits the message of the documentary. Now, Moore does emphasise and focus on the negative uses of firearms which of course is the entire point of the documentary, but Moore firstly gets some facts wrong and or generalises them to better suit the documentary. However, Moore's point in the documentary isnt that guns should be banned but rather that there should be restrictions that lower gun crime. Now, if you have seen this documentary you are aware that it has quite a provocative ending. The documentary itself was quite controversal in some ways because in america their is quite a large for lack of better term "gun culture". this means that a documentary highlighting a lot of the things that are wrong with this gun heavy mentality and very much exposes the NRA who are the lead pro gun organisation in the united states there was some push back but overall this documentary did quite a lot to highlight the wider general public these issues. Sadly though as of 2019 a lot of the issues that were highlighted in bowling for columbine haven't been fixed nor solved.
Moving on, i am going to be discussing the legal and ethical considerations throughout the production of this documentary. Now firstly i want to talk about the ethical side of things because as you know the film features some potential uncomfortable footage, this ranges from quite graphic footage of killings as well as several clips of extreme gun violence. The film also runs into ethical issues in regards to the way the filmmakers show the deaths of actual people within the film. Ethical concerns are kind of difficult to work with and around , especially for a film/documentary with subject matter like bowling for columbine. Some people are likely to have problems with the content of the film, in some ways the film does exploit certain things to add more impact which could cause some people to be offended. Towards the end of the film, Moore interviews Charlton Heston and uses the picture of a young girl who was accidentally shot by a young boy in her class and the fact that the NRA seemed to take advantage of this tragedy. Moore shows Heston the photo or at least it appears that way. Now, where the ethical issue comes in is that the film portrays this moment as Heston walking away from Moore and the photo but upon further inspection it is very clear that this is not what happened because for this two occur you would have seen a camera i the frame of several shots. Now i'm not saying that it was entirely staged. This might have happened and the filmed charlton Heston and then later added the Micheal Moore scenes.
On the other hand. There are a couple of legal issues that the filmmakers might have faced during the production of the film. Firstly, i want to bring up probably the largest legal concern that they were likely to face during the production of the documentary. This is that the NRA may have tried to get the filmmakers into legal trouble as there is the potential that they made have tried to sue them for slander. The reason for this is that a lot of the documentary shines a light on the NRA and its shady decisions and ignorance towards gun violence, Whilst the majority of people including myself see that while the film exposes the NRA and the things that they probably dont want the general public to think about it isn't slander. Slander is defined as "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a persons' reputation". Now, i want you to keep the phrase "false spoken statement" in mind for the next part. Throughout the film Micheal Moore points out a number of things that the NRA has done in regards to shootings in america. For example the NRA have conveniently held pro gun rally's the day after a number of tragic shootings including the columbine high school shooting, the killing of the previously mentioned young girl and more. Moore states that the NRA take advantage of these tragedies to push there own agenda. This is not slander and so there is no legal grounds for the NRA to take legal action. The reason for this not being slander is quite simple, it doesn't match the definition. This is where the "false spoken statement" becomes relevant. Firstly, the statement isn't false.It least it can be argued that it is true. Secondly, the statement is spoken however it is also shown through video clips which would lead the audience to come to the same conclusion.
Another legal problem/concern that the filmmakers might have run into during the production of the documentary is that certain people who are featured in the documentary through the form of interviews may believe that they were misrepresented within the documentary and they could claim that this has caused damage to both their reputation and careers. They may attempt to take legal action because of this, their argument for this could be that due to their negative representation within the documentary, people won't hire them and so their financial well being is damaged, they could ask for money that they have lost or that they could have earned but they we unable due to the damage the documentary has caused them financially. The way that the filmmakers could have avoided this is is by firstly showing a contract/release form that the interviewee signed prior to the filming of the interview which would show that they consented to the interview. Secondly, the filmmakers could prove that the interviewee got final say in weather the interview was included in the final cut or not, the reason why this would help them is because it shows that the interviewee was OK with the interview being released and shown to the public and if they didn't want to be represented in that way then they should have said no to the interview being featured within the documentary.
Did you know jack was nominated for an award?
ReplyDelete