The Riverside Press-Enterprise
A DOCUMENTARY CALLS OUT ITS GENRE
‘Subject’ explores a corner of filmmaking it says needs to care more about the truth
Documentaries tell the truth. But not the whole truth.
These films — now more prevalent and popular than ever — do more than merely list facts: They tell a story, a narrative shaped not by the subjects (except in the cases of a few celebrities), but by an unseen person behind the camera. People agree to be in documentaries for a variety of reasons but often don’t realize how much control they are giving up about their life stories.
The new documentary “Subject” explores this topic and the ethical issues around it, interviewing people who were in the documentaries “The Staircase,” “Hoop Dreams,” “Capturing the Friedmans,” “The Wolfpack” and “The Square.” (The film will kick off its local theatrical run today at Laemmle Glendale.)
Of course, these people are now subjecting themselves to the process a second time, but filmmakers Jennifer Tiexiera and Camilla Hall say they were committed to a more open and moral way of making documentaries. Tiexiera spoke recently by video along with Margie Ratliff, who serves as a producer but also appears on camera — she was thrust into the spotlight as a young adult when her father, Michael Peterson, was accused of murdering his wife, a story captured in “The Staircase.”
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q
What motivated you to tackle all these topics?
TIEXIERA >> Camilla was a journalist for the Financial Times in the Middle East before she made her first documentary. When she entered this world, she was shocked that there were no rules whatsoever. It’s like the Wild West.
I had been a film editor for about 15 years and found myself making these really intense decisions about people’s lives or communities in the edit room without ever meeting them or knowing their hopes and dreams for the project. The better I did my job the more sensationalized some of these decisions felt, which led me to producing and directing. So we were having these existential crises.
RATLIFF >> I met Camilla and Jen five days before Netflix released all those episodes of “The Staircase,” which was dredging things back up for my family.
When Camilla told me about “Subject,” I liked the idea of finding a better way that we can treat people in our films. I said, “Maybe I could consult — I don’t want to be in it, for sure.” It was only later when the HBO Max series was beginning and I met Jesse Friedman (the focus of “Capturing the Friedmans”) and the rest that I realized
I can’t hide from this, and if I can start to make it better for other people, then I can kind of sacrifice myself.
Q How was your process different from a typical documentary?
TIEXIERA >> After we did our rough cut — the process was extremely lengthy — we had each participant go through their own sections and ultimately have creative agency and then sent it to the other directors interviewed in the film and made sure that they felt represented correctly. And we gave each of the original directors of the films we focused on the opportunity to workshop with us as long as they wanted. Some went on for months and there were long, awkward conversations, but they ultimately made the film so much stronger because it was so much more representative of everyone’s point of view.
In the first cut that (“Capturing the Friedmans” director) Andrew Jarecki saw, he said, “I’m just not feeling that closeness of me and
Jesse,” and he was right because that relationship he has with Jesse is separate from his relationship with “Capturing the Friedmans.”
There wasn’t anything where we disagreed and it became problematic. It wasn’t like things got omitted but it’s more that we were able to protect people’s mental health and not retraumatize them.
We are huge supporters of DAWG, the Documentary Accountability Working Group, which put together a framework of things to consider when making a documentary where there is this power imbalance between the filmmaker and ... potential participant.
RATLIFF >> I’ve luckily been able to travel around the globe with “Subject” and talk to so many different filmmakers from different areas about the connection that you have to the community, to the story. Why are you telling it? And are you thinking about the impact that you want the film to have and how your participants can be a part of that impact? And I think those are all such important questions to talk with your participants and really figure out before you even start picking up the camera.
I’m now taking real steps to make change. I’ve started a nonprofit, the Documentary Participants Empowerment Alliance, that deals with legal access, advocacy and mental health to guide filmmakers for a duty of care for participants.
Q
The film also includes the idea that film festivals share some responsibility. Is that changing?
TIEXIERA >> At Sundance, there have been films with really questionable methods as far as the treatment of the participants. But last year for the first time on the Sundance application was a question about participant wellness and care and the steps that were taken during the filmmaking process. And that was a huge win for all of us.
Q
So are you hopeful that we will see substantial change in the next few years?
RATLIFF >> One indicator is at universities — we’ve been showing “Subject” and having conversations with film departments and legal departments about these provisions for ethical making. There are new classes being taught about how to make your films ethically. TIEXIERA >> The question will be, how do we fit these changes into small and shrinking budgets? But there’s always a way to figure it out.
On my last series with HBO, we had therapy in the line item budget. So this is not a pipe dream.