“I alter the balance of power by my presence and act on behalf of one side or another in a conflict”

This quote from the director’s statement really stood out to me because as documentarians, we must acknowledge our agency and power when creating a film. One can easily become a catalyst to a movement or even as simple as someone’s story when it comes to getting it out to the masses. At the end of the day, however, we must understand that creating a documentary isn’t just about making a career or obtaining royalties, it’s about stories that matter and educating those to understand why it matters. That should be in the back of every filmmaker’s head when making a doc or else what’s the point of creating it? If you’re not passionate about the cause, the story, or the issue, then why put so much time and energy in something just to profit off of it yourself and leave the cause helpless? This is how one can abuse their power as a documentarian, so it’s really important that Kirsten Johnson said this because it gives her a sense of trust from the audience.

I appreciated that the McClane book has brought up something that I noticed during a lot of my reading and during our class discussions: nearly all of the esteemed documentarians are white men… So the question is if these minority groups are still making films but have less of a profile or if they are simply not creating films to begin with? McClane says that out of the 13,400 members of the Director’s Guild of America, only about 7% are female directors. In 2003, white men directed more than 80% of US television epsidoes, while African-Americans only directed  43, or 5% and Latinos only 14 or 2%. This was not completely shocking to me because in my mind, documentary-making is a lot more “open-minded” than television, and I wish that McClane had provided specific statistics on documentary directing, but the point is still valid: the history of documentary film is built upon white men.

This ties back to a Gender and Stem course I took in which we discussed how science is never “objective” because it comes from the point of view of the scientists and is therefore limited by that scientist’s inherent biases. Thus, if a scientist is a white man, he is coming from a much different background and set of experiences than an African-American woman. This seems to hold true for filmmaking as well. I really like that in the documentary Wattstax (1973), director Mel Stuart used a crew made up of as many black filmmakers as he could find to pursue the “insider’s perspective” of the mores and problems of urban black Americans in the mid-1970s. If filmmaking included more people from different gender/racial/ethnic backgrounds, I do believe that the content and authenticity of documentaries could become a lot more dynamic. The main order of business then is how to make documentary-making more accessible to non-white men?

Also, if this book had been written by a man, would this topic even have been brought up?

I think one story that would be good to explore is “Criminal at the Age of  5”. Not only does it directly connect to social issues/factors, it could e complex enough to leave an impact on the Lehigh Valley community + other places. It will be interesting (and challenging) to see how the visual element of this story is created.  With whichever documentary stories we decide to explore as both a visual and oral text, they should all nuance the topic/theme so that they either relate to social issues or can can connect to communities/issues outside the Lehigh Valley.

When we first read through Kirsten Johnson’s Director’s Statement, what first stood out was the way she uses binaries to explore her thoughts regarding documentary work. First, she opens by writing about the “joys of being a documentary cameraperson”, such as sharing intimacy and using documentary film as a way to engage with others and the world. She then introduces the dilemmas she faces “while holding [her] camera”. Within this is another binary: the “concrete” problems versus the implicit problems. Johnson mentions framing, focusing and choosing “the direction to follow”, but seems to be more concerned with the troubles audiences usually don’t think of. The implicit troubles all seem to relate to the themes of trust, cooperation and intimacy. Joys of doing documentary work versus the dilemmas documentarians face and the concrete challenges such as framing a shot as opposed to the implicit troubles Johnson highlights are just two of the binaries she constructs in her exploration of her experience as a cameraperson. At the end of her Director’s Statement Johnson writes, “We know that this fragmentary portrait is incomplete and are interested in the ways it points to how stories are constructed”. The end of her statement reminds me of the term “location”. Robert Coles (1997), the author of Doing Documentary Work, offers the theory of location and its implication in documentary film. He conceptualizes location through his description of what documentarians bring to their work and field. Coles (1997) writes, “Each of us brings, finally, a particular life to the others who are being observed in documentary work, and so to some degree, each of us will engage with the others differently, carrying back from such engagement our own version of them” (5). Here, Coles is highlighting the fact that because each person brings a unique location, or set of personal experiences to the projects they take on, their engagement will differ from others. In another sense, who you are affects what you see, and accordingly, how you tell a story. Similarly, Kirsten Johnson suggests that the way we construct stories might be based off the problems we uncover in the work we do.

Reading through the list of potential films, I genuinely wish we had time to document all of them. As an avid environmentalist eager to enter the active world of documentary in my field, I am inclined to prefer the options of “What the Frack is Going On?” and “Saving the Shad?”

These are extensive topics of contention in the Lehigh Valley of which, as far as I know, a complete up to date documentation has not been attempted. Only recently have environmental documentaries been made and become relatively popular; I can list off the top of my head the accurate, entertaining, and groundbreaking ones that I have seen. This is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and much of the public is astonishingly in disbelief.

Our environmental film options are not huge globally-based climate change documentaries such as An Inconvenient Truth or Chasing Ice. Instead, they are focused, hugely important to the local community; this is so much better for our project, as we will have both access and resources to document for the rest of the semester. And they do have far-reaching implications as well.

I think people have really put out some interesting ideas for a documentary for this course.

I believe “Criminal at the Age of 5” is a great story to take on because it is pressing and urgent, but it should have a bit more nuance in terms of how does it impact these students past the threatening of their human rights. This doc could touch on so many themes and issues that are currently pressing and I would love to see its outcome.

“Center City Thrift” is also a very interesting documentary because it’s a complex juxtaposition of a thrift store offering free wifi and would be an interesting story to unfold. Most people go to thrift shops to find clothes at better prices, so to provide free wifi is a very particular and beneficial decision for all. There are many questions that could be asked for this documentary, as well as so much visual potential.

“Gifted Youngin’s” could also be an interesting documentary, especially in terms of how the youth find success reachable in places that may not provide the best outlets for long-term success and network.

Kirsten Johnson’s statement is a discussion of the dilemmas and entanglements associated with documentary ethics. Her passion is evident, as are her struggles with ethical aspects of the documentarian lifestyle. Three bulleted points stood out:

“The people I film are in immediate and often desparate material need, but I offer little to nothing material.”

“I can and will leave a place I film (a war, a refugee camp, etc.) when the people I film cannot.”

“My work can change the way my subject is perceived by the people who surround him/her and can impact reputation or safety for years into the future.”

I believe that being a successful “cameraperson” entails telling the whole truth as best as you possibly can, given certain ethical parameters; from these three points in particular, I understood this as Johnson’s goal. Her recognition of the incompleteness of her documentation allows the project to be more truthful. She is not attempting to paint an entire portrait, but simply tell the story to the best of her ability.

Struggling with ethics is a basic but burdensome task in documentary storymaking. You are making this film in order to help this group of people, and yet, you cannot always directly, immediately offer aid. You know, or at least hope, that you are doing what is best in the long run, and yet Johnson discusses an acute sense of guilt that accompanies leaving this place into which you have devoted so much energy and belief. Johnson summarizes extraordinarily well “how complex it is to film and be filmed.”

Kirsten Johnson’s words left a powerful effect on me, especially when she said “I can and will leave a place I film (a war, a refugee camp, etc.) when the people I film cannot”.  This brings in the notion of power and privilege which is so so important, especially in regards to documentary making. As a director, when you go into a situation to “get the best story”, you have the power to use your privilege to take what you need (i.e., interviews, shots, etc.) and then leave and go back into the “real world”. However, every single individual that you filmed doesn’t get to leave with you. They are still living their reality, and what might make an exciting or depressing documentary is just how they are living their every day life. This is why I liked what KJ said later on: “My work can change the way my subject is perceived by the people who surround him/her and can impact reputation or safety for years in the future”. If a filmmaker acknowledges that they have privilege then they should use that privilege to change the way the subject is perceived for the good. Media in general, especially powerful and factual documentary-making is one of the best ways to distribute information and impact the world. But it’s such a difficult line to navigate how to film a certain population without extorting them just for a “good film” but rather to enlighten the world about them.

This is something I’ve struggled with a lot as a photographer, especially in terms of my portraits. For my “Les Gens de Malchance” vernissage, I was terrified to go up to people experiencing homelessness because I did not want to seem like I was “prostituting” their life to make a good photo. It was a strange and difficult dynamic, especially after I sat on the ground with one young girl for a few hours, just watching everyone else walk by. As it started getting dark, I realized it was time for dinner and left to go back to my host family… However, she had no place to go. Outside, on the cold, dark ground was her home, whereas I had the privilege to “opt in” to her lifestyle for a few hours, and then “opt out”. I’m hoping I can ask KJ a few questions about how to reckon with one’s self about this difficult navigation because I often become too worried or afraid of offending someone and so miss out on filming opportunities.

The key terms/phrases that stood out to me from reading Kirsten Johnson’s Director Statement were ‘total attention’ and ‘impact reputation.’. ‘Total attention’ stood out to me because it emphasizes the importance of being fully committed to the documentary–that each part of the process demands our undivided focus. ‘Impact reputation’ stood out to me because it reminded me that the work of the person holding (or in control of) the camera  is very serious work. The way the camera shoots its subject will have an impact on how viewers perceive/interact with them. Therefore, the cameraperson (or documentarian) has a responsibility to work hard to represent its subject justly.

Number 1, “Borders of Belonging,” is one of my choices for a film I would work on. Over the recent years the Lehigh Valley’s population has been increasing. There is a wealth of diversity of Spanish-speaking immigrants from Central and South America and the Caribbean; as well as,  Mexicans, Dominicans, and Venezuelans. It would be interesting to understand the migration and immigration of Hispanic and Latinx communities of the Lehigh Valleh because they are a big part in the population. Also, trying to understand the pros and cons of the migrations and immigrations.

Number 18, “Life in the Valley,” is another film idea that I’d like to work on. I’d like to work on a documentary that is about identifying the Lehigh Valley’s culture—fashion, music, food, language is appealing because: 1) it would be an opportunity to learn about and experience these topics firsthand because I’m not familiar with them and 2) the film idea is doable–it could also be an opportunity for people and businesses to advertise themselves.