What is the Documentarian's Responsibility When the Story Changes?

We've been thinking a lot about the issues raised by the developments surrounding Fredrik Gertten's BANANAS!*, specifically the revelations of potential fraud in the case and intimidation and threats by Dole Food Co. 

[For a primer, please read previous posts on the topic, here, here and here.]

As we see it, the filmmaker made a film and the facts on the ground changed after the filmmaker completed his film and after it was accepted by the Los Angeles Film Festival as a world premiere.

And, as far as we can ascertain, the filmmaker believes that his film is finished - he made the film that he believed to be true based on what he witnessed.  Despite the fact that a different film - perhaps a better film - could be made now that events have changed, the filmmaker would like to close the book on BANANAS!* and perhaps make a second, new film - a sequel that may or may not debunk the case made in the first film - to deal with the changing reality.

The question on the table is - is this enough?

Let's throw out the surrounding circumstances for a moment.  Let's assume that Dole Food Company is guilty.  That they have willingly - and with malice - caused workers in Latin America to be sterile by extensive exposure to pesticides.  Let us also assume that their behavior in the last few weeks, their unconscionable harrassment of a filmmaker and an arts organization (as well as said organization's sponsors and parents) is a violation of both freedom of speech as well as a smoke-screen erected to change the subject.

Let us assume the worst of Dole.

Now that we have that out of the way, what is the responsibility of filmmaker Fredrik Gertten?  Not to Dole, or even to the Los Angeles Film Festival, which, it seems to us, has been heroic in its decision to screen his film, despite threats of lawsuits and injunctions from Dole, but to the audience?  What is the responsibility of a nonfiction filmmaker to leave his audience with the closest approximation of truth?

Because - and, again, in our opinion - this is what separates fiction from nonfiction: a sense of a greater truth. 

We talk often here about a rejection of rules for nonfiction filmmaking, the belief that one can use any tool to construct a film.  What we may not be so specific about is that these tools should - if one is to call oneself a documentary or a nonfiction film - be utilized to approximate that greater truth.  This does not mean - particularly in some instances (such as Guy Maddin's MY WINNIPEG) - that fictional or mythical elements must not be used in the construction of a nonfiction narrative.  In fact, this is something that we welcome.  But our opinion is that the filmmaker should leave his or her viewer with some sense of truth.

As far as we can tell, Gertten argues that he should be welcome to leave his audience with the truth as he saw it a year ago.  His film, he argues, should be allowed to convey the truth as he understood it before new events came to light.

We can't sign on to this argument, primarily because it appears that the truth that he understood is not only no longer valid, it may in fact be toxic.

The lawyer at the center of this case is found to have - and by found we mean to say that it is the current ruling by a US judge and thus the current legal standard (until it is overturned or proven incorrect) - committed a crime not only against the legal system, but also against other alleged victims in the case.  As the judge correctly notes in her just-released 60-page treatise:

"(I)f there are people who have been injured in Nicaragua due to DBCP exposure, it is extremely difficult if not impossible for them credibly to litigate their claims"

So if we are to stipulate that Dole Food Co. committed illegal and unconscionable acts - as is detailed and admitted to in Gertten's film by the testimony of Dole's own executive - we must also note that plaintiff's lawyer Juan Dominguez is (if the charges are true) also culpable in the persecution of Nicaraguans who may have been affected by Dole's unethical use of the pesticide.  If Dominguez did - as the judge in the case states - fraudulently coach witnesses and falsify documents, then he is not some unfortunate dupe.  He is villianous.  His alleged criminals actions will cause Dole to escape punishment for any real crimes they may have committed.

How then, is a film that glamourizes Dominguez so different from other mis-reported stories?  How can we criticize Judith Miller for believing only one side of a story, for sticking to that story even as the facts on the ground changed, and laud a filmmaker for staunchly sticking to his guns, even as his film (even if not propagandistic) remains incorrect.

It seems to us that Gertten hopes that his film, and the controversy that surrounds it, should be allowed out into the world and that it should be for others - critics, writers, journalists, film festivals - to place the film in the proper context.

After thinking about this topic for several days, we have come to disagree.

We don't believe that it is responsible to the charge of "a greater truth" for a filmmaker to abdicate responsibility in this area to unknown others. 

So when does that responsibility kick in? 

What if, for example, this new information about Dominguez had come to light after BANANAS!* had had a theatrical run?  Would it not be the in the interest of the filmmaker (not to mention the DVD distributor or broadcaster) to update the story to reach the greater truth?

It seems, at least according to statements made by Gertten and his colleagues Saturday night, that because of rapidly changing events - and because of the judge's ruling regarding Dominguez - AND because it would be extremely difficult for the filmmakers to re-interview Dominguez, that those who made the film would prefer to release the film as is.

And we can understand that desire.  Who, after all, wants to open up an edit timeline that has been finally - after weeks and months or work - been put to bed.  (The very thought of it gives me shivers.)

But, in our opinion, the alternative is worse.  The alternative is to present a film that - while most certainly not a polemic or a propaganda piece - only presents part of a truth. 

And while others can get lathered up about Dole's record of bad behavior - and their lawyers' truly despicable behavior in threatening Gertten and the Los Angeles Film Festival - it should not detract from the most basic question - why make a film in the first place?

Whether the answer that question is to pursuade, to educate or to entertain, the audience for nonfiction films should - at the very least - be allowed to expect a level of greater truth.  And in the case of BANANAS!*, it appears that the filmmakers would like to argue that the greater truth is that Dole Food Co. has done wrong.  And judging by the reaction of some in the audience on Saturday night, there are at least some who are willing to sign onto this argument, who are willing to condemn Dole (please note that their actions in threatening the Los Angeles Film Festival have done them no favors) and accept the fraudulent and potentially criminal behavior by Dominguez (and mischaracterization of his actions in the film) in the interim.

But - in our opinion - the filmmakers should not cloak themselves in the embrace of the idealogically like-minded.

In the documentary community, we are, it becomes increasingly apparent, occasionally enslaved by some who have pledged an unquestioning loyalty to a certain kind of social justice perspective.  In this case, the anger from some on the left and presumed guilt of Dole obscures anything else - Dominguez' alleged crimes, the filmmakers responsibility, a film festival's due dilligence.  Failing to recognize the complexities of the case at hand - particularly in some effort to argue that Dole's bad actions excuse all else - is an exercise in naval-gazing.  How can you reach an intelligent audience - particularly as younger generations are taught to question or distrust media - if you are so willing to let others settle the score for you?

The filmmakers of BANANAS!* have made a good film that would have to be contextualized by others.  They could make a great film that speaks for itself.

[Full disclosure - our own film, CONVENTION, is screening at this year's Los Angeles Film Festival and we share a publicist with the filmmakers from BANANAS!*  CONVENTION is eligible for the documentary competition prize, while BANANAS!* was pulled from competition in the midst of this controversy.  I was invited by Film Independent to participate in a discussion about these issues following the first screening of BANANAS!* on Saturday night along with filmmakers Eddie Schmidt and Joan Churchill.  I have served the past two years as a juror for the Truer Than Fiction Award at Film Independent's Spirit Awards.]

Comments

[Jean B. Knowlton]

give me a break. Do you want a film that's finished 8 months ago to be re-opened? Better to make a new film. Just because you saw it well after it was finished and things have changed in the last month, doesn't mean you have to insist that the film change to incorporate your point of view.

[Michael Burns]

As a practical matter it's very difficult to make or remake a film of this kind because the story could change and you have to figure out when to start, when to finish, when if necessary to restart, and when to refinish, and on and on.
In a case like this I think the film should carry an opening card stating that what we're about to see is only part of a larger story. Then at the end there should be a card directing us to a website with the full story at least up to the day of release.

[Jonathan Miller]

Don't most documentary film funders (TV channels, foundations, etc.), broadcaster, and importantly Film Festivals, favor character driven films with hero David's who triumph over bad guy Goliaths?

And people who want to make documentary films (at least for a living) have to make films that can get funded and shown.

Approaching such a story as this one (not just the story, but rather how you make the film) with distance, skepticism, a sense of the complexities involved, a searching for and exploration of the contradictions, etc. - instead of being so close to and identified with a subject you may not (clearly) know enough about, maybe be harder on many levels, a) it wouldn't have gotten funded probably, b) it demands more of the filmmaking c) it wouldn't have been shown in the festival perhaps? (or at least not as many festivals or as readily), d) the audience for the film would be harder to identify or find, and e) on the other hand it might be a film that could last, that maybe could be strong enough to survive despite this revealation and despite the changes and perspective that history would inevitably bring, in this case just faster and more clearly than may usually be the case.

[Alex Rivera]

AJ-

Good to see you at the festival.

But to continue our drunken discussion, I fear you start this post with an assumption that needs to be questioned. Your title is "What is the Documentarian's Responsibility When the Story Changes?"

But I wonder - has "the story" changed?

You imply that that since the judge found that fraud was committed, that the story BANANAS! tells is compromised, and therefore that the film should be be reopened. For this logic to make sense, we need to assume Judge Chaney's ruling reflects the truth.

But let's put BANANAS! aside for a moment, and look at the big picture. One of the things documentarians do - often - is question the justice system.

Look at THE THIN BLUE LINE, an obvious example. Errol Morris uses the film to present evidence that counters a conviction a court delivered, and ultimately, by releasing the film, Morris proves the inmate's innocence.

But what if Errol had made the case for innocence in the film, but after releasing the film a judge disagreed with the evidence presented in the film? Would he be asked to recut the film to square his version of events with the judge’s? Of course not.

Pushing for a recut of BANANAS! is no less absurd.

You're essentially telling a documentarian (Fredrik Gertten) that a court ruling should compel him to doubt his own subjects, and re-cut his film. But Gertten, who spent over two years following his subjects, doesn’t agree with the recent ruling. The filmmaker believes that Juan Dominguez did not likely commit fraud, that the farm workers’ cases have merit, and that Judge Chaney’s ruling must be seen as a triumph of Dole’s team of paid investigators and corporate lawyers (who produced all of the evidence of the alleged fraud, using testimony gathered from anonymous witnesses).

At the BANANAS! premier no one asked Gertten if he still believed in his story. When the lights went up the "case study" began with participants implicitly accepting the truth behind the new ruling from the judge, and asking Gertten how he would deal with his presumably tainted film. It would have been hard to imagine a better post-screening discussion, from Dole’s point of view – no one even mentioned the pesticide DBCP.

I was bewildered, and left wondering if maybe the panelists fell into a trap, and too easily saw the Ferrari driving trial lawyer as a sleazy stereotype – a mercenary trial lawyer at best and fraudulent latino hustler at worst. One way or another, the assumption was made that Judge Chaney (and Dole) had found real fraud, and not that Juan Dominguez and filmmaker Gertten had found the real truth.

The same day that Judge Chaney dismissed Juan Dominguez’s case against Dole, potentially saving Dole tens of millions of dollars in damages payable to Nicaraguan farm workers – that same day - she was nominated for a position on a state appellate court by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and removed from her role in the case. Dole is a major donor to the Governator. Hm.

It doesn’t matter if it’s by questioning a past court decision, following an unfolding court case, or in the case of BANANAS!, a case that takes a turn after the film is completed, documentarians play the most crucial role when they question the official story.

I'm inclined to believe that "the story" that BANANAS! tells hasn't changed a bit.

[Adam Eeuwens]

Fredrik Gertten's film follows a court case, with a jury, with cross examination, and a verdict. Beginning, middle and end, right? Then later, behind closed doors the judge listens to anonymous witnesses, there is no jury or cross examination or camera, and suddenly the whole case is a fraud. For anyone, besides the cowering cowards at LAFF and their lackeys (yes you AJ), it seems that the true Banana Republic is the United States, where one manipulates at will the letter of law to prevent the spirit of the law reaching justice. You yourself seem to be enslaved by an unquestioning loyalty to ... what exactly?

[Michael Burns]

If The Thin Blue Line was initially been released before a guilty verdict had been rendered, I honeslty believe some sort of card would/should have been added to reflect this including the fact what was just seen is an ongoing story with a website to keep track of developments.
What I suggested above in no way undercuts the film, nor was it intended to.